Conversations with Zoot Allures.

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

Moderator: Uccisore

Conversations with Zoot Allures.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:09 am

I pray to Adrasteia that this post will not be taken the wrong way (no pun intended).


Saul: Eating shrooms right now, been doin' it every two weeks these last few months. Weed, I'm no longer sure about; it seems to make me too egotistical--when writing, at least. Did you see that I, too, made videos, and high ones at that? I should probably forward you my last mail to Lampert (to which he still hasn't responded, by the way).

Saul: In my defense, I only correct you when I'm absolutely sure it's a typo (otherwise I would be introducing caps to your writings--and no, no mushroom caps).

Zoot: as you've noticed i'm no longer preoccupied with using proper grammar and punctuation... especially capitalization. the caps lock is one less key i have to push when typing now. what a relief.

that's right! mushrooms are legal there, huh? lucky you. what do you have, psilocybin or fly agaric? i ate some agaric one time and my fucking neck swelled up to the size of a football.

yeah i'll watch your videos. i actually checked your youtube account and didn't find anything new; the old one on being and becoming, the one on nietzsche's BOT, and the recent one on 'the design of overmen, etc.'

as far as the links to your posts/essays, you gotta remember, you are FAR better read than me, so many of these names/thinkers are unknown to me.

Saul: Fly agaric is very different from psilocybin mushrooms--the former is not even a real hallucinogen at all. The former was the original Rudra (Shiva), though, whereas that name was only transferred to the latter later. And no, shrooms are illegal here now, but truffles (which is just the part of the shroom that grows underground) are not...

It's a different YouTube account.

The truffles are starting to kick in, which means it's becoming harder to type.

Saul: You were the one who made me aware of the existence of Revleft, by the way.


[Oni Wytars, "Dinaresade".]

Saul: I learned my "Shiva-dancing" from this guy:

[The Doors, "The End" live at the Hollywood Bowl.]

Zoot: lol! i am [at] revleft reading your thread. it is painfully obvious that the commies there responding are perhaps in over their heads.

it was a re-reading of some of nietzsche's stuff that shook me of my leftist sentiments. you must understand that i became the marxist that i was because i was experiencing the 'struggle', especially in terms of my work as the blue collar working class. my mistake was [to] surmise that i should want to solve my problem by revolutionizing the system (abolishing capitalism), while, in fact, the problem was my attitude toward the system rather than the system. nietzsche's thoughts on the nature of the anarchist... the spirit of res[s]entiment from which the revolutionary proceeds, forced me to re-evaluate myself. i discovered that i was trying to blame the system for my suffering, while i should have changed, or adapted, to my circumstances, instead. my reorientation required a radical conversion of ideals... specifically a willingness to accept my struggle against my employer's incompetence and the general disorganization of the free market.

in fact, when i abandoned my leftism, i replaced it with a more extreme rightist philosophy; the solution to my problem was not the abolition of capitalism, but a greater control of the economy by government. immediately you see the contradiction here, so keep in mind that the extreme center (fascism, corporatism) is neither right nor left, but a combination of both. not more freedom of the market, but less, would, i believe, solve the problem of its disorganization.

Saul: My trip has taken a turn away from that thread now, but ma-a-an, you should try to keep your ass out of jail! I think I will post this in a thread called "Conversations with Zoot Allures".

Zoot: in theory that sounds easy, but in practice, rather difficult. my problem is, when i feel wronged by the 'law' and am suffering various restrictions as a result (this sex offender bullshit), i get it into my head that if i submit to the law, i'm a coward. this is a constant, internal argument i have with myself. better to revolt and risk getting caught than submit, remain free, but become a coward? in addition, i feel better when i am fighting back... i feel charged with a h[e]ightened sense of life. i have an enemy... i need an enemy to feel this way. if i don't, i 'turn the sword on myself'.

in any case, i don't plan to violate any conditions of my probation. long term goals are: finish probation and move to a state in which sex offender requirements are more lenient than they are here. eventually i hope to leave the country. i have southeast asia, india, or central america in mind. these countries accept sex offender tourists in general. in india, i can stay for up to ten years on a regular visa- they have a special agreement with the US regarding travel.

Zoot: i think phoneutria is angry with me. she isn't replying to my emails. i feel bad because what she did for me while i was locked up was extraordinary. she literally spent over a thousand dollars on me, saully. food packages, clothes, books... she even bought me a tambourine (sent in the mail to my mothers house).

this sucks man. i should wait another day or two before emailing her again.

