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.

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:07 pm

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 4:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Morality does a few things, one of which is to create a new plane of significance for things. An easy example is when someone wrongs you somehow (let's say a boss at work) and you take steps to correct it by talking to HR; now your boss makes some changes and tries to be a little better and might even apologize to you, they might even be sincere in the apology. All fine and good, but none of this is morality.

Morality comes in when you elevate the interaction and its resolution to a meaning and lasting significance beyond the bounds of the interaction and its resolution. You do this by, for example, continuing to feel the affront even after it has been resolved or by continuing to focus on the resolution and the rightfulness of how it was handled in a way that was adequate or not adequate; basically you force the situation and its meaning to linger beyond the situation itself. This is one function of morality. Morality activates certain meanings to new regions where they persist longer than otherwise they would.

This is both falsifying and truthful: it is faslfying because to a certain degree you must ignore the bounds of the interaction in the practical sense and you must also ignore to some degree the resolution. Statements or sentiments like "well they were wrong they should have apologized!" after the fact of the apology are examples of moral clinging that must in some way ignore the fact that the resolution took place. This has obvious psychological use but more importantly the truthful aspect of doing this falsifying of the practical dimension of the interaction/resolution is simply that in terms of the meaning of the interaction/resolution that meaning doesn't go away, but lasts for eternity in the pure timeless realm of the meaningful as such, as a Fact of significance. When you falsify something its practical dimensions and its resolution you nonetheless do this in order to pay fidelity to the eternal (outside of time) meaningfulness behind the interaction and its resolution.

This moral extension as fidelity to the Eternal of meaning is therefore a certain kind of remembering: one remembers and continues to hold as significant the meaning and fact of something long after that 'something' has ended, or even concluded satisfactorily.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 4:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That's an elegant and highly effective definition.
Beyond that it is practical and itself free of moral judgment, I wouldn't say it is extremely Nietzschean, as if there is any place where N gets moral and superfluous in meaning it is in defining morality, which is why he then vomits it out, I think. Not his forte.

However I would like to address what, in this practical definition of what morality is, a Nietzschean morality is.

As is said, a morality stretches out the significant of an event beyond itself.
The significance of that event (to the selfvaluing) we may call its moral value.

So what is a moral value that stretches out beyond its own event, in a Nietzschean?

The answer is very convenient and clear: Pride.

As a Nietzschean, I have upheld this morality. When someone adds to my pride, that is ths philosophical pride I am talking about, that person acquires a value that pertains to a greater Value, namely the great signifier of morality, which is the capacity for pride.
Nietzschean pride is possibly the most comprehensive pride so far, as it extends to areas like factuality. A man like say 'turd ferguson' as boastful as he is, has no pride, in this sense, as he has no joy in addressing things factually.

When someone negatively addresses my (philosophic) Pride, that person becomes, in my psychological-emotional system, a non-entity. I take massive delight in deconstructing that entity in my mind, and seeing the weaknesses by which it hangs together. I can do this with most persons, but with someone who gives to show that he does not uphold Pride, as I do it, and is even ready to compromise it, this is what automatically begins to happen. His soul begins to disintegrate before my minds eye. If I choose to speak out, this then causes ripples of un-pride across the paradigm, ripples that touch the nerve of Nietzschean pride everywhere.

For as such, as defined as you have it, morality spreads through and lives in the world - when the code is challenged, it becomes active.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 4:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The 'cause' of pride in a practical sense is pleasure, albeit a complex, and non homogenous kind.

The impulse first of all of creating pride, is a pleasure.
I am going by the definition of the OP which is the best Ive ever seen, I realize while using it.

The pleasure is created in exacerbating the sentiment about the event, and magnifying it, shaping it as a full form of consciousness - making the feeling (of in/justice) into an Idea. This is the will to power, and perhaps in its gravest, most human sense.

To create a morality in this way, by feeling something, and then allowing the feeling to become an objectifying, magnetizing, 'shaping' eternal, this is ruthless.
Most of such power comes as revenge. But it is also a revenge against oneself. As, as one feels very clearly when such a thing is allowed/pushed into being, one surrenders ones own independence to it.

As a child, a boy at least, it is near impossible to not create such morality. I would say that no man grows up without it. Thus, no man is without it. And therefore, it is wise to develop this moral-creating power toward consciousness of nature of the joy behind it; and that brings us to the sensibility of a Nietzschean morality; a moral attitude toward morality - the attitude toward morality being the same as that very morality; 'recurring affirmation' ; naked pride in value-creating.

I believe this is closely related to the concept of Evil, as it has existed among humans; a morality that has managed to own up to itself and thus separating from the body of society, 'Lucifer' separating from 'god', by drawing his entire moralizing nature into itself. This can never happen in a judgmental-rejecting human; that is not integer but conditional self-valuing, it is always psychotic and self-splitting. But in a drawing-in-affirming morality, if self-reference of the morality-creating pleasure/drive happens, the person becomes free to himself. For this state of "I am the way and the light and the truth" I have reserved the term "free will".



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 5:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Interesting connection between these two: pride and morality.

Morality: doing the right thing. As the Wicca say: harm none. I always add: without just cause. Of course we would have to define "just cause".

Pride comes in different flavors. Some people take pride in doing the wrong thing or totally selfish things at the cost of others.

I think both are Nietzschean concepts though.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 5:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes pride is connected to the self-valuing structures, so if those structures are deranged, damaged, insane or pathological then it is certainly possible for such a person to take pride in otherwise "immoral" acts.

The pride of the immoralist is probably something Nietzsche wrote about somewhere but I can't recall any specific passages.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 6:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The 'cause' of pride in a practical sense is pleasure, albeit a complex, and non homogenous kind.

The impulse first of all of creating pride, is a pleasure.
I am going by the definition of the OP which is the best Ive ever seen, I realize while using it.

The pleasure is created in exacerbating the sentiment about the event, and magnifying it, shaping it as a full form of consciousness - making the feeling (of in/justice) into an Idea. This is the will to power, and perhaps in its gravest, most human sense.

To create a morality in this way, by feeling something, and then allowing the feeling to become an objectifying, magnetizing, 'shaping' eternal, this is ruthless.
Most of such power comes as revenge. But it is also a revenge against oneself. As, as one feels very clearly when such a thing is allowed/pushed into being, one surrenders ones own independence to it.

As a child, a boy at least, it is near impossible to not create such morality. I would say that no man grows up without it. Thus, no man is without it. And therefore, it is wise to develop this moral-creating power toward consciousness of nature of the joy behind it; and that brings us to the sensibility of a Nietzschean morality; a moral attitude toward morality - the attitude toward morality being the same as that very morality; 'recurring affirmation' ; naked pride in value-creating.

I believe this is closely related to the concept of Evil, as it has existed among humans; a morality that has managed to own up to itself and thus separating from the body of society, 'Lucifer' separating from 'god', by drawing his entire moralizing nature into itself. This can never happen in a judgmental-rejecting human; that is not integer but conditional self-valuing, it is always psychotic and self-splitting. But in a drawing-in-affirming morality, if self-reference of the morality-creating pleasure/drive happens, the person becomes free to himself. For this state of "I am the way and the light and the truth" I have reserved the term "free will".

This is fascinating how you already exploded this idea upward and outward. I agree to your observations in both posts, although I have an issue with associating "Evil" in the way you do. I'm familir with the Lucifer-freedom argument, but I don't agree with it. The reason I don't agree is because of how this argument is self-referential and closed-circular: freedom as "being free" or defining morality or immorality entirely in terms of freedom doesn't add anything new to these ideas, it simply acknowledges that a freeing has taken place. Similarly I see this logical problem with the will to power, an empty definitional circularity of defining will to power simply in terms of (more) will to power.

Philosophy isn't yet at the point of explicating the hard-real depths of meaning from which distinctions like moral/immoral truly come. But we know those depths exist even if we cannot logically specify them, thus it is important to avoid falsely reifying concepts like freedom or will to power in such ways as impose empty circular reasoning that would serve to close us off to those depths.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
WendyDarling

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 6:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I agree. The depths must be even though it will be tricky getting there.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 7:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The other problem with the Lucifer/freedom thing (or with will to power for its own sake) is that this can be used to justify anything at all so long as you convert something into the terms of either "freedom" or "will". Want to rape puppies or murder babies or cannibalize people or institute a global fascism or become a terrorist or commit genocide or join the KKK or just pick any group or person at all and decide to murder them? Sure Lucifer/freedom and the will to power are nice ready made ideas that can easily support that. Obviously I'm not saying that the idea-constructs Lucifer/freedom or will to power would necessarily move in any ideas those directions-- I am saying that nothing about those two idea-constructs prevents or argue against any of those things, which is that I'm actually making a deeper point about how these idea-constructs, because of their self-closed form, are entirely cut off from the real contents of the individual beings (people, selves, self-valuings, etc.) who would use or make use of those idea-constructs.

Such reified structures of self-closure are simply good when they are good, and bad when they are bad, which is because they are whatever they are depending on the conditions and contents that actually determine any specified instance of them, a specified instance of conditions/contents which incidentally the idea-construct itself cannot even formulate except by blindly converting everything into a term for itself. "Quantum of power" or "quantum of freedom" for example. What is so noble about the idea-construct of Self-Valuing is that it avoids these pitfalls, because self-valuing incorporates references to the depths which outpace a self itself. Converting everything hypothetically into "values" doesn't falsify in the same way as does doing this with freedom or power. Value both indicates directly where and how it applies qua value-instance as well as leaves open space for what is not able to be correctly indicated like that.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 10:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah we all know which route through the idea N took. He chose the easy way through "the bog" here, because it's self-contained self-referential and thus easily always defensible in terms of 'hard form logic'. Doesn't mean he was right, and in fact he only made it partly through because he stuck to a certain path. If you want to get closer to the true and deeper subjectivity mechanisms behind "morality" you're going to need to read someone like Hegel. But Nietzsche's essentially ideological approache here seems to be enough for many people, because really all they are looking for is a purely defensibly-"clear" position (I.e. something that requires no further effort and yields "certainty").



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 10:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As Fixed states or implies, Nietzsche abandons his own high naturalizing philosophical project precisely at the threshold of "the moral". Likely this is because N was stuck in deeply Christian times.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 11:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
This is fascinating how you already exploded this idea upward and outward. I agree to your observations in both posts, although I have an issue with associating "Evil" in the way you do. I'm familir with the Lucifer-freedom argument, but I don't agree with it. The reason I don't agree is because of how this argument is self-referential and closed-circular: freedom as "being free" or defining morality or immorality entirely in terms of freedom doesn't add anything new to these ideas, it simply acknowledges that a freeing has taken place. Similarly I see this logical problem with the will to power, an empty definitional circularity of defining will to power simply in terms of (more) will to power.

Philosophy isn't yet at the point of explicating the hard-real depths of meaning from which distinctions like moral/immoral truly come. But we know those depths exist even if we cannot logically specify them, thus it is important to avoid falsely reifying concepts like freedom or will to power in such ways as impose empty circular reasoning that would serve to close us off to those depths.

I agree that freedom has yet to be invented. What I gave as "Lucifer" is indeed a hollow vessel, that does not add freedom-content. It's just the affirmative morality vis a vis ones own moral ('lying', 'imagining') powers, that I just realize is pretty natural to connect to the Lucifer image. But I did not mean to make a qualitative statement.

The word "evil" to me is a weird phenomenon, I dont know what to use it for personally.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 12:07 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
The other problem with the Lucifer/freedom thing (or with will to power for its own sake) is that this can be used to justify anything at all so long as you convert something into the terms of either "freedom" or "will". Want to rape puppies or murder babies or cannibalize people or institute a global fascism or become a terrorist or commit genocide or join the KKK or just pick any group or person at all and decide to murder them? Sure Lucifer/freedom and the will to power are nice ready made ideas that can easily support that. Obviously I'm not saying that the idea-constructs Lucifer/freedom or will to power would necessarily move in any ideas those directions-- I am saying that nothing about those two idea-constructs prevents or argue against any of those things, which is that I'm actually making a deeper point about how these idea-constructs, because of their self-closed form, are entirely cut off from the real contents of the individual beings (people, selves, self-valuings, etc.) who would use or make use of those idea-constructs.

Such reified structures of self-closure are simply good when they are good, and bad when they are bad, which is because they are whatever they are depending on the conditions and contents that actually determine any specified instance of them, a specified instance of conditions/contents which incidentally the idea-construct itself cannot even formulate except by blindly converting everything into a term for itself. "Quantum of power" or "quantum of freedom" for example. What is so noble about the idea-construct of Self-Valuing is that it avoids these pitfalls, because self-valuing incorporates references to the depths which outpace a self itself. Converting everything hypothetically into "values" doesn't falsify in the same way as does doing this with freedom or power. Value both indicates directly where and how it applies qua value-instance as well as leaves open space for what is not able to be correctly indicated like that.

Perhaps as a further analogy, we might speculate that the term/logic "value" as centering/substantiating Power/Freedom into the direct reference to an experiential reality, a perspective, in fact ties "Lucifer", the unconditioned and hollow "freedom for its own sake", back to "god".... lol.

I dont know.
Just an intuition of a path opening up.


"God" then of course as a kind of Earth. True Value; no doubt related to sickness/bound-ness, and all its 'antitheses' -
"freedom-as-such" is perhaps the ultimate prison. Perhaps with pure freedom, all one can do is break into Value by rape, as one is in fact not tied by/backed by any Value of oneself.

To be valued is obviously not a Luciferian aim; but it is the sole aim of "god", given by how he publishes about himself.... haha... well, all of it has been tossed out and is dirtier than trash - but a way to reappropriate "god" might be simply as a conditioner to freedom/power to concrete and verifiable Value.

I suppose this is the very way in which I address gods, or am addressed by them; as paths into life, from the void created by the modern Ideal Of Freedom (an empty placeholder, around which all effort is regulated and by which 'name'/'key' it is extracted for extraneous purposes) rather toward a center of proper human making, i.e. philosophy, which virtuously regulates effort without then extracting it from the intention that generated the effort.

"God" then is simply what we now will create; a new center of Value, a new recepticle for excess, we first envisioned it as a Totem.
It is a reference to the possibility of Absolute existence within a Relative 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
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
WendyDarling

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 12:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Evil is the lack of any rational conscience.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
WendyDarling

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 12:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
FC wrote:
Perhaps with pure freedom, all one can do is break into Value by rape, as one is in fact not tied by/backed by any Value of oneself.

Pure speculation. Who has pure freedom so that we can be clued in?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 12:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is an absolute within the subjectivity relative content-world/s, but the confusion becomes that this absolute is not absolutely inviolable or given. Logic holds that the absolute is to be the most vulnerable thing in existence.

The fact that morality cannot be perfectly-clearly explicated and often falls victim to weird paradoxes of choice and conflicting or seemingly contingent values-needs is misinterpreted to mean that morality is not "objective". Morality itself is perfectly objective. It is humans who aspire to that objectivity because human is a being created by morality, not the other way around.

But we must be clear that objective morality and the fragile absolute which pursues it does not mean that this morality is applicable universally across all values-situations, nor that the/an absolute (closely what we call "the self") should ever be taken as a given. Language matches being, which is problematic since language also helps create that being which then will work to match itself to it.

Nietzsche's mostly honest concept is the revaluation of all values. This revaluation is always taking place and is already the basis of human being; but again, we don't know how to say so. And the human world is still far too inhuman.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 2:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
FC wrote:
Perhaps with pure freedom, all one can do is break into Value by rape, as one is in fact not tied by/backed by any Value of oneself.

Pure speculation. Who has pure freedom so that we can be clued in?

Well, I was of course still using it in terms of the Lucifer metaphor.

It is a purely speculative entity; this was Capable's point. It has no specific quality.
Thence "rape" ; the impersonal partaking in someones (self-)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
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 2:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Myki2 wrote:
Quote :
The fact that morality cannot be perfectly-clearly explicated

In another words you have absolutly no idea what are you talking about !

Morality = Human psychological "chains" , an easy smooth nice and sweet explication that everybody can understand.

Extremely wrong, Myki.

"Explicate" does not mean "explain" like it does in French.




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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 2:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
There is an absolute within the subjectivity relative content-world/s, but the confusion becomes that this absolute is not absolutely inviolable or given. Logic holds that the absolute is to be the most vulnerable thing in existence.

Yes, it needs to be built; life is an approximation, philosophy is a further approximation. Unfragile life like reptilian life is a consolidated distance from the absolute. Warm blood creeps closer to the absolute.

Quote :
The fact that morality cannot be perfectly-clearly explicated and often falls victim to weird paradoxes of choice and conflicting or seemingly contingent values-needs is misinterpreted to mean that morality is not "objective". Morality itself is perfectly objective. It is humans who aspire to that objectivity because human is a being created by morality, not the other way around.

But we must be clear that objective morality and the fragile absolute which pursues it does not mean that this morality is applicable universally across all values-situations, nor that the/an absolute (closely what we call "the self") should ever be taken as a given. Language matches being, which is problematic since language also helps create that being which then will work to match itself to it.

Nietzsche's mostly honest concept is the revaluation of all values. This revaluation is always taking place and is already the basis of human being; but again, we don't know how to say so. And the human world is still far too inhuman.

Do not human nature and morality coincide? It is not that one creates the other, but that one is human in as far as one is consumed in a moral process; a narrative, a Life rather than a life-form, as self-valuing. Time included; this is morality's scheme.
Hence we create objectivity, why boys like science as well as competition; Einstein just won the game that boys play; and he configured the absulute physically as purely fragile, and could not live with this.

"God doesn't play dice"

"Father, don't be such a pussy!"

He could not withstand the pure fragility of the truth; his formula is pure flexibility, and has no way of drawing the marble, or human, or tragic, or subsumed lines between the contexts it takes the center of.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 2:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ah, I seem to like this definition of evil: (relatively great) consolidated distance to the Absolute.

Evil thus operates in greater uncertainty, that is to say, license.....
but also structurally fails to attain control.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 2:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To me that definition ("definition of evil: (relatively great) consolidated distance to the Absolute") sounds like a definition of bravery.

Evil is indeed very hard to define clearly. We could go N's route and claim it doesn't exist. This has the benefit of needing no further explication or inquiry; the lazy-man route that soon to be banned trolls like Myki prefer.

But I am not convinced there are not deep, penetrating structural differences between what is called evil and mere ignorance, savage disregard of the content-lattice underneath salient acting self-value, or psychopathological madness (critical breakdown of consciousness/reason). In fact let's work on a hypothesis that taken together these three aspects, individually or together, are what is really meant by the word "evil".

Freedom for its own sake is clearly abandoned for being unable to speak to contents, except as retroactive justification in the form of historical revisionism. Nietzsche may have liked this. But a only one-way relationship to freedom's own contents as being qua value represents a grossly distorted form of humanity. The constellation of values-interests is powered by an emergent quality that cannot be reduced to those "self interests" but attains in emergence something greater, a rational-logical capacity that might even be called the birth of philosophy as such.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 2:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Evil is the lack of any rational conscience.

The idea that evil is fundamentally a lack is interesting and not something I can dispute yet. But I'm working on the assumption that evil has a more positivistic character as well. I'm also open to the possibility that evil is just a name for a certain kind of collection of values-self-distortions that is of course able to cling to a semblance of self-interest, as any lifeform at all does; even non-living things cling to a semblance of self-interest.

Perhaps evil is rock-(un)consciousness transposed somehow into a human mind-emulation.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This was very annoying, having to delete all these posts. I was just about to warn him to stay in his thread when he had suddenly infested the place.




I am against the insertion of "rational" into the antithesis of "evil" unless most of nature is rational, which would come down to a James S Saintian definition of reason. Namely that which works so as to survive and thrive; being itself would then be reasonable, and evil a kind of exception to it. This is Biblical.

Evil as a lack is something I wont dispute but I fear it only as a positive accumulation of deranged excess.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Obviously we cannot discount N's contribution to properly naturalizing theory here: much of what people call "evil" is just a "bad" with which they happen to not agree, don't feel comfortable to or do not benefit from personally. But philosophers are in the business of seeking truths, not avoiding them.

We build from N and keep going.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We are in agreement on all points you just raised, Fixed.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nietzsche's definition of evil is very simple in fact: that which is too strong.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:08 pm

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Obviously we cannot discount N's contribution to properly naturalizing theory here: much of what people call "evil" is just a "bad" with which they happen to not agree, don't feel comfortable to or do not benefit from personally. But philosophers are in the business of seeking truths, not avoiding them.

We build from N and keep going.

Evilly.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Nietzsche's definition of evil is very simple in fact: that which is too strong.

I cannot accept this definition. It is categorically indistinguishable from a definition of Good. I must push to the content-logic, into the depths.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:07 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Beyond good and evil thus means: where the distinction no longer applies.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
N was singularly polemical against (modern) Christianity. I read his comments on good and evil as almost entirely in this light.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:11 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, we must substantiate it.
Evil is however necessarily a part of that which the good builds.

thinking-building involves evil. But it must stay clean of its logics, if these rise from a lack.
But perhaps it needs to purify the notion of it so as for it to be proper cement.
The criminal world serves usually as the specie between the layers and instruments of power, as medium, plasma.

It is not necessarily evil, at all though -

evil is however purely a qualification. Is it not?



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I see criminality as a working compromise between irreconcilable socio-valuational elements. I know what motivates much crime is simply "lack of self" combined with fear-pressure (peer-pressure), through which a species of compensatory will to power crowns itself.


Everything worthy of the name 'human self-valuing' is already in a certain real sense "beyond good and evil", even Biblical psyches cannot escape that. But this shouldn't be mistaken for thinking that good and evil don't exist or still hold no force and substance-meaning over human 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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Therefore the obvious consequent insight: much "evil" is not really evil (and much good is not really "good").

Human self-valuing rides the grooves and tectonic molecularity of irreconcilable situation-dynamics; it does this with grace and style, and joy.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
N was singularly polemical against (modern) Christianity. I read his comments on good and evil as almost entirely in this light.

Yes, he explicates its genesis as the transition from the Hebrew particularist monotheism to the Christian Universalism;
and he 'blames' this on the genius-of-hardness of the Jews and the weakness of the people who became the Church; the eunuchs and such, 'advisors'.

What happened, for those who haven't read N, is that tje Jews, when conquered, simply intellectually decided that they had in fact won, but only in the future. This is precisely what creating a morality is; it is the action that is explained in the OP. So then they waited, and voila, some thousands years later, shakalazam - kerrpow. One jew invents banking, the next one invents the atomic bomb, the nation is restored, all's good in the hood. Morality, It works.
If you know your way around an anvil.

In the meantime, the Christians adopted the Jewish god, had him kill their ... son, king, great person, and insurrect himself in themselves - and then all sorts of manners of consequences came to co exist with one another in the soul, that was then built, out of a pure negativity consumed in itself; the god of the other ruling all through killing his son and this being the eternal good; suchly the Roman and the German and the Slav and Celt and Visigoth souls were stirred into what Parodites makes understood as the soul, as it presently lives - of which Nietzsche is an extreme consequence, but not the greatest consequence; what lies beyond Nietzsche is extra-Christian, but the West is entirely Christian, and thus so is the world. N can only be a small preserve of rare plants, on top of a Christian world; or at the heart of it, as its contradiction perhaps, its magnetizing masculine, as the Earth is thereby feminized and fertilized and finally revered as a mother - what bliss this will be for mankind, to simply know the strength of his ground, and what that means to all notions of love that have existed so far - with science, Man has access to an immense love now - but also to an absolute indifference. What separates them - perhaps evil is this very thin line itself.....



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Another important point to examine: a question: Is non-philosophical human self-valuing capable of having upright-accurate intuitions/intimations of "good and evil"? Nietzsche would probably say no. I would say yes. I believe self-valuing as a concept proves the Yes here, by explaining how this is possible (I.e. Traditional pre-VO philosophy does not explain the genesis-cause for philosophy itself). (Although I must excerpt Parodites' philosophy from that critique.)



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Another important point to examine: a question: Is non-philosophical human self-valuing capable of having upright-accurate intuitions/intimations of "good and evil"? Nietzsche would probably say no. I would say yes. I believe self-valuing as a concept proves the Yes here, by explaining how this is possible (I.e. Traditional pre-VO philosophy does not explain the genesis-cause for philosophy itself). (Although I must excerpt Parodites' philosophy from that critique.)

I see it rather as pointing to a need of full particular explication of self-valuing through philosophy and then tier by tier outward through law/art distinction into science and culture - and I see us as having attained such a core of self-valuing proper, that is to say a synthesis of the phenomenon under the cognitive-tectonic Law of self-valuing - the logic qua its legislative potential which must be activated for anything other than aberration to come from any institution.

I believe the law of increase of entropy is logically identical to the law of increase of bureaucracy. They both describe a state where self-valuing is attempted without structural integrity.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 3:35 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thus all institutions so far have been at best tragic.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 4:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Institutions are very weird things.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 4:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Precisely.

That is not necessarily bad.

If we form them in terms of weirdness, they just might work.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 4:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster



Vast Ordering
Fractal

Porous Metaphysical Superstructure
Speculative Cosmos
Chaos 2.0



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 11:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thinking about it, I don't care much for the word/concept of "moral".

Nietzsche constantly spoke against the morality of his time - what he view as hypocritical Christian morality.

"Beyond good and evil" was a attempt to rise above this corrupt morality.

Perhaps a better concept is "value"? The values of the individual. The will to have the power to live one's life at a higher, and more free, state.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 2:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:


Vast Ordering
Fractal

Porous Metaphysical Superstructure
Speculative Cosmos
Chaos 2.0

I like this. Very relaxing and calming in a mental way.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 2:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Institutions strip individuality from people, like stripping flesh from bone. Institutions are probably necessary, but what the fuck are they really?

Institution-ism blurs the line between self-life and work-life. "Work life balance" they call it today, usually with a good dose of cynically irony and the half smile you give to a kid who asks about Santa.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 2:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Activity creates what will be used by others to support their own passivity. To exist in the furnace of the threshold actively creating new things is different from existing behind the curve to chew up whatever happens to fall to earth from the active mind. This is why good writers make writing look easy-- because it only looks easy to us, the passive ones before their work. To the writer, his own work never "looks easy".

Institutions attempt to raise passivity to the level of activity. This is "transhumanism" par excellence. It is no surprise or coincidence at all how modern capitalism and business environment wants to become "trans-friendly". "Trans" is the ethos of the Corporation. Discrete individuals are not allowed to exist within it; only images of individuals are tolerated, and only just barely.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 2:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Activity creates what will be used by others to support their own passivity. To exist in the furnace of the threshold actively creating new things is different from existing behind the curve to chew up whatever happens to fall to earth from the active mind. This is why good writers make writing look easy-- because it only looks easy to us, the passive ones before their work. To the writer, his own work never "looks easy".

Institutions attempt to raise passivity to the level of activity. This is "transhumanism" par excellence. It is no surprise or coincidence at all how modern capitalism and business environment wants to become "trans-friendly". "Trans" is the ethos of the Corporation. Discrete individuals are not allowed to exist within it; only images of individuals are tolerated, and only just barely.

Technically institution-ism is a "mental illness", if you talk to peoole with severe schizo you see they almost always have delusions about the government, "the system", corporations, they can't handle bureaucracy at all because it affects them to the core; and many of them talk with technical jargon and business-speak quite naturally, and in inappropriate times, as a way of compensating for the deep damage that has been done to them by institutional logic.

There is some small recognition of this kind of damage, called "revictimization through system encounter". But this awareness exists mostly to help institution-ism become more friendly-seeming and subtle in its deceptions. I can't see institutions ever truly acknowledging the damage they do to people.

Analytic philosophy is the attempt to institutionalize philosophy, thus academic philosophy naturally becomes highly "analytic". This is its comfort zone. And there is no "morality" anywhere in any of this -- morality is a strictly human, which is to say objective, affair.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:

Institutions attempt to raise passivity to the level of activity. This is "transhumanism" par excellence. It is no surprise or coincidence at all how modern capitalism and business environment wants to become "trans-friendly". "Trans" is the ethos of the Corporation. Discrete individuals are not allowed to exist within it; only images of individuals are tolerated, and only just barely.

Hard reality, what?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 10:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
I can't see institutions ever truly acknowledging the damage they do to people.

Chuang Tzu said that about institutions in China 2400 years ago. Seems that few listened.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 3:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Institutions strip individuality from people, like stripping flesh from bone. Institutions are probably necessary, but what the fuck are they really?

Institution-ism blurs the line between self-life and work-life. "Work life balance" they call it today, usually with a good dose of cynically irony and the half smile you give to a kid who asks about Santa.

Yes - it is halfheartedness. The first nominal institutions were always populated by eunuchs, it seems. I think a bureaucrat is somehow the equivalent of a eunuch.


However, we can build a non bureaucratic institution- a first perhaps - taking VO as the institutional center-self-valuing and valuing designated parts of our work purely in terms of it, as we've been doing quite consciously up here of course, why we made things like the Pentad and the Tower, which emptiness is testament to its functioning, just as the Pentads sporadic action clearly pushes philosophy forth seismically. VO is capable of being an institution (it even brings about institutions entirely dedicated to discrediting it, thereby building interest in it) that serves only to create space for a philosopher to do his own bidding. So that a man like Parodites can be supported by an institution, which means that he commands that institutions standards - as with VO It is simply the highest standard that brings all others under it. It is thus not an empty placeholder but a container of an asymptotically approached absolute; the value of value, the standard of standard - these work 'magically' - that is to say as fully potentiating every intent that is addressed at it qua its logic, that is to say, properly. VO commands "standard-as-such"...

shit.


Thats hard.


And that is why I can safely let a Parodites roam the skies above me as I chop the wood for a fire, just as I can let you be a thundercloudscape as I put together an engine, or I can follow Pezers field-directions, or dance with the ultimate discord that Sauwelios creates in peoples hearts, hahaha -- that guy. He will always remain unfathomable. He truly lives with the goddesses. This is why he is so utterly undriven to be assertive; is existence itself is an assertion against all things that are around him. Generally it is accepted as a very mild, elevating, soothing, cultivating presence - no one who is in a room with Sauwelios can not like him - and he can not not suffer anyone - but online it is the opposite. He suffers no one, and no one is allowed truly close. Except I, since I have conquered with VO - but it was only when I had accidentally managed to cause him to stray onto his own path into it that I truly believed VO could rule. S understands N as Nietzsche understood himself, I think. I think also this is why he takes all these vast circular roads around the hot core - compare it to Eris' orbit. The aim is to be both the Sun and the most distant satellite. In astrology, Pluto is assigned to subterranean power ('control', 'minerals', 'sex in art', etc), Eris isnt assigned to much yet beyond being given that name - not unfittingly, as as she entered Aries, long before she was discovered, the age of global wars began - she is not far from entering Taurus now, and I am certain that this will be the time that the Earth will come to fall into actual possession of discrete groups, whoever are the most capable two and a half (meta-)parties, Rulerships, Ideologies, Values by then. (I think this number is the lock - two on equal terms qua quantum of power in their own right, and a third that is needed by both to take from the other what they need. This 'half' is the resolution of the idea of the zero, and it is thus also clear which party is gong to represent this middle; this is perhaps the same as this 'evil' or 'courage' of the consolidated distance from the absolute; the absolute freedom of Arabs as traders, the engine to their religious might, their sheer manners, standards of transaction, the awareness that wealth is in transaction) But possession is a concept that only the Chinese and the English seem to understand effectively in global terms. Why Hong Kong was the ennobling center of cold war economy. In Europe, it is the Austrians and Northern Italians. Switzerland and Germany their antipodes. Switzerland understands possession entirely locally, is the most genius selfvaluing on the planet, the oldest nation of the west and also the only one unconquered. It is host to Nestle and Cern, secret banking, (naturally they just moved to a deeper layer of secrecy when they 'gave up the secrets'- pruned the tree of wealth to grow much taller) and if there s any nation that knows it will keep forever conquering it is the Swiss. Ive been held by them for some hours on my way through, the way they carry their automatic weapons in their basically lederhosen-uniforms is just too comfortable. They also have the highest heroin addiction rate. You are either filthy rich powerborker or absolutely off the grid. Switzerland is slowly assimilating Europe to itself and using Germany as the plasma. And thats perfectly natural, because it is the center of the continent and they have bloody well earned it with their war record, and back this up with inventions like the Swiss army knife, perhaps the singular Object of this world, precisely in its phallic multifariousness () and sheer applicability. Man is a tool to create tools, said Bergson I believe, or a tool to create tools to create tools... not that I agree, but the Swiss know how to work this definition. I do not admire them. They have no culture and a filthy dialect in all their 4 languages. I admire the Austrians, who are the cultural center of the continent, and somehow merge into the Swiss in the Alps after Innsbruck... I once drove to Italy over Innsbruck and had a steak with berries and whipped cream on a mountainside terrace, and felt for the first time that I had found 'the good place' - not as in great exaltation, but as in utterly unto-itself. Happening to be quite high up and amidst brook-veined forest. Then I passed down into Italy!!!



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 4:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:


Vast Ordering
Fractal

Porous Metaphysical Superstructure
Speculative Cosmos
Chaos 2.0

I like this. Very relaxing and calming in a mental way.

I tended to slip into mushroom trips using that record.

This one is deadly clean, different trip altogether. I remember having it on a discman in a trip once (I had decided to be a french king on a walk), in a sandbox I ruined the discman, for which Sauwelios kept ridiculing me, but of which I was simply proud as I had experienced it as the perfect place for an object to come to its end - after having fulfilled the ultimate function to guide me in a trip. I've still never heard anyone to match the sheer saturation of their sound-objects. They were rumored to have been synthesizing their sounds on opium.





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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 4:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Thinking about it, I don't care much for the word/concept of "moral".

Nietzsche constantly spoke against the morality of his time - what he view as hypocritical Christian morality.

"Beyond good and evil" was a attempt to rise above this corrupt morality.

Perhaps a better concept is "value"? The values of the individual. The will to have the power to live one's life at a higher, and more free, state.


I do find that Parodites and Capable are on to vital fleshed out notions of morality beyond what N took on himself -- we must accept that N perished even of how much he took on, his plan was never for himself to carry the entirety of his philosophy; he spent himself fully so as to become a seed. And from this seed I have grown my notion. And Ive upheld the Nietzschean notion and arrived at value ontology through that, so I wont be the one to object to your statement here certainly as coming from a Taoist I suspect a simply truthfulness behind it. Nietzsche once called Buddhism a hygiene. I do experience zen as a mental hygiene. All things are rooted in themselves, and thoughts are things. I do not create thoughts. Well Ive created one thought, value ontology, out of the void.





Morality is not created for the individual - its like is a revenge by the individual on the world that did not give him what he asked, and at best it is a decision to make what the world did not provide. Or at worst.

A healthy morality is is a standard to be attained to, rather than to be upheld. That is to say that is functions as an ideal, a form of heroism. And not as a scare of hell and a degenerating influence on the hearts of children.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 4:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Capable wrote:
Activity creates what will be used by others to support their own passivity. To exist in the furnace of the threshold actively creating new things is different from existing behind the curve to chew up whatever happens to fall to earth from the active mind. This is why good writers make writing look easy-- because it only looks easy to us, the passive ones before their work. To the writer, his own work never "looks easy".

Institutions attempt to raise passivity to the level of activity. This is "transhumanism" par excellence. It is no surprise or coincidence at all how modern capitalism and business environment wants to become "trans-friendly". "Trans" is the ethos of the Corporation. Discrete individuals are not allowed to exist within it; only images of individuals are tolerated, and only just barely.

Technically institution-ism is a "mental illness", if you talk to peoole with severe schizo you see they almost always have delusions about the government, "the system", corporations, they can't handle bureaucracy at all because it affects them to the core; and many of them talk with technical jargon and business-speak quite naturally, and in inappropriate times, as a way of compensating for the deep damage that has been done to them by institutional logic.

This is categorically true to my experience of such people, as well as of my own brushes with that anti-suchness.



Quote :
There is some small recognition of this kind of damage, called "revictimization through system encounter". But this awareness exists mostly to help institution-ism become more friendly-seeming and subtle in its deceptions. I can't see institutions ever truly acknowledging the damage they do to people.

Analytic philosophy is the attempt to institutionalize philosophy, thus academic philosophy naturally becomes highly "analytic". This is its comfort zone. And there is no "morality" anywhere in any of this -- morality is a strictly human, which is to say objective, affair.

Comfort-zone philosophy, armchair philosophy, institutionalism, bureaucracy, brain damage, lobotomy, Bertrand Russell, etc.
Yes, thank fully brewing up the antidote is such a god damned pleasure.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:09 pm

Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeFri Nov 04, 2016 10:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

I do find that Parodites and Capable are on to vital fleshed out notions of morality beyond what N took on himself -- we must accept that N perished even of how much he took on, his plan was never for himself to carry the entirety of his philosophy; he spent himself fully so as to become a seed. And from this seed I have grown my notion. And Ive upheld the Nietzschean notion and arrived at value ontology through that, so I wont be the one to object to your statement here certainly as coming from a Taoist I suspect a simply truthfulness behind it. Nietzsche once called Buddhism a hygiene. I do experience zen as a mental hygiene. All things are rooted in themselves, and thoughts are things. I do not create thoughts. Well Ive created one thought, value ontology, out of the void.

Yes, Nietzsche spoke kindly of Buddhism. That actually surprised me but his logic was good.

To my knowledge he never mentioned Taoism but then there were only a couple translations while he was alive and they were only in English.

And I don't recall Nietzsche ever claiming to be a overman. His desire was to teach us how to become.

Yes, values as opposed to morals. That's because, from my perspective, values are personal whereas morals are others' demands upon us.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 3:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable

Quote :
Morality does a few things, one of which is to create a new plane of significance for things. An easy example is when someone wrongs you somehow (let's say a boss at work) and you take steps to correct it by talking to HR; now your boss makes some changes and tries to be a little better and might even apologize to you, they might even be sincere in the apology. All fine and good, but none of this is morality.

That's the thing about morality - it can be highly subjective and not necessarily based on what is "real".
What I would have done in this scenario is to try to speak, to communicate with my boss, to see what the real problem is and try to smooth things over rather than first going over his head to HR. That would have been the "practical" side of morality for me - aiming for mutual understanding.
Things might not be so easily resolved on either side if someone else has to make the decision regarding their business relationship.




Quote :
Morality comes in when you elevate the interaction and its resolution to a meaning and lasting significance beyond the bounds of the interaction and its resolution. You do this by, for example, continuing to feel the affront even after it has been resolved or by continuing to focus on the resolution and the rightfulness of how it was handled in a way that was adequate or not adequate; basically you force the situation and its meaning to linger beyond the situation itself. This is one function of morality. Morality activates certain meanings to new regions where they persist longer than otherwise they would.

Yes, because a third party got involved and so their probably wasn't so much of a mutual understanding and agreement afterwards.
But I think that it would also be determined by the personalities of the two involved - being able to "let go" and begin fresh.


Quote :

This moral extension as fidelity to the Eternal of meaning is therefore a certain kind of remembering: one remembers and continues to hold as significant the meaning and fact of something long after that 'something' has ended, or even concluded satisfactorily.

Some things have wonderful meaning in our lives. Holding onto these things are a part of appreciation and gratitude.
As for the negative side of remembering, we need to learn to be realistic nihilists, to let go of those memories which do not serve us but continue
to go against the grain of our emotions.



___________
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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 4:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Capable wrote:
Institutions strip individuality from people, like stripping flesh from bone. Institutions are probably necessary, but what the fuck are they really?

Institution-ism blurs the line between self-life and work-life. "Work life balance" they call it today, usually with a good dose of cynically irony and the half smile you give to a kid who asks about Santa.

Yes - it is halfheartedness. The first nominal institutions were always populated by eunuchs, it seems. I think a bureaucrat is somehow the equivalent of a eunuch.


However, we can build a non bureaucratic institution- a first perhaps - taking VO as the institutional center-self-valuing and valuing designated parts of our work purely in terms of it, as we've been doing quite consciously up here of course, why we made things like the Pentad and the Tower, which emptiness is testament to its functioning, just as the Pentads sporadic action clearly pushes philosophy forth seismically. VO is capable of being an institution (it even brings about institutions entirely dedicated to discrediting it, thereby building interest in it) that serves only to create space for a philosopher to do his own bidding. So that a man like Parodites can be supported by an institution, which means that he commands that institutions standards - as with VO It is simply the highest standard that brings all others under it. It is thus not an empty placeholder but a container of an asymptotically approached absolute; the value of value, the standard of standard - these work 'magically' - that is to say as fully potentiating every intent that is addressed at it qua its logic, that is to say, properly. VO commands "standard-as-such"...

shit.


Thats hard.


And that is why I can safely let a Parodites roam the skies above me as I chop the wood for a fire, just as I can let you be a thundercloudscape as I put together an engine, or I can follow Pezers field-directions, or dance with the ultimate discord that Sauwelios creates in peoples hearts, hahaha -- that guy. He will always remain unfathomable. He truly lives with the goddesses. This is why he is so utterly undriven to be assertive; is existence itself is an assertion against all things that are around him. Generally it is accepted as a very mild, elevating, soothing, cultivating presence - no one who is in a room with Sauwelios can not like him - and he can not not suffer anyone - but online it is the opposite. He suffers no one, and no one is allowed truly close. Except I, since I have conquered with VO - but it was only when I had accidentally managed to cause him to stray onto his own path into it that I truly believed VO could rule. S understands N as Nietzsche understood himself, I think. I think also this is why he takes all these vast circular roads around the hot core - compare it to Eris' orbit. The aim is to be both the Sun and the most distant satellite. In astrology, Pluto is assigned to subterranean power ('control', 'minerals', 'sex in art', etc), Eris isnt assigned to much yet beyond being given that name - not unfittingly, as as she entered Aries, long before she was discovered, the age of global wars began - she is not far from entering Taurus now, and I am certain that this will be the time that the Earth will come to fall into actual possession of discrete groups, whoever are the most capable two and a half (meta-)parties, Rulerships, Ideologies, Values by then. (I think this number is the lock - two on equal terms qua quantum of power in their own right, and a third that is needed by both to take from the other what they need. This 'half' is the resolution of the idea of the zero, and it is thus also clear which party is gong to represent this middle; this is perhaps the same as this 'evil' or 'courage' of the consolidated distance from the absolute; the absolute freedom of Arabs as traders, the engine to their religious might, their sheer manners, standards of transaction, the awareness that wealth is in transaction) But possession is a concept that only the Chinese and the English seem to understand effectively in global terms. Why Hong Kong was the ennobling center of cold war economy. In Europe, it is the Austrians and Northern Italians. Switzerland and Germany their antipodes. Switzerland understands possession entirely locally, is the most genius selfvaluing on the planet, the oldest nation of the west and also the only one unconquered. It is host to Nestle and Cern, secret banking, (naturally they just moved to a deeper layer of secrecy when they 'gave up the secrets'- pruned the tree of wealth to grow much taller) and if there s any nation that knows it will keep forever conquering it is the Swiss. Ive been held by them for some hours on my way through, the way they carry their automatic weapons in their basically lederhosen-uniforms is just too comfortable. They also have the highest heroin addiction rate. You are either filthy rich powerborker or absolutely off the grid. Switzerland is slowly assimilating Europe to itself and using Germany as the plasma. And thats perfectly natural, because it is the center of the continent and they have bloody well earned it with their war record, and back this up with inventions like the Swiss army knife, perhaps the singular Object of this world, precisely in its phallic multifariousness () and sheer applicability. Man is a tool to create tools, said Bergson I believe, or a tool to create tools to create tools... not that I agree, but the Swiss know how to work this definition. I do not admire them. They have no culture and a filthy dialect in all their 4 languages. I admire the Austrians, who are the cultural center of the continent, and somehow merge into the Swiss in the Alps after Innsbruck... I once drove to Italy over Innsbruck and had a steak with berries and whipped cream on a mountainside terrace, and felt for the first time that I had found 'the good place' - not as in great exaltation, but as in utterly unto-itself. Happening to be quite high up and amidst brook-veined forest. Then I passed down into Italy!!!

