Kevin Spacey's alleged history: worth it?

[Mr Reasonable]

The Usual Suspects. Great movie.

[Fixed Cross]

Who is next?

[omar]

Hello Sauwelios,
I think that, on a philosophical level, the world is increased in value by creativity rather than in safety which only increases the number of units of average value. Eliminating Se7en for the sake of keeping young actors safe from an unwanted advance would deny the world a good movie WITHOUT actually making young men safer. If improving his character leads to the destruction of his creativity, which I don't know how we could know.

It seems to me that a "good" character is not easy to define and thus might not even exist as an object with which we could trade creativity for. It is entirely possible for a man, defined as having good character, to pose a threat to young men. Socrates quickly comes to mind, followed by Plato, probably one of Socrates' victims. In the news recently, former judge Roy Moore is accused by a few women of sexual misconduct with minors and even sexual assault. This same man fought for the Christian values of his community, thus perhaps considered by most as a man of "good" character.

It seems that the spirit of the protest is one that deals in absolutes. Is good character possible in the absence of will? Plato asked once who was the good man and compared such a being to a person with the ability to do either good or bad. Being good because of the incapacity for bad was not good at all. If so then even wishing for a good character for Kevin would still leave open the possibility of a moral failure here or there. Thus I wonder if even if we gave Spacey a good character if he would not attack a young man down the road. We have to assume he could for the very existence of good. Meanwhile, creating a reality where it would be impossible for Kevin to manhandle the young man would not only deprive us of Se7en (Creativity), but even of the possibility of good character.

[Meno_]

Yes, but between the derivation of character and its newly revealed post structural similarity, moral appearance counts for much more, for the reason that there is no quick justification such as is evident in the use of characterization using literally reified, masks, correlating to the actual perceptions of content.
Although what You are saying is correct, it fails on the level of believability of the act being directly suggestive of who resides under the mask.

Modern theatre defines character through the use of action, proving an attitude, albeit a public one, of being superior to mere literal representation, through
the equivocation of the lines uttered with the corresponding acceptance of the masked character is displayed.

The mask in Greek Tragedy and the lines uttered definitely defined the moral content. The only structure it had, was a presumptive totality , without any doubt.

[Fixed Cross]

[Uccisore]

I voted the latter option. It seems we're going to get some fringe benefits of Spacey's outing as finally the Hollywood pedophile scandal is starting to drop. If Spacey's movies didn't exist and he never became an actor, Hollywood would still be Hollywood.

[Fixed Cross]

I voted the latter option. It seems we're going to get some fringe benefits of Spacey's outing as finally the Hollywood pedophile scandal is starting to drop. If Spacey's movies didn't exist and he never became an actor, Hollywood would still be Hollywood.

Just with a shittier body of work.

Omar made a really good point recently, I think it was Omar.
It is well known that Sokrates was a child molester, and Omar added that Plato was likely one of his victims.

Now, the thoroughly unsound and uncouth philosophy of Sokrates, as well as the absurdly cosmetic platitudes of Plato, can be understood as amounting to nothing more than a perverse mating call.

(I use the term child molester as that is the used term now for people with Sokrates' sexual behaviour.)

So interestingly, the OPs question can be extended now. I think Sauwelios has resigned from ILP for now, and he tends to very much disagree with me about Sokrates, so I will include a disclaimer stating that I don't expect S to agree. Buy I will post it anyway:

Would you choose
1) Everything as it is
2) Sokrates had never molested children, and Sokrates body of work doesn't exist.

I would actually be tempted to choose option 2, not because of the (abject) child molesting but because of my judgment of Sokrates' work as utterly abject and blasphemous against life.

[Uccisore]

I voted the latter option. It seems we're going to get some fringe benefits of Spacey's outing as finally the Hollywood pedophile scandal is starting to drop. If Spacey's movies didn't exist and he never became an actor, Hollywood would still be Hollywood.

Just with a shittier body of work.

Omar made a really good point recently, I think it was Omar.
It is well known that Sokrates was a child molester, and Omar added that Plato was likely one of his victims.

Now, the thoroughly unsound and uncouth philosophy of Sokrates, as well as the absurdly cosmetic platitudes of Plato, can be understood as amounting to nothing more than a perverse mating call.

(I use the term child molester as that is the used term now for people with Sokrates' sexual behaviour.)

Sure, and in a century or less a bunch of philosophers will be disregarded because they weren't vegans. Seems like a dangerous game.

[Fixed Cross]

I voted the latter option. It seems we're going to get some fringe benefits of Spacey's outing as finally the Hollywood pedophile scandal is starting to drop. If Spacey's movies didn't exist and he never became an actor, Hollywood would still be Hollywood.

Just with a shittier body of work.

Omar made a really good point recently, I think it was Omar.
It is well known that Sokrates was a child molester, and Omar added that Plato was likely one of his victims.

Now, the thoroughly unsound and uncouth philosophy of Sokrates, as well as the absurdly cosmetic platitudes of Plato, can be understood as amounting to nothing more than a perverse mating call.

(I use the term child molester as that is the used term now for people with Sokrates' sexual behaviour.)

Sure, and in a century or less a bunch of philosophers will be disregarded because they weren't vegans. Seems like a dangerous game.

Well it is completely retarded and it will only drain the movements that are about this stuff of power - surely this is another symptom of the violent self-termination of a certain branch of humanity. Other symptoms are transgenderism (self-castration and encouraging of child-castration in schools) and just the general laws prohibiting discernment between biological genders. Surely a that is all preparation for some Great Death.

Im just pushing the semantic game to show where it ends up.

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

It is well known that Sokrates was a child molester, and Omar added that Plato was likely one of his victims.

Now, the thoroughly unsound and uncouth philosophy of Sokrates, as well as the absurdly cosmetic platitudes of Plato, can be understood as amounting to nothing more than a perverse mating call.

(I use the term child molester as that is the used term now for people with Sokrates' sexual behaviour.)

So interestingly, the OPs question can be extended now. I think Sauwelios has resigned from ILP for now, and he tends to very much disagree with me about Sokrates, so I will include a disclaimer stating that I don't expect S to agree.

Have I resigned from ILP? Yes and no. The Sauwelios account is now defunct, as far as posting is concerned at least. I just hadn't found a reason to post on this new account yet.

Where did you get the idea that Socrates was a child molester? You say it's well known, but I'd never even heard of it. Do you mean simply that the whole ancient Greek institution of pederasty might be considered institutionalised statutory rape by today's standards?

Apart from this, what you say about Socrates and Plato doesn't really affect me, because I, contrary to you, distinguish between their exotericism and their esotericism.

[Fixed Cross]

Ah, I am actually relieved you are here to defend him, so I can continue my attack without remorse.

