Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislation

Hmm… the circularity of self-valuing. You said “It is dependent on the fact of existence, but the fact of existence is also dependent on it. It is how existence exists.” ← This makes sense to me, believe it or not. I have this concept of the basis of existence being an experience that projects as the principle upon which itself can be, and this principle, being projected, inherits reality, and thus succeeds at grounding the experience.

Ok, so being a member of “humanity” is meaningless because humanity is, by virtue of having been derived in all ways throughout time, too broad and diverse. To be a member of “humanity” now means everything and anything. And you want a term that describes more the original “prototype” (for lack of a better term). Or do you not mind the derivations so much as long as they aren’t so scattered and wayward, in which case I understand your yearning for a term that speaks of “willpower” and the “actual thing in progress”–a sort of derivative that’s deriving in the desired direction?

That reminds me of this translation:

[size=95]“The satyr and the idyllic shepherd of later times have both been products of a desire for naturalness and simplicity. But how firmly the Greek shaped his wood sprite, and how self-consciously and mawkishly the modern dallies with his tender, fluting shepherd! For the Greek the satyr expressed nature in a rude, uncultivated state: he did not, for that reason, confound him with the monkey. Quite the contrary, the satyr was man’s true prototype, an expression of his highest and strongest aspirations. He was an enthusiastic reveler, filled with transport by the approach of the god [Dionysus]; a compassionate companion re-enacting the sufferings of the god; a prophet of wisdom born out of nature’s womb; a symbol of the sexual omnipotence of nature, which the Greek was accustomed to view with reverent wonder. The satyr was sublime and divine—so he must have looked to the traumatically wounded vision of Dionysian man. Our tricked out, contrived shepherd would have offended him, but his eyes rested with sublime satisfaction on the open, undistorted limnings of nature. Here archetypal man was cleansed of the illusion of culture, and what revealed itself was authentic man, the bearded satyr jubilantly greeting his god. Before him cultured man dwindled to a false cartoon.” (Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, Chapter 8.)[/size]

“Humanity”, “humaneness”, etc. are laughably sentimental! This is the natural outcome of adherence to the value “good and evil”: the feminisation of mankind, to speak with Satyr…

That sounds similar and compatible. The fact that what we normally consider experience needs to be conscious can be taken in stride, and in a sense I did the same with value. Most people consider that to be a conscious act.

That could be a way to put it. Not the original prototype - I don’t think there ever was one, we’ve always been at some state of evolution, imperfect. What I mean indeed is that we use the term to set a direction, point to to what we would like the term Human to mean. “We” here meaning no one in particular, admittedly - that is where VO is utterly powerless - since it describes valuing entities as irreducible and values as inscrutable, it does not point to any particular value being exalted. So we chose “the human” but with a certain modification. “Human” + “power”.

To charge it somewhat, I could say that all that’s been eliminated from the category is a gaping hole. The term humanity without a form of power implicit in it only points to a reality of extreme contradictions, and thus implies and points to a fundamental lack of power, an inability to do anything as the supposed entity.

The entity that is pointed to needs to be less supposed as if it is already there to bathe in, to fall back on. It’s not actually already there, what’s there is peoples values and the overlap of them. This overlap is what we call “humanity” when someone like Mandela dies. The rest of it is what Mandela fought against, the ape with a club that is the real common denominator. We need to move from common denominator to more “elite” values - given that it’s an elite privilege to live beyond the slave/savage dichotomy.

You have not addressed my claim to the contrary in this thread—though admittedly it was phrased cryptically. “The highest value of value ontology is the value of value ontology”: that is to say that the highest value encompassed by the theory called “value ontology” is the value of the fact of value ontology. “Human” then means “valuing valuing”.

[size=95]“We cannot exert our understanding without from time to time understanding something of importance; and this act of understanding may be accompanied by the awareness of our understanding, by the understanding of understanding, by noesis noeseos, and this is so high, so pure, so noble an experience that Aristotle could ascribe it to his God. This experience is entirely independent of whether what we understand primarily is pleasing or displeasing, fair or ugly. It leads us to realize that all evils are in a sense necessary if there is to be understanding. It enables us to accept all evils which befall us and which may well break our hearts in the spirit of good citizens of the city of God. By becoming aware of the dignity of the mind, we realize the true ground of the dignity of man and therewith the goodness of the world, whether we understand it as created or as uncreated, which is the home of man because it is the home of the human mind.” (Leo Strauss, “What Is Liberal Education?”.)[/size]

That’s an elegant definition.

The discerning of discerning, yes.
That leads to the valuing of valuing. The former can be seen as Zarathustra on his mountain, the latter as his going down, or what compels him to go down.

A prototype in the transcendent sense, I can see that. A prototype man set for himself in retrospect, when he became aware of himself as valuing-experiencing; a prototype including his most valued experiences and all other experiences that accompany these. The satyr is then mans attempt to justify and thus value all of his existence in one moment, and the god Dionysus is the means.

All Gods are means to value ones most grounded being in the face of a world of contradicting drives and perspectives, but most fail miserably.

It occurs to me that “valuing valuing” can be contextualized as “celebrating love”. That is very hippie but I don’t think that speaks against it. It can also mean “honoring conquest”.

Yep.

[dp]

I deleted it for that reason but am glad you beat me to it. Defining those circumstances is probably very useful. I think Sauwelios might be best equipped to orient on that problem in a comprehensible way.

Man traditionally had two gods; one for love and one for war. In Dionysus these come together. They’ve been mixed in experiments like Baal and Allah, examples of an erotic powergod - but they were overemphasizing the war element. I think they mixed up the sexes. Love is essentially masculine, and the beloved is feminine. Warfare is masculine, the physical and emotional impact this has would in my book be listed under feminine. (These principles do indeed not equate to male and female). The God of war was often hated and feared, because he represented the pain and damages. The God of love was celebrated and revered as a sublime power. The state-God, the God of victory, was always blessed by the God of love. Venus dignified Rome, claim to her blood granted Caesar his right to might. Mars was strictly the companion of the legionaries and officers, a God who works for the state - and ultimately for himself, to attain his own piece of Venus.

What Romans understood and we don’t - or more nuanced, what the Brits understand and the Americans don’t - is that beauty provokes strife – that the feminine aspect is not pacifying but provocative and impetuous.

Er, circumstances for what? You deleted the part about circumstances, remember…

James stil had it quoted but he deleted it too. I said love and war are, when properly understood and enacted, the same thing under different circumstances.

I made some excellent posts here, I must say.

A first version of a promo-video. Your comments please.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr-n7Gt7ALI[/youtube]

Jesus, I really shouldn’t start a popularity contest on this site.

Anyway, I’m off to do some more editing. I enjoy this work.

[edit] I just wanted to say that. Now I’ll delete it.

Too dramatic?

Damn. SIATD really fucked up when he took this down.
Gobbo fucked up when he took down Naturalworldorder.
Moderners. No heart for the long term.