I disagree. I do not think that to have free will is required, first of all because this notion is illogical to begin with. Will free from what? From the self? From the will?
From the influence of the will of others, I’d assume, just as self-ownership is first and foremost a resistance to being seized and flung in a hole.
Quote:
I also do not think that one needs to know every single electron or drive of oneself to be considered self-conscious. though indeed, one must know oneself to as certain extent to be entrusted to oneself. Parodites wrote on this beautifully, I will see if I can find it.
I don’t mean knowing every last electron, I mean that ultimately one cannot stand outside oneself to know what it is one is claiming ownership of. Rather, there is constant negotiation and struggle for what one naturally feels is rightfully ones own. That’s the same with the self as it is with girlfriends or houses or dogs or any such property.
Quote:
He said:
Quote:
when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business
Are you saying this is not a narrative of liberation? I mean, he doesn’t explicitly characterise it but that’s very much what I’m reading it as.
I’m am, to me it’s about what drives humans to act.
[/quote]
I don’t think he’s necessarily claiming that this is what drives people to act - though I interpreted him in that way - as much as he’s claiming that it’s the most productive arrangement. Regardless, I do contest that it is a drive that fundamentally subsumes others.
Quote:
More or less, I think. I read your position as being that not everything should be privatized. I agree with that. But I agree with Aristotle completely as well, and I do not think his and your position contradict.
One issue with air is that it’s naturally freely distributed. Food is not, certainly not cars or computers. Water is, but clean water is not. I am not using that in an argument here, but it should be noted.
And some places just aren’t suitable for human habitation, like the Antarctic. Or most deserts. It is truly stupid to think that via economic subsidy (usually just debt taken on by the West and then transferred elsewhere) one can make all parts of the world habitable by whatever size population fertility ratios produce. Communism has a lot to answer for in terms of the population-resource fuck up, just as Capitalism does.
Quote:
No, because as I understand private property, corporate-state owned debt is a negation of private property.
This is certainly where we differ. I see the drive to acquisition and the claim of private property being extended beyond rational limits - or just eradicating any notion of there being rational limits - as being at the heart of the peaking of the infinite growth model. But then, you might not accept that is what we’re seeing and that is the physical cause of the timing of the present recession.
Quote:
Quote:
And yet debt is the primary means of slavery in the modern world.
And yet? This supports my position.
Yes, I see that now. I suppose my question is that for those who believe in private property as a fundamental human drive and as the best rational arrangement of access to resources, where do you draw the limits? On what basis, if you don’t fundamentally believe in common or unowned property, do you decide how much land someone can just come along and enclose?
As I said before, or elsewhere, I like the crofting model, wherein it was the people already living there who could decide whether or not to allow someone to enclose a nice patch of otherwise common or unowned land to call their own.
Quote:
Pirivate ownership goes hand in hand with individualism. if one is willing to let that idea(l) go, then there is no need for ownership either. One would of course then have to accept that a head(s) of a tribe or corporation owns everything and everyone, and hope that he/she divides things so that there is something for everyone.
I can’t see a third alternative, as large numbers of humans do not really tend to (never do) self-organize without appointing leaders, delegating decisions. Do you see a third way? If so, can you explain it in some detail? Order is, after all, what we are seeking.
It’s more a question of dynamics than of trying to change human behaviour. Rather than determining leaders we should be determining representatives. Order without a claim to the right of hierarchy. I’m not opposed to hierarchies per se, in a military context we have to have them, but in a political context I’m not convinced we do. Elevation to public office should be exactly that, no more.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-18-2013, 08:25 AM (This post was last modified: 01-18-2013 08:29 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #24
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
I think we have exhausted our artificially highlighted differences. Our perspectives meet in this question:
Quote:
I suppose my question is that for those who believe in private property as a fundamental human drive and as the best rational arrangement of access to resources, where do you draw the limits? On what basis, if you don’t fundamentally believe in common or unowned property, do you decide how much land someone can just come along and enclose?
Anyone who does not believe in common or unowned property ( a contradiction of terms of course, but it is clear what you mean ) is a madman. Privatizing air is malign by any standards I care to calculate with.
Anyone who does not believe in private property at all is a communist of the wrong kind, and while not quite as dangerous as the madman he is certainly an adversary to human nature, when we do not mean enslaved and excessively conditioned nature but the nature that thrives and explores itself, ‘becomes’.
