The Philosophers

Fixed Cross:

I want to think more about the daemonic and the heroic. For now I address those things which point directly to the possibility of creating new methods, whereby a fully active consciousness can be made to emerge.

If I understand correctly: The subconscious not as “nature” or simply the un-self-conscious, but as the battleground in which reason tries to kill “nature”. I interpret this is a reversal of the traditional approach, which has things emerge from the subconscious to be grasped by reason - here reason submerges itself, as a weapon, into the animal consciousness and ravages it, much like industrial man does to his surroundings.

Yes, an important point here (you have made many) - the human organism is organized by itself teleologically - its instincts are arranged to serve an abstract purpose. The nature of this purpose differs. Religions are invented to the end of setting a cultivating purpose, commerce works to arrange instincts in another way - no generalized goal/method so far, in our time, has proven to arrange the affects in a way that produces a truly happy creature. But man is capable, in some cases, to set for himself such a goal, to arrange his own affects, on an individual basis. These are “free men”, in command of themselves. Corresponding with what has been covered above such successful command is indirect. In this case it works by strategically projecting a goal, the attainment of which is not important. The goal serves to arrange the affects in a certain way.

Another practically useful definition. I have before attributed to the human the capacity to re-write memory. The “faculty” doing this is what you describe.

I suppose that this is true, yes. To a large extent, perhaps there are already some small exceptions. Perhaps in some humans, the new consciousness is able to produce, momentarily a kind of proto-affect. For the most part you are right, it seems - I notice in myself that the great passion of triumph that should come (that I would expect) from creating a new rational philosophy is entirely absent. It leaves me cool, calm, simply more conscious. We must perhaps actively create, forge such passions as what came before us has forged the instincts.

This appears as a very dangerous idea when put raw like this, to which defense I propose that it need not be antithetical to the old consciousness, and its ‘ingredients’. Rather, the new, active consciousness will have to make use in every possible way of what presents itself to it as the material of his former nature, the technical possibility of drives, conditions of organic life, chemistry. The only thing that is fundamentally changed is the order of determination - science has to do away with its false modesty, what may also be called its unjustified claim to objectivity. What “is” in man-as-animal is no longer ground, ‘canvas’, but rather ‘paint’, material. It need not be erased in order for its hegemony to be broken and its powers placed under the rulership of the new consciousness.

This is a crucial insight. From here on new methods can be devised, and the methods that work the best in what has been considered “treating the subconscious” (imaginative re-creation of the interior world) can be explained, and expanded.

::

In the terms we have, the significance of this is literally unspeakable.

" It is probable that the first man Adam did not comprehend things in name, but in song."

And this is how we should attempt to approach ourselves from here-on. Not as regressing back to Adam, but to approach meaning in a more direct way, no longer as that which is waiting for us to pick it up and use, but as that which needs us to exist, and between “us” and “it” this “musical” - which then must be closely related to the daemonic.

We are honored to have your writing published here. It is fortunate that our two logics are brought into contact. I can not oversee the potential, there is a dark green ocean in high turmoil between here and the horizon. The work of taming this nightly ocean will be done bit by bit, mile by mile. But the end is clear:

Outstanding. Yes, this garden. My obsessive thinking, from childhood on, has been aimed at making the world subject to the laws of my garden. In this I did not seek to lie to myself about what the world is. On the contrary, I sensed that it is always lying to itself, ‘it’ here being ‘the world at large’ - the statistical world, hell of hells. I held it as necessary that what has been called to be the ‘spirit of play’ and which now you have designated in terms of the daemonic, would be the law of the world, instead of confined between fences excluding the world of politics, common sense, business.

How can this spirit rule? In order to solve this question, value-ontology was formulated - I had to formulate why it must rule. The purity of self-valuing, the solid, philosophical establishment of its primacy, over all the terms now constituting ‘reality’. Of course, it does rule, where/whenever true rulership is exercised. The workings of all leadership can be understood by value ontology, and the consciousness of all true leaders or “master-signifiers” as the daemonic. It is the only type of spirit that may properly rule, actively direct, justify a priori its consequences.

::

Allow me some experimenting. I may be deviating from your definitions as I use your terms. Please step in when I make them unrecognizable.

A meaning of the ‘heroic’ is beginning to dawn on me, in the terms of leadership I just described. As leadership always requires sacrifice of the objective, an enforcing of the subject-as-art on its less than perfect canvas, there is always a certain danger involved, an ‘against the odds’, a going-down, the certainty of a compromise - not made my the subject but by fate, between the subjects inner ‘structuring’ as ‘daemon’ and the subjects outward ‘unraveling’ as ‘heros’ - the modus in which his value is perceived, spent.

There is always this dialectic, a frenzied activity indeed, between the hearts genius and all compromising means to “grasp” this, or “have it grasped” - see it confirmed. Such means can be refined, by the introduction of music, but in this first the essence of the loss becomes more apparent - the tragic. The effect that this tragic, the essence of lost self-valuing (a kind of value-sediment) revealed, has on the spectator is ultimately the value being transferred from the hearts genius of the falling hero to potential new self-valuing, in other subjects.

