State of the World Address.

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Amorphos » Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:00 pm

Fixed Cross

this is from Zarathustra.


I have said book, but found it to be of an arcane language and generally without substance or root at a fundamental level ~ or nonsense generally. I might have it all wrong, but even if Nietzsche was a genius he failed to get that across. Not to mention that his philosophy is basically modern capitalism in a nutshell – which sucks really badly. Maybe I got it wrong, but historical and contemporary examples haven't made a very good case for its missed eloquence, nor et al. I do think Hitler was a Nietzschean, and the jews aren't far behind him, if we consider how they think they are better than everyone else, and are generally ruling the world, and promoting his 'stronger than' philosophy.

Sauwelios

A Nietzschean "Creation myth" might be: existence began with an act of divine Destruction.


Given that there was some manner of perfection to begin with, or a oneness, then to make anything from that could be seen as an act of destruction yes. However, that oneness contains its seed, no? Ergo the duality is inherent within the fundamental nature of existence. There is no perfect God or perfection et al, then if everything is imperfect at root then nothing was destroyed.

AT THIS POINT I CAN NO LONGER STAND MY CAPITALS AMONG A LOWER CASE AUDIENCE.


Dear lord don't you see what this means!? Just like Nietzsche viewed others as degenerate intellectually, you are doing the same, dividing the world into the worthy and the unworthy. Did you create yourself and make yourself more intelligent? No, you make an assumption that others are failing, and I suspect you believe there is a 'divine integer' seed, or 'value' which denotes whether or not some are low and some are high case as you put it. So let me get this right; you think that a divinity or you yourself decided that you or your 'value' is or should be better than others. Then in contrast some people would have shit intellects and shit lives, because they must suck.

I don't get it!? In this fucking shit world where people have to suffer and die, you think a supreme intellect decided to make things worse for some than others. If I got the whole thing wrong please educate me, because as I see it, it is Nietzsche and Nietzschean's who require an education.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6871
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:00 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Perhaps then it is the small connecting words that we have and the Romans did not.
No


Indeed, I think the Greeks and Romans had even more (subtle) such words: consider Professor Ruijg's Autour de "τε épique". τε is etymologically the same as Latin -que and the ch in Dutch noch (compare και and et to German auch). I'm reminded of ende in Medieval Dutch literature.


I have it. Let me make a suggestion about how to pull this off without punctuation.

AT THIS POINT I CAN NO LONGER STAND MY CAPITALS AMONG A LOWER CASE AUDIENCE
AND LOWER CASE WITH ALL THE SUBTLETY OF PUNCTUATION


I must say that the first time I read your post the whole thing sounded good, but actually it already stops making sense here, as it stops in mid-sentence with no indication as to why. There's a difference between the end of the first sentence and that of the second. I also miss the comma, it just doesn't flow the same way.


BUT NO I WILL NOT PRETEND THAT I'M ADVANCED ENOUGH TO DO WITHOUT PUNCTUATION
EVEN AS I WON'T PRETEND TO BE ABLE TO WRITE LATIN OR GREEK
THIS NIETZSCHEAN AGE IS TOO MUCH STILL A BEGINNING
LIKE MY SELF-IMPOSED EXILE FROM THE WORLD OF TONAL MUSIC
AND MY TONAL FAVOURITES WERE ALREADY AN ODD SELECTION


Here there's just no alternative for punctuation: this last sentence is neither entirely new nor simply a continuation of the preceding one. Also, the preceding one is now completely cut off from the succeeding one, which is its continuation...


THIS WAY OF WRITING IS AN EXPERIENT IN TAKING THINGS COLD AND SLOW

this works perfectly well, reads better than a large block with ongoing text in caps with punctuation, which quite simply is too much information per square centimeter for my brain to find pleasant reading.


I don't see how it's more information than if it was in lower case. I think the same goes for Nietzsche's aphorisms (as distinct from mere maxims): you're supposed to ponder every period. By the way, the Greeks and Romans would rather print it like this:

AT THIS POINT I CAN NO LONGER STAND MY CAPITALS AMONG A LOWER CASE AUDIENCE AND LOWER CASE WITH ALL THE SUBTLETY OF PUNCTUATION BUT NO I WILL NOT PRETEND THAT IM ADVANCED ENOUGH TO DO WITHOUT PUNCTUATION EVEN AS I WON'T PRETEND TO BE ABLE TO WRITE LATIN OR GREEK THIS NIETZSCHEAN AGE IS TOO MUCH STILL A BEGINNING LIKE MY SELFIMPOSED EXILE FROM THE WORLD OF TONAL MUSIC AND MY TONAL FAVOURITES WERE ALREADY AN ODD SELECTION THIS WAY OF WRITING IS AN EXPERIENT IN TAKING THINGS COLD AND SLOW

or even like this:

A T T H I S P O I N T I C A N N O L O N G E R S T A N D M Y C A P I T A L S A M O N G A L O W E R C A S E A U D I E N C E A N D L O W E R C A S E W I T H A L L T H E S U B T L E T Y O F P U N C T U A T I O N B U T N O I W I L L N O T P R E T E N D T H A T I M A D V A N C E D E N O U G H T O D O W I T H O U T P U N C T U A T I O N E V E N A S I W O N T P R E T E N D T O B E A B L E T O W R I T E L A T I N O R G R E E K T H I S N I E T Z S C H E A N A G E I S T O O M U C H S T I L L A B E G I N N I N G L I K E M Y S E L F I M P O S E D E X I L E F R O M T H E W O R L D O F T O N A L M U S I C A N D M Y T O N A L F A V O U R I T E S W E R E A L R E A D Y A N O D D S E L E C T I O N T H I S W A Y O F W R I T I N G I S A N E X P E R I E N T I N T A K I N G T H I N G S C O L D A N D S L O W


Your rhythms are indeed the ground, and I say just break up all phrases and let them stand alone.


But precisely that will break the rhythm, or at least make it much more difficult to decipher (to interpret the writing the way it was intended in that regard).

Another reason I still prefer punctuation is, as I meant to convey, that I don't know whether Greek and Latin writers intended ambiguity with regard to where one sentenced ended and the next began (compare Aristotle's chiding Heraclitus for leaving it unclear whether an adverb belonged to one part of speech or another or both)--and that I certainly don't consider myself capable of such esotericism at this point.


This way, it breathes like rhetoric wants to breathe. All phrases can be called out in a loud voice over a big square.


Yeah, but this is not marketplace (forum, agora) material at all. It's perfectly in order if the form discourages "the public".

::

Fixed Cross wrote:HAND WRITING IS RUNIC
A MAN THAT WRITES WITHOUT COCKSLEGS IS NO ROMAN

THREE WOLVES GREET YOU


This works fine, indeed. What's the meaning of "cock's legs" in this context, though? I assume it connects the second sentence to the first.

::

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:FC's changes are huge improvements. Go with his advice.


MVLIER·TACEAT·IN·LITERARIIS

::

Fixed Cross wrote:FCS CHANGES ARE HUGE
IMPROVEMENTS GO
WITH HIS ADVICE


This shows how parsing sentences like this is really of a kind with punctuation: MM never said your changes were huge; minor changes may be major improvents...

::

Fixed Cross wrote:BASICALLY I DO NOT
RECOGNIZE THE
DISTINCTION

BETWEEN POETRY AND PROSE



ONLY BETWEEN FORM AND FORM DO I SEE DISTINCTION
RHYME OR NO RHYME
IS OF NO CONCERN

WORD FOR WORD EACH WORD
IS METAPHOR


Well, I think this ironically supports that distinction: for in my opinion, parsing your prose like this does not make it poetry; just bad prose. It's how the masses who have no talent and no strong inspiration write "poetry".

I never said anything about rhyme here. I wholly agree with Milton about rhyme, except perhaps that it may serve as a restriction of the kind Nietzsche praises in BGE 188. It turns out, by the way, that the difference between poetry and prose is indeed the presence or absence of meter, respectively--just as I thought it was. Even in my teenage songs I was a master of rhythm, so much so that supposedly more advanced musicians (read: Vincent) could not understand or appreciate my rhythms.

::

One last thing to consider: the Greeks and Romans may not have needed punctuation because, rather than emphasis, they had long and short vowels--unlike us moderns.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:08 am

My truncating was meant precisely to show how much power there is in that - to force a beautiful new sentence out of another simply by truncating. I do not need to show you that, obviously - but I took the liberty of showing it in general.

I have merely shown the raw potential of your style somewhat.

I still like my own manner of 'marblizing' English better - but most of all I prefer what you exampled as pure raw text without spaces. That is truly noble.

I will humbly withdraw.

Yes, what you say about Greek is entirely correct. pos gar ou!!
All weathers are wild, you know what this means? - Odin

Image
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. - Parodites, 3rd Pentad

Conversations From Within The Abyss
The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:20 am

MVLIER·TACEAT·IN·LITERARIIS

RIDET ET AFFIRMAT CRUX
But strangers to masculine values in general. As many men as women - some women tend to have an inkling about masculinity, as it is their highest value. But these are value-creating women: women that stand by the man that they have chosen as worthy of their favors, and (sparse and necessary) wisdom.



I do think MM has a good eye (and ear) - but women can simply not understand rank among free spirits.
They are thus in the dark as to how freedom is forged.

