New analysis:
Trump’s concerns and their legitimacy:
- Terrorism. He wants to ban all Muslims from entering and track those already here. Is his fear of terrorism legitimate? Yes. Is his response to this fear a rational, useful response? No. Problem 1: not all Muslims are Middle Eastern. Plenty are African, African American, Asian, or white. This is why the Left claims there is no such thing as “Islamic terrorism” because the terrorist groups and sympathies out there are not inherently Islamic, rather this terrorism has sprung up within only certain isolated sub-groups within Islam and is quite regional in nature. Banning and tracking people based on their religious affiliation is like banning and tracking all Irish people because of the IRA, or all Christians everywhere because of some extreme anti-abortion groups that threaten murder and commit violence against abortion doctors and workers. Or use whatever example you want, the point is that terrorism is not inherently tied to Islam as such; Trump needs a better way of addressing it, and I agree it needs to be addressed. Problem 2: the terrorism that does exist within regional and ideological sub-groups of Islam must be addressed in significant measure by other Muslims within those sub-groups as well as to some degree by all Muslims. Here Trump’s proposal has a positive and negative aspect: the positive is that by alienating all Muslims without regard to who they actually are and what they actually think, Trump would put more pressure on all Muslims to step up and address terrorism within these sub-groups more directly, because the rest of the non-terrorist Muslims do not want to be lumped into that group and seen as terrorists; the negative is that you also risk alienating and removing the very people who are most effective at preventing terrorist sympathies from developing in Muslim youth, namely the Muslim community at large most of whom are just regular religious people who want to live their lives in peace and do not hold extremist views, but of course could potentially turn to extremist views at some point (as could just about anyone, under the right conditions). This brings us to problem 3: the ban and tracking of all Muslims is going to create more hatred, confusion, alienation and disaffection among Muslims everywhere and especially in Muslim youth, in other words the same emotions and economic circumstances that are breeding grounds for developing terrorist sympathies; Trump’s plan will most certainly increase the number of terrorists and potential terrorists out there, just as US bombing and drone campaigns right now are increasing the number of terrorists and potential terrorists (lowering the threshold for what it takes to push someone over the edge from poverty/hate/pain/anxiety/disaffection/confusion and into full blown terrorism).
Trump’s concern for terrorism is legitimate, but is approach to solving the problem is akin to killing a fly with a sledgehammer. Or rather, trying to kill dozens of flies like that, it isn’t effective and actually is going to make the problem worse (a sledgehammer won’t make the flies breed faster, but a Trump USA policy toward Islam will certainly make terrorist sentiment breed faster). So what is the best approach?
One critical fact has been overlooked in the terrorism debate everywhere: the fact that it will always be possible for one person to injure or kill another person. We cannot treat terrorism as an issue similar to open war with another nation-state; there are no parallels, and Trump treating it like that is making things far, far worse. The unstated assumption behind his approach is that we could theoretically create a situation in which certain people aren’t able to injure or hurt othets, but that is not possible (his position is similar in this way to the naive liberal position that we can stop terrorism and violence by banning weapons). One person will always be able to hurt another, and no amount of walls or immigration limits will stop the spread of ideas; Trump’s philosophy here logically culminates in near-total control over the Internet and all means of communication in an effort to stop even the ideas of Islam and extreme Islam from entering the US. Think about it: if you believe that banning all Muslims from coming to the US is the way to address terrorism then you’re going to be forced to also ban the entry of ideas and communications into the US, and you’ll need an apparatus for doing so as well as for tracking and removing such communications and speech within the US already. This is only one clear example of how Trump and his followers are proto-fascists. So how has terrorism gotten to be the way it is today, if it had always been the case that one person could always hurt or kill another?
