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 Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:10 pm

Rational Metaphysics View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sorry Fixed Cross, but the dishonesty, it's too heavy. Do you see that James S Saint might have been a goddamn fucking genius if it weren't for the principal instinct he follows which dictates, not as a side-effect but as a drive, the falsification and mediocritization of human activity of any sort, logic quite included?

The problem is Crist. I came in here saying that, and I leave on it. Hope y'all catch on soon, it has all been written.

See you soon friends; and I hope you either die soon or undergo honesty soon, James. The first step is to know, not think, know you are going to die some day. The next is to make an honest store of your experiences. Last is a decision regarding what way, having only what you have lived and the knowledge of death, you will approach human, logic, life.

Otherwise, please die. I love you.

Take care.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
.. "and the darkness fleas Before The Light", and usually with attempted curses along the way.

A Volkswagen is not a Rolls Royce. And a Pinto isn't even a Volkswagen. A Pinto is designed to fail, to cause its own annihilation. But hopefully at the expense of others... well, at least in the paradigm of monetary gain... someone else's gain.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Capable wrote:
1) Things that exist are affecting (other things);

2) Any thing (let's say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X's own PtA.

3) X's PtA is also being affected by X, via X's affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes
One cannot say that a thing is "affecting itself" except in loose terms. If a truly singular "thing", having no separate internal components, were said to be affecting itself there would be no change. The affecter and the affectee would be the same item, in the same location. The proposed changing would occur instantaneously, having no separation at all and thus could not be said to "have changed from one state to another" because there would have been no time between the two proposed states, thus there must have been only one state. Without change of state from being at one state at one time to another state at another time, one cannot claim any "affect".
Right, and one cannot claim that any change has occurred, either. The notion of change necessarily implies a whole host of things, such as multiple entities, temporal and spatial distances.

I wasn't trying to say that "a thing is affecting itself", actually I was only saying to say that a thing's (again, let's say X for simplicity) PtA is affecting it. X exists/affects because it has PtA, and this PtA is a separate entity from X; they are not the same thing. Thus it is correct to say that the PtA that conditions X, by which X exists/affects, is affecting X? (Again, this is not saying that X and the PtA which conditions X are the same thing, but rather is saying the exact opposite, that they are not the same thing).


Quote :

We haven't gotten into "time" yet, so this is getting a bit ahead. Time and distance are epistemologically related. They both determine each other. The measure of one translates into the measure of the other. What we call "time" causes what we call "distance". This is all related to special relativity. But if either time or distance are truly zero between proposed two items, then there is no separation or distinction at all between the items. And we call that state, "one item" because we are only concerned with affects coming from that thing and if there is no separation in properties, there can be no distinction in resultant affects. In Effect, one of the proposed two items, doesn't really "exist" by our definition of "existing".
Yes. But it would be impossible for any thing to exist without existing spatially AND temporally, at least to a minimal degree. This would be impossible because, as you say, such a thing could have no affect, it could cause no change either in itself or anything else, therefore given P1 we can ignore the existence of such entities.

Even though we are starting from the basics and working forward from there, we might as well come out now and say, perhaps P5, that nothing can exist which does not have at least a minimal level of spatiality and temporality. This is a direct consequence of the fact that all existing things have affect.


By the way, I agree about the necessity of things/the universe to be exactly as it is. This seems to be necessarily implied by every rational ontology. Free will and choice or "randomness" can also exist, but these are relative entities and depend only upon finite subjectivities which finitude creates these "errors", or self-reflexive voids in which "freedom" may appear. Freedom in this sense is defined only as the existence of multi-dimensional frameworks of causality in which one level does not fully comprehend those others from which it comes or to which it refers its own effect, but nonetheless still captures something of this comprehension in itself, structurally, necessarily. Free will is the middle ground of self-referential consciousness that is able to both respond to itself and unable to respond to the actuality/totality of itself. But I suspect all this stuff about necessity and freedom you are wanting to save for a later point in the discussion.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Currently due to security issues and this site, it takes from 20-30 minutes for me to log on and from 5-10 minutes to make a post or even update a page. So please forgive delays. My PC is modified and doesn't allow advertising probes beyond a certain level and if I disable that, this site crashes my system.

Capable wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Capable wrote:
1) Things that exist are affecting (other things);

2) Any thing (let's say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X's own PtA.

3) X's PtA is also being affected by X, via X's affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes
One cannot say that a thing is "affecting itself" except in loose terms. If a truly singular "thing", having no separate internal components, were said to be affecting itself there would be no change. The affecter and the affectee would be the same item, in the same location. The proposed changing would occur instantaneously, having no separation at all and thus could not be said to "have changed from one state to another" because there would have been no time between the two proposed states, thus there must have been only one state. Without change of state from being at one state at one time to another state at another time, one cannot claim any "affect".
Right, and one cannot claim that any change has occurred, either. The notion of change necessarily implies a whole host of things, such as multiple entities, temporal and spatial distances.

I wasn't trying to say that "a thing is affecting itself", actually I was only saying to say that a thing's (again, let's say X for simplicity) PtA is affecting it. X exists/affects because it has PtA, and this PtA is a separate entity from X; they are not the same thing. Thus it is correct to say that the PtA that conditions X, by which X exists/affects, is affecting X? (Again, this is not saying that X and the PtA which conditions X are the same thing, but rather is saying the exact opposite, that they are not the same thing).
A potential is a measure of something's ability to change something else. But it isn't of infinite value. There is a limit as to how much change something can bestow onto something else, how much affect it can have. That measure is in units of PtA. What that means is that as one thing is affecting another, the potential that it had is being "used up". Its PtA is decreasing because it only had a limited ability and it has already expressed a portion of that total amount.

Any affecting, in this case, means that a potential is changing. And also, reciprocally, any potential that is changing means that affecting is taking place. The two measures are inextricably associated. One can say that affecting IS potentials changing, the "positive" affecter's potential decreasing and the "negative" affectee's potential increasing (positive and negative being merely relative).

This is evident in electronic circuits wherein a voltage ("electric potential") "drives" current to a destination wherein the potential at the destination increases, such as the charging of a capacitor (a storage device). How much affecting on the potential of the capacitor a source can have is determined by the potential of the source. A 10 volt source cannot increase any capacity above 10 volts.

Thus far, we have really only been talking about a point to point issue, the potential of one point to affect the potential of another point, "A" affecting "B". In reality because voltage sources and capacitors involve a great many "points of potential" within each, the averages are what is typically of concern rather than the point by point issues. This gets involved into the concept and concern of "energy" and "conservation of energy". We can get into that if you like merely to show how RM:AO can indisputably prove that energy must always be conserved even without any of the evidence of the principle.

The method of Science serves only to confirm that a theory is not invalid. It does that by the process of seeking contrary evidence to the theory. Such verification is very important, but an interesting attribute to RM:AO is that RM:AO can know of a necessary truth before such verification takes place. RM:AO is not dependent upon experience except as a verification to ensure that logic errors have not been made.

If it is totally certain that there are no logic errors (however someone might manage that), Science can never dispute RM:AO. If any experiment is done concerning an RM:AO confirmed assertion and displays something other than what RM:AO demands, the experiment will be what is at fault, usually due to a presumption on the part of the experimenter. But thus far, I have found no such contention in that everything I find that actual Science has actually witnessed, confirms what RM:AO predicts. The fact is that if one were genius enough thousands of years ago, there is nothing professed by Science today that he could not have already told you back then. But of course, until you see it for yourself, me saying that doesn't mean much.

Science has merely been helping to guide Man back onto a more sound footing by demanding demonstration of the details of his speculative theories. There is a race between Man's sentient sanity and Man's lustful insanity. And at this point, it seems about a 90% probability of his insanity winning out and him going out. RM:AO helps to jump ahead of the game so as to help breach the final lap toward sanity by knowing ahead of time to where Science is leading Man.

In physics terms, we are currently talking literally about electric potential or "charge". And we have determined that the universe has no option but to be formed of electric potentials changing or what they refer to as "electromagnetic waves", "EM". At this point, we have not determined that EM is the ONLY thing that is involved, but that will come later.

Capable wrote:
it would be impossible for any thing to exist without existing spatially AND temporally, at least to a minimal degree. This would be impossible because, as you say, such a thing could have no affect, it could cause no change either in itself or anything else, therefore given P1 we can ignore the existence of such entities.

Even though we are starting from the basics and working forward from there, we might as well come out now and say, perhaps P5, that nothing can exist which does not have at least a minimal level of spatiality and temporality. This is a direct consequence of the fact that all existing things have affect.
You and I can easily believe that, but until RM:AO details everything involved in such a supposition, let's not just presume it. RM:AO seriously doesn't get along with presumption regardless of any probability of truth involved. Presumption is THE seed of ALL error/"sin". "The Devil is in the details." So let's not leave any details left unchecked for hidden presumption and demise (people have already gone the presumption route for thousands of years).


But before we proceed, can I get a confirmation of agreement on
P4) Affecting directly implies one thing influencing or changing another thing, two "things; an "affecter" and an "affectee".
and
C2) For any one thing to exist, more than one thing must exist.

a) agree
b) disagree
c) other?

I have to keep careful track, confirm each concern.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Side Track:

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Okay, this has gotten out of hand as I knew it would but far quicker.

It is clear that the verb "affecting" implies an affecter and an affected. This is implicit in the meaning of the word, that is a matter of grammar.

It reminds me of Heidegger, paraphrased: As long as be still believe in Grammar, we are stuck with God.

Of course, value ontology is designed to deal with this, not so much to get rid of God directly, but to expose him in grammar, and thereby gain control.

It rejects the notion of an objective perspective, whereby there is an all seeing "unmoved" eye on both the affecter and the affected. VO is itself an interpreting perspective, fitting in its own definitions (it values the world in terms of its structural integrity) and knows itself to be such. So far this has been unclear to me in terms of RM - how does RM regard itself, in terms of RM?

Value ontology values the world in terms of value ontology. I.e. it describes itself in the same way as it describes everything else. This is why it is philosophically - linguistically hermetic.











___________
" 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
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
FC, yes that is a very important point, about the consistency of how value ontology approaches everything, including itself.

James, yes I agree with P4 and also with C2. It is clear that affection necessarily implies an affecter and an affectee, just as it is also therefore clear that affection necessarily implies the existence of more than one entity or, as you say, "for any one thing to exist, more than one thing must exist".



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Of course, value ontology is designed to deal with this, not so much to get rid of God directly, but to expose him in grammar, and thereby gain control.

It rejects the notion of an objective perspective, whereby there is an all seeing "unmoved" eye on both the affecter and the affected. VO is itself an interpreting perspective, fitting in its own definitions (it values the world in terms of its structural integrity) and knows itself to be such. So far this has been unclear to me in terms of RM - how does RM regard itself, in terms of RM?

Value ontology values the world in terms of value ontology. I.e. it describes itself in the same way as it describes everything else. This is why it is philosophically - linguistically hermetic.
Really?

Seriously?

No "God perspective"??

Hmm..

Are you sure that you want to go down that track?

I have been requesting precision in VO definitions since I first heard of it. This is the first time I have heard anything that not only could RM:AO not accept, but I don't think any RM ontology would be able to accept for long. Let me explain why by introducing you to my little devil stumper.

How would VO interpret the following scenario?

) You have the classic Einstein train passing the train station.
) At the station there is a photo stop clock which only stops if it experiences simultaneous flashes from both sides.
) And also there is a car on the train that has an identical photo stop clock mounted exactly in the center of the car.
) That same train car also has timed photo-flashers mounted at both front and rear (blue in the following animation).
) The flashers are timed such as to both flash at the exact moment that the two photo stop clocks are aligned.

The question becomes one of which, if either, photo stop clock will stop.



I'm not aware of any current physics ontology (or philosophy) that can answer that question. Special relativity ("relativism", "perspectivism", "solipsism", "exerientialism", "subjectivism") would demand that each clock both stops and also doesn't stop. But in the end, either a clock is stopped or it isn't.

No matter what ontological contortion you come up with, as long as you remain consistent, comprehensive, and relevant, you won't be able to answer that question without an "objective perspective". RM:AO can answer it.

Please forgive the offensive "grammar", but;

Devil,
... meet God.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is an "objective" fact that subjective facts exists. This does not imply a god perspective, rather it implies only one thing... existence.

Things exist. This is a FACT, meaning that it is not (necessarily) ontically relevant at all. (Although it might be). Rather it speaks to grammar itself, which is not the same as saying that it speaks to existence itself. There is a difference between talking about what exists and talking about how we talk about what exists, and this is crucial to understand.

VO proposes that the idea of an objective god-perspective is antithetical to reason, and unnecessary. Perspectives are built from the ground-up, based on subjective-historical materialities which are conditioned by whatever causes exist/ed from which they arose-arise. When causal conditions break down too much, things "vanish", meaning they can no longer self-value and thus their valuing (their materiality, their form, their "being an organization of force/power) is dissolved down to more molecular sub-values and appropriated by other stronger self-valuings in the vicinity.

If a god-perspective/objectivity did exist it could only come into existence via a process of emergent subjective material causality, built from the ground up, which means of course that it is not objective but only a reified subjectivity. If there is a god, it comes second, not first.



As for the train example... why does the light from the two flashes inside the train-car move at different speeds from each other in the station perspective, and conversely, move at different speeds from each other at the station, from the train perspective? The constancy of c states that the flashes of light travel at c regardless of the relative motion of one frame compared to another.

Breaking it down: the train passes the station and both clocks align; at the moment of alignment, flashes occur on the corners of the train and directed at both clocks; regardless of which perspective you take, station or train, and regardless of the relative speed of the train to the station (and of the station to the train, from the train's perspective) the flashes of light will, assuming the distances between each flash and the clocks are equal as they seem to be, strike the clocks at exactly the same time. According to Relativity both time dilation and length contraction will occur within the moving frame of reference to "adjust" for the additional velocity/distance which would normally add to the time it would take the flashes at c to travel, but in fact does not add because as we know c is constant regardless of a frame's relative motion. The illustration itself seems to be mistakenly set-up, as it does not account for time dilation and length contraction factors that will "adjust" the frames in order to accommodate the constancy of c.


...And the existence of time dilation and length contraction speaks well to VO (especially a VO augmented with tectonics); physical existences are subject in their physicality and seeming constancy of spatiality and temporality to being relatively similar to other physical existences, to things other than themselves. This is mutual self-valuing, or what you might call the mutual conditionality of causalities that depend upon each other, and upon lacks of potentially destabilizing causes, to exist. This is what VO proposes. All things are self-valuings that are also groupings of lesser self-valuings in relation to each other given wider shared values by which forms are held in existence; these forms also share and compete values with other forms and conditions and thus you get a Heraclitean flux, a will to power reality. Looking at Relativity, time dilation and length contraction given large divergences relative to the speed of light between two or more perspectives/self-valuings is an example of how the information, the possibility of sharing values between these perspectives/self-valuings is pushed to limits of its own ability. If there is no way for two self-valuings to adequately communicate their values to each other, to share and conflict them, reality "itself" begins to break down. This is because reality "itself" is nothing more than these shared values-references to begin with.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
It is an "objective" fact that subjective facts exists. This does not imply a god perspective, rather it implies only one thing... existence.

Things exist. This is a FACT, meaning that it is not (necessarily) ontically relevant at all. (Although it might be). Rather it speaks to grammar itself, which is not the same as saying that it speaks to existence itself. There is a difference between talking about what exists and talking about how we talk about what exists, and this is crucial to understand.
If that is to say that "things exist" is true for everyone, how is that not an "objective perspective" or "objective reality"? How can something be a "FACT", yet merely be subjective?

Capable wrote:
VO proposes that the idea of an objective god-perspective is antithetical to reason,
Care to share what reasoning led to that conclusion?

Capable wrote:
..and unnecessary. Perspectives are built from the ground-up, based on subjective-historical materialities which are conditioned by whatever causes exist/ed from which they arose-arise. When causal conditions break down too much, things "vanish", meaning they can no longer self-value and thus their valuing (their materiality, their form, their "being an organization of force/power) is dissolved down to more molecular sub-values and appropriated by other stronger self-valuings in the vicinity.
So, "we don't know where it came from but... now that it is here... everything has self-valuing or gets absorbed into something else that has self-valuing."

I wouldn't argue with that, although RM:AO does know where it came from.

Capable wrote:
If a god-perspective/objectivity did exist it could only come into existence via a process of emergent subjective material causality, built from the ground up, which means of course that it is not objective but only a reified subjectivity. If there is a god, it comes second, not first.
Again, care to share what reasoning brought that conclusion?


Capable wrote:

As for the train example... why does the light from the two flashes inside the train-car move at different speeds from each other in the station perspective, and conversely, move at different speeds from each other at the station, from the train perspective? The constancy of c states that the flashes of light travel at c regardless of the relative motion of one frame compared to another.
The light must travel at one speed no matter which perspective you take. From the station, all light is traveling at speed "c" relative to the station. Thus if you were standing at the station, you must expect the train clock to move out from center and thus not stop.

If you are standing on the train, again all light must travel at speed "c" relative to you. Thus you must expect the station clock to move out from center and thus not stop.

Each perspective sees its own clock centered the whole time and thus each perspective must expect its own clock to stop.

But reality only yields one future state.

Capable wrote:
Breaking it down: the train passes the station and both clocks align; at the moment of alignment, flashes occur on the corners of the train and directed at both clocks; regardless of which perspective you take, station or train, and regardless of the relative speed of the train to the station (and of the station to the train, from the train's perspective) the flashes of light will, assuming the distances between each flash and the clocks are equal as they seem to be, strike the clocks at exactly the same time. According to Relativity both time dilation and length contraction will occur within the moving frame of reference to "adjust" for the additional velocity/distance which would normally add to the time it would take the flashes at c to travel, but in fact does not add because as we know c is constant regardless of a frame's relative motion. The illustration itself seems to be mistakenly set-up, as it does not account for time dilation and length contraction factors that will "adjust" the frames in order to accommodate the constancy of c.


...And the existence of time dilation and length contraction speaks well to VO (especially a VO augmented with tectonics); physical existences are subject in their physicality and seeming constancy of spatiality and temporality to being relatively similar to other physical existences, to things other than themselves. This is mutual self-valuing, or what you might call the mutual conditionality of causalities that depend upon each other, and upon lacks of potentially destabilizing causes, to exist. This is what VO proposes. All things are self-valuings that are also groupings of lesser self-valuings in relation to each other given wider shared values by which forms are held in existence; these forms also share and compete values with other forms and conditions and thus you get a Heraclitean flux, a will to power reality. Looking at Relativity, time dilation and length contraction given large divergences relative to the speed of light between two or more perspectives/self-valuings is an example of how the information, the possibility of sharing values between these perspectives/self-valuings is pushed to limits of its own ability. If there is no way for two self-valuings to adequately communicate their values to each other, to share and conflict them, reality "itself" begins to break down. This is because reality "itself" is nothing more than these shared values-references to begin with.
Try it before you buy it. Neither length contraction nor time dilation fixes the conundrum. Contract whatever you want. Dilate whatever you want. Just be consistent. Look at each small piece of action, one step at a time. They will not add up. Feel free to just make up any numbers just for an example. It won't matter if it is Lorentz correct or not.

It is easy and common to throw out "well you have to consider...X... then it all works great."

Easy to say, but "try it before you buy it". There is nothing that will work out, "will answer the question", without an objective frame of reference.

If you think that you have a legitimate solution, state it one step at a time, noting the position of each item of concern. Look carefully. You will probably see your mistake before you post it. But please don't make general statements that are supposed to answer the problem until you look to see if they really do, "clarify, verify...". Hand waving isn't allowed.


..and btw, "reality breaking down" is an oxymoron.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I may be missing something, but the paradox seems a perfect example of the result of faith in the consistency of grammar (as subject-object relation in language), where grammar is itself the variable in question. It seems to me that, given that everything is set up properly, both clocks would stop, because the frame of reference is defined by looking at the problem objectively (or from above as in the pictogram), and thus, by logical extension, equal in the train and the station. To arrive at an actual answer, you would have to formulate the space-time variables (and deduce the timing) from within either the train or the station. You'd have to choose a perspective.

So what this means is that you can not both look at the problem objectively and have relativity apply to it. Ultimately only the relativity is objective. But that does not gives us an ontology. So instead of "objective", value ontology conceives a shared reality as inter-subjective. There is simply no ground or need to formulate an objective perspective, as the world follows from the subjective with a great consistency. Objectivity rests on a consistent means of defining a subjectivity. Logic is such a means. Consistency is relative to everything else - life is relative to the consistency of life-death, for example - but at the limit of such context is the consistency itself in full form - (the speed of) light.

Relative motion does not compare as relative motion when compared to the motion of light. Light does not lend itself to relative measuring, we have to measure off it. Light only self-values in two dimensions - the wave, rather, spiral. It propagates with infinite immediacy - i.e. the immediate which, when it exists in three dimensions, is gravity. Unavoidable, standard to both time and space.

"A" PtA, or something of which it can be categorically stated that it is a unit of PtA, requires structural consistency. Grammatically speaking. It requires "God" (first cause) in our grammar, within VO it requires, self-valuing and valuing in terms of this self-setting value-standard-consistency, or however deeply you want to convolute this grammatical construction which is by definition incomplete.

I expect that this is not acceptable to everyone; it requires that one thinks of the meanings of words as fundamentally ambiguous. James - I suspect that you see this as obfuscation, but it is rather recoiling from a superstitious trust in language. It is being aware of the threats within that what is given us to think with.

I regard philosophy as two branches, one of which is exactitude in languages developed to be as exact as possible, and the other as the overcoming of custom language as it stands between man and clarity, perception, truth. Language is a mirror, and to break this mirror is bad luck for it means that one stands alone in a dark cosmos without any laws. That is: with laws one no longer can take for granted, as the realization has struck that these laws much closer to what the person is himself than he can see.

See, this language is obscure, it requires meditation - "are you human?" - the words are only doorways.

In the darkness, RM makes of the rational mind a torch to illuminate what can be brought to light out of the dark. VO becomes like a Homeros, a blind poet, to grasp the world in the dark by defining it already, in such terms that it makes the darkness dance.

Do you see what I mean? A rhetorical question. I find it tragic that we can not meet at this point.

Value ontology is like this poet - without defining it, always already-apprehending it - by its maximal power and glory.

Homeros as a metaphor for value ontology.

VO is ahead of the curve, RM is equal to the curve. What happens from RM perspective has already happened from the VO perspective. RM is the particulars, in which there is objectivity - 'already present' in time or in necessary consequence. In human terms -

RM: PHT - "Perception of Hopes and Threats" - Capable, can you give a value ontological definition of all three of these terms?

I want to see if we can come to a RM:VO terms here - a subsection of RM where an appropriate(d) version of VO can serve to boost the psychological power of RM.

Hopes and threats - James, you discuss these subjects very often, perhaps more than the raw mechanics of RM logic. And bizarrely accurately, it is with your perception of these threats, and hopes, that I often disagree. It's not that I disagree that you perceive real threats, but you often see only a threat where these is also a hope. Perception of hopes within threats... that is the gateway to subjective philosophy, from defining to being creative law.

Ours is not a great quantum of power compared to a galaxy, but a galaxy has no freedom because it is not as limited in what it comprises. A panda bear has a lot of freedom because it is rather limited in what it comprises. It has the greatest context.

Within context, values become hopes and threats.

Value ontologically these can be regarded as constants defining a specific tectonic level of self-valuing, which translates into a consistent affect. Such constants are crucial to functioning on whatever plane there is.

I recognize the constants of RM, and see them as emerging from the subjectivities involved (what you've defined as infinitesimal bits of PtA. I agree with how you've defined their interaction in that post about money and afflates, that was truly brilliant. Nevertheless, I understand each and every 'smeared out', slightly non local bits of PtA as ontological units, which must have not one but two properties: affecting the world and being affected by the world. It can only continue to exist if the affecting is related to the being affected by. This consistency is the self-valuing. It may be instantaneous but as long as it has its affect, it must be something that we can not leave undefined, that we can not merely judge in terms of its behavior. We must see what causes this behavior. What causes a PtA to have the potential to affect?

The answer is so very close that it's always in the dark, too known to be illuminated. All poetry is this noble, always hilariously failing attempt. We all know what it tries to say, but it always asks a slight effort from us - namely, that we make the leap of fate to take it as making sense, in a way we can make for it. It has to affect us. Hence, a poet never knows what he is doing, but he is doing it so well that this new way becomes the law.

"It was impossible, but the Dragon did not know it, and he made it happen".
- Definition of the Dragon moon sign.

"From the plane of Mind I come, I rule."
Theosophic definition of the sign of Aries, analogous to the Dragon.

What is a measure of PtA to itself?
Nietzsche calls this self an illusion. A bundle of wills. Buddha does the same. Buddha rejected the illusion because it is false, but Nietzsche explicitly embraced falsity because he so much loves the illusion. RM accepts the falsity (private interest as a justified fact) and builds a truth that sustains it. VO is the mind of the falsity. It is no longer false.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I may be missing something, but the paradox seems a perfect example of the result of faith in the consistency of grammar (as subject-object relation in language), where grammar is itself the variable in question.

It seems to me that, given that everything is set up properly, both clocks would stop, because the frame of reference is defined by looking at the problem objectively (or from above as in the pictogram), and thus, by logical extension, equal in the train and the station.

To arrive at an actual answer, you would have to formulate the space-time variables (and deduce the timing) from within either the train or the station. You'd have to choose a perspective.

So what this means is that you can not both look at the problem objectively and have relativity apply to it. Ultimately only the relativity is objective.
The animation is divided so as to show both perspectives (just so I wouldn't have to make two of them). If you are at the station, you see the top half. If you are on the train, you see the lower half. I showed both merely to show how each person would have to make a different prediction.


A person cannot predict based upon someone else's perspective except by presumed theory, "If I were over there, I would be seeing it this way...".

So the person at the station has no choice but to "see" the light arriving at his own clock simultaneously. And while he is watching that take place, he is seeing the train clock move out from center of where the light began. So FROM HIS OWN PERSPECTIVE, the train clock could not stop.

All four photons are identical. They are all out in the air and have no reason to be traveling at different speeds. The fact that two are headed toward the other clock is irrelevant to the speed with which they travel.

The only relation that part has to the theory of relativity is the presumption that "light travels at the same speed for all observers". Given that one foundational assertion, the station master would have to conclude that the train clock could not receive light from both flashers simultaneously.

If I had not shown the train perspective, then everyone would just say, "well okay. Looks good to me. It's kind of obvious." Think about it in slow motion. Think for a moment that you are standing at that station. Wouldn't you think it obvious that the train clock is moving out from center and thus wouldn't stop? You are "seeing" the light headed toward the train clock, almost as though it were a baseball or a bullet. If you theorized that the train observer was watching those bullets, would you think that he would see them coming at him simultaneously? Or would you expect him to realize that he is moving out from center?

The problem is when you look at it all from the train's perspective and you end up with the exact opposite prediction.

The theory of relativity says that each must make their own measurements and predictions without ever assuming that there might be some objective perspective, the "God-perspective". It is declaring an ontology based entirely upon subjectivism.

But because using that theory leads to a contradiction, a "paradox", the subjective, "relative" ontology is not coherent or consistent.

Guessing at what the other person might be seeing is exactly what they were trying to avoid when they came up with relativity. What confounded them was that original assertion that "light must be observed to travel at the same speed by all observers". That assertion is close to being true, a little too close for them to be able to measure the difference at the time. By now, they would have corrected with better measurements except for the fact that they had gotten into the race to dominate the world. Now it is an issue of saving face, so they aren't in any rush to expose such a fundamental presumption on their part after pushing relativity so very hard.

Let's get this part settled before we get into grammar issues.

Do you understand the construction of the situation in the anime and the conundrum, regardless of whether you have an answer for it?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Btw, since I know you to be interested in mysticism, magick, and Rabbinical scriptures, perhaps I should mention that what we are discussing has been scripturallly referred to as the “Sword of God”, “Subjectivism”. And what we are doing is gently laying that Sword of God upon the Anvil of God (where upon the angel (concept) called “Straight Line” was splattered into “smeared confused points”), “Rational Metaphysics” (impossible to divide). And then we are saying;

Sword of God,
… meet Hammer of God. .. “Definitional Logic”.

I was kind of hoping to not find VO caught in the middle because if you think being between that "rock and a hard place" is bad... "you ain't seen nuthin yet." Cool


You can either learn to use it or look forward to someone using it upon you.
The choice is always yours, of course.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don't get it. In the train perspective pictogram, it appears like the light emitted from the train is actually influenced in its speed by the speed of the train. It looks like the photon on the left is moving to the station slower than c, as if the speed of the train is subtracted from it, and the photon on the right is going faster than c, as if the speed of the train adds up to it.

Are you saying that the speed of light is not constant but depends on where it's emitted from? Say, if a star of a ten million lightyears away was moving away from Earth at half of c, then its light would take 15 million years to reach us?



___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The dilation of space time is what makes string theory senseless. Who cares what something looks like when it's not moving? The actual answer is that it is not looked if its not moving. The speed of information is not a problem, it is part of the schema of theoretization, so theorizing beyond it existence disippates from imagination.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:10 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
If I understand correctly, that is where length contraction occurs.

If the train moves, the distance between the emitter and the stations clock is an object which contracts in size.

If I move, the length of anything not moving in the same direction with the same speed, decreases, thus also the distance between me and the station. Therefore light has to cross a smaller distance, or so it appears. The light appears to be both relatively (extremely marginally) slower (c-myspeed), and having to cross a (extremely marginally) smaller distance. I suppose this is what the Lorenz transforms calculate.

So length contraction compensates for the differences in the speed of light relative to the trains movement.[/i].
Okay, let's talk about length contraction.

According to the Lorentz length contraction, anything that is moving with respect to YOU, is shorter. So from the station perspective, the entire train car is shorter. That means that BOTH flashers are closer to the station clock, but the clock is still centered.

So by shortening the train car, the light doesn't have as far to travel, as far as the station is concerned. But the train clock is still centered. And it is still moving out from center at the instant wherein the flashers go off. Thus shortening the train car yields the same problem and merely reduces the expected amount of time for the flashes to reach the station clock.

On the train, things are a little different. The flashers are moving WITH the train. That means that the distance from the flashers to the train clock do not change, the station itself is merely shorter (irrelevant). So the train expects a little more time to pass before the light reaches the station clock. But the real problem is still the same, the station clock is still moving out from center.

Thus length contraction didn't really change the problem because the clocks are still moving out from center as far as the other observer is concerned.

Time dilation ends up with the same kind of situation... nothing relevant will change the problem.


Last edited by James S Saint on Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:44 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If I understand correctly, that is where length contraction occurs.

If the train moves, the distance between the emitter and the stations clock is an object which contracts in size.

If I move, the length of anything not moving in the same direction with the same speed, decreases, thus also the distance between me and the station. Therefore light has to cross a smaller distance, or so it appears. The light appears to be both relatively (extremely marginally) slower (c-myspeed), and having to cross a (extremely marginally) smaller distance. I suppose this is what the Lorenz transforms calculate.

So length contraction compensates for the differences in the speed of light relative to the trains movement.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer --
"The dilation of space time is what makes string theory senseless. Who cares what something looks like when it's not moving? The actual answer is that it is not looked if its not moving. The speed of information is not a problem, it is part of the schema of theoretization, so theorizing beyond it existence disippates from imagination."

Indeed, the moving is the existence, and therefore the speed of light, the ultimate movement, is the only constant.

Everything is measured most accurately not against a zero-state, which is impossible as where there is a measurer there is no zero state, but against full-capacity movement.

Gravity, it appears from e=mc^2, is a direct derivative of the speed of light, depending on the condition in which light finds itself.

Space and time are derivatives of gravity.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
FC, for some reason my reply to your last post is appearing above your last post. I might have caused that in trying to deal with the communication issues between this site and me. It would take me another 10-15 minutes to move that post into proper position.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James--

I'd like to get back on track with your explication of RM; I have agreed to P4 and C2. Please continue.

One thing first, though... you have not answered FC's question: are you or are you not claiming that light is traveling at different speeds in your train/clock example? Are you claiming that the speed of the moving frame of reference adds or subtracts to the speed of the light moving in that same frame, with respect to the stationary frame's perspective?



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
James--

I'd like to get back on track with your explication of RM; I have agreed to P4 and C2. Please continue.

One thing first, though... you have not answered FC's question: are you or are you not claiming that light is traveling at different speeds in your train/clock example? Are you claiming that the speed of the moving frame of reference adds or subtracts to the speed of the light moving in that same frame, with respect to the stationary frame's perspective?
I think that my last post answers that, but...

What I am "claiming" is that;
1) according to the Theory of Relativity, the speed of light is always the same, "c", for ANY and every observer regardless of the direction of the light (toward the other guy or toward yourself).

2) If that is the case, then if anything is moving with respect to the observer, light must be approaching that moving object either faster or slower than toward himself depending on the direction of the light and the moving object. So from his perspective, the OTHER clock cannot stop because light is approaching one side of that other clock faster than the other side of that other clock, merely because that other clock is moving out of center.

3) Due to that logic, each of the two observers must predict that their own clock will stop and the other clock will not.

4) The length contraction doesn't change that issue because the length of the train car is irrelevant to the symmetry of the situation. Both clocks must remain centered during the light travel time and from both perspectives, yet they cannot.

5) Time dilation merely changes at what time reading one would predict his own clock to stop, but he would still insist that the other clock doesn't stop.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Capable wrote:
James--

I'd like to get back on track with your explication of RM; I have agreed to P4 and C2. Please continue.

One thing first, though... you have not answered FC's question: are you or are you not claiming that light is traveling at different speeds in your train/clock example? Are you claiming that the speed of the moving frame of reference adds or subtracts to the speed of the light moving in that same frame, with respect to the stationary frame's perspective?
I think that my last post answers that, but...

What I am "claiming" is that;
1) according to the Theory of Relativity, the speed of light is always the same, "c", for ANY and every observer regardless of the direction of the light (toward the other guy or toward yourself).

2) If that is the case, then if anything is moving with respect to the observer, light must be approaching that moving object either faster or slower than toward himself depending on the direction of the light and the moving object. So from his perspective, the OTHER clock cannot stop because light is approaching one side of that other clock faster than the other side of that other clock, merely because that other clock is moving out of center.

3) Due to that logic, each of the two observers must predict that their own clock will stop and the other clock will not.

4) The length contraction doesn't change that issue because the length of the train car is irrelevant to the symmetry of the situation. Both clocks must remain centered during the light travel time and from both perspectives, yet they cannot.

5) Time dilation merely changes at what time reading one would predict his own clock to stop, but he would still insist that the other clock doesn't stop.

Let's see.. the clocks are in alignment for only one instant. They approach each other, align for an instant in which time photons are released from the corners of the train, one set toward each clock, then the clocks are not in alignment as the train continues to move to the side.

The scenario as you are using it involves prediction, not actual occurrences; this is because we know that the clocks WILL each stop, because light will hit both clocks at the same time. This is because of your premise 1 above, that c is always constant (and in each perspective, the clock is not moving additionally with respect to the source of the photons, which means that the DISTANCE between each source-point and the clocks is equal on both sides.) Since the clock is stationary in its own reference frame (obviously) and the distance which the light must travel is equal on both sides, and we know that c is constant, ergo the clocks will be struck at the same time and shut off.

So the problem becomes: how does the other frame PREDICT the event happening? Well, it would predict that the clocks both stop, because it would understand what I just said, that given the theory of relativity the light, traveling at constant rate of c, will strike the clock at the same time. the observer in the other frame knows this, so whatever his Newtonian-like measurements of the changing distances are, he is aware that these measurements are bound to a level of incorrectness due to the constancy of c.

Einstein used examples like this train/clock one all the time, they were designed to show the inconsistencies in the Newtonian approach. Your examples does just this, it shows that if you act as if the movement of the clock in the other frame than yourself adds to the distance which light needs to travel, you would calculate (PREDICT) that the other clock does not stop; however, observation would refute that prediction, because this scenario played out would experience the clocks as actually turning off... "Hm," the observer tells himself, "how is it that my prediction was in error? Oh wait, yes it is because of Relativity! c is constant, therefore the clocks DO stop, as I observed."

To Sum:

1) the clocks DO both stop, given that c is constant and that each clock is stationary with respect to its own frame of reference (and the photons, being constant at c, do not vary their speed regardless of their initial movement)

2) the observer mistakenly calculated that due to the clocks PERCEIVED motion to one side (from the observer's own perspective) that the clock would not turn off.

3) the observer performs the experiment and sees that the clock DOES turn off.

4) the observer corrects his predictions by realizing that Relativity explains why the clock turned off, and why his previous Newtonian-based prediction was in error.




Regarding the actual purpose of this topic: P1-P4 and C1-C2 are accepted. Please continue.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I see the error more clearly now. It just occurred to me that this is the same perceived problem as what you get when an astronaut rockets off into distant space at high velocity relative to c, then comes back; according to Relativity the astronaut should be much younger than his twin who remained on earth, because the astronaut has been traveling at near-c and thus his own time experience has been slowed relative to the stationary Earth. HOWEVER, from the perspective of the astronaut, the EARTH is the one that moved away at high speeds, then returned, therefore the twin on earth should be the one who aged younger, while the astronaut aged normal.

Clearly the astronaut and the twin are not both younger and not younger than each other after the space journey.

So where is the error? Relativity draws a distinction between the frame which is accelerating and the frame that is not accelerating; the key here is that acceleration means that the frame is NOT STATIONARY TO ITSELF any longer. There is a difference between acceleration and constant movement.

So is the train A) moving at a constant speed or B) moving at an accelerating (non-constant) speed?

A)
If the train is not accelerating (its movement is constant velocity) then it remains stationary to itself at all times. Likewise the frame of the station is experienced by the train-perspective as also moving at a constant (non-accelerating) speed relative to the train. If this is the case, the train-perspective observer will calculate (PREDICT) (assuming he has knowledge of Relativity) that the clock on the station will shut off because he knows that a) the station clock is actually at rest with respect to itself and b) the photons started at an equal distance from the clock and travel at constant c. In this case, both clocks DO turn off.

B)
If the train is accelerating then it is NOT remaining stationary to itself (it is experiencing GRAVITY (the feeling of being pushed back into your seat) as well as length contraction and time dilation). The train-perspective observer will conclude that the station is stationary to itself, however, by calculating out his own acceleration velocity and measuring it against the station, thus concluding that HE is the one accelerating and the station is not. Because of this, the train-perspective observer will calculate that the clock on the station DOES shut off, because the station is not accelerating (even though the station APPEARS to be accelerating away from the train). The clock on the train, which is ACTUALLY accelerating (relative to itself) will have its own clock NOT shut off, because as you stated previously the distance which the light needs to travel to reach the clock is ACTUALLY changing (it is contracting in the direction of acceleration). From the perspective of the station, an observer will see that his own clock shuts off, and will see that the clock on the train does not shut off.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Also, see this explanation from Wikipedia:

"In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to a naive application of time dilation, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity (because the twins are not equivalent; the space twin experienced additional, asymmetrical acceleration when switching direction to return home), and therefore is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction. . . . Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[2]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”


Last edited by Capable on Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
I'd like to get back on track with your explication of RM; I have agreed to P4 and C2. Please continue.
Well this process of thinking is very relevant to RM thinking (AO or not). So I'm afraid that we do need to get this hammered out, because if we change our way of thinking, then nothing RM says is relevant to anything. RM is based upon Definitional logic which is exactly what we are dealing with right now.

Capable wrote:
Let's see.. the clocks are in alignment for only one instant. They approach each other, align for an instant in which time photons are released from the corners of the train, one set toward each clock, then the clocks are not in alignment as the train continues to move to the side.
That is what both observers can agree upon. That is what they both observe.

Capable wrote:
The scenario as you are using it involves prediction, not actual occurrences; this is because we know that the clocks WILL each stop, because light will hit both clocks at the same time.
ALL thought is about "prediction". Your point is irrelevant.

Capable wrote:
This is because of your premise 1 above, that c is always constant (and in each perspective, the clock is not moving additionally with respect to the source of the photons, which means that the DISTANCE between each source-point and the clocks is equal on both sides.)
.. at the time of flash. Obviously the flashers keep going. The point of flash does not.

Capable wrote:
Since the clock is stationary in its own reference frame (obviously) and the distance which the light must travel is equal on both sides, and we know that c is constant, ergo the clocks will be struck at the same time and shut off.
The only thing "obvious" is that one's own clock is stationary (that is the definition of a given "perspective"). Each observes the other clock as not being stationary. That is what each observer actually sees and observes. That is not a matter of prediction or deduction, but of direct empirical observation.


Capable wrote:

So the problem becomes: how does the other frame PREDICT the event happening? Well, it would predict that the clocks both stop, because it would understand what I just said,
So what you are saying is that the observer, having observed, must now ignore what he sees taking place and accept the holy theory that the other person will see something different than himself and thus accept, not what he observed, but what the other person is predicted to observe.

Doesn't that strike you as a little odd that every observer, based upon what he observes, must ignore what he observes and accept a theory concerning what others observe and accept their perspective over his own? Do you seriously think that is what "relativity" means, "ignore what you see and accept what everyone else sees"?

What you have said is that even though I can directly see the other clock moving out of center, I must imagine and predict that the other clock sees itself not moving out of center and accept that other clock's perspective over myown.

Yet at the same time, that other clock's perspective has ME moving out of center, but I'm not going to accept his perspective on that point, else my "theory" would be wrong. So sometimes I accept the other clock's perspective and sometimes I accept my own direct observation. It all depends on whether I want the "theory" to turn out correct.

But interestingly, the theory itself says that the observer must only go by what he observes from his own perspective, not what he thinks that other perspective might be. You can't have it both ways and pick and choose when you want to use someone else's perspective and ignore your own.


Capable wrote:
traveling at constant rate of c, will strike the clock at the same time. the observer in the other frame knows this
So one observer is to correct his observation based upon what he thinks the other observer knows? What if the other observer didn't know that theory?

Capable wrote:
1) the clocks DO both stop, given that c is constant and that each clock is stationary with respect to its own frame of reference (and the photons, being constant at c, do not vary their speed regardless of their initial movement)
The real answer is that neither clock stops (depending upon other issues).

Capable wrote:
2) the observer mistakenly calculated that due to the clocks PERCEIVED motion to one side (from the observer's own perspective) that the clock would not turn off.
So an observer must ignore his own observation of motion and just presume that nothing is really moving? I think that he might find that difficult to accept since the train and station obviously don't stay aligned. How will he ever get where he was going?

Capable wrote:
3) the observer performs the experiment and sees that the clock DOES turn off.
Well, that is Your prediction based upon observers ignoring what they observe so as to accept a prediction theory and yield the ordained outcome.

Capable wrote:
4) the observer corrects his predictions by realizing that Relativity explains why the clock turned off, and why his previous Newtonian-based prediction was in error.
It isn't just his predictions that he must ignore, but his actual observation. He empirically observes the other clock moving out from center. But to accept the theory, he must ignore that and accept that it didn't "really" move out of center. And then of course, since it didn't really move out of center, it must not have been moving. He must conclude that the entire episode was merely a dream.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:10 pm

Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In response to all this, please see my previous two posts, which came after this one you quote.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It seems that what an observer percieves as time space dilation in relativistic considerations are the active perception of kinetic force. That is, when you travel through time relative to a differentially moving reference point, it is rather material space-time (lol, what other kind can there be?) propelling you out of your inertia by taking energy out of itself.

Like an intestine contracting and dilating to move food along, except the diameter from inside might seem constant to the food as it is not still relative to the dilation or contraction but having its time-spacial center being determined by it. Like movement is experienced as travelling through the parameters of space-time for the mover and as contraction or dilation of space-time around the movement for the observer, and, in the end, it is as much the universe moving away from you as it is you moving away from it, the splitting of inertia being the digestive system of movement and matter resulting in a potential understanding of it (among other things).

In terms of affectance, this is a way in which material as a consequence of it can fall back into that within traditional continuum science that is relevant. It is not matter that moves, but affectance that produces it already in movement from its own energy.

This suggests that unity in AO cannot be a still or originating element, like a sword of God, but must be an ever-shifting pattern of movement that produces diferentiation, is itself the principle of diferentiation even as it is a second part of all movement, always a consequence.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This leads back to one of VO's fundamental assumptions, that what be is in terms of what it cannot be as the initial point before which no understanding has place.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
I see the error more clearly now. It just occurred to me that this is the same perceived problem as what you get when an astronaut rockets off into distant space at high velocity relative to c, then comes back; according to Relativity the astronaut should be much younger than his twin who remained on earth, because the astronaut has been traveling at near-c and thus his own time experience has been slowed relative to the stationary Earth. HOWEVER, from the perspective of the astronaut, the EARTH is the one that moved away at high speeds, then returned, therefore the twin on earth should be the one who aged younger, while the astronaut aged normal.

Clearly the astronaut and the twin are not both younger and not younger than each other after the space journey.

So where is the error? Relativity draws a distinction between the frame which is accelerating and the frame that is not accelerating; the key here is that acceleration means that the frame is NOT STATIONARY TO ITSELF any longer. There is a difference between acceleration and constant movement.

So is the train A) moving at a constant speed or B) moving at an accelerating (non-constant) speed?
Acceleration has nothing to do with this issue. Nothing is proposed as accelerating. I agree with your analysis of the twins though. ref:Resolve to the Twins Paradox

Capable wrote:
A)
If the train is not accelerating (its movement is constant velocity) then it remains stationary to itself at all times. Likewise the frame of the station is experienced by the train-perspective as also moving at a constant (non-accelerating) speed relative to the train. If this is the case, the train-perspective observer will calculate (PREDICT) (assuming he has knowledge of Relativity) that the clock on the station will shut off because he knows that a) the station clock is actually at rest with respect to itself and b) the photons started at an equal distance from the clock and travel at constant c. In this case, both clocks DO turn off.
Seriously? Doesn't that seem a bit Catholic to you?

"I know it looks and tastes like a cracker, but in REALITY is is the body of Christ."
"I know that it looks like a pig, but because this is a holiday, it is REALLY a cow."
"I know that you prayed for a Rolls Royce and it appears as though you got a Volkswagen, but in REALITY you actually got that Rolls Royce. It is just a matter of perspective."

You seem to be accepting a theory as if ordained by God and thus ignoring direct observation. "He will know that the other clock will see it differently therefore in REALITY it is different than what I directly observe."

Why are you really accepting that theory? Because someone told you that it was right in such a way as to convince you? You haven't "heard" anyone say that it was wrong who also represented higher authority, so of course, the higher sounding authority must be right, "else I would have heard someone saying that they are wrong and they would of course correct their error, because they NEVER lie."