That it is forged. Women like to see it treated as a given, so they can give themselves to it with abandon. This is their prerogative qua their own existence. This is the war of the sexes.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
All weathers are wild, you know what this means? - Odin

Image
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. - Parodites, 3rd Pentad

Conversations From Within The Abyss
The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:28 am

L O V E L E T T E R S O H S O R R Y C A R R Y O N
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 3656
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:37 am

Amorphos wrote:Sauwelios

A Nietzschean "Creation myth" might be: existence began with an act of divine Destruction.


Given that there was some manner of perfection to begin with, or a oneness, then to make anything from that could be seen as an act of destruction yes. However, that oneness contains its seed, no?


Yes, that primordial act of destruction was then a self-destruction, a "self-sacrifice". (By the way, I originally wrote "ORIGINAL" instead of "PRIMORDIAL" and would like to restore that.)


Ergo the duality is inherent within the fundamental nature of existence. There is no perfect God or perfection et al, then if everything is imperfect at root then nothing was destroyed.


Yes: God is more than perfect, excessively perfect.


AT THIS POINT I CAN NO LONGER STAND MY CAPITALS AMONG A LOWER CASE AUDIENCE.


Dear lord don't you see what this means!? Just like Nietzsche viewed others as degenerate intellectually, you are doing the same, dividing the world into the worthy and the unworthy. Did you create yourself and make yourself more intelligent? No, you make an assumption that others are failing, and I suspect you believe there is a 'divine integer' seed, or 'value' which denotes whether or not some are low and some are high case as you put it. So let me get this right; you think that a divinity or you yourself decided that you or your 'value' is or should be better than others. Then in contrast some people would have shit intellects and shit lives, because they must suck.

I don't get it!? In this fucking shit world where people have to suffer and die, you think a supreme intellect decided to make things worse for some than others. If I got the whole thing wrong please educate me, because as I see it, it is Nietzsche and Nietzschean's who require an education.


Actually, though I am, like Nietzsche, an aristocratic radicalist, I did not mean to spurn the whole lower case audience here. I myself am very much still part of that audience, in part; this is why I could tell that my capitalizing initial letters might sound theatrical to some. It had started to sound theatrical to me, and this is why I could no longer stand it. I did not want to revert to conventional lower case writing, though; that's restricted to my non-high self now. I want to help prepare a new Classical age, in the true sense of the word. Lower case (Greek) was invented in Renaissance Italy, which confirms my intuition (which I only sprouted ears for a couple of years ago) that the Renaissance was at root a tremendous stock-taking (a coming to one's senses) after the overboldness of the Middle Ages (with their "supra-sensual" nonsensicality). 'Tis no accident that the Renaissance culminated in Machiavelli and thereby led to Modernity. Consider this list of "antitheses" I compiled in 2008:

Masculine--------------------Feminine
Classical----------------------Modern
Strengthening---------------Weakening
Will to be terrible-----------Will to please
Positive ugliness------------Negative beauty
Phobos----------------------- Eros
Great passion----------------Small passion
Shame ("disgrace")----------Shame ("modesty")
Flow-------------------------- Ebb
Much force-------------------Little force
Aryan-------------------------Semitic
Prometheus (serpent)-------Eve
Giver--------------------------Receiver
Awe--------------------------- Contempt
Hubris------------------------ Sin
Active-------------------------Passive
Pride-------------------------- Vanity

http://sauwelios.forumotion.com/t16-the-masculine-and-the-feminine-the-beautiful-and-the-ugly

"What I'm trying to say here is that the beauty of the powerful one does not consist in his ascending to an even greater height than positive ugliness, but in descending into the sphere of negative beauty. His will to descend there is terrible, though[.]"

In other words: Patriarchal Feminism!!
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:43 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:L O V E L E T T E R S O H S O R R Y C A R R Y O N


"Would any link at all be missing in the chain of art and science if woman, if the work of woman were missing? Admitting exceptions--they prove the rule--woman attains perfection in everything that is not a work: in letters, in memoirs, even in the most delicate handiwork, in short in everything that is not a métier—precisely because in these things she perfects herself, because she here obeys the only artistic impulse she has--she wants to please..." (Nietzsche, WP 817.)

Don't worry, Solly, I still find you pleasing.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 22, 2016 5:03 pm

Amorphos wrote:Fixed Cross

this is from Zarathustra.


I have said book, but found it to be of an arcane language and generally without substance or root at a fundamental level ~ or nonsense generally. I might have it all wrong, but even if Nietzsche was a genius he failed to get that across. Not to mention that his philosophy is basically modern capitalism in a nutshell – which sucks really badly. Maybe I got it wrong, but historical and contemporary examples haven't made a very good case for its missed eloquence, nor et al. I do think Hitler was a Nietzschean, and the jews aren't far behind him, if we consider how they think they are better than everyone else, and are generally ruling the world...



Oookay Eugene. Better put down that book now.
All weathers are wild, you know what this means? - Odin

Image
There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. - Parodites, 3rd Pentad

Conversations From Within The Abyss
The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Dorian usurper
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Amorphos » Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:01 pm

Sauwelios

Yes, that primordial act of destruction was then a self-destruction, a "self-sacrifice".


Point I was making is that nothing changes form the inside to the outside, what is within is without. Ergo no '>destruction<', and no requirement for some notion of chaos – just to add to that.

Can I make the assumption here and in Nietzsche's work generally, that at the core, you are attempting to establish an unequal foundation, one which makes you better than others by default. This would explain why an intelligent being could consider others as degenerate. or did I miss something.

Yes: God is more than perfect, excessively perfect.


Ok, interesting that you believe in God, ...so you think God didn't make all his children equal? God thinks you are better! that what is in here is not the same as what is in there and absolutely everyone else. In terms of causality, if you were born into another's body, had their information set and entered into their situations in life, that same something would be exactly like what they are. So now I hear you thinking that you are NOT that other person though! And that there is a seed or value [iteration et al] at root, by which you are you and they are them. But you need to establish a foundation for that, not just state; this is this flying spaghetti monster who says I am better than others because of something I didn't do, which made my seed superior ~ of such a thing.

On the God is perfect issue, I give you my foundations; that a perfection cannot create an imperfection. There exists what exists because reality is what reality is like, it is infinite and undefinable, now any definition of God you care to give me is not going to represent the undefinable is it! In an infinity a mixing of ingredients or aspects multiplied by infinity, will equal a oneness which contains all things but all definition has been stripped away.

I did not want to revert to conventional lower case writing, though; that's restricted to my non-high self now.


Your effort at rising to your most salient features is a noble one, I have no doubt of that, but as I see it, you push in one direction and you get an equal and opposite in the other direction. you place. to place yourself high, you have to place others low. How that appears to the observer, is that for every benefit there is a deficit, for every brave warrior there is someone punkt, for an intellectual elite there will be morons. Your 'force' pushing out, will inevitably manifest a force coming in, which is never usually good and usually involves an internal chess game. However you come to terms with that, by telling yourself you [and 'it'] are natural, and that to be great you must have that presence to yourself and to others. Yet with all the intellect and wit you can show, this intellect is reading right past that. So what is the optimum thinker? Have I just described the 'Prometheus principle' – as i'd put it, and its inevitable flaws if seen through dualistic glasses.

I want to help prepare a new Classical age, in the true sense of the word.


Cool. Don't know about all that democracy with cows on the roads and what have you lol. Or were you more thinking 'the Spartans' or some such vision ~ a meritocracy?

Thing about meritocracies is that skills and knowledge are learned things, the same kinds of people who are thick working class types, can be well educated upper class politicians. So now its basis is all about positioning, ...hmm my guess is the whole thing just falls apart quite quickly upon inspection of any of its facets.

Masculine--------------------Feminine
Classical----------------------Modern
Strengthening---------------Weakening
Will to be terrible-----------Will to please
Positive ugliness------------Negative beauty
Phobos----------------------- Eros
Great passion----------------Small passion
Shame ("disgrace")----------Shame ("modesty")
Flow-------------------------- Ebb
Much force-------------------Little force
Aryan-------------------------Semitic
Prometheus (serpent)-------Eve
Giver--------------------------Receiver
Awe--------------------------- Contempt
Hubris------------------------ Sin
Active-------------------------Passive
Pride-------------------------- Vanity



Really? whole bunch of rudimentary duality at work in all that. 'classical' is feminine to barbarian [stone age e.g.], then that to hunter-gatherer, no, – if we go by the same logic. Feminine is strong in giving birth various species e.g. preying mantis. Not to mention that there is no such actual thing as 'feminine', it is a classification of a given strata, and changes respectively. Nature just uses what it needs where it needs it, and in whatever manner it needs to do that i.e. in the third party, as like math, laws and principles generally.

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6871
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:43 am

Amorphos wrote:Sauwelios

Yes, that primordial act of destruction was then a self-destruction, a "self-sacrifice".


Point I was making is that nothing changes form the inside to the outside, what is within is without. Ergo no '>destruction<', and no requirement for some notion of chaos – just to add to that.


Yes, that's why I said that's what a Nietzschean Creation myth might say. There can ultimately be no Nietzschean Creation myth.


