I thought of Icarus in reading some of what you wrote in here, FC. You know, we all have our own personal BUT sometimes unconscious myths which live within our psyches which drive, pull and motivate us. As far as I’m concerned, I think that sometimes that can be a good thing…depending on the myth and how we relate to it. I think the myth of Daedalus and Icarus is yours. Is it possible that you have become too overpowered by it? For me, our myths are meant to serve us by teaching and guiding intuitively - once we’ve discovered our own - showing us the ways in which to go but we have to be careful because at times they might harm or destroy us or others if we begin to live them too literally, if we get too caught up, (universally speaking) for instance, in our own self-aggrandizement, delusions and illusory ambition. Icarus in his own ambition flew too close, far too close to the sun and fell to Earth. Perhaps you’ve read the story - perhaps not. But probably. If not, perhaps it would be good for you to read and ponder it. I don’t mean to say that in an arrogant way, FC -we can’t always see ourselves if we are standing too much in our own light or trying to fly so high that the sun blinds the truth of us. I think that Lucifer (I’m not calling you a devil- don’t believe in them) is a counterpart to Icarus. Both got in their own way of seeing the truth and pride always goes before the Fall. I think it is a very good thing to begin to peel back that onion (our perception of what is true - ‘real’), despite how strong and negative its aroma may become, to come to the realization, if it be so, of why we seek to be so far beyond or ‘unbearably’ ambitious and in what way it might perchance serve us MORE or truly serves humanity. If we’re afraid to even begin to do that - then there’s a good chance that we instinctively and intuitively know the metaphorical onion is rotten to the core. And by the way, ‘real’ humility is not weakness but rather a strong, clear and integral knowlege of who we are. It brings us in harmony with who we are - it does not separate or diminish us.
Actually, AD - the Icarus myth is ingrained so deeply in the northern European protestant mindset, it is so natural to think that one must not put ones head above the cornfield, that I dont think anyone around these parts is unfamiliar with the threat of flying too close to the sun. In fact, it took me extreme amounts of energy and courage to liberate myself from this disempowering idea. Because the idea is disempowering, and meant to keep people down (and governments up). It is related to “Render unto Caesar what is his” - a message saying: don’t even try to be what you can be.
I foresee a very different future for man. The coming two thousand years will be, I expect, a steady preparation in which man learns that there is no God above who will punish him for aspiring to greatness, but only a dormant “divine” (fundamental) will that, on the contrary, wants the individual to “approach the sun”, to shed the fear of rising above the mud of fear and superstition, to shed the authority of those who insist that individual must remain small, and to become conscious of being. In such a state no man or society will let itself be fooled into submission and servitude.
I\ve been “accused” both of being Icarus and Daedalus, by different people - I see this as a result of doing something people are afraid even to observe without judging it, let alone to do it - claiming my being for myself.
I hope and trust that more people will adopt my attitude in the coming millenia.
Sound to me like you need to do what I need to do with my ambitions and thats glen some perspective on the matter and realise we will never reach an end point that we think we desire not until the day we die, but its the chasing that we REALLY like. Its easy to lose sight of this though as we get so attached to the idea of fulling our ambitions. So yeah man i think the world needs more people with said ambitions but people with said ambitions may also have to deal with said ambitions
A few years down the road, I must say that the ambition has in part given way to a confusion about what to do with what is in my hands. This is not a time where men who come forth with theories exist - this is a time for the scientific clergy, to blob together in anonymous goo, and repeat statements made a hundred years ago. The idea that science could progress, develop, has been absent for decennia. The quest for the Higgs boson is a sad and dreary reminder of this void.
What to do with this ambition, that still resides at the heart of the idea of value ontology?
I am a few years down the road as I said - a number of people have neen ‘initiated’ into the philosophy, and we are growing understanding in the dark. At this point I feel very little urge to share the views beyond my direct circle; it is perhaps better to let the world run its course for a while - as Einstein regretted the publication of his theory, when he found out the arms it was leading to, I am caught by a strong inhibition — why would I actively seek to enlighten, if knowledge is usually used for nefarious ends?
