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 Jakob » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:41 pm

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Art and Reason Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is the "inherent" (intrinsically-holding, or assumed, or 'automatic'-structural) relationship between art (aesthetics, beauty, passion) and reason (logos, ethics, inference and imagination)? Is there such an inherence of relation here? Is art ethical? Does the play of art fall upon the passions, the moralisms and thus exclude itself from an ethical purview and possibility -- is it the (social, psychological) morality that is the being of art, must we, like Kant, understand art to be an activity outside of a direct relevance and necessity to/for the ethical?


Or does art become ethical, reasonable (reason-ably motivating, intended, purposeful) through a process of subjective (re-)creation and valuing-application? Does the rational-conscious being draw art within itself to lend to art some quality of its own reason and ethical possibility? Is art a medium through which the ethical of the subject draws forth and gathers to itself its own possibility while the "animal"-psychological of the subject finds instead therein a passional release, respite and higher synthetic apprehension? Does art gather the subject at all levels of its being?


What is the ethics of art?



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Art and Reason Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable

Quote :
What is the "inherent" (intrinsically-holding, or assumed, or 'automatic'-structural) relationship between art (aesthetics, beauty, passion) and reason (logos, ethics, inference and imagination)? Is there such an inherence of relation here?
I'm not sure if there is an 'inherent' relationship between art and reason...


Inherent:
1.Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: "inherent dangers".
2.Vested in (someone) as a right or privilege: "the president's inherent power

You used the word 'imagination' above. I might say that it is our imagination that connects the two but is there anything inherent within it?


Quote :
Is art ethical?
No, it only appears to be ethical because it is endowed with the values and morals of the artist creating it - with or without intention or to the one perceiving it as such. It may change us in such a way that we become more ethical or moral beings as a result of it. So, in that sense, can art be considered ethical?

Quote :
Does the play of art fall upon the passions, the moralisms
Are the artist's passions and morals responsible for and influence what he/she creates - yes, at least in part they are. They are the real material for creating. But perhaps real art must also be in the moment simply according to what one perceives, without the play of passions and morals. Our emotions do enter into our creative flow but there are degrees of difference between one's emotions and passions. You use the word 'passions' which may also mean something that we desire/crave which goes beyond reason - but our emotions must necessarily be a part of the creative process - since the connection between the seer and the seen lies in the human being.


That might be a much more difficult kind of art to create - a more subdued emotionally but yet reasonable kind of art based on the desire to reflect the truth of the human experience in all of its reality.

Quote :
and thus exclude itself from an ethical purview and possibility
I suppose that would depend on what one would call art and again, the artist's intentions. Some looking at The Rape of the Sabine Women might think it gross and anathema and that it came about as a result of the inner, out of control passions of the artist. Perhaps how we view art, tells us more about our own psychological selves than about the artist himself. I may be digressing here.

Some might consider and feel that The Declaration of Independence is also a written work of art - thereby it would be purviewed as within the realm of ethics, not excluding it ...just as much as a wonderful painting would depict the truth of the human experience or the beauty, reality and truth of something in the universe.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness........



Quote :
-- is it the (social, psychological) morality that is the being of art, must we, like Kant, understand art to be an activity outside of a direct relevance and necessity to/for the ethical?
In part, yes. We are social, psychological beings. But I would hope that art is so much more than that. It is also the creative freedom which draws itself from an inexhaustible source within our own personal spirits, our cores - as Nietzsche has said that "love is beyond good and evil" --- art must necessarily go far beyond our social, cultural and psychological selves - I hope.

If i understand you correctly, or Kant, that is, and perhaps I am not, yes, art has great relevance and necessity, but must extend far beyond the ethical scope if it is to depict reality. It must be free to soar and to become, it is an expression which is in the moment and ever-changing in one's imaginaton. That may include ethics but must reach beyond it to show the world and the human being in its reality and its illusion. In order to do that, ethics must sometimes fail.

Quote :
Or does art become ethical, reasonable (reason-ably motivating, intended, purposeful) through a process of subjective (re-)creation and valuing-application?
Only within our own minds perhaps…but I may be wrong. I think my issue is with the word “become”…



Quote :
Does the rational-conscious being draw art within itself to lend to art some quality of its own reason and ethical possibility?

Is art a medium through which the ethical of the subject draws forth and gathers to itself its own possibility while the "animal"-psychological of the subject finds instead therein a passional release, respite and higher synthetic apprehension? Does art gather the subject at all levels of its being?
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is that art shows us or reminds us of who we are…art is the ‘lender’ or the giver. We are the receivers. We can only see what we already are. Art is more like a mirror which reflects our inner selves.

Art is also like a dream. Perhaps it can only gather in those parts of ourselves in which we have some conscious awareness – enough to at least listen to what the work wants to tell/show us. Then perhaps it may flow through more of our being.

Quote :
What is the ethics of art?
My first thought is something which I read somewhere.

A Always
R Respect
T Truth

So for me the ethics of art in part is to always respect and to bear witness to the truth....

Another part of its ethics would be discipline, sacrifice and hard work...struggling to complete, out of love and the desire to go beyond ourselves, to create something hopefully which becomes a revelation, a dropping of some veils of the world surrounding us...which remained hidden and mystery before that time...and which perhaps will remain in part still hidden. If that makes sense.

...ad continuum...

Edited: On March 31th



___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Art and Reason Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
VaerosTanarg wrote:
Capable

Quote :
What is the "inherent" (intrinsically-holding, or assumed, or 'automatic'-structural) relationship between art (aesthetics, beauty, passion) and reason (logos, ethics, inference and imagination)? Is there such an inherence of relation here?
I'm not sure if there is an 'inherent' relationship between art and reason...


Inherent:
1.Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: "inherent dangers".
2.Vested in (someone) as a right or privilege: "the president's inherent power

You used the word 'imagination' above. I might say that it is our imagination that connects the two but is there anything inherent within it?

I mean inherent as in structural, structural to either art or ethics. I am not assuming there is such a relationship, but I am interested in determining if one can be identified. To do so would require of us that we first know both what 'ethics' is as well as what 'art' is.


Quote :
Quote :
Is art ethical?
No, it only appears to be ethical because it is endowed with the values and morals of the artist creating it - with or without intention or to the one perceiving it as such. It may change us in such a way that we become more ethical or moral beings as a result of it. So, in that sense, can art be considered ethical?

Art can stimulate change in one's ethical stance, then. Or stimulate new ethical awareness. Art as one means toward ethics. If this is true, then art possesses something inherently ethical, at least on the level of possibility.

Quote :
Quote :
Does the play of art fall upon the passions, the moralisms
Are the artist's passions and morals responsible for and influence what he/she creates - yes, at least in part they are. They are the real material for creating. But perhaps real art must also be in the moment simply according to what one perceives, without the play of passions and morals. Our emotions do enter into our creative flow but there are degrees of difference between one's emotions and passions. You use the word 'passions' which may also mean something that we desire/crave which goes beyond reason - but our emotions must necessarily be a part of the creative process - since the connection between the seer and the seen lies in the human being.

True. Art (is able to) reach up from all levels of subjective being.


Quote :
Quote :
and thus exclude itself from an ethical purview and possibility
I suppose that would depend on what one would call art and again, the artist's intentions. Some looking at The Rape of the Sabine Women might think it gross and anathema and that it came about as a result of the inner, out of control passions of the artist. Perhaps how we view art, tells us more about our own psychological selves than about the artist himself. I may be digressing here.

Some might consider and feel that The Declaration of Independence is also a written work of art - thereby it would be purviewed as within the realm of ethics, not excluding it ...just as much as a wonderful painting would depict the truth of the human experience or the beauty, reality and truth of something in the universe.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness........

I separate moralism from ethics. Ethics is strictly-speaking anti-moral, non-moral (this does not mean it cannot and indeed will not have moral consequences, however).


Quote :
Quote :
-- is it the (social, psychological) morality that is the being of art, must we, like Kant, understand art to be an activity outside of a direct relevance and necessity to/for the ethical?
In part, yes. We are social, psychological beings. But I would hope that art is so much more than that. It is also the creative freedom which draws itself from an inexhaustible source within our own personal spirits, our cores - as Nietzsche has said that "love is beyond good and evil" --- art must necessarily go far beyond our social, cultural and psychological selves - I hope.

If i understand you correctly, or Kant, that is, and perhaps I am not, yes, art has great relevance and necessity, but must extend far beyond the ethical scope if it is to depict reality. It must be free to soar and to become, it is an expression which is in the moment and ever-changing in one's imaginaton. That may include ethics but must reach beyond it to show the world and the human being in its reality and its illusion. In order to do that, ethics must sometimes fail.

I believe that ethics emerges from a totality of view, from a more comprehensive and dispassionate reason. What is ethical emerges of necessity. Contrast this with the passions: they emerge out of arbitrariness, out of an evolutionary mandate which (largely) no longer (for us) exists. Or: ethics is the necessity of moving beyond the 'evolutionary mandate' of the moral-social being, it is the becoming-arbitrary of this being and the subsequent elevation of sociality to an entire new realm of possible utility and value-power.


Quote :
Quote :
Does the rational-conscious being draw art within itself to lend to art some quality of its own reason and ethical possibility?

Is art a medium through which the ethical of the subject draws forth and gathers to itself its own possibility while the "animal"-psychological of the subject finds instead therein a passional release, respite and higher synthetic apprehension? Does art gather the subject at all levels of its being?
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is that art shows us or reminds us of who we are…art is the ‘lender’ or the giver. We are the receivers. We can only see what we already are. Art is more like a mirror which reflects our inner selves.

Art is also like a dream. Perhaps it can only gather in those parts of ourselves in which we have some conscious awareness – enough to at least listen to what the work wants to tell/show us. Then perhaps it may flow through more of our being.

Yes, I believe art can and should reflect parts of ourselves back to us. The more we bring to artistic experience, the more we get out of it. Art potentiates being.

Quote :
Quote :
What is the ethics of art?
My first thought is something which I read somewhere.

A Always
R Respect
T Truth

So for me the ethics of art in part is to always respect and to bear witness to the truth....

Another part of its ethics would be discipline, sacrifice and hard work...struggling to complete, out of love and the desire to go beyond ourselves, to create something hopefully which becomes a revelation, a dropping of some veils of the world surrounding us...which remained hidden and mystery before that time...and which perhaps will remain in part still hidden. If that makes sense.

...ad continuum...

Yes, creation and the "truth of creation", what is true about the creative act. Art is an unveiling, a dis-closing of (the) being (for whom art is art).



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Art and Reason Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As I experience the creation process, art sometimes transcends my moral notions, surprises me in showing what also can be included in the good. It is a way to allow the passions to flow out into ethical form, I might say, so as to reflect on morality and show how fragile the cherished and protected judgments are. By the use of beauties, harmonies, symphonies, aesthetic relations and arrangements, elements that by themselves would be condemnable can be perceived as part of a structure that causes such a joyful experience that it myst be considered at least in part, or potentially part of, good. So, for me art has the power to be at once a-moral and towards higher ethics. But not all art does this. Mainly art that carries what I have come to call in the past weeks a "Luciferian" element, a playing-with-evil, which means a subjecting of evil. I say "not all art" but I mean hardly any art. Art is as yet too timid to play around with morality in this way. Whether art is tragic (condemning-liberating) romantic (idealistic-comforting) or nihilistic (condemning-comforting), what is lacking is a true affirmation. Hitherto, only in comedy, such affirmation has been attained, but this works on a very superficial level, which also means that it is instantly rejected as a pleasant moment of relief/oblivion, away from reality. What would be required for art to become truly transformative and empowering, in the sense of driving to surpass the deplorable state of the tool-wielding ape towards full being-hood of self-consciousness, a state of which "man" is but a precursor, is that the perspectival method that is exclusive to comedy, the "playful malice" that looks as if god-like from above and yet profoundly, un-hypocritically involved, is expanded in its application also to "serious" narratives. The subject needs to be forced to identify with more, needs to be deepened, made to feel more responsible, more real.

What I do not mean is satyrical art. This is cold, distant and hypocritical, stands only above. "Luciferian" art makes it at once impossible to condone and to reject. It is thus beyond morality, addresses something deeper, or perhaps just greater, more difficult and more valuable. Its effect would be paralyzing to the traditional moralist, activating to the one who seeks to become free, and in general very difficult to deal with but also to resist. At this point our "God" is still "Evil", as this is what we consider to be above us, beyond our reach. Whatever amounts to this need to be incorporated into an ethical realm. Art can do this, but can the artist?



___________
" 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
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Art and Reason Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To Capable...

Quote :
I mean inherent as in structural, structural to either art or ethics. I am not assuming there is such a relationship, but I am interested in determining if one can be identified. To do so would require of us that we first know both what 'ethics' is as well as what 'art' is.
Well, barring morality, or our subjective ideas of what is good and bad, for me ethics is concerned with making careful and logical decisions, depending on particular situations and circumstances, where the greatest 'real' good may be achieved and where the idea of 'to do no harm' is always paramount in a person's actions. Although emotions are important in these decisions, since we are human - at times, at least for me, I feel that emotions may get in the way of portraying stark reality, truth and fairness. But ethics has to be grounded in justice and fairness and what it means to be truly human - and I'm not sure that emotions can be taken out of that equation.


Quote :
Art can stimulate change in one's ethical stance, then. Or stimulate new ethical awareness. Art as one means toward ethics. If this is true, then art possesses something inherently ethical, at least on the level of possibility.
But not of itself alone though. I think that there has to be within the individual a conscious awareness to begin with, or at least a growing awakening of consciousness. Then, art may stimulate ongoing ethical awareness (as you say) if that individual is indeed aware, to begin with, how art may teach and instruct and if they are open to it. For any kind of art to be ethical, for me, it must ALSO teach and instruct, it must be a mirror of the human condition and of one's own inner condition.

'Inherently ethical' - as in structural again? For me, 'possibility' lies within the relationship between the individual and the object of art, if you understand my meaning here. Art alone, in and of itself, is nothing, without the observer. But much depends on the artist and the observer and his/her consciousness, essence, core and spirit. It is the individual who makes it come alive, just as it is the individual who, in actuality (where it counts) makes nature and the universe come alive. Okay, I'm digressing.

Quote :
True. Art (is able to) reach up from all levels of subjective being.
Do you mean that we ourselves draw out from within ourselves the expressions and interpretions which our own inner world and external world create?

Would there also be something called 'objective being' wherein no emotion is at play but simply reason and the desire to interpret the world in its true essence and reality? I may not have expressed that well.

Quote :
I separate moralism from ethics. Ethics is strictly-speaking anti-moral, non-moral (this does not mean it cannot and indeed will not have moral consequences, however)
Well, I don't necessarily see ethics as anti-moral. For me, they do flow within the same waters, but I may be wrong here. For instance, the Ten Commandments can be viewed as being ethical in nature if one values them as standards of behavior or as a guiding compass in which one makes choices in particular moments and situations, and which lead to responsible decisions to 'act accordingly' where no harm is done - which may also be one's own moral mandate - 'to do no harm'. Would you consider The Ten Commandments to be moral - in that they implicitly deal with what is right and wrong? But I suppose I see your point since what is moral can become so blurred depending on one's own religious and otherwise beliefs and what is also a matter of economics at times. Look at the abortion issue - at one time the taking of a life - as in abortion was considered illegal, immoral but it would seem that financial gain and the belief that a woman is entitled to own her own body, (which of course she is) and to do with it what she will, even at the expense of and having the choice to destroy the little life growing within her (which is separate from her own). I'm digressing here...


Quote :
I believe that ethics emerges from a totality of view, from a more comprehensive and dispassionate reason. What is ethical emerges of necessity. Contrast this with the passions: they emerge out of arbitrariness, out of an evolutionary mandate which (largely) no longer (for us) exists. Or: ethics is the necessity of moving beyond the 'evolutionary mandate' of the moral-social being, it is the becoming-arbitrary of this being and the subsequent elevation of sociality to an entire new realm of possible utility and value-power
I agree that an ethical person would necessarily want to see as much of the entire picture as is humanly possible before judging and assuming or presuming to know the right way to go, but I disagree with you here that that would come about from a totally dispassionate reason. The passions do emerge out of arbitrariness but are you actually saying here that there is no more necessity for them? Is it just our dry reason and logic which create the beauty of the world through art, paintings, poetry, books? Don't be throwing the essential human baby out with the bathwater.

I don't know - I may be wrong here or misunderstanding you, but if we move beyond the moral-social being, what is the point of ethical behavior? Maybe you can clarify what you mean. I'm probably missing your point. And what do you mean by possible utility and value power - does that pertain to the value of the human being or the power which some might exercise and control over the human being? Words don't always explain much.

Quote :
Yes, I believe art can and should reflect parts of ourselves back to us. The more we bring to artistic experience, the more we get out of it. Art potentiates being
By instructing and teaching.

Quote :
So for me the ethics of art in part is to always respect and to bear witness to the truth....

Quote :
yes, creation and the "truth of creation", what is true about the creative act. Art is an unveiling, a dis-closing of (the) being (for whom art is art).
It also unveils what is real and hopefully shows what is illusion. Even art that is fanciful in nature may be rich in disclosing a deeper meaning and reality of self - such as in the fairy tale, which points to something that cannot yet be gleaned until first going beyond what is on the surface, deeper and deeper into the story and allowing it to teach and instruct and reveal itself.

Having ENTIRELY NOTHING to do with fairy tales but ...

I recently saw the movie "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" about two young boys who's paths cross and who secretly spend time together and become friends. The one is a little Jewish boy, Schmael, who is emprisoned in a concentration camp and the other is Bruno, the son of a nazi commandant(?) who lives nearby this concentration camp. At some point, Bruno, out of curiosity, decides that he wants to sneak into the concentration camp, not really knowing nor understanding the reality of it. Bruno had recently seen in his home a Nazi-propagated film which was set up by his own father in order to perpetrate and continue the Lie, in order to hide the true purpose and reality of the concentration camps. So the boys plan this 'adventure' and eventually Bruno manages to get under the barbed wire and into the camp. While walking through the inner camp, Bruno asks Schmael to take him to the 'cafe' (which was mentioned in the Nazi film) and Schmael looks quizzically at him, telling him that there is no cafe there.

Suddenly the Nazi soldiers come, herding a large group of these human beings, including the two boys, into the 'showers'. (No words can describe my emotions here). At this point, through tell-tale signs, Bruno's father and mother had already finally realized that Bruno is missing and discover just where he is, running frantically to save him in time. But they are too late. And the father is left staring at the door into which his son entered and met his fate with his little friend. And the father stared and he stared into what must have been the gaping mouth of hell for him when he saw and smelled the putrid smoke rising in the chimney above.

I was sadly aware throughout this madness to save Bruno that I too wanted Bruno to be saved. At first I never considered the full extent of what that actually meant because I was so caught up in the happy ending...the underlying, 'unconscious' feeling was that Bruno just did not BELONG there...but it could never be a happy ending but I didn't consider that until later on. Afterwards, I reflected on it and realized that if this movie was truly to be 'ethical art' - to reflect Truth and the tragic human condition - if Art was to respect Truth, and not give way to illusion, and if this movie was to be a true mirror of the terrible consequences of fear, hate and bias, then there could be no happy ending. The only ethical and real conclusion to this movie was that Bruno could not be saved, as difficult as it is for me to say this because the saving of even one human life, especially that of a child, is the most important thing I feel, above all. But to make one life as more valuable and important than another, especially that of an innocent, and a child's, under these circumstances, at least for me, not only dehumanizes us, but hides the awful truth.

For the writer to have done this, would have been to totally dis-value each and every human being everywhere and within that camp and within any concentration camp. So this to me is where ethics and art meet - and truth and reality triumph over illusion and the big Lie.

A Always
R Respect
T Truth
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:42 pm

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Negative Definition Ethics Wed May 16, 2012 10:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
During discussions with James S. Saint and now also Capable, I've been made acutely aware of the gap between value ontology and a practicable philosophy that is non-mystical, logical. How to proceed from the notion of self-valuing and value deriving from that, to a concrete conception of value? I think I just got an idea for an approach. If self-value is so fundamentally embedded in all my reflections, it must perhaps remain unattainable to me, my type of reason. The most fundamental "things" I may "observe" are perhaps the objections to my self value - that which functions as a negation of it, me, - what is bad for me. I must try to externalize what limits me by conceptualizing it in terms of a physics, chemistry, electricity of valuing. The dynamic divided in objects, restrictions.

A first classification of restrictions; necessary ones (implicit in the being that creates its environmental cosmos) and unnecessary ones (subject only to the laws of time-space, the "consensus between subjects", the common ground without which the majority could not survive.)

Ok, this gets overly political in its orientation -- good, because chemistry is nothing other than the different distributions and tensions of commonly recognized qualities, politics.

Someone now opens the french windows next to me and cold streams in. Let me just repeat that an ontological ethics means a scientific ethics, and that this must contain what (I) clearly perceive as a threat.

The reason for this to work is its geometry. Logic is subservient to a triangle: object subject and otherness. These can be both forces for good and bad, in any given situation - what matters is the proportion of the facets.

I am taking a direction on speculation. I am only sustained here by the Parodital term 'speculative ethics', and by my own inexhaustible taste for speculating 'intuitively' - recklessly, without hindsight.
The intuition that came to me writing this post... and it makes sense because geometry is a form of beauty, and beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder, but despite its pure and exalted subjectivity, or even because of it, conceptions of it range within certain bounds - beauty not to be confused with 'object of desire'. A thing is only beautiful if one can enjoy it without possessing it.

What this has to do with negativity, objections and negative powers, - my coffee is getting cold.









___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Negative Definition Ethics Wed May 16, 2012 10:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
1. The distortion of beauty, the reduction to appetite.

The meaning of philosophy/art/evolution.
All is driven by art. The means to overcome unattractiveness, to cause attraction.

Essential attraction is unoperative without a pulsating dynamic pushing outward. "Time" is such pulsating sustaining the noticeable attraction/value.

2. The cessation of time/pulsating dynamic.

Hmm, so next to ugly lust, lethargy is bad. Now then pride... which is perhaps the distortion of self-value by exaggeration of its contextual importance -- by misplacing it out of excessive demand. Pride is then excessive demand (for being) - lack of being. Would rank pride as one of the severest conditions.

3. Manipulating the affect of lack into the appearance of excess so as to draw resources under false pretenses. (Would require a lot more specification)

Wrath...
4. Destruction of objects that negate ones values.

Is this a sin against value, under the paradigm of value ontology? "Questionable." - Nietzsche.

Then there is the most obvious "sin against the spirit of value"... envy.

5. Valuing a value one desires negatively because of an incapacity to attain it.

A strange version of misplaced value:

6. To draw in materials containing strong value-signals, to experience these signals as value. (Interesting that gluttony would be the sin related to my Pentad post on Interestedness).

OI have to play the movie in my head to arrive at the seventh sins. The blood on the carpet.

Greed is perhaps jealousy continued in the condition of wealth. Greed is perhaps the automated mechanism of the experience of chasing value as value. Wrath and Greed would be lesser sins in a Nietzschean paradigm, envy would be far greater sin in a Nietzschean than in a Catholic world. Envy makes one a slave. Greed can be highly useful in becoming a master at times. So, and certainly more so, will generosity, voluntary expentidure of strength.

Of course envy can lead to a stimulus too - but Greed is self-sufficient - it relies on an aberration in the self-valuing rather than a systemic lack of it. It could be 'positively cured' - turned into a systemic advantage. It includes knowledge.

I am making a case for Greed to not be a sin on ethical ontological grounds. It means: taking advantage of the resources of others without consideration to suit a superficial fascination with the capacity to acquire. Or? Am I so greedy perhaps that I do not see greed for what it is??

7. Abstraction of value...?






















___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Negative Definition Ethics Wed May 16, 2012 11:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For badness beyond the seven sins I'll have to draw in some more spiration. It's largely about a misplacement of the value because of an interpretation of it pertaining to a minor attribute of the value.
(Not) discerning the values in the goods.

Arg. A workable ethics requires a hierarchy of all the known attributes of all the known objects, as well as all their consequences. Difficult, heavy work bound to fail. The result of it would be quite beyond imagining - an active existence. Willing existence precisely away from the recurrence of the same.

Screw the same, never anymore the same! Let's hijack the universe, propel it from here into the billion year glory of the galactic polis, the mining of the black hole, -

But this is my positive ethics, composed perhaps of a mixture of the above mentioned conditions, be it from the seed of my virtuous philosophy.





Message
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: A Question To Philosophers Thu May 17, 2012 10:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I want to ask a very important question that I personally believe separates the men form the boys in philosophy, and I believe it is an ethical one:

What justification can you produce for publishing philosophical thought?

The answer should probably read like a mission statement, but who knows?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers Thu May 17, 2012 11:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Shouldn't the text itself justify its publication? I mean the philosophical element, the evolutionary agent.

I have published a handful of short philosophical texts on media other than free access fora, but I would not make explicit my motive for their publication to the platform where it is published.

The beauty of a philosophical idea is that it is not integrated by a mind on the terms of that mind, but that it rewrites these terms, breaches them and installs new ones.

I don't want to install half ideas. I wish to publish on value ontology only when it is also taking on the shape of a cosmology, wherein a narrative may take place. In other words, when it is clear to me what it means for it to rule.

For it to rule elsewhere I have to let it rule my own psyche and actions - and this requires that I make choices in terms of historical truths. I can't hold a birds eye perspective on the historical dialectic, anymore, I am in the process of cutting ties with false or thin loyalties and identifying my weakest necessary links. This world is in danger, as mastery over it is not yet an overt claim, even if it is the objective. All this can still be an advantage to us (you, Pezer, me, the others who are reading). The danger to the world consists precisely in the lack of an ontology of value. "Flexibility" is the enemy of this philosophy.

I do not wish this to be the enemy to the beneficiaries of the current science of value, to the realm of speculation. I remind myself to see the historical relation between banking and the renaissance, to the creation of real 'surplus' or splendor using an imagined capital. A Trust. The world runs on trust, placing investments. Capitalism is where it's at, or is at where it is. There are a few basic syntax errors, benefitting conservative holders pf large real value, enabled and suggested by completely isolating the capital market from the market of goods.

Value ontology is of course a tool to identify different types, categories of value - it helps to connect aims to real possibilities, and to project corners to turn and transformations to sustain and dominate in the future, given a certain valuing become action. Not only would it be more difficult to get insanely rich overnight over the back of a couple of million others, but it would become harder to lose value in investments. I do not think that any wealth should be redistributed, but I do want existing wealth to be invested into projects benefiting the cultivation, from this violent testtube content, western civilization, of a veritably super-human type. It's the only way out of this reaction for us, apart from disintegration. It will certainly happen to a segment of the population in some way - the abyss between master and slave is widening. "99%".... the term says it all.

I am not unmoved by the historical symmetry of Greece's antithetical behavior to the ethics of the Eurozone - perhaps I should go and see with my own eyes what is going on there, to make up my mind on what is worth saying, and how it deserves to be said.

What is required is an ethics of power, which is to say that real power needs to be understood as arising from truthful, ontologically sound ethics. Searches will be enabled into the real mechanism of every power structure. Conniving will have to attain levels undreamt of by Machiavelli or even Spielberg, and sound ruling will become a much more easy task.

"Heisenberg says: Relax."


















___________
" 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 : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers Thu May 17, 2012 1:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My justification for writing books is that I have something to say.



___________
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 Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers Thu May 17, 2012 3:52 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For the record, I am including internet forum posts in my definition of publication.

"Because I have something to say" sounds lazy at best, meaningless at worst.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers Thu May 17, 2012 10:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Spoken like someone who truly has nothing to say.






___________
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 Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers Fri May 18, 2012 1:47 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was attacking your ideas, not yourself.

Why do you get emotional? Most distasteful.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers Mon May 21, 2012 12:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I thought it wasn't a bad summary of the justification of writing philosophy.
A newspaper writer doesn't necessarily have something to say. Neither does the writer of a sitcom or a commercial. A philosopher writes with blood, Parodites may have understated.

Style is the skeleton of clarity.
A philosophy reliant on production of value is not a philosophy of terminology, it is a philosophical turmoil of strength and wisdom, a threat to society. Breaking the laws we are subject to when managers and women are the ones writing history.

Philosophers are like dragons - man can not tolerate them in his life, but needs them in his myths. He just not always needs myths. Philosophy is in a sense a luxury, provided by the abundance of mans dominion over other species.











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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon May 21, 2012 12:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers Mon May 21, 2012 12:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No other species seems to create danger for itself, as man does.
Philosophy can be this danger, has been - it has accompanied man to the discovery of the means to his self-destruction. What Nietzsche concluded as the ultimate danger was true, the means he himself took to overcome it were false. But he knew this, it seems; he who turned out well - ceases to enjoy something when it is no longer wholesome for him.

But what is wholesome?
What could Nietzsche have done on that eve of the Apocalypse, but surrender to madness? This was the honest thing to do. This is where all philosophers are sick: they do not cease to enjoy truth when it is no longer wholesome for them.








___________
" 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: A Question To Philosophers Mon May 21, 2012 5:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I paraphrase here, but Nietzsche said something along the lines of "Through my Pride, my Truth. And if one must go, let it be Truth."

Still, Nietzsche did justify his publications. That is, in fact, what set him apart from sand castle philosophers.

"Because I have something to say?"

No offense, but this is a teenager's response. Yours, FC, was indirect, but sincere and with content.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers Tue May 22, 2012 1:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The most direct answer I can give you now would be something along the lines of: I came into a world insanely ignorant of its drives and direction. Only twice or three times I found a thinker who had the vaguest clue as to what is going on. I drew what they touched with their fingertips into my full grasp. Now I could try to communicate this understanding to people who are otherwise content running around randomly and uttering fragments of long shattered possibilities.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:44 pm

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: The Luciferian Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have in the recent weeks posted a few things on ILP and in another thread on this forum, on "Luciferian" x. The silence in reaction to these posts has been deafening and gave pause for thought. I realize that I may risk to alienate those with whom I otherwise have a strong philosophical rapport. Besides, these notions do not actually indicate anything concrete, they are merely suggestive, and perhaps suggestive of things I do not intend to suggest.

While writing these posts I already felt uncomfortable and uncertain. As they address the more uncomfortable and uncertain elements of our political society this is no wonder - but the question is whether there is any merit in posting such speculative and controversial thoughts that do nothing to clarify or to aid towards any ethical aim.

In terms of philosophy, I am 100% certain that I am making sense, and this is corroborated by my friends here on BTL. In terms of politics, I am almost 100% certain that I am only in part accurate. I always run into trouble whenever I try to define "what really is going on" in terms of politics - and have arrived at the conclusion that I am per definition wrong even if I am also right, whenever I try to sufficiently define, in terms of outlining, something in this context.

So I withdraw my notions of the Luciferian, or at least, take a distance toward them. I will proceed on the philosophical path you have come to expect of me, and which I am proud to be capable of walking.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I have in the recent weeks posted a few things on ILP and in another thread on this forum, on "Luciferian" x. The silence in reaction to these posts has been deafening and gave pause for thought. I realize that I may risk to alienate those with whom I otherwise have a strong philosophical rapport. Besides, these notions do not actually indicate anything concrete, they are merely suggestive, and perhaps suggestive of things I do not intend to suggest.

While writing these posts I already felt uncomfortable and uncertain. As they address the more uncomfortable and uncertain elements of our political society this is no wonder - but the question is whether there is any merit in posting such speculative and controversial thoughts that do nothing to clarify or to aid towards any ethical aim.

In terms of philosophy, I am 100% certain that I am making sense, and this is corroborated by my friends here on BTL. In terms of politics, I am almost 100% certain that I am only in part accurate. I always run into trouble whenever I try to define "what really is going on" in terms of politics - and have arrived at the conclusion that I am per definition wrong even if I am also right, whenever I try to sufficiently define, in terms of outlining, something in this context.

So I withdraw my notions of the Luciferian, or at least, take a distance toward them. I will proceed on the philosophical path you have come to expect of me, and which I am proud to be capable of walking.

This luciferian notion where applies to art has been useful for me. The word has a unique connotation here and implies something otherwise seemingly alien or which evades clear articulation. I have been trying to distill my thoughts along these lines, with regard to something which I feel must need greater explication here:

What ought be the role of luciferian art to aesthetics generally? The luciferian element seems a highest elevation of the principle of reaction, opposition in that it seems designed to push the moral-aesthetic to its furthest limit, and beyond. Lucifer pushed the limit of man beyond God; ought luciferian art also push art beyond the limit of all that has traditionally become able to encapsulate the aesthetic sense?

Maybe this topic should be re-named The Luciferian... but I do see your point, most people are unable to talk about this notion. Which, of course, makes it the perfect choice here. But I am interested in any difference you see between your conception of the luciferian here (as applied to art, aesthetics, creation) and a "mere" radically-oppositional reactionism. Of course this latter can be taken to induce a Hegelian sort of dialectical synthesis, so perhaps the luciferian is a way of provoking this sort of synthetic possibility?



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Great insights. I had not arrived at any of these thoughts as I remained morally bound, fearful and doubtful of the merit/value, justification of using the term Lucifer, which prevented me from observing coolly what I was actually putting on the table. I do not wish to immediately fill the space that you open here, I will take some time to reflect. I will however change the topics name as you suggest, because with your response the entire reason for this disclaimer vanishes, and what remains is the actual subject, which is indeed, The Luciferian.



___________
" 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
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Now i am interested, what where your thoughts on the Luciferian? heck i don't even know what Luciferian means...? Embarassed



___________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates
"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God." -Cicero
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it." -Aristotle
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What ought be the role of luciferian art to aesthetics generally? The luciferian element seems a highest elevation of the principle of reaction, opposition in that it seems designed to push the moral-aesthetic to its furthest limit, and beyond. Lucifer pushed the limit of man beyond God; ought luciferian art also push art beyond the limit of all that has traditionally become able to encapsulate the aesthetic sense?

When you say this, I’m reminded of impressionism, cubism, surrealism, abstract (esp. textiles), postmodernism, etc.—really every major movement since the late 19th century mutates through a weird syncretism of iconoclasm and apotheosis: deterritorialization and reterritorialization. Impressionism seemed to mimic the world reflected upon a zephyr-rippled lake (contra facsimiles of sybarite ‘Louis’s, corpulent concubines, and the decadent splendor of the court), they used violets and blues not for insalubrious, bruised flesh, but for the shadows cast upon the most fair of rosy complexions--and they did all this very fast; Cubism scrapped whole, congruous form—it’s shattered, a jumbled juxtaposition of abstraction qua cracked mirrors; Duchamp asked if a toilet isn’t art, Dali queried why an octopus isn’t a brush, Magritte levitated an apple to hide his face while saying “Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” Ernst did his thing and the rest followed suit; Postmodernism nidified sardonic lenses symbolizing self-applying salt shakers of irony and satire, insinuating themselves upon every applicable dish until pop culture’s salting itself mired the entire movement in a collective existential quandary; Rothko scoffed at Michelangelo and spun impossibly captivating fields of color, Pollack hurled frumious cans of paint in vain attempts to metastasize his alcoholism on the canvas, and countless campus-haunting aesthetes welded found objects together with neon paint and Elmer’s, turning for validation with imploring puppy-dog eyes to philosophy privy critics; a mousy, near-albino painted soup cans and icon-ized gratuitous nudity and salacious themes until a member of his artificial family introverted him by means of a pistol; a group of maverick virtuosos contradictorily disguised their work as photography—my montage (especially the second time through) is plagued by omissions and perhaps a bit of anachronism, but my point is this: if the Luciferian is as you say, then is it not the catalyst behind the evolution of art itself, and how then is it defined?—as an aesthetic, a(n) (a)morality, or a specific temporality (zeitgeist of an evanescent present moment)?




___________
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?


Last edited by Aleatory on Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Aleatory – your beautiful post describes the diametrical opposite of what I understand as the limit to be pushed. In simple terms, the l9th and 20th century revolutions in art were an inquisition into what can be art, whereas the Luciferian would be a question of what art can be. In simplified terms, and doing a lot of injustice to a lot of great art, the movements you describe would have been a breaking open of the lower limit of art, thereby including what I would call the elements of chaos and the mundane into the realm of aesthetics, and in this process moving toward a-moralism. The Luciferian should be the breaking open of the upper limit of art.

This “upper limit” refers to the process of the creation of culture. As the Homeric art created the ethical groundwork (or perhaps more apt, heavenly Form) of the Athenian mindset, from which, through the immensely successful self-institutionalizing of this mindset, followed Rome, from which followed the Church with artists like Michelangelo, Bernini and such to shape the “upper limit” of the Catholic empire (Quite literally exemplified int he sistine chapel). We can see that the highest, most valued art has been the symbolization of morality, i.e. God as the upper limit of the state.

All the post-representative movements you describe represent to me the death of this God, or the loss of teleology in art, with as the remainder ‘l’art pour l’art.’ The Luciferian should be seen as the reintroduction of teleology into art, the effort of man to stop contemplating the empty throne of God, the vacuous upper limit (the naked object in the room, the toilet), and to boldly ascend to this throne himself, and take place in there.

What it would mean to claim the locus of what had until some 150 years back been felt as God, has up until this point been far too great a burden for man. God, as as noble and good as man thought him as he was alive and well, appears, when we consider what He has been responsible for, quite evil. And this is actually the most common present-day objection to God – not that He doesn’t exist, but that He is a violent maniac.

To take a position similar to what we have imagined as the divine position (and this is all God has been to art, an imagined position of supreme power) man can not simply be besides good and evil, in the sense of being anarchistic, not-valuing power-structures, but he must move beyond this duality, which means through it, breaking the notional realities of these judgments. This is not a question of disinterest, but of pain. We can not simply dismiss what is embedded in our moral skeleton, our physiology, our pre-cognitive impulses, our linguistic configuration, which has existed as long as written history. The de-hierarchizing art-projects of the past century have been attempts at condition-less, priceless negation of the burden of power. These attempts have failed the world, and man is back at square one, standing at Gods empty throne which appears to many as crueler and more forbidding than ever. Western man has exhausted all the energetic, courage-and liberty-generating resources of the subconscious to break with his responsibility toward God, only to be drawn into an extremely rigid shadow-morality, representing not any positive idea, but merely Gods absence and the reckless efforts of his orphans to obscure their anxiety to themselves by preaching happiness and enacting nothingness. The circuitry of a nihilistic society.

The moral fabric of these times are of a historical shallowness, as it is a continuous disowning of the void. Narrative art at this point is aimless, weak, spineless and far more conservative than it has ever been – speaking from a narrow mindedness belonging not to certain problematically privileged classes but to the generally dis-privileged creature than now calls itself by the name “we are all humans!”.

To move forward from this means to ove through something, destroying something, breaking away from this Demiurg, this thoroughly ignoble God-surrogate, abandoning the commandment that all be equal which implies that all is meaningless. The notion of evil has to be penetrated into its phenomenology, which means that it has to be touched. As before the death of God, mans greatest fear was to be touched by evil, he must now reach to touch evil himself, as a disowned remainder of his being, to make it his own, include it into a moral aesthetics – as far as this will prove to be posible.

(The limit of morality can of course not be itself integrated, but it needs to be pushed back by integrating that which presently represents this limit (in western mans own sphere of responsibility). Our type desperately needs moral breathing space, his self-negation can not go on much longer)

As Parodites has made clear, the new ethics shall be a speculative ethics; as art has been the explication of the limits of morality, the Good, “Luciferian art” means explication of the limits of the Daemonic. This is not a work for the faint of heart, and I stand before it in fear and trembling – I must address the darkest dagger in my own psyche before I can begin to move foward to claim for man the throne that he has hitherto filled only with his imagination. “Lucifer” represents something that is for man a necessary part of his worldview, but lies beyond the reach of his personal conscience.

I see this now as the only way in which man can theoretically regain contact with his political-economic actions, which are absolutely beyond the reach of his moral good vs evil logic. Man, at least the philosophical class standing between the working class and the ruling capital-machine, must establish value differences beyond good and evil. Until now the sphere “beyond good and evil” has for philosophy been a theoretical, an ideal, un-filled-in by reality, therefore undifferentiated, non-being. The concrete artist, not the abstract philosopher, must venture out as a pioneer into this terrain, establishing new law in the wilderness.

There is a great unchartd territory that is at this point unseen, hidden as the discrepancy between morality and futurality. To will the future, under all conditions, this means to integrate what is necessary and unavoidable into morality. Morality thereby loses its status as an absolute, fixed good, loses the power to result in universal principles, and becomes the continuous effort of a speculative ethics.

If this operation is to be successful, man will live guided by a philosophical machinery. Thinking will no longer be isolated incident, a curiosity - the thinker will no longer be the archetypical hermit ascetic, but part of a war-effort to keep mankind sane in the direct apprehension of his 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
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think perhaps this ‘upper limit’ has been breached, namely by surrealism. Andre Breton, in the manifesto: “Pure psychic automatism, by which one proposes to express, either verbally, in writing, or by any other manner, the real functioning of thought. Dictation of thought in the absence of all control exercised by reason, outside of all aesthetic and moral preoccupation.” Note that last bit, “outside of all aesthetic and moral preoccupation.” Though seemingly an apotheosis of the [un/sub]conscious mind, perhaps it neglects to deify itself. Well, but if God were a simulacrum in the first (and thus his throne a vacant altar from the get-go), what need have we to take this seat if not to wield the hegemony of Religion, the scepter of the Vatican against the people ourselves? Art as the expression of dasein, this attempt to make connections outside oneself despite this solipsistic condition; what should be a free territory if not this? And if we instigate an infection via the throne of God—whether he sit there or we affect an entirely one-sided coup—is this not the Trojan-horse-totalitarianism of Rousseau, the bacillus inherited by Marx and Nietzsche alike?—not just “If man will not be free, you must force him to be free” but ‘buy not the fantasies sold by civilization but those I sell you of a recursion to the natural order, of the Noble Savage’ (which finds its analog in Marx’s proletariat dictatorship as the reterritorialization of the bourgeois dictatorship and its metastasis in Nietzsche’s reterritorialization of Christian morality).



___________
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The problem with the abandonment of moral concerns in art I is that this scepter against ourselves continues to be wielded, despite a surrealist awakening of an anarchistic instinct in the individual. What I mean to point to is indeed a new form of imperial art, but not to glorify the noble savage or any Nietzschean ideal, but to make accessible the "machine" (capital) to human valuing capacity.

I am not sure that capitalism can or should be overthrown, as it is a much more direct manifestation of man-as-valuing than any communitarian models can be. It should rather be refined, at the same time as mans morality expands, becomes less cramped - so that morality and machine move towards a synthesis.

Surrealism is a liberation of the individual from the machine, but it does not thereby render the machine obsolete, does not contradict the machines hegemony. The new art I propose is a celebration of the machine, not by making it into something that it is not (God) but to allow for man to morally take part in the machine, and thereby refine/reform it into something (more) truly beautiful.

In short, art represents the power to make known and acceptable by making beautiful - to reveal the Real as accessible by masking it as recognizable. This stands in direct opposition to the power of science to "disclose as-is", which is simply the invocation of formless force into the image of the world, brutalizing, making unaccessible to ethical being, "objectifying" - reducing all to function of a purposeless inevitability, negating the general ground of being in the finalizing of its most artificially isolated set of consequences. So far, man has only been able to discern aesthetics in the apprehension of phenomena disclosed by science - not to subject the approach to science (the capacity to objectify, brutalize) to aesthetics, which is to subject force to form, which is to create in the sense of living (re: building, dwelling, thinking).

To apply the ethicizing, perspective-enabling power of art to the economic-political status quo requires a furthering of capitalistic thinking, not an anarchistic will to be free of the capitalistic machine. So I am not speaking of the individual and his art (in this sense I might agree that art has already disclosed thinking) but of society and its art. We can not, as a society, be free from "evil" or tyranny. "Society" is precisely what it means to be tyrannized. But tyranny by what? Largely a matter of (re)defining the will to comfort, and the means we use to battle for this comfort.

In this sense it will be useful to look at the classical word - how it defined itself in its most conservative form - its rituals and institutions. It was at ease with its will to dominate all other life, and was at ease by virtue of its ritualized institutions, its state-art. Enlightening state art might mean a return of the colonial spirit under different, more refined terms. It must mean the institutionalization of the will (of the west) to persist. Institutionalizing means to cast into form, which means forging into an aesthetics.



___________
" 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
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Then you believe in an objective aesthetic or that if an intersubjective aesthetic cannot be agreed unanimously upon, we will be forced to accept your aesthetic? Luciferian aside, this seems awfully fascist—removing the possibility for outward subjective valuation by force. "True" beauty—what is this? Who defines what is "truly" beautiful and is this in fact "truly" beautiful or merely what Mrs. Rand dictates is suitably labeled beautiful? "If man will not be free, we must force him to be free." In these cases, or even with Nietzsche's morality, these authoritative objects ("true", "free", "moral") lose their meaning; truth metamorphs to opinion, freedom to dog runs, morality to will, these words become denominations relative to the preference of the ruling power--Thrasymachus' justice. Celebrating the uncomfortable nature of high art—as it is practiced even today—is one thing, and a totalitarian rule over something as precious to an individual nature as art is quite another. But maybe I’m missing your point here, as you bring up culture.

So this aesthetic is not of the individual but of the cultural order? (and further it is to “celebrate the machine” whose tyranny we currently enjoy? We celebrate our own oppression? Is this like the field mouse who scurries to the cat so as to expedite his death, an ironic resignation, or what?) Do you mean to have us enforce some quasi-eugenics of art, a nationalist aesthetic like the Big Five did for the Russian Symphony (except they didn’t insinuate this aesthetic upon others)…I don’t know, I’m afraid I’m not clear on what you’re implying we do—or at least I hope I’m not. Art has a much greater purpose than Heidegger purports; more than cultural, more than economico-political, more than allegorical representation of the world, it is personal expression, an attempt to reach out and connect, to—for just an evanescent moment—escape this terminally solipsistic condition—and in this way its purpose, its telos, is infinitely discursive. Art isn’t something you can constrain; it’s an unbreakable horse, an inexpugnable force of human nature that will have its way…and what you seem to be describing feels akin to the US Corps of Engineers and the Mississippi River. It’s better to let it run its course…in my opinion.



___________
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I realize this is a sensitive subject, (see OP) but that is no reason to misread me as you have. A few points: You conclude, not from what I write but in some other way, that I would want to ban any kind of art. Of course, I don't. And you suggest that a culture or collective is objective, or warrants objectivity. It isn't, and doesn't - culture is always the product of vital expressions of a particular, context bound subjectivity, with which other subjects, sharing in part this context, can identify as subjects.

Quote :
So this aesthetic is not of the individual but of the cultural order?
As Mozarts music represented an Empire to itself (which means to the people of which it is constructed) much in the same way as Greek architecture did, the aesthetics I propose would be of a cultural order. But I don't believe in a duality between culture and individual. Culture is the medium for individuality, and cultural order is the result of art. We probably use very different methods of reasoning, so this may not make sense to you at all - but be careful not to infer too much too easily.

Quote :
and further it is to “celebrate the machine” whose tyranny we currently enjoy? We celebrate our own oppression?
I am not actually tyrannized. I live in abundant comfort with a lot of possibilities for expression. These possibilities have increased over my lifetime.

Of course I can go along with all the objections against all social injustices. But part of the function of this art I propose is to liberate art from its role as "rebel", something at which it never was any good. Art, as it liberates the individual from all kinds of isolation, within and without himself, always sustains order. It is the lifeblood of culture, without which the machine (the "monster" of will to power) is incapable of forming a social order.

So when I suggest that art celebrates the machine, I want the machine to become a space for a social order, so as for humans to claim responsibility for the machine. The machine exists as will to power, no matter that a mans conscience has him withdraw from cognitive acceptance of this fact. As soon as man feels himself morally superior to the system that supports his life in practical terms, he has several options, e.g. - to attempt to leave; to become a "rogue cell" out to create disorder and to disrupt or overthrow power; to become passive-aggressive towards his direct environment; to actively transform the system from within so as for it to become morally on the level of that individual.

For this latter option to be possible, some positive, if perhaps latent, qualities of the machine have to be recognized, as a ground to build on, to improve. These would logically be the qualities that lead the morally superior man to his moral superiority. I think that much of the moral opposition against the capitalist tyranny is groundless (the ground of the morality by which the order is judged to be tyrannical is not identified as part of the ground of this order), and therefore ineffective.

As the state is always built on representation (art, artifice, symbolics), the symbols attributed to it shape the states essence.




___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What are we actually against ?

Let's explicate what is wrong with the machine.
Let's not assume anything, no pre-given morality, no a priori categories of good and evil.
The expositions and arguments for condemnation of power-that-is range from the implausibly plausible to the absurd. What, in all of its mechanism, is invalid ?

I withdraw my suggestion that art should celebrate the machine - it should celebrate a machine. As we envision it.

For the meaning of "machine" I refer to without-musics post 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
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I had started a reply to your previous post, but it feels largely irrelevant to me now. I still feel I should relate this snippet from it: “Regrettably, I misread two or three sentences leading to “removing the possibility for outward subjective valuation by force.”—this is not warranted by your text and I apologize. My main objection is of proposing an aesthetic rather than creating it, otherwise leaving the rivers and rivulets of art and aesthetic to run their course; if you wish to start a new movement, do so.”

Fixed Cross wrote:
What are we actually against ?

Let's explicate what is wrong with the machine.
Let's not assume anything, no pre-given morality, no a priori categories of good and evil.
The expositions and arguments for condemnation of power-that-is range from the implausibly plausible to the absurd. What, in all of its mechanism, is invalid ?

I withdraw my suggestion that art should celebrate the machine - it should celebrate a machine. As we envision it.

For the meaning of "machine" I refer to without-musics post here.

And I think at least one form of art—which for some absurd reason I’ve neglected to mention—already has achieved this end: jazz. (Capable’s culpable for my sudden application of this form; I’d recognized its relevance to the topic, but didn’t think of bringing it up until Capable suggested it.) I mean, jazz simultaneously obeys, contradicts, and transcends all musical precedents: you can describe it in terms of music theory, but it changes key more whimsically than Debussy or Ravel, uses tonalities as daring as Stravinsky, and is absolutely irreverent; contrast the technique of Chico Marx to someone performing Liszt.

Jazz is, to me, the apotheosis of these machinic multiplicities—likewise of rhizomatics—each machine connected to and reciprocally driving one another, infinitely interwoven double articulations; ear-brain informs thought-emotion informs thought-action informs appendage-instrument, etc.—and on so many strata I’m simply unable to list a significant fraction of. Observe the musical strata of the piano in a line by Peter Martin (or any great jazz pianist) where branching lines of flight lay before him, taking at his digression one or another: if this isn’t actual machines, actual rhizome-proliferation…I don’t know. Am I making any sense? I’m going to leave off here and go play.

I'll leave you this video, perhaps it will illustrate what I mean.

There's a single theme, a single point of departure from which this all proliferates.



___________
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Aleatory wrote:
I had started a reply to your previous post, but it feels largely irrelevant to me now. I still feel I should relate this snippet from it: “Regrettably, I misread two or three sentences leading to “removing the possibility for outward subjective valuation by force.”—this is not warranted by your text and I apologize. My main objection is of proposing an aesthetic rather than creating it, otherwise leaving the rivers and rivulets of art and aesthetic to run their course; if you wish to start a new movement, do so.”
Yes! This is of course the only possible way to approach it, art. You can not pre-conceptualize art. Or - can you? Honest question. Did Pythagoras not pre-conceptualize art with his invention of our basic string-tuning mathematics? I want to know what you, a musician, think about this. You have already said a great deal, as Jazz does in a sense defeat the pre-conceptualized rules that the system imposes. This defeating the rules led to whole new forms of music, new rules - I want to know the most pro-active, self-defining music you can think of, and how this music can be pushed.

Can we push without preconceptualization?

Please give links.
Let this forum be flooded with art.

I know nothing of post-jazz "classical" music, which is how I'd interpret what you describe from the outside - I take Jazz to be improvisation on a set of chords - the stuff you mention - is that written reproduced?

I am fearful to post art as I am unspecialized to the extreme - there is no field in music where I am actually knowledgeable, surpass others in knowledge. Except maybe for filmmusic of the 80's and 90's. I could not find anything that isn't obvious. I guess to a great extent, I only trust the obvious. But music makes obvious the previously unobvious.

Preomethean (I like better) Art is preconceptualized as lightenin our path, taking control of vision.
Beyond fire as God, toward filre as man.

Has not fire, as destruction-regeneration of carbon, always been elusive as long as death was respected as beyond?
Therefore: Art, music that introduces us to the death that is already here.

this is what I seek - not to end the cycle, but to include the end of the cycle into another cycle - a vaster, more European-Asian, Land-(not sea) based experiments toward self-recognition of a desolate world. How long has our history not been an accumulation of misery?
Where did this start?

My answer: since nature lacked music and became man.
Man and music have been separate. Jazz, it seems true, has re-integrated man into music.

Which jazz-piano piece would you name most Promethean?

Quote :


Fixed Cross wrote:
What are we actually against ?

Let's explicate what is wrong with the machine.
Let's not assume anything, no pre-given morality, no a priori categories of good and evil.
The expositions and arguments for condemnation of power-that-is range from the implausibly plausible to the absurd. What, in all of its mechanism, is invalid ?

I withdraw my suggestion that art should celebrate the machine - it should celebrate a machine. As we envision it.

For the meaning of "machine" I refer to without-musics post here.

And I think at least one form of art—which for some absurd reason I’ve neglected to mention—already has achieved this end: jazz. (Capable’s culpable for my sudden application of this form; I’d recognized its relevance to the topic, but didn’t think of bringing it up until Capable suggested it.) I mean, jazz simultaneously obeys, contradicts, and transcends all musical precedents: you can describe it in terms of music theory, but it changes key more whimsically than Debussy or Ravel, uses tonalities as daring as Stravinsky, and is absolutely irreverent; contrast the technique of Chico Marx to someone performing Liszt.