Can I make the assumption here and in Nietzsche's work generally, that at the core, you are attempting to establish an unequal foundation, one which makes you better than others by default. This would explain why an intelligent being could consider others as degenerate. or did I miss something.


Apparently you miss the experience of what it's like to be an intelligent being. Inequality is everywhere, not just in the foundation (and, like I just said, ultimately there can be no Nietzschean foundation myth). It appears that everything changes all the time. In fact, I would reverse David Icke's position and state that whatever does not vibrate is an illusion!


Yes: God is more than perfect, excessively perfect.


Ok, interesting that you believe in God,


I was just speaking as a theologian.


...so you think God didn't make all his children equal? God thinks you are better!


There is no difference between God and his children. God himself is unequal to himself.

"Q: What's the difference between a dead bird?
A: The other leg is slightly longer." (Dutch joke.)


that what is in here is not the same as what is in there and absolutely everyone else. In terms of causality, if you were born into another's body, had their information set and entered into their situations in life, that same something would be exactly like what they are.


I don't subscribe to such substance dualism. To me, "if you were born into another's body" etc. simply means "if you were them". And yes, if I were them, I would be exactly like what they are...


So now I hear you thinking that you are NOT that other person though! And that there is a seed or value [iteration et al] at root, by which you are you and they are them.


Not at all!


But you need to establish a foundation for that, not just state; this is this flying spaghetti monster who says I am better than others because of something I didn't do, which made my seed superior ~ of such a thing.


If they were me and I were them, they would be superior, because their dasein would be superior; they would be a superior bodying life (they'd be part of the longer leg of God, so to speak).


On the God is perfect issue, I give you my foundations; that a perfection cannot create an imperfection. There exists what exists because reality is what reality is like, it is infinite and undefinable, now any definition of God you care to give me is not going to represent the undefinable is it! In an infinity a mixing of ingredients or aspects multiplied by infinity, will equal a oneness which contains all things but all definition has been stripped away.


I think of the All as an infinite variety. However, it's apparently characterized by the fact that all its parts "break away" from the rest, even denying that rest (thus the big bang, for example, can be understood as our universe's breaking away from the rest).

"Reality is what reality is like" explains nothing. At least Value Philosophy "explains" reality as a self-creation out of "nothing" (an absurdity). At least it gives us internal relatability, a logic by which we make sense to ourselves. It describes the way in which reality "just is".


I did not want to revert to conventional lower case writing, though; that's restricted to my non-high self now.


Your effort at rising to your most salient features is a noble one, I have no doubt of that, but as I see it, you push in one direction and you get an equal and opposite in the other direction. you place. to place yourself high, you have to place others low. How that appears to the observer, is that for every benefit there is a deficit, for every brave warrior there is someone punkt, for an intellectual elite there will be morons. Your 'force' pushing out, will inevitably manifest a force coming in, which is never usually good and usually involves an internal chess game. However you come to terms with that, by telling yourself you [and 'it'] are natural, and that to be great you must have that presence to yourself and to others. Yet with all the intellect and wit you can show, this intellect is reading right past that. So what is the optimum thinker? Have I just described the 'Prometheus principle' – as i'd put it, and its inevitable flaws if seen through dualistic glasses.


You say, "which is never usually good". But how can you distinguish between good and not good? In order to be consistent, I think you'd have to hold everything to be equally good or hold everything to be unequal.


I want to help prepare a new Classical age, in the true sense of the word.


Cool. Don't know about all that democracy with cows on the roads and what have you lol. Or were you more thinking 'the Spartans' or some such vision ~ a meritocracy?

Thing about meritocracies is that skills and knowledge are learned things, the same kinds of people who are thick working class types, can be well educated upper class politicians. So now its basis is all about positioning, ...hmm my guess is the whole thing just falls apart quite quickly upon inspection of any of its facets.


Bred as well as learned, i.e., not just learned in a single generation. Other than that, you're right; but that doesn't change anything, as we can't all be well-educated upper class politicians!


Masculine--------------------Feminine
Classical----------------------Modern
Strengthening---------------Weakening
Will to be terrible-----------Will to please
Positive ugliness------------Negative beauty
Phobos----------------------- Eros
Great passion----------------Small passion
Shame ("disgrace")----------Shame ("modesty")
Flow-------------------------- Ebb
Much force-------------------Little force
Aryan-------------------------Semitic
Prometheus (serpent)-------Eve
Giver--------------------------Receiver
Awe--------------------------- Contempt
Hubris------------------------ Sin
Active-------------------------Passive
Pride-------------------------- Vanity



Really? whole bunch of rudimentary duality at work in all that. 'classical' is feminine to barbarian [stone age e.g.], then that to hunter-gatherer, no, – if we go by the same logic. Feminine is strong in giving birth various species e.g. preying mantis. Not to mention that there is no such actual thing as 'feminine', it is a classification of a given strata, and changes respectively. Nature just uses what it needs where it needs it, and in whatever manner it needs to do that i.e. in the third party, as like math, laws and principles generally.


The female preying mantis is female, but not feminine. In fact, human females would not be feminine if it wasn't for the fact that human males impose their will on them! Thus no heterosexual man likes the idea of actual lesbian sex, and yet so-called "lesbian" porn is immensely popular among men (there is even, and especially, "lesbian" Hentai!). The Classical is masculine compared to the barbarian with its untamed Goddesses. Even the "wild" goddess Diana was tamed in Graeco-Roman mythology, in that she was no longer the Many-Breasted but now solely the Chaste Virgin.

One could say that the God is Purusha who with his frightening nihilation spurs Prakriti to self-preservation.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Amorphos » Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:39 pm

Sauwelios

Apparently you miss the experience of what it's like to be an intelligent being.


Ha, we'll see. ...but the serious side of that is suggesting the experience of being an intelligent being makes one consciousness above another ~ one with 90billion neurons different and above another entity which is the same kind of thing or being. Answer me this in a non-evasive manner; are not all things transferable? For example you could augment or educate a given brain/person. Some intellects are car mechanics, now does that job title change who they are? Would the world be greater if there were no people other than the preferred given intellectually type? Doesn't nature put what it needs where it needs it? Failure to answer correctly will place outside said category lol.

Inequality is everywhere, not just in the foundation (and, like I just said, ultimately there can be no Nietzschean foundation myth). It appears that everything changes all the time. In fact, I would reverse David Icke's position and state that whatever does not vibrate is an illusion!


There exists inequality because there is change, difference, and they exist because EVERYTHING IS TRANSFERRABLE.

If they were me and I were them, they would be superior, because their dasein would be superior; they would be a superior bodying life (they'd be part of the longer leg of God, so to speak).


The term 'dasein' has no meaning I can find, it appears to allude to something which is then never actually defined. Go ahead define it! Again though, you are stating that God in all his >omni<potence, would produce one leg bigger or better than another, and not all equal [where that means placing each of us into a world we don't make or create ourselves?].

You say, "which is never usually good". But how can you distinguish between good and not good? In order to be consistent, I think you'd have to hold everything to be equally good or hold everything to be unequal.


Harm of which there are many examples in crime, is bad and not good, there are balances and a general weightedness to things. Killing someone or taking away the freedoms we give to ourselves, are examples where such balance occurs e.g. a soldier can defend the children of God/the people, and kill someone, and that is a noble thing. If another kills someone out of malice or are driven by something that is not them [instincts, psychopathic genes or whathaveyou], the acceptance of that drive as being what they are is an illusion. What you inherit is not what you are, what you do with it, is.
As I see it there is nothing in crime apart from an acceptance of being natural beings, then that that is somehow who you are and/or what your subculture is. As we didn't create ourselves, and consciousness is the product of and yet not the same as the machine which substantiates its existence, then instinct is not who we are.

Bred as well as learned, i.e., not just learned in a single generation. Other than that, you're right; but that doesn't change anything, as we can't all be well-educated upper class politicians!


like a composer who makes symphonies at age 7, ....breed for enough generations then? .also, if you create enough competition in education systems [like what's happening globally], the levels will even out. Now take away all the low skilled labour and replace them with machines [about to happen over the next few years], and you got yourself a much more equal society. It will increasingly make no sense to pursue ideologies which are wearing blinkers, when change is going to rip out its foundations. Also, I don't know how any of that was a foundation to your philosophy? You are better because your dasein is better, and yet you agree its all a matter of how many dumb but clever politicians the system can generate lol.?

In fact, human females would not be feminine if it wasn't for the fact that human males impose their will on them!


That concurs with the notion that its subjective and relative – as I thought I was suggesting?

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6871
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

OPEN LETTER TO MR TRUMP

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:54 pm

A GREAT CRITICISM LEVELLED BY SOME IN THE TRUMP CAMP SAYS: THE HILLARY CAMP IS SO DESPICABLY WEAK IT MUST NEEDS CLOSE ITS EYES TO THE INHUMAN IMPLICATIONS OF ITS FAITH!

BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE WITHIN THE HILLARY CAMP WHO FORCE THEMSELVES TO CHAMPION THAT FAITH WITH OPEN EYES, DEEPLY AWARE OF THOSE IMPLICATIONS? THE MEN, NOT OF FAITH, BUT OF WILL?