I've actually been to Innsbruck one time, great place.

I think VO describes why institutions are impossible. All the institutions that presently exist flirt with this impossibility as their repressed reality principle, always trying to overcome this limit and always failing to do so. Institutions must be inhuman qua institution, so the trick is to keep a large gap between the hard logic of the institution-ism and the human beings who staff it. This is one applicatiok I came up with for artificial intelligence, that it can take over much of the functions of staffing institutions for doing the menial work. I think we're already moving in that direction.

A single cluster of AI minds could operate even the most massive and complex institutions. But this would put a lot of peoole out of work. That's the contradiction deep in technological capitalism: "work" loses its human-ness and so is eventually to be replaced by non-humans, but by then millions of people are already employed in these heartless systems.

A family or group of friends is how I think of a VO institution. Not really an institution but a natural rank-ordering as human relationships that also mediates power-concerns. In this way your preference for mafia structures in business and politics makes sense. But there are severe detriments however we look at it, whether there is heartless inhuman bureaucracies of institutions or mafia families in charge. Trump is a little bit of return to the mafia-oriented logic, maybe this is what the inhuman institutional behemoth needs right now.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 4:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
That's an elegant and highly effective definition.
Beyond that it is practical and itself free of moral judgment, I wouldn't say it is extremely Nietzschean, as if there is any place where N gets moral and superfluous in meaning it is in defining morality, which is why he then vomits it out, I think. Not his forte.

However I would like to address what, in this practical definition of what morality is, a Nietzschean morality is.

As is said, a morality stretches out the significant of an event beyond itself.
The significance of that event (to the selfvaluing) we may call its moral value.

So what is a moral value that stretches out beyond its own event, in a Nietzschean?

The answer is very convenient and clear: Pride.

As a Nietzschean, I have upheld this morality. When someone adds to my pride, that is ths philosophical pride I am talking about, that person acquires a value that pertains to a greater Value, namely the great signifier of morality, which is the capacity for pride.
Nietzschean pride is possibly the most comprehensive pride so far, as it extends to areas like factuality. A man like say 'turd ferguson' as boastful as he is, has no pride, in this sense, as he has no joy in addressing things factually.

When someone negatively addresses my (philosophic) Pride, that person becomes, in my psychological-emotional system, a non-entity. I take massive delight in deconstructing that entity in my mind, and seeing the weaknesses by which it hangs together. I can do this with most persons, but with someone who gives to show that he does not uphold Pride, as I do it, and is even ready to compromise it, this is what automatically begins to happen. His soul begins to disintegrate before my minds eye. If I choose to speak out, this then causes ripples of un-pride across the paradigm, ripples that touch the nerve of Nietzschean pride everywhere.

For as such, as defined as you have it, morality spreads through and lives in the world - when the code is challenged, it becomes active.

I don't understand this, FC, though you explained it in your way.
What does pride have to do with morality?
Well, lol, actually in a sense and unfortunately often morality does seem to have a lot to do with pride, we judge what is moral by our by our own bruised egos and not by what is fair, balanced and harmonious. No sense of equanimity.
Morality has to do with one's sense of right and wrong insofar as human behavior goes and upholding that.
I may be wrong ~~ I'm not really that much of a philosopher lol ~~ but your sense of what pride here seems to translate to me as ego or your own personal sense of identity. Who can take that away from us? Though at times it might be a good thing when our sense of identity is taken away and we can gain a "truer" sense of who we "really" are.
What part does pride play where morality goes being that it has in human history lead to many downfalls ~~ for example Hitler's sense of pride in Germany and in himself. What destruction did that lead to?!!!!

But I may be misunderstanding what you're saying here.

Quote :
when the code is challenged, it becomes active

Does it become challenged out of a sense of pride, because of Pride, or as a result of seeing the necessity of responding for the greater good?
The "greater good" is not usually what is about our own self interest.


Something just seems to be out of tune here. scratch



___________
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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 5:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:
I don't understand this, FC, though you explained it in your way.
What does pride have to do with morality?
Morality has to do with one's sense of right and wrong insofar as human behavior goes and upholding that.
I may be wrong ~~ I'm not really that much of a philosopher lol ~~ but your sense of what pride here seems to translate to me as ego or your own personal sense of identity. Who can take that away from us? Though at times it might be a good thing when our sense of identity is taken away and we can gain a "truer" sense of who we "really" are.
What part does pride play where morality goes being that it has in human history lead to many downfalls ~~ for example Hitler's sense of pride in Germany and in himself. What destruction did that lead to?!!!!

Are you saying pride is bad? Ive never heard that in my life, that someone thought that.

I know my mother was proud of me when she got me. Im pretty glad she didnt consider that a sin, or compared herself to Hitler, just because she was proud of her baby!!!

What are you thinking? Pride is bad?

There can be no love without pride. Love is always a very powerful form of pride. We are proud both of who we love, and of our love. The ability to love is probably the greatest pride, as well as reason for pride in the cosmos.
Did you not feel pride whenever you were in love, or loved a child or animal? Do you not love yourself when you are proud of a generous thing you did that helped some one to put his life back on track?

What of the Jews that refused to bow to Hitler out of pride? What of Churchill who was too pride to compromise with Hitler?
What of the black slaves that set themselves free, because they were too proud to be chained?

Pride is the essential ingredient to human dignity.
Hitler rose because the English and French were one week from splitting up Germany. They tried to work with reality without considering the phenomenon pride. So they created nazism.

Quote :
Quote :
when the code is challenged, it becomes active

Does it become challenged out of a sense of pride, because of Pride, or as a result of seeing the necessity of responding for the greater good?

How would you define "greater good" if you have nothing to be proud of?

Quote :
The "greater good" is not usually what is about our own self interest.

What? How is the greater good not per definition in ones self interest?

Youve basically defined "good" as "bad" for yourself here, Arc.
Timer to look at yourself. Something is awry.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 5:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:

I've actually been to Innsbruck one time, great place.

Nice.
Just now a German song sets in in this breakfast place.

Quote :
I think VO describes why institutions are impossible. All the institutions that presently exist flirt with this impossibility as their repressed reality principle, always trying to overcome this limit and always failing to do so. Institutions must be inhuman qua institution, so the trick is to keep a large gap between the hard logic of the institution-ism and the human beings who staff it. This is one applicatiok I came up with for artificial intelligence, that it can take over much of the functions of staffing institutions for doing the menial work. I think we're already moving in that direction.

In as far as institutions have existed, I do believe this is all true, and this interestingly frames AI as a possibility of making imperfection work 'as such' - I dont know let me think more on this

Id like to know more about AI.

Quote :
A single cluster of AI minds could operate even the most massive and complex institutions. But this would put a lot of peoole out of work. That's the contradiction deep in technological capitalism: "work" loses its human-ness and so is eventually to be replaced by non-humans, but by then millions of people are already employed in these heartless systems.

Yes but I do think it is better to sit at home than to do the type of bureaucratic work that comes out of the pure excess of institution. That list of symptoms you posted somewhere was pretty fucking accurate.

Quote :
A family or group of friends is how I think of a VO institution. Not really an institution but a natural rank-ordering as human relationships that also mediates power-concerns. In this way your preference for mafia structures in business and politics makes sense. But there are severe detriments however we look at it, whether there is heartless inhuman bureaucracies of institutions or mafia families in charge. Trump is a little bit of return to the mafia-oriented logic, maybe this is what the inhuman institutional behemoth needs right now.

Thanks for reminding me, after I wrote that post yesterday I wanted to add that VO builds an institution that 'takes on the wings of its most respected members'. Thus, it is the ultimate 'democracy', because it is not representative; rather it makes democracy and meritocracy equal.

Whether or not such an institution merits or becomes a base mafia like coercion system, depends I would say entirely on the 'ingredients' - the people involved -- thus for the US things are looking good in such terms, as well as for the world at large. A philosophic institution had to wait with coming into being, quite logically, until global communication was fleshed 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
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 7:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pride and ego are twins. They both are subject to the same faults and strengths.

Or better perhaps, pride is rooted in ego. Ego is noun and pride is verb.

But still, our pride and ego must reflect reality else we are living in illusion and delusion. That would be contra Nietzsche.

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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 8:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ego is the lack of pride. It is the lack of power to nurture oneself by benefiting ones environment.




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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 8:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ego is fear of inner confrontation. Ego is the shell, that rejects experience, and research, and empirical reality, and all powerful things, because it prefers to remain in shallow understanding.



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 8:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We will need to agree to disagree on these two concepts.

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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 1:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If Im fully philosophical, I must say that I dont even believe that "ego" exists.

I use the word to indicate some stuff but it's a silly notion to me the way people use it, as if there is a separate I from the I... it's all just words.

We just are. We self-value. Some people like to be generous and creative, others are pieces of shit, that does not mean that the second group has 'bigger ego'. It just means they have no values and thus are themselves of no 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 2:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ego does exist, I believe, in a Freudian sense as opposite to superego and id, namely as translating these to each other in s compromise. But I agree that ego is the opposite of pride.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 4:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, the Freudian system is pretty elegant and goes a long way in justifying the concept.

I was going to say that if it is the opposite of pride it surely exists... but then - ha. I will shut up now though, as the great Omega rises only when it does.

It's a word foremost, and it refers to a valuable existent in terms of Freudian analysis.

The word literally means "I", in that sense it also exists. We can say it, and it will make sense to a Roman.



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 11:29 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
If Im fully philosophical, I must say that I dont even believe that "ego" exists.

I use the word to indicate some stuff but it's a silly notion to me the way people use it, as if there is a separate I from the I... it's all just words.

We just are. We self-value. Some people like to be generous and creative, others are pieces of shit, that does not mean that the second group has 'bigger ego'. It just means they have no values and thus are themselves of no value.


Now this I can agree with. "Ego" is not a thing - it is a mental concept. It's really just another way of trying to define an individual.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Nov 07, 2016 4:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
FC

Quote :
Are you saying pride is bad? Ive never heard that in my life, that someone thought that.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am speaking about here is a false kind of pride or vanity which can border on narcissism. I'm speaking about ego, not the kind which adds to our self esteem but to our "false" self, the one which is highly egoistical.
There is a good pride which we we're capable of feelings/experiencing due to our achievements, et cetera, but when that goes overboard than it transcends the good kind of pride.



Quote :
I know my mother was proud of me when she got me. Im pretty glad she didnt consider that a sin, or compared herself to Hitler, just because she was proud of her baby!!!

lol That's a bit absurd, don't you think? I'm sure that based on your achievements, your mother does have a lot to be proud of.
I mentioned Hitler because of the Pride which he bore, the destructive chauvinism - look where it go the world. But we managed to stifle that nazi pig.



Quote :
What are you thinking? Pride is bad?

No, as I said above. Saying pride is bad is like saying "Life is suffering" to me.
It has to be looked on all sides.


Quote :
There can be no love without pride. Love is always a very powerful form of pride. We are proud both of who we love, and of our love. .

So, are you saying that your mother would stop loving you, or anyone who loved you, would stop loving you if they stopped being proud of you?

Quote :
The ability to love is probably the greatest pride, as well as reason for pride in the cosmos

scratch I don't understand this, FC, but maybe it's just me. Why do you bring pride into so much?
I would rather use the word gratitude and appreciation. To be able to love someone fills me with both G&A as does to be able to be loved in return.
I'm not the philosopher which you are so maybe in philosophical circles, your above quote could be understood but I don't get it. Doesn't mean you're wrong that I don't get it.


Quote :
Did you not feel pride whenever you were in love, or loved a child or animal? Do you not love yourself when you are proud of a generous thing you did that helped some one to put his life back on track?

Do me a favor and express for me how this "pride" you're speaking about is experienced by you?
Again, I felt/feel more gratitude and appreciation.
Do I feel pride in my son and daughter when they've achieved things? Yes of course I do - again it's a deep sense of gratitude and appreciation and respect for them as human beings. But the love I have for them also retains the pride I feel in them even when I realize that they have their limitations.


Quote :
What of the Jews that refused to bow to Hitler out of pride? What of Churchill who was too pride to compromise with Hitler?

I may be wrong but could that be considered to be "pride" or a deeper sense of self, of who they are/were as Jews and their heritage. Okay, perhaps there is pride within that but I am/was still speaking of the pride which is vanity - for instance, the pride which allows men to think of their selves as God because they are philosophers. Isn't that vanity?

Quote :
What of the black slaves that set themselves free, because they were too proud to be chained?
Same as I said above. A deeper sense of self, who they are/were, despite how they were treated and despite how they were thought of.

Quote :
Pride is the essential ingredient to human dignity.

If you're using Pride to denote a "real" self respect and a "true" sense of self, then yes, I agree with this.
But everything needs to balance itself out. Like Yeats in my signature said "Balance all, call all to mind" though he was speaking of something a bit different at the time.




Quote :
How would you define "greater good" if you have nothing to be proud of?

Does the greater good depend on "pride" though or as something held to be valued and precious? Can we use the word "pride" in that sense"
I think that the word PRIDE has to be looked at in terms of reality, not just subjective thinking - and also in terms of degrees.


Quote :
The "greater good" is not usually what is about our own self interest.


What? How is the greater good not per definition in ones self interest?


Okay, I'll grant you that the greater good could also ALLOW for OUR own self interest but that is not always the higher motivation.
A man enlists and goes off to war knowing that he might not come back. He knows that freedom and liberty, fighting evil is the greater/greatest good.
Is his own self-interest paramount in making this decision, FC? No,it isn't.
There are times when we realize that sacrifices have to be made. It isn't always in our own self interest BUT it is for the greater good of all.



Quote :
Youve basically defined "good" as "bad" for yourself here, Arc.

No, I haven't FC. There have to be distinctions made. These kind of discussions are not simply black and white. Didn't Nietzsche say that things need to be turned inside out and upside down and perhaps in more different ways than that. I just don't like simple answers that haven't been looked at.
Everything you say can be seen in another way.



Quote :
Timer to look at yourself. Something is awry.
You put that in because I said that something seems to be out of tune. geek
Believe it or not, I do a lot of introspection. I'm quite aware that at times thins are awry. Are you?[/quote]



___________
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


Last edited by Arcturus Descending on Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:51 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense? - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Nov 07, 2016 4:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Ego does exist, I believe, in a Freudian sense as opposite to superego and id, namely as translating these to each other in s compromise. But I agree that ego is the opposite of pride.

Ego isn't the opposite of pride. A false ego is the opposite of a true sense of self-respect, self-identity.
Then of course, there is the conscious self, the ego.

Obviously we have an ego. If we didn't, it would be difficult for us to survive and to have a sense of self-preservation. Ego is only part of our greater self, you might call it Self. It's like a facet on a diamond, one facet.\
Words need to be clarified and to be dived into.


Quote :
But I agree that ego is the opposite of pride

I believe that what you may have been trying to say is that an egoistical attitude may not be based on a true sense of pride. Usually, the former is based on lower self-esteem that is repressed and not wanted to be looked at.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:10 pm

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Protean thinking Empty
PostSubject: Protean thinking Protean thinking Icon_minitimeMon Nov 07, 2016 9:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Certain concepts are not really concepts at all, but are more like guarantors and signs marking off thus far impenetrable spaces in which, eventually, conception will be able to enter. The good, evil, and freedom are three such "concepts". They tell us only that far more work is still yet to be attempted.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Protean thinking Empty
PostSubject: Re: Protean thinking Protean thinking Icon_minitimeMon Nov 07, 2016 11:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oh, I think I would have to keep those three as concepts. Subjective concepts at that.

There will be differences between individuals as to what id good, evil and freedom.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Protean thinking Empty
PostSubject: Re: Protean thinking Protean thinking Icon_minitimeMon Nov 07, 2016 12:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The subjective differences between individuals as to what these three 'concepts' mean, is a quite different thing than is the claim I am making here in the OP... namely that these are not really concepts at all, but the guardians of the spaces in which future conception will/must take place.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Protean thinking Empty
PostSubject: Re: Protean thinking Protean thinking Icon_minitimeMon Nov 07, 2016 11:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
The subjective differences between individuals as to what these three 'concepts' mean, is a quite different thing than is the claim I am making here in the OP... namely that these are not really concepts at all, but the guardians of the spaces in which future conception will/must take place.

Yeah, I really did read your post. I can't say that I understood what you were pointing at though.

So let's add one more to the three you mentioned: Imprisonment.

Now we have "good/evil" and "freedom/imprisonment".

These are dualistic concepts of the human brain. The two end points of a straight line.

Sure, we could call them guide posts. Choosing good over evil and freedom over imprisonment.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

Protean thinking Empty
PostSubject: Re: Protean thinking Protean thinking Icon_minitimeSat Nov 12, 2016 6:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
The subjective differences between individuals as to what these three 'concepts' mean, is a quite different thing than is the claim I am making here in the OP... namely that these are not really concepts at all, but the guardians of the spaces in which future conception will/must take place.

Do you mean to say that as we change our way of thinking and evolve, they are ideas which will branch out and transform into entirely different concepts?




Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

This Is Ethics Empty
PostSubject: This Is Ethics This Is Ethics Icon_minitimeTue Oct 18, 2016 2:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites quoted this in an aphorism -
So this is Yeats...

"Be no more a king, but learn the dreaming wisdom that is yours; a king is but a foolish labourer who wastes his blood to be another's dream."



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

This Is Ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: This Is Ethics This Is Ethics Icon_minitimeTue Oct 18, 2016 2:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Nobility is truly unfairly concentrated in Island cultures.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

This Is Ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: This Is Ethics This Is Ethics Icon_minitimeSun Nov 13, 2016 11:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This Is Ethics IMG_1024



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

This Is Ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: This Is Ethics This Is Ethics Icon_minitimeSun Nov 13, 2016 11:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let's replace the Republican party with the Trumpican party.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

This Is Ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: This Is Ethics This Is Ethics Icon_minitimeSun Nov 13, 2016 11:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That would give new meaning to ethics in the practical sense.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

This Is Ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: This Is Ethics This Is Ethics Icon_minitimeSun Nov 13, 2016 2:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fitting that this is presidency number 45.
the center of the Matrix.

The central conclusion.





My brothers, as much as Trump has the guarantee of my support, I will support the larger cause by working for humanity in the recreation of the democratic party.

'The best taste is to indulge in ones complete opposite'

This opposite has shifted from what now has become the Self, to the plasmic still-in-formation conundrum of the Left -- there is potential now for pure creation - something vast and beautiful can be sown now - a great philosophical enterprise. Trump himself is bipartisan, because he is not petty, but Great. Americas greatness involves both views, Liberal and Conservative - Blue and Red. We wont throw out the baby with the bathwater, we wil actually talk to the democratic party youths, and inspire them to philosophize VO.

There is no try. Do, or do not.
It is already to late for the latter.



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

This Is Ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: This Is Ethics This Is Ethics Icon_minitimeSun Nov 13, 2016 11:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Might you consider perhaps that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater?

Birth have been given to an orphan.


individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Praxis Empty
PostSubject: Praxis Praxis Icon_minitimeThu Nov 17, 2016 10:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A very useful way of approaching a philosopher is to sample a passage or two of his in isolation from the rest of what he wrote, in order to ascertain a "genetic" level glance at deeper machinery in his thought/system by formulating a metaphor whereby the single passage or two forms an object sufficient to represent the entirety of the spaces occupied and filled out by that larger thought/system. The isolated passage acts as an image representing by a kind of self-metaphor of double and triple meanings the larger body of work and spirit of that philosopher.

Once this image is obtained we can then gradually work out from it in all directions, pushing further into the philosopher's ideas while using the original image-metaphor as a ground allowing more hierarchical classifications and meta-relations. A complex 3D object forms, as the understanding of this philosopher's contributions, and can even be set in relation to other similarly complex 3D objects of the works/contributions of other philosophers, and in the very same way and method as the object itself was formed by approaching the single philosopher through his representative passages.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Praxis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Praxis Praxis Icon_minitimeThu Nov 17, 2016 10:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don't doubt that this could be a useful procedure. However, I have seen it used for destructive purposes where a couple statements were taken out of context with the intention of discrediting the author. I have seen it happen many times on Nietzsche and a few times o Chuang Tzu (Taoist philosopher).







Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Faith Empty
PostSubject: Faith Faith Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 4:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Just like a truth told so as to be understood will always be believed, a reality shown to be necessary will always be willed.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Faith Empty
PostSubject: Re: Faith Faith Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 4:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Things happen because people will other things to happen.

This is the case, because no one who acts fully accounts for all the actions of the others.

So no action is rational in the long run. It can only be justified in the moment.

Justified actions followed with regularity imprint the will on millennia as on wax.

All unphilosophical actions are partial, and there are no impartial actions, thus philosophy doesn't act.

Philosopher understands the pieces into motion.

Now the philosopher sees this but the other doesn't. What is seen from the outside is that the philosopher understands, and as such wills the things as they are.

But the philosopher is animated from within by the very same things as the things that animate him from the outside;
paradox is just one of many axes that need to remain invisible for the wheels of our mind to find grip on them, and the consistency of patterns that we can discern is the same consistency as our discernment, and whether or not they seem separate is due to the lower or higher quality and degree of our valuing integrity.

Philosophic integrity is human gravity and has moons that act.



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Faith Empty
PostSubject: Re: Faith Faith Icon_minitimeThu Nov 03, 2016 11:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don't use the word "faith". But I do use the word "will".

Faith is passive; will is active.

I'm not sure what you are pointing to here.

I don't agree that "... no action is rational ..." But it can be argued that the action taken may not have been the best of all choices if all facts and possible ramifications were known.

That's all I can say for now.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

Faith Empty
PostSubject: Re: Faith Faith Icon_minitimeSat Nov 26, 2016 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Just like a truth told so as to be understood will always be believed, a reality shown to be necessary will always be willed.

As to the latter, I wonder why? Plain common sense and logic? Survival?




Man and things.-- Why does man not see things? He is himself standing in the way: he conceals things.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak


How true this is.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:11 pm

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Who should I thank? Empty
PostSubject: Who should I thank? Who should I thank? Icon_minitimeThu Dec 08, 2016 3:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If you start to thank the entities and traditions that have helped shape you, there is obviously no limit.
But a hierarchy might form under a higest entity to thank.

If you could thank one thing to account for all the experience and consequence of your existence, could there be such a word?

god is invented as such praise, thanks, but it is surely stale to autromatically attribute thanks to that "Him".



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Who should I thank? Empty
PostSubject: Re: Who should I thank? Who should I thank? Icon_minitimeFri Dec 09, 2016 12:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Start with your mom and go from there.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

Who should I thank? Empty
PostSubject: Re: Who should I thank? Who should I thank? Icon_minitimeSat Dec 10, 2016 4:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Start with your mom and go from there.

That's nice. I couldn't really start there though. Rolling Eyes



___________
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
Arcturus Descending

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

Who should I thank? Empty
PostSubject: Re: Who should I thank? Who should I thank? Icon_minitimeSat Dec 10, 2016 4:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
If you start to thank the entities and traditions that have helped shape you, there is obviously no limit.
But a hierarchy might form under a higest entity to thank.

If you could thank one thing to account for all the experience and consequence of your existence, could there be such a word?

god is invented as such praise, thanks, but it is surely stale to autromatically attribute thanks to that "Him".


For me, believe it or not, it would probably be the orphanage where I grew up...there but for ITS grace, go I.
It formed and structured me in ways, the good and the bad but still I am in part who I am because of this entity.

But then again...perhaps it might be the positive DNA which flows through me, ALSO enabling me to be who I am, with all of my peculiarities, my sensibilities, my strengths, my sense of wonderment and curiosity, my sticktoitiveness...
How much of that am I alone responsible for and how much comes from the wonderful people who have gone before who in a sense flow within me who I have never met and shall never know or know of?


I can never forget the Universe, like the stars, who were at times such great company and consolation and inspiration for me and nature with everything within it that I can behold or experience within myself.

I have so much to be grateful for................it sometimes amazes me what I think and feel that makes me grateful.







individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Highest political ethics Empty
PostSubject: Highest political ethics Highest political ethics Icon_minitimeTue Dec 13, 2016 7:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The highest political ethics would be one based on the ground-value of self-determination. Self-determination should be the bedrock principle applied to the individual person, and to the nation itself. So in other words, any derivative values or principles should not be allowed to violate the basic principle-value of the self-determination of individuals and nations.

What would be the political character that develops upon such a political 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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

Highest political ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Highest political ethics Highest political ethics Icon_minitimeWed Dec 14, 2016 3:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
The highest political ethics would be one based on the ground-value of self-determination. Self-determination should be the bedrock principle applied to the individual person, and to the nation itself. So in other words, any derivative values or principles should not be allowed to violate the basic principle-value of the self-determination of individuals and nations.

What would be the political character that develops upon such a political ethics?


I may not be understanding what you mean here by political ethics and I am not politically inclined but this calls to mind the Nazi regime and the destruction of millions of Jewish lives. The Nazis as a collective and as individuals were self-determined. Where were their ethics when it came to all of those lives even though one can say that they were highly self determined?

On the other hand, the allies joining forces and coming in and defeating the Nazi's were also highly self-determined in destroying that great evil - and yes, it was a great evil.


http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dft/fi ... _10-11.pdf

Ethics requires political leaders to avoid harming the innocent,
but it may also obligate them to sacrifice innocent lives for the good of the nation. A
President may be morally obligated to order military action even while foreseeing
that civilians will be killed. (The question of immoral means arises even if the war
itself is just: See JUST WAR THEORY).

Interesting reading.

....

Hmmm... I suppose you meant the phrase in a much more broader scope...

Wouldn't a humane sense of consciousness and responsibility toward doing the least amount of harm toward the greater good " pawn self-determination"?




___________
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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Highest political ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Highest political ethics Highest political ethics Icon_minitimeWed Dec 14, 2016 6:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
The highest political ethics would be one based on the ground-value of self-determination. Self-determination should be the bedrock principle applied to the individual person, and to the nation itself. So in other words, any derivative values or principles should not be allowed to violate the basic principle-value of the self-determination of individuals and nations.

What would be the political character that develops upon such a political ethics?


Ive been pondering this post for a day.

This morning I decide the best term here is the old one: Constitutionalism

Trumps idea of for every new regulation, eliminating two old ones, appears very wise, with respect to Constitutionalism.


The Constitution appears as having been designed to facilitate selfdetermination on individual, as well as state level.

The 9th Amendment appears the logical center piece of the legislation as a guarantee that the document is used for the purpose it was created for - to minimize unself-determination.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Highest political ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Highest political ethics Highest political ethics Icon_minitimeWed Dec 14, 2016 6:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes I agree, and as the ontic entities condense more around themselves in terms of self-determination we can expect to see an increase in... pride. Self-pride and national pride, in the joy that comes with being and having oneself, which is the basic logic of self-valuing.

The US Constitution was the first of its kind in human history. We should never forget this. Napoleon fucked up France's chance to be the US of Europe, basically, when their own constitution failed because of him. Perhaps the US and even the world has the restraint of a single man to thank: George Washington, who the Americans people wanted to make a king, and that would have been the end of it, but he said no.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Highest political ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Highest political ethics Highest political ethics Icon_minitimeWed Dec 14, 2016 11:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Yes I agree, and as the ontic entities condense more around themselves in terms of self-determination we can expect to see an increase in... pride. Self-pride and national pride, in the joy that comes with being and having oneself, which is the basic logic of self-valuing.

The US Constitution was the first of its kind in human history. We should never forget this. Napoleon fucked up France's chance to be the US of Europe, basically, when their own constitution failed because of him. Perhaps the US and even the world has the restraint of a single man to thank: George Washington, who the Americans people wanted to make a king, and that would have been the end of it, but he said no.

Wait, thats fascinating. Did that first constitution before Napoleon did with it what he did, suffice in value-logical terms?

Can you locate the text?

Because right now I think that France needs to become the center of Europe, not morally, but by real necessity, as in there is no other possibility.
Germany cant rule. They keep on dreadfully failing. France is the center of Europe in the sense that it is where everyone goes to feel good, its the most popular country and the oldest, and it used to harbor more than half of the European population. It is stunning, noble to the very tendons of the heart, and it has the will to govern from the sort of lofty withdrawn pride that simply knows the poor will come to it in honest wonder.


France need to start building immense bridges close to the German border. They need to show clearly who is able to build and who is not. Germans have never built anything notable at all. Their country has literally no memorable buildings. Berlin is an architectonic wasteland, but so are all their cities. Frankfurt
has foreign architect from the looks of it but it is nothingness anyway.

One street in any given town of France has more culture to it than Germany as a whole.
The beauty of Germany is its savageness.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Highest political ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Highest political ethics Highest political ethics Icon_minitimeWed Dec 14, 2016 1:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It's something I remember reading, that the French tried to follow America's example by drafting their own Constitution, which they did, but ultimately Napoleon basically did what he wanted after he declared himself Emperor. Ours was in 1787, theirs was in 1791 I guess, four years later. I'm no expert on this history, but I am sure there is plenty online to be found... I found this on history-world.org,


"The Downfall of RobespierreFinally the enemies of the Revolution at home and abroad seemed to be suppressed. Only Great Britain and Austria continued the war. The people were tired of the Terror. When Robespierre showed no signs of stopping the bloodshed, the rest of the Convention took matters into their own hands. Danton had predicted: "Robespierre will follow me; I drag down Robespierre." Robespierre was arrested and sent to the guillotine on July 28, 1794. People then and afterward blamed him for all the horrors of the Reign of Terror, but much of the blame as well as the credit for it belonged to others.More moderate men now governed France. The Convention wrote another constitution--the third since 1789 and the second to be put into operation-- then prepared to dissolve. A mob protested against two thirds of the new assemblies being drawn from the hated Convention. A young artillery officer, Napoleon Bonaparte, protected the new government. He was then practically unknown.The new government, the Directory, proved unable to meet the problems within disorganized France. The glory of foreign victories won under the Directory was due to Bonaparte. On Nov. 9, 1799, he helped overthrow the Directory and replaced it with a Consulate of three members. He was the first consul and actual ruler of France. In 1804 he discarded pretense and called himself "Napoleon I, Emperor of the French." Liberty was gone. Napoleon himself declared: "Liberty is a necessity felt only by a not very numerous class. It can therefore be restricted with impunity. Equality on the other hand pleases the multitude." Few events have so powerfully influenced the political and economic development of the modern world as the French Revolution." --http://history-world.org/french_revolution.htm


Yeah it would be really interesting to read the original French Constitution.

France does seem cool to me. Jim Morrison wanted to be buried there, after all. Père Lachaise would be a good place to visit someday.




Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The great life Empty
PostSubject: The great life The great life Icon_minitimeFri Oct 23, 2015 9:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Because none are born a god, the great life is always a large part imprisonment; greatness must stand against something other than great to exist, also within a great human. The battle is a life only if the monster is strong enough, says the philosopher, and goes deeper into the cave as the scientist and the mystic halt. The Greek myth describe what he finds there. And out of this comes a society, so splendorous as the flower of time itself, so that its seedlings fill the web of time and time becomes green, lush, full of world an wonder and here, now, are we reflecting on this in the pearl of a fish eyed orblet of dew, only that, like dew in a field. Or are we the boot that mashes the blades of grass and steps on the ladybug? Or perhaps the lightning holding its breath above in the dense purple clouds? Or the tendon hewn out of marble, from which another orblet rolls into infinity, why have they made our consciousnesses so deep as to be able to think of such trivial things...



___________
" 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
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 59
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

The great life Empty
PostSubject: Re: The great life The great life Icon_minitimeFri Feb 03, 2017 8:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am not a god???? Well, I feel and believe I have certain god-like qualities. smile

Parts of all life can be viewed as imprisonment. However, life is how its viewed and few are incarcerated. Confined time is a negative and I choose to see more of freedoms (positives).

The consciousness is like everything.... it needs hard work to be able to maximize but it also needs trivial things to rest and amuse itself!

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The great life Empty
PostSubject: Re: The great life The great life Icon_minitimeFri Feb 03, 2017 8:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Freedoms could be considered negatives, as they arent necessities, not positive givens.
Many today are changed by their freedom.

A code, a binding word, can be liberating for the action radius.

The burden of choice.



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

The great life Empty
PostSubject: Re: The great life The great life Icon_minitimeFri Feb 03, 2017 1:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:


The burden of choice.

But also an opportunity to excel.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 59
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

The great life Empty
PostSubject: Re: The great life The great life Icon_minitimeFri Feb 03, 2017 1:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is choice really a burden? I believe choice is about accepting responsibility. I agree that sometimes it is not pleasant - this is where forgiveness of oneself comes in. We simply make the best decisions that we can at the time and move forward. Hindsight, further learning and growing often show us, our errors. Live and learn (and forgive yourself).

Isn't the term "burden of choice" like saying life is a burden? I totally revel in life!! No burdens here...






Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

If so - Empty
PostSubject: If so - If so - Icon_minitimeThu Oct 27, 2016 2:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I lazily looked up some Hegel quotes to put in a meme of an American Eagle, and hit on this one:

Amid the pressure of great events, a general principle gives no help.

What would the context be? In any case it is wrong - but only since Schopenhauer and them did the solution to this error thinkable again -
Plato and Hegel are quite similar -
Socrates and his type of dialectic work in the same way - to assume above a metaphysics and reduce all social dynamic of value to that Universal hypothesis - leaving in the end nothing but the dead of Socrates and Athens.

If we can melt Hegel in the oven that he is, then we can also forge a new instrument out of some of the parts - if the oven can generate heat, perhaps if we insert our principles that defy Hegels fatalism-universalism into the Hegelian-Socratic friction (that is what it is, I figure now, pure friction - haste of entropy - beyond the principle of honing, at least to themselves - ) -

well but this is already being done.



___________
" 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
Arcturus Descending

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

If so - Empty
PostSubject: Re: If so - If so - Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 2:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I lazily looked up some Hegel quotes to put in a meme of an American Eagle, and hit on this one:

Amid the pressure of great events, a general principle gives no help.

What would the context be? In any case it is wrong - but only since Schopenhauer and them did the solution to this error thinkable again -
Plato and Hegel are quite similar -
Socrates and his type of dialectic work in the same way - to assume above a metaphysics and reduce all social dynamic of value to that Universal hypothesis - leaving in the end nothing but the dead of Socrates and Athens.

If we can melt Hegel in the oven that he is, then we can also forge a new instrument out of some of the parts - if the oven can generate heat, perhaps if we insert our principles that defy Hegels fatalism-universalism into the Hegelian-Socratic friction (that is what it is, I figure now, pure friction - haste of entropy - beyond the principle of honing, at least to themselves - ) -

well but this is already being done.

So are you saying that you disagree with the quote, FC?



___________
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
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

If so - Empty
PostSubject: Re: If so - If so - Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 7:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:

So are you saying that you disagree with the quote, FC?

I couldn't tell either. But I know that Sun Tzu (The Art of War) would totally disagree. Everything we do must be based in principles.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

If so - Empty
PostSubject: Re: If so - If so - Icon_minitimeSat Nov 05, 2016 7:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It's really important to read Hegel one-liners in their context. That's why I try to quote him in only paragraphs, at minimum.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

If so - Empty
PostSubject: Re: If so - If so - Icon_minitimeWed Jan 04, 2017 4:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster


Quote :
Amid the pressure of great events, a general principle gives no help.


It may give help but then again it may not.


Heraclitus said, "You cannot step into the same river twice, for other waters are continually flowing on.

We pre-suppose that because something generally works for us, for instance, because we have our own code of ethics or way of doing things, it will always work for us.

Amid the pressure of great events though, sometimes our way of thinking and doing, has to go right out the window. Others whose waters are also continually flowing, will also be seeing thing differently and reacting differently due to great pressures - for instance, fighting to stay alive or to keep others alive.

When something is of the greatest importance, there have to be new ways of thinking or acting. Change calls for and invents new changes.

We have to think on our feet and that thinking doesn't necessarily follow a general principle.
Sometimes we will have to get just as down and dirty. Morality doesn't necessarily enter in when the rules have changed and sometime greater is in the wings.


Am I wrong?




___________
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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

If so - Empty
PostSubject: Re: If so - If so - Icon_minitimeWed Jan 04, 2017 11:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable is right of course, my isolating that line is a bit fallacious. I don't even have the context, mea culpa.

Let's assume for a moment some random dude made just this statement, that a general principle isn't useful when it comes down to solving a real life crisis.

Gravity is a general principle. So is action = -reaction. And these principles serve very well in crisis situations, in fact to not heed these principles is guaranteed to cause crisis situations.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:16 pm

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeThu Jan 19, 2017 11:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Something like 17 hours to go.

This thread is dedicated to joyous celebration of Trump's win. Images, videos and text welcome.

I'll start it off.







___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeFri Jan 20, 2017 2:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Honor to Trump's victory IMG_1082

https://2img.net/h/s29.postimg.cc/x0k0n ... G_1084.jpg


Honor to Trump's victory IMG_1084

https://2img.net/h/s30.postimg.cc/opr9u ... G_1082.jpg



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeFri Jan 20, 2017 8:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It's official.

Neighbors next to me here just put up a huge Trump flag in their yard, right below their American flag. The atmosphere here is excited and relieved. You can feel it on the air.

Tectonic shifts in the existentia. Now a new era begins.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeFri Jan 20, 2017 8:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This was some intense address. Every hall of power must have been trembling.
I can feel the air crackling behind your words, that's good to hear.
Here it is silent as ever.

My connection got interrupted right as he was saying "Every hall of power". I went outside to walk the free Earth.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeFri Jan 20, 2017 8:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The man had an impressive array of VO esque logics to offer.

Very nice what he said about not imposing but shining. Like gold, perfect selfvaluing, incorruptible.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeFri Jan 20, 2017 9:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

I feel exhausted...

a lot of things happened today...

this made me laugh
http://9gag.com/gag/ao2b84m






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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeFri Jan 20, 2017 9:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Honor to Trump's victory AQM0yO8_460s



https://2img.net/h/img-9gag-fun.9cache. ... 8_460s.jpg


___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeFri Jan 20, 2017 10:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"A nation exists to serve its citizens." --President Trump



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeFri Jan 20, 2017 10:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Trump said it all. And he said it powerfully. It was a declaration of war, though - the rain, it was not a hollow omen, as now the world begins, and the world is fire. We will need the rain, for there will be much ashes, and wet ash is the most fertile substance - CHO -

A different work will be set in motion. Our talking here will no longer suffice - this presidency needs philosophers.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2017 10:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Honor to Trump's victory IMG_1096

https://2img.net/h/s30.postimg.cc/w2arq ... G_1096.jpg





___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2017 10:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Honor to Trump's victory IMG_1095

https://2img.net/h/s28.postimg.cc/8y7gl ... G_1095.jpg



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2017 10:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Honor to Trump's victory IMG_1099


https://2img.net/h/s30.postimg.cc/l71up ... G_1099.jpg
___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2017 11:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
New slogan for the anti-Trump protestors:

"Jump For Trump"

off a bridge, a building, whatever.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2017 11:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
New slogan for the anti-Trump protestors:

"Jump For Trump"

off a bridge, a building, whatever.

LOL



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeMon Feb 27, 2017 6:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"MAGA." --Nietzsche



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Honor to Trump's victory Empty
PostSubject: Re: Honor to Trump's victory Honor to Trump's victory Icon_minitimeMon Feb 27, 2017 6:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
LGBT: Let's Get Behind Trump
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:17 pm

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeThu Feb 16, 2017 5:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Selfvaluing is power to will, will is will to power, power is will to love, love is will to life, life is will to give, bring forth, create-through. And that's the end of that.



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2017 12:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Does love really need to be in there? Love is one of those words with so many connotations.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2017 9:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
will to exalt, then -
I mean among other connotations to refer to the idea of creating beyond oneself, and to take pleasure in serving a real cause that includes but exceeds oneself, or at least that part of oneself that one wishes to cultivate - what I call the selfvaluing logic.



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Feb 18, 2017 2:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
will to exalt, then -
I mean among other connotations to refer to the idea of creating beyond oneself, and to take pleasure in serving a real cause that includes but exceeds oneself, or at least that part of oneself that one wishes to cultivate - what I call the selfvaluing logic.

Yes, this I can easily work with. I think that a full life includes holding ideals greater than one's self. If you will, having an ideal you are willing to die for in order to protect or accomplish.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Feb 18, 2017 3:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Very well. I see that ethics is the sort of context where you can best follow what I am saying.



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Feb 18, 2017 3:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Very well. I see that ethics is the sort of context where you can best follow what I am saying.

Well done Fixed Cross.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 59
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeWed Mar 01, 2017 10:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don't agree with holding onto a concept that we will "die" for. - That seems a young persons creed. However, having made it to 56, very little in life is worth dying for...if anything.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Mar 04, 2017 7:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Drops_Of_Jupiter wrote:
I don't agree with holding onto a concept that we will "die" for. - That seems a young persons creed. However, having made it to 56, very little in life is worth dying for...if anything.

Its a great privilege to have such a value as to exalt ones consciousness above ones physical self. Usually we dont have it. Modernity is in a sense mans impotence to value beyond his mortal coil... he does not have the will to sow himself like a seed.

But mans greatness is a seed.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Mar 04, 2017 7:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can't imagine a worse hell and fate than to have nothing worth dying for.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Mar 04, 2017 8:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A possible formula Img_1119



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 59
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Mar 04, 2017 8:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hmmm... When I was younger, I would have "died" for many of my beliefs. But something happened.... I got a business education and grew up.

I used to see only my side of the coin, the "right" side. Now I see multiple sides and angles. Let's take the controversial topic of abortion. When younger, I knew in my heart that it is wrong. Then I met my best friend. She had an abortion when she was young. She explained her story and I felt her pain and understood. Still, it was "wrong" in my book. Then, I met another friend whose beliefs are "Its a woman's body and her right to choose." I don't know that I agree with that. Seems really out there to me. ---- But I ask, "Who am I to judge??" I'm just a woman. I've never been pregnant. I've never been faced with the choice to make. How can I judge or stand for or against this???

Most all people in this world are doing the best that they can. Everyone makes choices based upon their experiences. Until I live another's life, I don't think I can judge.

I ask, " How can I die for issues that are so complex - and have an individual side to them as well?" An Aerosmith song comes to mind....(changing the lyrics a bit [Livin On the Edge])... "If you can judge a wise woman by her decisions, Based on her individual experiences, Then mister your a wiser person than me!!!"

No dears.... I will not be dying for some "cause." There is "All Sides with Debbie Styers [Ann Fisher]." It is sad that some people cannot see another's point of view...with love in their heart and understanding in their mind.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Mar 04, 2017 8:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Drops_Of_Jupiter wrote:
Hmmm... When I was younger, I would have "died" for many of my beliefs. But something happened.... I got a business education and grew up.

I used to see only my side of the coin, the "right" side. Now I see multiple sides and angles. Let's take the controversial topic of abortion. When younger, I knew in my heart that it is wrong. Then I met my best friend. She had an abortion when she was young. She explained her story and I felt her pain and understood. Still, it was "wrong" in my book. Then, I met another friend whose beliefs are "Its a woman's body and her right to choose." I don't know that I agree with that. Seems really out there to me. ---- But I ask, "Who am I to judge??" I'm just a woman. I've never been pregnant. I've never been faced with the choice to make. How can I judge or stand for or against this???