It is well known that Sokrates was a child molester, and Omar added that Plato was likely one of his victims.

Now, the thoroughly unsound and uncouth philosophy of Sokrates, as well as the absurdly cosmetic platitudes of Plato, can be understood as amounting to nothing more than a perverse mating call.

(I use the term child molester as that is the used term now for people with Sokrates' sexual behaviour.)

So interestingly, the OPs question can be extended now. I think Sauwelios has resigned from ILP for now, and he tends to very much disagree with me about Sokrates, so I will include a disclaimer stating that I don't expect S to agree.

Have I resigned from ILP? Yes and no. The Sauwelios account is now defunct, as far as posting is concerned at least. I just hadn't found a reason to post on this new account yet.

Where did you get the idea that Socrates was a child molester? You say it's well known, but I'd never even heard of it. Do you mean simply that the whole ancient Greek institution of pederasty might be considered institutionalised statutory rape by today's standards?

Apart from this, what you say about Socrates and Plato doesn't really affect me, because I, contrary to you, distinguish between their exotericism and their esotericism.

I don't know what that means here, he just slept with boys, yeah I used a derogatory term. He was a pedophile or ephebophile or what you want to call it -
and I found Omars idea that this influenced Plato very good.

I only care about the text as it exists. As you know by now I am not and will to ever be able to even listen to what one man says about what another man means when he says something. My instincts do not allow it. You need to understand that this is literal, not exaggerated. I am not able to even consider these things seriously, it goes right against my most important tastes.

So you will have to quote Plato to convince me that things you say pertain to Plato. Unless you reveal to me directly some evidently intended meaning, I can not indulge. I cannot, even if I wanted to, which I don't, as I am very proud of my disposition.

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

I only care about the text as it exists.

But "the text" does not exist. Only interpretations exist. Even the versions of the texts that have come down to us are interpretations (hence "versions").

As you know by now I am not and will to ever be able to even listen to what one man says about what another man means when he says something. My instincts do not allow it. You need to understand that this is literal, not exaggerated. I am not able to even consider these things seriously, it goes right against my most important tastes.

I can understand this insofar as it means simply taking something on authority. Now Lampert, for example, has some authority for me in that he knows much more (though not necessarily deeper in all respects) of the subject than I do, and can demonstrate as much. Ultimately it's a matter of demonstration, not of authority: a matter of rational argument, for example. He consistently shows hidden meanings, in many philosophers of prime note. Ultimately, _I_ decide whether I find him convincing. I usually do.

So you will have to quote Plato to convince me that things you say pertain to Plato. Unless you reveal to me directly some evidently intended meaning, I can not indulge. I cannot, even if I wanted to, which I don't, as I am very proud of my disposition.

Well, do you remember the time, a few years ago in your apartment, when I opened one of your Loeb editions of Plato at random and happened upon the word--and sentence, a reply by Socrates to what his current interlocutor has just said--kalôs? This was translated as "True", but means "Beautifully/Nobly [said/spoken]"...

[Innovice]

house of cards is a good show

i wish companies would let him act and continue production

the news is plenty enough damage

[Fixed Cross]

I only care about the text as it exists.

But "the text" does not exist. Only interpretations exist. Even the versions of the texts that have come down to us are interpretations (hence "versions").

That only lowers my evaluation of what is supposed to be said in the text.

As you know by now I am not and will to ever be able to even listen to what one man says about what another man means when he says something. My instincts do not allow it. You need to understand that this is literal, not exaggerated. I am not able to even consider these things seriously, it goes right against my most important tastes.

I can understand this insofar as it means simply taking something on authority. Now Lampert, for example, has some authority for me in that he knows much more (though not necessarily deeper in all respects) of the subject than I do, and can demonstrate as much. Ultimately it's a matter of demonstration, not of authority: a matter of rational argument, for example. He consistently shows hidden meanings, in many philosophers of prime note. Ultimately, _I_ decide whether I find him convincing. I usually do.

Its not so much about authority, it is only that I am too aware of interpretational integrity - i.e. of the structural integrity that is projected into the text by the interpreter. Much more so even the usual failure of an interpeter to draw out the entire structural integrity of the authors meaning.

It seems to me that you are reading yourself into Lampert reading himself into Plato.
I surely read myself into Nietzsche - that is precisely what I felt privileged to do when I first read him. Hence also why I would never allow anyone else to come between him me. I sensed and sense that no one understands him more closely than I do. This is my personal interpretation, of course.

So you will have to quote Plato to convince me that things you say pertain to Plato. Unless you reveal to me directly some evidently intended meaning, I can not indulge. I cannot, even if I wanted to, which I don't, as I am very proud of my disposition.

Well, do you remember the time, a few years ago in your apartment, when I opened one of your Loeb editions of Plato at random and happened upon the word--and sentence, a reply by Socrates to what his current interlocutor has just said--kalôs? This was translated as "True", but means "Beautifully/Nobly [said/spoken]"...

Yes. It was pleasant going over a bit of Greek, is what I remember most about that.
But what are you pointing to here?
I was then and am now in agreement that to read the original text is really the best thing.
I was not aware then that there is even doubt about that original text, though - that only fortifies my understanding of Socrates and Plato as representing a ghost-realm.

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

I only care about the text as it exists.

But "the text" does not exist. Only interpretations exist. Even the versions of the texts that have come down to us are interpretations (hence "versions").

That only lowers my evaluation of what is supposed to be said in the text.

Why? Because your opinion of Plato is so low you think any change to what he wrote can only make it better?

As you know by now I am not and will to ever be able to even listen to what one man says about what another man means when he says something. My instincts do not allow it. You need to understand that this is literal, not exaggerated. I am not able to even consider these things seriously, it goes right against my most important tastes.

I can understand this insofar as it means simply taking something on authority. Now Lampert, for example, has some authority for me in that he knows much more (though not necessarily deeper in all respects) of the subject than I do, and can demonstrate as much. Ultimately it's a matter of demonstration, not of authority: a matter of rational argument, for example. He consistently shows hidden meanings, in many philosophers of prime note. Ultimately, _I_ decide whether I find him convincing. I usually do.

Its not so much about authority, it is only that I am too aware of interpretational integrity - i.e. of the structural integrity that is projected into the text by the interpreter. Much more so even the usual failure of an interpeter to draw out the entire structural integrity of the authors meaning.

It seems to me that you are reading yourself into Lampert reading himself into Plato.
I surely read myself into Nietzsche - that is precisely what I felt privileged to do when I first read him. Hence also why I would never allow anyone else to come between him me. I sensed and sense that no one understands him more closely than I do. This is my personal interpretation, of course.