I have wondered how the mechanism of self-valuing might be spread - it now seems to me that here a reaching-out and risking is involved. But the heroic could not be effective to this purpose if the daemonic is not immediately re-attained. The dynamic between these two is the truly dizzying, the frenzy, the inspiring. By its negation, the ‘truth of the daemonic’ is exposed, after which it is drawn in again by its affirmation.

Parodites:

“If I understand correctly: The subconscious not as “nature” or simply the un-self-conscious, but as the battleground in which reason tries to kill “nature”. I interpret this is a reversal of the traditional approach, which has things emerge from the subconscious to be grasped by reason - here reason submerges itself, as a weapon, into the animal consciousness and ravages it, much like industrial man does to his surroundings.”

Yes, exactly. Our consciousness is essentially a metonymic structure… intended to grasp temporal and spatial relations through contiguous impressions. To do this there had to arise a primordial, pre-reflective affect in the conscious animal. This is “sensation.” The first sensation was the first moment of consciousness. In the terms I have been setting forth, they are describing one faculty, that faculty which organizes, reflexively, the affects into contiguous impressions. This reflexive organization is essentially the creation of an internal conception of the world by qualifying, endowing with qualia, this primal affect of sensation. Through the metonymic relations carved out by an animal’s personal experiences, it learns to associate the raw information of a sense like a peculiar smell- say a poisonous fruit it ate once, with the ill feelings imposed by its poisoned state. This “bad” character of the primal affect, the sense, then, is the qualia. Over time these reflexive organizations play off one another, generating a richer inner conception of the world, and more intense qualia- qualified affects that no longer need an external stimulus to be invoked, are created. These would be analogous to what humans call fears, but in any case as they grow more complex they become recognizable as “passions,” as the beginning of a psychology. Eventually this process produced the human consciousness, which is so refined in its inner conception of the world that it is capable of using words, and of reasoning, and has been endowed with the sense of self. In accordance with these things a shift in the structuring of the consciousness began. No longer are our affects being organized reflexively, but rather in accordance to reason, to our thoughts. This has introduced turmoil into our passions, which are no longer held together in the coordinated organizations nature produced, and their war with one another has been deceptively called our “unconscious.”

Thus:

“Reason, fundamentally, disqualifies the affects, it disrupts the structure of the affects which qualifies them as drives, as passions, which gives them quality, be this quality pleasant or unpleasant. Spinoza accomplished the most systematic disqualification, reducing the affects to one basic quality, passion, and emotional state, namely joy, and considering all the “bad passions” merely corrupted qualifications of joy. He is an example of what I called the active consciousness. An imperfect example, but an example. Not to disqualify the affects through the hypothesis of a fundamental quality, (for Spinoza, joy; for Nietzsche, power) but by their complete reduction to quantities of consciousness… (consciousness is only the metonymic structure which qualifies them, which endows them with quality by configuring them as single passions and drives, more consciousness equals more sharply defined affects.) Who has done that? I’ve elected it as one of my tasks. A truly active consciousness could arise only after this total reduction was accomplished.”

This is what I mean by the disintegration of the reflexive consciousness within us, the remnants that it has left behind and through which we feel. Our active consciousness, as Spinoza and Nietzsche’s case prove, has never been capable of producing its own passions, of qualifying the affects on its own. The most the former two were able to do is reduce all the affects to one fundamental quality, joy and power, respectively. To grasp all the affects, all the passions, as only quantities of consciousness, as only different degrees of reflexive organization, would allow the active consciousness to finally begin qualifying the primal affect of sensation on its own, producing its own qualities, qualifications of this affect- its own passions.

::

I would agree with these terms and your picture. The most painful depth of daemonic existence must immediately thrust one into the heaven of heroic philosophy, and vice versa. Modern man has been prevented from attaining that depth of daemonic existence though, as a consequence of the radical divide between the languages of the empirical and transcendental, of experience and philosophy. Hence my new morality, which would aim to reinstate the continuity between these two languages, between the empirical and transcendental aspects of the self, would have as its goal the production of a new heroic philosophy, and new heroic philosophers, a new “mens heroica,” to use Bruno’s own term, or “heroic mind.”

Fixed Cross:

The creation of new, realer passions then! This is necessary now as water is to fish, In terms of what I used to know as enthusiasm, I can hardly breathe in this new space, it is too heavily charged with real possibilities, possibilities for transformation of my environment. So the forging of an at least higher, deeper and wider passion seems to me indeed a necessity, even to express the fact that we have embarked on this journey to open up reality, open it up to its potential, directly, after all this preparation, from reflexive organic learning to the last poems of philosophical yearning for honesty.

What kind of passions may we imagine here? What is felt? Of course, the ‘it’ of feeling is a sediment of the passion itsefl - but the sediment is needed to begin to institutionalize such deliberate sensation into categories, which must take on a form of context in which the passions may emerge, not of description of what they are.

