The man who is now in hiding as Magnus Anderson, cleverly rearranged his name for noone to discover his well hidden ident. But he not did count on the fact that the gods like to play dirty.
This is how it all began.
This thread chronicles the wreckage between philosophy and the rest.
some day an unwitting student will find this in a google result for
“deterministic evolution” or “logical poop” or “cars 'n bellies” or “Hume and the Science of Ovens” or " She Said Sheesh" or " Martin Gobblemouth Stuck on Plymouth Rock" or " Magic and Gnu’s: Shamanism in Siberia".
There is no doubt that Magnus has it in for you.
It’s hard to tell if he is merely trolling, or genuinely seeking a challenge to augment his intellect.
it is quite clear to me. He has an intellect, and he recognizes me as the most powerful intellect in the room. He wants two things: to gain power and to seem as powerful or more so to others and to himself than I do to him and others. It’s a simple cocktail with devastating effect. The problem is namely that he is not smart enough to realize that he has to prioritize either of the two based on the goal of becoming, not of seeming more powerful. Because his subconscious mind knows this, the ranting he does to fill up the spaces between his full chest whereupon he thumps between two such word-filled breaths is riddled with references to becoming - what he says to me, he is telling himself. He is not nearly, and never will be, smart enough to grasp that VO is a logic, rather than a theory.
What is drawn from that logic is becoming; we can not state ‘becoming’ and expect it to be meaningful. After Nietzsche the task was to sack the old grammar and forge a new one in the heat of the full awareness and affirmation of the will to power.
What I did not expect when I devised VO from the heat of a short but feverishly intense study of postmodernism, Zizek and Lacan capping off a long Heidegger study, my cauldron in which the still plasmaic episteme of the WtP had been brewing, was to find that its object, the self-valuing logic, literally itself manages to value the world in its terms even by being explicated. I had no intention of generating such a vortex of reflections on it, or at least no expectation that these facets of the logics explicated reality would be so tenacious, in their contradicting drives of self-valuing in their historic context, and self-valuing in terms of the self-valuing idea, which means to actually start valuing, directly, bravely.
Ive come to see that if a person isn’t capable of seeing that he is objectively drawn to his values, he is not capable of existing in a creative sense. So this strange discovery of a living logic has within a few years forged out of my relaying it a ranking principle. It’s looking good it’s much more powerful a principle than I ever intended to find, especially because I never intended to find anything beyond pleasure in thought.
I don’t know, Jakob, but CAN we actually be objectively drawn to our values?
Couldn’t our thinking only be subjective in nature?
How do we prove otherwise?
You might want to define for me how you are using the term “objectively” above?
For me, what is objective is based on reality, things as they are…e.g. facts.
My thinking at one time was that abortion is/was wrong in all cases. For me, that was thinking subjectively, based on emotions…though I now understand that it was based on how “I” think, not necessarily based in reality, whatever that is supposed to be.
How can one ever come to terms with that issue? There are facts concerning that but still can we think objectively in a case where there is no such thing as really “black and white”.
Isn’t most of our thinking “subjective” except in those cases where facts abound?
Values change so how objective in nature can our thinking about them be?
Unless you are simply using “objectively” in terms of values being “objects” of our thinking? gees.