This time must be one of the stupidest times in human history; the clergical belief in the base derivations of scientfic determinism, ‘philosophical determinism’, is nauseating as maggots are, the sheer passivity and reliance on death, that these ideas require and select; the scientific paradigm of this age is one that commands absolute apathy and lethargy facing The Truth; and it is enough that my mind has been a sword to destroy this paradigm within my own world – I have sort of lost the hope that, within the coming years, men will be open to a less lethargic position.
On the other hand it is pleasurable to share views, to radiate outward, even without the purpose of bringing them across effectively. A sun does not care if its rays are received; it must simply radiate enormous amounts of fury by the nature of his being. I think the same applies to me. The past years I have felt happiest when I would just write, write, and create-onward, as I once saw the nature of the universe in a flash of clarity when I bit on a spine of a chicken in a tapas bar; I tossed away the spine, aware of the infinitely beautiful complexity of its making; this product of perfect intelligence now only served as a stick to hold some meat, for a more complex organism to devour. And similarly, I can not hope to “be” anything except that which I create, even though it may at one time be used as toilet paper; this is not my concern. I must work to the utmost of my capacity to create-onward, or else I simply do not exist - I must be both the process of evolving a spine and of irreverently eating that which that spine holds together; and in this I find my happiness.
And yet, the world is waiting for the theory; at least, the greater part of sensible scientific minds are waiting for something of the sort; the very quest for the Higgs Boson is a misguided statement of the wish for a consistent epistemology; the proposed god particle is in reality an absent logic, a piece of knowlegde that ‘ties the atom together’ - in the human mind. But the world, currently in political and sanitary turmoil, does not appear like a place to disclose such logics right now. It does not feel as if a profound expanse of our congnitive sphere is on the agenda right now - it seems wiser to patiently let the stem grow and allow it to break out of the forest into the light at its own pace. To be discovered, seen only when it has grown its roots so deep into the internet, into the ungraspable and uncontainable community of anonymous thinkers, that it can not be defined in terms of the Academic Lodge, not contained by its greedy clutches.
Science and Academia never were so far apart. Academia has truly and wholly replaced the Church of Constantine. It is perhaps even preferable to rely on the internet as a basis for a whole new type of Academy; I utterly refuse and refute the corrosive standards of academic scholarship, and do not wish to even touch this realm. Yes indeed, the internet offers a way of building a basis of knowledge and method that is as solid and consistent as Aristotle ever hoped for his science to become; indeed perhaps we can finally replace the dreaded University with a true Academy.
The successful demonstration of the Unified Field Theory. Where there may come a time when the Church of Scientology will become what it should have become in the first place, theplace of worship of a totally pantheistic God of every nuance of science and relgion, incoprorating all religions, Muslim, Science of Mind , Televangelism, Communistic Capitalistic Humanism , Existentialism, every ism which ever existed, in a retro fit of pragmatic usage
ad hoc, and correspondingly, all members of such congregation holding hands worldwide, realizing in an instant, that all is one.
John Lenon, “Imagine”
But seriously, it is not at all a mindset of spiritually based belief to hope for a micro instand of total peac, incorporating the non materialistic conception of the thrust of consciousness in it’s self. This is no Supernova, it is a cosmic seed ready to create new forms , new worlds, and to become God, again. (For others’ to reoccur)
A supernova is the source of seeds of life. I like the comparison, as indeed I have spent the initial ‘star’ quite fully across the darkness of space, the internet; the content of the theory propelled with the force of my own self-valuing. This force of joy was, in the beginnings after the discovery, immense, indeed almost unberable.
The years passing, I became more used to it and found calmer ways of discourse. I’ll post the recent talk I had with SIATD on the subject again. The difference between the initial passion of the OP and the rather calm way in which I speak here represents the transformation from supernova/cosmic body (I felt wholly superhuman, beyond human standards of possibility as they had been taught to me) and the ‘mere mortal’ state of one sensible human talking to another.
