Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislation

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: Pull up you pants, soldier!

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:34 pm

Sauwelios wrote:Yes. Only then is it necessary—fate.

Can fate be predetermined (as in known in advance) by the one whose fate it is?
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Pull up you pants, soldier!

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Dec 28, 2013 5:58 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Yes. Only then is it necessary—fate.

Can fate be predetermined (as in known in advance) by the one whose fate it is?

I don't think so. I don't see what difference that makes, though. According to Aristotelian teleology, an acorn does not necessarily become an oak, even though that end is, as you put it, already implicit in the beginning: the oak is already implicit in the acorn. But the adult man is not the end of man; "a man is the not yet fixed, not yet established beast" (Strauss, ibid.). To fix man, to establish man, "requires a free, creative act" (ibid.). That act is "the affirmation of eternal return." (ibid.)
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Pull up you pants, soldier!

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2013 6:04 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Yes. Only then is it necessary—fate.

Can fate be predetermined (as in known in advance) by the one whose fate it is?

I don't think so. I don't see what difference that makes, though. According to Aristotelian teleology, an acorn does not necessarily become an oak, even though that end is, as you put it, already implicit in the beginning: the oak is already implicit in the acorn. But the adult man is not the end of man; "a man is the not yet fixed, not yet established beast" (Strauss, ibid.). To fix man, to establish man, "requires a free, creative act" (ibid.). That act is "the affirmation of eternal return." (ibid.)

I hold that this affirmation is one of the acts that may fix man - or at least pave the ground for his fixing. To state that it is the act contradicts the idea of a free creative act, man would be simply following dogma, even if it is a particularly demanding one.
Otherwise, I agree with the difference between an acorn and a man, if we take "man" to mean anything close to "philosopher" - as opposed to, say, soldier, whose end is in fulfilling a part in a scheme determined by others.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Pull up you pants, soldier!

Postby Uccisore » Sat Dec 28, 2013 6:25 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Yes. Consider my efforts me attacking that problem. Authority is necessary, but it needs to be properly verifiable as authority. At least, our capacity to verify the value of a particular authority needs to drastically increase.


I think avoiding ideologues is probably a good first step there. In my experience, it seems like authority is most likely to become bad authority when it holds some certain value (equality, security, authenticity, etc) to be THE value, and directs society along those lines. "Direct" could be through government force or control over education.

Fixed Cross wrote:What fundamental difference do you have in mind?


It's becoming clear to me that men and women have different values, and that feminine values have a detrimental affect on males when they have too much authority- like in grade schools. I'm not saying masculine and feminine values are superior/inferior to one another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13190
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2013 6:45 pm

I agree with all that.

I'm interested in explicating the feminine values.

I think that relying on a pre set value is feminine. In classrooms, agreement and social approach to questions is more important than logic.

F - social agreement / M - logic
F - submission of all to common denominator / M - confrontation
F - relying on emotional consensus for deriving moral truth / M - enforcing agreement by logical proof of contextual truth

In classrooms, children are asked to sit around a table and debate whether 2 + 2 = 4. To learn that it axiomatically is 4 is called fascist. That literally happened to a teacher who tried to drill the multiplication tables.

I think a better way to approach this problem is to list different issues from the masculine and the feminine perspectives.

"War is sometimes necessary" - "war is evil"
"love is madness" - "love is security"
"truth does not respond to emotion" - "the heart must rule the head"

Etcetera.
These perspectives are both required, we do not want to turn females into males. But the feminine perspective should rule only the feminine, and science, and thus education, is a masculine endeavor.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Uccisore » Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

I agree with half of what you're saying. I agree that social agreement and consensus is more important to the feminine value system. But I don't agree that that's a function of having a pre-set value system, in fact, I think it's the opposite. I think the reliance on immediate consensus takes the place of fixed values. In other words, if you track the moral decision making of a woman over time, the only consistent theme you're going to see is that she forged a consensus. You aren't going to see "oh well she's a utilitarian" or "oh well she's all about the C.I." or even "She's following Muslim orthodoxy".
From the feminine perspective, if everybody concerned is happy with a solution, then that is the right solution, full stop.
I think that's why women are so often familial leaders, and men political leaders- within a family, consensus actually IS paramount. It really doesn't matter if Mom and Dad are being good rule-utilitarians, as long as they aren't at each other's throats. State Governance is another thing. A policy of 'let's just make everybody happy' isn't a policy at all. Then you need rule of law, procedure, and a constitution that is followed even when it fills a vocal minority (or even a minority) with rage. Or so I think, as a male.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13190
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Pull up you pants, soldier!

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:08 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Can fate be predetermined (as in known in advance) by the one whose fate it is?