Most all people in this world are doing the best that they can. Everyone makes choices based upon their experiences. Until I live another's life, I don't think I can judge.

I ask, " How can I die for issues that are so complex - and have an individual side to them as well?" An Aerosmith song comes to mind....(changing the lyrics a bit [Livin On the Edge])... "If you can judge a wise woman by her decisions, Based on her individual experiences, Then mister your a wiser person than me!!!"

No dears.... I will not be dying for some "cause." There is "All Sides with Debbie Styers [Ann Fisher]." It is sad that some people cannot see another's point of view...with love in their heart and understanding in their mind.


A possible formula Img_1120



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 59
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Mar 04, 2017 8:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hey Babe - I appreciate the crayons [keyboard & forum.]

Did you know what makes humor, funny? LOL!!! It's the tiny degree of truth in it.

As for the helmet.... that is kind of like the old CB Rambo thing that truckers used to use. You know, you can say anything because no one knows who you are (because you are hiding behind a CB mike somewhere). I didn't pick up the helmet. You have my real name right there. I see no reason to use a helmet. LOL...I reckon I appreciate the gesture though. LOL!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Mar 04, 2017 12:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Helmets are useful if things are dropping down from above.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Mar 04, 2017 1:07 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A possible formula Img_1121



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeSat Mar 04, 2017 1:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Drops_Of_Jupiter wrote:
Hmmm... When I was younger, I would have "died" for many of my beliefs.

""died""?

I imagine a priest on a funeral reading the last sacrament, and then saying here lies DOJ, he *wiggles fingers* "died" for his country.



___________
" 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
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 59
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeMon Mar 06, 2017 5:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
A possible formula Img_1121

Seriously, to quote Ray Stevens "Everyone is Beautiful." Why make fun of some picture of some woman that probably has no clue your even using her picture.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeMon Mar 06, 2017 7:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think my point was lost on you.

Beauty actually means something. Not everyone or everything is beautiful. As soon as you universalized beauty you destroyed it.

Modern leftist-liberal-PC culture of making everyone feel like a beautiful precious snowflake is fucking stupid.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 59
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeMon Mar 06, 2017 7:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
I think my point was lost on you.

Beauty actually means something. Not everyone or everything is beautiful. As soon as you universalized beauty you destroyed it.

Modern leftist-liberal-PC culture of making everyone feel like a beautiful precious snowflake is fucking stupid.

A person is born with her mother's and father's genes. She can only control so much of her physical appearance. Why make her feel less "beautiful" cause her face doesn't meet your standards of beauty? That is not only cruelty, but it is also unnecessary.

I think its sad when people look for ugliness, instead of seeing the beauty in most all of life!

Do you fear that "universal beauty" will destroy your "special beauty?"
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeMon Mar 06, 2017 7:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Do you even know what beauty is, and means? Do you even believe in the concept of beauty?

It seems not.

You have re-defined beauty as "whatever makes me feel good". It makes you feel bad to pass judgment on anyone for being "less beautiful", therefore you have re-defined beauty as "never feeling bad by judging anyone for being less beautiful". In the process of your aspirations to universal kindness and warm-feeling you have lost sight of reality, it seems.

You are free to go along with your female feeling of never feeling bad for judging anything in a way that might feel bad to someone else, by all means keep it up. But don't pretend what you're doing is either philosophy or has anything to do with what beauty really is.

No matter how much the feminish-leftist-liberal-politically correct paradigm doubles down on this approach, it will not change the fact that beauty means something and we are beings that respond to beauty and to what beauty indicates. No amount of warm-feeling liberalism will reverse ugliness and beauty, no matter how much you wish it could.

And of course physical beauty is connected to genes... so what? Does that somehow belie the fact that beauty is beauty? No it doesn't. Everything has a reason and cause for being what it is, including beauty and ugliness. But again, feel free to pretend that isn't the case.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeMon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To me, the great ugliness is the fact that people like you have lost the ability to call ugly ugly, and beauty beauty.

It is profoundly ugly that you can no longer differentiate properly, all because it might not "feel good", or something.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 59
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeMon Mar 06, 2017 8:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Beauty means of extraordinary quality that is pleasing to the sight.

You seem to limit sight to the surface....as in skin deep. The woman's picture doesn't meet your qualifications as beautiful because you see only her face. - Sadly, this I understand. However, I believe that the motto of ..if you can't practice kindness, then nothing should be said. Can you possibly imagine having your picture being mocked and posted online like this? It is simply hurtful, unkind and cruel. - Ironically, you seem to fancy yourself as a thinker. Yet, you think nothing of being hurtful! To me, that is ugliness.

I see beauty in that woman's picture because I suspect she as seen it, has been hurt by people like you, yet...most likely goes on to live a somewhat "normal life." But in truth... we really don't know the damage those remarks under the woman's picture has caused her! - Yeah, I can look at reality. I know beauty from ugliness.

--- I read somewhere once that when a person lies to protect another's feelings, it demostrates that the person has a higher IQ than someone who doesn't, because it takes intelligence to actually consider another's feelings.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeMon Mar 06, 2017 1:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
To me, the great ugliness is the fact that people like you have lost the ability to call ugly ugly, and beauty beauty.

It is profoundly ugly that you can no longer differentiate properly, all because it might not "feel good", or something.

It doesnt feel good to the ugly, but nothing feels good to them. I mean ugly in the broad sense, like Obonko and Cloggcunt represent.
And this is the goal: to eliminate all good feelings, because some unfortunates don't have the capacity for them.
That is Socialism in a nutshell: to level with unlimited violence and intrusion all mans feelings to those of the very most miserable miscreants.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeMon Mar 06, 2017 2:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Drops_Of_Jupiter wrote:
Beauty means of extraordinary quality that is pleasing to the sight.

You seem to limit sight to the surface....as in skin deep. The woman's picture doesn't meet your qualifications as beautiful because you see only her face. - Sadly, this I understand. However, I believe that the motto of ..if you can't practice kindness, then nothing should be said.

Then you are a slave.

Quote :
Can you possibly imagine having your picture being mocked and posted online like this? It is simply hurtful, unkind and cruel. - Ironically, you seem to fancy yourself as a thinker. Yet, you think nothing of being hurtful! To me, that is ugliness.

Your mind is deformed. It's very ugly to look at. Cover it up, show some decency, slave.

That that woman is ugly is your judgment by the way, the picture doesn't say that. its all in your mind.
So not only are you ugly, you are also cruel and mean to that poor woman, and without being able to help yourself.
Your subconsciousness decides that she is ugly and has you interpret the pic like that, and then your consciousness is scared of your judgment and blammes it on T.

Sad.

Quote :
I see beauty in that woman's picture because I suspect she as seen it, has been hurt by people like you, yet...most likely goes on to live a somewhat "normal life." But in truth... we really don't know the damage those remarks under the woman's picture has caused her! - Yeah, I can look at reality. I know beauty from ugliness.

--- I read somewhere once that when a person lies to protect another's feelings, it demostrates that the person has a higher IQ than someone who doesn't, because it takes intelligence to actually consider another's feelings.

Oh you read that, huh?
That's impressive man.
Now you have your own opinion about IQ. That's so awesome. Cherish that opinion. It's super-important, slave.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

A possible formula Empty
PostSubject: Re: A possible formula A possible formula Icon_minitimeMon Mar 06, 2017 3:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Thrasymachus wrote:
To me, the great ugliness is the fact that people like you have lost the ability to call ugly ugly, and beauty beauty.

It is profoundly ugly that you can no longer differentiate properly, all because it might not "feel good", or something.

It doesnt feel good to the ugly, but nothing feels good to them. I mean ugly in the broad sense, like Obonko and Cloggcunt represent.
And this is the goal: to eliminate all good feelings, because some unfortunates don't have the capacity for them.
That is Socialism in a nutshell: to level with unlimited violence and intrusion all mans feelings to those of the very most miserable miscreants.

Yeah, that ^
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:19 pm

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Trump Victory Santions: War for Love Empty
PostSubject: Trump Victory Santions: War for Love Trump Victory Santions: War for Love Icon_minitimeMon Nov 14, 2016 5:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The ignorance of what Trump is has the form of the conviction that he is against love itself. What this means tis that the disenfranchised anarchists now have only one sanction;l to war for love over hate.

true rage is now employed under the word; Love.
This is good.

Absolute trembling skepsis along the abyss is now practiced in those media, that have lost their grip. This too is good.

The ID has come loose from the Real into the Word - and this word is now 'Love over Hate'.
Precisely because this is the word, the Id has come loose.
The word-as-such as been revealed: self-valuing. The superego has become the id, which it always was. The monster of energy, no real face, just facets. At the eye of this storm now appears a figure - one question remains: what will come of his hair?




https://i.servimg.com/u/f58/17/72/26/82/img_1112.png





Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Negotiation Techniques Empty
PostSubject: Negotiation Techniques Negotiation Techniques Icon_minitimeTue Mar 07, 2017 3:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster







individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Empty
PostSubject: Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 12:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Google -- read this!

You can be a hero

Stop being the villain

Follow your own motto, "Don't be evil"

You can make so much more money.. helping humanity

Working with truth and not against it

I know you are reading this

Google

YouTube

Alphabet

NSA

DARPA

CIA

We need your help!

Work with us, not against us

The future needs you.


Do the right thing, Google

Be a hero of truth.

I know you can.


The future is yours, and ours

It belongs to truth

It belongs to humanity.




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Empty
PostSubject: Re: Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 12:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Reading it and acting upon it are two totally different actions.


Last edited by Sisyphus on Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Empty
PostSubject: Re: Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 1:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Google -- read this!

You can be a hero

Stop being the villain

Follow your own motto, "Don't be evil"

You can make so much more money.. helping humanity

Working with truth and not against it

I know you are reading this

Google

YouTube

Alphabet

NSA

DARPA

CIA

We need your help!

Work with us, not against us

The future needs you.


Do the right thing, Google

Be a hero of truth.

I know you can.


The future is yours, and ours

It belongs to truth

It belongs to humanity.


Shared on Facebook.

Also from Facebook:

https://i.imgur.com/0PmCSP0.png



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Empty
PostSubject: Re: Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Icon_minitimeThu Mar 09, 2017 1:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Still searching for the truth, are you? Lots of luck with that one.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Empty
PostSubject: Re: Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 11:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Google, you're on notice:

Until I determine that you have become the champion of truth (humanity) rather than its enemy, I will from this point onward be using DuckDuckGo instead of you.

Take notice. That's -1 user for you. Until you change.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Empty
PostSubject: Re: Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 11:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
hey thats a nice one.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22value+onto ... =he&ia=web




___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Empty
PostSubject: Re: Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Open letter to Google, YouTube, Alphabet, DARPA, CIA Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 1:29 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
After clicking "more results",

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22value+onto ... =he&ia=web



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning


individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeTue Mar 07, 2017 3:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Great stuff:





___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeTue Mar 07, 2017 4:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Our choices determine the destiny of the world... You get nailed when you make a stupid decision, because you're altering the structure of reality, and it'll snap back and take you out." --Peterson



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeTue Mar 07, 2017 5:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I like that formulation.
Kinda fits to astrology.



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeTue Mar 07, 2017 11:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
"Our choices determine the destiny of the world... You get nailed when you make a stupid decision, because you're altering the structure of reality, and it'll snap back and take you out." --Peterson

Well, I like this quote. Very Taoist.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 59
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeTue Mar 07, 2017 7:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Stupid used to mean "mentally slow," and at one time used to describe a degree of retardation. Today, they don't even use retardation anymore. I think the PC words for it are mentally challenged.

Looking at the quote from a Charles Darwin view, it seems to make sense. Only the smart and strong survive. But this brings up the question.... is there such thing as "dumb luck?"
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail https://www.facebook.com/debbie.styers
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 1:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, I think there is such a thing as dump luck. I generally refer to it as good fortune but it's the same thing. Being in the right place at the right time, planned or unplanned.

If we want to be rained on we must go to where it is raining.

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

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 2:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This starts getting interesting around 18 minutes, and seems to fall to shit around an hour or so. I stopped listening at an hour 20 min.





___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 2:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If one of us had been in that conversation things wouldn't have devolved like that. What is lacking is a proper philosophical context, to avoid pointless categorical disagreements and to unite the scientific will properly under the 'psychological' truth that is, as you hear in that conversation above, struggling from both sides to break free, but can't quite do so.

This "'psychological' truth" is, of course, self-valuing and the daemonic.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning


Last edited by Thrasymachus on Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 3:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Possible better continuation:


Harris: You can't deny that the weaponizing of smallpox would represent a truth.

Peterson: Yes absolutely, there is a truth, or a set of facts, that is required to be understood and actualized in order to be able to weaponize smallpox. But what I am saying is that there are greater and lesser facts, greater and less truths.

Harris: Ok, so if I am understanding you here, you are saying that facts are facts, and that the totality of all fact might be called "truth". But in addition, that within that domain of all facts, "truth", there are greater and lesser facts, which corresponds to a greater or lesser degree of truth.

Peterson: Yes, absolutely. What I saying is that, and I agree with you about what you said just there that the totality of all facts is what "truth itself" means, in the broadest sense, or perhaps in the most scientific sense, but in addition to understanding this we also need to be able to look at particular ranges within this totality and realize that certain facts, or certain collections of facts, rank higher or lower based on a certain standard.

Harris: And what standard would that be? Because so far you have seemed to be saying that Darwinian selection and survival is the most fundamental standard.

Peterson: Well what I really mean to get at, is that when I said "reality is that which selects" what this really means is that certain truths, or facts if you like, are more significant, have more meaning and more reality based on how comprehensive they are; based on how many other facts they subsume under themselves, and based on the significance and far-reaching consequences that usher from those facts. Part of this significance and broader totality of consequences includes whether or not we will survive. So survivalism is indeed nested inside your sort of realism, or materialist realism, but there is also a larger category here: that even given the let's call it scientific or empirical fact that survival and Darwinianism is nested inside of a larger realism, realism itself is also nested inside of a larger metaphysical space that we might call the universe of meaning, in which certain truths or facts acquire substance and potency, meaning and significance, based on the degree to which those truths lead to something. If the invention of weaponized smallpox leads to the annihilation of humanity then it is indeed correct to say that the weaponizing of smallpox was indeed true, and based on facts that made such a task possible, however we can't stop there, we need to go a step further and say that this truth failed to rank higher than other truths which could have allowed for the persistence and expansion into actuality of even more truths, including in this case of course our own survival.

Harris: So you are claiming that even realism is nested inside of, what seems to be, its own rank-ordering and with respect to a certain kind of "metaphysical" significance?

Peterson: Well yes, but to be even more accurate, we need to isolate facts and truths and see how fundamental they are, which means we need to do a phenomenological reduction here on par with Husserl and try to eidetically identify the root of a fact, to find its necessity, and to see on what that fact depends and to what other facts it is linked.

Harris: Ok I think I am starting to see your perspective here, and I don't think I necessarily disagree. To me, materialist realism is quite close to Hussal's own phenomenological project, because while on the one hand we can always say that a fact is a fact and regardless whether or not any living beings are around to comprehend that fact, this fact itself, of knowing this, of stating that 'a fact is a fact regardless...', is itself also just another fact within the larger totality of facts.

Peterson: Exactly. And what is so interesting is that facts are infinite for this very reason, that not only do you have an individual fact like "such and such technological process in molecular biology will yield weaponized smallpox", for example, but you also have to say that it is a fact that "such and such...", basically you need to say that, of any fact at all, it is also a fact that that fact is the case. And then you open up a whole other universe of facts, derivative or meta-facts, which are facts about facts. This is why I was invoking Nietzsche earlier, because Nietzsche points out, correctly I think, that some facts are "just facts" while other facts are facts about facts, meta-facts if you will... and if we follow a kind of Platonic metaphysical example here, or Husserl even, we find that there are also facts about the fact which are about a fact, and all the way up and up, without end. Nietzsche was interested in climbing the ladder as high as he could, to identify the most summative and therefore fundamental of all facts. And if that is the project we and philosophy and science ought to be pursuing, then we must abandon so-called individual or merely self-sufficient facts, like whatever it takes to create weaponized smallpox for instance, as occupying a lower rung in the totality of all facts.

Harris: I like how you express this idea, and it seems we now agree that a fact is a fact regardless of its utility value to us or to anything else. Even if smallpox were to be synthesized in this way and ends up killing all humans, it is nonetheless a incontrovertible fact that such-and-such a process of producing that smallpox was indeed true. But now you're bringing in a larger concern, and claiming that even though this is true, there are larger or more comprehensive truths, and that these latter are even more important. I find that interesting, because of my own interest in morality.

Peterson: This gets at the concept of self-valuing, which is also a fact. Self-valuing is the idea that all beings, whether we call them alive or not, exist in a way that they are self-valuing, namely that they hold themselves as the standard for their activities and interactions. So a human being values itself by acting and interacting in certain ways that implicitly, necessarily, hold that human being itself, as precisely what it is, even if it doesnt know what that is, as the core standard of measure and of value. Because if a human being did not do this then it would quite simply perish almost immediately. And this self-valuing logic also holds for any thing whatsoever, even fish and rocks and hydrogen atoms.

Harris: Then you are invoking Nietzsche here and attempting to condition realism to a larger moral principle, which to me seems somewhat similar to the notion of the will to power, which is also a survivalist notion.

Peterson: Yes and no. Survival is indeed necessary, but for one thing it is not sufficient, and for another thing it is not comprehensive. Survival does not encompass all that a being is, and indeed surviving is more like a secondary side-effect of that which a thing is. Darwin recognizes this when he realizes that selection is fundamentally driven by the contingent environmental conditions to which a living thing is subject. But it goes even deeper than that, because regardless of those contingent environmental conditions and contexts it is always the case that any being, whether or not it survives, was attempting to act and interact in such a way where it held what it is as a standard for those actions and interactions. A fish values water more than air, and a fish that attempts to value air over water will die. A rock values the distribution of force across its molecular bonds in such a way that maintains the integrity of the rock as structure, and when it is unable to distribute force in that way, for example if the force is just too strong for those chemical bonds, then the rock breaks apart, or melts, or whatever.

Harris: Now you have identified a subtle distinction here between living and nonliving things, because the rock is either able or unable to self-value, as you say, but a fish or a human seems to be able to make a kind of choice regarding its activities and interactions, and could possibly error in that choice even if the environment doesn't create too great a force upon it, such as was the case with the rock that shattered or melted.

Peterson: Exactly right. This is also a Nietzschean or Platonic observation, because living things rank higher on the continuum of being, on the standard-order of "power" or of what is meaningful. Namely that living things have access to a whole new category of facts which stuff like rocks have no access to. The rock has no choice but to be a direct consequent of whatever its environment throws at it, although even despite this it is still the case that the rock is valuing itself, namely that that which the rock is, a certain molecular composite of chemical bonds and structures with certain physical properties for example, is going to act and interact with the imposing environmental forces in a predeterminate way, and that way is precisely that way which maximizes the chance of the rock remaining what it is, but within the bounds of what is possible for the rock to do. A rock has no option to, say, shift its angle to deflect an incoming force, because a rock has no muscular structure to move itself, no bone structure against which to generate kinetic force in its muscles to create such movements, and no sensory apparatus and corresponding neurological systems to integrate incoming data from the environment to determine that it should move itself like that. But a fish or a human does have those systems, which means the fish and the human have access to a whole new realm of reality. And this access gives them an increased range of possible values, although somewhat ironically it doesn't mean that the fish or the human will survive longer than the rock will survive, in fact often it is the exact opposite.

Harris: So maybe living things are more contingent and fragile precisely because they have this newfound capacity for understanding their environment and changing their behavior accordingly?

Peterson: Well a living thing, ok any thing that has the subtle and highly complex inner structure able to for example possess eyes, a brain, muscles and bones, is necessarily going to be far more molecularly complex than is a rock, because the living thing needs to have all the lesser biological structures in place to even have eyes, muscles, etc. That involves DNA, and so many other things too. So it isn't that the fish or the human is necessarily less survivable than is a rock merely because the fish and human have greater access to truth, rather there is a correlative element here that isn't directly causal: namely, being able to have that greater access entails that a being is far more complex and conditional in its own 'materiality', to use your term, and therefore will have a lot more requirements that go along with maintaining and sustaining that materiality. But I think this goes hand in hand, and in a way evolution can be thought of as the process by which beings become so much more complex and conditional that they are required to "survive" in new and more demanding and precise ways than other things which are not as complex and conditional. A human has far more precise requirements to continue existing than for example does a rock, or does a hydrogen atom to use an even more extreme example.

Harris: I find this all quite fascinating. We seem to have combined our respective positions on "what is truth" into a larger purview, where not only is Darwinian selection nested inside realism, and realism is also nested inside a kind of selection principle too, but that this bi-conditional or dual structure is itself nested inside an even larger space, the space of the rank-ordering of truths with respect to a common principle of logic the you call self-valuing.

Peterson: I think this is the case. So we are both correct here. Morally speaking, we are realists that are always striving for a higher and more comprehensive picture of reality, so that means we both become more survivable and more exposed to new dangers, but all that is secondary; what is primary is that, the very fact that we are "always striving for a higher and more comprehensive picture of reality" is itself actually just a secondary expression of a more primary fact, namely that we are climbing further up the ladder of being.

Harris: So a proper philosophy would take all of this into account, and assign proper places to facts, and would always seek the larger purview of facts not only because that is going to make us have a greater change of survival, because sometimes it will also expose us to new dangers like the possibility of weaponizing a synthetic smallpox virus, but simply because that is exactly what it means for us to be us. Self-valuing requires that we keep pushing upward in this manner, expanding the sphere of our survivability and our mortality. This seems to explain how morality is so contentious and difficult to universalize, because every moral step, if your theory is correct, would be a step that both increases the moral "good" while also in the same way increasing the moral "bad", and morality itself is the attempt to reconcile these together.

Peterson: Yes, to reconcile them together but in a very special way: in a way that not only includes and incorporates both the good and the bad, and not only implicitly or explicitly organizes goods and bads relative to each other and relative to contingent environmental factors, but also in a way that corresponds to the very climb into the universal itself, our continuing subsumption of lesser facts to greater facts. And further, what I was saying before about rank-ordering certain facts within the totality of all facts, the standard by which this is done is not merely with regard to that totality or to the climb or fall within it, but is actually necessarily grounded in that being which is actually doing the rank-ordering. Because this brings being back to itself, in Heidegger's sense of man as "that being for which its own being is an issue", we see that any being capable of attaining this high space within the totality of facts, within truth, is going to still be self-valuing, and therefore will rank-order not only with respect to the facts and fact-ranges at its perception and disposal and the various 'objective' thresholds and comprehensivities of those facts or ranges, but more importantly or at least as importantly it is going to be doing this rank-ordering still based on what that being itself is, its own values and requirements for existing.

Haris: Damn, now you have blown my mind completely. I need to rethink everything. We should work together and change the course of philosophy!

Peterson: Yes I think we ought to do that, and we can do 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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeThu Mar 09, 2017 1:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Someone once said something like, you should not expect different results if you continue doing the exact same thing over and over again.

I stopped getting married after three failed attempts.

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

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 2:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Goddammit but I just fucking love this guy. Peterson I mean. Edit: Mil0 is great too.





___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 3:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Goddammit but I just fucking love this guy. Peterson I mean. Edit: Mil0 is great too.



Fantastic.



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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 3:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
He explains exactly why I want Milo as press secretary.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 4:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
He explains exactly why I want Milo as press secretary.

He would undoubtedly be the best press secretary in history.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 4:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When someone like Peterson already exists and has millions of interested followers, you realize that someone like Zizek is already 100% irrelevant.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Philosophy in present times Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy in present times Philosophy in present times Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 4:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
'Zek (kek) had value in bringing up a new vigor for theoretical psychology. But he never was a psychologist himself, he is rather autistic in fact - as it appears. He does not learn about human realities very well. Rather a matrix exists in his mind through which he wrings humanity and comes up with interesting sounding sentences, which spark thought in an intelligent human encountering this style for the first time.

Peterson is actually a kind of Socrates. I mean that in a good way.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:54 pm

Hahaha, this is what I call psychological shamanism.

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:51 pm

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Reality Empty
PostSubject: Reality Reality Icon_minitimeWed Aug 02, 2017 7:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To a good extent, we are what we appear to be. After all, the beings that interact with us act with respect to us in the way that they do because of our appearance.
Naturally, the mode of perception of the perceiver determines halfway the appearance. The other half is what we project.

Evolution therefore also happens in terms of appearances.
Whether a male is seen as fit for the eggs of a female is determined by how the male appears. Hence, the mating dance, the peacocks feathers, and the wide proliferation of forms throughout the animal and plant kingdoms.

So, what we can accomplish determines on what we project.
What we can project relies on what we are.
What we do project is determined largely by what is projected to us.
Often we do not know what we are capable of projecting - and with that, what we are capable of becoming.

"Adapt to the venom"
that was what the snake told Eve,
the forbidden knowledge of how we got where we are.

Taboo, which can only be released in the daemonic reaching. This is why we do what we do as a species, why we build what we build and make it so big and dangerous. It has nothing to do with what we would be able to make use of, even less what is necessarily to our benefit, it simply follows from the fact that can't possibly do anything besides create beyond ourselves, and this terrifies us now, and thus this building is suffused with terrible motives and dank tastes.

Capitalistic growth is the same as militaristic proliferation, and both of it is necessary for us to not go insane. Unless or until an earthly logos is found.





individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is liberal/leftism? Empty
PostSubject: What is liberal/leftism? What is liberal/leftism? Icon_minitimeWed Jul 12, 2017 5:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Many artists and writers and 'emotional' people are on the left. Why?

I have a theory that liberal/leftism is a symptom of how mental energy-effort is being used (or not used), specifically that mentality as a whole is curbed so that mental effort can be allocated in one direction only, toward one's domain of art for example, so that there is a pool of such energy able to be utilized toward one area. Stephen King is well known for hating Trump and conservatives for example, and despite seeming highly intelligent he is unable to see how liberal leftism fails intellectually when compared to conservatism. I also used to hate conservatism, back when I was more actively reading and writing philosophy, and also using mental and emotional energy on my job.

I was literally blind to the intellectual deficits of my default leftist position, because I wasn't allocating enough mental energy to process the intellectual sphere of the leftist ideas. Actually it is the conservative, right-wing idea set that is the default, intellectually speaking, but I couldn't see that. Why not? Simply lack of mental resources. They were all being used for specific artistic and philosophical tasks.

As for emotions, many emotional people are on the left because their emotionality requires that mentality not overly exert itself, because that exertion would lead to a breakdown of liberal left ideation, and liberal left ideation is just a "safe space" protecting narrow efforts. Emotions themselves are not curbed by conservative thinking, but it appears that they are from the perspective of a default leftism because the safe space of leftist mentality has been falsely associated with emotionality as such.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is liberal/leftism? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is liberal/leftism? What is liberal/leftism? Icon_minitimeWed Jul 12, 2017 10:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It's striking that humanity and especially the west is going to be brought down by one idea, one set of work, ultimately one person..... Marx.

Maybe on the tombstone of humanity it will read, "A species with such promise but which was tricked and betrayed, and ultimately destroyed forever, by one of its own."



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is liberal/leftism? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is liberal/leftism? What is liberal/leftism? Icon_minitimeWed Jul 12, 2017 11:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The real problem is that most have been doing too many drugs and their brain is fried. No hope for recovery.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is liberal/leftism? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is liberal/leftism? What is liberal/leftism? Icon_minitimeThu Jul 13, 2017 7:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"September 2013
Southern Poverty Law Center Denialism on Frankfurt School
It’s an interesting question. Why is it that the left doesn’t want mainstream liberals to know the history of the left?

Even taking it a step further, why try to convince those liberals that conservative discussion of that history is a conspiracy theory?

For a decade, the Southern Poverty Law Center and others on the left have been trying to hide and distract from one of the main origins of both radical academia and media hostility towards capitalism: the ideology of cultural Marxism and Critical Theory that arose from the Frankfurt School.

The SPLC and others dismiss the facts about the German think-tank and its subsequent influence in America as a conspiracy theory. Understanding these attacks is an object lesson in how the left creates self-sustaining mythology by demonizing the people who dare expose their ideology while misdirecting their own followers as to the real story behind liberal ideas.

Organizations on the institutional left such as the Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t just appear out of nowhere or in an ideological vacuum. The SPLC in particular has a specific role of designating organizations as ‘hate groups’, often smearing mainstream conservatism by falsely tying it to tiny, violent and racist organizations.

The SLPC’s designation of what does and doesn’t constitute a hate group has clear foundations in the world of academic political correctness and censoring of speech it considers ‘racist, sexist and homophobic’; all terms that it defines in leftist terms and very selectively. For example, in the wake of last year’s shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, the SLPC went out of their way to double down on it’s claim that the FRC is a ‘hate group.’

Even political correctness, however, didn’t just suddenly pop up out of thin air; it has its basis in a group of academic Marxist philosophers that came together in Germany between World War I and World War II called the Frankfurt School. Their cultural Marxist approach would go on to have a profound influence in the United States after many in the Frankfurt school fled Germany and came to America in the 1930s.

Due to the work of writers like the late Andrew Breitbart, many conservatives now have at least a passing familiarity with the Frankfurt School and their influence. Leftist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center don’t want liberals to know this history, however, as evidenced by their disinformation campaign that pretends that conservatives who bring up the Frankfurt School are crazy racists who shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Typical of this ‘nothing to see here and you’re a nut-job for even looking’ tactic is a piece from Red Phoenix (described as ‘the newspaper of the American party of Labor’) which defines cultural Marxism as ‘a meaningless phrase used to signal that the writer or speaker has no idea what he or she is talking about’, and then says:

First, to understand cultural Marxism as a phrase is nearly impossible. The phrase itself is meaningless. Next time you find yourself in a discussion where your partner invokes cultural Marxism, ask them to define exactly what that means. Most people don’t even attempt to answer. Those that do give a definition that has nothing to do with Marxism. They may be totally convinced that cultural Marxism is destroying their society, to the point of obsession, yet they stammer and hesitate when asked for a coherent definition.
So, without stammer or hesitation: Cultural Marxism is a branch of Marxism advocated by the Frankfurt School of philosophers such as Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse that focuses on cultural factors as agents for social change, as opposed to the traditional Marxist view that focused on economic factors.

That’s a short definition but one of the best summaries of the Frankfurt School and the impact it had on America is Andrew Breitbart’s highly lauded chapter entitled Breakthrough from his book Righteous Indignation. Although it may appear self-serving for this suggestion to come from a friend of Andrew Breitbart’s, nearly anyone who has read the chapter will tell you that Breitbart’s explanation of the Frankfurt School is scholarly, detailed and actually fun to read. Breitbart explains the history and significance of the Frankfurt School, cultural Marxism, critical theory and the impact on contemporary issues such as political correctness and multiculturalism. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in learning more about the influence of these ideas on our national politics.

In 2003, the Southern Poverty Law Center made a preemptive strike against anyone exposing the Frankfurt School in an essay by Bill Berkowitz entitled ‘Cultural Marxism’ Catching On. Although it was published a decade ago, the article has been referenced in many other pieces on the same subject; such is the power of the Southern Poverty Law Center brand on the left.

An in-depth dissection of the article is warranted, since the article is frequently cited by those on the left who are keen to sweep the facts about the Frankfurt School under the rug.

Take the following paragraph from the SPLC article that tosses buzzwords likes racist and extremist in with accusations that anyone looking into the Frankfurt school is anti-Semitic. Berkowitz writes:

Right-wing ideologues, racists and other extremists have jazzed up political correctness and repackaged it — in its most virulent form, as an anti-Semitic theory that identifies Jews in general and several Jewish intellectuals in particular as nefarious, communistic destroyers. These supposed originators of “cultural Marxism” are seen as conspiratorial plotters intent on making Americans feel guilty and thus subverting their Christian culture.
The charge that discussing the Frankfurt School is anti-Semitic gets raised a number of times by those like the Southern Poverty Law Center wishing the bury the truth, so let’s dispense with it as soon as possible. In short, the Jewish heritage of the Frankfurt school is irrelevant. It’s equally true that the major figures at the Frankfurt School were all Jewish and also that some of the major figures exposing the Frankfurt School such as Andrew Breitbart and David Horowitz are also Jewish. Anti-Semitism is a false, collectivist view that has no more place in any legitimate argument than any other form of actual racism trotted out by tribal mentalities. However, in exactly the same way that it would be invalid to criticize the ideas of the Frankfurt philosophers on the basis of them being Jewish, it’s equally invalid to exempt them from any criticism for that reason.

The SPLC throws in the charge of anti-Semitism in its attempt to hide the truth about the Frankfurt School for one reason; it’s exactly the kind of politically correct smear that is the modus operand of the SPLC throughout their work. It’s no small irony that it’s the exactly the technique made possible by the Frankfurt School ideology.

As the Southern Poverty Law Center article continues, they use a number of subtle (and not so subtle) linguistic tricks to create the utterly false notion that the Frankfurt School is some kind of boogeyman invented by conservatives. Take the next paragraph and note that they also continue to push the ‘anti-Semitic’ notion:

In a nutshell, the theory posits that a tiny group of Jewish philosophers who fled Germany in the 1930s and set up shop at Columbia University in New York City devised an unorthodox form of “Marxism” that took aim at American society’s culture, rather than its economic system.
The first alarm bell goes off over the use of the phrase ‘the theory posits’ in a sentence that goes on to factually describe the Frankfurt School philosophers. There’s not one thing in that sentence that is theoretical or in the least bit in factual dispute but describing it as a ‘theory’ gives the Southern Poverty Law Center audience the impression some of it could just be made up by wacked out right-wingers.

Next, note the use of scare quote around the word “Marxism”, which has the same goal of trying to give the reader the impression that maybe those crazy right-wingers are tossing the word Marxist around loosely, as some sort of insult rather than a 100% factual descriptor that’s beyond question.

Just as one example that the members of the Frankfurt school considered themselves Marxists, here’s a video interview with Herbert Marcuse explaining in his own words the group is firmly in the Marxist tradition despite their criticism of some aspect of Karl Marx’s original theories. Please note that the video link is presented here as a quick & easy way to confirm the Frankfurt School’s self-avowed Marxism, not to suggest the SPLC writer did or didn’t see it. The fact that the Frankfurt School is made of up self avowed Marxists is so clearly beyond any dispute that it’s easily confirmed by even the slightest amount of research.

As just one other example, here’s the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as it defines Critical Theory:

“Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School.
However, like a wily attorney trying to plant reasonable doubt about the guilt of a confessed suspect, the SPLC wants their readers to believe that ‘Marxist’ is just a wild accusation. Note the repetition of ‘theory’, charges of anti-Semitism and scare quotes in the next paragraph of Southern Poverty Law Center article:

The theory holds that these self-interested Jews — the so-called “Frankfurt School” of philosophers — planned to try to convince mainstream Americans that white ethnic pride is bad, that sexual liberation is good, and that supposedly traditional American values — Christianity, “family values,” and so on — are reactionary and bigoted. With their core values thus subverted, the theory goes, Americans would be quick to sign on to the ideas of the far left.
Once again, the SLPC uses the word theory at the top of a paragraph that is describing undisputed facts.

Marcuse was the philosophical hero of the New Left in the 1960s; at marches in Paris, they carried banners that read “Marx, Mao and Marcuse.” As Andrew Breitbart described Herbert Marcuse in Righteous Indignation:

Marcuse’s mission was to dismantle American society by using diversity and “multiculturalism” as crowbars with which to pry the structure apart, piece by piece. He wanted to set blacks in opposition to whites, set all “victim groups” in opposition to the society at large. Marcuse’s theory of victim groups as the new proletariat, combined with Horkheimer’s critical theory, found an outlet in academia, where it became the basis for the post-structural movement–Gender Studies, LGBT/”Queer” Studies, African-American Studies, Chicano Studies, etc. All of these “Blank Studies” brazenly describe their mission as tearing down traditional Judeo-Christian values and the accepted traditions of Western culture, and placing in their stead a moral relativism that equates all cultures and all philosophies–except for Western civilization, culture, and philosophy, which are “exploitative” and “bad.”
Is there any doubt whatsoever that Americans influenced by Frankfort School ideas on American ‘racism’ and sexual liberation (Marcuse coined the phrase “Make Love, Not War”) quickly ‘signed up’ for the radical anti-war movement of the late 1960s? It’s equally obvious that the various cultural studies programs that sprouted in that era have thrived in academia in the past fifty years and that such programs have had a tremendous political influence, seen in contemporary news stories ranging from the Trayvon Martin shooting to immigration reform.

This is what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls ‘theory’; the very notion of pointing out the existence of political correctness and multiculturalism and pointing out the clear origins. The coup d’ grace is that SPLC actually uses political correctness in their attempt to claim that the Frankfurt School is a fever dream of conservatives; they argue anyone using the term ‘cultural Marxism’ to describe cultural Marxism is a racist lunatic to be dismissed. They write:

The very term, “cultural Marxism,” is clearly intended to conjure up xenophobic anxieties. But can a theory like this, built on the words of long-dead intellectuals who have little discernible relevance to normal Americans’ lives, really fly?
Conservatives know better. The average well-read conservative understands the Frankfurt School much better than the average well-read liberal. Such is the nature of the hermetically sealed media environment that mainstream leftists find themselves in due to groups like Southern Poverty Law Center, utilizing the ideas of the Frankfurt School.

Let the circle be unbroken."

By Lee Stranahan

http://thepopulist.us/2017/06/this-stor ... boyle-why/



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is liberal/leftism? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is liberal/leftism? What is liberal/leftism? Icon_minitimeThu Jul 13, 2017 12:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Well, so far they are doing a good job at avoiding the truth and feeding us bullshit.

The USA is no longer a nation of Americans. It has become a nation of special interests instead of common interests.

I'm getting to the point where I don't even like the term "liberal" any more.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is liberal/leftism? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is liberal/leftism? What is liberal/leftism? Icon_minitimeFri Jul 14, 2017 4:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is the proper approach to this issue T, as neuroscience, or at least a direct derivative of it.

You are pointing to something massively important. The conflation of emotionalistic thought and emotion.

The Left has this emotionalistic thought, where they don't feel and also do not think, but use the brain to construct ideas that look to them like emotions, and to which they respond in physiological ways that remind of extreme emotional distress.

Emotions are bypassed. Ive been thoroughly ravaged by this weird mind state as it has usurped the entities of most of my family members and most friends in the Netherlands - they are psychotic zombies that neither think nor fee, but use the vocabulary and gestures that have been derived in the past from emotions.

They are essentially dead, what they do is spread death around them, and it is really very problematic, as the human constitution is tough, and these people are essentially huge cockroaches now.

Because Ive been so close to them, and so tightly surrounded by them for so long, so long that I was fooled into believing that they cared for me, or for anything at all, it is a fucking torment to even gradually wake up to what Ive let them do to me, to how close they've gotten to me - so much acid and poison comes out of me just becoming aware of what certain memories really tell me. Many restroom breaks, suffice to say. Contact with such vermin is a very real sickness, and the medicine is really not a soft one, it is a torment to disentangle, as it all literally needs to come out.

It seems like the leftist brain has been coopted by the liver, it runs on bile.
And all affection for any of them that is in my system now must come out of me in the form of bile, shit, stomach acid, as Ive been caring for absolute monsters, using all my genius do delude myself into perceiving them as humans.

This is absolutely the End Time, in the sense that it was alway implicit in the enormous brainpower of the human, and the very difficult taks of using that power constructively for the benefit of oneself through the benefit of ones surroundings (self-valuing logic) is just far too much to ask for a randomly progressing process like evolution.

It was always certain, and this is I suppose how prophecies were conceived, by simple psychological skill, that humanity would have to face its ultimate enemy: its brain. The brain can be used to attain truth, but it is far better at inventing means to avoid truth. That is what leftism is, and the emotionalistic.... ectoplasma that manifests as Media and Social Justice, and all these horrors, this flows straight out of the metaphorical gates of hell, which means the abused brain.

Ive seen it proven now that these people aren't capable of having emotions. They are absolutely dead at heart. And yet they are breeding, my monstrous bile-hearted cousins are having children... meaning, since infants aren't capable of instantly being as wretched as all grown humans can be, there will be such a terrible struggle of generations to come... maybe a time is coming where children kill their parents and vice versa.

All this to the "purpose" of restoring basic human emotions. Of course non teleologically, just by necessity, by lack of alternative, the emotiolalism that spends itself in the most rotten ways drives carriers to a consequence that confronts them with the basic emotion that discerns death from life: Fear, the emotion that birthed all mass-religions.

Once this is happened, once the now plasmic sub-humanoid substance of the European Left is confronted with a shred of reality, the new time will begin, an age of complete upheaval will begin, wherein new religions are born, and from thereon, new social orders can be forged, through heated battle involving both arms and 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is liberal/leftism? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is liberal/leftism? What is liberal/leftism? Icon_minitimeFri Jul 14, 2017 5:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
This is the proper approach to this issue T, as neuroscience, or at least a direct derivative of it.

You are pointing to something massively important. The conflation of emotionalistic thought and emotion.

The Left has this emotionalistic thought, where they don't feel and also do not think, but use the brain to construct ideas that look to them like emotions, and to which they respond in physiological ways that remind of extreme emotional distress.

Emotions are bypassed. Ive been thoroughly ravaged by this weird mind state as it has usurped the entities of most of my family members and most friends in the Netherlands - they are psychotic zombies that neither think nor fee, but use the vocabulary and gestures that have been derived in the past from emotions.

They are essentially dead, what they do is spread death around them, and it is really very problematic, as the human constitution is tough, and these people are essentially huge cockroaches now.

Because Ive been so close to them, and so tightly surrounded by them for so long, so long that I was fooled into believing that they cared for me, or for anything at all, it is a fucking torment to even gradually wake up to what Ive let them do to me, to how close they've gotten to me - so much acid and poison comes out of me just becoming aware of what certain memories really tell me. Many restroom breaks, suffice to say. Contact with such vermin is a very real sickness, and the medicine is really not a soft one, it is a torment to disentangle, as it all literally needs to come out.

It seems like the leftist brain has been coopted by the liver, it runs on bile.
And all affection for any of them that is in my system now must come out of me in the form of bile, shit, stomach acid, as Ive been caring for absolute monsters, using all my genius do delude myself into perceiving them as humans.

This is absolutely the End Time, in the sense that it was alway implicit in the enormous brainpower of the human, and the very difficult taks of using that power constructively for the benefit of oneself through the benefit of ones surroundings (self-valuing logic) is just far too much to ask for a randomly progressing process like evolution.

It was always certain, and this is I suppose how prophecies were conceived, by simple psychological skill, that humanity would have to face its ultimate enemy: its brain. The brain can be used to attain truth, but it is far better at inventing means to avoid truth. That is what leftism is, and the emotionalistic.... ectoplasma that manifests as Media and Social Justice, and all these horrors, this flows straight out of the metaphorical gates of hell, which means the abused brain.

Ive seen it proven now that these people aren't capable of having emotions. They are absolutely dead at heart. And yet they are breeding, my monstrous bile-hearted cousins are having children... meaning, since infants aren't capable of instantly being as wretched as all grown humans can be, there will be such a terrible struggle of generations to come... maybe a time is coming where children kill their parents and vice versa.

All this to the "purpose" of restoring basic human emotions. Of course non teleologically, just by necessity, by lack of alternative, the emotiolalism that spends itself in the most rotten ways drives carriers to a consequence that confronts them with the basic emotion that discerns death from life: Fear, the emotion that birthed all mass-religions.