Further discussion on my side of the story would involve Heideggers “Building, Dwelling, Thinking”, a document of philosophy where the ontology of the human being is seen to conceptually blend with what is cultivated to sustain his being and reaches it’s most articulated ontic reality in this cultivating. Only in the perfectly ideal and altruistic society would this process of ‘becoming being’ be sustained by a organically self-organized collective. In all other cases property laws will be required to allow for self-cultivation.
The text can be found here in case you’ll get interested in pursuing this side of the story down the line.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-26-2013, 02:43 AM Post: #25
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
If I may interject here briefly, having followed this conversation so far, I believe both positions being espoused here are not fundamentally in conflict. Both seem to posit the human being as not a “free or wholly autonomous agent” as well as a being with essential nature or need to have some control over its living, which both would agree necessitates some/much control over one’s surroundings. Both agree to the utility of society as an essential human principle; one enumerates this principle under the language of empowerment of the individual to possess means of his or her own ascension and security, to pursue one’s motives and self-actuality, the other under language emphasizing the tendency of social power-structures and institutions toward hyper-acquisition of resources and productive means, often at the expense of the interests of the many, and particularly within what we could consider capitalist organizations of economy, and that of course we must work to achieve progressive liberation from such oppression. I believe that both of these positions are very valid. The common theme seems to be working to enhance human living, which of course must at the same time honestly and bluntly recognize the detrimental and banal aspects of human nature while also trying to rise above these, to aspire to a vision and world where the greater spirit in man exerts more strength and freedom against the lesser.
One of Marx’ main points is that capitalism tends naturally to exploitation of the lesser powerful by the greater. Guattari elaborates on this by showing how capitalist functioning gathers and prescribes its own marginal spaces, it “capitalizes” even those revolutionary forces which would seek to indermine it; capitalism produces strong self-sustaining power and thus closes exploitation against possible disruption. I think both of you seem to agree that this exploitation should be avoided. The practical way to avoid it, of course, is not an easy fix, the situation is quite complex and in many ways capitalism or the “free market” philosophy is quite natural to human behavior, drive to possess wealth for oneself, greed, self-interest over considerations of group, environment or future. That it is often normal for humans to act in these ways, particularly the human who has never taken much time to grow in terms of self-knowledge, philosophy or moral sentiment, is perhaps the biggest problem that we face. The tyrannical power-structures in the world are sustained by human ignorance, by minds more animal than strictly speaking human, and of course the same social systems which are sustained by widespread human ignorance also cause the very conditions of ignorance which sustain them… Capitalism within limits, strong controls on the power of extant wealth to set the agenda of things, but not an abandonment of the basic system of individual rights and protections of property to a certain degree, a degree that does not allow those with a lot to ride over those without, and therefore also many social mechanisms in place to aid possibilities of upward mobility and disincentive worker exploitation and excess poor treatment and conditions, this sort of middle-ground approach, a compromise between the two extreme ideals loosely defined as capitalism and communism, is probably the best we can hope for at this point.
No position is perfect, no principle of human nature here is absolute. Neither society nor the individual is an irreducible ontological or moral category, in thought or in practice. Life involves determining at which points we may find compromise, life itself is such an impulse to “compromise”.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 08:08 AM Post: #26
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
I think my cousin found the solution.
We were talking about a pack of cigarettes when I asked him for one, and he said cigarettes are common property. (Algemeen bezit) I then said yeah but it’s your common property.
So - that’s basically it, what Aristotle says. In a nutshell (and I am ruining it by simplifying it but alas) there would be no cigarettes in the house at all if it weren’t for the one who owns having acquired it for himself. But now that he does have them it is only normal to share it, as well as pleasurable to him to be able to share. To make a gesture, to contribute, to provide value.
Up for discussion is the measure of this pleasure, this altruistic instinct. Greed can be cultivated but not by pure capitalism (one needs lust, decadence of instincts), and so can altruism - but not by communizing everything so that no one has anything to share.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 08:21 PM Post: #27
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-01-2013, 04:22 PM Post: #28
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
It seems to me that altruism is a characteristic more than a prescription. Once certain bonds are made, the human kind, with complex give-gets-and-takes, altruism sometimes springs up as a natural development. It goes according to the diplomatic soul, that I know of, which gives as an honor from knowing the pleasure of receiving. It can be a selective tool to use between friends, enemies, master-slaves, lovers… You name it.
Within a political sphere, it is my belief that all state-based approaches are inherently based on lordship, and thus unacceptable to me unless I am lord, and even then… In any case, it seems to me that altruism is an essential component of any system involving numbers of people with 0’s that aren’t seeking to obtain a certain high grade of discipline.