It (scholarship) is like science: at some point, if you keep getting consistent results, it becomes reasonable to assume the thing you're investigating is actually consistent. Of course, you could, like Hume, keep rejecting such conclusions as induction, but that's basically solipsist. I mean, sure, an interpreter will always put _something_ into the text that wasn't originally there--even if the text has come down to him completely intact, like Nietzsche's (published) writings have to us, but I find it quite preposterous to presume that, if a writer had intended his writings to mean something specific, it's impossible for others to more or less get his intended meaning. Even Nietzsche himself, who (great-grand)fathered this interpretational supremacy, wrote:

"Another characteristic of the theologian is his incapacity for philology. By philology one should here understand, in a very general sense, the art of reading well,—to be able to read facts without falsifying them by interpretation, without losing caution, patience, subtlety, in the desire for understanding. Philology as ephexis in interpretation[.]" (Ein andres Abzeichen des Theologen ist sein Unvermögen zur Philogie. Unter Philologie soll hier, in einem sehr allgemeinen Sinne, die Kunst, gut zu lesen, verstanden werden,—Tatsachen ablesen können, ohne sie durch Interpretation zu fälschen, ohne im Verlangen nach Verständnis die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die Feinheit zu verlieren. Philologie als Ephexis in der Interpretation[.]--Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 52, my translation.)

So you will have to quote Plato to convince me that things you say pertain to Plato. Unless you reveal to me directly some evidently intended meaning, I can not indulge. I cannot, even if I wanted to, which I don't, as I am very proud of my disposition.

Well, do you remember the time, a few years ago in your apartment, when I opened one of your Loeb editions of Plato at random and happened upon the word--and sentence, a reply by Socrates to what his current interlocutor has just said--kalôs? This was translated as "True", but means "Beautifully/Nobly [said/spoken]"...

Yes. It was pleasant going over a bit of Greek, is what I remember most about that.
But what are you pointing to here?
I was then and am now in agreement that to read the original text is really the best thing.
I was not aware then that there is even doubt about that original text, though - that only fortifies my understanding of Socrates and Plato as representing a ghost-realm.

You weren't aware of the critical apparatus? The books of antiquity have all partly or completely dissolved, if not been burned and the like; we depend on the copies and copies of copies (etc. (etc.)) that were made in the meantime.

What I'm pointing to is that even a random opening of a random volume of Plato yields an ambiguity: the word in question was quite rightly translated as "true", because that's what Socrates' interlocutor (or (some of) those who were listening to them speak) would have understood by it, as (would) Plato's general audience. And yet it clearly does not literally mean that--and (Plato's) Socrates was quite keen on the literal meaning of words. (Compare also his telling someone that the idea in question was "terribly good"--and insisting to the confused recipient of that "compliment" that it was really a compliment... These examples are just from the top of my head; I haven't even consulted Lampert or Strauss yet.)

[Jakob]

That only lowers my evaluation of what is supposed to be said in the text.

Why? Because your opinion of Plato is so low you think any change to what he wrote can only make it better?

Listen, first of all you need to realize that my opinion of Plato is low because all he wrote that I have read, I find to be nonsense, pompous, hypocritical, disgraceful and just generally un-earthly and decadent. The only mildly good quality I see in him is Socrates' vile wit. Which I think is funny, in the capacity of being indicative of his aggressively ignoble and ungrateful nature.

So when I then learn that there isn't actually a text of Plato that is undisputed, I come to think well, maybe it is a function that the noble town of Athens was able to produce such Wretch.

This is my thinking, phrased as undiplomatically as I can.
I am not stating that he dis not exist, just that the more I learn of the context wherein his writings exist, the more my consistent low esteem of him makes sense to me.

It seems to me that you are reading yourself into Lampert reading himself into Plato.
I surely read myself into Nietzsche - that is precisely what I felt privileged to do when I first read him. Hence also why I would never allow anyone else to come between him me. I sensed and sense that no one understands him more closely than I do. This is my personal interpretation, of course.

It (scholarship) is like science: at some point, if you keep getting consistent results, it becomes reasonable to assume the thing you're investigating is actually consistent. Of course, you could, like Hume, keep rejecting such conclusions as induction, but that's basically solipsist.

Its new to me to have it suggested that Id have anything do with Hume. I will attempt to quickly forget this suggestion. Hume is a jealous buffoon, as Ive always said, precisely for his idiotic way of questioning science, which is pure out of jealousy of Newton.

Science selects very narrowly: it acknowledges these things that can be isolated and repeated in isolation.
As such , it arrives at nuclear physics, which is proven valid through technology.
It is a very narrow aspect of the world that science can measure - only those instances of being that can be isolated and repeated. A very limited number of portions of existence apply here, but the ones that do are very powerful.

What is being selected intimately is a type of human action. The scientist is the product of the selection, along with the tools he makes.
So the end product of the selection you are doing is -- you, and your empirical powers drawn from your isolation process.
That s literally all that can be said to be real, as resulting from your investigations.
So that is what I prod you for - empirical results. Power.
There is to other criterium to see if your criteria make sense or not.

I do urge you to address this question directly and not deflect it, rephrase it so that it seems to become a question to me.

I mean, sure, an interpreter will always put _something_ into the text that wasn't originally there--even if the text has come down to him completely intact, like Nietzsche's (published) writings have to us, but I find it quite preposterous to presume that, if a writer had intended his writings to mean something specific, it's impossible for others to more or less get his intended meaning. Even Nietzsche himself, who (great-grand)fathered this interpretational supremacy, wrote:

The point is not about understanding the writers intended meaning, but of taking the privilege to explain it in other terms than the writer, without a disclaimer that this naturally becomes ones own writing.
Self-valuing, and all that. Standards, structural integrities, these speak through all interpretations and translations.

"Another characteristic of the theologian is his incapacity for philology. By philology one should here understand, in a very general sense, the art of reading well,—to be able to read facts without falsifying them by interpretation, without losing caution, patience, subtlety, in the desire for understanding. Philology as ephexis in interpretation[.]" (Ein andres Abzeichen des Theologen ist sein Unvermögen zur Philogie. Unter Philologie soll hier, in einem sehr allgemeinen Sinne, die Kunst, gut zu lesen, verstanden werden,—Tatsachen ablesen können, ohne sie durch Interpretation zu fälschen, ohne im Verlangen nach Verständnis die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die Feinheit zu verlieren. Philologie als Ephexis in der Interpretation[.]--Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 52, my translation.)

Yes, reading well is necessary. But Nietzsche never takes the step you make - in that he relays the results of his good reading as if it is the same as what he has been reading. He is infinitely more prudent there than you are - he rarely quotes, and when he does, he quotes short passages and without added interpretation. He thus takes an opposite standard to yours - namely, my standard.