But all sensibility and modesty taken for what it is, the theory has implications far beyond politics. The scientific implications are much more dramatic, as they point to things that were truly unthinkable and thus un-wishable and un-fearable, whereas the political aspect only points to quite well known realities; be they of capitalism, socialism, monarchism, anarchism, aristocracy, any form. The world is quite ready for these insights, nor are they especially revolutionary in their implications. Nothing will change, politically, if man understands himself better; this will not cause power-mongers to back down. But in science, once a new overarching systemic law has been disclosed, the entire apparatus shifts its course. There is more than one way to initiate such a shift; I wonder if the consequences will differ very much, though.
Because of this I do not feel pressured; or do I? I can not tell anymore. I suppose Ive always felt pressured, in the face of human understanding, to have my say; human understanding has always seemed unbearably primitive to me, even when I was a child. There was one fundamental idiocy that bothered me most; the presupposed ‘coldness’ of science, its presupposed ‘neutrality’.
Having spent all my time writing and developing the idea, the past three years, I have not been very active economically, and right now I find myself here again, in the editing suite of a small tv station, making my pay, gathering the rent – none of the people here has the faintest clue as to my real work - I have, in the past, tried to entertain conversations with people about what I was writing; it is received with glassy gazes, invariably, even at the first mention of a word like ‘value’ or ‘power’, nervous systems rebel. But I have absolutely no desire to communicate this to anyone - directly, eye to eye - who isn’t asking for it, who isn’t expressing curiosity or who isn’t directly attacking it.
But recently I have finally begun preparations for a more ambtious economic plan. It had taken me all this time to realize what, in terms of my own values and self-valuing, I had to work on. The psychologial implications of VO are as vast as the scientific ones. To self-study using VO was not a given possibility; the terms had to be developed first and this is, retrospectively, what most of my time in the past three years, working with close friends, has been dedicated to. What is a self-valuing psyche? What is its consistency?
Freuds conception the selfs main drives has to be abandoned here, or at least seriously revised; that is one of the first serious implications I noticed. It is simply not possible to self-value consistently within a Freudian hierarchy of pathos; the Freudian attitude towards ones roots (and thus towards offspring) is crude and ultimately groundless, and deadly - by his means of self-analysis, one ends up erradicating the self; thus, in cynical terms, ‘solving’ it - and one dissolves into the fabric of society, economy, expediency.
A question to those reading: consider that I am working in television, and am quite capable of producing quality material, technically. I have tried in vain to conceive of a concept fit for tv that does some justice to philosophy, or what I consider that name to truly signify. It may be, probably is, a lack of imagination on my part. The question then is as simple as this: What could I do with my tv-skills to benefit me as a philosopher? I notice that I am quite thoroughly paralized in this respect. My ambition seems to fail me here - is it that tv is just not a suitable venue? It can’t be that; I am sure there is an angle to be found. But do I truly want to find it? It is true that I quite loathe the compromising nature of the television making process when it comes to content - this is why I am satisfied to work at a smaller station that does not flatten things quite as drastically as, say, CNN does, or equally our own larger stations for which I have directed in the past. It would be absolutely impossible for me to work there, as under this header of societal truth, factual truth is the very first thing that goes out the window, and dignified illusions aren’t often conceived.
Yet I love the magic of television. I love the medium, even if I havent had a tv for maybe two years now; nothing is on it. Theoretically it is great. It always felt good to watch my own programs come on. But I can not muster any enthusiasm for any formula. Give me a new formula. I will mention whoever gives me the idea that turns out to work for me in the credits. Money can be arranged too, proportionally to what I make of course.
Bargain and banter, not very Exalted in my Ambition here. But it’s friday night in the workplace.
I suspect something about your idea is insidious to the common worldviews people cling to for their livelihood. So that perception provokes the fight or flight event, and flight more efficiently restores the status quo.
If you broach the subject with anyone, work is probably the last place you want do so. Most employers demand the conformity of their employees in ways that at first appear well-defined and harmlessly pragmatic but which often turn out to quietly demand a deeper subjugation of thought and creativity. Challenging mindsets are not welcome.
Is the goal that your project will be financially self-sustaining, i.e. are you also trying to make a living from it?
That might be quite difficult.
If that’s not the case, or the primary concern, why don’t you consider YouTube or some other medium for broadcast on the internet?