I don't think so. I don't see what difference that makes, though. According to Aristotelian teleology, an acorn does not necessarily become an oak, even though that end is, as you put it, already implicit in the beginning: the oak is already implicit in the acorn. But the adult man is not the end of man; "a man is the not yet fixed, not yet established beast" (Strauss, ibid.). To fix man, to establish man, "requires a free, creative act" (ibid.). That act is "the affirmation of eternal return." (ibid.)

I hold that this affirmation is one of the acts that may fix man - or at least pave the ground for his fixing. To state that it is the act contradicts the idea of a free creative act, man would be simply following dogma, even if it is a particularly demanding one.
Otherwise, I agree with the difference between an acorn and a man, if we take "man" to mean anything close to "philosopher" - as opposed to, say, soldier, whose end is in fulfilling a part in a scheme determined by others.

Actually, what I meant was that a "man" can be a soldier, a philosopher, and/or have any other calling. What fixes "man", what establishes man, is the affirmation that there is a highest calling—that of the genuine philosopher. What you say is more reminiscent of Rousseau than of Nietzsche:

    "The notion that the good life consists in the return on the level of humanity to the state of nature, i.e., to a state which completely lacks all human traits, necessarily leads to the consequence that the individual claims such an ultimate freedom from society as lacks any definite human content. But this fundamental defect of the state of nature as the goal of human aspiration was in Rousseau's eyes its perfect justification: the very indefiniteness of the state of nature as a goal of human aspiration made that state the ideal vehicle of freedom. To have a reservation against society in the name of the state of nature means to have a reservation against society without being either compelled or able to indicate the way of life or the cause or the pursuit for the sake of which that reservation is made. The notion of a return to the state of nature on the level of humanity was the ideal basis for claiming a freedom from society which is not a freedom for something. It was the ideal basis for an appeal from society to something indefinite and undefinable, to an ultimate sanctity of the individual as individual, unredeemed and unjustified. This was precisely what freedom came to mean for a considerable number of men. Every freedom which is freedom for something, every freedom which is justified by reference to something higher than the individual or than man as mere man, necessarily restricts freedom or, which is the same thing, establishes a tenable distinction between freedom and license. It makes freedom conditional on the purpose for which it is claimed." (Strauss, Natural Right and History, "The Crisis of Modern Natural Right", Rousseau.)

The "free, creative act" Strauss speaks of in his Nietzsche essay is in the first place the act of "consciously creat[ing] values on the basis of the understanding of the will to power as the fundamental phenomenon." These values, however, are, as Lampert puts it, "values true to the earth and culminating in the highest value, eternal return." (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 36.) The highest value of value ontology is the value of value ontology.—
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby gib » Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:26 am

Fixed Cross wrote:A self-valuing, which I have taken as the ontological standard of the observable universe, is simply an "independent something". It is dependent on the fact of existence, but the fact of existence is also dependent on it. It is how existence exists. It must be ultra-simple, applicable to literally every proper entity == everything that can be said to exist without being created to suit a purpose by another entity. In such a case it would not exist because it values reality (consciously and/or unconsciously selects its responses to reality) in terms of itself, of what perpetuates itself, but because another entity values it in terms of itself.


Everything here makes sense until we get to the bolded text. What would it be to "be created to suit a purpose by another entity"? You mean like a human invention?

Fixed Cross wrote:So one use-value that VO produces is an irrefutable distinction between entity and tool. We can know with absolute certainty that, if man employs himself in the service of a purpose that he has no or negative benefit from (negative self-value), regardless if this brings him money, he is participating in his ontological undoing.


Ah, so an entity brings about its own undoing (i.e. erases itself from existence, eventually) by valuing something other than its own perpetuation within existence (or that which serves its own perpetuation). Is that right?

Fixed Cross wrote:But in every great society there are strong contrasts and contradiction opinions. This is because what has become common is a derivative of relatively similar self-valuings connected and concentrated throughout time. But because of the fact that culture is a pre-existing derivative, a self-valuing born into a culture will always be at odds with it, as it discovers its own physiological being, its drives - its real values become apparent to it, and it must in many cases break free. Whether it can or can't break free when it wants to determines whether it will be an entity or a sub-entity, a thing that operates purely as a derived function of a family or a culture.


Right. I understand perfectly. It's the individual who must dance to the beat of his own drum when that drum differs from the drum of cultural tradition.

Fixed Cross wrote:What VO implicitly proposes (that's why it is of value to me), is that cultures begin to slightly adapt to their human nature, to their being derivatives, and not active functions...