Pondering, again I come up with the idea that ‘our nature’ as we perceive it must still be used, though not as a hegemonic drive, but as a pool from which to delve useful elements to fit and sustain the architecture of our drives, the newly attaining form of passion we seek, whereby the world is transformed.

It is my strong believe that whereas the daemonic informs us about what it is that needs to be attained and what it is that is attained, the heroic does not inform us at all, but inspires us to inform ourselves. It draws us outward, it is the tragic fall fo self-valuing emitting the music that beckons others to value the tragic hero as themselves - i.e. value themselves in these heroic terms.

Parodites:

Yes, that’s why I titled my book which deals with these ideas, Hamartia. Aristotle’s term for the tragic element of the heroic figure.

Value ontology is a philosophy that reads between the lines.

Value ontology equals self-valuing logic; the logic of beings, rather than of Being. Beings are given, Being, in as far as it would be a unified state inclusive of all things, is a hypothesis.

‘A’><‘A’ ; within a logic of the ontos, difference is as fundamental to entity as it is to identity. Mathematical abstraction is a creative artform, not a faithful representation of reality.

New philosophical axiom:

Being is a word.

or

“Being” “is” “a” “word” (,:;?.!)

That is to say it might only be that. Unless we ‘mean it right’, ‘shoot straight’ - but for this our grammar is yet too crooked!

Grammar is under fire here. Grammar forms the lines between which philosophy must operate.

But this is not necessary. It is possible to approach language in the same way as one would approach physics; by first setting the terms, the calibrating operations to the reference frame. For this a term is required that refers to both physics and the human psyche. The terms “attraction” and “will to power” have been coined. These are both accurate, but not they do not produce a grammar around them. They do not explain themselves.

Philosophy crosses the long distance between word and reality. Or it has tried. By analogy, I would be claiming that value ontology is an arrow that hit the bulls eye. And this means there might be others that hit it - let’s say Nietzsche was the first to hit the board, to prove it exists. In that case, VO might be just one ring closer to the center. But this is only a metaphor. As is “everything”.

From hereon, we shall thus discuss “being” thinking of it as “the word “being”” . *

Into the words then. To value means to hold something distinct from another. “Being” = “Self-valuing” or extended “valuing registration (impacting physis) in terms of self” whereby “self” refers to the continuous (so as to be registered as existence, ‘affect’ if you will) form of the valuing, not to anything besides valuing, which if it is destined to be more than dissolution, entropy, amounts in self-valuing.

“self-valuing” is thus indirect, as is “being”.

What is ‘direct’ is action. It is involuntary but it produces our notion of will, this is enough for now to describe the power of its difference from being. Action is related to the term ‘event’ one action is never reducible to a single self-valuing. More on this, infinitely more, at a later stage.

All synthetic thoughts are actions; our nervous system pushes us to action, either inward or outward. Inward actions have formed the brain, through the organisms tendency to maximize its own self-awareness toward pleasure on a spectrum that all behavioral psychologists use.

Directness is what one might call a radical form of being, caused by a dense configuration of passive being that begins to be changed by the fact that its internal logics contradict the others, when they are in the same place at the same time. This is when the will to power arises; when self-valuing becomes active, an valuing becomes a matter of overcoming resistance and thereby inadvertently self-overcoming. Unless one is literally made out of gold, which can not be changed, and is thus perfectly self-valuing. Gold acts on its own terms; that is why the ancients called it a noble metal.

Some actions lead to death. An action also “self-values” but it has a very limited lifespan. An organic being is a collection of actions and results on the capacity to sustain similar actions.

Some beings develop a greater range of successful actions, others die and whither off because their range wasn’t sufficient to experiment. Experiment is the only way to acquire power. When one is given great influence but no experience, what some would call power quickly turns against and very likely annihilates its wielder.

Self-valuing logic is born out of endurance, out of rugged naked experience with the wild. It is both psychedelic an analytics. It is life, the circle, the imperfect always improving excellence of being that Homer sings about and that shall be exalted even above Homers imagination, to Olympian laughter among humans being as common as birds among a song.

Objects or characters or natures or individuals are no longer given. They are there only in as far as they ‘give themselves’ - self-value. Their nature is not different from their cause. Thus it includes many other natures by implication. But not, as ooSpinoza argues, all natures, for there is no whole; such a thing is not given, but again a hypothesis.

For instance: a tree still falls if there is no one around and it produces turbulence in the air and ground but it does not produce ‘sound’. That is a phenomenon that derives from our eardrums, i.e. the thing between the phenomenon and ‘that which gives’ - the ‘giver’ - and I mean of meaning, of character, objectivity, nature, individuation; being-as-such. ‘Sound as such’ namely does not exist; there must be ‘a sound’ or ‘several sounds’ for ‘sound’ to exist. That means that it must becomes something within something else; a human experience. Therein can it self-value; i.e. respond to its environment in such a way as to continue to exist. That might be as an idea written down in a book, or as some grooves in a vinyl disc, or the memory of it in a mind… it needs to be recalled, ordered to presence to be verified but if it can be verified in theory, it ‘exists’.