I too only quote others to illustrate my own points; I don't talk to illustrate quotes I take from other people.
I find the proper, aesthetic, clean method is to stat ones own thoughts, and then add a quotation of a person that demonstrates that ones thinking has some precedent. It does not involve opening up and dissecting what another has wrote. I find that uncouth and ineffective.

You weren't aware of the critical apparatus? The books of antiquity have all partly or completely dissolved, if not been burned and the like; we depend on the copies and copies of copies (etc. (etc.)) that were made in the meantime.

So perhaps Plato is even an Islamic invention?
In any case all this corroborates the validity of my always-held tastes and standards: Homer, Sculpture, and Architecture - that is what is truly Greek - worthy of admiration.

What I'm pointing to is that even a random opening of a random volume of Plato yields an ambiguity: the word in question was quite rightly translated as "true", because that's what Socrates' interlocutor (or (some of) those who were listening to them speak) would have understood by it, as (would) Plato's general audience. And yet it clearly does not literally mean that--and (Plato's) Socrates was quite keen on the literal meaning of words. (Compare also his telling someone that the idea in question was "terribly good"--and insisting to the confused recipient of that "compliment" that it was really a compliment... These examples are just from the top of my head; I haven't even consulted Lampert or Strauss yet.)

Well precisely, Socrates was keen mostly on twisting peoples meanings. In fact that is all I have ever witnessed that character do.

And in all of this Socratic analysis of yours, I honestly only ever see a certain aspect you, and never even a glimpse of Greekness... nor the aspects of you that I know as dangerous, powerful, capable of conquest... or as Greek.

I suspect that your philological efforts would find equal or better results in studying the Talmud, which is a body of work specifically intended to reflect human interpretation of other humans interpretations of a final infinitely receded All-Truth - this is not meant as insulting, as Talmudic study is a very powerful means, it yields results: the power of the Jews is such a result. The Talmud essentially is a tool to perpetuate the tradition of critical reading.

To me, the question is not; what does this ancient source mean? But: what do I mean?
And when I read Nietzsche, all too often Ill tink: ah but of course, this is exactly what I mean.
Then it turns out that, because I mean what he means, but am a different entity, I need to phrase it in an entirely different and more powerful way, because otherwise it would literally amount to less than nothing.

If I proceed to expres Nietzsches meanings using derivatives of Niezsche's powers (language), I only take away from Nietzsche.
One should only seek to exhaustively interpret "God", i.e. the meaning of the world, never another human.

Other entities can by definition not be understood in universal terms. Because they all have their particular partial-logic that keeps them from being infinite/no-thing.

But now I am getting esoteric.

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

That only lowers my evaluation of what is supposed to be said in the text.

Why? Because your opinion of Plato is so low you think any change to what he wrote can only make it better?

Listen, first of all you need to realize that my opinion of Plato is low because all he wrote that I have read, I find to be nonsense, pompous, hypocritical, disgraceful and just generally un-earthly and decadent.

Okay, but I think that's a reading on an exoteric level. Plato may very well be criticized for his exoteric message, but the idea behind it, I think, was that the effect thereof was better than the effect of his esoteric message on everyone but philosophers (and philosophers were able to hear through the exoteric one)--and I think that idea was justified true belief.

The only mildly good quality I see in him is Socrates' vile wit. Which I think is funny, in the capacity of being indicative of his aggressively ignoble and ungrateful nature.
So when I then learn that there isn't actually a text of Plato that is undisputed,

Well, I didn't go _that_ far. I'm not sure, there may be texts of his that have survived fully legibly. But this may also be a ridiculous idea. I don't really know anything about the degradation process of papyrus and the like.

So when I then learn that there isn't actually a text of Plato that is undisputed, I come to think well, maybe it is a function that the noble town of Athens was able to produce such Wretch.

I don't understand this sentence. Could it be that your spellchecker changed a word or something?

I do now think I get the gist of what you're saying, though. The thing is, I don't think Plato was Wretch, or that Athens was still all that noble at the time. I don't think Socrates' wit, at least when his esotericism is taken into account, is vile; I think he belongs to the most noble and grateful natures.

This is my thinking, phrased as undiplomatically as I can.
I am not stating that he dis not exist, just that the more I learn of the context wherein his writings exist, the more my consistent low esteem of him makes sense to me.

It seems to me that you are reading yourself into Lampert reading himself into Plato.
I surely read myself into Nietzsche - that is precisely what I felt privileged to do when I first read him. Hence also why I would never allow anyone else to come between him me. I sensed and sense that no one understands him more closely than I do. This is my personal interpretation, of course.

It (scholarship) is like science: at some point, if you keep getting consistent results, it becomes reasonable to assume the thing you're investigating is actually consistent. Of course, you could, like Hume, keep rejecting such conclusions as induction, but that's basically solipsist.

Its new to me to have it suggested that Id have anything do with Hume. I will attempt to quickly forget this suggestion. Hume is a jealous buffoon, as Ive always said, precisely for his idiotic way of questioning science, which is pure out of jealousy of Newton.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man! I don't think he was jealous, and I don't find his way of questioning science idiotic. As you know, I think solipsism (or, more precisely, "solosomniism") is the thriftiest possible worldview.

Science selects very narrowly: it acknowledges these things that can be isolated and repeated in isolation.
As such , it arrives at nuclear physics, which is proven valid through technology.
It is a very narrow aspect of the world that science can measure - only those instances of being that can be isolated and repeated. A very limited number of portions of existence apply here, but the ones that do are very powerful.

What is being selected intimately is a type of human action. The scientist is the product of the selection, along with the tools he makes.
So the end product of the selection you are doing is -- you, and your empirical powers drawn from your isolation process.
That s literally all that can be said to be real, as resulting from your investigations.
So that is what I prod you for - empirical results. Power.
There is to other criterium to see if your criteria make sense or not.

I do urge you to address this question directly and not deflect it, rephrase it so that it seems to become a question to me.

The question being "Where are the empirical results, where is the power, resulting from your investigations?", I take it. I'll try to show you a glimpse or two below.

I mean, sure, an interpreter will always put _something_ into the text that wasn't originally there--even if the text has come down to him completely intact, like Nietzsche's (published) writings have to us, but I find it quite preposterous to presume that, if a writer had intended his writings to mean something specific, it's impossible for others to more or less get his intended meaning. Even Nietzsche himself, who (great-grand)fathered this interpretational supremacy, wrote:

The point is not about understanding the writers intended meaning, but of taking the privilege to explain it in other terms than the writer, without a disclaimer that this naturally becomes ones own writing.
Self-valuing, and all that. Standards, structural integrities, these speak through all interpretations and translations.

I'm usually making an argument. That should be obvious.