What does this mean? Are you saying that culture, after persisting for long enough, will create a "derivative" human nature? And this will be a new human nature?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8488
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:54 pm

gib wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:A self-valuing, which I have taken as the ontological standard of the observable universe, is simply an "independent something". It is dependent on the fact of existence, but the fact of existence is also dependent on it. It is how existence exists. It must be ultra-simple, applicable to literally every proper entity == everything that can be said to exist without being created to suit a purpose by another entity. In such a case it would not exist because it values reality (consciously and/or unconsciously selects its responses to reality) in terms of itself, of what perpetuates itself, but because another entity values it in terms of itself.


Everything here makes sense until we get to the bolded text. What would it be to "be created to suit a purpose by another entity"? You mean like a human invention?

Yes.
Many humans are now serving as the inventions of others. ("workers"). No one invented himself to work for someone else. It's the basic master slave synthesis up to a level of complete revaluation, which is what Hegel tried to point out and what Marx tried to materialize into history. Both were right but from the wrong perspective. They could not see the real power. I think the revolution started in the 1950's - Elvis is far more influential than the Beatles, and he is rooted directly in 'negro-culture'. It makes sense to me that the African Americans were the first truly free Americans. When they liberated themselves, I mean. Free of ancestral culture and free to an unformed, immature culture that begs to be influenced and mainly, free of guilt.

Now that white men are taking over the most influential black music, we can see America approaching its self-valuing implosion. We'll have to away what kind of explosion follows from it. Or no - actually we can influence it. Oh right. "S.O.W."
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:17 pm

No shortage of guilt amongst AA's now, it builds quickly and the opportunity to make an innocent man dirty was not wasted, but the profoundly moral fresh start that the slaves won by swaying state interest to crush the owners was better than Hegels could have dream - Hear ye, he looked at it from the wrong side, from the outside. I guess real philosophy could only be produced after the errors of almost-real philosophy have been played out.

Fixed Cross wrote:So one use-value that VO produces is an irrefutable distinction between entity and tool. We can know with absolute certainty that, if man employs himself in the service of a purpose that he has no or negative benefit from (negative self-value), regardless if this brings him money, he is participating in his ontological undoing.


Ah, so an entity brings about its own undoing (i.e. erases itself from existence, eventually) by valuing something other than its own perpetuation within existence (or that which serves its own perpetuation). Is that right?

The perpetuation of that which selects the stuff that allows it to select that which makes sense in terms of that, etc. It's like the logic of circular logic, or 'encompassing'. It's not a great revelation, it's a thinking-trick, It does brings about a surge of revelatory insights to shift your attention like that, but the idea itself is ultra simple. So simple it's almost invisible. I think it's something to do with the third eye, the frontal lobes and the pituitary gland, - embedding rationality into neurality.

Fixed Cross wrote:But in every great society there are strong contrasts and contradiction opinions. This is because what has become common is a derivative of relatively similar self-valuings connected and concentrated throughout time. But because of the fact that culture is a pre-existing derivative, a self-valuing born into a culture will always be at odds with it, as it discovers its own physiological being, its drives - its real values become apparent to it, and it must in many cases break free. Whether it can or can't break free when it wants to determines whether it will be an entity or a sub-entity, a thing that operates purely as a derived function of a family or a culture.


Right. I understand perfectly. It's the individual who must dance to the beat of his own drum when that drum differs from the drum of cultural tradition.

Without causing too much dissonance so as to be expelled, unless she has a band of drummers that are in sync with him. If you can't trash the music off the stage you can learn to change it from within, by walking the tight rope and not falling into chaos or back in with the old beat which tries to absorb your patterns into 'provocative innovations for your kinds to enjoy while they're silly'.
But it has to catch on. Self-valuing is what I see as the source of inspiration. The muse lives there, wanders from there, leads to it.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:32 pm

If there's one thing about slavedom that's positive it is that it wipes you of guilt in a political sense. I think someone in Washington figured that out a while ago.

Fixed Cross wrote:What VO implicitly proposes (that's why it is of value to me), is that cultures begin to slightly adapt to their human nature, to their being derivatives, and not active functions...


What does this mean? Are you saying that culture, after persisting for long enough, will create a "derivative" human nature? And this will be a new human nature?

I am saying that no human is meaningfully described as being a member of the set "humans". I am saying that this category is, essentially (though not at all practically) meaningless. So are all terms, which means that none of them provide dignity unless they active signify it. I believe that in philosophy, we need a term that signifies dignity in order to attain it. Humanarchy doesn't sound ultra noble, it's kind of rugged and it smells of dust, but it has a ring of willpower to it, something that humanity doesn't have to my ears. Humanarchy is a select modulation of humanity, not the derivative including all possible outcomes including all that will be in the future, but the actual thing in progress.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:38 pm

Essentially I am claiming the modern citizen in need of a clean slate from history, from the category of humanity, into a more dynamic and promising environment. Humanity says "that which has been derived from being human over time" and Humanarchy says "rule of Human".