That is never to say ‘strictly to itself’; often the level of involvement with other being determines simply the level of our involvement in our own being. This is very slippery ice; one can, with some discernment, become deeper and richer and ‘happier’, but many lives, most civilized lives perhaps, are lived excessively by other self-valuing terms than the ‘spirit’ of that person, the entity that might emerge if the mind was dead-seat on the values its spirit, fire, will sets for it. Such an entity can not be pulled into a Frankensteinian quasi existence by unknown hyperbolic assumptions. Detach! But slowly we proceed, in degrees.

What we need is visceral pathos, passion of the heart to direct the brains great madness, the violent ventures of which a man is inadvertently capable and often inclined, which must ultimately result in mastery of the Earth; that is to say, to behave in such a way that makes it possible to ay that the Earth self-values. Right now, man is a contradiction to that. A great one, requiring a great solution. Man is not capable of this in general, he needs his excessive warriors or that. These have now taken up the sword. Sword? what a I saying – the pen. Far more dangerous.

  • The word refers to a complex arrangement of things, namely everything. It does not, thusly, appear to do its object of reference any justice. It does not even show how precisely it must, as a word, contain itself within the vast, or infinite expanse of its reference.

But there never was a way to particularize the term being so as to represent, rather than to refer. Or so it seemed: in this very yearning for such a way was the way itself. The thinking mind needed required a ‘self’ (this is what philosophy is, the search for the self of thought), but it was looking in all the wrong places. It was looking at everything besides the ends to its passion. It could not acknowledge that all is selective passion, valuing, because that seems not noble enough. And - it wasn’t. Man could not believe this, because he was not noble enough. He did not deserve to believe it.

[OP]

Value and Value-Judgments

Value is a word indicating a relationship.
The relationship is between an observer and the observed, therefore it only has meaning in relation to living organisms within world.
In it most basic form it is an organism evaluating an otherness in relation to its needs.

Humans, having the ability to go beyond the third level of cognition, can evaluate a behavior, a choice, in relation to a projected objective, an abstract ideal.
In other words he can extricate his own needs from the process and compare an action to an ideal.

This ability can produce the value represented by money, or the value of numerical measurements representing the phenomenon’s activity measure against an abstract, immutable standard.
This is how we can measure temperature, or speed.

Value only has meaning in relation to a motive, a goal, an objective.
Value is not an intrinsic part of a pattern.
A phenomenon lacks value, but only in relation to a motive, such as measuring its activity, its energy, relative to the observer, or some standardized abstraction.
A stone has no value. It is pattern, or a congruity of patterns that may be measured by an external consciousness that first differentiates it from the background, from its pile of stones it is among.
A stone is given value either in relationship to this standard, ideal, usually mathematical, or in relation to a goal, such as building a house.
Similarly, a stone has no name unless there’s a consciousness present to give it a standardized noetic model, such as language a symbol, a word associated with its pattern.
Stone, the term, is not a intrinsic aspect of its existence.
Similarly speed-of-light has a speed.
The value we give to this activity we call velocity, which is nothing more than its pattern, is based on human standards, which are, in turn, founded on human metabolic rates.
It can be 299792458 metres per second or it can be 186,282 mi/s.
The numbers are not an intrinsic part of light. The value they represent is a representation of its behavior, its pattern (inter)acting. In this case in a vacuum where interaction is minimal to the point of being inconsequential relative to human lifespans, and speeds of awareness.

The type of pattern determines its (inter)activity, therefore it determines how an organism such as man using light as a medium will perceive - interpret the phenomenon.
if the medium is not light, not visual, but acoustic then it is how atmosphere, the patterns we know as gases, (inter)act with a given phenomenon, and then the eardrum.
We give sound value according to this interpretation of (inter)activity, based on our organic limitations. We give it a tonal value, we interpret it as noise or as ordered noise we call melody, or music.
Sound is vibration which is another way of saying pattern.
Light is also vibration, energy - the fastest pattern man can process, making it a metaphor for human awareness, the extent of man’s perceptual-event-horizon.
Sound has no value in and of itself. It is given value, either as a way of categorizing it, or in relation to the organisms needs. A particular sound may mean dinner, or a coming threat.
Sound is simply patterns (inter)acting.
Man gives sound value in order to categorize it, to know it and then to understand it.
Sound resonates, in other words it (inter)acts via the medium of atmosphere with an organism.
It has a psychosomatic effect.