Now, to suggest that altruism is the driving force behind any politics… Something stinks here of a cover-up. I have written a nice juicy essay on it, but let’s just say we can all agree that benevolence (read: altruism) is a very observable trick of every single autocrat.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-19-2013, 03:32 AM (This post was last modified: 02-19-2013 03:33 AM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #29
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
Do we really “own” anything, including our bodes or minds? It seems to me a correct human economy, founded as is the stated desire here on correct ontology, would have to more precisely articulate what ownership is, what it means, in what contexts it manifests and how and why. It seems more correct to state that we never “own” anything but rather things are distributed, apportioned, given into existence or consumed as part of a process thereby, such process involving a number of participants and conditioning factors. We as “individual” are a site by which things are given to change, move, become (re)constituted or consumed. Where is the rational justification for concluding, based solely on this being-a-site-ness, that things are “owned”? Upon what rests this idea, very strange to me, that we “own ourselves”?
A correct economy and morality must be as firmly grounded in deep, concrete and accurate ontology as possible. To me, a huge problem causal to so much economic and moral problems is how easily we throw around the concept of “right” to “ownership”. Things are, they move and change, people are sites at which this often takes place. Can this not be a sufficient ground?
I don’t know the answer, that’s why I ask. But careless or casual use of the concept of ownership always raises red flags with me, rather so-called individual or communal ownership.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-24-2013, 11:13 PM (This post was last modified: 02-24-2013 11:16 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #30
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
(02-19-2013 03:32 AM)ChainOfBeing Wrote:
Do we really “own” anything, including our bodes or minds? It seems to me a correct human economy, founded as is the stated desire here on correct ontology, would have to more precisely articulate what ownership is, what it means, in what contexts it manifests and how and why. It seems more correct to state that we never “own” anything but rather things are distributed, apportioned, given into existence or consumed as part of a process thereby, such process involving a number of participants and conditioning factors. We as “individual” are a site by which things are given to change, move, become (re)constituted or consumed. Where is the rational justification for concluding, based solely on this being-a-site-ness, that things are “owned”? Upon what rests this idea, very strange to me, that we “own ourselves”?
It is not so much about ontology but about creating a ground for noble action. Consciousness thrives on the sort of “illusions” like knowledge and ownership. Most mental stimulants are objectively ungrounded, but as long as they enhance self-valuing, they support ontological reality even if they do not logically derive from them. Property is a means.
Quote:
A correct economy and morality must be as firmly grounded in deep, concrete and accurate ontology as possible. To me, a huge problem causal to so much economic and moral problems is how easily we throw around the concept of “right” to “ownership”. Things are, they move and change, people are sites at which this often takes place. Can this not be a sufficient ground?
I think rather that they should ground ontology. They should serve being, not try to dissect it and objectify it. Ironically, often to formulate reality is to dissect it and thus to undo it. Compare to cutting apart a human body to observe how life works in an attempt to know “what it is”. Part of the power of value ontology is that it accepts the ‘motivation of being’ as the deepest philosophical principle, as the point where ontology becomes an action, an ethics, where man becomes a true agent instead of something subjected to ‘‘his nature’’.
Quote:
I don’t know the answer, that’s why I ask. But careless or casual use of the concept of ownership always raises red flags with me, rather so-called individual or communal ownership.
We must first accept the princiople before we can refine it.
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
Agreed on all points. But does this then remove any need to further explore the ontic status of ownership or property? I think it may often be the case that supplementing our value-ontological notions, themselves subjectively self-sustaining and ontologically enabling, with greater “objectivity” or ontic grounding will enhance the efficacy and reality of these values. Of course you are right that too much dissection will destroy them. But a more powerful self-valuing is capable of sustaining greater potentially destructive self-analysis, and I see this as one standard of measure of the self-valuing itself, and of its subjectivity and power.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-28-2013, 06:40 AM (This post was last modified: 02-28-2013 06:51 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #32
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
(02-28-2013 04:16 AM)ChainOfBeing Wrote:
Agreed on all points. But does this then remove any need to further explore the ontic status of ownership or property? I think it may often be the case that supplementing our value-ontological notions, themselves subjectively self-sustaining and ontologically enabling, with greater “objectivity” or ontic grounding will enhance the efficacy and reality of these values. Of course you are right that too much dissection will destroy them. But a more powerful self-valuing is capable of sustaining greater potentially destructive self-analysis, and I see this as one standard of measure of the self-valuing itself, and of its subjectivity and power.