Zoot: i'm watching your occident series.

what is fixed cross and pezer up to, anyway? and what happened to lyssuh, the womlet?

Zoot: sure, post any conversation betwe[e]n us... except anything i've said about [those musings and the like]. you are my only confidant, the only one i trust.

Saul: Any idea why she should be angry?

Saul: What would be much worse is if something bad happened to her...

Saul: We need to have a reunion with her as well. Did you have that with her at all?

Zoot: two years ago when i had just gone on the lam, she knew i was selling stolen merchandise. i think she thought the stuff was from stores rather than individual people, maybe, and that my recent post in which i explained what i was doing- breaking into cars- mighta pissed her off. i dunno. that, and she also advised that i not have anything to do with ILP ('that shit hole' as she called it).

Saul: She may be angry that you're now corresponding with me instead of with her. After all, what did I ever really do for you? Send her this one scribbling of mine?

Zoot: we never really broke contact. as i said, she wrote me all the time during my incarceration, and bought me a breakfast pack every month without exception. now, suddenly, there's radio silence between us. something i recently did, or didn't do, pissed her off, i think.

Saul: The breaking-into-cars thing shouldn't really surprise her, as someone posted a pic of you doing that on ILP... She may not have seen it, but even then I doubt that would surprise her. At least it didn't surprise _me_.

Saul: Then again, I saw that picture, so yeah...

Saul: She may just be done with ILP, including you. We've failed her, man...

Zoot: i doubt it's you. she thinks highly of you. this is what i last said to her, and haven't heard from her since:

"so you haven't said a word about all that's been going on with you. how is brazil? how is your fam? are you in a house now? did you get a dog yet? come on man, talk to me. sheesh."

when she last wrote to me while i was in jail, she had mentioned these things, but never said anything more about it.

Saul: Yeah, she's from Brazil... Not a first-world country, that! I hope she's not in trouble.

Zoot: a pic of me breaking into cars? where? *scratches head*

Zoot: well she only recently moved back there from chicago in july of 2017. i think she's alright; really busy with [private matters, withheld]. she was having problems with [private matters, withheld].

Saul: I can't recall; I'll try and look it up later if you want. Maybe it was a link to a page that featured it, or maybe I did a Google search myself on the basis of what someone on ILP said had happened to you. In any case, it's out there, on the interwebs man!

I PM'ed her of my own accord to ask her if she's okay, and if she's angry with you.

Saul: Shit, man...

Zoot: there are mugshots of me on the web... but surely not pics of me breaking into cars. i'm tellin' you, saully, i was like a fucking ninja out there. only one person ever saw me, and only my shadow at that.

*ninja smoke bomb*

Saul: I know I'm on hallucinogens right now, but what if [speculations loosely based on withheld private info] or something?

Saul: It was a still pic from a surveillance cam.

Saul: Now that I mention it, it may have been from a carcam. Some of those are on all the time, man...

Saul: In any case, that girl [sic] really belongs to our group, and we have to make her know that--feel that.

Zoot: [withheld private info], so [speculation based on withheld private info] is an impossibility. [More withheld private info.]

a surveillance pic? hmm. i walked through that thread and found only links to news clips about me that turd had posted. that's it. no still pics or links to still pics.

Saul: I'm pretty sure I saw a surveillance cam pic of you, not a mugshot.

Glad to hear that thing about [withheld private info]. Apparently, she comes from [a] good family, so then it's not a third-world-country out there. But only then, man... I mean, Brazil has been on the rise, like India and China, but it's by no means the West yet. Though I suppose the US is in many ways also a third-world-country.

Zoot: indeed. i made it clear how i felt about her. i had thought [withheld private matters] could lead to something between us, but she made it clear that would not happen. i fully understand; she's a career oriented [private info, withheld] who probably doesn't want to get mixed up romantically with someone like me. she's a truly remarkable woman, though. wonderful personality, extremely intelligent, etc.

Saul: Yeah, she's too good for you, man. A real looker, too, judging from what I saw. Not a trophy wife, but a true jewel.

Saul: That wasn't meant to hurt you, by the way. You seem like a good guy, except perhaps the exhibitionist tendency. And she probably wouldn't want a relationship with me, either.

Zoot: ha! i'm more beautiful tha[n] she is, but still i would mate with her. we'd make gorgeous babies. but yeah, she's... well, not too 'good', but too different... or stable, would be a better way to put it. she's of a higher class than me, a higher social strat[um].

