Come on! Sanity of a nihilist? Of a nihilist era? And you are serious…
The people at the asylum are nice to let you use the internet. But do they have a library as well? If they do, I recommend that you leave the forum alone for a while, and make it your task to read the Homeric epics. I believe that even the insane might benefit from becoming acquainted with the greatest poetic mind of all time.
Your mind is not fitted to rational thought. But there is an en-thusia-sm that just may be developed into a poetic spirit, if you would align the course of your reflections along the properly archaic aesthetics.
Thread locked for 24 hours, any further quibbling will lead to warnings.
How might we begin to frame the Good in this way?
What this seems to be requiring is that we start forging transcendental ethical ideas. The notions of ethical prescriptions or positive designations must be, if not entirely abandoned, at the very least supplanted by a new ethical order of thinking.
What is Good? A significant challenge here is finding a way to frame these ideas (“erotic-daemonics”) in our normal use of langauge and meaning. So far, it seems to me, this realm of meaning-creating exists largely super-linguistically, unable to be translated into a clear meaningful statement, word or sentence or thesis. Through successful use of abstract and aesthetic language Parodites makes known in the above quotation a space wherein a possibility for this sort of new ethical idea becomes visible. But we need more than subtle and quick glances inward toward this idea’s possibility, what you are calling for is precisely that we begin creating, demonstrating, actualizing. If it is the case that we now know these ideas are possible, and we being to see how they differ from traditional ethics and ideas of the good, now it is our responsibility to be creators and visionaries. These ideas must be forged and concretized in ways that allow them (and their more authentic implications of radical potency) to become meaningfully transmissible to the populace at large. So-called “average people” need to be able to relate to these ideas, to the expression of them.
I would say that traditionally this sort of new ethical possibility has been expressed largely in art and poetry. Which is to say, more indirect plays upon the emotions and more passional subjective qualia. They succeed in stimulating effects on this level, but these effects tend to remain here, largely pre-conceptual, non-linguistic, non-“Real” but rather only just “subjective”, informing largely automatic-unconscious manifestations and manipulations of the heart and of those more cognitive possibilities that are most (intangibly) drawn with/in/to the spheres of the heart’s influence/s. To bridge this gap seems unthinkable, literally something that is all but impossible to formulate conceptually, in terms of language-meaning, direct ideas, reason and willful intention. So I would probably say that before we begin addressing the question, “How might we begin to frame the Good in this way?” we must first at least become sufficiently aware of another question/problem which is necessary to the very questionableness of it: How to construct new bridges/passes between the heart and the mind, uniting passional emotionism and rational cognition, a will to sentiment-affect and a will to language-truth? New signifiers, assisted in their transmission by the creation of new (and perhaps even new types of) memes would potentially be capable of heralding in this more direct possibility for new syntheses of consciousness/subjectivity. And, just maybe, while we are confronting and leaving ourselves open and exposed before this monstrously difficult task (so difficult also because remaining open before it also requires of us that we draw entirely within ourselves the world itself in all its manifold contingency and exegesis, hope and horror in order that our new-born syntheses may find a sufficiently fertile ground in which to secure and grow themselves rather than become, without such a ground(-ing possibility) almost immediately effaced by the behemoths of nature (inertia/time) and world (gravity)), new forms of truly transcendental ethical ideas might begin to emerge and appear naturally before us.
A tested way is to create a mythos under which much that was until now unacceptable can be aligned. But this myth must be reminiscent in nothing of a god. It can not be a greater entity, it must be the retrieval of something far greater than all that has been experienced before, from a never disclosed case locked within the emergent being until this had grown to maturity, proper birth-giving form. This is what immaculate conception may mean to us - the seed retroactively implanted in the logical ground of being by identifying its logic - a seed that could not have come to fruition except by its retroactive implanting, but which outline was there all along to be materialized. A treasure never hidden, only implicit in the full growth from self-valuing atom to self-knowing self-valuing. This is my ring - the pact between knowledge and progression, ‘fate’.
On a more practical note: required of all initiates is that they understand value as implicit valuation and not vice versa. There is a depth of which value reflects something to make it known to us. This is why newer and higher values are being created - the approaching of the depth is being expanded. This is not to say that the depth is approached.
A new ethics must rely on what is already there, what is real. The philosopher is not the Messiah, who takes the hordes of slaves under his wings against the world, but the teacher who illuminates to Alexander his power to conquer it.
In taking stock of what is already there we may “mythologize” the cognitive and affective components, as the Greeks did, but without appeal to eternal or infinite images. This would close the gap between “values as implicit valuation” and its opposite, that ubiquitous present-day valuation-diffusion. To form a literal and direct relating between explicated-delineated (and not necessarily “defined”) cognitive or affective, mental or emotional elements, forms; this therefore would be less metaphorical and rather more metonymic. It strikes me that this hits closer in to the actual method/s “automatically” employed by consciousness than mere poetry. We must subject the poetic to a higher authority and reason, to organize it, to distill it into a (partial, for this is always thus) synthesis, a formal declaration and purpose.
We might therefore move to amend Heidegger; no longer, “Only a god can save us”, but “Only by a godless purpose will we be saved”.
The age-old idealist distinction between the apparent and the real is fraught with confusion.
A. An appearance can only be an appearance to someone. An appearance is a conscious experience. Without consciousness, there are no appearances.
B. Every appearance must have an object—the thing that it appears to be. Because an object is a conscious experience, there are two possibilities: (1) an object is entirely generated in the brain without the influence of anything real outside the consciousness; or (2) something outside the consciousness is the operative cause of an experienced object through the sense organs. If (2) is the case, the fact that the brain actively conditions sense impressions to make them sensible would not remove the fact that something real outside the consciousness triggers objects of experience.