Consider just for a moment that the current dominater of the world, including the media, has tricked both you and a great many others into supporting your own domination. What they had to do is convince you to ignore what you directly see and accept their word concerning "proven" theories (and what you are shown through a media). Have you actually ever directly seen any such proof?

You keep saying that one must ignore what he sees directly (the other guy moving out of center) because "they say" otherwise. The theory itself requires that one to ignore his own perspective as a part of his own perspective. You seriously buy that?

Come on now.

You see the train moving out from center and thus cannot get light from both sides simultaneously. But a theory that someone gave you says that the train will see it differently so you are to ignore what you directly, empirically observe and go with what the train theoretically would see as "truth"/"reality".

But of course you don't do that concerning what he would see of you. He mistakenly thinks that you are moving and obviously you are not, so you can ignore what he thinks concerning that issue and only accept what he is going to think concerning the light, even though you can see that he couldn't be right about that either.

I hadn't thought of you as being religiously fanatical, a "fundamentalist". Have I been wrong about that? What do you call your Faith? Perhaps RM is going to be too heretical for your church.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Actually, it's like when you look into clear water and see the distorted view of the rocks underneath. They appear to be larger than they actually are, their color is slightly skewed, and they seem to ripple and shift. Of course, using the application of knowledge/reason, you KNOW that the rocks are in fact not that large, that the color is changed in appearance by looking through water, and that the rocks are not in fact rippling. And then imagine someone comes along and says, "hey you just believe that about the rocks because some High and Mighty Expert told you! Well use your own eyes, look, the rock are MOVING! and theyre so BIG!"

Er... I am not claiming anything like "Believe what authorities tell you", rather I am just saying: Use your own reason. And this includes learning about science.



...In your example, and since you have defined that the train is NOT accelerating, the station observer will see the clock on the train stop, because it DOES stop. He sees the clock stop because it does stop. Aand how do we know that it does stop? Because the train is at rest relative to itself, ergo the distances which the photons must travel to the clock do not change.

Constant velocity = stationary frame of reference with respect to itself. Movements do not add where c is concerned. It isn't like someone on the train threw a baseball toward the front of the train and you add the velocity of the ball + the velocity of the train to = the speed at which the station observer measures the ball moving. No, it does not work that way with light. That is what makes light "special".



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer, I'd like to know more about your perspective on this, as you wrote.. it is hard for me to grasp. But you are saying something similar to what someone else was saying earlier at CC, about how energy is taken from itself in order to push a thing out of its own inertia. He was saying it's like the photon moves on the x axis of acceleration while humans move on the y axis of space and time.. I need a better way to conceptualize this. Please write more about how you see it.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
EDITED°

I'm not surprised, derivative science is true science.

The key is in the concept of energy. What is it? This is a classic physics philosophy question: where is force? Energy is what potential leads to movement, we are told. The more energy a thing has, it means it has more points of affect that can unleash movement. So speed, the dimension of light, is (being the constant) the ontological basis for matter, light° is manifested as affectances so discreet and directional that they result in light. Licke a sissor closing, the point where they cross moves at the speed of light.

Matter is characterized, made up of inertia. It is there because it can affect and be affectd, be the result of energy. We now know this because we know that matter approaching light speed in a sense augments matter, it climbs the moments of affectance and takes them up like CPU space.

When you are in a train and see a fox moving on the forest outside your window, the light goes through the rungs of affectance that traverse all space-time between you and the fox, thus the information is accurate.

James is a genius because affect is truly then the basic ontological moment, that which results in matter or energy and which light traverses at its un-inertia limit.

If we forget affect, we have that the reason for there to be traversability between my movement and the foxes' in some way is that the accelerations in inertia are what result in matter or energy. Inertia is broken by other inertia, via energy, and creates the necessity for continuity of information that is shared by me and the fox, respected by light, and thus in a way the inertia of the movement of whatever light shows that me and the fox share the need of. The universe is proven as having a logic through fluctuations of time-space out of the shared necessities of diferential inertias within that shifting pool of space time. This gives us that the reason for moving, as this reason shifts, is the breaking of that inertia and a constant (even when it is not constant, as shown by the continuity of light).
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"The theory itself requires that one to ignore his own perspective as a part of his own perspective."

What appears to the observer from his perspective is not ignored at all, but is notated with great exactitude before it can be put through a transform, whereby next to ones own, also the others perspective becomes known.

This is how value ontology defines "reality" (the one that you say can not be broken down) - as never really existing in the first place. Not with exactitude. What is exact is only local, requires a perspective, something relative to c.

Theory of relativity describes reality not as perspective relative to each other, but as perspectives relative to the speed of light. C is the new zero. It's reversed - Einstein got it right, the beginning value of an argument is not 'zero' but the ultimate positive, the limit of positivity. There is the real world.

By analogy (and do take this as a metaphor) - we could see that there never was a big bang, but a big crash, like the pulverizing of a glass plate. In the beginning there wasn't nothing (nor virtually nothing) but the ultimate maximum of cohesion by value-symmetry, and thus, because nothing that is what it is can also continue to be what it is, after an instant of perfection, there was too much reality for it to contain itself, and it broke down in "a million" pieces. In all of which there was the memory of being part of perfection, and so the quest for valuing in terms of this perfection begins anew.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, light itself is a dimensionality - so is gravity.

Gravity comprises three dimensions and moves in either of these dimensions relative to other bits of gravity. Light comprises two dimensions and moves in a third dimension relative to itself.

Lights position relative to itself is what makes absolute time and space, which are opposites.

Time and space diverge toward the speed of light. That is: if a gravity attains the speed of light it ceases to take up space to its observer, but a moment within it lasts infinitely long to the observer, as it has 'objectively' become infinitely heavy.

Where light speed and gravity are starkly mutually exclusive with the exception of infinites and infinitesimals, time and space are 'vaguer' opposites, change and constancy.

Lightspeed and gravity 'meet' to form the conditions of the cosmos (force and form), time and space meet to form the actual substance of the cosmos (change and consistency - accelerating and constant reference frames). Then on an even more crystalized level the opposition is even less stark; diversity and repetition, between which the actual construction of the cosmos occurs.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pure diversity precludes repetition, just as pure change precludes constancy, as pure (unaltered) space precludes time (why churches are built as spaces to make man feel timelessness) and just as pure (all encompassing) lightspeed precludes gravity.

We can think of 'nothingness' as a black void, where at most infinitesimals exist, or as a white void, an absolute space of zero-time where there is only light. As soon as this light gets 'entangled' into itself, gravity ensues, space becomes relative and time 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nothingness as the impossibility of something? Thus it is quantifiable as the amounts of impossibilities gathered from the imagination as reflection of what is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Actually, it's like when you look into clear water and see the distorted view of the rocks underneath. They appear to be larger than they actually are, their color is slightly skewed, and they seem to ripple and shift. Of course, using the application of knowledge/reason, you KNOW that the rocks are in fact not that large, that the color is changed in appearance by looking through water, and that the rocks are not in fact rippling. And then imagine someone comes along and says, "hey you just believe that about the rocks because some High and Mighty Expert told you! Well use your own eyes, look, the rock are MOVING! and theyre so BIG!"

Er... I am not claiming anything like "Believe what authorities tell you", rather I am just saying: Use your own reason. And this includes learning about science.



...In your example, and since you have defined that the train is NOT accelerating, the station observer will see the clock on the train stop, because it DOES stop. He sees the clock stop because it does stop. Aand how do we know that it does stop? Because the train is at rest relative to itself, ergo the distances which the photons must travel to the clock do not change.

Constant velocity = stationary frame of reference with respect to itself. Movements do not add where c is concerned. It isn't like someone on the train threw a baseball toward the front of the train and you add the velocity of the ball + the velocity of the train to = the speed at which the station observer measures the ball moving. No, it does not work that way with light. That is what makes light "special".
I fully agree that one should use their own reasoning . But I don't believe for a second that the theory of relativity is Your reasoning. But since you still aren't seeing it, let's bump this up a level...

The front flasher is called "F" (front) and the back flasher is called "B" (back).
The moment of flash for F is called "Ft".
The location in space where F flashes is called "Fp".
The station clock is called "Sc"
The Train clock is called "Tc"

If you were at the station, would you agree that;

P1) There is a fixed, non-zero distance between the Sc and Fp?

P2) During the time taken for the light to get to Sc, Tc moved closer to Fp?

P3) During the time taken for the light to get to Sc, Sc did not move closer to Fp?

P4) The light that travels to Sc travels at the same speed as the light that travels to Tc?

Despite the temptation, there is no need to give additional rhetoric based upon speculated further reasoning until such reasoning is given.




Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, this, "P2) During the time taken for the light to get to Sc, Tc moved closer to Fp?" must be incorrect because the train clock does not move closer to or further away from Fp at all, they are part of the same constant velocity frame of reference. Even from the perspective of the station, this holds true. It is like the light dispersion through water when you view the rocks... the perspective causes a distortion of appearance. From the station perspective, Fp will appear to move closer to the train clock, because as the train moves away from the station the two points, train clock and Fp, seem to be converging. Of course that appearance is only an illusion due to distance, and in fact they are not converging at all. Tc and Fp occupy fixed positions in a common frame of reference that is stationary with respect to itself.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
No, this, "P2) During the time taken for the light to get to Sc, Tc moved closer to Fp?" must be incorrect because the train clock does not move closer to or further away from Fp at all
"The location in space where F flashes is called "Fp"."

And we are only talking about one perspective right now, the station. Alternative perspectives are irrelevant to these premises. We are at the station only.

Fp is merely a position in space where F was when it flashed, perhaps 10 meters from the station clock. It doesn't matter what the train does after F flashes. That 10 meters to the left of Sc doesn't change from being 10 meters away does it? The train could blowup, fly away or anything. 10 meters to the left is 10 meters to the left, isn't it?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Capable wrote:
No, this, "P2) During the time taken for the light to get to Sc, Tc moved closer to Fp?" must be incorrect because the train clock does not move closer to or further away from Fp at all
"The location in space where F flashes is called "Fp"."

And we are only talking about one perspective right now, the station. Alternative perspectives are irrelevant to these premises. We are at the station only.

Fp is merely a position in space where F was when it flashed, perhaps 10 meters from the station clock. It doesn't matter what the train does after F flashes. That 10 meters to the left of Sc doesn't change from being 10 meters away does it? The train could blowup, fly away or anything. 10 meters to the left is 10 meters to the left, isn't it?

That is irrelevant, because the light flash occurred not at some stationary point "in space" but from a point on the train, which is part of the exact same frame of reference as the clock. Let me use an analogy to what you are saying: Me and a friend stand exactly 500 meters from each other in a field, facing each other. In the exact center of us is a large rock. We each begin running toward the rock at the same time, and as it happens we both run at the exact same speed. However, according to you, if I happen to be running in the same direction as Earth happens to be moving at that moment, my friend will reach the rock first because I had more distance to run than he did. That is clearly false. It does not matter what direction Earth is moving, we are both part of that same frame of reference and we will reach the rock at exactly the same moment.

We are talking about rather or not the clock shuts off, in the case of your example. Rather or not there are other frames of reference beyond the train itself which measure relative distances crossed differently than what is measured on the train (and of course there are an innumerable number of possible different relative frames of reference, for any movement), the clock still shuts off, because TO THE TRAIN'S frame of reference an equal distance has been crossed in the case of both flashes of light. If the observer at the station concludes that the clock SHOULDN'T HAVE shut off, because he sees light (or anything else) crossing more distance moving toward the front of the train than moving toward the back of it with respect to the direction of the train's motion, that just means that the station observer is talking about HIS OWN perspective and not that of the train. The clock on the train doesn't care one bit about the station observer's perspective, it is not bound by the station's perspective but by its own perspective.

The observer at the station does not see the light cross more distance in the one case and not the other, when looking at the flashes moving in the train. The observer will see, seemingly paradoxically to him if he thinks as you do, that the flashes of light stay at uniform symmetrical position to each other as they converge on and strike the clock at the exact same time, and the clock shuts off. If the observer then states, "Hey that doesn't make sense, there was more distance in the case of the flash moving forward!" that only means that the observer is ignorant about what frames of reference are, and also would mean that the observer is substituting his presumption for his actual observation, something that you would seemingly have a huge problem with.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You seem to be stuck in your natural mind, much like FC was.

We are talking about a single frame of reference. There is no "center of the universe" from which we are flying away. The station isn't "flying through space". "Space" is measured strictly from the stand point of the station. That is the entire point of relativity, "no absolute frame of reference".

So no, I am not talking about the station flying through "space" when F flashes. I am saying that from the perspective of the station, 10 meters to the left is always 10 meters to the left and that is where F flashed. I am saying that the light is "coming from 10 meters away". We don't care about any train right now. The train could be going in any direction. We don't care at this point. The issue is "how far from the station was F when it flashed? ... as measured by anyone in the station frame of reference" (the only frame of reference at the moment).

If you deny that, then you have already denied relativity and there is no need to go further.

You seem to be saying that if the prosecution states that the gun was fired 5 feet from the victim, the defense can claim that because the gun wasn't found 5 feet away from the body, then obviously it was in motion and thus that "5 feet" point isn't there but instead it followed the gun or the center of the universe or something. Why do I suspect that the judge or jury isn't going to buy that one?


Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is the speed of light relative to p and t? This seems to be James' assumption. Would anybody elaborate? That confuses me.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Is the speed of light relative to p and t? This seems to be James' assumption. Would anybody elaborate? That confuses me.
The speed of light never changes for anyone, no matter what perspective, frame of reference, no matter who, what, when, where, or why. As FC pointed out, in SR, the speed of light, "c" is the anchor upon which all else is measured.

In RM:AO that statement is also true but meant a little differently. But right now, we are talking about SR and in SR, "c" is the same number for all observes always regardless of anything.

But having said that, I have asked 4 question, none of which have anything at all to do with the speed of light.

Quote :
The front flasher is called "F" (front) and the back flasher is called "B" (back).
The moment of flash for F is called "Ft".
The location in space where F flashes is called "Fp".
The station clock is called "Sc"
The Train clock is called "Tc"

If you were at the station, would you agree that;

P1) There is a fixed, non-zero distance between the Sc and Fp?

P2) During the time taken for the light to get to Sc, Tc moved closer to Fp?

P3) During the time taken for the light to get to Sc, Sc did not move closer to Fp?

P4) The light that travels to Sc travels at the same speed as the light that travels to Tc?

Despite the temptation, there is no need to give additional rhetoric based upon speculated further reasoning until such reasoning is given.
Right now, we don't care what the speed of light might be as long as it is consistent throughout.

Call the photon that starts at F and heads toward Sc "A",
And the photon that starts at F heads toward the train clock "B".

P4 is asking if A and B are traveling at the same speed. The obvious answer, and demanded by SR (regardless of any frame of reference, is simply "YES".

The issue with P1 is also demanded by SR. SR demands that all measurements are made with regard to the observer (that was the whole point of SR). F flashed at a particular time when it was a particular distance from Sc. All P1 ia asking is if that was a "non-zero distance". Again, the obvious answer is "YES". That is why these are labeled "Pn" because they should be more than obvious regardless of which side of the debate you are on.


Something else that you might want to note is that Einstein didn't come up with the "light is always observed to be measured the same for all observers" bit. He began his SR thesis with "If what I have been told is correct [referring to the consistency of the measuring of the speed of light] then the following must also be true...". I can't argue with him on that issue. He properly stated the premise as being that light is ALWAYS measured to be the same by all observers. The truth of that premise is in question.

But in addition, long afterwards, he still claimed that he couldn't really get general relativity to work out (based upon SR). Einstein knew it was all dubious. Concerning QM, he flat out stated that he didn't like what they were doing to Science (obscuring it).

Physicists are technicians who are given metaphysical thoughts with which to work and try to measure things. They are the lower priests being directed by a higher Vatican of thinkers playing in the field of metaphysics and social domination.



Last edited by James S Saint on Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"That is the entire point of relativity, 'no absolute frame of reference.'" We can now correct this to read "That is the entire point of relativity, 'the speed of light is the absolute frame of reference?'"
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Unfortunately I am now totally at loss. I can't see through the abbreviations, I can't place it in context, I'm no longer sure what is even being said, what is being disagreed upon. Sorry about that. If any of you (Capable or James) could explain to me in concise but non abbreviated terms what the difference of opinion here is and how that fits in the context of the problem, that would be great. I have weaknesses, this sort of text is one of them.

Pezer - I agree with your statement. Or I see you agree with mine - either way.

Pezer wrote:
"That is the entire point of relativity, 'no absolute frame of reference.'" We can now correct this to read "That is the entire point of relativity, 'the speed of light is the absolute frame of reference?'"
James agrees as well, at least that this is the point of Special Relativity.

JSS wrote:
As FC pointed out, in SR, the speed of light, "c" is the anchor upon which all else is measured.
James, you say that in RM, this is slightly different. I'm interested in that, but perhaps we won't get the chance of arriving there. It seems we got stuck here. I don't want to keep anyone from doing what they'd rather be doing. If this is the end of this thread, then my sincere thanks to every one, and I'll go over it some quiet morning and see if I get what the hell started this Babylonian confusion. If not, I suggest a summary of where we are from the ground up, and please, without abbreviating the objects I have to imagine.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sorry for the abbreviations. I didn't think they would be an issue. What causes that as a problem is a short term memory dysfunction. You need to do the water thing, increase blood circulation, and visit an oxygen bar regularly, if they even have such a thing over there.

I don't understand the time limit issue. Has something been going on without me being informed? It takes me hours just to make a few posts on this site.

I wanted to divert into this particular debate merely to emphasis the use of definitions, as such is required in RM. But the premise of this particular debate seems to have been false, which that the participants actually understood the definitions within Relativity. It is a bit pointless to debate a theory when one side doesn't actually understand the theory.

If there is some time limit concern, I need to reassess my strategy for conveying essential concepts.

Realize that RM:AO is an entire college curriculum, not merely a course. The introduction, "RM:AO 101", is a single course involving the essentials of epistemology and constructing an ontology. It involves the use of definitions, consistency, coherency, comprehensiveness, completeness (Gogel), and relevance (purpose). But it doesn't require mathematics until you get into higher level concerns which in some cases are "deeper" concerns rather than the more complex concerns of higher structures.

Imagine trying to convince someone of the viability of something called "Chemistry" in just a few posts if they had never heard of such a thing and their church didn't really approve of it. RM is not "an idea". It is an entire field of related ideas that relate to all fields of Science, ontology and epistemology. It isn't for high schoolers, house wives, or beginners in philosophy or social life. RM is for designers and architects.


Last edited by James S Saint on Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I will give my summary.

Affect as the base level of ontology is an insight. This insight could yeild kilometers of theory, but only if one is wise enough to understand that one found something instead of havingdecided it.

James, you have studied long and hard to become impervious to honesty, so as to protect what was genius in your insight. I dedicate this poem to you:

The Wood-Pile

by Robert Frost

Out walking in the frozen swamp one gray day,
I paused and said, 'I will turn back from here.
No, I will go on farther—and we shall see.'
The hard snow held me, save where now and then
One foot went through. The view was all in lines
Straight up and down of tall slim trees
Too much alike to mark or name a place by
So as to say for certain I was here
Or somewhere else: I was just far from home.
A small bird flew before me. He was careful
To put a tree between us when he lighted,
And say no word to tell me who he was
Who was so foolish as to think what he thought.
He thought that I was after him for a feather—
The white one in his tail; like one who takes
Everything said as personal to himself.
One flight out sideways would have undeceived him.
And then there was a pile of wood for which
I forgot him and let his little fear
Carry him off the way I might have gone,
Without so much as wishing him good-night.
He went behind it to make his last stand.
It was a cord of maple, cut and split
And piled—and measured, four by four by eight.
And not another like it could I see.
No runner tracks in this year's snow looped near it.
And it was older sure than this year's cutting,
Or even last year's or the year's before.
The wood was gray and the bark warping off it
And the pile somewhat sunken. Clematis
Had wound strings round and round it like a bundle.
What held it though on one side was a tree
Still growing, and on one a stake and prop,
These latter about to fall. I thought that only
Someone who lived in turning to fresh tasks
Could so forget his handiwork on which
He spent himself, the labor of his ax,
And leave it there far from a useful fireplace
To warm the frozen swamp as best it could
With the slow smokeless burning of decay.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The time limit simply has to do with the inescapable reality that anyone would have to be convinced that RM is going to be of interest to him, before he would commit to a lengthy curriculum. Using VO you can easily deduce that as an ontological necessity, not a changeable attitude.

My interest in RM was not spawned by the clock paradox, but by the concept of self-harmony-momentum, which is closely related to VO. In other words, not by the objectivist-absolutist epistemological claims of RM, but by the local and concrete descriptions of how affect turns into form, and how form keeps itself in form.

Maybe I was fortunate to encounter RM before it had attained its full form.

That is: I could assess value in RM on my own terms, I did not have its value dictated to me as "this is Gods truth, take it as I give it to you" but as a set of particular insights about the world as I know it.

The truth of your theory of self-harmony and its momentum generated my will, later on, to engage RM's epistemological methods.

On that note: I think what the clock paradox does is to model an event such that regardless of the difference in the reference frames, from a third reference frame (the meta-perspective from which the situation is described) both frames come together in the crucial moment of measurement.

The key being that there is a third reference frame, from which the other two frames are seen to develop through a singular spacetime continuum.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I got to judge your rationale first by its fruits before I was asked to examine its roots. That was a strong motivation. I think that is how you should always teach.

But indeed, you did not ask for this thread, so reasonably I can only thank you for your work here. I happen to have gained a lot of insight because of 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
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James, I am interested to continue but would like clarity on two points before we can proceed. These are important logical issues to work to an agreement on.

1) Do you think that, in my example below*, we actually do NOT reach the center point at the same time?

2) Do you or do you not think that the clocks, either on the train or at the station or both, shut off?



*You and I stand on the deck of an aircraft carrier, at opposite ends. We run at exactly the same speed toward each other, to a point in the exact center of us. The aircraft carrier is moving at an arbitrarily fast speed (you pick the speed, the actual speed itself seems irrelevant) and as it happens I am running in the direction that the aircraft carrier is moving, you are running in the opposite direction of its movement. Will we reach the exact center point between us at the exact same time, or will you reach it first because I have more distance to cover than you?
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:12 pm

Go to page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I got to judge your rationale first by its fruits before I was asked to examine its roots. That was a strong motivation. I think that is how you should always teach.
From your prior post, I was about to say that exact same thing ("entanglement"). If you are interested in getting someone to learn what you have to say, first make sure they have an interest in it, else it takes too much discipline on their part with no apparent justification. People don't like learning things just because they are "supposed to". They need a sense of hope in the gaining of the information. And the young mind sees hope in sporadic directions, so usually can't stick with anything if not forced.

I am still stuck in the university mode wherein the student has little choice but to listen long enough to gain a little insight as to why he is learning something. On the internet, such is not the case. If interest isn't captured within the first few lines or posts, with just a careless flick of the finger, the "student" can go find better entertainment. And of course any presumptuous attitude has very little means of being corrected thus prior opinion rules their mind.

It should be more than obvious to anyone with at least a half reasoning mind that I seldom aspire to inspire interest in RM. But I don't hide it either. In effect, I am letting people sort themselves, much like the young outside the Buddhist temple door. RM is for a specific mature and serious audience. I need not worry about hiding it simply because others hide themselves from it and I'm neither preacher nor Pied Piper.

To actually inspire interest, one must lead a person from wherever they already are. That means that you have to learn where they already are, everything has prerequisites. I have been surprised at how much RM can actually be taught without having to require mathematics. Using a word that is misunderstood in an argument or debating the validity of a theory that isn't understood is denying the prerequisite (the premise to the rationale).


Top down socialist orders such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Secularism aspire to maintain the social order rather than, and at the expense of, the participants. In my book, that puts them in the "insane" category although not wholeheartedly invalid. That is why the world has gotten suckered into the money game. Money can be easily used to lead people into maintaining the social order at their own expense as everything in their lives is given a dollar value and then taken from them. If they want to live, they literally pay, "the cost/price of living". The emphasis on self sustaining (momentous) harmony throughout improves such aim.

But as I was saying, for such things to be addressed and influenced requires a sustainable interest in improving such aim and that requires a maturity in interest or some kind of force (the "gun on the island") or simply being a designer/architect mindset. If one is not inspired to be certainly better than what has always been, then one is going to be no better than what has always been, merely perhaps a little different. If you read 4000 year old books, you find that people had the exact same issues back then as today varying only in particulars.

Why should Pezer or Capable have any interest in RM? From their perspective, there could be no reason thus attitude rules both mind and heart. To have an interest in RM somewhat requires a serious desire to "go for the gold" in ensuring success and accept nothing less. If they had understood the theory of relativity, I could have shown them how the current giant in Science is easily felled. But that would be merely one demonstration of the power involved over extraneous influence from society. But still, first they have to not merely understand Relativity theory, but also have some notion of the need to have any power over that extraneous influence. Most believe that their thoughts are their own and thus don't see anyone spoon feeding them, "programing them".

People are being given their values through a precise process of catharsis and trauma (the peaks of hope and threat) preempted by medically induced sensitivity causing presumption, anxiety, boredom, sporadic behavior, fear, blindness, and extremism. That issue is why I am interested in VO's precise picture concerning how to treat values; of what are they made, from where do they come, how are they to be understood, and by what means are they to be sorted or changed. The fact that people evaluate their actions based on their values is an obvious given. Without answering those questions, people's values will remain programmed by those who are far more clever.

RM:PHT can explain all of that to extreme detail. But only to the right person who happens to already have a set of values that involve the desire to do better than Man ever has before as well as being a little perturbed by the excessive influences keeping him down. If he thinks that it is only his own thoughts controlling his life, he has already lost. He must be aware that there really is a very clever adversary and most people subconsciously are. Whether that adversary is a "who" or a "what" is a bit irrelevant. The issue is that it is extremely clever and insidiously influential. Those are prerequisites to finding immediate interest in RM:PHT.

And if you engaged in the desire to fight a familiar foe (as almost everyone has been programmed into), then your values are not really your own. RM:AO is a route for not merely fixing the world's insanity, but your own; Exodus The Matrix.





Capable wrote:
1) Do you think that, in my example below*, we actually do NOT reach the center point at the same time?

2) Do you or do you not think that the clocks, either on the train or at the station or both, shut off?



*You and I stand on the deck of an aircraft carrier, at opposite ends. We run at exactly the same speed [relative to WHAT?] toward each other, to a point in the exact center of us. The aircraft carrier is moving at an arbitrarily fast speed (you pick the speed, the actual speed itself seems irrelevant) and as it happens I am running in the direction that the aircraft carrier is moving, you are running in the opposite direction of its movement. Will we reach the exact center point between us at the exact same time, or will you reach it first because I have more distance to cover than you?
1) Do you think that, in my example below*, we actually do NOT reach the center point at the same time?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other.

In your example the answer is "Other". Without knowing the speed in relative terms (speed relative to what?) I cannot answer the question.

Of course in a real situation, we would both "push off" of the same ship deck and thus, assuming no other influence, we would be running at the same speed relative to the ship deck. That would lead us to meet at the exact center of the ship deck.

In the stopped clock scenario, the light doesn't "push off" of anything, but rather merely leaves at its own speed. So there is a pretty important difference in the two scenarios.

The issue is that according to Relativity, both the observer on the train and the observer at the station, must experience light traveling at c relative to themselves. They must both measure the light as traveling at the exact same speed as the other, "c". And because of that, in the anime, each perspective shows the green photons traveling that the same speed relative to "standing still" in the perspective being seen, c to the station in the station perspective and c to the train in the train perspective. That is fundamental Relativity principle.

2) Do you or do you not think that the clocks, either on the train or at the station or both, shut off?
A) Clocks stop
B) Clocks don't stop
C) Other

The most precise answer would have to be "other". But that is only due to another issue that is not a part of relativity. But in almost all cases, the result would end up as neither clock will stop (assuming extremely accurate clocks). By merely the theory of relativity, the end result is a paradox requiring that both clocks, both stop and also not stop. My effort was to demonstrate that relativity violates definition and logic, "what actually is cannot also be actually what is".

And if one denies logic, then one has denied every argument that would lead to the necessity to deny logic.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:


Capable wrote:
1) Do you think that, in my example below*, we actually do NOT reach the center point at the same time?

2) Do you or do you not think that the clocks, either on the train or at the station or both, shut off?



*You and I stand on the deck of an aircraft carrier, at opposite ends. We run at exactly the same speed [relative to WHAT?] toward each other, to a point in the exact center of us. The aircraft carrier is moving at an arbitrarily fast speed (you pick the speed, the actual speed itself seems irrelevant) and as it happens I am running in the direction that the aircraft carrier is moving, you are running in the opposite direction of its movement. Will we reach the exact center point between us at the exact same time, or will you reach it first because I have more distance to cover than you?
1) Do you think that, in my example below*, we actually do NOT reach the center point at the same time?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other.

In your example the answer is "Other". Without knowing the speed in relative terms (speed relative to what?) I cannot answer the question.

Of course in a real situation, we would both "push off" of the same ship deck and thus, assuming no other influence, we would be running at the same speed relative to the ship deck. That would lead us to meet at the exact center of the ship deck.
Yes. Good. And now, let's say from the frame of reference of a fishing boat which the aircraft carrier is passing, you think that we will NOT reach the exact center of the boat at the same time? Before you go into long explanations, just answer this with a Yes or No.

Quote :
In the stopped clock scenario, the light doesn't "push off" of anything, but rather merely leaves at its own speed. So there is a pretty important difference in the two scenarios.

The issue is that according to Relativity, both the observer on the train and the observer at the station, must experience light traveling at c relative to themselves. They must both measure the light as traveling at the exact same speed as the other, "c". And because of that, in the anime, each perspective shows the green photons traveling that the same speed relative to "standing still" in the perspective being seen, c to the station in the station perspective and c to the train in the train perspective. That is fundamental Relativity principle.

2) Do you or do you not think that the clocks, either on the train or at the station or both, shut off?
A) Clocks stop
B) Clocks don't stop
C) Other

The most precise answer would have to be "other". But that is only due to another issue that is not a part of relativity. But in almost all cases, the result would end up as neither clock will stop (assuming extremely accurate clocks). By merely the theory of relativity, the end result is a paradox requiring that both clocks, both stop and also not stop. My effort was to demonstrate that relativity violates definition and logic, "what actually is cannot also be actually what is".

And if one denies logic, then one has denied every argument that would lead to the necessity to deny logic.
You aren't being entirely honest here. You seem unable to answer the simple question. We can obviously reject the conclusion that a clock both stops and do not stop at the same time. And in fact Relativity is not saying that is what would happen. Relativity is saying that the clocks are bound to their own frame of reference, and the causality which leads the clock to stop or not stop is based in that frame (and of course light is unbound to any frame, the same constant within each). The PERSPECTIVE of other possible frames of reference looking at the clock-frame will perhaps observe distortions involving time, speed or distance, but they will not observe an occurrence which never even took place.


1) From the perspective of the station, a) does the station clock stop, and b) does the train clock stop?
2) From the perspective of the train, a) does the station clock stop, and b) does the train clock stop?
3) From another perspective (go ahead and make one up, if you want), a) does the station clock stop, and b) does the train clock stop?


Answer 1, 2 and 3 above, each for a and b, with either Yes or No for each.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Excellent. This should bring some clarity, especially if Pezer and Capable address these paragraphs.

James S Saint wrote:
Top down socialist orders such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Secularism aspire to maintain the social order rather than, and at the expense of, the participants. In my book, that puts them in the "insane" category although not wholeheartedly invalid. That is why the world has gotten suckered into the money game. Money can be easily used to lead people into maintaining the social order at their own expense as everything in their lives is given a dollar value and then taken from them. If they want to live, they literally pay, "the cost/price of living". The emphasis on self sustaining (momentous) harmony throughout improves such aim.
I'm pretty confident we're all on the same page on these issues.

Quote :
But as I was saying, for such things to be addressed and influenced requires a sustainable interest in improving such aim and that requires a maturity in interest or some kind of force (the "gun on the island") or simply being a designer/architect mindset. If one is not inspired to be certainly better than what has always been, then one is going to be no better than what has always been, merely perhaps a little different.
Only from what I have seen, I know that both C and P have dedicated themselves to attaining such a force through VO and related thinking and sustained this dedication over two years. As far as I can be the judge of that, theit dedication and the force at their disposal has only grown stronger over time. Their momentum has grown.

Quote :
Why should Pezer or Capable have any interest in RM? From their perspective, there could be no reason thus attitude rules both mind and heart.
Presumption. It is certainly this, your definitive statements about their will and character, that repels them.

Quote :
To have an interest in RM somewhat requires a serious desire to "go for the gold" in ensuring success and accept nothing less.
That is constantly been on all our minds. Ever since I met them I have seen no wavering in their aspiration and ambition. Even Pezers frequent withdrawing from our discourse is due to his dedication to the gold. So is his returning. He is bringing in new resource, spirit, courage, every time he comes back.

You compared him to a negative element, an electron, a Shiva, a burner. Regardless of my own position on this (I am not in the habit of considering friends judgments about other friends relevant, that would have left me largely friendless) I then wondered why you would see this as a reason to not value him in terms of a project of power, given your very frequent mentioning of the necessity for the negative to the positive.

Quote :
If they had understood the theory of relativity, I could have shown them how the current giant in Science is easily felled.
Apparently, I don't understand it either. This has not stopped me from understanding a great deal about RM.

Quote :
But that would be merely one demonstration of the power involved over extraneous influence from society. But still, first they have to not merely understand Relativity theory, but also have some notion of the need to have any power over that extraneous influence. Most believe that their thoughts are their own and thus don't see anyone spoon feeding them, "programing them".
Yes, well, if you think that Pezer and Capable are lacking here, you are utterly blind in that regard.

Quote :
People are being given their values through a precise process of catharsis and trauma (the peaks of hope and threat)
An important observation. Merits a whole lifetime of authorship. If that were to happen the author would probably be French.

Quote :
preempted by medically induced sensitivity causing presumption, anxiety, boredom, sporadic behavior, fear, blindness, and extremism.
No French territory here - but also important.
However, much of these characteristics, asides perhaps from boredom, are very much human nature.

Boredom is the inability to find value in the world around. This is a phenomenon from before the time of mechanical reproduction. I mean the time that started with the printing press.

Information became cheap. The value of someone providing information was lost. No value in truth - only the most entertaining information felt like the real thing.

Quote :
That issue is why I am interested in VO's precise picture concerning how to treat values; of what are they made, from where do they come, how are they to be understood, and by what means are they to be sorted or changed. The fact that people evaluate their actions based on their values is an obvious given. Without answering those questions, people's values will remain programmed by those who are far more clever.
In order to answer that question, we have to answer first what exactly the valuer is.
The heroin user values heroin, it keeps him self-valuing as a heroin user, it is a consistent loop. You have defined "the one who has interest in RM" in a certain way. But you have not thereby defined the type of man that requires the values you wish to see VO expound.
What kind of human are we talking about? A serious issue - to me, probably the most serious on in this post.
As this is what needs to be defined to make VO "political" on an organizational level.

Quote :
RM:PHT can explain all of that to extreme detail. But only to the right person who happens to already have a set of values that involve the desire to do better than Man ever has before as well as being a little perturbed by the excessive influences keeping him down.
Very many people are perturbed. I don't meet anyone anymore who isn't.
A year ago, maybe half the people I met.
Five years ago, ten percent.
Ten years ago I became aware that the oppression machine was more creative than ever. That it had been fooling me - who has sensed its existence since the very first day I watched television.

Quote :
If he thinks that it is only his own thoughts controlling his life, he has already lost. He must be aware that there really is a very clever adversary and most people subconsciously are. Whether that adversary is a "who" or a "what" is a bit irrelevant. The issue is that it is extremely clever and insidiously influential. Those are prerequisites to finding immediate interest in RM:PHT.

And if you engaged in the desire to fight a familiar foe (as almost everyone has been programmed into), then your values are not really your own. RM:AO is a route for not merely fixing the world's insanity, but your own; The Matrix.
That is precisely what VO does, has done, will continue to do. The question is only if VO can be explained in terms of RM: PHT. As I said above, that depends on whether or not we can define the type of creature we are seeking to enable.

"Human" does not cut 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Yes. Good. And now, let's say from the frame of reference of a fishing boat which the aircraft carrier is passing, you think that we will NOT reach the exact center of the boat at the same time? Before you go into long explanations, just answer this with a Yes or No.
No.
.. I don't think that.

Capable wrote:
You aren't being entirely honest here. You seem unable to answer the simple question.
"YES or NO!. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Despite what they say, logic is trinary, not binary. Every question or statement has one of three conditions;
A) True
B) False
C) Other; irrational, inapplicable (N/A), incomplete.

Honesty often requires NOT answering with A or B. Truth requires the presence of 3 angels;
1) Consistency (Coherency)
2) Completeness (Comprehensiveness)
3) Relevance (Rationality)

Being honest with oneself means that one examines the completeness as well as the other two angels BEFORE he concludes what is or isn't true. And he quite often must conclude, "I can't know... yet".

The one you lack is (2), Completeness. You remind me of Carleas at ILP who insists on seeing only the one thought he once saw to be true and refuses to examine any further to check his tunnel vision, "Look only under the lamp for the dropped coin". When at the station, you seem to be only looking at the station clock and the photons approaching it. But when at the station, you can also see the photons headed toward the train clock. You can't be complete if you leave out the location or state of those photons. You can't conclude truth without completeness, comprehensiveness.

The blind man searches his room for his shoes. He comes out and says that he only has one shoe. The sighted man glances into the room and says, "you have two shoes". The blind man says, "you are being Dishonest with me". So the sighted man says, "Here, let me show you a picture..."


In the case of a visually blind man, "showing a picture" means "guiding his hands". But in your case, it means "guiding your eyes".

You are at the station so watch ALL of the photons (the green) in the Station perspective. You don't care if there is a stop clock on board the train and if I had not mentioned it, you wouldn't be arguing about where the photons meet.

Image

The fact that two of the four photons are inside the walls of the train is irrelevant to their speed. They don't know where they are such as to travel at different speeds just because someone else is also watching them. Look at where they must meet by the stations perspective measurement. The observer at the station sees the two photons in the train meet toward the end of the car, NOT at the centered clock.

You cannot say that those two photons for some magic reason travel at different speeds than the other two. That would be "dishonest". Thus you must conclude that (actually by definition of relative locations) they meet toward the end of the car.

Now what part of that have your eyes not seen?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For fuck's sake, fine, here's some Shiva work:

The reason your stupid fucking clock example doesn't work is that the diagram is in xy dimensions when trains happen to travel, relative to train stations, in xyz dimensions (that we can even fucking notice on our mammalian scale).

Tell me James S Saint, according to your work of mathematical holyness, why do balls get smaller as you throw them away from you?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wow, my optimism is fucking ridiculous and I have no respect for boundaries. I don't apologize.

Pezer wrote:
why do balls get smaller as you throw them away from you?
Yeah, that is what I wanted to say as well. Perspective is the "deformation of true vision", and as difference in terms of distance and angle skew the appearance of an object, apparently, difference in gravity and velocity skew it in other dimensions. That is what concerns Special Relativity. General Relativity talks not just about a perspective "misrepresenting truth", but about actual changes.

(Actual changes due to acceleration, which is increased affeftance-momentum, thus simply "increased being". An accelerating object "is to a greater degree")



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It seems to me that the constancy of the speed of light, which appears to be an ontological constant, thus influencing the validity of any logic based on it (you could say that "c = constant in all reference frames" even trumps "existence=affectance"), makes the type of "completeness" you have in mind impossible, illogical even. Reality doesn't fit in that frame.

Can you even observe that photon in its path? How would that work? With the aid of more photons? It's practically going to be very difficult, I'd think.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Over 100 years ago, Science noted that things get smaller as they approach a strong gravity well, such as a black hole. And the gravity relating to particles and such black holes is formed by such compression of hyper activity as each instance delays the progress of each other.

So the more interesting question is why it is that your balls gets smaller when you get closer to the chaos of the contest and the true gravity of the situation.


Fixed Cross wrote:
It seems to me that the constancy of the speed of light, which appears to be an ontological constant, thus influencing the validity of any logic based on it (you could say that "c = constant in all reference frames" even trumps "existence=affectance"), makes the type of "completeness" you have in mind impossible, illogical even. Reality doesn't fit in that frame.

Can you even observe that photon in its path? How would that work? With the aid of more photons? It's practically going to be very difficult, I'd think.
You seem to be slipping back into the mindset that forbids the fallibility of perception. There are two things being called "constancy of the speed of light". First light logically must always have the exact same speed "in a vacuum" (assuming an imaginary absolute vacuum). But in any real space, the speed of light varies with the affectance field density (gravity and EM).

The other constancy of the speed of light is the theory that the speed of light will be seen as exactly the same by all observers. That was in fact a desperate reach for something absolute to hang the new god of physic's hat upon. The problem is that perception is in the way of every observation. And perception is very fallible. That is why cognition forms in the mind, so as to correct for perception errors (and why you have two eyes, two ears, and two brains).

The truth of it is that the perception of light being constant is a slight error. It, like so many desperate attempts to grasp the perfect theory, is only "almost true", just as was the flat Earth theory. Theories that require the abandonment of logic for sake of the absoluteness of perception theories is what brings the diversity of religions and their egocentric warring and insistence on dominating all else.

Truth is always beyond perception.

And perception can never "trump" ontological definition, fore perception entirely depends upon it. Without affect, what do you image would be perceived?




And we always detect photons by their interaction with some form of a "detector" (which is what defines their "location"), such as your eyes - merely another detector). Imagine placing photon detectors in a grid all around the station. Do you seriously believe that they would show the two photons above (perhaps a flatbed) train car coming together where the train clock is "going to be" rather than directly in front of the station clock? How would they know where the train clock is "going to be"? What if there was no train clock? Do photons behave differently if someone is watching?

The theory of relativity yields the requirement that the dark side of the Moon only exists when "we" can observe it. It is a broken ontology. And that little anime shows why. The cause of the break is that it was merely desperately presumed that all observers would always perceive the speed of light as a constant, so as to claim an absolute truth upon which to base the new "god of Man" ontology called "Secular Science".

RM:AO forbids presumption and as far as I can tell from viewing the considerable list of Man's prior ontologies, it is the only one that truly holds to;
1) Consistency
2) Comprehensiveness
3) Relevance

"Truth" cannot be known without ALL three of those. Mere perception doesn't cut it and can only claim one of the three. Relativity is the effort to make a God out of perception. It is a false god, perhaps the original false god from which Man has been misled throughout his entire history.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is no light in a vacuum, or any vacuum, for light is the affect of matter and energy.

Your clevernesses (or not so clever... Do you think nobody saw the connection between ball and balls before you so grotesquely dove for it?) answer nothing.

xy and xyz James.


"The theory of relativity yields the requirement that the dark side of the Moon only exists when "we" can observe it. It is a broken ontology."

All three of us talking with you have established, in separate ways, this to be simply a sophist missunderstanding of relativity. Can you deal with that? Can you even take your imagination from a diagram to what a train moving past a station would actually feel and look like from inside the train, or from a train station looking at it?

By GOD have you trapped yourself in your own two dimensional models?!?!?!?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:

You seem to be slipping back into the mindset that forbids the fallibility of perception. There are two things being called "constancy of the speed of light". First light logically must always have the exact same speed "in a vacuum" (assuming an imaginary absolute vacuum). But in any real space, the speed of light varies with the affectance field density (gravity and EM).
Yet wherever, it will always be the absolute maximum, right? "speed" is relative in itself. "meter" and "second" alter in different EM/Gravity densities.

Quote :
The other constancy of the speed of light is the theory that the speed of light will be seen as exactly the same by all observers. That was in fact a desperate reach for something absolute to hang the new god of physic's hat upon. The problem is that perception is in the way of every observation. And perception is very fallible. That is why cognition forms in the mind, so as to correct for perception errors (and why you have two eyes, two ears, and two brains).
And in my understanding the Lorenz transforms are exactly that - an extension of cognition - an extra faculty of correction of perception, to compensate for our minds not having evolved to interpret correctly at relativity-level speeds and densities.

Quote :
The truth of it is that the perception of light being constant is a slight error. It, like so many desperate attempts to grasp the perfect theory, is only "almost true", just as was the flat Earth theory. Theories that require the abandonment of logic for sake of the absoluteness of perception theories is what brings the diversity of religions and their egocentric warring and insistence on dominating all else.

Truth is always beyond perception.
We all agree there. This has been the central tenet of philosophy since time immemorial.

Quote :
And perception can never "trump" ontological definition, fore perception entirely depends upon it. Without affect, what do you image would be perceived?
I did not mean the perception of the speed of light.
Only if you define light as affect does affect trump light. But I've always had a slight problem with this, as I suspect that light can exist without affecting anything (except itself).

It is this, unaffecting i.e. "boundless" light, what the ancients referred to as the truly pure God.

Affect came into being, according to them, when the boundless got entangled in itself, and created a center of affect. (the first cause, from which the division of force and form, and consequently, manifestation follows).

Quote :
And we always detect photons by their interaction with some form of a "detector" (which is what defines their "location"), such as your eyes - merely another detector). Imagine placing photon detectors in a grid all around the station. Do you seriously believe that they would show the two photons above (perhaps a flatbed) train car coming together where the train clock is "going to be" rather than directly in front of the station clock? How would they know where the train clock is "going to be"? What if there was no train clock? Do photons behave differently if someone is watching?
What I'm asking is how do you detect a photon while it is in motion.
My eyes detect a photon as the photon hits my eyes and thus ceases to travel at c.

Quote :
The theory of relativity yields the requirement that the dark side of the Moon only exists when "we" can observe it. It is a broken ontology. And that little anime shows why. The cause of the break is that it was merely desperately presumed that all observers would always perceive the speed of light as a constant, so as to claim an absolute truth upon which to base the new "god of Man" ontology called "Secular Science".
I find it hard to believe that you really think this. It says that we can only measure it precisely when know our motion and gravitational state in respect to it as well.

Quote :
RM:AO forbids presumption and as far as I can tell from viewing the considerable list of Man's prior ontologies, it is the only one that truly holds to;
1) Consistency
2) Comprehensiveness
3) Relevance

"Truth" cannot be known without ALL three of those. Mere perception doesn't cut it and can only claim one of the three. Relativity is the effort to make a God out of perception. It is a false god, perhaps the original false god from which Man has been misled throughout his entire history.
It seems to me that RM does not tolerate that it is itself a perspective.
Yet if it weren't, we wouldn't find ourselves in this situation.