Value only has meaning in relation to a goal, an objective, or what is called an ideal.
The most abstract ideals being mathematical 1/0 binary.
The word has no meaning outside this relationship of actor, within world, using the objective as the standard.
Anyone using the word in any other way is attempting to hide nonsense, or plagiarism beneath verbal confusions, and then excuse it using mystical innuendos.
His motive - goal, objective - is something other than clarity.
The ideal, or objective or goal is not automatically equal to any other.
It is evaluated not only in relation to how realistic it is, or how close one can come to achieving it, but also by the consequences of striving towards it, by the kind of psychology it produces.
Consequences are what we call the cost/benefits produces by striving towards the objective, even if it is not attainable, and/or when it is attained, to whatever degree.
Consequences not intervened upon by some external force that would adjust the costs/benefits, making the actor believe that its judgment is no different than any other.
With no skyhooks, no human interventions, what is left is a mind measuring itself against world, in competition with others doing likewise.
There is no “I say so”, “He says so”, “God says so” or the democratic authoritarianism of the majority imposing itself on the individual of “We say so”.
There is only a mind, an actor, subjectively judging world, including all other actors participating within it, indifferent to its choices, facing the consequences of its judgment calls.
We call this natural selection.
To determine natural from artificial environments, one must eliminate ALL human interventions, including technologies.
There’s a reason why females have the form and the psychology they do. In nature their reproductive role burdens them on the back-end cost, whereas for the male the costs were front-loaded and had no, or minimal, back-end costs.
This is not Paternalism.
This is why human morals began by shifting from a purely bonding mechanism to one intervening upon human choices and behaviors. But they were not very effective being that they were human contrivances, using a natural behavioral mechanism for human social engineering.
This is why morality, imposed by Abrahamic religions with a carrot-stick approach, had to also include the penalty of law.
The objective, the ideal, the goal, here was to intervene upon naturally evolved human behaviors to achieve social harmony, or artificial tolerance.
Monogamy and the institution of marriage were additional human contrivances aiming for the same goal, the same ideal.
Yet, despite all those human inventions and interventions human still manage to revert to their evolved behaviors, particularly when stress decreases the frontal cortex’s dominance over the reptilian brain.
Take adultery as another example.
No matter how many rules, regulations, peer pressured and enforced norms, how many moral laws, or human laws are in place, even under the penalty of death, humans will still cheat on their mates, particularly the more base animalistic types. The less evolved ones.
Behavior evolved before and outside human societies still overwhelms human judgments, and “I say so” rules. Because the authority is inside each and every individual…and it is called genetics.
The meme is like a cover evolving out of, or contrary to this genetic past/nature.
Nihilism produces the most past/nature annulling memes…which would include morals, ideals, and socioeconomic ambitions.

What a fitting name, Crow.

The only way I can value this so-called “Satyr” is by imagining him as weaving his old crow’s nest of a persona out of overfulness, in order to be a rod, an absolute negative scaring others into relative positivity, colour, beauty.

It’s as a means to this, then, that he denies all life, all valuing, in the inorganic–and even to a great extent in most of the organic, even most animals, even most people. I wonder if he has thought the experiment of the Weltbild.

In any case, if my most generous suspicion, my most beneficial doubt is correct, he will understand that goals, objectives, or ideals are themselves values: not in the sense that they necessarily have intrinsic value, but in the sense that they are necessarily valued by those pursuing them.

Likewise, that the carriers and manifestations of genetic blueprints are but the environment of these τέλοι, these Ideas,–these qualia.

Good Disciple, and forever loyal follower of the cock’s crow, and the pussy’s bark, I salute your tireless commitments as wife-maiden and poet, designate, of the royal court.
With so much supplicant back-slapping you will certainly find a place on the master’s table, and will be forever canonized, as one of the original founders, and knowers of the true heir.

When Christianity 2.0 finds its way into the catacombs where freaks, and geeks still hide, unaware that the second coming has come, and new and improved Messiah walks upon the earth, they will storm out into the streets to bring about a revolting revolutions, of revolving Revelations.
The substitution of ‘love’ with 'value, so as to usher in, through the Pagan’s “back door” Nietzsche, the big cock himself, was brilliant.
Finally Judaism and Hellenism will synthesize in a successful and glorious monstrosity, saving all from this cruel, and unjust cosmos.
All will love themselves and god, no…sorry, value themselves and life.
And though we can find self-loving and sell-valuing, in the self-preservation department, we shall not buy such simple products but choose to challenge our witless-wits and mystify it, color the box with mysterious icons, runes, magical incantations offering immediate physical rewards, not to be confused for Placebo effects and psychosomatic influence, as the faith healers performed on the Christian flocks.

And all with a simple and shameless change of words, and then its validation no less complex and “philosophical”, to impress the potential buyer, like Sauwelios, the head of the marketing department.
Why use proper terminology when inappropriate words, like ‘value’, as the Christian used ‘love’ to describe their Nihilistic miasma, can produce the right amount of confusion, and perplexity, permitting plausible deniability to forever claim to be misunderstood by the nay-sayers, and only felt as true by the faith-believers.

How ironic that the old half-breed, used to bridge Hebrew and Hellene, has been replaced by a new, cRapping one…born among the lowly and impoverished, no doubt, and not among the spoiled and pampered.
How ironic that Nietzsche is now the icon, as Jesus was, that will head the church of the new-Christian era.