Saul: Maybe she's the perfect woman of whom Nietzsche said it was a higher type than the perfect man, but also a lot rarer. You and I must at least try to be perfect men, then--if only for her sake!

Zoot: no harm done. my exhibitionism resulted from a frustrated libido. i had (have) a problem with conventional dating, so this paraphilia became an outlet of expression. compl[e]mentary to my narcissism it worked to 'get me off', if you will. the thought of being seen by another turned me on.

gotta quit that shit though, man. gettin' too old... and i got too many felonies now. need to find a female companion.

Saul: That may be true, but it's my long experience that women don't like to hear that. And sure, you're a handsome enough fella. But we perfect (gentle)men, if we are to be that, must create a jewel together that is beyond each of us, and even all of us lumped together. We have to form a tribe, man. Fixed Cross has his own thing going on BTL; we must have such a thing of our own. Our private correspondence can be the seed of that.

Saul: Okay man, that's good to hear. Pandora on ILP once expressed extreme horror and disgust at my saying I've sometimes entertained the _fantasy_ of anal sex (with a woman, of course). I've never even done it, man. But yeah, I get what you['re] saying about a frustrated libido.

Zoot: i've said it before years ago; i've always wanted to establish my own group, like the vienna circle, of exceptional minds. i wanted to move beyond just internet contact... i wanted to create a commune of sorts. at one time erik was down, and i know jakob and pezer would be interested.

sounds though like you are at odds with jakob? i think that's only a tech[ni]cal difficulty... perhaps due to some philosophical disagreements. that can be sorted out, though. consider the things you two have in common rather than what you don't.

Saul: And no, without any strap-ons or any of that shit.

Zoot: nor have i. tried it once with [name withheld] back in 2008, but she resisted, saying it was too painful.

Saul: No, Fixed's problem with me is that I don't offer enough--or even anything, though I think that's exaggerated--in return for [private matters, withheld]. I'm hoping what you and I are now starting will amend that.

Zoot: you'll be crashing from the shrooms in the [n]ext hour. it'd be nice if you had a bowl of some good herb to smoke to take the edge off.

Saul: And we, being the perfect gentlemen that we are, don't keep asking time and again, let alone force ourselves upon them, of course.

I'm not even sure I would want it, in real life.

Saul:I have weed, but I'm not sure I'll use it. What I am sure about is that I'm gonna eat (only had half a granola bar, some chocolat [sic] and some peanuts today).

Zoot: thinkers at our 'level' would fare much better in direct conversation, since post writing of such density becomes difficult to follow and interpret. our thoughts and ideas would be better mediated in real-time discussion...

Saul: Chocolate*! Did you know the Injuns called it chocolatl, though (like peyotl and a bunch of other words)? Pure cacao is also said to enhance psychedelic trips.

Saul: I think you're right. I'm glad you and I now have this back-and-forth going, though.

Zoot: yes, i've also heard dark chocolate is very good for you. it contains hard to get nutrients of some sort or another.

Saul: I know. In fact, I've got some 80% Brazilian chocolate right here! I usually eat the 70% variety, though (but never lower, though I could go as low as 65 or 60, I guess).

Zoot: know what else is unfortunate? the conflict between you and turd. i've often thought of you two in the same way nietzsche thought of hegel and schopenhauer; those two brother geniuses that constantly quarrel. shame you two can't find a more conciliatory tone. i'm confident i could transform turd in person to person interaction, though. his aggression toward anything nietzschean is little more than hot air, i think.

Saul: Turd I really don't trust. Though I must say it was unfair of me--I did it on purpose--to suggest that he let The Nietzsche Forum go to shit. But he's too fucked up for me to directly engage with, I think. Good if you can get some value out of that, though.

Saul: Out of engaging with him, I mean. Have you started doing that again, these last few days?

Saul: I did post Turd's response to my "State of the World Address" on my Facebook, by the way, under the Blake quote: "Listen to the fool's reproach! It is a kingly title!"

Zoot: haven't talked to turd in over two years.

i can imagine how my own relationship to him... which wasn't bad... could distort my opinion regarding your relationship to him. i'd want to think you two could get along, but must accept that it just can't happen. a situation where a friend would expect that a friend would get along with his other friend. this is not necessarily so, i'm afraid.