Many younger people no longer watch television nor find the television subscription model worthwhile anyway.
I keep up with any interesting t.v. network series entirely through online venues.
Pat of this is clearly true, but there is no boss required for this behavior; people are, by their own devices, perfectly capable of recognizing what goes outside of the drawn lines and of distrusting that. Not to mention that it is all quite complicated for an ordinary mind, philosophy in general. Most people ask themselves why the hell anyone would find that interesting, when you can also watch funny stuff or the news, or talk gossip. I dont feel that I am exaggerating here either.
That is not the case at all, I don’t even want that at all. I do not want to make money off my thinking, as this would most certainly put conditions on it. I do wish to use youtube, create a philosophical channel, with no monetary aims, as indeed internet has outgrown television. But the thing with tv is that lots of money goes around in it, and I have the professional capacity and network to get something on air - I just don’t know what it should be.
Perhaps it should be the precise opposite of philosophy - a kind of release, relief; though I do not at all feel burdened but rather liberated by philosophy, so that makes no sense either. Dammit.
In the past I had enough trust in politics to be able to make a political program, now that would be either pure farce, or very dangerous for whoever would broadcast it. It is quite annoying that politics is such pure deception, it means that no sensible thing can be done with it or said about it.
So do I. I like to watch these high quality series, The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, etc - Right now, I find Homeland worth watching. Not because of its social relevance (it’s deceptive enough to be irrelevant) but because it is extremely well made.
An there’s the real issue; I feel that I should be making movies, or high value television, tell great stories.
It’s just that I have this access to tv, and not to cinema. I’d probably have to migrate to get into film.
What about a debate or discussion type show in which the topics and participants are carefully selected so that certain philosophical issues of your interest/design must arise?
A moderator, maybe you yourself, could inject specific facts or questions to tease out the problems on which you want your channel to focus.
I am stuck, or even ‘Fixed’ on the supernova analogy, no disrespect to either Arc, or You, & forgive the pun?Even if it raises to that level.
However, supernovae are spent and enrormous substances, to the best of my recollection, and recently co-incidentally (or not) another cosmological albeit ambigous analogy was made between a gallactic center and a vagina.
In another post i tried to argue that any system of anologies can be set up between two or more things,ideas, and there is no harm done in that.?!
However the scales are astoundingly different, even if the things in question may be qualitatively similar.
Things may look similar, and even behave as if they worked under similar principles, but then what need is to differentiate cosmology from ontology? Is this within the imaginary scope of God’s plan for the cosmos to create a reasonable assessment of it’s self? Would the Cosmos not exist was it not for some intelligent form of reason to recognize it? Maybe Einstein did not dispense with this in his 2nd relativity, or maybe everything in fact is not really relative, -relate-able even? How so ?
His answer may have been well You can set any two things side by side, but does it make sense to do so?
(If the premise hinges on defining self in terms of it’s self, then those definitions would need to make sense,otherwise t remains on the level of the absolutely reduced Cosmos into the realm of the metaphysic of physical events)
This is why the self, the cosmos, or even your self my self, can not be reduced by the way thing appear or behave. The have an intrinsic being, and this is why i personally hive the highest for the alchemical definitions of the Being of the middle ages.
And to whom and what primarily can we thank for these descriptions? Avicenna, Averroes, the Persian mystics, whom nowedays we would classify as those ‘Muslims’
That’s another thought I had…to craft the Ayn Rand type philosophical narrative in t.v. format. That would require the most groundwork, effort, and luck for full realization, though.
By the way, I think those are all great shows, except Deadwood which I’ve never seen. I am getting back into Homeland since the new season is currently on air. I was a little put off by the last season (season 3) which I found too convoluted and unrealistic to accomplish whatever it was trying to accomplish, but I think the current one has started out strong. Carrie is such an awesome character. The only other two shows I’m currently anticipating are Game of Thrones and Vikings, of which I think the latter might be my favorite.
I’m not personally interested in Rand in this way, I do not like her narratives that much. All I care for concerning her writing is her notion of value. There are a good number of historical events that merit a series like Game of Thrones, though.