___________
" 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
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James, I understand your view on the situation of the clocks. You do not need to keep reiterating the same situation repeatedly, that must be tedious for you (and for us). Let me demonstrate my knowledge of your view: In your view the clocks cannot be said to shut off because each clock is moving out of center-position between the photons, and this is occurring between the moment the photons start and the moment they reach the center. Therefore the clocks cannot be said to shut off. But of course they CAN be said to shut off from their own perspective, as obviously the clocks are stationary with respect to themselves. Therefore, since Relativity posits that movement is relative, Relativity cannot explain if the clocks shut off as it produces the seeming contradiction that the clocks both shut off and do not shut off.

So lets look at this like philosophers, because this perspective of science without philosophy is creating confusion.

We know the clocks stop because the clock is stationary (with respect to itself), and two photons traveling the same speed move toward the stationary clock from equidistant locations. If you actually performed this scenario, the clocks shut off. The "problem" comes in because another, non-clock perspective is moving (relative to the clock) and thus observes the clock moving out of the center location between the photons.

In order to calculate what an observer at another moving reference frame sees, we could do Lorentz calculations. But the question is not what an observer on another moving reference frame SEES, but what actually HAPPENS. We know with certainty that the clocks shut off, because relative to the clocks each themselves they are exactly in the center of the photons. Adding another moving perspective that has no actual causal influence into the photons or clocks (and remember, a frame with constant velocity is the same as being stationary, with respect to whatever is going on in it) can in no way alter what is happening to the clocks.

So the real question is: how to account for the fact that the additional moving frame observes the context-independent photons NOT meeting at the clock yet the clock, as we've already established, actually does shut off? This can be explained by thinking about what velocity means. Velocity is change in distance over change in time, as I'm sure you know. V=d/t. You absolutely cannot speak about velocity without speaking both about time and distance quantities.

So when we say that light travels at a constant velocity what we are saying is that a certain distance is being covered in a particular quantity of time. Now think about the clocks situation: we already KNOW that the clocks shut off because they are stationary in the center where the photons meet. So how does another moving perspective measure the light? This is key: it measures the exact same value of velocity but with slightly varied distance and time units. From a perspective from which the other clock is moving out of center, because that other frame is actually MOVING along with the light, the light is not covering the same amount of distance, it is covering either more or less.

Think about it as the reality itself is shifting slightly with respect to the photons, from the perspective of an additional third-party frame of reference. Because of this and because c is constant, a different amount of distance is being covered by the light, from the perspective of the third-party. This is how time dilation is arrived at, because V is concerned for c therefore if you alter d you must also alter t in an equal amount, so that V does not change. If c is constant in the other frame, and distances are being observed differently with respect to c's movement them the t value also changes. In plain English this means that the photon is measured to be covering either more distance in more time, or less distance in less time, all so that the total value of V remains unchanged at c. This is how time dilation is arrived at, as a relative change in the time-experiences (units of measurements of changes) between two perspectives moving at different velocities.

The other-frame observer will measure the light at c from his own perspective, but also see the light covering either more or less distance in the other moving frame, because it is moving relative to the observer (but not relative to the light itself). Relative to light, all frames move at an equal velocity of c.

How to calculate the discrepancy of light at c covering more distance or time relative to another moving frame from which these distances and times ae slightly skewed? Einstein's equations give the means to do this. The observed discrepancy in c as d/t in a moving, skewed other frame is a matter of measurement, but the fact remains that from every frame perspective the clocks do I'm fact shut off, even if relative to another non-clock moving frame this is not able to be accounted for with simple measurement.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:12 pm

Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course I would like your response to this, but additionally can we please move on with RM? We can approach RM both from the clocks situation as well as from your "ground up" explication, doing both may prove especially fruitful. I've agreed with P4 and C2, so please continue.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
James, I understand your view on the situation of the clocks. You do not need to keep reiterating the same situation repeatedly, that must be tedious for you (and for us). Let me demonstrate my knowledge of your view: In your view the clocks cannot be said to shut off because each clock is moving out of center-position between the photons, and this is occurring between the moment the photons start and the moment they reach the center. Therefore the clocks cannot be said to shut off. But of course they CAN be said to shut off from their own perspective, as obviously the clocks are stationary with respect to themselves. Therefore, since Relativity posits that movement is relative, Relativity cannot explain if the clocks shut off as it produces the seeming contradiction that the clocks both shut off and do not shut off.
All that you confirmed with that is that you fail to understand Relativity or the problem involved. And you failed to explain that last anime as well. Why are you ignoring that anime?

Capable wrote:
So lets look at this like philosophers, because this perspective of science without philosophy is creating confusion.

We know the clocks stop because the clock is stationary (with respect to itself), and two photons traveling the same speed move toward the stationary clock from equidistant locations.
That is called "affirming the consequent" in "philosophy". You do not know that they stop. You have already falsely presumed. And, although I haven't gone into why, they actually don't stop, neither one of them.


Capable wrote:
If you actually performed this scenario, the clocks shut off.
The experiment could actually be done with sufficient accuracy today (unlike when relativity was conceived). And if it was done on Earth, the clocks would not stop.


Capable wrote:
The "problem" comes in because another, non-clock perspective is moving (relative to the clock) and thus observes the clock moving out of the center location between the photons.
No. Each clock perspective observes the other clock moving out from center. There is no non-clock perspective other than me putting both animation in one just so you I didn't have to make two of them.

Capable wrote:
In order to calculate what an observer at another moving reference frame sees, we could do Lorentz calculations. But the question is not what an observer on another moving reference frame SEES, but what actually HAPPENS.
The question is what he would predict would happen using relativity theory when there was no clock on the relatively-moving other perspective.

Capable wrote:
We know with certainty that the clocks shut off, because relative to the clocks each themselves they are exactly in the center of the photons.
If they were to measure the distances with supreme accuracy on Earth, neither clock would stop. You are falsely presuming a premise that forces you to ignore half of your situation in order to try to make sense of the theory (that you have also merely presumed to be right).

Even Einstein said that he couldn't get to all work out.
I just happen to know something that he didn't back then.

But never mind. As I said it is pointless to debate a theory when either of the opponents doesn't actually understand the theory.


Last edited by James S Saint on Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I guess I should have expected as much. Or rather, as little.



Apparently we're done here.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 05, 2013 6:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It seems that there is only one possible resolution left: both clocks stop, but the photons would appear to have different speeds.

I hope I can be at least partially sensible --- the problem with measuring light scientifically is that you have to have a direct perspective to it. It always arrives precisely with the speed of light as seen from the reference frame of where it strikes. That does not mean that it arrives with that speed as deduced from a holistic perspective, wherein that reference frame is reduced to a function of a greater perspective.

In the type of meta-perspective that would represent all perspectives including the space-time dilation that relates them, the speed of light would vary.



___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It seems to me that light is some kind of affect ripped straight from the particles through which it moves. Thus, its speed would be determined by the affective potential of the medium. If matter can only increase as it reaches c and energy become matter, light cannot be matter, but varying its speed depending on substance must also be linked to it somehow. I propose that light is born every time a new electron is involved as a domino effect chain affect.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
IIn this sense it would be a simple communication between adjoining particles through as many space-times as are linked.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If anything, this thread demonstrates what happens when scientists try to philosophize.


James, if you cannot demonstrate how my assessment of the situation is incorrect, then you are either being dishonest, or are incorrect yourself. I don't even see ego here, this is an issue of adequacy.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"If anything, this thread demonstrates what happens when scientists try to philosophize."

It really seems that way. Fuck.
Yesterday I was happy with the result, as it seems conclusive, but I am not happy if RM is invalidated. It seems to hold so much potential.

The only hope I have is that somehow the meta-perspective angle sustained by mathematics of infinitesimals yields some kind of "objective distance" that trumps the constancy of the speed of light - but well, we're not exactly close to establishing that.

Light to me is not a derivative of substance, but the ground of it.
Light itself is, as Abstract once noted, self-valuing in two dimensions.

Matter, as Farsight on ILP has showed me, can be seen as entangled light (as when an electron is annihilated, light results).



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Weirdly, three-dimensionality itself is not a given in relativity if we are purely concerned with 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Here's what Farsight wrote in "What exactly is "spin"?"

----------

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics) which describes spin as "a fundamental characteristic property of elementary particles" and doesn't really get to the bottom of it. To understand what exactly it is, you need to pull back to the photon and the electromagnetic field, and check out pair production and annihilation to understand the electron. There are bona-fide peer-reviews papers on this, like http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596 and http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265, but they haven't hit the popular media yet. What they're saying is that spin is a real rotation. It has to be, the electron really does have angular momentum.

In a nutshell you take a tip from LIGO, which is searching for gravity waves. These are expected to change the length of the arms of the interferometer. Then you say to yourself that a gravity wave is a wave of "spacewarp", and treat the photon as something similar. It's an electromagnetic wave in space, but what exactly is "waving"? There's only space there, so you have to look past the electromagnetic field and say "space". That means the photon is a wave of spacewarp too. It normally travels laterally at c, but pair production converts a +1022keV photon into an electron and a positron. These aren't travelling laterally at c, but they have opposite spin, so it is rather like the two opposite eddies that TheStumps mentioned. The spacewarp isn't travelling laterally at c any more, because it travels through itself. It's travelling through warped space, so it doesn't travel in a straight line. Instead it goes round and round.

However when you look into the mathematical details of this, (see http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw) you find that rotation has to be in two dimensions. The best way to think of it is like the rotation of a steering wheel coupled to the rotation of a smoke ring. With this double rotation, you can no longer define which direction the spin is going. To understand this, think of ordinary spin as flying around the equator. It's a nice tidy circle with a nice tidy orientation, and you can adjust your flight path to fly from pole to pole. That's another nice tidy circle with a nice tidy orientation. But if you're continually adjusting your flight path so that you fly around the earth in a figure-of-eight motion, what direction are you flying in? You can't really say, because it keeps changing, and for the same reason you can't really assign a direction to electron spin. However if you flew backwards in the figure-of-eight loop, there is a clear difference. This is why we can distinguish electron spin and positron spin. Here's a depiction to give you an idea. The dark black line is the figure-of-eight loop, rearranged a little to map out a toroid rather than a sphere:



As for what's spinning, the electron is made via pair production. You start with light. You can then destroy the electron via annihilation, and the result is light. Basically what's spinning, is light. It's all spelled out in layman's terms in http://www.amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-Theo ... 0956097804. Even a child can understand it.

---- (from what exactly is "spin"?)

Jakob wrote:
Is it correct to say that light is made into an electron through the mechanism of spin? That's what I get out of this at first glance. That light is trapped into a self referring path, by splitting in two and revolving around itself, so to speak. Confining it to a more or less set location, making it into something resembling a particle, by inter-inter-interference.
Pretty much. The mechanism of spin is geometrical. The photon is a transient alteration to the geometry of space, so when it travels through itself it doesn't travel in a straight line. Get the wavelength right and make it travel entirely through itself, and it's trapped in a curved path. Then it's an electron with spin and angular momentum, and of course mass and charge. Annihilate an electron by chucking a positron at it, and all you get out is two 511keV photons. You don't get anything else. So whilst an electron doesn't look like light, light is only thing that's there.

The geometry here goes all the way back to Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force where he talks about a screw mechanism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... df&page=53. You can also find a reference to this in Minkowski's wrench analogy about two pages from the end of Space and Time. The electric field is a "twist field" and the magnetic field is a "turn field" view of the selfsame thing when you move through it. Sounds odd, but the right-hand-rule works rather like shoving a drill bit up into your right fist. It's got a twist to it, so it turns:



Unfortunately Heaviside reworked Maxwell's equations and changed them from quarternion to vector form. This reduced the emphasis on rotation and describes "what it does" rather than "what it is". It's important to appreciate that the electric field is not something separate to the magnetic field, they're just two different ways of experiencing the electromagnetic field, (see Jefimenko's equations) and it really is a spatial distortion. Hence the electromagnetic field-variation of a photon is a distortion too. The sine wave traces out a slope, which means the photon is more like a lemon-like pulse. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596 and it's the "enveloping shape" of figure 2.

Jakob wrote:
I read that quarks consist of some kind of color shifting. Is that comparable in any way with the light trapped in an electron? I mean in the sense of being trapped my some mechanism, and by collision released?
No, it's something different. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge and note that it says The "color" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to visual perception of color. Rather, it is a whimsical name for a property that has almost no manifestation at distances above the size of an atomic nucleus. But protons and their constituent quarks are comparable with the light trapped in an electron. Check out proton/antiproton annihilation, and the end product is light. You'll see mention of say neutral pions, but they only last for ten to the minus sixteen seconds before turning into into two gamma photons. Hyperphysics is quite a good website for reading up on this sort of thing, see for example http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HB ... adron.html.

Mr Anderson: the electron is quite literally made from light via pair production. It really is. Annihilate it, and the result is light. So whilst you don't currently read that it's made of "trapped light" in textbooks or on the internet, I'm confident that one day you will. You have to look to the scientific evidence. And when you look at proton/antiproton annihilation, you can say the same for the proton. I mean, it's hardly made of cheese, now is it? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(cheese) .

Jakob wrote:
From the perspective of matter=light+mechanism, the quark seems to be part of the mechanism by which substance is kept together - by which light is trapped. It is not retrieved, only perceived, right? I mean it can't be distilled, so to speak, from the nucleus, or can it? How can they even observe a quark, now that I really think about it?
Quarks are observed by scattering experiments. There's definitely three parts to a proton, see http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/41014. People talk about gluons keeping quarks together. Gluons are the QCD equivalent of the virtual photons in QED which are said to keep the electron and the proton together in a hydrogen atom. There's a lot of people now talking about the evanescent wave as the physical thing underlying virtual photons, search google for details. The point is that the evanescent wave is light, light is essentially a wave of space in space, and at the subatomic level there isn't really any substance. When you break a proton you don't get three quarks flying out along with a host of gluons. See what I said earlier re pions and neutrinos, but in essence what you get is light.[/quote]



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:52 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I consider this relevant to this thread, not only because it is very relevant to physics and relativity, but because James and Farsight got a long well, and agreed on many accounts. Though I can't remember Farsight actually endorsing RM to a very steep degree (he would not have since he does works well within the context set by Einstein), they seemed to agree on the type of mechanics that keep matter into being.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The scenario still puzzles me.

Quote :
The observer at the station sees the two photons in the train meet toward the end of the car, NOT at the centered clock.
Could it be that the photons are observed to converge to the end of the car, and yet the clock still shuts off?

Or, and this I can not verify as we don't have the parameters and I can't do the math, perhaps the speed of the car must be so great for these differences to be observed at all, that the car appears to be so compressed that the location at which the photons converge is virtually identical to the clocks position.

Probably that's not true but still, it brings up the question: in what way do objects appear to compress? Does what appears as the center from a different reference frame reflect the real, local center?



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The scenario still puzzles me.

JSS wrote:
The observer at the station sees the two photons in the train meet toward the end of the car, NOT at the centered clock.
Could it be that the photons are observed to converge to the end of the car, and yet the clock still shuts off?
Only if there is something else shutting them off. By definition, the photons on the train can only be in one location at any given moment. But the first issue isn't really whether the train clock stops but whether the station observer has any reason to believe that it would based upon what he actually observes, not some theory handed to him. He "sees" (even can calculate) that the train photons have no choice but to meet only near the end of the train.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Or, and this I can not verify as we don't have the parameters and I can't do the math, perhaps the speed of the car must be so great for these differences to be observed at all, that the car appears to be so compressed that the location at which the photons converge is virtually identical to the clocks position.
What the math will yield if that if the train were going at 0.5c, its length would only contract by 0.866. So that's about 86% of its non-moving length, not that much change. And realize that the theory must be correct and valid for ALL speeds. The anime points out that it doesn't really matter what speed the train is moving at because the clock is always moving out from center.


Fixed Cross wrote:
Does what appears as the center from a different reference frame reflect the real, local center?
Good question to ask, but in fact, no it doesn't. By definition of the scenario, the clocks are "aligned". Or they could be actually physically touching, yielding no definitional choice but for them to be aligned.

But let me explain this thing in a "composite form";

Forget the train for a moment just to get your bearings. No matter where you are standing, assuming nothing to be moving, can you agree with the following;



Do you agree that in such a situation, both clocks would stop?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Something that you might not have realized;

There is;
A) Galilean/Newtonian Constant Time
B) Lorentz/Einstein Relative Time
C) Corrected Lorentz Relative Time
D) Absolute Time.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:13 pm

Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
By definition, the photons on the train can only be in one location at any given moment.
By which definition? I mean is a photon actually sufficiently defined? It now seems to me that if the speed of light is absolute, photons are perhaps not really entities, but rather the points of contact of some kind of 'grid', where the 'lines' are drawn between different reference frames. I know this probably makes little sense to you, I have trouble formulating.

Quote :
But the first issue isn't really whether the train clock stops but whether the station observer has any reason to believe that it would based upon what he actually observes,
Yes, that is clearly the issue of the second animation.

Quote :
not some theory handed to him. He "sees" (even can calculate) that the train photons have no choice but to meet only near the end of the train.

And realize that the theory must be correct and valid for ALL speeds. The anime points out that it doesn't really matter what speed the train is moving at because the clock is always moving out from center.
If indeed these photons are measured as departing from the stations reference frame.

Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:
Does what appears as the center from a different reference frame reflect the real, local center?
Good question to ask, but in fact, no it doesn't. By definition of the scenario, the clocks are "aligned". Or they could be actually physically touching, yielding no definitional choice but for them to be aligned.

But let me explain this thing in a "composite form";

Forget the train for a moment just to get your bearings. No matter where you are standing, assuming nothing to be moving, can you agree with the following;



Do you agree that in such a situation, both clocks would stop?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?
Agree.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
By definition, the photons on the train can only be in one location at any given moment.
By which definition? I mean is a photon actually sufficiently defined? It now seems to me that if the speed of light is absolute, photons are perhaps not really entities, but rather the points of contact of some kind of 'grid', where the 'lines' are drawn between different reference frames. I know this probably makes little sense to you, I have trouble formulating.
The most common ontology in this case is the correct one. Once something is declared a physical entity, it inherits a location automatically. The universe is made of locations and entities occupying those locations. A location might be spread out and a variety of conventions are used to declare a specific "location"; "base, "center of mass", geometric center... That is not to say that a location must be a point. A location can be a volume such as the location of the atmosphere of Earth. And anything declared to have a speed inherently has a changing location, by the definition of "speed".

In addition, again by definition, all photons (or waves in this anime) are identical in everything other than their location and direction of travel. But still, being the same kind of entity, if one has location, all others must as well, merely different locations, else it wouldn't be a "photon" or "light wave".

Fixed Cross wrote:
If indeed these photons are measured as departing from the stations reference frame.
They can't be "light" if they are not moving relative to all frames of reference. Relativity states that not only are they always moving, but will always be measured to be moving by any observer at the same speed, regardless of the speed of the observer. That is the issue that we are addressing.

Right now we only have one frame, so the consistency of measurements between alternate frames isn't relevant yet.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Agree.
Okay, next part of the composite (a little at a time verifying each small portion);



Now let's say that rather than having two stop-clocks aligned, we only have one clock fixed and centered between the flashers, but someone happens to throw an identical stop-clock past the station such that at the very moment the photons were meeting in front of the centered clock, the tossed clock was also passing that point. It doesn't matter in which direction the clock was tossed. It could have been dropped downward, or tossed at an angle. The point is that the tossed clock, although moving, just happened to inadvertently cross the alignment point at the same moment the light waves (or photons) were meeting at the same point.



Given the declared scenario, would that tossed clock necessarily stop?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Agree.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Agree.
Great.

Now something to realize concerning this scenario (and why it relates to RM) is that so far, nothing has been a matter of observation, but rather of Definition.

The clocks are defined to be clocks that only stop if simultaneously encountering photons, "light pulses" from both sides. The distances are defined to be exactly equal with the clock centered. The flashers are defined as flashers that flash simultaneously. And light is defined to propagate at one constant speed (by the theory involved). So far, observation only plays a role in verifying that things really are as they have been defined to be in the situation Before the experiment begins. And thus far, you are definitionally locked into the conclusions. So far, there has been no alternative.

So let's continue.

Let's say that whoever tossed that clock thought that it was interesting that it happened to have stopped, so he tried it again. But his timing was mere accident and this time when he tosses the clock, he happens to toss it a little early. The clock passes by the alignment point before the light gets to it.



Now according to our definitions and the current scenario description, the tossed clock is NOT at the alignment point when the photons meet.

Do you agree that the tossed clock necessarily will not stop under such circumstances?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Agree.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Agree.
Now, the next component is actually merely a corollary to a prior premise, but I want to bring it into the light as well.

Due to the premise that light travels at a fixed speed, it must be independent of its source. No matter how fast a flashlight might be traveling, when the light emits from it, the light must be traveling at its own speed, independent of the speed of the flashlight. This notion is also a part of the relativity theory.

So if we had two flashers as before and also had two more flashers that were at that same 2Xs distance apart but were traveling past the first set and happened to flash at the exact same moment of the first two, the light emitted by both sets of flashers would behave identically and both meet along that same alignment point as before.



Can you agree that the motion of the flashers is irrelevant as long as they flash together at distance 2Xs centered around the alignment point?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Not it gets complicated, as the reference frame begins to matter. From the perspective of the right moving flasher, for example, the diagram is incorrect. So we have to establish from where we are observing this situation before I can answer.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Not it gets complicated, as the reference frame begins to matter. From the perspective of the right moving flasher, for example, the diagram is incorrect. So we have to establish from where we are observing this situation before I can answer.
Your perspective is your perspective. And you are the one "standing still", the picture frame or "station". We are only talking about that one perspective. If someone else has a different perspective, do you change yours? Doesn't that seem a bit too submissive and slavish?

A photon cannot look around to see who is moving and then decide where to be based upon that. When the tossed clock was passing by, the photons didn't think, "Hey look, there is a moving clock. We better change our position! Slow down!!"

And if they didn't decide on their position and speed based upon the motion of the tossed clock, why would they change it based upon the flashers moving? By definition, they travel at one speed relative to ANYone watching. You are currently in one frame. With respect to that one frame, every photon must travel at one particular speed, "c", regardless of anything else going on.

The relativity rule is not, "The speed of light with respect to one frame depends upon what other frames might be doing or seeing." The rule is that the speed, and thus location at any one moment, is entirely and always constant.

The question is asking what the stationary frame, the "inertial frame", would experience. The rule in question at the moment is whether the motion of the source of the light has any affect upon the speed of the light. Relativity states that it doesn't.

So it is Relativity that is saying that the light will behave identically whether the flashers are moving or not. All I am asking is whether you agree with the premise called "the constancy of the speed of light" and its corollary, "the speed of light is independent of its source's motion".

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hey, I only asked a question that's absolutely essential to know the answer to before I can answer the question you're asking. Since we're insisting on total clarity, that should be appreciated.

So yes, if the reference frame is the top down reference frame from which the picture is drawn then the answer is

A) Agree.

Quote :
The rule in question at the moment is whether the motion of the source of the light has any affect upon the speed of the light. Relativity states that it doesn't.
Keep in mind that this means that the light seen from the moving flasher is seen to move at c as 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Hey, I only asked a question that's absolutely essential to know the answer to before I can answer the question you're asking. Since we're insisting on total clarity, that should be appreciated.

So yes, if the reference frame is the top down reference frame from which the picture is drawn then the answer is

A) Agree.
In each of these, your frame is the picture frame. If something is shown as moving, then to you, it is moving regardless of what some other frame might perceive.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
The rule in question at the moment is whether the motion of the source of the light has any affect upon the speed of the light. Relativity states that it doesn't.
Keep in mind that this means that the light seen from the moving flasher is seen to move at c as well.
That will become very relevant a little later. But right now, we have to comprehensively examine everything going on in one frame perspective at a time and get agreement. And I am starting with the "station frame". Later we will get to the "train frame". I will get back to that later this evening, got "errands to run".
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ok, good.



___________
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:17 pm

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Something to realize and keep in mind is that in these animes, the light (green) must always move at one particular speed, "c", throughout and regardless of anything else going on. The picture frame is your frame of reference. Anything that is not moving in the picture is apart of that same frame of reference.

What is critically important is that the light cannot maintain the same constant speed if it were dependent upon the speed of its source. Relativity requires that the light always propagate at exactly "c" regardless of any source motion or any other motion.

We have agreed on 4 concerns regarding when a stop clock will stop. Now I am going to combine our last agreement with the prior 3.

The 4th agreement was that in the following scenario, the light behaves the same regardless of the motion of the flashers just as is required by the theory.

Image

So now combining that concept with the scenario of two fixed, non-moving clocks (I wish that I knew how to get them to all start together);

ImageImage

And if one of the clocks happens to cross the alignment point at the exact same moment the photons were meeting there;

ImageImage

And then if the clock wasn't centered when the photons met at the alignment point;

ImageImage

We have examined one perspective, the "stations". We have followed and accepted the theory of relativity and its corollaries. The obvious conclusion from the last anime is that if the moving clock is not exactly centered when the light reaches the center, the moving clock will not stop. And I am pretty certain that I don't have to draw in the train and station for you to see the inference.

I suspect at this point that you might be feeling the urge to argue against our 4th agreement. But that 4th agreement is a part of the theory itself.

A thought that might occur to you is that the light is not moving away from the flashers and clock at "c". And think about that for a minute. If there is anything that absolutely must always travel at one speed, everything else that is moving cannot be moving away from (or toward) that one thing at the same speed as everything else. If there were 10 items moving at different speeds, each would have to be moving relative to the light at different speeds from the others.


So can you now agree that according to the station perspective, the train clock cannot stop?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?


Last edited by James S Saint on Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:35 am; edited 2 times in total
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:18 pm

Author Message
Wizard



Posts : 8
Join date : 2014-01-20


PostSubject: The Argument Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Argument

A proper philosopher must arm himself with the ability to argue. But first you must understand the essence of the argument. Arguments are held within reason and culture. You cannot reason with an animal; you cannot reason with an emotionally triggered manimal (human animal). Thus you must treat an emotionally evoked human as-if he is an animal. Because there is no difference between this human, and a dog, or a bird, a fish, a worm, etc. At least two parties must hold their emotions (animal nature) in-check, in order to engage and hold an argument. An argument is similar to a chess match. There are social rules. These generally are agreed-upon before the dispute. There is a priori mutual understanding.

This is known as a logical premise.

Humans presume things about the world: truths, truisms, axioms, physical theories, facts, objective history, meta-narrative, etc. Premises arise from these (already presumed) beliefs. These beliefs arise from values. These values ultimately root into blood & genes. Perhaps they cannot become changed. But they will become unveiled and exposed upon the beginning of any argument (debate). Because everybody has premises :as they have values.

A premise is a value.

Values represent unchanging, natural, instinctive, genetic, biology.

If both participants of an argument set their premises and begin their debate :then a 'successful' debate will maintain a low level of emotions between the two participants. But there immediately is another factor to consider. The two must share a culture (a language). Language is the second aspect of argument. (Lack of) Emotion is the first aspect of argument. The lack of emotion is called: Reason. And reason is the primary utility of philosophy. Language creates the foundation for reason and logic. We speak the same language (English in our Anglican age, our culture, our time); but language can change and evolve over time. You can learn two or more languages. A diversity of languages leads to cultural diversification.

Because language binds some people together or excludes and sets other people apart.

The premises are the values; the values are the chess pieces.

The language is the foundation; the foundation is the chess board.

The argument is the battle.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22


PostSubject: Re: The Argument Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Do you suggest your argument as to why you would not want me to rape your sister, would not contain emotion?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Wizard



Posts : 8
Join date : 2014-01-20


PostSubject: Re: The Argument Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That type of argument would contain as much emotion, if not more than a similar argument, as to how to torture to death anybody who tried.

Death threats obviously are one of the most primal forms of "arguments" which will provoke emotions, namely, the survival instincts. Such "debates" will rarely or never avoid emotion at some level. Because organisms act out of self preservation. This also leads to the point that proper philosophers are far above mere-survival. Philosophy is the primary art of existence. Therefore it is the most prestigious action: to think. Most philosophers will not be put into positions where their own lives, or loved ones, are put into danger, as you suggest.

That is more the realm of fools, to immediately interlude suggestions of personal attacks.

It ultimately is an Ad Hominid Fallacy, an attack of the person rather than an engagement of ideas.


So you essentially propose arguing on behalf of the ad hominid fallacy (personal attack).

Any proper philosopher easily can dispatch a fallacious argument; because we have superior reason.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: The Argument Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
His question is entirely valid, and not in any way an ad hominem tactic nor defending or advocating any such thing.

You started to answer the question, and then… oops. I would give you a modicum of credit, however, for even that small attempt. I'm sure you will do better next time.

But then again, your time is up, so.. thanks for playing.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22


PostSubject: Re: The Argument Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wizard wrote:
That type of argument would contain as much emotion, if not more than a similar argument, as to how to torture to death anybody who tried.

Death threats obviously are one of the most primal forms of "arguments" which will provoke emotions, namely, the survival instincts. Such "debates" will rarely or never avoid emotion at some level. Because organisms act out of self preservation. This also leads to the point that proper philosophers are far above mere-survival. Philosophy is the primary art of existence. Therefore it is the most prestigious action: to think. Most philosophers will not be put into positions where their own lives, or loved ones, are put into danger, as you suggest.

That is more the realm of fools, to immediately interlude suggestions of personal attacks.

It ultimately is an Ad Hominid Fallacy, an attack of the person rather than an engagement of ideas.


So you essentially propose arguing on behalf of the ad hominid fallacy (personal attack).

Any proper philosopher easily can dispatch a fallacious argument; because we have superior reason.

Yes it was only the first example I thought of where emotion could be the basis or at least included, perhaps heavily in argument. What other reason from your perspective would there be to prove to my why I shouldnt do such a thing besides "I really dont want you to" and/or "I REALLY DONT WANT YOU TO, Dont!!". Me responding at all was more my intrigue in the existence of emotion, and how it may be intimately attached to some point of view.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:18 pm

How value connects to power View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: How value connects to power Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To value empowers.
That which is power is valued.
To value one must self-value.

So we have
self-valuing
valuing
otherness
power

Power is the quantization of otherness.
Selfvaluing is the qualification of 'ness itself.

And thus valuing, as an intermediary, is both quantative and qualitative. It places the quality in context so that it becomes a quantity.





___________
" 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
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: How value connects to power Thu May 01, 2014 12:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This points also toward that fascinating aspect of truth and of language successfully embodying truth, written from a position of strength and distance: it will, seemingly counter-intuitively, not produce a single perspective but instead produces many different perspectives, even ones in opposition to each other (across various mediating tectonic planes).

Truth is less reality than value. This is because value can be used as a substitute for reality itself. There is no "one reality" except that conflux wills to power of spheres of self-valuings' potentials.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: How value connects to power Sun May 11, 2014 7:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
This points also toward that fascinating aspect of truth and of language successfully embodying truth, written from a position of strength and distance: it will, seemingly counter-intuitively, not produce a single perspective but instead produces many different perspectives, even ones in opposition to each other (across various mediating tectonic planes).

I believe this is true - whenever we make a statement a kind of nexus is created where different perspectives can make a claim, all interpreting it in terms of themselves, all thus bending this truth in all sorts of different directions even just for it to apply to anything at all.

Language is thus fundamentally divisive, and unification within language is the near-impossible task of philosophy.

Quote :
Truth is less reality than value. This is because value can be used as a substitute for reality itself. There is no "one reality" except that conflux wills to power of spheres of self-valuings' potentials.

Indeed. In a purely ontological framework, there isn't even such a thing as falsity, so neither is there any truth. Truth is only valid in a statement or a thought, it's a meta-concept.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:19 pm

Self-Valuing Logic View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Self-Valuing Logic Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Self-valuing can not be seen as temporal-causally prior to valuing in terms of self-value, i.e. valuing the world, as the two are seen/understood to occur at the same moment, and the latter is indeed needed to enable the former to be manifest. However, as we must infer from the terms, self-valuing is logical-causally prior to valuing in terms of self-value. We see a difference between the logic of value-causality and the logic of temporal causality.

The problem with applying causality to value is that we are here working with logic that is not adequate to the thing which needs to be explained. The logic of causality is derived from a classifying-observing the physical world in terms of a continuum, and so to be valid always requires a continuum, a chain, in which each cause is also an effect of something else than to which it is the cause.

In the post linked here I have explained self-valuing as the activity of consistency. Consistency does does not itself have a cause, in the sense of transferring energy quantities, that is to say, in the proper sense of causality. As no cause can be inferred from it, there is no manifest ground to it, except “possibility”. I keep arriving at this ultimate ground for being in terms of value ontology – being is because it is not impossible, and its possibility escapes its impossibility because if its particular form/mode, which is consistency, specifically, consistent self-value.

Now, “possibility” flowing out into consistency may be described as “necessity”. Self-valuing is possible, not necessary –- valuing-in-terms-of-self-value is necessary where-ever this possibility is actualized. We see how necessity is subservient to possibility, whereas possibility is subservient to nothing, except to the absence of its negation, impossibility. Impossibility of anything is of course an extremely positive, active classification, entirely dependent on a general possibility of being.

As it requires only possibility and not necessity, self-valuing can be seen as transcendent. It stands “behind” the manifest world, and its logics of causation, quantity, sequence and temporality. If one were to apply such logics to self-valuing, it would appear as “self-caused”, but this goes against the very logic of causation, so it is wisest to simply dismiss the concept of causality if we are describing its ground as a principle.

As a manifest being, however, a self-valuing is indeed caused by that which it values in terms of itself. This is the case when temporality has taken hold, when we speak of growth, of being, matter. Self-valuing “becomes itself” by enabling principle of causation, by which it is then indirectly self-caused as an ongoing process.


[2012]
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:19 pm

'" (KGW V 11 [211] Spring-Fall 1881).


This, exactly, is what VO accomplishes.
Nietzsche accomplished the first part, the dehumanization of nature, and VO is the naturalization of humanity into this new form.

The latter is the "more fundamental" (or one might say, in this light, further progressed, completed) transvaluation of valuing, to which I referred above.

I cannot agree with this if you mean that Nietzsche just accomplished the first part. Nietzsche neither just accomplished the first part nor was it just Nietzsche who accomplished the first part. The first part has been accomplished by modern natural philosophy as a whole: consider, for example, BGE 22, where Nietzsche only completes that philosophy, by interpreting the course of nature not as lawful but as lawless. "This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!" (WP) 1067): this is the same order as above.


Quote :
Quote :
But, as I already implied at the end of my "The 4 Aeons" OP, Nietzsche does not end there. The humanization or anthropomorphosis of nature was an act of man's will to power, of his self-valuing--his bestowing value in terms of himself. And perhaps VO will be the link between the Machiavellian age and a new pre-Homeric age: from modern natural science to a new natural religion.

It certainly provides the means for that - and there is no other idea that provides this.
After all this is the fruit of all philosophy, continental an analytical alike, and brings us back to a Heraclitean ethics, but with a refined idea of "fire".

We had an interesting exchange about plasma and music recently. We need to talk about this more when we sit down again.

Sure. Just don't under(e)st(im)ate the refinement of the Heraclituean idea of "fire". We only have fragments left of Heraclitus, after all.


Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
The ultimate question about metaphysics is what we can say. The veracity of any metaphysics relies on its own notion of truth. Is value ontology true or not? That depends whether or not truth is connected to reality; whether or not, in short, we assume that reality can be truthfully expressed at all.

By us, yes. And I think we cannot entertain the concepts of "equality" and "inequality" by themselves, without the other.

I am not so sure of that. In fact, I think "inequality" is better represented as "difference", which again is represented as "interaction" and so on, as "will to power" - the very logic that prohibits the conception of one thing without its antithesis is I think what needs to be questioned (in terms of its appropriate places and applications) very rigorously.

To me "prohibits the conception" sounds like a loaded way of putting it. In any case, I think that logic is the most fundamental value in Value Ontology: the value-positing formulated by it is the source of even the "self" of "self-valuing".

It doesn't help to rephrase "inequality" in terms seemingly less antithetical. "Unequal" simply means "not equal"; "different" simply means "not the same"; "interactive" means "active but not separately so"; "willing to power" means "not impotent to power". The assertion that life is will to power implies that life is not not will to power.


Quote :
Quote :
From my point of view, VM is the most probable M. But I think that, lest analytic philosophers and the like accusingly yell "M! M!" at us, we'd better emphasize its non-dogmatism, at least for the time being. In other words: "Yes, it is M! Yes, it is interpretation! Yes, it is a value!" The times demand that we insist on our own insistence, our own injustice; if we just insist on being right, we'll probably be dismissed as ranters--at least until our dismissers, say, read Picht...

I have not been dismissed, but only respected by the wise and imitated by the envious.

Are those the only two options? Did I not dismiss you in the past? But does this mean that I wasn't wise and was thereby envious? I can see how I wasn't wise in this regard, but not how I imitated you.


Quote :
But yes, this is precisely because I make no secret about what I am: a lord of mind (Mannaz, Man), an incarnation of world-fire. It is I, a being of all consuming passion and royal honor, who have forged this, not some anonymous lab-coat.

Yes (though it's ironic that it was you who quite brilliantly concluded, a couple of years ago, that the contemporary equivalent to the Medieval philosopher's exoteric guise of the priest was that of the scientist/scholar; you then seemed more inclined than me to adopt that guise, but perhaps it's now the other way round). However, it's precisely this kind of assertion that, when not accompanied by a clear qualification, may well sound pathological: it reminds me of Nietzsche's Ecce Homo. Now of course "clear" is a relative term, and to me it seems clear that you're well aware of how it sounds. I however am now one of the few wise in that regard.


Quote :
No mediocre man could address the concept of value in such a majestic, naturalizing fashion. In this sense VO is a selecting device and only fit for our people -- who are thereby defined.

But what about those in between the mediocre and such exceptions? Those who are potentially exceptional?

By the way, that part about "M! M!" was an allusion to a story about the logical positivists (Russell etc.). A bunch of them had got together and were trying to establish a completely logical philosophy. One of them was given the task of yelling "M!" whenever any of them suggested anything metaphysical. Soon, they changed this to yelling "not M!" when any of them suggested something non-metaphysical.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:20 pm

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This gets precarious. I can't agree yet, I need to know more of the relation of these recent animations to the original problem. We still have to deal with the calibration of the space-time relation between the flashers and the clocks.

If the timing of the flashes has been calibrated in terms of this stations perspective in order to reach the middle point (as measured from the stations perspective) between two flashers, again seen from the stations perspective, then I agree. But I can't see this correlate with the original train/station scenario, as that included other information.

As far as I understand, if the flashers have actually been calibrated to hit the trains clock simultaneously (thus if they actually do stop the clock), which is a given in the original problem but not part of these new animations, then, form the stations perspective, the flashers would appear to flash at different times.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
If the timing of the flashes has been calibrated in terms of this stations perspective in order to reach the middle point (as measured from the stations perspective) between two flashers, again seen from the stations perspective, then I agree.
The defined scenario is that the flashers go off simultaneously such as to travel the distance Xs toward the station clock. Because the distance Xs is the same for both flashers (the clock is centered), and the photons must travel at the exact same speed as each other, they must meet at the station clock and stop it. The fact that the flashers were moving at the moment they flashed is irrelevant as per the theory.

Fixed Cross wrote:
But I can't see this correlate with the original train/station scenario, as that included other information.

As far as I understand, if the flashers have actually been calibrated to hit the trains clock simultaneously (thus if they actually do stop the clock), which is a given in the original problem but not part of these new animations, then, form the stations perspective, the flashers would appear to flash at different times.
The flashers are not "calibrated to hit" anything. They merely go off simultaneously and at equal distance from each clock (perhaps even triggered by a pair of sidetrack arms). There is no "calibrating" involved.

The composite animes display what necessarily must follow given such a situation. Any clock not centered at the time the light reaches the center cannot be stopped.

Where is the confusion?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The confusion is only due to the scenario being related to the train/station scenario. These are different scenarios.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
With what you've described here, I see no problem. The moving clock does not stop.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
With what you've described here, I see no problem. The moving clock does not stop.
So I really DO have to draw a box around the moving flashers and clock???

ImageImage


You seriously can't see the similarity between those???

The UPPER portion of the latter anime is the "station perspective", the same one we were just discussing. The only difference is that in the first, the clock was "tossed" and in the other a train was carrying the clock and the flashers.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, the difference is that there is now suddenly an extra reference frame. Or did you mean for me to disregard the proposed trains perspective? (and if so why did you include the pic?)

If so, I still don't see a problem. The clock does not stop.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
No, the difference is that there is now suddenly an extra reference frame. Or did you mean for me to disregard the proposed trains perspective? (and if so why did you include the pic?)

If so, I still don't see a problem. The clock does not stop.
We have ONLY been talking about the station perspective. And according to the station's perspective, the train clock cannot stop. It won't matter what anyone else's perspective is. According to the theory of relativity, the train clock cannot stop.

And then the "problem" comes in when we change our perspective and look at the same scenario from the train as the station's clock passes by.

The scenario is identical, merely reversed. Thus we can already tell that according to the train, it is the station's clock that cannot stop. When the only premises of a logical sequence are definitions and a theory, and the conclusion is a contradiction, the theory is invalidated.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
oops, hold 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I screwed up your post, pressing edit instead of quote. I think there is a sentence missing. If you could restore it, thanks. Sorry.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
We have ONLY been talking about the station perspective.
Exactly. This means that relativity did not yet apply to the situation we had defined.

Quote :
And according to the station's perspective, the train clock cannot stop. It won't matter what anyone else's perspective is. According to the theory of relativity, the train clock cannot stop.
Only if we only consider one aspect of relativity, which is the c does not depend on the speed of the object from which it is emitted as perceived from a perspective moving relative to this object.

The top down perspective moves in respect to the moving clock.

Quote :
And then the "problem" comes in when we change our perspective and look at the same scenario from the train as the station's clock passes by.
Which is the same as the perspective of the emitter moving relative to the station, which I brought up earlier for that reason.

Quote :
The scenario is identical, merely reversed. Thus we can already tell that according to the train, it is the station's clock that cannot stop.
If all four photons are seen to be emitted at the exact same moment. Relativity allows that, if they arrive at the clocks simultaneously (which is what the definitions state), they aren't.

Image

"Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future."

Quote :
When the only premises of a logical sequence are definitions and a theory, and the conclusion is a contradiction, the theory is invalidated.
Relativity only states that definitions of time and space as valid in reference frame A is dependent on whatever is perceived as c from reference frame A.

Image

"Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame."

So the definitions illustrated in the first four animations were all dependent on the stations reference frame.

If both clocks stop, then the photons from the station are seen to be emitted at a different time than the photons on the train. If all photons are seen to be emitted simultaneously and two of them meet each other at a point that proves to be the real location of either of the clocks, only one of the clocks can stop.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
We have ONLY been talking about the station perspective.
Exactly. This means that relativity did not yet apply to the situation we had defined.
All theories must always apply. And actually that was stated in Einsteins special relativity thesis. That was actually the whole underlying concern. Physics requires a set of laws that are not dependent upon the situation of the Earth moving through space at an unknown pace. Relativity was offered as a means to form laws/principles that would be accurate regardless of such space travel.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
And according to the station's perspective, the train clock cannot stop. It won't matter what anyone else's perspective is. According to the theory of relativity, the train clock cannot stop.
Only if we only consider one aspect of relativity, which is the c does not depend on the speed of the object from which it is emitted as perceived from a perspective moving relative to this object.
Again, the underlying intent of relativity is to form a consistent set of laws. One of those fundamental laws that must always apply, is that the speed of light must always be measured as exactly the same no matter who is measuring it, moving or not.

We must always consider that one "law" whether others are involved or not. And by considering merely that one, we are already locked into a conclusion. That one law by itself demands that the moving clock does not stop if not at the center line when the light reaches it. But there are no other laws that would change the situation.

Fixed Cross wrote:
The top down perspective moves in respect to the moving clock.
It isn't "moving" if it is "with respect" to it. That is what "with respect to it" means.

What you are calling the "top down perspective" is actually merely the perspective of both proposed reference frames together. In this scenario, the clocks either stop or they don't. If you consider either perspective by itself, it is always the other clock that must not stop. That "top down perspective" is merely the forced conclusion for a single history. The individual perspectives would have to declare a different actual history than the other. But only one history can exist.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
And then the "problem" comes in when we change our perspective and look at the same scenario from the train as the station's clock passes by.
Which is the same as the perspective of the emitter moving relative to the station, which I brought up earlier for that reason.
And I said that it would become relevant and this is where it becomes relevant - when you apply the exact same laws to the train's perspective.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
The scenario is identical, merely reversed. Thus we can already tell that according to the train, it is the station's clock that cannot stop.
If all four photons are seen to be emitted at the exact same moment. Relativity allows that, if they arrive at the clocks simultaneously (which is what the definitions state), they aren't.
The time of the emission isn't dependent upon when they reach their destination... unless you want to start reversing time and causality. That is "affirming the consequent" or "choosing the result and then declaring the initial state based upon it".

The flashers flash at a particular moment. The photons have no idea where they are going to end up.

Image

"Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future."

The theory of relativity of simultaneity is ONLY about the appearances due to the time that it takes for light to travel to each observer. We are "above" that concern. We are not watching something that depends upon us seeing when the flashers "really flashed". We are defining when they are to flash. The clocks are the "observers". But in this scenario each of the observers must declare an alternate reality than the other ONLY if they accept relativity. But the clocks either stop or they don't.

And besides that, we can easily remove any concern for simultaneity merely by having relevant things actually touch, such as the triggering of the flashers by touching arms at the side of the track. With zero distance involved, the entire simultaneity issue is void. BOTH frames would have to accept that the flashers were triggered at the same moment. The distance Xs would get involved in trying to set where the arms are to be located, but Xs is variable and can be anything as long as it remains the same Xs on both sides of the clock.

Time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity are all irrelevant to this scenario with no consequences to the outcome.



And I don't know which post or sentence you are referring to as getting screwed up. What was the sentence? Very Happy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

So is the jury still out?

The decision is between;

A) Logic and mathematics = Relative is incorrect (or at least imprecise)
=>> self-honesty, self-harmony, rationality, independent thought, sight of the light

B) Illogic and vagueness = Relativity is true
=>> self-deceit, inner dissonance, irrationality, faith, blindness

C) Jury is still out

The choice and consequence is yours, as always.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
All theories must always apply. And actually that was stated in Einsteins special relativity thesis. That was actually the whole underlying concern. Physics requires a set of laws that are not dependent upon the situation of the Earth moving through space at an unknown pace. Relativity was offered as a means to form laws/principles that would be accurate regardless of such space travel.
Yes, this is why you have to make your definitions in terms of relativity in order to test relativity.
But you choose the objectivist way of defining a situation, which is an a priori negation of relativity.

