Ive kept myself from writing as I am deeply angry about almost all views and have no expectation of change until I make it. This is how I understand my philosophership.
In 2011, before we set out making this forum, I set out a timeline that has been remarkably accurate so far. What I can tell you is that the coming presidential term is not going to provide the opening yet, but the one after that is likely to begin showing true cracks; that is to say, invitations (for new law, for the lawgiver to step in).
Now here are my unfiltered sentiments on the subject of Globalism.
::
We are destroying the Earth. Whatever is growing on the surface is dying under our touch.
Our touch is globalist.
Globalism equals Earth-rape.
The only reason there is globalism is remorseless profiteering. The only reason to deny that humans have their own local natures, values, joys, character’s narratives, lives, souls and beings, or to want to replace them with something ‘better’ in the sense of an invisible horrormachine that steals or turns to shit everything nature had them born into and that they loved, to replace it with plastic morals and plastic food to serve all the so-deprived and depraved equally with the purest synthetic nothingness, is to steal the values on which these values rely. That is globalism; rape-robbery made into a Universal Imperative.
Value Ontology has entities as local, ontically grounded in 2 things; principle of necessity (self-valuing) and its deep derivative, the environment (causation, values)
Self-valuing dies immediately under globalist purview. Only a discrete entity, a soul, who financially owns the Earth could possibly value this in organic terms at this point; and only in the sense that he’d be able to pay for its restoration across some thousands of years. The way in which the Earth is held now by disparate and competing interests none of which is grounded in any sort of reality principle, nor has any incentive to get grounded, is the antithesis of self-valuing; to uphold a collection of disparate tastes and standards as one entity in order to enforce the individuals affirmation of it, is to undo all these individuals.
Globalism is ontically only possible when I or we, that is to say, when Philosophy, firmly rules, and has for a while firmly ruled, the reasons for it. And that means primarily that value has to be understood as a derivative of self-valuing; all else follows from that; and nothing relevant follows from anything else.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:09 pm
I am in agreement except for a slight point of difference; I see the cause of the earth-rape as not globalism or globalization but simply the tragedy of the commons on a massive scale: this has happened before, check out the history of Easter Island, it’s pretty interesting. They completely wiped out their vegetative environment in order to build those massive statues, in some kind of obsession and ended up collapsing into starvation due to environmental ruin. It’s essentially the fact that in a society or situation/world of many different, individual self-valuings there is an inherent lack of values-overlap when it comes to the most abstractly shared, given spaces. Classic example is public grazing land, each farmer values not over-grazing the land for his own cattle due to wanting to preserve the space, but he knows the other farmers feel the same way, therefore he can squeeze out marginal extra value foe himself by secretly over-grazing or only slightly over-grazing; of course every other farmer thinks and does the very same thing, and the plot of land is consumed.
I don’t see how self-valuing alone can address this problem. In this sense we must understand a self-valuing as a reflection of its society/history/culture/family. The ‘self’ of a self-valuing is not irreducibly complex nor is it given, nor is it immutable, nor is it a-historical. I absolutely do not want to undermine the notion of self-valuing but I do want to condition it to the actual, real causes that bring it into being, namely the language, ideas, experiences it is exposed to upon being born and growing into itself. And this gets to my positive vision of a possible globalism that is by, of and for individual human self-valuing while also providing the highest possible social construct at the planetary level capable of preventing tragedy of the commons type problems.
Right now absolutely nothing can prevent tragedy of the commons problems. Current globalism has little to no interest in it, and absent a global capacity to act in concert self-valuings alone are incapable of preventing it either; it is in the nature of a self-valuing to try to squeeze out more marginal value where logically possible, this impulse must be rationally, moderately tempered by what we call society, “global” constructs and systems. To me it’s always about a balance between these, balance between individual and social and that balance always striving to become more accurate and ideal over time.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:38 pm
Capable wrote:
I am in agreement except for a slight point of difference; I see the cause of the earth-rape as not globalism or globalization but simply the tragedy of the commons on a massive scale: this has happened before, check out the history of Easter Island, it’s pretty interesting. They completely wiped out their vegetative environment in order to build those massive statues, in some kind of obsession and ended up collapsing into starvation due to environmental ruin. It’s essentially the fact that in a society or situation/world of many different, individual self-valuings there is an inherent lack of values-overlap when it comes to the most abstractly shared, given spaces. Classic example is public grazing land, each farmer values not over-grazing the land for his own cattle due to wanting to preserve the space, but he knows the other farmers feel the same way, therefore he can squeeze out marginal extra value foe himself by secretly over-grazing or only slightly over-grazing; of course every other farmer thinks and does the very same thing, and the plot of land is consumed.