Modern terrorism is a version of political guerrilla warfare. It appears in Islam because Islam can provide the needed psychological component to actualize this particularly virulent form of guerrilla warfare: an ideology capable of removing the natural self-valuing of a person. Terrorists are willing to die and even want to die; this is the true logical heart of terrorism. The real basis of modern terrorism is this fact of not caring if one dies or not, and Islam is just a means to achieving that pure ideology, and also Islam is selected for this psychological type because of those regional conflicts alluded to above. Western treatment of the Middle East since WWII has caused the conditions for terrorism to ferment, and now the ideological “wanting to die” perversion of self-valuing that Islam provides for was the match that finally set it off.
Now this modern terrorism is out there, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back. This kind of virulent guerrilla warfare is always going to be a potential problem. So you address the real roots of the problem as follows: not by naively treating it as if we are in a state of traditional war with another nation-state as Trump proposes, but actually addressing the real root cases of terrorism: 1) poverty, disaffection, violence and trauma, fear and alienation that people and especially young people experience, and 2) addressing the lack of desire to live and the desire to die. It’s very hard to defeat a guerrilla army, especially one that can cross any border just by the spread of ideas and information; terrorism could easily be used to justify the loss of privacy and freedom of speech and thought across the entire western world, and indeed that is the final rationale of the kind of approach Trump is taking.
Terrorism is a means to meaning and self-value for those who think they have no other possible means to those. The delusion of life after death and martyrdom provide the oil in the gears of pain, disaffection, lack of economic opportunities, alienation etc. to potentiate the formation of a psyche bent toward terrorism as a method of subjective realization, just as Schopenhauer notes that sometimes suicide is a way of preserving oneself. This is the real, deeper philosophical meaning of terrorism today; and all this is something that Trump not only does not at all grasp but is in fact pathologically incapable of grasping.
“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 Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:07 am
C - no hurt feelings, the opposite how could we consequentially discuss the lives of 7 billion without arguing to the depth of our convictions? Surely anything we may end up producing as guidance for the species will take years of heated disagreements in our forges to take any kind of recognizable shape.
As I see it we do not fundamentally disagree, you and I, on the envisioned outcome, at least not on the envisioned best possible outcome. But we have vastly different work to do toward that outcome, and that work is what, really, we are discussing, shaping the outline of in our souls.
I differ with Parodites in that I think the worst has already come; the world is already in ashes, rubble, chaos, Europe is already leveled, in terms of what it once was there is little left, and we are bracing ourselves for a big fight against monotheism again. I’ll go back to Europe to fight that fight. I need to protect my family, clean and simple.
The problem with Islam is not terrorism. Terrorism isnt even Islamic, usually, it’s 90 percent false flag, I think we all know this. The problem is far worse. Its education. It’s soul-rape. It’s reading 3 year olds from the koran. All of that is sub-human, ‘even’ sub-animal - it is basically a kind of excess of pure disagreement with self-valuing, a thing possible only in the human memetic realm; humans as functions of a moral and intellectual no to existence. Of course they kill each other all the time,. and of course they try to kill others, and of course they die young and withered, of course all no longer young men are deeply sad to the point of rot, of course their cities dont sell any books and of course women stuff poisonous plants in their vagina when they have had sex. Of course it must all die. And of course we must weather that storm of death. And of course many future ones born of muslim parents will join us in weathering that storm. But we must see that this storm is as short as possible, and we must not try to postpone it.
There is no philosophical excuse in excusing monotheistic world-religion. At least no more than there is for napalming cities. We must be honest; would we want our children to grow up afraid of an irrational, jealous and badly writing god, i.e. his ignorant piece of shit parents and priest? If not, then any excuse of Islam is inexcusable, anti-philosophical.
Philosophy requires a host of enemies and adversaries. It makes no sense to attack racists in ones own country and not attack Islam. It makes no sense to expect sanity of politicians before we actually tell them what to do. It truly doesn’t. This is what philosophy is, has always been - the voice in the ear of power. This forum has caught the attention of several agencies, Im pretty sure, having studied the ip addresses of guests and lurkers the past years. It would actually be very odd if it hadn’t; given the level of internet surveillance - about as much processing power is used to trace content as to produce it, and the very real logics we work with as pioneers - it is nigh impossible that the US government does not take an interest in this world of scrambling for shreds of the ever coveted power-logic. This is how the US works, why it is the moist powerful nation. It tries to use everything that has a slight potential of becoming useful. Take remote cognition, all that, the CIA took the father of my best friends mate, who was a sufi-guru, in from Switzerland and employed him during the 80’s for telepathic services to the army. Im not saying it worked, though it very well might have, but Im saying they tried, and not superficially.