"Another characteristic of the theologian is his incapacity for philology. By philology one should here understand, in a very general sense, the art of reading well,—to be able to read facts without falsifying them by interpretation, without losing caution, patience, subtlety, in the desire for understanding. Philology as ephexis in interpretation[.]" (Ein andres Abzeichen des Theologen ist sein Unvermögen zur Philogie. Unter Philologie soll hier, in einem sehr allgemeinen Sinne, die Kunst, gut zu lesen, verstanden werden,—Tatsachen ablesen können, ohne sie durch Interpretation zu fälschen, ohne im Verlangen nach Verständnis die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die Feinheit zu verlieren. Philologie als Ephexis in der Interpretation[.]--Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 52, my translation.)

Yes, reading well is necessary. But Nietzsche never takes the step you make - in that he relays the results of his good reading as if it is the same as what he has been reading.

I think that's a superficial view of what I do. I _contend_ to have understood what I've been reading, and show that by explaining it in other terms.

He is infinitely more prudent there than you are - he rarely quotes, and when he does, he quotes short passages and without added interpretation.

Maybe, but then again, he wasn't an Xian, whereas I have been a Nietzschean.

He thus takes an opposite standard to yours - namely, my standard.

I too only quote others to illustrate my own points; I don't talk to illustrate quotes I take from other people.
I find the proper, aesthetic, clean method is to stat ones own thoughts, and then add a quotation of a person that demonstrates that ones thinking has some precedent. It does not involve opening up and dissecting what another has wrote. I find that uncouth and ineffective.

I don't think it really matters whether they're your own thoughts or not. What matters is the quality of the thoughts. Not to have one's own thoughts, but to have quality thoughts, that's what matters. But this may be too Socratic for your taste (see below).

You weren't aware of the critical apparatus? The books of antiquity have all partly or completely dissolved, if not been burned and the like; we depend on the copies and copies of copies (etc. (etc.)) that were made in the meantime.

So perhaps Plato is even an Islamic invention?
In any case all this corroborates the validity of my always-held tastes and standards: Homer, Sculpture, and Architecture - that is what is truly Greek - worthy of admiration.

But technically, Homer could be an Islamic invention as well as Plato. To be sure, Islam is more Platonic than Homeric (though Nietzsche lists Arab nobility together with Homeric heroes as a noble race with the blond beast at its roots, in GM 1.11), but they could--again, technically--have invented Homer as a foil, to "discredit" pagan Europeans. By the way, Aristotle would be more likely to be an Islamic invention than Plato, as the former depended more on the Medieval enlightenment in the Middle East than the latter for the transmission of his texts.

What I'm pointing to is that even a random opening of a random volume of Plato yields an ambiguity: the word in question was quite rightly translated as "true", because that's what Socrates' interlocutor (or (some of) those who were listening to them speak) would have understood by it, as (would) Plato's general audience. And yet it clearly does not literally mean that--and (Plato's) Socrates was quite keen on the literal meaning of words. (Compare also his telling someone that the idea in question was "terribly good"--and insisting to the confused recipient of that "compliment" that it was really a compliment... These examples are just from the top of my head; I haven't even consulted Lampert or Strauss yet.)

Well precisely, Socrates was keen mostly on twisting peoples meanings. In fact that is all I have ever witnessed that character do.

Which does not mean that's all that character ever does, though.

And in all of this Socratic analysis of yours, I honestly only ever see a certain aspect you, and never even a glimpse of Greekness... nor the aspects of you that I know as dangerous, powerful, capable of conquest... or as Greek.

I suspect that your philological efforts would find equal or better results in studying the Talmud, which is a body of work specifically intended to reflect human interpretation of other humans interpretations of a final infinitely receded All-Truth - this is not meant as insulting, as Talmudic study is a very powerful means, it yields results: the power of the Jews is such a result. The Talmud essentially is a tool to perpetuate the tradition of critical reading.

To me, the question is not; what does this ancient source mean? But: what do I mean?
And when I read Nietzsche, all too often Ill tink: ah but of course, this is exactly what I mean.
Then it turns out that, because I mean what he means, but am a different entity, I need to phrase it in an entirely different and more powerful way, because otherwise it would literally amount to less than nothing.

If I proceed to expres Nietzsches meanings using derivatives of Niezsche's powers (language), I only take away from Nietzsche.
One should only seek to exhaustively interpret "God", i.e. the meaning of the world, never another human.

But other humans are part of God, and some have been able to interpret it more exhaustively than others--even than you, at least in certain respects and at certain points in your life. To be sure, though, through the self-valuing logic of being, I am become united with God once again, and apparently more lastingly this time. No longer through an avatar, though the avatar is still useful as a symbol.

Other entities can by definition not be understood in universal terms. Because they all have their particular partial-logic that keeps them from being infinite/no-thing.

But now I am getting esoteric.

"All" is a universal term, though.

::

I will just give you my thoughts now, without supporting any of it. Socrates, as a Sophist, was like a Buddha, an enlightened one. In fact, he was a fuller Buddha than his fellow Sophists, for he understood something they did not, until he enlightened them. What only Socrates understood was that only the fewest were capable of enduring Sophistic enlightenment--that most people would be corrupted by it. These people or their loved ones would then turn against the enlightened enlighteners themselves. This is why Socrates went down, like a Bodhisattva: to enlighten those who were up to it and to keep from enlightenment, or even endarken, those who weren't. (Those who had already started to be corrupted by the Sophists needed to be endarkened.)

The supreme or sole direct value of Greekness--Homer, Greek sculpture and architecture, etc.--is its most strongly suggesting this enlightenment. After all, what could have more value to one who has transcended himself into God than communicating with like-Minded others? _All_ his encounters are confrontations of God with itself, but most of them are only one way. Time itself moves in one direction, but then all origin myths of such transmissions have at least two in the beginning: enlightened Eve enlightened Adam, enlightened Shiva enlightened Parvati, etc. Nietzsche had to split himself in two to enjoy the pleasure consistently. To enlighten the strong and keep the weak in the soothing dark: that is the purpose of going down. The reason is the Logos.

[Jakob]

Listen, first of all you need to realize that my opinion of Plato is low because all he wrote that I have read, I find to be nonsense, pompous, hypocritical, disgraceful and just generally un-earthly and decadent.

Okay, but I think that's a reading on an exoteric level. Plato may very well be criticized for his exoteric message, but the idea behind it, I think, was that the effect thereof was better than the effect of his esoteric message on everyone but philosophers (and philosophers were able to hear through the exoteric one)--and I think that idea was justified true belief.

Not merely his message, his entire style is weak.
And as we know from N, style is substance.
Style even can be said to be the bone-structure underneath the substance.