The reason I attribute earthrape to globalism is that globalism is driven by un-earthy motivations; it being beyond nationalism, which is fundamentally a love of the soil and physical values and qualities, of locality, which is the locus of self-valuing as a principle, it isnt able top be contained by earthly, earthy values. It simply has no impetus to stop destroying the world; it was never founded on, never made contact with earth. It is purely theoretical wealth, money-derivatives, coercion schemes, that drive globalism and anchor it in reality.
This is why I say it must be almost entirely reversed before it can be sanely implemented.
Quote :
I don’t see how self-valuing alone can address this problem. In this sense we must understand a self-valuing as a reflection of its society/history/culture/family. The ‘self’ of a self-valuing is not irreducibly complex nor is it given, nor is it immutable, nor is it a-historical.
I’d note that the principle itself is almost a-historical, that is to say a property of pure synthetic logic (where synthetic logic is still a historicity); but that indeed no manifestation of the principle is separate of its environment; of the substance that it assimilated into its ‘self’ (a term I dont take too heavily).
The principle helps in as far that no logical approach is possible without it. That it does not by itself unfold as an approach, that is what Ive been discovering the past years; what VO requires is that one becomes radically, ‘objectively’ subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it.
The perspective of power is the final objectivity. The whole of the world is shape-shifting every electronic instance and in different ways as seen from any perspective, more so as the perspective is more substantial.
Quote :
I absolutely do not want to undermine the notion of self-valuing but I do want to condition it to the actual, real causes that bring it into being, namely the language, ideas, experiences it is exposed to upon being born and growing into itself. And this gets to my positive vision of a possible globalism that is by, of and for individual human self-valuing while also providing the highest possible social construct at the planetary level capable of preventing tragedy of the commons type problems.
This conditioning to the actual is the aim. Has been the aim. As I said above, I have discovered, not without frustration, that the actual can only be conditioned (with philosophical consistency and ‘lastability’) by example.
We’ll actually have to demonstrate that our philosophy is superior. This is the only way to get it implemented into actuality. And that is what Ive been trying to sniff out the past years; the path to take.
After close to a year of conclave with Pezer I am quite close to having discerned where that path starts.
Quote :
Right now absolutely nothing can prevent tragedy of the commons problems. Current globalism has little to no interest in it, and absent a global capacity to act in concert self-valuings alone are incapable of preventing it either; it is in the nature of a self-valuing to try to squeeze out more marginal value where logically possible, this impulse must be rationally, moderately tempered by what we call society, “global” constructs and systems. To me it’s always about a balance between these, balance between individual and social and that balance always striving to become more accurate and ideal over time.
I disagree. I think it must be kept in check locally only. For several reasons; one of which is the important factor that at no point in history has globalism leaned to being successful in reducing misery. The main reason though is pure self-valuing logic; I would never take orders from a global state, Id much rather die. That is the glory of humanity; we arent tied to our survival to uphold our values. The idea of fighting to the death against the globalist machine is pure joy. It is fighting for everything I love in a very direct way; I love animals, I love plants, I love molecules, I love humans. All of which grow, orient, live, love and die locally.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:47 pm
I see globalization as akin to an impulse to have every organ and body part fulfill the exact same function.
That function could never be a function of the body; globalisms function is never of humans; only of an alien logic come about by flattening thought processes and abusing leverage that seeks to harvest the organs to burn them for some momentary heat.
Humanity’s beauty is fully due to its diversity. That is what keeps it vital, what keeps it interacting with itself, what keeps it growing and appreciating.
Our modern cities are dead because they are homogenized in terms of the values they extract, offer and project; they are organized under the presumption that all humans hold similar values, tastes, priorities. This is why people like Sauwelios and Parodites dont leave their houses for years on end; the homogenized world is simply only fit for another, a far less alive species.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:04 pm
The bottom line could be approached as follows;
True wholeness, the type that is actually whole-some, existent, requires the highest standards being alive and attainable for all the parts; therefore, it can only be established by the most comprehensive and highest parts; i.e. by the Philosopher, in a specific sense - by the man who leads purely by example, and who is able to lead all aspects of humanity by example. Man, or more likely group of men. - I don’t think women can really lead militarily except as pure scourges, which must preclude US presidency - but this is not an analytic judgment - certainly Im prepared to debate it… I cant see a woman leading men by example, and it is men who need to be led.