Jazz is, to me, the apotheosis of these machinic multiplicities—likewise of rhizomatics—each machine connected to and reciprocally driving one another, infinitely interwoven double articulations; ear-brain informs thought-emotion informs thought-action informs appendage-instrument, etc.—and on so many strata I’m simply unable to list a significant fraction of. Observe the musical strata of the piano in a line by Peter Martin (or any great jazz pianist) where branching lines of flight lay before him, taking at his digression one or another: if this isn’t actual machines, actual rhizome-proliferation…I don’t know. Am I making any sense? I’m going to leave off here and go play.

I'll leave you this video, perhaps it will illustrate what I mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-GTsDFFckI]
Hmm, that link did not show up before.
Let's press 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
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This will take a little bit to explain, and probably a few sittings. Jazz, firstly, is a word whose density is that of a neutron star; what is defined as jazz is a topic heatedly debated since its coining circa the 20th’s teens and has lost no steam. I consider it an Afro-Cuban art in origin (its current multitudinous sub-genres are the offspring of Hispanic and Afro-American progenitors), but it’s practiced by every culture (save probably some aborigines) on the planet. I mean, the variety is simply nuts. For instance, you’ve got the classics like Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers, Armstrong, Calloway etc., who were just stepping out into the thing to come, still heavily preconceived but featuring the variation in solo. Now these cats didn’t disappear, but this field of art, this territory, evolved at breakneck speed, so you had these new free radicals popping up like, Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Ellington (he began with the earlier swing group and isn’t as daring as the rest of this group, but I felt obliged to include him). Then Coltrane began to stretch out, but Cecil Taylor said “not nearly enough,” Gillespie re-emerged with the Afro-Cuban movement while Miles Davis got fast, Buddy Rich screamed at his band (pushing the instrument rather than the music), Gets & Gilberto did Coltrane one further with the bossa nova, Jaco changed the bass then made a band (watch this too), Metheny got indescribable, Tortoise and Mercury Program said goodbye to rock, Europe had a break through and you begun to get bands like Jaga Jazzist. Elsewhere Screaming Headless Torsos made their own recipe, Hiromi met Corea, Fitzgerald said no to words, and pardon the abrupt ending, but I’ve already skipped over soooo much. All of this is interconnected, not a chain or hierarchy but a field of grassroots, chaotic, obfuscated. My list is horribly limited in scope, but I just wanted to illustrate the range this word “jazz” covers, and I’ve probably failed to do that even, so I’ll move along for now.

Who do I think is the most promethean? Cecil Taylor, by and far. Interestingly enough, though Wikipedia doesn’t mention a thing about it, you can find Taylor’s main influence in a few Debussy pieces: feux d’artifice, ce q’ua vu le vent d’ouest, le vent dans la plaine, les sons et les parfums tournent dans l’air du soir, la serenade interrompue, brouillards, la puerta del vino, etc. But I’m at my limit and must play now. I know Without-music plays piano (and guitar, if I’m not mistaken?), so perhaps he could fill some of the numerous gaps I’ve left?



___________
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15


PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian Wed May 30, 2012 7:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Universal Mind of Bill Evans



___________
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:45 pm

Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Man's final solace. Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From my latest writing project:








-------


Above all else, man endeavors that he might at last know life, not that he might love it, and thereby abdicating that stolid post for his soul's salvation, bore in futile solitude, he avers himself this garb of flesh in the name of neither pleasure or spite, and lives neither for the sake of happiness nor for the sake of conquering pain, for he recalls that suffering of old Job, which could be assuaged neither with the promise of heaven's riches nor with anger, with neither hope, pity, or with the unseen movements of some inhuman justice, but only with awe. Indeed, it is the awe of life which is man's final comfort, not pleasure, with its vague intuitions of the earth's great bounty, nor even love, in its definite grasp, in its confidence and pious severity, nor does this last comfort lie in the mind, regardless of what the saints and philosophers might tell us- the mind, in all its vast epicycles and supernal brilliance, which is only the glint of that star which, upon the mirrored face of the sea into which it leads us, appears then so meager, and but a weary, dwindling beacon. The stillness of the uncreated, the womb of all that is yet to be and live, or truth eternal in its placidity, unmoved by the avarice of death and nature- that music of the spheres, which choirs with the wisdom of the dead and with the dreams of the forgotten, are perhaps the hopeful banners under which the unborn and the departed might bear their fate, but it is just that the living, who alone have the need of it, are alone provided the most perfect solace, namely awe, or wonder, as the Greeks so named it. Life is a dying flame, that needs must feed itself with the living earth.



___________
A sik þau trûðu

Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: The principle of the new philosophy. Fri May 11, 2012 11:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A heavy section from one of my books:










Take Sartre's (A writer for whom I find in myself very little affinity or respect. The love of freedom for the sake of freedom is something that instinctually reviles me, no matter how spiritualized it may have become.) summary of modern philosophy, that existence precedes essence. Most of philosophy held the opposite, that essence comes before existence, ie. that the soul predates bodily incarnation. My philosophy has endeavored to posit them both at the same level of philosophical categorization and therefor to affirm them as equally positive expressions; existence and essence are two terms in which that excess which underlies their very conceptualization and which cannot be truly contained by either idea is articulated. Thus: existence and essence are both coterminous, and yet do not contain one another, for as philosophical categories they do not contain the excess out of which they were produced and which is reflected in their differentiation. I would give a final formulation of the principle as: "Essence is not adequate to existence; existence is not adequate to essence." With this principle one can defend the freedom of the will despite also accepting the existence of a determined universe, because essence (the will's freedom) and existence (the material universe) are equatable and non-containing of one another, by virtue of their constitutive excess. So let's say I do want to defend the will's freedom. The terms in the conceptual opposition are the freedom of the will and a causal universe, and we can simply propose that there is an excess inherent in both of these concepts which neither contains, and then we transfer this excess to a new series of conceptual oppositions. What would be the excess in the first series, freedom and material? It is the idea of transcendence. The will must transcend its limitations, for it is not an infinite will, nor omniscient, but it must do so through the material existence in which it is embodied as a passionate and creative organism. Thus we get an image of the old Greek concept of Eros- I doubt anyone experiences love these days as they did, as tragic love, as the soul's fall into matter and suffering of flesh, that "voluptuousness of Hell." This idea of transcending the material and sensuous then is the excess inherent in the concept of human freedom, and by transferring it to a new series of conceptual oppositions we can defend the idea of human freedom and at the same time accept the existence of a determined and causal universe, because we have effectively transferred the question of human freedom to an entirely new field of philosophical discourse than the one which was open to the criticism of material causality. Now the question of freedom takes form in the dialogue about the relationship between the ideal and real egos. Freedom is reconceptualized not so much as an exercise of one's will or as a state of being uninhibited by material existence, but rather is it reconceptualized as a kind of experience. This transference of a concept to a new, higher field of discourse- that is, to me, the meaning of the Platonic aporia, and the silence into which every Socratic dialogue is resolved, a technique I believe I have rediscovered in light of my own philosophical method. The aporetic meditation exhausts the content of concepts in order to establish what remains of their meaning as the indication of that excess underlying their creation.


Heidegger rejected Sartre on the basis that a reversal of a metaphysical claim (which is what his philosophy amounts to) is nonetheless metaphysical, and this point is very true. Heidegger however locates the excess in the ontic sphere, as I have said before, and like Nietzsche he uses the strength of the ontic subject (Will for Nietzsche, Dasein for Heidegger) to break completely through the epistemic, that is, the metaphysical. That rendered Heidegger basically philosophically impotent in the remotest extreme of his thought, and all he can do there is silently point to the truth of being. Perhaps, as he says, it can be found in music or poetry. At any rate he abandons philosophy at the extremity of philosophy. I have rather located the excess within the epistemic sphere, elaborating it phenomenologically, that is, in the way in which it structures human consciousness, as well as philosophically, with the concept of the daemonic. I have retained all the strengths of dualistic thought, ontology, and metaphysics, as well as all the strengths of ontic, monistic thought while having inherited none of their weaknesses. In my philosophy there is a monism of the human subject as an excess underlying all consciousness, as well as a philosophical dualism because it is through conceptual oppositions that the excess is reflected in consciousness, and at every step of the way the dualism can be dissolved or the monism expanded dualistically: that is the strength of it. These conceptual oppositions represent not synthesized polarities on the part of a Hegelian self-consciousness as they do in Kierkegaard, as between the eternal and temporal, but rather an immanent division of the human consciousness in an effort to reflect itself daemonically in the mirror of philosophical ideas as that excess which cannot be resolved into any conceivable polarity expressed by them. Philosophy, then, is essentially the stimulation of the real ego, the synthesizing and creative self, the self that lives, desires, and dies, which is worn away in the struggle of eternity and time, love and desire, by the ideal ego; that self which disunites, polarizes, and reflects, and the difficulty of philosophy is the seeming inability to relate the two, it is the fact that no eternity is able to express the beauty and the languishing of time, nor is time, in its last bitter extremity, able to express the absolution of the eternal, for the human self intuits within both terms some substance after its own nature, and which belongs to a still higher order of things in which the meaning of time stands of itself, and the meaning of the eternal is untouched by the walks of time. The real ego experiences the fullness of its life and will only in fleeting moments throughout the course of its existence, and it is this ideal ego which is the heart into which it lays this fullness. Nietzsche comes beautifully close to my conception in the thought of the eternal recurrence, yet he fails to draw out the excess inherent in the conceptions of time and the eternal and, thereby unable to transfer it to a higher field of discourse, he only succeeds in equating the two concepts. His thought perhaps succeeds in inducing a stimulation of the real by the ideal ego, but does not satisfy the real demand of genuine morality.


While the artist wants to stamp the eternal with the image of time, to extend the sphere of the living and perishing consciousness so as to encompass all the breadth of creation, mainly by way of realizing harmonies within the order of nature, the philosopher wants to stamp time with the image of the eternal, to contract his consciousness to a single point, to the ego, so as to encompass it by thought, mainly by dissolving those harmonies and relations, by introducing contrariety and antithesis into the orders of nature and thereby unriddling the impassioned and bodily existence in which he feels himself condemned back into the mute regions of thought. In this way he is afforded objectivity, a view beyond himself and the narrow bound of his egoic consciousness, so that he might comprehend the idea behind phenomenal appearance. True morality, on the other hand, which has been only profaned by the mocking idols of merely human happiness and virtue, in comparison to whose ardor the truths of man are only velleity and convenience, wants neither to extend the border of the egoic consciousness or to contract it, but rather to contract the creation itself by realizing the principium individuationis, the essence of the will, by means of the will. Stimulated by the ideal ego through philosophy, by the thought of the eternal soul, the real ego aims to lay into it its fullness and life, and realizes a morality. All moral realities thereby inevitably create their own objects, as love creates beauty, hope creates happiness, and freedom creates justice. The moral problem is the problem of realizing in the image of the eternal the meaning of the struggle of time and mortality. When beheld with this hopeless and yet necessary question in one's mind, all the virtues and the sins of man become equally insufferable and petty folly.


One would not ask of a dog that it should become more of a dog, nor would one rebuke a dog for being any less of a dog than it should be. All animals live in accord with their fundamental nature, while man rarely rises up to the stature of his own humanity, and the far extremity of his own destiny remains unknown to him. Man alone fails to be what he is. Yet, he still cannot stoop below himself. He cannot even abandon himself and feed on wild grass with the oxen. "I could not become a beast, let alone an insect," cries Dostoyevskian man, and it is a quite genuine lamentation. Bereft of Gods and Men, the individual is consigned to eternal isolation; unable to find any real object outside of himself upon which to direct his most vital power, he would find no contentment even provided all the breadth of the creation, nor is he able to "read in the tongues of heaven the meaning of the earth," to speak with Holderlin. The real moral question is precisely this, the question of the relation between the living ego and the ideal ego, between individual man and universal humanity; the question which plays about the impotent prose of Kant, the question which he could never answer. In Kant the attempt to relate transcendental and empirical apperception, to unite the original consciousness of man as a particular subject, as a being in possession of a soul, as a self, to the consciousness of this self enduring throughout time and its many changing experiences, constitutes the form which the question assumes, and in which it could not be answered. The primal commandment of philosophy, Know Thyself, assumes as its foundation the primal commandment of true morality, Be Thyself, and neither taken alone or taken individually does either precept allow us to gain any deeper understanding of ourselves. Alas, there is so much virtue in man! But so little insight. So much knowledge! But so little sanctity.


This question is given varied forms in all great philosophies. In Plato it is depicted in the relation between man’s finite bodily existence and eternal soul. With the concept of the daemonic this question, to my mind, finds at last its perfect expression and, ultimately, its resolution.



___________
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 Online
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: The principle of the new philosophy. Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The ontic subject or the "subject itself" simply means any particular "epistemic" structure whereby data, as stimulation of that structure, is translated by the particular logic of the structure itself, which is to say interpreted, into information; the structure takes account of that quality of the data which it is able to relate to itself, which is to say makes this data meaningful, and this meaning-giving act then renders the otherwise unintelligeble and useless subjective "excess" into manageable and usable objects. The venture of science is characterized by its narrow focus on these objects themselves, as in their objective quality, namely whatever is excessive about them as concerns the subjective structure for which the object is object; thus science, being born of philosophy, is a particular myopia of an otherwise broader philosophic reason that has become arrested at a certain stage of that reason, allowing it to perseverate and thus "gain some advantage" due to the limited range of its concern. The focus on object-qualities and measurements, after Aristotle, certainly has its advantages and is a particularly necessary component of philosophic method, contributing to the wider philosophic concern and interest. But it is this wider range of philosophy itself that concerns the entire process by which objects are object and may be said to come into existence at all; that particular epistemological body constitutive of the subjective meaning-giving power is the indirect focus of philosophy, whether this focus directs itself toward the periphery of this body, as metaphysics, toward the center of this body, as ontology, or toward the equivocating "middle ground" of this body, as phenomenology. An ethics can and does emerge from any of these methods, as either religion or science in the case of metaphysics and ontology or as something thus far without a name, a sort of amorphous ethical particularism that shuns broad categorical emphasis for a more narrow-minded multiplicity of differential planes of materialization, as with phenomenology. This latter ethics is the basis out of which a proper understanding of the excessive component itself, and eventually also an understanding of the daemonic structure of consciousness, must first come. We might then say that the phenomenological focus is the attempt of consciousness to self-value itself more directly and more all-encompassingly toward reducing the errors it engenders, toward greater precision and "controlled schizophrenization". Certainly psychoanalysis is a method situated within this space and attempting a more nuanced articulation of daemonic process.

As this subject comes into existence through its own articulations of itself, our task, since we now grasp the basic "set up" involved, must be to provide a better method for subjective articulation, both for ourselves as well as for others. Identifying the excess within common conceptual oppositions is critical to transfer these oppositions and "common understanding" to a higher plane of discourse, where the old problems are seen in a new light, rendered unproblematic, and a whole new series of problems is allowed to arise in its place. This is really the raising up of self-consciousness, of the darmonic processes of self-engendering creation, and the sheer joy and awe involved in this alone makes it possible that this method, once initially grasped, will certainly bring philosophy "to the masses", as they say. But it is only possible to grasp this joy once one has become capable of it, which is where the leap of faith is involved. We might attempt to communicate this leap of faith itself within the language of this daemonically constituted subject, since while the sort of leap of faith which Kierkegaard necessitates may, as you say, now be rejected we can reframe the leap as the step of moving from either subjectively-emphasized ontology, namely religion, or objectively-emphasized ontology, science, to a realm which is beyond either approaches and which includes both. The leap involves leaving behind the old antinomy of religion and science for real philosophy, and of moving beyond the superficial construction of man as either a dualistically or monistically constituted subject, in order to approach genuine morality, as you say. This would begin with a direct articulation of the nature of self-consciousness to itself as its own subjective potency, this potency now rendered and felt intelligebly by making visible, which is to say by making sensible the substrata upon which man's current master-signifying terms, on either the individual psychological or group socological level, come into existence and by which as a consequence of this making sensible they may be regulated. Of course as a consequence of this this would also engender an entirely new order of relations among men and groups, a new politics.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:46 pm

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Ethics of a Philosopher Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
During the first year of building on this site I have experienced a strong resistance, like sap would experience as it flows upward in the tree, to amount in the leaves and catch light. It is hard work to catch light. We must go through the dark, eat it, absorb it and resist it, to become what we are - only the purest nutrients, life-giving potencies will pass the 'test' - this tree, this resistance upward growing from the soil of mundane human causal madness, the insane circuitry without resolution that finds its only solace in weakness, in conformity to dissolution. So this is our ethics, as long as we are philosophers, in every instance of being a philosopher, it is to resist, to ascend and to cause growth around us.

The wild growth of the thinking ape, who blindly grows by virtue of his rampant excess capacity, is justified by a strange force of concentrated excess - excess so strong that it has a momentum, and therefore a causal influence to all that surrounds it. Itself a product of the blind cumulative surging of semantic cognition deficiently coupled with animal instincts, the philosophical focus commands this blind excess to follow it, to take shape around it, to take on its form. As God is created by man to be the creator of man, so the philosopher - is God.

These ethics seek the bitter, the hard, the unyielding - how else can it exert the force of life - how else can it cause change? A sea of pure flux holds no pleasure for the thinker, who is like a ram, a bull and an eagle at once. The military mind can understand in part the will of the philosopher, its resistance is the world that is. The philosopher is resisted by the world that its not yet - and in this resistance the hands of the future and the philosopher reach and grab hold - suddenly the tree is blossoming, all the senses are revived, the tree is fully known.



PostSubject: Value Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Watching a cat wake up to the chord of my phone charger and half asleep reach out to this irresistible value, I knew that my definition of value had been absent because I had not taken it to be movement, but thing-ness. "A value" is something that carries inherent momentum, that fits the momentum of the self-valuing (sustained (id)entity through time- 'behavior').
The value of the movement is in the movement itself, perhaps the value of hunting, of prey, is originally in the movement that it causes in the being, which is itself its behavior, its substance as an entity.

The difference beween the mineral world and the organic is this movement inherent - a rock of quartz is not an entity, it is a concentration of entities (particles) that value each other in their own terms, and cohere. Their valuing sustains an environment, not a development.

Trees exist ontologically between minerals and roving entities, it's form is dependent on its physical origin, its 'mother' is still primary to its ontological definition - wow - sirens, a large fire somewhere close - the tree values the Earth literally as itself, as an animal values his movement as itself, and the root-ground as it's past.

A tree is unconscious but awakes into futurality, "daylight", the existence of a present, as divided by seasons from a past that figures as a future, and an eternal summer full of melancholy as the idea of time, drive away from the past and dive into the future, which now appars to be created in part by the organism, who changes, becomes, 'acts'. The blossoming of a tree and it's production of fruits is the root of acting-as-entity, 'independence'.

What caused the separation of actor from its acting ground (root, mother) is Poseidons indifferent realm, Earths very own primordial soup where heat and electricity pervaded the waters and cosmic mechanisms took hold of the local ingredients and the element carbon became a vehicle for a self-valuing that drifted from accidental nourishment to the next, while speedily the electrical forces found new necessities and attracted through force and time the elements to sustain a greater charge and overpower all other charges.

Ultimately man is drawn to the pattern in which he sees his greatest 'lockdown', the consolidation of the greatest vision of what he is. Always, the opposite is the key to the completed self-valuing. Man with a mind for the world will make his image into something beyond a woman, though this will represent for him the female principle, and evokes the same fluids as those that ventured throughout and emerged from the primordial soup as entities that can only described as 'courageous'. Courage certainly precedes consciousness.

So the conquerer is wise to speak to an Aristotle who can evoke an image of beyond the horizon, but unwise to take any mans word for what he wil find when he gets there. What he gets is implicit in his vitality only, it ultimately defies every physical root and becomes a 'thing to itself' only bound to the fleetingness of the unearthed state, thereby the freedom to forget the direct consequence of being, which results in the experience of the mind. As the fixation tilts to the future, values become properly externalized.

There is no way that man can not cause the immense trouble for himself that he does. Freud saw in America the mistake of roving life itself. His European Jewish root soul could not imagine the freedom from the past (atavisms, Id, the behaviorisms of the gene pool) to lead to anything but pure disaster.

Man always plunges himself into disaster because that is where is primal value is possible - the awakening to movement I saw in this cat who seems now fast asleep, the temptation to act.

Value: 'fitting substance' and 'origin of action'.

We are all one, except we're divided by the thing that makes us one. Morals and consequences depend on whether one has the proclivity to enjoy directly or to cause further enjoyment. Whether ones actions are oriented around the sudden emerging of opportunities or around the cultivation of environments rich with opportunity.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:48 pm

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Death, and the Daemon Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Something I wrote during a larger conversation with Parodites:


Time is indeed entirely relative. An instant can also be a lifetime. You are right that there is no higher perspective or frame from which another greater value might assert itself against us, as our own measure of ourselves within the other -- no, we are that measure, we are that other. Man measures himself, and the time of his life, quite limited as it is, assumes whatever magnitude and depth of potency and vitality as a man is able to make of it. Mozart was said to be able to compose whole works in his mind in the span of seconds, to see a musical piece from start to finish in totality in the mind alone, in a heartbeat. Of course genius does this, it expands time by contracting itself relative to the temporal field of its exertion, it introduces vast and derivative combinatory forms into the moments of its relations, into a single brief instant of time so that time itself flourishes under this gaze, becomes a thing grander, fuller, and more 'eternal'. Perhaps the genius indeed lives out an eternity in his thoughts, in his "subjectivity".

I do not fear dying. I used to, until I really gave name and form to these feelings, exposed them as signs of an instinctive confusion combined with powerful emotions of regret, guilt and sorrow. These emotions still remain but have been delineated, identified and thus no longer does their existence constitute that vague dread in the idea of death, this idea which is really only an object in which all these individual passions could find a common point of reference and expression. Fear of death is like belief in god, both of these ideas arise due to a lack of a more complete enumeration and differentiation of consciousness' contents, and it is the confusion of these contents with each other that gives rise to these strange "common points of reference", these abstractions such as the notion of god or death that serve as arbitrary objects for the mind where these clouded feelings may each feel each other and come together to form a single "pathos". This pathos is then (mis)associated with the object in which it expresses, as is the nature of our consciousness, metonymic, as you say. But a more active consciousness instead separates and comprehends the individuality of these conscious states, forges more teleological and intention relations among them rather than relying on the merely ex post facto metonymy of a disordered and arbitrary mind.

That being said, of course I know that I will die. "I" meaning the body-brain from which my conscious experience and "subject" arise as the emergent behaviors of these. I see all conscious experience and 'qualia', including also basic sensation interpreted from the conscious perspective of meaning, as emergent behaviors, and I see even the physical non-conscious relations of the body or brain as emergent behaviors of what is lesser than they, chemicals, elemental bonds, etc., all subject to "natural law", to the causal logic of the fields and domains in which they occur. In this way everything is a summative, emergent formality of whatever for it serves as a constitutive ground. Consciousness and non-consciousness are "flattened" here, brought to the same ontological level, but of course they still remain distinct sorts of entities even so. My point is just that I am aware of the fact that my conscious experience, however deep, grand, and expansive, however lengthy I perceive this experience or however elongated it happens to be 'in fact', it will ultimately at some future time vanish from existence. Plato's Forms are representations of the nature of consciousness grapsing for itself, of what thought is as the "materialized psyche" of the ideas, those qualities of consciousness such as cognition, affectation, projection, and recollection, all of which are entirely as "physical" as is anything else, but of course which occupy a far different plane of dimensions and causality -- far different and also far more contingent and derivative, I would say. But experience is still eternal to itself in so far as it can never encounter or live its ends, either in birth or death; consciousness can never recall its origin nor can it experience it final end since at one moment it is here and the next is has vanished completely, there is no "experiencing death", for the limit of death is also the limit of possible experience. Consciousness can at least repose in the knowledge that from its own perspective its existence can never encounter any absolute boundary or terminus, and this is the whole point, really: consciousness is never satisfied, never at 'rest', the daemonic frenzy itself is conditioned by the fact of consciousness' total incommunicability and lack of total limitation to itself. It comes into existence as the delineated being within the margins of birth and death, the ultimate horizon lines, and then becomes more and more distinct the greater amount of new inward limits are introduced into it, the more it identifies and the more it names, and then it becomes an more active and truly living thing the more all this limited being "daemonzies" itself.

Perhaps perpetual novelty is the only 'ideal' or principle by which the highly differenced and active daemon can hold itself indefinitely in existence and avoid the sort of "burnout" end which you forsee for it. This sort of powerful thought does engender its own novelty within itself, needs less from the world perhaps, but ultimately it must run its course and begin to "consume" its own nature more totally, more voraciously, and with greater and greater "vengeance" and self-destruction. In that regard this daemon would need a strong community of other daemonic natures of like philosophical character and power in order to be afforded a continuous re-energizing of itself, a re-vitalizing intake of new novelty appropriate to its superme need as well as new pathways for the discharge of its own excessive quality, which too must only grow as the daemon itself grows.




___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
avatar

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 31
Location : The Moon


PostSubject: Re: Death, and the Daemon Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have often thought that if any amount of time can be a lifetime or simply a moment, as time is relative, then can we not say that relatively speaking my life time is infinite? I have even wondered if maybe time slows down as you die and maybe you end up experiencing eternity in your mind in some dream land...


sorry if i'm side stepping your thread...



___________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates
"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God." -Cicero
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it." -Aristotle
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle
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: Death, and the Daemon Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps structure is a means to death, to end, which is non-inherent in usual experience and startling when it happens.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Death, and the Daemon Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
PEZER!
You are back.

Man, wreak havoc or create delicate oil at the new forum.
I have invited all our friends here - not many, but their force is unmistakably life-altering -
and what is life if not life altering?
and now all we have there is a stagnant pool!

Fixed



___________
" 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
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Death, and the Daemon Sat May 18, 2013 5:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
I have often thought that if any amount of time can be a lifetime or simply a moment, as time is relative, then can we not say that relatively speaking my life time is infinite? I have even wondered if maybe time slows down as you die and maybe you end up experiencing eternity in your mind in some dream land...


sorry if i'm side stepping your thread...

Yes, There is a novel written around this very idea, Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World by Haruki Murakami. It's a very cool idea, really, to create an eternity by endlessly dividing a finite quantity. In terms of the mind, this may require a sort of short-circuit, like setting two mirrors facing each other.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: Death, and the Daemon Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Druggies are very consciously familiar with this effect of time relativity. It requires an antenna, a neurochemical affecting the level(s) of perception(s), which beat determine(s) the speed of time.

Perhaps that's why they equate drug use with death wish. Hunter S. Thompson wrote about it, how one either pulls out in a cowardly bid for the future or dies in pure, true adventure. We surf death until we die... That's a fair deal to live; our time is limited, with heavens only on earth.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:50 pm

What is life if not life-altering?



XspartaX

avatar

Posts : 2
Join date : 2012-07-26


PostSubject: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Mon May 27, 2013 7:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Good and Bad. The two change from culture to culture. That is because different cultures, have different objectives and a different priority given to each objective. There, in order to judge what is correct/incorrect, one must first find a Universal objective. An objective which "wants" to be realized in any position in the Universe. For there to be an objective, there must be a mind which is at least, capable of "creating" this objective. A God, even if it is the Universe itself. If this is untrue, whatever I say from now on, even if the rest of the text is filled with contradictions, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Even in the "extreme" case of killing a neighbor, again, there would be nothing fundamentally wrong with it. This is you - Suspect
Let´s "work" with the concept of not being a God in the Universe. Look at that word. Universe. It is everything(don´t get me going on the Multiverse...). Including you. You have a mind. You can create objective(Or at least you have the illusion of choice, in which case it would not be intended by the Universe, but by a God which isn´t the Universe, or, by the "randomness" allowed according to the laws of physics). Since you really are a part of this Universe, I think you can safely say that your objectives are part of the Universes objectives(all which is able to create objectives, are part of the Universes objectives). Even if two people are to be fighting in a ring, in which both wish to win, these are objectives the Universe has. There is no contradiction because it doesn´t mean they both get accomplished(maybe physics would say that both possibilities do happen? Not absolutely sure.). Still.. nothing wrong in the "extreme" case of killing. Or in the "extreme" case of the contradiction. Unless there is no intent to kill, and no intent to be contradictory, because no intent means no mind who created the end result by first establishing what the end result would be. If the Universe really was God, even accidents would cease to be accidents because the floor on which you fell on and died, would still be part of God. It was intended that you fell and died. But not in the case in which the Global Consciousness is called God. These would still be accidents...



___________
Can a perfect dad be created by a perfect dad?
Emotions assume a shape - The shape of life.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
XspartaX wrote:
Good and Bad. The two change from culture to culture. That is because different cultures, have different objectives and a different priority given to each objective. There, in order to judge what is correct/incorrect, one must first find a Universal objective. An objective which "wants" to be realized in any position in the Universe. For there to be an objective, there must be a mind which is at least, capable of "creating" this objective. A God, even if it is the Universe itself. If this is untrue, whatever I say from now on, even if the rest of the text is filled with contradictions, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Even in the "extreme" case of killing a neighbor, again, there would be nothing fundamentally wrong with it. This is you - Suspect
Let´s "work" with the concept of not being a God in the Universe. Look at that word. Universe. It is everything(don´t get me going on the Multiverse...). Including you. You have a mind. You can create objective(Or at least you have the illusion of choice, in which case it would not be intended by the Universe, but by a God which isn´t the Universe, or, by the "randomness" allowed according to the laws of physics). Since you really are a part of this Universe, I think you can safely say that your objectives are part of the Universes objectives(all which is able to create objectives, are part of the Universes objectives). Even if two people are to be fighting in a ring, in which both wish to win, these are objectives the Universe has. There is no contradiction because it doesn´t mean they both get accomplished(maybe physics would say that both possibilities do happen? Not absolutely sure.). Still.. nothing wrong in the "extreme" case of killing. Or in the "extreme" case of the contradiction. Unless there is no intent to kill, and no intent to be contradictory, because no intent means no mind who created the end result by first establishing what the end result would be. If the Universe really was God, even accidents would cease to be accidents because the floor on which you fell on and died, would still be part of God. It was intended that you fell and died. But not in the case in which the Global Consciousness is called God. These would still be accidents...

Intention and choice are the result of complex processes taking place in organisms like animals, with the faculties to produce these phenomena. Intention and choice are also abstractions, sensations that these animals attribute, after the fact or at least alongside, to/of the causality of the intentional act itself. Whatever causes the choice also causes or participates in the causality of whatever produces the feeling of "free choice" in us, in that through which the choice manifests.

This is the simple version. The complex version is more difficult, since it includes the fact that human illusions are literally real and possess physical property and causality to humans and to whatever humans influence. Thoughts and feelings are not merely transcendental illusions or epiphenomena, but are tangible and real. What emerges from the brain-body also influences as a cause the brain-body. This is what consciousness is, the complex and insane self-reflection and self-reflexive causal looping and circles of sensate affection taking place between multiple dimensions and levels of physiological-psychological existence. If anything, thoughts and feelings are certainly more important and central to human consciousness than the molecular-atomic levels from which these thoughts and feelings "arise", according to mere science. The base physiological level is only the foundation upon which higher-order expressions of force and causality occur, and to appeal only to the foundation is to exclude the higher emergence, the greater and more comprehensive unities and powers.

That being said, there is no reason for there to be a god or universe perspective or intention, in fact this defies logic. We know what life is, we know what consciousness is, we know what bodies and brains are, so there is no reason to think that phenomena like life and consciousness are able to occur other than how they do, other than how and why they must occur. I could pretend that this grapefruit here in front of me is conscious and aware of itself, that it is a god and participates in the universal divine creation of all things, but that is just a fucking idiotic delusion, it means nothing at all. Consciousness and life are kinds of highly complex and subtle activity of certain kinds of material structures and relations. Where do we see these kinds of structures and relations anywhere out in "the universe" or anywhere other than in more evolved mammals? Nowhere.

To think that the universe requires intention, causality, choice, freedom or consciousness is a gross distortion of basic logic, where it is not only wishful thinking of the intellectually and passionally poor. As to good and bad, good and evil, these are cultural constructs imposed into the individual against which the individual partially reacts and pushes back, forming his own unique interpretation and vantage upon the dominant moral ideas. If one pushes back enough and becomes a creator here, he becomes a philosopher and starts to flirt with self-sufficiency, with true freedom. Ethical ideas and feelings are methods, modes of causing certain things to happen, to potentiate and to hold in existence. These things are other affective and cognitive states. It's all about methods of regulation and relation, regulations regulating other regulations, relations relating other relations. The real concern are the quality and quantity of these, their scope, their capacity to soar, to climb in themselves, to reach and to hold, to suffer, to comprehend and encompass, to discard and abandon, to self-value and to give cause for the emergence of greatness. In short, to apprehend truth. This is the philosopher's method. The philosopher's method is an improvement upon and extension of the method of all life, and until finding coherence in the philosopher life is only half-alive, at best. This is why life constricts the sphere of its awareness and potency-to-act, so that its affection not extend too far and draw itself out beyond the bounds of a contained and limited existence -- it is life's way of self-managing its own self-valuing and meaning in order to not burn out on its own nihilism, in order to create something of a semblance of truth for itself, that it might act, live and enjoy, and find value in itself and its living.




___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The philosopher worships that which the Gods worship. Those who worship Gods are our parents, and we are equally thankful, because we understand that all that they are was necessary for us to become, and pitiful, for they are so far below in comprehension as to be like other animals that aren't us. Will our children, too, worship gods? If we do things right, yes. God is lazyness of thought, and the quality of that which one is able to be lazy about determines the quality of the God.

Dionisus gave us wine. The philosopher worships the wine, our parents the Dionisus.

Our gods will be of a higher order, and in distilling atheism, God's worship, from them, new Gods will begin to exist from creations they make (Merlinian creation). Those will be distilled too.

I fucking love evolution.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is not the reality of 'intention'/'freedom of choice' but the ethics caused by a certain perspective on the idea of these things, that - is real, exists, potentiates. Thus God does not exist, but the idea of God exists and is, where not itself a power, a fuel for a power-generating machine - the religious mind. And when this mind applies itself to 'discover' (invent) further this God, it is possible that this God becomes a ruler over the minds of many men, and thus a solid reality, even though not an entity, but a mere 'word made flesh'.

Worship is thus acceptable (to me) only if it explicitly serves a certain purpose for which a great will has to be summoned. The object of worship (the god) is to be symbolically related to the reality it is meant to help bring about. I look at all religions in this way - a cryptogram of a destiny. It is very tragic to see people being born within the collective compulsive urge to worship for the sake of social acceptance - billions of lives simply sacrificed to the self-fulfilling prophecy of worldly nothingness.




Message
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: The Value of Words Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Well, you're just saying that!"

Any thing said, this is the way of the selective pressures begat speaking in words, is a build up of a collection of internal organic pressures which are expressed. They are expressed because they are there, otherwise they cannot be expressed. One cannot just say anything, every word has an unavoidable correlation to internal pressures (themselves reactive of external pressures, bien sûr), this is why it has any evolutionary permanence: it has actual weight in organic self- and inter-valuing.

Not because a butterfly can imitate the eyes of an owl does one say that the semblance of an owl's eyes does not carry its own values. The butterfly doesn't lie, it fetishizes a truth, it hits a truth with a baseball bat so hard as to shift it enough to fall into a different set of evolutionary pressures.

It's a nice thought, that liars are much more honest than they believe! And a true one, at that.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:53 pm

Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Good and Bad Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is good is what is old; it's about movement. One can play a lot more, a lot more subtly, a lot more stably.

A lot more than what is new, which is bad. What is new is bestial, it demolishes depth and destroys old, which is value upon value upon value. It is less capable, less powerful.

Evil is to use new to create a future old. Evil because the creator will never see the old, old takes many lifetimes, and because it is being consciously retrograde, wasting movement.

Beyond good and evil there is chaocism, my religion, where the new and old are indistinguishable in terms of bad and good, of burden, on a depth under the depth. A gay science.

Gay is to love out of action, to love perhaps a little into the future, but only enough for science to take effects and art to satisfy. It is to become free of burdens of responsibility, burdens take more time than gaiety notices or science needs. To notice is to know, and to know is to know all you need.

Some trapdoors are slewn around here. They reveal themselves when the template of this genius is superimposed on the world as it is.






Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: The non-conformist goal Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The non-conformist goal today must not, can not be to conquer those in The Matrix. This is the fault in the Wachowski bros. movie which made it christian, that those having been unplugged where simply (and futilely) slaving to unplug others. Their suffering is christian compassion, and Neo is an impossibly strong messiah who excuses their lack of strength.

The non-conformist goal must be to create safe-havens for all the things that bring us joy, the things which countered in the Matrix life are shut down by agents (which are in everybody still plugged in, you'll remember). Much like tha Animatrix short where they hack robots.

We have a bounty, boat loads of maps, clues and navigating equipment. We know so much, and the thing we know most is that we have the begennings to know much more, at least much further.

Human power escalates with collectivity, it requires it. This is what they use to blackmail the plugged-in-ers, whence they sneak so many of what US politicians call earmarks. We don't fuck with them, we build smart enough not to be fucked with by them, and eventually our shit is so good that they naturally evolve into us.

The challenge, then, is to approach this separation while acquiring and keeping and further acquiring means and power to do those things that bring us joy. Perhaps we can find spaces within spaces.


I'm thinking legislation, to legaly create orders of institutions that allow us to begin those spaces. An institution that is excempt from taxes for being legally obligated to be self-sustaining once built.

Any other ideas are also welcome.
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: The non-conformist goal Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps legal institutions that aren't allowed to use money as part of the tax exemption thing.

It seems like it would work better, ironically, in some of the most oppressed countries: where the government gets its money straight from nationalized resources and isn't too over-zealous about taxes.



Message
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Elements of the Lie Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The lie has three basic elements: that which produces it, those who perceive it and those who shape it; in that order. From those three elements, many consequences follow which can no longer strictly be considered part of the lie.

Virtuous and honorable it is to focus on that which produces the lie, bi-passing the comprehension of it and assuring its quality only through effective evolutionary links.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:58 pm

Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: The Political Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The political is not what the anarchist wants to get rid of, but what he wants to take from representative shows, or even communal pep talks, and give back to each person's soul without middlemen.

The political is simply human's awareness that he or she is in an artificial world, and that some random person's problem in your artificial construct is also your problem, because each person adds to the shape and taste of it.

To relegate this awareness to the church of the state, and confess one's sins to their political priests, to trust them with one's understanding of the relations making up their artificial construct is, like all other obeying relationships in nature, usually dependent on restriction. No human has more creativity than you, so the only way to assert effective control over you is to limit your creativity down to base.

We have the information and technology today to have more satisfactorily expansive lives than we are now fixing to live.


Last edited by Pezer on Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:01 am; edited 2 times 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: The Political Sun Jul 28, 2013 7:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"We have the information and technology today to have more satisfactorily expansive lives than we are now fixing to live."

It hit me today that of course we do! It is the very reason for christianity and other such nihilisms: the ointment for broken hearts, for easing the acceptance. An ointment which, paradoxically, became the very guiding principle for massive human motivation resulting in the structure of massive action as it is possible today. All technology has this nihilism, this yes-it-could-be-better-but-God, in-built to some degree, but it can easily act like genes that fade out if the right pressures are given. The pressure, say, of the kind of joy which is expressed in a pained grimace of concentration.

Evolution is the ointment for who, not having the power to effect their wishes, yet want to approach them in the most real way possible.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: The Political Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The political ideal is quite different from the political reality because reality proceeds by different logics. Ideally, we would pass bills and make laws through a process of first stating our values and goals (e.g. To reduce the cost of public transit in area A without negatively affecting quality of transit more than X amount), then we would bring in the science and data breaking down the problem, we would spend most of the time evaluating and comparing data and expert accounts of the problems, then once determining the most reliable data-set we would apply it to the problem given our values, and poof, a solution emerges mathematically.

This could realistically be the process for the majority of all legislation in politics. Health care, taxation, immigration, farming subsidies, war, infrastructure, education... a minimal quantification of values is all that is required, and the sufficient energy to carry out some scientific analysis. We waste more money than this would cost on pointless debates about ideologies and morals, about talking past each other, about not acknowledging our "opponents" by deliberately ignoring reality, on being egotistical and short-sighted rather than rational and far-sighted, goal-oriented.

Rational Politics is not impossible, I would say it is rather the Ideal, and structurally speaking, very possible indeed. But of course reality does not care for the Ideal, it cares for the Necessity, the shortest distance between two points given the implicit parameters of those involved. And since there has been no call for a rational approach to governance, such as I've outlined above, there is no reflection of its possibility in politics anywhere. We are still operating based on the old laws of the tribe, the jungle madness, the reptilian brain and all its arbitrariness.

Religion is only one manifestation, it is not a disease but rather a symptom.

It helps to realize that there is no solution, but only various degrees of problems. Humanity has no utopia waiting for it on the horizon, no glorious Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Technologism, Anarchy, Revolution or New World Order. There is nothing but various exchanges of ranges of chaoses, that "evolution" which indeed proceeds as you say, like the shifting patterns of genes within influencing environments.

Humans are a short few steps away from the Ideal, from a more perfect and rational organization, life, psyche, possibility, power... just like they always have been, just like they always will be. Achieving the end is impossible because the end in this case is the culmination of various mens' ideals and values, which change with time, and although they eventually gather in the philosophical nature under similarly corresponding headings and vectors, philosophical minds do not write power into the world or exchange the powers of history, they do not shape things, they influence from the corners, write memos in the sidelines and contribute footnotes. No man has control over the whole picture, and so no mind, no vision regardless of how sane or rational, can ever prevail.

War might be the only expression that seems to "do" anything, in terms of elevate possibilities for reason and rational insight to take a primary seat at the table of history-making. Of course it is always the rationale of the victors, which means we are stuck in the same endless feedback loop rather in war or "peace" (covert war).



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: The Political Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Which came first, the necessity or the ideal? This question is absurd, the ideal is a misunderstanding of the necessity.

Politics is scientific, it has no soul.












Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Valorology Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Valorology is the ethical branch of value ontology. I.e. the perspective itself, in the context of the value ontologer.
Valorology is a science of movements.
Yoga was once Valorology in the Battlefield of Kurukshetra and in the creation of the Brahmans.
Valor is the most high in terms of the value.
most high is always one, valorous is to stand out.
Existence affects - by standing out from the void.
An atom is valorous, it moves in perpetual ways -
so does the Samurai.



















XspartaX

avatar

Posts : 2
Join date : 2012-07-26


PostSubject: "Free yourself from all thoughts" Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When written, said or even in conditions where you act intentionionaly, "free yourself from all thoughts" - Creates a contradiction on "when written, said" and creates a fork in potential directions on "even". It leads into contradictory behaviour because to some of them "free yourself from all thoughts" = "To be yourself"". Or the person admits he "is not" for their sake.
"Are we hedonists?" assumes a more important role, as a question.



___________
Can a perfect dad be created by a perfect dad?
Emotions assume a shape - The shape of life.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: "Free yourself from all thoughts" Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
XspartaX wrote:
When written, said or even in conditions where you act intentionionaly, "free yourself from all thoughts" - Creates a contradiction on "when written, said" and creates a fork in potential directions on "even". It leads into contradictory behaviour because to some of them "free yourself from all thoughts" = "To be yourself"". Or the person admits he "is not" for their sake.
"Are we hedonists?" assumes a more important role, as a question.
Free yourself from all thoughts simply means to allow your mind to empty itself - without intention or struggle. That is more of a form of "being".

Where does "hedonist" enter into that - although one might say that being free of thoughts is capable of creating great pleasure within...or at the very least lead, bringing one to balance.




___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."










Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Modern Spirit Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The height of modernity is a sardonic denial for every possible experience.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek


Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild


PostSubject: Re: Modern Spirit Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is it?
I thought it was the equalization of every experience, reducing the value of all.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Modern Spirit Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Right, that's what I said.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek


Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild


PostSubject: Re: Modern Spirit Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Right, that's what I said.
Was it?
Is denial of experience the same as devaluing of experience?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Modern Spirit Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The "grin" (sardonic denial) is the method with which reality is denied, made inferior, dismissed. The flattening of all values to a common means is a consequence of this act, this modern spirit.

Modernity is nothing if not a lack of strength before pain.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek


Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild


PostSubject: Re: Modern Spirit Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Reality is definitely denied...I've made that point about a million times in a million different ways in my Forum, but this does not deny the experience.

In modernity the experience is detached form reality. It is made into an emotional, solipsistic one, where it is also shared.
A communal delusion.
The same s the religious experience.

Moderns do not deny the experience they detach it from reality...they sanctify it.

Modernity is the denial of pain as the necessary experience of existing.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Modern Spirit Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Modernity also brought the successful elimination of a lot of different forms of pain from existence. But no doubt existence compensates itself for that by inventing new forms of suffering, such as depressions, neuroses and other anxieties, madness, inferiority and superiority complexes, cognitive dissonance and in general the lesser resistance to pain which increases the suffering, and most of all, fear of pain itself is a strong form of suffering.

The acceptance of every form of human life as "equals" makes it impossible for life that feels itself exceptionally healthy to manifest itself as such, which causes a very twisted form of suffering. Reality is so creative when it comes to pain. There is the fear of causing pain, the pain of causing pain, the fear of the pain of causing pain - I just remember a dream I had tonight, where I was aksed by several people to hit them in the face repeatedly. I also remember getting hit in the face by different people and not feeling much, certainly no pain.




___________
" 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
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek


Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild


PostSubject: Re: Modern Spirit Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Need/suffering, is the experience the sensation - of temporality, of (inter)activity, in other words of existence.
Modernity shelters...did I not say this?

Pain is an extreme form of suffering.
It is need not satiated for a period of time, to where it begins indicating attrition upon the emergent unity - the self-organizing organism.

Need is the sensation of lack.
What is lacking?
The absolute...the perfect, the complete, the Idea(l), the Here, the Now, The Self, the Thing, the One, the God, the Being....use whatever metaphorical, symbolism you like.

What is this "absolute"?
The question presupposes its existence.
It is because the absolute is absent that it can be imagined in any manner the mind needs to cope.

how does the mind construct its model of the projected absolute?
It gather data from the past, and combines them into new forms, projecting them, using the imagination, as a 'towards' as an object/objective, that directs the Will.
Will directs the aggregate energies/processes, of the emergent self-organization we call an organism.

The more detached form reality this projection is all the more fantastic, unreal, supernatural, unnatural it is.
Nature is the past, the sum of all nurturing.

To Know Thyself, is to be aware of your identity, to know your past, which you are a manifestation of.

Need/Suffering/Pain is this self-organization resisting, temporality...the Flow towards chaos, the disordering.




___________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν








Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Guns Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Guns are irrational in the sense of being unduly excessive -- the aim of arresting another person's action may now be accomplished through much simpler and more effective means, such as through any manner of taser, rubber bullet, gas or other temporarily paralyzing agent. Pain need not even be a factor in such methods, although for the more "morally zealous" among us pain can be an ingredient as well.

With guns, however, the partial or total disintegration of the body which arises is unnecessary toward any aim save the most blind and self-blind, which is to say the irrational and the ineffectual. After all, firing a gun at another person creates a whole host of other, new problems than those which one was initially faced with. Furthermore to remove guns and then to consequently make more available all manner of tasers/etc., which have shown easy ability to render a target immobile and not threatening, would add increased onus upon the legal system to weigh all sides of issues of use or misuse of force, being as neither party would be arbitrarily wiped out of existence or rendered incommunicable before such investigations can even begin. Truth would more easily emerge, those who wish to silence truth by silencing another party would be not be given such easy means to achieve this, and in cases of self-defense it would require less "psychological pressure", less "brutality or bluntness of intent" such as is required in the case of discharging a firearm upon another person, therefore making defense more tenable. Man is therefore made less an unthinking animal, rather directly or by indirect default, and society likewise achieves a higher degree of rationality and ethics.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: Guns Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The first step would be to establish martial arts that can pit these more sophisticated technologies against the gun, at least superficially, it is needed for the transition. Guns, or any thing, cannot simply disappear. They must reverberate through the very solutions to them. How do you taze a gunman?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Guns Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I doubt very much that guns would ever disappear. For one thing they are used in proxy political struggles, "wars", in which the aim is not anything rational but merely to kill (to uphold dogma-politics). War is probably the place with the least efficacy for supplanting firearms with alternate methods of subduing people (physically).

It's funny, though, the irrationalities, inherent to social systems, that are so easily revealed through a merely rational perspective on the issue. This must explain why rational perspectives on the issue are virtually non-existent.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Guns Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
The first step would be to establish martial arts that can pit these more sophisticated technologies against the gun, at least superficially, it is needed for the transition. Guns, or any thing, cannot simply disappear. They must reverberate through the very solutions to them. How do you taze a gunman?
To taze a gunman, your tactics would have to be really quick and sneaky. You would need the element of surprise - to come up on him from behind him and you had better be sure to taze him well. If you're facing him, you would hit (kick) where he, if he is a man, is most vulnerable, and quickly. Hmmm, a gun against a tazer. I don't know about that. You'd really have to have multiple expertise as a fighter.

The problem is not really with the guns themselves. I can't believe i just said that. But a gun is a powerful tool especially in the wrong hands and in the hands of those with irrational minds. Let's face it, in an ideal world, there might not be any need for them. But any tool is only as good as the person using it. And as long as there are people who will use the gun to break the law and to harm and to destroy, there have to be people and guns to counter that...within reason and with intelligence. Even policemen at times do not know how to make use of a gun, the gun becomes its master, because they are not able to make use of their reason and to think before they pull the trigger - albeit at times one has to pull the trigger. I wonder - if there was more money and training set aside for gun control, and also psychological profiling, there might be less deaths caused in the heat of the moment.




___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
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: Guns Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Right, I wouldn't pretend to tell a fanatic force like the military what to do, but if we higher minded people wish to establish a path for the use of sophisticated battle, battle that meets the evolutionary standards set out in the OP, we have to be able to at least fend off the gun. Some kind of aiming device involving a high powered flashlight to blind and pepper spray or long range electric weapon. Sound with directionality... It's harder to aim and shoot than people usually think.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Guns Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Systema has methods for "psychic" remote disarmament as well as a lot of very elegant short distance methods. Example. Check out the practicing videos on youtube, watch a bunch of different sources and, I'd say, try it out. I find it particularly effective in combination with Wing Chun. What's great about systema is that it's so stupidly effective that it's funny. Look at this little master along with all the videos you'll see by the two leading instructors, Vasiliev and Ryabko.

The Russians claim the origin of the Samurai, and thus of Aikido and related arts. It's true that Systema is makes use of the exact same principles - circles, leverage, pressure points - a combination of physics and neurology. If you get deep into it on the internet you'll find the graphics to illustrate the physics it's built on.

Счастливого пути!



___________
" 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
apaosha

avatar

Posts : 5
Join date : 2014-01-21
Age : 32
Location : Ireland


PostSubject: Re: Guns Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My position on this is that a country that trusts its citizens to be armed in this manner trusts them period and is built on their best interests, not its own.

The prospect of lethal force being used against you by your fellow citizen promotes respect. Consequences for actions. Consequences which do not first travel through the State filtering system and descend down from on high.
A man is responsible.

I also wouldn't trust the state with a monopoly on lethal force.

With regard to the mainpoint of the OP, I don't find killing particularily reprehensible or distasteful. Nor do I think human life in possession of special value.
Killing is part of life, of reality. Deal with it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/
Lyssa



Posts : 9
Join date : 2012-07-22


PostSubject: Re: Guns Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Guns are irrational in the sense of being unduly excessive -- the aim of arresting another person's action may now be accomplished through much simpler and more effective means, such as through any manner of taser, rubber bullet, gas or other temporarily paralyzing agent. Pain need not even be a factor in such methods, although for the more "morally zealous" among us pain can be an ingredient as well.

Letting ranks get decided without letting death enter the picture by simply and temporarily disarming or paralyzing someone, becomes an artifice, a staging of reality where anyone can support any cause without having to pay for it dearly - consequences lose meaning. That said, while I don't believe Martyrdom determines the efficacy of a truth of causes, when I stand for, defend a cause, a principle without the whole of my being - knowing I have nothing significant to lose, then my acts become disneyfied and I can support cause A with equal conviction as I can support cause B. Principalism becomes a matter of skill.
Anyone determining a path by trying to keep pain out of the equation as an outcome's effect is promoting a life-hating nihilism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Guns Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
apaosha wrote:
My position on this is that a country that trusts its citizens to be armed in this manner trusts them period and is built on their best interests, not its own.

I agree with this in theory. This is one of those rare cases where I am not certain that theory corresponds to practice.

Quote :
I also wouldn't trust the state with a monopoly on lethal force.

Agree with this too.

Quote :
With regard to the mainpoint of the OP, I don't find killing particularily reprehensible or distasteful. Nor do I think human life in possession of special value.
Killing is part of life, of reality. Deal with it.

Sure, nothing has objective value. What does "human life" mean to you? Not in general, but specifically, the humans you are experiencing, including yourself. Is all that without "special value"?



___________
" 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
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Guns Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Apaosha:

Yeah... human life is not in possession of any "special value". Not even to humans. Rolling Eyes

I wonder how a society founded on such a principle would turn out…
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:00 am

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Truth and value Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Truth is the highest value, because it is the condition for positing all values.

No value can be posited without truth; but values can be posited either strongly or weakly, consistently or inconsistently, with fuller knowledge or lesser knowledge. These distinctions arise based on the extent to which truth itself, value itself, is able to be valued, rather in thought or not. The voracity and effectiveness of valuation notwithstanding.