Saul: No. In fact, it reminds me of the problems in Pim Fortuyn's political party shortly after his assassination: I remember seeing they'd brought in some Enneagram of Personality-guru to help them, and he explained how this guy was this number and therefore could be friends with that guy, but not with that other guy, and how that guy could serve as a bridge between the two. The initiative failed miserably, by the way, so maybe we shouldn't use the Enneagram for that.
Last edited by Mitra-Sauwelios on Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:01 am, edited 4 times in total.
"Your symbolical, lyrical and musical world can become an absolute standard. That is to say the highest on Earth." (Fixed Cross, "Re: A letter for the King" (return email to yours truly!), my translation.)
kali maa jaap mantra {om aim hreem kleem chamundaye vichaye}
"didja read that great wall of text he wrote? i'm tellin' you, ollie is the grand master of the esoteric and eclectic. if there IS something more to life, something extramundane or divine or whatever you wanna call it, ollie will figure it out" (Zoot Allures, to phoneutria, about yours truly.)
User avatar
religious philosopher
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Conversations with Zoot Allures.

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:37 pm

I'm still rather fuzzy about all this. Why is Zoot conveying this to you to convey to us instead of conveying it himself at ILP?

Me, I don't care about the personal stuff or the personalities probed and discussed. My only interest is in how others respond [philosophically or otherwise] to the question "how ought one to live?"

Is there a way to know this [philosophically or otherwise] such that all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to share a particular frame of mind and/or set of behaviors?

From my frame of mind, zoot or phoneutria or jacob or pezer or turd is either an objectivist here or s/he is not.

They can either yank me up out of the philosophical hole that I've dug for myself or they can't.

I hope one day that zoot does decide to come back and participate. If nothing else that's one less Kid here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
ILP Legend
Posts: 24241
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Conversations with Zoot Allures.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:45 am

Zoot Allures wrote:a polygraph test works by detecting slight changes in brain processes while the subject is being asked to answer questions honestly. but why should telling a lie produce a detectable change in these processes if 'truth' is a conceptual entity rather than a sensual, perspective entity or state? because saying what you don't believe (or know) is true creates a cognitive disturbance. but this doesn't answer our question.

if truth is definied as 'that belief event which, if not properly expressed with language, creates a state of cognitive dissonance by which the body makes a subtle but detectable change', then whether or not a belief event is true must be determined solely by physiological and psychologistic structures and circumstances, NOT by or through the logical and syntactical analysis of the language, and therefore the thinking, of the subject.

truth, then, ... or telling the truth, rather, can only be explained as a kind of behavior that has evolved over an immense period of time, and that has been conditioned through the process of natural selection; those language using, thinking creatures that accurately interpreted information and predicted environmental changes so that they could readily adapt to them, had increased fitness levels. a 'telling the truth' state is nothing more than a behavior.

the matter of whether or not a language can produce indicative statements that are correct representations of facts in or about the world is not relevent when regarding the proofs for what is considered true or false in a logical analysis of language. true and false statements are what they are if and when they meet, or don't meet, certain grammatical, syntactical and semantic criterion; the form of propositions (this excludes expletives, commands and questions), the argument of which they are a part, and the conclusion derived from them, may be coherent, valid and sound... but still not representational of the truth.

if the subject of the polygraph tells a lie, the lie may still meet the criterion for logical coherency, validity and soundness, but not represent the facts of or about the world, since the subject doesn't believe what he has said is true (and is therefore not in the 'telling the truth' state). but believing statements of fact are true or false proves nothing about the world except that there is such a thing as logical coherency, validity and soundness!

joe is asked 'have you smoked marijuana in the last week', and answers 'no', when in fact he had two days ago. the polygraph test registers the change in the body, and indicates that joe was in fact lying, or, rather, saying what he didn't believe was true.

joe's statement can be put into the form: 'i have not smoked marijuana in the last week.' we can further deduce that along with this, joe must also mean 'therefore i am not lying.'

but does joe 'know' he's telling a lie? no. he doesn't know he's telling a lie in the same way he knows that what he has told the tester is logically coherent, valid and sound if, indeed, he feels he is telling the truth about not smoking marijuana in the last week.

it is true that joe isn't lying if he hasn't smoked marijuana. this is certain to joe. but he cannot be certain in the same way, that he's actually smoked marijuana two days ago. he cannot know with absolute certainty that his memory of smoking two days ago is accurate.