Do not Christians accuse skeptics of negativity, of hating and fearing their God, of not understanding Scripture sufficiently?
Straight out of the degenerate manual you come, Sauwelios.
You are the old, recycled, turned to mulch and then sold to the hungering masses as nectar.

From a chaos is born a dancing star, is that not what your idol said?
For he can speak and do no wrong. He the alpha and the omega, in the church of VO, for little boys and girls, in this Modern era.

As such…from the ‘negative’ the ‘positive’ emerges, you faith-believer and forever follower of the impressively, plumed self-handicapping pea-cock.

For when a man creates a meaning, he must draw it from nature’s order, and when he constructs a meme, it must be in harmony with nature’s genes.
Ideal and Real must be as close to harmony as possible, for a beautiful melody to echo.
Declaring yourself master exposes a miserly spirit, hoarding accolades, desperately seeking approval.

Ideal must align with past/nature, with the individual the conduit, the willing chain in the link, proud to pass on what has come before, and not seek to stand out, like an artist desperate to become Tupac, or Madonna creating pop music for fame and fortune.
A true artist, like a true philosopher, does it for the pleasure of the work, because he must, as it is in his nature, and fame and fortune may come or may not, but this does not motivate him, and so it does not dissuade him either.

Speaking lies, after you’ve convinces yourself of their validity, and covering up your motives with excuses, is vile.
The ideal that perfectly reflects the rel, the natural, needs not speak of its nature. It excused it in simple things.
A strong man does not need to call himself powerful, or have others acknowledge him as such…he is it. He cannot stop being it.

The crow scares away the feeble, the cowardly, the sickly, the desperate for easy solutions, and self-flattering lies.
The crow exposes plagiarizing hypocrites and degenerate liars.

Crow says:
Life is beautiful as it is.

Crow fails to understand even among the most basic points of VO, which is that a “sensation” or “observing” are things that all entities do, even non-living ones. When a force impacts a rock this force transfers into and passes through the rock, disturbing the molecular structures of the rock; if the force is strong enough it will break molecular bonds and the rock will crack or shatter. The only difference between that and a living organism here is that when a force passes into a living organism the force is divided into various channels of effects, namely the organism is far more responsive to the original force than is a rock, but they both respond to it.

Consciousness is about responsiveness. Someone infinitely more intelligent that Crow once said that if nature can be said to have any goal at all it would be the goal of producing the maximum response from the minimum stimulus; what we call “sentience” or “subjective awareness” is just a very very complex and derivative kind of responsiveness, fundamentally no different than the much more basic and linear responsiveness of a rock to whatever is able to cause an effect upon it. The only difference is that a living thing can respond to a much wider range of stimuli and that a living thing has many more kinds of responses available to it. A cow has more access to ontic nature and truth than does an apple, an apple has more access to ontic nature and truth than does a rock, and a human has more access to ontic nature and truth than any of these, yet all do have some access to it. There is no fundamental difference in this regard, even differences of quality appear because of differences in quantity.

“In future discussions of self-preservation Spinoza can be found attaching the qualifying phrase ‘insofar as it is able’ [quantum in se est] to his own characterisation of bodies’ natural tendencies. Its inclusion is primarily intended to demonstrate that such strivings exist as a function of an object’s individual bodily powers, or in the case of more complex bodies, their mental powers. This emphasis on potency - i.e. that some bodies are naturally better suited to defend and preserve their existence than others - further lends itself to the establishment of a natural hierarchy for addressing the various types of bodies that exist throughout nature. In this non-exclusive structure it becomes possible to accommodate the fact that more complex bodies are able to rely on both mental and bodily powers to aid in their preservation while less complex bodies such as plants and rocks remain dependent only on their comparatively weaker bodily powers.” [Justin Jacobs, Self-preservation in Hobbes and Spinoza]

VO rearranges words, applies them wrongly, to create the illusion that it is unique, that it is presenting something extraordinary, something new, when it is channeling the same Hebrew spirit, attempting to reinvent Christianity in a post-Nieatzsche era.

For shame!!

There is no need for the terms “value” and “self” in relation to how elements in stones remain in congruence.
The choice of ‘self’ in particular smells of a motive other than clarity.
It’s a shameless attempt to sample, as cRappers do, from past popular melodies to recreate a recycled new song.

No SELF in any congruity but what we call life.
No need for such anthropomorphic allusions, when interacting patterns attracting and repelling suffices.
The stone has no motive, no memory, no desire.
The elements that participate in its congruity are patterns interacting as only they can with other patters.

Pattern = repeating, oscillating, vibrating, consistently, predictably = order.
Attraction/Repulsion are terms expressing how the different pattern harmonize.
No ‘self’ no ‘value’.