To value is to raise a thing to a standard above itself, within the scope of oneself.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think my view on truth is that only objective truth exists. Subjectivity is either false or it is grasping/knowing objectivity, where then the subjectiveness of the subjectivity becomes objectivity. The only way to know truth is through objectivity. Subjectivity literally may mean falseness or meaninglessness, it objectively exists as energy in the brain, but the informational content though it may help a person objectively, may have entirely no objective existence in reality. It can still have a value, this is how religions can have a value even if they are not objectively true, or reading harry potter can bring someone joy or have an impact on their true life. This is just my current opinion and thoughts, havent thought it through much.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Harry Potter example is a good example of why subjectivity underlies objectivity.
A subject consists of a certain amount of energy, but what happens with this energy, what is the objective effect of this energy, depends entirely on the subjectivity of its identity.

It does not matter whether a story is true or not, what is objectively of importance is the way in which it influences the subject. The only objective truth in a Harry Potter story is in each individual case of reading it. History is always a subjective account, any attempt to objectivize is bringing the objective truth under the umbrella of a value system - a language, a logic, a context in which it can be compared to other things.

Rain may objectively the same molecular structure if it falls in the desert and if it falls in the swamp, but its objective effect is different - thus it is objectively different rain. It is objective fact that subjectivity (perspective, context, value-standard) determines the possible content of objectivity, which is what you were perhaps hinting at.



___________
" 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
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The Harry Potter example is a good example of why subjectivity underlies objectivity.
A subject consists of a certain amount of energy, but what happens with this energy, what is the objective effect of this energy, depends entirely on the subjectivity of its identity.

It does not matter whether a story is true or not, what is objectively of importance is the way in which it influences the subject. The only objective truth in a Harry Potter story is in each individual case of reading it. History is always a subjective account, any attempt to objectivize is bringing the objective truth under the umbrella of a value system - a language, a logic, a context in which it can be compared to other things.


Well in regards to objective truth it matters if a story is true or not, in regards to truth it matters if things are true, this is what I was trying to express, when I said truth is objectivity. If I say the sun is a jelly bean, this is not true, no matter how true it may be to me subjectively. If subjectively something is true, then it is true in an objective way, thus it is objectivity.

Harry Potter isnt true as in an accurate depiction of a known history of earth. But because it is an extension of human existence, characters and conflict, a human can garner value from the fictitious story. The human reading it is objective, the activity the human faced in their life is objective, an interesting thing to think about are how emotions and feelings may be objective or not, the person dealt with how they chose to or didnt choose to interact and react to the events of their life (though those were subjective struggles that occurred in objective reality..yea see this is tough, because I dont know what the deal with thoughts are, they objectively exist but they are creations of a will/being, I guess im wondering about the objective truth or validity of thoughts, which are primarily if not totally words, images, and streams of images or video), and so one person may interpret something one way and another another way, and this is the whole idea behind subjectivity, interpretation. But my point I keep coming back to is, interpretation can either be accurate, in which case it aligns itself with some objective truth, or it can be non accurate, in which it is just subjective folly. If you think subjective interpretation can be correct, yet not align with any objectivity, at what point of my interpretation of the mona lisa do you say, errr I dont think its possible to interpret it that way? "Ohh I know exactly what this painting means, the painter was trying to tell us; blue bungee cord hamburger balloon shoes California pizza kitchen yes ha lol 243, its so obvious...this really means a lot to me"

like I can literally live my whole life in my mind just saying random strings of non logical meaningless syntax and you can say its not true. Or I can be a part of some business, and I say a statement, and that statement puts into action lots of movement and production, so I guess this has to do with the truth of language, is it subjective or objective.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Rain may objectively the same molecular structure if it falls in the desert and if it falls in the swamp, but its objective effect is different - thus it is objectively different rain. It is objective fact that subjectivity (perspective, context, value-standard) determines the possible content of objectivity, which is what you were perhaps hinting at.

Oh yes, but it still objectively exists, the point of objectivity is the inability to argue its existence, it is tautologically true in its existence. It is truth. You, whatever you are objectively exist, this is true, you are truth, your body, the existence of your thoughts, my point is, subjectivity isnt necessarily true. And then I am trying to ask, in what ways are subjectivity true, without being objective?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Wizard



Posts : 8
Join date : 2014-01-20


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Imafungi wrote:
Oh yes, but it still objectively exists, the point of objectivity is the inability to argue its existence, it is tautologically true in its existence. It is truth. You, whatever you are objectively exist, this is true, you are truth, your body, the existence of your thoughts, my point is, subjectivity isnt necessarily true. And then I am trying to ask, in what ways are subjectivity true, without being objective?
Well said.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Imafungi wrote:

Well in regards to objective truth it matters if a story is true or not, in regards to truth it matters if things are true, this is what I was trying to express, when I said truth is objectivity. If I say the sun is a jelly bean, this is not true, no matter how true it may be to me subjectively. If subjectively something is true, then it is true in an objective way, thus it is objectivity.

This sounds as if you think that language, your own in particular, is god-given. For all I know "Jelly bean" means "Sun" in some language, in a manner of speaking.

The word "Sun" has absolutely no objective relationship to that which it indicates to us. Anything you say is an expression of a perspective. The Sun is not to the Sun what it is to you. The sun will not "agree" that it is "the sun". All of what you say is subjective, perspectival.

Quote :
Harry Potter isnt true as in an accurate depiction of a known history of earth. But because it is an extension of human existence, characters and conflict, a human can garner value from the fictitious story. The human reading it is objective, the activity the human faced in their life is objective, an interesting thing to think about are how emotions and feelings may be objective or not, the person dealt with how they chose to or didnt choose to interact and react to the events of their life (though those were subjective struggles that occurred in objective reality..yea see this is tough, because I dont know what the deal with thoughts are, they objectively exist but they are creations of a will/being, I guess im wondering about the objective truth or validity of thoughts, which are primarily if not totally words, images, and streams of images or video), and so one person may interpret something one way and another another way, and this is the whole idea behind subjectivity, interpretation. But my point I keep coming back to is, interpretation can either be accurate, in which case it aligns itself with some objective truth, or it can be non accurate, in which it is just subjective folly.

Accurate with respect to what? I think you mean that an accurate interpretation is what allows manipulation, power. An accurate interpretation of a car allows you to drive it. You might also try to eat it, which would result from an inaccurate interpretation.

All of this still is in terms of your subjectivity.
Your being, you doing those things, is required for any of this discourse to exist at all.

There needs to be perspective in order for there to be objective truths, accuracies, at all.

Quote :
If you think subjective interpretation can be correct, yet not align with any objectivity, at what point of my interpretation of the mona lisa do you say, errr I dont think its possible to interpret it that way? "Ohh I know exactly what this painting means, the painter was trying to tell us; blue bungee cord hamburger balloon shoes California pizza kitchen yes ha lol 243, its so obvious...this really means a lot to me"

like I can literally live my whole life in my mind just saying random strings of non logical meaningless syntax and you can say its not true. Or I can be a part of some business, and I say a statement, and that statement puts into action lots of movement and production, so I guess this has to do with the truth of language, is it subjective or objective.

Language is a tool for communicating values. It requires more than one person to speak it. It's a means to create inter-subjectivity (not objetivity) to get different people to understand each others goals and conceptions, do ad to be able to work together.

English contains words for which there are no words in Chinese, and vice versa. How are you going to explain this "objectively", or as an expression of objectivity, without framing it in terms of subjectivity and perspective?

Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:

Rain may objectively the same molecular structure if it falls in the desert and if it falls in the swamp, but its objective effect is different - thus it is objectively different rain. It is objective fact that subjectivity (perspective, context, value-standard) determines the possible content of objectivity, which is what you were perhaps hinting at.

Oh yes, but it still objectively exists, the point of objectivity is the inability to argue its existence, it is tautologically true in its existence. It is truth. You, whatever you are objectively exist, this is true, you are truth, your body, the existence of your thoughts,

In other words, my subjectivity. Yes, this is true. Objectivity is only true in as far as it is grounded in a subjectivity. Moreover, it is only expessible in terms of subjectivity, perspective.


Quote :
my point is, subjectivity isnt necessarily true.

You just did a lot to refute that point.
But I think what you mean is that a subjective judgment does not always lead to what the one who is making the judgment expects it will lead to. Of course this is true. A subject is not omnipotent.

Quote :
And then I am trying to ask, in what ways are subjectivity true, without being objective?

Objectivity is a vague terms unless you get into definitional logic.
Try to phrase what it is that must be true in every case. Only this can be said to be objective. And you'll run into the fact that all that can be said to be true in every case is an instance of subjectivity, of affect, of 'something doing something to something else'.

There is no objective medium. The medium of existence is subjectivity, perspective. This goes for every atom and every human. If it does not hold its position, it dissipates and cease to exist.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Subjectivity" may be better understood if you think of it as "position" "force" and "receptivity to force".

Not all judgments are accurate, but all judgments are instances of subjectivity. When there are many concurring judgments, man starts to believe in objectivity. It is his drive to impose his judgment on the world, his will to power. For that he has to let the world impose itself on him in a certain way.

Objectivity is measured in the power it grants the subject. Science is the human (a species of subjectivity) documentation of judgments that allow the human predict and manipulate his environment. In applying science, he selects the part of his environment to which he responds. Science is extremely subjective. It is extremely existential, active, manipulative, 'artificial'.

Science is highly selective. Science is selecting responses that form patterns and further responses that make sense in terms of these patterns. It's art is selection, and selection is the quintessence of perspective, subjectivity, holding a position.

Do you follow? My terms are opaque precisely because the belief in the objectivity of language is far more treacherous than any other superstition.



___________
" 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
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Imafungi wrote:

Well in regards to objective truth it matters if a story is true or not, in regards to truth it matters if things are true, this is what I was trying to express, when I said truth is objectivity. If I say the sun is a jelly bean, this is not true, no matter how true it may be to me subjectively. If subjectively something is true, then it is true in an objective way, thus it is objectivity.

This sounds as if you think that language, your own in particular, is god-given. For all I know "Jelly bean" means "Sun" in some language, in a manner of speaking.

The word "Sun" has absolutely no objective relationship to that which it indicates to us. Anything you say is an expression of a perspective. The Sun is not to the Sun what it is to you. The sun will not "agree" that it is "the sun". All of what you say is subjective, perspectival.

Language is an extension of math. As 1=1, the only reason I felt confident using the term sun is because we have agreed that Sun= the massive sphere of nuclear fusion at the center of our solar system, and we have agreed that jelly bean equals some little piece of candy. I am not talking about the language, the symbol, but what the symbol represents. When I point to the moon im not intending for you to be looking at my finger, but what the finger is pointing to, the finger represents the word. There are many human words for sun, there is 1 sun, that objectively exists.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Imafungi wrote:
Harry Potter isnt true as in an accurate depiction of a known history of earth. But because it is an extension of human existence, characters and conflict, a human can garner value from the fictitious story. The human reading it is objective, the activity the human faced in their life is objective, an interesting thing to think about are how emotions and feelings may be objective or not, the person dealt with how they chose to or didnt choose to interact and react to the events of their life (though those were subjective struggles that occurred in objective reality..yea see this is tough, because I dont know what the deal with thoughts are, they objectively exist but they are creations of a will/being, I guess im wondering about the objective truth or validity of thoughts, which are primarily if not totally words, images, and streams of images or video), and so one person may interpret something one way and another another way, and this is the whole idea behind subjectivity, interpretation. But my point I keep coming back to is, interpretation can either be accurate, in which case it aligns itself with some objective truth, or it can be non accurate, in which it is just subjective folly.

Accurate with respect to what? I think you mean that an accurate interpretation is what allows manipulation, power. An accurate interpretation of a car allows you to drive it. You might also try to eat it, which would result from an inaccurate interpretation.

All of this still is in terms of your subjectivity.
Your being, you doing those things, is required for any of this discourse to exist at all.

There needs to be perspective in order for there to be objective truths, accuracies, at all.

Yes of course it does, but my stream of thoughts on this topic have to do with the idea of truth. I am questioning what truth means, what is it, how is it. Through my being and perspective I am giving access to the objective world, and though I am not given complete sensory data of the objective universe, I am given enough so that I may perceive the universe/the earth and exist. If my perception of the earth was completely different, say something wrong with my brain, so that all the sensual data from my senses when sent to my brain made me see things bad and taste things bad and all that, and what I perceived was completely different then the earth, more of a constant view of my imagination, then it could not be said what I was viewing was truth. Just as perhaps a blind man from birth, could not possibly comprehend all the aspects of earth from such limited information, and his imagination must do wonders to create 'his own subjective' reality and world view, which if it does not align with the objective truth of reality, must be said to be false.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Imafungi wrote:
If you think subjective interpretation can be correct, yet not align with any objectivity, at what point of my interpretation of the mona lisa do you say, errr I dont think its possible to interpret it that way? "Ohh I know exactly what this painting means, the painter was trying to tell us; blue bungee cord hamburger balloon shoes California pizza kitchen yes ha lol 243, its so obvious...this really means a lot to me"

like I can literally live my whole life in my mind just saying random strings of non logical meaningless syntax and you can say its not true. Or I can be a part of some business, and I say a statement, and that statement puts into action lots of movement and production, so I guess this has to do with the truth of language, is it subjective or objective.

Language is a tool for communicating values. It requires more than one person to speak it. It's a means to create inter-subjectivity (not objetivity) to get different people to understand each others goals and conceptions, do ad to be able to work together.

English contains words for which there are no words in Chinese, and vice versa. How are you going to explain this "objectively", or as an expression of objectivity, without framing it in terms of subjectivity and perspective?

Science is pretty much nothing other then 'knowing objective reality' as much and as well as it can. I can say the word Sun, and science can present 10000 text books full of words on the current total knowledge of what we have of this objective phenomenon. My biggest concern with the nature of objective truth and reality, is that even it is transient, and but a temporal expression of contextual relationships, in 99999999^9999999^999999^999999^9999 light milenia from now 'Truth' will be very different.


Fixed Cross wrote:

Rain may objectively the same molecular structure if it falls in the desert and if it falls in the swamp, but its objective effect is different - thus it is objectively different rain. It is objective fact that subjectivity (perspective, context, value-standard) determines the possible content of objectivity, which is what you were perhaps hinting at.

Oh yes, but it still objectively exists, the point of objectivity is the inability to argue its existence, it is tautologically true in its existence. It is truth. You, whatever you are objectively exist, this is true, you are truth, your body, the existence of your thoughts,

Fixed Cross wrote:

In other words, my subjectivity. Yes, this is true. Objectivity is only true in as far as it is grounded in a subjectivity. Moreover, it is only expessible in terms of subjectivity, perspective.

No I disagree. If all subjectivity vanished tomorrow, the objective reality will still remain. Objectivity is true regardless of anything, it is what is.
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: Truth and value Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I guess what I was getting at was; When asking a question like 'What is truth/what is true/what does truth mean'? The answers will depend upon the 'truth' of whether or not; All is true (there is no thing that occurs or is thought or done or exists that is not true), or There is such thing as what is true/truth, and not true/truth, and then what would be the guiding factor and rules for separating the two? And also depending on those things, what would it mean for there to be a gradient of truth, can things be more true then others?

And regarding value and the idea of value, I have asked you if you thought all things can be compared, values determined to ordered in charts and graphs and determined which courses of action, belief, existence can create the ultimate values at least comparatively, and you answered that you dont think this can be done. I would then ask, what then is the point or meaning or matter of any values, if they are not comparable, if they are all equal in meaning or worth, or value? If someone values life, chopping their own head off with a chain saw can not be seen as valuable as eating spinach.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Truth is defined as "existence". Existence exists, therefore truth exists. Whatever/however existence exists, what/however it is, is truth. This is all straight-forward.

But what is existence?

Value Ontology proposes an essential thing: that every objectivity is composed of subjectivities. What does this mean? It means that whatever level of "objective reality" you choose to examine you will always find, under and within that reality, subjectivities interacting with each other. Every subjectivity is a perspective, and perspective is defined as the subjectivity, the subject and its object-relations.

So objectivity has been re-defined as subjectivity.

Of course it is a FACT that existence exists, and that things exist, and the how/what of their existence is also FACTUAL. This represents the greatest level of understanding: conceptual truth. Reason is the ability to understand not just existence but the fact of it, not just things which exist but the fact of these things. The sun is what it is, and how the sun "sees itself" is different from how other things perceive the sun, and every possible perspective has a unique vantage upon "the sun". But we, as humans, are capable of obtaining universal perspective above this subjectivism. What is this universality of knowledge? It is reason, it is conception. Logic and ideas.

Facts are objective, and existence itself, truth itself, is objective. But the nature of objectivity is always already subjective, composed of subjectivities within subjectivities, perspectives within perspectives. Every single point-perspective constitutes a self-valuing, a "knot of space-time" which values itself. This means it acts according to its own causal necessity, and the more it is able to act with respect to its actual needs and the actual conditions to which it is subject the more it will be capable of holding itself in existence.

Reality consists of innumerable quantity and layers of quantities of self-valuings, of subjectivity-perspectives. What are these subjectivity-perspectives composed of? More quantity and layers of subjectivity-perspectives. What is the content of these perspectives? Themselves and those surrounding values which must interact with them, which are forced upon them. "reality" therefore is also re-defined as the mutual agreements of self-valuings. What does this mean?

It means that what we know of as reality is not some simple objective truth that just exists, that has some degree of "objectivity" or universality; no, rather reality is a complex conflux of self-valuings, point-perspectives of energy, all within, next to, and through each other.. where these points meet, war takes place. Each point-perspective is attempting to value itself, is attempting to continuously "be what it is" and create itself over and over, to consume and solidify itself against that which is other than itself. Because every point is attempting to do this with every other point, certain agreements and disagreements are formed. The agreements constitute "reality" in the sense of its objectivity, that about it which is "stable and immutable", i.e. what we call physical laws. The disagreements constitute "energy", the movements and shiftings of space and time as material force-relations, the creation and destruction of forms.

Only factual knowledge (rational conception) is capable of understanding this, and thus is capable of attaining to universal, objective truth. But that truth must include the proper understanding of both the nature of objectivity and subjectivity, worlds and perspectives, values and self-valuings, or else it is only another form of mistakenly ideology, a false ontology, which is to say a merely psychological self-justification of a particular kind of subjectivity-consciousness.

The only true objectivity is understood by comprehending the universality of subjectivity. Through the activities of subjectivities, self-valuings, reality itself is brought into existence and sustained in existence. Only the fact of this remains the objective truth beyond this… and not even, because to sustain and know such a fact, for such a fact to truly exist, requires a highly-developed subjectivity-structure capable of producing and comprehending it, e.g. human-like consciousness, which is to say, philosophy. This is Plato's true insight, the genius of the Ideas. Truth exists independent of minds because facts exist independent of minds, in so far as a mind comprehends facts as it produces them and in so far as minds properly capable of comprehension re-make themselves in the image of truth (existence) via the procession of factual forms in continual development. But not all facts are equivalent or in possible agreement; many lower perspectives exist and clash, constituting varying plateaus of truth each valid in its own proper range and limit, and will either make themselves rigid and closed in the presence of difference, or will seek a perpetual equivocation in the face of their limits, or will perish, or, in the more rare case of an aspiration to greatness at all costs, will rise above themselves to accomplish a wider and more complete perspective, will climb the ladder of eternal forms to ultimately arrive at universal truth. And, at this threshold, that truth which understands what here has been called value ontology, either by these terms or others, will of necessity be larger and more complete than those truths which do not, will contain those which do not.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Imafungi wrote:
I guess what I was getting at was; When asking a question like 'What is truth/what is true/what does truth mean'? The answers will depend upon the 'truth' of whether or not; All is true (there is no thing that occurs or is thought or done or exists that is not true), or There is such thing as what is true/truth, and not true/truth, and then what would be the guiding factor and rules for separating the two? And also depending on those things, what would it mean for there to be a gradient of truth, can things be more true then others?

And regarding value and the idea of value, I have asked you if you thought all things can be compared, values determined to ordered in charts and graphs and determined which courses of action, belief, existence can create the ultimate values at least comparatively, and you answered that you dont think this can be done. I would then ask, what then is the point or meaning or matter of any values, if they are not comparable, if they are all equal in meaning or worth, or value? If someone values life, chopping their own head off with a chain saw can not be seen as valuable as eating spinach.

The value of value is the kind of values it compels the valuer to cause, create, in trying to attain this value. Of course I can certainly compare values as held by beings, or humans in general - I can estimate or experience the value they have to me, an we can try to do this together - but no objective assessment can be made. The closest we can get to that is to measure (select, 'value in terms') the quantum of affect it produces. The quality and context of that affect can not be measured, as it takes place in all the entities that are being affected, and self-valuing is not measurable in life or death. Self-valuing transcends the importance of life. When a human does not accomplish self-valuing for a while he will kill himself or try to forget that he exists.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"The ultimate value" is necessarily extremely particular, not a basic or universal value. So far nature has produced no greater values (values valued most powerfully and highly) than a "Caesar" or "Jesus" or "Mohammed" - "Rembrandt" isn't a value in this sense, nor is "Mozart" - these are man who produced values, not men whose self-valuing became a standard for other self-valuings. The whole point of Christianity is this dude called Jesus. His archetypical actions are interesting only because he was so impressive to people around him. All actions will appear archetypical if the one who performs them is an archetype. This is the type of existence that employs the scientific method, which may be perceived as the greatest value, to an end. Science allows for many values to exist - it is almost a meta-value. But our belief in science does no justice to the sheer will implicit in enforcing the method on our surroundings. Scientists select like no animal has ever selected - the narrowness of the scientists threshold for truth is unprecedented, which means that the power he derives is done by excluding almost all information about what he is studying. His knowledge is of the smallest parts, and the limit to his knowledge is that which keeps the smallest parts together. (gravity, EM, forces).

Value ontology discloses the nature of these forces, the logically attainable principle that allows for the phenomenology that the scientific method produces/discloses.

Human archetypes are the ultimate human values. Not essential, ultimate - accumulative height. In that they they employ everything, man, woman child, animal, land, resources and the scientific method (or the crafts and industries based on protocience) The ultimate value is not essential, unlike the many values on which the existence of a human who may aspire to such a value relies. An ultimate value is the result of capitalization on an incident, a lucky circumstance in nature that allows a human self-valuing to be of physiologically and psychologically excellent quality and then continue to grow on these terms. That is very rare. The rarest thing the universe ever produced.

Lucky circumstances are almost always summarized in one word: war.

Character is the essence. Herein is the impossibility of defining "the" ultimate value - one can only try to claim the title. And whatever it turns out to be, it won't be ultimate forever, since the world is will to power and the essence of any form of being is the process of overcoming the values projected by different natures and embodying the source of the world for those beings who have been overcome.



___________
" 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
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hm I read that but im not quite sure I completely understand or agree what your point is. The way I see it is, objectivity is the fact that if all humans (all consciousness on earth) died tomorrow, the earth and the universe would still exist. There is a total reality, composed of something we refer to as energy, and its quantity cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Subjectivity is the fact that this process of 'total energy changing; time' has led to the creation of galaxies; stars and planets, and on some of these planets, the mixture of quantities and qualities of energy quanta; subatomic and atomic and molecular quanta, can for what we refer to as life. This life are anti entropy machines, utilizing surrounding material to construct itself, and over time/evolution, this life has created many forms in which it exists and interacts with itself and the environment. The way in which it interacts with itself and the objective environment, has been termed subjectivity, being a subject within the objective, being stuck in a particular perspective with limited knowledge of the objective, limited to specific experiences and limited ability to process and interact with those experiences.

An interesting discussion related to what you were saying about whether truths can exist in the mind without existing objectively is the nature of math and geometry. The mind can certainly imagine perhaps infinite things which do not exist in objective reality, but what then is the meaning of truth. Is it true to say a unicorn does exist because it exists in a mind, does a dog that exists in the mind just as much a dog that objectively exists in the universe as a dog that exists on earth? It all is a matter of what you mean I suppose. If you ask does a unicorn exist that is made out of molecules and is a real alive being on earth, I suppose not. This is why the mind is a marvelously mysterious and baffling thing, noone even knows yet how it does what it does, how we can see data in our minds (imagination/thought) and use it as a highly advanced etcher sketch in which we can develop and draw and dream using more basic concepts and principals.

So back to my original point, the realm of the mind concerns humans, it is subjective, we dont think of absolute truth for consciousness in general when we think of truth because we are not exactly interviewing the cows and chickens, we eat them. So is there an ultimate absolute consciousness that is beyond being, human or being material, an intelligence that is absolute in every sense, a spectrum of infinity that is a set in stone value system (like the abstract and perfect plato realm of forms) which anything(any reality any universe any orientation of energy and substance and matter) that can ever exist is only an imperfect crappy off shoot? We can never achieve perfect justice, or intelligence, or create a perfect circle, or experience the highest pleasure or love, because material has limits and perfection is unlimited? Or is this all nonsense, and there is no abstract spectrum, only energy/matter exists, and in the entire history of history the only thing that will ever exist is the geometry, quantity, and quality of the energy and its contextual relationships, and it can only be compared to itself and all else, and if you are in love that is a truthful form of love, and if you feel good that is true, and if you do good that is true, and in Iraq if there is justice that is justice, and in US if there is justice that is justice, and if you use pi with a pencil and compass to draw a circle that is a circle, and if you use complex algorithms on a super computer in a 2d matrix to draw the most perfect circle ever using electrons and binary, that too is a circle.
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: Truth and value Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
"Subjectivity" may be better understood if you think of it as "position" "force" and "receptivity to force".

Not all judgments are accurate, but all judgments are instances of subjectivity. When there are many concurring judgments, man starts to believe in objectivity. It is his drive to impose his judgment on the world, his will to power. For that he has to let the world impose itself on him in a certain way.

Objectivity is measured in the power it grants the subject. Science is the human (a species of subjectivity) documentation of judgments that allow the human predict and manipulate his environment. In applying science, he selects the part of his environment to which he responds. Science is extremely subjective. It is extremely existential, active, manipulative, 'artificial'.

Science is highly selective. Science is selecting responses that form patterns and further responses that make sense in terms of these patterns. It's art is selection, and selection is the quintessence of perspective, subjectivity, holding a position.

Do you follow? My terms are opaque precisely because the belief in the objectivity of language is far more treacherous than any other superstition.

I think I follow, but though I understand it is out of my subjectivity I declare "the sun exists", it is objective that the sun exists. Scientifically it is known to high degree what the sun is composed of and how it works, so for me out of my subjectivity to declare that "the sun is a jelly bean and equal in size to a penny", cant it be said that my statement is false? Like wise after coming to the conclusion that the sun=the sun, would it be false/not truth for me to claim that the sun does not exist? Would it be true if I covered my eyes and claimed you did not exist? What if be true if I claimed chopping my head clean off was good for my continued existence? But I think it can be objectively true to claim subjectively that eating food x or nutrient y can be objectively proven to be beneficial to the continuation of ones existence. The main thing about all this that sparked my interest was if subjectivity can be 'true or truth' without being objectively true, what that would mean. And if it cannot, does that mean that every time subjectivity is not objectively true, it is false? And does that mean If subjectivity does completely to a significant extent grasp objectivity, in that moment (ie my comprehension that the sun exists) does my subjectivity becoming objectivity? Just the simple objective knowledge that the sun does exist, thats objective truth, my subjectivity can become objective truth, in those instances?
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: Truth and value Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
"The ultimate value" is necessarily extremely particular, not a basic or universal value. So far nature has produced no greater values (values valued most powerfully and highly) than a "Caesar" or "Jesus" or "Mohammed" - "Rembrandt" isn't a value in this sense, nor is "Mozart" - these are man who produced values, not men whose self-valuing became a standard for other self-valuings. The whole point of Christianity is this dude called Jesus. His archetypical actions are interesting only because he was so impressive to people around him. All actions will appear archetypical if the one who performs them is an archetype. This is the type of existence that employs the scientific method, which may be perceived as the greatest value, to an end. Science allows for many values to exist - it is almost a meta-value. But our belief in science does no justice to the sheer will implicit in enforcing the method on our surroundings. Scientists select like no animal has ever selected - the narrowness of the scientists threshold for truth is unprecedented, which means that the power he derives is done by excluding almost all information about what he is studying. His knowledge is of the smallest parts, and the limit to his knowledge is that which keeps the smallest parts together. (gravity, EM, forces).

Value ontology discloses the nature of these forces, the logically attainable principle that allows for the phenomenology that the scientific method produces/discloses.

Human archetypes are the ultimate human values. Not essential, ultimate - accumulative height. In that they they employ everything, man, woman child, animal, land, resources and the scientific method (or the crafts and industries based on protocience) The ultimate value is not essential, unlike the many values on which the existence of a human who may aspire to such a value relies. An ultimate value is the result of capitalization on an incident, a lucky circumstance in nature that allows a human self-valuing to be of physiologically and psychologically excellent quality and then continue to grow on these terms. That is very rare. The rarest thing the universe ever produced.

Lucky circumstances are almost always summarized in one word: war.

Character is the essence. Herein is the impossibility of defining "the" ultimate value - one can only try to claim the title. And whatever it turns out to be, it won't be ultimate forever, since the world is will to power and the essence of any form of being is the process of overcoming the values projected by different natures and embodying the source of the world for those beings who have been overcome.

Hm, if I follow you correctly in a part in the slightest, it is your stance that the highest, greatest, most ultimate achievement of a human is to be an embodiment of ideal? Not just any embodiment though all people do or attempt this in some manner, but it is the big characters in human history which have stood the tests of time with their being and character. That is what you say the highest value is, to be a monument to human beings potential, so that others may admire and in turn attempt to embody those ideals, and then there will be more and more characters approaching equal of that high valued human?

The problem I have with that (of course I am not confident I understood your main points or what you were truly getting at) is who is the decider of the ultimate value, or greatest ideals? What is the unseen power which dictates that Jesus is a greater embodier of ideal and value then Hitler? There are many different governments over the world and the history of human time, and there are many potentials to come, of how the individual interacts with themself and their community and society and government. But what says what is the right? The highest value. Is the highest value the constant attempt of achieving higher values, individually and collectively? Or just individually? Think of a secluded tribe in the woods, they still though sparse exist today, of indigenous people. Is a member of that tribes life just as valuable as yours? Is every individual humans life equally valuable? At least to themselves? And then value contributed to the collective as a whole, such as inventors like Tesla compared to a criminal, can be compared in value?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Imafungi wrote:
Hm, if I follow you correctly in a part in the slightest, it is your stance that the highest, greatest, most ultimate achievement of a human is to be an embodiment of ideal? Not just any embodiment though all people do or attempt this in some manner, but it is the big characters in human history which have stood the tests of time with their being and character. That is what you say the highest value is, to be a monument to human beings potential, so that others may admire and in turn attempt to embody those ideals, and then there will be more and more characters approaching equal of that high valued human?

The problem I have with that (of course I am not confident I understood your main points or what you were truly getting at) is who is the decider of the ultimate value, or greatest ideals? What is the unseen power which dictates that Jesus is a greater embodier of ideal and value then Hitler?

I should probably have mentioned Hitler as well. Of course he is also such a person. What matters not is if I like him, but if a lot of Humans valued themselves in the terms he set. And ads with all these men, the man embodies the terms.

You can make a list of dozens of such people, but the longer the list becomes the more questionable its entries.
There's no doubt that Hitler was a supreme human value.
But none of these individuals is good enough for me. I require men who are without nationality, who have global dominance, Masters of the Earth.
I, as a human philosopher, command such people into being. I bring forth the Superman, I have devised his code, his education. We are standing before the light, the Sun of the future man is visible to us now.

To understand this code, you must now learn the meaning of subjectivity.

Quote :
There are many different governments over the world and the history of human time, and there are many potentials to come, of how the individual interacts with themself and their community and society and government. But what says what is the right? The highest value. Is the highest value the constant attempt of achieving higher values, individually and collectively? Or just individually? Think of a secluded tribe in the woods, they still though sparse exist today, of indigenous people. Is a member of that tribes life just as valuable as yours? Is every individual humans life equally valuable? At least to themselves? And then value contributed to the collective as a whole, such as inventors like Tesla compared to a criminal, can be compared in value?

Value is assessed subjectively.
But not only humans assess value -
humans are arrogant twats, thinking that their thought and emotional processes separate them from the rest of existence, where in fact they are doing precisely the same thing as any atom must be doing in order to persist.

This is self-valuing: allowing only to those stimuli that keep the structural integrity of the being intact.

In us, valuing has become conscious. This is not a big difference in terms of how we behave. It does not grant us free will, not anything of the sort. It only allows us to make mistakes and become quasi-entities.

This is the biggest difference between man and snake, and man and water molecule - man can forget what he is.
But this is also the beauty. Hitler, Napoleon, Caesar - all men who remembered.



___________
" 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
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Imafungi wrote:
Hm, if I follow you correctly in a part in the slightest, it is your stance that the highest, greatest, most ultimate achievement of a human is to be an embodiment of ideal? Not just any embodiment though all people do or attempt this in some manner, but it is the big characters in human history which have stood the tests of time with their being and character. That is what you say the highest value is, to be a monument to human beings potential, so that others may admire and in turn attempt to embody those ideals, and then there will be more and more characters approaching equal of that high valued human?

The problem I have with that (of course I am not confident I understood your main points or what you were truly getting at) is who is the decider of the ultimate value, or greatest ideals? What is the unseen power which dictates that Jesus is a greater embodier of ideal and value then Hitler?

I should probably have mentioned Hitler as well. Of course he is also such a person. What matters not is if I like him, but if a lot of Humans valued themselves in the terms he set. And ads with all these men, the man embodies the terms.

You can make a list of dozens of such people, but the longer the list becomes the more questionable its entries.
There's no doubt that Hitler was a supreme human value.
But none of these individuals is good enough for me. I require men who are without nationality, who have global dominance, Masters of the Earth.
I, as a human philosopher, command such people into being. I bring forth the Superman, I have devised his code, his education. We are standing before the light, the Sun of the future man is visible to us now.

To understand this code, you must now learn the meaning of subjectivity.

Quote :
There are many different governments over the world and the history of human time, and there are many potentials to come, of how the individual interacts with themself and their community and society and government. But what says what is the right? The highest value. Is the highest value the constant attempt of achieving higher values, individually and collectively? Or just individually? Think of a secluded tribe in the woods, they still though sparse exist today, of indigenous people. Is a member of that tribes life just as valuable as yours? Is every individual humans life equally valuable? At least to themselves? And then value contributed to the collective as a whole, such as inventors like Tesla compared to a criminal, can be compared in value?

Value is assessed subjectively.
But not only humans assess value -
humans are arrogant twats, thinking that their thought and emotional processes separate them from the rest of existence, where in fact they are doing precisely the same thing as any atom must be doing in order to persist.

This is self-valuing: allowing only to those stimuli that keep the structural integrity of the being intact.

In us, valuing has become conscious. This is not a big difference in terms of how we behave. It does not grant us free will, not anything of the sort. It only allows us to make mistakes and become quasi-entities.

This is the biggest difference between man and snake, and man and water molecule - man can forget what he is.
But this is also the beauty. Hitler, Napoleon, Caesar - all men who remembered.

So you desire the superman, which I take it to mean the state of the world (or nation, individuals and the collective of them) is not currently functioning at a high enough standard, and this is wrong/bad. The most important thing is for all to begin to evolve to higher standards of being, am I interpreting your view correctly? Can you describe a little what this possible future ideal world may appear as to you?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Collective" is kind of antithetical to "Superman", even though they stand causally related. A superman engages a lot of human 'resource' in a collective movement. The superman is not the result of improvement, he is the agent of change leading to great unified effort. Caesar was not the result of an improvement, he was a man whose individuality - his subjectivity and values - filled a power vacuum and went on to cause an unprecedented wave of purposeful effort to wash over the continent. The meaning of Rome is to ride out under its banner. Everything is transient - to cause the transit of a paradigm is the most solid 'meaning'.

In the end "enjoyment" is just another word for "meaning" and equally for "justification".



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Film writer-directors count as relatively superhuman beings. Consider the relationship between Tyrannus and Christopher Nolan. The resources, human genius, talent and dedication/sacrifice that they employ in order to bring about a ruling archetype based on their nature, are greater and more diverse than what any artists in history have employed. And it is utterly pointless to speak of superhumanity if not in terms of the creative Child - what else could be a purpose of human life but the most glorious kind of play?



This points to the reason why I can not employ a forum to unfold my vision of the world as I love and desire it. I am here to explain a simple principle. What you do with it is not my business, not my desire to know.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:02 am

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But all this is still dystopian.
As soon as film becomes capable of projecting an utopic vision that is as attainable as the dystopian, and equally as strongly mobilizing the human instincts, supermanly values will pervade the human race, and create a whole new kind of soup.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
All great art rises from the terrible, the acknowledgment of the demonic and the gradually increasing courage in the face of it. At one point the artist becomes aware that he is a warrior - or the warrior becomes aware that he is an artist - and an accomplished style appears and begins to conquer the outside world.

Our world is in the process of turning inside-out.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
"Collective" is kind of antithetical to "Superman", even though they stand causally related. A superman engages a lot of human 'resource' in a collective movement. The superman is not the result of improvement, he is the agent of change leading to great unified effort. Caesar was not the result of an improvement, he was a man whose individuality - his subjectivity and values - filled a power vacuum and went on to cause an unprecedented wave of purposeful effort to wash over the continent. The meaning of Rome is to ride out under its banner. Everything is transient - to cause the transit of a paradigm is the most solid 'meaning'.

In the end "enjoyment" is just another word for "meaning" and equally for "justification".

So according to your last sentence, it sounds like your stance would be one of hedonism? And there are no absolute ideals or morals; If a man enjoys raping children so be it, if a man enjoys building space ships so be it? If a man commits an act of terrorism and is remembered in history and causes the transit of a paradigm that is more admirable and valuable and worthy then say some small town middle school teacher?

Also as you said the individual in this day and age, and usually by rule (not exception) doesnt exist without the collective. And according to your terms of value, is deemed valuable by and according to the collective. If Nietzsche was Nietzsche and had all his thoughts and lived his life but never wrote anything down and never spoke to anyone and then died, would he have still been equally valuable? Or his influence on the collective is what made him valuable? And are you just in love with other peoples egos and characters, you being the collective, value is the potential for a human to do 'great and novel and super' things? Is it not worthy, or valuable for the collective, all humans to attempt to achieve this, or it is thought to be impossible, or it is thought it would lessen the value if everyone was at the same heightened level?
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: Truth and value Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Film writer-directors count as relatively superhuman beings. Consider the relationship between Tyrannus and Christopher Nolan. The resources, human genius, talent and dedication/sacrifice that they employ in order to bring about a ruling archetype based on their nature, are greater and more diverse than what any artists in history have employed. And it is utterly pointless to speak of superhumanity if not in terms of the creative Child - what else could be a purpose of human life but the most glorious kind of play?



This points to the reason why I can not employ a forum to unfold my vision of the world as I love and desire it. I am here to explain a simple principle. What you do with it is not my business, not my desire to know.

Why do you put art on such a high pedestal? Do you think someone who doesnt care for art, or could shrug their shoulders at great and masterful art is 'wrong' or dumb? Yes I can understand the aspect of play, but at the same time, and prior to play, life is very difficult and demanding struggle, and usually non playful work is necessary for the continuation of life. Having a baby for instance is no walk in the park. So are you suggesting human evolutions man value is greater and greater means of play?(keep in mind I am never or rarely expressing my opinion, you dont necessarily know what I think of these things let alone me, im just asking questions)
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Imafungi wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
"Collective" is kind of antithetical to "Superman", even though they stand causally related. A superman engages a lot of human 'resource' in a collective movement. The superman is not the result of improvement, he is the agent of change leading to great unified effort. Caesar was not the result of an improvement, he was a man whose individuality - his subjectivity and values - filled a power vacuum and went on to cause an unprecedented wave of purposeful effort to wash over the continent. The meaning of Rome is to ride out under its banner. Everything is transient - to cause the transit of a paradigm is the most solid 'meaning'.

In the end "enjoyment" is just another word for "meaning" and equally for "justification".

So according to your last sentence, it sounds like your stance would be one of hedonism? And there are no absolute ideals or morals; If a man enjoys raping children so be it, if a man enjoys building space ships so be it?

I had forgotten how most people are stuck in the idea that existence demands a morality.
I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE MIND OF A RAPIST.
RAPISTS EXIST
ONTOLOGY = LOGIC OF EXISTENCE.

NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY.


A rapist exist.
What do you want to say "in my ontology, rapists do not exist?"

Please get this through to yourself.

AN ONTOLOGY DOES NOT PRESCRIBE.



Quote :
If a man commits an act of terrorism and is remembered in history and causes the transit of a paradigm that is more admirable and valuable and worthy then say some small town middle school teacher?

Please make an effort to understand.

Was this not about the Ultimate Value that you wanted to get described?
I try to accommodate you and go way the hell out of my way to phrase things so that you can read them in the terms you want.
But then please make a fucking effort dude.

Don't shut off your brain when you read my posts.

Quote :
Also as you said the individual in this day and age, and usually by rule (not exception) doesnt exist without the collective.

Of course I have not said that.

Quote :
And according to your terms of value, is deemed valuable by and according to the collective.

What the fuck? I have been saying the absolute opposite.

Quote :
Nietzsche was Nietzsche and had all his thoughts and lived his life but never wrote anything down and never spoke to anyone and then died, would he have still been equally valuable?

Listen to yourself.

"If Nietzsche lived his life except he he didn't and he lived a totally different life but forget about that he was still Nietzsche, would he still be Nietzsche to you?"

OF COURSE he would not have had the same effect on me then. And thus not the same value to me.
Do you really need this explained?

If an apple grows except it is really an orange, will it still taste like an apple to you?

Quote :
Or his influence on the collective is what made him valuable? And are you just in love with other peoples egos and characters, you being the collective, value is the potential for a human to do 'great and novel and super' things? Is it not worthy, or valuable for the collective, all humans to attempt to achieve this, or it is thought to be impossible, or it is thought it would lessen the value if everyone was at the same heightened level?

If, if, if - wouldn't it be nice if we are all like, suuuper happy??? And if there was no suffering and everyone would go huggy huggy huggy??? Is that what you're asking?

Go for it. Don't come asking my permission.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Truth and value Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Imafungi wrote:
Why do you put art on such a high pedestal?

VALUES, HOMBRE. Learn the word.

And man and art sure as hell don't need me to put art on a pedestal.
Art could almost be defined as "that which is put on a pedestal by man".

That which man creates beyond his bestial life.

Quote :
Do you think someone who doesn't care for art, or could shrug their shoulders at great and masterful art is 'wrong' or dumb?

I think he seems very unfortunate and bleak - and rare - but 'wrong' - with respect to what 'right'? Why should I even care to judge this hypothetical 'someone' you try to conjure up?

Quote :
Yes I can understand the aspect of play, but at the same time, and prior to play, life is very difficult and demanding struggle, and usually non playful work is necessary for the continuation of life. Having a baby for instance is no walk in the park. So are you suggesting human evolutions man value is greater and greater means of play?

Yes.

Finally, a real question. (though not a real sentence)

Quote :
(keep in mind I am never or rarely expressing my opinion, you dont necessarily know what I think of these things let alone me, im just asking questions)

That is the problem. You try to be objective but your opinions and judgments ooze all over your questions. VO explains why this is so. You can never ask a question that does not rise from your core beliefs, your subconsciously held values. You could not imagine what to ask that's not in some way related to what your being affirms.

So instead of trying to remain impartial - an impartial subject is a contradiction in terms - be partial, be opinionated, be honest, be real, be.



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












Daktoria



Posts : 2
Join date : 2014-01-22


PostSubject: Tolerating the Intolerant Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hello. I was invited here by insightfoul from ILP. You guys seem to have a pretty organized community here.

Anyway, I just had a classic question in mind. How are the tolerant supposed to deal with the intolerant when the intolerant are stronger than the tolerant by default, and the intolerant accuse the tolerant of being hypocrites for not tolerating the intolerant?

The question at hand is a practical one. Is there an argumentation style that can trigger behavior in intolerant people's minds even if it isn't entirely logical?
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: Tolerating the Intolerant Sun Jan 26, 2014 6:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Daktoria wrote:
Hello. I was invited here by insightfoul from ILP. You guys seem to have a pretty organized community here.

Anyway, I just had a classic question in mind. How are the tolerant supposed to deal with the intolerant when the intolerant are stronger than the tolerant by default, and the intolerant accuse the tolerant of being hypocrites for not tolerating the intolerant?

The question at hand is a practical one. Is there an argumentation style that can trigger behavior in intolerant people's minds even if it isn't entirely logical?

Well this is pretty much the idea of law, government, society, community, family. If someone is intolerant of something, and you think that is illogical of them, how is what you think correct/how can you prove it just and correct, and why should you have the power to tell or show or force another person to think or feel a certain way? Do you have an example?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Tolerating the Intolerant Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Daktoria wrote:
Hello. I was invited here by insightfoul from ILP. You guys seem to have a pretty organized community here.

Anyway, I just had a classic question in mind. How are the tolerant supposed to deal with the intolerant when the intolerant are stronger than the tolerant by default, and the intolerant accuse the tolerant of being hypocrites for not tolerating the intolerant?

The question at hand is a practical one. Is there an argumentation style that can trigger behavior in intolerant people's minds even if it isn't entirely logical?

I find the only solution to this problem is to be absurdly intolerant towards intolerance, even to thge point of disacknowledging the existence of the excessively intolerant person. Reflect it back to the intolerant in a way even his traumatized, looping mind can perceive. You can not reason with a fundamentally intolerant person, you can only coerce them into feeling the truth of a matter.

Basically you have to point the intolerant to the fact that his judgment, whether tolerant or not, ends with his person. Tolerance is a consensus, not a given. So all we can do is deny the fact that this intolerant perspective exists - negate it. Tolerance is not a cardinal virtue, it's a derived one. So you can fuck around with its logic without compromising its effect.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Tolerating the Intolerant Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Insightfoul got banned along with the whole "Satyr" circus because his capacity for discourse was so far below the standard that he could only soil the place, decrease the density of quality, value on this board. I find this whole lot intolerant of the very idea of text. The younger ones occasionally show glimpses of honesty and potential, but in general they attack a text as if they know what it says before they read it. This is repressing self-valuing to the subconscious, and utilizing the waking mind strictly for the purpose of ruining everything that is fertile in their subconscious - a kind of suicide in the closet.

Many people use their above average intellect to destroy their instincts. Because many people with above average intellects - at least many who pride themselves on such intellect - have weak bodies and degenerate instincts. But the word we get done here is strictly unifying, it does not allow for the kind of dishonesty and self-rape that passes for profundity in the more depraved sections of the internet philosophy game.



___________
" 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
Meryl

avatar

Posts : 1
Join date : 2014-06-07
Age : 28
Location : Your Mind


PostSubject: Re: Tolerating the Intolerant Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In my view

The world is diverse, diverse means different thoughts, social background, ethics/moral views, experiences and how the individual reacts to them and it goes on and on.

Past experience has taught me that unless you desire to 'conform' with what is considered as 'intolerant' to you, you are going to become a social outcast disregarded from the 'common society' because you think that your level of thinking, your quality of experience and the like is far more superior than what the 'common society' dictates thus bringing forth intolerance and isolation. Then again is that really a curse and are you going to be as isolated as you are really thinking?
Obviously 'conforming' on the other hand requires a little bit of thought into it.
Are you conforming because you fear judgment maybe fear of being left alone, or maybe persecution and another amount of things that different societies contain within?
What if you are actually 'conforming' because you are sure you can gain something from it? Is that actually also intolerant and worthy of judgment? For example, I personally conform because I am otherwise sure that I'll gain something from it.
However if I choose 'conformation' to a certain branch of ideals, thoughts, beliefs because of fear of wrong judgment and rejection I am also probably on the wrong track in my opinion and will still be viewed as a coward.

Now, so as not to deviate too much off topic.
Every individual defines 'intolerant' in a different manner thus creating conflict with other individuals because they are otherwise 'tolerant' towards what you consider as 'intolerant' and vice-versa for you.
I have figured that atheists are intolerant towards brainwashed/indoctrinated religious, and vice versa. I do not see why this should be. An atheist should listen to the rants of a religious since there is always something worthy of understanding, and likewise the other way around without the actual need of conversion whatsoever. The funny thing is that the indoctrinated is being otherwise 'intolerant' towards the atheist but still 'tolerant' as in listening and arguing with a individual of such a belief, and vice-versa. That's only an example there are many more.

Even if you had to build and brainwash enough individuals to actually become more 'tolerant' to your mindset or belief you are deluding yourselves. Because of an individuals diverse reaction to their environment and their experiences, you will always find an individual that is 'intolerant' of whatever you believe.
Hence, you don't 'tolerate' the 'intolerant' you conform towards the 'intolerant' if you are sure or near to sure that there is something to gain from it, otherwise you would just disregard these individuals completely as it is most likely such individuals dull out your way of thinking or give you negative reactions.

Ok, on a brighter note, I've come back after a very long time on this forum and this is probably my first post. I did not find an 'introductions' section so the layout kind of confused me in a way. Let us also forget about how I got here and found out about the existence of such a place. I'm not really here to argue personal matters, I'm here to argue logically, philosophically, theologically and whatever else may be considered as worthy of arguing whilst improving my knowledge and mindset.



___________
"A thousand times we die in one life. We crumble, break and tear apart until the layers of illusion are burned away and all that is left, is the truth of who and what we really are" - Teal Scott
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Tolerating the Intolerant Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is no introductions section, but welcome.

Every noble thinker has rejected conformity to norms of social tolerance, because such norms represent only the absence of thinking, the absence of a self. Rather it would wish to or not truth isolates itself until it can find affinity with its own kind, rather in books, nature, art or wherever.

What is called tolerance today is only a symptom of the continuing degeneration of the human heart. This kind of tolerance will only persist so long as these forms of weakness continue to be socially relevant. No self-valuing can continue to fail to select healthy experiences for itself and live very much longer; the "feeling of the will to power" as Nietzsche called it has been used against the self to cultivate all manner of self-destructions, a parallel to developments in the mind and heart of a growing conscience except that such a conscience is capable of living out the many phases of death through which it must pass along its trajectory of growth- the physical individual of course is not. So such a process mirrored in the substance of society must persist across many generations of depraved individuals, leaving a large swath of destruction behind it.

Ignorance is only the form of self-protection assumed by the individual with respect to such a process against which he feels powerless.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N










Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Destruction and salvation of the human ethical/valuing Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Scientific thinking has infected the political to a very large extent - "eliminating bias", "tolerance", "equality", just to name a few of the catch phrases. Look at the two levels of reality triggered into existence, revealed and tracked by these; on the first hand the obvious emotional and rational appeal to overcome limits like our ignorance, on the deeper less visible level the literal meaning of these, which being literal must certainly register itself on an "unconscious" effect: to eliminate BIAS, to TOLERATE, to be EQUAL. Some more careful thought traces out this secondary reality of effect without too much difficulty.

Man is made to falsify his own emotionality and self-valuing in a negative way by being made, ironically with appeal to that very emoting-thinking core, to register conditions antithetical to the very nature of life/consciousness itself. This has happened as a consequence of scientific (artificial, rational) process entering into and disturbing the much larger and existing whole of the bottom-up organic process of life.

Science only seems counter to philosophical reason because science is still so young and unaware, and because philosophical reason (in the proper sense of reason) is still young also and operating out of the historically and naturally given healthfulness of coexistence between reason and the organic necessity. Philosophy in the sense we here practice it is more like a creating of a new method of reconciling philosophy and non-philosophy, but the thorn in the side of this noble effort is science which shares the root of philosophy too, namely the artificiality of reason.

Science and philosophy diverge as a matter of pragmatic or incidental concern, not because they are truly antithetical. The only absolute divide is between organic bottom-up processing (life, basic consciousness, feelings) and top-down linearizing artificial process (logic, reason).


Let us be clear about our great aim and task: it is not to develop "reason and logic" even after the more elevated sense in which we understand these nor even to try and teach this sense to the lesser sense of science and technology; no, our task concerns the whole human being. We aim with philosophy to give to man the means of surviving and sustaining his self with respect to the absolute divide within him and in particular given how modern science is expanding this divide and its tyrannizing to previously never before seen extents.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:02 am

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Ground of the new philosophy Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Some fragmentary thoughts on what is to be a ground/ing for the philosophy of the future.


1. Consciousness, World, Self.



Consciousness


There exists a range of adequate compensatory self-stimulations and regulations which sustain the self to its experience and possibility which are for that self adequate; these as secure our experiences in a more or less self-grounded way and, in the case of the philosopher, also in line with his ideas and with the central theme of his life. Men achieve these various modes and stages of adequate self-relation largely unconsciously, indeed what has been called the unconscious is just this self's very adequacy. If the concept of endurance has so completely escaped the notice of both men and philosophers it is only because inside this concept and the intimate sense for it lies hidden an equally intimate understanding of one's own particular method and means, the entire 'psychological compendium' of the self; it is not to truth that this need seeks to return man as the sum of him, it is only to himself and that "one idea" of his nature that would be capable of embracing that need. Science spans world and philosophy, attempting by virtue of that partiality to render something of the latter knowable to the former but only blinds man to both as every desire, natural inclination or "will" in him is progressively neutralized and externalized until the world itself has become the empty and idealized reflection of some new god and "identity" under which man and philosopher are now made to live, rather or not they know it or would wish to live in this way. With technology man shrinks in direct proportion to the expansion of his powers of control and pleasure; consciousness gained on the one hand becomes quite necessarily consciousness lost on the other and no truth, no desire, no lust or longing, no grand ideal or historical task is able to rescue man from the failing and self-ruin that has slowly crept upon him and supplanted itself for what would otherwise have been his character, his love and his ethical possibility. The great malaise, cynicism and "depression" of the modern technological era is no accident but is a direct consequence of that modern method: not that knowledge itself is ruinous, but that the particular methods man had been employing for the last several thousand years have culminated today in successfully externalizing the self with respect to its own experience and possible, possibilizing existence.