Your definition states that both train and station are actually the same reference frame.

Quote :
It isn't "moving" if it is "with respect" to it. That is what "with respect to it" means.
With respect to means in reference to, relative to.
Motion of an object is defined with respect to another reference frame. It is stationary with respect to itself, if it is not accelerating with respect to another object.

Quote :
What you are calling the "top down perspective" is actually merely the perspective of both proposed reference frames together.
Relativity was developed because such a perspective is impossible.
One can not have two different reference frames within one reference frame. A = A, thus also A ≠ (≠A).

Quote :
In this scenario, the clocks either stop or they don't. If you consider either perspective by itself, it is always the other clock that must not stop. That "top down perspective" is merely the forced conclusion for a single history. The individual perspectives would have to declare a different actual history than the other. But only one history can exist.
Things are influenced by things in different orders; the sequence of events leading up to the present is different as registered by (having affect in) different reference frames.

Quote :
The time of the emission isn't dependent upon when they reach their destination... unless you want to start reversing time and causality.
If the speed is fixed and known, and you decide on a time of arrival, the moment of departure you're going to use is wholly dependent on that time.

Quote :
The theory of relativity of simultaneity is ONLY about the appearances due to the time that it takes for light to travel to each observer.
If that would be the case Copernican logic would suffice.

Because the speed of light is seen as the same from all reference frames, and other things are seen as moving with different speeds; in short because light behaves in a fundamentally different way than matter, all your calculations involving the travel of light are going to be inconsistent with calculations disregarding the speed of light.

Relativity involves the speed of light at the basis of every calculation about mass and energy, so as to never come to the conclusion that reality is inconsistent with itself.

The fact that light is perceived as traveling at equal speed from reference frames moving with respect to each other, is by the standards by which you've set your definitions, illogical.

So as I see it now, your only option is to prove that the speed of light is in fact not equal from all reference frames.

Quote :
And besides that, we can easily remove any concern for simultaneity merely by having relevant things actually touch, such as the triggering of the flashers by touching arms at the side of the track.
It's interesting to look at the problem from that angle.

What I think would happen is that the station perspective perceives the photons on the train to be departing at a different time than the moment that the trigger connects. The time difference would be due to the fact that the speed of the train has to be converted into the perspective of the station, "valued in terms of".

The experiential connecting to of a reference frame moving with respect to your own is an act that is influenced by the limits of propagation of affect.

Quote :
With zero distance involved, the entire simultaneity issue is void. BOTH frames would have to accept that the flashers were triggered at the same moment.
And yet they can not help perceiving each other as being influenced by it at a different moment.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:20 pm

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Regrettably I don't have the time to adequately work through the posts so far and get up to speed entirely, so first I'd like to state my understanding of the basic categories at work here, to make sure I get what this is about.

Quote :
Quote :
Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.
Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.
Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as its disvaluation would disvalue itself, too.
Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.
Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

Value philosophy designates an introductory state of philosophizing whereby one conceives one's thought within the horizons of a metaphysical system or belief; this metaphysics, I am imagining could be either more or less well-defined and articulated (may at first consist only of a small number of metaphysical ideas in conjunction with a strong feeling of association/attraction to those beliefs), then would be a reflection of "what one values the most", so perhaps at the time a person values the feeling of independence-freedom and also aspires to success in some way, ergo their metaphysics would firstly consist of a number of beliefs that reflect these values (maybe in this case they posit a metaphysics of will to power qua "success in one's relations" and the value of effort/work to achieve goals; also by the first value the metaphysics at include notions of freedom and independence I.e. a "free will" or emancipatory undercurrent associated necessarily to reality)?

I think this is correct as far as it goes, though it's not all there is to it. It reminds me of https://youtu.be/LvmSekZu__o 0:57-3:54. Value Philosophy does not designate just an introductory state of philosophizing. One can never completely transcend it; in the decisive respect one can never transcend it.

By the way, "first philosophy" is what Aristotle called metaphysics.


Quote :
Value metaphysics is stating the basic idea of self-valuing as FC conceived it. To be is to value oneself, to not value or to inadequately value oneself leads to no longer existing; "to exist" is defined simply as "successfully valuing in such ways as that which is doing the valuing is held in existence as itself, as such and such entity we say is that from and of which values are coming", or perhaps also "to value means to exist".

Yes. And note that Value Metaphysics is itself, following Value Philosophy, a metaphysics posited by those who value it more than any other metaphysics.


Quote :
Value axiology indicates the logic or rationale of valuing to be that of reality in so far as valuing oneself is necessary (to not value oneself leads to a loss of this "to not value"). All values are therefore and at their root or base, rational.

Actually, the only rational value I discern is the value of valuation itself. But insofar as valuing oneself means valuing oneself as a self-valuing and thereby valuing self-valuing itself, one's self is indeed a rational value for oneself.

It may be helpful to note that, by "a value", I mean "something one considers valuable".


Quote :
Value logic, this one is more complex. I like this progression of categories into the idea of value and self-valuing, now we're at a threshold it seems - "logic's self-identical A is a value" means perhaps that the logical truisms and necessities such as A is A must be thought of not as "facts" but as "values" meaning they exist in the terms of the former categories here, namely that value is rational and self-necessitating because to not value (to not value well enough) precludes oneself from existing at all, thus precludes those values which one held from also existing. Logical postulates and truistic premises must be seen as the most basic, most universal or most necessary values, then.

To say these premises are "facts" would presumably, in the terms of the OP here, be to assert that they exist independent of the consequences which follow or do not follow from themselves; this would be an error, then. Even logic's most necessary and undeniable premises must not be reified to a supposed status of objectivity or absolute independence-universality, in other words these logics are not primary but instead they represent something even more primary: the valuing consequences and conditions out of which those self-identical logics gain their presumed universal status.

Unless I've misunderstood that entirely...

To the contrary, I think you've understood it quite perfectly.


Quote :
Last one, value ethics: this seems to describe a culmination of the preceding categories, drawing a moral structure from the self-identical logic which we have previously grounded in the logic of self-valuing. That is just which follows from self-valuing, so what upholds one's self-value through valuations adhering to the axiological structure and self-identical emergence; is morality then seen as deriving from self-identical logic and successful self-valuing? There is a distinction between saying that something is moral because it flows from a self-valuing proper self-identicalness, and saying that self-valuing requires that considering just things is just. How is morality understood in this categorical system?

Well, let me first point out that my list is by no means meant to be exhaustive: there may well be more than five items, there might even be less than five. The last item is in multiple ways a half-joke--one way being that I present it as a universal statement while it's really a very personal statement (though the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Anyway, I think I can illuminate it a bit. From the "fact" that valuation is a rational value, I conclude that all things are just, as all things are valuation and nothing besides. You may want to compare my "The Philosopher King" thread's OP, where I first formulated the fifth item: Heraclitus' fragment 102 implies an equivocation of "just" and "beautiful" (or "noble") and "good". Everything is valuable, whether ethically or aesthetically or whatever other way. But one cannot live like that; or at least a human being cannot; or at least I personally cannot. How do I understand morality? As springing from one's highest values. And one of my highest values is considering all things just. Therefore, I value the god extremely high and the wretch among human beings extremely low. The love of philosophy may be at odds with the love of wisdom.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So as I see it then, inserting strong values-standards into all manner of our (at least more significant) conceptual differentiations. As you see all things as just, because everything is self-valuing and to self-value is just (because to not self-value leads to non-existence) then justice (or goodness, or beauty) is seen to be enfolded directly into the essential reality of all things, the philosopher's just task it then becomes to discover those moral relations and values-differentials.

Ill add more later, just wanted to get that down quick.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Sun Aug 30, 2015 3:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sauwelios wrote:
Metaphysics in the Aristotelian/Heideggerian sense is about beings as a whole or the Being of beings. In other words, it's cosmology and ontology. This is the reason I gave above. Moreover, epistemology may also be regarded as metaphysics.

I generally consider epistemology to be metaphysics, yes - keep in mind that VO is concerned with right (irrefutable) knowledge of being, not being without knowledge about it, or without knowledge of knowledge about it. See http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1-ontology ; the last paragraph of the OP in particular.

In principle, "value metaphysics" is an accurate term for value ontology.

Quote :
Quote :

Thus also, if N's philosophy is will to power it is so (to N) under the conditions that the universe is will to power; one can not call N's work will to power and claim ones own work is not, or at least not when one has understood what N meant.

I disagree. Thus in my Why I'm not a feminist thread, in my last reply to Uccisore, to which he never replied, I wrote:

You mention evidence, argumentation, and axioms as possible grounds [for moral stances]. But what would evidence be? Would it not have to be being spoken to by God or finding something written in the stars or something like that? As for argumentation, arguments ultimately rest on premisses, and those then have to be grounded on evidence or axiomatically. Lastly, an axiom is either just a postulate or a self-evident truth; and self-evident truth by definition depends on evidence: namely, self-evidence. So unless you have something good to offer instead of "or whatever" [he wrote: "evidence or argumentation or axiomatically or whatever"], the only alternative for morality's being a matter of preference is revelation. This is exactly what I said in my OP.


Now as I said in that OP, whoever claims such revelation is in my view probably a madman or a liar or both. This is because I have, as far as I know, not experienced any such revelations whatsoever. In fact, I don't see how a revelation would not require an infinite regress: each revelation would logically require another revelation to reveal that one's interpretation of one's experience as a revelation is not a misinterpretation... Bottom line: you're preaching to a member of the choir, who however insists that we should emphasize our conditionality if we are not to seem pathological.

I have never given myself to conceive of a moral philosophy. For this reason mainly: I know that what is right for me is wrong for many, and vice versa.
What I can do is praise that which I think is good, do what I think is good, and this will be my morality, and others may or may not follow me. This is highly simplistic, but it is risky, for me, to venture into prescriptions for beings I may not understand.

See, a human is not principally different to my mind that, say, a cat. Like some one you know well, I generally trust cats more than I trust humans. A cat is a very accomplished form of self-valuing. If I set out to form a morality for humans, I might as well set out to form a morality for all animals. I can't imagine I'd be fit for that.

Value philosophy, you say, is the practice of choosing the metaphysics that one values most. As a philosopher, my criterium for valuing a metaphysics is a) that I can not refute it (first condition) and b) that it applies effectively - i.e. that it grants power over what it analyzes.

Because I had found a flaw, something unexplained (perhaps you'll recall our email discussion end 2010 "about love under will", which was a prelude to the formation of the idea of self-valuing) in the will to power theory. VO makes the WtP hermetically, unquestionably true. This is why I value it primarily; my value philosophy is this: I am a philosopher, have intellectual consistency as my highest value, and thus am forced to value value ontology.

Quote :
In reliquishing that pretense, as you put it, the danger is that philosophy is reduced to mere Weltanschauungsphilosophie: see the first chapter of Leo Strauss's final work (Weltanschauungsphilosophie means philosophy that is a Weltanschauung). In my "note" on that essay, I wrote:


In his discussion of aphorism 36 [of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil], Strauss says: "Precisely if all views of the world are interpretations, i.e. acts of the will to power, the doctrine of the will to power is at the same time an interpretation and the most fundamental fact"


Which is precisely why it is a fundamental fact; the two aren't different aspects; it recognizes of itself that it is an interpretation, but recognizes it in such a way that this does not refute its absolute (human, verifiable, falsifiable) applicability.

Quote :

This reasoning can be applied as well to the existentialism from the first chapter. A Weltanschauung is literally a view of the world. Precisely if all Weltanschauungen are historical, historicism is at the same time historical and supra-historical: the philosophers are the step-sons of their time (paragraph 30 of the central chapter); philosophy is at the same time Weltanschauungsphilosophie and rigorous science. [The first chapter of the work is titled "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy".]


Value Philosophy is the synthesis of philosophy as rigorous science and Weltanschauungsphilosophie.

I do not acknowledge the difference. VO is a rigorous science and thus a reliable Weltanschauung. This is what matters to me as a thinker; now whether or not VO is a Weltanschauung, but whether or not it is a reliable one.

Quote :
Insofar as one is a philosopher, one seeks to be just, but also acknowledges or seeks to acknowledge one's own necessary injustice. In fact, necessary injustice is itself just. But the philosopher's necessary--natural--injustice drives him to "do justice" to all things by acknowledging their justice.

Here you get into a terrain I have never ventured. I see no necessary relationship of prescribed morality and natural behavior, except that it is (apparently) natural behavior to prescribe morality. Morality emerges from self-valuing, but not necessarily so. Knowledge comes first, but without perfect knowledge it would be impossible to produce a truly sound knowledge-based morality. So before VO, it was impossible to form a true philosophical morality. Perhaps with VO it is still impossible; the farthest I have come is my "self-valuing ethics", which, as I now am finding out with the help of your books, is very much akin to the theories of Heraclitus and Anaximander. I am pleased to find this out - I am pleased to move beyond (back before) Socrates towards thinking trends of people that I value, whom I might like to "imitate" - Socrates represents to me the decay of philosophy into a plebeian art.

I know we have some battles to fight over that. Maybe we can use the Pentad to that end at one point.

Quote :
In your addendum to this, you say:

Quote :
I wanted to add this, that "A" = "A" is false in as far as "A" corresponds to anything besides "self-valuing".

The only self-identical notion includes that of an equal difference to itself.

I'm not sure that I understand the last part. Do you mean that self-valuings are themselves composed of self-valuings?

Rather that their (id)entity is negatively reflected in their counterparts, and that this reflection is part of their (id)entity because it determines their environment. Basically it is saying that the positing of an entity only makes sense if there are entities amongst whom it is posited, an outside world. It is an argument for a pluralistic worldview. I.e. there is not one singular "will to power", there is a general willing-to-power. The monster of energy has no heart. It would have to have an outside for that. I wonder if this clears that up.

Quote :
I'm also not completely clear about the first part. Do you mean "self-valuing" the gerund or "self-valuing" the (nominalized) participle? In German, "(das) Selbst-Wertschätzen" or "Selbst-Wertschätzendes" (not to mention the uncapitalized options)? Are you saying a self-valuing is or can be identical to itself, or the act of self-valuing?

The self-valuing of a self-valuing, qua self-valuing.

As you can see, there's a reason I suggested you'd ignore that post in your response, it's cognitive style is very much different and references Parodites. But, now that we're there, the confusion is a result of being in the process of killing grammar so that god can be put to rest.

It is a superstition that nouns represent metaphysically different things than verbs. There is only activity. Any noun represents a 'petrified verb'.

E.g.: A tree trees. A self-valuing self-values. Part of tree-ing is growing, and dying. But nothing, besides self-valuing itself, is necessarily part of self-valuing. It is the minimal notion, the only notion (that I know of) that is both sufficient and not prescriptive.

The notion only includes itself, but it includes more than one of itself. Thus the notion contains an 'inner tension', as Parodites might say.

Quote :
Quote :
I meant to suggest that the reverse has the more drastic implications, represents a more fundamental transvaluation of values, namely of valuing itself; but of course it works only in concord with the view that lifeless matter is valuing, which is the first premise. In concord, these two 'ends' (implications) of the logic help to redefine "consciousness", a term which has misled man into believing that it is what separates us from the rest of nature, whereas it is simply our way of doing what all of nature does.

Consciousness is a form of (self-)valuing, not vice versa. I think we agree here.

So do I, and I find this paragraph excellent.

Thanks.

Quote :
Quote :
Note that the now refuted idea of consciousness has much to do with the moral dualism of Zoroaster and the Abrahamic religions: consciousness was defined as the gift whereby man could distinguish right (gods will) from wrong (the devils will).

In this sense "consciousness" is the very same illusion as "free will" (and belongs to the non-Aristotelean meaning of "metaphysics" that rule somewhere "beyond").

I don't follow this last bit. How is it the same? Couldn't one be able to see the difference yet not be able to resist one's "evil" urges? And couldn't one have free will yet not be able to tell right from wrong?

Right, I suppose that possibility accounts for basically the entire history of religion.

The point I might have made better is that consciousness was once framed in moral terms; and that its institution (it being recognized collectively) likely emerged on moral terms as well; that is to say, before it was recognized collectively, it was likely a very terrifying and monstrous phenomenon. Man came a long way out of madness, because mind, it seems to me, must originally have been quite mad.

Not that this is necessary for value metaphysics to apply; this is all speculative.

My theories on consciousness and morality both are speculative; My theory on being is not. This is why I have trouble even conceiving of a bridge between the two.

Quote :
Quote :
Quote :

This nonteleological Übermensch is basically what Seung has called the Spinozan Übermensch. But he says there is also the Faustian Übermensch, who is equally ineradicable. The Faustian Übermensch believes in free will whereas the Spinozan Übermensch believes in determinism. But the antithesis of nonteleology is not necessarily free will but just will. Yet are "will" and "free will" not a tautology?

Yes. And "freedom" means the same as well.

Yes, at least in any positive sense I can think of.

Good that we agree, as this is a rather crucial point; will = freedom.

I could see this as a working political concept. I suspect that people will appreciate its profundity, even if many will dislike its implications. (It will work better than "might is right", which includes a moral premise, which makes it untrustworthy as an equation).

(I do not believe morality can be formulated using equations. It must be asserted in terms of what people want; "people" both in general and in reference to the thinkers who set out formulating a morality. )

Quote :
Quote :
I can not speak to the Faustian and Spinozean types except in broad strokes, for example, I connect the Faustean to Blake, and the Spinozean to Schopenhauer. But the highest path is to lose sight of the difference between the two, between a deterministic universe and free will; to understand will (as in a relatively strong will to power) as that which is both determinator of the world, and bestower of freedom on that determinator.

Crucial insight: determinating is being-free (to oneself).

Well, it is the co-determinator of the world, which world consists entirely of such co-determinators. And the will is "free" in that, if there were no other wills (if that could in theory be the case), it would be absolutely strong. 'Tis, so to say, a case of many unstoppable forces being resisted by each other…

But absolutely strong - "free" - to do what? If a thing is alone, there is nothing to overpower; there is no way to exist; Hence, again the 'cleaved reality implied by the singular concept' of self-valuing.

In the singular case, the entity is rather absolutely constrained (in non-valuing).

Quote :
Quote :
Nietzsche accomplished the first part, the dehumanization of nature, and VO is the naturalization of humanity into this new form.

The latter is the "more fundamental" (or one might say, in this light, further progressed, completed) transvaluation of valuing, to which I referred above.

I cannot agree with this if you mean that Nietzsche just accomplished the first part. Nietzsche neither just accomplished the first part nor was it just Nietzsche who accomplished the first part. The first part has been accomplished by modern natural philosophy as a whole: consider, for example, BGE 22, where Nietzsche only completes that philosophy, by interpreting the course of nature not as lawful but as lawless. "This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!" (WP) 1067): this is the same order as above.

Interesting, very interesting - I consider N's phenomenology to be a radical break with the natural philosophies up to that point.
I perceive the will to power doctrine as a veritable antithesis of Newtonean cosmology; it does away with the notion of cosmic harmony, of its 'perfect balance and unity (its godly nature); In scientific terms, WtP prescribes to Relativity and Quantum Physics. VO, which is WtP advanced, explains and harmonizes both of these immaculately, if I may say so.

I see VO as the first truly natural science; as the first exact formulation based on a truly natural world-view.

Quote :
Just don't under(e)st(im)ate the refinement of the Heraclituean idea of "fire". We only have fragments left of Heraclitus, after all.

Of course. And what we do have is very much refined, which is in fact why I refer back to it. I suppose what I meant is: with an evolved view of fire; most of all I refer to the gain in knowledge of chemistry, which is a field that would be radically potentiated by VO. (I've considered taking it up as an academic study for this reason)

Bluntly: Self-valuing logic is the logic of fire. All entities are thus "fires", "plasma's".

Quote :
It doesn't help to rephrase "inequality" in terms seemingly less antithetical. "Unequal" simply means "not equal"; "different" simply means "not the same"; "interactive" means "active but not separately so"; "willing to power" means "not impotent to power". The assertion that life is will to power implies that life is not not will to power.

I disagree here - I maintain there is a marked difference in semantic substance between "Not impotent to power" and "willing to power".

In this sense I take language more literally, less logically, less on faith; I do not believe that one can manipulate any phrase without altering its real, synthetic, understood meaning. "This chair is red" is not the same at all as "this chair is not not red". To treat language as if it is mathematics is one of the errors Nietzsche set out to correct - Heidegger represents to me the refinement of the recognition of this task, but VO represents Heideggers never attained goal; an exact formulation of non-mathematical being.

Central to this possibility is the recognition of the central word in all of language - the word that includes the meaning of all other words; "value".

This is probably the most controversial point I've been making, trying to make since 2011: there is a rank order of words. Words are very different species, and I do not mean the categories as we are taught in school. There are very different species among nouns and verbs. "Value" and "Valuing" are, so to say, king-words; their meaning rules over the meaning of other words.

Quote :
Quote :

I have not been dismissed, but only respected by the wise and imitated by the envious.

Are those the only two options?

By no means. But I meant to illustrate that I have no reason to doubt my politics. You are case in point; thew fact that you, of all people, recognize my work and its value (given that it claims Nietzsche's heritage), this means that I can not have made too grave mistakes in how I present my philosophy.

Quote :
Quote :
But yes, this is precisely because I make no secret about what I am: a lord of mind (Mannaz, Man), an incarnation of world-fire. It is I, a being of all consuming passion and royal honor, who have forged this, not some anonymous lab-coat.

Yes (though it's ironic that it was you who quite brilliantly concluded, a couple of years ago, that the contemporary equivalent to the Medieval philosopher's exoteric guise of the priest was that of the scientist/scholar; you then seemed more inclined than me to adopt that guise,

At that point I was vet much weakened, and I was hypothetically entertaining the idea of such a role in terms of our mutually attempted, tentative framework of political philosophy, which was all in terms of Humanarchy. In my writing I've always represented the head of Zeus, which is to say Pallas Athena; and I will never actually be able to present a lab-coat, and I will also never want to hide myself. If someone ends up killing me for being too dangerous, I'll be in good company.

Quote :

Quote :
No mediocre man could address the concept of value in such a majestic, naturalizing fashion. In this sense VO is a selecting device and only fit for our people -- who are thereby defined.

But what about those in between the mediocre and such exceptions? Those who are potentially exceptional?

Capable and I have concerned ourselves with such people in the first years. Sometimes they turn out to be brilliant, but do so on their own accord, and rather in spite of our intended diplomacies. For the most part, people are nowhere near ready to commit to a form of thinking this comprehensive, a form that draws so much of themselves into their thoughts.

Understanding VO requires a great degree of freedom from hypocrisy. "Our people" are foremost the Frank (and free-to-themselves).

Quote :
By the way, that part about "M! M!" was an allusion to a story about the logical positivists (Russell etc.). A bunch of them had got together and were trying to establish a completely logical philosophy. One of them was given the task of yelling "M!" whenever any of them suggested anything metaphysical. Soon, they changed this to yelling "not M!" when any of them suggested something non-metaphysical.

I will let my imagination wander about what these non-metaphysical suggestions might have been, in good old Vienna, where this philosophy was born.

And really, this is something I want and expect for us - a physical stronghold. I want philosophy to wear a crown. It must inspire envy in the unwashed. Death to the ascetic form of the philosopher as outcast. I want the philosophers to have lovers, to own castles -- I want them to thrive. The Othala of my politics: the luxury wherewith the philosopher may surround and adorn himself, as representing the esteem in which society holds him; this will be the mark of ascending culture. It is precisely the superior role of the philosopher that needs to be recognized if a culture is to be serious at all.

Very central to our task is thus the freedom from shame because of our pride. If I can not speak for you here, then hear this: very central to my task is to not be ashamed of my pride. Let others be ashamed of their lack if it, their lack of reason for it!

And let them withdraw into the shrubbery, and gossip; rather that they stay far away than that they disturb the glorious company I can afford to keep in this exalted condition, which, when explicitly cultivated, is an effective means to keep away the sordid. If I comported myself modestly, I would find myself unbearably pretentious, and a hypocrite. It is nature's way of isolating, selecting.

My antitheses are Hume and Socrates.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Aug 30, 2015 5:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Sun Aug 30, 2015 5:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sauwelios wrote:
Capable wrote:
Regrettably I don't have the time to adequately work through the posts so far and get up to speed entirely, so first I'd like to state my understanding of the basic categories at work here, to make sure I get what this is about.

Quote :
Quote :
Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.
Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.
Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as its disvaluation would disvalue itself, too.
Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.
Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

Value philosophy designates an introductory state of philosophizing whereby one conceives one's thought within the horizons of a metaphysical system or belief; this metaphysics, I am imagining could be either more or less well-defined and articulated (may at first consist only of a small number of metaphysical ideas in conjunction with a strong feeling of association/attraction to those beliefs), then would be a reflection of "what one values the most", so perhaps at the time a person values the feeling of independence-freedom and also aspires to success in some way, ergo their metaphysics would firstly consist of a number of beliefs that reflect these values (maybe in this case they posit a metaphysics of will to power qua "success in one's relations" and the value of effort/work to achieve goals; also by the first value the metaphysics at include notions of freedom and independence I.e. a "free will" or emancipatory undercurrent associated necessarily to reality)?

I think this is correct as far as it goes, though it's not all there is to it. It reminds me of https://youtu.be/LvmSekZu__o 0:57-3:54. Value Philosophy does not designate just an introductory state of philosophizing. One can never completely transcend it; in the decisive respect one can never transcend it.

By the way, "first philosophy" is what Aristotle called metaphysics.

First principles, then.

I listened to that lecture clip.. admittedly I almost stopped listening when he started talking about not knowing how to know the difference between dogs and human beings. Maybe he was being facetious or something.

In terms of "science" never being able to get rid of pre-scientific "common sense" thinking, you are paralleling this to Value Philosophy (VO in your terms) being a ground from which other philosophies or sciences or whatever are unable to ever really remove themselves? If this is the case and you square VO (the idea of self-valuing) with a kind of basic, introductory or "first principles" approach, I would say you have a simple view of what self-valuing means to FC and me. But I am speculating here, it is a stretch for me to engage this and try to understand what you mean.. if you can elaborate that may help.

On his idea of historicism...in the sense that one cannot validate variously different epochal presuppositions or historically-evolved/dependent premises. Sure, if you simply ask "what do political philosophers mean by "a good society"?" it seems like there is a kind of unbreachable abyss between epochal, cultural or even individual ways of ideating philosophy or value. But that is just a very simplistic way of approaching these issues. Everything is a "function of the times", certainly. But the times are also a function of things working beyond those times, we have moments in the world interacting with each other in very complex ways, some of them causal-direct and others more chaotic, random or daemonic in their logic. Even so, any given time/place is not some Gestalt-like existence from which people are supposedly philosophizing and living as if out of some absolute reductivity to that given time/place, as if history and future both reduce to any given present moment culture, society, ideas, technology, or whatever else aspect of the times we want to consider philosophically interesting. At best, this idea of historicism is saying something incredibly obvious as to border on the banal, while at worst is saying something that effectively cuts down the entire possibility of philosophy before it even begins -- reducing man to a mostly empty mere image of philosophy wherein semantic games and mere conceptual reversals or "interesting observations" substitute for authentic philosophical work.

Taking the (in one sense, certainly given and accurate) idea of historicism as a reason to structurally disembowel the entire philosophical task and spirit before it even gets started, even under the guise of a supposedly critical and non-naive intent, is really the opposite of what we ought to be doing. I'm guessing that I probably have a much bigger problem with contemporary philosophy than you do.

Quote :
Quote :
Value metaphysics is stating the basic idea of self-valuing as FC conceived it. To be is to value oneself, to not value or to inadequately value oneself leads to no longer existing; "to exist" is defined simply as "successfully valuing in such ways as that which is doing the valuing is held in existence as itself, as such and such entity we say is that from and of which values are coming", or perhaps also "to value means to exist".

Yes. And note that Value Metaphysics is itself, following Value Philosophy, a metaphysics posited by those who value it more than any other metaphysics.

The problem here is with the concept of value itself, that valuing can be more or less conscious, "intended", also it can be more or less philosophically interesting. The idea of valuing is sort of a catch-all term which prevents it from being exhaustibly understood in any easy way; hence why FC was able to turn the notion upon itself and form a 'vicious circle' like a black hole, a concept able to draw so many things around and into itself. The very vagueness and inexhaustibility of the notion of value is its strength as a philosophically-useful idea. But it requires an equally philosophically-inspired approach, and for that I cannot really do well with statements like "a metaphysics posited by those who value it more than any other metaphysics." I mean no one sits around and draws up a list of all metaphysics they know and then ranks them in terms of which they value more and less, thereby concluding rationally that the one on top is the one most valued by themselves. Not that Im saying you are approaching it in such a crude manner, but the very idea that a metaphysics which one posits is thus posited because one values it more than any other metaphysics, is... almost too trustically simple to really be saying anything interesting, to me at least. But again please elaborate so I can better grasp your position.

Quote :
Quote :
Value axiology indicates the logic or rationale of valuing to be that of reality in so far as valuing oneself is necessary (to not value oneself leads to a loss of this "to not value"). All values are therefore and at their root or base, rational.

Actually, the only rational value I discern is the value of valuation itself. But insofar as valuing oneself means valuing oneself as a self-valuing and thereby valuing self-valuing itself, one's self is indeed a rational value for oneself.

It may be helpful to note that, by "a value", I mean "something one considers valuable".

That's good, because it does seem this is getting lost in linguistic confusions, but if we are talking about concrete valued things we can understand this here. To say a value is rational is to say it has a rationale or logic whereby one is justified to hold that value, justified in one sense or another. It may be rational to value being alive, it may also be rational to value dying; it may be rational to value loving another person, or it may be rational to avoid loving others and live alone; it may be rational to value a successful career and wealth, or it may be rational to value a minimal standard of living and a modest job. The situations, individuals involved and all pertinent contexts dictate which values will fall where and how.

Thus, to me, it makes little sense to say that "the only rational value I discern is the value of valuation itself". I assume by this you mean "the only objectively [non-context-dependent] rational value I discern is the value of valuation itself". But again, what is that really intended to accomplish? What is added to our understanding or conversation-investigation here by this? I would much rather dig into the concrete values themselves and think in terms of individuals, situations, and contexts rather than try to locate some seemingly absolute-objective, purely formal-categorical criterion by which we might semantically ground the term 'value', pertaining to the meaning of rationality and valuing.

I like to move upward, I do not much like to stick to low or simple levels of thinking, and in that sense I don't usually try to search for the "most adequate idea" except as an exercise in formal expansion of my own conceptual categories, an expansion which I put to use in decidedly different and opposite kinds of investigations.

And I realize there is a language barrier between you and I, in terms of how we write (and probably also think) philosophy, so bear with me if that is the gist of the issue here.


Quote :
Quote :
Value logic, this one is more complex. I like this progression of categories into the idea of value and self-valuing, now we're at a threshold it seems - "logic's self-identical A is a value" means perhaps that the logical truisms and necessities such as A is A must be thought of not as "facts" but as "values" meaning they exist in the terms of the former categories here, namely that value is rational and self-necessitating because to not value (to not value well enough) precludes oneself from existing at all, thus precludes those values which one held from also existing. Logical postulates and truistic premises must be seen as the most basic, most universal or most necessary values, then.

To say these premises are "facts" would presumably, in the terms of the OP here, be to assert that they exist independent of the consequences which follow or do not follow from themselves; this would be an error, then. Even logic's most necessary and undeniable premises must not be reified to a supposed status of objectivity or absolute independence-universality, in other words these logics are not primary but instead they represent something even more primary: the valuing consequences and conditions out of which those self-identical logics gain their presumed universal status.

Unless I've misunderstood that entirely...

To the contrary, I think you've understood it quite perfectly.

This distinction between values and 'facts' is not really as interesting to me, because I don't conceive of facts in the same way, it seems. For that matter I probably don't think about value or values the same way either. But I'm glad to know I understood your meaning here.

Quote :

Quote :
Last one, value ethics: this seems to describe a culmination of the preceding categories, drawing a moral structure from the self-identical logic which we have previously grounded in the logic of self-valuing. That is just which follows from self-valuing, so what upholds one's self-value through valuations adhering to the axiological structure and self-identical emergence; is morality then seen as deriving from self-identical logic and successful self-valuing? There is a distinction between saying that something is moral because it flows from a self-valuing proper self-identicalness, and saying that self-valuing requires that considering just things is just. How is morality understood in this categorical system?

Well, let me first point out that my list is by no means meant to be exhaustive: there may well be more than five items, there might even be less than five. The last item is in multiple ways a half-joke--one way being that I present it as a universal statement while it's really a very personal statement (though the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Anyway, I think I can illuminate it a bit. From the "fact" that valuation is a rational value, I conclude that all things are just, as all things are valuation and nothing besides. You may want to compare my "The Philosopher King" thread's OP, where I first formulated the fifth item: Heraclitus' fragment 102 implies an equivocation of "just" and "beautiful" (or "noble") and "good". Everything is valuable, whether ethically or aesthetically or whatever other way. But one cannot live like that; or at least a human being cannot; or at least I personally cannot. How do I understand morality? As springing from one's highest values. And one of my highest values is considering all things just. Therefore, I value the god extremely high and the wretch among human beings extremely low. The love of philosophy may be at odds with the love of wisdom.

I understand this, but it isn't the way I look at it. I don't believe in pre-valuingly rationalizing 'what we value' either generally or concretely, I don't think a person is capable of that and, if they were, it would amount to a kind of robotization of consciousness.

Values are spontaneous, irrational, they are excessive in Parodites' sense of the word excess. They point the ways inward.. they are not building blocks on which to create a certain/secure mind. Of course there is a sense in which it is quite true that "everything is valuable" and equally there is a sense in which what you say about not being able to live that way is very true; but what does this tell us about our human psychology, and further about the nature and structure of consciousness generally? I'm not seeking after conveniently irrefutable platitudes (I'm not saying that is necessarily what you are doing, but again, our respective approaches and languages are very different, it seems. That difference is either fundamental, in which case I would say you are merely seeking after conveniently irrefutable platitudes as a substitute for genuine philosophy, or the difference is more superficial and rooted in conversational difficulties in which case I think we can come to some agreement eventually, at least in theory. In any case I'm suspending judgment as to the nature of the differences between our respective approaches, and I hope something useful can emerge).



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is where the Pentad can be put to use.
I can hardly believe we've not seen this before.
Why did we try to have discussions different from the more difficult one, of formalizing value ontology canonically? Because I was not ready, for one - and for various other reasons.

But the Pentad is designed specifically to engage as a group of disparate wills and intellectual languages into a coherent process of not dialectic, but something deliberately created as an alternative, - of the same kind, but perhaps more effective in disclosing the sort of truth that is actual truthfulness, not mere observation. To see the perspectives in reference to each other as a representation of a world. Antitheses are required - but lesser, and greater antitheses.

In Chinese Medicine, the Pentadic ordering of the organs (and their intertwining meridians, a system so complex no western man would even muster the patience to make conscious its entire infrastructure, but I give first hand testimony that that system works transformatively like nothing else I've seen) gives rise to two destructive orders and one procreative one. Therefore it seems sensible that we now conclude from these two chemical reactions, that you both - Capable and Sauwelios - should not border on one another in the order.

A definitive and reciprocal No between two members of a larger group could well be the beginning of most Earthly orders. My efforts could be seen as sickly consensus seeking, or as healthy will-to-organism-establishing, but they can best be understood as betraying a love for alchemy. It is somewhat dangerous to take on faith the merit of my faith in the outcome of a molecular bond; it may well turn out to be an explosive.



___________
" 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
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Sun Aug 30, 2015 5:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
1.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Metaphysics in the Aristotelian/Heideggerian sense is about beings as a whole or the Being of beings. In other words, it's cosmology and ontology. This is the reason I gave above. Moreover, epistemology may also be regarded as metaphysics.

I generally consider epistemology to be metaphysics, yes - keep in mind that VO is concerned with right (irrefutable) knowledge of being, not being without knowledge about it, or without knowledge of knowledge about it. See http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1-ontology ; the last paragraph of the OP in particular.

Knowledge of knowledge about it is what epistemology is about, but that need only be part of metaphysics if the nature of knowing is (co-)determined by the nature of being. Now I do not see how it could not be, but that does not mean that all metaphysicians have seen it like that, and thereby that epistemology is always a part of metaphysics.


Quote :
Quote :
Quote :

Thus also, if N's philosophy is will to power it is so (to N) under the conditions that the universe is will to power; one can not call N's work will to power and claim ones own work is not, or at least not when one has understood what N meant.

I disagree. Thus in my Why I'm not a feminist thread, in my last reply to Uccisore, to which he never replied, I wrote:

You mention evidence, argumentation, and axioms as possible grounds [for moral stances]. But what would evidence be? Would it not have to be being spoken to by God or finding something written in the stars or something like that? As for argumentation, arguments ultimately rest on premisses, and those then have to be grounded on evidence or axiomatically. Lastly, an axiom is either just a postulate or a self-evident truth; and self-evident truth by definition depends on evidence: namely, self-evidence. So unless you have something good to offer instead of "or whatever" [he wrote: "evidence or argumentation or axiomatically or whatever"], the only alternative for morality's being a matter of preference is revelation. This is exactly what I said in my OP.


Now as I said in that OP, whoever claims such revelation is in my view probably a madman or a liar or both. This is because I have, as far as I know, not experienced any such revelations whatsoever. In fact, I don't see how a revelation would not require an infinite regress: each revelation would logically require another revelation to reveal that one's interpretation of one's experience as a revelation is not a misinterpretation... Bottom line: you're preaching to a member of the choir, who however insists that we should emphasize our conditionality if we are not to seem pathological.

I have never given myself to conceive of a moral philosophy.

Though that discussion was about moral stances, my quote from it was not necessarily about such stances. Then again, perhaps there is a way in which stances are always moral stances. More on this below.


Quote :
For this reason mainly: I know that what is right for me is wrong for many, and vice versa.
What I can do is praise that which I think is good, do what I think is good, and this will be my morality, and others may or may not follow me. This is highly simplistic, but it is risky, for me, to venture into prescriptions for beings I may not understand.

But don't you claim to understand all beings in their most fundamental nature? As self-valuings? This, then, may be the grounds for a general morality.


Quote :
See, a human is not principally different to my mind that, say, a cat. Like some one you know well, I generally trust cats more than I trust humans. A cat is a very accomplished form of self-valuing. If I set out to form a morality for humans, I might as well set out to form a morality for all animals. I can't imagine I'd be fit for that.

My girlfriend has a highly idealized view of cats. Anyway, what's at issue here is the view of man as "the not yet fixed, not yet established beast" (BGE 62). Surely there is an obvious difference between humans and other animals, as Capable so fervently notes. As I quoted and wrote in my "The West. A Straussian metanarrative" thread's OP, there is

"a humanity that, though it belongs to man as man, is not open to every man, since what he is necessarily he is not necessarily unless he knows that that is what he is necessarily. Without that knowledge he can be enchanted and made subject to perfect rule[.]" (Benardete, The Bow and the Lyre, page 87.)

"What Hermes does with the moly is to show Odysseus its nature (phusis): 'It was black in its root, and its flower like milk; the gods call it moly, but it is hard for mortal men to dig up, but the gods can do everything.' If the decisive action is the showing forth of its nature and not the revelation of its divine name, as if it were a magical charm, then the moly in itself is irrelevant. What is important is that it has a nature, and the gods' power arises from the knowledge of its nature and of all other things. To dig up the moly is to expose to the light its flower and its root; they belong together regardless of the contrariety in their colors. It is this exposure and understanding of the nature of things that is difficult but not impossible for men. Odysseus, then, would be armed with knowledge. This knowledge saves him from Circe's enchantment. Her enchantment consists of transforming a man into a pig, with its head, voice, bristles, and build, but the mind (noos) remains as it was before. His knowledge, then, is the knowledge that the mind of man belongs together with his build. They are together as much as the root and flower of the moly. There cannot be a change in one without a corresponding change in the other. Menelaus's encounter with constant becoming, in which there are no natures, must have been an illusion. 'There is in your breast,' Circe tells Odysseus, 'a mind that does not admit of enchantment' (10.329)." (Benardete, op.cit., page 86.)


As most men do not know this unity, they are basically beasts, but since they can know it in theory, one can housebreak them solely with one's logos.

::

Now Orpheus, of whom Bacon said that he "may pass by an easy metaphor for philosophy personified" (Wisdom of the Ancients, "Orpheus, or Philosophy"), was able to (opera-)housebreak even big cats with his lyre and voice:

"[B]y the [...] sweetness of his song and lyre he drew to him all kinds of wild beasts, in such manner that putting off their several natures, forgetting all their quarrels and ferocity, no longer driven by the stings and furies of lust, no longer caring to satisfy their hunger or to hunt their prey, they all stood about him gently and sociably, as in a theatre, listening only to the concords of his lyre. Nor was that all: for so great was the power of his music that it moved the woods and the very stones to shift themselves and take their stations decently and orderly about him." (ibid.)


To be sure, though, Bacon interprets this as follows:

"[Philosophy,] applying her powers of persuasion and eloquence to insinuate into men’s minds the love of virtue and equity and peace, teaches the peoples to assemble and unite and take upon them the yoke of laws and submit to authority, and forget their ungoverned appetites, in listening and conforming to precepts and discipline; whereupon soon follows the building of houses, the founding of cities, the planting of fields and gardens with trees; insomuch that the stones and the woods are not unfitly said to leave their places and come about her." (ibid.)


This Orpheus did after having failed at natural philosophy; but ultimately he also failed at "philosophy moral and civil" (ibid.). Perhaps we Value Philosophers, then, having succeeded at the former, may also succeed at the latter. (Our success however is the culmination of modern natural philosophy as a whole.) In any case, Bacon interprets Orpheus's second failure as follows:

"But howsoever the works of wisdom are among human things the most excellent, yet they too have their periods and closes. For so it is that after kingdoms and commonwealths have flourished for a time, there arise perturbations and seditions and wars; amid the uproars of which, first the laws are put to silence, and then men return to the depraved conditions of their nature, and desolation is seen in the fields and cities. And if such troubles last, it is not long before letters also and philosophy are so torn in pieces that no traces of them can be found but a few fragments, scattered here and there like planks from a shipwreck; and then a season of barbarism sets in, the waters of Helicon being sunk under the ground, until, according to the appointed vicissitude of things, they break out and issue forth again, perhaps among other nations, and not in the places where they were before." (ibid.)
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:22 pm

Quote :
Value philosophy, you say, is the practice of choosing the metaphysics that one values most. As a philosopher, my criterium for valuing a metaphysics is a) that I can not refute it (first condition) and b) that it applies effectively - i.e. that it grants power over what it analyzes.

Well, "choosing" sounds too rational (more on this in my forthcoming reply to Capable). But yes, philosophy, too, is a will to power.


Quote :
Because I had found a flaw, something unexplained (perhaps you'll recall our email discussion end 2010 "about love under will", which was a prelude to the formation of the idea of self-valuing) in the will to power theory.

In BGE 36, Nietzsche says that "will" can of course only work on "will"--and not on "matter". Methinks the explanation you required was how will could work on will--how a will can relate to, or recognize, other wills; you weren't satisfied with the answer, "they simply are compatible".


Quote :
VO makes the WtP hermetically, unquestionably true. This is why I value it primarily; my value philosophy is this: I am a philosopher, have intellectual consistency as my highest value, and thus am forced to value value ontology.

What I would add to this, though, is: you value--are forced to value, necessarily value--seeing yourself as a philosopher, as having intellectual consistency as your highest value. In my view it's only this addendum that perfects the virtuous circle.


Quote :
Quote :
In reliquishing that pretense, as you put it, the danger is that philosophy is reduced to mere Weltanschauungsphilosophie: see the first chapter of Leo Strauss's final work (Weltanschauungsphilosophie means philosophy that is a Weltanschauung). In my "note" on that essay, I wrote:


In his discussion of aphorism 36 [of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil], Strauss says: "Precisely if all views of the world are interpretations, i.e. acts of the will to power, the doctrine of the will to power is at the same time an interpretation and the most fundamental fact"


Which is precisely why it is a fundamental fact; the two aren't different aspects; it recognizes of itself that it is an interpretation, but recognizes it in such a way that this does not refute its absolute (human, verifiable, falsifiable) applicability.

Yes, I think we agree here.


Quote :
Quote :

This reasoning can be applied as well to the existentialism from the first chapter. A Weltanschauung is literally a view of the world. Precisely if all Weltanschauungen are historical, historicism is at the same time historical and supra-historical: the philosophers are the step-sons of their time (paragraph 30 of the central chapter); philosophy is at the same time Weltanschauungsphilosophie and rigorous science. [The first chapter of the work is titled "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy".]


Value Philosophy is the synthesis of philosophy as rigorous science and Weltanschauungsphilosophie.

I do not acknowledge the difference. VO is a rigorous science and thus a reliable Weltanschauung. This is what matters to me as a thinker; now whether or not VO is a Weltanschauung, but whether or not it is a reliable one.

Surely it is more than just reliable. Any Weltanschauung or Weltanschauungsphilosophie is reliable. Thus Strauss writes:

"Yet 'we cannot wait'; we need 'exaltation and consolation' now; we need some kind of system to live by; only Weltanschauung or Weltanschauungsphilosophie can satisfy these justified demands. Surely philosophy as rigorous science cannot satisfy them: it has barely begun, it will need centuries, if not millennia, until it 'renders possible in regard to ethics and religion a life regulated by purely rational norms,' if it is not at all times essentially incomplete and in need of radical revisions. Hence the temptation to forsake it in favor of Weltanschauungsphilosophie is very great. From Husserl's point of view one would have to say that Heidegger proved unable to resist that temptation." (Strauss, "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy", quoting from Husserl's "Philosophy as Rigorous Science".)


This is why it is of paramount importance to establish a Value Ethics or Value Religion.


Quote :
Quote :
Insofar as one is a philosopher, one seeks to be just, but also acknowledges or seeks to acknowledge one's own necessary injustice. In fact, necessary injustice is itself just. But the philosopher's necessary--natural--injustice drives him to "do justice" to all things by acknowledging their justice.

Here you get into a terrain I have never ventured. I see no necessary relationship of prescribed morality and natural behavior, except that it is (apparently) natural behavior to prescribe morality. Morality emerges from self-valuing, but not necessarily so. Knowledge comes first, but without perfect knowledge it would be impossible to produce a truly sound knowledge-based morality. So before VO, it was impossible to form a true philosophical morality. Perhaps with VO it is still impossible; the farthest I have come is my "self-valuing ethics", which, as I now am finding out with the help of your books, is very much akin to the theories of Heraclitus and Anaximander. I am pleased to find this out - I am pleased to move beyond (back before) Socrates towards thinking trends of people that I value, whom I might like to "imitate" - Socrates represents to me the decay of philosophy into a plebeian art.