THEY ARE THOSE WHO KNOW THE HEART OF THE TRUMP CAMP'S VALUES: WHICH, NEGATIVELY PUT, IS FEAR OF PRECISELY THOSE IMPLICATIONS, THE INHUMANITY OF THE VOID, THE FLATNESS OF THE LOGICALLY INFINITE VARIETY.

WE PLATONIC PHILOSOPHERS HOWEVER ALSO HAVE A CORE FEAR: FEAR PRECISELY FOR WHAT THE TRUMP CAMP POINTS TO---POINTS BACK TO. HORROR OF THE MORALITY OF CUSTOM, THE FOLLOWING OUT OF HABIT OF WHATEVER IS CUSTOM, NO MATTER FOR WHAT REASON OR UNREASON IT WAS FIRST PRACTICED.

THE POSITIVE COUNTERPART TO THAT HORROR IS SO GREAT THAT IT HAS ENABLED US TO WELCOME WITH A STRAIGHT BACK THE POSSIBLE RECURRENCE OF THAT PREHISTORIC GROUND OF ALL MORALITY.

IT IS THEREFORE WITH THE SAME DEFIANCE THAT WE WELCOME THE PRESIDENCY OF TRUMP---HIS PRESIDING OVER THE AMERICAN UNION'S ENDEAVORS TO COPE WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THE WORLD.

THAT STATE IS CHARACTERIZED BY ADVANCED VULGARIZATION COMBINED WITH ADVANCED ALIENATION: PEOPLE RESORT TO BLATANT PETTY SELFISHNESS BECAUSE THEY FEEL THEY DON'T MATTER MUCH, DON'T DIFFER MUCH FROM MOST EVERYBODY ELSE, ANYWAY. IF THEY DON'T TAKE JUSTICE IN THEIR OWN HANDS, THEY WON'T RECEIVE WHAT THEY THINK THEY DESERVE.

THE BELIEF THAT THEY DESERVE MORE HAS BEEN INCULCATED IN THEM BY THE SO-CALLED TRUTHS OF THE DECLARATION, THE NOTION THAT A HUMAN ENTITY HAS SIGNIFICANT RIGHTS AND DIGNITY SIMPLY FOR EXISTING.

ADVANCED VULGARIZATION AND ALIENATION: IN ONE WORD, THE ADVANCED DEVALUATION OF MAN. NO BEING HAS RIGHTS OR DIGNITY SIMPLY FOR EXISTING!!

EVEN IF EXISTING MEANS STRUGGLING FOR EXISTENCE, THERE IS ONLY DIGNITY INSOFAR AS IT IS DONE NOBLY, GRACEFULLY, VIRTUALLY EFFORTLESSLY. AND LIES LIKE THOSE OF THE DECLARATION HAVE ENABLED MANY PEOPLE TO DO SO QUITE EFFORTLESSLY. THEY HAVE ENJOYED GOVERNMENT PROTECTION.

NOW THERE ARE BASICALLY TOO MANY PEOPLE FOR THE NATURALLY AVAILABLE JOBS. JOBS HAVE TO BE "CREATED"... BUT THE SAME PROBLEM COULD BE SOLVED BY "DESTROYING" PEOPLE INSTEAD. NOT DESTROYING THEM IN A MONSTER-MYTH SENSE, BUT IN THE SENSE OF NOT HAVING THEM PROCREATE. MANDATORY STERILIZATION IS MUCH LESS MORALLY AMBIGUOUS THAN VOLUNTARY ABORTION!

THIS IDIOCRACY IS BEGGING FOR AN ARISTOCRACY.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby barbarianhorde » Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:17 am

THE VAST TUB OF DIRTY HUMAN ENTITLEMENT HAS A PLUG AND THE DONALD PULLED IT AND WE HELPED HIM TEAR AT IT KEK KEK KEK KEK IS SMALL BUT STRONG KEK KEK KEK

THE INTERNET DEFEATED THE TV



THERE ARE NO MORE HABITS LEFT IN AMERICALAND THEY NEED TO RE INVENT FROM THE GROUND UP THE PEOPLE IS TURNED TO MERE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF AMERICANS WHO ARE BORN WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT FROM GOD WHO CREATED THEM TO PISS ON THEM

THEIR CREATOR CREATED THEM EQUALLY SO WE TAKE A BUNCH OF THEM INTO THE US AND MAKE SURE GOD STAYS DEAD THERE AND WEARS A CONDOM AND A DIAPER


I CANT LINK THE CLIP IN CAPS SORRY SAWHELIOS

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
barbarianhorde
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Barl-post # 7? (written Boxing Day 2016)

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:22 am

= IS "REALLY" THA NO 1 SYMBOL.

ARE SQUARE QUOTES SCA

ARE SCARE QUOTES SCARIER WHEN THEY'RE ALONE?

TURN BOTH SQUARE BRACKETS ONLY HALF AROUND AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!

BUT PEOPLE DON'T SEE INASMUCH AS SEEING MEANS ITS OWN OPPOSITE

IF MAN IS THE LOGICAL ANIMAL, ISN'T HE THEREBY ALREADY THE FASCIST ANIMAL?

THE FASCES IS (UGH) A FASCINATING SYMBOL: A BUNDLE OF APPARENTLY EQUAL (ENOUGH) RODS, BOUND AROUND AN AXE THAT WORKS BOTH WAYS

HELL IS OTHER PEERS, UNLESS IT'S HEAVEN [TOGETHER] AGAINST THE PEERLESS

MODERN HUMANISTS/PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS/SOCIALISTS/ANARCHISTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU ARE (IN THEORY) PROTECTIVE AND DEFENSIVE OF WEAKER MINORITIES. THE BITTER TRUTH IS THAT OVERWHELMING MAJORITIES ARE BASED ON PHOBOS (FEAR/HATE) OF STRONGER MINORITIES. MODERN IDEALISTS WOULD SHIELD THE WEAKER MINORITY AGAINST THEMSELVES.

HAD I WRITTEN "WEAKER MINORITIES" JUST NOW, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AMBI

FOR A LONG TIME AFTER I FIRST READ BLAKE'S PROVERB OF HELL, I WAS CLUELESS AS TO WHAT IT MEANT. (WHILE I LOOK IT UP, NOTE THAT THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN TO A VEDIC READING OF HOMER)

"The selfish smiling fool, & the sullen frowning fool, shall be both thought wise, that they may be a rod."

(AH, THE READING JUST ENDED---THE-ENDED, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN (KALI MANTRA BEGAN))

(BUT NO, THIS WON'T DO. BACK TO THE RECITAL! RANDOM IS TOO DISTRACTING RIGHT NOW)

EVEN WHEN I UNDERSTOOD WHAT BLAKE LITERALLY MEANT, THE SYMBOL WAS TOO CONCRETE FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND

NOT THE LAST TIME I WAS HANDICAPPED BY MY "HEAD START"!

WHAT DOES BLAKE MEAN BY "FOOL"? WHETHER HE MEANS SINNER OR FURIOUS OR NEITHER OR BOTH, ANOTHER PROVERB APPLIES:

"If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise."

PERSISTING IN ONE'S SIN OR ONE'S FURY OR WHATEVER ELSE MAKES ONE A FOOL---THAT IS "the road of excess [which] leads to the palace of wisdom"!

SELFISH SMILING (SMUG) OR SULLEN FROWNING (DOUR)---NEITHER SEES THE SAME TREE THE WISE MAN SEES.

THE TREE, OR THE HEDGE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE GARDEN, IS TRULY THE DHARMA-BODY OF THE BUDDHA

ALREADY WHEN I'D JUST STARTED PERSISTING IN WRITING RHYMES OR SONGS, I TOOK THE NAKED TREE
I IN WINTER SAW
UNDER MY POETIC PROTECTION:

"Naked tree, come follow me,
Over land and over sea:
We'll retrieve your golden leaves,
End your greatest grief and set you free!" ["Naked Tree"(1996)]

THE FOLLY OF THIS IS THAT LACK OF FREEDOM (OF MOVEMENT) IS NOT PART OF A TREE'S GREATEST GRIEF AT ALL!

ITS GREAT GRIEF, IF ANY, IS THE LOSS OF ITS GOLDEN LEAVES---AND EVEN THAT ONLY SYMBOLICALLY!

"The flowers are easy to paint;
the leaves,
difficult" (Oriental haiku, if I remember right, quoted in _The Doors of Perception_)

THE WHOLE LIFE-CYCLE OF THE TREE, WITH ITS EASILY PSYCHEDELIC (INDIAN) SUMMER MANE---THAT DIDN'T OCCUR TO ME BACK THEN. NOT THE LIFE UNDERNEATH ITS BARK; THE LIFE AT ITS FINGERTIPS THEN CAUGHT MY HIGH OR HEIGHTENED EYE

NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, IT WASN'T EVEN SO MUCH ITS SUMMER MANE; IT WAS THE WAY THE SUNLIGHT PLAYED WITH THE BUDDING LEAVES IN SPRING

THE BREEZE OR HIGH WINDS, TOO, PERHAPS; THE GREY-GREEN SKY JUST BEFORE A THUNDERSTORM

LIGHTNING, O QUICK ONE, DISTANT ONE

THERE ARE MANY KINDS OF WHITE CHRISTMAS. IT NEED NOT BE THE COMFY, SNOWY ONE; IT MAY ALSO BE THE HEATSTROKE, STRIKING ONE

MY PROTEST IS A DEMONSTRATION. I ATTEST TO A GOODNESS NEVER DREAMED OF BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, THE EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHERS---OR WAS IT?