What has replaced the experience of endurance is a more complete and unfathomable sense of despair and longing, a longing unable to be sated by any of man's frantic activities, pleasures, loves, novelties; by any of his "will to power"; philosophy itself, having attended to its highest state either in this idea of will to power or in that other idea, the whole "scientific" order in which all phenomena rather "physical" or "psychological" are supposedly encompassed and therein somehow raised together into a final image and world, attests to this state of unsated and unending longing for the impossible—men do not wish to endure, only to persist in their present state provided change is not required. Death becomes the mortal enemy of this sadly conscious and "ideal" creature, an ultimate terminus in which his ideas and his feeling can find no foothold, no pleasure, no sanity. We see the insatiable drive to novelty and pleasure-power seeking coupled with an impossibility to face the end of things, even of just this one single life, and consequently observe everywhere the doubling-down of that self-same frenzy, the proliferation of every conceivable means of causing life and the given experience to hold off the end as long as possible. To suck in desperation the very last bits of meat from the marrow of existence, this more than anything else characterizes the modern nature.

For such a nature no concept of endurance is possible, for this concept requires equally an eye for the end of things as for their beginning, a sense for the completion of a passion, an impulse, a task or life that is absolutely required if a thing is to be made to "endure" in itself at all. Any "will to death" is equally unnecessary as any fear of it, only a sense for death as necessary player in the overall schema of a being or a life is required, and that form which is made to enjoy in its own nature most of all will naturally draw around itself all possible tectonic thresholds of additional experience and reality to enable a lasting impression and effect, it will in short accomplish "without effort" what all men and philosophers, all moralities and truth-desire has only aspired to: it will truly live, will truly endure as itself and no other thing and consequently call to all the rest of existence that it too would do the same.

The world does not need this truth, this comprehensiveness, neither does the natural world, the instincts or society need it; only man needs it, only man is constituted with respect to this possibility of living a higher and more complete kind of life. Thus only man may suffer on account of its lack, in proportion to that lack and to the extent that he is a man and not merely a slightly acculturated, slightly more domesticated beast. Upon this implied pathos of affliction has the real task of philosophy taken shape, as yet inexpressible, although the excess latent to such natures makes itself felt undeniably and comes to define that singular law by which such more rare men live. This feeling, this "negative drive" had yet to impregnate man with a new dawn, has yet to serve as that endurance and certainty of vantage and vitality on which becomes possible an equally complete, non-pathological living, although such more affirmative and eventual manifestations are already incipient here or there, already quietly beginning to take shape.


World

"Material" and "immaterial": the new gods, equally imaginary as the old, which the collected thoughts and efforts of man have presently come to require. Only as man continuously "reverses" his idea in this essentially subjective error—just as the modern forms of this error have reversed and replaced those still-older forms—will cause be given for a new truth, for a new "order of error", to appear before him.



Self


Our clear, specific values rather these be a goal, a desire or an idea must be secondary and not placed essentially before the totality of our experience for, being narrow and defined, these values are unable to hold to themselves at the high regions of the self's more complete activity; each value better takes its impetus from our drives and the cooperative force of our instinct than from the more general and specious powers of thought and to the extent our values represent to us states of passion or inspired sentiment this is especially true. The self is the generalized form of self-value and cannot be made subject to specific values, just as no emotion can be held entirely in those objects in the presence of which it is first expressed—the self is that which conditions our values, our passions, our ideas, and never simply what has emerged as conditioned by these.

The exception to this rule is when a valuation becomes more general and reflects this totality of self directly, broadly encompassing consciousness in a singular 'idea' of it, namely in the case of philosophy. The philosopher allows himself to become conditioned by his values, rather or not these are philosophical in nature, and consequently experiences a growing impoverishment of those ranges of his thought, passion, activity that are unable to become assumed under his one idea; these others are quite simply too particular of forces to become secondarily energized by virtue of the cognitive apparatus, not being "of the body" alone but rather indicative of both the mind and its physiological, phenomenological roots. Thus the philosopher must grapple with himself in order to learn the limits of his own living consciousness, those strangely varied and egotistical shades of his soul must be sounded out not in his thoughts but just as they are, negative spaces where reason sees little but feels much. Each individual drive and instinct in us, each particularly concretized quantum of our self-valuing experience must be discovered and found out in this careful, quieter way—those philosophers who have no sense for this, who lack a more artistic touch find it impossible to capture the complete range of themselves and so become mad in some idea or valuation-mechanism as happens to captivate their reason long enough to act as a Lethe by which they may forget themselves, may forget the need to ever remember that once they wept before the high mountain and mystery of themselves, which sentimentality and passion had once served as the birth of their reason.

Our human consciousness is like a mosaic whose individual colors and images may only be beheld as sum, or individually only in terms implicit to the whole from which they derive their wider meaning and position. Self-denial, much like the self-penitence and mortifications of the flesh of the monks, or the severe self-austerity of the ascetics, is just a negative recognition of this basic fact of life, of that nature moving everywhere back and forth, up and down within itself from particular to general and back again; it rests in the whole when the parts are functioning effortlessly to themselves and it rests in these parts only when the one idea, the entire body of gathered self-value has given cause for these parts to persist without also distorting them beyond their measure and capacity to contain that disorder.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:02 am

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I

I value myself, therefore I am.
I recognize other beings by their self-valuing
I encourage their attempts to do so to my benefit
I will fight their attempts to do so at my cost

This is how I set my values.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:51 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
II

Appreciation is the expression of superior standards
superior standards imply the presence of inferior standards
Man loves to behold the superior
Man loves to be aware of the existence of inferiority

Man loves difference, because he loves the feeling of power it gives him. Even in his conviction that all are equal, a man will seek to be different, to excel, and to come out over those that oppose his views.

Man is ready to accept his own possible inferiority for the existence of the possibility to be superior.
The American Dream reflects this, in the same vein as Roman Citizenship once did. "Accept you're an inferior, and you begin to climb the ladder to membership of the elite." All initiation process begin this way.

For all to be equal, there must be absence of hierarchy. This means the absence of lasting progress.

Axiomatic human equality precludes human improvement.

And yet, the American Dream consisted of that very Axiom. The key to this riddle is that the equality only pertained to those men who were given the legal right derived from that Axiom.

Legal Right is the ground of true, noble, standard-setting Equality.
To give each human the right to his own actions, this is to force each human to exist, in the sense of sentence 1 of this thread. It is to enforce him to be different.

The civic right to behave as equals: yes
The civic duty to treat as equals: no
The government right to behave as equals: no
The government duty to treat as equals: yes.

Government is the axiomatic opposite of citizen. Citizenship under opposing government means self-valuing under an opposing self-renouncing apparatus.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I value myself, therefore I am.
I recognize other beings by their self-valuing
I encourage their attempts to do so to my benefit
I will fight their attempts to do so at my cost

This is how I set my values.

First conclusion: To cause struggle, rather than to avoid it, belongs to the first set of axiomatically derived values.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Given its natural origins to I needed to ground this here, but posted working versions on KTS and H. I might bring it to ILP as well, or not. I will probably end up referring to it, but prefer to refer to KTS to keep polarizing, connecting to peoples pathos about (in)equality, forcing them to confront the issue by speaking to their instincts.

In any case, please feel free to add to this, and to call things into question. I wrote it in a quick impulse but I think it addresses the main issue that makes the ontology a fertile ground to a working, living ethics (see Pezers signature) - the dual expression of the philosopher: to value other self-valuings on the principle of their self-valuing, and the affirmation of the necessary differences that arise from this.

This is what Sloterdijk explains as the thymotic impulse of the subject, opposed to its erotic response to objects. The latter results in ideas of equality, the former results in assertion of inequality, i.e. quality.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself- he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself "man," that is, the valuator."
(Zarathustra, of the Thousand and One Goals)


Fundamental to mans consistent being-as-himself, is his activity of valuing in terms of himself. By this he assimilates material and grows as himself. How is a consistent valuing possible? The simple answer would be: by being a consistent subject. But this only create a a circular argument, and leaves open the question of how there can be a valuing, a being. How does a subject maintain its perspectival consistency, its structural integrity, whereby it values in terms of itself? To explain this we must posit a self-valuing, which is to say, a holding-oneself-as-value, whereby this “oneself” is nothing else than this consistent holding-as-value, in engaging the outer world. This consistency of a self-holding standard-value, is what amounts to being, the accumulation of more and more material to feed and sustain a structurally consistent growing, “a becoming”.

We are faced with the problem of identifying in technical, specific terms what this self-valuing is. We may not be able to describe or define it in the terms we are used to, in which we like to acquire knowledge, the terms which are developed to describe the manifest in exact measurements. The collection of these terms and their proper logic, that of mathematics, is what we refer to as exact science.

Observing the manifest world in scientific terms, we use principles such as quantity, causality, energy-tranferring and interacting, motion, temporality. All these are enabled and interconnected by the laws of mathematics, which is the logic of objective equalies. It relies on given and exactly determined values, which can be defined in terms of each other. It is here that the philosophy of value ontology posits a break with the method of science. The philosopher is not satisfied with positing values as if they are unquestionably given, it is his task to investigate why, or more precisely, how they are given. Mathematics can not provide an answer to this, as such would go directly against the axioms of this science, which include always the word “if”. If "A" is given, then A is given as A. It does not posit that A is given - it is as if A can be anything - which is not the case. Possibilities are limited. Deepening of logical power occurs now that we have abstract terms for the possibility of existing.

The aim is to embed language into being, to absolve it of its abstracting, detaching compulsion. The means is to embed being into grammar.

The great philosophersof the modern age have attemped such positive statements in various ways, beginning with Descartes, who posited the certainty “I think therefore I am”, or, read properly in context, “I question that anything is, therefore I am”. Nietzsche and others observed that this “I” who questions is not actually given as an exactly understandable unit. What is this “I” that is, and that questions that anything is, and that posits that he is because he questions that anything is? Descartes accomplished bringing himself the experiential certainty that there is such a thing as himself. He does not bring the certainty that anything else is, in fact he calls this somewhat into question, challenges the other to reveal itself at least to itself; he does not reveal what they are or why they can be said to exist; If the only ground for knowledge of what is is to cognate in the way Descartes was doing, then only thinkers can be known to exist, and only by themselves. Clearly this is not a useful definition of being. It is also not an exact application of logic, as it assumes the “I” both in "I think" and "I exist". The terms “I”, “exist” and “think” are not a mathematical terms: “I exist” can not mathematically be inferred from “I think”.

To draw certainty from Descartes logic, we must look at the meaning of the word “Am” in “I Am”. We must correctly observe the meaning of the verb “to be”.We must logically be satisfied with the given that what we call “being” by definition is in being (exists) - this is the only meaningful and correct way to employ the verb at all. The analytical certainty is “I am, therefore I am”. By this phrase, “I” is defined, namely, as that which, apparently, is said by itself to exist. What have we come to know by this? Nothing.

It is here that philosophy must break from science, from the pretense to be able to define the terms “I” and “exist” and “cognate” in terms of each other by exact inference. We must simply be honest, and admit that all three of these terms are simply understood by us, to mean precisely... what we understand by them! No further explication is necessary, no more exact explication is possible. The terms were called into being to describe exactly what we mean when we use the terms. They hold no deeper meaning than what they were invented to convey.

So to further philosophical understanding, that to which the terms “I” and “think” and “exist” were invented to convey must be explicated in more exacting terms. We can observe that these terms all three of them refer to the very same thing. “I”, “think” and “am” are all words indicating the same. This also includes the things to which other terms refer, such as “eat” or “walk”. As true as “I think, therefore I am” is, is also “I eat, therefore I am”. By disconnecting Descartes logic from his situation in which it emerged, we see that the “I” is posited as a condition of “think”, as much as “think” is a condition of “I”. Therefore, when I posit that “I eat”, I posit an “I” which, by common interpretation of grammar, means that I posit that (an) “I” exist(s).

We see that “I” simply means “existing” and that this existing can be expressed in the endless variety of verbs that may pertain to a posited I. That is all the I is; it allows a verb to make sense, to indicate an activity.

The I is thus always an activity.

In short, we relate activity to values, we act to express and obtain values, and these values allows us to continue acting. The values thus reflect a central value, the acting agent, the "I", who is by all acts bestowing value on himself and so creating his world, which is largely defined by the way he encounters it. If he encounters it consistently, he becomes master over it. If he encounters it according to the ways in which the world engages him, he becomes slave to it. In a normal being, there is a balance. Happiness in mastery increasing, unhappiness is responsiveness increasing. Depression is overloaded responsiveness. The only cure for depression is physical, physiological expression of anger and undergoing the consequences with a measure of of indifferent curiosity toward ones own psychology, so that one can begin discerning ones natural values and reject imposed, unnatural ones.

To exist, one must be able to value consistently, which means that the standard must be consistent. I act so to obtain a value, an object, a thing-and-goal. But if I do not structurally attain my goals, my self-valuing will suffer. So establishing the appropriate values is implicit in existing. Since all that I do is predicated and justified by a specific type of valuing, and since “I” can only be explicated in terms of what I do, the I is nothing besides this establishing-value-to-myself. This is what we seek to maintain or repair - the activity of structurally setting attainable values, the attainment of which will result in a capacity to attain higher values. This is how power increases, by structural value-setting. In man, this needs to be conscious, because those that do this consciously win, defeat others. Man is conscious being so his self-valuing needs to be conscious in order for his integrality, his structural integrity, his 'soul', to survive. His intellect needs consistency.

Ontologically, in all cases the value-establishing to the I leads to a continuation of its capacity to set values for itself, this type of valuing must be understood as a constant, a type of valuing that is itself a consistency, a standard of value -- which means that its consistency must be understood as an activity.

Consistency is the fundamental activity.

We can verify this in terms of the periodic table and at the same time we so verify the logic of this categorization that nature apparently produces on her own accord, by asking what makes for a consistency of an elements. We may consider the most consistent to be those which are least influenced by other elements or energies. The are the 'noble' elements. What make as an element noble is that it does not change internally in reaction to outward stimuli. It holds no potential for internal change, is never inconsistent with itself. It is universe enclosed in itself, all of its values are perfectly attainable, for ever. Gold is this absolutely active; it holds in its structure the maximum amount activities, its many electron rings are filled, its inner tensions are all in play. Maximization of activity within a given structure amounts to a maximal consistency.

Contemplate the correspondence between consistency, activity, the noble elements, and value.







[Jan 2012]



___________
" 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
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Fri May 29, 2015 2:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I

I value myself, therefore I am.
I recognize other beings by their self-valuing
This is how I set my values.

i can go along with the first two with a qualification. Can't we also recognize other beings despite their not valuing self?



Quote :
I encourage their attempts to do so to my benefit
I will fight their attempts to do so at my cost

I don't know, Fixed Cross. You may not mean it the way in which it sounds to me, but you seem to be saying that as long as you get something out of the way in which they self-value their self, you can go along with it but if it doesn't offer you anything in return, it's unacceptable to you - even if the way in which they are self-valuing is real and authentic.




___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Fri May 29, 2015 3:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think he means that if their self-valuing is harmful to himself then he will naturally resist and attempt to preserve his own self-valuing in the face of their threats to it. I don't think he is saying anything about opposing any self-valuing that has no benefit to him, that would be something else entirely.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Fri May 29, 2015 10:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Indeed, that would require that I value myself in terms of others failure, rather than of my own experience.

I would ask of anyone who thinks of my selfvaluing ethics ( double entendre intended) as cruel or bad to consider the organisms perishing daily to keep him/her alive.

I am not a cruel person, I do not like to hurt beings and I lie awake in agony often as I am overcome with images of the torture going on somewhere at that moment. This is a result of a very painfully acute honesty, which also forces ne to recognkze the truth anout values --- they will always contradict
That tension is more or less the fabric of the universe.

Many of my readers overlook that an ontology is not a reflection of free will or of desires; but of inevitabilities which are as often the cause of tragedy as they are of joy.

The art of life; as people such as Jesus teach, is to stay true to what one loves and to take the suffering that comes with that. This is the price of having values, of being -- it hurts, because the value of the fulfillment of this or that being is never a universal value.

To resist the pain of that struggle is, however, the universal marker of worth.



___________
" 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
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sat May 30, 2015 7:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross

Quote :
Indeed, that would require that I value myself in terms of others failure, rather than of my own experience.
As for the latter, that is a beautiful thought. As for the former, there are many out there who do just that and where would the true value in that be? I wonder what we actually gain in seeking an advantage and in taking an unjust one? Certainly not ourselves.

Quote :
I would ask of anyone who thinks of my selfvaluing ethics ( double entendre intended) as cruel or bad to consider the organisms perishing daily to keep him/her alive.
I wasn't suggesting that. Language is not an easy thing to completely understand another's thoughts.
I've heard the "organisms perishing" argument. How would we solve that situation though - short of killing ourselves.
If we could consciously do something to allow those organisms to live, we would wouldn't we? And let's not forget either that these organisms do not have consciousness though their will to survive may be far greater than ours - look how long they've been around.

Quote :
I am not a cruel person, I do not like to hurt beings and .

I have never seen you as cruel. I may be more cruel than you in certain instances.

Quote :
I lie awake in agony often as I am overcome with images of the torture going on somewhere at that moment
I've been known to do that myself in certain degees. But really what purpose or function does that serve except to put us in hell bit by bit. We can't always embrace these things but we do have to realize realistically that they do exist and do whatever to help things along. There was a time that I was more that way. But at some point you come to realize that you can destroy yourself bit by bit in that way, die a little bit. Is that really necessary to try to change some things?

Quote :
This is a result of a very painfully acute honesty, which also forces ne to recognkze the truth anout values --- they will always contradict
That tension is more or less the fabric of the universe.

Why do they contradict do you think? Because we are human creatures with desires which need to be met - our creature natures conflict with our consciousness, with our consciences, which are part of our authentic selves, unless we're scrupulous that is . I think they can live in harmony together though. How do we do that?

Quote :
The art of life; as people such as Jesus teach, is to stay true to what one loves and to take the suffering that comes with that
.

But why must there be suffering with it? I'm not saying to avoid what suffering there is but how to change that suffering - to transform it into something more. Why does there have to be the suffering - is it only because we think it has to be there?

Quote :
This is the price of having values, of being -- it hurts, because the value of the fulfillment of this or that being is never a universal value.

But if we just ALLOW things - maybe understanding on another level, that this is just as it is, why would we have to have the pain and suffering? Why couldn't it just be transformed into joy - without lying to ourselves that is. Try to just begin to see things differently. That's not to say that at the same time we don't see things as they - and just to work toward changing that. We can allow at first or at the same time and move forward changing it. Maybe that didn't make any sense to you.

Quote :
To resist the pain of that struggle is, however, the universal marker of worth.

There is another way of looking at this, don't you think. To allow the pain of the struggle, to see it for what it is, and then to move forward I think is wiser.
The more I resist something, the more I find I am struggling with it. When I can relax and accept it, which for me, can be like climbing Mt. Everest, the easier it becomes. The struggle can be seen as nothing more than evolving graciously.



___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sat May 30, 2015 7:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If we truly do see ourselves as valuing ourselves, why do we do things or think things to allow ourselves to suffer UNNECESSARILY?
There is true value in suffering but only if it serves a higher purpose than our suffering unncessarily.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:03 am

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Technical problems vs moral problems Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Technical problems are addressed directly and first in order; if it can be done somehow, we will do it. Why? Because we can. That's what it means to be human, in a large way. Moral problems are more difficult, they are tackled indirectly and second, usually utility intrudes and frames the context. Low energy morality operates within that context as best as possible, whereas higher energy morality operates in order to break free from that context, or at least to act outside of it.

A moral problem involves much more expenditure of resources and consciousness, a much higher degree of being, than a technical problem. Moral problems trace oppositional spaces where the grounds and conditions of various 'ideal' elements clash, this is why there is a natural appeal to low-energy solutions of utilitarianism. But certain organizations of the mis-overlap of ideal components preclude utility solutions, in other words higher morality becomes possible as being becomes more and more inwardly differential and non-reducible.

Synthesis in the opposite direction of reduction involves creating new links and ideal fibers, derived substances and inter-dependence. Reductive logic, such as much of science's approach now, is literally working to subvert the mind; but that subversion is only adding new differential layers that other minds elsewhere will take upon themselves the task of entering into new synthetic orders. Can technical problems be reduced to moral ones? No, but in the sense that technical problems form necessary aspects of more ideal issues and situations for individual humans we can absolve the merely technical through moral absorption or what is maybe called conscience, or the soul.




___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Technical problems vs moral problems Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Technical problems are addressed directly and first in order; if it can be done somehow, we will do it. Why? Because we can. That's what it means to be human, in a large way. Moral problems are more difficult, they are tackled indirectly and second, usually utility intrudes and frames the context. Low energy morality operates within that context as best as possible, whereas higher energy morality operates in order to break free from that context, or at least to act outside of it.

A moral problem involves much more expenditure of resources and consciousness, a much higher degree of being, than a technical problem. Moral problems trace oppositional spaces where the grounds and conditions of various 'ideal' elements clash, this is why there is a natural appeal to low-energy solutions of utilitarianism. But certain organizations of the mis-overlap of ideal components preclude utility solutions, in other words higher morality becomes possible as being becomes more and more inwardly differential and non-reducible.

Synthesis in the opposite direction of reduction involves creating new links and ideal fibers, derived substances and inter-dependence. Reductive logic, such as much of science's approach now, is literally working to subvert the mind; but that subversion is only adding new differential layers that other minds elsewhere will take upon themselves the task of entering into new synthetic orders. Can technical problems be reduced to moral ones? No, but in the sense that technical problems form necessary aspects of more ideal issues and situations for individual humans we can absolve the merely technical through moral absorption or what is maybe called conscience, or the soul.



Can technical problems be reduced to moral ones

By technical, do you mean:

involving, or concerned with applied and industrial sciences.
3.resulting from mechanical failure

or did you mean -
.... according to a strict application or interpretation of the law or rules.

Either one might apply.




___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Technical problems vs moral problems Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Anything that involves merely machinic computations and solutions or is approached simply as "can it be done?" without any concern for if or why it should be done. So both of your examples could fit that.

This kind of technical problematizing occurs often in philosophy as well, and has more or less wrapped an entire ethos and personality around itself by now.

Another interesting thing I got from this topic is how morality is structural as deep-seated inabilities to reconcile mental and-or emotional elements to a common reductive framework. Morality is kind of the self-integrity of that soul whose depths of living and experience have been varied enough o prevent epistemic and self-valuing closure into a small number of habituated pattern-responses. Morality is ontologically secondary-derivative but subjectively primary-prescriptive.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Technical problems vs moral problems Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable


Quote :
Anything that involves merely machinic computations and solutions or is approached simply as "can it be done?" without any concern for if or why it should be done. So both of your examples could fit that.

So that would be the first step in problem solving - seeing it and remaining disinterested in a sense?



Quote :
This kind of technical problematizing occurs often in philosophy as well, and has more or less wrapped an entire ethos and personality around itself by now.

So you might be speaking here about some particular perspective - like for instance - "Can the existence of god really be proven" Is that what you mean by "technical problematizing"?



Quote :
Another interesting thing I got from this topic is how morality is structural as deep-seated inabilities to reconcile mental and-or emotional elements to a common reductive framework
.

I understand what you're saying here but at the same time, wouldn't you admit that for many, morality is purely based on automatic belief andnot so much of a struggle to define what is really right and good? Or is that what you are in actuality saying?

Quote :
Morality is kind of the self-integrity of that soul whose depths of living and experience have been varied enough to prevent epistemic and self-valuing closure into a small number of habituated pattern-responsesn . Morality is ontologically secondary-derivative but subjectively primary-prescriptive.

I suppose that the term "morality" also works here but I myself would prefer the word "ethics" for some reason.


What do you mean by this:

Quote :
varied enough to prevent epistemic and self-valuing closure into a small number of habituated pattern-responses

Do you mean for instance "not jumping the gun" and judging something before one has the time to really observe and evaluate it for what it is in all of its reality? And/or having an open mind?



___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Technical problems vs moral problems Fri Aug 14, 2015 4:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Can technical problems be reduced to moral ones? No, but in the sense that technical problems form necessary aspects of more ideal issues and situations for individual humans we can absolve the merely technical through moral absorption or what is maybe called conscience, or the soul.

Can you give me a real-life example of what you mean here? I'm probably not understanding what you're really saying but it seems to me that you're reducing "morality" to conscience. Perhaps as a positive force you can say that conscience influences our moral thinking and behavior BUT - then what?







I'll be back.



___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Technical problems vs moral problems Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Another concern is that moral problems are often rendered falsely as simply technical problems, that issues of fundamental conflict of values, ideals, meaning or philosophic necessity can be approached only by looking to the particular situational conditions in which the momentary representation of the problem has arisen and focusing exclusively on those conditions, perhaps ameliorating some minor issue or working to move those conditions slightly toward a state in which the moral problem becomes easier to ignore given our pathological inclinations. Thus moral problems can be made to disappear to a mind assuming this kind of approach, which vanishing of the moral sphere behind the image of the material-momentary conditions that mind takes as a sign the problem has been addressed, even solved.

This idiocy has found a good home among common thought, perhaps most easily seen in approach to political issues; the idiocy has also, regrettably, found just as good a home in philosophy.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Technical problems vs moral problems Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Another concern is that moral problems are often rendered falsely as simply technical problems, perhaps ameliorating some minor issue or working to move those conditions slightly toward a state in which the moral problem becomes easier to ignore given our pathological inclinations.

This idiocy has found a good home among common thought, perhaps most easily seen in approach to political issues; the idiocy has also, regrettably, found just as good a home in philosophy.

I don't know if the above post was in response to mine.


Quote :
that issues of fundamental conflict of values, ideals, meaning or philosophic necessity can be approached only by looking to the particular situational conditions in which the momentary representation of the problem has arisen and focusing exclusively on those conditions,

I wouldn't say ONLY but wouldn't you agree at least in part that certain issues - moral/ethical problems need to be evaluated and judged on particular situational conditions? Unless I'm not understanding you here.
After all, when it comes to human behavior and thought, one size does not necessarily fit all.

Quote :
Thus moral problems can be made to disappear to a mind assuming this kind of approach, which vanishing of the moral sphere behind the image of the material-momentary conditions that mind takes as a sign the problem has been addressed, even solved.

Wouldn 't you call this Lying To One's Self or sweeping the dirt under the carpet?
For someone who truly cares about particular issues and would want to get to the bottom of it/them, this wouldn't be the case.
For others, they become like the ostrich with his/her head in the sand.



___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel












Pezer
Image
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: An Important Element in Value Philosophy Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
An important element in value philosophy (to me, value philosophy is value ontology as applies to humans for humans), without daring to make the claim for ontology, is this: that the entire scope of action for an individual is determined by his active valuings. He may percieve values, but only those product of his own action are the totality of what he can value of the world. So, for example, if Pithagoras only ever actively valued mathematics, he was only able to value and act upon the world perceptually in terms of the marthematics he concocted. Other values may have not escaped him, but action was only possible via mathematics.

I could also call this the theory of excess in evolution. Then, maybe, I would dare to suggest it to value ontology. But then, you know how I feel about logic...

I think this accounts quite well for political human history.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: An Important Element in Value Philosophy Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
An important element in value philosophy (to me, value philosophy is value ontology as applies to humans for humans), without daring to make the claim for ontology, is this: that the entire scope of action for an individual is determined by his active valuings. He may percieve values, but only those product of his own action are the totality of what he can value of the world. So, for example, if Pithagoras only ever actively valued mathematics, he was only able to value and act upon the world perceptually in terms of the marthematics he concocted. Other values may have not escaped him, but action was only possible via mathematics.

I could also call this the theory of excess in evolution. Then, maybe, I would dare to suggest it to value ontology. But then, you know how I feel about logic...

I think this accounts quite well for political human history.

Some very sound propositions.

I very much feel drawn to the basic idea; which implies that we separate active from passive being in terms of deliberation. What can we/an entity be deliberate about?

Active valuing and being- deliberate are indeed akin, alike even.

It is true that few things produce more chaos and disaster than people acting from a state of deliberateness in a field where they can not actively value.

Politics; indeed.

Precisely for this reason however it may not be in vain to initiate some theory - this thus obviously only goes for those who value it - about politics qua politics, that is to say political theory but with philosophical purity of intent.

Leo Strauss has been quite sound in this respect. The result is that he is to most people quite unreadable; but to some reads like revelation.

The definition of VP as VO as applied to humans for humans seems perfectly correct to me.



The implications of your general idea are enormous. Its something that has been crossing my mind; but never quite exactly.

It means we can basically prescribe "diets of activity" and de-generalize " Man" and kill the idea of general human representation, the "hollow word become flesh".

the term "talent" , which has been hovering around, comes into its own here, as nothing less than concrete, particular valuing capacity.
One works on what one values, what one values is part of oneself, one works, by talent, on oneself, which is "the good (world)"

Once again, a thought that shakes up our conception of passive and active: in such thoughts I recognize the truthfulness of mind before language.

The very most problematic aspect of language is that it presumes that activity is contingent upon passivity (just-there-ness) which is essential: it is rather the other way around.

Humanity is no a priori universal. A universal is attained when potential is exhaustively explicated.



___________
" 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: An Important Element in Value Philosophy Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes! And I really like the world talent. To me, the greatest revelation here on passivity and activity is like a volcano. The eruptions of the past are fundamental, probably more so than the present one, but only the present one determines movement and new shapes and hellish passion: life. In the end, the present eruption will contain the old as all the eruptions before it did. Maybe in some places the old will still peek out, maybe this depends on the size and force of the eruption.

Completely off topic, but I have to say it: the day Nietzsche published Human, All Too Human in 1883, an island was born in Indonesia from a volcano erupting.

Anyway, the volcano analogy may be too dehuminizing. I do fervently believe some valuings are like retarded sons who get violent.

I don't think it is because they are unable to value, I think one would have to look inside the values like a doctor: why was it so ambitious? What instincts were fed with what ideas? What was the intention? Intention, after all, also depends on what has already been actively valued.

A theory of philosophically strong politics would be quite good. As an excercice, it would, if nothing else, contribute to settling the age old question about philosophy's potential in politics. And, if made with enough care and clarity of intentions, it might absolutely be the bomb. With the slogan "nothing is a priori universal," I think we could go far.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:05 am

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Defin(it)e philosophy Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Taking things to the next level now:

I think we need to start better differentiating philosophy from "philosophy", the latter being a kind of self-discharging, self-edifying psychological act of seeking this or that particular organization of the contents of our inner experience, such organizations as conform better to some will or passion we happen to be feeling as primary at this one moment or another.. in other words, something to make our psychology easier to ourselves, a utility. Or maybe a kind of personality compensation.

Yes we need those things, but that is really not philosophy.

This is interesting to me: Parodites wrote to the effect that the inner experience of animals is an undifferentiated stream of feelings and sense, a kind of chaos from which no single thing can be isolated, and everything flows into and mingles with everything else, whereas in man we have language, words, forms, which we use to insert degrees of difference into the undifferentiated stream of inner experience which is our own animality (we separate, isolate one thing from another and thus become conscious of the differences or variances between them). He then adds that the pre-human animal state is basically the same thing as a Heraclitean "flux", the idea of reality as chaos, constant change.

If this is true, then we cannot allow our philosophy to devolve into anything like a Heraclitean view or value. Change-chaos is not "the truth", nor is it a ground of reason, nor is it a virtue -- spinning our wheels in "being is becoming, is being, is becoming, is..." just won't work. This kind of view can hide itself as "evolution" or as "will to power", probably as other systems I'm not thinking of right now; however, while these views cannot be considered philosophy they are certainly capable of being psychologically uplifting and thus may inspire our philosophy, which means succeed at liberating something in us that had otherwise existed merely as part of that undivided, undifferentiated experience (which I will add a thought here and refer to that undifferentiated flow of experience as what we humans consider forgetting, our capacity to forget something; the animal remainder in us).

So I submit that philosophy is the degrees of separation we insert into the consciousness-stream of our own 'undifferentiated experience' which we usually refer to as our psyche or self-experience. Being oriented toward something isn't anything particularly interesting, insects do this, so do plants. Rather than try to pull up animals, plants and insects to our human level I would like to push them down far below us. That may seem unduly cruel, or presumptuous - I think that, if we take time to consider this carefully, however, we will see it is not at all presumptuous or cruel... what could be more benevolent than to set every thing beautifully in its own place, to speak clearly its existence without falsity of self-imposition?

Philosophy as... depth. I've been saying that for a while now, this has concretized into my unyielding position. I respect that it is not the position of others, or of philosophy traditionally. But where I see this kind of "negativity" upheld as a standard of truth-seeking I smile. I see it in Socrates, too in the best parts of Nietzsche. Nonetheless the real philosophical task is to create something, we should be building, "system building" which has gotten an absurd bad rap from many philosophers. Where do we start with such a system attempt? I think we can start with this one insight which is itself so seemingly impossible to form into anything like a system or even a philosophical idea - the insight of a radical, absolute negativity, of truth as depth. This idea alone cannot do much, but when we pair it with the contents of our minds and hearts, there is no end to what we can achieve.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sat Sep 19, 2015 2:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Philosophy has always engaged with common sense. Perhaps this is what scares philosophers about a system: that they might veer away from it.

Socrates called it remembering, but this betrays the fact that something is built around perception. Depth, negativity, this in hand we can proceed to make a system that will maintain structuraly the clarity that usually, until now, has been ephimeral, with the only intent of potentiating the power that the philosopher has in engaging commonsense. The type that is, in fact, separated from mere confusion.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sat Sep 19, 2015 8:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"So I submit that philosophy is the degrees of separation we insert into the consciousness-stream of our own 'undifferentiated experience' which we usually refer to as our psyche or self-experience."



Yes, I think that this is one of philosophy's higher realizations, though I use the word "discontiguity" to describe those degrees of separation, and I also utilize the concept of "reifying discontiguous consciousness" to describe philosophizing itself. I write of it in some detail here:


In truth, this "wondrous capacity" owes itself to what I call the double-movement of
consciousness, and is to be understood by the two functions of the philosophic ideas and
categories. The first function of a philosophic idea is to introduce a kind of negative space
to consciousness, an illusionary center upon which the movement of thought can take
shape self-destructively, a space in which the transition from one moment of experience,
one drive, and one sensuous impression to another may be discovered; it is in this
moment that the reflexively coordinated drives operating upon man, organized by nature
over millennium, are decomposed and witnessed to in isolation, it is in this moment that
the drives and senses become isolated moments in consciousness and their contrast,
discontiguity, and variance become perceptible. Once this transition from the one
conscious state to another is discovered, their inequality, their variance and disparity are
re-inscribed in a new idea which serves as the basis for a novel series of polarizations of
the eroto-daemonic energies, just as the concept of a God became the reification of the
variance between bodily instinct and the free will, insofar as it is through God that all
possibilities for expression of that freedom, in good and evil, are derived. The ontological
scaffolding ascends heavenward in this way; this new idea itself, in time, comes to serve
the first function again, being used to discover variance in the moments and transitions of
experience, so that yet more ideas must be produced to re-unite self-consciousness as a
unity and totality. The philosophic ideas in this manner decompose the beast in man, and
in turn re-organize the freed, erotic forces into the deity within man. The "qualitative
irreducibility" of these fundamental philosophic ideas is the basis of their primary and
secondary functions, of the entire ontological scaffolding, and thus this picture of logic I
have described is completely at odds with the coincidientia oppositorum, the union of
opposing ideas by means of synthetic reason, itself the fulcrum on which all dialectics is
based.



___________
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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Once this transition from the one conscious state to another is discovered, their inequality, their variance and disparity are re-inscribed in a new idea which serves as the basis for a novel series of polarizations of the eroto-daemonic energies, just as the concept of a God became the reification of the variance between bodily instinct and the free will, insofar as it is through God that all possibilities for expression of that freedom, in good and evil, are derived. The ontological scaffolding ascends heavenward in this way; this new idea itself, in time, comes to serve the first function again, being used to discover variance in the moments and transitions of experience, so that yet more ideas must be produced to re-unite self consciousness as a unity and totality. The philosophic ideas in this manner decompose the beast in man, and in turn re-organize the freed, erotic forces into the deity within man.

Ah, this is excellent. It is clinical, we can follow the process step by step. Thereby I can now recognize the grounds and ends (the same thing here) to my "idealization" of (specific) animals.

The ground is two fold. First, its external ground: the process of dissimilation of the animal makes me extremely aware of the 'fabric' of the animal, I've had it unweave thread by thread in/as my consciousness. Second, its internal, inherent ground: the process of 'vertically' rebuilding the ego on the fluxing ground which is both its dissimulated animality and its experience of itself-as-process (which in some men serves as the potent shamanic 'primordial soup') can only go so far without discovering parallels in the godly world to the animal world; the vertical and horizontal plane aren't entirely asymmetrical. It is most often the 'wolf' or 'bird' which is recognized in this process as a profound archetype of consciousness; we can now see how an animal can in fact enact consciousness quite uncannily, or consciousness uncannily reflects specific animal behaviors; this is because the primordial soup, or the center of the Greek theatre as the threshing floor, the inner circle, is not fundamentally different in its behavior than the primordial soup of the earth, from which life was born as divinity is born of the magmaic substance into which the bones of instincts have crumbled; because both processes still take place under the sun.

The sun of Life is 'only' the heat-source, and orientation of motion, the continuity in change providing the climates, but the sun of Mind is the nadir toward which thought is urged, as you say the limit of the being, which man first placed not at the sun but at the edge of the flat earth, reflecting mans still animal kingdom, and only when the animal perspective had dissolved so far as to no longer provide an active center, did man realize the concept 'center', and could he imagine the spherical Earth, and was forced to turn his gaze upward to experience the sensation of conquest. This is where the planets become a source of fixation. Astrology is the original empirical method; at first it was not disentangled from the human will, the progressions on earth were suffered under the light of the progressions in the heavens. As above, so below; the cosmos (the order we perceive) is shaped in the same necessities as the mind and the early earth; the uncanny precision of the plane of the planets, the seamlessly repeating patterns of their respective positions, all of this suggests that the universe as it is now was not effectively/directly formed out of a large explosion and following vortexes and collisions, but out of a gradual coming into existence under the auspices of the selfvaluing principle, in 'star nurseries' as the words of the astronomers. The universe has always been a place of its own birth.

The will to power is most essentially a description of the point where the dissolved animality requires an image for itself to continue; 'the monster of energy' is the abstraction of the wolf of which the contours haunt the proto-philosopher forward into humanity; it occurs to me then that early Romans were possibly a group of wise men from ancient traditions conspiring to guide some rather innocent tribe of excellent stock on plentiful land to a glorious destiny. Rome was always a city of conspiracies; it seems not unlikely to me that astrologers from Alexandria have had something to do with its organization. The continuity of planetary attributes and festivals is not simply aesthetically expedient, if anything it became more seriously guarded in Rome. In this sense the Catholic Church is the petrification of this architectural impulse. What I could imagine now is to take over or reanimate that church with proper magic. Of course our astrology is much more philosophical now; with the proper understanding of cosmology we designate it not as the laws of the gods but the reflection into archetypes of our own being-reflection. There happen to be patterns, and as beings risen from the threshing floor we have no choice but to be modest in their light; as we become erect, see limits as the givers of shape, we see that the limit-giving shapes of time have plunged into unfathomable depths to bring out the most gracious possibility as a field from which deamons spawn. Efficiency an intelligence are the derivatives of infinity, and long before man rose out of animal or Earth was formed, there were stalemates of possibility, in the same way as long before an artist produces a masterpiece, there are is a state of irresolvable tension lurking behind all conscious thoughts an feelings; this state becomes gradually more pressing but not more conscious; as indeed truth requires a kairos to emerge. Our universe is thus the produce such a kairos; and that 'Ace of wands', that primordial fortune, reverberates into the fibers of everything that lives, as it is recognizable into the silent music of the spheres, that man has leaned to decipher into the laws of nature, through Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, who were all driven by this vertical momentum and were therefore also master-alchemist, masters of ceremony on the threshing floor, ruthless being, no being between being and the world, man is no longer 'a being' but 'being impersonated'. And this is the only way the drop can ride the ocean and become its justification; an ambitious task since the primordial conditions are already the justification of possibility itself; philosophy as the justification of justification, of justice, of judgment; for this it needs to be merciful, benevolent, and faithfully serving in time; the qualities of Jupiter, represented by the Romans with the imperial purple, the cloth of the pontifex.

Bridge-builder; from necessity to good, from animal, through wolf, to man-proper, student of the philosopher. This man will have to surpass the philosopher in some way; it is our task to create the conditions for this. There must be come a certain naivite, which is the property of exalted souls who have no knowledge of the detours man has made to arrive at reason; who need no lessons in this respect because their logos carries in itself the Saturnine quality of ascetic action, whereas their Jovian 'eternal spring' is not tainted by the decadent tyrants of our own image of Mnemosyne; philosophy as the act of Mercy blocking from view the abyss which was crossed from the archetypical realm to the formative realm, or the realm of specified possibility ('eternity') to the realm of formation (chemistry); it is this the development of taste; it is the chemical process that enjoys itself. Taste is what keeps us afloat in the witches brew, and our tastes are more important to us than our hunger; if we eat shit we are fucked.



___________
" 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 : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Before I post any more, just a quick point that must be kept in mind: the process I describe here obviously involves the complete estrangement of our evolutionary inheritance, the dis-integration of the reflexively coordinated animal mind and the production of our human consciousness out of the discontiguity. Our neocortex (where all the neural correlates of higher philosophical thought lie) receives input from the entire brain, re-integrates it, and feeds its own output back as input to the rest of the brain, actually rewiring the connectome or synapses- which is where our actual mind is, it is far more important than the brain structures themselves. Our amygdyla, limbic system, everything is transformed in this operation and is no longer even analogous to the evolved counterparts in the animals: what we call our very emotions are products of this higher cognitive capacity. We never evolved philosophy, symbolic thought, our emotions, etc. They are products of this differentiation and reification of the unified stream of the animal mind in discontiguous states of consciousness, which at another level I speak of as the polarization of a synthetically irresolvable tension of conceptual oppositions through which man orients himself daemonically to the ideal. I saw another thread talking about the importance of evolution to philosophy: in my view, evolution means nothing, since the only parts of our human behavior that were evolved are a small number of vestigial bodily reflexes. Our entire humanity appeared all at once and fully formed- the emotions, language, symbolic thought, religion, artistic ability, etc, when the neocortex was enlarged enough for this process I describe to spontaneously initiate, and all archaeological evidence suggests that indeed this is true. In one of my books I put it like this:



There are
many today who, in the sciences, prefer to trace human nature back into the ferment of
pre-history and animal life, as though our romantic notions of love are even analogously
related to the curious rituals which serve to trigger sexual reproduction in the animals,
though I find very little about us that owes itself to the evolutionary inheritance of bestial
instinct; the Nature that exists in the animals as a machine, or a structured system- a
causal series with beginning and end, intended to reconstitute beneficial neural activity
reflexively, in the coordination of the fibrous musculature and the affects, exists in man
as a logoicaly enfolded continua, upon which every natural loci of activity, when
absorbed by our more expansive nervous system, expands itself into unforeseen
dimensions, as of the liberated excess and meaning-surplus of the primal annunciation of
the Word, so that human nature emerges in the transition into a new qualitative universe,
in which alone it can be concluded, as it had alone therein been originated. There can be
accomplished no return to nature, for man does not possess a nature; the term "human
nature" is an irony, and is used only to designate a set of shared existential burdens.



___________
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 : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Also, the new category of truth as absolute negativity you suggest is to my mind the esoteric and misunderstood foundation of Plato, as I wrote in the pentad:


... the deeper philosophy is the product of this later exclusion of the contents of consciousness from consciousness itself, for it is capable of realizing the temporal universe, not as the falsification of, but rather as an image of or moment within, the eternal, as within a thoroughly acausal association. The truth here becomes, for the deeper philosophy, not the opposing category of falsehood, but the form of that schema whereby thought is brought into proximity with the outer boundary of its own power and its limiting fatum, as the locus of its daemonic dissolution and, within the horizon of the eroto-daemonic, no less its re-solution, whereby man is awakened to the ego in its ideal aspect. Heidegger believed that a grave error was perpetrated at the inception of Western philosophy, which he of course calls onto-theology: he thought Plato confused the Being of beings with beings themselves, which in my view never happened. Plato simply understood that there was no "Being of beings", that there was no Being behind or underneath beings. The "Being" of beings is not a being, and that's why Plato speaks of the absolute as a Form or eidos.



___________
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 : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed, you said:


The will to power is most essentially a description of the point where the dissolved animality requires an image for itself to continue


I bring attention to this point in the following:

"The episteme, defined as the pre-imaging of Being within the unworked stone or the blank canvass, upon
which Being in its ontic horizon is disintegrated and afterward re-cohered in erotic fixation as the preimage-made-
reality, the form of the revealed statue, I in other words refer to as the necessary thought-arresting
image, for it limits the unrestricted medium of the stone or paper and defines a boundary within which the
erotic form might take shape and reveal itself, within which the flight of thought might locate a new center
and point of departure in order to solidify in a new direction..."


So the will-to-power in my system is only the principle of one of the four stages of conscious reification-in-discontiguity, namely the epistemic, which I name after the episteme- the concept of this dis-integrated reflexive-animal consciousness requiring an image of itself, the thought-arresting image.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


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

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


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

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I see - philosophy is a product of the re-arrangement of the organism, and thus something 'to deal with' rather than something we've created.

Given that human consciousness, taking it as a rough terms including philosophy and other human 'parts', came into being in what, with respect to its organic ground, looks like a kind of 'void', it is all the more likely that the very voidness and relative chaos of consciousness draws into itself these more and less subtle influences that do move in orderly fashion, the astronomical patterns. Astrology would then have emerged as the very anchor of humanity in the self-mutilating madness that you have described it to be in the outset of mind.

My fixation on astrology is due to extremely extensive experience with it, gradually amounting in the disturbing certainty that it is an uncannily exact indicator of human natures and events in human lives. Only marginally less exact than the physical sciences; that margin probably owing to the remainder of animal nature, which would by this model, the boundaries or logics of which I do not believe to have transgressed in my earlier post, be not or far less responsive to these vertical stimuli.

I am not comfortable with it, because it is impossible for you to verify this, but still it it is bare necessity that compels me to integrate this celestial set of factors into a phenomenology of mind. Thankfully your model, which is so clinical as to be falsifiable, and can thus be said to be scientific, very much allows for this possibility.

I contend thus that the being (of) turning-human, as it was disconnected from the instinct, let's call them internal patterns, hooked into the external patterns of the heavens.

In the vey same way I became an astrologer; when I lost my mind, that is to say had a psychotic episode, I was forced to grab hold of things that weren't only supposed to be certain, but things that actually enforced themselves as pure regularities. So I learned the laws of magic, which I now understand to be the navigating not only of excess, but also reading and manipulating of the subtle electrical guiders that pervade that excess.

Please don't let this distract from your discourse. This is only my way of learning the weight of such sweeping models: integrating my most problematic empirical data into them. Your model, whether you want this or not, handles these data flawlessly, and supports my belief in astrology by providing a phenomenological nexus where what then became macrocosmos could have hooked into what then became microcosmos.

Partially integrating your later post:
the being-shaping horizon re-cohered in erotic fixation on the cosmos.
As we know an electrograph of the brain very much resembles depth-photographs of the galaxy; the neurons in the human brain seem to interact in patterns analogous to these external absorbing and discharging systems, which happen to effectively form the horizon of our physical being.

the pre-image-made- is then recognized not as an purely blank slate, but as the actual universe; as instinct collapses and being comes to stand before being, truth attacks it and makes it it's home long before any notions of truth begin to emerge.



___________
" 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
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sun Sep 20, 2015 5:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I should offer a clarification/correction to the OP, that I said the psychological self-utility isn't really philosophy - actually this isn't true. It's not that possible much to separate one from the other, at best we can understand philosophy as twofold: the higher correlate of the arrangement of ideas and facts themselves, as tectonics, and also as the actual behavior/changes that are constantly being produced in the physiology and biology. The psychologically uplifting part as I called it, is not literally the tectonic work and reality itself but, in another sense, it is: the intuition that somewhat pre-conceptually lives in us and that resists psychic disintegration at the hands of a powerful philosophy also communicates a truth to us, that truth being the impossibility of completely divorcing the one thing from the other, the mind from the body, or truth from lived reality.

Philosophy in terms of the higher tectonics, of the Idea, wants to disintegrate and read-write over what for that philosophy is like a bodily correlate of activity and organic substances, while that body wants to resist that kind of disintegrating of its primary forms and components. A compromise is entailed, that we call "human nature", a vague range in which people fall somewhere as a little similar and a little dissimilar to each other.

Let's think about a disembodied mind or an AI: what does this mind consist of? It has nothing to reorganize as a body, it does not act or behave in terms of organic response. At best it had an analogous neural system of computing that it is always changing. The mind itself reflects this "always changing", both the lower and higher ranges are in movement and reposition, the partial and inexhaustible, irreconcilable relations between lower and higher here are what form the daemonic. So an AI mind would very much exist in a narrower range of mental reality because to express itself only means to reconfigure its neural-computing systems, which unless we posit the creation of a robot similarly complex and historically-evolutionarily deep as the human body-brain-society, would be much simpler and more limited than even the possibilities open to an average non-philosophical person.

This is a huge problem: the more philosophy edifies itself the deeper must its hooks sink into the body. This affects everything, from our personality to our emotions to our social interactions, to our physical health, to our values and perceptions, every aspect of our living is influenced by this war. After all what being could hate itself enough to actually... philosophize?

Yet philosophy is necessary, we can abandon it but it cannot abandon us. We can sink into a more common earth but that commonness and earth are still expressions of the philosophical, as is the case for every man. So I mean to say that my initial point of inserting a radical break between philosophy and "philosophy" as I put it, is a bit naive or simplistic. There is no absolute rupture, as if the one could somehow rid itself of the other.. even in dreaming the conscious experience is about the body, and of the body, for this all lives in the brain as memory and system patterning, to imagine a purely dreaming, disbodied mind means nothing in terms of supposedly divorcing absolutely ideality from 'reality'. The point is the constant struggle and self-valuing interplay between the various "spheres" of our "identity" as Parodites notes it. It's quite cool (ha) that this is our unrecoverable setup, that we are this kind of being. The greatest-possible philosophical aspiration actually limits itself.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sun Sep 20, 2015 5:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The consequences as I can oversee anything here of this 'bending' of your theory to my self-valuing, as pertaining to the nature of consciousness as the daemonic philosopher exemplifies it, that is to say the consequences of the imposition of what must be superstitious and/or arbitrary material on the immaculate conquest of the pure intellect as I feel justified to suspect now are as follows: the astrologer navigates the daemonic processes unwittingly of their nature; he knows that an opposition is a Devilish aspect, but he has called it evil, detrimental. It is an aspect dominant in the chats of artists and people of untamable passions. What I am seeing then is that the nature of the daemonic process is reflected in the way the that the astronomical bodies influence us - the astrological world is the first empirical setting after the daemonic process had manifested itself by the negative laws bringing about its activity and reaching - astrology is the speculative ethics par excellence - and it has been in production for over ten thousand years, in perhaps as many natures or more - the Chinese focus largely on a specific set of distant stars, from which they say their best energy is drawn, these constellations figure into western astrology as well but stand separately of the Zodiac, the 12 fold division of which does however reflect the way the Chinese interpret the 60 year moon cycle - the explication of the influences is done using hard angles an oppositions, where a life is the explication and the life without hard angles the unexamined life.

What is truly maddening is the combination of compelling soft angles with disrupting hard angles working together in a triangle; this leaves the being into a habitual frustration. Politicians never or very rarely have oppositions, because they can not afford such pure explication of being - they almost always have 90 degree angles, which are tensions resolved outward. Actors and famous performers have a plethora of harmonic angles an conjunctions grounded by one or two hard ones.

Kant has Saturn opposite Mars and Sun opposite Uranus. He would have gone mad if he hadn't philosophized.

Nietzsche ha Jupiter conjunct Uranus opposite Mars conjunct Mercury.

Kierkegaard has Moon Jupiter opposite Mars Saturn.

Note these are the first three I try.

Dante

Honest to god, didn't know it, turns out: Moon opposite Jupiter-Saturn-Mercury and Sun.

The Moon represents the emotional, feminine; Kierkegaard shares it with Dante. In Kant and Nietzsche only the masculine forces are involved.


edit -

Forgot why I started this post, which is to point out that if the influences of celestial bodies can be understood in philosophical terms, the philosopher who is familiar with these terms has become immensely powerful in terms of astrological influence. The opposition is in general a means to transcend the nature of divided influences and to 'become what one is' in a truly experiential, time-creating sense - the fluid aspect is to go with time, to be embedded in it, and the square, the hard angle is to push life forward as it pushes against you, it is the aspect of violence.

I suppose one might resolve astrology into philosophy - but only if one is born to be a philosopher!




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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Sep 20, 2015 6:07 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: Defin(it)e philosophy Sun Sep 20, 2015 6:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Right. That's why evolution does matter, because it explains how something as different from its seeming origins as philosophy, astrology and the animal flux (I'm in love with that term) are united in time. Philosophy is not a rejection of instinct, a thing-from-another-world, I think we all see this now. But, precicely for that reason, it is to rarify and understand itself to the point of a distance that allows it a place in evolution along-side humans, fuck it, animals.

The thing that came from itself and conquered.

This as a stance against any philosophical impulse to greater-than-life, which is nothing, so nihilism, so less than useless.

