For Fixed Cross: Logic as self-value.

Orb , it had not even occurred to me to visit the Agora, strangely. My passion goes out to the gods and their priest-architects, in whom I recognize the greatest reverence man has ever been capable of, out of which philosophy was born.

I must admit I look down on Socrates, who is the first thinker who considered man an end in himself, a formula whereby man loses his drive to become God like, and by this I mean not Christ- but Zeus-like, an irrational and forbidden but supremely sanctifying and creative drive out of which all that makes humanity worthy to me were born. All qualities that help man be not less than animal. Without this reverence man is merely a pest.

Indeed, Kant was a conventionalist, a follower of Sokrates, blind in his completely banal and ugly assumption that man should without any special quality or effort on his part be granted the status of a standard to all ends.

As the saying παντα ρει already implies, only things can flow. Pure flow is therefore flow of nothing: there is flowing, but nothing that flows. Molecules flow, but molecules themselves consist of–among other things–flowing electrons, and these electrons in turn of etc. etc. There cannot be fundamental particles, for these would then have to flow through nothing–would have nothing to flow through; they would be kept from flowing by each other, as there would be nothing in between them. So this positing of smaller and smaller things must go on into infinity, or–what amounts to the same thing–must stop at some singularity, a circularity or “nothing” or a contradiction: infinity is itself such a singularity. “There is only flux” is just another way of saying “there are no fixed things, there are no things, there is nothing”–hence Picht calls it “pure negativity”.

“Any reality we may speak of” is not what Picht here means by “the real”; it is rather what he means here by “world”. Compare:

[size=95]“[T]he philosophers tried to get hold of the ‘text’ as distinguished from ‘interpretations’; they tried to ‘discover’ and not to ‘invent.’ What Nietzsche claims to have realized is that the text in its pure, unfalsified form is inaccessible (like the Kantian Thing-in-itself); everything thought by anyone–philosopher or man of the people–is in the last analysis interpretation. But for this reason the text, the world in itself, the true world cannot be of any concern to us; the world of concern to us is necessarily a fiction, for it is necessarily anthropocentric; man is necessarily in a manner the measure of all things[.]” (Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil.)[/size]

What Picht means by “the real” is what Strauss calls “the text, the world in itself, the true world”; what Picht means by “world” is what Strauss calls “the world of concern to us”. The latter is obviously analogous to “any reality we may speak of”. The true world, according to Nietzsche, is the primordial One, Which–mind you–is characterised by contradiction. This means that, among other things, It is both one and not one at the same “time”. It is marked by a dual contradiction: It is both the having not yet existed (the futurity) and the having already existed (the past) of things, and the absence of things (pure flux) and the presence of things (the illusion of self-same “As”). As pure flux it is one and as illusionary self-same “As” it is many (of course these things are not all “As”, but I am a self-same “A”, you are a self-same “B”, etc.).

What do you mean by “error”?

What about “before the light”? What “gives” that the self or the object exists? The self or the object itself, or “nothing”, or God–some abyssal singularity. Note that Hegel’s famous question, at least as formulated by Heidegger, literally reads: “Why does it give beings, and not rather nothing?” I’m sure Heidegger attached some importance to this. In any case, value ontology, in my view, does answer the question after all: “Because it is the beings themselves doing the giving.”

Yes. For years I have maintained that there be a distinction between a self-cause and a first cause: a first cause need not be a self-cause, as it need not be caused; it might always have been there. But logically, there is no distinction, as both are absurd. I also understand now why you said you believed (be-lieved?) that the quantity of existing stuff was not constant, that more stuff was coming into existence. “What, out of nothing?”, I would ask. “Why not?”, I would say now. It is only the God of the philosophers that has been overcome.

Indeed, why not? Very good! As it is only the oughts that man has imposed on nature that demand of it that it remains constant and behaves in such and such a way. In reality, as Strauss explains well by the hand of Hobbes in the book you gave me, the control that human knowledge can give man over nature is based on the wholly artificial nature of knowledge, on its being grounded in man, and not in nature, which is as far as we can know, never wholly known. This brings me to the matter of that “error”. I meant to point out that we can only be exact if we speak of knowledge, i.e. the human construct of which we know the origin, and never about a world that might be said to exist independently of our knowledge. In the last/first instance, epistemology meets with ontology because the smallest bit of (known) being equals the most basic element of knowledge. The two are in fact the very same thing. Value ontology establishes this most basic element as selfvaluing - that which has no standard of existence besides the logically indisputable possibility of its existence - given (knowledge of) existence at all.