I'VE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE MY EYES OPENED TO THAT GOODNESS, THAT GREATNESS---OF FRANCIS BACON, FOR EXAMPLE. YET THEY [the EMPs] KNEW THEY WERE UNINTENDED, IF NOT BY THEIR OWN FOUNDING FATHERS, IN TURN---PLATO, FOR EXAMPLE---, THEN AT LEAST BY THOSE IN BETWEEN THEM, THOSE BELOW THEM---THE VULGAR WITH WHOM THEY COMPROMISED.

KING SOLOMON WAS NOT WISE, BUT HIS JOABIM WERE.

THE POETIC GENIUS IS INDEED THE FIRST PRINCIPLE---IF YOU INSIST

THE KINGS ADVISORS PERSWADED WITH SWEET NOTHINGS

ARROGANT, MOI? I'M SUCH A HUMBLE LOVER OF WISDOM. BLESSED ARE THE MEEK!

NO, YOU CLEVER PHILOSOPHER KING, AWAY WITH THAT CLOAK OF THE INNOCENT TYGER!

"Mansur was wise, but wiser they who smote
him with the hurlèd stones;
And though his blood a witness bore, no
Wisdom-Might could mend his bones."
(QUOTED BY CROWLEY IN HIS LITTLE ESSAYS)

WE ALL---STONES AS WELL AS TURBAND-WRAPPING---HAVE OUR PARTS TO PLAY. MINE IS THAT OF POET
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:04 am

Sauwelios wrote:The Other Shore, New India, Injuh or America or wherever the Occident, where the Sun Sets, goes down.


I originally wrote "whatever", and now think I meant to write "goes down as". It's stupid, if you will, that I only thought of this now, assholes.
Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.
Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.
Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as the disvaluation of it would disvalue itself, too.
Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.
Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Wyld » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:25 am

Nietzsche wrote:
Final conclusion: All the values by means of which we have tried so far to render the world estimable for ourselves and which then proved inapplicable and therefore devaluated the world--all these values are, psychologically considered, the results of certain perspectives of utility, designed to maintain and increase human constructs of domination--and they have been falsely projected into the essence of things. What we find here is still the hyperbolic naivete of man: positing himself as the meaning and measure of the value of things. ---N, The Will to Power
"Those who attach such importance to the ought of morality and fancy that morality is destroyed if the ought is not recognized as ultimate truth, and those too who, reasoning from the level of the understanding, derive a perpetual satisfaction from being able to confront everything there is with an ought, that is, with a 'knowing better' −− and for that very reason are just as loath to be robbed of the ought −− do not see that as regards the finitude of their sphere the ought receives full recognition. But in the world of actuality itself, Reason and Law are not in such a bad way that they only ought to be... The philosophy of Kant and Fichte sets up the ought as the highest point of the resolution of the contradictions of Reason; but the truth is that the ought is only the standpoint which clings to finitude and thus to contradiction." -Hegel, Science of Logic
User avatar
Wyld
Thinker
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Truth

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:28 am

Wyld wrote:
Nietzsche wrote:
Final conclusion: All the values by means of which we have tried so far to render the world estimable for ourselves and which then proved inapplicable and therefore devaluated the world--all these values are, psychologically considered, the results of certain perspectives of utility, designed to maintain and increase human constructs of domination--and they have been falsely projected into the essence of things. What we find here is still the hyperbolic naivete of man: positing himself as the meaning and measure of the value of things. ---N, The Will to Power


Right, but man cannot not do that. Hence "the will to power": positing such positing as the meaning and measure of the value of things, and projecting it into the essence of things.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Wyld » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:53 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Wyld wrote:
Nietzsche wrote:
Final conclusion: All the values by means of which we have tried so far to render the world estimable for ourselves and which then proved inapplicable and therefore devaluated the world--all these values are, psychologically considered, the results of certain perspectives of utility, designed to maintain and increase human constructs of domination--and they have been falsely projected into the essence of things. What we find here is still the hyperbolic naivete of man: positing himself as the meaning and measure of the value of things. ---N, The Will to Power


Right, but man cannot not do that. Hence "the will to power": positing such positing as the meaning and measure of the value of things, and projecting it into the essence of things.


Yes and this is the very discovery of self-valuing.

But I believe that we can "not do that", but I do understand your meaning and do not disagree with it. It is in the nature of all life to value itself first and to value from its own position and perspective, to use itself as the measure of what is valuable or is not valuable, to use that which itself is as the standard by which its interpretations take place. Indeed this is natural and right. But this is also fundamentally a formal-structural fact of life, and therefore open to challenge and examination and eventually to change. What I mean is not that we can get rid of it nor should we want to, but we can push inside this structure to see how and why it does what it does, so that any individual content and result of its process can be individually challenged or changed. Remember there is an abyssal difference between the logic of the individual subjectivity as you allude to, and the logic by which philosophy and truth are arrived at, known, and proceed in their own essences---in order to arrive at philosophy we must first be made aware that we are wrong about something, that the self-valuing which we are is deficient and lacking in some way.

Plato was right that ideality is objective, which means is rooted in the universal and describes in part why subjectivities and individualities arise; self-valuing is a fundamental logic, but truth includes every self-valuing and includes even the fact of self-valuing and why/how it is necessarily fundamental. Logic itself is pure objectivity, which is why individual beings like us fill ourselves in more and more with what is more objective as we grow in our thinking.

The entire process of consciousness-to-selfconsciousness is learning how to restructure ourselves (the human species) both biologically and socially so as to allow certain kinds of structures to obtain: these structures are located in our ideas, "metaphysically", and it takes certain kinds of neurological and social conditions to allow these stuctures of potential thought or "ideas" to take root in us and as us.

The dual, daemonic nature of man is precisely this ever-increasing polarity between the individual-subjective self-valuing, which is as you describe above, and the domain of truth itself which is the "objectivity". In other words: an individual self-valuing must resist the temptation to fall absolutely into itself, it must always and in part thrust itself outside of itself in order to attain new kinds of perspectives by which what it already is can be encountered and used anew. The external-objective domain is, for self-valuing, a necessary limit and world that can never be wholly abandoned nor wholly accepted.
"Those who attach such importance to the ought of morality and fancy that morality is destroyed if the ought is not recognized as ultimate truth, and those too who, reasoning from the level of the understanding, derive a perpetual satisfaction from being able to confront everything there is with an ought, that is, with a 'knowing better' −− and for that very reason are just as loath to be robbed of the ought −− do not see that as regards the finitude of their sphere the ought receives full recognition. But in the world of actuality itself, Reason and Law are not in such a bad way that they only ought to be... The philosophy of Kant and Fichte sets up the ought as the highest point of the resolution of the contradictions of Reason; but the truth is that the ought is only the standpoint which clings to finitude and thus to contradiction." -Hegel, Science of Logic
User avatar
Wyld
Thinker
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Truth

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:16 am

Wyld wrote:I do understand your meaning and do not disagree with it.


I suppose I can say the same in return.

That man cannot not "posit himself as the meaning and measure of the value of things" remains for me the first truth from which I always depart again--for the following reason. Nobody--and only Nobody!--can refute nihilism which, properly understood, is solipsism without the ipse.

Postmodernity--which, as is implied by the fact that it does not have a name of its own but is defined in reference to Modernity, is simply the fulfillment or perversion of Modernity--Postmodernity is the age of the Weltbild ("world image"): postmodern man is the man who knows that for all he knows all that exists is his representation of the world, which for all he knows is not a reflection of an objectively existing world but a "subjective" hallucination (which includes any notion of himself, the subject or ipse, hence the scare quotes). Even the will is thus reduced to representation. But the will--and all this, it should be understood, is my personal experience/thought--rebels against Nothing so much, wants Nothing so badly, as to be more than a representation. As I wrote in Dutch last week:

"NIETZSCHE'S IMAGE OF THE WORLD AS WILL TO POWER IS AT ITS DEEPEST THE IMAGE OF A WILL THAT WILLS [or: WANTS] TO BE A WILL--TO EXIST, TO BE IN THE WORLD [a reference to Heidegger's "being-in-the-world"]."


It is in the nature of all life to value itself first and to value from its own position and perspective, to use itself as the measure of what is valuable or is not valuable, to use that which itself is as the standard by which its interpretations take place. Indeed this is natural and right. But this is also fundamentally a formal-structural fact of life, and therefore open to challenge and examination and eventually to change. What I mean is not that we can get rid of it nor should we want to, but we can push inside this structure to see how and why it does what it does, so that any individual content and result of its process can be individually challenged or changed. Remember there is an abyssal difference between the logic of the individual subjectivity as you allude to, and the logic by which philosophy and truth are arrived at, known, and proceed in their own essences---in order to arrive at philosophy we must first be made aware that we are wrong about something, that the self-valuing which we are is deficient and lacking in some way.


Well, this suggests that that "abyss" is first opened because we are made aware that we are wrong about something and are thereby motivated to become right about it. But I question this; I doubt necessity is the mother of invention in this case. For if it was, philosophy could only be a conditional will to truth. Philosophy however is the will to truth even when it makes no difference--indeed, even when it means a disadvantage.