Also, as an apretiation of the power of depth and necessity of negativity.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
Before I post any more, just a quick point that must be kept in mind: the process I describe here obviously involves the complete estrangement of our evolutionary inheritance, the dis-integration of the reflexively coordinated animal mind and the production of our human consciousness out of the discontiguity. Our neocortex (where all the neural correlates of higher philosophical thought lie) receives input from the entire brain, re-integrates it, and feeds its own output back as input to the rest of the brain, actually rewiring the connectome or synapses- which is where our actual mind is, it is far more important than the brain structures themselves. Our amygdyla, limbic system, everything is transformed in this operation and is no longer even analogous to the evolved counterparts in the animals: what we call our very emotions are products of this higher cognitive capacity. We never evolved philosophy, symbolic thought, our emotions, etc. They are products of this differentiation and reification of the unified stream of the animal mind in discontiguous states of consciousness, which at another level I speak of as the polarization of a synthetically irresolvable tension of conceptual oppositions through which man orients himself daemonically to the ideal. I saw another thread talking about the importance of evolution to philosophy: in my view, evolution means nothing, since the only parts of our human behavior that were evolved are a small number of vestigial bodily reflexes. Our entire humanity appeared all at once and fully formed- the emotions, language, symbolic thought, religion, artistic ability, etc, when the neocortex was enlarged enough for this process I describe to spontaneously initiate, and all archaeological evidence suggests that indeed this is true. In one of my books I put it like this:



There are
many today who, in the sciences, prefer to trace human nature back into the ferment of
pre-history and animal life, as though our romantic notions of love are even analogously
related to the curious rituals which serve to trigger sexual reproduction in the animals,
though I find very little about us that owes itself to the evolutionary inheritance of bestial
instinct; the Nature that exists in the animals as a machine, or a structured system- a
causal series with beginning and end, intended to reconstitute beneficial neural activity
reflexively, in the coordination of the fibrous musculature and the affects, exists in man
as a logoicaly enfolded continua, upon which every natural loci of activity, when
absorbed by our more expansive nervous system, expands itself into unforeseen
dimensions, as of the liberated excess and meaning-surplus of the primal annunciation of
the Word, so that human nature emerges in the transition into a new qualitative universe,
in which alone it can be concluded, as it had alone therein been originated. There can be
accomplished no return to nature, for man does not possess a nature; the term "human
nature" is an irony, and is used only to designate a set of shared existential burdens.


This is why truth must be seen by philosophy as depth, as negativity. Anything less merely re-enfolds the old errors back into the present attempt. Until a properly negative philosophy is obtained we probably can't say much at all about anything, this happens to be the unfortunate state of most of traditional philosophy- they lack a conceptual universe such as your philosophy gives, each philosophy before has simply shown one side of error, an individual side conforming to that state of lack which is that philosopher and his life, who conceived that philosophy.

Transcendental entities function triadically and sitting within the world-daemon, this is why I'm not able to every orient myself toward one such transcendent idea/experience or another; ultimately they all fall away as some manner of semioticly-enfolded world-man relational genesis and return, out of which some series of excess and system emerges. As soon as I align myself "with" such an emergence I lose my vantage upon it and everything else, I cease being a philosopher and become a constituent of other things.

Man is like a little nest of self-looping formulas shoved somewhere in the larger world-daemon, each one loops a little differently. The "Being of being" would simply be the causal-impelling rationale and active, continuing genesis for such formulas; God is a certain sign in the larger system, by which certain properties unfold out of those formula who have that sign existing in their mechanics. Like what I was saying about emotions, huge differences live out of us that we perceive as more or less "the same", we confuse one thing with another, so as becomes possible the topoi to speak backward about man and point us toward the depths, toward truth.

Animality is essentially a forgetting, the fact that we can even forget something is merely the fact that the animal lives in us or, more accurately, that we live out of it. Only through the deepest self-hatred might something truly like "self-love" ever appear.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Transcendental entities function triadically and sitting within the world-daemon, this is why I'm not able to every orient myself toward one such transcendent idea/experience or another; ultimately they all fall away as some manner of semioticly-enfolded world-man relational genesis and return, out of which some series of excess and system emerges. As soon as I align myself "with" such an emergence I lose my vantage upon it and everything else, I cease being a philosopher and become a constituent of other things.

Indeed, philosophy has been the only means that could create order and identity in the chaos of such transcendental emergences. I respect very much your ascesis 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
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A little more on this subject taken from a message to Capable:



Yes the erotic fixation belongs to the domain of the real ego, and in fact is in one sense the mask of the real ego- of the real ego which represents psychologically the feeling of organic unity, fortifying conscious bodily existence against dissolution into the primal forces of nature that gave rise to it- that is, fortifying itself against death. The erotic fixation is also spoken of as the thought-arresting image and the episteme, for which I named the epistemic topos: in the other thread I mentioned that when the reflexive-affective unity of animal consciousness began disintegrating due to human symbolic reasoning, * it requires an image of itself in which to stabilize itself, and this image is the immediate or real ego: the real ego becomes the new center of the whole causal formation of the various chains of neural impulses: all nerve impulses are reorganized so as to reconstitute the feeling of the real ego, of organic unity, where in the animal's stream of consciousness the affects self-organize causally on the basis of individual interactions between this nerve and that nerve- if one nerve activates another and this leads to beneficial behavior, the later becomes dis-inhibited or more reactive, and with more activations a causal sequence will solidify as part of the brain's physical architecture- in humans the causal chain must lead back to reconstituting or strengthening the new center, the real ego, or it simply becomes part of the unconscious and does not dis-inhibit new nerve tissues. There is a deep connection in this between eros and thanatos: the erotic pathos, the sexual experience and related phenomenon, intimate something of the flesh's self-destructive longing for the flesh, the flesh's self-cannibalism. In normal, healthy sexuality Eros is strong enough to maintain the sense of organic unity: in pathological sex, it is not. The ideal ego reifies self-consciousness in discontinguous states- variances and fissures introduced into the organo-affective unity of the real and its causally formulated universe- this is the physiological-scientific theory: at a higher level of abstraction these discontiguous states become the conceptual oppositions of the daemonic, and that is the transcendental psychology theory, at a still higher one they become the topoi of self, etc. and that is the cultural-historical theory, for it develops into the comparative religion I have been talking about culminating in Christianity, etc. All of my philosophy is however seemingly separate, talking about one thing at different levels of abstraction. Passages about the erotic fixation:

Philosophy is about employing the symbols to realize progressively greater states of discontiguity (which the real ego interprets as pain and emotional disturbance, for it threatens the organic unity with dissolution), in order to reify more and more completely the real ego as ideal, as the ideal represents deeper stages in the enfoldment of topoi, and more expansive levels of consciousness, deeper inwardness. Each of the religions have realized such discontiguous states and realized new stages of subjective existence, the last one attained by Christianity. Human emotion is tied to them, and each new degree of inwardness brings with it a different range of new affective potential or emotionality.

*
The philosophic-linguistic symbols (triadic)
introduce a basis for acausal association of these affective sequences, that is, the point of
origin for the development of such discontiguous states of consciousness and the antinature
of the spiritual body, the ideal-ego; as in Schelling, they are self-interpretive in that
they symbolize the very psychodynamic forces which gave rise to them.

----
The excessive power latent in this tension of confused, agonistic divine and mortal
potencies within human nature, to borrow Schelling's language, expresses itself
daemonically, as an orientation between the two realities of the immanent self-nihilation
of nature's phenomenal apparition and that of the transcendent absolute of Being, but
human nature is not confined to the middle-world of the daemon, which is to say, human
nature is not strictly interpretable on the basis of its immediate orientation to the ideal or
eidos toward which it is existentially grounded and philosophically bent, sinking as it
does, in its tragic dimension, into the immanent domain of the destructive forces
themselves; forces which have given the body both its genesis and decay, whose power is
Death, and less often rising into the eroto-heroicism of creative ascent, an ascent which
always preserves the liminal boundary between the soul's unrealized depths and the
absolute of Being, an absolute which in mythology is precomprehended as God and into
which man kenotically empties and stabilizes the excessive and latent tensions of the
daemon-- the preservation of such a reflective boundary, as would prevent us from
returning to Kantian submission before the noumena, the Schellingian hypostasis of the
human will as the primal God-will, Hegelian identification of the first and last,
Nietzschean return to immanence etc. is necessary to, above all, avoid the vengeance of
nature specified by Holderlin, where he says: "The sages, however, who differentiate only
with the spirit and hasten quickly back into pure Being and fall into an even greater
indifference because they believe to have differentiated, and because they take the non-opposition
they have returned to for an eternal one, have deceived their nature with the
lowest degree or reality, and nature must take revenge." The non-opposition here
indicated, as was confused with the eternal opposition, with the primal duality, is in fact
the reflective boundary, as between the unconscious depth of the Soul and the absolute of
Being, and is in philosophy taken as the original dualism or differentiation upon which all
others are falsely based. The internal tension and opposition between potencies, as
between freedom and necessity, mortal and divine, characterize the purely daemonic
reality of human nature; it is when this relation is psychodynamically stabilized that the
self-contraction of the real- that is, the episteme or erotic form, allows the inequality of
the original internal agony, of the excess of the unincorporated potency, to place itself
into a secondary opposition with an external power, and this later, external opposition
characterizes the true seat of philosophic differentiation, for it is the differentiation of the
erotic form, the locus of the libidinal-motive complex, from the actual form of Beauty
itself, as is discussed by Plato- the differentiation of the episteme from the transcendental
aniontos. [aniontes: Greek for ascending reason, as through the lower to the higher
Forms.] Only through the later, true differentiation, as serves for the basic fulcrum of the
movement of philosophy, does one attain to an understanding of the ideal ego, whose
unconscious depth is permeated with the ground of discontiguous transcendental
reflection, as opposed to the real ego of human psychology, of Nietzsche and Freud,
whose unconscious depth is populated merely by the causal mechanisms and dynamics of
a libidinal-motive complex and the residuum of nature's reflexive affect-contiguity.



One of the central points in my philosophy of consciousness is that the apparent stream of consciousness is only the residuum of reflex-affect carried through the domain of the real ego struggling with death and dissolution, and that fully human consciousness is the product of something almost opposite to a stream, namely discontinguous states of acausal abruption within the order of affects, whereby linguistic-abstract symbols, which stand outside of temporal relations, are utilized to reify the real ego, that is, the feeling of affective unity, as ideal, cohered in the transcendent horizon of meaning. Because of this, consciousness is impenetrable to the two main philosophical methodologies: Hegelian dialectics and phenomenology, for the former relies on synthesis, and the later on the analysis of a causal sequence of events or stream of consciousness- Nietzsche's principle of Will to Power, whereby all drives are made to interact with one another purely on the basis of which has a greater internal quanta of force, organizing thereby into causal associations of subjugation and enslavement, is a fundamental phenomenological model. In my philosophy of mind, when we hear a sound, the mind is actually experiencing a discontiguous state formed from the juxtaposition of the lowest and highest tones, in which it reifies the primitive, immediate, bodily experience of temporal succession throughout the whole development of the particular sound, rather it is a piano chord, a ringing bell, or a siren: to the animal, every seemingly individual sound is an un-composed sequence of neural events, and has the impression of a multitude of different, unconnected sounds, that is, a true stream of consciousness. There is therefor a pre-existing structure, a continua of affects or a field, upon which sense experiences are organized in the human mind into periodic intensifications of a basic, liminal affective unity which serves as a kind of threshold of potentiation, namely the real ego- that is, a field upon which the undifferentiated conscious stream is separated out into variances of height and depth, low and high levels of excitement, lower and higher tones: the goal of philosophy is to reify this real ego in more comprehensive states of discontiguity, thereby enlarging the scope of possible intensification around which affects are organized, for as long as we are operating on the basis of the real ego, only a tiny sliver of consciousness can serve as the libidinal threshold or limit to the potentiation and intensification or separation of experience into height and depth- any intensity that crosses that boundary is pushed into the unconscious and cannot play a role in the reification of the primitive conscious stream into a more human and awakened, transcendent consciousness.



___________
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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The existence of different languages is proof of a communal dimension of this process: the more powerful internal tensions that cohere to the more powerful external tensions govern the development of the mediation that is the substance of erotic conciousness as sharing of a struggle which, in order to be shared, is removed from the struggle as a metaphor.

Different pools of struggle in these erotic dimensions arrange conciousness around different sets of potentiating metaphors, a difference that is tectonig: gradual through violent negation that is an absorption through the gravity of the concentration that becomes the "real." "Real" because, by the necessity begat it, it is unstoppable, it does not settle into real until, yes, the act of philosophy can settle enough that unsettlement is settled as a metaphore. Philosophy's duty is to provide these metaphores all the depth it can gather from its own encounters with every dimensions that has affected human. This explosion is as potentiating to the communal as it is to the individual, by virtue of its settling into the ancient hierarchy of metaphor and its processes.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:07 am

Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Letheia and Aletheia Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
About Truth and Pure Negation(ivity).


The fact that the pre-Socratics had each developed an entirely separate intellectual
universe for themselves without ever infringing upon one another's territory and inciting
an argument, while the Socratic mode of philosophy was distinguished by continuous
argumentation and exchange, points to the fact that the former actually occupied the same
conceptual sphere and shared a common immanent ground to their philosophizing, and
that they were thus actually in agreement about the most fundamental matters. This
immanent horizon of meaning, as spread itself throughout the firmament of each of their
isolated universes, was that of erotic passion, that the Truth was Beauty and that Virtue
was their intermarriage, a passion which indeed survived the Socratic revolution and even
became codified as the name we now recognize- not sophist, but philosophist, or lover of
wisdom.


Philosophy is said to be the art of dying, the wisdom for dying best: insofar as Eros
should be the angel of philosophy, the kingdom of this angel is none other than death, and
our philosophies so many images of death. Eros wants, above all else, to seize upon the
very heart of solitude; love wants to build within the house of time and matter an absolute
privation, a latitant reprieve of stars and moonlight; a gentle loneliness and a hiding place
in which to enjoy the beloved and declare to himself and to her, no less by the most
eloquent patefactions and monologue, the morning of his soul and all the secret fury of its
movements, whereinto no other eye could ever see nor whisper broach upon the
undiscovered depth of mute creation, and herein lies one of the greater mysteries of love,
namely that this heart of solitude- the very flesh of the moonlight for which it so
desperately longs to brave the darkness and penetrate into the "center that will not hold",
as into the core of matter and tabescence, of time and decay, is none other than Death, and
that, sadly, we can take nobody into the fold of death save for our own selves, as a poem
of Andrew Marvell confesses: "the grave is a fine and private place, but none, I think, do
there embrace." This primal erotic compulsion, this move toward death, is, perhaps, the
basic template of the movement of philosophy. Philosophy has in any case always been
and will continue to be a matter of Eros, and therefor the ideas of philosophy- as useless
and vagrant as they may have been, vanishing over the brow with the fanciful self-indulgences
of nature's youngest, but no less proudest poet- man; rather we call to mind
the idea of God, Beauty, Truth, or Virtue, nonetheless, by constituting something whose
object at least exceeds the scope of this our errant sojourn in the heart of matter, as
swallows up the greater part of our will and our life, accomplished what all love
accomplishes: it revealed to us something of what we are, and made known, if only by the
slightest intimation and preliminary sketches, the potential we human beings, as a race- as
a form of existence, possess. Love awakens the lover to his own strengths, as no other
passion or state of mind can, and, because philosophy has served as the mysterious
element within which man has beheld himself in ideal, sub species aeternitatis- as
immortal and creative soul, so has it been said to rest upon the frail wings of the little god
Eros, who may, perhaps, have as little hope of carrying the dawn-star of these imaginative
horizons on his back as the butterfly does; the little god who, while not fully divine, and
hardly an Olympian, did nevertheless share somewhat in the sacred mysteries of the old
pantheon. And who knows what the fate of man should be, whose destiny is certainly a
matter of the strength of his erotic pathos- for while Eros, in the later myths, is
represented as nothing more than a demigod- a mere prankster whose amusements sewed
the bonds of love among the heavens, in the most ancient strains of the Greek genius and
in the eldest myths to have survived, he is given as one of the most powerful of all beings,
indeed one of the primordial forces of creation, along with Chaos and the Night. I have
compared the butterfly and Eros, and this is because I had in mind while writing this a
passage from Guyau which seems to me now even more appropriate to venture: "The
truth is found in movement, in hope... A child saw a butterfly poised on a blade of grass;
the butterfly had been made numb by the north wind. The child plucked the blade of grass
and returned home, holding his find in his hand. A ray of sunlight broke through, striking
the butterfly’s wing, and suddenly, revived and light, the living flower flew away into the
glare. All of us, scholars and workers, we are like the butterfly: our strength is made of a
ray of light. Not even: of the hope of a ray." It was the luxury of those before us to
mistake the frozen butterfly for the petals of the flower, and they had unknowingly taken
the sleeping god with them and deep into the heart of man- but now we must turn our
prize into the sun and see if the winged god Eros has frozen to death in the night of our
unconsciousness and apathy, or if he should surprise us and, startled back into life, fly
again into the dawn. One, as Lessing said, kills the rose by picking it and taking it home,
as if to save it from the coming storm now overhead: "Eine Rose gebrochen, ehe der
Sturm sie entblättert." We require as Guyau said- hope, for all the tomes of philosophy
seem ossified to the majority of human beings now, and the original wellspring of
imaginative passion seems to have closed up before them, and with that man's
transcendent horizon. Underneath this multitude of ironies, as constitute our mere
phenomenal consciousness, the external features of our philosophy, along with our
pseudo-skepsis and the unfettered despiciency of a pure intelligence, there still sleeps the
child of the heart and the whole idyll of memory, with the tireless faith afforded by the
mere fact of existence, as in the reality of love, hope, and truth, which may take a greater
measure of the centuries, or, in the passage of time, a more worthy confirmation than may
be boasted of by the stony column of the world, upon these our elegant monuments and
memorial allections wrought out of the broken earth, upon the granite and the metal that
were no more certain than dust and sand, for even Heraclitus admitted time was but the
child of the aeon, who drew up his thousand worlds before the sea, which would sweep
them all equally away into oblivion. Certainly the child of the aeon shares in this faith
possessed by our own youth and innocence, which has not yet been wholly buried by our
disappointed and mordant intelligence, and therefor draws his fleeting worlds upon the
sand with perfect conviction that they should never disappear into the palpitant issue of
the sea, whose musing cadence has swept away all we were into oblivion, save for our
laughter, whose cadence was its own- whose music was the same as that of the sea, as
rolls along forever, carried into eternity upon the back of Leviathan.


With this in mind, I will elaborate on the new category of truth, as should serve for a new
source of philosophic inspiration, and whose corresponding logic should re-instantiate the
much needed art for genuine idea-creation and the transmission of philosophy's heroicerotic
daemonism.


Another shared grounding within the supra-Sophistic mode of philosophizing is that of a
belief in the underlying symmetry of self-consciousness and worldly consciousness, or the
matrix of passivity as Sloterdijk called it- or, as Maine De Biran said of it, "The activity
in which man thinks of himself is only another mode of the same cognition which
estranges and distances him from himself: every act of thought steals us away from
ourselves, and so the result of trying to think about ourselves and come to know ourselves
ends in us forgetting some part of ourselves, in that strange and inexplicable contradiction
of philosophy"; the belief, in other words, that those who took up the commandment of
Delphi and journeyed inward, in the mould of classical hermitage as is given in the
towering and shadowy figure of a Heraclitus, a Parmendies, or even one of the solitary
biblical prophets, would discover a basis upon which the inner and outer worlds could be
brought into alignment- a basis that had, since the beginning of the philosophic tradition,
justified both the aretaic life of practical virtue and the life spent in the mode of
transcendental reflection, political apatheia, in the cloister of books, and in the theoretical,
imaginatively occupied existence of a technical philosopher- and this justification for the
each of them accomplished with the other. Nietzsche again and again gives us to
understand that he has lost any connection to this ground of philosophy, as most in our
era also have- to the shared heart of inner consciousness and objective experience, from
which there might be developed an adequate idea of truth, for he continually calls to mind
the fact that reason and the progress of thought have called into question our necessary
falsehoods, that is, delusions necessary for the constructions of our subjective life.
But, in our language, it can now be said that this symmetry of beings, and with them the
world of the interior self and exterior reality, has been finally rediscovered as a notion
corollary to the asymmetry of Being itself, in the fact of "Being's being unequal to Being
and any particular being or beings": as an idea directly following from the category of
pure negation and monadological identity, for the new category of truth established
thereby appeals equally to the inner and outer world, providing us with the point of
contact with the external, with the real and the general enthesis of an existential burden,
as is so desperately needed by philosophy.


Negation (not nothingness, for that is an onto-theo-logical-metaphysical postulate) has
always been conceived as the negation of something, and therefor the positivity of
negation has remained unthinkable- that is, negation transfigured, suspended, and
logically incorporated into its episteme and self-image; negation saturated with its own
concept. The traditional dialectic of negation and affirmation has thus forestalled the
immanent hypostasis of the transcendent- for, in that dialectic, negation is always
differentiated from the affirmative upon the one conceptual sphere of dialectical synthesis
around which the ontic is logically integrated in the false image of Being as the totality of
beings in what Heidegger liked to call the onto-theological, that is, as the Parmenidean
universe or the Spinozan deus natura, so that it [pure negation] has never itself been able
to serve as the ultimate concept-sphere and plane for the philosophic differentiation of
concepts and the formation of discontiguities which it actually constitutes, whereupon the
inequality and internal tension of Being, out of which Being negates itself in the
principium non identitatis of A><A, could work out its own excess without ontological
distortion, for traditional metaphysico-ontology is synonymous with the dialectic of
affirmation and negation: this would have the appearance of a freed philosophical
impulse, which eternally generates new concept series in a tireless creative outpouring
from out of the ground of pure negation, through which the daemon heroically ascends
into its transcendent horizon as ideal-ego and remotest discontinguous reification of
subjective contents. Both Hiedegger and Nietzsche, while seeing through the false
construction of metaphysics, did not grasp the internal logic of the ontic: the inequality
and self-negating core of Being, the Platonic esotery that there is no Being behind beings
and that Being is undefinable due to its asymmetrical property; that the passivity of
transcendental reflection in which Heidegger grounded philosophy as a silent opening up
to Being is actually the active hypostasis of the immanent as transcendent horizon, and
that what Deleuze solidified out of both of them and called immanence "in itself" is quite
impossible, for it dissolves the conceptual tension of the immanent-transcendent and
obscures once again the inequality of Being with itself and with beings: their respective
systems amount to nothing more than what Sloterdijk called the vertical dimension
without a metaphysical attractor or God, for they still utilize the ontic concept-sphere as
the immanent ground of their philosophy, though instead of logically incorporating it as
the traditional metaphysic of affirmation and negation had done, that is, by differentiating
negation and affirmation instead of carrying out the differentiations of ontic datums upon
the plane of negation itself, so have they attempted to hide the reality of Being's self-negating
character and asymmetry by consolidating particularity into the universal- that
is, by affirming the horizon of the subject- which I call the episteme, as the subject itself,
or what Heidegger calls Dasein, grounding consciousness in the passivity of
transcendental reflection in which man is rendered transparent and opened up, somehow,
to an undefined and perhaps undefinable Being. In order to pass beyond their deficiencies,
the truth as the category of pure negation must be firmly established, firstly by developing
a language in which pure negation is in itself utilized as the primal concept-sphere and
immanent ground of thought upon which philosophy differentiates its contents, and
secondly by developing a monadological theory of identity, with which the definition and
the contours of identities upon this primal concept-sphere may be sustained in the
irresolvable agon of conceptual oppositions and negations, for formerly philosophy used
Hegelian dialectic, (which allows the negation of a thing to be identified with the thing
itself, reducing all to particularity and then re-inscribing this as the totality, much like the
method of Descartes as Feuerbach notes) to resolve questions of identity and this
obviously requires resolution of the conceptual tension through absolute synthesis within
the dialectic of negation and affirmation, immanence and transcendence.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


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

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


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


Last edited by Parodites on Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:10 am; edited 4 times 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: Letheia and Aletheia Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nietzsche was the first to use this negation actively against the philosophy of affirmation-negation. Certainly, it blew up in his face and blinded him. Blinded by the overwhelming negativity contained in the loneliest of scriptural bubbles. Even this he was aware of and, in his holy negativity, his "a priori," celebrated!

We too would blow up, if we hadn't forced our imaginary friends into the present. And if the french had not finally reclaimed their philosophical post as enemy proper.

But enough about enemies of the past. This is earth shattering. We have an epistemic ground.


Last edited by Pezer on Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Letheia and Aletheia Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, this is the overarching logic and ethos, the point in which the two have become a singular eye. It is the reason why value ontology works as a generator of positive truth and the context in which it recognizes itself as life giving. It is now also clarified that it can not do so directly; it merely self-generates as truth, but the active truth-seeking and gathering occurs necessarily outside of its epistemic boundaries; these boundaries are only solidified after the excess has condensed into consequentiality, which in turn solidifies into the furthering of the process of the self-identifying entity, conscious experience, which offers only the options of gradual growth or crisis, and can in this deliberating, tentative capacity not endure the absolute presence of Being; Dionysos serving a means to superhuman endurance here, as the form that allows man to walk across his own horizon, an experience which leaves no trace in memory, as it does not pertain to historic, accumulative time, but only to the infinitely expansive ideality of the moment, in which every pain can be endured. This apex point where the asymptotes of coherence (being) and duration (time) come together is the state where orgasms originate, hence also the orgasmic experience of nirvana, 'the void', the perfect coherence of the ideal and the empirical through the annihilation of 'flat duration' and the approximation of truth in a true experience of the pure consequentiality of time - in - excess, and thereby the limit to entity, and its proper form, as is represented by e=mc^2, and standardized for logical operation in value ontology. The two are related, and as Capable says the way for VO to become embedded in man is likely through science, where the proper logic of the monad is adopted as the proper science of particles, and we will begin to observe the true nature of coherence, an peer into the excess no longer as through a glass darkly but directly at the eternal lightning that it is. The ancient Hebrews referred to a state of being face to face with god leading to immediate destruction, and there are more stories about climbing the ladder too fast, which in those prephilosophical days meant climbing the ladder at all. The rungs are made of philosophy, and now its deems we've come face to face with god. The question now is indeed, what do we say? Or rather, how do we speak to him at all?

In the case of standing face to face with god the relation is asymmetrical in the most elementary way; what we say to god is what god tells us we are; in which capacity we are both truth and time. We can only ascend to god in particulars. That is what Nietzsche understood. Philosophy is the hound that smells its star. The word being turned into flesh, but the flesh also must be consumed, affirmed in negation. This points to why we have to negate the idea of self in order to self-value best ; "I am not you" means in this language "I love you", so to speak - truth emerges from fact in this way.



___________
" 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: Letheia and Aletheia Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The day I realized people don't function under the paradigm of negation as love, I gradually started going crazy. I still don't understand it, only under a higher divine negation can I bear it and I celebrate it. I can work with it.

Can gods not be philosopher in-deed.

Hopefully, this god will die someday too and people will negate all around, but I will probably be harshly punished for so ambitious a thought. Let's start by fullfilling god's negation, we'll see about the rest later.

Thank you deeply, Parodites. You have flawlessly provided sanity to the most noble need to bleed I know.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Letheia and Aletheia Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"It is now also clarified that it can not do so directly; it merely self-generates as truth, but the active truth-seeking and gathering occurs necessarily outside of its epistemic boundaries; these boundaries are only solidified after the excess has condensed into consequentiality, which in turn solidifies into the furthering of the process of the self-identifying entity, conscious experience, which offers only the options of gradual growth or crisis, and can in this deliberating, tentative capacity not endure the absolute presence of Being"


Yes this is why in one thread I mentioned that truth as pure negation is only the engine of philosophy, not philosophy itself or its fuel, which are positive and outside the epistemo-ontological boundary of the theory of monadological identities, or value ontology.


That negativity of Love you mentioned near the end of your post Fixed Cross I've always thought of as love and love's object both reaching out in longing and hope for their completion and perfect form, which the world of change, fleeting time, and flat duration as you said forever denied and will deny them, as in one of my books:


Human life is a dim sojourn
across the grey vale between one abyss, the abyss of the past, and that of death, upon
which innumerable half-formed and fleeting images dance across the periphery of our
vision, like nymphs in the wild forest that surrounds us, which never stand still amidst the
trees and in the darkness long enough for us to catch their eyes, playfully taunting us,
illuminated like ghosts with nothing more than the star-light to hold their form, in which
the rarer substance of their beauty is suspended as by a kind of ethereal medium; but,
occasionally, one of these images stays with us long enough, even though it were for a
moment just as forestalled, just as brief as any other, only because it reaches out into its
completion and perfect form, which the whirlwind of change and time forever denied it,
at the same time that we reach out for our own, for our own eidos and genius, in the
consummated heaven of forms, as perhaps Plato secretly mis-understood himself in the
privacy of his thoughts, and seems to suggest to us something beyond itself, beyond the
hope toward which both of our lives, our own and the nymph's, are inwardly bent, as
Orpheus and Eurydice, toward the greater hope of life itself, and the love within which
we were both a moment, and which neither of our hearts could hold. Such images, such
suggestions, and the moments that bear their stamp, the orisons of that Nymph in which
our sins are forever remembered, are the only testament we have in the last case of our
dream of immortality, the only evidence that life is couched upon something more than
non-entity, lethe, and the fleeting half-formed images that alone constitute our lives,
images which are neither memories or dreams, and the only defense we can muster
against the mocking stars above us, before which we vainly struggle and die alone in the
universe as so many ephemera in the millenia of unconquered time. The lies that are most
important to us, which we use to protect our most intimate reality from foreign eyes, to
bolster ourselves against the truth, and to hide ourselves away from death, betray us in the
end, for their subject overflows them, what is deepest in us learns to speak through them,
to reconfigure them, to announce itself through them as through signs, and without our
ever noticing begin to indicate, if not to us than to everything else that bothers to look and
to listen, the approaches of our destiny, our imminent fate. You cannot lie about such a
thing, our languages are too under-evolved for that, and are as incapable of articulating a
lie about the dream that we are as they are of articulating the truth of the dream. Lies
and truth are both superficial, they both speak about the half-formed and the newborn,
about mere images- which is all a life, all an existence deprived of essence, can amount
to, as also the essence, the remote atom of meaning, the mathematical abstraction and
disembodied Word, the sign whose signification we did not feel ourselves compelled by
as if to anamnestically recover from the mythos of the glimpse. A mere image, a
photograph, deserves neither the name of dream or memory, truth or lie, essence or
existence. If there is a truth, it isn't an intellectual category. Only the lie can become the
artifact of a pure intellectuality, for you cannot live the lie as you can the truth, at least as
the philosopher understands the truth.


And in another place I use this mutual reaching out and longing of Eros and the object of love as the basis of true action:


Every act is an unveiling and a release of the greatest meaning and
vitality possible at that particular confluence of contesting and agonistic forces out of
which the condition calling for action was engendered, out of which the longing of that
particular moment was recognized in the mournful dawn of our own freedom- an act,
insofar as it is true action and not merely reaction, is the unfolding of the excessive
energies and tension of that agon and confluence of forces into the most beautiful,
expressive possible form, into that form from which power itself seems to drip in
unsquandered richness and life to gleam so beautifully in the sun: every real act is a
creative effort, an autopoietic and transformative undertaking. The moral act is just this:
adding something to the very idea of life.

One, as Lessing said, kills the rose by picking it and taking it home, as if to save it from the coming storm now overhead- Eine Rose gebrochen, ehe der Sturm sie entblättert




Yes the Jews did have that myth of encountering God too soon. One must properly measure one's drink of the divine liquor, by pouring it into and through all the sephiroth or vessels of creation- if one takes it directly, without measuring it in the sephiroth, one likely becomes mad.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:07 am

Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: The Heroic (grappling with P's conception) Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is a thread for investigating the concepts of the Hero as they appear in Parodites' philosophy. It seems to me to represent a pinnacle or spearhead of human moral thought. Even though "it" (the general notion or pathos of heroism) plays a central role in virtually all of our collective narratives, it is a subject very rarely addressed in philosophy, and never with the consequential acuteness of Parodites' concepts. Perhaps this is simply because it is terrifying, when seen from a nested human perspective; another indication of why the hero is so often sung but never described. The Heroic might perhaps replace The Erotic as the axis of controversy and shame, when humanity is ready to broaden it's horizon.

Politics is always wretched if it is not drive by some form of heroism - heroism is perhaps the only thing far-reaching enough to bind collective human endeavors; to evoke the notion of culture; every culture needs its heroes before it can build its self-conceptions; The hero also represents always that which is not, that which does not characterize normal human being; perhaps this concept can replace the Nietzschean "Uebermensch", which is a non-dimensional concept, does not as a concept provide a dialectic process; but the Heroic includes the notion of the "interaction of low and high", the great riddle at the center of all morality and politics.

I hope that Parodites and Capable will be interested in giving some substance to this thread. At this point it's just a suggestion.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Sep 08, 2015 7:26 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: The Heroic (grappling with P's conception) Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The heroic is, as I see it, a completed daemonism, finally able to stop vacillating from one partiality to another; experiences impose themselves upon us only partially, we cannot receive them entirely nor can they entirely receive us; the simple "geometric-excessive" principle of this compels value-judgments out of us, implicitly at first as is the case with more simple animals and living beings and finally more active, summative, "intentional" in man, he has his means of parsing the field of his experiences in various terms of standards of measure and value, and out of the longer-term consistencies of those methods eventually learns what it means to feel like an enduring entity, a consistent identity over time and across changing experiences. That learned identity manifests on the one hand as personality, and on the other hand as our ideas and ways of thinking (the "programs" we are running cognitively and that we are capable of running).

That is how the human is setup, daemonically split and self-frenzied, a mystery to himself. This applies to philosophers as well as non-philosophers; but the Heroic mind, mens heroica as I think Parodites would call it, would transcend this setup by finally realizing all of the variances and limits which had formerly determined it: would in this way reconceive itself in terms of only that which it is, thus finally relieving the excesses of imperfect alignments and gaps, being now able to adequately be its experiences. Because nothing or very little would escape it, its mind would be "full" with the world as all the disparities and partial responses in itself found perfection in each other, excess disappears because it can now flow unbroken up through subjectivity and "out the top" of it. The excess under all psyche and instinct finally liberated as one unbroken stream overflowing out of consciousness.

My understanding of it is more like this, from the perspective of personality and pathological faults and limits, how these are merely reflecting the daemonic "sticking points" in men, those clashing moments where the experiential field cannot be further divided-abstracted out of its serial process and consequently must reify itself in some manner of stable, falsifying-simplifying image, whether that image be an idea or a behavioral trait/habit or "instinct". What we call desires and values flow out of these "sticking point" moments as representations of that various structural dynamics of the daemonically-frustrated impossibilities to continue the excessively-fracturing serial-"causal" process.

In terms of politics, then, I can understand politics only as a further reflection of this negativity and 'error' living out of the imperfect daemon. Politics is a field of compromise between variously broken and differently broken subjectivities. Rather than attempt to heal the breaks we instead try to force them outside of ourselves and impose them upon our experiences, upon the world- what this achieves is to falsify much of the experiential realm and also to thereby create structural spaces in which "resolutions" of those now-systemic problems and faults become required in a practical sense. We want, after the anti-philosophical imposition of our subjective limit-points upon the wider field of our experiences and upon others, only to create a world itself capable of arresting the immanent tensions arising from those more essential daemonic conditions, thus too of course such possibilities for practical-arresting mechanisms become mediums through which we may exercise the limited excessive natures we do have in ways conducive to our "living" and to those errors which live out of us, namely we become "ambitious" or "politically-driven" or what Nietzsche called willing to power.

We aren't even capable of willing to power, not in any real meaning of that idea, all we can do is seek to discharge this or that partializing-frustrated daemonic series in some semblance of consistent action and psychological orientation, as if to finally justify the errors that live out of us---"politics". Thus I see politics only as a sign of the smallness of the human species; not of its "moral unworthiness" and certainly not of its ugliness, for a lot of beauty and moral truth does find expression through the political, but simply of the fact that we even need politics at all is rooted the more fundamental problem, the philosophical aporia which no philosophy seems interested in dealing with, save for Parodites' philosophy.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: The Heroic (grappling with P's conception) Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And there is also therefore another meaning of heroic, a more properly political one, which I guess most people and most philosophers would be more amenable to: the non-conscious excesses flowing up through daemonically-stunted psyche and the world resulting from the billions of interactions of such psyches, "society", in the sense that these excesses reach beyond themselves and strive to maximize their limit-approach: high ideals and nobler passions, philosophical concepts like justice, aesthetics, eros and agape, and sentiment striving for its manifest realizing via structurally pushing its boundaries by both achieving its own logical center as well as transcending that center, in other words anything that is intrinsically excessively bent. These sort of ideas and passions serve to ground consciousness and achieve greater subjectivity for man, so when these become the heart of a politics we might call that politics more heroic in nature, even if technically-speaking such politics is still only a reflection of the inconsistencies and pathology of a lower daemon.

Common heroism which enlivens man and shines vitality through his subjectivity by virtue of the ways this heroism reconfigures consciousness. But that is something different than the mens heroica, which still has yet to be realized.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The Heroic (grappling with P's conception) Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
The heroic is, as I see it, a completed daemonism, finally able to stop vacillating from one partiality to another; experiences impose themselves upon us only partially, we cannot receive them entirely nor can they entirely receive us; the simple "geometric-excessive" principle of this compels value-judgments out of us, implicitly at first as is the case with more simple animals and living beings and finally more active, summative, "intentional" in man, he has his means of parsing the field of his experiences in various terms of standards of measure and value, and out of the longer-term consistencies of those methods eventually learns what it means to feel like an enduring entity, a consistent identity over time and across changing experiences. That learned identity manifests on the one hand as personality, and on the other hand as our ideas and ways of thinking (the "programs" we are running cognitively and that we are capable of running).

Yes. "God", and after than any abstraction of unknown causes, is a way to gain control of this first implicit tendency; to anthropomorphize 'fate' (that which happens to one, that which one becomes) becomes a way to relate to it more directly and, by rituals, by throwing stones at a stick, or by writing downs marks representing tools, entities, events, qualities; in this way man advances science, in the desperate juggling of his capacities with his ignorance and impotence, now and then he hits onto something that works. The search for knowledge is a spasm of an entity in free fall; humans have learned to conceptualize each other, and are thus formally - which is to say 'eternally' attached to each other, and as civilization is formed around the grave, culture is formed to bridge the abyss, negative idea of death, and to come to objectivity, immortality.
All great culture is morbid.
(Also a warning; in favor of tribal, small scale culture)

Quote :
That is how the human is setup, daemonically split and self-frenzied, a mystery to himself. This applies to philosophers as well as non-philosophers; but the Heroic mind, mens heroica as I think Parodites would call it, would transcend this setup by finally realizing all of the variances and limits which had formerly determined it: would in this way reconceive itself in terms of only that which it is, thus finally relieving the excesses of imperfect alignments and gaps, being now able to adequately be its experiences. Because nothing or very little would escape it, its mind would be "full" with the world as all the disparities and partial responses in itself found perfection in each other, excess disappears because it can now flow unbroken up through subjectivity and "out the top" of it. The excess under all psyche and instinct finally liberated as one unbroken stream overflowing out of consciousness.

That would be very painful, it is at least painful to imagine.

Quote :
My understanding of it is more like this, from the perspective of personality and pathological faults and limits, how these are merely reflecting the daemonic "sticking points" in men, those clashing moments where the experiential field cannot be further divided-abstracted out of its serial process and consequently must reify itself in some manner of stable, falsifying-simplifying image, whether that image be an idea or a behavioral trait/habit or "instinct". What we call desires and values flow out of these "sticking point" moments as representations of that various structural dynamics of the daemonically-frustrated impossibilities to continue the excessively-fracturing serial-"causal" process.

It is then easy to see why habits are so hard to change; to change them one would have to undo or at least sufficiently replace the path that led to it, and this path is thus entirely 'illogical', circumstantial, by logics that have long dissipated with their conditions; a habit is a residue of a reaction that might as well never have been, considering it left no other trace than that habit.

Quote :
In terms of politics, then, I can understand politics only as a further reflection of this negativity and 'error' living out of the imperfect daemon. Politics is a field of compromise between variously broken and differently broken subjectivities. Rather than attempt to heal the breaks we instead try to force them outside of ourselves and impose them upon our experiences, upon the world- what this achieves is to falsify much of the experiential realm and also to thereby create structural spaces in which "resolutions" of those now-systemic problems and faults become required in a practical sense. We want, after the anti-philosophical imposition of our subjective limit-points upon the wider field of our experiences and upon others, only to create a world itself capable of arresting the immanent tensions arising from those more essential daemonic conditions, thus too of course such possibilities for practical-arresting mechanisms become mediums through which we may exercise the limited excessive natures we do have in ways conducive to our "living" and to those errors which live out of us, namely we become "ambitious" or "politically-driven" or what Nietzsche called willing to power.

Nietzsche would say that you are merely describing another politics. The will to power is largely unconscious, consciousness is contingent on it, one of N's speculations was that consciousness itself might be nothing more than a byproduct on the way to more efficient willing to power; and there is something to this; perhaps identifying reality is an obstacle to truly experiencing it.

Quote :
We aren't even capable of willing to power, not in any real meaning of that idea, all we can do is seek to discharge this or that partializing-frustrated daemonic series in some semblance of consistent action and psychological orientation, as if to finally justify the errors that live out of us---"politics".

I don't think it's a matter of one or the other; everything is determined by the processes that constitute it, but some words are more accurate than others. Will to power is a relatively accurate term for a process that can clearly not entirely be explicated into words; selfvaluing logic takes the origin and result of that state, which can be put into words, and bends these together so as to represent what is in between them. It is the ourobouros that Nietzsche sought with the ER.

Quote :
Thus I see politics only as a sign of the smallness of the human species; not of its "moral unworthiness" and certainly not of its ugliness, for a lot of beauty and moral truth does find expression through the political, but simply of the fact that we even need politics at all is rooted the more fundamental problem, the philosophical aporia which no philosophy seems interested in dealing with, save for Parodites' philosophy.

Is this question not rather the very essence of political philosophy? Why there need to be politics at all, and why they are justified? It is true that the answers have so far been less than satisfying; "because life is misery" "because humans are brutes" was the usual excuse. Parodites' philosophy can not resolve the brutishness of man - I think at least that nothing can resolve this; this is why the uncomfortable idea of a spiritual elite, and a human hierarchy build around the values of this elite can not (yet?) be banished entirely; and here is where very tenuously a reaching mind can make the leap from Parodites to Sauwelios - certainly not something either of them would advocate - a politics forged around philosophical honesty, which is to say an acceptance of the fact that values are established subconsciously but that this value-positing itself needs to be revered; focal points for consciousness, temples are not where one goes to beg, but where one goes to spend ones excess -spend it on the gods, on the truth, on exaltation above necessity, justify life moment by moment without eye for its goal, which is death; make death seem irrelevant; this is what life is about for the hero. He can only make it seem that way because to him it is irrelevant; to no longer identify with the time bound state of reactions but to the sphere of judgment, which is eternal or fixed; where aesthetics are held as the higher realms of ethics, you are among high culture; but such realms have so far often been extremely 'inhuman'. Feudal Japan, for instance. The question seems to be whether high culture, culture on the edge of the blade (fitting these two partialities within one frame, requiring immense concentration and will to sacrifice) can be also human culture.

I do not so much fear the no, as that I do not feel that the time is ripe for a yes. But on the other hand, the only reason to cultivate anything at all is that time tends to ripen.

The outer planets retrograde back very deep into the havoc they just left behind.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The Heroic (grappling with P's conception) Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
Man's relation to the primal ontos, to the soul of world generation- to ousia or Being itself, whose necessary existence Heidegger took as the basis of Dasein, has yet to be truly determined, for neither the limit of the human subject in isolation or the limiting Form of the ontos itself has yet been determined, and this condition of "to ousia somatos; exhousia to logos" [trans. from a material nothing to a spiritual something] has served for the last four thousand years as the mysteria tremens and infuscated substance within which the project of philosophy, at least in the West, has creatively grounded itself upon the passive infinity of the thoroughgoing mis-relation here described, which Kierkegaard understood as despair; in other words, because man has related himself to the ontos without having first determined a proper limit to the kingdom of his subjectivity, and has approached the higher questions of philosophy without having first understood his own form; without a telos, without an eidos, and without real understanding of either term in the question, so has he related himself to this ontos in a destructive, thoroughly deceptive manner, as if to play the serpent to his own innocence, and, by means of a philosophic gesture that can do nothing else but inflate to cosmic proportions his errors of judgment and the false conditions of his orientation to Being, so has the transcendent horizon of mankind been able to take only the form of the passive infinity of a more or less creative aesthetic, out of which the undetermined remainder of all that lies still un-thought in the depths of man has annunciated itself in various systems of anthropomorphism, throwing itself up from the seas of the unconscious in the name of God, awaiting the day for its due recognition;- of the God whose name we take to represent the essential determination of man's existential burden, an essentia of our nature that is not yet known, but which would give us to understand our proper relationship with the ontos, for the term God would seem to be the only fitting concept by which to evoke this burden, as this word carries within it latently the premise that there is indeed a true relation to be discovered between man and the world, somatos and logos, the subject and Being. We do not yet know who man is, nor what the world is; our transcendent horizon is only the horizon whereby nihilism may be left behind for the hope that there may yet be a man, that there may even be a world and an ontos, though their essence remains undiscovered by us, whose secret were our transcendence, but only the transcendence of the daemon within us, which takes the form of the unconscious remainder that lies within us still preserved after all metaphysico-chemical analyses and atomic reductions have been carried out, as the signature of a distinctively qualitative reality and surplus-meaning to our experience; but we must now admit that the real transcendence would be found in the determination of man's true relation with that ontos, which, comprehended as an existential burden and relation of agape, love, or moral obligation, would provide to us the medium within which to reflect that qualitative remainder and become truly conscious of it- for this relationship would be as beyond our own human selves as it is beyond the ontos and the world- for this relation could point only to the irresolvable third term which abrupts all hopes of dialectical synthesis, which we have before called God; namely the excess or hyperousia in which consciousness may be actively grounded in the infinite burden of bearing this relationship to Being, as the transcendent horizon of what has been called here the eroto-daemonic. Man is not opened up to Being in the Heideggerian sense, for he knows neither his own limit or the limit of Being, and in relating himself to what he calls God he has been unconsciously formulating the excessive meaning-surplus underlying his irreducible experience as the self-limited limit; for, though man is not opened up to Being, he is at least receptive to it, as the masculine harmedon is not opened to but is receptive to the feminine principle, which is to say that the active creative potency of the divine Logos has been inverted within him as a passive infinity, as was possessed by the fallen Satan in the form of the deceiving serpent; the subjectivity of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Nietzsche, simply utilizes Being as the locus of its self-relation, as the medium of its aesthetic self-construction of itself, which sadly necessitates the destructive movement whereby Being is buried in the night of unconscious, and is made to sink down into the core of the remainder like the Gnostic angel falling into matter. The ontos of this world is, rather, that which is left over after man has announced himself, and philosophy is just man's announcing himself. The more firmly this limit or philosophy is drawn around man, the more severely does the boundary of the ontos present itself in the form of a moral compulsion and existential burden to fulfill the arrested impulse at work in the universe and supplant the physical order of the world with the new moral order; the more potently this compulsion and burden wells forth in the heart of the individual, the more conscious he is of the qualitative universe and hyperousia which he constitutes, and the more conscious of this that he is, so the closer does his life approach the transcendent horizon of meaning. In the seventh epistle of Plato, in which he chides those who claim to have written the truth into their books, for the truth cannot be written, but is rather gnoston te kai alethes, this very progression is made known as a progression through the name, account, image, and finally through knowledge, into the inexpressible fifth movement of philosophy. Man is not limited by Being, nor held back by the thing he contemplates, even if it be the image of the starry firmament with all its suns and milkyways, to cite Schopenhauer, and so man provides the limit to things, and was their measure; this is his heroic essence and eroto-daemonism: it is only man that has an essentia or internal reality, a form and limit, for only man can announce himself from out of the supra-abundance and the meaning-excess of the Logos or primordial Word, while Being gains a limit of its own only in relation to that possessed by man, only in relation to the immortal mensurae established in his philosophy, so that it might be said that there were properly no Being of beings, no Being behind beings, which was the lesser understood component of the Platonic philosophy. Man is morally obligated to provide the measure to Being, for without his measure, the universe was left unaccomplished.

I believe that this piece of text contains the answer to our problem of politics and philosophy; the obligation is nothing besides filling in the space which has been called God. P says that the nature of being-human has not been determined, and he is right; all we have are flawed attempts; humanism being one of the more ambitious ones, but still hopefully flat and lacing human dimensions; what is always lacking is the contradicting nature of morality - the more liberating it is to certain types, the more tyrannical it must be on the whole; we can only appreciate the contradiction when we have moved beyond it when we've seen it emerge from a singular phenomenon. Somehow Parodites navigates both edges of the abyss in parallel; reading it requires holding intact several strains of reason parallel to each other, much like in advanced occult work, save that one also has to keep track of the logics whereby these strands unfold, which is not the case in occultism, where one acts on faith, or the strong intuition of being on the right track; this philosophy of Parodites is indeed strongly exalted, and it can not be overstated that we need it in order to make full use of value ontology.

Where Parodites maps the origins and the present state of the human psyche, a work indeed started by Freud by positing a lot of relevant errors, VO is like Nietzsche's phenomenology strictly technical, void of humanity (only the philosopher is directly infused in it); it also requires no further thought to be validated; it does not require that one engages it with content, it is certainly not human in its application. Precisely in this capacity it is the key to delineate, within the paradigm of excess and daemonic 'transontic' progression of consciousness, the limits of man and world.

These limits, so it now appears, are extremely volatile; in combination with each other they produce the worlds of symbols and all transactions (as I understand it, even DNA is a symbolic system, triggering chemical activity by 'presenting' certain 'recognized' forms to other organic parts); and it is impossible to get solid foot on the ground in in this border zone between man and world which we call humanity in this age of communication (before we called it god and managed to stay within ourselves more, now we truly occupy the space between man and being, and it is thus inevitable that we at one point sacrifice a part of what we now consider ourselves in order to set the limits and become man, and perceive the world; what we sacrifice now will later appear to us as hell, but it appears now to us as out freedom from the past, from the stupidities of religion, from superstition in general. In truth, religion has carried this space in which we are blind for us to stumble on ourselves when fate wills it; the effort to bring light to this space which we now displace by our insistence on 'being rational' while not knowing what reason is, will gradually make man master of fate - in the same way that fate will finally be able to master man. The greater coherences are only there in potential; because life has formed symmetrically around the fundamental asymmetry of being, he will learn to know his fate by cultivating the asymmetry in himself, and this asymmetry is 'self-valuing'; and this is (I will argue) what Sauwelios indicates with "Injustice".

There is a tiny point of convergence of our perspectives; it is so small that it is a hellish task to say something that is coherent to all and does justice to all - but the fact is that we are still all here and understand more than we did 4 years ago; I a beginning to discern a theory - or it may be my own reviving courage that I discern, courage which is always the flesh and blood of mind-shaping thought, wherein the self-valuing logical grammar works to keep open the abyss while bridges are being built across it; the mistake is that we want to close the abyss; we want to be one with the world, submerge in being. But we only become the abyss; rather we must think in the same manner as Heidegger perceives the being of the bridge; the bridge cultivates on both sides of the river, it brings together land and land (man and world) by acknowledging their fundamental separation; by this fundamental acknowledgement, man becomes bridge-builder; all he does now is to draw closer to being as himself, for which he needs to be what he can not be under normal circumstances; both intelligent and completely honest. This is why the philosopher needs to be politicized; to politicize honesty. The erotic impulse that ripples outward from such honesty in the world has made revolutions; but it has only rarely produced heroic mindset; for heroism to become a true norm, which would undo very many unnecessary restraints and sicknesses in the world as it shows the transcendent privilege of all true action and compels man to extend himself qua man. From there on philosophy leaves the bearded profiled countenance behind and looks right at man, and becomes a youthful ing or royal couple; it is only philosophy that can make kings, because human worth is a philosophical principle. King-making is the task of philosophy as the Athenians understood it; we have forgotten this but no philosopher has existed who did not feel himself the rightful patriarch of a dynasty; all philosophers therefore have posthumous friends, and only now philosophy seems to have grown so massive that it draws time into itself so as for it to catch up with it. The present was never theoretically possible. It was only possible without thought. But with our methods, the present can be conceived as a real 'place', that is to say we can delineate man in terms of the excessive being of which he partakes, and perhaps teach him to delineate himself; 'building, dwelling, thinking' - as pastoral as this sounds in Heideggers words, it is a very rapturous process; it is after all the self-causing of being - which is fundamentally heroic... this is the point where value ontology is most human; the fully existent human, the human ontic real, is a connective process at the head of which a heroic effort directs that collective; Dionysus as the city-state of Nietzsches ideal - but possibly also a world movement of awakened men who bring forth a future greater, more dynamic, fertile and rich of experience than I think I would dare to imagine, for fear of becoming very sad that I was not born into it; this is my fundamental struggle, I suppose - do I keep this in my heart, or do I transpose it, through this brutally imperfect means of my writing here, to the outside so that it once may grow into a beating heart of the world? See here the fundamental problem Parodites identifies as also the state of my philosophical identity right now. I am not yet moral; I would only become moral at the suggestion, the evocation, of a true 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
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: The Heroic (grappling with P's conception) Tue Sep 08, 2015 7:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
All of this is so petty, I keep gravitating toward either of the inauthentic axes of conception. I fear that my way of addressing the Daemonic is a particular way; perhaps it is the highest or closest to omnipotent particular way but still, it is a lower rung than philosophy; it is magic.

I think that my discovery of a principle of being marks an occult rank 'above the abyss'; I am a furious and daily practicing occultist; it is not something one can be initiated into and then get out of. I initiated myself to save myself from ruin by chaos, it is not a skill therefore which I wish to propagate or even announce. But if I am to be honest I have no choice but to announce that I believe very strongly in the power of symbolism to effect 'absurd' degrees of change. It is because the clergy of science (the antithesis, as I will argue if anyone is interested, to the scientific geniuses) navigate only by the very least responsive of mediums that life has a chance against scientific deterministic politics of ethics; the world itself is far more opportunistic and 'close to itself' than to require such absurd detours in determination; detours that only leave the crudest connections intact.