I am convinced we will have to step up, right up to the government, much as philosophers have defined their philosophership in the past; by carrying the actual responsibility overtly. That is my intention and has been my intention since VO came about. Given the clarifying and sanitizing power of merely acknowledging the principle, it would be a crime of negligence not to approach politics with the pure intention of dominating it entirely.
And to this end, it is an invaluable possession, this highly significant difference between our positions.
I know I am eternally and infinitely right about the principles working, and I know that gives me nothing directly about how to proceed, how to act; rather, the understanding of the principle has made the problem infinitely deeper; or it has revealed to me the true depth of the problem of philosophy with respect to humanity.
It is not to be disregarded, the fact that philosophers have occupied humble positions until now. That must and will end. There is no sensible way in which one can expect to be able to do actual honest commanding if it is not openly acknowledged that ones impulses are sublime and superior. No more power behind the throne. The world is our throne. Anything less, we’re better off selling groceries.
Our violent temperaments and unbreakable pride are absolutely instrumental to real-world purpose. The bottom line: only the highest valuing can establish a fitting “universal” working-value standard. Anything less is rape.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:15 pm
How do you conceive of the ontological difference between local government (including I suppose all the way up to the nation-state) and global government? I feel like I could find may examples where global institutions have done good in the world. I agree that practically speaking much that is deplorable and harmful comes out of global government, but one could say that of any government; in contrast I can’t see a necessary “evil” in the notion of government at the planetary level more so than at the continental or regional levels.
In fact I’m tempted to change the terms in the discussion and start referring to the distinction between planetary government and continental or regional government. The US is a continental government; Italy is a regional government; a theoretical global government (something like the UN but with actual legal and enforcement power) would be a planetary government.
You mentioned how globalism is an alien logic trying to make everything so the same, I agree. To me this is what globalism as global capital machine is all about, a pure ‘analytic’ monstrosity. Wealth as blood, and not the vitalized kind of blood but just the kind that drains our and represents a loss. Blood without a body-- that is modern global capitalism. But again; two points, 1) I could, I feel quite confident, come up with examples where ostensibly global institutions have done good (yes I will actually find evidence backing this up), and 2) my aim is to advocate a form of planetary government that is made by, for and of human self-valuing at both individual and social levels. To be totally honest, I see absolutely nothing NECESSARILY about global/planetary-wide government that prevents it from potentially being rational, sane, emancipatory, dignified. Remember that I parse “government” as an entity into two categories: the people who work in government, and the institutional incentives and norms (along with strict legalities). A government with the right people working within it can do tremendous good, and a government with the right institutional incentives and norms will attract and reward a certain kind of good, dedicated employee. I see government as just a system for organizing people and ideas, including up to the legal use of force which is absolutely a required construct for a civilization of free self-valuing beings (the paradox is, on the surface, that free beings would require legal structures prohibiting and allowing various things, when in fact this isn’t paradoxical at all because without such legal structures we have nothing but anarchy and rule of animal might makes right, mafia rule essentially, in which higher values get buried within lower ones-- think about trolling online; without structures preventing trolling, truly free and valuable conversation can’t even get off the ground (e.g. ILP)).
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:49 pm
Quote :
How do you conceive of the ontological difference between local government (including I suppose all the way up to the nation-state) and global government? I feel like I could find may examples where global institutions have done good in the world. I agree that practically speaking much that is deplorable and harmful comes out of global government, but one could say that of any government; in contrast I can’t see a necessary “evil” in the notion of government at the planetary level more so than at the continental or regional levels.
To start with, language. That is perhaps the basic ethical framework the human is provided with. One can not govern people properly if one isn’t subtly versed in the best their language has had to offer since its beginnings.
In general, the less local a government is, the less of an idea it could possibly have of what it is supposed to do to benefit its people. The EU has shown that a central government spanning many language groups powerfully and relentlessly acts to eradicate value, integrity. It has been able to reduce 2000 year of culture to nothing in a few decades. It has become a huge haunted house.
Quote :
In fact I’m tempted to change the terms in the discussion and start referring to the distinction between planetary government and continental or regional government. The US is a continental government; Italy is a regional government; a theoretical global government (something like the UN but with actual legal and enforcement power) would be a planetary government.
Clearer terms; still, I don’t see a planetary government happening without eradicating most of humanity. Not within 500 years.
The mass pathologies ruling most of mankind are organisms, festering flora, that will have to outlive their time. Until they have withered away, a planetary government would have to pay lipservice to horrific stupidities. So before all of it has left the planet, all organized monotheism, there will only be religional governments that have some real support of the people.