This is the same mechanism as the beat-drumming. We need the logic of our revolution to concur with the logic of our existence.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby James S Saint » Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:05 pm

gib wrote:Ah, so an entity brings about its own undoing (i.e. erases itself from existence, eventually) by valuing something other than its own perpetuation within existence (or that which serves its own perpetuation). Is that right?

Yes.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25611
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Stuart » Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:26 pm

Fixed Cross, some thoughts:

You remind me of the way I used to handle threads I made here, the way you weave in and out of your thread, trying to respond to everyone, using sarcasm effectively.

The more I read about VO, the more I realize that for all pragmatic purposes it makes the same implications about value as Sartre/Being and Nothingness. I partially spent the last year and a half trying to show how the ideas from that book can be expanded into a larger social context, preferably doing so without making the same mistakes that Sartre himself did in his later years.

Of course, few understand Sartre/Being and Nothingness, but at least with him/that, there is no reason to start from the ground up.

Eyesinthedark/Antithesis was right in that some experimentation in the discussion would be useful.

Perhaps conditional experimentation. The condition being that it is at my request and I will not fail to mention that it was so; that way you'll not be alone when criticisms come from those such as Smears, who already think you're going to quickly.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby gib » Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:29 am

Fixed Cross wrote:The perpetuation of that which selects the stuff that allows it to select that which makes sense in terms of that, etc. It's like the logic of circular logic, or 'encompassing'. It's not a great revelation, it's a thinking-trick, It does brings about a surge of revelatory insights to shift your attention like that, but the idea itself is ultra simple. So simple it's almost invisible. I think it's something to do with the third eye, the frontal lobes and the pituitary gland, - embedding rationality into neurality.


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.

Fixed Cross wrote:I am saying that no human is meaningfully described as being a member of the set "humans". I am saying that this category is, essentially (though not at all practically) meaningless. So are all terms, which means that none of them provide dignity unless they active signify it. I believe that in philosophy, we need a term that signifies dignity in order to attain it. Humanarchy doesn't sound ultra noble, it's kind of rugged and it smells of dust, but it has a ring of willpower to it, something that humanity doesn't have to my ears. Humanarchy is a select modulation of humanity, not the derivative including all possible outcomes including all that will be in the future, but the actual thing in progress.

...

Essentially I am claiming the modern citizen in need of a clean slate from history, from the category of humanity, into a more dynamic and promising environment. Humanity says "that which has been derived from being human over time" and Humanarchy says "rule of Human".


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?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8488
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:24 pm

gib wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:I am saying that no human is meaningfully described as being a member of the set "humans". I am saying that this category is, essentially (though not at all practically) meaningless. So are all terms, which means that none of them provide dignity unless they active signify it. I believe that in philosophy, we need a term that signifies dignity in order to attain it. Humanarchy doesn't sound ultra noble, it's kind of rugged and it smells of dust, but it has a ring of willpower to it, something that humanity doesn't have to my ears. Humanarchy is a select modulation of humanity, not the derivative including all possible outcomes including all that will be in the future, but the actual thing in progress.

...

Essentially I am claiming the modern citizen in need of a clean slate from history, from the category of humanity, into a more dynamic and promising environment. Humanity says "that which has been derived from being human over time" and Humanarchy says "rule of Human".


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).

That reminds me of this translation:

    "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.)

"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...
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:56 pm

gib wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:The perpetuation of that which selects the stuff that allows it to select that which makes sense in terms of that, etc. It's like the logic of circular logic, or 'encompassing'. It's not a great revelation, it's a thinking-trick, It does brings about a surge of revelatory insights to shift your attention like that, but the idea itself is ultra simple. So simple it's almost invisible. I think it's something to do with the third eye, the frontal lobes and the pituitary gland, - embedding rationality into neurality.


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.

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.

Fixed Cross wrote:Essentially I am claiming the modern citizen in need of a clean slate from history, from the category of humanity, into a more dynamic and promising environment. Humanity says "that which has been derived from being human over time" and Humanarchy says "rule of Human".


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 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.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:04 pm

Fixed Cross wrote: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.

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".

    "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?".)
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7180
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:09 pm

Sauwelios wrote:"Human" then means "valuing valuing".

That's an elegant definition.

    "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?".)

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.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:31 pm

    "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 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.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:05 pm

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".
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:09 pm

Fixed Cross wrote: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.

Yep.
Last edited by James S Saint on Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25611
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:18 pm

[dp]
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:18 pm

James S Saint wrote:But those "circumstances" seriously need defining. 8)

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.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislat

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:39 pm

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.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: surreptitious75