Once man wakes up to symbolic nature of power, or the power of symbolic minds - one can equate 'symbol' with 'mind' in the highest sense - one never steps into the same mind except holding he same symbol - on that day he will no longer be ruled by any elites but the ones of his own making.

Symbols are approximations of the actual reality of the proto-deamonic excess; they are the foundations on which identities are built; human bureaucracy is quite as self-fertilizing and pervasive as grass, because the ground of being itself is 'formal'; there is no correspondence of force that can cause causation without a symbolic exchange of presence. Men have their handshakes, so do computers programs and so do electronic particles; it is not an actual transaction but the formalization of the possibility of transaction.

For this reason, power always dresses in formality; it can not express itself to power in another way.

As Capable said it is quite of as much consequence how we are being valued; how we are being perceived; symbolic aggression places imprints of the will as beacons on the 'bitter sea', the protodaemonic plasma, the 'climate of being', etc etc; beacons to 'shake hand' - imprint the notion of possibility - on those ships passing by in the dark.

Our causal relation with the imaginatively posited symbol remains intact as the symbol does its work in the daemonosphere. It is usual that magicians do not know how to harvest their fish, the consequences of an act of magic, and thus there are also a lot of unharvested treasures hanging around for beginners to experience their luck; but that it is incontestably real, this is only an empirical matter and not ever a philosophical one; philosophy rather discloses that the possibility of science does not prevent the possibility of magic; the two oprate by different standards of correspondence.

The 'analog' grammar of value is prior to the 'digital' law of correspondence;
the necessity of standard requires that two corresponding things correspond equally to a (possibly hypothetical) third; therefore (eternally multiple frames) correspondence only deals in aspects, not in entities.











___________
" 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
Image
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: The Heroic (grappling with P's conception) Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Some material on the question of the heroic daemonism:




One of the central points in my philosophy of consciousness is that the apparent stream of consciousness is only the residuum of reflex-affect carried through the domain of the real ego struggling with death and dissolution, and that fully human consciousness is the product of something almost opposite to a stream, namely discontinguous states of acausal abruption within the order of affects, whereby linguistic-abstract symbols, which stand outside of temporal relations, are utilized to reify the real ego, that is, the feeling of affective unity, as ideal, cohered in the transcendent horizon of meaning. Because of this, consciousness is impenetrable to the two main philosophical methodologies: Hegelian dialectics and phenomenology, for the former relies on synthesis, and the later on the analysis of a causal sequence of events or stream of consciousness- Nietzsche's principle of Will to Power, whereby all drives are made to interact with one another purely on the basis of which has a greater internal quanta of force, organizing thereby into causal associations of subjugation and enslavement, is a fundamental phenomenological model. In my philosophy of mind, when we hear a sound, the mind is actually experiencing a discontiguous state formed from the juxtaposition of the lowest and highest tones, in which it reifies the primitive, immediate, bodily experience of temporal succession throughout the whole development of the particular sound, rather it is a piano chord, a ringing bell, or a siren: to the animal, every seemingly individual sound is an un-composed sequence of neural events, and has the impression of a multitude of different, unconnected sounds, that is, a true stream of consciousness. There is therefor a pre-existing structure, a continua of affects or a field, upon which sense experiences are organized in the human mind into periodic intensifications of a basic, liminal affective unity which serves as a kind of threshold of potentiation, namely the real ego- that is, a field upon which the undifferentiated conscious stream is separated out into variances of height and depth, low and high levels of excitement, lower and higher tones: the goal of philosophy is to reify this real ego in more comprehensive states of discontiguity, thereby enlarging the scope of possible intensification around which affects are organized, for as long as we are operating on the basis of the real ego, only a tiny sliver of consciousness can serve as the libidinal threshold or limit to the potentiation and intensification or separation of experience into height and depth- any intensity that crosses that boundary is pushed into the unconscious and cannot play a role in the reification of the primitive conscious stream into a more human and awakened, transcendent consciousness.

...

While animals certainly have feelings, they are parts of the causal-reflexive series organized by nature and evolution in order to reconstitute a particular sequence of neural events that had been proven beneficial to the organism; in the state of discontiguity, in which this causal stream of affects has been dis-integrated by introducing symbolic reasoning into conscious life, man utilizes a negative-conceptual space formed out of the asymmetries of psychic variances in which to reify the object of consciousness- the real as ideal, immortal, Ego. Humans possess the real ego only because it functions as a necessary center for this disintegrated psychic interior, in the manner of a libidinal threshold: experiences that cross this threshold get truncated and pushed into the unconscious, so that all experience can be re-interpreted by the conscious mind in terms of a semiotic relationship to the real-ego or immediate sense of self, a representation of the feeling of organo-affective unity holding the individual back from dissolution and death. There are then in humans two modes of emotion which are different from animal-feeling, namely negative and positive emotions related to this libidinal threshold, and discontinguous states of consciousness which are far more comprehensive than simpler emotions like anger or lust, more like peak experiences, in which philosophic and creative revelation takes place and the real is reified as ideal ego, and in which the daemonic is given an eroto-daemonic horizon.

...

The first generation of philosophers realized the primordial state of discontiguity in which the two divergent universes available for the purpose of reifying consciousness of the real, one of substance or Being and the other of Power or energeia, crossed one another at some intellectual infinitesimal, like two lines through a point on the number line, if only for a moment and after having passed through eternity; the Ideal self was found, in that undefinable locus, to be neither the nous or possession of Being nor the Body, that is, the possession of extraneous forces of nature; this self-contracted image of the real, that is, this negative-conceptual space, [truth as a category of pure negativity] provided the philosophical medium in which to construct a new center of thought or episteme within which to mask the unformulable Ideal and around which cognition could gravitate towards a new tonal center and re-absorb its own contents within a higher-transitional phase of differentiations. Philosophy involves as one of its fundamental operations the establishing and the enlargement of this negative-conceptual space or discontiguity which Voegelin referred to as the principium non-identitatis or principle of non-identity, and which I have before called the illusory center of thought- a necessarily nonphilosophical or rather prephilosophical act, while on the other hand the act of philosophy's fulfillment, as lies within the heart of its own activity and life, is found in the hypostasis of the immanent as transcendent horizon; that is, the saturation of this negative-conceptual space with its own concept; the determining of truth as the category of pure negativity. Spinoza, Nietzsche, Heraclitus, and many others, have accomplished the first pre-philosophical inaugural task. The tragic-daemonism of man and conceptual opposition of, for example, life and death, gives way to the opposition of soul and body, then will and determinism, etc. all the way up through the ladder of ascending discontinguities, the ideal ego recognizing itself as neither of the two terms in any series and always located in the excess or daemonic remainder of the immanent ground of differentiation, whereby this ideal serves as the basis upon which the immanent is hypostasized as transcendent horizon, until the ladder culminates in the recognition of Truth as the category of pure negativity, for neither term in any of the series of differentiations will ever be adequate to the remainder: once this culmination is attained, philosophy will fulfill itself in heroic-daemonism as a pure, limitless creative energy, in which the center of thought is exploded outside of its own boundary.



___________
A sik þau trûðu
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:08 am

Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Plato's Ethics Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Plato was the "first" modern philosopher because he divided, was the first to divide his audience into two groups, allowing for a third as per Parodites. In fact, Parodites' claim that Plato claimed nothing beyond being, no Being, begins to show us Socrates' Ethos. Socrates spoke of common sense about all. He is the first ethical philosopher: love of wisdom is not for the lover of wisdom, but for the ordinary man. I call him a scoundrel of a manipulator, but no less a philosopher.

The Topus Uranus, we must not fool ourselves, is presented as something to be taken seriously. The world of ideas is presented as a real world with full alchemical (materializing, fleshing) force. Here is the division, not a pedaogical one but a real one: the Heaven for dullards... And the category for Us. Thus, Aristotle. But even Aristotle was chained by the Platonic ethos: present thine philosophy manipulatively.

For Plato, we know this too from his dealings with politicians and kings, the philosopher' soul is a comanding soul... The human lightning rod for all of the species.

This is why Nietzsche called him sickly: philosophy is not a comanding. It is, as Sawelios rightly says, a pleasure. But it is also a soul, as Capable hints. It is the soul that immediately grasps Plato's meaning beyond his petty manipulations, that within us which celebrates mistake and is dumbfounded by the stupid's inability to grasp its counterpoint: insight, rather, understanding.

This is Plato's ethics. An Ethics of the fall of the first great sophic empire. Let us know this so that, if we decide on an ethics, it be an ethics of the preservation of philosophy as opposed to its tyranny, which leads to thousands of years of mistake made flesh. But more interestingly, this OP says aloud what no philosopher, from this very platonic ethics, has dared say. That we know quite appart from what we are supposed to know, and that we are often much to faciecious with eachother... That mistake is our offspring, not our cause or our consequence, that we mustn't let stupid people inhibit our natural instinct by letting them guide it, nor withdraw from scorn of them. That philosophy is beautiful because we are beautiful, and not the other Platonic way around.

Does this leave space for a common ethics? Why not? Let it be a derivative ethics and not an artificial ethics. Let us show them some tricks, instead of tricking them into thinking themselves us! Maybe Plato was simply tired of living amon others, had to imagine himself removed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Plato's Ethics Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Let us show them some tricks, instead of tricking them into thinking themselves us!

Well said. Rather than politics, theatre.

Quote :
Maybe Plato was simply tired of living amon others, had to imagine himself removed.

Yes. In general this is the philosopher's drive, but in him it can be seen as the Greek polis renunciation of itself as a social body, and transcending into an idea. The negational (and deadly) aspect being Sparta, the self-negating fixation on this anti-intellectual ideal. It was rhetorical, not ideational, it became a drive as Athens was no longer producing temples, had internalized her building - the hardness had to come from the idea of hardness. In this hardness, Christianity ultimately triumphed, simply by standing beyond death, and using death as a shield, so that behind its absolute hardness it could become 'soft', turn inward and discover new forms of courage.

I could see Nietzsche as this courage coming to know itself, and first realizing how brutally hard it is.











Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Ethics of Depth Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Depth and negativity.

Inexpressable... They express. The ethics of depth and ensuing negativity is never to write or read a word at its word. To apply depth and negativity to the most absolutist of terms, to the seemingly deepest of concepts.

This ethics is foremost to building. But its very inertia commands care... Depth has been around as method now for over 100 years and has yeilded some fruit. Let us not pretend, in the building of a system or the hunting of wisdom, that negativity is a floor. It is precicely the abscence of a floor, and our ethics commands an awareness of what has already been given as foot and hand-holds.

If a concept feels absolute, we are tumbling in the depths with no holds, worse, no awareness of our need of them.

Let's call nihilism: the worship of tumbling without awareness of tumbling, and spiritual suicide the same with awareness.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Ethics of Depth Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah I agree, I see it much the same way. I came upon the idea of depth for its own sake as a replacement for the idea of truth for its own sake, because ultimately I could not remain in any plateau for long, no matter how profound it was I always ended up leaving it behind.. because there was a further-removed, more significant perspective to find. Every experience that spoke to me of truth spoke as a reversal of some other previous truth, or if not a reversal than a further deepening and widening. I eventually realized the psychological method I was using was depth as such; "truth" can mean many things, different thing, all or none of them true, as the case may be - but depth means only one thing. It is a fucking standard, man. At least one sure one I've found.

Depth into reality, or into lies, or into the surface, or into the deep depths... we can pick and choose. Truth itself is a mask for depth. Truth cultivates (a) depths in us by letting us not know this is what we are doing, thus truth works with nature and reality to build slow things, but sure things. That is an assurance we can hold to, in our own abyss, from time to time if needed; but as philosophers obviously those methods cannot be our own. (or maybe they can)

My ideas have exploded out of me and annihilated my previous positions, values, emotions; my desires and will, my hope, my love, all of this has become at one time or another sacrificial material to a need that took a long time to formulate itself in language. Ive had to witness the destruction of the things I cherish more than my own life, many times over, until I was forced to stare into the heart of value and find an ember there which burns with such intensity of love that essentially is hard to distinguish from hate. Things close in on each other. The need I mentioned is something there is no name for, except the absence of names, it is the condition of conditions, or the concept of concepts as I think Parodites once called truth; the idea of depth as such, depth for its own sake rather than truth for its own sake. Obviously that idea contains a contradiction, since depth "for its own sake" means nothing as depth is always a depth-process probing into and through substance, matter, reality, truth, objectivity, positivity, life, whatever. Depth is like consciousness in this way, conceptually-speaking: depth in terms of something, just like consciousness of something. These ideas are essentially meaningless by themselves, which is what makes them so fucking powerful, because despite that they can actually take on a subsistence and meaning of their own, which is eminently existential and psychological; basically we can only know how to talk about these things "in themselves" once we have learned in what sense they are never isolate and always refer beyond themselves.

I think we can avoid the nihilism and spiritual suicide. I think that because I know it. Because it's funny, that even if we wanted to go that route, and like me you've probably tried it, ....we cannot. Something won't allow it. We are not given the luxury of falling apart, of truly breaking down, as seems to happen to so many others. Our "hell" is the fact that we exist necessarily. Although I couldn't tell you how or why that is, what separates us in this way from others. Why can't we break? Is this strength, or something else? I don't really know.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: Ethics of Depth Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol, it's depth.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ethics of Depth Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, it's depth, which is, in my experience, a result of honesty. Honesty is a fate. It is a taste, something from which you can not escape if you are born with it. The same thing that makes me suffocate when I'm in a group of people trying to 'simply have fun', I can not bring myself to reach that point beyond the loss of faith (how often I haven't lost that fickle thing) which is the active will to nothingness, which is required to abandon philosophy an it's prospects.

Pezer you make it clear that we have been going too fast though, with our projection of concrete 'success' - my Jupiterian ascendant forces me often to approach the ravine when others see no possible way across it, and sometimes my eagles wings fail to appear when I jump - and I want nothing more for our project than stability. If it helps you at all, we should 'back down' a bit from the politics, let the plans stand there but take some more time to prepare.

I knew 4 years ago we were setting out on a trail that at the very earliest ends in 2023.

I have spiritually 'fallen to my death' so many times I have lost the fear of it, but this is not just. It is not a good, refined contrast to the courage; courage requires fear. I feel compelled to take your evident fear as a sign that I should not completely disobey or disband mine, yet.

But in the final instance there is absolutely no reason for fear - precisely because things thing, philosophy, is so ruthless and strong as to grab us by the bootstraps every time we try giving up, it is not 'up to us', but 'up to it'. As your breath taking and breath giving poetries of the last days show (I haven't commented much directly on them but I was more than once sitting in front of my computer silently just enjoying a sentence over and over) the fear is only something intensifying the significance, not something that refers to the feebleness of the undertaking. I think we are all quite often weak in the face of the power, or vision, or love by which we are infected; how could it be different? What grounds do we have to stand on to not be weak or afraid? The particular fear and weakness we feel is probably something that could be compressed and distilled and brought out as a form of freedom to which our deepest souls are addicted, but which is too dark for the more conscious and conformed parts. We are called, that much is sure, and part of us is always wondering where the call comes from and where it will lead us - but as the years have passed, I have seen it proven that the call is not empty or a misleading echo, but that it constantly leads to earth. That is, possibly, in the end what is is, the call of philosophy: the voice of the Earth itself. The great other whispering in a tone that only the true will recognize as music. The opposite to the pied piper, she calls no rats and children but those who were already listening for a cue to leave the blind procession.

It is storming, it is dark, now and then a lightning-bolt illuminates the field. This is the condition. It just so happens that I like rain and lightning, and that I hate signposts - instead of these fixed pointers in a dead world, there are the signs given off by fellow travelers.



___________
" 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: Ethics of Depth Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My fear of the project is a fear of doing things myself, of loneliness. It is the kind that most likely benefits most by friends hurrying me along, tying me to the mast.

No, the one that really scares me is the project of philosophy, what we are undertaking the other thing for. That is the one that really stops me cold like a lightning blasting a few feet in front of my walk. If lightning is of Gods, it is beause no measure of human courage can stop the stopping or the coldness of it.

And yet, perhaps here also the cure is to hurry eachother along, tie eachother to the mast.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Ethics of Depth Thu Sep 24, 2015 3:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The lightning invariably has one effect on me, a feeling of having been passionately kissed, a promise of a violent union. Philosophical insights have the same nature. The fright is due to the truth if it, which is that there is no back from them. One you're wedded to these ideas, that's it.

Do you know how many people prefer death to the unknown of philosophy? It is only because they are not proud enough that they do this; the lightning is like a test of pride. This is Thor, the basic aesthetics of order in the chaos, the sign that there is such a thing as order, as power, in the storm.

This is what you see in places like ILP, or other philosophical gatherings under the banner of commonality - fear of the storm, hatred of it, fear of pride, hatred of pride. And of course pride isn't served from a menu. It needs to be hunted down, prepared on the spot of the kill -

what am I saying -- it is hard, because in the moments I have been confronted with the fear, I didn't talk or write about it, I just suffered it long enough to see how it was devoured again. The fear ultimately serves as fuel for the flame that evokes 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: Ethics of Depth Thu Sep 24, 2015 3:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
People often think that great conquerors speak of fears and fragility as a poetic tool so that their subjects can relate to their godly destinies in some way.

The hilariously beautiful truth is that they mean it in the most honest, childish way. The greatness of their venture makes them feel free of modesty, of acting great. They only keep acting in as far as the venture necessitates it.

Power is maybe the one thing that removes the last mask: revealing only a tool to ones greatest conquests.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Ethics of Depth Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I posted a thread of my own about this- Letheia and Aletheia, I had forgotten about this one or I would have put it here.



___________
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
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: Ethics of Depth Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Depth and negativity.

Inexpressable... They express. The ethics of depth and ensuing negativity is never to write or read a word at its word. To apply depth and negativity to the most absolutist of terms, to the seemingly deepest of concepts.

This ethics is foremost to building. But its very inertia commands care... Depth has been around as method now for over 100 years and has yeilded some fruit. Let us not pretend, in the building of a system or the hunting of wisdom, that negativity is a floor. It is precicely the abscence of a floor, and our ethics commands an awareness of what has already been given as foot and hand-holds.

If a concept feels absolute, we are tumbling in the depths with no holds, worse, no awareness of our need of them.

Let's call nihilism: the worship of tumbling without awareness of tumbling, and spiritual suicide the same with awareness.

I think that, in a way, if a concept feels absolute, we are not so much tumbling it the "depths" but rather rolling around in shallowness. To see a concept as "absolute" is not having the awareness to see other more valid perspectives...like being written in stone.
Philosophy is like indra's net.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:10 am

Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

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


PostSubject: On the Value of Suffering. Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
1.

The good is ultimately always pleasure: if there is a God, the good is good because it pleases Him; if you say the good pleases Him because it is good, you're setting up something beyond and above Him, meaning He isn't really God at all. But what would a God's pleasure be?--A Creator's pleasure. Thus Nietzsche distinguishes between the "creature in man" and the "creator in man" (Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225). The pleasure of the "creator in man" is in being "aware of form-giving energies and an artist's conscience" (ibid.). I have therefore named what Dawkins has called "the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people", "victim moralities": for they are characterised by identification with the "creature in man" as opposed to the "creator in man"--in the case of a stoning, for instance, with the stoned as opposed to the stoners. Now I'm not advocating identification with any petty motives the stoners may have--for example, righteous indignation, resentment, and the like. Identification with the "creator in man" is not about identifying with motives, for such things are merely foreground phenomena; it's about identifying with power, with causes as distinct from reasons ("causes" in the sense of "causes and effects"),--with the power to cause suffering or enjoyment or anything else. And, inasmuch as it's more difficult to cause enjoyment than to cause suffering, I advocate the former rather than the latter. But the highest joys presuppose the deepest suffering. Thus Nietzsche says that "only the discipline of suffering, of great suffering has created all the enhancements [Erhöhungen, "heightenings"] of man" (ibid., paraphrase). In order, therefore, to cause the greatest enjoyment, one must first cause the greatest suffering. The greatest enjoyment, however, is precisely in the feeling of causing the greatest enjoyment. It is the feeling of the greatest power, the greatest feeling of power.

"[A] creating one shalt thou create." (Thus Spake Zarathustra, "Of Child and Marriage".)


2.

The above is morally nihilistic in the sense Nietzsche often used the word "morality", namely in the sense of slave morality. For my "hedonism" must not be confused with the hedonism Nietzsche criticises in BGE 225: mine is concerned with "the feeling of fullness, of power that seeks to overflow, the happiness of high tension, the awareness of a wealth that would like to bestow and give away" (BGE 260). I don't think that's phallic in the sense of (time-)fetishes, though; as a time-fetish, the phallus is teleological whereas the vulva is nonteleogical: the straight line segment points to an end that lies beyond it, or at the far end of it, whereas the circle suggests an end in itself.

"Can we remove the idea of a goal from the process and then affirm the process in spite of this?--This would be the case if something were attained at every moment within this process--and always the same. [...] Every basic character trait that is encountered at the bottom of every event, that finds expression in every event, would have to lead every individual who experienced it as his own basic character trait to welcome every moment of universal existence with a sense of triumph. The crucial point would be that one experienced this basic character trait in oneself as good, valuable--with pleasure. [...] Morality [...] taught men to hate and despise most profoundly what is the basic character trait of those who rule: their will to power." (The Will to Power, section 55, Kaufmann translation.)

Nietzsche goes on to sketch the case that "this trait were essential to life and it could be shown that even in this will to morality this very 'will to power' were hidden, and even this hatred and contempt were still a will to power." (ibid.) But how can one experience the will to power, as distinct from the feeling of power, "as good, valuable--with pleasure"? By realising that will to power "is not a teleological principle but a dynamic force, like a stretched spring or a dammed river." (Cox, Nietzsche: Naturalism and Interpretation, 5.2.4) Will to power is itself power, the feeling (pathos) of power... No will has a strength of zero.


3.

My position is phallic insofar as "the blessings of peace and domesticity" (Harry Neumann, "Liberalism's Moloch") are rightly associated with women (goddesses). After all, all war is waged for a peace that is a victory (cf. Zarathustra, "Of War and Warriors") (if it was just for peace, regardless of whether it be a victory, one should just capitulate). As such, it's teleological: compare Nietzsche's criticism of the striving for happiness in Twilight of the Idols. If, on the other hand, the ostensible end is merely a means; if it's the war that hallows the cause instead of vice versa; then the strife is nonteleological: one derives happiness from the striving itself. A happy Sisyphus is a Sisyphus who finds happiness in his strength, in his power to push the boulder up the hill. But to that end, there must be an ostensible end, as a means: and for the great philosopher, that is the victorious peace of the Superman. Homer, Plato, Machiavelli and Nietzsche were all dedicated to "let[ting] the shining blossoms of genius sprout forth" (Nietzsche, "The Greek State")--in particular those of "the genius of wisdom and of knowledge", the great philosopher... And in this age, the means to that is willing the recurrence: willing that the postmodern age become a new pre-Homeric age--whether it be by a circle or a spiral dynamic--, followed by a new Platonic age and a new Machiavellian-Cartesian age, as our age still is insofar as it's still modern: the age of the scientific-technological conquest of nature. To counteract the conquest of human nature, its master or beast-of-prey part, it's necessary to affirm the recurrence. May justice be done and may the world perish! May nature recur and may it be expelled with a pitchfork! Hail Nietzsche Caesar Dionysus!
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: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thank you for reminding me of what is essencial and terrifying in Nietzsche.

I hope this is a prologue...

Hail!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To the OP, thanks for posting this here. A very Nietzschean analysis.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The recognition of creature and creator in man is not Nietzsche's- it belongs to Christianity, it is a fundamental possession of the existential burden first recognized by Judaeo-Christianity. Man is a breath but a breath of God; he is made of dust but formed in God's image. It certainly is not a Greek idea, neither Roman. One crucifies the beast so as to liberate through its pain the energies accessible to the creative instinct. Christianity degenerated into pity of the beast in man, yes. But that isn't surprising, since man likes to pity things, especially himself, and one can only pity the beast; you can't pity the creator in man, because it does not suffer. The beast is easy to identity with, but how do you identify with the creator in man?



___________
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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
The recognition of creature and creator in man is not Nietzsche's- it belongs to Christianity, it is a fundamental possession of the existential burden first recognized by Judaeo-Christianity. Man is a breath but a breath of God; he is made of dust but formed in God's image. It certainly is not a Greek idea, neither Roman.

That seems right - it at least explains to me why I tend to experience Nietzsche a vehemently honest and positively erotic version of Christianity rather than an antithesis to it. His love of the Greeks is rather a question of what to create, than a recovery of the creative perspective.

Nietzsche overcomes the Greek notion of fate, the gloomy deathfate, by creating a way in which the good world is forever preserved. The Greeks had no such notion, they were too 'true to the earth' to have such notions, which means their immanent space had no power to held them as truth, they were inward still too small for the big lies, such as notably the 0, which transformed the world more than anything, and was surely a reflection and fruit and perhaps even lawgiver of the completed immanent transcendent space.

Quote :
One crucifies the beast so as to liberate through its pain the energies accessible to the creative instinct.

That's hands down the best explanation of Christianity I've seen.
The first one to makes proper sense to me, basically.

The pain of the beast as the medium. There's philosophy's cruelty and suffering. I still clung to the idea of the pain of god, which is empty.
Then Nietzsche worked actively to release the beast from suffering.
Enough cruelty! That is exactly how I've always read him. His effect is: to cut open the pregnant spirit and let all the cultivated worth flow out over the the dried up earth-beast. It is not cruelty that Nietzsche wants to give, but justification to its pervasive presence in the hearts of man. Cruelty must become beautiful again. This meant to him to let the beast have its way with the mind - and this is the effect that his writings have, the orient the man entirely on his appetites, his tastes, as refined as they may be. Hence his amounting in value ontology, which is the theory of being that bypasses the epistemic dimension by connecting the ontic directly to the vectors approaching the absolute. It replaces the entire epistemic dimension with a single ideal, which is an angular one, convexing in an invisible point, which can only be taken as a reference to the absolute.

Beyond this radical wipeout of the epistemic dimension there was nothing for some years. Not even the ideal ego could survive. Only developing the theory would do to keep the vectors alive and the coherence of the ego intact by identifying the ideal with the reference to the absolute. But all progress that was made was blueprinting for when things would start to roll downhill. Then I was attracted suddenly to the idea of Excess, as the world of the daemonic. Now I could see the stuff that would materialize what I had blueprinted before - the thing between self-valuings, which is not itself being, but the medium whereby being is not enclosed in its being-ness, but is also all other being-ness in the sense that that other being-ness is not self-enclosed. It is the potential that can never fully materialize because it contradicts itself in infinite ways, and that potential is the substance of the mind, its churning, its need to categorize, the overflowing of categories which adds to their beauty but not to their power, the constant iconoclasm of the known universe, the world as a breaking vase, never broken beyond its form, always suggesting a breaking back into being whole. Dionysos, the thought that lives as the will to the wholeness of the fragment in the sea of fragmentation, and is fulfilled as the glorious un-wholeness, the fact of a beyond, the whirling horizons of it close enough to the eye that it dizzies and time ceases to exist on Earth. Enactment of fragmentation, wholeness as blood-bond. But the excess was never transcended so as to take hold of its perpetual recurrence: an did not draw being into his becoming heart so as for it to know itself, until the beast was severed and instantly missed, replaced, with the substance of its own pain, as th many longings for the fire of the beast, longings which are made of that same fire, but thinner, finer, airborne. For many, this means terrible injustice to their instincts, because their minds aren't fit to breath gold. But for artists especially, artists and women, Christianity has given the space to expand infinitely in their will, to identify it with the creator of the universe himself. It was only not to Nietzsche's liking, what had been done with this freedom. And I don't blame him. The second stroke of the baptizing sword stands as the second house stands to the first in astrology; from 'i am' to 'i own' - the gift of what one was born with, thus properly, as. The desirability of aristocracy, of inequality, the earth sign, being true to the earth meaning being untrue to heaven, to the equal dividing of being part of a whole - the earth separates, and so Nietzsche's desire to bring back nature in the for of the splendid blond beast is only an engine, a means to a greater, chaotic end - the world as a pool of drives, where only those things that can forge a practical morality can survive. Christianity was pronounced dead on the basis of the resurrection of older an newer gods, and it was lame because it was not understood - understanding it then, is to understand Nietzsche as its self-healing, it's separating the wheat from the chaff, because what remains is still the introspective Christ, the an who goes inward to explode in consequence, the one who does not like hypocrisy and finally defeats it by pronouncing all things lies, forcing man to choose the lie they think best, rather than believing the one that is presented as truth. The death to the truth of the law is the dawn of truth in man, and Nietzsche finally harvests this day.

To be creators now means to be creative beasts. But all creators were already beastly - perhaps too any positives? Is not the Nietzschean ideal already present, saturated in, almost as this very world? The long way to go for the outer rays that were born of the inner eye, perhaps we can only be stars now, ignorant of the men that are about to go own the mountains of the planets out there, beyond 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
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
The recognition of creature and creator in man is not Nietzsche's- it belongs to Christianity, it is a fundamental possession of the existential burden first recognized by Judaeo-Christianity. Man is a breath but a breath of God; he is made of dust but formed in God's image. It certainly is not a Greek idea, neither Roman. One crucifies the beast so as to liberate through its pain the energies accessible to the creative instinct. Christianity degenerated into pity of the beast in man, yes. But that isn't surprising, since man likes to pity things, especially himself, and one can only pity the beast; you can't pity the creator in man, because it does not suffer. The beast is easy to identity with, but how do you identify with the creator in man?

Good question. The Nietzschean pity from BGE 225 is indeed not pity for the creator in man, for the reason you give. It's pity for those who do not know the joy of the creator in man, those who pity the creature in man. But although those do suffer at the sight or idea of the creature's suffering, they do not suffer from not knowing the creator's joy, as they do not know it... I have therefore renamed that Nietzschean pity Mitfreudlosigkeit ("congaudiumlessness", lack of shared joy)--as opposed to Mitleid(en) (literally "compassion"). This, in my view, is the true teleological ground for Nietzschean political philosophy: I especially derive it from a comparison between BGE 225 and WP 367.

As for the beast: It is the beast itself that mortifies the beast (GM 2.16). In other words, the creator in man as well as the creature in man is the beast; there is no transcendent God.



___________
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: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nietzsche's refinement for the creator: lol

Nietzsche's refinement for the beast: joy
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: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sauwelios wrote:
The Nietzschean pity from BGE 225 is indeed not pity for the creator in man, for the reason you give. It's pity for those who do not know the joy of the creator in man, those who pity the creature in man. But although those do suffer at the sight or idea of the creature's suffering, they do not suffer from not knowing the creator's joy, as they do not know it...

We could also phrase this, as Nietzsche seems to do in that aphorism, as follows: that Nietzschean pity is pity for the creator for his unconsciousness. However, being unconscious, the creator is not suffering, so it's still not really pity then.



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"As for the beast: It is the beast itself that mortifies the beast (GM 2.16). In other words, the creator in man as well as the creature in man is the beast; there is no transcendent God."


Indeed, as a philosophy of pure immanence, Nietzsche lacks the component of the ideal and transcendent, and this was surely his viewpoint. The mortifying of the beast so as to generate creative energies is a drive and is either commanded by or commands other drives in Nietzsche. But I am unsatisfied to say the least by this psychology.



___________
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
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
"As for the beast: It is the beast itself that mortifies the beast (GM 2.16). In other words, the creator in man as well as the creature in man is the beast; there is no transcendent God."

Indeed, as a philosophy of pure immanence, Nietzsche lacks the component of the ideal and transcendent, and this was surely his viewpoint. The mortifying of the beast so as to generate creative energies is a drive and is either commanded by or commands other drives in Nietzsche. But I am unsatisfied to say the least by this psychology.

I don't think I can accept the teleological-sounding expression, "so as to generate creative energies". Nietzsche's theory (found in GM 2.16-18, actually, and not just in 2.16) is that man's creative energies--his will to power--, because they were hampered by his environment, had to turn back upon himself, upon "themselves". To be sure, this presupposed a self-misunderstanding on his part:

"If the suffering and oppressed lost the faith that they have the right to despise the will to power, they would enter the phase of hopeless despair. This would be the case if this trait were essential to life and it could be shown that even in this will to morality this very 'will to power' were hidden, and even this hatred and contempt were still a will to power." (WP 55.)

It was, according to Nietzsche, really some of man's creative energies that turned upon others. But you seem to suggest a dualism of sorts. Don't you think man is just a beast (an animal), a product of a development (an evolution) that could be traced all the way back to the Big Bang? Do you think there has been transcendental intervention since then?



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is beyond the scope of your post and I don't like derailing things, but since you asked: No. I don't think consciousness is reducible to physis. Man's consciousness is not reducible to matter or physis. Part of our brains at least have incorporated a relation to what Pierce called the Third Universe, and our symbolic reasoning as well as the nature of our psychodynamic have created an epiphenomenon that cannot be reduced. Besides the transcendental psychology, I understand Being as a kind of self-negating "principle of nonidentity" that explodes itself into dialectically irresolvable conceptual tensions within human consciousness, which we inter-relate and cohere in the transcendental horizon of meaning through the aforementioned symbolic order, in the basic eroto-philosophic movement and production of meaning, and that the world abstracted from this consciousness does not exist- that there is no Being behind beings. So it's not so much of a transcendental intervention, it's just that nothing actually exists and that the whole of physis is an illusory construct utilized by the real-ego to fortify itself against dissolution. I will paste a few not so long passages about it.


I use the word discontiguity to refer to the appearance of contrasting, differentiated modes of subjectivity or self-perception. Topos is just my term for different stages in the evolution of the human subject's understanding of itself through history. I also use the word affect more than drive, since in my philosophy drives are just organized causal sequences of affects, properties of the real ego, which the architecture of the brain reconstitutes given certain situations.
...

The experience of the animals exists
only as an unbroken, undifferentiated stream of sensations which internally represents the physio-organic
reality of various series of neural tracts which the process of evolution has organized as a causal chain, so as
to incorporate in the internal universe of the animal's mind various beneficial coordinations of muscle tissue
and hormonal response, but our neocortex (where all the neural correlates of higher philosophical thought
lie) receives input from the entire brain, re-integrates it, and feeds its own output back as input to the rest of
the brain, actually rewiring the connectome or synapses- which is where our mind really is, it is far more
important than the brain structures themselves. Our amygdyla, limbic system- everything is transformed in
this operation and is no longer even analogous to the evolved counterparts in the animals.

While animals certainly have feelings, they are parts of the causal-reflexive series organized by nature and
evolution in order to reconstitute a particular sequence of neural events that had been proven beneficial to
the organism; in the state of discontiguity, in which this causal stream of affects has been dis-integrated by
introducing symbolic reasoning into conscious life, man utilizes a negative-conceptual space formed out of
the asymmetries of psychic variances in which to reify the object of consciousness- the real as ideal,
immortal, Ego. Humans possess the real ego only because it functions as a necessary center for this
disintegrated psychic interior, in the manner of a libidinal threshold: experiences that cross this threshold
get truncated and pushed into the unconscious, so that all experience can be re-interpreted by the conscious
mind in terms of a semiotic relationship to the real-ego or immediate sense of self, a representation of the
feeling of organo-affective unity holding the individual back from dissolution and death. There are then in
humans two modes of emotion which are different from animal-feeling, namely negative and positive
emotions related to this libidinal threshold, and discontinguous states of consciousness which are far more
comprehensive than simpler emotions like anger or lust, more like peak experiences, in which philosophic
and creative revelation takes place and the real is reified as ideal ego, and in which the daemonic is given an
eroto-daemonic horizon.

...

One of the central points in my philosophy of consciousness is that the apparent stream of consciousness is
only the residuum of reflex-affect carried through the domain of the real ego struggling with death and
dissolution, and that fully human consciousness is the product of something almost opposite to a stream,
namely discontinguous states of acausal abruption within the order of affects, whereby linguistic-abstract
symbols, which stand outside of temporal relations in the manner of the triads of Pierce, are utilized to reify
the real ego, that is, the feeling of affective unity, as ideal, thereby cohered in the transcendent horizon of
meaning. Because of this, consciousness is impenetrable to the two main philosophical methodologies:
Hegelian dialectics and phenomenology, for the former relies on synthesis, and the later on the analysis of a
causal sequence of events or stream of consciousness- Nietzsche's principle of Will to Power, whereby all
drives are made to interact with one another purely on the basis of which has a greater internal quanta of
force, organizing thereby into causal associations of subjugation and enslavement, is a fundamental
phenomenological model. In my philosophy of mind, when we hear a sound, the mind is actually
experiencing a discontiguous state formed from the juxtaposition of the lowest and highest tones, in which it
reifies the primitive, immediate, bodily experience of temporal succession throughout the whole
development of the particular sound, rather it is a piano chord, a ringing bell, or a siren: to the animal, every
seemingly individual sound is an un-composed sequence of neural events, and has the impression of a
multitude of different, unconnected sounds, that is, a true stream of consciousness. There is therefor a preexisting
structure, a continua of affects or a field, upon which sense experiences are organized in the human
mind into periodic intensifications of a basic, liminal affective unity which serves as a kind of threshold of
potentiation, namely the real ego- that is, a field upon which the undifferentiated conscious stream is
separated out into variances of height and depth, low and high levels of excitement, lower and higher tones:
the goal of philosophy is to reify this real ego in more comprehensive states of discontiguity, thereby
enlarging the scope of possible intensification around which affects are organized, for as long as we are
operating on the basis of the real ego, only a tiny sliver of consciousness can serve as the libidinal threshold
or limit to the potentiation and intensification or separation of experience into height and depth- any
intensity that crosses that boundary is pushed into the unconscious and cannot play a role in the reification
of the primitive conscious stream into a more human and awakened, transcendent consciousness. This is the
neuro-physiological-scientific theory. At a higher level of abstraction these discontiguous states become the
conceptual oppositions of the daemonic, and that is the transcendental psychology theory, while at a still
higher level they become the topoi of self, etc. and that is the cultural-historical theory and comparative
religion, which finally gives way to the category of pure negativity, the concept of primordial excess and the
inequality of being, which constitute the pure philosophy. All of my writing is, however seemingly
separate, talking about one thing at different levels of abstraction.


...

Eros designates the whole psychic phenomenon of organo-affective unity; it is conscious of itself as the self
or real-ego, and projects itself into the other as erotic love and the flesh's self destructive longing and
submergence in flesh- at a higher level it expresses itself as artistic creation, and at the highest, as
philosophy, which reifies the real as ideal, timeless ego: in the words of Aristotle, through philosophy one
immortalizes [apathanatizein] one's self. The erotic fixation belongs to the domain of the real ego, and in
fact is in one sense the mask of the real ego- of the real ego which represents psychologically the feeling of
organic unity, fortifying conscious bodily existence against dissolution into the primal forces of nature that
gave rise to it- that is, fortifying itself against death. The erotic fixation is also spoken of as the thought-arresting
image and the episteme, for which I named the epistemic topos[place]: when the reflexive-affective unity
of animal consciousness began disintegrating due to human symbolic reasoning, it required an image of
itself in which to stabilize itself while awaiting the formation of a new center of gravity for the
psychodynamic movement, and this image is the immediate or real ego: the real ego becomes the new center
of the whole causal formation of the various chains of neural impulses: all nerve impulses are reinterpreted
and reorganized following its appearance so as to reconstitute the feeling of the real ego, of organic unity,
whereas, in the animal's undifferentiated consciousness, the affects self-organize in a purely causal-reactive
fashion, namely on the basis of individual interactions between this nerve and that nerve- if one nerve
activates another and this leads to beneficial behavior, the later becomes dis-inhibited or more reactive, and
with more activations a causal sequence will solidify as part of the brain's physical architecture in the form
of bound synaptic connections- in humans this causal series must lead back to reconstituting or
strengthening the new center of the psyche, the real ego, or it simply becomes part of the unconscious and
does not dis-inhibit new nerve tissues. There is a deep connection in all of this between eros and thanatos,
organic unity and disintegration: the erotic pathos, the sexual experience in general and its various related
phenomenon, intimate something of the flesh's self-destructive longing for the flesh, the flesh's self-cannibalism.
In normal, healthy sexuality Eros is strong enough to maintain the sense of organic unity: in
pathological sex, it is not. The ideal ego, whose appearance is coincident with the origin of philosophy,
reifies self-consciousness in discontinguous states, in states of disassociated and juxtaposed affect- in
variances and fissures introduced into the organo-affective unity of the real and its causally formulated
universe. Philosophy is about employing the symbols to realize progressively greater states of discontiguity
(which the real ego interprets as pain and emotional disturbance, for it threatens the organic unity with
dissolution), in order to reify more and more completely the real ego as ideal, as the ideal represents deeper
stages in the enfoldment of topoi, and more expansive levels of consciousness; a deeper inwardness in
general. Each of the religions have realized such discontiguous states and realized new stages of subjective
existence, the last one so far having been attained by Christianity.


Not that I'm a Christian or even religious. The word God simply refers to that transcendental horizon of human consciousness for which we lack words, given our not yet complete stage in history, of the human subject's progress toward self-understanding.


In short: our neocortex gets too big, somehow we formulate abstract symbols, these disturb the purely causal organization of affects, we "evolve" the real ego or immediate self to get rid of the feeling of dissolution the transcendent experience induced, the feeling of disintegration of the sensory world- we "evolve" in other words the real ego as the feeling or organo-affective unity, and that accomplished by reinterpreting those affects in relation to a liminal threshold rather than simply other affects as the still animal brain does- this reinterpretation achieved by semiotically and falsely connecting all sense-affect phenomenon back to an imagined source- our real ego, and this threshold is periodically overwhelmed by traumatic experiences creating discontinuous, dissociated states of consciousness in which the real ego breaks through its own fortifications and experiences transcendence, reorienting itself with that symbolic order from which it was estranged- and it is from this that philosophic revelation descends.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


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

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


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


Last edited by Parodites on Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:20 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The material-tectonics or the logics of existence are inadequate, incompatible with, those of the mind. Mind is not the reality, as a lot of mysticism preaches, instead there are essentially two realities: that which exists (being), and that which knows (man, or "mind"). Of course mind too exists, but in a different and "higher" sense than existence exists.

The universe achieves its highest "purpose" in the creation of minds, but the logics of these minds goes against everything else in that universe. The Third Universe, yes I like this idea, this is exactly correct; the realm of facts, transcendent simply means "mental universe", a reality of reality itself, a kind of shadow, an 'aegis' even. The fact is, consciousness cannot be reduced to the material stuff from which we think it comes, nor can that stuff be reduced to consciousness. There are two orders of logic, two realities, at work here. But "dualism" has been taken to mean something it is not, namely a kind of religious positing of pure metaphysical substances rather than a more Deleuzean, "transcendental materialist" sort of deeper tectonics. The deep tectonics exist because, at a certain level, mind and reality do unite together, there exists a logical framework in which being and knowing are "one". But that is the truth of pure negativity, and doesn't mean they somehow therefore in that truth become reconcilable to each other, for that threshold is totally unaccessible to either.. but philosophy strives for it. The impossible ideal, the only truly impossible thought.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don't think it's impossible. I think transcendence is possible.

First

Kierkegaard called god what I call meta fear. Fear of fear, if you will, the ultimate discomfort. This in fact is a bridge to a bridge, what Fixed Cross calls soulcancer. To treat it, one must seek out the deepest discomforts and give them flesh: this or that, and chase them down. Slowly, through what is externally percieved as a self-destructive spiral the meta fear is destroyed, and all of meta along with it. They continue to exist, but something has been attained: ownership. Nietche called this self-overcoming, meta is below us. I call it ownership. If meta belongs to us, what doesn't? The bridge this bridge leads to is temporality. Temporality brings into view the opposite of meta: our deepest held transcendental hopes. It is realized that these hopes are one with the external world, that they can be made to belong to us. How? The world reintegrated and reunifyied through ownership dictates the logics needed: the same logics a man who owns a house uses to make of it what he pleases.

Second

Transcendence is not of another world, as Capable notes. But it is achievable, as Parodites notes, within a frame of mortal succession. If one mortal act has built towards it, following acts need not repeat what Nietzsche did, but own it. Not as a seeking of immortality through immanence, but as the placing into service of mortality, not to immortality, but to transcendence, which is of the only world there is: the world of the creator, the world of man.

Knowledge, too, can be owned. Tremble in fear, those who seek death in life!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes Pezer. What you said about that self-destructive spiral is similar to what I mean when I say the daemonic. The tragic-daemonic is when you get to what you call ownership of one's sufferings, embracing your fate and eating your own heart in secret like Achilles- the heroic-daemonic is when you can say with the dying words of Herakles, in splendor it all coheres: that is, when you break through into transcendence. An aphorism that encapsulates that mortal succession best is by Walter Benjamin: Only for the sake of the hopeless ones have we been given hope. My hope- if I have any, is not for myself and my life, but for the life that is without hope, for those who died with tumor filled lungs and failing livers while unsatisfied by the delusions of another world in the after-life, for those who could not make it cohere splendorously like the demigod Herakles; I hope it coheres, and that hope is the coherence, and transcendent.

But again I apologize for derailing your thread, something I do not like to do, but all this on the other hand does concern suffering, if not Nietzsche's particular concept of suffering.



___________
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
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
This is beyond the scope of your post and I don't like derailing things, but since you asked: No. I don't think consciousness is reducible to physis. Man's consciousness is not reducible to matter or physis.

There's a big difference between matter and physis. In fact, matter is not a fundamental concept in contemporary physics, having no universal definition. Before I can venture further into your post, which seems very specialistic and abstract, I will respond to Capable's response to it.


Capable wrote:
The material-tectonics or the logics of existence are inadequate, incompatible with, those of the mind. Mind is not the reality, as a lot of mysticism preaches, instead there are essentially two realities: that which exists (being), and that which knows (man, or "mind"). Of course mind too exists, but in a different and "higher" sense than existence exists.

The universe achieves its highest "purpose" in the creation of minds, but the logics of these minds goes against everything else in that universe. The Third Universe, yes I like this idea, this is exactly correct; the realm of facts, transcendent simply means "mental universe", a reality of reality itself, a kind of shadow, an 'aegis' even. The fact is, consciousness cannot be reduced to the material stuff from which we think it comes, nor can that stuff be reduced to consciousness. There are two orders of logic, two realities, at work here. But "dualism" has been taken to mean something it is not, namely a kind of religious positing of pure metaphysical substances rather than a more Deleuzean, "transcendental materialist" sort of deeper tectonics. The deep tectonics exist because, at a certain level, mind and reality do unite together, there exists a logical framework in which being and knowing are "one". But that is the truth of pure negativity, and doesn't mean they somehow therefore in that truth become reconcilable to each other, for that threshold is totally unaccessible to either.. but philosophy strives for it. The impossible ideal, the only truly impossible thought.

I'm trying to approach this purely phenomenologically. Consider Mach's Analysis of Sensations. To suppose that, when my eyes are closed, roughly the same stuff is still there as was there when my eyes were open is a metaphysical postulate. When I have my eyes open and I turn my head, my whole world changes. My body is as much a mere bundle of sensations as is any other phenomenon I perceive. My will, too, is just that.

But this negates the primacy of intention. Sensation is unthinkable without the notion of attentiveness, focus, concentration. Without this, there is just oblivion.

Thus far my "purely phenomenological" approach (for now). Perhaps my brain is a quantum computer that can model stuff beyond it precisely inasmuch as that is not quantum stuff or, more precisely, such large-scale quantum stuff that it seems to behave coarsely. My mind is simply how the quantum stuff in my brain experiences itself. I do not experience what's out there, but only the quantum model thereof within my brain.



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sauwelios, I believe this is instrumental to clarification of your concern:

"[O]ur neocortex gets too big, somehow we formulate abstract symbols, these disturb the purely causal organization of affects, we "evolve" the real ego or immediate self to get rid of the feeling of dissolution the transcendent experience induced"

I found this a very interesting read in this light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex

It is the question of how our questioning relates to what it questions - Parodites expresses especially the case wherein it is questioning itself, or being conscious of "being"; i.e. 'a mortal man'.

All ends obscure the end we truly believe in, either joyfully or full of hate.



___________
" 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: On the Value of Suffering. Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios, I believe this is instrumental to clarification of your concern, which is the question of how our questioning relates to what it questions - Parodites expresses especially the case that it is questioning itself.

"[O]ur neocortex gets too big, somehow we formulate abstract symbols, these disturb the purely causal organization of affects, we "evolve" the real ego or immediate self to get rid of the feeling of dissolution the transcendent experience induced"

I found this a very interesting read in this light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex

I'll check this out later, along with some other things, possibly with the aid of videos (lectures, documentaries, and the like). Right now I'm entertaining the idea of a "Quantum Idealism", in the Berkeleyan sense: that I'm not experiencing the outside world, but only a model thereof within my brain, which includes what I perceive of my body. I'm not sure at this point if this idea is only absurdly simple or also ravishingly profound.



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
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: On the Value of Suffering. Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oops, it seems I meant Leibniz, not Berkeley. Whatever, right? As you can see, I need to read/watch up on these things...



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
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: On the Value of Suffering. Sat Oct 03, 2015 7:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Caught up a bit, and it's both Berkeley and Leibniz: Quantum Idealism/Monadology. More later!



___________
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: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ravishingly profound. I've been dipping my toes in Leibniz and he had the right idea: perfect separation and simbiosis of soul (as he called it) and matter. No extra-miracles, as he called it, enters this (i.e., no transcendentalism in the sense of pure other, maybe something like this is what parodites was pointing to in Nietzsche).

With Leibniz, the trick seems to be to replace grace of god with will to power. This is all very meta, perhaps necessary to get sure footing. But not in Leibniz or anywhere else have I had the feeling I got when I read your quantum post here. Idealism... Of idealism? The perfect chasing of what is there, with no perfect other escape? The only limit that keeps on giving, specially in terms of profundity or, more rarifyied, depth.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is a lack of an adequate theory of mind, a rational understanding of consciousness. Because of this we have one category being confused with another, concepts that cannot be properly meted out and separated. We need deeply tectonic and daemonic inquiries into each concept, "God", "quantum", "sensation", "intention", "aware", "matter", "physis", all of these concepts must be meaningfully exhausted.

Until that happens or until one at least starts down that path and realizes the former delusions and shitty ideas that have thus-far governed thinking in these matters, understanding is going to spin around its wheels in so much un-philosophical and pathological clinging to whatever idea allows a momentary stabilization of the psychological platform and "thought" at whatever given moment. But personally I'd rather elevate philosophy above all that, through it, into real understanding.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 6:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Indeed matter is not well defined in physics.


Physis is dyadic in structure, formed out of interactions between discreet quanta. The only system known which is triadic, is human consciousness, for at least some part of our output as a system derives from interaction with the immaterial third term of the symbolic order in which our thought is based.


Between the sign or symbol and the object whose task it is to represent there must be the triadic component of what Pierce calls the interpretant, which grounds meaning in an internal plane of relatability (Deleuze might say plane of immanence)- the representation is a construction on this plane- a deeper core wherein presuppositions exist about how the sign can relate to other signs as a matter of category: only signs on the one plane can meaningfully interrelate, to relate signs outside of one another's internal plane or interpretant you can only speak in metaphor. But every sign can serve as an interpretant, and every interpretant can become a sign. So there is an infinite chain of abstract signs serving either function all the way down in regressus and the question of "meaning-grounding" for language proves illusory: meaning is not grounded in the world, but somehow in itself- Schelling calls this self-grounding a tautegory, applying it to myths. The symbolic order in which human consciousness reifies itself and the discontiguity of its disintegrating sensory-phenomenal interior, which we inherited from animals as I said in the excerpts, is like a plane upon which the nonsense of physis (physis is simply that interior) itself is organized, a physis which in itself has no internal quality or reality. We draw our free will from that symbolic order, in which we can formulate ourselves outside of the constriction of the dyadic system- as free agents. This infinite internal grounding or semiosis is why we can't "run out of memory" like a computer does: we essentially encode all sensory and internal phenomena in symbolic constructs like a hologram, and simply decode it back out into images and sensations in order to "remember" it. We encode these phenomena in deeper codes and those into even deeper codes in this regression, so instead of running out of memory it just gets more difficult to decode the memory into active consciousness, depending on how far down the grounding has gone.

Also, the infinite chain or regression is not random, but tending towards a specific end if never arriving to it. And the most powerful ideas of humanity are new signs whose interpretant makes otherwise unconnectable internal planes of relation unify for exchange of meaning. The four most fundamental such planes I think of as the epistemic, ontic, immanent, and transcendent.



___________
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
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This touches on a central aspect of tectonics, or really two of them: that one plane may self-cohere within relations to other planes but remain independent and essentially inexpressible to the other, namely that "connection" is possible for things essentially alien to each other, alien despite that both things or planes are made out of the "same stuff". Also, that "a thing is not refuted or found wanting merely because it has reasons for existing". Combine those two ideas together and the "materialism" commonly used as a basis for thinking today is broken.

But the conjunction of these two ideas is only a basis, more like an establishing of the conditions under which positive knowledge or "real ideas" can begin to form. Parodites' breaking down consciousness into primary spheres of identity is a perfect example of what kind of real thinking can develop once we take the time to adequately work through the conditions needed to actually do philosophy. Question all premises, realize when people or philosophers say things like "language", or "conscious", or "matter" they often don't know what the hell they're talking about... on even their own terms these categories are sloppy.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:11 am

Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I'd like to see proof that the third plane doesn't meet the first two. In my experience, far back enough regression shows that the third was born alwas as a negative appreciation of the first two, as the first two appreciating themselves. The appreciation forms categories, but they are always subject, not to the material world, but to their material origins. Where is the transcendent split? Was the neocortex not formed slowly? Gradually, where is God's finger? Only in a lack of negativity.