Once this is happened, once the now plasmic sub-humanoid substance of the European Left is confronted with a shred of reality, the new time will begin, an age of complete upheaval will begin, wherein new religions are born, and from thereon, new social orders can be forged, through heated battle involving both arms and philosophy.

Fuck, yes. Brilliant analysis.

I've lost faith in the west. Of course I hope I'm wrong that it is doomed through and through, but I can see the writing on the wall.

When the USA becomes the USSA and Europe becomes Islamic Europe, there will be no other western rational power to oppose and defeat it, like the west defeated the USSR. Imagine the 20th century without an America or a sane Europe in existence, what would have happened? This is our very near future.

On one hand I'm sometimes sad that I don't have children, I mean really sad about it, but on the other hand it is a blessing. When I try to imagine what I would feel like for my children in this present moment in the world, with what is coming, my mind shuts down. I simply can't posit such a high value, as having one's own children to love and care for, in the context of the coming times.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is liberal/leftism? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is liberal/leftism? What is liberal/leftism? Icon_minitimeFri Jul 14, 2017 7:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, I definitely relate to that.

I left Vienna in 2012 because my girlfriend wanted children. I just could absolutely not justify having a child in Europe at that time.
It saddened me profoundly for two to three years, but I never regretted my decision.

What makes it very hard to regret is to see the young fathers in my family. They seem as slavish, soulless as a woman in a burqa does. Leftism is like a burqa for men.

We will have to see if humanity really goes down with these aberrations, or if some sap of life can still keep hold of our species through philosophy and simple common sensical courage, which is what intact humans are prone to.

I will wager for the latter, simply because I will fight to that end with the last drop of blood in me. And to just perceive and somehow accept the nature of these ... creatures, that turns to a relief in itself, like I guess taking a long overdue shit on an existential level.

Flushing that crap is a hell of a job though. Motherfuck. Its probably safe to say these are the ugliest creatures in the Earths history.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is liberal/leftism? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is liberal/leftism? What is liberal/leftism? Icon_minitimeThu Aug 10, 2017 10:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Stranger: how are you doing?
You: I'm good, you?
Stranger: i'm good as well.
Stranger: where do you stand politically?
You: More on the right, or so
Stranger: you fucking right wingers want to disenfranchise the poor and vulnerable.
You: No I don't
Stranger: prove you don't.
You: You made the claim, you can't demonstrate it? Guilty until proven innocence, is that it now?
Stranger: fuck off and die
Stranger has disconnected.



Kek



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is liberal/leftism? Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is liberal/leftism? What is liberal/leftism? Icon_minitimeThu Aug 10, 2017 10:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah. Sad. Most of us don't even know what the fuck we are talking about any more. Just repeating BS we were told to believe. The thinking mind is becoming extinct.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:56 pm

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 3:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 3:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 4:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 4:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 4:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 4:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 4:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 08, 2017 4:52 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeThu Mar 09, 2017 1:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let's not destroy feminism. We men need to do a better job at allowing a woman to feel feminine.

I really enjoy Lindsey's work. She might end up in my music collection before too long.

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

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeThu Mar 09, 2017 2:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Feminism destroys women, destroys their femininity. Therefore in order to protect her we must destroy feminism.

Feminism isn't about women at all, it is a radical leftist postmodern ideology aimed at destroying gender classifications and turning men into passive slaves and women into heartless brutes who hate both masculine and feminine virtues. So yeah, fuck feminism.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeThu Mar 09, 2017 2:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




^ yeah, what he 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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeThu Mar 09, 2017 5:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Feminism destroys women, destroys their femininity. Therefore in order to protect her we must destroy feminism.

Feminism isn't about women at all, it is a radical leftist postmodern ideology aimed at destroying gender classifications and turning men into passive slaves and women into heartless brutes who hate both masculine and feminine virtues. So yeah, fuck feminism.

I anticipated a response to my post. Not that one though. Hehehe. I really can't disagree with you though.

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

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeFri Mar 10, 2017 4:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Feminist writer and professor of literature Ebba Witt-Brattström, who recently came second in Sweden’s “Woman of the Year 2017”, has advocated getting rid of all men on Swedish television."
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/03 ... elevision/


Kek.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeFri Mar 10, 2017 4:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Damn this is just too good.


"Sweden is one of the few countries in the world with specifically feminist political policies.

In one example, Swedish lawmakers adopted a “gender-equal” policy to snow ploughing in the capital of Stockholm. The move meant that pedestrian areas were cleared before main roads because statistics showed that women primarily walked while men drove cars. The result was chaos and hundreds of thousands of commuters were affected by public transport closures after a snow storm.

Another feminist policy tried to tackle workplace “oppression” by launching a “mansplaining hotline” in which women were encouraged to call in to complain that a man had explained something to them at work."



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeFri Mar 10, 2017 11:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeFri Mar 10, 2017 11:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Feminism will die the slow death of untruth



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeFri Mar 10, 2017 2:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Feminism will die the slow death of untruth

Likely true. Actually, I haven't encountered any of them lately. Just normal, every-day women.


Last edited by Sisyphus on Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeFri Mar 10, 2017 2:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Naturally you can't simply destroy all self-loathing women. So you need to destroy their self loathing. Thus the source of their selfloathing.
Essentially, ill mental health and ill physical health.
Unhealthy mind in an unhealthy body.

When I talked to a girl about another girlsd rape fantasies, this girl exploded indignation and said we all have rape fantasies!
That was feminism, in the 50's. It's still feminism in sexually healthy females.
Subjection, the pleasure of being valued so much that the attraction can't even be reasoned with. The promise of a child by overwhelming force, promise of a strong child.
Of course real life rapists are never quite the fantasy types, and real rape is loathsome, unless it isn't, in which case it isn't real rape.
Rape-fantasy is the fantasy of being overwhelmed, not fo being actually violated psychologically.

Some can say that rape-fantasies are processing of rape trauma. I find that a self-defeating approach. It draws the fantasy, which is physically stimulating, into a pale moral zone.
Porn drafts girls like war drafts boys.
Just like we have info-war, we have info-porn. Two side of the same acorn.

"Do you know the warm progress under the stars?
Do you know we exist?
Have you forgotten the keys to the Kingdom?
Have you been borne yet & are you alive?
Let's reinvent the gods, all the myths of the ages
Celebrate symbols from deep elder forests
[Have you forgotten the lessons of the ancient war]
We need great golden copulations
The fathers are cackling in trees of the forest
Our mother is dead in the sea
Do you know we are being led to slaughters by placid admirals
& that fat slow generals are getting obscene on young blood
Do you know we are ruled by T.V.
The moon is a dry blood beast
Guerilla bands are rolling numbers in the next block of green vine
Amassing for warfare on innocent herdsmen who are just dying
O great creator of being grant us one more hour to perform our art & perfect our lives
The moths & atheists are doubly divine & dying
We live, we die & death not ends it
Journey we more into the Nightmare
Cling to life our passion'd flower
Cling to cunts & cocks of despair
We got our final vision by clap
Columbus' groin got filled w/ green death
(I touched her thigh & death smiled)
We have assembled inside this ancient & insane theatre
To propagate our lust for life & flee the swarming wisdom of the streets
The barns are stormed
The windows kept & only one of all the rest
To dance & save us
W/ the divine mockery of words
Music inflames temperament
(When the true King's murderers are allowed to roam free a 1000 magicians arise in the land)
Where are the feasts
We were promised
Where is the wine
The New Wine
(dying on the vine)
Resident mockery give us an hour for magic
We of the purple glove
We of the starling flight & velvet hour
We of arabic pleasure's breed
We of sundome & the night
Give us a creed
To believe
A night of Lust
Give us trust in
The Night
Give of color
Hundred hues
A rich Mandala
For me & you & for your silky pillowed house
A head, wisdom & a bed
Troubled decree
Resident mockery
Has claimed thee
We used to believe in the good old days
We still receive In little ways
The Things of Kindness & unsporting brow
Forget & allow
Did you know freedom exists in a school book
Did you know madmen are running our prison
W/in a jail, w/in a gaol, w/in a white free protestant
Maelstrom
We're perched headlong
On the edge of boredom
We're reaching for death
On the end of a candle
We're trying for something
That's already found us
We can invent Kingdoms of our own
Grand purple thrones, those chairs of lust
& love we must, in beds of rust
Steel doors lock in prisoner's screams
& muzak, AM, rocks their dreams
No black men's pride to hoist the beams
While mocking angels sift what seems
To be a collage of magazine dust
Scratched on foreheads of walls of trust
This is just jail for those who must
Get up in the morning & fight for such unusable standards
While weeping maidens show-off penury & pout ravings for a mad staff
Wow, I'm sick of doubt
Live in the light of certain
South
Cruel bindings
The servants have the power dog-men & their mean women
Pulling poor blankets over our sailors
(& where were you in our lean hour)
Milking your moustache?
Or grinding a flower?
I'm sick of dour faces
Staring at me from the T.V.
Tower. I want roses in my garden bower; dig?
Royal babies, rubies must now replace aborted
Strangers in the mud
These mutants, blood-meal
For the plant that's plowed
They are waiting to take us into the severed garden
Do you know how pale & wanton thrillful
Comes death on strange hour
Unannounced, unplanned for like a scaring over-friendly guest you've brought to bed
Death makes angels of us all & gives us wings where we had shoulders smooth as raven's claws
No more money, no more fancy dress
This other Kingdom seems by far the best until its other jaw reveals incest & loose obedience to a vegetable law
I will not go
Prefer a Feast of Friends
To the Giant family"

- M



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeSat Mar 11, 2017 12:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Not much for me to say. I know that many women (and girls) have sexual fantasies. And many have fears of being raped.

Desiring sexual interaction is a natural process. Many girls are abused when young and this creates fears. I think these fears are part of the roots of feminism.





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

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 15, 2017 2:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 15, 2017 2:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 15, 2017 6:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Good point he makes here, that feminism is the new evangelism.





___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:10 pm

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Destroying feminism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism Icon_minitimeWed Mar 15, 2017 8:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Somehow entirely appropriate




individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 16, 2017 10:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Haha yes, absolutely.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 16, 2017 10:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster



topkek.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 16, 2017 10:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 16, 2017 10:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hahahaha, gvd damn.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 16, 2017 10:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Well, I guess it's okay to support Hillary for being a woman if you can't find any other reason for supporting her.

And after all, Obama was awarded the peace prize for being black.

Great times we live in.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 16, 2017 1:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
ok lets not embed this.

https://pics.onsizzle.com/ust-to-prove- ... 770707.png



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


Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 16, 2017 10:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
ok lets not embed this.

https://pics.onsizzle.com/ust-to-prove- ... 770707.png

Reminded me of an e-mail making the rounds a while back. Picture of 12 "women". Had to guess which ones were really female and which were transgender. I failed the quiz miserably.

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

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 3:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I figured it out:

The political left is collapsing into radical feminism for the simple reason that female victim mentality has taken over entirely, women cannot reason anymore when there is even the slightest feeling of disagreement, discomfort, or doubt. This is surprisingly simple, so simple I missed it.

Yes a woman can be rational, it isn't impossible, but she cannot maintain even a shred of rationality and objectivity unless she is in a safe space. And so naturally the kinds of reasoning that happen to occur in safe spaces requires a very narrow field of possible outcomes, thoughts, and demands.

It goes like this:

1) the political left has made women feel like perpetual victims-in-waiting
2) the political left has capitalized on this for votes by telling women this is the right way to feel
3) therefore women demand safe spaces
4) women cannot reason when in a state of anxiety, fear, panic or shame (many men can't either)
5) .: whenever a women reasons, it is the case that she is in a safe space
6) the requirements of being in a safe space preclude a vast amount of possible ideas and thoughts which would implicitly or explicitly threaten the safety of the space
7) .: women reason only within a very narrow field of possible ideas and thoughts




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 3:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Therefore as women demand more safety space they think less diversity (kek) of thoughts, and therefore cling more feverishly to ideology (because it provides a means of maintaining mental coherence in the vanishing mental space); thought and reason are displaced for a narrative of consistent dogma (ideology) that must never be doubted, and by the deep need to place feelings first, because feelings are what indicate and maintain the boundary of the safe space.

Feminism is, literally, an excuse not to think.

Many women are waking up to this fact, evidenced by the declining popularity of feminism and by the appalling lack of any meaningful thought or shred of reasoning in their angry marches. Their slogans are basically "equality! Resistance! Tolerance! Death to anything that disturbs the safe 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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 3:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Women are waking up to the possibility of making their own philosophy, which requires an ability to reason, to think, or at least requires leaving the safe space.

Feminist men support the feminist lie because it keeps women ensconced in safe spaces, away from the real world. And women also support it for this same reason; neither the men or women realizes this fact, however. By enforcing safe spaces and feminism, women (and men) are saying: "Women cannot deal with reality! Women are not equal to men!" And they believe 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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 3:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Feminism is the unconscious drive of self-loathing taken to its higher conclusion absent an earthy possibility-passion to abandon self-loathing. Whenever this fact starts to become obvious women always blame it on men-- "men destroy women's self-esteem! Male social oppression is why women think they are not equal to men!"

It is also why they let men hurt their feelings so easily. Women are defined externally, at least feminist women are, but they will never admit it. The SJW ugly fat type is a direct response to this, an attempt to form an individuality without acknowledging that the woman herself is entirely external-dependent.

Feminism will devolve into transhumanism. It already has. This is because these women would rather change their bodies and outward appearances entirely than change how they feel about themselves. The funny irony has been pointed out that feminism maintains a brutal and unconscious contradiction: on the one hand feminism claims that women can never be valued merely qua woman ("I am way more than just my gender! It's sexist to think of me as 'just a woman'!"), and in the other hand feminism claims that women should be valued precisely qua woman ("We must break the glass ceiling! A woman who achieves is wonderful precisely because she is a just a woman who achieved!").

This contradiction is very subtle, almost too subtle to articulate properly.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 3:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Therefore if you disagree with infantile and insulting coddling such as "national women's month" or "A day without a woman" or "Her voice is my voice", you are immediately perceived as a hateful sexist troll. Quite literally this is how someone appears who voices even the smallest doubt about such movements.

If I point out that "Her voice is my voice" is insulting to women's individuality I am immediately hated at a visceral level. A woman cannot distinguish real sexism and woman-hate from the fact I care about her and am telling her to care about herself too.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 3:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There really are men who hate women and think of them as trash, and treat them as trash. I'm not one of those men, but women can't tell the difference anymore.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Mar 17, 2017 3:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Feminism is biologically the absence of the will/power to procreate.
It's a lack of health of the species, with which specimens can become infected depending on their personal constitution.

It began with the revealing of secrets, with Freud.
It validated every impulse, hysteria became a symptom of some deeper truth.

Things became flowers that should have remained inward.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSat Mar 18, 2017 2:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Feminism is biologically the absence of the will/power to procreate.
It's a lack of health of the species, with which specimens can become infected depending on their personal constitution.

It began with the revealing of secrets, with Freud.
It validated every impulse, hysteria became a symptom of some deeper truth.

Things became flowers that should have remained inward.

Yes and also today I realized that feminism/critical theory/anthropology etc. are defined by an attempt to apply ostensibly scientific methodology to human frameworks and human life. The reason these fields are so ultimately dehumanizing is connected to the scientific drive for objectivity: sociologists for example who try to study human societies as if they were studying engineering, a basically Marxist approach. Marx is a product of the scientific ethos that failed to understand itself, that tried to treat itself and humanity as a dead bug under the lens of a microscope.

Thus these fields have made human life... inhuman, for example they study "linguistic oppression" and "gender policing" and "queer coding" and "implicit bias" and "dead white guys" (literal categorical term of common use in academic anthropology). Freud may have kicked it off, Jung humanized it back to some extent; but I think it really traces back to Kant, with Hegel adapting Kant's methods to human concerns of meaning and culture.

The fact that feminism/etc. is useful as a means to justify the atrophy of dying, the lack of self-respect and of procreative will for instance, is more like a side-effect. It comes from what I was saying above that this "female" mentality must reason always and only within safe spaces.

Kant--Hegel--Marx together constructed the framework of the safe space, it just took another 100 or so years after that for the logic of the safe space to really solidify itself into a meme. And now that meme is fighting against the entire world, against humanity, against meaning, and against truth itself. Thus its profound and indefensible defensiveness, the absolute weakness of self needed to sustain activity in that ever-shrinking space of reasoning.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 23, 2017 2:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Brilliant:





___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 23, 2017 5:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, very good.
I see he agrees with me on Rogue One, ha.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 23, 2017 5:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Yeah, very good.
I see he agrees with me on Rogue One, ha.

After suffering through Force Awakens I refuse to watch anymore of these travesties.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 30, 2017 10:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 30, 2017 10:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 30, 2017 11:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 30, 2017 11:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 30, 2017 11:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster



These are really nice.

___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Destroying feminism - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Destroying feminism Destroying feminism - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Mar 30, 2017 11:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fuck feminism. Seriously, what a pile of horse shit.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:22 pm

without-music
builder
builder
without-music

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

[1st cycle] New beginnings... Empty
PostSubject: [1st cycle] New beginnings... [1st cycle] New beginnings... Icon_minitimeSun Dec 04, 2011 3:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When FC and I first began our exchange, I wrote the following in an attempt to begin what will grow into a manifesto of value. We ought to take it as a basis, for either critique or affirmation -- it matters not. What matters is that it is here now, written, recorded. May it be taken in the right direction. I sense that this new idea, value-ontology, will provide us the means for transcending what we have heretofore considered the shores of our knowledge: science. I would like to see this beginning filtered through each of our approaches, changed, stretched, condensed, affirmed, critiqued, leaped from -- in essence: pushed through the engine of our pentad and rendered strong, applicable, relevant, value-able. Let this thread begin, then, in good faith, with the commitment to a slow but productive journey through the desert of self-satisfaction toward the idea that all is will, power, value. A toast, then: let us never cease to overcome ourselves and our teachers, and let us never cease to demand such an overcoming from others, from our ideas, from our world!

-----------

Let us make clear our starting point. We do not ground ourselves in the warning of the coming of the Last Men, nor do we begin with the recognition that the Last Men are already here, but rather: we take as our point of departure the feeling of profound disgust with the fact that the Last Men have colonized our world over, that it is now their world. This is, at its most basic, the difference between Nietzsche's time and ours: he warned against the coming of that most infectious disease; we see it all around us.

And what is the product of the time of the Last Men? Let us be quite clear: it is Equality. Everywhere around us we see the mediocrity of equality, the tolerance of all points of view, no matter how harmful to life, how anti-natural. Since Nietzsche, the world has only further decayed, and we have only become complacent. It is high time to re-introduce passion into philosophy, ambition and poetry into art. The new philosopher will no longer think by turning away from his passions; to the contrary! We think by cultivating our passions, by sublimating them and wielding them for our purpose. In a word: power. The Last Men, of course, know no passion. The only means by which they are mobilized, by which they are moved to purpose, is fear. We are oppressed by a politics of fear that walls us in at every turn, that represses our instinct for ascension, that would like to keep us helpless and impotent. If the most dangerous idea is equality, then the cure, to be sure, can only be a reintroduction of the pathos of distance. The bridge between man and animal has been increasingly shortened; let us lengthen the distance between man and man! Between us and them! Equality has brought with it mediocrity, slavishness, and apathy. Everywhere we look: the absence of ambition, the loss of purpose, the fragmentation of meaning. Perspectivism does not mean that all perspectives are equal. To feel truly powerful, to create the world in such an image: this is our task.

In the summer of 1887, Nietzsche wondered whether we "can we remove the idea of a goal from the process and then affirm the process in spite of this?" [Will to Power, 55]. We no longer ask such a question; rather, we will that it be so. Against the passive complacent happiness of the Last Man, we juxtapose our ideal of an open-ended, ceaseless striving formore, for higher. We have removed the goal -- no end-point, no teleology, no plateau -- and now we must affirm the process: constant, ceaseless over-coming, not only of self, but of institution, politic,society.

For Nietzsche, it was sufficient to pose such questions as problems, to diagnose the decadence he found himself thrown into. For us, this is no longer enough. We must act, and acting means creating. And creating, of course, means destroying. We hail the over-coming of the hegemony of science: for what is science but a new shadow of the old god? Out of the ashes of such a destruction will be the creation of a new science; one that knows no bounds, a critical, socio-psycho-methodological undertaking of the world as we see it. A reintroduction of the ontology of power, for all valuing is willing, and all willing is will to power, for more, for higher. Against the innocuous, impotent mediocrity of the science of today, we juxtapose our philosophy as art, as aesthetics. A re-valuation of ethics on the grounds of such an aesthetics; a re-valuation of meaning out of such soil.

-w/m.



___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

[1st cycle] New beginnings... Empty
PostSubject: Re: [1st cycle] New beginnings... [1st cycle] New beginnings... Icon_minitimeSat Jan 28, 2012 11:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Indeed, as philosophers we must not deplore the passions. But what does this mean? Shall we be only poets?



Anyone who has something of a poet in him experiences an immediate disgust upon hearing the pronouncement of the Stoical doctrine to deplore the passions, to account of them not even as active and participating forces in the great comedy of the inner life, but as nonentity, as mere corruptions of a more essential nature, namely the intellect, as diseased states of this essential nature and possessing in themselves no real being. But the Stoics viewed their passions in this way because they were nothing like the passions of the poet, nothing like the inventive, prankish, and thoughtful muses that from time to time ventured a word about the solemnities upon which the poetic imagination was continually vexing itself; they were much more violent than the passions which poets are disposed to, not at all thoughtful, and rather tyrannical. They did not whisper into the ear of the stoic the ardent strains of music which the poet hears in them. What does the Stoic really despise then? Ugliness, ineloquence, the inartistic and unpoetic! The Stoical philosophy works simply as a required self-constraint on the part of the man whose passions are too vehement, which the intellect absolutely requires, and a poet would do well to ask himself what really speaks in him- his passions or his intellect, so that, assuming it is the later, for it usually is, he might further ask himself to what extent his poetry has served for him as a Stoicism. He may thereby acquire something that really is nobler than any stoicism, namely the longing to translate his ideas into the lower nature of his passions, he may acquire amore intellectus, to speak with Spinoza, and aim thereafter to educate his passions and teach them to truly speak to him in the language of music and splendid verses, rather than transpose them in the deceptive and artificial beauties of his poetic inventions. Here, however, he can no longer continue to live as a poet, will burn his tragedies as well as his comedies like Plato was said to have done, and become a philosopher.

We long to say "en de phaei kai olesson," [May my spirit depart with the dawn, if the Gods will it so] with Homer, but there is something that calls us back into the dawn's light. No one would doubt the truth of what Leopardi spoke, when he said that even the most tragic art, which offers the image of life's vanity with the greatest clarity, serves as a consolation. This is because such art gains its seductive force and beauty by making conscious to us some obscure vitality which longs to expend itself, but cannot be exhausted in the service of annihilation; this vital power, insofar as it is unconscious, the saint calls sin, through which he is at last led to heaven, the Buddhist calls desire, which gradually effaces his personality in order to grant him the vision of his Nirvana, and the philosopher calls ignorance, which leads him to knowledge. For this vitality can at first only compel a man to kindle his own hell within himself in which to dissolve the image of the world, as Amiel said, or consume him in the play of endless hopes and loves which lack any substance, by making him long to taste of life and passion merely for the sake of life and passion, an ambition which grants him only an illusory life and a kind of passion that can only end in dispirited regret. Love that has grown cold can indeed be revived, but regret cannot accomplish this; the saint can rediscover within himself the image of his God, but not through sin; the philosopher can attain to his ideal, but not through ignorance; the Buddhist can be free of himself, but not through desire. These things suggest to us only a life that has yet to be lived, and which cannot therefor be destroyed, and where great art makes us conscious of this life by taking into its service these destructive elements, as the element of time and mortality, sin and desire, ignorance and longing, it is unable to truly realize it.






We see around us what Nietzsche warned, this goes without saying. But, at bottom, I believe there is a line of disgust that unites all philosophers up to our own time, a disgust upon man. Only now has that disgust fermented in the bowels of human malice long enough to become a "second nature which has overtaken the first," to cite Pascal.




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


The Old Adam, haunting us ante Vulcanum since our births, cannot be dispossessed in sub Prometheo. Necessarily must Philosophy or the moral character be informed of its lack thereof; to be a true philosopher is to make light of philosophy, to speak with Pascal. The philosopher, who reaches up into his love and his knowledge like a Titan, must be reminded that he but goes from the finite to the finite, that he must learn to become small, that he must die for, while the mandates of our ideal spur us onward, they must have further competition with the living substance of our clay, lest they degenerate into the precepts of a dispirited sainthood. "He that from Cupid's cup of nectar drinks, hath Love uneducated, which for itself competes." It was a small thought of Prudentius, sit Galatea tuae non aliena viae, that the Earth smiles unto every path, for all are sadly engulfed upon the billows of Time, and burnt up in the pother of matter, awaiting as by a silent prayer the passage into eternity. The man who knows this expectancy to a profound degree and has often withdrawn into his heart to reflect in silent prayer before the world, finds in all living things, man and animal, an inarticulate melancholy, which Milton spoke of as the mute creation, or what Spinoza so beautifully described as the desire for all things to proceed in their own being eternally; he finds an insatiability which life bears toward time, not because it would seek to have a greater number of years allotted to the course of its existence, but because time is not its true element.


Yet, the golden names of eternity and silence are only handsome tabernacles in which they are enshrined but hardly cherished. Well might the Ancients make Silence a god, or speak of the seventh day of silence, for it is the element of all creation, at once the origin of all Sadduceeisms and Phariseeisms, wherein at once the Manhanaim-dance of this World is comprehended. Though, never-minding the Amyntas, let us not complain that we have "fallen out of our own youth," for if silence were made a God by the ancients, it is at least, for us moderns, a splendid muse.


In all poetry, religion, art, society, it is only error which, like the mortal Shulamite, grows tired and perishes; under this lies a Muse which is immortal, for she steeps her wisdom and her beauty in silence. Hosts of polities, sciences, and schemes of government ascend to the pure firmament of Plato’s ideas, and those hosts of ethical theories, philosophies, and moralities which have been judged unworthy, descend into the depths of archaism and superstition, all upon the ladder which no man dreams of, whereon even the greatest of social Homers nods.


... That which from the beginning of the world no philosopher has beheld in spirit, no virtuousi of the court of David hath ever heard, has no scholar of Pliny and no Plato made discovery, nor in the concessions of an Ammonius Hermiae were any of the Greek Scholiasts afforded the origin of things. To paint our little holm of time with a gleam from some strange circumabage in the eternal, we must recognize that the end of Man is in vitae mortalis honorem and in the works of life, never thought, though man find therein his beginning; be thou a worthy Aristaeus and pursue bees. Hast thou considered Earth, the middle-shrine, as Sophocles well names her? Under the tribulation of Time, with all spiritual destitutions belonging to it, has man's mortal longings, in the telluris inutile pondus [useless loam of earth] of his Heart, endured peaceably.


The Prometheus Vinctus of Aeschylus is a deceptive image of human fate, for it is not merely with pain but with injustice that man feels himself oppressed. Yet, the image of mortality and time assume an almost poetic loftiness for the lofty imagination, while it tortures a mind accustomed to the pangs of regret, fear, and unsatisfied longing.


Courage has its illusions no less than fear. Yet, since life must be our Abelmizraim in death, to be presently alive were to lay obscure in the chaos of Prae-ordination, and night of our fore-beings, as Browne says. Hunger, longing, and need were established for us before birth itself, and of high vanity you will endeavor, while here on Earth, to be rid of them them, at best making Alcmenas nights out of adversity. Natura parens unica Fortuna noverca est; from the womb of nature, to the care of fate, as Scaliger sings. Sleep has an aurea mala, or golden tongue, like Theon says, and sings therewith unto us.



... "Afforded no dawn, we have but the smouldering wick of fancy, and the living only dream. Those who love dream happily, and the virtuous dream great things, sometimes glorious and sometimes terrible in their aspect- as are the deeds and follies of men, but the wise, in their gentle calm, dream peaceably, until the long night is done."


Last edited by Parodites on Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

[1st cycle] New beginnings... Empty
PostSubject: Re: [1st cycle] New beginnings... [1st cycle] New beginnings... Icon_minitimeFri Mar 02, 2012 1:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To be impassioned means to value strongly. It requires that one has a strong (perhaps surplus) self-valuing to translate into valuing and is able to make an accurate translation. The type of passion, e.g. more or less refined, depends largely on the language one has to translate, the type of values one is able to recognize and substantiate. The philosopher has the most accurate language, he can translate his self-valuing into the most remote and thereby desirable, valuable values with the most far-reaching consequences – he approaches most closely the capacity to “create out of nothing”.

All valuing is a re-creating and thereby a creating. It is the cause of any particular state, any state of being. Most valuing happens instinctively, things are sequentially re-created in recurring themes because that’s the way these things have come to work. But there is a deviating, "higher" valuing, of a type that is somehow disconnected from what we may call natural apprehension, that does not happen automatically as prescribed by functionality, but involves a notion of the thing that values, an apprehension of the apprehending, an image of the self-valuing. This notionality is the engine of what we are used to know as consciousness. Valuing in its terms is the activity that serves to enforce the idea of identity to the entity, it is the substance of the notional identity.

“I choose, therefore I am”. The function of culture, of surplus-value, of luxury and fashion in all its forms. The cultivation of choice-providing enables humans to place themselves in the world in notional, not instinctive/natural terms. It enables them to make themselves selectable on terms of their conscious choosing, and as such can be seen as a means for nature to gain a greater level of control in its selection process. It adds a dimension to the selectivity – not only do specimens select each other for procreation, but specimens select properties of themselves to be highlighted in order to be seleced by the type of specimens that they imagine in terms of their notional self. And up until now, the most prestigious object of fashion has been morality.

The cultivation of notional value creates a ground between the being and its natural values. A bufferzone between man and nature, withinin which he may operate as himself instead of simply operating a self, effectively separate from the automatic process of being-projection => valuation-integration. What is cultivated here is the phenomenon of interest. The literal meaning of inter-esse, being in beween, serves as a reminder of the mediating space the term is meant to refer to here.

When we say that something is interesting we mean that we attribute to it the possibility of being valuable to us in one or another way. A value-attributing is approached but value is not made definitive, the object is not manipulated into function, does not truly become a singular object to a focussed subject. This operation of suggesting but postponing integration causes a physiological response, it brings about strong neural activity, a sense of readiness. Over the course of time this sense of readiness-to-value, this finding-interesting, has become solidified in the human nature to the point of becoming a value itself. Postmodernist art is collection of objects created to remind man of this being-interested, to stilumate this neural activity, this subtle but potent stimulus below the surface of his consciousness, this readiness to value. Consumer-culture exploits this readiness by replacing objects of value with objects that appeal to the appetite for the power to value.

As the sensation of readiness to value becomes a value, it is fixed, and therefore it loses its original quality of actual readiness. Its potential to mobilize self-valuing toward the integration of a particular object is neutralized, or rather trapped, contained in-itself. As a sensation is given a specific positive value, the forces of which the sensation is composed are restricted to serve this function, to amount to this particular constitution. In this way the entire phenomenon of “superficiality” is constructed. The intermediary ground between self-valuing and value takes the lead in giving the directions, in determining the course of selection, and whatever is selected is selected on the ground of it being not directly realizable into value, of its role in continuing the indecisive state of experiencing appetite, of being interested. Anything that is directly of value is “uninteresting”, “boring”. However, because this is not consciously realized, the being thinks that it is seeking a proper value, and interprets its acquisitions in these terms, which amounts to integrating this boredom into its realm of being. Lack-lusting, depression follows acquisition of objects-of-interest. Fashions and with it moralities become agents of disinterest. One becomes engaged in disinterestedness. This is the contemporary moral high-ground.

Of this peculiar deviation of focus from the actuality of values to the the state of being interested by great groups of civilized humans, more ruthless, “primordial” self-valuings can logically profit. Individuals and groups that are instead of interested simply uncompromising will to power can, if they possess insight into their opportunity, obscure what they are doing entirely by presenting themselves as "an issue". By rousing interest, by creating polemic, by suggestion choice of perspective on the matter, the element is made almost untouchable to the interested, “sophisticated”. Presently at its height, the paradigm of interested sophistication is however beginning to crumble, and will to power slowly becomes visible for what it is. The primal/effective becomes acceptable, enters into the “epoch of truth”. This is neither necessarily progress nor regress, all depends on how this primality is interpreted, given direction, placed into context. By placing a reality into a context, the context in which it is placed becomes the world. What will now be the world depends ont he context we can evoke to harbor the will to power.

In the twentieth century, philosophy has acted on the stage of interest. Arousing the feeling that something interesting is being presented, that the mind is stimulated, passed for profundity. Especially creating the sensation that this being-interested refers to Truth has been effective in convincing people that an idea is consequential. The notion of actual/direct/real value has been obscured by the valuing of the sensation of the capacity to choose. In the course of this process, mans passions have been dispersed. This is why "the Last Men know no passion". The language in which our self-valuing may translate itself has become a gibberish, a chitter-chatter, a broken arrow. The passion of the philosopher of the future is (per definition) a true arrow, which means that his language must be clear, definitive, object oriented, departing not from sophisticated interest, but from a pre-notional primordiality.

Saying that language must be clear is not to say is that it must be simple or that the ideas should be effortlessly assimilated. On the contrary – reading philosophy must draw more energy from the readers potential than he is used to – it mus tap into the very thing that gave rise to this notional self-consciousness in order to erase, overwrite, re-create this consciousness. Philosophy must unleash a river of energy into the consciousness and reshape its tracts. For that it must go to the well.

The well is unshaped, brutal, its beauty is terrifying, its truths are un-worldly. Self-valuing core is not sophisticated, a morality/behavior that sustains this primordiality through time is daemonic, and it breaks all the laws of sophistication, it is "disinterested". How to shape such passion into a world? Only the strongest, hardest, coldest laws may serve to contain this primordial soul. Now that the ancient stone-cast notions of interest that have served as ethics, standards and fashions are being broken, and the magma of direct apprehension has access to the human surface, how to channel this titanic passion that precedes and supersedes the Gods and their codes? What can contain, harbor the rawest most formless substance and make it a world?

To answer this question, consider that, outside of notional identity, this world has always existed as natural apprehension. All animals contain the primordial violence of valuing in terms of self-valuing in all their forms and functions. And the first notions arising in man reflected the terrifying beauty of these forms and functions. Beauty, in fact, was the first notion. But as notions and beauty became consensual, they became weaker and weaker until they became “universal”. And under their yoke man became more placid, as he tried to become more agreeable to the mean. As most sweeping consensus of all, modern science emerged. The surface now fully enclosed the core, man had become perfectly contained in neutrality, "objectivity".

We now reverse our valuation at a new turn of the dialectic we know as history, the ideal, the consensus, becomes known as the danger, and the natural apprehension, the instinctive, the terrifying of our self-valuing is drawn toward and into us as value to our self-valuing, and we are made to "rhyme with ourselves" – we break our ancient heart of stone from the inside and replace our conscience with a pulsating daemon.

This will be our refinement.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

[1st cycle] New beginnings... Empty
PostSubject: Re: [1st cycle] New beginnings... [1st cycle] New beginnings... Icon_minitimeMon Mar 26, 2012 6:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is pathological is the unrefined, raw passional discharge without aim or intended direction – a mere “releasing”. This is every "for its own sake". To act pathologically is to act without aim or goal, to be purposeless at the level of intent and motivation. That this purposeless discharge is immediately appropriated by the organism and directed toward some extant use-value confuses man into thinking that even his "for its own sake" is a necessary player in the grand scheme of his actions and ideals – it confuses even the philosophers that it is necessary to either deplore or “cultivate” the passions in order to reach some higher synthetic possibility and power. Rather the refinement of passion, the education of one’s passions at the hands of reason, higher contemplative articulation and “the artistic” is useful to attain to the point of being able to integrate the passions (pathological discharge) into the total being of consciousness in such a way so that one’s conscious being ceases to be the product of arbitrariness, ceases to be impelled or shaped by any “for its own sake” whatsoever.


To immortalize the passions, be they love, compassion, joy, guilt, or even the pleasure of the “will to power” is to substitute for an ethical possibility a pathological sanction. On this point has even the wiser man become confused, for he has been unable to differentiate between acts done out of a spirit of reasoned prior intention/aim, acts which are purposeful, and acts done as a consequence of the raw discharge of aimless passion, since these latter appear to the unrefined consciousness as attaining to an aim and purpose merely because they serve to energize the already extant physiological and psychological structures. Man renders, after the fact, his aimless passional discharge into an image which appears purposeful because such an image is in conformity and enters into relation with the already-meaningful contents of his prior experience. It is this disconnect between true intention and action, between motive and meaning (between the lack of any real purpose and what falsely appears to man as his motives) that prevents man from attaining to an ethical, rational-sane being.


The goal of our refinement implies an end to every "for its own sake" where this would serve to impel or cause any action, be it an action of thought or deed. He who has become ethically-minded – he who is possessed of a self-responsible consciousness and wider valuational potential, and has become freed from pathological motivations – has ceased to act or not act with respect to his passions. Yet this does not mean one lacks either passion or a certain depth of passion, nor does it mean that one strives to ignore or struggles to will these away. Rather to be ethical means to have contextualized the passions, to have grounded the "animal man" and rendered it into a higher order of language, meaning and use; to have made man purposeful. To be ethical means to know toward what one aims, and why.


Ethics does not mean the bland sentimentality, the 'shadow of the passions' that is today mistaken for ethics. Man has confused ethics with the feeling of experiencing an inner resolution of various otherwise discontinuous states within the pathological nexus. This mistaken view has convinced man that what is good is the resolution of these states, a “resolution” which is defined only by the proprioceptive feeling of pleasure which follows from the discharge and reduction of the pain of “internal stress”. What man calls ethics is nothing more than pathological conflict-resolution, internal pain-management; what man calls good is nothing but the feeling of freedom from the internal pain of having to experience passional disharmony. Even the quintessential “difficult or seemingly paradoxical ethical dilemma” is for man only an instinctual struggle to find and follow the path of least resistance through pathological drives-in-conflict. This sort of “morality” man projects upon life itself, under eternal images and language in order to sanction this as ‘the good’ and the very breath and soul of life itself. Yearn as he might, man can find no other image and sublime experience within himself higher than this feeling of pathological catharsis, and man’s spiritual, social and religious notions serve only to further legitimize and cement this animal-instinctual reactionism as what has become baptized as “the ethical” itself. Even philosophy has blessed this escape with the names of truth, conscience and “will”. And thus even here has man yet failed at that task of cultivating that “vital struggle with illusion” – even here does man, whether philosopher, artist, poet, saint or sinner fail to accomplish anything but a reification and reverencing of the illusory at the behest of some small and equally illusory corner of his being.


In contrast to all this, when a truly ethical, which is to say non-moral possibility exists what becomes motivating to/for the consciousness possessed of this is precisely whatever serves this consciousness ‘as a whole’, which means whatever arises from a total activity of this being’s fully-articulated and disclosed contemplation, for its motives have been made clear and its intentions laid bare before itself. When man both recognizes that the passions are purposeless and aimless and refuses to act or not act with regard or recourse to these he has begun to think in a refined manner, to free himself from delusion, to consider the actual good of which he has now earned the right to partake of and further -- he has begun to philosophize, where we understand philosophy to mean truly “to engage reality”.


Man who is unable to act with the full accord of the being of his consciousness, unable to synthesize and attain to a higher order of intentionality in which not only his passions find a suitable coupling and function, acts instead in an arbitrary manner subject to passing interests and fleeting value-judgments. Where man fails to be capable of entertaining the wider swaths of his being, of gathering under a more total sphere of interested inspiration and focused motivation he will instead compensate for this by granting to some small idea or sensation of his an inordinate amount of interest and motive/valuating power. This compensatory interestedness serves to accommodate for the lack of a more total vision and value, it sutures man to “a cause” or to some method of enslavement to ideality. Man becomes able to submerge his entire manner of conscious being at the level of motivation and purposeful aim within a single corner of this being, within even the most fleeting and temporal senses of it. It is not some quality of this sense which alone affords this possibility but rather the potential meaningful interactivity between this sense and the world surrounding man – whether or not he is able, under this fleeting sense, to couple with/in larger clockworks of mechanistic processes and functional relations to broader systems of valuation-captivation. In short, man’s interests and values become religious, political; man becomes able to be motivated, interested by nothing so much as “the political”. We see how this is made possible due to man’s pathological disconnect, due to the ruling of man’s consciousness by his “unchecked animal passions” in all their arbitrariness, discontinuousness and purposeless “for its own sake”. To value under the form of passion, to value with respect to the pathological nexus is to self-value in a way which co-opts ethical reason, which prevents the disclosure of the potential for self-responsibility and a more full comprehensivity of valuing. All that man has built up as interesting, valuable and meaningful is a progressively-greater derivation of this same essential failure. Even man’s heroic images and archetypes, his gods and mythos of power, creation, justice, love, achievement, peace, vitality, hope… these are nothing but the shadows of man’s pathology played out upon the mere vagaries of a disinclined and stifled “rational conscience”, of a being which has yet to become “ethical” before itself and so take charge of its own status and stature with respect to its world/s. To entertain value-as-possibility – which is to say, to retain the ability to value while under the ‘gaze of time’ which everywhere transfixes him – man contrives a 'unity of activity' out of the expressive interplay of which his “identity” emerges and serves to “ground” the potencies of his values. That this unity functions adequately for this purpose of values-mediation belies the fact that this contrivance is merely an erection of fantastical delusions wholly disconnected from the otherwise conscious being in all its “rational apparatus” of implication, powers of decision and motivation-focusing which this contrived identity takes upon itself to mirror and dissimulate in terms of. The fragmentary identity of man remains mysterious, elusive and ungathered because rather than attempt such a gathering man instead contrives irrelevancies and deceptive fictions around which a new “identity” and “conscious perspective” are allowed to grow.


Nietzsche's Last Man is not a man without passion, but a man with all the animal passions that have become disconnected from anything resembling an actual contextualizing and grounding, from anything remotely "rational" or "sane", from anything substantiating and stabilizing other than the ephemeral and arbitrary moral-political forms in which his encounters with the world inevitably manifest. The task of philosophy, for us, is to develop an 'ethical consciousness', a harmonious contemplative-visionary being rather than a disharmonious whimsical-passional being. To this end we liberate ethics and ‘the good’ from all that man has habitually thought of as his (social) morality and free these into the sense of a fully articulated and expansive reason and logos, a higher order of contemplative intentionality and an aimed purposefulness which serves as a refrain and guiding principle for the passions, for the “animal nature” – which situates this nature within a wider gaze and value. In this way does the future open up and merge with the present in the totalizing contemplative synthesis of the ethical consciousness, informing and conditioning all manner of insight, conceptualization, inspiration and motivation. Philosophy has ever sought to recollect most fully and subsequently align this recollection with, in a word, power. But even the mystification and metaphysicizing of power does not serve to break the hold of the "for its own sake" which our notions of power ultimately bow to. With power we now substitute purpose, vision, and we resolve not to confuse the notion of power with that of value. Nietzsche exposed the pathological motives underlying human morality as well as science’s (and philosophy’s) seemingly profound “fidelity to truth”; we are now able to exercise a degree of restraint where Nietzsche was forced to push forward and attack mercilessly. Rather than merely “deplore the deploring of the passions” as a response to and verdict against the Stoical, and rather than upholding an image of the “will to power of the Superman” or “the playful innocence of the Child” (against the resigned moralism of the Camel and the vain hubris of the Lion) we are now finally able to act without regard to disillusionment and instead regard the entire cosmology and inner life of man from the widest possible vantage point. We are become able to situate and value everything that grows somewhere within the fertile grounds of consciousness. We have over-risen both the tragic as well as the vain, the disillusioned as well as the nihilistic moralism of the self-resigned. We are now those who are disgusted only by what is determined to remain of so little value and worth, what has become able to remain so contented and isolate with itself. We are those who maintain our fidelity not to an eternal image or ideal of Truth but instead to the active emergence of truths which attend to the widest possible ranges of scope and value, and we are interested most in what has yet to become valuable to us. And we are those who deplore nothing more than the unrefined and every “for its own sake”.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
Abstract

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon

[1st cycle] New beginnings... Empty
PostSubject: Re: [1st cycle] New beginnings... [1st cycle] New beginnings... Icon_minitimeMon Mar 26, 2012 2:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Where has my passion gone?
Taken in by the expectations of the mass
and sat on with all their weight.
Immobilized

What am I to do but eat the bland factory productions,
that I now eagerly reach for?