I think that this is a matter of tasks, missions, an area where we must choose our work. I personally feel that I work best, at least for now, as a radical conservative value ontologist - drawing everything into its core. I can not at once do this and also work with objectivity. VO is clearly able to work very well with tectonics, and I have so far also worked well with James S Saint, who is a dedicated ‘objectivist’ and his RM - but it is of vital importance for me to stay centered in the thought of the irreducible subject. If you have time, perhaps watch the Baudrillard talk Pezer posted. In segment 5 he speaks of the subject and its (lost) symbolic order. I believe that not all is lost. Value Ontology is the rescuing thought, and my own subjective-creative order reflects its veracity to me, as it has constantly proven to be incompatible with the modern order of individuals and their ‘orderly’ differences.
This might also be why I am so radical in rejecting Islam - the mere fact of radical rejection, of refusal to exist in the same realm, apparently vitalizes the possibility of singularity.
[/quote]
Why the word “Good” is blasphemous
Kind, sweet, nice, strong, appropriate, tasty, morally impressive, nutritious, fast, steady, smooth, supple - good for use in task x.
“Good” as judgment is qualitative to a perceived goal.
“Good in-itself” is gibberish and sign to a lost ethics, “you are a good man” - is a wrongful remark, given my someone who can no longer judge from subjectivity, but only from some objectified, petrified, set in stone mould.
Good for me, right here, right now - or then and there. Or: good for you, now, then, here, then -
and sometimes - that is a useful trait.
Strength. Intelligence. Beauty.
But how it is applied?
Can ‘good’ be applied to ‘evil’? What total nonsense.
Good at x for A can be applied to ruin B. Good at y for B can be applied to counter A’s x-virtue.
Spinoza: “virtue equals capacity”.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-23-2013, 02:04 AM Post: #2
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Why the word “Good” is blasphemous
(03-09-2013 07:42 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Kind, sweet, nice, strong, appropriate, tasty, morally impressive, nutritious, fast, steady, smooth, supple - good for use in task x.
“Good” as judgment is qualitative to a perceived goal.
“Good in-itself” is gibberish and sign to a lost ethics, “you are a good man” - is a wrongful remark, given my someone who can no longer judge from subjectivity, but only from some objectified, petrified, set in stone mould.
Good for me, right here, right now - or then and there. Or: good for you, now, then, here, then -
and sometimes - that is a useful trait.
Strength. Intelligence. Beauty.
But how it is applied?
Can ‘good’ be applied to ‘evil’? What total nonsense.
Good at x for A can be applied to ruin B. Good at y for B can be applied to counter A’s x-virtue.
Spinoza: “virtue equals capacity”.
“Good” also functions as a lingustic object, meant to regulate speech. When someone says, “Sure that would be good” or “This is good” regardless of to what they are referring is usually meant merely as an utterance lacking any deeper meaning than to validate the social exchange-value between two or more people. This itself is not problematic however it is symbolic of the problem you identify, which is a big problem indeed.
That the word “good” is used so universally and thus able to lend itself to this regulative linguistic-social role is troubling. Do you think more ancient peoples, or perhaps even going back 100 years, used the word good like we do? I doubt it. We over-use the word to the point where English professors remove points from student papers whenever they use the word, its excessivity renders it largely meaningless… however, the word itself is not meaningless, what is really objectionable (to the professors) is how the student is unwilling to contextualize properly his or her thought, to define the good and why/how it is so. “Good, because…” is the proper formula.
It’s almost as if we have lost our ability to generate proper context even for our own desires, and so throw around the generic category term “good” to cover up this loss.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-23-2013, 02:46 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Why the word “Good” is blasphemous
Well, when you start considering that all words belong to a long-standing tyrannical order; flinging shit at it is a good plebian response.
A good philosopher’s response (and yes… sadly I think that philosophy, too, is something to be overcome, but am not sure) is Fixed Cross’.
“I feel good.” I. Feel. Good. I, Descartes and even God himself behind I. Feel, as the Sith have taught me to accept little by little. Good… All of the previous centuries have had conclusions of where health leads, and I will use the diamond from that coal.
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung
Power has always been separate of imagination - imagination only a key to the ignition of power. But the times have changed, not truth but value stands central - truth is conditional to it - or so we tell ourselves. This decision to decide on value ontology is itself the reversal in the philosophical (which since Nietzsche means physiological) process. If it is not properly subjectifying, it will not work. Ontology must be rooted in value, otherwise it is impotent in the hands of the returning Titan, who distinguishes something from Nothing by time.