I know we have some battles to fight over that. Maybe we can use the Pentad to that end at one point.

Initially the fifth item in my list said that the philosopher was impelled to act in a certain way--a "just" way--towards all who made him possible--which ultimately means all beings. So it was a morality solely for the philosopher himself. But other people need a morality at least as much as the philosopher does. Therefore, the philosopher must be unjust, not just towards himself but to all other people as well. The perfect synthesis of desired justice and necessary injustice--the perfect imperfection with regard to justice--seems to me to be the paradox expressed in my fifth item: a hierarchical society that (exoterically) holds the Heraclitean god in the highest regard.

I recommend you read Nietzsche's unfinished 1873 book, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks. It's included in KSA 1 (Die Geburt der Tragödie u.a.).
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sauwelios wrote:
Quote :
I know that what is right for me is wrong for many, and vice versa.
What I can do is praise that which I think is good, do what I think is good, and this will be my morality, and others may or may not follow me. This is highly simplistic, but it is risky, for me, to venture into prescriptions for beings I may not understand.

But don't you claim to understand all beings in their most fundamental nature? As self-valuings? This, then, may be the grounds for a general morality.

How? The conundrum is that self-valuings contradict each others "rights".
I think that Ideal Capitalism (The type Ayn Rand envisions and recognized in a certain era) is more or less the definitive "general morality"; namely, 'let everyone try to advance himself' with some fundamental restrictions on infringing on others attempts to do the same.

It being general however, forces it to infringe on many individual moralities.

I wonder if you've read my "self-valuing ethics" threads here and on H. These, so far, represent my attempts to formulate general ethical principles.

As the Presocratics understood as well, "war" (conflict (of interests)) is the only universal agent of "justice".

I do not believe that there can be a morality that protects people from what they'd consider 'evil'; morality is a very dominating kind of will to power and, when it is generalized, always means compromise of individuals.

Imposing morality is thus, as Nietzsche and others have observed, itself immoral.

I could thus only justify a general morality that represents my values, that at least does not infringe upon me. In this sense I would be no different than any tyrant. The difference could be qualitative, not essential; I might be able to rob humans of less integrity than a general law-giver would.

Quote :
Quote :
See, a human is not principally different to my mind that, say, a cat. Like some one you know well, I generally trust cats more than I trust humans. A cat is a very accomplished form of self-valuing. If I set out to form a morality for humans, I might as well set out to form a morality for all animals. I can't imagine I'd be fit for that.

My girlfriend has a highly idealized view of cats.

I'm not so sure that they need to be idealized to be regarded as higher self-valuings than the average human. They are magnificent, cunning and innocent all together, and certainly not without consciousness or sophisticated self-awareness. Regard the cat at 10:13 and tell me that this creature is more alike to the snake it taunts than to the person filming him. If you will, I will not agree. There is perhaps not even a difference between higher consciousness and pride. Philosophy may simply be the highest human pride.

Quote :
Anyway, what's at issue here is the view of man as "the not yet fixed, not yet established beast" (BGE 62). Surely there is an obvious difference between humans and other animals, as Capable so fervently notes.

Surely. And yet, Capable agreed with me before that it makes no sense to speak of a human species. There are too many differences. I think even you may still underestimate the greatness of the differences between human constitutions and inclinations; I would go so far as to say that their being animals is the main thing that connects them.

What human consciousness means in general? Nothing. I know that no one will ever know the sort of experience my consciousness produces. I've never experienced anyone describing something resembling my inner world.

My natural morality would apply to all self-valuings, and in such a way as to rank them in terms of courage, intelligence and beauty and such qualities, rather than 'human' and 'non human'. But this is my personal value set.

Quote :
As I quoted and wrote in my "The West. A Straussian metanarrative" thread's OP, there is


"a humanity that, though it belongs to man as man, is not open to every man, since what he is necessarily he is not necessarily unless he knows that that is what he is necessarily. Without that knowledge he can be enchanted and made subject to perfect rule[.]" (Benardete, The Bow and the Lyre, page 87.)"What Hermes does with the moly is to show Odysseus its nature (phusis): 'It was black in its root, and its flower like milk; the gods call it moly, but it is hard for mortal men to dig up, but the gods can do everything.' If the decisive action is the showing forth of its nature and not the revelation of its divine name, as if it were a magical charm, then the moly in itself is irrelevant. What is important is that it has a nature, and the gods' power arises from the knowledge of its nature and of all other things. To dig up the moly is to expose to the light its flower and its root; they belong together regardless of the contrariety in their colors. It is this exposure and understanding of the nature of things that is difficult but not impossible for men. Odysseus, then, would be armed with knowledge. This knowledge saves him from Circe's enchantment. Her enchantment consists of transforming a man into a pig, with its head, voice, bristles, and build, but the mind (noos) remains as it was before. His knowledge, then, is the knowledge that the mind of man belongs together with his build. They are together as much as the root and flower of the moly. There cannot be a change in one without a corresponding change in the other. Menelaus's encounter with constant becoming, in which there are no natures, must have been an illusion. 'There is in your breast,' Circe tells Odysseus, 'a mind that does not admit of enchantment' (10.329)." (Benardete, op.cit., page 86.)


As most men do not know this unity, they are basically beasts, but since they can know it in theory, one can housebreak them solely with one's logos.

This is also what Mannaz means. But can all men, in theory, know this unity? Why? This would assume a top down design of man, where no man is brutish, retarded, uninterested, unwilling to not be beast, ill raised, cowardly, or otherwise impaired; no, Mannaz is the end-aim, and it is not an aim that could be prescribed for all of humanity without doing injustice to most.

But perhaps this is what you are driving at. A general cruelty in favor of a Mannaz-elite.

Yes, sometimes man is adequate to this standard, but it is a rarity. I often feel forced to comport myself as an animal, ape-type, when I interact with humans. Hardly any human is able to communicate with me directly under "Mannaz" - imagine the solace I've found by developing this common speak among somewhat perfected minds - yes this is what value ontology is! A language that can only be learned by experienced, polished and radically confident minds. It is a language in which I can finally speak my mind in terms of the things I have always experienced, but which no one else seemed to be able to conceive.

Now I can push beyond the limits of what people are used to be thinking, using this new metaphysical grammar to rip apart the old perimeter of consciousness.

All the sages that have tried what I have accomplished -- but I listened to them very well. Make no mistake! VO is as much the end product of East Asiatic metaphysics (which require practice of detachment) as it is of Western Natural Philosophy. The Hermetic Kabbalah has culminated in it as well; self-valuing can be read as the formula of Daath; standing forth from the abyss, the way in which "I am that I am" becomes particular.

But let's not go too deep into that here.

Quote :
Now Orpheus, of whom Bacon said that he "may pass by an easy metaphor for philosophy personified" (Wisdom of the Ancients, "Orpheus, or Philosophy"), was able to (opera-)housebreak even big cats with his lyre and voice,


"[B]y the [...] sweetness of his song and lyre he drew to him all kinds of wild beasts, in such manner that putting off their several natures, forgetting all their quarrels and ferocity, no longer driven by the stings and furies of lust, no longer caring to satisfy their hunger or to hunt their prey, they all stood about him gently and sociably, as in a theatre, listening only to the concords of his lyre. Nor was that all: for so great was the power of his music that it moved the woods and the very stones to shift themselves and take their stations decently and orderly about him." (ibid.)


To be sure, though, Bacon interprets this as follows:


"[Philosophy,] applying her powers of persuasion and eloquence to insinuate into men’s minds the love of virtue and equity and peace, teaches the peoples to assemble and unite and take upon them the yoke of laws and submit to authority, and forget their ungoverned appetites, in listening and conforming to precepts and discipline; whereupon soon follows the building of houses, the founding of cities, the planting of fields and gardens with trees; insomuch that the stones and the woods are not unfitly said to leave their places and come about her." (ibid.)


This Orpheus did after having failed at natural philosophy; but ultimately he also failed at "philosophy moral and civil" (ibid.). Perhaps we Value Philosophers, then, having succeeded at the former, may also succeed at the latter. (Our success however is the culmination of modern natural philosophy as a whole.) In any case, Bacon interprets Orpheus's second failure as follows:


"But howsoever the works of wisdom are among human things the most excellent, yet they too have their periods and closes. For so it is that after kingdoms and commonwealths have flourished for a time, there arise perturbations and seditions and wars; amid the uproars of which, first the laws are put to silence, and then men return to the depraved conditions of their nature, and desolation is seen in the fields and cities. And if such troubles last, it is not long before letters also and philosophy are so torn in pieces that no traces of them can be found but a few fragments, scattered here and there like planks from a shipwreck; and then a season of barbarism sets in, the waters of Helicon being sunk under the ground, until, according to the appointed vicissitude of things, they break out and issue forth again, perhaps among other nations, and not in the places where they were before." (ibid.)


In all this interpretation I am missing the Lyre. It does not seem right to me at all that this is translated into philosophy, at least not in moral philosophy. There is a strong tie between music and mathematics, but philosophy, until now, has not been exact like that.

Until now - Indeed because of its exactness, it is possible that value ontology can function musically.

If this is the case, it may indeed be possible for it to "command soundness" - and to unite and the spirit of music.

In this sense, I believe in ethical rulership; music touches, is able to touch the threshold between aesthetics and ethics; and aesthetics are directly related to logic, and also more directly than ethics to self-valuing. Aesthetics are generally more objective; this is why advertising works to command and tame people; they are more easily convinced by aesthetically focused messages than ethically focused ones. Ideally of course, the message is both; Ambitious art (often or always) strives to merge aesthetics and ethics; True Detective being a good example of how far the aesthetics can be pushed to emphasize the ethics.

I understand if this last bit does not solicit much of a response from you.

Quote :
Quote :
Because I had found a flaw, something unexplained (perhaps you'll recall our email discussion end 2010 "about love under will", which was a prelude to the formation of the idea of self-valuing) in the will to power theory.

In BGE 36, Nietzsche says that "will" can of course only work on "will"--and not on "matter". Methinks the explanation you required was how will could work on will--how a will can relate to, or recognize, other wills; you weren't satisfied with the answer, "they simply are compatible".

Correct.
Investigating the maxim "Love is the law, love under will" was one of the ways in which I tried to crystallize my evolving position with regard to this problem.

Quote :
Quote :
VO makes the WtP hermetically, unquestionably true. This is why I value it primarily; my value philosophy is this: I am a philosopher, have intellectual consistency as my highest value, and thus am forced to value value ontology.

What I would add to this, though, is: you value--are forced to value, necessarily value--seeing yourself as a philosopher, as having intellectual consistency as your highest value. In my view it's only this addendum that perfects the virtuous circle.

But that speaks for itself; there is no free will involved, I am forced to be what I am by what I am. But I happen to actually be it; that is to say, I actually am capable of producing real thought. I do not agree that this is common to man, not remotely so, and not likely to ever be; I am not a humanist in this sense.

I am rather convinced that in order to improve the moral conditions of humanity, humans need to improve the conditions of the weaker species that rely on their mercy. Because there is no absolute threshold between humanity and animality, and that is putting it very mildly.

Quote :

Any Weltanschauung or Weltanschauungsphilosophie is reliable. Thus Strauss writes:


"Yet 'we cannot wait'; we need 'exaltation and consolation' now; we need some kind of system to live by; only Weltanschauung or Weltanschauungsphilosophie can satisfy these justified demands. Surely philosophy as rigorous science cannot satisfy them: it has barely begun, it will need centuries, if not millennia, until it 'renders possible in regard to ethics and religion a life regulated by purely rational norms,' if it is not at all times essentially incomplete and in need of radical revisions. Hence the temptation to forsake it in favor of Weltanschauungsphilosophie is very great. From Husserl's point of view one would have to say that Heidegger proved unable to resist that temptation." (Strauss, "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy", quoting from Husserl's "Philosophy as Rigorous Science".)


This is why it is of paramount importance to establish a Value Ethics or Value Religion.

Can you summarize that argument without quotes? As it is I do not see how your conclusion logically follows. I've read it six or seven times.

Quote :
Initially the fifth item in my list said that the philosopher was impelled to act in a certain way--a "just" way--towards all who made him possible--which ultimately means all beings. So it was a morality solely for the philosopher himself. But other people need a morality at least as much as the philosopher does. Therefore, the philosopher must be unjust, not just towards himself but to all other people as well. The perfect synthesis of desired justice and necessary injustice--the perfect imperfection with regard to justice--seems to me to be the paradox expressed in my fifth item: a hierarchical society that (exoterically) holds the Heraclitean god in the highest regard.

I do not think that there is or will or must be such a thing as The people. Peoples need moralities. Arabs need Allah. Teutons need Wotan. Never must these two be reduced to each other, melted into a General Man. That could after all only be the Last Man.

We need to cultivate (I am perilously cultivating) our type. I do not mean our race, but I do quite literally mean a specific physiological type.

Quote :
I recommend you read Nietzsche's unfinished 1873 book, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks. It's included in KSA 1 (Die Geburt der Tragödie u.a.).

That seems like a good idea. I had no idea it existed. These lectures on the Pre-Platonic Philosophers are brilliant. N's earlier work may be superior in its usefulness from now on than his later work, which was the basis for the ontology but presents commands and political views which may not be as sound as his more detached observations coming out of his vigorously fruitful investigations into the ancient 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Capable wrote:
Regrettably I don't have the time to adequately work through the posts so far and get up to speed entirely, so first I'd like to state my understanding of the basic categories at work here, to make sure I get what this is about.

Quote :
Quote :
Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.
Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.
Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as its disvaluation would disvalue itself, too.
Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.
Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

Value philosophy designates an introductory state of philosophizing whereby one conceives one's thought within the horizons of a metaphysical system or belief; this metaphysics, I am imagining could be either more or less well-defined and articulated (may at first consist only of a small number of metaphysical ideas in conjunction with a strong feeling of association/attraction to those beliefs), then would be a reflection of "what one values the most", so perhaps at the time a person values the feeling of independence-freedom and also aspires to success in some way, ergo their metaphysics would firstly consist of a number of beliefs that reflect these values (maybe in this case they posit a metaphysics of will to power qua "success in one's relations" and the value of effort/work to achieve goals; also by the first value the metaphysics at include notions of freedom and independence I.e. a "free will" or emancipatory undercurrent associated necessarily to reality)?

I think this is correct as far as it goes, though it's not all there is to it. It reminds me of https://youtu.be/LvmSekZu__o 0:57-3:54. Value Philosophy does not designate just an introductory state of philosophizing. One can never completely transcend it; in the decisive respect one can never transcend it.

By the way, "first philosophy" is what Aristotle called metaphysics.

First principles, then.

I listened to that lecture clip.. admittedly I almost stopped listening when he started talking about not knowing how to know the difference between dogs and human beings. Maybe he was being facetious or something.

Well, it's really easy to take Strauss out of context. (I would, in fact, recommend that you listen to the first segment as well.) Here he is introducing political philosophy and its contemporary status to a class of students. He's not saying he doesn't know the difference between dogs and human beings, but that he doesn't know it scientifically, or not in the first place scientifically. He knows it (in the first place) from common sense.


Quote :
In terms of "science" never being able to get rid of pre-scientific "common sense" thinking, you are paralleling this to Value Philosophy (VO in your terms) being a ground from which other philosophies or sciences or whatever are unable to ever really remove themselves? If this is the case and you square VO (the idea of self-valuing) with a kind of basic, introductory or "first principles" approach, I would say you have a simple view of what self-valuing means to FC and me. But I am speculating here, it is a stretch for me to engage this and try to understand what you mean.. if you can elaborate that may help.

I never said anything about a basic, introductory or "first principles" approach; that's just what you're reading into it. Now in part you're right, as Value Philosophy is all-comprehensive and thereby also encompasses basics. But what I'm saying is that Value Philosophy teaches that one can never really get beyond value-positing. There are not necessarily any facts; there may only be values. And even this is not necessarily a fact, but perhaps only a value.


Quote :
On his idea of historicism...in the sense that one cannot validate variously different epochal presuppositions or historically-evolved/dependent premises. Sure, if you simply ask "what do political philosophers mean by "a good society"?" it seems like there is a kind of unbreachable abyss between epochal, cultural or even individual ways of ideating philosophy or value. But that is just a very simplistic way of approaching these issues. Everything is a "function of the times", certainly. But the times are also a function of things working beyond those times, we have moments in the world interacting with each other in very complex ways, some of them causal-direct and others more chaotic, random or daemonic in their logic. Even so, any given time/place is not some Gestalt-like existence from which people are supposedly philosophizing and living as if out of some absolute reductivity to that given time/place, as if history and future both reduce to any given present moment culture, society, ideas, technology, or whatever else aspect of the times we want to consider philosophically interesting. At best, this idea of historicism is saying something incredibly obvious as to border on the banal, while at worst is saying something that effectively cuts down the entire possibility of philosophy before it even begins -- reducing man to a mostly empty mere image of philosophy wherein semantic games and mere conceptual reversals or "interesting observations" substitute for authentic philosophical work.

Taking the (in one sense, certainly given and accurate) idea of historicism as a reason to structurally disembowel the entire philosophical task and spirit before it even gets started, even under the guise of a supposedly critical and non-naive intent, is really the opposite of what we ought to be doing. I'm guessing that I probably have a much bigger problem with contemporary philosophy than you do.

Yes, this was exactly Strauss's criticism of historicism. For Strauss was for political philosophy and thereby against historicism as well as against positivism. He's just giving an account of these opponents of political philosophy here; he's not endorsing them, to the contrary. Still, I think he chooses--and at any rate I choose--historicism over positivism, because historicism is capable of overcoming itself--in fact, into something more scientific even than positivism. Thus in my second reply to Fixed Cross, I quoted from my own "Note on the First Chapter of Leo Strauss's Final Work":

In his discussion of aphorism 36 [of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil], Strauss says: "Precisely if all views of the world are interpretations, i.e. acts of the will to power, the doctrine of the will to power is at the same time an interpretation and the most fundamental fact" (paragraph 8 of the central chapter of the work). This reasoning can be applied as well to the existentialism from the first chapter. A Weltanschauung is literally a view of the world. Precisely if all Weltanschauungen are historical, historicism is at the same time historical and supra-historical: the philosophers are the step-sons of their time (paragraph 30 of the central chapter); philosophy is at the same time Weltanschauungsphilosophie and rigorous science. [The first chapter of the work is titled "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy".]


Husserl opposed positivism with his phenomenology. Heidegger then turned this phenomenology into existentialism or Weltanschauungsphilosophie (philosophy reduced to the attempt to conceptualize a Weltanschauung or to give it a logical elaboration or, more simply, to give it the form of science). But the realization that historicism--the view that all views are relative to their place in space-time--must view itself, too, as a historical view, far from thereby invalidating itself, actually asserts itself as the most rigorously scientific view of which a historical being is capable.


Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
Value metaphysics is stating the basic idea of self-valuing as FC conceived it. To be is to value oneself, to not value or to inadequately value oneself leads to no longer existing; "to exist" is defined simply as "successfully valuing in such ways as that which is doing the valuing is held in existence as itself, as such and such entity we say is that from and of which values are coming", or perhaps also "to value means to exist".

Yes. And note that Value Metaphysics is itself, following Value Philosophy, a metaphysics posited by those who value it more than any other metaphysics.

The problem here is with the concept of value itself, that valuing can be more or less conscious, "intended", also it can be more or less philosophically interesting. The idea of valuing is sort of a catch-all term which prevents it from being exhaustibly understood in any easy way; hence why FC was able to turn the notion upon itself and form a 'vicious circle' like a black hole, a concept able to draw so many things around and into itself. The very vagueness and inexhaustibility of the notion of value is its strength as a philosophically-useful idea. But it requires an equally philosophically-inspired approach, and for that I cannot really do well with statements like "a metaphysics posited by those who value it more than any other metaphysics." I mean no one sits around and draws up a list of all metaphysics they know and then ranks them in terms of which they value more and less, thereby concluding rationally that the one on top is the one most valued by themselves. Not that Im saying you are approaching it in such a crude manner, but the very idea that a metaphysics which one posits is thus posited because one values it more than any other metaphysics, is... almost too trustically simple to really be saying anything interesting, to me at least. But again please elaborate so I can better grasp your position.

I don't mean it consciously like that. I may, as English is not my native language, unintentionally have given the wrong impression, or you may have projected that meaning into my words; probably a bit of both. In any case, I rather mean it in the "truistically simple" sense--which however I don't consider uninteresting, because I am indeed, as you go on to say, more concerned with basics or foundations than you.


Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
Value axiology indicates the logic or rationale of valuing to be that of reality in so far as valuing oneself is necessary (to not value oneself leads to a loss of this "to not value"). All values are therefore and at their root or base, rational.

Actually, the only rational value I discern is the value of valuation itself. But insofar as valuing oneself means valuing oneself as a self-valuing and thereby valuing self-valuing itself, one's self is indeed a rational value for oneself.

It may be helpful to note that, by "a value", I mean "something one considers valuable".

That's good, because it does seem this is getting lost in linguistic confusions, but if we are talking about concrete valued things we can understand this here. To say a value is rational is to say it has a rationale or logic whereby one is justified to hold that value, justified in one sense or another. It may be rational to value being alive, it may also be rational to value dying; it may be rational to value loving another person, or it may be rational to avoid loving others and live alone; it may be rational to value a successful career and wealth, or it may be rational to value a minimal standard of living and a modest job. The situations, individuals involved and all pertinent contexts dictate which values will fall where and how.

Well, that's not what I meant. I meant "rational" strictly in the sense of human reason, of formal logic--as you go on to suggest.


Quote :
Thus, to me, it makes little sense to say that "the only rational value I discern is the value of valuation itself". I assume by this you mean "the only objectively [non-context-dependent] rational value I discern is the value of valuation itself". But again, what is that really intended to accomplish? What is added to our understanding or conversation-investigation here by this? I would much rather dig into the concrete values themselves and think in terms of individuals, situations, and contexts rather than try to locate some seemingly absolute-objective, purely formal-categorical criterion by which we might semantically ground the term 'value', pertaining to the meaning of rationality and valuing.

I like to move upward, I do not much like to stick to low or simple levels of thinking, and in that sense I don't usually try to search for the "most adequate idea" except as an exercise in formal expansion of my own conceptual categories, an expansion which I put to use in decidedly different and opposite kinds of investigations.

And I realize there is a language barrier between you and I, in terms of how we write (and probably also think) philosophy, so bear with me if that is the gist of the issue here.


Quote :
Quote :
Value logic, this one is more complex. I like this progression of categories into the idea of value and self-valuing, now we're at a threshold it seems - "logic's self-identical A is a value" means perhaps that the logical truisms and necessities such as A is A must be thought of not as "facts" but as "values" meaning they exist in the terms of the former categories here, namely that value is rational and self-necessitating because to not value (to not value well enough) precludes oneself from existing at all, thus precludes those values which one held from also existing. Logical postulates and truistic premises must be seen as the most basic, most universal or most necessary values, then.

To say these premises are "facts" would presumably, in the terms of the OP here, be to assert that they exist independent of the consequences which follow or do not follow from themselves; this would be an error, then. Even logic's most necessary and undeniable premises must not be reified to a supposed status of objectivity or absolute independence-universality, in other words these logics are not primary but instead they represent something even more primary: the valuing consequences and conditions out of which those self-identical logics gain their presumed universal status.

Unless I've misunderstood that entirely...

To the contrary, I think you've understood it quite perfectly.

This distinction between values and 'facts' is not really as interesting to me, because I don't conceive of facts in the same way, it seems. For that matter I probably don't think about value or values the same way either. But I'm glad to know I understood your meaning here.

Quote :

Quote :
Last one, value ethics: this seems to describe a culmination of the preceding categories, drawing a moral structure from the self-identical logic which we have previously grounded in the logic of self-valuing. That is just which follows from self-valuing, so what upholds one's self-value through valuations adhering to the axiological structure and self-identical emergence; is morality then seen as deriving from self-identical logic and successful self-valuing? There is a distinction between saying that something is moral because it flows from a self-valuing proper self-identicalness, and saying that self-valuing requires that considering just things is just. How is morality understood in this categorical system?

Well, let me first point out that my list is by no means meant to be exhaustive: there may well be more than five items, there might even be less than five. The last item is in multiple ways a half-joke--one way being that I present it as a universal statement while it's really a very personal statement (though the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Anyway, I think I can illuminate it a bit. From the "fact" that valuation is a rational value, I conclude that all things are just, as all things are valuation and nothing besides. You may want to compare my "The Philosopher King" thread's OP, where I first formulated the fifth item: Heraclitus' fragment 102 implies an equivocation of "just" and "beautiful" (or "noble") and "good". Everything is valuable, whether ethically or aesthetically or whatever other way. But one cannot live like that; or at least a human being cannot; or at least I personally cannot. How do I understand morality? As springing from one's highest values. And one of my highest values is considering all things just. Therefore, I value the god extremely high and the wretch among human beings extremely low. The love of philosophy may be at odds with the love of wisdom.

I understand this, but it isn't the way I look at it. I don't believe in pre-valuingly rationalizing 'what we value' either generally or concretely, I don't think a person is capable of that and, if they were, it would amount to a kind of robotization of consciousness.

Values are spontaneous, irrational, they are excessive in Parodites' sense of the word excess. They point the ways inward.. they are not building blocks on which to create a certain/secure mind. Of course there is a sense in which it is quite true that "everything is valuable" and equally there is a sense in which what you say about not being able to live that way is very true; but what does this tell us about our human psychology, and further about the nature and structure of consciousness generally? I'm not seeking after conveniently irrefutable platitudes (I'm not saying that is necessarily what you are doing, but again, our respective approaches and languages are very different, it seems. That difference is either fundamental, in which case I would say you are merely seeking after conveniently irrefutable platitudes as a substitute for genuine philosophy, or the difference is more superficial and rooted in conversational difficulties in which case I think we can come to some agreement eventually, at least in theory. In any case I'm suspending judgment as to the nature of the differences between our respective approaches, and I hope something useful can emerge).

Well, you and I may disagree on the nature of genuine philosophy. I consider political philosophy essential to it, and this is one reason why I'm concerned with solid foundations. My current ILP signature is an example thereof.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Great, I'm glad to know I did miss some of your intended meaning then. The more difficult part is trying to find a common ground between our views and "ways of thinking". I'm more or less extrapolating your position from the limited stuff I've read here. Maybe FC can step in and offer a synthesis whereby our positions can better approach each other, since he knows both our views well enough now.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:22 pm

___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don't think I'm qualified to represent either of your positions. One thing I can see in you both that I do not share is your tendency to conceptually isolate the human species, as something which is fundamentally different from other species, due to a type of consciousness. I do not hold to that position, having known humans to be no less automatic in their responses than animals, and seeing in human language an extended jungle. The task of philosophy as I see it is to tame this jungle, to make possible a truly representative conceptuality. Before VO, the existential grammar, the self-valuing logic, in which Heidegger is fully resolved (and for which Heidegger is in no small part responsible) language was only a dream. Nietzsche was like Man who woke up in fits out of that dream, and screamed, as Man to himself: "Wake up!" "Had this dream stopped?" Comparable to Jungs image of early 20th century Europe as Wotan waking up from a bad sleep.

In my case, my family history is instrumental to the suffering I tend to inflict on myself - I have learned early on that the world is war, but also that being in the world which is war brings out infinite kindness. This contrast is the mystery to solve if politics is to matter; the fact of war, cruelty and indifference as general world shaping conditions, in combination with the fact of kindness, love, generosity and such things as world-allowing conditions. The qabala says of this that consciousness resolves them and specifically as the crucified king, the child and the throned king. Where we three are united is the notion of embracing suffering. All three of us have suffered our minds to an extent that binds us, even though we might ultimately never bring more together than the understanding that existence is always positing itself as value, that this is what "value" means. It is not so much vague, as simply covering everything that matters.

Philology is an empirical science, only under the rarest of circumstances compatible with metaphysics; metaphysics ideally results from empirical work with representation, is not to be posited a priori to it. If we cease to posit a object-subject relations, "the world becomes flesh" - we see how humanity evolved by its use of the word, human struggles to use the word in such a way that it works for rather than against them; and this is still in all humans the dominant struggle.

In philosophy, the word "value" has constantly caused confusion and not clarity. It was perhaps the most persistent 'demon'. The hammer wants to always attack the greatest enemy first.

Philosophizing with the hammer, we tore the elusive term value out of the sky, fixed it on the cross, and then saw it resurrected as the image both of the eternal intelligence and the mortal flesh.

Anaxagoras, according to Nietzsche, was the first to not posit an element as the first cause of being. Between Heraclitus and him there lives a dynamic idea of fire, friction, strife as primordial justice; and intelligence itself, which is what Anaxagoras saw as the root and origin of all things. Self-valuing is that primordial intelligence.

Capable, do you still have that mathematics?



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I slightly edited the post above.

I would like to formally state the obvious fact that I do understand the actual difference between what humans are capable of doing and what all other animals are capable of.

My issue is with the assumption that the class of beings that causes technology and culture includes all humans. This assumption obscures very interesting things.

Naturally this is a sensitive subject. It is a subject in which Israelis are quite interested. Ironically, the Jews have been the only ones to continue the discipline of breeding.

I haven't thought about Israel for a long time, which is very healthy. But now that we are in the domain, I must note the relationship between Leo Strauss and Israel.

Different from the German-American-Israeli axis of historical power, the European continental soul allows for slower developments and more rooted, earthed language.

The stars are progressing in their fixed course. Physics is based on astronomy, the science of prediction. Rituals.. always involve the Sun, moon or the visible planets. But let us hold rituals to Uranus!! This planets course is some 84 years, more or less a human lifetime. But also to Saturn.

The hard task master and the rider of the lightning together form the belt of fertility. New rituals, it's the only way. N knew this well. So did Morrison. The only way to get to people, to get into their hearts, is to synchronize these hearts to the same clock of passions. We have Christmas and New Years, we also need summer feasts.

Spring Break!!

But the ancient mysteries were in fact always deeply sexual, perhaps the is simply no other way to collective sensibility than through the collectivized senses; it might explain the ways we have chosen for our collective human endeavors; or rather, in this context, it might be chosen as a purpose for the current trend toward public sexual expression, which itself is non teleological and only the result of less restrictions on the 'mating mind'.

Raw forces are powerful sources, and with an eye to 'all that matters is the quantum of power that one is' - it is cowardice to ignore the elephant in the room. Our world is becoming more and more sexualized, and perhaps this is the very thing we need to kindle into the public mind a sensible thinking. Eros is a heated form of self-valuing, I would say, a plasmic state, which is infectious like fire, living in the loins and wearing the girdle of mirth, joy and thought go hand in hand, this is where we should make our camp.

But it's only a suggestion, in the dark between two worlds.



___________
" 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
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
2.

Quote :
Quote :
In your addendum to this, you say:

Quote :
I wanted to add this, that "A" = "A" is false in as far as "A" corresponds to anything besides "self-valuing".

The only self-identical notion includes that of an equal difference to itself.

I'm not sure that I understand the last part. Do you mean that self-valuings are themselves composed of self-valuings?

Rather that their (id)entity is negatively reflected in their counterparts, and that this reflection is part of their (id)entity because it determines their environment. Basically it is saying that the positing of an entity only makes sense if there are entities amongst whom it is posited, an outside world. It is an argument for a pluralistic worldview. I.e. there is not one singular "will to power", there is a general willing-to-power. The monster of energy has no heart. It would have to have an outside for that. I wonder if this clears that up.

Quote :
I'm also not completely clear about the first part. Do you mean "self-valuing" the gerund or "self-valuing" the (nominalized) participle? In German, "(das) Selbst-Wertschätzen" or "Selbst-Wertschätzendes" (not to mention the uncapitalized options)? Are you saying a self-valuing is or can be identical to itself, or the act of self-valuing?

The self-valuing of a self-valuing, qua self-valuing.

As you can see, there's a reason I suggested you'd ignore that post in your response, it's cognitive style is very much different and references Parodites. But, now that we're there, the confusion is a result of being in the process of killing grammar so that god can be put to rest.

It is a superstition that nouns represent metaphysically different things than verbs. There is only activity. Any noun represents a 'petrified verb'.

Not so sure about killing grammar, but other than that, yes, I agree. A being is a Self-Valuing (ein Selbst-Wertschätzen).

The sole counterargument I can think of to the third item in my list is that one's own valuing may be fundamentally different from another's. But insofar as it is, one cannot relate to it at all: this is the basic premise of VO. Thus VO corroborates my third item: as you imply, insofar as "A" stands for "Self-Valuing", "A = A" is true. It is part and parcel of self-valuing to project one's own essence into the other--to epistemically assimilate the other's essence.


Quote :
E.g.: A tree trees. A self-valuing self-values. Part of tree-ing is growing, and dying. But nothing, besides self-valuing itself, is necessarily part of self-valuing. It is the minimal notion, the only notion (that I know of) that is both sufficient and not prescriptive.

The notion only includes itself, but it includes more than one of itself. Thus the notion contains an 'inner tension', as Parodites might say.

How is self-valuing not prescriptive? Or rather, how are growing and dying, for instance, prescriptive? Or, if these aren't, what kind of insufficient prescriptive notions are you thinking of?


Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
Quote :

This nonteleological Übermensch is basically what Seung has called the Spinozan Übermensch. But he says there is also the Faustian Übermensch, who is equally ineradicable. The Faustian Übermensch believes in free will whereas the Spinozan Übermensch believes in determinism. But the antithesis of nonteleology is not necessarily free will but just will. Yet are "will" and "free will" not a tautology?

Yes. And "freedom" means the same as well.

Yes, at least in any positive sense I can think of.

Good that we agree, as this is a rather crucial point; will = freedom.

I could see this as a working political concept. I suspect that people will appreciate its profundity, even if many will dislike its implications. (It will work better than "might is right", which includes a moral premise, which makes it untrustworthy as an equation).

(I do not believe morality can be formulated using equations. It must be asserted in terms of what people want; "people" both in general and in reference to the thinkers who set out formulating a morality. )

I think I understand. Freedom is a value but the word does not contain a(n explicit) value judgment; "justice" contains an explicit value judgment but does not necessarily refer to a value (something valuable): I could call something worthless "just" and freedom "worthless" without (explicitly) contradicting myself or otherwise speaking nonsense.

In Zarathustra 2.2, Nietzsche writes:

"All feeling suffereth in me, and is in prison: but my willing ever cometh to me as mine emancipator and comforter.
Willing emancipateth: that is the true doctrine of will and emancipation--so teacheth you Zarathustra."


But in 2.20, he writes:

"Will--so is the emancipator and joy-bringer called: thus have I taught you, my friends! But now learn this likewise: the Will itself is still a prisoner.
Willing emancipateth: but what is that called which still putteth the emancipator in chains?
'It was': thus is the Will's teeth-gnashing and lonesomest tribulation called. Impotent towards what hath been done--it is a malicious spectator of all that is past.
Not backward can the Will will; that it cannot break time and time's desire--that is the Will's lonesomest tribulation." (Common translation.)


According to Seung, the Spinozan Übermensch overcomes this by willing the eternal recurrence, that is to say by embracing absolute determinism. For that the will is a prisoner of the past means that it is determined by the past.


Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
I can not speak to the Faustian and Spinozean types except in broad strokes, for example, I connect the Faustean to Blake, and the Spinozean to Schopenhauer. But the highest path is to lose sight of the difference between the two, between a deterministic universe and free will; to understand will (as in a relatively strong will to power) as that which is both determinator of the world, and bestower of freedom on that determinator.

Crucial insight: determinating is being-free (to oneself).

Well, it is the co-determinator of the world, which world consists entirely of such co-determinators. And the will is "free" in that, if there were no other wills (if that could in theory be the case), it would be absolutely strong. 'Tis, so to say, a case of many unstoppable forces being resisted by each other…

But absolutely strong - "free" - to do what? If a thing is alone, there is nothing to overpower; there is no way to exist; Hence, again the 'cleaved reality implied by the singular concept' of self-valuing.

In the singular case, the entity is rather absolutely constrained (in non-valuing).

Indeed. But the question is if there is not some way in which the will is irresistible--in which a self-valuing is a self-cause.


Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
Nietzsche accomplished the first part, the dehumanization of nature, and VO is the naturalization of humanity into this new form.

The latter is the "more fundamental" (or one might say, in this light, further progressed, completed) transvaluation of valuing, to which I referred above.

I cannot agree with this if you mean that Nietzsche just accomplished the first part. Nietzsche neither just accomplished the first part nor was it just Nietzsche who accomplished the first part. The first part has been accomplished by modern natural philosophy as a whole: consider, for example, BGE 22, where Nietzsche only completes that philosophy, by interpreting the course of nature not as lawful but as lawless. "This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!" (WP) 1067): this is the same order as above.

Interesting, very interesting - I consider N's phenomenology to be a radical break with the natural philosophies up to that point.
I perceive the will to power doctrine as a veritable antithesis of Newtonean cosmology; it does away with the notion of cosmic harmony, of its 'perfect balance and unity (its godly nature); In scientific terms, WtP prescribes to Relativity and Quantum Physics. VO, which is WtP advanced, explains and harmonizes both of these immaculately, if I may say so.

I see VO as the first truly natural science; as the first exact formulation based on a truly natural world-view.

N's phenomenology is a radical break with the remnant of Platonism in the natural philosophy of his times.


Quote :
Quote :
Just don't under(e)st(im)ate the refinement of the Heraclituean idea of "fire". We only have fragments left of Heraclitus, after all.

Of course. And what we do have is very much refined, which is in fact why I refer back to it. I suppose what I meant is: with an evolved view of fire; most of all I refer to the gain in knowledge of chemistry, which is a field that would be radically potentiated by VO. (I've considered taking it up as an academic study for this reason)

Bluntly: Self-valuing logic is the logic of fire. All entities are thus "fires", "plasma's".

Quote :
It doesn't help to rephrase "inequality" in terms seemingly less antithetical. "Unequal" simply means "not equal"; "different" simply means "not the same"; "interactive" means "active but not separately so"; "willing to power" means "not impotent to power". The assertion that life is will to power implies that life is not not will to power.

I disagree here - I maintain there is a marked difference in semantic substance between "Not impotent to power" and "willing to power".

In this sense I take language more literally, less logically, less on faith; I do not believe that one can manipulate any phrase without altering its real, synthetic, understood meaning. "This chair is red" is not the same at all as "this chair is not not red". To treat language as if it is mathematics is one of the errors Nietzsche set out to correct - Heidegger represents to me the refinement of the recognition of this task, but VO represents Heideggers never attained goal; an exact formulation of non-mathematical being.

Central to this possibility is the recognition of the central word in all of language - the word that includes the meaning of all other words; "value".

This is probably the most controversial point I've been making, trying to make since 2011: there is a rank order of words. Words are very different species, and I do not mean the categories as we are taught in school. There are very different species among nouns and verbs. "Value" and "Valuing" are, so to say, king-words; their meaning rules over the meaning of other words.

It is true that there is a marked difference in semantic substance between "not impotent to power" and "willing to power". "Impotent to power" is a term Nietzsche's uses for "not willing to power". But I think the rest of what you say is kind of besides the point. You cannot really transcend the law of non-contradiction--the (implicit) concept "not".


Quote :
Quote :
Quote :

I have not been dismissed, but only respected by the wise and imitated by the envious.

Are those the only two options?

By no means. But I meant to illustrate that I have no reason to doubt my politics. You are case in point; thew fact that you, of all people, recognize my work and its value (given that it claims Nietzsche's heritage), this means that I can not have made too grave mistakes in how I present my philosophy.

Still, that depended on the chance event of my obtaining a copy of Picht's book, which had been recommended to me by Lampert. If you're going to keep depending on such things, you may at least want to sing a hymn to Nemesis.


Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
But yes, this is precisely because I make no secret about what I am: a lord of mind (Mannaz, Man), an incarnation of world-fire. It is I, a being of all consuming passion and royal honor, who have forged this, not some anonymous lab-coat.

Yes (though it's ironic that it was you who quite brilliantly concluded, a couple of years ago, that the contemporary equivalent to the Medieval philosopher's exoteric guise of the priest was that of the scientist/scholar; you then seemed more inclined than me to adopt that guise,

At that point I was vet much weakened, and I was hypothetically entertaining the idea of such a role in terms of our mutually attempted, tentative framework of political philosophy, which was all in terms of Humanarchy. In my writing I've always represented the head of Zeus, which is to say Pallas Athena; and I will never actually be able to present a lab-coat, and I will also never want to hide myself. If someone ends up killing me for being too dangerous, I'll be in good company.

In Hades, yes...


Quote :
Quote :

Quote :
No mediocre man could address the concept of value in such a majestic, naturalizing fashion. In this sense VO is a selecting device and only fit for our people -- who are thereby defined.

But what about those in between the mediocre and such exceptions? Those who are potentially exceptional?

Capable and I have concerned ourselves with such people in the first years. Sometimes they turn out to be brilliant, but do so on their own accord, and rather in spite of our intended diplomacies. For the most part, people are nowhere near ready to commit to a form of thinking this comprehensive, a form that draws so much of themselves into their thoughts.

Understanding VO requires a great degree of freedom from hypocrisy. "Our people" are foremost the Frank (and free-to-themselves).

Quote :
By the way, that part about "M! M!" was an allusion to a story about the logical positivists (Russell etc.). A bunch of them had got together and were trying to establish a completely logical philosophy. One of them was given the task of yelling "M!" whenever any of them suggested anything metaphysical. Soon, they changed this to yelling "not M!" when any of them suggested something non-metaphysical.

I will let my imagination wander about what these non-metaphysical suggestions might have been, in good old Vienna, where this philosophy was born.

And really, this is something I want and expect for us - a physical stronghold. I want philosophy to wear a crown. It must inspire envy in the unwashed. Death to the ascetic form of the philosopher as outcast. I want the philosophers to have lovers, to own castles -- I want them to thrive. The Othala of my politics: the luxury wherewith the philosopher may surround and adorn himself, as representing the esteem in which society holds him; this will be the mark of ascending culture. It is precisely the superior role of the philosopher that needs to be recognized if a culture is to be serious at all.

Very central to our task is thus the freedom from shame because of our pride. If I can not speak for you here, then hear this: very central to my task is to not be ashamed of my pride. Let others be ashamed of their lack if it, their lack of reason for it!

And let them withdraw into the shrubbery, and gossip; rather that they stay far away than that they disturb the glorious company I can afford to keep in this exalted condition, which, when explicitly cultivated, is an effective means to keep away the sordid. If I comported myself modestly, I would find myself unbearably pretentious, and a hypocrite. It is nature's way of isolating, selecting.

My antitheses are Hume and Socrates.

I agree with this. Thus in my last psychedelic trip, after reflecting on the question whether Strauss's or Nietzsche's political philosophy is wiser at this point, I wrote this to you (in Dutch):

I think we should risk it and no longer hide philosophy's world-affirmation, as Strauss still thought, but bring it to publicity in its full glory--magnificence, splendour--, even though we thereby risk the most complete wipeout of every trace of there ever having been philosophy on earth--the whole tradition, for example the fragments of Heraclitus. And who knows whether, if we provoke such a cataclysm, there will not afterwards be people who shall embrace the fragments of, for example, Nietzsche's works as sayings, proverbs, folk-lore. I think that, if man is still not ready for the truth regarding philosophy, he may just as well be decimated. But let us initially try not to incite him to envy (invidia) but to jealousy, zealousness--try to incite him to zealously strive for our heights, or at least higher heights than his normal level, and for making such heights possible. In order that mankind may one day, as Nietzsche puts it in I think Richard Wagner in Bayreuth, as a whole look forward to its necessary down-going, just as I now look forward to my down-going.


::

"As the sun set on Homer's world Socrates prepared its rise on Plato's. He knew the immensity of what he was doing; he prostrated himself before Adrasteia knowing that a time would come when Adrasteia would condemn him in order to raise what would succeed him--condemn him as he found it necessary to condemn Homer." (Lampert, How Philosophy Became Socratic, pp. 336-37.)



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Value Philosophy Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Here is the elephant in the room, Baudrillard knew it: humans today are quite capable of worthy earth valuing such as Eros, they do it every day on MDMA in raves. This simply isn't enough.

Nietzsche knew that the reason they go no further is a cowardice more than a blindness.

It is futile to will society to assume worth as human. Most important pop artists tried and the best eventually killed themselves.

Nietzsche knew that old rituals will not do. People are wise to some essential part of them, and anyway, nothing is worthier than evolution.

The elephant in the room has only been called out by Sawelios because only he is naive enough to see it as relatively simple, or thinks it is a matter of willing society to assume worth as human: politics. Actually, there is no political philosophy, philisophy's only politics is to ensure its continuance.

But a politics for the philosophers, this is a task most worthy.

People will be people. This conclusion was wrought out by FC earlier, but I wanted to point out that what a philosopher must do, the reason Capable is so important to me, is ensure the politics of philosophy always supercede the politics for philosophers.

Orpheus civilizing nature is Zarathustra if he had not been up on a mountain but in a forest. Welcome to philosophy, would you like a glass of water?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:23 pm

Do you agree that automorphism is integral to Value Philosophy?
Yes, I do.
75%
75% [ 3 ]
No, I don't.
25%
25% [ 1 ]
I'm not sure.
0%
0% [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 4

Cancel vote

Author Message
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Automorphism. Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Integral to what I call Value Philosophy or Value Metaphysics, what others call Value Ontology, is what I will henceforth call automorphism. The concept is a correction of "anthropomorphism", which already contains a blatant automorphism. After all, "man" (ho anthropos) is an abstraction, a generalization; I'm not a human being, but rather a human being, to me, is a being that is like me in an essential manner. And it's integral to Value Philosophy to posit that all beings automorphize. This positing is, of course, itself also an automorphism.



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wow, you beat me to it.

Except you have more balls, you consider this as an ontological event, worthy of its own name, indeed central to your entire understanding of ontology.

I guess this is the injustice you keep bringing up? But then, one would need a justice. I myself use evolution as the term here.

Justice is the interest of the strong, after all.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Wow, you beat me to it.

Except you have more balls, you consider this as an ontological event, worthy of its own name, indeed central to your entire understanding of ontology.

I guess this is the injustice you keep bringing up? But then, one would need a justice. I myself use evolution as the term here.

Justice is the interest of the strong, after all.