Quote :
You mentioned how globalism is an alien logic trying to make everything so the same, I agree. To me this is what globalism as global capital machine is all about, a pure ‘analytic’ monstrosity. Wealth as blood, and not the vitalized kind of blood but just the kind that drains our and represents a loss. Blood without a body-- that is modern global capitalism. But again; two points, 1) I could, I feel quite confident, come up with examples where ostensibly global institutions have done good (yes I will actually find evidence backing this up),
It would be good to categorize that, have a list of merits.
I do believe that they can be found.
I think that the determines vastly outweigh them, but that only makes mentioning tem relevant.
Quote :
and 2) my aim is to advocate a form of planetary government that is made by, for and of human self-valuing at both individual and social levels. To be totally honest, I see absolutely nothing NECESSARILY about global/planetary-wide government that prevents it from potentially being rational, sane, emancipatory, dignified. Remember that I parse “government” as an entity into two categories: the people who work in government, and the institutional incentives and norms (along with strict legalities). A government with the right people working within it can do tremendous good,
I only could agree with that on a solid basis if we are talking about philosophers, as the right people. Philosophers and those who understand them and are driven to carry out their ideas with great passion and cool.
I truly do not believe that anyone but a rigorous philosopher could have the faintest notion of what to do with an entire fucking planet.
Quote :
and a government with the right institutional incentives and norms will attract and reward a certain kind of good, dedicated employee. I see government as just a system for organizing people and ideas, including up to the legal use of force which is absolutely a required construct for a civilization of free self-valuing beings (the paradox is, on the surface, that free beings would require legal structures prohibiting and allowing various things, when in fact this isn’t paradoxical at all because without such legal structures we have nothing but anarchy and rule of animal might makes right, mafia rule essentially, in which higher values get buried within lower ones-- think about trolling online; without structures preventing trolling, truly free and valuable conversation can’t even get off the ground (e.g. ILP)).
We regard animals in a fundamentally different way; I regard birds and mammals as high beings, gods in a sense, much purer than humans generally. This would say a lot about how we regard strictly human institutions; I tend to see them as terrible deviations of nature, torture instruments allowed only by excessive erring. Also I see government mostly as the disease of bureaucracy.
sas2.elte.hu/tg/ptorv/Parkinson-s-Law.pdf
Lastly, since indeed self-valuing relies for all its actual substance and forms on the environment, the philosophical empire that I work for must also use environment to substantiate; for this environment I am looking at Rome. I believe Rome must still subject near Asia, and that far-Asia will be very happy to sustain it in that effort.
China will gladly follow the rules of a philosophical Roman centralized philosophical government, since it is impossible for a philosopher not to respect the Chinese as standard-setters; this will become the planetary ethos once it becomes relevant; the world greatest oldest traditions will respectfully dominate a vast, rich tapestry of smaller, but equally vital cultures that are protected by some notions of freedom that will be imposed on the Chinese and others, at all costs -
Nations will eventually modify their laws to philosophical standard, but not to any lesser ones.
I aim straight for the top. There are no stairs; we are the stairs.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:01 pm
There are a few fundamental concerns that I can already tell are crucial to global health. The main one is our food. We dont value our food, its substance. We are torturing billions of animals to death at every given moment and we are harvesting all of our forests to feed these tortured animals. That is the system, our ecosystem.
Human perishings and hells arent important at this point. What first needs to be fixed is animal and plant life. After that, long standing human concerns can be re-addressed. If we address humanity before animal and plant life, before bringing back from hell what we are literally made out of, we will not be able to sustain processes of reason among each other.
From this it should become clear how far removed I stand from all philosophy until now; the self-valuing principle allows me to see humans as as disparate as they are in value and valuing ways; it allows me to see that what passes for human these days is far less than most animals and plants, in terms of its value to itself, its joy and justification.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sauwelios
Saturnian
Saturnian
avatar
Posts : 101
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 38
Location : Amsterdam
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:41 pm
Fixed Cross wrote:
I see globalization as akin to an impulse to have every organ and body part fulfill the exact same function.
That function could never be a function of the body; globalisms function is never of humans; only of an alien logic come about by flattening thought processes and abusing leverage that seeks to harvest the organs to burn them for some momentary heat.
Humanity’s beauty is fully due to its diversity. That is what keeps it vital, what keeps it interacting with itself, what keeps it growing and appreciating.
Our modern cities are dead because they are homogenized in terms of the values they extract, offer and project; they are organized under the presumption that all humans hold similar values, tastes, priorities. This is why people like Sauwelios and Parodites dont leave their houses for years on end; the homogenized world is simply only fit for another, a far less alive species.