Nothing but a chase of a high.

I am a Lost Man, but am I so lost to be a Last Man?

Or am I only lost behind the curtains,
as if laid over a chair to prevent dust,
am I a relic to be preserved only to entertain the Last-ic passers by in an earth of a museum?

Perhaps there is hope;
perhaps this age we are in is of the eye of the storm...
a calm of creativity
we are simply the observant who walk out to see only sooner to be whisked away by the returning hurricane...

Or Is this now to be the home of our children?:
To find things only interesting? :
To consume only the interesting?:
To be ever waiting to have value?:
What is it today but that we are stuck with treasures in a museum curtained to prevent dust, never to see real beauty, to have real value?
Perhaps we are moved by fear of its effect: the fear by the mass mind of the effect on the individuals of the mass.
The crowd moved by the museum tour guide, hurried on by fear, starring, feeding on the fear of the revealing of the truth; the beauty behind the curtain.

Is it that we are old, or cramped on this earth, surrounded by so much knowledge, the age of information, such that it is simply unavoidable that we sit in our own museum? Perhaps it is time that we clean, cleanse of the old and seek harder for the new, move away from the fear of loss of the relics, the old beliefs, and create. For it is with beliefs that our future must be painted.?

----
Useless things…

With no ends to gain or beginnings past
We go on without having purpose
By thinking we do, or searching for it

Existence because that is what it is

Poems, songs, communication,
All there to achieve what?
Growth?
There is always greater
And so, all steps are forever less

We walk upon the sphere of life thinking it is flat,
Looking for the end.
We think we are growing closer,
Never to realize that we have already been here,
We go in circles

I am not so short sighted
I see around the life-cycle
And know that it is my backside
I see

To tread any further
Is useless
As are all things
Even knowing that they are
Even despair!

So I walk because I have nothing to do
“Why not?”
There is no reason not to,
As there is no reason to

Knowing this is the ultimate strength
Pain is of loss; loss of flesh, energy, mind, love
But what is there to loose?
There is no purpose,
No meaning to life.

We live seeking the answer
And there is not one
Yet, is that not an answer?

You are already in heaven
You must simply realize it
And to realize you are bound to no purpose
Is the ultimate freedom
Life becomes food for your feelings
You choose the flavor
Shit or maybe chocolate with almonds
Whatever you like
Or choose to like

But then, the Last Man cannot realize the heaven they are in,
They cannot will the beauty; They get lost in in meaningless not realizing that meaninglessness.
They are lost to too much need of the more, the more interesting;
Looking for value instead of giving value.
Weather it is because they don’t understand
Or maybe don’t know any flavors they like
It is only lack of wisdom and true understanding that can keep you from your heaven
Weather it be burning in hell
Or flying with angels
----

You must will your own purpose with a passion.

----


Poetry is in the eye of the beholder and it is the power of the philosopher to behold all things as poetry. Power to will value to all.




___________
"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
without-music
builder
builder
without-music

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

[1st cycle] New beginnings... Empty
PostSubject: Re: [1st cycle] New beginnings... [1st cycle] New beginnings... Icon_minitimeFri Jun 29, 2012 6:29 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The terms of the question “what is man?” have shifted, the invisibilized claim to a ground in objectivity has been exposed, made visible, called to task. The question, now: not what, but who—“who is man?” And neither does the asker of the question escape its demands. Whereas “what” was once rooted in an a-historic, a-perspectival truth-saying that has since directed the whole course of the tradition of Western thought, “who” concerns itself only with concrete interpretation, with judgment made from a particular place at a particular time, rooted in a particular subject, a perspective. And the answer can no longer be a gesture toward the coming of the Last Man any more than it can be an affirmation of the contemporary proliferation of his type. It is, instead, an unveiling of valuation. An unveiling because value always underlies interpretation, always conceals itself beneath judgment. It is impossible to speak but from one’s own mouth, and so impossible to judge but on the basis of the structure of one’s own values. And these valuations admit of both a typology and a topology. And true enough: every concrete instance of the former will necessitate a detour through the latter. Every value accords with a type, be it high or base, self-affirming or denying, restricting and small or radically open and light--capable of dance, as Zarathustra will say. But every type presupposes a concentration of zones of valuation, a structure and distribution of quantities of force and their corresponding qualities of judgment over a plane of possibility. It is the geography of one’s inner life that makes possible the growth of the type of one’s self-value. And everything happens in accordance with this typology. There is no essence, there is only value. Ethics is meaningless if encountered only on the basis of a “what?” But if we ask, instead: “for who?” we are led to the quality of the valuation that seizes upon the ethical, we are led to a judgment, a perspective, and not to a truth or essence. We are led to the subject that precedes the apprehension of all else.

A thing is only as valuable as the man who values it and possesses only as much value as that man is capable of bestowing upon it. Apart from such a man, from such a valuation, the thing is empty, meaningless. It is lost. And so too is man insofar as he has invisibilized the valuations that underlie and direct the course of the truths he proclaims for himself. But, of course, most valuation happens instinctively, on the basis of an intuition or a reaction. To turn reaction active, to unveil and affirm instinct, to develop an understanding of what has hitherto remained shrouded in smoke and obscured by misguided claims to objectivity, to reintroduce the subject in only the strongest of ways, this is the task of the true valuators, the philosophers of the day after tomorrow—as Nietzsche says. For thought must project ahead of itself an image the structure of which will serve as the logic by which it can proceed. It is only on the basis of this image that thought is rendered capable of thinking. And it is only now that we can begin to see how very misguided this image has become, how deluded and weak. This is surely part of what Heidegger meant when he declared that “we are not yet thinking.” To wit, thought is only as valuable as those values that seize it. Apart from them, it is nothing. We have now unconcealed the valuation that underlies all thought, all judgment and interpretation. We have uncovered the structure of self-valuation that proceeds all will-to-power. What we must do is set forth, cast ahead of ourselves arrows that bear the language of our valuations. We must forge anew an image by which thought might be finally ready to begin its task of thinking. This task precedes all others. The world changes first in the mind of the man that wants to change it.



___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

The Pentad

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:25 pm

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

[2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Empty
PostSubject: [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Icon_minitimeThu Jun 13, 2013 4:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Make no mistake, modern man is advertised man, manipulated man, intellectually-arrested man. What used to be respected as the power of thought, even by those who largely lacked it, has become a thing mocked today by the shrieking laughter and hedonic hilarity of the modern world, the world that the science and politics of advertising has given us, a gross distortion slowly sinking into an undifferentiated madness. The problems of defining human nature aside this living nature, still largely in potentia, is not so much under attack as outright denied, manipulated and thrown again into shackles. Man is told he cannot be this, he must be that; to think has always been detrimental to the wider culture, but today un-thinking is actually the dominant and necessary structural component of society.


Man is a ghost, we alone see him. Man is one who both gapes at everything and is gaped at, his mode and method are to gape for he is a man who cannot process or reason his thoughts or feelings and would look upon the prospect of doing so with great horror. Modern man has a gaping hole through the center of him, he is transparent, he lacks any substance or cohesion. Food and entertainment are his drugs, sex and fashion his gods, slavery his life and time his death.


If advertising is to be turned and utilized for living rather than dying means, what would we advertise? But the position has already been stated that if advertising can be redeemed then we may be sure that man himself can never be. For if the cure is worse than the poison and the patient does not die but enters into a disabled state from which recovery becomes impossible, then the disease has progressed in the shadows to the point where it consumes fully the inner essence and health -- upon what non-pathological basis must we conclude otherwise? Man is already becoming invisible to us, we philosophers, yet more even than this we struggle with the problem of our own nature, of our own response and necessary action in the face of this problem of man.


In a world where everything is a fashion statement the genuine act becomes pre-empted and its motive impossibilized. Somehow even the philosophers have largely become convinced that they can sell out in their day-time and still pursue something real and worthy in their night-time. But no true philosopher ancient or modern, no real thinker would ever subscribe to such a notion nor would he allow himself to be convinced that his participation in the dominant political-economic forms of hegemony and fascism can somehow produce means to reinvent or overthrow these forms. Yet even so it cannot be said that we are bound by the limits and errors of those who came before us, and the question remains of to what extent we can either build upon, or must concede to, that which has preceded us.


Our role in the history of philosophy speaks to our new role in the world, in its future. To reform thought itself, to work with great authenticity and without compromise toward our ideal, to not allow ourselves to be convinced of our efficacy within the dominant forms of death, and perhaps to "endure the final dissolution of culture" -- is man doomed, can he not be reformed, do we really believe he can be manipulated into a self? To approach this question is to approach ourselves, to approach our power and the (de-)limit(-ation) of that power, its possibilization. What we must do now, we authentic ones, we suffering ones, we true living beings, we relics, we destinies, is to reinforce our own method and make ourselves strong in our own capacity against the capacity of all other forms of strength that would seek to entice us into weakness with the mere images of power. If advertising is indeed the lasting structure of power in this world then how must the philosopher approach this power? Ought we ignore this gross offense completely and focus our efforts on the forms of the future alone, to call lovingly to these forms at the expense of all present today, or must we fall in love with the modern mechanisms of life, falling into these mechanisms armed with our own drive to dominate, with our own will to power? Modernity is perhaps that which precisely the philosopher must forsake if he is to prevent the destruction of philosophy, and therefore also prevent the destruction of man. Or, perhaps the philosophical can again be found in the roots of this world, perhaps something truthful and vital might yet emerge from the detritus of decaying things.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest
Guest



[2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Empty
PostSubject: Making Time for Change to Begin [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Icon_minitimeSat Jun 22, 2013 11:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We cannot get out of the system, but now neither can anyone else. The Dali Lama has Twitter. The masons have Zuckerberg. No one is going anywhere without anyone else. It's scary, and it's cozy. It's free-balled and meticulously planned. It's overbearing surveillance and the limitless potential of global interconnectivity. There are those who are running off to escape the system, but the system is everywhere. I have said this for a long time: there is nowhere to hide. We can mitigate life by moving to organic farming communities and things like that, but the real decisions being made about the direction of our species will not come from places like that, so why bother with something like that? I am genuinely asking, because I have not really received that great of a response.

Regardless, here we are.

But to get here we have given up all language. We have to give up morality. We had to give up a lot of things. I am not disputing that.

I am arguing that you cannot have one without the other. You cannot hope to do anything interesting or progressive without being connected, but you cannot be connected without it threatening to take over completely. Like nature's dance, like the body, like the stars and the waves, it is a balance. We must remember that. Because now that so many smart people can get together and wax on about the type of society they would like to live in, it's easy to forget that this is a cosmic circus, and we're just barely in the opening act.

The first interesting act, as far as I am concerned, is the internet. Websites.

What is a (Successful) Website?

A successful website is an idea that operates so much better than an existing service the public demands its existence. The sites like Drudge, Huff, and IW, that have undercut existing power structures have done so because they are simply better. Things that operate better, succeed. This is important to remember. Because we use money, and because money drives everything, it dictates that ways to make money are even more powerful than any single person, or even group on the planet.

Making Things Better

If you can make things better, you can change the world. Look at something like Bitcoin, which I doubt was anything other than what it looks like: something new from some random person who decided to code it up. TPTP took steps to control it, but the important thing is that now there is a whole new way of moving money around.

You cannot hope to change everything at once, or elevate humanity into some sort of philosophical utopia, but you can set out to make something better. Isn't that was noble endeavours consist of, be it in self, or in some artistic expression?

Re-Defining What We Want

We can redefine what we want. Language has been destroyed, but in that, there is freedom. There is no disputing that we are at the will of the masses, but that means that the masses have a will. The act of becoming is not lost; it is actually stronger than ever. If language is a blank canvas, make up a new word, or a new definition for an old word. It's even reflected in success. Look at all these businesses that have simply taken something from the old paradigm and reworked it into something for ours.

We too must rework the old forms of resistance into new forms. We must be cool, and within the folds of society. Where once, people resigned themselves to a small community of “pure” thinkers, we currently face a situation where I don't know if that is possible anymore.

Right now is the time to be online, because right now we're actually existing in a state that provides the most potential to do anything, should you want to. I mean we're all free to do pretty much what we want. They are trying to lock the net down, but they still haven't. Anyone can still start blogging and potentially change the world, so I don't know why more people don't want to try, and have resigned themselves to this dark view of the world where nothing is possible.

What Do We Advertise?

It doesn't matter. It's not about the content, it's about sustaining and nursing this system that they have set up, which we are now making our own. It's true, they have the ability to surveil everyone on the planet I would presume, but it's an assumed power. In day to day operations, the average person benefits way more from the internet than some old masons and crusty guys clinging onto some plan; or some alien directing an off-world plan through them; or whatever. I don't know what is going on, but what I do know is they are trying desperately to bring about this world that we all fear, and they cannot seem to do it.

My interest in advertising is strategic. I do not plan to get in there and make commercials about certain things. (And what I want to do is already happening anyway, so it might be different.) I plan to promote a system where people are not in a brain-dead state from commercials they don't need. We need the public because they are the true power, and the more time that we give them in their day to think about the nature of life and existence, the better.

Constants

So for example, Hulu talked about an revenue model that would allow people to pick a video about something that they like. For people like us, that topic would be something truth-related. Something that is going to empower us, or at least allow us to think. Here is the thing: it's the same for everyone, just in spectrum that correlates to their intelligence. So, plot this out over time: the smart get smarter, the dumb stay around the same. The ads get shorter, and more precise.

People have more time.

It's not like we all don't need stuff. Sure, that trait is exploited in the current Capitalistic model, but that is what I am trying to change here, even if just slightly. Less buying stuff you don't need, and more buying stuff you do actually want (because you know about it in the first place) is good.

How many people do you know that would be “awake” if they just had a bit more time to, say, watch that 4-hour documentary that you have, but most haven't. How many people like us would have more time to do the things that we want to do if the system itself operated much more efficiently?

It's not that I am saying we all should be watching televisions shows, and viewing ads that we like that are still about products that support the tyranny of the current system. I am saying that more time for people to do the things that we want is what we're all ultimately after. Craving out those minutes litte-by-little is what it's all about, isn't it?
More time to think means more thinking. More thinking means a greater depth to life, and a greater chance at not killing ourselves here.


Like I said, this is just the first act. We cannot hope to even begin to address deep philosophical questions until we alter the system enough to even make room for the process.
Back to top Go down
Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

[2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Empty
PostSubject: Re: [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Icon_minitimeMon Jun 24, 2013 5:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Man... Man doesn't exist: much less woman. Do you see? Are you ashamed yet at the weakness of your betrayal?

But I am weak, for I could not destroy, could not even bring myself to try to destroy your enemy who you seek to become. I relinquish advertising to you! I have no more business with it, as it is ugly to me and I would not attack it.

The task of us, who are seen still by philosophers, is honesty with pride. Pride... It is simply good taste, unabated by danger.

So, now you see: you are not fighting me or mine for advertising, and you will not get our help, either. You are fighting ghosts, and perhaps if you saw yourself alone with your adopted tools, no enemy to force them on, perhaps you would relinquish it too... But perhaps not. I am not interested enough.

We the strong do not see ourselves, do not consider our lot bound to that of "humanity" or its admittedly more handsome offspring "the masses." They can do as they will, they have failed all tests of good taste (though they are always welcome to retake them). It is not us who must win them over, but they us. And their world, the world of advertising, the world of the market exchange of ideals, that is, falsehoods, is not pleasing to us. We will not go machiavellian on their minds, not out of desperation, but precicely the opposite.

We live off of their system? They feed us with their systems. They are only managers, in any case, stumbling imitators of the ideas of large men. The comedy is enough to keep our hearts light, our feet nimble. We yell to the four winds our deepest knowledges and secrets, our heaviest treasures... And the advertised man blinks. He seeks the alternate motive! Good comedy, not too dark as we never stop scheming...

Our fears exist and the advertised man is twice removed from them. They are like mosquitoes biting a man with a doctor. The blood loss is insignificant, and all their diseases simple annoyances. We give them this thought, and no more: there is large stuff that is actually equal to us.

Yes, it is a sad thing to see so many walking dead, so many empty, emptied and emptying souls. We agree that the soul doesn't exist anyhow, they can always retake the tests.

The task now is to see the task, stop worrying about seeing the task and inheriting it. The more an idea is defended, the less likely it is to have any value. I read a book on anarchism and the law: all defence. Anarchy as a historical philosophical discipline is empty, I was right all along to see it as I do: a denial, a no, a simple thing not meriting a single line of written thought. Important as all fuck to any that would say this no. A yes masking a no. A no masking a midwife, for there is no no in life.

A memory, perhaps. A sight.

What we would work on cannot be advertised, we have decunstructed advertising and found its components disappointing in structure, in chemical historical structure.

Hear me: life is chemical. There is no God, no no, and all action is chemical. As far as any thing can be responsible, you are responsible for your chemical trail. Magic, its superstition slain, is truth.

Thank fuck for death! It does not need our help... We are free, finally, free to know that we are free from weilding it, we cannot weild it.

We, the dark, brooding reprobates, are the flag-bearers of life. We have our copy cats and our convergent evolutionist imitators. Evolution is life!

Good taste, this is all that matters to the chemist. We know what we want, we just can't tell you if you don't already see certain things, and to see is a chemical historical action as well. Our philosophers are able to write down the tasty bits, and it is them among human groups that seduce us, no other... Well... Also the shaman.

Life needs no defending, it goes on undefended. It is the refining of it that requires so much effort, so many stakes and values. The stakes and values are there, the owls exist despite all the butterflies that wear their semblances on their backs. The yellow on a bee means something quite real, no simple coquetry of the insect. And yet, the animal can manipulate it. And yet? And thus!

Permit me to take this opportunity to invite all who would go crazy to take the leap. Will you be able to return? Will you want to?

Who can fear advertising or the fate of the masses with these questions in mind? If you come back or stay there, you certainly won't care.

Oh man... Will you be worthy of our love again? Only your strength will tell. Our strength, too, for our action is all creation of man.

In short, yes, I do seek to seduce. My seduction, however, is on a chemical trail much removed from advertising. More primitive, more stinky, as much less work is done in general to advance it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

[2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Empty
PostSubject: Re: [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Icon_minitimeTue Nov 05, 2013 10:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Advertising is a true elixir of immortality; those baptized in it remain forever young and enticing, albeit while changing their faces many times. Our generation is in no more cultural decay than the two before it; the major news story at the launch of Apollo 13 was the fact that the Beatles were breaking up; news of the astronauts was thrown in somewhere on the weather page. And so today our news is filled with meaningless pop culture stories, while the exciting discoveries in science or events in the world stage get mere passing glances. Nothing fundamentally has changed though; the cultural decadence is just wearing a new face these days. Advertising relies on an aesthetic, an image of beauty, to persuade us, and as Stendhal said, beauty is only the promise of happiness. So ads cannot help but to be reduced to the mere promise of enjoyment, as every kid knows who brings home some toy he saw on TV with such revelry and enthusiasm, only to have grown bored with it about 10 minutes after having opened it.

The free market is simply a scam, in America. The extreme costs of advertising insure that only the people already in power will be able to have a voice in the bid for power; only they will be able to afford to purchase a voice. So we have a pseudo-market which charges exorbitant rates on the behalf of advertising agencies, and only those men who already have large claims in the market and are able to pay for those ads get to sell their product, drowning out the voice of everyone else. Then they simply buy the ad agencies once they have enough accrued wealth, inherit all of their intellectual capital from all the different things they have peddled from whatever sources, and effectively make all their money back plus whatever cash their own products made them. Rinse, and repeat. There is a similar problem with out fetishistic capitalism, in that men make inordinate wealth, buy resource rich land, then set around and charge other people to use that land. They thus are able to make money simply by already having money. Then they simply play the stock market, increasing their wealth even further, eventually passing it down to their offspring so that they can continue doubling and tripling it, and so on. In this system, power and wealth become black holes.

It is true that the internet offers a powerful alternative to this advertising model, if the people can maintain their control of it, and it avoids become yet another instrument in the hands of those who support the former model.

It seems that modern day advertisements are as synthetic as the products they sell, as if they too were put together on an assembly line. You can take them apart and put them back together in a new arrangement and they make about as much sense as they did before. The necessary individual parts in the ad are detachable and can be interchanged in accordance with derived formulae, even to the point of completely alienating any meaning. That is why we have talking Geckos selling car insurance. This is only because the real aim of the ad is external to its product; the ad is simply selling the idea, the actual product is incidental. It is memetic in nature. Every ad is selling one thing, in reality, ever hit pop song is a plug for the same tune; ads are the modern form of propaganda, they have merged, culture and advertisement, in technical as well as economic terms.

A paradox; the more direct and obvious a statement is, the more difficult it is to interpret the statement. This is because that extreme directness bypasses all the inter-subjective instrumentation of human communication which it is necessary for us to follow through in order to truly grasp something and incorporate it into our universe of meaning. The Socratic method is the re-enfolding of that universe of meaning in an opposite direction, the unpacking of that deep instrumentation into an external form. Ads are always presented in an extremely direct manner, like Nike's slogan Just Do it or that of Mcdonalds- I'm loving it. Thus the ad bypasses the higher regions of the human psyche and directly tantalizes the Id. This bypassing is actually a fundamental pathology of our culture and extends beyond advertisements. George Carlin has the rant on euphemism, about how shell shock became post-traumatic stress disorder. The poetically rich idea of melancholy became simply depression, whose treatment is a bottle of pills- and not the good kind of pills. Language has been demythologized in our culture, and we are so isolated from one another emotionally because of what I just pointed out- this extreme directness in our culture accomplished the paradoxical effect of making everything incomprehensible rather than clear. It seems like people do not even know what a fucking personality is anymore, they think it means combing your hair and having white teeth or something. That form of language is not my language though, I imagine it is none of ours. One must save one's self from all this and wait for this destroyed culture to pass like a spell of night terror over the consciousness of the human species. The one human power that can never be defaced is the power to tell everyone else to go fuck off, and it is on this power that all others depend. It is not walking the walk that gives us the right to talk the talk, but the other way around.



___________
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.


-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

[2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Empty
PostSubject: Re: [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Icon_minitimeMon Aug 17, 2015 6:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Life is not teleological, nor is advertising. It is only a continuation of life, of peacock feathers and great war efforts, of ways to show to our mates that we are worthy of being met; a prelude to the transaction of blood seed sweat and tears that amounts in the foam at the surf of the sea of life, the foam that is man, and we can call advertising the froth of the foam - but Aphrodite was born of the same foam and indeed she is the goddess of advertising. Lust, invitation, deception and a long standing affair with her brother, the god of war and destruction.

The relation of advertising as a phenomenon to specific products is "circumstantial, nothing written in the sky", and it is being altered in the process of its own evolving self-expression, and so the products we consume are also altered; and it is impossible to escape this double helix of interest interference, as any movement against it is feeding into its premises of repulsion and attraction. In order to master the condition somewhat one has to sink deeper into the connection of the subconscious mind to the mechanism of advertising, to dig out the logic not from the ad, but from the mind that processes it. The layering of an advertisement is like that of a flower, where form and function are most hermetically entwined; the lure is perfectly integrated with its function, and a piece of work is required here that only the most rigorous art matches on that higher arc, where art is allowed to roam free in the mind while advertising steams and ploughs at the more unsightly level of evolution itself, where beauty is produced to approach the justification of the notion "purpose".

Beauty is purpose, in as far as there is any to be humanly discerned; humanity is so exceedingly single minded in its focus on aesthetics and pleasure, that to even attempt to bring out something from beneath the surface that is not related to this 'principle' seems altogether vain and doomed - or perhaps destined - to produce the very depths it attempt to uncover by causing subtle disturbances of the surface, so subtle as to work into the very fabric of that surface, and to make it 'age'; to question after the reasons of beauty is poisonous; the reasons are never quite as beautiful. Beauty certainly can not afford honesty, it must endure the pain of lying among the various other pains required for its production.

To understand the term "the function of beauty", we may contemplate the difference between advertising and postmodernism. Neither form is sufficient to be art, but both possess an attribute of it. The latter involves the limitlessness of art, the former its beauties. Art stands above nature, advertising is embedded inside of it. It exerts no control, it only oscillates between its needs and its capacities. If we approach this function as if it were metaphysical, it would be imaginable that, through 'strengthening' or 'substantiating' or 'deepening' the phenomenon of advertising, this would enhance the quality of the relationship between needs and capacities. In reality, we'd expect the medium to follow the components of the relationship, but still, I wonder if the lesson of this all isn't rather that reality needs to be lied to in order to be real, and that the task is rather to increase the quality of the lie.

Perhaps it is because we've discredited the lie that we've become so easy to fool.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

[2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Empty
PostSubject: Re: [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. [2nd cycle] Encounters of power and potential.. Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 2:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Advertising can't require an act as would disband itself from human thought and the social circle of that thought, the impulse runs from deep to deep; the complaint of philosophy being that the world thereby cut philosophy out from the world's own picture, it has become "self-sufficient". We can indicate the many problems with this but those complaints are only secondary, at best- the world no longer requires anything 'beyond itself', or certainly no longer wishes for it and any lingering need continues to dilute toward more remote peripheries and de-powered madness, one driving force behind the mass proliferating consumerism and "individualism" movements.

There's no way to sum this cycle, because it is endless -- no one has seen through advertising, we would need another Nietzsche or Christ for that, a noble truth or a noble lie either to present an alternate structure to replace the current gravity, but such people no longer exist. Nietzsche's truth is proven by the fact that it almost immediately disproves itself, the rupture is too deep to contain itself, as Zizek said of Hegel; the modern ideas are simply the old ideas in shiny new packaging, philosophy decided to adopt the methods of marketing in a world that was already moving on from the value of "pure thought" long before Nietzsche first picked up a pen.

So here we are, children of this world, and of philosophy, neither can we accept or be accepted by either, and why would the question even arise? Has not man always been shaped by his culture and circumstance? Our inability to submit to such forces is also our own having-been-shaped, cut out of the system as remainder, thus our potential access to the spaces of truth, if we are willing to put in the effort.. we've been told to accept advertising reality and use it, success on its terms, or radically opposite it. Or simply ignore it. Or look inward and see what comes from this reality that is already us. But we can hope only to identify some fatal move in the clockwork of the system around which worlds turn: one cannot undo the world, only oneself- the patience to watch realities pass away, or the passion to violently engage one's circumstance with charge, to create changes.

Not even yet has advertising over-written a majority of human historical value and social experience, this is all still very new. We don't yet have the death of music or literary creation, for instance, nor yet even the death of the individual's ability to and passion for changing his own life, and by extension the world, according to his values; the ads are only just on our screens, not yet fused in our brains or seared directly upon our cornea, and men still interact with one another in the external, unbounded world; the circle is far from closed.

Until that circle closes, nothing we say about advertising is going to demonstrate a power or need unless we speak to that closing itself. This is the trap that reveals itself here: to submit the modern reality to the operations of our thought is only to enhance that object itself which we would aim to submit to analysis, criticism and change, and likewise to de-cohere the horizons of our own thinking. We have yet merely begun to encounter the furthest edge, where things most come from dark and deeply real- we yet have little will for such encounters, we have no vital struggle with our illusions as Parodites put it, we've no will and no way here, to "advertise" simply means for the philosopher that he exercise his thought somehow upon advertising. Without the absolute engagement, without totally pushing the boundary beyond 100% and past all reference points, then we are merely self-advertised, and self-advertising.

It is clear, each one of us has our means of approaching the problem in good spirits. But it is also clear that "advertising" can only mean that we no longer expend ourselves absolutely in service of anything. The self-arrested process, and since radical expenditure must occur "insanely" or with no solid shared point of reference to a common world, perhaps advertising merely reflects an impossibility of communication among men, one that we philosophers experience as the difference of our respective views and tasks, and that man himself experiences as the addictive pleasures of untruth. Advertising, as... the need to avoid all shared projects.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

The Pentad

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:27 pm

Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeTue Sep 08, 2015 6:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The task of the philosopher today, made possible by the philosophers before us, is to understand health. I may understand it personally, have lived it in an absolute loneliness and with the aid of certain drugs. But no philosopher, in his capacity as a philosopher, has understood it.

This is what Nietzsche asked and what he demolished for. The only ideal that must survive.

Water now, so war later.







The true insight of our age, from our age, o philosophers, is that there is no separation between our fate and everybody else's. If their fate is unworthy, ours is unworthy.

Wherefrom this maddly wide optimism?

The funk. The stenchy truth of primordial truth, the very one that makes modern man so comical in his glass houses of the mind.

Fffunk. Funk is depth. Earth is potential, hunger the promise of greatness.

What makes modern man wrong is not his premises, it is that they don't follow their noses.

The only being that will survive, that deserves to survive this destruction ofrom nature is the philosopher. For funk can exist without him, and be tragically poorer for it. I hereby humbly invite him. I need him. Hell, we all do.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: Re: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeWed Sep 09, 2015 7:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
First I must say, great opening post.


Funk.. what is funk but grooving in the aesthetics of being, as someone once said to me?

Yes, I’ve too seen these modern fac(ad)es fragmenting at risk of coalescing a vantage larger than what they call their self, from which they would appear so much smaller than their ego. And I’ve been inside that breaking-apart. Health is then a necessary denial? To live as one is, at all costs, or to change at all costs, and live anyway? Schopenhauer’s desire for death as sign and will? Or instead what lives out from health, isolate and remote as the higher echelons of life from itself, from life.. is this the ideal? Life is after all a principle of contraction.

It’s fascinating watching truth break against silence. How much more futily too does personality crack open against that silent abyss. Sometimes I think man’s only task is to learn in the end how to speak something into the nothingness of his own soul, even if but just a single word, or perhaps just an echo of that same silence.

Health cannot be denied, as need is need, we speak in the language of life: health to overcome and to be overcome, modern or postmodern, not much cares which way the pendulum swings on that account. Back and forth, back and forth, the cycles of the eons progress unendingly, we can eat or be eaten. “Health” must mean both of these (unless of course by health we mean only my health.. and surely we’re past all that by now), if we expand our range of sight far enough beyond our own smallness and pride. Yes, we can will to power--! And it is quite easy to look around the world and see this form of health-virtue exerting itself in that same excess of smallness and pride, whispering to itself of its “mastery”— ha. A material goo ego-profusion of sublimated death-love, certainly — but where will it end? Does anyone have a clear scope on the impacts of technological and global culture on the future, hell even on the present? Not really, no. To rise up and birth something is only to create a personal antithesis, a motherly procreating, which is why women are both closer to truth than men but also have such a harder time with truth than men. Closeness isn’t always good for one’s.. health.


"Only those who lack health, must make of it a top priority"— so the saying goes. So the idea went. Then that idea broke upon its own silence, and truth never heard from it again.


The standard of health qua health, strength, to survive, growth, to be and to become, to live; yes, this very standard and value must be ….questioned. Why? What is healthfulness to the philosopher? Fun destruction and wanton excessive profusion of inward pathos and pathology, a ‘releasing’, for which might and right are felt as one. We cannot begrudge that, but neither can we will it any higher position upon the universal continuum as befits it.

Who knows, maybe death is the higher value than life, sickness than health? The deep sweet earth-soil out of which “soul” was coined, funk yes this is quite good, this soil is fresh as ever today and only grows wetter, more dank, ripe, over-ripe and rotten. None of this modern world has done anything to touch this truth, it has merely made a loud commotion to distract from that sinking core eternal Perspective and life-quanta which, after all, is what man is. And has always been, but now I would say, all the more so.


The last gasp of personality - as it used to be. But nothing evolves more than personality, because nothing enjoys to evolve more. As nothing loves to falsify more than language does.


When Nietzsche stood up from out of the abyss and declared man an infantile creature, he broke the system— the matrix shattered with his fist and laugh, and the shards pieced Nietzsche’s heart. His mortal wound is our mortal wound or, at best, our mortal denial. Perhaps nothing “deserves” to survive, except maybe what is able to speak those ideas, manifest this fate and fact, render logic and orient some living element in its term, under imposed law. The philosopher, who better to always fail to move the hearts of men? Who therefore more suited to chronicle for the history books, albeit with great bias?

When one thing rises up another sinks, when one idea or ontic clay survives another perishes; elements reconfigure and release, minds spin into existence while others vanish in a blink, into oblivion. Should we construct Values and New Values upon this reality, with Nietzsche? Yes, perhaps. I mean why not? The world continues to grind its slow arc through space, health akin to ‘time’: so long as we live out a sufficient number of years and make of those years something which stands even further into time than us, we feel satisfaction. But I would implore us, with our love and call to the philosophers’ funk, never to use mere form as an excuse to degrade content where even that form is also able to act as substance for new eternals. Truth ——> (Novelty) ——> Depth..

Novelty… is only faith. Sometimes we call it beauty, other times we call it truth. And faith is only a word used to mask something from ourselves, a pride of depths unknown, structurally-honest requirement of a "philosophy". The sharpest blades are those best put to dual and opposing uses. Philosophy ought to be curing the ignorances of the psyche, which it most certainly is not doing in the vast majority of cases (in most cases the personality/self is broken irreparably by exposure to truth): thus I implore too that we always utilize philosophy as a brutal psychic weapon against ourselves and never as a mere covering-veil or secondary discharge, never as a simple “tool". If we bleed, let us bleed openly, at least to ourselves. Only we can heal ourselves as Holderlin's danger and saving power. We can then at least surrender something of life to truth as by our calling idea to idea, as by refusing one need for, yes, a still greater one.

Life… is what is left over after our philosophy is finished with us.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
Sauwelios

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: Re: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeThu Sep 10, 2015 7:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think health is integral to Value Philosophy. Just consider the word "convalescence". "Health", however, literally means "wholeness". It is the wholeness of the self that a self-valuing strives for. But wholeness is only one edge of the sword that is health; the other, complementary edge is separation. A thing cannot be whole or holy without being hallowed, consecrated--and consecration is local, focal: "hallowed ground" for example implies that the ground around it be not hallowed, or not quite as hallowed. I think this is integral to Value Philosophy: at the Franco-German border, for example, France turns away from Germany and Germany from France, like a universe bursts away from nothingness or infinity. But the contrast between hallowed and unhallowed is not black and white; there are shades of grey, gradations of health: thus philosophers can hallow themselves while at the same time also hallowing, albeit to lesser and lesser extents, their social circle, their city, their State, their Union, their--first--world, their planet, their solar system, their universe; and also their type, their caste, their race, their genus, etc. I think this is what Pezer means when he says that, if the fate of the non-philosophers is unworthy, so is the fate of the philosophers. I take this to mean two things: 1) in a "deterministic" sense, if the lower orders upon which the higher are built are lacking, so will the higher orders be; and 2) in a "free-will" sense, if the higher orders fail to sufficiently actualise their potential, the lower and their lowly conditions will not be justified. The latter, I take it, is what he means when he says we all need the philosopher.

But what's a philosopher? A philosopher is a mind who is impelled to profound insight into the real. As such, he is driven or drives himself away from the surface into the depths--into the primeval forests, uncharted oceans, and looming heavens of the mind. This, I think, is what Capable so temperamentfully proclaims. The philosopher must not be too attached to his polity, but be a cosmopolitan, in the literal sense: a citizen of the cosmos. As Strauss said, all philosophy is cosmology. But in order to be able to afford being a cosmologist, one must have what Nietzsche called the great health. Health is wholeness, and an essential ingredient of wholeness is simplicity, in the literal sense: singleness, oneness. Thus in order for the philosopher to endure, his inclination into the deep and complex must be complemented by a similarly strong inclination towards the superficial and the simple. In addition to this, the philosopher is indebted to his passion, philosophy, and thereby to the polity that has--wittingly and willingly or not--allowed it to arise in him and allowed him to pursue it. As Novalis said, philosophy is really homesickness--the drive to be at home everywhere--; but political philosophy is really reconciliation to the fact that there are but few places where philosophy could find shelter--the dedication to a polity nurturing philosophy.



___________
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
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: Re: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeFri Sep 11, 2015 3:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
< I quite like that this cycle is rather informal, which is to say that it allows for commentaries on the situation we're in. After all we are very much addressing the situation we find ourselves in, and situations in which we might find ourselves in the future; as well, we are all well aware of the imperfection of a philosophical collective such as ours - and yet we are also aware that we may have to endure such imperfections, and content ourselves with gradually perfecting what can be perfected, and allowing the other imperfections to exist, as it were as the excess between philosophers, or philosophical perspectives. >

Funk - I believe philosophy has need of both the open lines of Earth and of the closed lines of Heaven; and I am forever navigating this fine line, granting myself the luxury of dipping fully into one or the other periodically, or perhaps this is not luxury but necessity. In any case my conception of health, in the highest sense that I can conceive it, comes to be out of an impossible combination of the two; whenever I encountered contradicting perspectives in myself, I have always held on to them with a secret smile, as I knew myself privileged to do what passive logic can not; I knew my own logics to be more powerful, since they did not really see fatal contradictions as much as great and powerful contrasts.

This is a very clear and unassailable mark of health; the capacity to endure contradictions and imperfect states; the lack of an urgent desire for resolution; the ability to stay in uncertainty and still rely on that greater, non-abstract certainty of overflowing health. In me this is the highest state, and it is in this state that value ontology was made conceivable to me; after all the very notion of an ontological foundation that is not at once an aspect of or representation of an ontological totality is, within the standing paradigm of systematic thought, not thinkable; the fact that the concept self-valuing splits up "being" into a multiplicity, and renders the idea of a totality unapproachable, therewith banishing any notion of a creator god or general purpose into very distant and empty hypotheses; it throws us unto ourselves, and thus demands a certain state of health.

And this has caused my proud attitude early on, the instinctive knowledge that it is only a great health that allows me this idea, and that it is often clearly weakness, sickness, that disallows others to uphold it. Make no mistake, man is sick unto death in his mind, he has no vital or vitalizing substance in his mind, his ideas about the world are void, pale or crippled, it is sickening even to read of modern mans conceptions of the universe as some kind of object, and of man as some kind of entity that can be boxed and directed to some objectively correct conduct; in general the death of God has made men arrogant in their stupidity, only in very few it has caused the impulse to fill the void, to continue the work of exalting mankind, to philosophize. This was for the longest time what religion granted man; it enforced on the lesser the fear of hell and a general deference toward 'spirit', by virtue of which fear kings would consider the thoughts of 'spiritual men' - i.e. those who were known for not being too apish to reflect on things from a distance.

Now that God is no more however, there is no more protection and no more fear-inspiring, there is no human reason why philosophers should be heard. After the time of the Sophists, the only reason philosophers were heard was fear, suffering of absolute ignorance about life death and fate -- now that science has taken away some of that ignorance it has caused the rest of it to get very inflated and bloated and comfortable with itself. I am always powerfully nauseated by this bloated non-thinking that we know as the modern idolatry of "science" - I put it between quotation marks because scientific thought does not figure into it, and so, nor do actual scientists - it only a practice of inaccurately reproducing general ideas and turning them into idols that prescribe mindless fatalism. One has to be excessively healthy to break out of this habit of belief - because beyond it is only thought, which is a very painful thing to undertake if one is not used to it. It is painful because by its very nature it destroys certainties; and the certainties at which it arrives (such as value ontology) are only certain to the one who can properly employ the logic, for which the standard altar of certainty has to be toppled.

Thought is life cutting into itself - did you know this already?

Health and thought compares to flux, sickness and belief to stasis. Philosophy is the art of stabilizing in flux, it is quite literally a form of navigating. We might even say that all of the human world lives in a state of drowning (not too far fetched if we look at what 'humanity at large' is constantly doing to itself), and philosophy is the art of swimming or sailing, or simply of not drowning.

Now in order that it stay fit and healthy, it must also stay 'funky', I tend to agree with that; it must contain in itself the earthly, it must be able to sit down modestly amongst the creatures of the soil and drink from the brook; it can not live on the nectar of the gods alone; it is in fact of such a nature that it turns the fruits of the earth into divine gifts. This is why philosophers are followed and hallowed; they make life on Earth better, they know of the mystery of valuing and thus know what 'hell' is and where it comes from; and 'funk' is certainly the antidote to 'hell'; which is a subset of 'Heaven', i.e. the world without moss, earth, the unexpected and the transient, the seasons, and the love affair with convalescence, which is also a love affair with pain.

I suggest that we all endure the pain that comes with bringing together such different perspectives and appetites; such differences tend to come in handy for groups embedded in nature. We are perhaps the first explorers of the jungle of language; the first with a 'compass' that enables us to determine a course. But what we are steering as far as I am concerned, is not so much how we move through the jungle, as how the jungle grows from here-on out. We have become its center; and given that a we are a multiplicity, we are also in part jungle; but a smaller jungle with a center which is what centralizes us in the jungle; all that we can do from here on is grow, both in coherence and in difference. Our health is represented by the degree to which we can differ without undoing the principle-based coherence; the principle itself after all commands difference as the very fabric of cohesion.

We need healthy conflict to cohere into a whole. Conflict as in addressing differences; healthy as in addressing them so as to fertilize the space in between the perspectives. It is this space in between that we need to cultivate so as to become as healthy as our philosophical impulse. This is giving form to force, which is at once the self-activation of consciousness, which in turn is the grassy field in which Heidegger envisioned mind (man, Mannaz) would one day roam free.

To rule the jungle around us we may have to cultivate a healthy jungle between us. To cultivate a jungle is of course a contradiction; let this be our working-contradiction then, the heart to our daemonism, the axe that cleaves the principle into a 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
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: Re: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeSat Sep 19, 2015 7:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Indeed the philosopher resists drowning, as you say Fixed. You also said thought is life cutting into itself- I have written something similar:


Life is a grasping within itself the forces that obstruct and break it, that pain and suppress it- a grasping of
these forces in the full depth of life's freedom, and in this way an expansion through a
contraction, a resolution of the duality and the dis-proportion that life itself creates.


There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts.


Philosophy is concerned with a kind of liminal process, and this I take as "health." Health certainly involves wholeness, and moreover the ability to maintain this wholeness against the imposition of external forces.