Thanks. And yes, you're right about injustice. Also, your last comment seems helpful for understanding what you mean by "evolution". Evolution has often been associated with "the survival of the fittest" (which in Dutch is rendered as "the right of the strongest"; perhaps it's similar in your own native language). But evolution only entails the survival of the fittest in a very specific sense. Even if one understands "survival" as "genetic survival" (that is to say, as reproduction as well as survival), fitness is relative to the environment. For example, the fact that the last generation of dodos did not reproduce while the contemporary generation of chickens did does not mean the latter was in any sense stronger than the former; in the same environment, those chickens might have lasted even less long than those dodos. Likewise, if the creatures that live on the earth's surface were suddenly teleported to the surface of the sun, the fitness of all of them would be reduced to a number tantamount to zero (and even if one should keep track of their survival in nanoseconds, the factors determining their survival would be different: for instance, how large and how resistant to flame instead of how fast and how furry). Considerations such as these are examples of what I call "justice" (doing justice to the dodo, for example).



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think that justice is compassion almost, certainly pity, a missunderstanding of the things that are really there to be valued.

Evolution, like so many concepts from so many unworthy masters, was freed from Darwin by Nietzsche (look up his anti-Darwin aphorism in Twilight of the Idols). A so to speak aristocratic conception of evolution would simply have it be the process by which life is, came to be and shall be in the abscence of a creator god. The answer to the problems beings encounter in the evolutionary process (survival, as Nietzsche said, being one of the shittiest and least cool problems) and, often enough, the germs of the problems themselves come from inward, in being a place conformed by out and unified by previous experience of what we call, what is life.

It's fun becuase, rather than being a despairingly long process of conflict to arrive at a righteous end, it is a never-ending process which end is the conflict itself, the betterment and fruitfulness of it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
I think that justice is compassion almost, certainly pity, a missunderstanding of the things that are really there to be valued.

Evolution, like so many concepts from so many unworthy masters, was freed from Darwin by Nietzsche (look up his anti-Darwin aphorism in Twilight of the Idols). A so to speak aristocratic conception of evolution would simply have it be the process by which life is, came to be and shall be in the abscence of a creator god. The answer to the problems beings encounter in the evolutionary process (survival, as Nietzsche said, being one of the shittiest and least cool problems) and, often enough, the germs of the problems themselves come from inward, in being a place conformed by out and unified by previous experience of what we call, what is life.

It's fun becuase, rather than being a despairingly long process of conflict to arrive at a righteous end, it is a never-ending process which end is the conflict itself, the betterment and fruitfulness of it.

As I've argued in my "Nietzsche contra Darwin?" thread, Nietzsche fundamentally misunderstood Darwinism and actually agreed with it.

Nietzsche was not against compassion or pity, but only against active compassion or pity ("the compassion [or: pity] of the deed", as he called in in section 2 of The Antichrist).

"The opulent Cleopatra called 'Culture' ever again casts the most priceless pearls into her golden beaker: these pearls are the tears of compassion [Mitleiden] for the slaves and for the slaves' misery. The gigantic social crises of the present have been born from modern man's pampering, not from the true and deep pity [Erbarmen] for that misery[.]" (Nietzsche, "The Greek State".)


"Modern man's pampering": that is to say, his impotence not to act on his feelings. My justice, on the other hand, is not active pity, as it does not seek to save species from extinction or anything. However, it's one thing to let species go extinct, but another thing to say that that's because they're weak, inferior, etc.



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The aristocrat feels no compassion, he relates to the human state of "slaves." Compassion is rather to feel and relish pain of others. It is not just that a man suffer, it is just that he stop suffering. It is evolutionarily inevitable that we all suffer, it is wastefull to see potential in a lower man and leave it. It is celebratable excess to wonder about the potential of a man already up to his neck in sweat, blood and tears. What potential is found depends on the value of the man searching for it.

Darwin's theory is that the main directive is not to die, both in body and, as you say, in lineage. This is... Is this what you are putting into question? Nietzsche was very much against this. Evolution is all there is to life, can you sit there and tell me that mere survival is all there is to life? How wretched that would be... I might be aroused to celebrate you! Maybe I, a son of this pampered society, am too cynical for the true aristocracy which would have looked down on you if this is the case. I remember the way actual aristocrats I knew looked down on people, but no, deep down it was celebration of life. "You belong there and I belong here."

But let's leave aristocrats for now and focus on philosophers. Passive compassion, by its very passivity, has nothing to do with justice. No, you are not weak, not free of excess... What you feel is not justice... It is asthetics! You see beauty in tragedy. This is well enough, very much not suited for survival btw. The dodo was quite beautiful, maybe even more so than the chicken! I see the germs of a problem here...
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sauwelios was very early on in my 'career' one of the few who understood evolution as an ex post facto law; it's quite obvious, but still most people think that evolution has an actual aim, as if it is an entity. It has neither aim nor outcome; it is outcome, and an aim, of a conscious being, might be to be part of it.

Even in the case of actual entities, having an aim is entirely impossible in the absence of consciousness. Survival is the result of what must be seen as arbitrary conditions prescribing arbitrary 'fitnesses'; what tended to come out on top was not necessarily physically strong or intelligent, but simply happened to a) not be immediately killed soon and b) be chosen to mate with. None of this could have been the 'goal' of an unconscious being.

Rather than that survival is the goal of evolution, it is evolution; that which has evolved is that which has survived.

Sex is a good example. Most people think that the formal telos of sex is procreation. But this is only the outcome; the tendency to engage in sexual contact surely had nothing to do with some early sexual organisms premonition of rearing offspring. Telos only comes into play with consciousness.



___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Survival is not evolution, it is an excess of evolution. A bi-product. Like offspring is an excess of sexuality.

It would be silly to assume that survival does not play a directive role in evolution now and then, like Zizek says, unimaginable catastrophy after unimaginable catastrophy. But equating survival with evolution is like equating a Picasso with ink. How banal...
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A practical way of better grasping the disjointedness of ontology and teleology, of being and formal (or known or held) aims, is to study ones own aims, in comparison with the outcomes of ones actions.

It is only under specific circumstances that aim and outcome tend to correspond.

In small, routine tasks, the correspondence is regular. But in case of "real goals"; ambitions, conscious aims that drive human through entire lives, the aim is usually only an agent for activities that bring forth very different results. As John Lennon said, life is what happens to you when you while you're making plans; so is evolution what happens while entities are going about their entirely pointless business of self-valuing, which is not projected into time, but rather direct expression of what one is.

A goal presupposes that one is actively selective about what one is, that one expresses only portions of ones power that one expects to lead to this aim/ In reality, power sets goals; we can be ascribed only those aims which we are capable of attaining, and we can only set those goals which we imagine being capable of attaining; these two are of course very different.

The feeling of power versus the actual potential, this is an as yet unresolved duality within the Nietzschean will to power model; the feeling of power represents the potential to act, but the actual potential represents the potential to attain something. The former is not teleological and real, the latter is teleological and exists only ex post facto.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What has evolved must have survived, so survival is required for evolution. It's quite inevitable. Somethings requirement can not be rightly called its by-product.

It is an analytical truth that evolution can not exist without survival; as true as 'a red ball is red'. But indeed, it is only a synthetic truth, and at best a half-truth at that, that survival can not exist without evolution. We can imagine and even produce counter examples; there are primordial bacteria that have no need of evolving.

However, in as far as we are addressing evolution, we are speaking of the evolution of life, not of the dead. Survival is implicit in evolution.

The problem is with the word "fittest". Evolution is rather "survival of the most fortunate".

Nietzsche's less popular expressions deal with the role of luck and coincidence in all good things.

It can help to be strong or to have moral integrity, it can also hurt. It depends on the environment.

Lastly, it will, per self-valuing, in cases be more fortunate to perish than to survive. So to posit fortune as the agent is incorrect too; let's keep it at fate.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Indeed, evolution is indifferent to individuals' ambitions. Its forces are otherwise.

I think an answer exists to debanalizing the problem of survival in evolution. See, it is not a matter of who is more fit to survive, but who is able to and effectively gets water. Water has its own dynamics on organic beings, so even when got, any prescribed aim is vulneable to the realness of it.

Thales of Milates, ladies and gentlemen. Knew his shit.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Anyway, fate, getting water, this is not what makes evolution interesting.

That is my problem with justice. Automorphism is a beautiful event, one with many awe inspiring relations of power. To see it is a philosopher's prerrogative, and this gives way to celebrating the philosopher!

My question is not whether the competition for Water produces what kind of being. My question is how do we get philosophers water!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Anyway, fate, getting water, this is not what makes evolution interesting.

That is my problem with justice. Automorphism is a beautiful event, one with many awe inspiring relations of power. To see it is a philosopher's prerrogative, and this gives way to celebrating the philosopher!

My question is not whether the competition for Water produces what kind of being. My question is how do we get philosophers water!

As you've repeatedly expressed, BTL is quite instrumental in this.

Philosophy is after all water to the philosopher; and to practice philosophy it is useful to have other philosophers around - and to keep out the non-philosophers.

BTL's self-valuing is quite exemplary; non philosophical entities have a lot of trouble self-valuing in its region, but it draws philosophical ones.

I won't claim it draws "the philosophical type" but it certainly works well as a value standard-setter.

Plato had above his door some harsh banishment of those who weren't initiated into mathematics. If we can learn anything from Plato it's from his politics, which were always aimed to secure the position of the philosopher.

It would be very good to found an "Academy"; a physical place where philosophers may freely dwell. It would be a good move to explicitly separate philosophy from academia by creating a new Academy.

But we need foremost to realize how far we already have advanced, how much terrain we now have to roam and how many people have been irreversibly touched by the idea of self-valuing; verily it is like a life-form that is a disease for the weak and a medicine for the strong.

It is not unlikely that I will at one point be able to create such a physical locus; since Capable and I set out working together, originally a great part of which was developing politics for philosophers, this tree has grown tremendously, through all sorts of human-all-too-human resistance.

I am generally more optimistic about these things than I let on. But it is perhaps not unwise to make it clear how close I sense we are to a fold in the fabric, having crossed which, we'll be working with entirely different coordinates; coordinates that are oriented on our own star.



___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hunting down water is like philosophizing itself. A dojo? Money. Money? Society. Society? Change. Change? Etc. All of these questions have a number of other interconnections. For instance, academic work? Restriction. Restriction? More resources. More resources? Restriction.

I have been following this thread at serious risk to my life for the last two years.

Bah, I'm more optimistic than I let on too.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That is all good and well... Have you seen, the documentary "jodorowski's dune"? The reason Alejandro seems like a fucking madman when he pitches to his team is that people still have jobs and things... Hell, even his own team went on to make great but comparably banal movies like Alien.

Transcendentalism has not cought up with life. Ambitionalism is still kind of stuck in the master morality age that spawned it, people have groceries to buy and grandmas to appease.

I even tend to decide on the conclusion that they can not be included, but only made to serve new masters as Marx said they used to be made to. Maybe Marx's childish rage makes us not see how he saw a lot that was real and true. The world is a big massive unwieldy mass ball. It cannot be directed with a pool cue. Truth is not enough, or rather too much.

These people are more elemental than incidental. On the subject of aristocrats, it is to their credit that they deep down appreciated the efforts of slaves, that they saw them as a basic part of the whole. Not as good though inferior, or tolerable, or damned or stupid, but as much a part of glory as a general, as much a part of beauty as the top asthetitians. The most sophisticated thought was integrally indebted to slaves.

In this, fuck it, hollistic way does a philosopher need to re-establish his position with respect to society.

If we love evolution, we love: that its products need not be enjoyed by all individual humans, but by the gods, and only hence benefit even the lowest man. Did you ever see the look of a structrurally poor man who lived through golden aristocratic times? As much nostalgia and pride as Napoleon must have had in that island.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
The aristocrat feels no compassion, he relates to the human state of "slaves."

Was Nietzsche not an aristocrat? And, even insofar as he was not (he was not called "von Nietzsche", for instance), was he not most noble? And insofar as he was noble but not an aristocrat, does it matter what "aristocrats" feel?


Quote :
Compassion is rather to feel and relish pain of others.

"Relish"? Is this a cynical view of compassion, or did you mean a different word, or am I missing something? Please explain.


Quote :
It is not just that a man suffer, it is just that he stop suffering.

According to the "compassionate" or in general? If the latter, you and I do not mean the same thing by "justice". I'm not talking about justice in any popular sense of the word. I'm talking about philosophical justice, in the highest sense of the word "philosophical".


Quote :
It is evolutionarily inevitable that we all suffer,

Yes: not just for "sentient" beings, but, according to Value Philosophy as I understand it, in some way for all beings, however "rudimentary".


Quote :
it is wastefull to see potential in a lower man and leave it.

But is waste or wastefulness bad? As I wrote in a draft last week:

I'm not concerned with lowering the cost [at which the West exists] so much as magnifying the waste. I mean, if waste is seen to be magnificent, is it really a waste? [...] But can it really be magnificent if it is not? Must the highest privilege not be exempt from all responsibility? [...] Noblesse oblige: privilege obliges one to enjoy it in full. And perhaps one enjoys one's privilege most fully only in enjoying one's liberty not to enjoy it in full?


The latter are some more variations on the theme of the justice of injustice and the injustice of justice.


Quote :
It is celebratable excess to wonder about the potential of a man already up to his neck in sweat, blood and tears. What potential is found depends on the value of the man searching for it.

I don't follow the last sentence. Don't you mean "values"? I mean, the values the man holds? Or do you mean the value the man possesses, as in "this thing is worth ten dollars"?


Quote :
Darwin's theory is that the main directive is not to die, both in body and, as you say, in lineage.

Well, I'm not completely sure about the man Darwin himself, but insofar as Darwin was a Darwinist in the sense of present-day Darwinism, his theory was not that there was any directive at all. Darwinism is a modern scientific theory, and as such it's descriptive and not prescriptive (normative); it does not make value judgments, only judgments of fact. By this I don't mean that there are no value judgments within modern science, which would be impossible, but that it describes, for instance, the evolution and eventual extinction of the dodo but does not say that any of it is good or bad.

Instincts may be considered "directives", but by no means all evolution depends on instincts, and even they ultimately come about undirected, unless it be in the sense that there are directives in all existence, all beings, no matter how "rudimentary".


Quote :
This is... Is this what you are putting into question? Nietzsche was very much against this. Evolution is all there is to life, can you sit there and tell me that mere survival is all there is to life? How wretched that would be... I might be aroused to celebrate you! Maybe I, a son of this pampered society, am too cynical for the true aristocracy which would have looked down on you if this is the case. I remember the way actual aristocrats I knew looked down on people, but no, deep down it was celebration of life. "You belong there and I belong here."

But let's leave aristocrats for now and focus on philosophers. Passive compassion, by its very passivity, has nothing to do with justice. No, you are not weak, not free of excess... What you feel is not justice... It is asthetics! You see beauty in tragedy. This is well enough, very much not suited for survival btw. The dodo was quite beautiful, maybe even more so than the chicken! I see the germs of a problem here...

How do you know what I feel and see?



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
How do I know?

If no man is less than nothing and you are after noblesse, it follows that you are missunderstanding your instincts as to the elements of evolution because of a tyranical (I will concede, noble) need to bend modern academia to philosophical reason.

Thus, you see the evidence Darwin and Darwinists show for why life is as it is and you make excuses that allow both for you to fit in with them, masters of modern academia, and them to not really mean what they are saying.

Let's take your perspective: they are not dictating that life exists so that animals don't die and have offspring, they are describing how not dying and having offspring is the driving force for the development of life.

Then you say it is just that dodos are cool even if they didn't survive these forces.

Meesees only beauty and definetly a will to escape the dumb tyranny of Darwin. But you try to call philosophy beyond evolution and use the name justice or injustice to account for extra-evolutionary forces.

Honestly, I think your justice and injustice are strength and weakness, a la Nietzsche, and agree that a noble spirit may delight in the poetry of weakness, its beauty, as much as strength.

Understand this and automorphism will escalate in value for your self-valuing action: nothing in life is outside of evolution. Not even Noblesse. Otherwise, wait for it...

it would not survive.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The only real 'driving force of life' is excess. Every ontic being (retains at least a little consistency-congruity in time and space) is a groupie to some range and frequency of excessive profusion.

Life doesn't care about survival, just as survival doesn't care about life.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let's assume that chairs are conscious. What would we call it if chairs made a "philosophy" which reduced everything about life and being a chair to the factory manufacturing processes, compositions of different kinds of wood and nails, and economic profit and sales forces that led to humans making chairs? We would laugh at such a philosophy, we would laugh at the absurd myopia and narrow-minded ignorance of the chairs. What would we call it still, if chairs outlived the human race and in 100,000 years from now still held to such a philosophy as exclaimed all those old production processes and economic forces of humanity that chairs have long-since moved away from? We would call such a philosophy even more idiotic.

I'm waiting for a sign that we are ready to consider our reality. The best parts of Nietzsche are where he tries, although ultimately fails, to raise his eyes. But usually I see people liking Nietzsche for all the wrong reasons.

Just because he happens to be the first philosopher doesn't mean he was, relatively speaking (not relative to all the non-philosophers that came before and still keep coming after him, but I mean relative to REAL philosophy), a particularly great one. He was good enough for his role, namely as I just said, of being the first philosopher. Let's valorize and understand him from that view only, and then move on already.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have my Pentad post ready. I think we have satisfactorily greeted and and discussed, the prelude is done.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Great, feel free to create the new topic for this in the Pentad forum, I'm looking forward to it.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
How do I know?

If no man is less than nothing and you are after noblesse, it follows that you are missunderstanding your instincts as to the elements of evolution because of a tyranical (I will concede, noble) need to bend modern academia to philosophical reason.

Thus, you see the evidence Darwin and Darwinists show for why life is as it is and you make excuses that allow both for you to fit in with them, masters of modern academia, and them to not really mean what they are saying.

Let's take your perspective: they are not dictating that life exists so that animals don't die and have offspring, they are describing how not dying and having offspring is the driving force for the development of life.

Then you say it is just that dodos are cool even if they didn't survive these forces.

Meesees only beauty and definetly a will to escape the dumb tyranny of Darwin. But you try to call philosophy beyond evolution and use the name justice or injustice to account for extra-evolutionary forces.

Honestly, I think your justice and injustice are strength and weakness, a la Nietzsche, and agree that a noble spirit may delight in the poetry of weakness, its beauty, as much as strength.

Understand this and automorphism will escalate in value for your self-valuing action: nothing in life is outside of evolution. Not even Noblesse. Otherwise, wait for it...

it would not survive.

I'm not sure what you mean by "if no man is less than nothing", but you seem to say that you think I'm someone relatively noble who's looking for noblesse in others, and that, in order to see something noble in Darwin(ists), I have to willfully misconceive of them. If this is more or less what you're saying, my counter will be the question: Is the true the same as the noble? I think "modern academia", as you call it, or modern science and scholarship in general, is something relatively noble; however, I'm not looking to it for nobility but for truth--correspondence to reality. I think that, within the mechanistic paradigm of modern natural science, Darwinism is true. Now Darwinism's main mechanism, the theory of natural selection, teaches the following. Suppose that the members of a same-species group of animals that live in the same place in space-time are represented by marbles, and their environment is represented by a person. Some of the animals are represented by a blue marble, others by a green marble, and others still by a blue-and-green marble. Now suppose the person has too much stuff in his house and needs to get rid of some stuff. He really likes blue, but doesn't really like green. He therefore gets rid of the green marbles, keeping only the blue ones and the blue-and-green ones. Now suppose that the person changes, that with regard to taste in colours he becomes a different person. He now really likes green but doesn't really like blue. And at the same time he again happens to have too much stuff in his house. Now he gets rid of the blue marbles, keeping only the blue-and-green ones. Thus two consecutive environments have naturally selected the animals represented by the blue-and-green marbles. This says nothing about whether they were better than the ones represented by the blue marbles and by the green marbles. I think doing justice to the latter requires that one recognises this; I don't think it's unjust that the latter went instinct, I don't want to save species from extinction. If after reading this you still think I misunderstand or make excuses or try to escape from anything, please explain.



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
OK then, not noblesse but truth.

Truth is also a part of evolution, otherwise, wait for it...

it would not survive.

Let's call truth a marble that can change colors. The person might choose this or that color, and the marble will have to change with or hide from the person. If it is ever caught, it dies.

Now, is the death of this marble more interesting than the process whereby it chooses colors?

Let's say you think so, but some people that you fear prefer to wonder about the color processes. You want these people out!

You show, with ample use of death pictures, that the only thing going on is the death. That even the colors only respond to who the person decides to dispose of. Shazam! You have used their intrigue for the color processes to convince them that it is less interesting then the death mechanism. Any man wanting to join their well funded group would have to say: "my, look at that color! I wonder what had to die to make it? After all, nothing else makes it."

If such a person were to discover a rivetting color mechanism such as automorphism, he would have to excuse himself: "but this is not evolution! Only philosophy...!"
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 40
Location : Amsterdam


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
OK then, not noblesse but truth.

Truth is also a part of evolution, otherwise, wait for it...

it would not survive.

Well, what do you mean by "truth" here, then? The will to truth? Yes, the will to truth has evolved and will therefore most probably go extinct sooner or later, but that's not what I meant. I'm not interested in modern science's will to truth, but in the truth discovered by it--the fact of evolution, for example.


Quote :
Let's call truth a marble that can change colors. The person might choose this or that color, and the marble will have to change with or hide from the person. If it is ever caught, it dies.

Now, is the death of this marble more interesting than the process whereby it chooses colors?

Let's say you think so, but some people that you fear prefer to wonder about the color processes. You want these people out!

You show, with ample use of death pictures, that the only thing going on is the death. That even the colors only respond to who the person decides to dispose of. Shazam! You have used their intrigue for the color processes to convince them that it is less interesting then the death mechanism. Any man wanting to join their well funded group would have to say: "my, look at that color! I wonder what had to die to make it? After all, nothing else makes it."

If such a person were to discover a rivetting color mechanism such as automorphism, he would have to excuse himself: "but this is not evolution! Only philosophy...!"

Not if philosophy comprehends the truth of evolution. But yes, even then philosophy is not beyond evolution. It has evolved. It is the product of evolution. But even saying this is making a metaphysical claim. Evolution, the theory of evolution, is a product of philosophy--this is all we know. It is a value, and not necessarily a fact. We don't know with absolute certainty whether it's a fact that there is only valuation. This is the necessary injustice I speak of--the automorphism even and especially of Value Philosophy. "Especially", because Value Philosophy affirms its own automorphism. And "even", because Value Philosophy is the most probable view of the world. All this from my point of view, of course.



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Automorphism. Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For a man with a snake eating its tail as a presentation card, you seem to have a lot of trouble with the idea that the truth is a part of evolution, and only truth can contain that.

Tell me, if the snake is eating its tail, what point of view other than yours can find more of a fact than yours?

Wherefore probability?

How can fact supercede or precede point of view?

What process can be anything but the process of evolution?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail

Automorphism.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:23 pm

Author Message
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Discontinuity in Nietzsche Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What was disconttinuous in Nietzsche was that he tested the limits of all thought. On the controversy of whether Nietzsche was a philosopher, as philosophy was to him one of many elements of thought to be struggled with, we must conclude that he was not.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Discontinuity in Nietzsche Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don't think philosophers struggle with philosophy. I think they struggle with the animal flux, to subjugate it in its terms.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Discontinuity in Nietzsche Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The fire flux.
But this is philosophy.

By my beard, and his, this teaching to be deeper than one had thought, is this not philosophy?



___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Discontinuity in Nietzsche Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, I guess that's what Capable means by him being the first philosopher. As he said: before and after.

But he struggled with things that philosophers shouldn't have to struggle with. I'm convinced he was a demolisher, he was the no.

The yes is what he allowed. And its implications go beyond philosophy, there was an extra-philosophical tyranny. I think that what we are struggling with with Sawelios is beyond philosophy.

Nietzsche was first a psychologist, he went into the psychology of philosophy. But he talked about a type, which he was, that went up and down Jacob's ladder at his pleasure. Philosophy occupies certain rungs. He accessed those rungs through psychology, thus some mistake him for a moral philosopher (what a small perception).

As philosophy was refined from Aristotle's all encompasingness, so philosophy must be refined by philosophers from Nietzsche's. They are more specialized in those rungs, they must see psychology as below philosophy. This he proto-wanted.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Discontinuity in Nietzsche Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:35 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, you are right.

What Nietzsche saught wasn't refinement per se, it was a straight line.

But a straight line arranges things around it, and not only philosophy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: Re: Discontinuity in Nietzsche Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Rather this:

That Nietzsche's discovery was philosophy, and all else must be in its service, including for non-philosophers, for reasons that philosophy discovers in the animal flux.

Soil. Funk. Below and beyond philosophy, at one and the same time.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Discontinuity in Nietzsche Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Nietzschean no and yes are applicable in many other places also. We can't know what it means to be for or against something until we also understand the position opposite that "something", to formulate our no required for our yes.

That can be difficult as Nietzsche found out, because a huge part of the organism's biology and psychology are tied into values-declarations almost automatically, so that positive or negative connotations of need or feeling or expectation appear in almost everything. Thus there exists for these positions invisible "no" conditions that cannot easily be seen. Philosophy is daemonic because we must push past values and feelings and needs in order to arrive at a middle-point where both the object itself and its most perfect opposition are brought together in a single moment of consciousness, because only by doing so can we truly cause both polarized ideas to influence each other.

The forced position that compels no and yes to encounter each other authentically, and we will always know if the encounter is authentic because it will be radically new to us, the force of the insight and feeling that comes out of the clash. If the encounter is mundane and fits within established expectations and feelings- or values-parameters then the encounter wasn't complete or original, but merely a kind of re-configuration of existing perspectives.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:25 pm

Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves


PostSubject: On Parts Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Philosophy of The Whole is a lie. Even when we look at some coherent whole, it is itself a part.

This is why Will to Power. There will never be a whole, our strive for coherence is not a path with ends but constant willing to power. We strive for and achieve part after part, and coherence between parts. This is the greatest pleasure, for us who have tasted it. The will to end, to whole, is the most bewildering thing to us, as the infinite multiplicity is more than any thing we were ever promised about wisdom, more wealth than whole seeking could ever conceive, and its beauty is that it is not better because it is more pleasurable, this it is, but because it is self-evidently true. Thus it is not even better, but simply true, and whole and end seeking becomes simply a wanton obstacleization, a bother, a cancer in the sense that it does not heed health, a true annoyance.

Let us diagnose, then. So far, I have seen no other treatment than what Nietzsche described, death. To help the end-seeker find end.




Author Message
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Sun Jun 19, 2016 4:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ideas are simple. Use words sparingly to denote ideas, unless you're writing fiction. Is philosophy fiction? Is Science fiction?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Sun Jun 19, 2016 5:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Truth is at once simple and infinitely complex; entities tend to integrate only that to which they feel akin. Most people confronted with delicate philosophical reasoning across several pages will be repelled, unable to integrate, digest. The silly ones among them will project their failure on the writer, and assume that, because they could not appreciate, the text is simply 'too complex'.

Another matter is elegance. Some philosophers were able to convey complex idea in rather simple terms. Problem with that is that their ideas were usually misunderstood - simplified by simpler minds.

Personal: a problem is that in my own mind, VO is a logic that is beyond simple; it is entirely obvious. It is in fact so clearly the case that it applies everywhere that, to put it into words, is already making it far more complicated than it is. And yet, the implications of its application are so vastly complex that the brain starts producing neural connections at the mere anticipation of working it through.

Simplicity for the sake of a pleasant read or an easy 'ah yes true!' is an epicurean taste, unrelated to intellectual conscience.




___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We disagree then. Some philosophers are romantics; I am not one of them.

Ideas entertain me or not, epicurean if you must insult.

Remember, thoughts are my addiction. Most thoughts are fleeting. Most ideas fizzle. Unnecessarily long reads blow.

Intellectual conscience comes across as snobbery. I am not one of them either.

If keeping ideas simple offends your sensibilities, I'll keep my simplicity to myself.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Sun Jun 19, 2016 9:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That's it?

All you have to say is that you don't like long texts? It seems like a waste of time for the both of us.

Feel free to make a point. Be as concise as you must.
It's strange to be insulted that someone who hosts a forum for prolific writers does not agree with your OP.




___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Specifications on how prolific one ought to be is logical in your eyes? You have issues with my not feeding your mind enough?

I was asked here. Obviously, in error by "prolifictariats."
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Specifications on how prolific one ought to be is logical in your eyes?

Does this contain reference to something in particular? I can't find it.

You may have expected me to lick your ass because you showed up. Sorry about that. That's not how we do things here.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No offense - Im just making it clear that diplomacy goes out the door as soon as you step into this place. Only merit counts here.

At the very least I assume that you understand that merely stating a preference for short texts does not qualify on any level as philosophy.

None of the regular posters here puts any stock in controlling their temper. If you cant enjoy that, if you prefer the backhanded insinuations common on other forums then feel free to leave.

Im still hoping there is something you can add to this place. Fortunately I have no problem with short texts.



___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My point was simplicity keeps logic obvious. K.I.S.S.

My terms at this time: Don't play dumb. Don't make me cranky. Kissing of my ass must occur once every blue moon.


Wading through a shit-ton of text is a waste of my patience, ensuring crankiness.
Not answering my questions is playing dumb which causes immediate crankiness.


Your terms?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Is philosophy fiction? Is Science fiction?

What if I say yes?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175698



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My terms: balls.

I don't care about commentaries. I care about attempts to alter the course of evolution.

Nothing in genetic biology is simple. Neither is philosophy capable of operating on simple principles.

+To think means to risk ones animal nature.+

Is that simple enough?



___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"My terms: balls.

I don't care about commentaries. I care about attempts to alter the course of evolution.

Nothing in genetic biology is simple. Neither is philosophy capable of operating on simple principles.

+To think means to risk ones animal nature.+

Is that simple enough?"-FC

Your stance on one's animal nature?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
FC,

A reply to my question in the above post would be helpful. Also what does *hi-jacking the universe* mean?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Do you mean this?

Quote :
Your stance on one's animal nature?

I dont mean to be a dick, but I honestly have no idea what you're asking me.


Perhaps mylady would consider using a few more words?

At least try to make your thoughts discernible somewhat.



___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is being human, the physical being, all you essentially are? Then, what's going on in genetic biology that would lead to your next statement about "thinking risks one's animal nature"? Another question from above~hi-jacking the universe meaning what? When you have time, will you finish my astrology chart reading?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Thu Jun 30, 2016 6:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nevermind about the natal chart expansion I requested. Busy reading the chart myself. You were very kind in what you revealed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Fri Jul 01, 2016 5:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Is being human, the physical being, all you essentially are?

All we are is the whole life.
We've got a weird notion of physicality. There is no such thing, science has revealed this a hundred years ago, as an 'object'. There are only relativistic quanta. Real substance is always process, never 'stuff'. 'Stuff' is just a delay of process.

Process, on the other hand, could be made of god knows what. My solution is that it is made of valuing, which is ultimately the only verifiable thing - what Ive basically done is converted the human mind to the universe.

In any case, what we experience that we are, is mostly what we are, I should say. Our body is physical. We live in a physical world. We are physical. But that means we are processes that intertwine with changing arrays of trillions of other processes at all times.

Quote :
Then, what's going on in genetic biology that would lead to your next statement about "thinking risks one's animal nature"? Another question from above~hi-jacking the universe meaning what? When you have time, will you finish my astrology chart reading?

I mean that the coherence of the instincts, those reactions about which we dont think, for which we do not prepare, is at risk of being disturbed once we start thinking. This does not mean that we sacrifice our animality, but that it becomes much more difficult to be a functional, happy animal.


Regarding the chart - it was in public, I'm not about to put someones soul-dirt out there for the trolls - but what I said must have been sincere.



___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Once, you wrote that you made your own soul. What is your soul and how did you make it? This is serious business to me. Using your balls, start a thread with your explanation.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:25 pm

Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was wrong to mention Copernican relativity.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have a possible solution:

In the Paradox' situation, the one moment when the two are together in one reference frame is the moment where the flashes go off. But the next instant, the situation no longer exists, and the train is a different reference frame than the station, thus appearing skewed. For the anime to make sense, both train and station have to move, and they both have to transform in dimensions so as for the photons to reach the clocks at the same time.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In the anime, the only constants should be the speed of the photons and the distance they are traveling. All the physical components have to bend in order to remain simultaneous. Their distance to the light has to remain constant with the speed by which this distance is bridged and the amount of time elapsed between flash and clock.

From this perspective, it is not the photon that is seen to reach the clock, but the clock that is seen to bend towards the photon to reach it as soon as appears logical from the reference frame.

The reason that the objects bend whereas there is no acceleration is that there are two velocities at the same time, which is essentially the same thing as an acceleration.

An object in a linear acceleration equals two different reference frames overlapping in one object.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"An object in a linear acceleration equals two different reference frames overlapping in one object."

Hence, Newtons Laws.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:35 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So was that a (B) or a (C)?

Fixed Cross wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
All theories must always apply. And actually that was stated in Einsteins special relativity thesis. That was actually the whole underlying concern. Physics requires a set of laws that are not dependent upon the situation of the Earth moving through space at an unknown pace. Relativity was offered as a means to form laws/principles that would be accurate regardless of such space travel.
Yes, this is why you have to make your definitions in terms of relativity in order to test relativity.
But you choose the objectivist way of defining a situation, which is an a priori negation of relativity.

Your definition states that both train and station are actually the same reference frame.
Please listen to this very carefully, because you seem to be thinking in a very common internet and the population in general's way. You are enacting your own accusation.

I have defined only that which relativity accepts as its premise. One cannot accept the consequences or conclusion that are based upon a premise as another premise if it is that premise itself that is in question. In this case, the relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the presumed theory of the constant speed of light. It is the presumed consistency of the speed of light that has brought about this conundrum.

The theory basically states that IF light has a constant speed, events might be SEEN/PERCEIVED as simultaneous events or not due to the time it takes for the light to reach the observer (in this case, the clocks) and despite whether they actually were simultaneous as a history record could prove one way or another. The time it takes for the light to reach the clocks is what we are discussing. So I can not assume the consequential theory of simultaneity if it is the premise of simultaneity that I am testing, else I would be guilty of "affirming the consequent" and forcing the logic into a circular meaningless reasoning (also known as "begging the question").

IF both clocks stopped, then they could both accept the simultaneity issue. But you are suggesting that they are required to stop and thus force the simultaneity issue to declare that the flashers did not do as they have been defined as doing (denying a prior premise). You are arranging that it is impossible for two flashers to simultaneously flash.

I have defined;
1) photon dependent stop-clocks - Relativity allowed.
2) equal distance from a common center seen by EACH frame independently - Relativity allowed.
3) a moving frame emitting photons - Relativity allowed.
4) physically touching triggers for the flashers - Relativity allowed
5) brief alignment of a moving and a fixed stop-clock - Relativity allowed.
6) the consistency of the speed of of light for every observer - Relativity Required.
and
7) two frames accepting the indispensability of the same simultaneous event, the flashing of both flashers - Relativity allowed under the circumstance of zero distance involved (fixed physical touching - the arms triggering the flashers).

Your argument is that IF the relativity of simultaneity is a reality due to the consistency of the speed of light being true, and not merely a perception issue (which is the only thing that Einstein proposed, that it would be a perception issue), then the triggering of the flashers cannot ever be made simultaneous. But that is saying that the physical touching of the arms and the flashers took place when they were not physically touching. That would constitute a non-local event, which relativity does not support and Einstein seriously refused. Non-local touching would violate everything in every ontology because "local" is defined by "nearness to touching".

In both frames, the flashers physically touch their trigger at the same moment simply because the distance Xs is fixed for BOTH frames. And it doesn't matter what Xs is nor even if it is seen as different for one frame than the other, as long as the clocks are centered. That is very easily arranged and has been proposed as the situation. Length dilation can be used to ensure that the train length is properly compensated.

So in effect, what you are saying is that IF the consistency of the speed of light is true, the flashers cannot be made to be triggered together under any circumstances even though they are both definitely being triggered by the same physical event for both frames of reference.

And you are in effect, conflating two separate debates and using the presumption of one to justify the other. So before we proceed;

Do you accept that it is impossible for the flashers to be actually triggered together because the clocks will not experience the light reaching them at the same time? That is denying definition, obvious logic, and practical ability for sake of affirming the consequent.

A) Accept
B) Don't accept
C) Other?

Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
What you are calling the "top down perspective" is actually merely the perspective of both proposed reference frames together.
Relativity was developed because such a perspective is impossible.
One can not have two different reference frames within one reference frame. A = A, thus also A ≠ (≠A).
The "top down perspective" is merely a comparison of the two frames in order to compare the historical event of the clocks either stopping or not stopping to the proposed predictions of the reference frames. It is merely the process of logical comparison of two proposed stories. Hardly impossible.

The mind ALWAYS considers multiple reference frames in order to assess truth... ALWAYS. It has no choice. It cannot think at all without doing that. Logic or reasoning is an entirely different frame of reference (the frame of the conceptual) than visual experience (the frame of the physical perception). The mind is ALWAYS examining both frames in an effort to verify or correct error in either. If a person sees something that is too illogical, they lose their orientation and in extreme cases actually pass out as the mind shuts down.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
In this scenario, the clocks either stop or they don't. If you consider either perspective by itself, it is always the other clock that must not stop. That "top down perspective" is merely the forced conclusion for a single history. The individual perspectives would have to declare a different actual history than the other. But only one history can exist.
Things are influenced by things in different orders; the sequence of events leading up to the present is different as registered by (having affect in) different reference frames.
There can only be one actual history. Or did you want to debate too? Cool

Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
The time of the emission isn't dependent upon when they reach their destination... unless you want to start reversing time and causality.
If the speed is fixed and known, and you decide on a time of arrival, the moment of departure you're going to use is wholly dependent on that time.
Look at that. YOU declared the result as a necessity, a defined result and then deduced that the flasher CANNOT both flash together because if they did, the theory wouldn't be correct = "affirming the consequent". But the flashers most definitely can be arranged to have no choice but to flash together from the perspective of BOTH frames.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Relativity involves the speed of light at the basis of every calculation about mass and energy, so as to never come to the conclusion that reality is inconsistent with itself.
Yet fails.

Fixed Cross or Whoever wrote:
So as I see it now, your only option is to prove that the speed of light is in fact not equal from all reference frames.
That is exactly what I am doing. All you have to do is be honest with yourself and keep examining ALL of the details without prejudice.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
And besides that, we can easily remove any concern for simultaneity merely by having relevant things actually touch, such as the triggering of the flashers by touching arms at the side of the track.
It's interesting to look at the problem from that angle.

What I think would happen is that the station perspective perceives the photons on the train to be departing at a different time than the moment that the trigger connects. The time difference would be due to the fact that the speed of the train has to be converted into the perspective of the station, "valued in terms of".

The experiential connecting to of a reference frame moving with respect to your own is an act that is influenced by the limits of propagation of affect.

Quote :
With zero distance involved, the entire simultaneity issue is void. BOTH frames would have to accept that the flashers were triggered at the same moment.
And yet they can not help perceiving each other as being influenced by it at a different moment.
As you noted, perception and logic don't always agree. That is why you must choose which is going to be your ontology. If perception is your "god", then... you will believe whatever someone else arranges for you to believe. That is the entire intent of a GREAT deal of global mysticism being used right now. The film The Matrix was all about that very concern.

Fixed Cross wrote:
In the Paradox' situation, the one moment when the two are together in one reference frame is the moment where the flashes go off. But the next instant, the situation no longer exists, and the train is a different reference frame than the station, thus appearing skewed. For the anime to make sense, both train and station have to move, and they both have to transform in dimensions so as for the photons to reach the clocks at the same time.
Again, trying to "affirm the consequent", justify the premise rather than test it; "so as for..." = "so that we can accept the premise being tested, we must alter the defined situation into a skew." (which actually wouldn't work anyway).

Realize that by definition a frame cannot be moving with respect to itself. We are examining what a theory requires each frame to theorize as factual. So we must look at each as though each was not moving and see what each would theorize concerning the other, given the premise that the speed of light is constant for all observers. But still, we cannot insist that the relativity of simultaneity is a justification for its own premise.

What is being argued is that;
If A, then B.
And
If B, then A is acceptable.

But then we see that B doesn't seem to be true.

Then saying;
Because B (insisting on its truth), then A is acceptable and other premises (not under test) must be denied.

Isn't it simpler to just accept that even though relativity is closer to being accurate than the older "constant time" theory, it still isn't quite Holy Gospel?

Also realize that we could easily place another fixed clock slightly above the train clock so that the same light that stops one would stop the other... IF either actually stopped. But the fixed clock perspective would have to realize that the train clock is no longer directly under it when the light stops the fixed clock. That would force the fixed clock frame to conclude that light is NOT constant speed, because it affected something at a different distance than the distance it traveled to get to the fixed clock.



It takes this thing forever to allow me to post and/or edit. Each time you post while I am trying to post, it takes another 4-5 minutes to tell me that you have posted and ask me if I want to change my post... requiring yet another 4-5 minutes. Every button click to log on, reply, edit, refresh, or anything requires an additional 4-5 minutes waiting.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I did not mean a nonlocal event. I was just questioning the actual setup of that mechanism, which part of it pertains to the one and which to the other frame. But I've found a way to simplify the problem so that I can more clearly see the difficulty.

There could be just one set of flashers, either on the station or in the train or in any other place, flashing two photons into the train and two into the station, right at the moment the two clocks are at equal distance to the flashers.

If the speed of light is constant from each frame, then what matters only is that the light is seen from within a reference frame, not that it emitted from an object that is moving along within it.

Any moment a light is seen to be emitted, it becomes part of the viewers reference frame.

Do you agree to this?


--

I'm sorry for the posting malfunctions. I honestly have no idea how to disinfect the site from advertising probes or other such beings.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And if I am away when you've posted a response, then I just want to go ahead and say that I've been waiting for you to explain why light can be perceived at different speeds. Whereas this precise problem keeps eluding me (and I hope to change that with the simplification) I can see that if one has an objectivist bottom up perspective of what light, matter, time and motion are in terms of a logical origin, then the speed of light must also bend to this logic and vary in different contexts.

I assume that with absolute time you mean the number of instants of infinitesimal PtA-change.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
There could be just one set of flashers, either on the station or in the train or in any other place, flashing two photons into the train and two into the station, right at the moment the two clocks are at equal distance to the flashers.
That isn't a "could be". That was the originally defined situation. There are only two flashers and as we agreed, it doesn't matter if they were moving when they flashed as long as they flashed while exactly centered.

Fixed Cross wrote:
If the speed of light is constant from each frame, then what matters only is that the light is seen from within a reference frame, not that it emitted from an object that is moving along within it.

Any moment a light is seen to be emitted, it becomes part of the viewers reference frame.

Do you agree to this?
Well, not too sure. "Part of the reference frame"? What does that mean? Light can never be "part of" any reference frame other than its own.

The light being "seen" is not what makes the light real. The light isn't seen until it happens to encounter the observer. You can't say that the light didn't exist merely because the observer didn't see it. And more importantly when he saw it becomes the entire issue. It had to exist BEFORE he saw it. And it had to come from a distant source at "Xs" distance.

He knows the source and his distance to that source. But he also knows what triggers the flasher. So when he finally sees the light, he knows that the trigger device has already triggered and moved. He could calculate how far the trigger device should have moved based on the speed of light, the speed of the train-to-station, and the distance from the source. And he knows that the trigger device had to be at exactly Xs distance from himself when the flasher was triggered. He knows his velocity compared to the station and thus the trigger device's velocity. And he knows that the station clock is no longer aligned with himself and thus cannot experience the same light event at that same moment that he has.

He is forced to conclude that light cannot be traveling at the same rate for both himself and the station.


I need to go for a short while again... Be back a little later.

--

I'm sorry for the posting malfunctions. I honestly have no idea how to disinfect the site from advertising probes or other such beings.[/quote]
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
And if I am away when you've posted a response, then I just want to go ahead and say that I've been waiting for you to explain why light can be perceived at different speeds. Whereas this precise problem keeps eluding me (and I hope to change that with the simplification) I can see that if one has an objectivist bottom up perspective of what light, matter, time and motion are in terms of a logical origin, then the speed of light must also bend to this logic and vary in different contexts.
I think that I missed that post earlier.
..and don't go rushing to judgment on that "objectivist" label on me just yet. Until you understand the depth and scope of RM, it really can't be placed into such labels. Subjectivism has it's place too.

I'm not sure to which you are referring when you say "light can be perceived...". Are you referring to the RM understanding? Or something involving these Relativity animes?

Fixed Cross wrote:
I assume that with absolute time you mean the number of instants of infinitesimal PtA-change.
That is pretty much it... a few more details. Because you can deduce an immutable fact concerning a propagation rate in a theoretical absolute vacuum (even though such a vacuum cannot really exist), you can then develop a standard in comparison to it.

It is like knowing that whatever combination of anything you do, you have to end up with a final answer of 2Pi (for example of a circumference to diameter immutable ratio). Such a provable fact would allow you to design numerous devices of a variety of types, "adding up" any affects involved with any of them and then see how close you got to 2Pi. If your device was to give a diameter reading, but it didn't come out with the proper 2Pi ratio, you know that something isn't compensated yet. Any error has to be rationally compensated or removed. Thus you end up with a variety of means for knowing how far off from an absolute standard you are.

Measuring propagation and specifically "time" (being merely a measurement itself) is a little more tricky. Measuring time dilation is measuring how much your measuring is different than someone else's measuring. I just extend that to how much physical reality requires, regardless of anyone's measuring. RM provides an absolute grounding for physics (which around here, I guess we could never get to).


Last edited by James S Saint on Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Time dilation and length contraction have been experimentally verified. How do you explain that if relativity/the constancy of c is wrong?



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Time dilation and length contraction have been experimentally verified. How do you explain that if relativity/the constancy of c is wrong?
Capable, I take it that you haven't been reading along, or at least not very well. You are aware of only two time theories (or so it seems), the Newtonian "constant time" original concept and the newer "Relativity time" concept. And you are apparently presuming that I am trying to defend that older "constant time" concept against the newer "Relativity time" concept. But the truth is that I am NOT speaking on behave of, and defending your past, "ancient history" older theories. YOU are speaking on behave of and defending MY past ancient history theories for sake of what is "the new revelation" to you, even though to me, it is ancient history.

Imagine that you were to magically teleport back 2000 years. You find that you have to live there and you get to know a bunch of Roman citizen Christians. They are talking about the new savor and how the world is going to be SO much better now that "we have it all resolved". As far as they are concerned the game is finally over. The new kingdom has come. And when you say anything, they immediately Presume that you are trying to defend one of those OLD dark-age things. Obviously you are not one of their enlightened members because you aren't displaying proper faith.

You, knowing how things are going to take place in their future but having no means to convince them that you know, decide to try to teach them a few things that you know WILL be relevant to them in the hard times to come (which they don't really believe are going to be hard times). So you can't go into WHY you know anything, you have to simply get them to understand the reasoning involved in something that perhaps will prevent WW1. You can't even mention a "world war". They would immediately know that you are nuts and might try to drill out that demon within your head. "Nations in Europe all at war??? What nations??? Rome already owns the world and now with the Holy Roman Empire and our savior, there can be no wars. Are you totally nuts?" they would reply.