I will respond at this point, for reasons. I must say I agree with Fixed Cross. I can see where Capable is coming from, however. All beings are self-valuings. But only some self-valuings are self-aware as self-valuings. Thus: “what VO requires is that one becomes radically, ‘objectively’ subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it.” This is why I’m taking the course I’ve taken with my “State of the World Address” and its sequels (my De-Waal posts or impact-driven piles). This post is not one of those, as I need to be high on psychedelics to write them. Anyway, my problem with Capable is that he seems to me to be too idealistic–not necessarily in a philosophical sense, but in the popular sense of the word. I may be able to illustrate this by the fact that, in his “Text analysis: an ideal politics” thread in the Kurukshetra forum, he did not quote all of what I said in the “brief conversation with [me]” he mentioned in that thread; in that conversation, I also wrote:
“[Q]uality should always come before quantity (unless quantity’s provisionally coming before quality is a necessary means to quality’s ultimately coming before quantity)–as it does in 4 out of the 5 instances in which you mention the two. Better to have a few self-valuings of the supreme quality than many of a lower quality!”
Now it may be my bad that I brought this up as a minor problem I had with his excerpt. It was a minor problem compared to the major one I had with it, but I still think it’s a major problem. He seems to aim at the ideal of democracy as the universal aristocracy. But what if this is unrealistic? Then the best democracy is imperfect democracy, with a large minority–the “elites”–being relatively noble and the majority being ignoble. But this best democracy is not the best possible regime (practically, not theoretically possible: thus better regimes have actually existed!), and if a literal aristocrat, a most noble human being, actually becomes actualized in that democracy, he will therefore vindicate the imperfect democracy as well as the ideal of democracy in such a way as to transcend them both! The ideal of democracy as leading to an ochlocracy which may lead to a new Caesarism, and the imperfect democracy as having made possible the very actualization of this philosophical Caesar!
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:46 pm
Ha, thanks for joining us. I will directly go for the pressure point; I will address the issue I have with your post, which appears only at the end; it is however significant because I find what leads up to it very powerful; up to the following I am in agreement;
“[To] vindicate the imperfect democracy as well as the ideal of democracy in such a way as to transcend them both!”
And then it becomes radical. Too direct for my narrative sensibilities; I can simply not imagine what a new Caesarism is like in this age. I can only see Caesar as an ancient Roman, in a world that does only in unchangeable ways apply to our predicament. On the other hand, Caesar is in my soul. I don’t know what he is arranging there but I’m sure Rome is preparing new conquest. So essentially my issue is a bequest; rephrase “Caesar”.
What I imagine is closer to a Nietzschean artist-tyranny like described in his final notebooks. The man was a political genius the likes of which none will ever need to exist again. If humanity manages to set up his artist-tyranny so as to become the pillars to a Dionysian world, the artist tyrant would then be Apollo. And Apollo would have notions like Capable’s; ambitions toward a comprehensive ethical order that guarantees the Greek gift of liberty.
Quote :
The ideal of democracy as leading to an ochlocracy which may lead to a new Caesarism, and the imperfect democracy as having made possible the very actualization of this philosophical Caesar!
If this is the path that appears, and it springs to mind that I am not in Europe right now, and that this accounts for my distance to the virtual inevitability of ochlocracy, then hail fucking Odin. And Caesar. What a bloody mess it will become.
I’m too sentimental to go there in thought, truly. But if it happens it will be clear what to do.
How are things in Europe?
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:22 am
Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
I see globalization as akin to an impulse to have every organ and body part fulfill the exact same function.
That function could never be a function of the body; globalisms function is never of humans; only of an alien logic come about by flattening thought processes and abusing leverage that seeks to harvest the organs to burn them for some momentary heat.
Humanity’s beauty is fully due to its diversity. That is what keeps it vital, what keeps it interacting with itself, what keeps it growing and appreciating.
Our modern cities are dead because they are homogenized in terms of the values they extract, offer and project; they are organized under the presumption that all humans hold similar values, tastes, priorities. This is why people like Sauwelios and Parodites dont leave their houses for years on end; the homogenized world is simply only fit for another, a far less alive species.