Truth is timeless, it is thus dead. Imagination is will. Logic is mediation between the two. Logic shall serve faithfully its own power. But it must be made to be, by subjecting it to will - imagination - “Hope” is what the logician calls it. It’s occult name is “Action”.
Sap
Dark is where we still dwell, a forest-pool of depth, Diana’s realm. Apollo can not yet be born. The full Sun of philosophy can only rise in action, when the hordes have been mobilized.
The Chariot of Light -
I serve at the pleasure of the the red horizon.
Pre-Eminence, morning star.
Will is representation. Wear masks. Seek out contradiction. Provoke. The age of Horus is the age of the Child.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-05-2013, 02:40 PM Post: #2
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Theatre of Truth
Quote:
We all wear masks
Reminds me if that scene from The Mask where he’s talking to Ben Stein.
“I said I was going to get to your calls but…look.”
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-07-2013, 07:11 AM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2013 07:23 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #3
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Theatre of Truth
Don’t recall the scene but that was an entertaining film.
Actually I meant something more like this.
Ah you mean this
Quote:
This is an interesting place.
Looks like fourth- or fifth-century Scandinavian.
Possibly a representation of one of the Norse night gods, maybe Loki.
Loki?
Who is Loki?
The Norse god of mischief.
Supposedly he caused such trouble that Odin banished him from Valhalla forever.
Then he could have banished him into that mask.
I’m talking about mythology, Mr. Ipkiss.
This is a piece of wood.
But your book!
My book is about masks as a metaphor.
A metaphor, not to be taken literally.
You suffer from a mild delusion.
Alright.
I’ll prove it to you.
Loki… I actually had that as my ILP name a long time ago. The alias seems to have been deleted.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-07-2013, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2013 09:09 AM by Gobbo.) Post: #4
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Theatre of Truth
The two scenes are somewhat similar. Carey being in a role that puts on a mask again and again, and ‘goes to work.’
I’ve been told that my voice online is fairly close to mine IRL, but as one of the members of the Pirate Bay says in their documentary AFK, “We use the term AFK because we consider the internet to be part of real life.” But yet these people all have their online handles.
I think there is the sense in which having an online persona is becoming just a part of the experience. When you are online you are yourself, but you are also something else.
Quote:
I should warn you that I don’t work personally with really sick people.
There are private institutions for those things.
lol
Also, Hey Pachuco! And by that I mean literally the hottest Cameron Diaz has ever, and will ever look.
It’s sort of like - what is a viral phenomenon? Or better put, what is the closest approximation to one that you could find in reality? Spontaneous social things such as those don’t really occur, and it’s likely due to the speed in which information travels outside of the internet.
But even if that is the case, what is does it mean to have something go viral. What is the real mechanism there? The internet is very much a hive mind it seems like in the human one, there are things that can take on a life of their own. If it’s happening at the mass level, then you know it’s happening in part within. So we come back to this question of what it means to put on the mask, and whether or not it’s an integral part of what drives the engine of ingenuity online. If everything was transparent things might not be so full of life.
I think that is why net neutrality means so much to people. They sense this.
This is sort of a flawed example but for example say I’m constantly monitored. I might not go/wouldn’t be able to go to 4chan because of pedo stuff (posted presumably by people hiding behind many proxies just like it is now). Even though I don’t go to /b/, and instead /g/. At /g/ at least there are people who are on the bleeding heart of technology. Sometimes you can find those diamonds in the rough, and sometimes those diamonds mean the difference between some revolutionary thing. We’re on the verge of losing that, and I think even the big companies like google understand this to some degree. They are monitoring everything but they do it in a way where people are comfortable (enough) with how it’s handled. It gives the illusion of privacy. Who knows, these constant attacks in the Senate against our rights could just be the smoke screen to make us think we still have some. But, I digress.
The point is, I think that’s why places like 4chan and reddit are so popular. Anyone can just instantly start being anything they want to be. This masks topic is actually quite important. I will think on it some more.
Quote:
But what can I do?
Do I go as myself or The Mask?
If I tell you, you promise to leave my office right now?
Go as yourself and as The Mask.
It would be cool to see something proposed that was something along the lines of this:
You get a public profile
You get a private (non)profile
Each industry and interest group works on each, with the awareness that there will be aspects of each group that occupy people’s lives. I mean you could argue that is exactly what occurs right now, and I think it is functionally but maybe not consciously. I think some people are trying to exploit the internet, basically, and that’s just by not giving anything back to it. Their information for anything; and others aren’t aware that they don’t need to broadcast so much of, if not their entire lives online for different groups to then exploit with laws that try and make that type of thing mandatory.