So instead, avoiding all of that, you simply try to explain perhaps some business tactic or social reform strategy so that you can persuade them toward avoiding a war that YOU know is coming, but they could never believe such a thing.

They keep insisting on how the world is now saved and there is no need to worry about such non-sense social reforms and business strategies. The Church will take care of ALL of our needs and problems. The new clergy have it all figured out with the aid of our savior.

So perhaps instead you get in with some "heretics" who are all in favor of bringing down the Holy Roman scourge dictatorship. They are far more interested in social reform and business tactics. But you still can't go telling them about why you know what you know. Else they will certainly not believe a single word you say.

With your newer friends, you try to explain the strategies by explaining the details of its logic. You try to convince them of the viability of something that you know damn well works because of your own history. But that doesn't make an argument for them. You have to convince them in their own terms - "the gods" that they know determine all things.

You don't mention their gods much, but it seems that every time you try to explain something they insist that you learn of their gods, else you are obviously merely an uneducated fool. They want to fix things, but they KNOW that they have to do it with their god's permission, proper sacrifices, proper rituals, and really bad attitudes toward all the right people now that they discovered that Zeus has anew wife (what you didn't even know THAT???).




Now realize that those people are what you look like to me. I don't give a flying fuck what your "Science" is going to discover over the next 50 years. I couldn't care less because to ME, it is ancient history so far back that I don't even have records that far back and certainly not of such trivial details.

You are trying to defend your "gods" to someone so far into your future that he can't even remember the names of your gods. Yet you keep thinking that he is trying to defend those even OLDER, pre-new-age gods.

I am explaining something that is provably wrong about YOUR current gods, who you think are the "newer, shiny, saving of the world" gods (aka Secular Science). I already know how utterly ridiculous your "new-age" gods are. They are not new to me. Not because of how good and proper those even older gods were, but because of what is discovered centuries from your present.

What has been "proven" in your century is merely that the newer god, "relativity" is MORE accurate than that older god "constant time". I don't doubt that for a second.

Catholicism was more accurate than the Roman panacea too.

If you can't accept that you really DO have a future wherein all of what you believe today is much improved and thus there is discoverable fault in what you currently believe (and discoverable BY YOU, not merely them thar genuses in tha Vatican), you will not be able to learn anything more than what everyone else is going to know anyway. Nor do anything that isn't going to happen anyway.

Relativity has a flaw. It can be updated and by YOU.
Why would you even care to try?
So as to divert a WW3 that you can't even imagine.
Or simply to learn a little more real truth without having to fade into history as one of those ancient superstitious old farts that were so primitive as to actually believe in that old relativity myth.




That is how I explain it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nice rant. None of that applies to me, it is merely your presumption. Surprising, because you seem to have this huge issue with presumption yet toward me it is all that you ever do.

I noticed you also didn't answer my question. Saying "x is more accurate than y" does not EXPLAIN x.

You aren't being honest here.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What Capable was asking is how time dilation and length contraction fail to account for what's really happening, if they've been used with such empirical success. Whatever that reply was meant to convey, it did not include an answer.

Because I neither want to inconvenience you nor witness Capable being made out to be a superstitious believer for asking a practical question, I've posted my reply here in the old Stopped Clock Paradox thread on ILP.



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

I even bolded it for you.

James S Saint wrote:
What has been "proven" in your century is merely that the newer god, "relativity" is MORE accurate than that older god "constant time". I don't doubt that for a second.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I didn't miss that. It was the only sentence, you'll have to admit that, that was to the point of the question.

And still, it is only a claim. You're asking for a lot of faith.
I have constantly given this faith, but it's not unreasonable that people would ask for verifiable facts before they would trust your judgment.

All these things you say about impending doom, and RM's capacity to avert it, what is the reader supposed to do with that? What can one do with it, besides put blind faith in a future explanation?



___________
" 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I saw that I had posted this on the wrong thread earlier..

The security issue has cleared up (for a while).

Quote :
To the man who thinks for himself, the Lorentz transformation (that I have explained many times at this site) is both trivial and in this case irrelevant. You are free to use the Lorentz or any other transformation you want. You will end up with the same paradox.


The intent of all theories, especially one proposed to be as universal as Relativity, is to allow two people, perhaps generations or millions of miles apart, to each accurately predict something such as to know the truth of tomorrow based upon the theory.

This type of scenario is the kind of situation that reveals errors in theories simply by establishing a situation in which the two people can use the exact same theory yet predict opposing results (the station vs the train). The Relativity theory fails its very purpose.

The options for resolve are NOT "Newtonian" vs "Relativity". Those were simply the last two with which you are familiar. To me such is like proposing Heliocentricism vs Geocentrism. Neither is entirely correct even though within the limits of measure long ago, they each "appeared to be" correct.

The issue is not whether there is an objective universe. The issue is consistency in prediction, coherency. If a theory causes two people to predict incoherent results, the theory is incoherent and thus is not "true" despite how accurate it might seem for a while.

Light is something that can be sent from one person to another unsuspecting person and cause measurable results gained by both people. Thus light is something independent of both the sender and the receiver other than being able to be sent and received.

Specific flaws were made in establishing the notion that the speed of light must always appear to be the same constant. But it is pointless to try to discuss such errors if it can't be agreed that the theory fails. It would be like arguing that Christianity has an error in a scripture when its advocate cannot admit to any flaw.

Religions are not for dispensing truth, but for persuading into compliance, whether for good or bad.

The idea of light being independent of its source came from a theory that was deemed erroneous (whether it really was or not). Lorentz's aether theory is what proposed the independence of light's propagation. That part of his theory has been proven to be true by both empirical and logic methods. But the proposal that the propagation of that same light would be dependent upon the lights destination would seem a bit absurd, yet that is what Relativity is actually proposing.

But more importantly, it is by considering the different possible theories (not merely the one handed to you) that you can resolve this puzzle in such a way that both observers would predict the same result and thus serve the purpose that theories are intended to serve.

Every theory throughout man's history has been wrong, it stands to reason that the trend has not changed. The reason is because of those who refuse to think without emotional interference. And I am not proposing that be changed. I am merely seeing how true it really is and interested in the prospects concerning those who can think more clearly even in today's "oncoming dark age".



This scenario indicates that the propagation speed of the light cannot actually be dependent upon the observer's perspective, because in considering that theory, a contradiction arises. So explore the other options.

"What if it really wasn't? What might bring a consistent prediction by both parties?"

Be the theorist, not merely the repeated meme.
Discover the NEXT theory "before the light" of the next dawn.
But the speed with which it reaches you really does depend upon you in this case.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Nov 13, 2013 3:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My issue has been with honesty, which is to say the methods used to produce arguments and responses. Perhaps a certain degree of indirectness or withholding is needed by the RM-ist in the dissemination of RM. This is partially the case with VO, as well. A leap of faith is required, initially, to get the subject out of the old (broken/limited/incorrect) state of thinking and "feeling" (motive-potential).

Considering time dilation effects as measured by science, this seems not to conflict with RM (or with VO) in the sense that affects are subject to PtA, always, and are the emergence of PtA's; if one sufficiently alters PtA and "the situation" in which affects coalesce, those affects must change.

If then the situation were altered adequately from another situation, and the two situations were then brought together again, the affects in one might not "match up" with those in the other, even if prior to the alteration they had "matched up".

SR is not saying that "laws of nature" are actually changing (and where it does say that space/time is "warping" that is just a mystification and improper use of language, of course), it is proposing that things like velocity and acceleration (relative movements, which are perhaps accounted for in RM as changes/influences of affects to other affects) can affect those laws, and that those changes/affections can be "permanent" in the matter which was changing. To me, this makes good sense within RM, given that matter/particles are like the memories of affects, and affects are given by the PtA/situations in which they form and exist.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Actually;
Einstein 1911 wrote:
The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.[18]
—Albert Einstein, 1911
That was enough to allow those who love to mystify to declare that "space really does bend and is responsible for physical effects due to that bending". He was stating that it "really" exists in the sense that you will perceive it that way when you try to measure it. His simultaneity issue is similarly merely a perception.

And prior to that, in his published theory, he stated;
Einstein 1905 wrote:
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

The theory to be developed is based—like all electrodynamics—on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.
But;
A) Rigid bodies do not exist, nor can they
B) The stationary frame, (the "metaframe") actually is necessary and not "superfluous" unless you merely want an estimate.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
How do you define the meta-frame if indeed it cannot actually "exist" in the sense that affects exist? And how does the MCR and the speed of affect relate to the meta-frame?

Meta-frame seems almost like an assumption we make, like the idea of non-existence; having the idea is necessary for the purposes of logic and understanding, but the idea never refers to anything that actually exists or could ever exist. Almost like the number zero, then.. zero affect is literally impossible since "existence is affect", but the concept of zero affect seems to define the meta-frame, and this defined concept would perhaps be necessary as part of calculations to determine physical values in RM.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
How do you define the meta-frame if indeed it cannot actually "exist" in the sense that affects exist?
As you say, the meta-frame is the concept of absolute nothingness in the same way that 0 means none. Note that even in Relativity, zero is zero for everyone, moving or not. The Lorentz equations do not make zero into anything but zero. And that zero value is a necessary reference from which real values arise even though absolute zero can never exist. Likewise, the metaframe is a necessary reference frame wherein not merely number values don't exist, but truly nothing exists including any and all substances. And likewise, that absolute nothingness is common for all people, all perspectives, and all universes.

Image

RM:AO is built from that absolute nothing reference frame, the "meta-frame". There can be very many perspectives and ways of seeing things from above, but from RM:AO's metaframe there can be only one view looking back up. Convert any perspective into RM:AO and then convert that into any other perspective you want and it will translate accurately. The motion of the observer becomes irrelevant.

Similarly when translating one computer language into another, a meta-language is usually used. Language A gets converted into language M and then language M gets translated into any and every language. In the early 80's I was inspired to design my own meta-language for that purpose and really, really, should have, but didn't. The meta-language is never used directly, so in a since, it doesn't exist. But it is a common reference for all computer languages.

Every mind also has a type of meta-language involved in every thought process. And in every mind that meta-language is exactly the same even though the output; spoken language, pictures, motions, and so on are all different for different people.

Every understanding must have a fundamental reference that serves as its ontologically defined basis. Current physics uses EM fields, gravity fields, particles, bendable space, and so on. RM:AO uses absolute nothingness, absolute infinity, potential to affect, and affect from which all things arise.

Capable wrote:
and this defined concept would perhaps be necessary as part of calculations to determine physical values in RM.
Exactly.

Capable wrote:
And how does the MCR and the speed of affect relate to the meta-frame?
I'm not sure what you are asking. The opposite of absolute nothingness is absolute infinity (or rather absolute infinite mass). That is the polar opposite reference which causes the MCR to "exist" (conceptually and physically). All of reality must exist between absolute zero and absolute infinity because neither of those can exist and nothing can exist outside of those. In single cardinality physics those are accepted as merely zero and infinity. So in physics, you and all things exist midway between zero and infinity.

In RM:AO higher and lower cardinalities are also used. In RM:AO you exist between one infinitesimal and infA (the first order cardinality of infinity). Any change in potential ("affect") that requires more than an infA amount of change within an infinitesimal amount of time (the MCR) cannot achieve it and thus the affect is delayed in time causing inertia, something that cannot freely move. It is from that occurrence that all matter forms and without which the universe could be nothing but an ocean of EMR.


Last edited by James S Saint on Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Rational Metaphysics ≡ Definitional Logic + Science Methodology

Science cannot tell you what is true, only what is demonstratively false.
Rational Metaphysics tells you only what is true, not what might be false.





Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22


PostSubject: Re: Rational Metaphysics Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:

As you say, the meta-frame is the concept of absolute nothingness in the same way that 0 means none. Note that even in Relativity, zero is zero for everyone, moving or not. The Lorentz equations do not make zero into anything but zero. And that zero value is a necessary reference from which real values arise even though absolute zero can never exist. Likewise, the metaframe is a necessary reference frame wherein not merely number values don't exist, but truly nothing exists including any and all substances. And likewise, that absolute nothingness is common for all people, all perspectives, and all universes.


Do you suggest that the meta-frame is accessible from within the universe? That if we 'move enough stuff out of the way in an area of the universe/dig deep enough "within"' we will be touching that which exists outside of the universe? That is to say, if the entirety of reality is only this universe of familiar (and maybe yet to be discovered material and field) matter and energy and fields that swirls in its quantum and classical paradigms we term the universe, exists in an infinite in all direction spatial vat of absolute pure nothingness, and that though even space itself may be an energetic manifold that makes it a lot more of a somethingness then nothing, it can be pierced to come across the true nothingness that lies beneath?

Now, if that is true, I still think Einstein would be correct in implying that, not only is there no way for us to consistently use that meta frame as a post of measurement, but, I suppose semi related to that statement, everything we do and can measure, is not of the meta nothingness, but of something, and it is all moving, thus all measurements of this stuff will be relative to their and the measurers motion.

And I saw you guys may have been discussing length and time contraction before. I personally think length contraction results from optical illusion. And I think time contraction results from mathematical symbolism of the concept of 'time'. Which is the measurement of stuff, and how that stuff changes, how its energy decays, or vibrates related to other forms of energy. I believe the concept of time dilation has to do with the decreased amount of stuff an object can do if it reaches the finish line in a race first. lol, though I really dont know, because I feel that it is said objects that move faster experience more time, this is something I cant grasp and therefore agree with yet. If we imagine 2 cars racing on a flat road, they are racing 1 mile. 1 car constantly goes 100 miles an hour (represents a particle, or object, or space ship approaching the speed of light), the other car constantly goes 1 mile an hour. Mark, get set, go. They will travel the same distance of space, but take different amounts of time, the faster car will experience less time in that event of a shared history, in that event the faster car will 'age less' because it will have completed the task faster. What am I failing to grasp with time dilation? I have seen the videos of the photon clocks and such.

Also, with the idea of cryogenic freezing of bodies. Everything remains preserved, as if 'time has stopped, or avoided', the energy cannot decay, its vibration slowed. If they can be revived in 1,000 years, to the conscious observer it would be as if a second has passed (if they were not consciously dreaming for examples purposes), in affect, time traveling into the future.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:25 pm

Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Forms of the Self (---toward a value physics) Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:35 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The self is "something that is having an experience", the "having" is in the "being a self". Self is like an extra category that got added on top of everything else going on experientially, a super-unity kind of memory, and a limit. The limit is functional as what falls within vs. outside of the limit, which translates into what we experience consciously and what unconsciously affects us. Becoming more self-aware means converting more unconsciousness into consciousness, but it also means becoming aware of how this conversion process poses limits to both consciousness and unconsciousness, which leads to inner laws as categorical differences within progressive self-awareness.

Forms of the self include all feelings, motive-inclinations and reactions, beliefs and cognitive sets, methods of reasoning and application of heuristics and algorithms, and memories. Memories are contents of consciousness that become forms of consciousness, that become forms to a given moment of consciousness. Methods of reasoning and application of heuristics and algorithms are hard-wired genetic or social tendencies to process information in certain ways, favoring certain values over others. Beliefs and cognitive sets are like memories, they are contents that become forms, only not merely memory contents but active vitalizing contents of the present moment of consciousness, an emergent combination of memory and methods of reasoning. Motive-inclinations and reactions are externalizing drives to act by locating the energy of conscious experiences and factors of experience and discharging it from those locations, causing it to immediately animate the body somehow. And lastly, feelings are collections of proprioceptive self-sensation of various physiological changes that occur in repeatable, stable patterns in the presence of certain stimuli, either physical stimuli, mental stimuli, abstract or ideal stimuli, real or imagined stimuli, including even stimuli we aren't even aware that we are present to.

Feelings are the closest to what we call emotions, since an emotion is a reconstitution of a chain of meaning with respect to feelings; feelings are not only collections of self-sensations of physiological changes occurring in repeatable, stable patterns but also include the further meaning that is attached to those feelings, what is technically not included in the feeling and acts as an external content to it, a content that can be variable from one person to another or from one moment to another in the same person. That external content is a phenomenology that is rooted socially-historically as pure meanings prescient to human being and as just the Fact of such meanings, which pure being of the meaningful is technically what we mean when we speak of emotions; emotions are this being plus the feelings (as defined above) that constitute the emotion in time and space. The emotion in space is the plurality of feelings structural to an emotion; the emotion in time is the relation between the spatial components and the phenomenological meaningful/Factual.

There is no "one self", the self is a bunch of various, fluid changing, and categorically different kinds of experiences, structures and tendencies that are all co-occurring together in a body. The mind is a crystallization of these sort of co-occurring aspects in the body coupled with relations to truths (meanings/Facts), while the self is a crystallization of those aspects, experiences, structures, etc. which are formative for the mind. Without a mind there is no self, without a body there is no mind.

The self is plural and multitudinous, hence why so much religion and psychopathology and philosophy are all focused on simplifying the self's self-experience as the many forms of the self seen in a narrower range than they actually exist in. The supposed value is to simplify things so that a "one self" is able to appear; this is faulty logic, since the self is never one self and is always "many", and it is always the case that this "many" is emergently producing a semblance of a One. One-ness is operational, derivative, illusory, and stabilizes the plurality of the many, but the one-ness can never replace the many, no matter how much Buddhist meditation one does, no matter now much insanity and sado-masochistic pain and criminality one engages in, and no matter how much Nietzsche one reads. The self is the self, and the many is the many, and the "one" is this "many is the many" and nothing besides. Therefore those above methods of attempting to simplify into one-existence the forms of the self are simply secondary consequences of the "one as the many as many" attempting to further self itself into existence out of its own plurality, which plurality it must end up dismissing and contradicting, resisting for the sake of an emergent self become "conscious" to itself. The conscious self that lacks understanding of the nature of the self and of the nature of the forms of the self is going to be driven by inclinations to resist and fight against its own plurality in order to stabilize its conscious image of itself, since that image lacks a more accurate understanding of what the self really is.

Every form of the self "orbits" every other form of the self; there is shared gravity; every "many of the many" in the self values others in terms of itself and self-values itself in terms of its relations to the others, thus can only indirectly self-value itself in terms of the whole of which it is a part. The whole does not exist in the same way that parts exist, therefore the parts are faced with a categorical limit beyond which they typically cannot pass. Each form gives gravity to the other forms to which it relates, and each form is pulled and pushed by each other form to which it has formed a relation. The idea of the will to power is here, but the true reality of the self is not located in the emergent will to power that appears and acts as if it were a One, but rather is the true reality in the forms of the self, in the constitutive experiences, perspectives, tendencies, feelings, aspects, forms, contents, bodies, histories, all of the smaller more singular entities that swirl together in collective orbit of self-relation in order to give rise, out of that activity, to the phenomenon of the self.

A lesson for philosophers, then: the self cannot dissolve itself in the forms out of which it is composed, since those forms cannot dissolve themselves in the self which they ultimately give rise to, for they give rise to it; neither can the self take possession of its forms and simplify itself into singular existence beyond the mandate of its forms, for the self is only the plurality of its forms and nothing besides. All attempts to either of these methods are merely psycho-philosophical methodologies of the phenomenology of what it means to be a self as the plurality of the forms of the self, the "many as many", and therefore such attempts are always secondary, partial, and act as limitations of the conditions out of which they come and which the act cannot know, as a kind of banality that seeks to live as pure error, which ultimately and always in the end is not possible.




Ideas: Complexity Simplified View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Sun Jun 19, 2016 4:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ideas are simple. Use words sparingly to denote ideas, unless you're writing fiction. Is philosophy fiction? Is Science fiction?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Sun Jun 19, 2016 5:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Truth is at once simple and infinitely complex; entities tend to integrate only that to which they feel akin. Most people confronted with delicate philosophical reasoning across several pages will be repelled, unable to integrate, digest. The silly ones among them will project their failure on the writer, and assume that, because they could not appreciate, the text is simply 'too complex'.

Another matter is elegance. Some philosophers were able to convey complex idea in rather simple terms. Problem with that is that their ideas were usually misunderstood - simplified by simpler minds.

Personal: a problem is that in my own mind, VO is a logic that is beyond simple; it is entirely obvious. It is in fact so clearly the case that it applies everywhere that, to put it into words, is already making it far more complicated than it is. And yet, the implications of its application are so vastly complex that the brain starts producing neural connections at the mere anticipation of working it through.

Simplicity for the sake of a pleasant read or an easy 'ah yes true!' is an epicurean taste, unrelated to intellectual conscience.




___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We disagree then. Some philosophers are romantics; I am not one of them.

Ideas entertain me or not, epicurean if you must insult.

Remember, thoughts are my addiction. Most thoughts are fleeting. Most ideas fizzle. Unnecessarily long reads blow.

Intellectual conscience comes across as snobbery. I am not one of them either.

If keeping ideas simple offends your sensibilities, I'll keep my simplicity to myself.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Sun Jun 19, 2016 9:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That's it?

All you have to say is that you don't like long texts? It seems like a waste of time for the both of us.

Feel free to make a point. Be as concise as you must.
It's strange to be insulted that someone who hosts a forum for prolific writers does not agree with your OP.




___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Specifications on how prolific one ought to be is logical in your eyes? You have issues with my not feeding your mind enough?

I was asked here. Obviously, in error by "prolifictariats."
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Specifications on how prolific one ought to be is logical in your eyes?

Does this contain reference to something in particular? I can't find it.

You may have expected me to lick your ass because you showed up. Sorry about that. That's not how we do things here.



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No offense - Im just making it clear that diplomacy goes out the door as soon as you step into this place. Only merit counts here.

At the very least I assume that you understand that merely stating a preference for short texts does not qualify on any level as philosophy.

None of the regular posters here puts any stock in controlling their temper. If you cant enjoy that, if you prefer the backhanded insinuations common on other forums then feel free to leave.

Im still hoping there is something you can add to this place. Fortunately I have no problem with short texts.



___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My point was simplicity keeps logic obvious. K.I.S.S.

My terms at this time: Don't play dumb. Don't make me cranky. Kissing of my ass must occur once every blue moon.


Wading through a shit-ton of text is a waste of my patience, ensuring crankiness.
Not answering my questions is playing dumb which causes immediate crankiness.


Your terms?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Is philosophy fiction? Is Science fiction?

What if I say yes?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175698



___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My terms: balls.

I don't care about commentaries. I care about attempts to alter the course of evolution.

Nothing in genetic biology is simple. Neither is philosophy capable of operating on simple principles.

+To think means to risk ones animal nature.+

Is that simple enough?



___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"My terms: balls.

I don't care about commentaries. I care about attempts to alter the course of evolution.

Nothing in genetic biology is simple. Neither is philosophy capable of operating on simple principles.

+To think means to risk ones animal nature.+

Is that simple enough?"-FC

Your stance on one's animal nature?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
FC,

A reply to my question in the above post would be helpful. Also what does *hi-jacking the universe* mean?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Do you mean this?

Quote :
Your stance on one's animal nature?

I dont mean to be a dick, but I honestly have no idea what you're asking me.


Perhaps mylady would consider using a few more words?

At least try to make your thoughts discernible somewhat.



___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is being human, the physical being, all you essentially are? Then, what's going on in genetic biology that would lead to your next statement about "thinking risks one's animal nature"? Another question from above~hi-jacking the universe meaning what? When you have time, will you finish my astrology chart reading?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Thu Jun 30, 2016 6:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nevermind about the natal chart expansion I requested. Busy reading the chart myself. You were very kind in what you revealed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Fri Jul 01, 2016 5:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Is being human, the physical being, all you essentially are?

All we are is the whole life.
We've got a weird notion of physicality. There is no such thing, science has revealed this a hundred years ago, as an 'object'. There are only relativistic quanta. Real substance is always process, never 'stuff'. 'Stuff' is just a delay of process.

Process, on the other hand, could be made of god knows what. My solution is that it is made of valuing, which is ultimately the only verifiable thing - what Ive basically done is converted the human mind to the universe.

In any case, what we experience that we are, is mostly what we are, I should say. Our body is physical. We live in a physical world. We are physical. But that means we are processes that intertwine with changing arrays of trillions of other processes at all times.

Quote :
Then, what's going on in genetic biology that would lead to your next statement about "thinking risks one's animal nature"? Another question from above~hi-jacking the universe meaning what? When you have time, will you finish my astrology chart reading?

I mean that the coherence of the instincts, those reactions about which we dont think, for which we do not prepare, is at risk of being disturbed once we start thinking. This does not mean that we sacrifice our animality, but that it becomes much more difficult to be a functional, happy animal.


Regarding the chart - it was in public, I'm not about to put someones soul-dirt out there for the trolls - but what I said must have been sincere.



___________
" 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Ideas: Complexity Simplified Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Once, you wrote that you made your own soul. What is your soul and how did you make it? This is serious business to me. Using your balls, start a thread with your explanation.



___________
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:26 pm

Hypothesi indeterminatum. View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 756
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Hypothesi indeterminatum. Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I created this fallacy when reading Charles Sanders Peirce. I call it "hypothesi indeterminatum."


He used it to vindicate the existence of God, but I realized it could be used in a quite contrary way.

"The hypothesis of God is a peculiar one, in that it supposes an infinitely incomprehensible object, although every hypothesis, as such, supposes its object to be truly conceived in the hypothesis. This leaves the hypothesis but one way of understanding itself; namely, as vague yet as true so far as it is definite, and as continually tending to define itself more and more, and without limit."








When I say "There is a gold nugget at the bottom of my coffee cup" the object of the conception, a gold nugget, is contained in the hypothesis. This conception "gold nugget" is defined, and the hypothesis aims to elaborate its definition, namely through the determination of rather or not it is in fact at the bottom of coffee cup. For this reason the hypothesis is either true or false.



When I say "There is a God" this is very different. The object of the conception, God, is said to be infinite and is therefor undefinable. The object of the conception is not contained in the hypothesis. That means there is no element of truth or falsehood to it. Not only can you not determine rather it is true or false, it simply doesn't have truth or false value. Saying "There is a God" is the same as saying "drgdgadgfrg" ie. gibberish, or speaking a line from a poem. It doesn't have any conceptual value, ie. truth or falsity. At best the statement expresses a feeling within the person speaking it, while in the worst case it amounts to mere gibberish.



In order for a hypothesis to be true or false, the hypothesis must contain the object of its conception within it. To contain it, the object must be first of all finite and second of all, at least some number of its finite attributes must be known and recorded. The true or false value is merely an elaboration of that object of the conception. In the first example I gave, the fact that a gold nugget is found or not found at the bottom of my coffee cup is attached, after the determination, to the object of the conception as another one of its finite attributes, ie. in addition to a gold nugget's chemical component, weight, etc. This extension of the attributes is "understanding." An infinite object cannot be conceptualized, and cannot be contained by any hypothesis which concerns it. Therefor its attributes cannot be elaborated, nothing about it can be understood, and no true or false value can be realized with regard to it.


This is how I know there is no God. The concept God is gibberish. Several things may be dealt with by this fallacy, such as the freedom of the will, because it implies an infinite self-determination.



___________
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 Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 756
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Hypothesi indeterminatum. Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If you know Spinoza, this is a way of pointing out that an idea does not correspond to any ideatum, that an idea has no reality to which it corresponds, of which it is about.



In order to contain an infinite object within the conception of a hypothesis you would have to show a true interpositum between the idea and ideatum, which Spinoza could never demonstrate and did not believe existed, which is itself infinite in some way.


When I say "A gold nugget is at the bottom of my coffee cup" the ideatum, the object of the conception, is the gold nugget, and the idea, the thing that contains it within the hypothesis, is a finite series of attributes like the weight of the gold nugget, its color, etc. When I determine rather the hypothesis is true or false, another attribute gets added to it, and I "understand" something about it. The idea is not clarified, it is extended.




Perhaps a clever theologian could appeal to the "fee will" as itself an infinite interpositum which makes my ideating of the ideatum "God" possible and allows its infinite object to be contained in some hypothesis.





___________
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 Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Hypothesi indeterminatum. Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Your argument also strikes me as quite close to ignosticism, the notion that before we begin talking about this God, its properties or its truth or falsity we need to know what we mean by "God". Ignosticism simply states that this word really doesn't mean anything at all, and even if it does mean something to an individual, there is really no attempt made to relate this or communicate this sufficiently with others. When people use the word "God" they have no idea what they mean, nor do they really care to. Of course a whole host of vague associations pops into mind, infinite, all-knowing, whatever. But the limitless, infinite nature of these supposed attribuites, as you say, negates the entire conceptual value of the notion altogether.

At best we can say that the notion of God functions within the consciousness and its system/s of concepts and meanings as a sort of regulative feature, a symbol/image mediating with respect to meaning and either emotive value or social function/expectation, or both. In other words, when a certain situation is constructed in such and such a way, the consciousness invokes the symbol-image of "God", an empty concept, in order to address or "solve" (ignore, will-away) an otherwise problematic aspect of that situation or moment of experiential consciousness.

At face value this functional role of the God-concept is not "illogical" per se, since it is utilized to more or less successfully navigate situational/experiential problems with a degree of success. Of course the notion IS highly irrational as a concept, and as you say, not even rising to the level of possible truth or falsehood. One must question the psychological need so common among humans to make use of such 'empty concepts' in the face of the possibility of actual thinking.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 756
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Hypothesi indeterminatum. Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The "idea" of God is incoherent, ie. is not an idea. I agree though, it helps people navigate experiential problems... It only does that though, because people are not able to understand the nature of their experiential problems. When they use the word God they have an unconscious conception of something that might actually be meaningful, but the only thing they can consciously produce is non-ideational god-speak. In order to clarify their problem, they have to apply the fallacy I just described to their entire philosophy, gradually annihilating anything that distorts or renders impossible the determination of truth and falsehood.



___________
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 Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 756
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Hypothesi indeterminatum. Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Basically when people don't know what they're talking about with regard to a problem, they make up an infinite object like free will or God and use it as a placeholder. When they figure out what they're talking about they go back and apply new attributes to this placeholder, which becomes more or less a symbol or sign, but is still not an idea, and cannot ever be, because it is impossible to contain conceptually in a hypothesis.


At this point I would implore those who use such signs to simply take the attributes they have retroactively added to them, and make up an actual concept which inherently includes that set of attributes so that it can be used in different hypotheses without incurring the fallacy I demonstrated, ie. so we can talk about it rationally. Thus free will would become simply will, God would become the idea of absolute or objective good, etc.



___________
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 Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 756
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Hypothesi indeterminatum. Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can attack the idea of God in another way.



How can there be any unity of an infinite set of attributes? How can there be a unity of an infinite difference?



If there is no such unity among God's infinite attributes, then it is impossible to speak of God because God has no particular being. God is not a particular thing. There is no commonality to unite his attributes and make him a specific entity. An infinite series of attributes cannot be applied to a single concept or entity, because it is impossible to derive a commonality from an infinite set of things. The larger the set of attributes the more difficult it is to find the commonality to unite them and thus derive a conception of a specific thing, with God it is impossible.








___________
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 Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Hypothesi indeterminatum. Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This fallacy you mention here also applies to the analytic/metaphysical thinkers i have been talking with from time to time. They want to have their cake and eat it too, as you put it they want to speak about something without actually speaking about it, without being clear. This single fallacy seems to be a critical point in these analytic/metaphysical structures of thought.

When we speak about something, we convert a portion of reality into a statement which just means we create conceptual objects to represent something about reality, anything at all we want to know or talk about, and render those concepts in language somehow. When, for example, someone tells me that they accept the meaning of "ice" and "melt" and fully stipulate to all the determinate chemical, molecular etc. properties and laws that are what those mean, but then turn around and say that you could put an ice cube in an 10,000 degree oven and it might not melt, there is a deep confusion going on in their thinking.

A further confusion is forced into the open when you press them more, because they might admit, as this guy did to me tonight, that the ice cube will always melt in that oven, but nonetheless this isnt determinate or necessarily so because the ice cube contains in its "agency" the "power" to not melt; namely, the ice cube sometimes doesnt melt, therefore this fact is mistaken by the metaphysical/analytic as if the ice cube possesses some intrinsic capacity of not-melting which could manifest at any time. They have divorced the meaning of "not melting" from their operational use of the linguistic expression for the (now empty) concept of "not melting", and they do this because it allows them to seem like they are keeping contingency open against necessity.

And a still further confusion on their part: the admittance that even though if the ice didnt melt in the oven and we could always ask of the not-melted ice "why did it not melt?" they still claim this doesnt mean that determination/necessity is the case. I found a very nice way of cornering him on this: I asked "so if the ice doesnt melt, then why didnt it melt?" His answer: "The ice didnt melt because the ice contains the agent power of the capacity for not-melting." I am absolutely fucking serious, that is exactly what this guy said. And he wasn't some neophyte, he was somewhere high up in academia well-read on many books and current thinkers, versed in all the terminology and arguments, and yet deep down his mind is fundamentally broken in this way.

Someone should write a detailed treatise about how to fix these kinds of fallacies in people.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:31 pm

The idiocy of analytic thinking View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: The idiocy of analytic thinking Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Kripke uses it as a concrete demonstration of (his interpretation of) Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations, framing them as a skeptical paradox. The problem is, if you have never added together numbers higher than 50, all your additions are compatible both with taking "add" to mean "mathematical plus" and with taking "add" to mean "quus". It may be that everyone asking you to add things together has really been meaning you to quus them all along, and you've been plussing them. It's only when we deal with numbers over 50 that we start to see that plus and quus are different, and the question arises of which rule we are meant to follow when we are told to "add", and we discover whether we have been following the same rule as everyone else. But more than that, in what way is it true that we have been quusing when they have been plussing, because in what have they following the plus rule rather than the quus rule? Not because of what they did, since what they did was compatible with both rules. And not because of what they thought, because it's possible that they never even considered what they would do when dealing with numbers over 50 (have you ever consciously considered how you would answer 547+789? Maybe you would answer '5'. You probably wouldn't, but that fact doesn't come from what you have consciously thought before about what you would do in this situation). And of course you can't try to explain by using other rules (like 'x+y means give the yth successor of x'), because those rules are themselves subject to the same ambiguities, and indeed in the case of mathematical rules are just restatements of the problem in other words ('the successor of x' is no less ambiguous than 'x+1').
So how are we ever able to learn, and use correctly and in the same way as everybody else, rules that cover an infinite number of different circumstances, when we can only learn from a finite number of circumstances, and when an infinite number of eventually-conflicting rules are compatible both with our finite experiences and with any attempt to describe the rule in language?


What is analytic thinking? Essentially it is a deliberate removal of a given appropriate range of meaning/context and of 'information' from acts of consciousness, usually these acts of consciousness being what are called thoughts. The specter is raised that the analytic error could easily also apply to literal acts, not just speech (which is easy to see) but also behavior, movement, motivation, and feeling. The analytic method exemplifies a near-fundamental problem of human consciousness: the fact that we are capable of extracting objects rationally-perceptibly means that we can also extract from objects other objects within them (typical abstract-conceptual thinking) but which is also possible to objectify-extract away a critical component of that object, to "cut out the heart" of the object in our rational (or again, behavioral or otherwise) analysis and act. When the rational extraction yields the falsification of that from which the object extracted came, certain logical and psychological phenomena appear or become possible to appear as a result; one test of honesty and of the capacity for honesty is whether or not these newly-appearing phenomena are sensible to a mind and whether or not, if they are sensible, one responds to and prioritizes these phenomena. These are the signs of intellectual honesty which simply indicate the methodology of consciousness before the possibility of the presencing of an error. Over time the methodology here will become either more or less honest, which is to say more or less sensitive and self-directed toward error. The method of analytic thinking is based on the fact that the larger methodology with respect to how to approach and deal with possibly-sensible errors has over time cornered itself into a rut, wherein the fundamental error is repelled both in form and in the specifics of the given situation and problem, and what is most interesting is that as a result of this fact other facts appear: that the refusal of the fundamental error yields a proliferation of more superficial errors which gravitate to themselves their own 'fundaments', their own acting as if they were fundamental (not just to the erroneous analysis in question but to the form of such analyses, and even to analysis as such). In this way conception is broken apart and fragmented, and it becomes the task of the analytic thinker to attempt to "mend back together" these fragments, however he cannot do so for the simple reason that the breaking-apart itself is the very absence of that which would allow for the fragments to be brought back together. The psychological devolution and series of devolutions arising from the original fundamental error is unable to be recovered by any derivative order or end within that same series.

I have made it one of my tasks to analyze and expose analytic thought, although this is a somewhat depressing task and perhaps I could be concerned with greater things rather than mucking around like that. The reason I am interested however is because this analytical problem has infected, in the sense that I wrote about magical-pathological infection of triadic sign systems, much of philosophy today. One reason for the easy spread of this infection is related to how well analytic thinking is able to function smoothly within capitalist systems, not the least of which being how well it acts to further and lend an image of credibility (threshold-ignorance vis a vis pre-emptive catalytic stasis) to empiricism and scientific work today. The philosophical vacuum in which such work takes place is able to be ignored more effectively by the addition of a little "analytic philosophy", which demonstrates one of the effectivenesses of the original error of analytic method, and also as psychological type.

I am becoming more convinced that pathological personalities in philosophy, and in science (which is to say, in the deliberate absence of the philosophical qua intellectual effort) are caused by this analytic infection. The infection may exists even if the awareness to identify it with analytic thought is not there, and even if the person themselves has no idea what analytic thought is -- such an awareness would be required to understand their fundamental, original error from which they are vainly trying to extricate themselves. The mind is inherently, naturally noble and always attempts to right itself, like a spinning top that actively fights gravity and friction, but the lack of proper tools and the continued presence of harmful and insane environments (think ILP) makes recovery effectively impossible. So the error continues to divide and propagate, leading to the emergence of whole worlds of psychological motivations and incentives to cover over errors either as form or content and to painting-over this cover with new images of meaning and thought. In the example quoted above, this painting-over as image has taken the form of the possibility of infinite deduction inherent to speculative reason as such. In other words: the analytic trick is to conceive an image for themselves (i.e. a "paradox" or logical problem) in which their own thought is reflected back to them under the form of impossibility for that thought to recognize itself in that reflection, thereby further obscuring the operations that lie in possibility for touching upon and resonating with one of those 'errors that conceives its own fundament'. By making refusal structural, the analytic thinker ensures that every act of approach will slip away into void, thus the world of images of the refusal is extended over time to include multiple and different kinda of contents capable of arresting voids within simulations of pre-existing 'relations of meanings'. It is perhaps in those relations of meanings, the justification per se of the image-world as such, where the only hope for recovery from analytic infection resides.

Please contribute anything you can to the critical understanding of analytic thinking and ways to both avoid and correct it. Its structure and operation must be exposed to help save philosophy at this point ; although philosophy itself could never be affected by idiocies such as are represented by analytic 'thought' there is the danger that new minds in the field become swept up within analytic pathology and become lost forever, rather than conversely had they discovered real philosophy and so become capable to contribute something to history and to the great human task.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A noble task, but a very dirty one - the idiocy you so well expose is discouraging, it is rather hard, if not almost impossible to believe that there are people who take analytic philosophy seriously, and not as some sort of morose joke on the capacity for arbitrariness of the human brain.

Whenever I am confronted with analytic thinking I cringe and throw away the book or throw myself away from the screen or the conversation - or if in company I like to respect (as company) I smirk and whistle a bit, and make some visceral comment - that is to say, something Nietzsche, or Parodites might have said - a painful fact about consciousness. A glorious, true fact but something that carries to the heart and causes laughter and anguish and silence and stammering.

The idea that through the word as such, meaning can be found, derived or established, is such a fatally helpless impulse that I can only marvel at the distance that, apparently, exists between tradition and sanity - and I can not deny that belief in an omnipotent creator, as silly as this belief can be understood to be, is at least life-serving in some way, or can be made to be - whereas outright stupidity of belief in language-as-such as creator is neither life-serving nor in any way redeemable. It is not even life-destroying. It is only life-deflating and brings about a virtual absolution of the human mind from its origins. But perhaps this is the entry-key, Capable. Perhaps this weakness is so neutral in its will that it can only be taken up as an instrument.

Consider the world as a gigantic herd that is begging for direction. And consider its means of communication to be the purified absolution of being that is analytic philosophy as its consequences reverberate through the herd and tune the peoples ears to its demands and givens. Now then if you have control of the language that speaks such value-configurations, and if you have a slyness, admittedly, then... well then the possibilities are limitless.

"Possibility" - of what?
An aim, considered; one step further than prudent, ; - there is the possible thought of impregnating China, in order to force the west, by tougher aesthetic-ethical ('higher self?') competition, to overcome its feebleness, which allows it to take stock in the power of the word to astound the mind that is not up to the potential of grammar.

Semantically, China is Marxist; and what is more, in China, language is transmitted through means of directer sensory representation; their symbolic characters, of which there are several thousands, all representing more or less directly, at least recognizably their visual origin, their object.

It would be a challenge; One should learn much from the lands of the rising sun. Who knows what tools one may find to apply - and do what was set out - recreate language so as the represents the speculative ethics of Parodites' 2011 language - the fact that language is itself an ethics is wonderful; that ethics is speculative is masterful.

Mastering life through language demands a master-language, which means a language that commands not only mans notions but also the way he arrives at them; his motions. The language might be seen as explicitly interactive. It may adapt violently to the person who speaks it.

A self-inserting or self-imposing movement that is able to cohere itself in the fabric of the usurped code. For example; Tatsumakisenpukyaku; this phrase among others, lingers in my memory because its origins had shaped for some years my mind, and strewn its seeds across the mind. Similarly, Nietzsche was able, and so was Kierkegaard, and all visceral philosophers, to scatter terms into the minds of man, and Marx was even able to cohere into the chaotic terms of man into a movement, violently chaotic and personable, particular to the extreme, in spite of or naturally rather as a counterbalance to the fact of its general application to radiant instincts that so often are give no mirror-receptor; no medium to cohere self-valuing, so that only raw instinct and flimsy social contracts can bring them into calm sustenance of the ideal... which creeps into the fibers of the soul of man, his speech.

Infuse, inseminate, inject, infect mans speech with the notions we hold high; the end not only justifies the means, the means have created the end. (Now the cyclops leaves the others and enters his cave and eats the last of Odysseus men. His lair must be kept clean.)



___________
" 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
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I too used to think about the creation of a new language, and then I realized that this was already taking place in what is called philosophy (good philosophy), and perhaps an interesting semi-parallel in modern "leet speak" and jargon/colloqualisms-like trends; these are like two opposing poles of development in which language is getting stretched and tested. Languages and organisms evolve, language is a technology of life, like eyes or a mobile body, these are all appendages and extensions of 'the organism', of consciousness/self.

The total neutrality of the analytic method, as you point out, I agree could be turned against analytic method and used for the ends of philosophy, indeed this is probably what is already happening and what always happens anyway--- the elaboration of the technical means and various permutations of surface arrangements that are inevitably put to use by life and meaning, the surface bound to the depths it actively denies (and must deny, qua 'surface').

I don't much try to break into analytic minds anymore, since I've tried this so many times to realize the futility there; but I was able to probe enough times and deeply to come to understand the structural nature of analytic thought, both cognitively and emotionally-psychologically. These analytics really have no objective self-view, nothing stands to them as a mirror reflecting back to them what they are, probably because the whole discipline has become so extensive and suffused with a pseudo-prestige and image of authenticity that respectability bestows. Plus the complex intellectualist-logical games played by analytics serve as endless fancies and distractions by which efforts they become convinced that what they are doing is synonymous with philosophy and though as such.

Psychoanalysis is good because it gets inside of the relationship between self and its externalizations, between meaning and word, act snd symbol. Phenomenology and existentialism are also implicitly structured with this in mind, hence their nobility among the various methods of philosophizing. Pragmatism, utilitarianism and positivism are all simply shades of the surface-elaborations that strive to conceive meaning in the void. A massive unification and corrective synthesis is needed to both analytically reveal the error of analytic thought as well as philosophically reveal the direct and real relationship that analytic method bears to real philosophy. That is basically my task, to contribute toward these two ends.

Philosophy rightly remains indifferent to analytic games, but that doesn't mean large numbers of people including students aren't tricked into those games, losing their soul in the process. I contend as I mention in the OP that all the various pathologies and errors of personality in either philosophers or otherwise could theoretically be traced to some form of "analytic assumption", as you say the assumption that language as such yields meaning per se. This also ties into the error of modern capitalism, or rather this error of capitalism is one more derivation of merely analytic fallacy.

In terms of controlling or coordinating en mass the activities of countless people who blindly follow these errors, I am not so interested; what use trying to rule or control unintelligent herds that can't even comprehend or be counted on for anything? I have no interest in trying to use the ignorance in people, my interest is in truth itself and in spreading truth as anti-ignorance as far as it can possibly permeate into people and the world. I personally also think that the desire or will to control and utilize ignorance or low, enslaved elements/people is another form of the "analytic error", namely a kind of degeneration of hope and spirit into activities and supposed ends misaligned and categorically counter to that spirit and hope, which spirit/hope is only truth, after all.

If we use people then we capitulate to the very fact that they remain in a state of being able to be used like that; in other words, a 'capitalization' as opposed to a truth-movement. Perhaps a necessary endeavor to some degree, but not one I can reconcile to the means and ends of philosophy.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Sat May 14, 2016 3:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Based on my sampling of "philosophers" I've talked to online over the last couple of years, and what I've read in articles, it seems that only 1-5% of these people understand how to think properly-- the rest are to some stage lost in the insanity that characterizes so-called analytic philosophy. The rare person who can clearly see and think through these convoluted, deliberately confusing and confounding "ideas" and "arguments" in this analytic philosophy usually doesn't have much interest in analytic philosophy or in laying out its errors systemically to help correct the problems, usually because they have better things to be doing with their time.

The rest of 90%+ of philosophers are insane, meaning they think that idiocies like "if two things have the same name, and believe they are the same, then are they really the same?" actually counts as interesting philosophical work. You cannot reason with these people, simply because they have no working reason at all. I can see clearly into their reasoning and thought-process exactly where their insanity is, but there is seemingly no way to fix it.

Analytic philosophy has apparently won. It already dominates in US philosophy and it offers an approach that seals away a person from reality, creating a fake experience in place of truth and cutting off any possible routes of escape. I don't have the energy or time to properly write out a clear program and explanation for how to help these people; I wish I did, and if I had perhaps an entire year of free unhindered work and space/time I am certain that I could achieve this task, by making a detailed study of analytic philosophies and breaking it down from the larger perspective, from the vantage of truth. But I don't have that opportunity, and even if I did it most of these "philosophers" would remain happily ensconced in their little pseudo-intellectual non-realities, content with the hubristic vanity of their world-wide academic circle jerk as Bukowski called it.