I will respond at this point, for reasons. I must say I agree with Fixed Cross. I can see where Capable is coming from, however. All beings are self-valuings. But only some self-valuings are self-aware as self-valuings. Thus: “what VO requires is that one becomes radically, ‘objectively’ subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it.” This is why I’m taking the course I’ve taken with my “State of the World Address” and its sequels (my De-Waal posts or impact-driven piles). This post is not one of those, as I need to be high on psychedelics to write them. Anyway, my problem with Capable is that he seems to me to be too idealistic–not necessarily in a philosophical sense, but in the popular sense of the word. I may be able to illustrate this by the fact that, in his “Text analysis: an ideal politics” thread in the Kurukshetra forum, he did not quote all of what I said in the “brief conversation with [me]” he mentioned in that thread; in that conversation, I also wrote:
“[Q]uality should always come before quantity (unless quantity’s provisionally coming before quality is a necessary means to quality’s ultimately coming before quantity)–as it does in 4 out of the 5 instances in which you mention the two. Better to have a few self-valuings of the supreme quality than many of a lower quality!”
Now it may be my bad that I brought this up as a minor problem I had with his excerpt.
Not at all, please bring up every problem you see, minor and major. The reason I truncated your part of the conversation when I re-posted it here was three-fold: 1) It was not a proper response to you anyway, but just me riffing off of some issues that were raised (I should also point out that, as far as I remember, I was the last one to offer a comprehensive reply in our ongoing conversation, unless I am remembering that wrong which is certainly possible), 2) I did not have your explicit permission to repost it, and I am usually conscious of the fact that re-posting someone’s private words from a PM conversation could be a violation in their view (I satisfied myself to a point that Kurukshetra is a private forum here, so not publicly visible), and most importantly 3) that I have no value whatsoever for comprehensively for its own sake when it comes to writing and text, I am not scholar, in fact I would say I am an anti-scholar in the sense that I do not literally give one fuck for proper form and structure of citation or for making sure I carefully cover every intricacy of the argument and what was said in its entirety in order that no one could ever accuse me of not paying proper respect; fuck that. All I care about is the truth, so I will cut out what is extraneous and go to the heart of the matter, and post that instead. In this way I tried to address the core of the issue that you brought up. The part that was not posted, as you mentioned, was simply extraneous as it had already been satisfactorily addressed. (In terms of, yes quality is always primary to quantity, but quantity is also necessary, and quantity can also be a means to quality, and it is important not to legislate a qualitative tyranny prescriptively over quantity, especially when it comes to writing for new readers (people not yet well versed in this stuff)).
Quote :
It was a minor problem compared to the major one I had with it, but I still think it’s a major problem. He seems to aim at the ideal of democracy as the universal aristocracy. But what if this is unrealistic? Then the best democracy is imperfect democracy, with a large minority–the “elites”–being relatively noble and the majority being ignoble. But this best democracy is not the best possible regime (practically, not theoretically possible: thus better regimes have actually existed!), and if a literal aristocrat, a most noble human being, actually becomes actualized in that democracy, he will therefore vindicate the imperfect democracy as well as the ideal of democracy in such a way as to transcend them both! The ideal of democracy as leading to an ochlocracy which may lead to a new Caesarism, and the imperfect democracy as having made possible the very actualization of this philosophical Caesar!
I would not characterize my political position as one defending democracy as universal aristocracy, nor am I particularly hung-up on democracy itself; FC will recall some text I’ve written to the effect of exposing democracy as little more than the attempt to enslave nobility and leadership to the ‘ignoble masses’, and this view is quite accurate in its own way. Democracy only still exists because most people do not want to be bothered with being invested in the administrative requirements of society or life, therefore they outsource those requirements to “experts” and “politicians”, and I also wrote which FC may recall, that where a true democracy has existed there was no need to call it by the name “democracy” because such a truly democratic organization of people simply acted to instantiate its commonly-hend value, acted without needing to talk about it; any true democracy is one that would probably never bear the name “democracy”.
But I am not bemoaning this “(named) democratic outsourcing” I mentioned; the positive effect of this outsourcing is two-fold as in 1) most people get to be free from wasting their time having to have endless community meeting to address issues of local government, as Zizek pointed out that he doesn’t want to constantly have to go to meetings about how to regulate water in his local area and other such mundane concerns that can much better be addressed by a more distant bureaucratic system (his point that he wants to be “pleasantly alienated” from all these mundane concerns and realities, which I agree most people want that kind of alienation, us here included (philosophy itself demands this kind of alienation from the mundane)), and 2) outsourcing to politicians and experts achieves the effect of pushing problems up toward greater scope and significance of social application, namely out of the merely local and toward the global.