I have never acknowledged the esoteric-exotic reading of a philosopher - I find the whole idea far too liberal, to be honest - the idea that one can divine meanings that aren't literally in a text, and then claim this is what the author really meant - I surely hope I won't be read in this way as I make an effort to say things straightforwardly in more than one way - but I truly furiously dismiss it if it can even excuse or justify Socrates and Plato, whom I truly regard as the low-points of Greece.

All I ask is that you don't ask me to value these particular standard of reading the ancients. I think we have far less issues concerning reality, and I think Plato is entirely useless at best when we discuss reality.

I mean this, he is a dirty distraction to me, I really find him very unclean.
Sorry, I can't continue touching on him, I get physically very uncomfortable.

The only mildly good quality I see in him is Socrates' vile wit. Which I think is funny, in the capacity of being indicative of his aggressively ignoble and ungrateful nature.
So when I then learn that there isn't actually a text of Plato that is undisputed,

Well, I didn't go _that_ far. I'm not sure, there may be texts of his that have survived fully legibly. But this may also be a ridiculous idea. I don't really know anything about the degradation process of papyrus and the like.

In any case lets drop him from the conversations between us. It always just costs me time and energy and leaves me frustrated to have wasted my time on that pompous anti-valuer who destroyed beautiful particular Athens.

So when I then learn that there isn't actually a text of Plato that is undisputed, I come to think well, maybe it is a function that the noble town of Athens was able to produce such Wretch.

I don't understand this sentence. Could it be that your spellchecker changed a word or something?

yes - function should be fiction.

I do now think I get the gist of what you're saying, though. The thing is, I don't think Plato was Wretch, or that Athens was still all that noble at the time. I don't think Socrates' wit, at least when his esotericism is taken into account, is vile; I think he belongs to the most noble and grateful natures.

Well he is funny.
But I don't think the is graceful at all. I find him a boor and an astounding brute, how he infringes on his hosts and runs the self-respect of straightforward people.
What I find funny about him is his extreme rudeness.
His Apology, the whole gist of it, is to me the most powerful sermon against life that the West has produced. this fits with my view of him as a very sick man
There are traces of grace in him, and the manners of a nobleman, but he has the ways and the convictions of a pest-ridden slave.
Granted, Athens at that time was apparently over her peak - even the fact that Socrates was capable of acquiring fame speaks to that.
But to me none of this is any more justified than some Liberal Senator raping a 3 year old and then killing her. It happens, sure. And we affirm whatever has happened. But we can surely want to destroy the forces that caused it to happen.

Its new to me to have it suggested that Id have anything do with Hume. I will attempt to quickly forget this suggestion. Hume is a jealous buffoon, as Ive always said, precisely for his idiotic way of questioning science, which is pure out of jealousy of Newton.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man! I don't think he was jealous, and I don't find his way of questioning science idiotic. As you know, I think solipsism (or, more precisely, "solosomniism") is the thriftiest possible worldview.

And as you know, Ive been looking down on Hume since 2001... good thing I don't have Vertigo!
I do think he was jealous of Newton, and even outraged at the consistency of his findings.
We must agree to disagree, here too.

Since you have become ore resilient and strong, I will also set harsh limits.
I will no longer acknowledge esoteric readings, only quoted text - and I will not discuss philosophers I don't take seriously.
This because I will be needing my time for the development of real philosophy --- advancing VO, which clearly, and unlike any of these previous philosophies, works to ennoble.

I am now officially a Philosopher King, having effected, again unlike philosophers before me, the enlightenment of others. I have succeeded in taking philosophy beyond mere love of wisdom into actual wisdom.

I'm usually making an argument. That should be obvious.

Whenever you do, I am pleased. As you argue exceptionally well.
Whenever you assume that there is given value in Plato or Sokrates, I object.

I think that's a superficial view of what I do. I _contend_ to have understood what I've been reading, and show that by explaining it in other terms.

I did not mean to suggest there is no merit in your method, but I mean to stress that quoting N on the subject isn't appropriate as Nietzsche himself never quotes at length, and certainly never dissects other peoples texts to find hidden meanings.

He just says, in his own words, which are the most powerful words in the world, what is the case as he sees it.
This, and only this, is what I regard ad philosophy.

And only when you are being challenged in your setting other minds before your own, are you tempted to make your own statements. So I keep challenging.

Quoting is always going to be good and necessary, as here H says what I want you do I've up to consistently, I think this is your translation:

Thunderbolt steers all things.

This points to direct influence.

He is infinitely more prudent there than you are - he rarely quotes, and when he does, he quotes short passages and without added interpretation.

Maybe, but then again, he wasn't an Xian, whereas I have been a Nietzschean.

Yes, and I like to read quotes. I just don't like to be asked to interpret them like you do.
I only care to read in the natural tendencies of my own mind. There are no higher or better tendencies.
What I read is what is meant to be read.

I don't think it really matters whether they're your own thoughts or not. What matters is the quality of the thoughts. Not to have one's own thoughts, but to have quality thoughts, that's what matters. But this may be too Socratic for your taste (see below).

The distinction just doesnt apply to me. My thoughts are always of high quality. Which is why I like to have thoughts.
The same goes for Nietzsche: he evidently loved thinking.

How, if one doesn't have a standard of ones own (ones own thoughts) is one to determine the quality of the thoughts of others?

But technically, Homer could be an Islamic invention as well as Plato. To be sure, Islam is more Platonic than Homeric (though Nietzsche lists Arab nobility together with Homeric heroes as a noble race with the blond beast at its roots, in GM 1.11), but they could--again, technically--have invented Homer as a foil, to "discredit" pagan Europeans. By the way, Aristotle would be more likely to be an Islamic invention than Plato, as the former depended more on the Medieval enlightenment in the Middle East than the latter for the transmission of his texts.

Even though this thought occurred as I wrote that, I dismissed it immediately on the basis that style reflects power and substance directly.
Homer is far more powerful and substantial than any islamic text or person has ever been, and with twenty abysses of infinite depth and width between. But Socrates is quite the same sort of quality as Islamic banter.

Socrates was keen mostly on twisting peoples meanings. In fact that is all I have ever witnessed that character do.

Which does not mean that's all that character ever does, though.

And that in turn does not mean that it's not all he ever does.
But granted, he also lies of his own devices and speaks his own blasphemies against life.

I wonder by the way what you think of Nietzsches rejection of Socrates and Plato -
It is clear in any case that you are not obedient to him and eek your on path, you insist that Socrates has worthy even if he goes directly against Nietzsche - so in a funny way, the convinces me that you don't really believe Plato either... you just invent the Socrates you need for your own purposes.
This is sooner a vote of confidence than an accusation, even as you will disagree that you are doing this.
I can simply not value you valuation of Socrates, I can't take it literally. I see him too far below you. Socrates could never have been my friend, though he would have begged like a dog.