Yes, Carrie a great character, and I agree with you about this new season; the last one did feel a bit empty, and this was caused by it consisting of so many convoluted layers of not really worked out plotlines. Brody’s situation in Caracas was unsatisfying, you never knew what you were looking at. People were expecting the show to fizzle out without Brody, but it picked up in quality.
Haven’t watched Vikings. I stopped watching GOT after season 2, some of the sadism was a bit too indulgent for me. But it is unquestionably extremely well made.
My friends ambition, among his ambitions anyway, was to be launched in a capsule after his death, or upon it, and plummeted into Jupiter.
He died eagerly, but without taking the required measures, such as earning a billion or what such missions cost nowadays to finance this decadent funeral. He was buried without a stone.
But now he does have a stone, with his sigil on it. At least thats something. But not much.
This is one of the more interesting threads on here. I’m glad you revived it. It seems like, from your reviving comment, you have experienced disillusionment since you first created this thread?
To me, this thread sparks in my mind one of the key issues of philosophy. It seems that the question of what constitutes the good life is alive in the ambition to acheive it, and perhaps that ambition is a part of the conception as well.
Has it been decided once and for all which comes first, the material conditions that act causally, or the ideological conditions that cause us to act materially? Is the answer a matter of opinion, or does an object truth lie at the bottom? To what degree are our ideas are a result of the material makeup of our brain and brain chemistry?
This, it seems to me, is part of what you’re dealing with here:
So are these things, these “findings” of the “scientific clergy” things to be worked through or merely insulted (“nauseating as maggots”)?
Science cannot be done away with by scorn alone the way religion could, because it is built on a much stronger foundation. If the goal is really to overcome science, it cannot be done with the same methods that were used to overcome religion in the time of Bacon and Descartes. There is truth in science where there was only poetry and noble lies in religion. Telling people to do away with reliance on the senses because it is ignoble is futile.
Do you know the concept of technocracy? Through Nietzsche, we come to understand power quite clearly, and not in any narrow sense. What possesses power will dominate what is weak. I think Nietzsche wanted to accomplish a revesal through ideological denegration, but so long as modes of concrete power rest in someone’s hands they will not be done away with by words alone. Even the church combatted heresy with physical coercion. Scientific dominance has ushered in a new state in existence.
Environmentalism, for example, may try to accomplish some surpression of science by raising concrete issues (‘our survival is at stake’) — but then science may come along and say, “Here are the tools to remedy that.”
This is why Nietzsche had hope for a religious revival, but the skepticism of our age runs deep, and means of communication (which are scientific-technological products) are in the hands of those who value the power which science brings. In fact, the ideology of power is probably the worst remedy against science that could be conceived because science is the pure means to power and power creation. We might say that the scrawny man holding the bazooka is less noble than the brave savage, but if we are going to have a “valuation of the earth”, if the brave savage is wiped from its face then his nobility is altogether forgotten and is no possession of the earth.
So as not to keep going on, I want to move in from another (in)direction.
Mystery. Mystery gives a sense of intrigue to life, keeps it from being boring, makes room for possibility. But though we may have an aesthetic for mystery on TV, most do not want it in reality because the reality of mystery is uncertainty and danger. Humans strive for safety and certainty, it is instinctual. We use technology as means to obtain and secure our safety, and as we recreate the environment of safety the mystery disappears. All becomes labelled, familiar, correct behaviors designated — rational, “effective”!
There is a monopoly on pleasure. Yes, a base motive of humanity, part of the scientific outlook on man. We create values which put limits on our pleasures, we create laws which restrict our access to them, or else its packaged and exchanged for a price. Pleasure, I think, is the only thing more powerful than safety. It is just that the road to the fulfillment of our pleasures puts our safety at risk in such a way as to bring pleasure’s opposite, whether in reality or because we are told so — beware the pleasures of the flesh.
Two more hints:
Philosophy reunite with poetry — the pleasure of words, ideas and communication (and incommunicable “experience”)
Philosophy has always made use of the Thrasymachuses (now, the peddlers of pleasure?)
Also to be aware of “Applied Behavior Analysis” — operant conditioning…