When a cult is uncovered they run for the corners, like cockroaches…claiming that nobody saw them, and what they saw they’ve misunderstood.
They just do not get it…is this not what Christians say about non-believers?
Then they go into a ritualized word juggling performance they were taught in their Church seminars on “How to deal with sinners and infidels”

Listen…you want to believe your Messiah is the next ‘big thing’; be my guest…but don’t expect me to stop laughing about it.
like I said…be good promoters and followers…it’s in your natures…and I will be awaiting his cRAP album to hit the charts.
Did he not also discover Pezer as a talent in word-associating rhymes?

Don’t mind me…carry on plagiarizing, repackaging, declaring, accusing others of misunderstanding the profound complexities of your revolutionary “philosophy”.
Even that’s not new

.

Self-preservation is only a side effect. The more significant and fundamental aspect is that such “powers” are quite literally pushing further into the ontos. More truth happens to allow better survivalism, all other things being equal, that is all.

I realized you were representative of the overall intellectual quality of the van-clan, when you offered us your positions on race and why people are racists.
I cannot take anything you post seriously, from then on.

Yes, your master, the wannabe Jesus for the post-Christian era, has repackaged self-preservation, inspired by how Saul repackaged self-love, and is selling it as a magical concept, nobody truly understanding if they do not first accept it into their hearts.

God, the Abrahamic ONE didn’t die…he was renamed.
Self-preservation at all costs.
Bacteria will survive mankind, ergo, bacteria are superior to man.

Complexity is not automatically strength.

If you acknowledge that complexity equals strength, then you denying that Europeans, Caucasians, Indo-Europeans are superior to Negroes, is you being a damn hypocrite and a sickly liar.
Which makes you a perfect fit for the van-clan.

A bitch is attracted to the biggest male dog, or the one with a loud bark…as she perceives size and strength = hedonism.

Truth is what survives, and what survives is truth.
The circular reasoning of the degenerate.
Can you think of no other reason for something to survive?

If cockroaches survive a nuclear holocaust will they have proven to be superior to them organism that produced the holocaust?
Why yes…because Negroes simply by surviving, enduring, have proven to be the equals to those that enslaved them.
Let us emulate their survival tenacity, and adopt their fabulous art: cRAP music, bling-bling, in our crib, in da hood, with hoodies on, bouncing vans, and a posse, our peeps, our crew…entourage.

Da biatches will luv us.

You still think this is about self-preservation and self-love. You have no idea what we are talking about. At this point the fault clearly lies with you.

As for truth, it is not something that “survives or perishes”. Truth is that by which beings survive or perish. You seem to not only be conceptually insane but also have a weird fetish with “survival”, not to mention an obsession with Fixed. Your groupie antics are those of a whore spreading its legs for attention, but at lest you serve to attract some attention to this place, which again is a nicely whorish function.

As for your fetish with “preservation” and “survival”, that is some transhumanism nonsense. I won’t expect you to make even a single effort to rise above the filth that you call a mind.

“…and now the gnaw where they defacate”, as Nietzsche said. A sad omen for your life, it would seem. I would say it’s a pity, but it really isn’t. Value Ontology describes quite well what has happened to you and why you have broken your mind. You gain some value from doing so, although such a small amount it is indeed laughable. The same reason why no one takes you seriously, and why you like it that way.

Red what I actually said, disciple of the one true Messiah, and heir of Nietzsche.

Just as the Christians tore the word ‘love’ form its natural roots, and turned into into a meaningless mystical concept all deserved, so do you new crypt-Christians, take another word ‘value’ and mystify it by tearing ti away form its wordy application sand controverting it to a mystical device to mesmerize the needy and feeble-minded.
You reduce the value of value.

I have a fetish for hypocrites, liars, and degenerates…so yes Fixed is one of my favorites.
Particularly those who declare themselves grandiose icons.
The arrogance of feebleness irks me, it is true.

As for my life, disciple of neo-Abrahamism…it is just fine.
I have everything that I need, and more.

Sorry…if you come to a public space, spewing nonsense, plagiarizing, repackaging, pretending to be inventing something new when you are sampling and recycling the same feces you should, at the very least, show the quality of mind to be able to defend your positions with more than just “you don’t understand”…and exposing it in your anti-racist mediocrities, echoing the same crap I watched on Oprah Winfrey.

You, whether you know it or not, have changed the concept of self-preservation into self-valuing, and then you ascribe it to non-living patterns, which you conclude are unities because it is you, and only you, who differentiates a stone from a pile of stones, or a single cloud from a storm.
I don’t even feel sorry for you…because you defense to be exactly what you are.

No, bacteria is not superior to humans, well not most anyway…just because they survived.
No the word ‘self’ is meaningless when applied to non-living unities.
no, the word ‘value’ is devalued when applied to non-consciousness…like love was applied by your failed predecessors.

Again…that your Messiah chose those words, and then pretended that they implied more, only exposes his motives, just as they are exposed by his artistic endeavors…and you, his van-clan, are the desperately duped - victims of your own feebleness.
That he claimed a rune has physical effects, exposes the quality of mind at work here.