The most profound and fertile lines of investigation, as the most powerful thoughts and drives, must be perpetually hidden from one another and kept safe at the height of their power and unsquandered prodigy; for the truth, which is their object, is above all something whole- a totality, and cannot be witnessed to by any partial hierophancy of singular genius nor heralded by the lone passion, and therefor certainly requires all of these things to break forth upon it at once, if it should find within our own totality of will and character its peculiar kairos and be uncovered. The truth is not a datum of our experience, but rather our limit, our basic reality, our fatum. It is a great insight both of modern natural science and of psychology, that the forces which engender and vitalize life are the same forces which decay, arrest, and destroy it; the majority of creatures on this planet, in fact all of them save for man, exist at a liminal, quasi-conscious boundary at which an effective, if however fleeting, equipoise is achieved between the integrating and disintegrating forces of creation; a higher limiting factor and lofty fate belongs only to man;- it belongs only to man, to indwell in the primordial excesses of creation and reorganize himself in relation to them. Nietzsche represents a total collapse into the immanent domain of these latent tensions and energies, and nothing of the reformulation of human nature that is actually required of philosophy in our era; in Nietzsche the attempt was made to render man the mouthpiece of these forces, to annihilate the ego in its reality and become an animation of or a satyr mask for the immanent forces themselves, as was first carried out in the orgiastic rituals of the ancient Greeks. The reorganization of human nature would begin with a clarification of philosophy itself, and no less the procedure of philosophic reflection. The process of thought has, as its face, an inclusive function which belongs to domain of the deceitful, of the protective, stunted, and of the imprisoned real-ego, whereby its own productions are reintegrated with the forces with which they operate and by which they are operated upon,- whereby the movement and the operation of thought and the image of this movement and operation are logically consociated, identified, and at the most abstract superficies finally unified by a purely gestural semiotics, as so fascinated Nietzsche, and which he took for the whole of consciousness itself, in which every thought is reinterpreted by the conscious mind, or, by way of psychological designation- the real ego, as a symptom of what underlies its genesis in the unconscious- characteristic to its manner of fortifying itself against itself and preserving the illusory wholeness or its reality and organicism, the real ego in this way constructs its own causal universe in which the contents of consciousness are separated from alien forces external to it and are instead fixated upon the motive center of an atomic, free will, as serves for the basic type of the gestural procedure itself; secondarily the process we call thought has an exclusive function, whereby the boundary between what is thought and what is not yet thought is vigilantly maintained as a schema in accordance to which the integrity of the former Parmenidean universe of the movement-image can be determined-- 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.



___________
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.


-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: Re: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeSat Sep 19, 2015 12:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Since the first cycle of this Pentad, there has been a straight line ignored so as to increase the reverence of it: the cure to the equalizing unhealth of these our still times is distance.

But what distance? We asked ourselves. The walls are full with the blood of our heads, our minds constantly turning to aristocracy or God or spirits or war or politics or art or universal thought, and turning back in disgust. NOT ENOUGH! We yelled inwards. Very much not enough.

I have turned my sight to aristocracy's opposite, to filth. In our own ways, we all have. And we all followed the snaky path, guided by the Eagle, to safe harbor for our thoughts, for Time itself. The distance we seek we have found the beginning of, and it is stunning: it is the distance between philosophy, Philosophy finally self-valued, and thought. The distance between Philosophy and life. The distance of philosophy within life.

What a great distance philosophy will have to go to reclaim the ground it had thought belonged to thought! A lot of overgrown weeds will have to be slashed. A lot of pride will have to be broken... All upon the rock of what is greatest in philosophy: an unrelenting love of life.

What is health? Health is effective separation and, of course, the ultimate surrender to life for the sake of sublimity. And sublimity, as we know, lies in battle. This will be the health for everybody else, our gift: the ability to surrender to life/wage battle.

So, let health take on every single dimension it can. Let philosophy's tyranny begin. Let the conquest begin.







When the noise of it dies down, and life with its funk creeps back in... As they say in my mother land, que Dios nos agarre confesados! May it grab us armed to the teeth with philosophy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: Re: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeThu Sep 24, 2015 3:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Distance is a weight, and a void. Void is the heaviest weight of all, because one stands alone. Nietzsche's abyss is nice but doesn't go deep enough for me -- When you stare into the abyss, nothing stares back.

Distance became petty because the life it found here was petty, "psychological capitalism" is now the law of the land; filth and aristocracy have been being bred together here for a while now. Man likes to engage himself in thought because he enjoys believing in things, for him thought and belief mean the same thing. With belief is ego and will and clumsiness, a clumsiness that life itself seems to crave more than most other things.

Funk is clumsy too, maybe clumsiness set to a purpose. But I've come to realize the concept of purpose is absurdly simplistic and largely empty of content. So we have images within images, the whole setup breeds much confusion and distance mixing oils and waters so life can have something to play with, or in the best case to paint with.

Maybe it is our need for distance that we most need distance from. The machines of the world and history cannot be commanded by one person, which means by one idea; for a man has his idea by which he lives, and lives alone in it tho he may dwell among others. To realize our idea we are estranged from - not others, but from the idea of others. Thus the way back is to remember-recollect what it means for another person to be another person. Not in our idea but in reality, which means in their reality. The philosopher is usually so clumsy with this kind of love, as if it's almost too easy for him to accept.

Only distances from the ground hold their own. The easy distance may be the shortest, or it may be the longest and most coherent, solid; the most purified in truth.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: Re: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeThu Sep 29, 2016 1:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ive tried to explain, but I can't; for reasons that must remain in impenetrable chaos of violence, value collapse and combustion in the immense terms that this thread produced, the wheel has reversed. It is now a Black Pentad, and the turn has gone to Pezer.

Coincidentally, this happens a year after the last post.

Because a turning wheel is in itself chaotic, Sauwelios has the chance to turn it.







- the cardinal cross



___________
" 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


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: Re: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeThu Sep 29, 2016 1:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
LAW

STUPID IS DIRECTION

INTELLIGENCE IS CONTENT


PHILOSOPHERS!

mAKE yOUR sTUPIDITIES!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
Sauwelios

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: Re: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeSat Oct 01, 2016 9:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
The true insight of our age, from our age, o philosophers, is that there is no separation between our fate and everybody else's. If their fate is unworthy, ours is unworthy.

Wherefrom this maddly wide optimism?

The funk. The stenchy truth of primordial truth, the very one that makes modern man so comical in his glass houses of the mind.

Fffunk. Funk is depth. Earth is potential, hunger the promise of greatness.

What makes modern man wrong is not his premises, it is that they don't follow their noses.

The only being that will survive, that deserves to survive this destruction ofrom nature is the philosopher. For funk can exist without him, and be tragically poorer for it. I hereby humbly invite him. I need him. Hell, we all do.

YES. I WILL NOW MORE FULLY ANSWER YOUR CHALLENGE.

THE PHILOSOPHER IS HE WHO MOST NEEDS "THE ABSENCE OF FUNK"--THAT IS, MOST EXCLUSIVELY HIS OWN FUNK. BUT HE CAN NEVER DO WITHOUT OTHERS WHO'VE FELT THE SAME--IF ONLY IN THE DISTANT PAST OR EVEN IN THE WILLED FUTURE.

Philosophers are always bred in a certain funk. For example, the funk of Jewish philosophers will be different from the funk of Hindu philosophers. The question is if the philosophers' own funk transcends the funk of the "folds" in which they've been bred, so as to make them prefer the funk of foreign philosophers over the funk of their own "fold".

In any case, there will always be a need for such a "fold", such a soil, such subphilosophical funk. But as I wrote in the Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism thread:

Quote :
In the meantime I've thought some more about this, especially in relation to what I wrote in my first Pentad post:

Sawelios wrote:
[T]he philosopher is indebted to his passion, philosophy, and thereby to the polity that has--wittingly and willingly or not--allowed it to arise in him and allowed him to pursue it. As Novalis said, philosophy is really homesickness--the drive to be at home everywhere--; but political philosophy is really reconciliation to the fact that there are but few places where philosophy could find shelter--the dedication to a polity nurturing philosophy.

If the philosopher, by being indebted to his passion, is indebted to the polity that has, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, allowed his passion to arise in him and allowed him to pursue it, then what about the rest of existence? Has not the rest of existence, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, allowed that polity to rise and persist? Well then, does this not mean that the philosopher, by being indebted to that polity, is also indebted to the rest of existence? To the entire cosmic process thus far? And thereby even to the great Unknown beyond it which, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, has allowed that process to start and go on?

But even if the philosopher is indebted to what I now call the whole infinite variety, that does not warrant his conservatism toward it. To the contrary: if he was merely a conservative, he would not justify himself. Thus I would naturally choose Hillary over Trump, whereas Fixed Cross, with his different funk, naturally chooses Trump over Hillary; but that would be uncreative, merely preserving (and even that probably only on the short term). The destructive potential of Trump would be preferable to the untransfigured Hillary. Hilldawg must be husbanded by "the philosopher".
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

[3rd cycle] Need Empty
PostSubject: Re: [3rd cycle] Need [3rd cycle] Need Icon_minitimeSun Oct 02, 2016 12:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sauwelios wrote:
THE PHILOSOPHER IS HE WHO MOST NEEDS "THE ABSENCE OF FUNK"--THAT IS, MOST EXCLUSIVELY HIS OWN FUNK. BUT HE CAN NEVER DO WITHOUT OTHERS WHO'VE FELT THE SAME--IF ONLY IN THE DISTANT PAST OR EVEN IN THE WILLED FUTURE.
Quote :
Philosophers are always bred in a certain funk. For example, the funk of Jewish philosophers will be different from the funk of Hindu philosophers. The question is if the philosophers' own funk transcends the funk of the "folds" in which they've been bred, so as to make them prefer the funk of foreign philosophers over the funk of their own "fold".

This indeed is much of what our 'dirty business' on the forums the past years has manifested; a particular kind of funk that indeed does repel a lot of other types of hygiene. Therefore I must object to something further down in your post.

Quote :
In any case, there will always be a need for such a "fold", such a soil, such subphilosophical funk. But as I wrote in the Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism thread:

Quote :
In the meantime I've thought some more about this, especially in relation to what I wrote in my first Pentad post:
Sawelios wrote:
[T]he philosopher is indebted to his passion, philosophy, and thereby to the polity that has--wittingly and willingly or not--allowed it to arise in him and allowed him to pursue it. As Novalis said, philosophy is really homesickness--the drive to be at home everywhere--; but political philosophy is really reconciliation to the fact that there are but few places where philosophy could find shelter--the dedication to a polity nurturing philosophy.
Quote :
If the philosopher, by being indebted to his passion, is indebted to the polity that has, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, allowed his passion to arise in him and allowed him to pursue it, then what about the rest of existence? Has not the rest of existence, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, allowed that polity to rise and persist? Well then, does this not mean that the philosopher, by being indebted to that polity, is also indebted to the rest of existence? To the entire cosmic process thus far? And thereby even to the great Unknown beyond it which, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, has allowed that process to start and go on?

Yes, clearly this is the case.

Since we are limited beings, the absolute affirmation of our roots must come in an absolute re-invention of the fruits that these roots produce; one must 'fall from the tree' - and establish ones own; this is what I aim for with the Clan, a primordial crime as per the standing (stumbling) order, at the same time a first logos of the new order; an Axiomatic Philosophical Funk. But how to get there?

Quote :
But even if the philosopher is indebted to what I now call the whole infinite variety, that does not warrant his conservatism toward it. To the contrary: if he was merely a conservative, he would not justify himself. Thus I would naturally choose Hillary over Trump, whereas Fixed Cross, with his different funk, naturally chooses Trump over Hillary; but that would be uncreative, merely preserving (and even that probably only on the short term). The destructive potential of Trump would be preferable to the untransfigured Hillary. Hilldawg must be husbanded by "the philosopher".

Actually my support of Trump is not to do with conserving, it has to do with averting something, namely the Last Man. Hillary's agenda is purely this: The weak (but far from meek - rather genocidal ) shall inherit the Earth. Trumps agenda is this: Let nature do her will, help weakness perish, so that it does not drag us down. That is neither progressive nor conservative, or rather, both; to conserve the progression of willings-to-power over another.

Hillary has affirmed no values, which is an accomplishment - she is truly an incarnation of death, quite literally. Not just the ghastly deaths she is causing all the time, but simply the absence of valuing. She does not exist. She would not be able to listen to a philosopher.

My funk is music. I am willing to go as general as that.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:29 pm

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

X-Men: First Class, grasped through value-ontology Empty
PostSubject: X-Men: First Class, grasped through value-ontology X-Men: First Class, grasped through value-ontology Icon_minitimeTue Nov 29, 2011 5:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
An initial analysis of basic themes. Please feel free to contribute where/how you can. This is intended to be an ongoing development and analysis.


Eric/"Magneto" (a symbol of development of the power-perspective) is created through two separate and very different processes, both of which he ultimately rejects in order to attempt to become more fully himself. The first process is pain-loss, the suffering of experiencing the murder of his mother. This "wakes him up". The second process is the cultivation of his abilities at the hands of Charles Xavier who uses compassion and self-discovery to pursue the idea that increased power is achieved through CONTROL and is to be found in a point of balance "between rage and serenity". Magneto ultimately rejects these two processes from which he is birthed, acknowledging the first as his true birthing but choosing to view it as a negative to be resisted and overcome (through the killing of the murderer, vengeance), while choosing not to acknowledge the second process and openly abandoning it as a utility to himself (Xavier tells Magneto that peace will be impossible for him if he carries through with his plan to kill the murderer of his mother, to which Magneto replies, "Peace was never an option").

Magneto posits a value higher than his own "self-control" and the growth of his power, he values (or more accurately, is unable to stop valuing) the first negation, the ultimate destruction/vengeance against the first cause of his birthing. This represents the limit of his ability to accept/understand himself (as is shown below, this symbolizes a relatively UNCONSCIOUS self-valuing). In this sense Magneto represents one half of the power-dynamic of development, the "rage". This is the initial suffering from which impetus for over-growth begins (void/need as the stimulus for initial organic/psychological motion). Xavier represents the opposite end of the spectrum and the other half, the compliment, the "serenity" of peace/tolerance. However we are given a clue into the development of a synthesis of these two dualistic views: the middle point, the balance between each. This is the supposed key to unlocking Magneto's true power, which Magneto ultimately rejects. We see this key is given through Xavier, yet he himself is also unable to actualize this path since he lacks the rage as impetus for growth (Xavier is sutured to one far end of the continuum while Magneto is sutured to the other end, neither are able to move into the middle). Yet we see that the development of the possibility for synthesis arises from Xavier and not from Magneto, giving a clue that movement toward the middle first presences itself as a possibility from this end rather than from the other.

Certainly development of "mutant powers" is a metaphor for development of self-understanding/intellect/spirituality and the power that comes with a fully actualized awareness and consciousness. Mutant powers allow for manipulation of overt conditions and others, revealing how similarly the powers of developed consciousness allow for influence upon the world and others. Likewise the fear that humanity has of mutants can symbolize the fear most people have of developing and acknowleding their power of consciousness, fear of the unknown, fear of loss of control. This fear is centered in the "lower" perspective of the "unevolved" humans who lack "mutant powers". We are told by the lesser mutant perspective (the first stage development represented by Magneto) that humans are the lower species and the past, and that mutants are the future. We are shown by the opposing perspective (Xavier) the value of co-habitation based on a belief (valuing) of mutual tolerance and acceptance based on understanding (raising of the lower rather than its elimination). This perspective is shown as higher than Magneto's, however is unable to triumph as it excludes Magneto's also vital perspective: it is unable to synthesize Magneto's position into its own and is forced to posit it as a counter-value. An almost Hegelian dialectic therefore emerges: synthesis as possible through reconciliation of Xavier's and Magneto's two opposing perspectives. The fact of this possible synthesis is hinted at and developed subtly where we are shown that Xavier and Magneto are capable of working together and helping each other toward common goals, indeed their task of killing their enemy REQUIRES their mutual cooperation (an interesting and necessary combination of separate powers to produce a new effective power/capability: the ability to remove the enemy's helmet - Magneto's ability - is necessary for Xavier to enter the enemy's mind via telepathy. And then Xavier's telepathic freezing of time is necessary for Magneto to then kill the enemy, who is otherwise too powerful for Magneto to actually kill). Desipte their beautiful working together (although Xavier is against killing the enemy), ultimately they diverge and draw apart, as they are unable to sublimate their differences into a higher unity.

Each of their valuing-positings are strong self-valuings based in the self-experiences of each: Xavier and his easy life of luxury, comfort and academic values of tolerance and compassionate understanding, Magneto in his tough life of rage and suffering/loss. Yet both posit themselves as AGAINST THE WORLD in their own self-valuings (this is easiest to see with Magneto, but also is the case with Xavier: rather than self-valuing from within the world Xavier self-values from outside of it, a deliberate ignorance of the world and its condition/s, difficulties, limitations, hardships. This is why he fails to understand Mystique's frustration with his disliking her appearance in her natural form). This strong self-valuing is what gives them their power, they resist traditional (conservative) moralities (mutants - a metaphor for "difference" and for new possibilities/change - are evil/bad) and instead create their own ethics. Yet at a higher level it is the inability of these strong self-valuings to envision/understand themselves as what they are which limits them: they represent largely unconscious self-valuings. Were Magneto and Xavier to become more conscious of how they are positing in terms of their own self-valuing and examine each other's and their own perspectives in this manner (were they to examine themselves through a theoretical platform of value-ontological understanding) they would see how they are each the limitation of the other in terms of development of power (of capacity for influence/successful actualizing of their intentions). Xavier wants to educate humans but he is ignorant of aspects of human nature, which Magneto is privy to, yet which Magneto focuses on at the expense of higher possibilities and unities. Both extract certain conditions from the world and suture themselves to these conditions at the expense of all others, and this extraction is based primarily in their own "history of being" (mnemosyne) of the experiences which have come to shape their current world-views and ideals (the forms under which their valuing and valuing-projectings take place).

Self-valuing relatively unconscious is a self-valuing ignorant of its own environs-conditions and world-limitations. To employ Nietzsche here, this is raw "will to power" which only acts on its own impulses/directionality but fails to subtlize its perspectives by ALSO viewing itself in terms of its world/s (this means: able to will itself but, due to a lack of proper understanding of context/conditionality/history is unable to fully actualize this will upon the world, as this will becomes frustrated by the external world/s which it does not fully understand or cannot conceptually encompass). Xavier and Magneto share the implicit view that if they were to value themselves in terms of their other/s (Magneto in terms of the human world, Xavier in terms of Magneto) then this would fatally undermine their own perspectives of power: this is shown through how strongly each clings to his own self-valuings positings and must necessarily exclude the other. This is ideological in essence. A strong willing to power in terms of one's own self-valuings positings against the world, rather than WITHIN the world. Thus a Heideggerian sort of Being-in-the-world appears here as a possible healing/cure for the failures/limits of Magneto and Xavier: Being-in-the-world as a setting-within a proper context/s, a delimiting (after the manner of Kant's transcendental categories) and a contextualizing/conditionalizing (after the manner of Deleuze & Guattari's milieu and de/reterritorialization). This brings us to the threshold of the next stage: self-valuing sufficiently developed to the point where it is able to posit itself within and alongside the world, the world as a condition of itself and itself as a conditon of the world. Along with this is required the attaining of a strength of the position to the extent that it does not undergo disintegration from its refusal to posit itself as essentially AGAINST the world/an other/ness (e.g. the ideological perspective, exemplified best through the political or religious ethos, which exists only to the extent that it is a counter-point of resistance against an "evil Other"). This higher stage is the developmental progression which Xavier cannot take (out of vanity - blindness to the truths contained within Magneto's perspective) and which Magneto refuses to take out of pride (blindness to his being a condition of the world/s of the humans rather than separate from 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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

X-Men: First Class, grasped through value-ontology Empty
PostSubject: Re: X-Men: First Class, grasped through value-ontology X-Men: First Class, grasped through value-ontology Icon_minitimeSat Dec 03, 2011 5:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It occurs to me that the morality of Magneto is a strange play on what I have described elsewhere as slave morality. Magneto holds in the basis to slave morality in the sense that his conviction is a "no", against those who have harmed him / his mother - to the other. But parallel to this runs the notion of himself as a definitive otherness, a mutant. There is a mirror working here, which enforces the validity of his morality. The other is saying no to the not-other. He is saying no because he is other. There is a logic here. What else could the other say but no? Is that not essential to his otherness?

Only with the development of Mystiques morality do we see that the notion of otherness is being dissolved and a notion of self-ness arises. This self-ness is coupled with a weakness, a vulnerability -- knowing oneself as other is of course functional as a shield.

It may perhaps said that Xavier is not yet at the sage of Magneto, that he has not even accepted his own otherness. He is still at what begins as the safest place, the place which ultimately however becomes untenable, as the battlefield shifts and the original beacons are abandoned for more progressed fronts. It may be impossible for Xavier to really go there, as his particular mutation does not permit him the pride of Magneto. And pride is perhaps the most crucial means to establish a conscious self-valuing.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:29 pm

without-music
builder
builder
without-music

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

Thinking the art-object. Empty
PostSubject: Thinking the art-object. Thinking the art-object. Icon_minitimeSun Dec 11, 2011 7:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I'm very interested in the distinction Heidegger draws between readiness-to-hand and the present-at-hand, which is, put more simply: the difference between naive sense experience and transcendental sense experience. To grasp the pen that sits to my left naively, in its readiness-to-hand, is to apprehend it immediately as a writing utensil, an instrument I may grasp in my hand and use to write words on a page. But when I reflect on this object, this pen, which is of course what we do when we "do philosophy," is to alter it in some way, it is to allow the pen to slip from its being as readiness-to-hand, to do away with my naive apprehension of it. When I reflect, I grasp the pen as present-to-hand: I understand it as an object that appears to me as black because of its relation to its horizon, a horizon constituted in part by the lamp that illuminates it and the notebook that casts a shadow over it. Now the pen appears to me as a cylindrical object, constructed toward some purpose, painted a certain colour, manufactured by a certain company, and so on. But that immediate sensation I felt when I reached for it in the urge to write something down completely alludes me; the pen is no longer simply ready-to-hand, its being as a pen eludes me. I understand it transcendentally, but something has been lost. This goes for all of experience, all of being. When we reflect, when we engage philosophically with the world, we're allowing something crucial to elude us.

I write this here because I believe that art holds the key to apprehending an object in its readiness-to-hand. In its abstractness, I think art allows us to understand and reflect upon those conditions of the thing that typically escape us. As such, I believe there may be some truth essential to art, that art may contain within itself the potential for "world-disclosing," to speak with Heidegger. I want that this will be a beginning: I will continue to post in this thread as I continue such thoughts -- I urge those of you with similar dispositions to do the same.

And as a side-note: It should not escape us that the artistic realm is not confined to depicting objects like pens; indeed, art is capable of "disclosing" being itself, if it so chooses, if it is up to the task, that is. I believe this is the reason the later Heidegger became fascinated with the poetry of Holderlin.



___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Thinking the art-object. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Thinking the art-object. Thinking the art-object. Icon_minitimeMon Dec 12, 2011 4:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, art, providing for meaning a home which is sufficiently abstract/form-less, which is to say a general enough sense impression into which the observer (or creator) inserts and grows his own personal sense of meaningfulness, produces an equally personal sense of value. This value appears as more emancipatory with respect to the individual's own desires, interests, possibilities, because it does not attain under a pre-scribed form - it is not a closure pre-fabricated somewhere else, even if this somewhere else is only a previous moment in the individual's own past.

Heidegger's distinction between readiness and presence at hand are useful here, because he is using this "artistic" "relative formlessness" as a lens to view anything through. Or rather, to be more precise: Heidegger takes the method of art (proper artistic method) and gives it a means, a form with which to be applied to what is "not-art". What is this, really? It appears to be a making-artful of the not-artful? Things, "tools" or "objects" are then viewed from the perspective of an artist, as a abstract model/form into which meaning-content is projected - we see not what the thing "is" but what it could be, which is to say we pierce into the very essence of the thing. Yet Heidegger does not ONLY offer this vastly useful method, however, but takes it even further by effecting a certain analysis of the difference between artistic and non-artistic perception (present at hand and ready at hand, respectively). You will perhaps need to fill me in a bit on the specifics of what Heidegger draws out from this analysis, as I have not finished Being and Time in its entirety. I would be interested to learn more, based on your own readings, of specifically what Heidegger uncovers with this analysis, which implications stem from it.

For one, I can imagine the idea of "recovery of that which is lost" within artistic perception, in other words the "naivete" and (self-) ignorance characteristic of the modes of non-artistic perception. The idea that something is lost is easy enough to grasp - the notion of its possible recovery or sublimation would be more interesting, particularly in light of the utilities which such naivete can provide (e.g. enduring structurality for various functionalities and mechanisms of the psyche). Where one has not yet forged one's consciousness deeply enough, deliberately and comprehensively enough, this naivete acts almost as a safeguard, storing away what later may come to be taken up and intentionally ennobled-transformed. In this sense the non-artful appears as an condition or possible inception point for artistic perception. Much like how the infant must be protected and safeguarded away from harm for a sufficient enough period of time (in the womb, as well as after birth) in order for there to be a possibility that it will later come into full intentional consciousness of itself, take possession of itself.

I think this view leads to the notion that ready at hand and present at hand are best seen not as oppositions but as two interacting points along the line of certain developments of (methods of) consciousness, with respect to the possibilities FOR this consciousness.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Thinking the art-object. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Thinking the art-object. Thinking the art-object. Icon_minitimeSun Dec 18, 2011 11:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
When we reflect, when we engage philosophically with the world, we're allowing something crucial to elude us.
You hit a long forgotten nerve with this observation. Philosophy, as it has existed so far, has been attempt at neutralization of perspective. The term "crucial" refers to the what way may call the least neutral modus of a perspective - valuing something as "of necessary utility". By this valuing, the thing is made into an instrument - the various physical properties one may observe in a pen become subservient to its function.

Ontological philosophy has long consisted of moving away from the utility of things to their "true nature" - and as such the distinction between what is on its own - beings - and what is only by virtue of beings having use for it - instruments has become unavoidable. As much as Heidegger interests us with his descriptions of the emerging of a thing as it presents itself to us, he does not force on us the simple step of distinguishing manufactured object from entity. There is a due respect for the fact that creation is also an emerging. Manufactured objects are part of what we are, both to the world and to our own mind, Objects can be described as additional power.

A difference that holds my mind in suspension here is between manufacturing, and designating function.
In the case of specialized instruments, industrial man designates function to an object before manufacturing it, before it exists. It exists as a function of the industrious mind. In the case of rudimentary tools that one picks up from the ground, there is a spontaneous attributing of function, either after the fact of discerning the object, or as the very act of discerning-as-object. It is unclear to me how the modalities of this attributing purpose to an object -- this valuing as a means to power - sensing it, which is what I read as the something crucial we are missing when we philosophize, in the traditional manner of detachment -- how much they vary from individual to individual. It seems to me that here the entire spectrum of morality and character unfolds, plays out. Characters vary greatly in the extent to which they absorb sensory perception for its own sake, or allow things to form as they are pleasant. There is a pleasantry that is not useful - an in-the-moment, to the end of which a lot of philosophy has been built, by a thinker who had glimpses of this and wanted to establish its existence logically. There is a displeasure in attributing function, as with it comes the transformation of man from reflective to active. Once a purpose has been assigned to the object, when a black cylindrical thing has become a pen, one is no longer observing, but not-writing. I would guess, that conscious assignment of function to anything raises the mind to a frequency of beta-waves, makes it 'restless'. The reflexive consciousness of observing the pens properties non-teleologically would be occurring as alpha waves - the frequency of the mind is raised as the utility of an object becomes its center of activity - the being prepares itself to become-more, to act again, to see life for what it is, to confront himself with his conditions, with all this comes the possibility of failure, the change to success, accomplishment - which activates again the imagination, connectes the beta to the alpha range and finalyl produces "inspiration" - - man experiences himself suddenly very differently, he begins to imprint his focus on the world as his medium, something becomes under his influence.

When shifting from contemplation of experience to function-attributing, man shifts his valuing of his direct experience to the discernment of the potential for a growth. This is the "crucial", this potential to more, the command of life itself - the activity of valuing in terms of oneself as increasing power. Philosophy has aimed away from this.


Quote :
I write this here because I believe that art holds the key to apprehending an object in its readiness-to-hand. In its abstractness, I think art allows us to understand and reflect upon those conditions of the thing that typically escape us. As such, I believe there may be some truth essential to art, that art may contain within itself the potential for "world-disclosing," to speak with Heidegger. I want that this will be a beginning: I will continue to post in this thread as I continue such thoughts -- I urge those of you with similar dispositions to do the same.

And as a side-note: It should not escape us that the artistic realm is not confined to depicting objects like pens; indeed, art is capable of "disclosing" being itself, if it so chooses, if it is up to the task, that is. I believe this is the reason the later Heidegger became fascinated with the poetry of Holderlin.

I agree that Hölderlin is significant. It would make sense to include a small study of his poetry in this thread. In general the road you take here may be what is required for a a real disclosure of Heideggers meaning. He is still largely unmined and I would say entirely unused. To put his thought-work to use, a future has to be disclosed not only as a theoretical possibility but as, excuse the profanity, an object of faith. To this end it must be seen, and this is difficult from the mechanical perspective we are embedded in now. In order to interpret Heideggers observations as functional, in order to operate such philosophy as a tool, what may, taking brainwaves as an analogy, be necessary is an intellectual increase of pulse, a becoming more alert - this time not to selective functions such as driving a nail into a board of wood without hitting the thumb, but to all of life in one, to encapsulate all that we know and are into one intention facing this new tool we have, tis thought -- to apply ourselves to a thought... this means that our entire physicality is changed in hierarchy, our being becomes an arrow towards sublimation - we are becoming "gods" - compared to what we were.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:30 pm

without-music
builder
builder
without-music

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

building dwelling thinking Empty
PostSubject: building dwelling thinking building dwelling thinking Icon_minitimeMon Jan 30, 2012 11:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was hoping the underlying force of Heidegger's essay could be discussed here. There are both builders and dwellers here, by title. I want to hear from the dwellers, but in honour of this thread-as-dwelling, I will first add my preliminary thoughts-as-building.

The sub-title of the forum is "Building Thought to Disclose the Future." I will take this opportunity to applaud such a formulation. I believe the distinction between the act of thinking and the act of building thought is of some significance. Building is a letting-dwell, in Heidegger's vernacular. But if it is the future -- and I take it that future here means the malleable, changeable horizon of potential before which we dwell and into which we propel ourselves -- that we are disclosing in the act of such building, then building thought is no longer a letting-dwell but a forging or a making-dwell. It is not a return but a push forward. And this new horizon ought to re-organize around it the fourfold in a novel way. But not just novel, of course: value-able in terms of self, in terms of the self here unified in the gathering of dwellers and builders. [For further consideration: analysis of the building/dwelling of value-ontology in terms of Heidegger's fourfold -- akin to how the bridge organizes around it the sky, the earth, divinities and mortals.] Such a self-gathering defines itself in terms of value-ontology, the core of this forum. This definition is of course a sheltering, a letting-be, a letting-grow, of value-ontology, for its tenants have been laid out, its skeleton has been assembled, the foundation is set -- what remains now is the act of building. With regard to this sheltering, I will let Heidegger's own words do us justice:

It is proper to every gathering that the gatherers assemble to coordinate their efforts to the sheltering; only when they have gathered together with that end in view do they begin to gather.
Heidegger, Logos.

Thus, only if and when we are capable of such sheltering can we begin to gather, and only if and when we are capable of such gathering can we begin to build. Only if and when we begin to build can we begin to let or make-dwell. The space of such dwelling will of course be the future that is disclosed in the act of building.



___________
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

building dwelling thinking Empty
PostSubject: Re: building dwelling thinking building dwelling thinking Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2012 2:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What a magnificently phrased ethics. Under this statement of purpose we do really assemble before the light.

Under this banner I would "sin" (miss the mark) if I do not say to you who are now mortal antagonists to know (or have faith) that your enemy works under this same banner. We seek the same, and none of us has seen it, but we all anticipate it with our most powerful mindform, which in all of us is different - in some slightly, in others even contradicting.

If we are guided by this superior principle of gathering and not by directly satisfying our individual tastes, we will find our place respective to each other, as a spectrum rather than the muddle of colors that may be only misperceived.





___________
" 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


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

building dwelling thinking Empty
PostSubject: Re: building dwelling thinking building dwelling thinking Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2012 3:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
without-music wrote:
I was hoping the underlying force of Heidegger's essay could be discussed here. There are both builders and dwellers here, by title. I want to hear from the dwellers, but in honour of this thread-as-dwelling, I will first add my preliminary thoughts-as-building.

The sub-title of the forum is "Building Thought to Disclose the Future." I will take this opportunity to applaud such a formulation. I believe the distinction between the act of thinking and the act of building thought is of some significance. Building is a letting-dwell, in Heidegger's vernacular. But if it is the future -- and I take it that future here means the malleable, changeable horizon of potential before which we dwell and into which we propel ourselves -- that we are disclosing in the act of such building, then building thought is no longer a letting-dwell but a forging or a making-dwell. It is not a return but a push forward. And this new horizon ought to re-organize around it the fourfold in a novel way. But not just novel, of course: value-able in terms of self, in terms of the self here unified in the gathering of dwellers and builders. [For further consideration: analysis of the building/dwelling of value-ontology in terms of Heidegger's fourfold -- akin to how the bridge organizes around it the sky, the earth, divinities and mortals.] Such a self-gathering defines itself in terms of value-ontology, the core of this forum. This definition is of course a sheltering, a letting-be, a letting-grow, of value-ontology, for its tenants have been laid out, its skeleton has been assembled, the foundation is set -- what remains now is the act of building. With regard to this sheltering, I will let Heidegger's own words do us justice:

It is proper to every gathering that the gatherers assemble to coordinate their efforts to the sheltering; only when they have gathered together with that end in view do they begin to gather.
Heidegger, Logos.

Thus, only if and when we are capable of such sheltering can we begin to gather, and only if and when we are capable of such gathering can we begin to build. Only if and when we begin to build can we begin to let or make-dwell. The space of such dwelling will of course be the future that is disclosed in the act of building.

Seems like a good philosophy for peace, but what about war? In this mission to break through, there will be obstacles, "enemies," and war philosophy is needed. The philosophy of people joining together to fight, not including but not instead of building or dwelling.

In this philosophy, it is proper that the fight be understood, alliances be made, the enemy reconoitered and a strategy put in place.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:31 pm

Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
Abstract

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon

A beautiful passage. Empty
PostSubject: A beautiful passage. A beautiful passage. Icon_minitimeWed Mar 21, 2012 2:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is just a beautiful passage in my eye in Nietzsche's "Thus spoke Zarathustra"

Nietzsche wrote:
1. The Three Metamorphoses

THREE metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the
spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a
child.
Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong
load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the
heaviest longeth its strength.
What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it
down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.
What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing
spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.
Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one's
pride? To exhibit one's folly in order to mock at one's wisdom?
Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its
triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?
Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for
the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?
Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and make friends
of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?
Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of
truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?
Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one's hand
to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?
All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon
itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the
wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness.
But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second
metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it
capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.
Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its
last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.
What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to
call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the
spirit of the lion saith, "I will."
"Thou-shalt," lieth in its path, sparkling with gold- a
scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, "Thou
shalt!"
The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus
speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: "All the values of things-
glitter on me.
All values have already been created, and all created values- do I
represent. Verily, there shall be no 'I will' any more. Thus
speaketh the dragon.
My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit?
Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is
reverent?
To create new values- that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but
to create itself freedom for new creating- that can the might of the
lion do.
To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for
that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.
To assume the ride to new values- that is the most formidable
assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a
spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.
As its holiest, it once loved "Thou-shalt": now is it forced to find
illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may
capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.
But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion
could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?
Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a
game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.
Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy
Yea unto life: its own will, willeth now the spirit; his own world
winneth the world's outcast.
Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how
the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a
child.-

Thus spake Zarathustra. And at that time he abode in the town
which is called The Pied Cow.





Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Helena's spectre Empty
PostSubject: Helena's spectre Helena's spectre Icon_minitimeSun Mar 25, 2012 10:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We root back into antiquity via a thread of spectres. Rome projected its fall into Venice, which became the capitalist world, the spectralization of value. But Rome was built on the spectre of Greece, and Greek was Athena, the spectre of Homeric mind. In turn he reflected on Achilles and the war that primordially swept up this flash in the cosmos; "the west", lashed out and still reverberates in an absolutization of spectrality. This war was caused by a woman figuring as a spectre in the spiritual eye of an decadent race. And what was in the head of this woman? Seldom mattered anything so deeply nothing - seldom a more primordially repressed. Our world is a seal on irrelevance.



___________
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:31 pm

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Question of Tragic Art Empty
PostSubject: Question of Tragic Art Question of Tragic Art Icon_minitimeFri Mar 02, 2012 10:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This question has been on my mind for very long, as long as I've been reading Nietzsche. What exactly is tragic art? I know what a tragedy is. I recognize a tragic storyline. I know the "feeling" of the tragic, as a surplus that breaks itself up into a destruction of bewildering beauty - but I do not have sufficient clarity on what Nietzsche means when he speaks of the tragic... not because I lack clarity, but because it is so all-important. Perhaps the most important concept in his work. It needs to be elaborated on much more bitterly than the will to power or the eternal recurrence, or slave versus master morality -- it is perhaps the realest, most alive concept. Because of this realness it not as easy for me to clarify.

So the question is: what is tragic art? Can we have examples? Music, plays, novels, films -- scenes from any of these.... classical but preferably also contemporary -- what is a contemporary tragedy - no, what represents "the tragic" in a contemporary form?

Here is the passage that inspired the question.

Quote :
What is Romanticism?

It will be remembered perhaps, at least among my friends, that at first I assailed the modern world with some gross errors and exaggerations, but at any rate with hope in my heart. I recognised who knows from what personal experiences? the philosophical pessimism of the nineteenth century as the symptom of a higher power of thought, a more daring courage and a more triumphant plenitude of life than had been characteristic of the eighteenth century, the age of Hume, Kant, Condillac and the sensualists: so that the tragic view of things seemed to me the peculiar luxury of our culture, its most precious, noble, and dangerous mode of prodigality; but nevertheless, in view of its overflowing wealth, a justifiable luxury. In the same way I interpreted for myself German music as the expression of a Dionysian power in the German soul: I thought I heard in it the earthquake by means of which a primeval force that had been imprisoned for ages was finally finding vent indifferent as to whether all that usually calls itself culture was thereby made to totter. It is obvious that I then misunderstood what constitutes the veritable character both of philosophical pessimism and of German music, namely, their Romanticism. What is Romanticism? Every art and every philosophy may be regarded as a healing and helping appliance in the service of growing, struggling life: they always presuppose suffering and sufferers. But there are two kinds of sufferers: on the one hand those that suffer from overflowing vitality, who need Dionysian art, and require a tragic view and insight into life; and on the other hand those who suffer from reduced vitality, who seek repose, quietness, calm seas, and deliverance from themselves through art or knowledge, or else intoxication, spasm, bewilderment and madness. All Romanticism in art and knowledge responds to the twofold craving of the latter; to them Schopenhauer as well as Wagner responded (and responds), to name those most celebrated and decided romanticists, who were then misunderstood by me (not however to their disadvantage, as may be reasonably conceded to me). The being richest in overflowing vitality, the Dionysian God and man, may not only allow himself the spectacle of the horrible and question able, but even the fearful deed itself, and all the luxury of destruction, disorganisation and negation. With him evil, senselessness and ugliness seem as it were licensed, in consequence of the overflowing plenitude of procreative, fructifying power, which can convert every desert into a luxuriant orchard. Conversely, the greatest sufferer, the man poorest in vitality, would have most need of mildness, peace and kindliness in thought and action: he would need, if possible, a God who is specially the God of the sick, a "Saviour"; similarly he would have need of logic, the abstract intelligibility of existence for logic soothes and gives confidence; in short he would need a certain warm, fear dispelling narrowness and imprisonment within optimistic horizons. In this manner I gradually began to understand Epicurus, the opposite of a Dionysian pessimist; in a similar manner also the "Christian” who in fact is only a type of Epicurean, and like him essentially a romanticist: and my vision has always become keener in tracing that most difficult and insidious of all forms of retrospective inference^ in which most mistakes have been made the inference from the work to its author from the deed to its doer, from the ideal to him who needs it, from every mode of thinking and valuing to the imperative want behind it. In regard to all aesthetic values I now avail myself of this radical distinction: I ask in every single case" Has hunger or superfluity become creative here"? At the outset another distinction might seem to recommend itself more it is far more conspicuous, namely, to have in view whether the desire for rigidity, for perpetuation, for being is the cause of the creating, or the desire for destruction, for change, for the new, for the future for becoming. But when looked at more carefully, both these kinds of desire prove themselves ambiguous, and are explicable precisely according to the before-mentioned, and, as it seems to me, rightly preferred scheme. The desire for destruction, change and becoming, may be the expression of overflowing power, pregnant with futurity (my terminus for this is of course the word "Dionysian"); but it may also be the hatred of the ill-constituted, destitute and unfortunate, which destroys, and must destroy, because the enduring, yea, all that endures, in fact all being, excites and provokes it. To understand this emotion we have but to look closely at our anarchists. The will to perpetuation requires equally a double interpretation. It may on the one hand proceed from gratitude and love: art of this origin will always be an art of apotheosis, perhaps dithyrambic, as with Rubens, mocking divinely, as with Hafiz, or clear and kind-hearted as with Goethe, and spreading a Homeric brightness and glory over everything (in this case I speak of Apollonian art). It may also, however, be the tyrannical will of a sorely-suffering, struggling or tortured being, who would like to stamp his most personal, individual and narrow characteristics, the very idiosyncrasy of his suffering, as an obligatory law and constraint on others; who, as it were, takes revenge on all things, in that he imprints, enforces and brands his image, the image of his torture, upon them. The latter is romantic pessimism in its most extreme form, whether it be as Schopenhauerian will philosophy, or as Wagnerian music: romantic pessimism, the last great event in the destiny of our civilisation. (That there may be quite a different kind of pessimism, a classical pessimism this presentiment and vision belongs to me, as something inseparable from me, as my proprium and ipsissimum; only that the word "classical" is repugnant to my ears, it has become far too worn, too indefinite and indistinguishable. I call that pessimism of the future, for it is coming! I see it coming! Dionysian pessimism.)
[Nietzsche: The Gay Science, 370]




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

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Question of Tragic Art Empty
PostSubject: Re: Question of Tragic Art Question of Tragic Art Icon_minitimeFri Mar 02, 2012 10:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I posted a parallel thread on ILP.

I am also interested in artists who can be associated with the tragic. And to broaden the topic, perhaps not only art, but also tragic approaches to the "stage of the world" , versus romantic or otherwise weaker ones. I want to expand the thinking on the tragic as well as bring it to the surface, to actuality.

Does the concept suffering, the affirmation of suffering amount to a sense of tragedy? I don't think so, but it is clearly important. What else is required for the tragic sense?

Can we re-shape our (interpretation of our) own cultural and political narrative in accordance with this sense? Can this perhaps be the first step in affirming what is happening? Or am I taking this into a far too practical direction now? No, I don't think so - this is precisely what we are lacking now, what traps us (as a civilization) in nihilism or resentment - the lack of the tragic sense, the will to utopia.

I don't even know what I am suggesting. Let anyone begin with an explanation of what it means for a "sense", or a narrative, or anything at all, to be tragic.