Note: Pure flow might be said to be valuing, i.e. the nature of the activity of selfvaluing, but not the logically comprehensible structure of it, not ‘positive’ being then. Much indeed like light. the smallest manifest being we can measure, can not
be measured (seen, known) and exist. As soon as it is apprehended, it is gone.

When the disciple is ready, the Master approaches.

Ready Fixed?

Nietzsche was wrong. It’s not about will to power but Will to Love.
I call it Emotional Ontology.
A love hate relationship.

Titanic Ἐπιμηθεύς how you are forgotten by the forward looking Προμηθεύς, or have modern men forsaken you?

Without hindsight how can you avoid punishment and romantic idealism?

What is foresight with no hindsight?
Delusion?
Romantic idealism?
Jesus on the cross?

Art with no reason, no science, no experience or knowledge.
The obsession with progress, minus a past, finding its just reward in eternal punishment.

Was Προμηθεύς less of a fool?

The most elemental is beyond contradiction, hence self valuing becomes anathema. It is difference of degree,
As the philosophers stone is turned only so many degrees more, before a basic change in apprehension
takes place.

The ‘modern’ concept could be only the suggestion that its origins are more the negation of what no longer holds, instead of the new is akin to death. Is modernity a malady. To view it as such, an angst, a theme of death in life is no different to the man who craves for the past only, the man who is ready for the grave himself.

Have you read my EO philosophy?
Emotional Ontology, I calls it.
I assert, and argue, that being is existing and all is self-loving.

Hate is the nil and love is the one.

WE all have to think ahead and think after. To be one and not the other is to be a fool.

No

Emotive Ontology

Emotion of love binds the self.
It is the fabric of existence.
Love Ontology, is a better title.
Self-loving, or masturbation.
Brings us back to God.
Love Ontology for losers
LoL.

Just had a mental picture of you bopping the bishop.

I bet you were taught you would go blind. HA!

Your assertions and arguments do not quite coincide innselfmloving. The Averroes arguments leave one to believe it’s more like Being and Existence beget the Essence of things.

Correction. The Muslim philosopher was Avicenna.

“Every valuing is a sign of ones physiology” ~ N

Here’s an improved translation of the passage quoted in my OP:

“For philosophy, Kant’s knowledge that reason only has insight into what it itself brings forth in accordance with its design can, if finite reason is historical, only mean that thinking, in an ever-revolving change, makes its own designing of the design the object of its knowledge. If the knowledge however is to be true nonetheless, then absolute spirit must manifest itself in every finite form of reason. For a thinking which radically carries out the change of consciousness, the self-knowledge of reason in the act of its designing becomes a ‘phenomenology of spirit’, that is to say a doctrine of the forms in which the absolute essence of spirit appears as finite. Now Nietzsche carries out a change which puts into question even the fundamental presupposition of Hegel’s: that the absolute in and for itself is already with us. Kant’s doctrine ‘that reason only has insight into what it itself brings forth in accordance with its design’ is taken so radically that it now comes to light how reason itself has been brought forth in history by man, in accordance with his own design. The force which brings forth and determines both reason and the principle of identity that constitutes it bears the name ‘the will to power’. Thinking, knowing and acting is now interpreted out of the historic carrying-out of designing, that is to say out of value-determination. Whereas in Kant the apriority of reason is condition of the possibility of designing, through the change carried out by Nietzsche the design becomes the condition of the possibility of reason.” (Picht, Nietzsche, pp. 71-72, my translation.)

Excellent.

The condition of reason is conditioned in the same way as the condition of man -
indeed valuing, valued-ness and value are the environment in which any species of activity exists.

This is what species are - activity-types.
Not types of objects, unless an activity is an object.

In this way it is easier to see how there are various different species of humanity.

I like the elegance of the implication of the last posts together, which is that ones physics (physiology) determines ones choice in metaphysics. Which in turns determines ones view on physics - and on oneself.

Kant and Hegel demonstrate why sometimes it is not so good to have a high IQ.