see that his 'feeling' of telling the truth or lying is quite tangible, and based on the reliability of his memory. but what is his memory doing... what and how does it work. is there a set of neurological actions that take place which produce the feeling in joe that another set of neurological actions, those executed AS he told what he believed was the lie, weren't 'true' actions, and are detected by the polygraph tester?

but how can a brain state be true or false!?

i ask again: why should telling a lie produce a detectable change in these processes if 'truth' is conceptual rather than sensual?

note: if readers are not understanding this, it is because i have failed to explain it clearly, not because it's nonsense. what i have discovered here has incredible implications in epistemology.
User avatar
religious philosopher
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Conversations with Zoot Allures.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:29 am

Zoot Allures wrote:i would like to make a public announcement, ollie. please post this in the convos with zoot thread:

not until my break with traditional philosophy after discovering its limitations, did i find in the ideas of that alpha-nihilist, max stirner, a new fulfillment that was intellectually and spiritually satisfying... without any feeling of futility i had experienced as a philosopher. it was the product of something that seemed as profoundly simple as it was irrefutable, and despite my efforts to criticize it, i could raise no sincere objection.

although i am inclined to say i should have found this much earlier in my life, i doubt i could have understood this essential, iron-clad idea of such clear and unmistakable power so perfectly, without first traversing the labyrinths of classical and contemporary philosophy.

fate had saved the best for last, but to become a stirnerite so late in life is no disappointment. better to become one late, than never.

i am going to develop a stirnerian neo-positivism, and live my life to the max... stirner.

for the ego and its own!
User avatar
religious philosopher
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Conversations with Zoot Allures.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:31 am

Mitra-Saully wrote:Interesting... Can I also post that first line, about its being a public announcement? This might be apt, as it could be a declaration of war, or rather (I hope) a boxing match: in the right corner, representing Max Stirner: Zoot Allures! And in the left corner, representing Friedrich Nietzsche, Mitra-Sauwelios!...

My initial criticism of Stirner can be found in my "Nature and God are History" OP:

Nietzsche, though often considered a secret student and even a plagiarist of Max Stirner, is pretty much the Antistirner. Stirner famously wrote:

"Man with the great M is only an ideal, the species only something thought of. To be a man is not to realize the ideal of Man, but to present oneself, the individual. It is not how I realize the generally human that needs to be my task, but how I satisfy myself. I am my species, am without norm, without law, without model, and the like. It is possible that I can make very little out of myself; but this little is everything, and is better than what I allow to be made out of me by the might of others, by the training of custom, religion, the laws, the state. Better--if the talk is to be of better at all--better an unmannerly child than an old head on young shoulders, better a mulish man than a man compliant in everything." (The Ego and Its Own 2.2, trans. Byington.)

In aphorism 188 of his Beyond Good and Evil, whose great importance Strauss repeatedly emphasized, Nietzsche writes:

"The essential thing 'in heaven and on earth', so it appears, is, to make the point again, that there is obedience for a long time and in one direction: in the process there comes and always has come eventually something for whose sake living on earth is worthwhile, for example, virtue, art, music, dance, reason, spirituality--something or other transfiguring, subtle, amazing, and divine. [...] Admittedly by the same token a great deal of irreplaceable force and spirit must have been overwhelmed in the process, crushed, and ruined as well (for here as everywhere 'nature' reveals herself as she is, in her totally extravagant and indifferent magnificence, which is an outrage, but something noble)."

I think I was also getting at this same issue in the high post I wrote you while you were in prison.

Zootsky wrote:sure, include the formalities. meanwhile, a glance into the future...

"On the possibility of divine intelligence, Kurzweil is quoted as saying, "Does God exist? I would say, 'Not yet.'"

Sir Barl the Bold wrote:Interesting; I'm rewatching the TV-series Terminator: The Sarah Chronicles these days. Depending on how well you know the movies, you may want to watch the first two, then watch the series, and then continue from T3.

I seem to disagree with you on Stirner/Nietzsche, and thereby fundamentally for both of us, I think, but do I agree with Jakob? I'm still sorting stuff out, guys... Could I arrive at a third position that's superior to both of yours?

I'm high on what I think is Cannabis Indica now, thinking things through. I do think self-valuing is not only what we humans, with our contingent rational faculties, (almost) can't help but value as true, but (also) what, at bottom, we most _want to hold true, because we most value the idea? or because it seems to enhance our lives most, not just logically but also empirically. And the two have at least _become_ inextricably intertwined for us: certain things have _evolved_ to be pleasurable to us, others displeasurable. Human reason is only adequate to its environment so long as it survives, no longer. This, I realise, is circular reasoning.