Clearly, if (1) is the case, the following would hold: Either (a) the senses serve no purpose whatsoever; or (b) the senses are not themselves real. In either case, it would be patent illogic to propose that “appearances are concerned with self-preservation.” If the senses foster self-preservation, there must, at a minimum, be a spatio-temporal correspondence between an object as experienced and the object itself. From this, one may properly conclude that the real world is spatio-temporal both as it appears and as it is.
(C) “Values” cannot be experienced through the senses, because they have no spatio-temporal content. Therefore, as objects of experience, values have no existence outside of conscious experience.
(D) Moral values are not only mind-dependent but also entirely dependent on human nature—more particularly, on the fact that humans are social animals. Moral values govern the interactions of individuals in human societies. Like it or not, human morality is “the morality of the herd.” Moral values can be based upon cultural mores or upon the natural sense of rectitude embodied in the so-called golden rule. However, moral values are public and not subjective. Obviously, human society would not be possible if every subject did as he pleased in opposition to every other subject. This does not mean that freedom and individualism need be suppressed. It only means that both freedom and conformity should have reasonable limits. Finding the reasonable middle ground is always a work in progress.
Value Ontology needs dimensions.
A dimension is formed via chain dependency and independence of other dimensions.
Distance is formed by the concern of how many (or how much) similar concern there is between one point and another.
Value Dimension A = +value type A is closer or further on a chain of events/concerns that adds value A, while -value type A is closer or further on a chain of events/concerns that detracts value A and is necessarily independent of Dimension B.
What are the independent values and thus dimensions?
I would think they should be formed around the inherent values that comprise basic life necessities. Much like in physics, there can be a multitude of dimension sets; Cartesian, spherical polar,… But to form an actual ontology, an basic understanding for reality, such dimensions, much like space, must be conceived and specified.
What is the minimum set of independent elements of a life for it to be called a life? By increasing or decreasing the firmness of those elements, value dimensions are formed.
I am thinking possibly;
) Discernment
) Precision
) Versatility
) Knowledge/Memory
) Mass/Body
) Vitality/Spirit/Speed
Each of those (just as examples) can be measured on an infinite linear scale and each is independent of the others. By increasing any or all of them, the entity gains “strength” to sustain itself.
All of these.
The question becomes: how to increase these forms of valuing-power.
This is where philosophy turns from theory into practice.
“I would believe only in a God that knows how to dance.”
- Nietzsche
For 2.5 years VO has been allowed to grow as a wildfire, setting minds on fire, burning away a lot of unwelcome bridges, but I can not expand my understanding any further without including real life elements that have been instrumental in attaining VO. I could never have understood the concept of self-valuing without knowing myself in the process of increasing momentum, harmony and magnetism, “selfhood”.
Philosophy is not meant for statues hidden in the corner of their rooms.
It’s meant for those who have a power that is too great to share it except through its own celebration.
It is for power that becomes obscene if it isn’t sanctified with energy. Those who have the destroy in order to create.
Yes! But let it be understood that we don’t need to measure and map these individually in order to increase them.
If it helps you to increase any one of those, it has positive value.
If not, it has negative value.
Dancing is moving with the beat and flow of the noise with its ups and downs, positive and negatives.
Growing is collecting the positives and letting the negatives go their way.
That is exactly how physics particles, minds, economies, and governments alike, grow and “gain momentum”.
Buy a microscope and you don’t have to guess so much about what is in your water.
Examine the logic behind what you are told and you don’t have to guess about who to believe.
Ask for verification from a friend and you don’t have to doubt yourself quite as much.
If you want to improve something, learn to measure it.
That is the only thing Science ever added to the knowledge of Man; “measurements”, “verification”.
I disagree entirely that in order to improve or increase one needs to measure. I, for me, just need proper method.
Concerning dance - perhaps,what I mean is related to the eternal walz you mentioned a year ago. Not the same thing surely, but Im not talking about bopping my head or anything disco like - neither twerking or such forms. I mean a subtle control of the nervous system used to increase momentum and magnetism, self-harmony.
The attraction this creates whenever its in public is a side issue, a proof, also - the main thing is to know yourself.
And i am not saying measurement is unneccessary in general let alone that dance is sufficient for all goals, of course. Dance is just an example of the body getting involved with the mind.
Measurement is awareness (in refined detail).
It is a little difficult to dance if unaware of the music, the floor, your feet… and the others around you.
Your dance improves automatically when you become more aware.
Yes, but my point is that this works botg ways. You don’t necessarily have to separate those issues.
Money grew to be such a grand influence merely because it is a simple means for measuring influence, literally quantizing influence. Once quantized (aka “precisely measured”), small adjustments become the earmark of success. Military might is gained that same way. All elite perfection is gained merely by observing the finer details of what counts.
Each relevant concern can be quantized and thus measured. By carefully watching the small affects upon each measurement, one learns of what it is that is increasing or decreasing his life. By that means, he learns what to avoid and what to pursue. And if he learns, by definition, he succeeds and grows momentum.
In RM:AO there are the issues of;
Clarity (aka awareness and teaching)
Verification (ensuring against corruption)
Instilling (remembering/documenting the situation and seeing that others do)
Anything, no matter how small, that increases each of those, as long as it doesn’t also decrease others of them, increases the momentum of a being’s existence. Learning to measure them causes them to more automatically, instinctively increase, just as a positive particle automatically grows and ensures its positive nature.
Those are the “dimensions” of Rational Sentience.
Any tools that help measure those dimensions, helps ensure the sentience.
I suspect that one of the things that you might be missing is how to make it fun. 
Close. Try meaningful.
But also - possible in general.
Okay.
“Meaningful to the right part of your mind”.
Joy is formed of the inner perception of progress (meaningfulness), even if it is a false perception.