What do you guys think? I doubt anyone here thinks that total transparency is what is desired or required, but should total anonymity be looked at in the same way? You know? I don’t mind making my choices known, or revealing a part of myself if I feel like it and want to. It’s all about communication in some way or another.
“I said I was going to get to your calls but…look.”
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-07-2013, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2013 10:29 AM by pezer.) Post: #5
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Theatre of Truth
We all found each other in a website called ilovephilosophy. There were certain pre-suppositions going in. A big one is that your name, your identity, your self, those are things you notice early on are completely unessential and even obtrusive to good philosophy.
It turns out that the site was a horrible sin against philsophy, but what isn’t?
These masks, forged in our moments of peak honesty in this endeavor, will serve us well. The only real reason we might have any interest in revealing who we are AFK is for logistics of some operation, or I guess cojones points. Really, though, it’s undeniable that there is a strong intention behind the identities we choose for ourselves, perhaps we should listen to our own intentions instead of submitting to what Uncle Tom, of all institutions, would like us to become.
And yeah, that was Cameron Diaz at her very hottest. Damn, she looked fine.
I would say best, but her role in Vanilla Sky was her best.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-08-2013, 08:24 AM Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Theatre of Truth
“What can the army do about simulators? Traditionally it unmasks them and punishes them, according to a clear principle of identification. Today it can discharge a very good simulator as exactly equivalent to a “real” homosexual, a heart patient, or a madman. Even military psychology draws back from Cartesian certainties and hesitates to make the distinction between true and false, between the “produced” and the authentic symptom. “If he is this good at acting crazy, it’s because he is.” Nor is military psychology mistaken in this regard: in this sense, all crazy people simulate, and this lack of distinction is the worst kind of subversion. It is against this lack of distinction that classical reason armed itself in all its categories. But it is what today again outflanks them, submerging the principle of truth.”
[Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation]
[Image: cameron-diaz-the-mask-o.gif] GIFSoup
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-08-2013, 10:06 AM Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Theatre of Truth
I must take it one step further and suggest that the traditions that allowed for the propagation of reason have only shown as inevitably true so far the only thing it really can in and of itself: that it makes sense within itself as concept and process.
We have the technology today to beat cartesianism and the government, to outrun them. Their entire PR strategy right now is to get you to ignore that fact for as long as they can so that they can have time to build something durable and lasting, but mostly durable.
Maybe there is a parallel here between the twilight of Jupiter and the twilight of the age of reason.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-08-2013, 07:31 PM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2013 07:36 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #8
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Theatre of Truth
The age of reason makes way for the age of value.
The castrated Jupiter makes way for the Olympic Jupiter.
Our structures will break away the anti-structures of the reason of castration/abstraction. Our structures are built only with value, never with derivatives.
Our structures will take millennia to overtake the Earth, but from day one they have been a celebration of their victory.
This was the power of every mighty nation when it was increasing, when it was truly powerful - a continuous celebration of its victory, a perpetual establishing of its worth-to-itself. Such is the natural instinct of power - self-valuing => value-bestowing. But this instinct has , seemingly, never been understood, thus never been implemented as a systemic formal cause.
Value ontology is the constitution of the philosophical state, the one Plato could only dream of.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-09-2013, 03:24 AM Unread post Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Theatre of Truth
philoctetes.free.fr/parmenidesunicode.htm
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Ah -
Well -
That could work as well. I would like to do both a film and a book. Fortunately that means that the film doesn’t have to be about RM. If indeed there is a term on which Pezer, Gobbo, Tom and I can work.
Just to consider… there’s two places to start - a character or an opening to explicating the theory.
A “girl opening a door to reveal a mirror” or a “the world is will to power”, an “action equals reaction”, “existence equals affectance”, an “being is self-valuing/valuing in terms of self”, or so forth.
A good philosophical book contains many explicit examples of the proposed theory. Nietzsche excelled in this, it is why he admired Dostoyevski. Psychology is often the creation of examples to suit the theory, but with real ethics, the theory pours out of the healing process. So there would have to be plot-lines alongside with ‘geometry’, all the forms of logical science. And characters, and dialogue.
Do you think the book should have dialogue?
Since we come from a forum environment, this may not be stupid at all.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 11:25 AM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 12:10 PM by JSS.) Post: #32
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Well, if it isn’t about RM, I don’t see how you would need me (other than maybe a critic and a psychological/social engineering adviser). Hollywood will not produce anything that doesn’t fit their psychological profile sufficiently. And they aren’t alone in that regard.