Consciousness, the third plane of symbols, is a mirror: it reverses the image. But it is neither what faces the mirror nor the resulting image; simply the reversing process itself. This is why Sawelios turns inward: understand the mirror, and you understand wisdom of what is not the mirror. Categories are safely anchored on to the real material world, not by being affected by it, but by being genealogicaly tied to it. So, if you have a problem with the objection of material hardness to lofty thinking, you're not realizing that this objection and the lofty thinking are the same operating negativity.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Terms in relations are not adequate to each other, either in space or time, or in kind, categorically, only approach an approximating exactness with which similar results may be obtained in different scopes and moments. This is why there is always an excess, why every "term" is a remainder in larger systems which are themselves composed of remainders, of still further-removed systems.. and so on without end. You can't stop at a material threshold or at some perceived sameness and declare the work done, as if all of existence or the mind were reducible in that way. The fact of excess is the cause for consciousness to appear at all, it arises based on the fact that facts themselves are able finally to become reflected to the organism, not "unconsciously" (structurally) as in the case of nature when say a mouse runs away from a fox, but consciously and actively, in the human mind, which had learned how to make of facts themselves distinct entities, objects in themselves that can become part of systems.

No animal in the entire world, except man, has ever responded to a fact; at best they respond as if they were responding to facts, such as that mouse, "as if to the facts that a fox will kill it, its own life will cease, etc." therefore seeming to "value its life" and be acting based on that-- no, that isn't what is really happening there. What is really happening there is: the mouse's brain contains a subset of activator sense impressions which, if perceived within a range sufficient to trigger a response, cause a cascade of biological responses one of which is to stimulate leg muscles to spasm in ways carefully honed by natural selection, ways that just happen to often allow the mouse to evade a predator. The mouse doesn't want to evade a predator, it doesn't even want to run, these things are totally foreign to it. The mouse has no concept at all of running, of predator, of life or of death, or simply... runs, as if it knew these things, but it doesn't.

All of nature is like that, and so is man, in his sensory-response biology. It is critical to distinguish all this from what language is: language is a system not based on that kind of accidental unconscious "spasming" (Parodites useful word here) but on a rational, bottom-up logical construction that delimits objects in terms of another order of responsiveness, namely the order of facts themselves. No amount of nature and that unconscious sensory-spasming reflex tuning is going to yield anything like the idea of a tree, for example, it may only ever respond to this tree, to one sensory datum, which is indeed genealogical to the whole material profusion of the entirety of the world, as a tiny instance of it. A dog will never know what "food" is, it has no possible way of abstracting out such a thing as to form an idea and then be capable of responding to that idea itself, as itself only, as a fact. There is an absolute difference here, a categorical difference. The confusion comes in because the more recent category cannot do away with the former one, it lives out of it, it contradicts and resists and fights but can never defeat, and likewise the body and all of nature had absolutely no concept or understanding whatsoever of man or of mind, there is in short no way for the latter "order of symbols" to ever become causal or to enter nature.

But philosophy is possible because that biconditional inadequacy is asymmetrical: while mind can never enter nature, nature can enter the mind, but very slowly, as what we call the entire history of thought and human being, what we call for lack of a better word "philosophy". Philosophy slowly endows itself with its other (it is here where Nietzsche made his tremendous leaps forward, one of which being the Will to Power), whereas that other can never do likewise; equally philosophy needs its other, the mind needs the body, whereas bodies have no need at all for minds - "the purpose of the body is to carry the brain around", no that has it backwards.




Message
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
Physis is dyadic in structure

To me at this point this is a mere claim. I'm exploring the idea that my mind, my consciousness, consists of the same stuff of which "matter" consists. My brain is then a quantum computer that renders my whole world. It renders it based on input from the "material" world, which however ultimately also consists of the same stuff.

When I look at an object, it does not, through my eyes, enter my brain; it's only light reflected or emitted by it that enters my eyes. This then triggers my brain to create a rendition of the object within my brain--to render an image of it, as a (quantum) computer. Thus my whole world, including what I perceive of my body, is generated by my brain and exists solely within it. But the object consists of the same stuff as my brain. It therefore also has an inner world or inner worlds--albeit not (as) coherent as my own, perhaps not even including bundles of impressions (to speak with Hume) or complexes of sensations/elements (to speak with Mach)--but still, consisting entirely of impressions or sensations/elements.
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: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The percieved sameness is not an end but a beginning. An end is to call words their own self and keep it there. Words are part of a complex ecosystem, a complex iteration of itself, yes, but what is itself? It is matter. So why do I think can instead of just be rock? Because the complex set up of words alows for negativity, for reversal of values while forming part of values. What isn't possible from here on? This is a beginning for philosophy. The birth of value philosophy derived from value ontology is had when thought recognizes it IS. Then the possibilities are endless but, ironically, in my experience, the path is narrow for philosophy. Because if thought is, its first task is to firmly establish where it is. Not "in the brain," it is the brain, and this is already a leap forward. Negativity, depth, has yet to cut into what it is instead of at thin air.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is a word? A vocal utterance or a scribble on paper, it has no intrinsic meaning at all, its shape or tone is arbitrary, it could easily have been other than what it is. Each word, each letter, is what it is for no consequence whatsoever except to distinguish it from other utterances or scribbles.

Words are not the concepts to which they point. Language is not about 'words', written or spoken; it is about concepts, meaning. Even we look to the grammar underlying the construction of letters into words, words into sentences, is this language? No, it is simply a material basis for language, a means to the end of allowing tectonically for the birth of conception. But the rules of grammar indicate a different kind of causality than appears in nature or by virtue of natural selection, for in grammar we have the first introduction of logic for its own sake, "either/or, if/then, if p then q" etc. These rules preside in the grammar of languages because they are reflecting logic as such, pure relationality, whereas in nature we have these kinds of relations indicated only negatively, as the conditions for the emergence of natural beings -- each oxygen molecule can only become metabolized by one organism, not two, etc. Such limitations exist as the conditions implicit to the formation of the natural world, and the natural world is only a kind of secondary and negative expression of such things. But those conditions themselves, are finally realized positively in language as the grammar with which words and sentences are formed, and are able thus to produce meaning... Yet compared to that meaning itself, the grammatical rules are too only a kind of secondary and void conditionality.

Think about the whole of nature, outside of man- do you think anywhere in this entire order there exists a single thought? No, there is not even a single one. You can move from plants to insects to fish to whales to birds to rats to lions to baboons, it's all the same.. not even one thought exists, not one "idea", not even just one positivistic reflection of the conditionality of life. It's all "pure negativity", a kind of profuse inter-harmonization of self-unknowing reflexology formed after the fact, ex post facto, by "natural selection" which itself is simply another example of an unconscious self-unknown, a condition that acts only upon things which are not-itself, rather than acting in terms of itself, as itself and upon itself.

The birth of philosophy begins with attaining the threshold understanding of the absolute-categorical divide between man and the rest of the entirety of nature, this understanding was intimated in early Greece and survived somewhat more or less intact through Rome and Christianity, but in our modern era is vanishing, as man seeks now to return back into the world of the pre-human animality and basic "sensory-organic reflexology" which requires no effort, no context, no perspective, no philosophy, no hope, no courage and no depth. One may merely "be what one is" in these modern times, and comport oneself toward any half-formed system of concepts such as in the psychological act of assuming that system one's own particular psychological, pathological, personality-based experiences and iterations are rendered incommunicable the one to the other, wherein the internal variance latent to oneself is silenced, or nearly so. "Matter" is not the truth, nor is "the brain"; obviously you understand that ideas, facts, truth, concepts, these do not exist "in the brain" or "as the brain", the one cannot be equated to the other except as a kind of biconditional inadequacy that is inherently asymmetrical, as I said previously. Brains are simply densities of neurons which themselves are merely measurement-indicators and storage devices for relations. The kinds of relations reflective of "mind" or "consciousness" are qualitatively, absolutely, categorically different from the kind reflective of the bulk of nature, the natural world, or the world of "non-living matter", of physis, which as Parodites points out vis a vis Pierce is merely a kind of direct, flattened plane of correspondence-causality of "this then that" linearity which Kitaro might call mere spatiality dimension with no temporal dimensionality at all. No "depth", no perspective.. no internal reality, no capacity to reflect the truth or the "ontos", as Parodites calls it.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So you have described beautifuly what thought is. But you haven't described how it came to be, where it is in relation to what is not it. For romans and more primitively greeks, this was an all out constant war. In our times, it seems not to exist. Does this not indicate a deep comfort? A readyness?

If a word is not what it expresses, what is it that a word expresses? Where does it come from? Where is it now?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
So you have described beautifuly what thought is. But you haven't described how it came to be, where it is in relation to what is not it. For romans and more primitively greeks, this was an all out constant war. In our times, it seems not to exist. Does this not indicate a deep comfort? A readyness?

If a word is not what it expresses, what is it that a word expresses? Where does it come from? Where is it now?

Yes, this is pointing to "facts themselves", a state which is not that about which it indicates or means; or the purity and isolate meaning which exists only in the highest triadic spaces, as pure abstraction or logic. Think about the fact of what a "tree" means, conceptually- I don't mean how we delineate the concept itself, but I mean the fact of what a tree is, to you, to anyone, such as it is possible to communicate about trees to each other and not entirely miss what we are each other talking about. To ask "where does this fact exist?" is the wrong question. There is no "where", not in a materialistic, spatio-temporal sense; this reflects a confusion of reality standards, which I had mentioned previously: the common standard of "what is real" is basically, whether it admits it or not, nothing more than whatever is most "physical" (solid-seeming), thus the implicit "where located "in space and time"?" question. We are habitually unable to separate out our physical sensory experience its "solid-ness" aspect from what we consider to be the most irrefutably real. But there is an alternate definition and reality-standard, loosely encapsulated by the idea of interiority: whatever has the most inner reality, the largest scope of inner substance, the most perspective.. the most far-ranging consequences from itself, the most ability to re-interpret that which enters it, in terms of that which it is.. this we might call the most real.

We can dispense with physical-ness as a reality-standard, since whatever is "physical" is simply whatever we cannot pass our hand through, essentially an electron field which the electron fields of our hands resists. We already know that atoms are mostly "empty space", it is a very small step to leave behind any assumption of physicality in our reality-standard. Once we do that we are free to associate new standards, such as the one exampled here of interiority or of "identity" as Parodites notes it: ' That which has (and is) more "identity" is literally more real that that which has and is less identity.' It doesn't matter if we are talking about a tangible object or an idea. Try to remove those distinctions from your mind. Look at everything in terms only of the amount of identity it contains in itself, the quality and quantity of perspectival power.

Quote :
What is it that a word expresses? Where does it comes from? Where is it?
--maybe you can see how these questions are applying that false reality-standard of "physical-ness" to things which are themselves not composed of nor subservient to that standard. As I said earlier, it reflects a confusion of categories. We have not been trained to think this way. But we can learn to. And we must learn it.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Now in the sense of this new standard, we can see that the idea of a chair is literally "more real" than is this chair I happen to be sitting on.

This is an absolutely essential point to grasp, philosophically-speaking.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I agree wholeheartedly. But what does it take to give an idea more power?

We already know, and you described flawlessly,what they are not in broad strokes. This is the achievement of latin philosophy. But then, to the minutest detail, what is it that a word expresses that it is not? I think small, inmediate things are the most fitting, because "tree" already has a lot "is not" regarding that which the word is a reflection of that is too obvious, too obscuring. These are clumsy categories from brave times.
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: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What is a word? A vocal utterance or a scribble on paper, it has no intrinsic meaning at all, its shape or tone is arbitrary, it could easily have been other than what it is. Each word, each letter, is what it is for no consequence whatsoever except to distinguish it from other utterances or scribbles.

Words are not the concepts to which they point. Language is not about 'words', written or spoken; it is about concepts, meaning. Even we look to the grammar underlying the construction of letters into words, words into sentences, is this language? No, it is simply a material basis for language, a means to the end of allowing tectonically for the birth of conception. But the rules of grammar indicate a different kind of causality than appears in nature or by virtue of natural selection, for in grammar we have the first introduction of logic for its own sake, "either/or, if/then, if p then q" etc. These rules preside in the grammar of languages because they are reflecting logic as such, pure relationality, whereas in nature we have these kinds of relations indicated only negatively, as the conditions for the emergence of natural beings -- each oxygen molecule can only become metabolized by one organism, not two, etc.

Logic as such? Surely not necessarily, but perhaps only human logic as such, or the logic as such of human beings who are not "mentally ill". Nature has to correspond to our mental framework because insofar as it does not we cannot even perceive it or conceive of it.


Quote :
Such limitations exist as the conditions implicit to the formation of the natural world, and the natural world is only a kind of secondary and negative expression of such things. But those conditions themselves, are finally realized positively in language as the grammar with which words and sentences are formed, and are able thus to produce meaning... Yet compared to that meaning itself, the grammatical rules are too only a kind of secondary and void conditionality.

It seems you're saying the same thing twice now. You say those conditions give rise to the natural world and to the world of thought (concepts). But what do we know of the natural world except how we conceive it in thought? Doesn't our whole world exist entirely in thought?


Quote :
Think about the whole of nature, outside of man- do you think anywhere in this entire order there exists a single thought?

I think it might well be, yes. After all, why not?


Quote :
No, there is not even a single one. You can move from plants to insects to fish to whales to birds to rats to lions to baboons, it's all the same.. not even one thought exists, not one "idea", not even just one positivistic reflection of the conditionality of life.

How do you know? And: don't any of these lifeforms have a neocortex?


Quote :
It's all "pure negativity", a kind of profuse inter-harmonization of self-unknowing reflexology formed after the fact, ex post facto, by "natural selection" which itself is simply another example of an unconscious self-unknown, a condition that acts only upon things which are not-itself, rather than acting in terms of itself, as itself and upon itself.

The birth of philosophy begins with attaining the threshold understanding of the absolute-categorical divide between man and the rest of the entirety of nature, this understanding was intimated in early Greece and survived somewhat more or less intact through Rome and Christianity, but in our modern era is vanishing, as man seeks now to return back into the world of the pre-human animality and basic "sensory-organic reflexology" which requires no effort, no context, no perspective, no philosophy, no hope, no courage and no depth.

I think philosophy is obliged to question any such basic premisses. I do think there's a significant difference, but not necessarily between homo sapiens and the rest of nature; I don't think a human being is necessarily a member of homo sapiens nor vice versa.


Quote :
One may merely "be what one is" in these modern times, and comport oneself toward any half-formed system of concepts such as in the psychological act of assuming that system one's own particular psychological, pathological, personality-based experiences and iterations are rendered incommunicable the one to the other, wherein the internal variance latent to oneself is silenced, or nearly so. "Matter" is not the truth, nor is "the brain"; obviously you understand that ideas, facts, truth, concepts, these do not exist "in the brain" or "as the brain", the one cannot be equated to the other except as a kind of biconditional inadequacy that is inherently asymmetrical, as I said previously.

No, this is where I fundamentally disagree. I think ideas, concepts, etc. may well be the brain--that is, not brain "matter" so much as brain activity, the electromagnetic or quantum states or processes that occur in the brain and are a part of it. I'm sketching the case that my world consists of such patterns--that the phenomena I see do not consist of matter but of neurophysical events--that my world is how these events experience themselves.


Quote :
Brains are simply densities of neurons which themselves are merely measurement-indicators and storage devices for relations. The kinds of relations reflective of "mind" or "consciousness" are qualitatively, absolutely, categorically different from the kind reflective of the bulk of nature, the natural world, or the world of "non-living matter", of physis, which as Parodites points out vis a vis Pierce is merely a kind of direct, flattened plane of correspondence-causality of "this then that" linearity which Kitaro might call mere spatiality dimension with no temporal dimensionality at all. No "depth", no perspective.. no internal reality, no capacity to reflect the truth or the "ontos", as Parodites calls it.

Well, I seriously doubt that. It may be true of Newtonian physics, but then there are no Newtonian physics; that's just how quantum physics appears on a large scale. I'm suggesting that wherever there are relatively independent quantum states, there is at least some rudimentary form of consciousness.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I fear that as long as there is no clarity about the contexts in which we are discussion all these terms, this is not going to develop into the proper context into which we can outline in philological (Nietzschean-epistemic) terms the framework of Negation, which is the essence of thought as categorically not-instinct. As a rough indication of what is addressed by the term transcendent, you won't see an animal killing himself or anyone else for an idea. It is self-valuing what the man does, but the terms have collapsed into a let's say vertical axis where there was first only a horizontal plane, or one might say a fourth dimension was added, or rather a fifth; the idea of time, the form of being that, as we see proven in our age, isn't bound to the laws of time and space. this is at least the hypothesis, and it uses the physiological drives in a proper neurochemists notion of their being and shows how, in the course of terrible cataclysms in the biology of the ape, (potentially due to slackening of the jaw muscle, giving the brain more oxygen, possibly correlating to 'excess') they come to decohere from their instinctive, earthly ground and function to something 'to themselves', and these are 'thoughts' - drives disconnected by mere 'malfunction' from the organism, but taking place within the organism and cohering in it. This does not mean that there is no coherence between the coherence of the 'rogue', excess drives, (rudimentary thought) and the bodily functions as regulated in the deeper cortexes, but that it is no longer reducible to that kind of function, to those patterns and bio-logics, but that it has become 'metaphysical', as on top of physis.

There are at least four different contexts that are being thrown together:

- Epistemic issues. What can we know. What do we know, how do we know it, how do we know that we know it.
- Ontological issues. That which we are talking about, the objects -- if this is treated right it includes ourselves, as knowers. - This context alone is has proven too complex and shifty to sustain consistently airtight argumentations. Quantum Physics, what is light, what is gravity, etc.
- Coherence issues. How do our argumentations amount in an idea that can be held, and explains things, or simply consistently respond to information from the same basis, so that a coherent field of knowledge can be sustained. This is not itself an epistemic issue: it is here that philosophy begins. Value ontology belongs to this region, it commands here, it coheres everything discussed so far, but it does not explain how every instance coheres with the next one. It does allow understanding of 'instance', which the former two do not. It introduces perspective as the guiding principle rather than as an object of knowledge, a fact.
- Teleological issues. This is the real bitch, and here Parodites is the one cracking the whip. The problem is that we are not supposed to consider telos to be implicit in nature. We are told that only man holds telos, but not nature. And man is - what?
Within the third category, we can explain man in terms of the atom, or the quark, or any particle, hypothetical or empirical, and all these things in terms of man. The result of this is that matter is perceived as asymmetrical, like man, as behaving in terms of valuing, which all philosophers worth their salt have identified as the 'stuff' of what is called perspective in man; be it eros, will to power or local justice, philosophers realize that the fundamental ground to their knowing is their valuing. The thought forming the meaning of the third category is concluded with VO. What remains is the here and now.

A Heraklean coherence can simply be said to be a self-valuing, as much or little as an iron atom. But this does not tell us what it is, merely that it is. The philosopher investigates his thoughts as they progress, he is not separate from the experiment; the error of qm is thus a priori impossible, as the observer observes only the observer. The body is not an object here, but there is only subjectivity, and within this being-conscious there is the possibility of clarity - and as Pezer says this clarity, which is the end product of so much below it, is the starting point from which definitions are formed. What we have arrived at here is true anchoring of the philosopher as the beginning of all philosophical arguments - we have to admit the bare fact that given that an origin to being is illogical, it is illogical to assume an an origin to anything else as well.
We must start "in the middle", in the most comprehensive state of mind-qua-mind, so that, as mind, it may include everything else [i]in the manner proper to man, namely, with a telos. Telos properly understood, in terms of what it serves, this Herklean coherence. And here is how that pays off: an actual beginning. In as far as the theory of the overloading the neocortex is plausible, which I find it to be, we have at least a theory of the origin of thought. Thought inevitably opens up a world beyond time and space. This is the transcendent, the space where man simply cannot be perfectly true to the Earth.
Perhaps Parodites went where Nietzsche could not endure himself; the very reason of the latters greatness may be that he hated the field that Parodites discloses - the Frontal Lobes versus the Reptile Brain - To connect the two we should probably develop a theory of the pineal gland. But this is value ontology. Pure enzyme, disclosing by reacting with - molecule forming. Origin-ness.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:52 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
None of this is to say that it has only occurred in/as humans, this metamorphosis of nature to metaphysis. What is crucial rather is that we are talking about a fundamentally different phenomenon from instinct. It is not senseless to compare its eruption to the taking-hold of plant on Earth. Moving life emerged before plant life, so as a metaphor that might work. The process of producing seeds, dying and then having children is ore related to thought than to ape.

Philosophy is often carried by the drive to justify some form of solipsism - the philosophy that truly does justify it does so by drawing the world into it - the objective world does not exist, the outside world reflects the will-image of the philosopher. This does seem like madness, and like the result of survival-drives collapsing into a vortex of 'to-itself-ness' -
Shamanism is a way to bring a coherence from deep in the genetic layers of being up to consciousness and make it more natural, resilient to nature, 'quiet'. Philosophy is here a way to cohere the forces of the vortex (the drives are become forces to themselves, not elements anymore) in some way or another with a great stable Idea. But as of late philosophy transformed into the abandoning of the Idea in favor of the Philosopher.

Who must after al come to guide the world with all of its petty upheavals that are absolutely irreducible to problem-solving. The philosopher ruler must allow all conflicts that are entertained by both parties. There will be plenty of fighting-space for all war-love to live well. Others are to be left alone - there will be plenty of serenity-space for the peace-love to live well as well.

Such a world will be like a bird with two wings one blue and one red, a purple bird or dragonfly or butterfly that just before was a leaden cocoon of sorrowful self-consequence.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
this Herklean coherence. And here is how that pays off: an actual beginning.

An actual beginning - of something - namely of the Heraklean work.
And such a beginning necessarily has an end, the apotheosis of transcendent coherence.

Twelve is an attractive number to divine such coherence, because it divides up into many other coherences. The question is to what extent it is a violation of philosophy to make use of numerical principles.

Pythagoras was absolutely detested by Heraclitus, and the former is rather praxis than logos, but a very deep and logical praxis. The Pythagorean view of the Heraklean coherence is numerical and archetypical (also astrological), the Heraclitean view is rather unified, tragic, cathartic, Dionysian. I am sort of walking a line between these paths, trying to bring them together but always failing as long as there is no sacrifice.



___________
" 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: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I like this ordering. It is offensive on so many levels and yet so irresistible that it can only be the work of an accomplished shaman.

This is the map.

A philosopher king is dangerous. A philosopher king is king in a philosophical way, one unfathomable to homo sapiens sapiens as opposed to homo amor sapiens. This is as unexplored as the telos of philosophy. To catch it in the middle and give it gravity via necessity of will, to value value for fuck's sake, this is the way forward.

To value the pineal gland or anything like it, I hold, is to leap forward from the epistemic void at hand. I think this is was Sawelios has been hinting to in his posts responding to this thread. The question is: where do we start defining? Descartes must seem coarse to us here.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 4:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was going to say Parodites was wise to stay on topic, to not try to divulge the whole of the context of being versus being-philosopher in a reply to a specific question. But you picked up on what I meant, that this is a point of departure for action, if ever there was one.



___________
" 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
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Two excerpts from Parodites' writing, I thought these would be helpful here and he gave me permission to post them,


"The modern view, which has succeeded in inflating the misunderstanding of the affective surplus, along with a misunderstanding of man's relationship to the natural endowment of his drives and instincts, into a very well organized affront upon the shared dignity of our humanity, must be called into the light. The common view of the human being at this point in our history is the following: man is nothing more than a kind of programmable automaton, nothing more than a puppet mindlessly pulled this way and that upon the strings of the presiding cultural mandate, blind in all cases to the puppeteer, for this is no puppeteer, and the strings are all there is or could be- a being hopelessly compelled, namely by those systems of class struggle and of social hierarchization which it has unconsciously internalized, by the external polis which it has mirrored and integrated into the very structure of its own psyche and libidinal-motive complex, toward the madness of embracing the source of its very oppression and suffering as the object of a long cherished reverence; a being with nothing of the power by which it might exercise the slightest modicum of control over its own destiny, and whose ultimate fate it is to repeat, in quite a Sisyphean fashion, the sins of its father and of its father's father; a being for whom there is not nor can ever be a genuine morality to stir the heart, for whom there is no ideal toward which to strive, no philosophy in which to discover a greater meaning and order of things, and no purpose about which to struggle, suffer, rejoice, live, or die, for existence stands in their mind as a reality logically situated prior to any essence, the love and ideal toward which we might strive being such things as could never precede and thereby serve as a basis for our actions- for that existence which, antedating them, they can never return into through the katabasis of a daemonic descent into the first inwardness and the ground of Being- a love and a striving that must always venture hopelessly outward, stretching themselves thin and evaporating into the night of oblivion, into non-entity, into the nothingness of a universe lacking any center. For those who hold to these views of mere psychology, sociology, and critical theory, there is no tenable species of individualism, for there is no individual; the individual is but an unthinking, unconscious concatenation of social forces and evolutionary missteps, an unreflected internalizaton of the structure of the class-struggle, a compendium of propaganda and self-deceits, with nothing of a soul, nothing of a self, nothing of a personhood. No argument needs to be made against the kind of nonsense which these people have developed in their pseudo-academic stupor; one only needs to cast his gaze inward and draw upon the self-evidence of the immediate phenomenon of self-consciousness to refute it, namely the phenomena I call the daemonic- at least to refute it for one's self. Perhaps this view of human nature is quite accurate, if only with regard to those who promulgate it. "


. . .

"The contiguity of man's linguistic structures depends on the discontinguity or separation of his sensory-organic universe, as words indicate the re-construction of casual sequences of affect within the medium of time and our higher ideational cognition, a partitioning of the affects within an imaginary sequence of identifications, inter-relations, causations, and effects, which our words are intended to reconstruct by means of logically associated nerve impulses within temporal succession; the continuity of our conscious existence is the continuity of this imagined movement within the affects of something we call a drive, as is enacted by consciousness through words in the form of a causal chain- and I stress the word enacted, as it is precisely an act, a gesture, an imagination. This causal chain cannot reify the whole store of the affects, which exceed its capacity or potential state of excitement in what we call pain, a derangement which threatens the stabilization attained by the immediate or real ego, an ego which is simply the most comprehensive such causal sequence we have yet imagined, in whose temporal succession there is organized all other casual series or drives. The Eternal Return is the strongest crystalization of this real ego, its amnesiac salvation from recognition of the ontos. The mind requires the dynamic of the real-ideal, of immanence and transcendence, the daemonic- a dynamic that goes beyond what the previous model of causality can do, in order to reify the disintegrated sensory-organic world in toto as the new, spiritual body of Novalis. The ontos, Being seen from without as under the aspect of eternity and within which there is no causality but only an absolute, acausal inter-correlation of contents, represents the Parmenidean fulfillment of Being, the mystical Pleroma, the Being of beings of Heidegger, etc, from which the thousand worlds fall like drops of water into the sea of time. Each universe is simply one inter-relation causally unfolded from the ontos into the false reality of our particular spacetime and the externalized projected schemata of our purely evolutionary neuro-organic system; these universes can be quite different from one another and have different laws and constants by which they are ruled. All of science in the modern era, in our higher mathematics and in quantum theory, is just about imagining these different theoretical universes on paper at a whim and, through trial and error, hopefully coming across one such paper universe whose properties to some extent line up with our own universe, so that it can be used as a predictive-experimental model to help us design better microwave ovens. There is no greater truth to it, and there isn't even a lesser truth as used to be supposed in science. The world-ontos is simply a higher phase of the internal ontos of the affects, as we educe one out of the infinitude of inter-relations within it and casually unfold it into a temporal reality as ego, as the real ego. Mere psychology has the same relation to this internal ontos as natural science does to the world-ontos, and the real ego is so much of a predictive model. Philosophic symbols, on the other hand, do not inter-relate the temporal sequences within the real as dialectical logic (and science) does, they daemonically orient the ego between the real and ideal, with a view to eternity and the ontos or Permenidean fulfillment of being, or the the Pleroma of the mystics. Philosophy is not simply a more comprehensive science, it is a completely different, as well as a higher, project of human knowledge. The philosophic-linguistic symbols introduce a basis for acausal association of these affective sequences, that is, the point of origin for the development of such discontiguous states of consciousness and the anti- nature of the spiritual body, the ideal-ego; as in Schelling, they are self-interpretive in that they symbolize the very psychodynamic forces which gave rise to them."



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thank you. With every new glance this philosophy provides more ways to draw the world into it.

For my own sake, I must now reiterate the categories of cognitive approach as I encounter them.

/ontological
/epistemological (epistemic is ontic but transcenent, the moving outward, epistemological is transcendental reflection of the ontic including the epistemic, being outward)
/coherence-related (wtp, vo, wtp, the unison of the ontic and the epistemic)
/orientation-related (philosophy, Plato's 'school of Eros', Nietzsche's revaluation of values, Parodites organization of the mental affects within their own nature, also the great philosophies from the East, Indian cosmology, the teaching of the dharma, which is a theory of transcendental coherence reflected in drawing the ontic out of itself more completely. Also, Laurence Lamperts vision of the political Nietzsche is an example of this categority, even though it doesn't concern itself with creation, it transforms mans approach to Nietzsche so as to orient it in the world, and it uses a philological heart to cohere, which gives it a claim to lordship over the epistemological category, which through the coherence category will cause it to reflect directly on the ontic real. That is politics: the discerning, 'owning' (in pezers sense of freedom) and appropriation of resources. It depends on the human how much the discerning and the appropriating overlap. The philosophers attempt is to hold the each on one hand discern the appropriating and appropriate the discerning and so on, like a DNA strand. When philosophy is more than an attempt, we find instead of two sides a heart, which is only able to express itself in the precise context where it finds itself, so that he is absorbed into the world of beauty, conquering ethics, "eternity" - and shines as a beacon, an ode to the future. "Under this sign you shall conquer" - now it's a matter of getting boots on the ground. Let it rain, I say, and we need an anthem. Is there a possible sequence of chords //& un-chords that could represent the daemonic as such in terms of a global audience?



___________
" 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 : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I will get back in this thread in a day, after I visit the doctor. For now, just a quick message:


"How do you know? And: don't any of these lifeforms have a neocortex?"


Only mammals have a neocortex, and humans have one disproportionately large, we crossed a threshold with it and gained the ability to consciously re-program ourselves. My directed, intentional thoughts, over time, re-wire the synaptic map that connects organs of the brain to others, so that I can change the function even of my most primitive brain organs like the amygdala, and, with orientation to the third universe, I can gain access to an order of thoughts which cannot be reduced to the atomic interactions out of which my physical brain arises. Can you explain what the Mona Lisa is by describing the chemical properties and proportions of the dyes on its canvass? Philosophers have tried for eons to reduce qualia to quanta and the most recent attempt by the Will to Power is nothing different in that sense.

Comparing our brain to a quantum computer is not very fruitful because that kind of computer is not qualitatively different from the one I am using now, it's just faster. There is nothing a quantum computer can computer that this PC I am using now cannot- it would just take the later hundreds of thousands of times longer. But about quantum physics, pair production and super-symmetry would indicate that all discrete quanta- all particles, are produced in negating pairs, and the basic formula of quanta is dyadic- nature is organized in self-negating pairs of elementary particles, and the multiverse itself is arranged in self-negating irresolvable oppositions, like the two universes- this one, in which I am holding a cigarette in my left hand, and the other, in which I am holding it in my right hand. Adding all of these universes together produces nothing, zero. Being itself is the primordial self-negating ontos beneath apparent physis.

As for what you said about matter Pezer and thought having its ground there, my main thesis is that Being itself is self-negating; outside of the transcendent horizon of human consciousness it does not exist- outside of it, nothing exists. It can only be formulated as pure negation. Outside of us it's a meaningless sequence of dyads with an energy content of zero and nothing has ever happened cosmically: philosophically, it's an interminable profusion of self-nihilating conceptual oppositions, where one term in the binary relation is always grounded in a deeper conceptual sphere or immanent plane within our consciousness and possesses an excess- a logical datum that remains unincorporated in any plane of immanence, that is reified and becomes the basis for the next opposition, which we again consciously reify by integrating with the symbolic order.



___________
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
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
No argument needs to be made against the kind of nonsense which these people have developed in their pseudo-academic stupor; one only needs to cast his gaze inward and draw upon the self-evidence of the immediate phenomenon of self-consciousness to refute it, namely the phenomena I call the daemonic- at least to refute it for one's self. Perhaps this view of human nature is quite accurate, if only with regard to those who promulgate it. "

I don't know what Parodites means by "the daemonic". Googling his name in combination with that phrase has not helped. It might be helpful to know why he calls it that.

I also wonder what difference, if any, it makes for my OP if Parodites' psychology is more accurate than Nietzsche's.



___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The meaning of the daemonic can be gathered from my general postings on this form. And yes Sau, it was not my intention to derail your thread, but I'm attracted to questions of suffering. The artistic redemption of the world which motivated Nietzsche just seems to me unfulfilling, a kind of regression into the Greek mind.



___________
A sik þau trûðu


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

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


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

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, Being is self negating... But how? Will we be content to negate away? There are possible threads of all kinds possible from that question, from deeply religious to mystical to academic-scientific. But the philosophial thread, the highest negating form... How does it negate? Why negate this and not that aspect of being? What should philosophy nagate and why?

Nagating negation, so that we wind up looking at eternity, THIS sounds unsatisfactory to me. Nietzsche was digging for a way. He didn't cop out for some eternity, he produced a concept that constantly negates the negation of negativity: will to power: the eternal negating.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t41-the-daemonic



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Nagating negation, so that we wind up looking at eternity, THIS sounds unsatisfactory to me. Nietzsche was digging for a way. He didn't cop out for some eternity, he produced a concept that constantly negates the negation of negativity: will to power: the eternal negating.

But in a sense this is copping out. I agree with Parodites interpretation of the ER.
The eternity that exists daemonically, that is as a grand-polarity, is not something impotent before the world or separate of it. It is, of course, a will to power, but a specific form, too proud to go by that name, which Nietzsche himself called an insipid metaphor.

It is not for nothing a Heraklean coherence, rather than a Pythagorean one.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:11 am

Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It's not a copping out as much as a canceling out. Nietzsche's treatment for eternalism, the virus in absolutism, what Parodites perhaps sees as a fruitless return to the Greek.

It's not a return per se, it's a picking up. A treatment. "Now that you have willed beyond your means, and seen the means lacking... what will you do with what you willed?"

Film seems like one excelent response to me. So does Capable's project of building a system. In fact, I think the latter is the higher path from which creek film will drink. As for Sawelios' project: coherence, the same picking up. And, to be absolutist, Parodites has given an excelent grounds from which to negate. As for me, I would remind us all of that which the philosopher loves to ignore, but which makes our path the absolute highest possible: mortality, and the funk that goes along with it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I maintain that consciousness is pride, and that philosophy is the highest kind of pride - perhaps the only human consciousness that is higher than animal consciousness, rather than simply more complex; this is one truth Nietzsche was driven by, that man is weaker than animal.
Perhaps, he shed his hide out of fright.

There are three ways form an to go about it; 1, by cultivating the external world, by building, sowing, ruling and ordering, 2, by cultivating the body, by fighting and love making, etc and 3, by cultivating the mind. Nietzsche cleaned the mind, but cultivated, with his philosophy, mainly the first two. He cleaned the house and called out through time for friends to come join him. I am sure he would have appreciated the artificial dualism as he may have called it, for the means to power it provides. Art, as in the lie, is the negation. Art attains truth through the lie. Philosophy is the most sublime lie. Ultimately it is the lie that makes itself true by conquering the means for it, the means being man, who by being employed transcends into the superman.



___________
" 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: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fright? He shed it out of voluptuous loneliness. A challenge to resound into the ages. Still I read just a title of his books and my whole chakra lines up into bliss. "Beyond Good and Evil." Beyond fucking good and evil! "Human, All Too Human!" The balls! The creativity! The originality! Mein got, we can't even touch him yet, though thankfully Sawelios still thinks w/he can.

On everything else, I agree. Not out of fright, out of pride. "Hide? These motherfuckers couldn't touch me if I sawed my legs off! Here, see me naked and trembling! It wil be a hundred years before men can dream of understanding my vulnerability!"
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Look at it this way: here is a philosophy that acknowledges that the consequences of actions are never predictable, thus that the mind is unreal vs its ideal. "Power" is never attained permanently, except in love, basically - love being the fabric of coherence and sacrifice as negation, building a dwelling for the heart of being to endure itself with mercy. Within this mercy there is the possibility of philosophy-as-such, in which forgive me, we are all part taking here, because even from the first leisurely turn of a page that followed a frown or a smile, any goal has become background to the love between the philosopher and his words. To admit this is hard, but Nietzsche's background admits it for him. It is words we love, this is our Earth, and this goes for peasant and philosopher; tell a peasant he is king, and he will be a peasant-king for the rest of his life.

The only way to will to power directly is to cohere. Eros is the medium in general, within thought, eros takes on the shape of the self-negating strains of transcendent progression, 'dance'. A flock of birds is negating, 'thinking on its feet' - the instincts are there but broken, interrupted, in regular intervals. In a floc of bird we see the forms of the first harmonious thoughts. Such negational patterns are reproduced, every season, like thoughts in their contexts. The world thinks, but its beings are thought by it. Man is life beginning to think Earth.









Message
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 1:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, love of words, I like this. If you own up to it completely, then you will see what Nietzsche reallty meant, and why Sawelios is willing to leap into mind-itself fully on his word. Because he took the leap: well if words are it, then everything ever imaginable is word, and word is everything imaginable. Write carefully! World-create lovingly, with all of your highest stuff! If a word says material, it is a word saying this. Can you see? The eternal return? The will to power that is not will or power? Yes, words are negativity itself, and the responsability of this makes more than one philosopher crack... But not Friedrick Wilhelm Nietzsche! Nojoda! He is my light, because he was the greatest craftsman of words I know.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When you have loved him as much as I have, if you have invested in words as much, you will understand what I mean by "valuing", why I favor this word so much as to make it the center of the world.

I hope you will learn come to see the proper, bloody sense of this choice of words, Nietzsche's choice of words. It is the annihilation of reference and the birth of "tragedy" - in any case the things that are born from the spirit of music.

Sauwelios, as do I, holds value ontology to be an improvement, a making-deeper of the WtP ontology. My philosophy is Nietzschean, but Nietzscheanism aims to overcome itself into the superman.

The superman, as Sauwelios holds, is the philosopher as his mind spans the world in the affirmative sense. But the Eternal Recurrence requires a totality, and totality isn't real. The fiction breaks his literary style, which is tentative, tactile, sublime in its earthiness, its wood.

It is clear that Nietzsche holds rank, but it is only a tribute to his dynamite that someone dares to say that he feels constrained by him. Is it not evident that there is a side of philosophy that Nietzsche does not address?

I am beginning to believe that the central hiatus of Nietzsche's philosophy is defined by himself under the the name of Ariadne, the bride to that which he understood and incorporated, the world as will to power.

"And "no-thing" besides!"

Fuxtaposition.



___________
" 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: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No-thing besides, to keep us honest, to remind us that overcoming is an action and not an act.

In all reverence to your majesty, the superman is not the philosopher. This aspiration is

below

the philosopher.

He does love the philosopher, though, that superman, that love incarnate. He doesn't hold the capacity of distinction necessary to be philosopher. He cannot lie to himself to that extent... A reaper, rather than a sower or caretaker of wisdom. A philosopher is, of course, all three.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The essential mistake is to place woman below man.
Whereas in practice it is the case, the thesis completely destroys the value of woman.
To put it harshly, if she can not be adored, she is worthless.

To begin with the premise of a servile, submissive woman is to misunderstand what masculine heroism aims for; it aims only to find something to which it may dedicate its strength.

Nietzsche could not have survived the admittance of the sanity destroying Aphrodite into his world. But philosophical religion needs Venus, woman of stature and demonic, deadly power.

Shakti is the divinity of the hindu's, the name means power.
In as far as god man and god woman are married, they are in a violent dance. Humans can not endure this dance for very long. But our culture is forced to absorb and excrete this reality nonetheless. Religion may only serve to find a channel for this, it has no other purpose but to adorn that which is adored with the crown of Rome.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
No-thing besides, to keep us honest, to remind us that overcoming is an action and not an act.

In all reverence to your majesty, the superman is not the philosopher. This aspiration is

below

the philosopher.

He does love the philosopher, though, that superman, that love incarnate. He doesn't hold the capacity of distinction necessary to be philosopher. He cannot lie to himself to that extent... A reaper, rather than a sower or caretaker of wisdom. A philosopher is, of course, all three.

It used to be below me, until I understood the suffering of that would-be superman that I held in higher, more visceral regard, health. It is quite simple: the superman would envy the philosopher if he weren't one himself. All power seeks knowledge. Odin is the basic model of the Superman the mortal but recurring god who seeks (loves) wisdom. N wasn't the first German to hold the humility to the Earth of the Gods in high regard. A theory of Fire and Ice, greatness of the imperfect. Primordial coherence, absolute bitterness to host the fairest of loves.



___________
" 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: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But is this not a shameful admittance of weakness? Must the hero then not only find a way to impress a woman, but to sustain this impression? To change himself into a being that can rest in the middle of battle, or dance? To find, like a baby, comforting rest in rythm?

Aphrodite asks too much, Ariadne asks only complete coherence. Is it any surprise that it is Hephaesteon that weds Afrodite? And that she cheats on him constantly? I hear with ares, though she is probably happy to have a place to withdraw from his wrath when he is tired. Ariadne requires no slapping. Coherence will do.

I agree, superman would starve to death today. Not so the philosopher. See, the philosopher, and nietzsche knew this, can tolerate weakness, whereas the superman cannot.
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: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The superman needs wisdom, not love of wisdom. He loves it like he loves the rest of his domain. The philosopher needs to love wisdom; no love can compare to this love for him.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A spinstress. But then I prefer Athena.

The essence of Nietzsche is that Zarathustra came down the mountain.

His earthly wisdom is magnificent an unsurpassed.
In the end it is not his earthly wisdom but his mountain-homesickness that pushes him to eternalize that which he has seen. But if he wanted the eternity of a totality, he should have stayed on the mountain.

But he even says so himself: "suffering does not add up". A greater number of suffering people does not increase the degree of suffering in the world. Only a deeper suffering, which is isolation. Hence, compassion: it minimizes ones own suffering to identify as much as possible with the suffering of others.

My point being, if suffering does not add up then there can not be a totality.
In essence, the affirmation of the Eternal Recurrence was an affront to all the subtle animals that figure into Nietzsche's wisdom. Reading it in German made me even Nauseous, even. I sensed, or so I felt, how he was straining himself. So unnecessary.



___________
" 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: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Would you call Napoleon a philosopher? He tried his hand at it and got a good opinion from I think it was voltair or some Encyclopedian we all know, but he didn't have the patience, the tolerance for it. He needed power, strength, now, he used wisdom as something to weild and to love the love of.
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: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
He comes down from the mountain indeed, but he does so not because he loves the people, or totality, but because he sees an inherent totality in his wisdom, a species-available joy. Then he realizes people are quite sick. But he didn't set out to find other mountain descenders; he hoped perhaps to meet a superman down there to tell his crazy shit to.

Eternal recurrence is the philosopher's way to understand that what happened, happened, despite all his wisdom. No amount of glorious understanding can substitute the age of America's Funniest Home Videos. The superman would never accept that, that is why we love him, but we can't be him because we must accept it in order to treat it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
The superman needs wisdom, not love of wisdom. He loves it like he loves the rest of his domain. The philosopher needs to love wisdom; no love can compare to this love for him.

I realized only recently, and this is not a cop out because it does not annihilate the earthly satisfactions, that love of wisdom is wisdom itself. Pure fertility.
Earth, fertile thought, this is where we live. There is no jungle besides the way you breathe in it.

Eyes of fire, the Cobra crowning the Devouring Lion, the face of death is the body of life.

And yet, can absolutely see your point. It is a point of youth, and valid therein. The rajasic leads up the the sattvic, and is thus sacred to it. This is 'the problem' - about the greatest luxury a man can ever have.

Quote :
Would you call Napoleon a philosopher? He tried his hand at it and got a good opinion from I think it was voltair or some Encyclopedian we all know, but he didn't have the patience, the tolerance for it. He needed power, strength, now, he used wisdom as something to weild and to love the love of.

If he had not thrown all his strength on conquering Russia, he might, by some stroke of luck, have become a philosopher in the sense of the man who has conquered enough as to for a center to himself. Napoleon was a god, and he was as brilliant and wise as a philosopher can possibly be, but his drives to subject Russia were stronger.

Russia defeats all wisdom. This is the enigma in a secret in a mystery that forms her own.

Quote :

He comes down from the mountain indeed, but he does so not because he loves the people, or totality, but because he sees an inherent totality in his wisdom, a species-available joy. Then he realizes people are quite sick. But he didn't set out to find other mountain descenders; he hoped perhaps to meet a superman down there to tell his crazy shit to.

I don't think so. I see it rather as the exploration of the incompleteness of man qua being, as pure negation, which in the end negates itself by positing a pure eternal absolute. But it truly does negate itself there.

Quote :
No amount of glorious understanding can substitute the age of America's Funniest Home Videos. The superman would never accept that, that is why we love him, but we can't be him because we must accept it in order to treat it.

Hah, if there ever was an age for Superman, it was the fucking 80's. Come 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Allow me to attempt to summarize my point, as we have veered quite far in our brave wandering: philosophy cannot bullshit itself, specially about where it is. Nietzsche showed most of all how little philosophy has accomplished, how much blind grasping was involved before his dynamite. We bow in reverence to those efforts, but must stand back up and get to what philosophy has not been able to get to. Cauze were bad like that, Zoroaster style. We fundamentally agree on where it needs to go, but you say "aphrodite maybe,"I say "thats for the violent blind," you say "athena," i say " the philosopher goddes! As dionisus is the philosopher god!" Good for us. But let's stay on the straight and narrow, it's gonna get really dark really fast soon (if we're brave enough).
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: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would guess the relationship between those Indian gods you mentioned would be of the younger venerating the truth inevitablle of the older and the older the desirability inevitable of the joy of the younger. This way, they can both work for the future young to enjoy and future old to be pleased in hard truth.
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: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A little revenge. Some chaos. Dancing star.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The thing Im trying to say is that the two wisdoms co exists.
Youth thinks youth perishes in age. It can, often does. But only because youth thinks so.




___________
" 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
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Fright? He shed it out of voluptuous loneliness. A challenge to resound into the ages. Still I read just a title of his books and my whole chakra lines up into bliss. "Beyond Good and Evil." Beyond fucking good and evil! "Human, All Too Human!" The balls! The creativity! The originality! Mein got, we can't even touch him yet, though thankfully Sawelios still thinks w/he can.

On everything else, I agree. Not out of fright, out of pride. "Hide? These motherfuckers couldn't touch me if I sawed my legs off! Here, see me naked and trembling! It wil be a hundred years before men can dream of understanding my vulnerability!"




I agree about Nietzsche and his writing style; I certainly know I'll never be as good a writer as him. The sheer force of personality and depth he writes from is intense, like s second truth over the contents he writes about. I bet reading him in German is fantastic.

"Twilight of the Idols", that is probably my favorite title of his. Beyond Good and Evil of course is like a kick to the gut, while Human All Too Human is the laughing tears of a forsaken mad genius. Just to come up with these titles is, as you indicate, a supreme indication of philosophical depth and beauty.

Back to the topic,


Sauwelios wrote:
Capable wrote:
What is a word? A vocal utterance or a scribble on paper, it has no intrinsic meaning at all, its shape or tone is arbitrary, it could easily have been other than what it is. Each word, each letter, is what it is for no consequence whatsoever except to distinguish it from other utterances or scribbles.

Words are not the concepts to which they point. Language is not about 'words', written or spoken; it is about concepts, meaning. Even we look to the grammar underlying the construction of letters into words, words into sentences, is this language? No, it is simply a material basis for language, a means to the end of allowing tectonically for the birth of conception. But the rules of grammar indicate a different kind of causality than appears in nature or by virtue of natural selection, for in grammar we have the first introduction of logic for its own sake, "either/or, if/then, if p then q" etc. These rules preside in the grammar of languages because they are reflecting logic as such, pure relationality, whereas in nature we have these kinds of relations indicated only negatively, as the conditions for the emergence of natural beings -- each oxygen molecule can only become metabolized by one organism, not two, etc.

Logic as such? Surely not necessarily, but perhaps only human logic as such, or the logic as such of human beings who are not "mentally ill". Nature has to correspond to our mental framework because insofar as it does not we cannot even perceive it or conceive of it.

Yeah, one of the real problems for philosophy is language itself: for me to communicate these things to you or anyone else I need to use words to do so, which can make it seem as if all that is intended to be communicated about were on the same plane or a level field of meaning or reality; when in fact that need not be the case at all.

When I spoke of logic as such I mean the deepest most universal objectivity-plane which applies to everything in our universe. Any mentally ill or otherwise deviations which APPEAR to violate those universal logic would simply express that logic through their respective breakdowns and confusions. And really I don't even mean any kind of imagined "universal logic" but the construct of logic as such, what logic itself means- regularity, order, coherence, objectivity. But again it's quite hard to discuss since the ideas must already be present to all minds in discussion, because to be quite frank about it the limits of language as I mentioned above make it nearly impossible to break through the minds of others who don't yet see these things. In any case I've stopped trying to do so.


Quote :
Quote :
Such limitations exist as the conditions implicit to the formation of the natural world, and the natural world is only a kind of secondary and negative expression of such things. But those conditions themselves, are finally realized positively in language as the grammar with which words and sentences are formed, and are able thus to produce meaning... Yet compared to that meaning itself, the grammatical rules are too only a kind of secondary and void conditionality.

It seems you're saying the same thing twice now. You say those conditions give rise to the natural world and to the world of thought (concepts). But what do we know of the natural world except how we conceive it in thought? Doesn't our whole world exist entirely in thought?

No, our whole thought exists entirely in the world, if we want to phrase it like that.

Solipsism is a gross lie and entirely incorrect view, because every human mind is a partial representation of larger mind-processes and world-conditions that have led to the formation of that one mind and its particular character, scope, values. All subjective knowledge bleeds out the objective through itself, it cannot help doing so even if people often miss that.


Quote :
Quote :
Think about the whole of nature, outside of man- do you think anywhere in this entire order there exists a single thought?

I think it might well be, yes. After all, why not?

Because I've defined what a thought means as a solely human event, understood as something made possible only by virtue of a pre-existing linguistic system (symbolic-logical abstraction) having embedded itself in and through a body of sense-impression immediacy and non-language. A "thought" means a certain kind of inner experience and self-perspective the being or ontological character of which is to hold in itself an image that gives something about reality, a truth, either positively-directly or negatively-indirectly. A thought has philosophical substance, otherwise it is nothing but an arbitrary conjunction of sense-impressions coming from the body organs and happening to meet in the animal flux-stream of our of which no one thing can be isolated or abstracted as would allow it to become properly an object of consideration and concern. It is impossible to understand anything without thinking, "thought" is simply the form of understanding as such, even when humans engage other kinds of understanding like intuition or emotion or mystical consciousness these things are only possible to give knowledge (an accurate portrayal of the reality toward which they are oriented) because a prior thought/language structure exists to become partially distorted and thus pressed into a more automatic-impulsive and "free" format. It's the same reason why a goat can never think about the food or the predator or the weather conditions it is reacting to-- it simply reacts, as reflex and based on a genetic predispositional and evolutionarily-tuned (meaning after the fact, as in non-teleological) nervous system able to detect stimuli within certain vaguely defined ranges and trigger a resulting output behavior. That's literally all it means to be an animal, except for their feelings which we humans also share; feelings that in themselves contain the buried seeds of what eventually sprouted in man as sentience, understanding, conscious self-valuing, and what we maybe call telos. But that's another topic, one I am currently working on.

If you have an alternate definition of what thought means, by all means offer it, so you could thereby make your case that thoughts could exist in non-human nature. I welcome this, because I would love to pit the definition of thought that I offer here against your understanding of what thought means. Those kind of wars don't happen nearly enough in philosophy, not even here at BTL.


Quote :
Quote :
No, there is not even a single one. You can move from plants to insects to fish to whales to birds to rats to lions to baboons, it's all the same.. not even one thought exists, not one "idea", not even just one positivistic reflection of the conditionality of life.

How do you know? And: don't any of these lifeforms have a neocortex?

I know based on how I just laid out what it means to think. As for the neocortex thing I see Parodites already addressed this -- essentially human brains have a far more developed structure wherein consciousness becomes able to self-respond and self-map to whole new degrees able to actually deeply feedback-loop new "artificial" circuits upon the already existing neurological structures that we've inherited from natural selection. Or I could say that I know because I've thought extensively through these issues and philosophically exploded the concepts to the point where I need only to turn my gaze inward upon my own process, or secondarily to perceive other people and make inferences about what's going on in their own minds, as process and law, for me to understand this. But to my credit I am making an attempt nonetheless to address and explain these things to you in a language we can hopefully both utilize in adequate philosophical fashion.

Maybe a better if more cynical response of mine could have been, "How do you know I'm wrong?" You seem to think that I am wrong here, so there must be a reason why you believe or intimate this.


Quote :
Quote :
It's all "pure negativity", a kind of profuse inter-harmonization of self-unknowing reflexology formed after the fact, ex post facto, by "natural selection" which itself is simply another example of an unconscious self-unknown, a condition that acts only upon things which are not-itself, rather than acting in terms of itself, as itself and upon itself.

The birth of philosophy begins with attaining the threshold understanding of the absolute-categorical divide between man and the rest of the entirety of nature, this understanding was intimated in early Greece and survived somewhat more or less intact through Rome and Christianity, but in our modern era is vanishing, as man seeks now to return back into the world of the pre-human animality and basic "sensory-organic reflexology" which requires no effort, no context, no perspective, no philosophy, no hope, no courage and no depth.