If I proceed to expres Nietzsches meanings using derivatives of Niezsche's powers (language), I only take away from Nietzsche.
One should only seek to exhaustively interpret "God", i.e. the meaning of the world, never another human.

But other humans are part of God, and some have been able to interpret it more exhaustively than others--even than you, at least in certain respects and at certain points in your life. To be sure, though, through the self-valuing logic of being, I am become united with God once again, and apparently more lastingly this time. No longer through an avatar, though the avatar is still useful as a symbol.

H A I L !

Other entities can by definition not be understood in universal terms. Because they all have their particular partial-logic that keeps them from being infinite/no-thing.

But now I am getting esoteric.

"All" is a universal term, though.

Yes. Which is why I said "now I am getting esoteric"; meaning, now I start to contradict myself and ramble; now my discipline in formulating is slipping.

I will just give you my thoughts now, without supporting any of it. Socrates, as a Sophist, was like a Buddha, an enlightened one. In fact, he was a fuller Buddha than his fellow Sophists, for he understood something they did not, until he enlightened them. What only Socrates understood was that only the fewest were capable of enduring Sophistic enlightenment--that most people would be corrupted by it. These people or their loved ones would then turn against the enlightened enlighteners themselves. This is why Socrates went down, like a Bodhisattva: to enlighten those who were up to it and to keep from enlightenment, or even endarken, those who weren't. (Those who had already started to be corrupted by the Sophists needed to be endarkened.)

I really don't see any of this in Socrates, nor do I find this course of action noble; it seems to me that enlightenment here simply means death, and that the opposite also simple means death.

The supreme or sole direct value of Greekness--Homer, Greek sculpture and architecture, etc.--is its most strongly suggesting this enlightenment. After all, what could have more value to one who has transcended himself into God than communicating with like-Minded others? _All_ his encounters are confrontations of God with itself, but most of them are only one way. Time itself moves in one direction, but then all origin myths of such transmissions have at least two in the beginning: enlightened Eve enlightened Adam, enlightened Shiva enlightened Parvati, etc. Nietzsche had to split himself in two to enjoy the pleasure consistently.

Yes. And I don't believe in "the Self" but in a polis of wills, anyway. For me the duality isn't necessary as relevant as general plurality.

To enlighten the strong and keep the weak in the soothing dark: that is the purpose of going down. The reason is the Logos.

No, to keep the weak in the soothing dark is to breed pestilence.
The weak must be prodded to fight, so that the ones with the biggest mouths among them will be revealed for what they are.

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

To enlighten the strong and keep the weak in the soothing dark: that is the purpose of going down. The reason is the Logos.

No, to keep the weak in the soothing dark is to breed pestilence.
The weak must be prodded to fight, so that the ones with the biggest mouths among them will be revealed for what they are.

Well, to be sure, even in my esoteric view (of which I think Nietzsche, by the way, had gleaned too little to value Plato the way I do), the Platonic strategy did indeed eventually breed pestilence (Christianity). Then again, I think that _always_ happens eventually: thus the Homeric strategy led to the situation that in my view necessitated Platonism, and the Machiavellian has led to the current situation. And I do actually think simply keeping the weak in the dark will not do at this point.

"[...] The Tibetan Book of the Dead, where the departed soul is described as shrinking in agony from the Pure Light of the Void, and even from the lesser, tempered Lights, in order to rush headlong into the comforting darkness of selfhood as a reborn human being, or even as a beast, an unhappy ghost, a denizen of hell. Anything rather than the burning brightness of unmitigated Reality—anything!" (Huxley, The Doors of Perception)


Zeus and Semele

[Fixed Cross]

Awesome picture.

I do not agree that Homer is what led to decay, just as I do not think it is the sunrise that leads to night. Its is eventually followed by night, but I don't see all lines of progression as a causal chains. The causes aren't in the progression, but the progression has a set of causes which is shared by all the instances in that progression.

Compare: If I kick a ball, the kick will be the cause (to my mind, I don't do infinite regress) of all revolutions and displacement of the ball, rather than that instance (x,y,z: 1,1,1) is the cause of instance (x,y,z: 2,2,2).

What led to the night? The ending of the day, or the depletion of forces. Or: the revolution of the orbs. But not the light itself.

But I agree to your deeper, more urgent points about sickly entities scurrying away from the light, and I think there is no alternative now to Thors Hammer. The light will be seen for what it is: power. And the dark will know itself as the opposite. But it already knows itself as such, which is why it has always been spreading malice and sickness wherever the light enters.

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

Its new to me to have it suggested that Id have anything do with Hume. I will attempt to quickly forget this suggestion. Hume is a jealous buffoon, as Ive always said, precisely for his idiotic way of questioning science, which is pure out of jealousy of Newton.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man! I don't think he was jealous, and I don't find his way of questioning science idiotic. As you know, I think solipsism (or, more precisely, "solosomniism") is the thriftiest possible worldview.

And as you know, Ive been looking down on Hume since 2001... good thing I don't have Vertigo!
I do think he was jealous of Newton, and even outraged at the consistency of his findings.

I remember you don't believe in the Big Bang. Of course I also don't believe in it in the sense of "how it all began", but I do, or at least I don't disbelieve in it, in the sense of a thorough change of habits... My question being, do you think Newtonian mechanics always applies everywhere except where it's been shown not to apply by Einstein and/or quantum physics/mechanics? That thing about Laune I wrote in your challenge thread to me was an allusion to what Nietzsche offered as the alternative to the ER: I think it's quite akin to Objective Idealism:

"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." (Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Architecture of Theories".)

Nietzsche's alternative being that our known world with its mechanistic laws be a whimsical exception (Nachlass Herbst 1881 11 [311-13]).

[URUZ]

"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." (Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Architecture of Theories".)

^ interesting quote

[Jakob]

I remember you don't believe in the Big Bang. Of course I also don't believe in it in the sense of "how it all began", but I do, or at least I don't disbelieve in it, in the sense of a thorough change of habits...

Actually this is one of the couple of things James resolved for me: what could that Big Bang have been, given it surely can not have been the origin of existence. Note that physical science, physics, proves that there has been a great bang-like event. I am certainly not some flat-earth moron who denies physical evidence, in fact I am the very contrary, which is why I don't believe some kerosene can melt 400 meter high armed concrete and steel towers and have them neatly collapse all of a sudden in a vertical column at the speed of free fall. It causes strong nausea in me to think people are capable of believing that, like Hollow-Earth theory. Im not that type of human, I am an actual thinker, believing things only when Ive seen plenty of evidence and connected the dots using my own logical apparatus. And Ill never believe a politician on physics... !! Anyway, James' idea for the BB was that it may have been two colliding Black Holes. Actually that makes perfect sense as an explanation.