The book should begin with an architecture, not a dialog. A story line is typically made from a sketch, not a finished work.
Most of your time should be spent deciding on the fundamental architecture (always clear the path before you act). That means consider the options for basic scenario. What exactly do you want to convey, and realize that the first effort doesn’t have to say everything. One or two basic concepts is fine.
Once that is done, you start filling in the empty pages with characters, adventures, scenes, colors, and dialog.
Actually I thought of a good film for you to preview and rewrite into your own concerns… Wanted.
Quote:
Wanted is a 2008 German-American action film, very loosely based on the comic book miniseries of the same name by Mark Millar and J. G. Jones. The film is written by Chris Morgan, Michael Brandt, and Derek Haas, directed by Timur Bekmambetov, and stars James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Kretschmann, Common, Terence Stamp, and Konstantin Khabensky. The storyline follows Wesley Gibson (McAvoy), a frustrated Account Manager who discovers that he is the son of a professional assassin and decides to join The Fraternity, a secret guild in which his father worked.
Production began in April 2007, with filming in the Czech Republic later to superimpose the sets on images of Chicago. Wanted was released on June 25, 2008 in the United Kingdom and two days later in the United States, to both critical and commercial success. It was nominated for two Academy Awards: Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing.
What brought it to mind is the fact that the main character found himself as a worthless loser not knowing what his own value is, but then discovered that he could changed that. And he discovered it by a variety of changes in what really counts and what doesn’t in his life.
And that film scenario fits well into the VO or PHT concern.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 12:38 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #33
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
The only worth I have lost is time.
What matters in my personal life, livelihood, friendships, health, love life, and ethical ideals is filmmaking.
RM explored from a VO perspective is a subject for a book and documentary, an animation based film to enter the market of this sort of thing, which is highly influential among young people starved for any kind of knowledge they can value. You/we have to find a way to push Jack into heavier computing. I don’t know a lot of programmers and animators, Gobbo might.
The point would be to make people value RM as it is. To have them grow toward a rationalmetaphysical life-method - by evoking their highest self in the imagery representing RM.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 01:33 PM by JSS.) Post: #34
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Emmm… that cartoon film… No!.
The point that I was trying to make was far more live in action scenario where the characters were displaying the concepts due to their situation. And then in the Pulp Fiction type style, perhaps some intellectual speaking the concepts to himself as he scratched his head trying to figure it all out.
A cartoon character giving a lecture, seriously doesn’t cut it.
Watch Wanted (for value incentive) and Pulp Fiction (for style concerning multiple facets). Those two represent things that are probably significant to making a good film on these kinds of concepts.
Btw, this is the last remaining pic in the world of the guy you have been talking to (not counting CCTV and security camera footage).
[Image: James.jpg]
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 01:42 PM Post: #35
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Still you haven’t answered the question about time. Sometimes, you deflect questions. Lie with Jesus, recently… going in and out of the picture almost unnoticed.
VO explains Jesus’ sacrifice. He loved all the world in terms of himself, so if the world would go to shit and he’d live, he’d suffer into death. If he’d die so the world be loved would be saved by that (if only in his own mind, and the minds of his disciples (those who valued him in terms of themselves more than they valued their old lives) then he would suffer less loss of identity, self-valuing, will to power, “perceived hope”.
This gives me the answer to the question I asked. RM’s subject is not valuing his own momentum of self-harmony as much as he values the expectation he has of the world that he perceives, and values. The calculation is not with himself, but with his role in the world, his making-the-world-his-own, whether that be in thought, in emotions or in actual physical fact. In Jesus case, the emotions spawned the physical fact, and the thought has been wholly empathic. In the case of Buddha, the thought killed the emotional self-valuing and resulted in the physiological resolution of tension into realization of dissolution of one identity to relieve and feed a stronger one. Buddha would have been as happy with one plant following him as with the whole world of men, as his love was for the principle, the fact of peace. Dionysos is the eruption of value itself, and the realization that in fact valuing is ex-terminis, out-of-terms with the self, “hero torn to pieces” - by his maenadic values. The pure difference between the Gods self-valuing and the objects of his bestowing love - what a feast of excess! And as a God, the God is eternal so his suffering is endured and spills meaning as lifeblood to nature in all her forms.
I can explain all irrational human acts in the blink of an eye, without using words like ‘illusion’ or ‘error’ or ‘foolishness’ - my philosophy is rather Buddhist where yours is Jesuit - I love the principle, and every single thing that expresses it, you love the human, mental-grammatical-algebraic principle, and try to save it from itself by explaining it to itself.