I want more global work, more global action and thought and valuing; I do not idealize or romanticize the notion of localism. Localism is fine in so far as it is necessary and inescapable, which in some ways it certainly is, however it is not the highest or final value here. My value is more like the federalist system of government applied to the planetary level: I want what the US has in terms of local, regional, state and federal spheres of overlapping government but I want to extend it a step further:
- local (city)
- regional (county, district)
- state
- nation-state
- planetary
Each of those above spheres of government should have its own functioning governing bodies and systems, its own structure. I want a super-federalist system that peaks at the planetary level, something like the UN but with real power.
Of course FC’s point is very valid, that the larger one moves up in governance the more distant and dis-overlapped it becomes with language, culture and values. The EU’s problems for example, seems irreducibly in so far as EU member states have such vastly different languages, cultures and values.
But this inner tension is only something potentially productive in my view, a true daemonism. We should not aim for the ideal of removing or reducing that tension, we should wish to harness and use it. This diversity and difference is humanity’s strength, we should not want to flatten it away. But neither should we be scared to approach it as difference qua difference, as the irreducible remainder in the equations of large-scale governance.
A truly planetary federalist system of government would not bemoan these irreducible differences, it would find ways to turn them into strengths. For one thing, the highest peak level of government (the truly planetary level as peak) would be the exception and in most cases subservient to more local factors, in order to provide stability to the larger system. In fact we could simply re-define the value of the planetary-level to not only include the obvious values such as being able to sanely address environmental, energy, human rights etc. issues, but also the simple value of providing a minimally common frame of reference in which the real differences between people and locales achieves an abstract, possibly higher synthetic value, a kind of “future shadow of cooperation”.
Individual people within the same culture, region, or nation-state already have that shadow of cooperation, it is simply their commonality of culture, region or nation-state that binds them together in this indirect-abstract manner; at the individual level we have this commonality, an invisible brotherhood of human binding-ness that can act to partially reconcile and justify even the most severe individual differences in values. Likewise I think a new shadow of cooperation is materializing, the notion that we are all members of the human race. Whether or not we like this notion, whether or not we are prepared to admit certain lowly forms of humanity into it, is all beside the point; it is happening, this abstract ideal of coming-together at the species level, and I would argue in the philosophical sense it is absolutely necessary for any sentient self-conscious species to achieve this kind of species-wide recognition. Humanity has already achieved it at the regional, cultural and national levels; why not at the planetary-species level too? It is necessary that we do so, so I am not interested in trying to justify IF we should be doing it, but rather in HOW to do it.
I reject the assumption that a large number of people must be necessarily excluded from “the good society”, from justified participation and value in and by government. The fact that in reality many people are excluded and seem to have little value to themselves is only a contingent and not a necessary fact; it is contingent upon humanity still being in the dark ages where our social systems and governments literally create these “miserables” of the human race. We are literally creating low-quality people with near-zero value to themselves or others. Why are we doing this? Because our systems of government and society are still so antiquated and dark-ages-inspired. For myself, I personally value and think from the position of the future looking at all this present world as a distant past; we can do better, we must do better. We must instantiate sociopolitical systems that at least strongly incentivize people to be better versions of themselves and provide the means for higher values-realizations, so in this way no one would be left behind to low-quality near-zero value except by their own choice, which would mean the impossibility for human systems to ever approach perfection and the severe law of diminishing returns that applies as we push these systems closer and closer to the ideal of perfection. Not absolutely of course, but practically speaking I think “everyone” can and ought to achieve freedom from low-quality near-zero valuation and self-valuing. Compared to FC and maybe the others here it seems that I see a much higher value and priority on how society creates the possibilities and landscapes in which individual self-valuings realize themselves and self-value, how individuals become what they are. I reject the implicit view that society and government are somehow inadequate, inept or superfluous to the processes of individual self-valuing realization. I think that all of us here are always-already benefitted highly from how our respective societies and governmental systems have laid down landscapes of possibilities for the kind of high quality self-valuing that we represent. We may be prone to not seeing this because it acts as a given and invisible background, but to me that is even more reason to prioritize it at the level of our philosophical analysis.
FC, I agree with your comments about the importance of food and how right now we are torturing animals and destroying plant life in irrational manner. But I do not come down on the side of vegetarianism or veganism, I think human beings should self-value whatever they want in terms of eating or not eating animals. But yes there need to be some very clear and enforced standards when animals are consumed.