So anyway, with that statement of facts laid out now, I declare that I will be devoting myself to more important matters, or at least to matters that interest me personally and for which I actually have enough space, time and energy to pursue and complete. I hope that someday another true philosopher is able and willing to expose this unprecedented madness that has infected modern philosophy so completely.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Mon May 16, 2016 5:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
On a similar note, I seem to have some pathological obsession with discussing philosophy with analytic thinkers... I think on some level I am trying to break through their insanity, I want to witness a miraculous transition on their part, from unreality to reality, or from lower reality to higher reality. I've never seen this occur, which maybe makes me even more obsessed somehow in looking for it.


These analytics are the most inhuman monsters you could ever meet. They have excoriated their own souls, in such a complete way that they have no recognition leftover whatsoever that this is what they have done.


The simple fact alone that this is possible is terrifying. Is this what academia is for now?



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Mon May 16, 2016 5:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is a deep connection between "working" (employment) and analytic thinking. I don't yet know all the full scope of the logic of this, but I know that it is based on suffering-made-value.


Employment presupposes suffering-made-value, otherwise typical employment/jobs would be impossible. This is categorically different than the kinds of corporeal or human-social sufferings we know are necessarily woven into the fabric of our human lives.


Analytic philosophy was produced as the attempt at justification of the suffering-made-value that became incidentally necessary for employment in the modern world. Anyone who is a "worker" (me included, of necessity I am afraid) and especially anyone who is a "full time worker" (again, unfortunately includes me) is necessarily and de facto "analyticized" to some or other degree in their philosophy and thought. This explains my observation in the previous post, my obsession with talking to analytic philosophers... I am unconsciously trying to work through and overcome this error in myself.


This is true (" Anyone who is a "worker" and especially anyone who is a "full time worker" is necessarily and de facto "analyticized" to some or other degree in their philosophy and thought") based on the simple fact that if one were totally free of the insanity-error of analytic philosophy, then employment/having a "job"would be absolutely, completely impossible.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Wed May 18, 2016 5:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is fucking brilliant.




___________
" 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 : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Wed May 18, 2016 5:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is the most devastating insight.



___________
" 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
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Sat May 21, 2016 1:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Society has labels for people who are on either end of the extreme... on the one hand you have people who are not analyticized or very minimally so, society calls these people artists, or "mentally ill"; on the other side you have people who are maximally analyticized, society calls these people CEOs, senior managers, marketing consultants, etc. The labels correspond to whatever role in the world these different kinds of people are able to have by social sanction.

Most people are somewhere in the middle, and have a kind of inner war with their humanity. Technological rationality would like to reorganize that humanity of theirs into something "productive", while that humanity resists this to whatever extent it can (usually only unconsciously/instinctively).

Maybe this war isn't always bad, it does help define boundaries and isolate the scope and effectiveness of powers. If the world has become a giant "analytic" machine then humanity needs scores of people actively struggling with and translating this analyticization back and forth between their humanity, to the always only partial gain of either. The absolute polarity and difference between humanity (includes true philosophy) and analytic philosophy bends somewhat to the daemonic active inter-relation between the two, at least given the kind of world and societies we happen to inhabit at this present moment in time/history.

Human being (again including true philosophy) will ultimately succeed in re-inscribing this analytic trend back into the fold of truth, but imagine the sheer power and depth of being/life that would be needed to achieve this. The impulse to divide into artificiality and falsify for the sake of a convenient simplicity and psychological denial system is very potent, as alluded to by the quote in my signature right now. This is a great warring daemonism of self-valuing pushing being up into higher and more sophisticated tectonics. Make no mistake, the entire world is a massive hurricane; Jupiter's red spot... a grand contesting of "wills" and natures, human being and the analytic chief among these powers. Based on what I see deep into truth, life and other people I would place my bets on human being, on this one particular mode of truth, which is by every manner of falsification and moral confusion/conflation presently attempting to win for itself a more active, immediate, authentic and ethical existence. All true work in art or philosophy (including politics) is working for this end, whether or not it realizes this fact-- but politics has a more difficult time of it, since the world-forms, the great machinery and weapons of war, come down hardest and first on the political.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would like to update that, upon another long conversation with an analytic thinker, I can see the depth of their fallacious way of thinking.

Analytic metaphysics in particular here. The idea that we can divorce determination (necessity) from causation in order to rescue free will, is this other guy's position. He thinks that causation is still meaningful without necessity and within contingency; his specific argument: "Things could always have been otherwise than they were, even if they are always the way they are and not otherwise; therefore causation is the case but so is contingency". His 'reasoning' rested heavily on modal logical contortions.

I am not kidding. You can read an article he linked me too where some modern philosophers are talking about this: http://www.academia.edu/20883864/Causat ... Your_Enemy

In this article they attempt to separate necessity out of causation, rather than accept that freedom and determinism are entirely compatible. This position of theirs rests on the idea of a fundamental contingency regardless of what actually takes place and why. This "and why" is even more significant of an error on their part, because they can accept all the logical, physical, natural laws, etc. reasons for why something happens, and accept that it will always happen like that, but will also still claim that it could have been otherwise due to the "agency power" within the thing itself which makes the not doing what it didnt do a contingent fact, contingent upon the 'power of the agent' because the agent has the "capacity" that might or might not be "freely realized", and this is totally without regard to the logical or physical-material causes behind the thing or act in question.

Yeah. I am seriously not making any of this up.

The funny part is that in that article above, the authors dont even want to deal with the "compatibilist" idea that freedom and determinism-necessity are compatible, they just acknowledge that this is one possible argument but then say this argument isnt good enough because we want "real libertarian free will", which is somehow "stronger" in their view than the "compatibilist" idea. Lol.

Ok I have reached my saturation point for this bullshit. Time for a cigarette.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You know I actually made it halfway through that article I just linked. Go ahead and try it. This is what passes for high work in academic philosophy now.

There is barely even a single coherent argument anywhere in there; its full of endless "conclusions", unacknowledged shifts of perspective and imprecise meaning of terms used, categorical fallacies, openly undefended assertions, and vague moralistic statements such as claiming that one thing is better than another without any criteria or further explanation of that.

Goddamnit.

What the fuck is wrong with the human species, that it can produce the following in the year 2016:


Quote :
The Mumford and Anjum account adds significantly to this view insofar as it offers an alternative account of causal production in which it involves a sui generis modality of tendency or dispositionality. Causes tend or dispose to their effects with varying degrees of strength in different cases. They often succeed in producing those effects but, even when they do so, they did not through any necessitation. Mumford and Anjum (2011: ch. 3) have an antecedent strengthening argument for this conclusion. A test of necessity is offered. Where A genuinely necessitates B, then as long as you have A, then still B even if C, for any C. In other words, you should be able to add anything else to the situation in which A occurs and you will still get B, if A really does necessitate B. This does not seem to be the case in natural causal processes, which can be prevented from realising their usual effects if something else – an interferer – is added. Hence, dehydration typically produces a headache: but not if a paracetamol is taken. Even where an effect is indeed produced, this form of argument still holds. Had some further factor, C, been added to the cause, it might well not have produced its effect, B. So even there, we cannot say that B was necessitated by its cause.

If you ever doubt your resolve against academic philosophy, just recall the above paragraph.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Analytic 'philosophy' is bullshit. Just wanted to make sure that was clear.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:32 pm

Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: How does ideology operate? Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
First I'll turn to Zizek for a short introduction on this issue:








___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: How does ideology operate? Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
One of my working definitions of ideology lately has been to see ideology as the collapse of the self (or thought, or reason) into its contents. By this I mean something clear and very precise, but it's a little difficult to explain in words; essentially what happens is that the mind, which always posits many ideas and concepts and operates by valuing these in various combinatory ways, stops that value-process at the level of contents-ideas in active combination and instead descends to the level of the contents of those concepts-ideas, as if a content in question were actually the concept and idea toward which it contributes. Ideology is well known to be the fact that thinking stops and "brute facts" are asserted in the place of any former or possible critique. Appeal to brute facts is anti-rational and opens the way for pathology to grip the mind because of how the content without its proper form (the proper form of a content is, in this case, that concept and idea toward which it contributes) immediately dissociates from any form "above" itself (forms in reason) and makes itself freely available to act as a surrogate form for other things, namely for other contents.

This is how a feeling can link directly into a pre-conceptual content in order to generate what looks like a concept and idea but is in fact nothing at all like a concept and idea, it only shares a superficial image with conception and likewise reason is impossible to replicate at that level of the pure image. This loss of reason is the form of the pathological, while the content of the pathological is simply whatever false content-links are directly forged at the pre-conceptual level. Thesw contents must still be grounded in something, so that lacking any rational conceptual structures in which to meaningfully participate they instead find a loose grounding in other contents, in direct associations of proximity and power.

The issue of proximity is easy enough to understand, but what about the issue of power? This power is a power of the false linkage to release another content (including a feeling) into direct expression extra-rationally or I should say pre-rationally. Suddenly the mind experiences a freeing of inner contents (feelings, inclinations, biases, justifications, images and memories, desires, etc.) directly and as if "by magic", without any need for a rational order or meaning to it all. This form of subjectivity can become intoxicating, indeed it is the cause of many problems including religious insanity, trolling behaviors, and of course ideological thinking. This is what I mean by saying that the mind/thought/reason collapses into its contents: reason is suspended as being no longer useful or necessary since direct stimulation of various subjective-conscious contents of experience can be obtained simply by adhering to an open-ended, non-critical process of "mental ejaculation". And it isn barely even mental, more like simply low-key immediate subjectivity experience with minimal context or extended meaning.

I see this kind of ideology at work in both the political left and right in the US. I see it in Trump, although I could side with Zizek and say that Trump is nowhere near as bad as someone like Cruz in whom this pathological ideology has become complete and reason completely silenced. In Trump at least there is some extension beyond the ideological sphere into the real world of meanings and reason, even though as far as I can tell those extensions are flimsy at best. Trump still had his reason but it is playing the role of servant to his ideological "purity", and this purity of being entirely ideological is what is required to win votes from the right-wing side of politics now in the US (it also helps the left-wing to invoke pure ideologies, and Obama is a master at this; I believe Obama has rational structures extended from his ideology similar to how Trump does, in fact I think for Obama his ideological purity is actually a secondary function of that reasoning, yet he hides the reasoning and more often defers to the ideology sphere. Why? Because it works... Because as Zizek also said, most people do not want real democracy but to have the appearance of choice while also subtly being told how to vote; most people want to be able to act as if they do not know the harsh truths of the world, and democracy is like a large zone separating people from those truths. This is a "proper" function of democracy and Obama defers to this function, this is partly the cause for his evasions and lies and especially his use of ideology when he could instead have used reason. Trump and the politicos right wing, on the other hand, have abandoned this deferment to the proper role or democracy and instead decided to shove unwanted truths on people as a form of psychological breakdown and appearing to be a power-player. I would argue that it is because they have lost true power, by totally capitulating to pure ideology and abandoning reason as such, that now they are becoming the ones going for the shock value sucker punch to the gut approach).



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: How does ideology operate? Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This descent into the pure contents of consciousness admits of degrees; as one begins the descent away from form and reason proper one first enters the ideological realm... if one keeps descending one becomes a religious or political fanatic of some kind, a true irredeemable ideologue... keep going still deeper into the contents as such, and one arrives at psychotic mental illness of delusional and hallucinatory schizophrenia.

As the contents of experience (experience's many multi-part conditions) are progressively allowed to take over the central governing mechanisms of subjectivity-consciousness one becomes further detached from reason's formal (speculative transcendental, ontologically driven) power and isolated contents and their pure often irreducible logic increasingly overdetermine the actualizing self. We all see things imaginatively that overlap our real sensory experience, we all hear voices in our head, we all have strange flashes of mad or paranoid or irrational thoughts, but proper rational formal consciousness keeps all that in check by blending it seamlessly into the larger subjectivity-patterns of hierarchical contents contributing to the meta-perspectives which in turn comprise true ideas and emotions (ideas are the summative meta-perspectivizing process of a certain kind of contents, emotions are that same process but for different kinds of contents).

With a descent too far into content as such (loss of reason) ideas and emotions both begin to break apart into their constitutive content-pieces. Ideology is technically a mild from of schizophrenia.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:32 pm

Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Metaphysics of Freedom Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We all know intuitively that we are absolutely determined in what we do, but knowing this doesnt mean we know what we "should" do before we do it, therefore we are thrust against the limit of our knowledge with respect to the intuition of those determinations which impose upon us in any given moment of thought, feeling or action, i.e. we gain the freedom of choice, which is a kind of self-apotheosis at the subjective level, a process of progressive understanding as peeling back layer upon layer of our ignorances... the necessity of making a "choice".







Christological View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am going to take a term that Zizek uses at least once, Christological, and use it from now on to distinguish the logic of the Christian metaphysical from Christianity as religion or even from Christianity as historical event. The system of Christianity is different from the logic underpinning it, the system at best manifests this logic materially in the world and at worst just represents this logic indirectly as a sort of gesture or image.

Zizek's point here was that the logic of Christianity is deeply Hegelian in how Christianity created a space for human meaning beyond the cultural symbolic order, beyond the dynamics of the family and beyond the state. Christ was this kind of radically contingent event, Christ as man, through which a larger metaphysical symbolic possibility was realized in so far as the contingency is required to allow the necessary "absolute" structure to function in real life; a distinction he makes here is between two forms of society and governance: the modern state of the rule of experts and technocratic bureaucracy, versus the older monarchies where experts existed more in the background and did the real work of understanding and crafting policies and actions for the king or leader figure to simply sign. He claims that Hegel's point is that's society needs an empty figurehead at the top in order to enact governance in a more human way, that the direct rule of experts or direct popular vote is s tyranny of positivity that can only work well when supplemented with the radically negative figure of the leader whose job is to fail to understand the policies and actions that he signs into law.

He uses a line from Lacan: "madness is not only the beggar who believes he is a king, it is also the king who believes he is a king." This is profound. The real logic of necessity is only able to act as governance and intelligent actions and will if there is a kind of empty symbol for this action and will, because of the distance required between the true rationale behind an act and the act itself. The psychoanalytic term here is symbolic castration, which means the irreducible (in so far as we remain truthful as subjectivities) gap in subjectivity between what we are to ourselves, our inner experience and self, and what we are to others, our roles in society, the function we have to others and how others perceive us. I am not fully convinced that this gap is totally irreducible because instead of trying to reduce it "downward" toward the conditions of the gap itself we can instead reduce it "upward" in philosophical and artistic activity. We can try to change our world to reflect our "inner truth" and gain proper recognition by that standard, but perhaps even this is a form of castration as well, an external rather than internal castration.

The Christological formula was to introduce radical negativity into humanity at the intersection between individual and state/society and between individual and other people. It was no longer enough to have this ideal of perfectly filling out our social role and position in peaceful harmony with our state or culture; Zizek notes how he went to China and asked them about the nature of their state communist administration of capitalism, and was told that they have abandoned the idea of communism for a more practical peaceful homogeneity between individual and society, where everyone knows their proper place and role and is genuinely happy and self-actualized in fulfilling that place-- "sure", Zizek replies, "we ourselves in Europe also have a term for this ideal state of peaceful social harmony of perfect functioning of individuals and social role, it's called corporate fascism".



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
His point is that we should defend Europe and US against this contemporary critique that goes something like "Europe/US are oppressive colonial powers of hegemony that tyrannize "local peoples" and cultures", we shouldn't defend the imperialism but we should defend the Christological gap within the proper human subjectivity, a gap that always makes utopian perfection whether as the naive communist idea or as corporate fascism impossible.

The idea of communism is simply that eventually the need for wage-labor work would fall away due to this work being taken over by machines. Since the need to work in the common social economic sense of "having a job" is still always the case, communism is only a distant vision of a possible future where the symbolic castration would no longer govern sociopolitical affairs. But of course this is also naive in so far as machinery can only remove physical materials labor and cannot actually remove mental and emotional labor. Capitalism today has pushed work-labor into the immaterial realm as society is more and more overtly defined by this inner logic of human subjectivity wherein the distance required between oneself and one's actions or "image of oneself" functioning in society is still irreducible. The "human element" is the required contingent factor of imperfection and unpredictability around which capitalism's drive for necessity and perfection (homogeneity, absolute control and prediction) rotates.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Interestingly this idea is almost the exact opposite of Plato's vision of politics given in The Republic. The supposedly wise leader who sees himself as fully embodying his role as political leader without any remainder is only another kind of tyranny, Zizek makes reference here to Stalin as a perfect example; the people will always treat the political leaders as if they had some sort of divine wisdom and as if they are in fact synonymous with the role they occupy, and the gap between the leader and his role is rendered invisible; but when the leader himself acts as if this gap didn't exist, when the leader truly believes that he is this role himself, that is is king, then we must only get another form of absolute tyranny.

Democratic republics today in US and Europe have partially solved this problem by making the position of leader an empty role that is filled only temporarily by various elected officials. In this way the justification for being in that role is no longer the supposition that the leader has some divine or perfect mandate justifying his occupying that role, because now we all know that the leader is simply whoever is chosen by a majority of the people. The leader may still pathologically associate themselves literally with the role they play, thereby forsaking their humanity and pushing the gap of symbolic castration deeper into repression, but now there is always the threat that this facade will be exposed as a sham, for the simple reason that there now exists a mechanism for selecting leadership that is entirely beyond the leader himself. The leader must submit himself to the imperfections and contingency of the will of the people as hypostasized into a single "majority vote", and this is a necessary remainder of political leadership that works against pathological associations of leaders with their roles. The king who REALLY BELIEVES that is IS king, this is the problem that the Christological formula militates against.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Zizek also here makes the point with regard to Plato, that a hypothetical perfectly just society would be an absolute terror.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I find this a good reading of Christianity. To my own great cheerfulness, I am instantly grounded in opposition to this formula of government; as a philosopher-legislator, I believe in philosopher-kingship, in direct logos-to-praxis downward, with the hirded help of whatever experts are necessary for any given context.

Zizek expresses here the pure negativity in terms of human will that Christianity represents; the simple ontic inability of regulating his species, and his species representing nonetheless his will.

Now, that philosophy is coming home, which means back to its throne, this system becomes obsolete, and a true horror. Now that god is dead and humans are being born into sanity again, the time has announced itself where we need proper leadership, a commander, who knows what he is doing, unlike any 'experts'..... who are after all specialists, and can thus by definition not know politics, which is comprehensive.

It is time for positive leadership again - we humans arent anylonger ashamed of our drives, which is why we could not have direct leadership - we had to hide our drives form ourselves, make this strange circuitry outside of ourselves, to exclude ourselves from our will, which was sinful to us, but needed to be done anyway. This is why the king was an illusory figure, his role is to hide shame and guilt, and for this he needs to be transcendent, or to forge a psychoanalytic term: sublime-perverse. The apparatus we are now about to vote out of power is thus sublime-perverse kingship, president Obama probably the most sublime-perverse human to ever 'rule'; be entirely powerless, and ignorant about 'his' domain while speaking the ruling logos, blindly superimposing the given mediating matrices of shame and guilt on society to regulator its will into narrow, puny paths that can be controlled; man under god was simply a harvesting machine without a pilot, so he needed a great artifice of government.

In this world to come now, we need self-valuings, individuals, who are actual humans, and can know what the humans in the world really need now; apparently the time has come, where we can be proud enough, sane enough, un Christian enough to take our fate into our own human hands.

'Masters of the Earth', Nietzsches greatest project, to which the notion of the Superman and the ER is but a small catalyst... to open the paradigm to this very mastership is our task as philosophers before the 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So if I'm correct here what you're saying is that the problem isn't really the fact of symbolic csstration and its repression, but actually the problem is sublime-perverse drive-confusion they can only be organized in terms of a leader/spiritual teacher? I agree it is possible to have truly wise leaders. So I agree that the problem isn't that leadership is always unwise qua leadership, he problem is more like how utterly rare it is to have leaders who are wise (and sane), as well as how to tell the difference. In Plato's system there is no real mechanism for preventing the inevitable rise of an unwise/insane leader. I suppose the other way around this problem of the rarity of wisdom in leadership is for the people to grow in their own wisdom. That seems to be what you're saying?

While it's easy to be cynical and dismiss that idea, I do happen to agree. "The people" should keep raising their standards of life and in so doing come closer to a need for truth both in life's beautiful gifts as well as in the ennui that follows achieving quality of life with regard to material need. The ennui of "rich white America" that is a well known side effect of capitalism here can be seen as a kind of breeding ground for an elevated standard to come, for the need for truth.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 756
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
" Zizek's point here was that the logic of Christianity is deeply Hegelian in how Christianity created a space for human meaning beyond the cultural symbolic order, beyond the dynamics of the family and beyond the state. "


My problem with this in general is reading Christianity independently from the Judaic underpinning from which it evolved. The basic idea in Judaism is that the mundane affairs of family life are themselves vehicles through which the divine re-participates in the creation; that one can literally lower and raise the universe simply by being a good father or wife, etc. So if the emergence of Christ is read against that more ancient theological background, Christ does not represent the opening of a symbolic possibility beyond the mundane reality of state and family life, but rather, an inversion of that symbolic order; in Judaism, man expresses the divinity latent in nature through good acts, while, after Christ, that latent divinity is no longer latent, it is actual, thus "the kingdom of heaven is within you." Agape or the spirit of god, brotherly love, becomes the main focus of worship- and man expresses divinity through that, rather than by fulfilling stifling and static social roles deemed as good in the Judaic tradition. So Christ is not an empty signifier between god and man here or a radical negativity, rather, he expresses the divine actualization or radical positivity of humanity as agape or love, so that man no longer needs to relate himself to God through the established forms of society/ "filling their proper place" in Judaism (symbolically castrating himself) in order to express the divine. Christ removes the distance between man and the divine. Neither Christ or God exist as the radical negativity of the other; they are both negated on the basis of a mutual affirmation, so that the affirmation can be reified through the Christ-God's death as agape or brother love. This love or agape allows things like family life and the mundane affairs of living to become active rather than passive expressions of the divine as they were in Judaism: that is the fundamental gift of Christ. And this is my system. Two being(s) are irreducible and cannot be brought into a negative relation to one another- because they are both affirmations of Being, that is, positivity, as Christ and God; negative reflection * isolates the positive core which they share by negating them both at the level of the symbolic- hence it wasn't god and man that died on the cross, it was the god-man and god; finally that positivity is reified, or reproduced in a new form.

* [ For Holderlin, all knowledge stems from an original division by reflection within athesis
through which Being is positioned as an intellectual intuition, that is, not as identity, but
as a transcendental relation between the subject and object that cannot be synthetically
unified within consciousness, and whose specification can therefor only take the form of
tragic poeticism, an aesthetic of the mourning introduced into the Eden of nature with the
fall of man into reflection and immanence. In my view, because man can reproduce
intellectually his own lack, through what I call negative-reflectivity, he must be initially
divided from himself in pre-reflection. This lack is man's Being. The transcendental
relation of subject and object becomes in this view an immanent relation between man's
consciousness and the Being of that consciousness, with the reproduction within
consciousness of the lack representing the reification of the Being of consciousness- a
reification of the transcendent object missing in a Nature mournful over the absence of
the divine.]

In other words: Christ does not provide a radical possibility beyond the mundane, family etc. Christ allows the mundane to be expressed as the radical metaphysical possibility.

A similar inversion politically is possible. Man does not express his will positively by relating it to law under a king; man expresses law by positively relating his will to a leader. The idea is that law itself is not a passive symbolic structure but an active real structure. Both the individual and the leader are pure affirmations of a basic ontos, law; the structure of the new polis serves to negate them both so that the positive core they share can be isolated and reified in a new form, as "the people," a political category that was only properly articulated in America and which represents law in its activity rather than passivity.



___________
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 Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
So if I'm correct here what you're saying is that the problem isn't really the fact of symbolic csstration and its repression, but actually the problem is sublime-perverse drive-confusion they can only be organized in terms of a leader/spiritual teacher? I agree it is possible to have truly wise leaders. So I agree that the problem isn't that leadership is always unwise qua leadership, he problem is more like how utterly rare it is to have leaders who are wise (and sane), as well as how to tell the difference. In Plato's system there is no real mechanism for preventing the inevitable rise of an unwise/insane leader. I suppose the other way around this problem of the rarity of wisdom in leadership is for the people to grow in their own wisdom. That seems to be what you're saying?

I believe only in nominal control, I believe that arms should be in the hands of privates, always. Never a monopoly on violence by an institution. That is my philosophical idea, and with this idea I try to come to rule. I think of philosophy as supreme - and of myself supreme only in as far as I philosophize - go inward. I cant bopth be supreme and command downward; but I can cast possibilities to the mind, which are paths and destinies. I see Greece as having come into being as such, and I continue this line with a joy that is incomparable to any other, the very joy of philosophy.

I do not take philosophy or wisdom as possibilities, but as givens, now on Earth, this moment, this opportunity, us together- and who knows all the others - to me there is nothing abstract about philosophical rulerships ambition, it is purely personal, about values, and self-valuing.

A tyranny is collectivism; the collective is united by a sublimated passion mixed with fear. But our form is self-valuing, the fire itself that builds the entity.

Quote :
While it's easy to be cynical and dismiss that idea, I do happen to agree. "The people" should keep raising their standards of life and in so doing come closer to a need for truth both in life's beautiful gifts as well as in the ennui that follows achieving quality of life with regard to material need. The ennui of "rich white America" that is a well known side effect of capitalism here can be seen as a kind of breeding ground for an elevated standard to come, for the need for truth.

Yes, teaching is the only form of government there has ever existed - we've forgotten this as we became the greatest power.



___________
" 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
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
" Zizek's point here was that the logic of Christianity is deeply Hegelian in how Christianity created a space for human meaning beyond the cultural symbolic order, beyond the dynamics of the family and beyond the state. "


My problem with this in general is reading Christianity independently from the Judaic underpinning from which it evolved. The basic idea in Judaism is that the mundane affairs of family life are themselves vehicles through which the divine re-participates in the creation; that one can literally lower and raise the universe simply by being a good father or wife, etc. So if the emergence of Christ is read against that more ancient theological background, Christ does not represent the opening of a symbolic possibility beyond the mundane reality of state and family life, but rather, an inversion of that symbolic order; in Judaism, man expresses the divinity latent in nature through good acts, while, after Christ, that latent divinity is no longer latent, it is actual, thus "the kingdom of heaven is within you." Agape or the spirit of god, brotherly love, becomes the main focus of worship- and man expresses divinity through that, rather than by fulfilling stifling and static social roles deemed as good in the Judaic tradition. So Christ is not an empty signifier between god and man here or a radical negativity, rather, he expresses the divine actualization or radical positivity of humanity as agape or love, so that man no longer needs to relate himself to God through the established forms of society/ "filling their proper place" in Judaism (symbolically castrating himself) in order to express the divine.

Yes, this is also in line with what I was trying to say, although I probably expressed it inadequately. "Christ does not represent the opening of a symbolic possibility beyond the mundane reality of state and family life, but rather, an inversion of that symbolic order", in fact I think these two things are the same thing: the opening of the (new) symbolic possibility beyond the mundane is equal to the inversion of the (old) symbolic order as such. The old order it is taken as a givenness and meant to symbolize God itself, directly as you say, but when Christ inverted this formula he placed the symbolic itself at the heart of human being because, once freed from the old tyranny of God-symbolizing, the reality behind the older symbolic order, the family and social relations, etc., was freed into more direct being. Christ divorces humans from being inextricably, unconsciously bound up in social and family relations and thereby Christ frees that in those relations which was actually real and always there to begin with. The old order which bound everything up tightly together had obscured this truer reality. This is why Christ was not saying we should seriously hate our parents and brothers and sisters in order to love Christ, in that famous saying of his, it isn't meant to be taken literally like that. He was saying that we are now free to love beyond the bounds of what had formerly been (falsely) called love. Love didn't really exist before Christ. Love is radical distance which respects its other as itself categorically, as an immediate metaphysical truth, like with what you say about mutual affirmation I think.

Essentially, the philosophical rational notion of equality among categorical partners. All human beings are, potentially, categorical partners in this way. Christ was not saying that all people are equal, he was saying that all people equally share the same category and regardless of how things actually turn out in practice. And this equalization of the human race under the same category is at the metaphysical level replacing the old idea of God: God in pre-Christ is just the stand-in concept for the supposed absolute reality of the "big Other", whereas God in post-Christ is the proper distance from that Other so we can start to form real relations with the actual others in our immediate lives. That is how I see it anyway.

Quote :
Christ removes the distance between man and the divine. Neither Christ or God exist as the radical negativity of the other; they are both negated on the basis of a mutual affirmation, so that the affirmation can be reified through the Christ-God's death as agape or brother love. This love or agape allows things like family life and the mundane affairs of living to become active rather than passive expressions of the divine as they were in Judaism: that is the fundamental gift of Christ.

I agree. I think this is also Zizek's point with his reading of Hegel and Christianity that I was talking about in the OP here.

Quote :
And this is my system. Two being(s) are irreducible and cannot be brought into a negative relation to one another- because they are both affirmations of Being, that is, positivity, as Christ and God; negative reflection * isolates the positive core which they share by negating them both at the level of the symbolic- hence it wasn't god and man that died on the cross, it was the god-man and god; finally that positivity is reified, or reproduced in a new form.

* [ For Holderlin, all knowledge stems from an original division by reflection within athesis
through which Being is positioned as an intellectual intuition, that is, not as identity, but
as a transcendental relation between the subject and object that cannot be synthetically
unified within consciousness, and whose specification can therefor only take the form of
tragic poeticism, an aesthetic of the mourning introduced into the Eden of nature with the
fall of man into reflection and immanence. In my view, because man can reproduce
intellectually his own lack, through what I call negative-reflectivity, he must be initially
divided from himself in pre-reflection. This lack is man's Being. The transcendental
relation of subject and object becomes in this view an immanent relation between man's
consciousness and the Being of that consciousness, with the reproduction within
consciousness of the lack representing the reification of the Being of consciousness- a
reification of the transcendent object missing in a Nature mournful over the absence of
the divine.]

In other words: Christ does not provide a radical possibility beyond the mundane, family etc. Christ allows the mundane to be expressed as the radical metaphysical possibility.

I think your view and the Zizek-Hegelian view are essentially the same here. "In my view, because man can reproduce
intellectually his own lack, through what I call negative-reflectivity, he must be initially
divided from himself in pre-reflection. This lack is man's Being." --this is pointing to the psychoanalytic insight that the concept of symbolic castration is also saying: "Lacan turns Freudian castration into “symbolic castration.” The latter, rather than being a real or imagined scene in which a specific threat to bodily integrity is issued, designates the dual somatic and psychical discombobulating effects upon the premature human animal caused by insertion into and subjection to surrounding socio-symbolic contexts, of being made to depend on the foreignness [distance, lack, unknowable] of signifiers and everything they bring with them." (Plato.sanford.edu).

The human being already lacks something, even before it is a human being, and this lack manifests itself as a gap within thinking whereby that which in fact determines this thinking is, initially, entirely obscured from thinking itself; we cannot think our thinking directly, but even more problematically we cannot think the base of thought itself. Philosophy is the only cure for this that I know of. Psychoanalysis is on par here, because psychoanalysis is basically a system for producing philosophical insights in people who are not philosophers.

But note that in your above description there are two lacks: there is the original lack, and then there is the lack in thought that arises because of the original lack; thought is a reflective process that reproduces the original lack first indirectly and then, finally in the finished philosopher, directly. Any true philosophy must always take stock of this original lack through its direct conscious understanding of the lack in thought, because philosophy proceeds from a high precipice of thought-substances and gradually works its way back down through these and to the ground; philosophy must build up its mountains of concepts and ideas only so that philosophy can gain the possibility of climbing back down through these to return to the original ground, a ground that was only possible to even glimpse, let alone ultimately grasp, because we had to first build the massive mountain from which perspective and height we could finally see this ground. This is also Hegel's idea of absolute recoil: the "fall" (original sin) that by falling creates that from which it is a fall. There was no perfect original Absolute, no pure state of grace, no initial utopia; we actually create this 'perfect state' only because we fall from it. In positive philosophical terms: only because we build the mountain away from the ground do we become able to actually see the ground qua ground, to even become aware of its existence (and therefore our own existence, too).

Quote :
A similar inversion politically is possible. Man does not express his will positively by relating it to law under a king; man expresses law by positively relating his will to a leader. The idea is that law itself is not a passive symbolic structure but an active real structure. Both the individual and the leader are pure affirmations of a basic ontos, law; the structure of the new polis serves to negate them both so that the positive core they share can be isolated and reified in a new form, as "the people," a political category that was only properly articulated in America and which represents law in its activity rather than passivity.

I am not sure what you mean here, are you saying that human being is the realization of a purely rational-logical structure ("law"), a kind of metaphysical Being that becomes real through the human beings that have been formed according to it? Please elaborate this point so I can grasp better what you mean.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I thnk what P is sayinng is more simple; in general I think that the "Trumpian" position is toward more simplicity, and away from metaphysical differentiations of man from man; as I read it, P is simply saying that a leader does not have to be a symbolic-metaphysical representation of a process that is not entirely human, at least not entirely fed by true humans, positive beings - but that a leader can simply be a strong man that is actually worthy of being followed, because he does good stuff. I at least think that this is what we need to be getting back to - the system, and I don't mean the corporate system but the philosophic-metaphysical system, is failing us.

A strong leaders is not a fuhrer. I am also a leader, here, as are the both of you. We command respect in each other, and in ones less advanced, and there is no principle of law or humanity or society that we obey to indirectly; we simply know how to value, and express ourselves directly, most directly of all to those in charge of whatever matters. I tend write so that politicians can make sense of it, and I know we're being seen. Tough this is just the beginning, this thing we do here is government of the future, no less - there is absolutely no more conscientious and human agency active on the planet than this, I am sure. In happy case, we may have some equals. But we dont need them, we have enough here to make another round of 'Founding Fathering', pretty soon.

We have ethics. That is what, to my mind, Hegel and Marx negated. They did not start from the generative logic of the individual, therefore they necessarily disacknowledge the individual, and his logos.

I'd like to focus on that point, that Hegel did not put forth the self-valuing principle before he started juggling around with these archetypes supposedly referring to humans.



___________
" 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
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 756
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Christological Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lacan's Lack is the lack of a primary object in eroto-genesis. The consequent dependency on foreign signifiers is different than the negativity or lack I imagine. For, in Lacan, the subject is split from itself- it cannot rise up to the category of representation beyond reflection so no primacy objectification appears in erogeneity:

[ ... the Lacanian model- a model which is all based on the idea
that erogeneity remains nebulous and that no definite primacy ever develops between the
anal, oral, genital, etc. stages. For him each libidinal circuit merely "rotates" around a
center of gravity without ever attaining any object, generating a subjective awareness of
the impulse only at the completion of each cycle, which splits the subject into conscious
ego and unconscious.]

For me, the subject is split not from itself but from the Object, namely in pre-reflectivity. With reflectivity, the ego represents its division from the Object (the shadow of the real) as itself. This auto-representation is my version of Holderlin's intellectual intuition. The basic lack lies in the fact that the act of representation always cleaves the subject from its object, until it reproduces its own negativity as its object in transcendental specification, that empty object taking the form of the god-idea. In the mortis imago or image of death, it perfectly represents this division from the Object and finds its representation. This representation is the material of the symbolic order, human civilization and culture. The death anxiety and erotic pathos appears with it:


[ In pre-reflectivity,
as in the Greek consciousness, the self exists for the world beyond itself, and
kenotically experiences the unity of subject and object as its own self-emptying into
creation or representation, reading itself back into the forms it has liberated from the
dance of ages as from out of the text of the old pantheon, but in reflectivity it begins to
exist for itself and mirrors its own separation from things in the image of death, death
which is a final separation of subject and object, and of objects themselves from one
another, losing the capability of representing its deepest interior contents, becoming
secretive to use Kierkegaard's terminology and aware of the hidden, nameless God of
Abraham, in whose abyss it finds something of its own emptiness. The moment the ego
associates itself in pre-reflection as the subject of a specific object, namely a metonym, so
a loss occurs, a fall from grace, and the potency of organo-affective unity is transformed
by the attempt to fill the narcissistic wound from the basic life-force into a negative
kinesis, a thanatos or tension which the ego attempts to push out of consciousness in
reflectivity by reproducing the empty ego-object of the metonym for new objects, a task
for which Eros emerges, until the whole kingdom of the body is precipitated as a series of
metonyms in erogeneity. ]



As that representation or symbolic order becomes more evolved throughout the derivations of the epistemes, the self is finally convinced that it is this representation of its division from the object, its division from Being or basic negativity to use philosophic terms.

[The narcissistic wound imposed by the catastrophe of Nature, which
births the real-ego in the pre-reflective infantile progression, ie. the psyche or
psychoanalytic subject, brings with it the death-anxiety which serves as the motive of
somatic regression insofar as the transcendent wish of the reflective childhood
progression has not successfully reproduced its own empty object, for it is upon the basis
of this object, ie. the mother-figure, that the negative kinesis of libidinal tristia generates
the ideal specification of the ego, ie. dike or the philosophical subject, ... ]


So this post-reflective or representable self essentially exists as an articulation of the very forces whose tension gives rise to it. :

[ ... the episteme is therefor much
like the tautegory of Schelling in that it represents (in my logic, it reproduces through
negative reflectivity) the very conceptual oppositions that gives rise to it. ]

[As in Schelling, for this subject Being is seen as merely
the temporary object of resistance against which the finite self sets itself against itself in
reflectivity and develops into de-objectified geist, the Spirit that can be known only in its
objectless activity, like the Atemwende or respiration and expiration of spirit and flesh, a
counter-word set against Ousia like that uttered by Lucile in Danton, accounted in Celan's
Meridian as indicative of the self that goes out beyond itself to seek itself, to seek its
deobjectified geist.

While thanatos aims to return the ego to the peace of inorganic existence, a pre-reflective
unity that never existed even in memory, a wish expressed unconsciously by the vision of
heaven, nirvana, etc., Eros would aim ultimately to express the totality of human nature, a
project jeopardized insofar as erotic pathos has regressed into the furious defense of the
god-ego in primary narcissism, in the face of Death and reality, leading to the self's
fragmentation and both the suspension and preservation of feeling- if only in a kind of
death, holding love back from extinction yet also from life, to recall Freud's Mourning
and Melancholy. The task of Eros recalls that of Schelling's lost identity for whose
existence the identity of the self is only a symptom, in that Love, too, is a symptom for all
that love has lost, cannot accomplish and has failed to gain. ]


The ego in my writing is similarly created by the very problem of representation which the existence of the ego creates.



To articulate the self without that illusion of representation- the illusion of the real or the ego, requires a break in the dialectic (which is what I mean by "reproducing the negativity of thought as the object of thought, as thought's transcendent signification." )-

[ Yet for the very same reason that Eros has no place for the time of pleasure's
arrival, it has no place for the recognition of death, for death which opens the white-lilied
heart of love and steals the breath from the gasping lightning, whose thunder never peals
over the gorge torn open in the flesh of longing: one's death confesses one's love, but
one's love cannot confess one's death. ]

-- requires an act of love through which alone death can be psychically incorporated, for the mortis imago or image of death within which the ego represents itself to itself in the shadow of the real, is only a kind of reflective fabrication preventing man from establishing his true positive orientation:


[ Love is a break in the dialectic, for love is the negation not of
the negation but of the ideal whose content is affirmed through the negation, for the
negation is our own self, or the intact body that is repaired by being broken apart- for it
was made whole by means of the loss of what was most integral to it. ]


And when I mentioned "the people" as a political category that was first articulated in American constitutional philosophy, I meant that it serves there a similar purpose that agape served Christ, as a break in the dialectic.



___________
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 Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Christological Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"The People" is not actually a category, as it isn't juxtaposed against something that negates it. It is a direct address of.... well, the people. There isnt another way of addressing people.

We could say they are juxtaposed with the government, but the government is of and by the people, only therefore, for the people. They are the same substance, but their selfvaluing excess (moral values) are pressed upwards by self-valuing difference which seems close to what you mean with antidialectic, rather than resolved into each other, and rather than that the people and government are resolved by each other, like in a categorivcal divided society is the case, time and time again.

Capital has both ruined and increased aristocracy - if I am totally definitive about my aim, it is to restore aristocracy ad a fluid system defined by osmosis, namely (economic) equality before the law, and simply allowing for industries to create wealth and a positive inequality, that causes the Dream.

The most genius thing a nation ever did was the identify with the term Dream. What Magicians. The identification of values with that state certainly induces a lot of alpha wavelength, and causes pure fluidity, and a very functional irrationality; it completely dampens the need for morality. Of course, this only goes for free spirits. The others do seem to not carry the burden of flux, of self-responsibility, very well -- but the United States will nevertheless determine the fate of the world into the next centuries - pride is essential. Pride is what activated Marxism - it made Communism, and that was good. But as soon as it was given the means to embody a System, Stalin and Mao were more or less exact logical operators of that logic; the history of Stalins purges of the original revolutionary generation is the most palpably theoretical dialectical materialism after Mao's Great Leap Forward. The strange thing is that indeed the very theory of Marx exudes a pride - the same with Hegel. Most philosophies are more subdued in this, less pre-emptively imposing, more of a lure to the right kind of lovers. Marx does not include the notion of love, which is just a very pure and potent, challenging selfvaluing, into his calculations, which makes them all categorically false... (kek)
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:33 pm

Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Self-valuing: a theoretical examination Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The two main dialectical (expressed as two sides in contrast and conversation with each other) paradigms in philosophy at the metaphysical (onto-epistemological) level have for a long time been: being vs. becoming, and materialism vs. idealism. One great thing about the VO idea of self-valuing is that it jumps over both of these paradigms. It's like these paradigms break down completely under the assertions of VO. I want to create an analogy here to how edified logic breaks down typical paradoxes in philosophy of logic:

The Cretan paradox of speaking "All Cretans are liars" when one is a Cretan oneself. This is supposed to produce a paradox because if one is oneself a Cretan and proclaims honestly that all Cretans are liars then one has spoken a truth, thus refuting the original claim that is spoken, so that it becomes impossible to express the claim without refuting it. This is clearly among the more stupid things produced by philosophy. I only mention it because of how the supposed paradox literally dissolves when we push just a little deeper into it: what does "are liars" mean, that all Cretans never always only speak the truth, or that all Cretans are always lying? The latter of course is required for the paradox to even make sense, and yet as we move to this latter position on the meaning of "are liars" in equal measure the situation becomes literally meaningless: all Cretans are always lying? Everything spoken is a lie, no non-lies are ever spoken? Everything is supposedly a lie therefore nothing truthful can be said-- this is nonsense, more importantly it isn't a paradox at all, it is just a stupid way of constructing a thought experiment. If someone always lies then they cannot tell a truth, but then by some magic you say "A ha but here they may have said a truth!" you're just refuting your own premise that the person always lies. It's unfortunate that this sort of thing persists as "philosophy".

"A is never B
But some thing here of A looks like a B (because I subtly refuted my own principle of A in my formation of B)! Paradox!"

Idiotic.

So anyway, just as the paradox dissolves once we really examine what is meant by the terms in the premises, namely the paradox only exists because of a deliberately vague use of concepts, I think the typical dialectical paradigms in philosophy also dissolve once VO proposes its core idea of self-valuing. Self-valuing doesn't claim to know what a self is or what beings are, they could be "material" or they could be "ideal", they could be "being" or they could be "becoming" but in any case whatever they are they are always a self-valuing, something which holds itself in existence precisely because it "values" itself as itself, namely interprets interactions in such a way that it always holds itself as the standard for those interactions. The idea is deeper than the typical philosophical categories here; "what being really is" is suspended because we don't really care about that right now, we say that no matter whatever we might say being is, we already know that it is self-valuing. Although VO does not go the "extra" step and claim that being is self-valuing and nothing besides which is a huge strength on the part of VO, as I see it. The false metaphysical leap is avoided, suspension of judgment is imposed just so that a core truth can reign free regardless of however anyone wants to describe or define "what beings really are". We may not know what they are, but by strict logic we can know that regardless of what they are, they self-value. This is one reason why self-valuing is superior to N's will to power, because N makes that metaphysical leap when he doesn't need to (when it isn't justified to do so).



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time


PostSubject: Re: Self-valuing: a theoretical examination Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hegel's idealism is interesting, as far as I've been able to tell so far by reading him directly and going on Zizek's readings of Hegel, because of how material is governed by the ideal yet the ideal both rises out of the material and is not reducible to the material. As materials organize they become governed by ideal relations as the ideal is for the material its universality, but not just "its" universality, rather universality as such. The material becomes capable of expressing through itself something that is entirely non-material.

This is the essential contradiction. The original "split in being", because the material could never truly become ideal just as the ideal could never truly become material, although the idea acts as if it were material in so far as the ideal, by coming through the material, interacts directly with the material to organize it in new ways. Said in my terms, consciousness is literally its own contents but in such a way that consciousness cannot be reduced to those contents; the contents construct consciousness by filling it in but do not describe consciousness at the formal level, rather the filling in of consciousness, its reality, takes place within the bounds of the universal become "material" for being able to interact directly with material on the material level, through instantiating as materials.

Hegel says in PS that even if beings (human beings) work only at the level of the direct contents (materials) of their consciousness and deny their universality they are still in fidelity to that universality for the simple reason they their contents always already express that universal, and the universal is realized by realizing contents at the content level. The very fact that we are "interested in" some object or event that is not-us is the fact that this object or event has already been assumed in our own contents in sudh a way that universality is seen in it, and works itself through us in it or through it in us. But the truly moral dimension comes when this consciousness turns its always already realizing universal as its direct (universally denying) content-fidelity into a direct object itself, namely another content of consciousness; at this point consciousness gets a hold of itself within itself in a new way, grasping universals as such or "philosophic ideas" and the material of the contents of consciousness are now organized again in new ways. So the universal now can live through those contents in a wholly new and different way.

I'm not very far yet in my understanding of Hegel's system here, but what I see so far is powerful indeed. I am going to fathom these depths alongside Parodites' daemonic and Fixed's VO. Another interesting thing I notice is that people talk about how Hegel never really wrote about the dialectic for which he is so famous, yet when I read Hegel this dialectical logic can be seen everywhere in him; this must separate good from bad philosophers, true philosophers from mere scholars of philosophy since the latter point to the "mistake" that we credit to Hegel this idea of the dialectical development when in fact he never said that, yet the former such as Zizek and Marx are able to extract this critical logic from Hegel even as Hegel never explicitly lays it out-- Hegel lays it out indirectly, as if following his own logic of how the ideal universalized materials through those materials which can never become ideal themselves.



___________
“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Self-valuing: a theoretical examination Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is extraordinary.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users