It’s but another symptom of nihilistic psychosis.
ILP is perfect for you.
Here, your kind of crazy, is one among many.
I knew what you are after reading a few of your posts here.
Classic follower psychology - a true Modern.
Anything that feels good, is true.
Anything that makes you afraid is afraid of you.
How does your kind explain honest comments about homosexuality and race?
Yes…homophobia, haters, they fear.

“The Philosophers”
#-o
Sheesh…
More like a wannabe cult, dreaming of becoming a world-wide religion.

Emoters, feelers…“The Hypocrites”, is more apt.

Value Ontology…gawd!!!
Ha!!
I almost choked when I first read it.

Value only acquires meaning in relation to living organisms.
Self only has meaning in relation to an organism with memories, DNA included.

Combining the two and then claiming some mystical synthesis, scrambling to justify why you chose those words and not far more appropriate and clarifying terms, is what snake-oil salesmen do.
You’ve bee duped.
Your emotional needs exploited and manipulated.
Your not the first, nor the last.

Philosophy is about clarifying, not obfuscating.
Charlatans cultivate complexity to mask their lack of talent.
Have you seen Pollock’s “art”, or Warhol’s fART?
Duping needy, insecure desperate to belong, minds.

I approach it from the opposite direction. I don’t think differences in quality can be reduced to differences in quantity. Thus I’ve coined the term “Quale Organics”–though in my last post I suggested that even inorganic existence is alive, yet we could equally well say that even “non-living” entities are organistic.

I agree though that this is what Crow seems not to understand. Force [understood from the inside] is will to power, and the “love under will” of the will to power is self-valuing. Crowley, who coined the phrase “love under will”, makes clear that this is not the Christian love (agapê) Crow confounds it with:

“There is then little indeed in common between Love and such tepid passions as regard, affection, or kindliness; it is the uninitiate, who, to his damnation in a hell of cabbage soup and soap-suds, confuses them.
Love may best be defined as the passion of Hatred inflamed to the point of madness, when it takes refuge in Self-destruction.
Love is clear-sighted with the lust of deadly rage, anatomizing its victim with keen energy, seeking where best to strike home mortally to the heart; it becomes blind only when its fury has completely overpowered it, and thrust it into the red maw of the furnace of self-immolation.” (Crowley, Little Essays toward Truth, “Love”.)

Compare Nietzsche’s definition, in Ecce Homo, of heterosexual love as “in its means, war, and at bottom, the deadly hatred of the sexes”; and:

“Other forms of love, such as agape, the universal, spiritual love praised in the Gospel of John, may certainly play an important role within specific cultural settings, but they cannot serve to found or constitute culture. The founding of culture requires as its catalyst nothing less than erôs, the most powerful, discriminating, egoistic and dangerous form of love known to humankind”. (Daniel Conway, “Love’s labor’s lost”. Cf. Conway, Nietzsche and the political, “The philosopher’s Versucherkunst”.)

If this is an instance of exoteric writing, what masterful use of that secret art! Immediately after saying “pattern = repeating”, the Crow repeats almost verbatim what he said in his previous post (not counting the Justin Jacobs quote):

But what does this mean if it’s not an instance of exoteric writing? Then according to his own logic it follows that he’s the human equivalent of a stone…

“Self” is the basic unit of being. That doesn’t mean beings are singular, it means beings are multiple but that this multitude is always somehow unified with-in-as itself.

Self means that of a multitude or plurality of different things it can also be said of them, “these are one thing”. The “one” doesn’t come at the expense of or opposition to the “many”, rather one and many are both the case and at the same time. And yes even rocks have this logical structure.

The fact that such structures act to persist as what they are, that their structure as “simultaneously one and many” is such that it moderates and modifies and selects interactions with what is not-itself in order to attempt to cause itself to endure rather than cease to exist, is what it means to say that “a rock self-values”.

What we call the self-valuing of living things, or conscious things, such as ourselves, is basically an extension of that same self-valuing that things like rocks also have. We are a more derivative, complex and dependent iteration and expansion of the same underlying logically principle and mechanism as much simpler and “non-living” things as rocks.

I think self is what we wanna be.
Maybe ego is the difference between that and reality.

In reality we dont exist, we just remember some events and then some new events happen. The impression it gives on us is worthy nothing only what we do with it, like it doesnt matter how hard the wind blows only how fast you can still walk.

Some people think the wind matters and they drift backwards.
That my philosophy anyway.

Well I have to say this is a pretty good explanation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG73rDXVEQ0[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gadqrpmmePg[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WqLgG1ypec[/youtube]

I’m going to be back here for a selective presencing, one might say in seance, to discuss great matters with the Ouroboros.

In the dirt of the dog-gone past we trace the future with the plow, oxen.
Now that the auroch is extinct it is up to men to carry the yoke of the wild.

I once took a stroll along Diana’s forbidden pond, and was told a story meant to inspire fear of water -
what it did was inspire a fear of the mind of the person that told it to me.

The name of the snake is Sun.