I think philosophy is obliged to question any such basic premisses. I do think there's a significant difference, but not necessarily between homo sapiens and the rest of nature; I don't think a human being is necessarily a member of homo sapiens nor vice versa.

Yes we are obligated to question these basic premises I've laid out here. So question them. Don't just tell me "I think that might not be quite correct" and leave it at that. Seriously, tear my ideas apart with all your strength and philosophical power, be merciless and leave no stone unturned. I want that level of critique, absolutely I need it. If you think I'm wrong then explain why and offer your own perspective on things. You won't be attacked here, like at ILP; only ideas are attacked at BTL, and without regard to whoever may happen to have said them. This is philosophical integrity.


Quote :
Quote :
One may merely "be what one is" in these modern times, and comport oneself toward any half-formed system of concepts such as in the psychological act of assuming that system one's own particular psychological, pathological, personality-based experiences and iterations are rendered incommunicable the one to the other, wherein the internal variance latent to oneself is silenced, or nearly so. "Matter" is not the truth, nor is "the brain"; obviously you understand that ideas, facts, truth, concepts, these do not exist "in the brain" or "as the brain", the one cannot be equated to the other except as a kind of biconditional inadequacy that is inherently asymmetrical, as I said previously.

No, this is where I fundamentally disagree. I think ideas, concepts, etc. may well be the brain--that is, not brain "matter" so much as brain activity, the electromagnetic or quantum states or processes that occur in the brain and are a part of it. I'm sketching the case that my world consists of such patterns--that the phenomena I see do not consist of matter but of neurophysical events--that my world is how these events experience themselves.

Yes, but your view here does not do away with objective reality at all, it simply makes that objectivity recede behind a cloak of images the brain creates to make sense of that reality. And those brain-made constructs are not reducible to the brain alone, the brain and those constructs or "false images" are connected within the same reality and tectonically-speaking the interpretations of your brain are no less real than are the things that are being interpreted; in fact I argue your brain-made interpretations are "more real" than whatever is out there more "by itself" that is giving cause for your brain to be creating your subjective experience and ideas.

And it should also be pointed out that facts are not mind-dependent, if every human on earth died tomorrow it would still be a fact that Mars has two moons, even if not a single sentience or mind exists anywhere in all of reality to know that fact. It is still a fact, facts do not depend on being known to exist as facts. This is getting at that whole Third Universe that Parodites was mentioning.


Quote :
Quote :
Brains are simply densities of neurons which themselves are merely measurement-indicators and storage devices for relations. The kinds of relations reflective of "mind" or "consciousness" are qualitatively, absolutely, categorically different from the kind reflective of the bulk of nature, the natural world, or the world of "non-living matter", of physis, which as Parodites points out vis a vis Pierce is merely a kind of direct, flattened plane of correspondence-causality of "this then that" linearity which Kitaro might call mere spatiality dimension with no temporal dimensionality at all. No "depth", no perspective.. no internal reality, no capacity to reflect the truth or the "ontos", as Parodites calls it.

Well, I seriously doubt that. It may be true of Newtonian physics, but then there are no Newtonian physics; that's just how quantum physics appears on a large scale. I'm suggesting that wherever there are relatively independent quantum states, there is at least some rudimentary form of consciousness.

Yes that is a nice Value Ontological conclusion and I'm not disagreeing with it. But I am saying that the kind of "consciousness" of a rock or an electron is categorically different from the kind of consciousness exampled in humans. While there are more than one way we could understand that difference and certainly not all of those ways are significant as to be categorical, one way is: man's encounter with the "Third Universe" of meaning, a symbolic capacity for objectivity able to represent reality and facts directly and in terms of their own nature and by process of a negating "anti-synthesis" series of inwardly-generated images that nonetheless gain their meaning from the reality beyond that inner consciousness and beyond that organism itself.

Nature reacts, based on causal reflex and probability systems immensely complex but ultimately rooted in automatic collapse of the threshold of action to a time-independent kind of quantification whereby things are "stacked up" in a spatial-geometric sense and a result obtains out of that... non-teleologically, as it were. But the way a human mind works contains logics and processes totally different and opposite that, based in the kind of relationships possible between what Parodites called the real and the ideal egos- what we "do" and what we are, respectively.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Philosophy has to aim at bridging the gap between real and ideal ego and Parodites has lay the ground for it in the sense of negatively identifying the process. Truthfully, I dont't see much disagreement here, and Sawelios is only being careful in the making of his system in doubting it. We all see: a ground, an inedequacy, and an approach that solidifies. My greatest grief with humans has been the carelessness in working with that process, as if the ground will work out the inadequcy by its own logics. The logics of ground are monstruous in themselves, if all humans died the fact of Mars' moons would be absolutely primal. There is as much a movement of adequation in wordship as there is recognition. Whereas this carelessness drew me inwards and led me to beautiful places, I find that the debt philosophy has with it, as Sawelios has been sketching, is to force the instinct for adequacy on men, and consequently and more beautifully, though more terrifyingly, helplessly, on women. Words are not only facts but relations between facts, the pre-pythagorean instinct. It doesn't happen by itself, though also not independently, but as a calm war.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes these are all relatively basic insights, the real work begins elsewhere.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think we are in the unique position, as philosophers of the future, to cause a different type of work to be born into the world. Our Pentadic structure here was perfectly described by Parodites in terms of the fraternal but irreconcilable immanent spaces. Sincerely hope we can, slowly but steadily, continue to work with this formation, in and outside of the wheel, to shape this functional heart to the world-philosophical efforts, for which precisely such greatly removed entry points and different methods of arriving at certainty are required. "There are no philosophies, only philosophers" - yes, but there is still 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
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Wed Oct 07, 2015 11:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Why are all films warzones?
Because technology has allowed art to be truthful.




___________
" 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 : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Wed Oct 07, 2015 11:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There are many creative and original people in the history of man and, while Nietzsche's prose in Gay Science and BgE is good, he is not my favorite writer- nor the philosopher most important to me- Plato is; Plato's point, that there is no Being behind beings, is after all just now beginning to be understood. I think many come to philosophy by reading Nietzsche first these days, while he was one of those I read last in my education; he doesn't seem to me to be any closer to answering the Sphinx than any other philosopher was, and none of them ever helped me in pursuing the goal I sought myself. Beyond Good and Evil doesn't seem very brave to me if we're regressing from morality into Proto-Greek aesthetic redemption in the world of forms- skimming the Apollonian surface like the flying fish in Nietzsche's words, or to pursue the vanity of self-mastery when it is mastery only of the pitiable, simian real-ego. As I have said, I don't read the WtP as a negation of anything, I read the WtP only as a semiotic thesis- the drives self-organize on the basis of a measure of internal quanta or force, whereby they subjugate and are enslaved by one another, a psychology purely of the real ego, while the eternal return is a kind of world-differentiating principle that expands that semiogensis to a cosmological level, as only joy returns- joy being a recognition of the totality and therefor true, while all partial recognition of the totality, as falsity, fails to return; Nietzsche's role was, to me, to re-inject the Real (and his personal ambition, to reduce to the real) into the conversation of philosophy. Kierkegaard was trying to re-inject the topic of the Ideal. To formulate their mode of inter-relation is the goal I set for myself and it is the goal of philosophy, for philosophy is that inter-relation: all philosophers up until this point, either in the vein of Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, have had philosophical goals that were not actually philosophical- one's goal in philosophy becomes philosophy itself insofar as the aforementioned is realized.



___________
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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That's fair enough, I actually agree. Surely, though, there is up in the air still how to direct that inter-relatio, and surely philosophy isn't the only act doing it, and further still surely that interelation involves more creativity than is usually admitted. This is a scary responsibility, or at least few own it. Any?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The way I see it, there are three options: we can strengthen the real (dasein), strengthen the ideal (existentia), or we can strengthen the inter-relation between (philosophy proper). This relates to value and suffering: we suffer in one area by producing defenses in another, we value ourselves along the lines of our real or ideal selves only by giving definition to the other. We can see this in how many people set to work strengthening themselves in the real, as living and being-there, within a world-oriented process or another, and thereby over time their ideality becomes more defined and fixed; even if still unconscious to itself (not a philosophy) this ideality nonetheless becomes cohered and coherent as a stable living principle, one that is "lived" by that person themselves, as what they are. The opposite we have people like mystics and monks who cultivate ideal strength but end up covering definition in their real dimension in order to facilitate that ideal expansion, their being-there becomes narrower and harder in order to expand an ideal-daemonic life. Adventurers or priests, respectively.

Philosophy is really the combination of these two, we adventure into our meditativeness and we meditate into our adventurousness. So we get the benefit of suffering both directions, whereas others suffer only in one direction.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
That's fair enough, I actually agree. Surely, though, there is up in the air still how to direct that inter-relatio, and surely philosophy isn't the only act doing it, and further still surely that interelation involves more creativity than is usually admitted. This is a scary responsibility, or at least few own it. Any?


Our lives as human beings are an unconscious orienting and inter-relating of the real and ideal, the finite and infinite, time and eternity, but philosophy is simply the conscious act of doing so; philosophy is life truly lived- conscious life.

If by creativity you mean writing well and with profundity then yes, as one's thoughts are only as good as is one's command of language.



___________
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
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
So you have described beautifuly what thought is. But you haven't described how it came to be, where it is in relation to what is not it. For romans and more primitively greeks, this was an all out constant war. In our times, it seems not to exist. Does this not indicate a deep comfort? A readyness?

If a word is not what it expresses, what is it that a word expresses? Where does it come from? Where is it now?

No, a word is NOT what it expresses, but the word points to what the mind reasons or the emotions feel or sensate.
It comes from what is conjured up or constructed from the mind or emotions, it comes from memory, it comes from the interfacing between the outerworld and the brain.

It's like one link in a chain which added to other links makes the chain of thought or expression.

Where is it now? That's a good question. Where do thoughts go? Where do emotions go? The word perhaps become transformed and then dissipate.
One might say that they linger in memory, become a part of a whole.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:12 am

Message
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Why are all films warzones?
Because technology has allowed art to be truthful.


"All" films are NOT war zones but for those which are, it is not because technology has allowed art to be truthful, it is because of the mind of the artist[s] creating the film who has the courage to speak the truth and to show the truth.

Technology is a tool and perhaps art is too but they can only be as truthful and "real" as human consciousness will allow.




___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
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: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I find some of my most philocophical moments are my shallowest. Prufundity permits, shapes shallowness.

Creativity is recognition of the hact that there is no path to be unvelied, but that unveling is path making.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
I find some of my most philocophical moments are my shallowest. Prufundity permits, shapes shallowness.

Creativity is recognition of the hact that there is no path to be unvelied, but that unveling is path making.

What do you mean here by "shallowest". I know what the word means but I don't understand your thought.

For me, a philosophical moment might be the instant (though not really that instant) realization that in some regard, something I am thinking has no basis in reality but in delusion.
Or that my perspective is NOT THE ONLY ONE in existence.

How would they be shallow?

I define a philosophical moment by a surging or insight pertaining to some truth or gem of wisdom.

i can accept your definition of creativity. I think that it's also having a vision where nothingness existed beforehand. Maybe i didn't express that well. For example, Michaelangelo seeing David in the block of marble...though a block of marble isn't "nothingness".
But creativity is an energy, a life force, which brings something into existence.




___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

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

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That profundity shapes shallowness and contrariwise is a Nietzschean thing to say, but I prefer to think of it like this: if you are conscious of what you are actually saying and why you're saying it, it is profound, and if you are simply reacting and vomiting words as a reflex response, then it is shallow.


Creating is just as much about putting veils over things as it is taking them off. The creation itself- beauty, as the beautiful form, is a veil.



___________
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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
That profundity shapes shallowness and contrariwise is a Nietzschean thing to say, but I prefer to think of it like this: if you are conscious of what you are actually saying and why you're saying it, it is profound, and if you are simply reacting and vomiting words as a reflex response, then it is shallow.

I agree. In philosophical context, the profundity of what wants to be said, is frequently too great to allow the faculties of language to 'regulate it into being' without distortion. Not all thinkers suffer of this, but many do, as did Nietzsche, and as do I - often the profundity of a thought will force me to use poetic language to indicate what I mean, and leave it to those who haven an inkling or premonition of it, or some experience with it, to bring to sense together.

I disagree that control of language equals control of thought, though of course it does mean control of communicating thought. This is why my own philosophical work is necessary (for me) - language did not have terms or constructs to express my thoughts. This is why I speak of philosophical grammar.

Quote :
Creating is just as much about putting veils over things as it is taking them off. The creation itself- beauty, as the beautiful form, is a veil.

Yes, this is one of the things I do like in Zizek, he often wanders about in language to illustrate how the mask actually reveals the face. It's one of his pet-curiosities, and I don't blame him, it's fascinating how veiling and bringing into being are related.



___________
" 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 : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don't think language's role in humanity is primarily communication, that is a secondary benefit, its primary job is to model internal consciousness.



I use poetic invention, not by being forced to, but when I choose to, for sometimes thoughts are more powerful when they are half exposed, carved into relief as Nietzsche said: in fact, some thoughts can only be communicated at all by being carved in relief; almost all thoughts are self-negating, they can only exist when they exist half-said. If I wanted, I could explain everything with clinical precision, for I have never been at a loss of words before, but a lot of the time I prefer to speak poetically in order to induce specific psychological responses in the reader.

Not only am I never at a loss of words but, to the contrary, in my inspired moments the world itself and the things in it seem to speak through me, to reverberate in my consciousness and modulate themselves to the point of becoming a kind of physical language. Pre-existing language did not have terms for my thoughts either- but I did, I made up my own terms to describe what language had not yet evolved a capacity to describe, so technically linguistic command was still primary.



___________
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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, it's not that I am at loss for words - my poesis will forge words and constructs - but that language is at loss for words. Philosophy is thus a creator of language.

To explain something in absolute detail often prevents conveying its significance. Largely because truth does not always signify reality - significance requires the subjective investment. And there are many spoken truths that only draw away from significance. My comments on astrology here being case in point.

It's part of the 'aesthetic' standards philosophy requires, aesthetic in the sense that geometry is aesthetics; all forms must build on each other. There can be no hiatuses between the concepts, which means that an all too literal, unrounded attempt will inevitably charge the limits of the used language, and prevent the terms from being appropriated by another context.

Philosophy must advance like the tide, and stay true to its nature as horizon. I see that, which is why I have need of this forum, and of cooperation. I tend to give away truths too fast so that they either wound unjustly or fall on deaf ears, this is not philosophy. What needs to be done first is the contextualization of our language in a frame of sensory reference.

Only when philosophy is understood as the art of self-discernment in a context which is impossible to ground, do that subtle turbulences that create character become essential to the building of a daemonic world, which gives birth to 'gods', happinesses, scientific and artistic heights that we know are possible but can not be justified in terms of our crunched model of the psyche.



___________
" 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 08, 2015 10:11 am; edited 2 times 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: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Words are not personal, experience is. This is the missmatch. Experience is shaped by instinct. This is true. Profundity is more personal than words, the more profound the words, the less distance between them and wisdom. The more distance, the more creativity, opposed to recognition of the pre-horizontal, the less path and the less necessary the imposing of vails, which will always come no matter how deep or shallow or clear or exhaustive.

If there is one thing I would accept as ontological, its vails. They are a metaphor for distance.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Words usually make things more confusing than they really are.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Words are not personal, experience is. This is the missmatch.

But a spoken word and a written sentence are personal. Only in uncritical repeating there is mismatch. Quoting can be a form of acknowledging true match.

In my experience, words can be (among) the most profound things. I think it may differ from man to man, for some the image is more dominant, or other forms of ideas.

Quote :
If there is one thing I would accept as ontological, its vails. They are a metaphor for distance.

And for transformation.

Something can only become different if it is not seen; if all its relationships are internal.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Words usually make things more confusing than they really are.

Thus philosophy is really the search for the least confusing language.
This is absolutely different from the simplest language.
The language must be as complex internally as its relationship with that which it can not be.
It must come to correlate, rather than indicate. Come to flow right alongside of reality, rather than orthogonally imprinted on it like an arrow on top of a power-up.



___________
" 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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As I see it, we have two different types of language; The first is to indicate the here and now, the second to indicate otherwise. In the present, the words are viscerally related to our gestures and our environment. This is the art of 'talk'. Animals have similar functions. In reference to elsewhere in space-time, the sensory apparatus is wholly synthesized into the function of language, and removed from the accompanying experience. This is the art of storytelling. Our entire metaphysical apparatus consists of it. It is biologically determined that the most compelling narrative captures our conceptual faculties. I'm entertaining the notion that philosophy seeks to indicate the here and now by means of storytelling. A story becomes philosophical when it touches the reader the center of his experience. And only in as far as it is applicable to the temporal here and now, does it tell an actual story.



___________
" 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
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Fri Oct 09, 2015 2:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer,

Quote :
Words are not personal, experience is.


You might want to define "personal" then. The way I look at it, words are personal, unique to the individual. You and I might be asked to write a poem about something, anything. It doesn't matter what. We will come from different places also because of that "experience' which you said. But we also experience qualia and things differently and the words we use will describe that thing differently.

Quote :
Experience is shaped by instinct.

Maybe I'm not understanding your meaning here. Experience can be shaped by the way in which each "individual" looks at the world. We all sensate things differently as a result of our brain chemistry, our past experiences, our personal human spirit. I will grant you this though. Our behavior is often shaped by our instinct since we are after all human animals and sometimes lacking in cognitive thought and reflection.


Quote :
Profundity is more personal than words, the more profound the words, the less distance between them and wisdom.

Not necessarily. I think that would depend on the individual. People may speak quite profoundly, move others to tears yet not have a grain of "real" wisdom within them. The charlatan can do that.

Quote :
If there is one thing I would accept as ontological, its vails. They are a metaphor for distance.

Did you mean to say "veils"? Or vails. Not sure what you would mean by that.
But I suppose so. Veils hide what is not yet ready to be revealed.
But can you explain what you mean in relation to ontology and veils?



___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

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

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Fri Oct 09, 2015 11:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
" Not necessarily. I think that would depend on the individual. People may speak quite profoundly, move others to tears yet not have a grain of "real" wisdom within them. The charlatan can do that. "


Wisdom is too much to ask for, I'd rather say that some can speak well and yet not actually mean a word of what they say. One has to speak profoundly and actually mean it.


As far as experience goes, experience doesn't mean anything until you have cognized it and transformed it into thought and words. Without that it's just a memory.



___________
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
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering. Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The veils here are of suffering. They are in the degrees to which suffering has been pronounced, to which life has been turned inside out. In a sense, it takes an oracle to read the innards, oracle being someone who is half in the chasm, Hades if you will, and half in the word. This, like the steam rising from the blood, is the joy of philosophy-pure, the life that is given absolutely to it, without any pretense of being 'natural', i.e. 'innocent'; this is Lucifer himself. Not before was a philosophy so demonic, and so easy to denounce, and so tempting to take for weakness. Not because it appears weak, but because it pronounces all the things that we think of as weak in the form of a singular will - it appears evil. And there is no romance without it. Philosophy that learns to romance itself as itself, no goals will dare come near this dance. They dance in other arenas, and all that is good dances but the best thing of all is distance. The dance of distance, mountaineering, philosophy - how do we cross the distance without closing it? Wizards have the answers, because they know history.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:14 am

Defenders of the Earth
Image
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Politics, philosophy in VO+Daemon Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Denial of the "value of objective truth" may lead to what is called democracy and away from totalitarianism (traditionally conceived) but only if one ignores how truth produces itself even by feigning its other and opposite, or impossibilizing, conditions. Truth is condition, however man approaches what he considers to be truth will be by virtue of a truth, perhaps not the one he imagines it to be, as therefore there is a kind or circularity going on that spins down into unconsciousness and error, it being the task of an upright mind and conscience to reconcile the wide arcs of such a circling; we might call the beginning and ending points, relatively, of such a circle-procession as "subject and object". This is similar to how we think of democracy, as the self-limitation of power or as the fact that that which executes force under the name of law must also be bound by that same law; to act according to a truth, some justice or merely just a "condition" one must also be de facto bound up within that same schema through which force possibly manifests. Humans ultimately decided to erect a social structure to represent this obscure fact, that structure being democracy and law.

Politics that gains authority by submitting to the same authority it invokes, at least in principle since of course no single politicians chooses to obey such constraints, but finds himself forced to conform at least to a public image of obedience in that respect. What this "democracy" and legal legitimacy of force has done is to reconstruct the individual conditions of truth on the scale of a whole society. Nietzsche may have decried objective truth for the same reasoning, a kind of self-validation of his own circularity that sought to bring together beginnings and endings, to find something beyond the subject-object divide, but Nietzsche was clever enough to see that that 'something' couldn't be any kind of simple or "authoritarian" (unarguable) truth, so he rejected Platonism and fundamentally misunderstood Christianity as a result, as Parodites has pointed out. But Nietzsche's task to go beyond simple totalitarian methods is a good one, we might say he didn't do a very good job of it, since on the one hand we have Heidegger answering Nietzsche with the whole hermeneutics orgy and on the other hand we have Nazism making use of Nietzsche's ideas quite effectively (not without irony having gripped Heidegger quite strongly too). This whole impulse against "indecency" and to return to a state of uprightness, essentially formed this line of thinking under how Nietzsche applies the idea of decadence explains why these kinds of radically anti-democratic movements find a philosophical heart in the kind of cloaked objectivity-rejection of Nietzsche (but one that only rejects certain (past, historical) forms of objective truth). In the void comes Heidegger and then all the species is positivism we are familiar with today. Well-- fuck positivism and technological rationality, postmodern democratic humanism as so much secular Christianity, the passive root of consciousness living out itself against the very reality that funds and finds it. Science is good when it doesn't operate philosophically at all, either for or against truth; when it doesn't even occur to men of science to ask for ethical justification. But the problem doesn't stop there, that ethos grows and cannot avoid becoming a cultural morality well aligned to late psychological capitalism, and well positioned to misunderstand Nietzsche in their own favor, as Hitler and Heidegger did. As one social philosopher, I can't remember who, pointed out that the Holocaust wasn't any kind of extreme or exception of the logic of modernity, but an example of its repressed truth.

Nietzsche didn't reject the idea of objectivity, he only rejected one part of that circling-unconsciousness as reproduces certain kinds of objectivities according to given arrays of conditions, human conditions and social conditions. Nietzsche wanted to go deeper into the how and why, but no one had really gone that deep before, so he has to take the point of reference for everything - Plato and his Ideas - and move away from there. He lacked a theory of mind, of consciousness, and of reality. Now we have all of these, thanks to Daemonic philosophy, Value Ontology, and Tectonics. So we can observe the faults in how the systems work and know exactly where former movements went off the rails, but like Nietzsche we are still proposing systems and theories that no one else can understand or make use of. Truth being negativity, only a later growth-development of a "natural positivity" can re-center the world on a somewhat new philosophical axis.

We should be careful not to do with democracy what Nietzsche did with objective truth, or what Heidegger wanted to do, this whole war against decadence rings hollow when it originates from our own tragedies and the world-rejection of truth, when it produces conditions antithetical to itself. We can embrace anti-democracy movements and become idiots, or we can look to see what exists in "democracy" that can be reformed into a basis for formulating appeals to our truth, new ways of approaching the circular-consciousness of ideation; philosophy ends up destroying itself, by short circuiting that circular process, when it embraces an inner fascism and thus capitulates to a mere psychologism, abandoning our openness in truth. Opposed to older ideas of objectivity-truth and the conditions thereof, which Nietzsche was confronted with, we now have Parodites whole Daemonic consciousness and philosophy of excess, we have truth itself as negativity and philosophy as depth, tectonic bridges across infinities and the destruction of scientific reductivist positivism, and we have self-valuing. By making adequate the real conditions of philosophy to our philosophical projects we have freed thought from a hopeless dualism of either rejecting truth or plunging headlong into truth without any restraint or standards of measure. But all this represents a radical new moment in the history of the world, and no one else knows of it yet. Deleuze represented a similar kind of total break and newness for philosophy, but he was accepted mostly only in the ways he re-thought existing ideas and standards. Similarly I plan to continue working through established contemporary philosophy and social-political thinking in order to re-frame these in light of the new philosophy; but too we need to keep system-building by linking these critical insights to larger ideational structures and subjecting our higher philosophies to truth. We need "theory" and we need "application". It's a lot of hard work and is going to require us to do a lot of writing essays, books, commentaries, or making films as I know FC and Pezer are interested in.

Let's not give up, let's do the hard work and change this world. It's wide open to our exploration, the bounds of this new philosophy, and we have learned now that it is wide and deep enough to encompass all of our respective ways of thinking and of approaching philosophy. It's possible for us all to work together because this "New World" is so totally open and wild, unexplored-- our new spirit-cry of philosophy, hic sunt dracones.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

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


PostSubject: Re: Politics, philosophy in VO+Daemon Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Speed. It's speed that's defined us. We can see the old logics racing along side their impossibleizing earthly political counterparts, we've been driven near madness by the seeming inoriginality of the logics in their simultaniety... But speed is what these logics derive on, how they have survived their cowardly cooriginals. By appropriating them, and then being so light, being appropriated!

Speed. It's in the mind. It claims, with no discrimination as speed is its own discrimination. If we become slow, only our having experienced the speed can give us bearings among cowards. Or we can ignore it! Certainly, having seen the fastest yet, nothing can ever be the same. Whether I influence the world into a New World or not, I will have been among the blesed few who saw the fore front, and the infinity beyond, and am bound beyond honor or any slow human concept to attempt the hardest and the freeest: I am become vanguard, shaper of world.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Politics, philosophy in VO+Daemon Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Aye, Capable.

Capable wrote:
Similarly I plan to continue working through established contemporary philosophy and social-political thinking in order to re-frame these in light of the new philosophy; but too we need to keep system-building by linking these critical insights to larger ideational structures and subjecting our higher philosophies to truth. We need "theory" and we need "application". It's a lot of hard work and is going to require us to do a lot of writing essays, books, commentaries, or making films as I know FC and Pezer are interested in.

Indeed, we need vital theory if we are to act with ground. As you say, man renews himself every day, hour, minute, and by the endless actions within the shadowy world half-truths he runs the risk of corrupting. If Pezer and go into the field, we do so armed to the teeth with theory, and the latest of it should not be made known. What you wrote about the genders, for example, should not, in my opinion, be made public before it bears clean fruits through honest actions.

It's a little discussed idea among philosophers, who should be the beneficiary of ideas. With self-valuing we see that the philosopher has no choice but to choose his own type.

Quote :
Let's not give up, let's do the hard work and change this world. It's wide open to our exploration, the bounds of this new philosophy, and we have learned now that it is wide and deep enough to encompass all of our respective ways of thinking and of approaching philosophy. It's possible for us all to work together because this "New World" is so totally open and wild, unexplored-- our new spirit-cry of philosophy, hic sunt dracones.

Okay, that's brilliant.

I can't produce much more right now than absolute affirmation of this sign and strategy.



___________
" 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
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Politics, philosophy in VO+Daemon Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is a common problem today, involving politics, it is the conflict between two ideas or assumptions: that truth does not exist and any attempt to claim a stable or objective truth is necessarily false, dominating, harmful; and that truth exists only as one's own sphere of idea-stimulus pertaining to one's self-valuing and to one's least questioned categories of thinking. Ideology falls most commonly on the latter of these two, but postmodernist ideology falls on the former or at least originates there, in a kind of radically skeptical self-criticism and lack of self that masks as a critique of others and everyone else. "You don't really know anything" is a cry by these types that we see often enough online, of course it really means "I don't really know anything".

Another problem is that these two bad assumptions and their contradiction is bridged only by these types I just mentioned, and only by that type becoming, not more grounded and reasonable, but more unstable and insane as to actually propose its own criticism as a stable ground. This might be an example of how self-valuing can persist in a distorted state and eventually when its relations don't bear any connection to reality or health the self-valuing simply tries to establish its own unhealthy and insanity as if these were the reality beyond itself. A school of thought arises here, a new totalitarianism (by that I mean an anti-philosophy) that posits a void response as a positivity by only recognizing other likewise void responses as legitimate, and allowing only consequences stemming from such voids to be legitimate factors in politics. Since these types can't stop using language they simply gut it of meaning anything except to indicate for or against the presence and primacy of these voids, all language thereby becomes "political", "thought-crime" and "double-think" to the extent we assume these people are even thinking at all when they are utilizing language.

Ideology of the latter type as mentioned above, those who hold to a clear one-sides truth and naive objectivity of value, must make use of ideological thinking of obvious reasons, but this other void type actually takes ideology to a whole new level by making ideology itself ideological: that within ideology which had at least indicated some reality-encounter albeit a very narrow one, now becomes inverted as well and only indicates the false reality-void by invoking degrees of representation of the positivity or lack of positivity of the voids and their "self-valuing" processes. This is usually done by pointing to consequences of those processes, acknowledging them just enough to establish the void-process as de facto legitimate but certainly not enough to destabilize the void itself, thus maintaining the inverted status... Ideology made implicit, unable to be spoken directly, reversing the typical ideological falsity-narrowing effect not toward reality but towards the void-unreality.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Politics, philosophy in VO+Daemon Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This problem I mention above is really nothing more than a rejection of the notion of objectivity. Because one maybe cannot define what objectivity is, or name an objective truth to which they are willing to commit or argue for, this leads people, politicians and philosophers to attack the whole concept of objectivity. That is a mistake, because it comes from a more fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of objectivity. As far as I've seen only Parodites' philosophy lays out a legitimate conception of objectivity, because only his philosophy has gone deep enough and been ruthlessly self-critical and thus consistent enough to become able to formulate such an idea unproblematically.

Now the task we have is to help work out this real possibility of the adequate conceptualizing of objectivity into philosophy and through modern writings/examples in philosophy and politics. Only this would free philosophy (and by extension, eventually, society as well) from its dangerously ignorant and defeatist postmodernism, all the emptiness and vain nihilism that comes with such petty psychologies. Another problem is that these petty psychologies happen to work quite well with the ethos of the contemporary world that has grown up so much as a result of the proliferation of these psychological-philosophical ("existential") types across Europe and the US. So the difficulty is to break that cycle somehow; first I think we need to harden ourselves in truth and make ourselves adequate to philosophy, then our respective projects be these books or films or something else might stand a chance of acting like circuit-breakers in larger networks and systems. Maybe that's too idealistic, to think we can actually change things, but even if it is we might as well try for it, since hey what the hell else are we going to do while we happen to be walking around on this floating rock in space?



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:15 am

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Extreme binary ideations Tue May 10, 2016 7:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The problem with making progress in gaining a more certain hold and depth in truths is that the tendency manifests to collapse the daemonic structure into a polarity; for example, the idea that gender is immutable and that current gender roles and norms are fixed absolutely or near-absolutely is met with the counter-idea that as I heard a feminist say recently, "gender is something we made up". No, gender is not something we "made up", but the falsity of that claim does not belie the fact that there is truth in the idea that gender is also a social and historical construct. The task of parsing something like gender and gender norms into more subtle and accurate ideations is hindered by the existential tendency to psychologically collapse a counter-position into a polarized state in order to make one's position against the alternative position more certain, stronger and momentarily effective.

When it comes to race, culture, gender, these ideations are especially prone to polarization. Polarization increases effectiveness in the short term by reducing the number of access points into the larger reality -- by reducing the number of access points one prevents the "impetus" of one's position, argument or sentiment from dispersing across more existential coordinates. This polarization is an example of applied utilitarianism, and is counter to progressing truthfully.

Then as if this weren't bad enough, we have the meta-polarity where people's "position, argument or sentiment" starts to identify itself against the other polarity-form of the opposing side, rather than against the actual reality of the opposing side... So not only are there falsely reduced-collapsed polarities but these polarities begin to discount the reality that resides in the other side, further legitimizing the false and cloaking truths. The method goes something like, at the unconscious level, "well I can just hyperbolize the other side and make my own position even more effective, and anyway they're hyperbolizing my view so if I don't follow suit I'll be left behind as less effective". It's a double-pincer sort of logical bind, commonly we call it ego.

Gender, race, culture, these are partly social-historical constructs and partly not social-historical constructs, which means that the "construction" comes from somewhere deeper in the reality beyond mere construction, and that deeper reality is also in part delimited and either affirmed or resisted (made more or less effective) in terms of the constructs that do exist. Either-or logic breaks down the approach to truth into a fragmentation of existential and phenomenological substances, severely limiting the development of being.



___________






Message
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Inter-penetration of values-spheres (Self-Valuing Ethics 101) Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
People care about each other to the degree that the are connected to each other; we always care more about our own families and friends than strangers, which doesn't mean that we don't care or cannot be made to care about strangers, but once we start to interact and know them they are already inter-penetrating our own values-sphere, and therefore aren't "strangers" anymore. We also naturally rank most of our relationships in terms of how much value we give to them and for how much value we get from them.

This point has been attacked particularly by leftist philosophy as a kind of subtle capitalization -- namely that the fact that we care more about certain people than others is supposedly a kind of irrationality or flaw in our psyche, or the cause of the ills in the world, or the fact that we spend $50,000 on a new car while we could have bought a $10,000 used car and given the difference to charity, or that we would save our own child first before saving another child, etc. Sure, that giving to charity would have been great, and arguably there are many better uses to put $40,000 to than a new car, however that isn't even the point. The point is simply that the way it works ontologically is how self-valuing describes the fact that beings interact by inter-penetrating each other's values-spheres, and the interactive middle-spaces between are literally the feelings, values, motives, ideas, actions etc. that beings do/have/are.

When I am around another person and they make me feel good, that "good feeling" is literally the inter-penetrating valuation; it is as Fixed Cross said, that beings always add value around themselves, they give value, and the extent to which they do this is the value that others have for them. This isn't some kind of capitalist principle or "enlightened self-interest", this is much deeper, this is pure fucking existential ontic principle. The positive feeling of value and caring/concern we have for others is exactly and literally the giving-of-value of others' own self-valuing, and nothing besides. It isn't simply that our feelings and actions and inclinations are reflecting the exchanges of values, they are those values.

It isn't a fallacy or a flaw that we aren't able to care as much for some people as we do for others, it would be existentially, ontologically impossible for a being to care equally for all other beings; this naturally exposes a flaw within Buddhism, or at least a potential flaw, since Buddhism wants to push self-valuing universally and equally to all beings, but then again maybe the Buddhist method is a kind of edification system for a self-valuing and is actually 'stretching' it somehow or making it larger, more accurate, or whatever... I honestly don't know. But right now I am not interested in Buddhism.

Feelings, care and concern, and compassion are the inter-penetration of values mutually into two or more self-valuing's values-spheres; the neurophysiological, hormonal etc. aspects of our bodies and brains that activate and work while we have these feelings, these values activities, are simply transfer mechanisms for the values; the biological aspect derives from and as the values aspect, the logic is always central and fundamental, biology flows from logic and is simply a container for logic, for values. A "physical biological system" is simply a kind of secondary expression of values, of values-in-action, of mutualism of values, of transfer and engagement of values, all of which means simply that the pure logic is the primary domain, always. The "subjectivity" of these physical systems experiencing themselves, or what we sometimes call consciousness, is literally the self-experience of values as pertain to (a) self-valuing.


The other angle is that it represents a limitation or weakness of a self-valuing to have a narrow values-sphere and to have a 'dense' mutuality of values-penetration with other self-valuings such that it cannot really act or enact care, concern, compassion or feelings for others. We might call that sociopathy or simply "burnout", or nihilism or whatever else label we want, but the underlying reality is that every self-valuing has a ratio of its size to its density, also a separate ratio of its actual size to its potential size and another for its actual density to its potential density, and these measures also vary from location and categorical type within the values-spheres and values-interactions, and are also affected by the situations in which self-valuings find themselves. Bottom line: it is very complex, and there is added value in expanding one's self-valuing to encompass more than is typical for it, and there is loss of value in closing off the values-sphere and making it smaller or more dense. The 'sphere' is literally the values themselves, being is literally the values and nothing besides, likewise the feelings we have, the ideas, the things we say or believe, our motives, what we write, how we act, all of it is literally the values and nothing besides, as the "expressing" of them in a particular spatial-temporal structure that includes the individual, the world, and everything in between. But alongside the weakness of an over-dense values-sphere cutting off potential interactions is that the density of the sphere is, again, literally the values themselves, so we can't simply dilute the sphere too much because the sphere is the values, and the values are the sphere; there is added value in having a less dense sphere, but bring down the density too much and you literally begin to stop existing.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy


Last edited by Capable on Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:08 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Inter-penetration of values-spheres (Self-Valuing Ethics 101) Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ok I am slightly interested in Buddhism, because of how it overlaps in this tendency to stretch self-valuing (perhaps attempting to impossibly stretch it) with how leftist-liberalism type views try to do the same thing, at least ostensibly, namely in how we are supposed to feel some kind of guilty compulsion to care for strangers we've never met as much or even more than we care for the people in our own lives. There is a shaming aspect to caring/concern for oneself and ranking naturally one's care/concern according to the location in our own self-valuing values-spheres in which other self-valuings (other people) and shared values exist. This generates an ethical proposition that self-interest is flawed or unethical, or simply inadequate ethically. The opposite view is generated as a reaction against this, and we find people like Ayn Rand and many others trying to reify self-interest into an absolute principle, trying to build an entire philosophical system around it.

Thank fuck that self-valuing has come along and with it Value Ontology and we are free from that madness of "enlightened self-interest" nonsense that has plagued philosophy (and by extension, politics and our modern human psyches) for so long. The ideas are useful for introductions into this way of thinking that VO provides, that real philosophy begins to unlock, either as VO or for example as Parodites' philosophy, but otherwise the self-interest crowd of "objectivists" are simply naive, which means that their 'philosophies' are still almost nothing more than expressions of their own personal psychological needs. Likewise self-valuing and VO can actually provide a cure and answer for the leftist paradigm that falsely believes that we must care equally for everyone and everything otherwise we are merely inhuman unethical capitalists. Yes, "inhuman unethical capitalism" exists but this isn't what it means, it doesn't simply mean the fact that we make values declarations and value differently. Even if we could somehow value everything equally, and we cannot, we would simply cease to exist at that point, we would literally become a direct extension of other larger and foreign values-systems such as the world at large which would make of us an empty appendage -- we would no longer be alive. Life is values, having and being values, which means the same thing. So from the perspective of ethics we need to keep developing VO and re-interpreting (revaluating) things, and in particular problems and seeming paradoxes or flaws, from the perspective of the logical principle of self-valuing.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Inter-penetration of values-spheres (Self-Valuing Ethics 101) Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
First principle: Freedom. Freedom from the self-valuing angle means freedom to self-value, which means placing first and foremost the conditions for self-valuing as most important. Self-determination is an idea connected to self-valuing, heavily focused on the prominence of the individual. National sovereignty is another connected idea. Freedom essentially means prioritizing the individual first and groups second; individual people should be judged and treated first as individuals and second as members of groups. This same idea holds in terms of nation-states and cultures: shares relations among groups are predicated on the individual entity status of the relatants, of their coherent self-valuing.

Conservative ideology is focused on one side of the self-valuing equation: the side of the individual against the conditions for the individual, the side of prioritizing extent individual concerns over more subtle or diffuse (in space or time) conditions that secure that individuality.

Liberal ideology is focused on the other side of the self-valuing equation: the side of the conditions for individuality, the diffuse elements across situations in space or time, the underlying incentives and causes behind first the formation and second the self-regulation of the individual.

Self-valuing recognition in terms of political ideology and thought has split along these two lines, of self and its contexts, and of focused logic and diffuse logic respectively to conservative and liberal. Liberals see selves as derivatives of the society-groups, conservatives see the society-groups as derivatives of the selves. Both views are correct.

Freedom should always be upheld as a supreme value. There is freedom for and freedom from, another split along existentially-crystallizing lines. Both freedoms are relevant: freedom to self-value as one is and to the maximum extent of that which one is and may be, and freedom from the conditions and influences-factors that would prevent one from self-valuing as one is. Freedom to be oneself depends on existing freedoms from the conditions that would prevent being oneself (such conditions as war, poverty, slavery, disease, all act in the extreme as impediments to being oneself), just as freedom from those adverse conditions depends on the prior established existence of the freedom to be that is self-valuing.


Next principle: the natural conflict of different self-valuings (of freedom-to's) produces eddies and currents in the shared values-spaces ("worlds") between self-valuings (I.e. freedom-from's are crafted and refined by virtue of the good and natural (necessary) conflicts over values between different self-valuings).



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Re: Inter-penetration of values-spheres (Self-Valuing Ethics 101) Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When we interact with others and are open to them, we experience their values and self-valuing penetrating into our own values and self-valuing. This is literal and "physical" penetration. Some people are able to sustain a large amount of the values and self-valuing of others in their own values-sphere, and act as a kind of potentiation and catalyst for the self-valuing of others; then there are other people who are able to sustain only a small amount of other people's values and self-valuing in this way. The world is created because people share values and share valuing; people who share and sustain more values socially in this way create more of the world.

We all "feed off" the shared values and shared valuing provided by others (by the world). Physicals interaction is the manifestation of the approach of values. People are rare who can more fully and joyously take up the values and valuing of others and act as a "small world" for them, while it is most common that people are trying to find others to use for the sake of stabilizing their own self-valuing and of gaining reassurances on their own values. Gaining joy from values-interactions is a secondary effect, the joy is another value-expression and not the goal or purpose of the values-interactions; joy and energy signify a successful values-act. A successful values-act can be either the success of values on the terms of one's own self-valuing or the success of values on the terms of another self-valuing.

The extremes of love and grief reveal how deeply interwoven self-valuings are. We learn to value because others value us, as in Kohut's object relations theory, the fact that others value us is imprinted upon us as children and we implicitly learn how to value, we learn how to value in the same or similar ways as others around us value; thus self-valuings tend toward similarities to the extent they share proximity in space and time. The tendency toward similarity of proximal self-valuings is the fact that individual self-valuing is embedded in larger values-constructs and valuing-constructs beyond itself and requires those constructs to achieve its own self-valuing. Freedom is the existential condition of a self-valuing reaching the threshold of its own dependency on such constructs and gaining the capacity for pushing beyond that threshold, to finally break away into its own 'world'. This is what teenagers and young adults are doing, they are learning about freedom.

From that point onward freedom replaces shared dependency as the primary and fundamental self-valuing self-relational principle. What then is love, either romantic or platonic? Love is not a recapitulation of the shared dependency of childhood and youth, but a recreation of a world upon the foundation of freedom: love is not the basis of the worlds of shared dependency, the basis of those worlds is simply need and utility-transfer, while the basis of worlds of freedom (post-dependency, post-childhood) is simply what we call love, in all its many forms. Romantic, aesthetic, intellectual, platonic, there are many forms of love because there are many values-fields that are able to act as potentiations for the principle of freedom to a post-dependency self-valuing. Thus the ethics of self-valuing shifts as childhood is left behind and adulthood is gained: there are two essentially different ethics of self-valuing, each based on the requirements of self-valuing either as dependency or won freedom. Self-valuing tends toward freedom at all times and therefore freedom is its most essential philosophical condition, but each threshold of freedom rests upon the successful completion of prior thresholds, which means that many self-valuings stall at certain stages upon the continuum of freedom. Childhood is simply the requirement manifest as space and time for many lower thresholds upon that continuum to be gradually worked through in order to begin ascending the continuum in any significant manner.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Doric basterd
Doric basterd
avatar

Posts : 6663
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships


PostSubject: Re: Inter-penetration of values-spheres (Self-Valuing Ethics 101) Sat Jul 02, 2016 9:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is a momentous project, the manifestation of a psychological cosmos, as it were, derived synthetically from self-valuing logic and a wealth of experience with humanity.
There is no categorization here a priori, we will have to embark on a fluid path that may or may not in the end collapse into a periodic table of sorts, that gives us exact predictability.
But no such perfection is necessary to revolutionize the art of psychology; to recognize the points you make in these posts should be sufficient to a reader who seeks to relinquish arbitrary categories and boundaries and philosophize himself dirty with experience.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:20 am

Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Drug use zones? Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It occurred to me that what the police do in The Wire, setting up a drug zone at the abandoned edge of the city where police are there but never arrest anyone for using or selling drugs, might actually work in real life. The police approach it to the drug dealers as follows: "You can sell and use anywhere within this 10 block radius, we will be here to ensure there is no violence but otherwise we will not arrest anyone. But if you try selling outside of this zone, your ass is hauled off to prison for life, you're seriously fucked. You sell drugs here and you're just fine; you sell drugs in our city among our citizens and you're finished."

Then you arrange social services and EMTs and other programs to help ensure people are safe, pass out condoms and free clean needles and all that, hook anyone who wants it up to recovery services or in-patient treatment, and generally just make a little drug city inside the city. This would be the epitome of treating drugs as a public and personal health problem rather than as a criminal problem. It would probably clean up the rest of the city from drug-related violence fairly quickly, and it would bring it more into the open where people can get help and where it can be recognized for what it is, a problem of health and of socioeconomics, not a criminal issue.

I can't see anything wrong with this except that the false (Christian) moralism of the public would oppose it, and also that some of the drug dealers and gangs would oppose it and refuse to participate.. so to this latter problem, you just crack down harder outside the zone and create a situation of incentives whereby it just makes more sense to deal inside the zone, since you can make even more money and there is no risk of violence or getting arrested. I don't think most drug users or drug dealers are really that invested in the criminal culture and lifestyle, and if given the choice they would largely prefer to operate within the law so long as they could still get their drugs and cash. Yes there is the strong element of will to power in the psychology of drug dealers, the gang lifestyle of course, and that isn't going to go away but it could be reduced to a significant degree by these kind of drug use zones. The drug dealers I used to know weren't hardcore gang banging will to power types like you see on the movies , they were just ordinary people who sometimes were forced to do extraordinary things (like use violence, beat someone up for a drug-related matter, posture themselves and arm with guns for protection and image, etc.). But a lot of that is just contingent stuff.

As to the first problem of people's false moralism, I don't really know how to fix that one.



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home


PostSubject: Re: Drug use zones? Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For singles without status and family involved, if the dealer's paid a portion of their gross income to fund a 'safe' area, it might work, but addictions are closeted issues. When an addict lives in denial, drug use doesn't exist. Parents and public pillars of their communities would never reveal themselves as druggies. Since this dream is out there, sobriety testing would keep the hazardous from escaping the zone, the clean version of Escape From New York.

The moral issues arise due to most drug users succumbing to irresponsibility of their actions while influenced. If users got licensed under contracts of responsibilities towards the safety of the general public and abided typically then they would only be damaging themselves, but where are the hardcore junkies going to get their coin?

The philosopher kings could provide free 'soft' drugs for all who enter the zone. Screw the other public works.

Might also include the free opting out model, where you trip from life to death in a painless overdose. The ultimate high.











Defenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Pillage the oil? Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From a New York Times article, what are your thoughts either on the article itself (is it accurate or inaccurate to what Trump has said and how he thinks), or thoughts on the notion of pillaging the resources of those countries we defeat in war?


"
He wants the United States to become a nation that steals from its enemies. He’s already called for war crimes — killing family members of terrorists, torturing suspects. He would further violate the Geneva Conventions by making thieves out of a first-class military.

“It used to be to the victor belong the spoils,” Trump complained to the compliant Matt Lauer in the now infamous commander-in-chief forum. Oh, for the days when Goths, Vandals and Nazis were free to rape, pillage and plunder. So unfair, as Trump said on an earlier occasion, that we have “all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight.”
As with everything in Trump’s world, his solution is simple: loot and pilfer. “Take the oil,” said Trump. He was referring to Iraq, post-invasion. And how would he do this? There would be an open-ended occupation, as a sovereign nation’s oil was stolen from it. Of course, “you’d leave a certain group behind,” he said, to protect the petro thieves.

A certain group. Let’s be clear what he’s talking about: Under Trump’s plan, American men and women would die for oil, victims of endless rounds of lethal sabotage and terror strikes. That’s your certain group. He thinks we could get in, get the oil, and get out. Just like the cakewalk of occupying Iraq. And if such a seizure violates international law, what’s the rest of the world going to do about it? “Anything is legal” in war, as the deranged Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani explained.

For this kind of plunder, there is in fact a precedent for Trump’s plan: Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. The United States fought the first gulf war because the Iraqi dictator tried to seize Kuwait’s oil. We were the good guys, fighting an invading military force that was trying to steal a small country’s most precious natural resource.

I realize with Trump that any discussion of actual “issues” is not for our political press. Can’t we just talk about that awesome Dr. Oz exam? But even one of Trump’s top military supporters, Maj. Gen. Sidney Shachnow, retired, thought the candidate’s conquer-and-steal plan was insane. “It’s a bad precedent,” he told NBC News. “That oil belongs to somebody else.” Sorry, soldier: You’re going to have to follow Trump’s orders.

Of course, the Mideast would be aflame with violent anti-Americanism if Trump’s troops sat on the oil wells in the desert. Iran, seeing a fellow Shiite-majority nation robbed of its lifeblood, would strike, and jump again into a fast-paced development of a nuclear bomb.

But, by then, Trump would already be at war with Iran, as he suggested in another of his overlooked recent statements. He said if the Iranians made inappropriate “gestures” at “our beautiful boats” he would shoot them. He would start a war, in other words, if they flipped off our sailors.
Let’s imagine the Trump Doctrine after World War II. Instead of building model democracies, vigorous trade partners and allies in global sanity out of Germany and Japan, American troops would have looted those countries of all their worth and left them ripe for a fresh dictator. It was one of the highlights of my grandfather’s life, as a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, to help rebuild Germany after it was left in ruins.

Today, my grandfather would be forced by Trump to violate the codes of international behavior that the United States has long tried to uphold. Trump would put us on the side of tyrants and monarchs, the people our founders tried to disentangle us from.

Trump would become a war criminal, a role he seems to relish — typical for a man who has never served a day in the military. Take it from someone who has served, and defeated another nation, Colin Powell. Trump, he said in emails leaked this week, is “a national disgrace and an international pariah.”

But Trump would have an ally in kleptocracy with his favorite world leader, the former K.G.B. operative Vladimir Putin. Trump is Russia’s useful idiot, dismissing its international aggressions and human rights violations. Putin can do no wrong because, “if he says great things about me,” as Trump said, “I’m going to say great things about him.” Trump then went on a Russian propaganda television network to prove his point.

Some may call this flirting with treason, the enabling of an American adversary — something that Trump has done earlier with his suggestion that Russia try to destabilize the American election. To that, he’s openly advocating war crimes. Can he get away with it? He already has."



___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”. -N

“Cause I’m just a man... flesh and venom.” -Cowboy Troy
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 757
Join date : 2011-12-11


PostSubject: Re: Pillage the oil? Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Almost every quotation was taken out of context. But even if it wasn't, monarchs and tyrants have been making monetary contributions to our presidential candidates, especially in the case of Clinton, for some time. I don't see why Trump is being put on the stand for that.

The oil is the source of ISIS' wealth. The Islamic State isn't a sovereign nation. Take their wealth, then they can't fund their projects. This is the only case he's mentioned about pillaging someone. This is a special case because the oil is the only thing holding ISIS together. And he didn't even intend that we take it and then bring it back over here for ourselves, but that we secure it and starve the Islamic State. And if any forces are found conspiring with the Islamic State over oil profits, since those profits are allowing IS to fund its military expansions, then fuck both of them. Either buying oil from ISIS or supplying them with it should be considered an aggression. Or don't take their source of income away from them and blow a couple hundred more billion taxpayer dollars and not accomplish anything in the end anyway.

Shooting Iranians for flipping us off is obviously an exaggeration.

As far as Trump being an "international pariah," well he just successfully engaged the Mexican president, the Russians and Japs seem to like him, Britain likes him. He's a pariah for a bunch of worthless fuckin' European quasi-states bent under the foot of Merkel.


As far as Russia destabilizing shit, it's rather the content of what was revealed that is destabilizing things. Russia is the only other power on earth with the nuclear capacity of annihilating the human species, and it is the one nation we have decided for some reason that we want to be a dick to.













efenders of the Earth
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5477
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Freedom


PostSubject: Points of agreement now Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
1. Trump is being judged based almost entirely on the lewd statements he makes; I agree this isn't entirely fair to him, and his ideas, policies and value do not reduce to such statements. But as I also told Fixed, it's hard for mostly people and even intelligent ones to separate the two things out, his ideas/value from the disgusting things he says. As Zizek called it, Trump is defecating in public. We all defecate, of course, but it's not very sound advice to do that publically if you're trying to get elected to public office.

2. Clintonism has fucked things up to an extreme extent, US foreign policy has messed up the world and the ME especially. I agree with Parodites' statement when he talked about how the US should use its constitution as a model and any other countries that want to adopt that model could do so, but that we haven't done that in the US because of how corrupt our politics has become. The Bush and Clinton years have represented doubling down on invasive foreign policy, economic and real warfare, fucking with Russia for basically no good reason, and trying to institute US cheeseburger hegemony across the planet as much as possible. We all know Clinton is a liar and not to really trusted, but we know this at the deep intuitive level.

3. We need "outsiders" in politics. I don't mean complete outsiders, we still need politicians who know how to use the political system and who understand it and can get things done, and we also need these semi-outsider politicians to value compromise just a little bit. If the GOP can come up with come candidates who have moderate political experience and genuine interest to compromise to get things done, and who aren't ideological hacks on issues like global warming, then there might be a chance that this momentum Trump created will continue and transition into something good down the line. We also need a real statesman, something clearly Trump has a hard time with. Someone like Trump but with better manners in public to avoid shooting himself in the foot, but with Trump's independence to call out the bullshit on the Clintons et. al., but also with a willingness to compromise and look sincerely at facts around issues that are ideologically polarized. The good thing about Trump is how he broke open the GOP party and now it's possible that the ideological stranglehold can be reduced in a large way.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6100
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users