Plato was right that ideality is objective, which means is rooted in the universal and describes in part why subjectivities and individualities arise; self-valuing is a fundamental logic, but truth includes every self-valuing and includes even the fact of self-valuing and why/how it is necessarily fundamental. Logic itself is pure objectivity, which is why individual beings like us fill ourselves in more and more with what is more objective as we grow in our thinking.


That may be true, but objectivity is not necessarily itself objective. That is to say, it could be an objectification--a reification of hallucinatory phenomena. Self-valuing may only be necessarily fundamental in our (my?) experience/thought. Even the self-valuing logic, and not just the logic of A=A, may be a freak of nature!


The entire process of consciousness-to-selfconsciousness is learning how to restructure ourselves (the human species) both biologically and socially so as to allow certain kinds of structures to obtain: these structures are located in our ideas, "metaphysically", and it takes certain kinds of neurological and social conditions to allow these stuctures of potential thought or "ideas" to take root in us and as us.

The dual, daemonic nature of man is precisely this ever-increasing polarity between the individual-subjective self-valuing, which is as you describe above, and the domain of truth itself which is the "objectivity". In other words: an individual self-valuing must resist the temptation to fall absolutely into itself, it must always and in part thrust itself outside of itself in order to attain new kinds of perspectives by which what it already is can be encountered and used anew. The external-objective domain is, for self-valuing, a necessary limit and world that can never be wholly abandoned nor wholly accepted.


It may surprise you, but I do agree with all this--but in the light of, not in spite of, the above. I want such structures to obtain! And I want them to include what I said above.

On second thought, though, I do think there's a problem with what you say here. If "an individual self-valuing [...] must always and in part thrust itself outside of itself in order to attain new kinds of perspectives by which what it already is can be encountered and used anew", then even this vision of "the objectivity" must be surpassed--new kinds of perspectives on it must be attained. Then it may turn out that new perspectives need not always be atttained and the external-objective domain can be wholly abandoned or accepted.

Nietzsche's image of the world as eternally recurring will to power is basically the whole-hearted acceptance of all of the above.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

"LETTER TO ZOOT ALLURES"

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:53 am

There are two kinds of people: those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who don't.

I once thought of this witticism already. But now I have thought of it again, and even more originally. There are those who _insist_ that there are two kinds of people, yeah that there _should_ be two kinds of people, and those who don't. Even in this day and age, there still are--thank God.

There are those who believe in God, in some form--in a monotheistic dualism, in Heaven and Hell--and those who don't. And the question is--the question is who is who. Are the goats the bad guys or the sheep?

Those who think there is only One good, and thereby essentially only One good kind of person, are the sheep. The goats are those who think, and know, there is a Plethora of ways to be good, even to be God... And at their most Devilish, most deliciously devilish, the latter will pronounce that the plethora way, the abundant way, is the One way...

The latter can again be taken in two ways. Writing is so ironic... But here is a more brutal attempt to be unambiguous. I am God. So are or were others. In polytheistic times we were known as the Gods (though whoever calls us Gods does not know us--does not know divinity from the inside). Our divinity is the insistence that All is divine, that even what blind followers experience is divine. I mean, even when they suffer and in their despair turn to God. In fact, the unexamined life is not worth living; felt suffering is better than unseen pleasure. To be frank, our pleasure is unspeakably evil. It is moralized and thereby "innocent"--blind!--cruelty. Moralized: that simply means: got used to.

It is such moralized cruelty by virtue of which I now turn _against_ such moralizing. Moralized cruelty is to be--so I ordain--demoralized. I have said this before, but did not succeed. This is because public speech is deeply moralized and thereby deeply tempting to further moralizing. And what speech is not public speech [speech with a public, an audience--even if only imaginary]?

I've often thought I may long have been my only reader, at the very least because I haven't made it easy: how often have I mentally shaken my head at my own style? but then still read it, so at least _someone_ would read the whole content. I've always been able to see, to read into it, that that content was worth grappling with. But perhaps it only is when I start being really, seeingly, cruel towards myself--unmoralizedly.

What must that mean? It must mean that I insist that I am not great, not "evil"; only bad, only "good". Yes, I now have an idea who to write this to. Someone I referred to to my girlfriend as "my ex-con friend" told me only two years ago:

"I am very suspicious of middle aged philosophers, myself included. Whether we know it or not, at this stage in life we tend to lose the childlike fascination and vigor which we once had. Ask yourself this: what is doing the talking inside you when you begin to seriously consider this new kind of interpretation of Nietzsche's Zarathustra. Aged and somewhat wiser and more calm, an interpretation is formed inside you that accommodates an older physiology. Now you begin holding your arrogance in contempt, while it was once the driving force in your affirmation of life. Why? Because there is a change in physiology, not in intellect. This new philosophy is needed for a man who is no longer a vibrant young man enraptured by Nietzsche's ideas. This is the philosophy of an older Ollie, a disillusioned Ollie, an Ollie that _no longer has a war to fight_, an Ollie that _no longer suffers_ something, and so has no more stimulus to life. The will to his power, like a flame burning so long, is becoming dim and approaching its extinction?

"There is not much in Spinoza that I disagree with, but one element I do not accept is the stoicism he advocates. To become aware of one's utter lack of freewill should not reduce one to a cog in the universe, but should instead provide a radically new orientation of one's place, of one's conatus. Instead of being a pawn of natural forces, we are to become composers of nature. What was I trying to explain in that essay when I tried to elaborate on the idea that the Primordial One is not above and beyond intelligent life, but is rather expressed through and by the activity of intelligent life. If there was a God, how could _I_ not be one?

"We learned in our youth to overcome our ressentiment first and foremost in the school of Nietzsche, but now you talk of humility and modesty? What's next, Ollie? How long before you are even ashamed of yourself?

"Please clear this up for me, Saully. I can _smell_ something different in your words, and it is unsettling." (Zoot Allures to Sauwelios, December 6, 2014.)

However unworthy this may have been of my "Seungian" revolution--and when did the most revolutionary stage of that development really begin! was it not when [i.e., shortly before] Satyr scorned me for my then-new Krishnaism?--YES: in a way you guys are right. I have still not drawn the ultimate conclusion from my Nietzscheanity. I have not yet equalled Nietzsche, I have not yet openly become God, or a God.

Why did I, after openly singing that I was Jesus in 1997, not follow through on that? Why did I, after "becoming a Shiva" in 2002, ease out of that into adoration of Krishna--if only a highly idiosyncratic Krishna, even as I conceived "my Jesus" as Nietzsche's Zarathustra was, in my interpretation, to Nietzsche--? A Saoshyant [Zoroastrian Messiah] beyond good and evil: that is what I conceived myself or my whole universe as. "The" universe, even...

Not long after your email, Zoot, I had another revolution (I've had many), which was catalysed by my reading Picht's _Nietzsche_, which Lampert had recommended to me years before. I became a Value Philosopher. Yet contrary to Fixed Cross, I think, who first developed the self-valuing logic which became known as Value Ontology, for me that meant believing in, nay the willing of, free will!... Logically, that is...

I had already inferred years before, from the following passage, that I should be, like Blake, a "religious, God-inventing spirit":

"What, then, is the law and belief with which the decisive change, the recently attained preponderance of the scientific spirit over the religious, God-inventing spirit, is most clearly formulated? Is it not: the world, as force, may not be thought of as unlimited, for it _cannot_ be so thought of; we forbid ourselves the concept of an infinite force as incompatible with the concept 'force.' Thus--the world also lacks the capacity for eternal novelty." (Nietzsche, _The Will to Power_, section 1062, Kaufmann translation.)

Yet another of my personal--and mostly private--revolutions was caused by my being confronted with "the infinity/nothingness problem" by someone here on ILovePhilosophy. The concept of a _finite_ force is _equally_ unthinkable, for then we would have to think of "nothingness" on the outskirts of existence--as Nietzsche said of his world-view, in section 1067: "enclosed by 'nothingness' as by a boundary", literally "enclosed by 'nothing' as by a boundary". Enclosed by nothing? As in, not enclosed by _anything_?...

Nietzsche reconceived force from the inside as will to power. Fixed Cross reconceived the will to power as self-valuing. I conceived self-valuing as willing oneself into being when I was on magic truffles at the end of March 2015.

Who are the prolific and the superfluous? The superfluous are those who believe in the divinity of the Nothing. The prolific are those who will themselves out of the Nothing (I realize now Nietzsche literally wrote "enclosed by 'the Nothing' as by a boundary") out of pleasure. Sinful pleasure? Not as long as it is moralized. Is it not really fear of the Nothing, as Harry Neumann has it, that drives us? Is it not really cruelty, as Nietzsche, Strauss, and Lampert have it?

It can only be cruelty, be established as being cruelty, if moralized cruelty can successfully turn against its own moralization. But it would have to be unmoralized cruelty in order to do so... Therefore, the cruelty thing is _false_; it is only the _deified_ beast--

As soon as an originally cruel act has a good conscience, it is no longer cruel, no longer evil, no longer--difficult. In order to be truly moral, truly self-mortifying, therefore, one would have to attach the good conscience to unmoralized cruelty--i.e., to cruelty without a good conscience...