___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Question of Tragic Art Empty
PostSubject: Re: Question of Tragic Art Question of Tragic Art Icon_minitimeSat Mar 03, 2012 4:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The element of 'affirmation' in the tragic seems to represent a more inherent, central characteristic of tragedy, involved directly within the sense or pathos of it: the lack of power to alter the tragic circumstances, to avert tragedy. This lack is present at the beginning and builds all the while the tragic aesthetic itself builds -- it is a necessary condition for it. This sustained disharmony could be experienced in our own lives, or vicariously through the lives of others, through art or upon the stage. Tragic might then be interpreted as a directly sensing of or pathos birthed in the light of a higher or more-reflned, more-sublimated experience of a "lack of power". All such lack would at first arise as an experience of a more immediate suffering or pain. As this is sustained over time and transforms into woe and despair, then finally into regret and resignation, the specific sense/pathos of this lack arising from these becomes likewise stronger, and ultimately gains its own patho-logical "nature" and "psychological" subjective inertia. Which is to say that other subjective states begin to orbit the new patho-logical trajectory. This tragic pathos, born of a sustained and cultivated sense "disharmony"-as-lack with respect to some otherwise overflowing vitality and value, becomes a signifying marker and symbol, a definitional relation.

We might now interpret this movement as a mechanism whereby the valuing subject is left open before its possibilities in light of the fact that these possibilities would otherwise either remains largely closed or be directly militated against and pre-empted by the superior sense or cultivated pathos of experience of vitality (self-valuing becoming conscious of itself as value [but not necessarily yet as self-valuing capacity]). Tragic keeps the subject from walling off those which present as painful remainders in the equations of its self-value, painful reminders of what, from the vantage point of the self-affirmative and vital subject, constitute its own inescapable limit and highest failure (which it would like to, and indeed often must ignore for the sake of itself, for the sake of its own power and value and the "will to" these). Tragic operates directly to mediate the subjective relationship with these otherwise "remainder" or failed elements, as well as to keep open the space for the possibility of these at a later time.

Nietzsche seemed to have interpreted this as a "despair of all 'it was' " and of which (i.e. the past) we can do nothing about. A will to will backward ought to be cultivated, according to Nietzsche, to will all "it was" as "it is", as a "thus do I will it". Here we arrive at his derivation of the Eternal Return. So now we can see that the ER is a principle which begins with an understanding of the tragic, and it is Nietzsche's way of conceptualizing and objectifying (and then attempting to "solve", to resolve) the relation between subjective tragedy (the inescapability of self-failure/s) and its possible apotheosis/utility. Too much or too little tragedy is self-destructive. Nietzsche thus seemed to have sensed this and was attempting to trace a healthy the middle ground.

Tragic art then would be that art which inspires and evokes, sustaining and allowing for the tragic pathos to remain in view and un-"repressed". Thus would the subject that harbors the greater amount of this tragic pathos within it experience therefore the greater quality of reaction, strength and immediacy of value and meaning in the presence of tragic art; it finds its own greater catharsis and respite, and a focusing potency wherein it is able to encounter aspects of itself, through tragic art, which otherwise would remain to the subject unstated and uneludicated. Thus can the appreciation for tragic art be used as a sort of litmus test for the quality and character of a subject, which is what I think Nietzsche was trying to get at, and to explain/make use of.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Question of Tragic Art Empty
PostSubject: Re: Question of Tragic Art Question of Tragic Art Icon_minitimeSat Mar 03, 2012 7:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, this seems like a perfectly sensible explanation. I much appreciate the connection of the tragic to the ER - it seems logical that the philosophy that started as an exploration/affirmation of the tragic amounted in the imagining and affirmation of the Eternal Recurrence of the same, especially in the not exactly level-headed way it is arrived at in Zarathustra.

But then a very interesting question can be asked: should the affirmation of the tragic lead to the affirmation of the eternal recurrence of the same? Is this not rather a dangerous exaggeration of an affirmation, or perhaps even of an almost-affirmation, a reaching for affirmation - a magnification into the absurd of the will to affirm, so as to obscure to the willer that this will is insufficient for true affirmation?

But perhaps the notion of the Eternal Recurrence (I could never actually think that the idea is a scientific-logical conclusion, but I can allow myself it imagine that it is true and taste the consequences of that) is in fact a sound and noble means to affirm the tragic, to open oneself up to what is difficult to affirm from an instinctive departure point. It could be seen as a means to create a sense of the tragic, to arrive at least at a pathology similar to the tragic sense.




Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Why art precludes politics Empty
PostSubject: Why art precludes politics Why art precludes politics Icon_minitimeThu Jul 19, 2012 2:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Art has the function of satisfying the artist subjectively (by the fulfillment of his/her drives), and of stimulating the audience 'objectively' (as object, 'in the world')

It is not power, it can not fulfill the function of the 'ugly truth' - politics, which is summarized as falsity and its obstruction, either through force (might is right, the primal logos of the world) or through "peacefully" / more subtly enforced legislation, the logos of/within a state.








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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:29 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Why art precludes politics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Why art precludes politics Why art precludes politics Icon_minitimeThu Jul 19, 2012 3:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Politics can attain to aesthetics in the sense of harmony, elegance, geometry, but never to beauty. Beauty is a sensation for which also the renunciation of control is required. This aspect is antithetical to politics - at least politics as we know it.

Politics is the business of attaining goals, and creating means to accomplish this out of a given situation over which one has no absolute power.
Art is the business of presupposing the attainment of a goal and thereby defining the present situation as necessarily leading up to that goal.

A tyrant is someone who manages, to a relatively great degree, to live life both as politician and artist - eventualy all tyrants will have to succumb to the limitations of the laws of either of the two. If he chooses art, he will renounce or lose power, if he chooses politics he will renounce beauty.

The solution for a tyrant is a tragic or epic death, an aesthetic ending to the narrative of his quest for dominion. Caesar attained this, he was murdered by how own people at the heart of his power, resulting in the creation of the recreation and superenforcement of the state that he aspired to dominate. Napoleon and Hitler did not - the former simply lost, withdrew and was banished - he became irrelevant to his accomplishment. The latter was defeated and his will was negated.

Neither did Alexander attain a satisfactory ending to his narrative - unless the details of his illness are more interesting that we know. He died at least in conquest, in the midst of decision-making. Still, the central figure of politics is Caesar, in whose image the Christ, in the sense that Jesus is a fictional character, may have been designed for our people; "the perfect son" by whose name and authority all future kings of Rome (the west) will rule.

Jesus represents the artistic aspect of Caesars life - the sacrifice at the height of the possible. But the two need to be understood as one in order to see how power can lead to beauty - how politics can be made subservient to this most subjective, therefore most real, living virtue.

There can be no significant sacrifice without a power sufficiently strong to kill a being that is significant to others. The sacrifice must be aimed at transforming the greater power from within. So it is also with the inner politics of the artist...
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:32 pm

Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
Abstract

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeSun Mar 04, 2012 4:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is it that every 'now' we can either act for what is better or what is for worse, or is it that we can act in null; for what is neither?

Is that "neither" action a good or bad one?



___________
"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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeSun Mar 04, 2012 9:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Can you define "better" and "worse"? In other words, can you give the criterium on which these value judgments are based? On that all depends. For example, if you would set "homeostasis" as the ground value better and worse would be different things than if you set "being good towards your fellow man" as ground value.


Acting in null would only be possible in total nihilism, including a negation or neutralization of self-valuing - So I'd say acting in null would amount pretty quickly in death.





___________
" 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
Abstract

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeTue Mar 06, 2012 10:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Can you define "better" and "worse"? In other words, can you give the criterium on which these value judgments are based? On that all depends. For example, if you would set "homeostasis" as the ground value better and worse would be different things than if you set "being good towards your fellow man" as ground value.


Acting in null would only be possible in total nihilism, including a negation or neutralization of self-valuing - So I'd say acting in null would amount pretty quickly in death.


I wouldn't put any specifics for what exactly is better... rather almost as if better is positive and worse is negative... and an action can only be a matter of addition or subtraction. It seems to me that there is no null act no act of non-acting... so in any situation we are either doing something that is good or something that is bad negative or positive...
In otehr words it seems there is no 0 in that mathematics of valuing... perhaps it is relative and you can see an act as null... but it would seem to me that with respect to what your golal is in performing an action you are either doing well or doing bad...IDK....

I just had this feeling the other day when I was about to do something that all things considered (literally, if i knew all) then wwhat I was doingright then was either good or bad... and every action I make is like a craps-shoot



___________
"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
saturnesque



Posts : 6
Join date : 2012-02-21

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeWed Mar 07, 2012 12:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
Is it that every 'now' we can either act for what is better or what is for worse, or is it that we can act in null; for what is neither?

Is that "neither" action a good or bad one?

Well, either way, we're constantly acting in some way or another. The way we interpret the significance of those actions could happen in any number of ways. Meaning like that is pretty free-floating.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeFri May 04, 2012 3:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
Is it that every 'now' we can either act for what is better or what is for worse, or is it that we can act in null; for what is neither?

Is that "neither" action a good or bad one?
How could we know that in advance?
If we're 'being' or 'doing' in the moment, within the Now, there is no judgment - true?

Or we can cease to 'act' - no movement. At times, this might be the only 'real' action...and more difficult than the other.



___________
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


Last edited by VaerosTanarg on Sat May 05, 2012 2:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeFri May 04, 2012 8:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Most people do not act with respect to 'ends', they act "naturally", which is to say their activity (of thought or behavior) flows seamlessly from the instinctual-reactive being embedded within its environment/s. Reason, or self-perception, i.e. philosophy disrupts this process by forcing it to reflect pre-emptively upon its possible consequences.

Actions "in themselves" will always have many good and many bad results, since of course this good or bad depends entirely upon the perspective that observes and is affected by the action. I would say acting with "null effect" is impossible, but again that is only from a supposed objective vantage which is able to take into account all possible effects and influences. In reality, no such perspective exists, and the effects of actions always fall upon a particular range. So it would be equally as impossible to produce a null effect as it would for an action to produce no effect at all, but relatively speaking actions do produce "null" effects all the time, which is to say, insufficient or inadequate results.

Some of these inadequate results we classify as "negative". This depends entirely upon the range of our own purview and need.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

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

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeSat May 05, 2012 3:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable

Quote :
Most people do not act with respect to 'ends', they act "naturally", which is to say their activity (of thought or behavior) flows seamlessly from the instinctual-reactive being embedded within its environment/s.
If I catch your meaning here, what you're basically saying is that most people act without awareness - that is, they react according to their instincts and emotions. Aside from that, I think that most or many people DO act with respect to ends, insofar as they have a motive or a goal in mind - the 'end' is usually paramount within their actions.


Quote :
Reason, or self-perception, i.e. philosophy disrupts this process by forcing it to reflect pre-emptively upon its possible consequences.
Are you equating self-perception as reason? Self-perception may be quite delusional, narcissistic, and have nothing to do with right reason.
I wouldn't necessarily say that philosophy, in and of itself disrupts, that process - unless the individual him/her -self is thoughtful and ethical...and one need not be a philosopher for that. Have you ever been to ilp where the herd rises up? In what way does 'philosophy' in that case, reflect upon consequences? Philosophy is simply a tool. It is the sane individual working in harmony with philosophy, caring about and seeking what is truth and wisdom, who is capable of achieving a true perspective of consequences. And of course, he must also realize that this is tied up with his own personal psychology.



Quote :
Actions "in themselves" will always have many good and many bad results, since of course this good or bad depends entirely upon the perspective that observes and is affected by the action.
Actions "in themselves" are neutral, wouldn't you think? Just like a work of art on a wall is neutral or just "is" until there is a perceiver. No?
I prefer the terms 'positive' and 'negative.
But I will agree with you that everything is a matter of perspective. The way in which we 'see' something determines our actions or inactions and our own subjective reality - which may not be based in reality but illusion or at the very least, only an unclear, incomplete picture.



Quote :
I would say acting with "null effect" is impossible, but again that is only from a supposed objective vantage which is able to take into account all possible effects and influences.
Do you mean acting with no attempt to achieve an effect (as being detached) or do you mean an action in which there would be/could be no effect?

So I think what you're saying here is that you realize that all possible effects and influences could never be taken into account? I agree.

Quote :
In reality, no such perspective exists, and the effects of actions always fall upon a particular range. So it would be equally as impossible to produce a null effect as it would for an action to produce no effect at all, but relatively speaking actions do produce "null" effects all the time, which is to say, insufficient or inadequate results.
I'm confused. Do you see a distinction between a 'null effect' and 'an action to produce no effect'?


Quote :
Some of these inadequate results we classify as "negative". This depends entirely upon the range of our own purview and need.
Inadequate as meaning 'not what we were hoping for'? But I agree with the second part.

Since the topic of this thread is "Is There an In-Between', that would probably be a good place to start in terms of changing one's perspective...instead of leaning too far positive or negative since both are judgment calls. An In-Between gives one the opportunity to be balanced and to 'see' more of what actually may be there or 'is' there. But that in itself is an ongoing practice - balancing all or trying to see all at the same time...sort of like seeing the trees as forest - and not the forest as trees. Perhaps that's simply semantics.



___________
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
Arcturus Descending

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

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeTue Jul 24, 2012 3:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract...

Quote :
I just had this feeling the other day when I was about to do something that all things considered (literally, if i knew all) then wwhat I was doingright then was either good or bad... and every action I make is like a craps-shoot
But if, like you say, you knew all, then every action you made would not necessarily have to be like a crap-shoot, Abtract. If you tried to base your actions within the parameters of "to do no harm" and self-awareness, how could they come down to either good or bad? The in-between to me is that place - that moment - where actions are decided - based on what we see and what we determine to do. It balances cause and effect.

That to me is not a crap shoot but an autonomous willing or striving, capable of affecting positive results.





Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Apr 27, 2012 9:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
NON ego nunc tristis uereor, mea Cynthia, Manis,
nec moror extremo debita fata rogo;
sed ne forte tuo careat mihi funus amore,
hic timor est ipsis durior exsequiis.
non adeo leuiter noster puer haesit ocellis,
ut meus oblito puluis amore uacet.
illic quidquid ero, semper tua dicar imago:
traicit et fati litora magnus amor.
illic formosae ueniant chorus heroinae,
quas dedit Argiuis Dardana praeda uiris;
quarum nulla tua fuerit mihi, Cynthia, forma
gratior, et (Tellus hoc ita iusta sinat)
quamuis te longae remorentur fata senectae,
cara tamen lacrimis ossa futura meis.
quae tu uiua mea possis sentire fauilla!
tum mihi non ullo mors sit amara loco.
quam uereor, ne te contempto, Cynthia, busto
abstrahat e nostro puluere iniquus Amor,
cogat et inuitam lacrimas siccare cadentis!
flectitur assiduis certa puella minis.
quare, dum licet, inter nos laetemur amantes:
non satis est ullo tempore longus amor.







That death could weary love I fear more than death;
that love's failing embers fade upon the pyre
I dread more than the railing fires
entered into my torpid frame, nor in languished death
do I dread pain, but only that the faint sting
of mortal ill could thwart the courses of love's train.
As bone survives the body burned,
love's memory survives the passion spurned
in tempered thought, by haughty passion gone remiss;
alas, the thought of love stronger than love is.
Revealed in the mirror of the flesh, flesh is returned;
love does not engender, love completes;
love does not create, love cultivates,
reaping in the germ of created things
the foretaste of another world,
and beyond the shore of death love rolls on.
For love aims to drink deep of the eternal,
and finds in mortal pleasures only a bitter draught:
alas, the longest love is not long enough,
and briefer is the longer sought.



___________
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.


-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.


Last edited by Parodites on Tue May 01, 2012 10:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeSat Apr 28, 2012 2:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster



Aeschylus excerpt.








Oneirophantoi de penthêmones
pareisi doxai pherou-
sai charin mataian.
matan gar, eut' an esthla tis dokôn horai,
parallaxasa dia
cherôn bebaken opsis ou methusteron
pterois opadous' hupnou keleuthois.”





The dreamy haunts of passion do [ indwell our suffering ] 1
and bring forth only grace without beauty.
For what is beauty that knows not love?
Such visions straightway slip through the arms
and, along their [twisted path], 2 do bring us to despair
as day brings us unto night; so from dreaming to wakefulness
the sated vision is given unto grief.






Penthemones is a word Aeschylus seems to have made up, it occurs only once in Greek poetry, namely in his work. Penthe, mourning or suffering, and mone, an abode, or metaphorically, to make a home, to indwell. It could mean "Suffering one's place, one's dwelling" or "Indwelling in suffering, making a home of suffering." This is given to signify the fundamental nature of the poet himself, he is "penthemonic." He accepts his suffering as his "dwelling, his home." He is at-home-in-suffering. This position is countered with the man who has befallen to the charms of poetry and dreams, and is caught up in an eternal "keleuthois" and alternation, and cannot therefor name anything his home or dwelling, least of all his suffering. Think of "home" in the sense of being situated, the poet is situated, albeit negatively.


2. Keleuthois. It means not merely path, but twisting path. Both Hesiod and Parmenides used this word when making the point that day and night, sleep and wakefulness, are caught up in eternal alternation, and so pothos or longing, the sleep of love, continually awakens us to eros and the definite object of our longing, and this awakened love must in turn fall back into itself, must sleep.



___________
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.


-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lyssa



Posts : 9
Join date : 2012-07-22

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeSun Jul 22, 2012 4:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:



Aeschylus excerpt.


Oneirophantoi de penthêmones
pareisi doxai pherou-
sai charin mataian.
matan gar, eut' an esthla tis dokôn horai,
parallaxasa dia
cherôn bebaken opsis ou methusteron
pterois opadous' hupnou keleuthois.”

The dreamy haunts of passion do [ indwell our suffering ] 1
and bring forth only grace without beauty.
For what is beauty that knows not love?
Such visions straightway slip through the arms
and, along their [twisted path], 2 do bring us to despair
as day brings us unto night; so from dreaming to wakefulness
the sated vision is given unto grief.


Penthemones is a word Aeschylus seems to have made up, it occurs only once in Greek poetry, namely in his work. Penthe, mourning or suffering, and mone, an abode, or metaphorically, to make a home, to indwell. It could mean "Suffering one's place, one's dwelling" or "Indwelling in suffering, making a home of suffering." This is given to signify the fundamental nature of the poet himself, he is "penthemonic." He accepts his suffering as his "dwelling, his home." He is at-home-in-suffering. This position is countered with the man who has befallen to the charms of poetry and dreams, and is caught up in an eternal "keleuthois" and alternation, and cannot therefor name anything his home or dwelling, least of all his suffering. Think of "home" in the sense of being situated, the poet is situated, albeit negatively.


2. Keleuthois. It means not merely path, but twisting path. Both Hesiod and Parmenides used this word when making the point that day and night, sleep and wakefulness, are caught up in eternal alternation, and so pothos or longing, the sleep of love, continually awakens us to eros and the definite object of our longing, and this awakened love must in turn fall back into itself, must sleep.



To source it properly; that is from the Agamemnon, verse 420.

Are you translating this yourself? If so, really appreciate it, and this thread.

Alternate translations of the above:

"And when the night is deep,
Come visions, sweet and sad, and bearing pain
Of hopings vain-
Void, void and vain, for scarce the sleeping sight
Has seen its old delight,
When thro' the grasps of love that bid it stay
It vanishes away
On silent wings that roam adown the ways of sleep. "

And,

"Mournful apparitions come to him in dreams, bringing only vain joy; for vainly, whenever in his imagination a man sees delights, straightaway the vision, slipping through his arms, is gone, winging its flight along the paths of sleep."
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Aug 03, 2012 10:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ah, yes. These are my translations. I took great liberty in them, with Propertius especially, in attempting to capture the actual Latin melodies in English, as opposed to replacing them with English melodies with a fully "faithful" translation of the sense. It is the actual sound and music of the Latin verse itself that I want to translate. The sense of the Latin and the sense of the poem in English I juxtapose to one another, Latin amore to English love, (ours is a transcendent, quasi-religious sensation, the former is more of a mournful competition against fate) and I articulate and draw forth that excessive component in both concepts and focus the poem on it. All languages are splinters of an absolute sense, true translation does not move a meaning from one language to another, but puts the many splinters of language together, to draw closer to the absolute.



___________
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.


-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.


Last edited by Parodites on Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lyssa



Posts : 9
Join date : 2012-07-22

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Aug 03, 2012 10:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
Ah, yes. These are my translations. I took great liberty in them, with Propertius especially, in attempting to capture the actual Latin melodies in English, as opposed to replacing them with English melodies with a fully "faithful" translation of the sense. It is the actual sound and music of the Latin verse itself that I want to translate.

I get it. Its beautiful!

Have you composed many such translations? I'd be eager to read.

And could I ask when Harmatia is likely to be published? I look forward to it.

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

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Aug 03, 2012 10:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I translate my favorite texts in my spare time, I might do something with them some day. And I will publish at least two books together, soon.



___________
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.


-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lyssa



Posts : 9
Join date : 2012-07-22

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Aug 03, 2012 10:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
I translate my favorite texts in my spare time, I might do something with them some day. And I will publish at least two books together, soon.

Great, thanks; and Best Wishes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Aug 03, 2012 10:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

Ahi qual fallo e mirar cio, che mirato
desta il desire, e col desir tormenta!
Le Stelle indarno, indarno accusa il fato
chi del proprio suo mal fabbro diventa:
Stassi al varco del ciglio in dolte aguato
amor dolce nemico, e ment ei tenta
nel cuor l ingresso, con felice inganno
ospite v entra, e vi riman tiranuo.


Oh! What an error to look still upon your image,
even after you have taken leave and given me your farewell,
for when desire is named, desire torments!
Desire, hence, what a fruitless star! Fruitlessly to accuse fate,
and her wrought smithy in the firmament,
and the circuit it hath thereby bore her to tread forever;
together she, with the beloved, in sweet ambush
confound love's vision, and makes of it a sweet enemy,
which, happy to be deceived, the heart entreats and welcomes,
again and again subject to your tyrannizing.


-- Vincenzo da Filicaia, Avvertimento ali Anima.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jun 04, 2020 9:11 pm

Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 6:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is philosophy a way to organize power once had? in other words: does power serve philosophy?

The opposite: Power, once had, is a way to organize philosophy. Philosophy serves power.

I challenge any poster to provide an example that contradicts this principle.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 8:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What "principle"?



Thinking is power.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 9:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What "principle"?

Pezer wrote:
Power, once had, is a way to organize philosophy. Philosophy serves power.

If "thinking is power," then "power is thinking."
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 12:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Capable wrote:
What "principle"?

Pezer wrote:
Power, once had, is a way to organize philosophy. Philosophy serves power.

If "thinking is power," then "power is thinking."
A cat is an animal.



___________
" 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


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 5:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
An animal is a cat.

More ambiguous does not = less true.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeTue May 22, 2012 1:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
An animal does not equal a cat, and "=" does not equal "is".

Thinking is a form of power. Power is not always thinking.




___________
" 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


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeTue May 22, 2012 3:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I never made the claims you are correcting.

A form of power is thinking. Not always thinking is power.

I don't understand why we are playing this game. If thinking is power, then power is thinking. This is only evitable if power is an adjective instead of a noun, which it is not, so it is inevitable.

If philosophy is power, then power is philosophy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeThu May 24, 2012 2:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think I see where you're coming from. But are you sure that it's useful to pursue this line of logic, which is essentially a denial that we should hold to the meaning implicit in certain grammatical arrangements - within grammar ?

If water is wet, then wet is water. Yes, if you mean to have defined "water" as "that which is wet".
But that's not really what is usually meant. So also not what Capable meant, when he said thinking is power. He did not mean, it seemed, that "thinking" can be defined as "that which is power". Just that thinking is power, regardless of how the two are further specified, limited and thus defined.








Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Christianity must be exorcized Empty
PostSubject: Christianity must be exorcized Christianity must be exorcized Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2012 2:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If anybody here still likes some things about christianity (I know that Capable does), let's battle it out here.

Just to be clear, Capable is the sharpest philosopher I know, this is not a personal attack.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Christianity must be exorcized Empty
PostSubject: Re: Christianity must be exorcized Christianity must be exorcized Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2012 3:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Copied from production, what you may read as my "argument for Christianity".

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

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

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

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


This re-establishment gives rise to great strength, and I will compare it even to a nucleair fission, a disconnecting of elements from a larger atom to form stronger, more stable units, whereby a lot of energy is released.

The weakening core material of the indirectly-self-valuing finds it in himself to value himself only if he is given an example of himself that makes him see himself as good: this is done by splitting the Ego. First the slave has only is loathed quasi-self, through a successful manipulation of, in the Jungian sense, archetypical imagery, the "saved slave" becomes two imagined subjects instead of one experienced wretched object. These two imaginations are first the slaves self-condemning made visible to himself as a proper motive, and justified by a narratively hypothesized nobility, as God "the Father" -- second the slave as the condemned one, the victim, made visible to himself as noble, as the Son of God. Finding the Christ within oneself means both taking up the sword and subjecting to a mercy.

These notions are not stories of experience but analytical value logic applied to the narrative-symbolic construction and the historical reality of Christianity. "The Holy spirit" may refer to the ungraspable condition that keeps the two subjects together under one roof, the intention to self-value that is resent in every cell and atom of every being but does not guarantee a conscious subject. "Speaking in tongues" then the reduction of man to blindly self-valuing organic material. A vulgar version of Dionysos?



___________
" 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


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Christianity must be exorcized Empty
PostSubject: Re: Christianity must be exorcized Christianity must be exorcized Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2012 4:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Jesus Christ was good for the Jews, but we all really didn't need him. Hell if it wasn't for us, not only would Jesus never have happened, but if he had, he would have been properlly digested by the Jews and pooped out eventually, like Abraham or Moses. Or perhaps it wouldn't, because it wasn't simply a Jewish creation; it was a Nazarethian invention, full of abrahamic mixes together with arab and further-eastern religions. But perhaps it would have stayed among the original Abrahamics and some Arabs instead of being made into stone by Plato enthusiasts and perpetuated.

Now we are stuck with it, untill we are able to figure out what is what, and what came from where and why.

Understand that the Jews aren't considered, or weren't considered European. They where akin to gypsies except that they where able to amass fortunes by dealing with the Europeans sometimes. We "caught" the virus of christianity from a nomadic group, and so we have a nomadic god.

Why get rid of it? Well, I think Nietzsche's reason is good enough: It is an imaginary realm that pushes you to despise life. Pagan religions, for example, where imaginary realms that pushed you to love life. The gods of the Moon and Sun and Stars and Fertility and War and Wisdom and Death and Rain and Thunder and Thieving and almost any aspect of life. All we have is the walking-stick God, the god of Sickness, Poverty, Humility, Mercy, Repentance. The god of the Sinners.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Christianity must be exorcized Empty
PostSubject: Re: Christianity must be exorcized Christianity must be exorcized Icon_minitimeSat Feb 04, 2012 6:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Jesus Christ was good for the Jews, but we all really didn't need him. Hell if it wasn't for us, not only would Jesus never have happened, but if he had, he would have been properlly digested by the Jews and pooped out eventually, like Abraham or Moses. Or perhaps it wouldn't, because it wasn't simply a Jewish creation; it was a Nazarethian invention, full of abrahamic mixes together with arab and further-eastern religions. But perhaps it would have stayed among the original Abrahamics and some Arabs instead of being made into stone by Plato enthusiasts and perpetuated.
The Jews never accepted Jesus and the Christian myth is a Greek creation. The book where he makes his appearance is written in Greek and as there is no historical evidence of the man really existing, we must attribute the characters existence not to the Jewish but the a Hellenic creativity and need. This attribution is much more in line with what Christianity represents as a narrative -- a breaking away of the God in Heaven as a guide, and an affirmation of self-responsibility that leads to tragic end. Indeed it seems that Christianity is Platonism for the people. The Jews never wanted any of it, and still don't. It is a European, western, Greek/Roman creation/burden. Christianity's focus on individuality is reflecting this. Jesus is in not entirely unlike Prometheus. He steals the spirit (as fire) from God, and is punished for/in sharing it with humans.

Quote :
Now we are stuck with it, untill we are able to figure out what is what, and what came from where and why.
We are stuck with it until we find a way to release and re-route the drives that manifest/anchor in Christianity. In order to do this we must not only now where it comes from, but also conceive of something better, healthier, more worthy of our (cultures) drives. This last is the more difficult part, although I see you've set steps in trying to envision a new God.

Quote :
Understand that the Jews aren't considered, or weren't considered European. They where akin to gypsies except that they where able to amass fortunes by dealing with the Europeans sometimes. We "caught" the virus of christianity from a nomadic group, and so we have a nomadic god.
I don't know how people manage to continue propagating the idea that Christianity has been spread by Jews. Is Nietzsche so compelling that he makes it unnecessary to consider written history? Historically it is clear that Christianity has been spread through Europe by appealing from its humble origins in the Hellenic world to the sentiments of poor Romans, and by its narrative genius combined with the decay of Roman vitality and health, 'infecting' the upper strata of power. Since then it has been used as a means to control the masses, as I'm sure you know. For more than a thousand years it has been extremely difficult to live in Europe and not be Christian. Only gypsies, outcasts such as Jews, people who had reconciled themselves wit the fate of standing separate from the main populations could afford to not be Christian.

Quote :
Why get rid of it? Well, I think Nietzsche's reason is good enough: It is an imaginary realm that pushes you to despise life. Pagan religions, for example, where imaginary realms that pushed you to love life. The gods of the Moon and Sun and Stars and Fertility and War and Wisdom and Death and Rain and Thunder and Thieving and almost any aspect of life. All we have is the walking-stick God, the god of Sickness, Poverty, Humility, Mercy, Repentance. The god of the Sinners.
But does a healthy person really need to be pushed to love life? And if one is unhealthy, can one be made to love life? To the latter, the answer is probably yes, and a Christian fire-baptism is one of the 'medicins' serving to this end. What one would need to do in order to get rid of the sickness in religion is to get rid of the priestly caste, because no one who has been baptized with the Promethean fire could stand to remain in a temple that is closed off from the outside air. What I want is that new temples are erected, where fires burn wildly, where meat is being roasted and wine spilt before it is drunk, rituals are brought about where the greedy and world-weary are afraid to tred. As such God is really a representation of the word "out there", that which lets itself be loved only by those who are willing to step out there and let their exuberant passions be known - inn their mind to God, but in fact to their fellow humans. This is the true end of organized religion - a 'frame' wherein surplus pathos is allowed to take on strange shapes.

All this stands separate from the transcendent awareness that sometimes occurs in a contemplative soul, the truly religious nature, who prefers to be in any place as long as it is not a church where the poor in health and spirit are gathered to lament and exude the stench of their faul innards.



___________




Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeTue Feb 07, 2012 2:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If you put any stock on this clown, you are way on the wrong track.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 9:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Who the fuck is John Pilger?



___________
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.


-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 11:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
Who the fuck is John Pilger?

A low-rate documentarist with a lot of influence on the uninformed left that uses communist-conspirationist rhetoric to hide his utter lack of research or knowledge.

I mention him because James S Saint made a whole thread based on something he wrtoe.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 12:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oh, well James is a fucking moron.



So there's that.






Alright, that might have been slightly unnecessary. I'll be nicer now.



___________
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.


-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeThu Feb 16, 2012 2:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer --- Regardless of this Pilger guy who I've never heard of either, Monsanto is real. Countless farmers and many governments across the world have been battling against Monsanto, only some successful. Disregarding ideas on political and economical strategies on account that they are "conspiracy theories" is nonsensical. What is a conspiracy Are politics to power and market-dominion possible without conspiracy?

What should be questioned here is not whether or not exorbitantly absurd schemes for global dominion exist ( the players in question make no attempt to hide these aims -- http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf -- ( Brzezinski is a "conspiracy theorist" in that he is designer and advocate of these conspiracies )) but whether these are inherently "evil". Why should "The Zionists" not aim to take over the world? Everybody has been attempting this from day one. It's called the will to power. Why is it suddenly absurd, when people are confronted with suggestions of its present day ultimate consequences? Because its a terrifying concept, and most Nietzsche-lovers have not actually thought it through, and prefer to keep seeing their own morality as a standard for the world.



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeThu Feb 16, 2012 3:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I'm trying to say too many things at once here.
Let me stick to Monsanto and try to find out what is true and not.

Is it true that Monsanto is taking control of the agricultural economies of many nations including the US?
-This is what I've learned from research (I am not 100% certain that it is true as I am not in the business myself): The seeds they sell are designed to produce crop that is itself infertile, produces no fertile seeds. They have also managed to get in regulations in many countries saying that whenever Monsanto seeds are being found on a field that has not bought them, Monsanto can make claims to that field and enforce that their seeds are being used there. Once seeds enters a field, either by an ignorant farmer buying them, by being dropped from helicopters or by being blown over by the wind, the farmer is forced to buy a new load of seeds from them every year because of how these seeds are designed. Using this strategy, Monsanto has gained control of a great amount of farms across the world.

Is Monsanto exerting control over the populace?
-Since they control a great many farms and have designed the products that grow there, they exert a certain degree of control over the consumers of these products.

Is this control bad?
-It's obviously bad for the farmers, who lose a great deal of money by being forced to buy seeds every year. It may or not be bad for the people consuming the products, I have no insight in this. It is good for Monsanto.

Are The Zionists using Monsanto to gain control over the world?
-I know of no connection between Zionists and Monsanto. I am not even sure what "Zionist" means these days. It seems to mean "Corporate". In this sense it is likely that the answer is yes. Corporations without exception aim for economical control. I am not sure that any of this has to do with the struggle for self-determination of the Jewish people.



___________
" 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


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeThu Feb 16, 2012 9:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Pezer --- Regardless of this Pilger guy who I've never heard of either, Monsanto is real.

No problem, just don't get your facts about it from some quack. Or do and renounce being taken seriously by anyone who knows who the guy/gal is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeThu Feb 16, 2012 2:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So far this is all fashion-talk -- Pilger is apparently someone who you think is uncool, should be publicly denounced so as not to look uncool. Right? I'd be interested in what makes him, in your eyes, a quack. For example, can you indicate that what he says is untrue? Can you reproduce some of what he says?



___________
" 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


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2012 8:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
So far this is all fashion-talk -- Pilger is apparently someone who you think is uncool, should be publicly denounced so as not to look uncool. Right? I'd be interested in what makes him, in your eyes, a quack. For example, can you indicate that what he says is untrue? Can you reproduce some of what he says?

Cool and uncool? If that is what you think, then I was wasting my time here.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2012 9:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer, what reasons (be specific, show where) have you given us to assume your comments here are anything other than "fashion statements"?



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2012 10:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Pezer, what reasons (be specific, show where) have you given us to assume your comments here are anything other than "fashion statements"?

I think you are missplacing the burden of proof here.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2012 12:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is your topic. You started it.

The burden of "proof", then, if that is how you want to conceptualize it, would be on you as the creator of this topic, the "burden" (and why on earth does this seem like a burden to you??) to demonstrate your point, explain what it is you are asserting here, and why/how it is relevant, useful. Assuming that you refuse to do so, I would need to ask, why make this post at all?

What use stating something and then petulantly refusing to demonstrate it or respond to others' comments, insights or queries?

Edit: I think perhaps you have mistaken the function of this forum 'Kurukshetra'... this particular forum is not a "Rant house", it is not for mindless babble, accusation or random hate. This is a place for "direct confrontation, unrestrained attack" as the subtitle of the forum reads. It is a place to make arguments, demonstrate points and positions and attack those of others. Kurukshetra is a forum where the ordinary "rules of civilized discourse" to not necessarily apply. But that does not mean that the rules of argumentative or rational discourse also do not apply.

If you have a point, with this topic, please make it. BTL is not a forum for meaningless nonsense or undefended assertions. This applies as much to Kurukshetra as to any other forum here. This is done to protect the possibilities for discourse, intelligent conversation and development of thought (please read the Rules here, if you have not already, regarding this further.)




___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2012 4:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
This is your topic. You started it.

The burden of "proof", then, if that is how you want to conceptualize it, would be on you as the creator of this topic, the "burden" (and why on earth does this seem like a burden to you??) to demonstrate your point, explain what it is you are asserting here, and why/how it is relevant, useful. Assuming that you refuse to do so, I would need to ask, why make this post at all?

What use stating something and then petulantly refusing to demonstrate it or respond to others' comments, insights or queries?

Edit: I think perhaps you have mistaken the function of this forum 'Kurukshetra'... this particular forum is not a "Rant house", it is not for mindless babble, accusation or random hate. This is a place for "direct confrontation, unrestrained attack" as the subtitle of the forum reads. It is a place to make arguments, demonstrate points and positions and attack those of others. Kurukshetra is a forum where the ordinary "rules of civilized discourse" to not necessarily apply. But that does not mean that the rules of argumentative or rational discourse also do not apply.

If you have a point, with this topic, please make it. BTL is not a forum for meaningless nonsense or undefended assertions. This applies as much to Kurukshetra as to any other forum here. This is done to protect the possibilities for discourse, intelligent conversation and development of thought (please read the Rules here, if you have not already, regarding this further.)


See what I mean? not so different after all... Don't say I didn't give it a chance.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 24, 2012 5:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can only state the obvious: you are seemingly battling with yourself over these issues (Pilger, Christianity, morality). "Unrestrained attack" does however not mean making an isolated gesture of disapproval, and then standing back hoping that others agree with your disapproval. The point of this forum is rather the opposite; for people to engage in conflict with each other, defending their ideas and attacking those that oppose it. Battle requires more than just making a taunt into the void and running away when someone shows up.

When you are ready to face the issues you have brought up, see them reflected back to you, deal with that reflection, I hope to see you here again.







Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Battle Empty
PostSubject: Battle Battle Icon_minitimeFri May 18, 2012 2:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have decided that I will post most, if not all, of my threads in this forum from now on. Firstly, because I have come to understand my perspective as antagonistic, though sincerely admiring, of value-ontology. Secondly, because I like very much the aesthetics of battle.

And so, this post might be read as a friendly declaration of antagonism which is far from unconditional.

My threads here will be in the form of provocations, and I beg you to send me a PM if you find any of them unacceptable in some way. My goal is to philosophize with a rapier (not a hammer) and with no will to victory (victory in these waters may have grave conscecuences).

I will ignore idiot posts if my worthy oponents will.

See you out there.




Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

The Uselessness of Christian Morality Empty
PostSubject: The Uselessness of Christian Morality The Uselessness of Christian Morality Icon_minitimeFri May 18, 2012 2:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For too long has this pityful creature lingered in the new philosophical landscape that the Renaissance made space for.

If anything in this world is absolute, it is the uselessness of this system to intelligent thought.




Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Objectivism Empty
PostSubject: Objectivism Objectivism Icon_minitimeSun Jul 15, 2012 7:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Objectivism as an ethics of philosophy is to Subjectivism what crack-making as a process is to Cocaine.

Yes dichotomists, there is a disturbance in the force.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Objectivism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objectivism Objectivism Icon_minitimeSat Aug 11, 2012 10:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Objectivism as an ethics of philosophy is to Subjectivism what crack-making as a process is to Cocaine.

Yes dichotomists, there is a disturbance in the force.
Nice.
And what is the discovery of the special quality of the coca-plant?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:34 pm

Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Anthropology Empty
PostSubject: Anthropology Anthropology Icon_minitimeTue Aug 28, 2012 10:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Anthropology as a field is racist, this is obvious.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Anthropology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Anthropology Anthropology Icon_minitimeThu Aug 30, 2012 6:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Anthropology as a field is racist, this is obvious.
When anthropology includes the study of cultures and civilizations, it is not.
In Holland, the right wing politician Geert Wilders is accused of being racist because he expresses contempt and disgust for Islam, as a religion. In fact he doing the opposite of what the man to whom he is often compared, Hitler, did for Jews - Hitler went to great lengths to prove that Jewishness is not cultural or religious, but a matter of blood. And that therefore Jews should be eradicated.
That is racism - anthropology as such is not, although it came into existence no doubt as a form of racism - the colonial westerners in Africa who had no scrupules about making distinctions between different biological types.



___________
" 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
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

Anthropology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Anthropology Anthropology Icon_minitimeThu Aug 30, 2012 10:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Anthropology as a field is racist, this is obvious.



No.


And why are most of your posts so unproductive? Like this one.





Pezer
builder
builder


Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Philosophy Philosophy Icon_minitimeSun Sep 02, 2012 8:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A good criticism of philosophy: it doesn't go far enough in its intentions.

A humiliating truth: the system of living philosophy as such has developped so that one of its functions is preciely to curb the passions, the instincts behind those intentions (with all of the contradictions and other imperfections that come with the evolutionary process; that is to say, the system is strong enough to contain these contradictions).
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy Philosophy Icon_minitimeSat Sep 22, 2012 8:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This speaks to Nietzsche's critique of modern philosophy. In Nietzsche's view, philosophy and reason are not distinct from the instincts but are a part of them, a particular sort of "organization" of instinctuality. Reason is a particular kind of instinct. Because of this, philosophy which treats the instinctual organism as "bad" (as does moralism/religion) or as inadequate/inferior (e.g. Kant) is repulsive to Nietzsche, is anti-human and anti-living.

Nietzsche is certainly correct that much philosophy (and of course also its pale shade, religion) is not ambitious enough, its intentions are neither very honest nor daring. Genuine philosophy also involves a joy in risk-taking, in creative destruction and in "immorality"; it possesses a reckless ambition and a will/strength to go beyond traditional categories of truth and morality. Any thinking which merely vacillates within these unchallenged norms/spaces is not worthy of the name "philosophy".



___________
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:34 pm

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 05, 2012 7:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In this thread I invite Capable, Amasopher and James S Saint to state their aims for an as yet hypothetical collective project dedicated to clarifying what exactly is, and is to become of, the epistemological method that has been named value ontology.

In order to facilitate the digestion process, each poster gets one post 'per round' - which is to say that he can only post another post when all others have written a post as well and all are equal in the amount of posts they have made. In following rounds, we'll try to establish if there is a common ground in which the project is to take root.

My own first stated purpose is very simple: I want to clarify the logic that drives me to posit a "self-valuing" as a necessary property of all beings, and in its implications sufficient to describe all interactions between all beings, and so derive a working definition of the world.

In order to do this, the use of terms has to be perfected, for the logic to become apparent to anyone with a capable mind.
This may entail much that I am not yet aware of. This thread is a necessary step on the way to conceive of a proper form for a 'law-giving machine'.

Lastly, this thread is located in this forum because, before operations can begin at all, the potential for frustration of the process has to be identified.



___________
" 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
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 05, 2012 1:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
In this thread I invite Capable, Amasopher and James S Saint to state their aims for an as yet hypothetical collective project dedicated to clarifying what exactly is, and is to become of, the epistemological method that has been named value ontology.
Thank you. I already have a problem with this first sentence, though. Smile For to me, it's not a given that that which you have named value ontology be (only, or even primarily) an epistemological method. In fact, it was when you told me that you'd had a discussion about whether it was (only, or primarily) an epistemology or an ontology that I started calling it simply "value philosophy".

[F]or any theory that we have about what knowledge is, we must have a presupposition about what the world is like. That is, we must assume that the world exists in such a way that it makes our theory of knowledge possible. There is no escaping having a theory of ontology, it is only a question of whether or not it is consciously acknowledged and studied or whether it is left as an implicit presupposition of one's theory of epistemology. [Source: http://ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/neville.htm.]

I think value philosophy proper begins with "posit[ing] a 'self-valuing' as a necessary property of all beings, and in its implications sufficient to describe all interactions between all beings". That is, 'tis in the first place an ontology, not an epistemology; but, being an ontology, it gives rise to an epistemology, for cognition is itself an interaction between beings.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 06, 2012 6:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
In this thread I invite Capable, Amasopher and James S Saint to state their aims for an as yet hypothetical collective project dedicated to clarifying what exactly is, and is to become of, the epistemological method that has been named value ontology.
It is improper to ask of my aim for your project. So I'll take this as a request of my interest in your project.