As to how the universe can into existence, Ive spent many hundreds of hours modelling this from 2011 to 2014 based on "Value Cosmology", a logic of asymmetry, and I have it figured out, but I won't publish it for free. I will discuss it with you when we meet.

Of course, indeed, it is absolutely illogical to assume that with the Big Bang, time began. It is dumber than believing that God created the world in the literal way of the Bible. Les logical in any case - it requires the antithesis of logic.

My question being, do you think Newtonian mechanics always applies everywhere except where it's been shown not to apply by Einstein and/or quantum physics/mechanics? That thing about Laune I wrote in your challenge thread to me was an allusion to what Nietzsche offered as the alternative to the ER: I think it's quite akin to Objective Idealism:

You make this more complicated than necessary. I would have no way of beginning to address that question.

Newton gives us an analytical method to sustain empirical science. Newtons laws apply to what these laws are meant to apply to only - laws of gravity and momentum. They are essentially the same truths as Archimedes basic insight: highlighting the consistency of mass in matters of displacement. Newton and Archimedes are both explicators of the idea that two things can not occupy the same space at the same time.

Newton does not provide a model for what existence is. He is not a materialist, he makes no claims as to what matter is, what it is made of, only as to how it responds.

As regards Einstein - he was a fool. The fact that he did not see how Relativity implies - or rather, that the truth which necessitates relativity also necessitates the uncertainty principle - suggests to me that he stole his ideas and is just a pawn and the naive fool he seems when you read his correspondences. VO resolves all of it. I certainly consider the VO-Universe to be The Scientific Universe.

Once again, I have accomplished the physics between 2011 and 2013/4, which was excruciatingly tough work - Ill never do such labor again without majestic recompense - I will require vast sums of money for any further public explicate of VO.
Of course, in private I will be delighted to talk in detail.

"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." (Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Architecture of Theories".)

I agree with the second part, in that gravity, as is strong-force, is a compound of selfvluing tendencies. But this is unrelated to mind. As I see it mind is certainly not at the ground of anything besides models of thought, but an end product of an organizing process, something signifying and requiring kosmos. Thus, mind itself is sooner "effete natural laws" - to my mind - and its best hope is to rise to become a vigorous extension of natural law - to wake up, and become strong enough to acquire some measure in terms of my mind, which has become the all-measure as I decreed it would in 2016.

Mind needs to be made sword. It won't resemble anything of the sort when it is left to the care of moderners.

Like the Norse rune poem for the Ash-rune says:

ᚨ
As
Estuary is the way of most journeys;
but a scabbard is of swords.

Nietzsche's alternative being that our known world with its mechanistic laws be a whimsical exception (Nachlass Herbst 1881 11 [311-13]).

I see the physical laws and have been describing them as such since 2011 as a slowed down, flattened, homogenized compounds of more dynamic self-valuing logics which have come to value themselves in each others terms, under pressure.

A gravitational reference frame is a heavily flattened, compressed form of self valuing logic. It values everything its terms, but its terms are very broad. Archimedan/Newtonean Law is a broad law, it applies to that which is self-evident "there". Heraklitean/Nietzschean law applies to more subtle, deeper layers, such as QM. VO is completely Heraklitean/Nietzschean and usurps Physics from the ground up.

Interesting to note perhaps, is that VO places the King on the Ground.
In terms of Rank, we operate top-down, but in terms of protocol, the command is issued by Earth, through the medium of the Philosopher who most honestly "suffers" it.

[Mitra-Sauwelios]

I remember you don't believe in the Big Bang. Of course I also don't believe in it in the sense of "how it all began", but I do, or at least I don't disbelieve in it, in the sense of a thorough change of habits...

Actually this is one of the couple of things James resolved for me: what could that Big Bang have been, given it surely can not have been the origin of existence. Note that physical science, physics, proves that there has been a great bang-like event. I am certainly not some flat-earth moron who denies physical evidence, in fact I am the very contrary, which is why I don't believe some kerosene can melt 400 meter high armed concrete and steel towers and have them neatly collapse all of a sudden in a vertical column at the speed of free fall. It causes strong nausea in me to think people are capable of believing that, like Hollow-Earth theory.

Well, not everyone is an accomplished scientists. Apparently, the official 9/11 story is not at odds with common sense--whereas the notion of a flat earth is, considering that the horizon can readily be shown not to be the edge of the earth.

"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." (Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Architecture of Theories".)

I agree with the second part, in that gravity, as is strong-force, is a compound of selfvluing tendencies. But this is unrelated to mind. As I see it mind is certainly not at the ground of anything besides models of thought, but an end product of an organizing process, something signifying and requiring kosmos. Thus, mind itself is sooner "effete natural laws" - to my mind - and its best hope is to rise to become a vigorous extension of natural law - to wake up, and become strong enough to acquire some measure in terms of my mind, which has become the all-measure as I decreed it would in 2016.

"Mind" does not necessarily mean _human_ mind. Thus you wrote in that Ontological Tyranny thread:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2230135#p2230135

The question is not: "are scientific laws objectively consistent with reality?" but: "with which reality are scientific laws consistent?"
As pointed out by Moreno, there are realities which rely on and support very different laws, such as the consciousness of plants. That such consciousness is not an absurd fiction but rather a necessity becomes clear when one understands all acts of life as acts of valuing, which axiom to a science independent from what we call "natural science".

By "valuing" I always understand something mental, as it means "experiencing as valuable".

As for _your_ mind, I agree insofar as you have transcended your self into "Mind, Suchness, the Void, the Godhead" (Huxley, The Doors of Perception). You are then the self-valuing that has first done so in terms of the self-valuing logic of being--explicitly, at least. Compare:

"Svasaṃvedana ["a term which refers to the self-reflexive nature of consciousness"] is at the root of a major doctrinal disagreement in Indian Mahayana Buddhism. While defended by the Yogacara thinkers such as Dharmakirti and the eclectic Santaraksita, it was attacked by 'Prasangika Madhyamika' thinkers such as Candrakirti and Santideva. Since in Mādhyamika thought all dharmas are empty of inherent essence (Svabhava), they argued that consciousness could not be an inherently reflexive ultimate reality since that would mean it was self validating and therefore not characterized by emptiness." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svasamvedana)

Of course, all self-valuings are or would be empty of inherent essence, as they couldn't exist without other self-valuings, without being other-valuings. If anything has inherent essence, it's the infinite (w)hole of all self-valuings. Nirvana or No-thingness is ultimately the only true þing.

[Fixed Cross]

deleted