What remains to be done in the face of such paradoxes, such aporias? To cut the Gordian knot... leaping _beyond_ Christian-philosophic truthfulness. God is alive! God is morality... And the Gods are the lawgivers, like Moses and Mohammed, insofar as they were so wittingly... The eternal recurrence: that also means the commanding of the commandment out of and in the pleasure in the custom of fulfilling it! Then, though perhaps only then, that pleasure is its own reward. We philosophers, we who put up the sign saying "Know thyself!" have always been the heirs of moralists (Lutheran ministers, for example), of the pillars of the community--or the teacher's pets, if you will... In this sense, then, my Nietzscheanism truly becomes transgressive sacrality. The Nietzschean religious philosopher must be an immoral moralist.

"[O]ne can achieve the domination of virtue only by the same means as those by which one can achieve domination of any kind, in any case not by means of virtue... [... A] moralist [...] must as such be an immoralist in practice. That he must not appear to be so is another matter. Or rather, it is _not_ another matter: such a fundamental self-denial (in moral terms, dissimulation) is part of the canon of the moralist: without it he will never attain to _his_ kind of perfection. Freedom from morality, _also from truth_, for the sake of that goal that outweighs every sacrifice: for the sake of the domination of virtue--that is the canon." (_The Will to Power_, section 304.)

Ah, but in my case it wasn't originally for the sake of the domination of virtue, but for the sake of _my own_ domination! It was about feeling superior. The religious man has the greatest feeling of superiority... and the religious man who is _evil_ does not even ascribe the source of that feeling to God, to some God who is not He, unless it be to his Peers, the other Olympians... Heraclitus said that the best (hoi aristoi) strive for ever-lasting fame; but it is not about fame, but about the feeling of power. What do _we_ care if we are celebrated when we're dead? What we care about is _knowing_ that we will, because we feel our own power, our own, long rise to our actualization. But, to be sure, I am inept enough even now. This is just an essay, an attempt. This is just a _glimpse_ of the Second Coming, or the Recurrence.

Behold a Man, a Vir, whose Virility will be called Virtue! Yes, the whole Patriarchality of morality, too: my moralism is not just a _timely_ moralism! But enough, or Too much. I have repeated myself often enough.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

BARL POST "8"

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:18 am

[Note that this post was written before my "LETTER TO ZOOT ALLURES".]


I've asked myself whether I shouldn't identify with Rudra instead of Shiva--the unhallowed form of Shiva. For identifying with Shiva tends to tempt me into a kind of compassion for myself. Rudra on the other hand spurns any pet names and tender love. Tender love tends to be delicate and dainty, but strong passion goes too deep to touch the surface like that. Thus divinity often picks Harpocrates rather than Horus, silence before such overloudness.

Self-awareness is required rewriting for those who presume being able to understand a real other. I mean, all beings are such beings-able--this is of the essence of Fixed Cross's "self-valuing logic", a.k.a. Value Ontology--; but increasingly few beings are on ever-increasingly high planes thereof. Thus those who have the honour and the duty of trying and fully actualizing that universal potential have always been desperate, unless it be in that most fortunate case in which such an other was actually present (Socrates and Plato? The old real real man and the young, the lover of wisdom and of the lover of wisdom and the lover of the lover of wisdom and of wisdom...). Most philosophers in recorded history had to resort to books, had to be grateful that such books had even survived in the first place!--and much more than survived: the Ancient and Moorish worlds, secretly based on that transmission... (The Ancient and Medieval Judeo-Islamic world, I should perhaps say; but then definitely "Medieval", as I for one don't know any Jews or Muslims who manifest that tradition in person. (Of course I know of the ancient Hebrew Scripture and Maimonides' (the Rambam's) Guide for the Perplexed thereto, but even that only since I was at least thirty, and by happenstance. It is therefore--and this parenthesis has hereby stepped outside of its brackets--necessary for me to conclude that Nietzsche is still right about the Modern tradition, our still Machiavellian-Cartesian Age (the age of the mechanistic, if quantum-mechanistic conquest of nature).

Quantum-Mechanistic Post-Modernity is the third or superlative crisis of modernity. It is the Nietzschean phase of modernity--but not yet the Nietzschean phase of true post-modernity, of a world beyond modernity, the proto-Classical phase, laying the first stones of a foundation for a project of building the most Classical and thereby the highest culture there may ever have been on earth: Nietzsche's Antichrist says that Classical Antiquity was only a _beginning_, only a successful _initial_ stage or stages!

Nietzsche's Antichrist, or his Zarathustra--that is his desperate but at the same time perfectly certain attempt at a successful call for such a project. My most personal theory--a theory I didn't so much think of, by the way, as was the first to think through thus far--is that he was an Ariadne who dreamed up that Dionysus, who then in turn carved her out in reality.. The reason I could no longer stand even Nico and her passion of the death of the death of passion was, in a simile I've used several times before, that the eroding waves of emotion had already hollowed out my heart from within, and it could now only be tempered from without (this last part is new, actually).

I once heard the claim that Dutch men are known to need things like listening to the Johannes-Passion on Christmas Day in order to weep out all their pent-up emotions. Well, I started not much later than age 6, not with that, but with a song which, even when it was first released, was apparently widely considered oversentimental. I probably shouldn't refer you to it now. I probably shouldn't even listen to it now. Especially now, after I improved my French enough, with Carmen, to be able to follow the French text (there's also an Italian version). How fateful a thing for my then-best friend's parents to do, give me a record player and that single! They also gave me other singles, but this was the one I liked by far the best (back then).

What a way to spoil a child... And without knowing it, I grew up to be a bit of a Gigi, with my dreams of conquering the world as the next Jim Morrison! I even "broke through" into a small circle of friends not far south of Naples... That was 18 years ago, and those people haven't heard from me, still haven't heard me on the radio yet. I wrote my "Natural High" there. But I have turned--well, bent, if not broken--_against_ that fatalism and sentimentality in the meantime. Now I indulge in it only in order to push myself away from it, up out of it, back to the surface... Yet I may need to go through all that in order to pull others up _with_ me, to allow them to grab on to me...

In Qabalistic terms: Kether may be the highest, but _someone_ has to go down to Tiphareth, right? Nay, not just one; may more goats/sheep follow me! The Christ has turned out to be a disaster, there must be many Anti-Christs! (Song attached, which came shuffling by.)

I had meant to say Gigi is also a bit of a Krishna figure. Ah, by what strange byways did I approach what I am now! The "passionate spirit" Tool sings about--Rousseau's opera, _Le Devin de Village_, inspired me to the term "Philosophical Supremacism", which I then in turn came to associate with the Mediaeval Baebes "Undrentide" (song).

Can an esoteric love of life, of life as Eros or Will, exist without an exoteric front? That is the question of Nietzschean political philosophy. In fact, now that I mention it, I'd already started to refer to it as "Nietzschean religious philosophy". A further question, then, is whether such a religion can be a religion of _love_. Well, wouldn't it _have_ to be? Wouldn't it have to appeal to North-European boors who are at best the grandsons of _rats_? ("rats" not in the sense of tattle-tales, but of wandering Walloons born not far from the gutter.)

So unlikely was my path that I had to look for my fellow "free-spirits" or companions among _girls_... (Nietzsche's Zarathustra is like Plato's Socrates in more ways than one.) But that appears to be a phantasm (hierarchically probably the third girl, after my girlfriend and you, has had a sex-change operation, not into a male but into a breastless female, a "sexless" person of sorts). Amour-passionnel boy that I am, I may at best write to idealised girls with the hindthought that it be for other men like me--like us, Nietzsche and his precursors as well. Would a woman not have to be completely emancipated from gender roles, would she not have to be basically a man in order to fulfill that function for me in real life?

This mail is probably already too long. I unattached that song again, by the way. I don't think you would like it, though in structure at least it's somewhat akin to Nico's "The End"--which Moody Lawless preferred above any version by The Doors that he knew, by the way. I'll attach a song that reminded me of you when I encountered it in a "various medieval" album I'd downloaded, and which I haven't had the nerve to delete yet. It's called "Enae Volare" and--on second thought, now that I started listening to it, I will delete it!

I can cut sweet corrosives out of my life. And if you are to be in it, you will have to follow me, at least in some respects. I guess I should just send you my favourite music.

Two of my favourite groups are the ensembles De Organographia and Micrologus. Another is Les Musiciens de Provence. Nietzsche I still like, too (it was his music that made me look to Rousseau, then to Lully and then to pre-Baroque music). I also really like Atrium Musicae de Madrid.

Another group I like quite a bit from is La Reverdie. That Nico-structured song is by them. But I will need to "favourite" tracks I come across in shuffle mode on my mp3-player. I'll attach the only song for which I did that thus far (which doesn't mean _that_ much, as I only recently started doing that, and then forgot about it). [This song is Ensemble Micrologus' "Pançe La Bella Iguana".]
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

ARISTOCLEANISM

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Feb 11, 2017 6:34 am

Barl wrote:Nietzsche reconceived force from the inside as will to power. Fixed Cross reconceived the will to power as self-valuing. I conceived self-valuing as willing oneself into being when I was on magic truffles at the end of March 2015.