I find your view interesting, the way you see some animals as higher than humans. I can agree to a limited extent in certain cases, I have a deep respect for and fascination with animals. But in general I always see human being as the highest instance we know of of life, of consciousness, and of being. The very things that make humans deplorable and detestable to us are indeed signs of this elevated position of humanity over the other animals – humans are capable of being irrational, immoral and of low-quality or contradictory/dishonest self-valuing yet this is only possible because human being is already above the pre-human animal level where such things aren’t even possibilities. And the elevation of humanity over the other animals/plants is not a license to just “do whatever we want” to them but is a deep responsibility that we view the earth and all life within it as our own personal and sacred charge. We are not “above” something in order that we should de-value it, quite the opposite: we should be the ones recognizing, creating, instantiating and securing the value of these things which we are “above”, including animal and plant life. Of course “above” here is an imprecise term, it would be more accurate to just talk about the progression of subjectivity-consciousness and philosophical Being and where on that ladder or continuum human vs. other animal life rests. As Nietzsche said that man is more ape even than ape, this too I agree with; we do not leave behind what we have surpassed, we work it within ourselves and re-incorporated it in new and interesting (sometimes fatal) ways.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:30 am
Alls I can say is, I don’t know about all 'at.
I follow fertility gods, those do little in terms of helping one to understand all-laws.
Imposition. I’ve come to understand that my central puzzlement at the world at large is how much it seems to like it.
dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:59 pm
I’ll make some isolated comments on different points raised.
Animal cruelty / Vegetarianism; I will always eat meat, but I want animals to have lives before they are butchered. That will not only be better for them and the planets overall well being, but the meat will be better, more wholesome. We eat all sorts of hell.
Imposition: Life is will to power, one either imposes, or is imposed upon. Mostly, both. But it is a scale; obviously I don’t need to explain this. What might warrant explanation is peoples desire to be imposed on; if one doesn’t have the stones, to impose is terrifying, and then the only option left is to be imposed on. There is no such thing as passive freedom. Freedom is essentially existence at its most real, active, violent and caring.
The impositions I would allow for, the type of world-government, or planetary government, which sounds scarier and realer and more beautiful, is an imposition of an abstract order, in one sense like the US constitution could be interpreted to aspire to, by Libertarian romantics; a guarantee of freedom for the individual, absolute violence sanctioned against the abuse of children (though how to define that is a tricky matter) and more things of such ilk; basically a government that protects from tyranny, so in many ways, from itself.
No single human ruler could be allowed here, nor any particular group, except if it is our own, or affiliated. That is the strange situation we find ourselves in; philosophy can no longer be impartial and on the sidelines. The correctness of a planetary governmental system relies entirely on the quality of its design, and it must hermetically philosophical. No other intelligentsia at this point even wants such power; it is up to us to cohere with the Chinese, the Indians, the powers that will determine Eurasia for the next thousand years, etc - and there is no question that the Chinese will appreciate these impositions, as it is a logic that prescribes purely sustainable growth. Global economic cohesion and sanity would draw a lot from history. VO and all out philosophy allows for this, unlike modernity; history. The world as it returns to health will draw heavily from its past, its body. We will see confirmations and explications and expansions of puir philosophies when they make contact with the ancient Chinese and Tibetan sciences of the organism.
South America will not be imposed on. These people have found a way to impose on each other personally, directly, through perfecting the viscerality of culture. South America is the jewel of the world, or the wet pussy, however you want it… of course the continent falls within the envisioned planetary order, but rather than using it as a canvas, we use it as a model, for deriving local governments.
To derive local governing principle, this relies entirely on funk, to bring back Pezers term for the earth-element.
Like QM and Relativity are disparate logics because they describe micro and macro, which can not be integrated without a meta-logic (such as VO) so planetary government and actual governance are disparate working logics; the former relies on principle, the latter on smell, touch, looks in peoples eyes; the moment. This, to cultivate form the present, rather than from an eternal principle, is what must be the actualization of the eternal judgment… and I now propose formally that South America be the locus of ongoing designing work on local governing and.
As Pezer proposed earlier this year; an institutional front is required, but one that is structured only by principle, by an agreed upon philosophical code of necessity; a government without ‘mass’, in a sense; a government guided and calibrated by the Library.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:28 pm
I’ll be goddamned if it ain’t so.
The other piece is of course the US. They are still in a position to impose, and none but US thinkers can pentrate it.
In the Venezuelan national anthem (beautiful bastards) there is a line: America whole exists as a nation.
Still the beat to our funk, so to say.
dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:44 pm
Some of what follows was intended for Capable, but I’ve cut it up and generalized it.
Indeed as Fixed said, Trump’s election will not bring the change that is required, but will open the political process to that change, which is necessary. We have an opportunity in the US to do this in a very civilized manner, through an election- as opposed to armed rebellion.