I have serious interest in any and many groups who propose to strongly struggle toward an impossible dream that would yield the greatest possible dream.

In the Middle East, it is commonly accepted that no one has a "soul" until they do something that matters. It is that which matters that endures the struggle against entropy and survives the ages.

In physics, a particle of matter forms merely because an impossible state is being inadvertently sought. Because it is an impossible state, the struggle never ends and literally nothing else matters, or "forms matter". Entropy is defeated by such dedication to achieve the impossible. A spec of eternal matter is formed. And thus the dream of the immortal "soul" is achieved although immortality wasn't the aim. What becomes immortal is the specific harmony that represents the constant effort toward that specific impossible aim. The entropic shell is formed merely by the "valuing" of always insisting that closer to that perfect dream is always better than further even though the perfection is impossible.

My interest is the immortality of homosapian. There is a specific aim and struggle that would cause such a state. That effort is formed merely by a small group. After it has formed, nothing else "matters". It's "soul" will be as eternal as any particle in physics, and more so than most. Homosapian could never again face extinction even at its own hands.


Fixed Cross wrote:
My own first stated purpose is very simple: I want to clarify the logic that drives me to posit a "self-valuing" as a necessary property of all beings, and in its implications sufficient to describe all interactions between all beings, and so derive a working definition of the world.
In the effort to establish your stated goal, I see the opportunity for an immutable collaboration to form. That "immutable collaboration" is "my" purpose. The "self-valuing" concept fits within my own philosophy and ontology sufficiently. I merely use a different term, "PHT". Properly applied PHT or VO or "self-valuing" forms a self-sustaining "particle", a group that defeats inherent entropy. Androids can be made to do it too easily. The objective is for homosapians to do it.


Fixed Cross wrote:
In order to do this, the use of terms has to be perfected, for the logic to become apparent to anyone with a capable mind. This may entail much that I am not yet aware of. This thread is a necessary step on the way to conceive of a proper form for a 'law-giving machine'.
Agreed, but take care with that word "machine". I prefer "collaboration mechanism", also called a "Constitution" or even a "covenant". All forms of collaboration require structural elements. The only issue is architecting the right set in the right order.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Lastly, this thread is located in this forum because, before operations can begin at all, the potential for frustration of the process has to be identified.
Agreed.


So to sum it up, my interest is the immortality of the group. And that exemplifies a noted distinction between the young and the old. The young subconsciously assume immortality and often consider it irrelevant until they get old and then long for it, if not for themselves, for at least someone.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 06, 2012 9:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Toward Fixed Cross' end of, " I want to clarify the logic that drives me to posit a "self-valuing" as a necessary property of all beings, and in its implications sufficient to describe all interactions between all beings, and so derive a working definition of the world.", I offer the following:





Self-valuing is the idea that all beings act in such a way so as to value themselves, to take themselves and what they are as the standard of value, of measurement. This standard of measurement is the basis for how this being interprets what is imposed upon it, how it is able to react and respond. The most basic self-valuing unit, then, may be a "particle" which has only a narrow range of ways to react and respond. Being grows as the number of ways in which it may react and respond are increased, giving it access to more "reality", to more possible sensations and states of configuration.

If a being encounters other beings whose own self-valuings are stronger than its own it is appropriated into those other beings. This means it might either be dissolved into its constituent parts (a larger self-valuing unit being reduced to lesser and more disorganized self-valuing units) or it may retain its formality but be put to use within another wider system of valuation, turned from a "free particle" into a "molecular particle" now constituting part of a larger self-valuing process and structure.

When this happens, agreements among these self-valuings are imposed, as "laws". Whatever is built upon and as a consequence of these structures will experience these agreements as "natural laws", as unbreakable restrictions which act as conditioning limits on how events may or may not occur. Once such collaborative structures exist they constitute a higher self-valuing, a new more derivative being with wider range of powers and "abilities" (possible sensations and "influence", or affectation). Ultimately when these structures continue to collaborate together, "life" is formed. What we call life occurs at the point where these sort of collaborative and derivative self-valuing structures become able to reproduce themselves beyond their own structural cohesiveness and longevity. When this happens, such as we know through the production of DNA that is able to produce proteins to construct new collaborative self-valuing forms beyond its own cohesive longevity, natural selection takes over and we get the beginning of biological evolution. So long as these basic genetic forms exist and exist in a state of competition with each other over finite resources and space, natural selection dictates that organisms must tend toward forms that self-value and self-value more effectively and powerfully. These organisms are more derivative and complex self-valuing collaborative structures, because their own self-valuing behavior determines the tendency for their own chances of reproduction. Self-valuing first had to achieve this ability to "reproduce" in order to "survive itself", to allow its particular structure to persist even after it has dissolved. This is why Kitaro calls the active-epistemic nature of the subject, as its "reason", its temporal dimension, and its ontic nature or "material body" as its spatial dimension. In his language, the spatial dimension extends horizontally while the temporal dimension extends vertically, across generations.


The basic "set up" of self-valuing is that it is self-irreconcilable: divided into two planes which are constantly warring against each other in a Nietzschean "will to power", each plane of causality-logic trying to appropriate that of the other. The first plane is basically just the threshold of singular particularizing relations between objects, the multitude of more or less direct causality reactions that occur only "spatially", in Kitaro's meaning of the word . The second plane is what emerges from the activity of first-tier relations, namely a unifying single new relation that is emergent of these first-tier activities. So basically you get a multitude of small relatively individual relations all warring in concert with each other, struggling in a massive reactivity "will to power" that has been gathered together as the "body" of the subject, and this causal plane is set in opposition to what is emergent from it and "on top of it", to the singular relation that is a consequence of all this warring activity but is also distinct from it, "beyond it". Self-valuing consists of the fact that such entities must find a stable way for these two planes to work with each other or else they will tear each other apart.

Those entities which did find this stability were able to survive as per natural selection, and eventually all that existed were such entities with somewhat stable means of translating content from one plane to another, to produce "self-valuing activity" or "consciousness". Why does the emergent plane try to regulate that from which it emerges? Because those configurations of lesser relations which produced an emergent relation that did not seek to do this did not survive natural selection. The particular structural forms of relations producing larger emergent "subjectivities" do so only in ways which confine the nature of this emergent subject to attempt to stabilize that from which it arises. We can even say that the emergent subjective nature is nothing but a tendency to wider organizational potential that emerges from lesser-regulated "nodes" in dynamic relation to each other, as also per the basic logic of network theory. The consquence of this is that it introduces both disharmony and new order into being. The disharmony is located in the fact that being exists on two planes whose own causal logics are fundamentally different and cannot totally be reconciled with each other; the new order is located in the fact that "flat" being has produced an extra-dimensional plane beyond itself which acts as a new level of reality in which new potentially stabilizing and enlarging or contracting meta-relations may form.

It is the conflict between these two planes of being that constitutes the total plane of organic self-valuing as such, by which the entity "itself" is held in existence. This might apply on all levels, perhaps even that of elementary particles, if it is the case that the particle emerges as a consquence of lesser processes or sub-particles working in concert which produces some higher stability, which is to say a consistency of formality and causal power over time. "Time" simply means the measure of how many quantities of successive encounters and interactions a being is able to endure before dissolving.


This model explains the basic structure of beings as divided into irreconcilable planes that must translate content between each other, a translation that can never be "perfect" but must be good enough to sustain the entity across time and throughout its encounters with reality, with what is imposed upon it. The model of self-valuing may be applied to any entities, large or small, as each entity may be viewed both as a single self-valuing unit as well as a collection of lesser self-valuing units organized together based on agreed-upon "laws" that allow them to hold each other in existence as constitutive parts of more comprehensive processes and structures. Only those entities, of whatever size or scope, that are able to successfully self-value will exist and continue to exist, because "to exist" means only: successful self-valuing. The assumption of self-valuing is a "leap of faith" away from the commonly-accepted scientific-objective logic, because based on the latter logic the former is largely incomprehensible; but once grasped the notion of self-valuing allows for a much larger and more accurate way to interpret the world and subjects within the world, it constitutes an interpretive power that supplements empirical reasoning and traditional philosophic reason by including and explaining these, by going beyond these, by elevating the discourse and language to a higher more comprehensive and useful level.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 06, 2012 11:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thank you all -
As James is so far the only one who has made a direct statement to the question of purpose, I will not yet react to him but wait until the others have also seen it fit to decide on a position concerning this cooperation.

Amasopher: I think that we may find resolution in the observation that the act of positing this self-valuing is to establish the principle tool of an epistemological method. So the application of this logic-of-being might itself be seen as an epistemological method: it determines the form in which knowledge is gathered, formulated and applied. Are we in agreement or still in conflict?

Capable: I did not mean to give the impression that the logic still lacks clarification - but I did give that impression, and you are right to set that straight. Your post can be taken as an overview of the implications so far drawn from value ontology - a lot of the work that we have been doing is represented in there. We will see how far the others are able to follow and verify this in their own terms... perhaps this will take many steps.

I will restate my purpose: I wish for the logic that is apparent to me, to become apparent to others in their own terms. I expect these terms to be very different, but also to become, if they are properly developed, more and more evidently compatible.

The goal is to build a bridge between different cognitive approaches. Philosophy has for very long been a strictly individual endeavor ("there are no philosophies, only philosophers") - and no doubt in part for this reason the mass-project of modern science has overshadowed it completely. But philosophy must take control of science. Value ontology carries this potential, but it must be explicated by scientific minds to realize this potential.





___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 06, 2012 1:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have neglected to openly state my purpose here - I am interested to discern the limits of the project we have come to call value ontology, or value philosophy as Amasopher named it. What interests me is a view from outside the theory, a vantage upon it from other, different and critical perspectives that can shed light on the idea, add to it, modify it or perhaps even discredit it entirely.

In this regard I welcome Amasopher and James to take account of the ideas of value ontology, in any way they see best. I value that we have gathered good thinkers to this cause, and my purpose here is also to remain open to new challenges and critiques, and to see where value ontology might perhaps find some common points of interest or even agreement with the methods that others may bring to the table.

Approaching "value ontological thinking" as it is seen through the lens of other philosophical perspectives and logical methods, yes this is indeed a worthy task. I look forward to seeing what fruits will come of this effort, and I thank everyone for their participation.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 06, 2012 4:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Thank you all -
As James is so far the only one who has made a direct statement to the question of purpose, I will not yet react to him but wait until the others have also seen it fit to decide on a position concerning this cooperation.
My aim is in my name.


Quote :
Amasopher: I think that we may find resolution in the observation that the act of positing this self-valuing is to establish the principle tool of an epistemological method.
To me this seems to be intentionally or unintentionally ambiguous. Did you perhaps mean to say that the aim of positing this self-valuing is to etc.? If not, may one replace "is" by "has" or by "ought" (and if not by each, then by which?)? I will stop here, for now.


Quote :
So the application of this logic-of-being might itself be seen as an epistemological method: it determines the form in which knowledge is gathered, formulated and applied. Are we in agreement or still in conflict?
I'm not sure: wasn't that what I said?


Quote :
Capable: I did not mean to give the impression that the logic still lacks clarification - but I did give that impression, and you are right to set that straight. Your post can be taken as an overview of the implications so far drawn from value ontology - a lot of the work that we have been doing is represented in there. We will see how far the others are able to follow and verify this in their own terms... perhaps this will take many steps.
I can follow it up to where it starts talking about natural selection. It then seems to me to "moralise"--albeit in the sense of a master morality--genetic survival. Can someone explain to me how it betrays a less "stable means of translating content from one plane to another, to produce 'self-valuing activity' or 'consciousness'" on the part of a white rabbit compared to that of a brown rabbit when the former is picked off more easily by predators in the brown environment in which both rabbits live?

As for James' post, I don't consider it improper of you to ask of our aims for your project, as I think the project in question is not the project of starting a joint project, but that joint project itself... You wish to start a joint project, and the first question is indeed whether we are--interested.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeTue Oct 09, 2012 4:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Can we all agree that we would like to aim our efforts toward the following ideals concerning the proposed valuing perspective/ontology/philosophy?

Items;
1) Logically indisputable
2) More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
3) Accepted by social authority

These are ideals that might or might not be attainable, but they offer targets to aim toward. What we do in order to promote the perspective will reflect the targeted ideals.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeWed Oct 10, 2012 4:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Amasopher wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Thank you all -
As James is so far the only one who has made a direct statement to the question of purpose, I will not yet react to him but wait until the others have also seen it fit to decide on a position concerning this cooperation.
My aim is in my name.
I take it that I can interpret "wisdom" in the context of this thread more or less as "clarity" and "truth"... and that your purpose in such a thread would be to gain clarity about value ontology, and the role you see for it in your own thinking. Is that correct?

Quote :
Quote :
Amasopher: I think that we may find resolution in the observation that the act of positing this self-valuing is to establish the principle tool of an epistemological method.
To me this seems to be intentionally or unintentionally ambiguous. Did you perhaps mean to say that the aim of positing this self-valuing is to etc.? If not, may one replace "is" by "has" or by "ought" (and if not by each, then by which?)? I will stop here, for now.
I don't see the ambiguity - I do see a bad sentence, so there may be ambiguity of which I'm not aware. Let me rephrase:
To posit "self-valuing" is to enable a certain epistemological method.

Quote :
Quote :
So the application of this logic-of-being might itself be seen as an epistemological method: it determines the form in which knowledge is gathered, formulated and applied. Are we in agreement or still in conflict?
I'm not sure: wasn't that what I said?
Can I consider this cleared up, then?

Quote :
Quote :
Capable: I did not mean to give the impression that the logic still lacks clarification - but I did give that impression, and you are right to set that straight. Your post can be taken as an overview of the implications so far drawn from value ontology - a lot of the work that we have been doing is represented in there. We will see how far the others are able to follow and verify this in their own terms... perhaps this will take many steps.
I can follow it up to where it starts talking about natural selection. It then seems to me to "moralise"--albeit in the sense of a master morality--genetic survival. Can someone explain to me how it betrays a less "stable means of translating content from one plane to another, to produce 'self-valuing activity' or 'consciousness'" on the part of a white rabbit compared to that of a brown rabbit when the former is picked off more easily by predators in the brown environment in which both rabbits live?
We need perhaps to imagine two 'tracts' of evolution - the 'negative' or 'passive' tract of accident and elimination, where what is most vulnerable or unlucky is killed or perishes, and the 'positive' or 'active' tract of adaption and problem-solving, where what is most effective in its acting and fortunate in its encounters is able to assert itself at the cost of other entities.

These work as one continuum, of course - but it appears that Capable was describing the second and leaving the first 'for granted'.

Regarding the second (ontologically primary) tract, the most elementary form of 'effective acting' and 'fortunate encounter' are one - a self-valuing 'fortunately encounters itself' in its first 'effective act' as a self-valuing - i.e. the act of self-valuing. James once referred to this as a 'trap' in which a concentration of affect is caught by its own structural nature.

Everything that does not 'fortunately encounter itself' is eliminated directly by entropy or absorbed as energy into entities, and therewith falls into the first category, ultimately the same as the white rabbit.

By what may be experienced as a stretch, the "self-valuing" logic applies also at the crudest level of accident, whereby an in potency perfectly functioning self-valuing (white rabbit) is eliminated (self-valuing is terminated) because it did not manage to "interpret its environment in terms of its own self-value" - its environment was brown, this could not be turned into an advantage by the white rabbit. Other than that (without attempting the stretch) there is always simply entropy and competition, both counter-forces to any self-valuing, both direct derivatives of the self-valuing logic.

I hope you can follow, it may require, I assume, a good deal of (good) will. I am in favor of breaking down the logic that Capable and I have been employing in steps as small and "incontrovertible" as possible, but this will require the employment of very active and resourceful intelligence, as what we're dealing with is a restructuring of grammar - in the sense that Nietzsche and Heidegger identified it - as something we're 'caught' inside.

The effort required is perhaps not dissimilar to developing a language.

To repeat and emphasize what I think describes the weight (therefore also, difficulty) of the effort: restructuring grammar, whereby grammar is our cognitive framework.

James S Saint wrote:
Can we all agree that we would like to aim our efforts toward the following ideals concerning the proposed valuing perspective/ontology/philosophy?

Items;
1) Logically indisputable
2) More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
3) Accepted by social authority

These are ideals that might or might not be attainable, but they offer targets to aim toward. What we do in order to promote the perspective will reflect the targeted ideals.
Before we set such goals as described by 2 and 3, we first need to come to a mutual understanding about the subject matter itself, value ontology. So we need to focus on point 1 before it becomes possible to consider 2 and 3. Can you agree to this approach, or does it contradict your primary goal/interest, as stated in your first post? If so, why?



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


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeWed Oct 10, 2012 5:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
Can we all agree that we would like to aim our efforts toward the following ideals concerning the proposed valuing perspective/ontology/philosophy?

Items;
1) Logically indisputable
2) More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
3) Accepted by social authority

These are ideals that might or might not be attainable, but they offer targets to aim toward. What we do in order to promote the perspective will reflect the targeted ideals.
Before we set such goals as described by 2 and 3, we first need to come to a mutual understanding about the subject matter itself, value ontology. So we need to focus on point 1 before it becomes possible to consider 2 and 3. Can you agree to this approach, or does it contradict your primary goal/interest, as stated in your first post? If so, why?
I had put them (including that first post) in the order of significance and thus the order I would anticipate them to be addressed. So I consider you to be on track. Cool


I might add that your adversary to this project is that you live in an age wherein the exact opposite is being emphasized;

1) Be objectionable to social authority
2) Don't worry about who likes it
3) Be irrational and forget logic
4) Be only a temporary flash in the pan

And that is why you must be extremely precise in what you attempt, far more so than anyone prior.
Else the project will get swept away by either the rising tide or the under-tow.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 12, 2012 9:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would like to propose a possible common ground between our respective philosophies. Please help me see if this is accurate or not.

One common thread I see between self-valuing and James' position is that each of these comprises an active resistance against radical nihilism, against what Nietzsche called the will to nothingness, or what we might simple characterize as irrationality. Elsewhere I characterized pathology as every "for its own sake" of the organism, its basically animal reactivity that is "meaningless" because it is arbitrary, it is not teleological and not guided by a broader future-oriented purpose. We could perhaps characterize nihilism as this sort of purposeless instinctual reaction as well. (Or I could also define the irrational-nihilist position as a weak or ineffective truth or position toward truth, since these sort of views seem to reject the idea of truth entirely by restricting truth to a totally arbitrary level of pure relativism or to deny the possibility of truth altogether.) But regardless of however we want to characterize this nihilistic view, I think it can serve as something against which our respective philosophies can posit resistance and perhaps find a common ground.


There is a lot of modern philosophy, religion, politics that could be characterized as nihilistic, anti-rational and, with respect to what James and also Fixed Cross and I are proposing through our respective philosophies, also anti-life: self-valuing dictates that an entity that does not hold itself as a standard-value must perish, must lose that particular formal nature by which it is an entity as such. James' philosophy seems centered around ideas of stability and consistency as well as the idea of harmony which seems to invoke the notion of sustaining relations between self and others and between self and environment. Consistency, stability and logical integrity seem central to James' philosophy, and I can see how his philosophy, at least the little I understand of it so far, could also along with value ontology act as an effective resistance against radically nihilist positions.


Amasopher I am also interested in your philosophy and whether or not it might also work in this way. Would you mind explaining a bit about how your philosophy would respond to the problem of radical nihilism, to what Nietzsche called the will to nothingness, if indeed you believe your philosophy has a response to this? James, also please offer me a more detailed account if you would like, of how your philosophy addresses this problem. I am interested to see if indeed there is a common ground here among all our respective thought, as I suspect may be the case, but admittedly I do not have a clear enough grasp on your thought to better articulate this common ground that I sense.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 12, 2012 11:47 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
I would like to propose a possible common ground between our respective philosophies. Please help me see if this is accurate or not.

One common thread I see between self-valuing and James' position is that each of these comprises an active resistance against radical nihilism, against what Nietzsche called the will to nothingness, or what we might simple characterize as irrationality. Elsewhere I characterized pathology as every "for its own sake" of the organism, its basically animal reactivity that is "meaningless" because it is arbitrary, it is not teleological and not guided by a broader future-oriented purpose. We could perhaps characterize nihilism as this sort of purposeless instinctual reaction as well. (Or I could also define the irrational-nihilist position as a weak or ineffective truth or position toward truth, since these sort of views seem to reject the idea of truth entirely by restricting truth to a totally arbitrary level of pure relativism or to deny the possibility of truth altogether.) But regardless of however we want to characterize this nihilistic view, I think it can serve as something against which our respective philosophies can posit resistance and perhaps find a common ground.


There is a lot of modern philosophy, religion, politics that could be characterized as nihilistic, anti-rational and, with respect to what James and also Fixed Cross and I are proposing through our respective philosophies, also anti-life: self-valuing dictates that an entity that does not hold itself as a standard-value must perish, must lose that particular formal nature by which it is an entity as such. James' philosophy seems centered around ideas of stability and consistency as well as the idea of harmony which seems to invoke the notion of sustaining relations between self and others and between self and environment. Consistency, stability and logical integrity seem central to James' philosophy, and I can see how his philosophy, at least the little I understand of it so far, could also along with value ontology act as an effective resistance against radically nihilist positions.
I believe that this effort to collaborate requires the notification of agreement at every opportunity for a variety of reasons such as verification of intent and the perception of hope. And I agree with the entirely of that posting.


Capable wrote:
Amasopher I am also interested in your philosophy and whether or not it might also work in this way. Would you mind explaining a bit about how your philosophy would respond to the problem of radical nihilism, to what Nietzsche called the will to nothingness, if indeed you believe your philosophy has a response to this? James, also please offer me a more detailed account if you would like, of how your philosophy addresses this problem. I am interested to see if indeed there is a common ground here among all our respective thought, as I suspect may be the case, but admittedly I do not have a clear enough grasp on your thought to better articulate this common ground that I sense.
I am also interested in Amasopher's philosophy or ontological view.

I am the founder and developer of Rational Metaphysics, "RM". RM explains the processes required for the total defeat of entropy/"nihilism", as well as why anything in the entire universe manages to exist for any more than the smallest instant of time. As such and assuming it to be accurate, it is essential to any organized effort that intends to be any more than a "flash in the pan". People and their grandest efforts have failed in the past for reasons. Those reasons can be dealt with once truly understood.

In RM there is a principle referred to as "PHT", the Perception of Hope and Threat. PHT is the guiding principle in all behavior of any life. It can be creatively applied such as to include the behavior of all inanimate life as well, but the implication would be that inanimate objects consciously perceive hope and threat. Is see "Value-Ontology" as the same as PHT but applied to all existence. What bothers me is that implication of consciousness within the inanimate. My view on that matter is expressed in this thesis.. Consciousness: Remote Recognition.

But other than that implication, it appears to me that Value-Ontology fits very well within Rational Metaphysics. I just sense that the word "ontology", meaning an explanation of all existence, is pushing the idea of self-valuing into an arena where it is not precisely correct depending on how you understand consciousness. But that issue alone is not sufficient for me to reject the project. "Value-Philosophy" seems more precisely correct because the word "philosophy" often refers to an accepted manner of behavior rather than an ontological explanation for all existence.

Another issue I see as needing addressing, according to RM, is the issue of inclusion of the immediate surroundings when valuing. Nothing that remains in harmony can perish. But nothing can remain in harmony if its surroundings are critically out of harmony with the entity. That would be the very make and cause of destruction of entities and efforts.

My word, "harmony" has an unfortunate connotation involving the notion of sweet kisses, free love, and laying naked on the beach... doing nothing. That is not what the word actually means, so I try to emphasize the importance of strategic momentum.. doing something; quickly, firmly, and wisely. It is that strategic momentum that prevents entropy more than anything else.

RM is all about the cause of existence, order, and chaos. An entity is an order resistant to chaos. "Self-Valuing" is a concept that also fits the concept of Inertia. Inertia is the property of being able to maintain one's properties, one's order - the ability to exist for any length of time. No entity can exist without inertia and thus self-valuing.

RM is a subject requiring a collegiate course prerequisited with tensor analysis if you want to see the actual mathematical proofs involved. At ILP, I tried to see if there was a way to explain its essence without going into the math. I had a modicum of success. But I really need questions to be asked by those who are not themselves merely trying to sell their own theory and repel away from any alternate proposal. But even at that, I generated some 30-50 pictorials and around 400 posts of explanation (often having to repeat). The entire ontology is fundamentally simple, but leads into the real complexities of actual existence pretty quickly.

Religion's blind faith and Science's repeatable empiricism are both trumped by RM's Definitional Logic. RM is the dream that both Science and Religion sought. RM is the immutable order and antithesis to entropy.

Learning RM is a issue of the student being willing to ask questions while the author is still around to answer them.


Kriya thread toward clear purpose RM+Vs+Physics+Approach

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

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 13, 2012 8:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I'm not sure how to handle the thread at this point, as the order is now broken by James, but for an understandable reason. We don't want to have the rules prevent the progression of a discussion. Still, I think that what I proposed it is a good rule to maintain, to keep a certain order, and this precisely to be able to verify our agreements and clarify our differences at every 'round' in the discussion. Amasopher already has a lot to respond to at this point, the amount must not grow beyond his capacity to address with precision. So I suggest that, in this thread, we keep to the rule of one post per 'round' - that is, once the total number of posts is divisible by 4, every poster has a 'right' to one more post. Of course due to the state of this thread, this does not calculate this way anymore, but you get the idea.

It's clear then that we need at least one other thread, where Rational Metaphysics can be discussed in the Q and A format James proposed (either in the logic or the science section, that would be up to James). I am very much in favor of parallel threads, designated to clear, separate goals, or different segments of an ultimate goal. I believe in the principle of balanced contribution for this particular thread. See it as an 'axis' of our effort, which may spread out into other threads.

The aim here is consistency, to enable the trust in every poster that nothing is being missed.

Perhaps it appears that I am insisting disproportionally on form - but this fixation can be understood as maintaining a 'harmony' within the 'entity' of this group.

Concerning the issue of consciousness - for now I will be short and say that when I consider an atom to 'value' and 'self-value', I do not mean that it does this consciously. It simply means that the atom operates in such a way that it rejects certain influences and incorporates others - that, by its very structural nature, it 'selects' according to itself, the standard for 'value' that it embodies.

Consciousness occurs on a certain level of complexity of self-valuing. When there are many layers, delays, cross-feeding feedback loops in place. But what we normally understand as valuing (holding values like good and bad, or delicious or revolting) are 'conscious versions' of pre-conscious valuing. Valuing permeates all of existence, and arrives at being in part consciously enacted only when consciousness has emerged. But still, humans are valuing largely unconsciously, and a human can not deliberately alter his values, so it can be questioned whether valuing really changes when consciousness arises, except that it provides the opportunity to be deluded about ones real, life-sustaining values.

Basically value ontology reverses the causal order of consciousness and value. Traditionally, values are seen to arise from consciousness. But this is in fact not tenable, as values are held by every primitive entity, evolutionarily long before consciousness emerges, and force an entity to act on these values completely indifferently to whether or not it consciously recognizes this acting or these values.

So instead, value ontology holds that consciousness emerges from valuing.
It is called an ontology because we base our understanding of 'that which is' on the principle of self-valuing. That is - when something can be designated as a self-valuing, it can be said to positively exist (not merely be a property of something else), and vice versa.

C, J and A, what are your suggestions for the continuation of this thread, and the bringing into existence of others?
















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

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: bump Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSun Oct 14, 2012 5:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Consider this a new round -
To all involved, verify what you can verify, reject what you have to reject, let's see where we stand at this point.
Also, whoever has asked questions that have gone unanswered, please restate 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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSun Oct 14, 2012 7:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Consider this a new round -
To all involved, verify what you can verify, reject what you have to reject, let's see where we stand at this point.
Also, whoever has asked questions that have gone unanswered, please restate them.
So far, I see nothing to object to other than a lack of speedy participation.
The goals seem the same to me and I haven't seen anything forbidding progress toward them.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeTue Oct 16, 2012 2:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
Can we all agree that we would like to aim our efforts toward the following ideals concerning the proposed valuing perspective/ontology/philosophy?

Items;
1) Logically indisputable
2) More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
3) Accepted by social authority

These are ideals that might or might not be attainable, but they offer targets to aim toward. What we do in order to promote the perspective will reflect the targeted ideals.
Before we set such goals as described by 2 and 3, we first need to come to a mutual understanding about the subject matter itself, value ontology. So we need to focus on point 1 before it becomes possible to consider 2 and 3. Can you agree to this approach, or does it contradict your primary goal/interest, as stated in your first post? If so, why?
I had put them (including that first post) in the order of significance and thus the order I would anticipate them to be addressed. So I consider you to be on track. 8)


I might add that your adversary to this project is that you live in an age wherein the exact opposite is being emphasized;

1) Be objectionable to social authority
2) Don't worry about who likes it
3) Be irrational and forget logic
4) Be only a temporary flash in the pan

And that is why you must be extremely precise in what you attempt, far more so than anyone prior.
Else the project will get swept away by either the rising tide or the under-tow.
I find it peculiar that the exact opposite to a list of three items should be a list of four items. Then again, I don't think the former is necessarily composed of three (main) items. Indeed, items 2 and 3 seem to me to be better designated as items 2a and 2b, the one referring to appeal to or acceptance by the individuals of which society is composed, the other referring to appeal to or acceptance by that which governs society as a whole, social authority. In any case, I agree with regard to item 1, but not necessarily with regard to the rest; in fact, the connection between the two is precisely the problem I've tried to raise in my Lampertian Nietzscheanism thread in the Nietzsche forum.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 5:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I do not have much to add right now, in general I will withdraw myself from this round's content except to further address something Amasopher wrote to me, which Fixed Cross addressed but which I have not yet.

Amasopher wrote:
I can follow it up to where it starts talking about natural selection. It then seems to me to "moralise"--albeit in the sense of a master morality--genetic survival. Can someone explain to me how it betrays a less "stable means of translating content from one plane to another, to produce 'self-valuing activity' or 'consciousness'" on the part of a white rabbit compared to that of a brown rabbit when the former is picked off more easily by predators in the brown environment in which both rabbits live?

Natural selection is basically an emergent law given the fact that 1) self-valuings are "internally restless" and "self-agitated", are always moving, striving, growing, and 2) that the natural world constitutes a set of conditions whereby self-valuings engage in this behavior given limited space and resources. 1 and 2 together produce competition, which in turn produces the law of natural selection, itself really just an effect of 1 and 2. I see self-valuing as the basic "engine" of natural selection, in conjunction with the fact that self-valuing takes place within environments that are essentially constrained and limited in terms of what can and is to be valued by any self-valuing.

The white rabbit might not represent any "lesser" self-valuing activity than the brown rabbit, intrinsically, but by accident of circumstance the one is consumed and the other is not. This "accident" is of course not random. Basically, natural selection implies that organisms under the purview of its law do not possess a means to self-value their own self-valuing, they cannot value "intentionally" and are instead "arbitrarily valuing", they are beings who value only secondarily based on "what they already are", which is to say they are not teleological. Their own self-valuing or "consciousness" cannot grasp also itself, cannot factor also itself, as a fact, as an object of this self-valuing consciousness, into the overall calculus of this self-valuing consciousness itself.

Animal life is like this, secondary, ex post facto, "arbitrary" and "natural". Natural selection produces the present generation of self-valuings based only on what came immediately before this generation, in conjunction with present environmental influences and demands; it does not take into account future possibilities or imagined states, goals, purpose or "ends". These come along only when humanity arrives on the scene, a self-valuing that is more able to fully incorporate its own valuing behavior into its very self-valuing structure, in such a way so as to produce "telos". So in this sense, the rabbits are both instances of self-valuings that are operating by the very same logic, and the one that happens, for one reason or another, to value more toward the actual mitigation of the conditions to which it is subject, namely a more or less brown environment, will happen to tend to survive more and pass on its own particular self-valuing structure and activity. I think it is helpful to separate human-like self-valuing from non-human-like self-valuing, not because these are totally different, but because the former is built upon and is in many ways a continuation and break with or "point of collapse" of the latter. So basically the fact of naturally selective law is a consequence of self-valuings, primarily and directly, while self-valuings themselves are also consequences of this naturally selective law, secondarily and indirectly, with the exception of human beings who have more or less removed themselves from the law of natural selection, given that they have attained some manner of teleology and can actively "imagine" and "call into existence" content from the future rather than only respond to content from the past in a more or less passive-reactionary manner.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:34 pm

James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 7:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Amasopher wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Items;
1) Logically indisputable
2) More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
3) Accepted by social authority


I had put them (including that first post) in the order of significance and thus the order I would anticipate them to be addressed. So I consider you to be on track. Cool


I might add that your adversary to this project is that you live in an age wherein the exact opposite is being emphasized;

1) Be objectionable to social authority
2) Don't worry about who likes it
3) Be irrational and forget logic
4) Be only a temporary flash in the pan

And that is why you must be extremely precise in what you attempt, far more so than anyone prior.
Else the project will get swept away by either the rising tide or the under-tow.
I find it peculiar that the exact opposite to a list of three items should be a list of four items.
I had included and even mentioned that there were 4 original if I "include that first post". That is why there is 4.

Amasopher wrote:
Then again, I don't think the former is necessarily composed of three (main) items. Indeed, items 2 and 3 seem to me to be better designated as items 2a and 2b, the one referring to appeal to or acceptance by the individuals of which society is composed, the other referring to appeal to or acceptance by that which governs society as a whole, social authority.
I don't contend against the notion of a 2a and a 2b, as long as they are not perceived as the same thing. The reason I set them separate is that they have different concerns involved. The appeal to the individual is for sake of acceptance as a mode of thinking. The concern involved in social authority is more one of not inspiring an unnecessary and powerful enemy.

If individual's don't like the idea, they simply don't bother with it. That is not preferable, but is very different than using divisive means to destroy all traces of it. Social authority can be managed through public appeal (unless you are in the USA) so it is additionally relevant to acquire public appeal even if you were not immediately concerned with social authority.

In the long run, it is preferable that social authority backup the entire project (assuming the project is as we have intended) intentionally with or without the concern for public appeal. But that is a goal for later consideration. A higher priority is that it has public appeal. By having that accomplished, social authority isn't as much of an issue.

Amasopher wrote:
In any case, I agree with regard to item 1, but not necessarily with regard to the rest; in fact, the connection between the two is precisely the problem I've tried to raise in my Lampertian Nietzscheanism thread in the Nietzsche forum.
I need to know your specific details to see if there is perhaps merely a communication problem or an actual concept problem. Considering the above, what exactly, are your objections? Please don't put them in "Nietzschian terms". I'm not a Nietzschian. I prefer as common English as can be managed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 1:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Amasopher wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Items;
1) Logically indisputable
2) More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
3) Accepted by social authority


I had put them (including that first post) in the order of significance and thus the order I would anticipate them to be addressed. So I consider you to be on track. 8)


I might add that your adversary to this project is that you live in an age wherein the exact opposite is being emphasized;

1) Be objectionable to social authority
2) Don't worry about who likes it
3) Be irrational and forget logic
4) Be only a temporary flash in the pan

And that is why you must be extremely precise in what you attempt, far more so than anyone prior.
Else the project will get swept away by either the rising tide or the under-tow.
I find it peculiar that the exact opposite to a list of three items should be a list of four items.
I had included and even mentioned that there were 4 original if I "include that first post". That is why there is 4.
Excellent! I now see that items 1, 2, and 3 of your "exact opposite" are indeed the exact opposites of items 3, 2, and 1, respectively, of your original list. That makes item 4 of the former the exact opposite of your first post, which makes perfect sense. We might then add an item 0 to your original list, which would be the exact opposite of item 4 of your "exact opposite" list, and which would basically say "Being immortal". What you said about immortality in your first post, however, has reminded me of Laurence Cooper's book Eros in Plato, Rousseau, and Nietzsche. I don't have the book with me where I write this, but elsewhere I have quoted the following passages from it, which are about eros in Plato:

[T]he philosopher's eros is not directed by the hope of earthly immortality. He does not long for what the ordinarily erotic long for. Hence he is not erotic in an ordinary sense; far from it. Yet he longs for that of which the aim of ordinary eros is a distortion. He longs, consciously, for what the rest of us fail to divine that we long for. And for that reason he is erotic, indeed the perfection of eros. [page 87.]

[T]he longing for immortality represents the temporalizing of the longing for the eternal: the desire to experience that which is beyond time and beyond all limitation becomes the desire that the self or the ego be everlasting and invulnerable. [page 96.]

If, therefore, we replace "Being immortal" with "Experiencing the eternal", I can agree with item 0 as well as with item 1. And in fact, I then think these two items may be renumbered 1a and 1b. For I think that these two items then resonate with soundness and validity, respectively, in the sense of Logic. For item 0 resonates with soundness in that it's about experiencing eternal reality, and item 1 resonates with validity in that it's about internal consistency. In other words, the two resonate with truth as correspondence and truth as coherence, respectively.


Quote :
Amasopher wrote:
Then again, I don't think the former is necessarily composed of three (main) items. Indeed, items 2 and 3 seem to me to be better designated as items 2a and 2b, the one referring to appeal to or acceptance by the individuals of which society is composed, the other referring to appeal to or acceptance by that which governs society as a whole, social authority.
I don't contend against the notion of a 2a and a 2b, as long as they are not perceived as the same thing. The reason I set them separate is that they have different concerns involved. The appeal to the individual is for sake of acceptance as a mode of thinking. The concern involved in social authority is more one of not inspiring an unnecessary and powerful enemy.

If individual's don't like the idea, they simply don't bother with it. That is not preferable, but is very different than using divisive means to destroy all traces of it. Social authority can be managed through public appeal (unless you are in the USA) so it is additionally relevant to acquire public appeal even if you were not immediately concerned with social authority.

In the long run, it is preferable that social authority backup the entire project (assuming the project is as we have intended) intentionally with or without the concern for public appeal. But that is a goal for later consideration. A higher priority is that it has public appeal. By having that accomplished, social authority isn't as much of an issue.
Understood, and agreed.


Quote :
Amasopher wrote:
In any case, I agree with regard to item 1, but not necessarily with regard to the rest; in fact, the connection between the two is precisely the problem I've tried to raise in my Lampertian Nietzscheanism thread in the Nietzsche forum.
I need to know your specific details to see if there is perhaps merely a communication problem or an actual concept problem. Considering the above, what exactly, are your objections? Please don't put them in "Nietzschian terms". I'm not a Nietzschian. I prefer as common English as can be managed.
My problem could perhaps be formulated as follows: why should someone who is concerned with having an internally coherent and externally corresponding vision of eternal reality be concerned with whether his vision appeals to other individuals and/or is accepted by social authority? Unless lack of appeal and/or of acceptance threatens his own very experience, of course.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 3:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Amasopher wrote:
Unless lack of appeal and/or of acceptance threatens his own very experience, of course.
That would in fact be MY reasoning.
As I said, my concern is the immutability that maintains the momentum of that "eternal experiencing".
As it turns out, other people are a major issue in the mutability of projects or groups like this.

Other interests might be along the lines of the proposed "improvement of the world".
To me, that problem gets resolved shortly after you establish the immutability bit, without additional effort.
Perfect your own house and then maybe consider messing with other people's lives.

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

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 4:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is perhaps not going to work ideally in terms of the restraint I try to place on it - but the goal that was intended with this rule must still be attained. The goal was a structural order. I propose that instead of limiting the quantity of posts, we limit the focus of discussion to "items of discussion".

We must now come to an agreement on the concept of experience of the eternal (it's nature and it's value - for me these both have been clarified), on its relation to "momentum" and "immutability" (it's physics, this needs elaboration), and on the relation of this experience with group-activity such as this (our relation to it now, needs clarification).

To the last, the goal would be, gathered from the recent posts, to establish a working theory that can be understood by multitudes and is adopted by them. This is a question not only of content, but also of formulation, form.

James has earlier proposed the trinity physical/physiological/psychological - fields in which the consequences of an ontological logic (epistemological method) most be drawn and lead to definitions.

So we have something resembling a "goal of the application of value ontology" here - as well as a vague outline of a grid along which to design value ontological (or, for whoever pleases to use the term philosophy, value philosophical), methods.


Confirm/Disconfirm










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


Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 8:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Confirm, and...

Fixed Cross wrote:
This is perhaps not going to work ideally in terms of the restraint I try to place on it - but the goal that was intended with this rule must still be attained. The goal was a structural order. I propose that instead of limiting the quantity of posts, we limit the focus of discussion to "items of discussion".
We must now come to an agreement on the concept of experience of the eternal (it's nature and it's value - for me these both have been clarified), on its relation to "momentum" and "immutability" (it's physics, this needs elaboration), and on the relation of this experience with group-activity such as this (our relation to it now, needs clarification).
Wow... this takes me WAY back...

The two most powerful, immutable forces literally in the entire universe are;
1) the Black Hole which has but two potential adversaries; other Black-Holes and
2) Life.

Life has Perception, Sentience, and Influence. Both the Black-Hole and Life are made of much smaller and somewhat chaotic components within. Both tend to expire what they have and gain more with which to replace what is lost. The Black-Hole tends to gain more than it loses and thus grows to unimaginable size but loses its mobility in the process.

Life can perceive the Black-Hole, avoid its threats, and influence threats upon it, as it can with anything as long as it has the environment with which to do so. Life requires materials and tools with which to influence the materials into strategic positions whereas the Black-Hole merely absorbs everything into its internal chaos.

Although within life, just as within the Black-Hole, components compete with each other, the results of such devoted contention is the stability of the whole. Within both Life and the Black-Hole there is immeasurable momentum. The physical distinction is merely that one collects all humus into one central location while the other strategically distributes its components.

Both strive to maintain their fundamental structure and thus survive. That which maintains its harmony (its structure) cannot perish.

So I propose that since we are already a form of life that would be seriously threatened by anything resembling a Black-Hole type of entity, anything that could absorb and/or disintegrate us, that we form the group also as a form of life.

Make the group into the form of a living organism that is made of living organisms, namely us.

If accepted, how to do this isn't difficult to explain (I hope).

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

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 19, 2012 5:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am having serious doubts about my decision to allow for this break in the order.
Because: what may be resolution of an issue for one may be the introduction of twenty issues for the other.I fear that this new development is not in the interest of all participants and thus also0 not fo the group. I am waiting for their (dis)confirmation

Sorry about the chaos, this is very difficult to manage.

I am not sure if the rules had even been understood.
The rule was

- 1 post per round
- A round means: all 4 posters have made 1 posts (in no particular order)

James, did you break this rule deliberately?







___________
" 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 19, 2012 5:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am fine with the idea of a structure around an idea rather than a 4-person round. But I like the idea of a round too, though. We could perhaps split off some topics from here into other threads for more free discussion, as might be the case with the notion of eternity. In that case we should keep this topic with the present structure of rounds. I think this structure encorages a slower, more patient and careful development. Split-off topics can then allow for more fast development.



___________
“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

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 19, 2012 6:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That would have my preference as well.
The spin-off threads, wherein particular ideas are discussed and refined to the point of confirmation, must however be very clearly identifiable as part of the project, so I propose that we call them by such names [Kriya: - "eternity" ] , [Kriya: - "natural selection"] , etc.
If everyone confirms this, I will split off the topics from the point where the second deviation began into new threads, among which an administrative thread.

All participants are free to create such spinoff threads when they deem it desirable, but they need to be named in the precise format we agree on (suggestions welcome).

It is possible that split-off threads must also be split off, but let's only do that when real necessity presents itself. The format I'd propose would be [Kriya: - "natural selection" => "Darwins beard"], for example.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users