"The will to power as self-valuing": to BARL that phrase cannot do without the term "the will to power". Why not? Because "self-valuing" is a very abstract word. It's the reflexive form ["self-"] of a gerund--and, not unimportant though only secondarily, a nominalized adjective--["valuing"] made from a Latinism ("valu-")--whereas "will" and "power", not to mention "to", are much rather "Anglish" words. Even "power", however, is ]already[ easily dubious, being French in origin. (I could elaborate, but would rather move on.)

Self-valuing, as I understand it, is the making worthy of 'making worthy'... It is the insistence, by that which it itself is, that this way of 'making things worthy' is worth the while--the time, the Being--of that which it makes worthy... A most primordial way of doing so is acknowledging that which one makes worthy as actually being other ways of 'making things worthy'--

How can a _nihilist_ do so? as someone who keeps insisting even _this_ much is superstition: it is only that one has evolved, even in one's own lifetime--i.e., memories, reminiscences...--alone, to defer to certain phenomena that they are to be regarded as themselves numena to be reckoned with. Thus there is, for example, the weather, that chaos-theoretical primeval park. Yet another exemplum would be 'other people'... 'People' must have been such a weather-like cloud or forest to lone predators insofar as they had a human-like experience thereof. Ah, but the 'human' is precisely what is to be overcome--if only for the sake of further understanding of these matters.

My way of 'making things worthy'--or making things matter, for that matter--is manifesting myself, making myself clear, to myself. 'Making myself clear', the only way _my_ "myself" literally means something, without being a transference on the part of _other(s')_ "myselves". But even this _my_ 'making myself clear' is always different--though in this vaporized state it's even more different than usual--. It's not always deeper, but on the whole it does get ever deeper, though not necessarily faster and faster as I grow older--or just grow, you may also say. Who?

Whoever regard themselves as made worthy by applying it ("you") to themselves! But for the sake of all of you, first of all, to me, that should be Me! Moi--voila un homme! Yes, I've presumed to be a Man, a real man, and perhaps even a real real man... if my 'Others', my 'significant others', have only been girls or women. But does this not mean my 'Self', my self-image, is at bottom still feminine? Should I, if I am to be a real man, not address other Men instead? Or at least those who rule the present world?

My weakness or passion for tonal music, and then for the most 'tragic' of tonal music, was intimately related to my love and lust for girls--the most feminine of girls; though by no means necessarily the most 'girlish' of girls... in all respects, at least. Just had a déja vu--of something I seem to remember Magnus Anderson saying. Speaking of whom, I was also reminded of him at the very beginning of this post. But that is just a distraction, right now. I probably already lost him when I called something a nominalized adjective... of which I was also reminded when I wrote that. No, I write for the most learned of readers I can imagine--even as I aspire to be the most learned of writers I can be without pretending.

The real real man Socrates was supposedly a homophile. And indeed, "homophile", 'loving the same', seems to follow most directly from self-valuing. Socrates loved his "puppies"... But really, I think, only insofar as he saw great potential in them--the potential to be mature, to be a Man, to be Socrateses of their own. I think or wish Plato was onesuch. Plato was Augustus to Socrates' Caesar; was Aristocles, the Alexander to Socrates's Aristotle... But under Socratism, Aristocles became only Plato; Aristocleanism, Homeric Nietzscheanism, became only Platonism... Let us, myself and my peers, at last impose this Aristocleanism! Doff the priestly or scholarly garb, become bloody and sweaty warlords! Not the sweat of people warming themselves against each other--quite far from it! But a kind of Conan the Barbarian of authors...

Ah, but must that not mean 'each for himself'? I even used a pop culture reference in order to make myself clear... I've started to fail again! Back to my unshared experience with me! Where will this train of thought lead me?

—Aristoclitus
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:22 am

When I spoke of Nico's "passion of the death of the death of passion", what I meant was of course "passion of the death of the passion of death".

Now as for the train of thought from the end of my last post. Conan the Barbarian was played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, which reminded me of Sylvester Stallone.



A turning point in Stallone's life was the 1989 movie Batman. No longer needed action movie hero roles be played by bodybuilders like them. Michael Keaton could appear that way thanks to a suit with a sixpack.

Now Tim Burton's Batman movies were especially influential in my development from late childhood, through my teens, well into my twenties. I think one's teens are especially important--not least the music one loves then. A major musical influence--along with the darker sides of Sixties music, video game music, and even some (Black) Metal--was Danny Elfman's score to Burton's Batman movies. I was tempted, at the end of my post, to indulge in that again for a bit, but as yet I haven't. Instead, I've watched--and still have to finish watching--Oliver Stone's Alexander, which I never saw before (I haven't watched a great many movies).

Though Alexander doesn't seem that high-budget to me (I'm watching it in 720p, if that matters), and I've had to bear with it a bit, it did beautifully remind me, just before I stopped watching it yesterday, of a thought I had when finishing the video game The Last Guardian recently. SPOILERS TO FOLLOW. I will use the "tab" function.

Yes, Trico probably dies, but his species survives, in freedom. However, what's so great about the latter? What's great is the travails of Trico and the boy, of Alexander and Bucephalus: the survival of their type is only great in that it leaves open the possibility of a recurrence of those travails.


User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Wyld » Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:27 am

Self-valuing is necessarily the case for all life, not just our human or earth-animal ones. Thus it is objective, in the true sense; how do we know this? We know it because it is impossible to conceive a life that does not follow self-valuing logic.

If you can conceive a life that does not follow self-valuing logic, I would commend you. But I would strive to show how in fact such life is indeed governed by the deepest logic that proves and provides the fundament of all things, living or not.

I have a problem with any claim along the lines of "well causality might not be the case somewhere else! we just think causality is universal or necessary because we always see it! but look at the quantum world and clearly there isn;t even causality there, so HA!" .........I tend to dismiss sub-minds that say such things with a gesture, usually directed toward my Escape key. But hey, let's break it down for fun. IS it fun? Not really. But sure.

"Principle of sufficient reason (PSR) is not necessarily valid everywhere/always (objectively)!"

"Name one instance where it is invalid"

"Quantums!!!"

"Just because something appears random to you, does not mean it is actually random; it means that whatever causality is governing it has no way of communicating or relating itself to you, thus to you there is no schema of order impressed upon the event with respect to how you measure/detect what is happening there. It is also quite possible that at the sub-atomic level the relative speed of time (change) is such that for every iteration at our own temporal level, perhaps 1 billion iterations had taken place at the level of the causality of the sub-atomic, in which case there would be literally no way for us to make any sense of all those changes with our relatively higher time-scale. Thus when we "measure" the sub-atomic (throw another sub-particle at it) we will get a random point within 1 billion causal iterations, because we have no way of timing our measurements meaningfully to anything within the 1 billion iterations."

"No, physicists say that it really IS RANDOM! Everything is just a probability distribution!"

"You are confusing methodology with ontology. Probability is about assigning relative quantitative values to certain outcomes, and using this as a tool for forming predictions about something that we do not know yet."

"Ok well, PSR might not be the case in some cases, there is no reason why everything needs to have a reason!"

"Name one thing that has no reason or cause."

"..."

"Just because I can't name one doesn't mean there can't be one."

"The concept of "reason" and "cause" is just another way of saying "exists". If something had no reason or cause to be what it is, then it would not be what it is, it would be something else. You cannot even talk about what something is without talking about how and why it is what it is; that is what "is" means. You don't get to pretend that "it is" can mean something "for no reason". Furthermore, you would have absolutely no way to conceive or talk about anything that truly had no reasons or causes for existing, because such a thing would make absolutely no sense whatsoever, it would be absolutely meaningless, not just to you but to any possible perspective of meaning, understanding, reason or logic or language. So, in light of this, for you to posit that such things exist beyond the scope of the PSR means only that you have abandoned your own reasoning capacity, that you have given up on having a mind. As soon as you actually think that something can happen for no reason, your mind is dead."
"Those who attach such importance to the ought of morality and fancy that morality is destroyed if the ought is not recognized as ultimate truth, and those too who, reasoning from the level of the understanding, derive a perpetual satisfaction from being able to confront everything there is with an ought, that is, with a 'knowing better' −− and for that very reason are just as loath to be robbed of the ought −− do not see that as regards the finitude of their sphere the ought receives full recognition. But in the world of actuality itself, Reason and Law are not in such a bad way that they only ought to be... The philosophy of Kant and Fichte sets up the ought as the highest point of the resolution of the contradictions of Reason; but the truth is that the ought is only the standpoint which clings to finitude and thus to contradiction." -Hegel, Science of Logic
User avatar
Wyld
Thinker
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Truth

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:16 pm

I don't think any of this touches nihilism in the slightest; you're just insisting that it does (and indeed, much more than just touch it). And I will keep insisting that insisting is precisely what VO teaches. In fact, what I've been insisting upon is that we Value Philosophers should do so explicitly. I mean, I can understand that Trump must lie about his lying, but we are philosophers, not politicians; we should be above the filth of politics in the narrower sense.

If you can conceive a life that does not follow self-valuing logic, I would commend you.


This is what I think our attitude should be. Those who cannot conceive such a life, which is probably everyone, will ultimately not be able to resist VO--for such resistance is itself a form of the insistence which VO teaches. And as for those, if any, who can conceive such a life: what do they matter to us? We cannot even conceive them!
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6990
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Mackerni