Only the beauty of this spectacle compels me to unite with it, not the wish that humanity is saved in this way. I am willing to give you a chance to save the world, though I would always keep a certain distance to entertain the relation with the irrational, the world of ideas greater than man, divine self-valuing.
Not at the cost of death. No, that exact death landed on my lawn in the form of the most admired lyricist (value creator) and I have been set on the path of reason then. Martyrs die for the values that they require for their identity. Identity is entwined with experience like chicken and egg forming consistency, reality, actuality Dasein, building, cultivating, growing sowing reaping enjoying-being. The martyr reaches the end of the cycle by projecting a value he can not attain in the flesh, and sacrificing his life for the conviction of reaching this value. There is the whole of the third Abrahamic religion.
The major religions have been explained now except one. The Jews are explained in by far the most simple way: we matter to us. It is the most human religion left on the planet, as all others have resulted from the Jewish God becoming Universal, Jesus. (mans ‘chauvinist’ insistence on man-as-he-is as the ultimate value, forgiveness (for not being Jewish - haha! no, but… - red) as the ultimate and primary virtue). It is thus also the most simplistically egoistic religion. I’m saying give these sons of bitches their one fucking temple and this whole charade is over with, in the blink of an eye, or ten years maximum. As long as it takes for Jews to invest generously in Palestine to make them business partners in their own religion, which at that point will have been unwritten.
Now do you see, JSS, Q? Catch you my drift? Can you see why the Zionists can not be beaten except by their own, real, Messianic final resolution?
Only the Jews have a Salvation that does not involve the end of the world. Only they valued at least one type of man, themselves naturally, as worthy of existing in the flesh next to God. They made a small sacrifice - circumcision - to admit to ‘reason’, a principle of clarity over animal nature. Other than that, no hell that is not also on Earth (and they have known) and no heaven that is not also on Earth (as they have not known). I say give the bloody bastards their very reasonably priced heaven.
No Palestinian needs to die for this to happen. Naturally, the more Palestinians die, the less likely that temple is to come about. It needs to be an effort by progressive muslims and Jews. But an extremely progressive effort, as religion only works if it is extremely restrictive or progressive.
Progression collapses in new worse restriction immediately if purposeful reason is not involved in what sparked the progression. The explosion of progression collapses onto a skeleton of an ideal. The Obelisk, the Pyramid, the early forms on which a renewed politics of life was consolidated. Once the row of columns was placed, we were born. I mean this far advanced, very particular highly refined, almost irrationally lucky beast, which came to understand and create itself by realizing proportion as the ground to “good” - health and beauty, courage and results, pleasure and tragedy, pride and reverence, man and god.
Ma (Jack) can perhaps build the first steps of the universe from the ground up, but he can not build himself. Unless Jack is now full circle in its own recreation in metaspace, with you as its last agent, of course. Top down approach is required to approach the very beginnings of re-creation, to guide them to a purpose. This purpose can not be formulated in the terms it addresses. So it must be ‘irrational’ - or ‘pre-rational’ - archaic – exoterically (visibly), myth precedes logic, even though the logic was always meant to be inferred by the act of preceding it with an ideal.
In terms of “perception of hope and threat” the continuation of the world as he knows it after his death is what matters to man most. Depending on the type of man, he values more the world which he departs or his own imagined continuation (and reunion with lost ones) in a world he imagines, but values no less. Science can not convince him who believes that science proves it is the devil by working in the world of sin and flesh. But his sense of self-worth can convince him of everything.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 02:02 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 02:04 PM by JSS.) Post: #36
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
“Still you haven’t answered the question about time. Sometimes, you deflect questions. Lie with Jesus”
What in the Hell are you talking about???
You keep this up and I’m going to have to mark you down as Bipolar.
“Too much smoke, not enough mirror.”
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 08:14 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 08:16 PM by JSS.) Post: #37
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Another scenario thought to consider involves a magical prediction machine (Jack-son) that some geek has worked out such that he can personally use it concerning other people in his life and does so. The theory can be relayed merely as snippets between he and a friend helping him with it. The adventure would involve the fun but often dangerous antics he causes in other people’s lives. When you can predict people, you can cause them to believe almost anything and thus do almost anything you wish for them to do. But being a good god isn’t so easy. “From Geek to God”.
RM: Equation of Space
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 08:50 PM Post: #38
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
(03-12-2013 10:48 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
(03-12-2013 10:47 AM)JSS Wrote:
Appeal is the aim??
Sex, BoB, Feminism, Adventure, Conflict, Hero, Happy ending.