No longer high as I post this. Before I say more, I want to finish Michael Zuckert's essay, "Why Leo Strauss is Not an Aristotelian". Quote:

"Strauss's 'Epilogue' is an attempt to encourage his fellow political scientists to withdraw their obeisance or deference to the new science, which takes its bearings from the philosophic doctrines of logical positivism and empiricism. He attempts to wean them away from the new science by both laying out an explicit alternative to it‐‐the aforementioned Aristotelian political science‐‐and by mounting a critique of the presuppositions of the new science. Strauss had on many previous occasions criticized the distinction between facts and values, which is such a large part of the foundation of the new political science."
User avatar
religious philosopher
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Conversations with Zoot Allures.

Postby Meno_ » Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:54 am

We can't help to. True that is true ontologically , through repetition. Without that (repetition) the idea of eternal return would be impossible ,impossible and contrary, repetition is only feasible because of the idea of eternal return.

That is exactly why that is an ontological value, apparently closed but really wise open.

This openness brings in all kinds of ideas, even if in an a]apparently closed system.

I did not correspond with Zoot, so this is only a kind of takeoff on a stream. I do share share.

'Repetition and Eternal Recurrence' , L. Bergstrom

'indeterminacy in Quine', 'Does ontologocal relativity work?'
The point of this paper discusses Quines' empiricsemantic solution , and presents new sets of problems.

I added this change after the presentation of this concept , since the presentation later on is far more exhaustive a compilation.There does it is a sort of a hybrid before-afterword hypothetical presentation.
Last edited by Meno_ on Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:11 am, edited 6 times in total.
Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Conversations with Zoot Allures.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:16 am

Another quote (still reading):

"Strauss emphatically rejects the modern scholarly view that the pre‐Socratic sophists originated political science. They proceeded on the basis of the distinction between nature and convention and relegated the human things proper, the just and the noble things, to the realm of convention. Accordingly they thought the only significant politically relevant knowledge was knowledge of rhetoric, for convention, being merely a persuasion, is subject to the art of persuasion. Strauss insists that even that pre‐Socratic, Hippodamus, whom Aristotle seems to identify as the first political scientist, failed to find that science, because he merely attempted to impose some broader theory of nature onto the human world. In other words, 'he did not pay attention to the peculiar character of political things: he did not see that the political things are in a class by themselves'.
The man who apparently first saw the uniqueness of the political was Socrates, ironically because he applied to the political a general theory about nature as a whole: he asked 'what is the political', just as he asked of everything the 'what is' question. Socrates' discovery of 'noetic heterogeneity' in the whole made possible his turn to the human things as human things." (Zuckert, op.cit., quoting from Strauss' The City and Man.)

I think this is pertinent to Zoot's discussion with UrGod in the "The Philosophers" thread.
User avatar
religious philosopher
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Conversations with Zoot Allures.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:54 am

"Socrates and Plato endorsed the Socratic thesis that 'human wisdom is knowledge of ignorance'. Knowledge of ignorance is not the same as pure ignorance; it is the recognition that 'there is no knowledge of the whole but only knowledge of parts, hence only partial knowledge of parts, hence no unqualified transcending' of this sphere of opinion. 'Partial knowledge of the parts' means not only that knowledge of the whole escapes us, but that the knowledge of the parts is also somehow 'elusive'. Each part is 'open to the whole' in the sense that knowledge of it is subject to the uncertainty imposed by the elusiveness of the whole." (id.)
"Your symbolical, lyrical and musical world can become an absolute standard. That is to say the highest on Earth." (Fixed Cross, "Re: A letter for the King" (return email to yours truly!), my translation.)
kali maa jaap mantra {om aim hreem kleem chamundaye vichaye}
"didja read that great wall of text he wrote? i'm tellin' you, ollie is the grand master of the esoteric and eclectic. if there IS something more to life, something extramundane or divine or whatever you wanna call it, ollie will figure it out" (Zoot Allures, to phoneutria, about yours truly.)
User avatar
religious philosopher
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: Conversations with Zoot Allures.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:23 am

Perhaps we may say I've been tending to some kind of "Custom Ontology". I also coined the word "deuterophysics" earlier today (yesterday for me): hê deuterê physis literally means "second nature", which is another word for "habit, custom [compare "costume"!]". Yet shouldn't it rather be "Custom Epistemology"? Christoph Cox writes:

"[I]s will to power an epistemological or an ontological doctrine? The answer is that it is both, or neither: both, because it offers an account of knowing and being; neither, because it collapses the rigorous distinction between subject and object, knower and known, upon which epistemology and ontology are traditionally founded.
To make sense of this we need to return to the gastronomic metaphor presented above. For Nietzsche, 'knowing' is 'interpreting' (that is, 'taking possession of things', 'equalization and ordering', 'simplification', 'adjustment', 'schematizing', 'forming, shaping, and reshaping' 'for the purpose of intelligibility and calculation'). [Cf. WP 503, 500, 515, and 656.] And this cognitive apprehension or interpretation is simply a kind of in-gestion or in-corporation, which forms 'the basic will' not only of the body but also of the 'spirit'--for '"the spirit" is relatively most similar to a stomach' (BGE 229-30). [Cf. WP 501 and 510.] On this model, then, the 'knowing subject' is no more detached from the 'objects' it apprehends than the body is detached from the solids, liquids, and gases it ingests. That which ingests (the knower, the interpreter, the consumer) is not different in kind from that which is ingested (other natural material), for the latter is also a consumer and interpreter (in the extended sense) in its own right. Thus, the designations subject and object, knower and known, interpreter and interpreted, eater and eaten are relative and perspectival, since, from one point of view all matter is the former, while from another it is the latter. '[A]ll existence' is 'essentially an interpreting existence' (GS 374), Nietzsche writes; and all knowing is a form of 'interpreting'. That is, what things are is determined by interpretation (both by cognitive and noncognitive forms of appropriation and assimilation); and what things do is interpret (including that rarefied form we call 'knowing' or 'cognition').
In short, for Nietzsche, the natural world is fundamentally interpretive. There is no world other than the natural and nothing outside the interpretive web that constitutes this natural world. If 'epistemology' names the attempt to conceive of the knowing subject as prior to interpretation, the attempt to found a prior science, to view the world 'from the outside', then will to power (which resolutely views the world 'from inside') is anti-epistemological. In Richard Rorty's formulation, it is 'hermeneutical', because it substitutes for the epistemological dualism of subject and object the web of 'interpretation', which encompasses and articulates both subjects and objects. There is only this web of interpretation; which is to say, there is only will to power: 'This world is the will to power--and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power--and nothing besides!' (WP 1067).


This assertion of the primacy and irreducibility of interpretation can only mean that 'will to power' is itself an interpretation. And Nietzsche affirms it as such: 'Supposing that this ['will to power'] also is only interpretation--' he writes, 'and you will be eager enough to make this objection?--well, so much the better' (BGE 22). Nietzsche is not a dogmatist metaphysician for whom will to power could be a transcendent Truth; nor is he a positivist for whom will to power could be founded on indubitable 'facts'. Indeed, in the closing sections of the Genealogy, he argues that dogmatic metaphysics and positivism are secret allies, because both are motivated by the same 'unconditional will to truth' that demands 'the renunciation of all interpretation' (GM III:24). For Nietzsche, however, such renunciation is impossible and the very attempt at it antinatural.
How, then, can Nietzsche avoid vicious circularity and legitimate his claim that will to power is the best available world-interpretation? This problem of circularity confronts every philosophy that abjures foundationalism. But the circle will appear vicious only to the foundationalist who assumes that there must be some way of exiting it. For the holist, there is no such exit. But this does not mean that the holist lacks a platform for critique, for the proposal of positive views, and for the determination of value. What it does mean is that critique can only take place from within, that it must draw its resources from that which it criticizes. [The footnote at this point calls on Quine's analogy, drawn from Neurath, that we are at sail in "a boat which [...] we can rebuild only at sea while staying afloat in it" ("Natural Kinds", in Ontological Relativity, 127), and on Derrida's analogy, drawn from Lévi-Strauss, that we are "bricoleurs" who can only "build [... new] castles with debris" (Of Grammatology, 139).] [...]" (Cox, Nietzsche: Naturalism and Interpretation, final sections.)

At this point the final section turns out to go on for longer than I thought, and it also becomes really questionable (in the "good" sense), so I'll stop here, for now. I have to eat, anyway.
User avatar
religious philosopher
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Return to Society, Government, and Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users