I do not think they would think they can afford not to test our thoughts to all sorts of algorithms that they have going. Of We are one of the few places online that actually produces long term strategic value. Internet surveillance never was for tracing terrorists, obviously - believing in the terrorism narrative is like believing in Santa, its a pleasant belief and therefore justified, but it is one sided, Santa doesnt believe in himself - it has always been to steal thoughts. And Ive always been writing with this in mind. Our governments treasure us, you can be assured of that. We are resource of the highest value, and because of the internet they dont have to employ us.
Consider the real value of absolute online surveillance. Is it not harvest?
" 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 Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:21 am
Once more, all I write is in the suspension of disbelief; paradoxically this is a requirement of truthfulness. I can not verify that we are being watched, but I need only to make the following two observations: Our work is objectively powerful, and the US government dominates by implementing objectively powerful theory. It is the only nation that works purely in this sense, the sense of opportunism; the very soul of the US is the desire to take in the best minds of the world.
My philosophical model has emerged in Austria from German philosophy, and yet, it will come to the benefit of the Anglosaxon world. Because the USA is the greatest valuer on the planet. It knows what value is. The future is entirely American. But that means that any world government will be resisted by its own very roots, by criminal families discussing the merits of this and that apple pie in dusty yards - crime is actually the final protection against government.
I prefer mafia rule to NATO rule - NATO is mafia with nukes and ‘legal’ police forces. Enlightened governments usually rule through controlling crime organizations, not by dismantling them. Same internationally. You cant dismantle ill-will, or egoism, or thrill seeking, or anger, or jealousy, or sheer possibility, or the human spirit. Crime is a fact of life, and its not the worst fact; government-sanctioned mass murder is far worse. And that is what globalism means as long as it isn’t understood as enlightened value-distribution.
" 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 Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:34 am
Parodites brought up an excellent idea regarding all this: the idea that human society is a reflection of nature, in my interpretation he means that human society and social forces and constructs are basically nothing more than the same kind of social dynamics we see in the animal world. If this point is correct then much of the liberal-postmodern critique of social construction of identities, implicit institutional bias and repression, would fall apart. That critique rests in large part on the idea that human societies codify psychological, economic, interpersonal norms and expectations and enforce these upon individuals over time, but if society is instead just a mirror of the natural animal dynamics then there would be no way for society to provide this function (except of course to the extent that social identities and institutional repressions were in fact reflection of nature, which would mean that if Parodites is correct there would be no basis for working to change those identities or reduce those repressions since after all they are “innate”); he added that identity-based differences such as gender and race differences are innate differences and he implied these could be reduced (in total or in part, I’m not sure the extent he meant exactly) to genetic factors.
Obviously to any of you who know my ideas by now, I do not accept that gender and racial differences are entirely the result of innate factors such as genetics, but I also accept Parodites’ idea of the status of the human social world as a mirror of animal nature… I accept it but not yet convinced to accept this ideas as the sole explanation for the social. For one thing, the way I understand our human emotions is that these express a condensation of meaning over time with relevance to sociodynamics: 1) the feeling itself, the affective experience rooted in either pleasure or pain is physiological and involves destabilizing the “affective background state” of the proprioceptive self-experience in such a way that some awareness rises over the background, thus making itself known to us (if you imagine the background affective state as the sum result of hundreds of individual feelings of body changes such as feeling the heartbeat, blood flow patterns in various parts of the body, muscle contractions or relaxations, glands excreting hormones, that sort of thing, then when a certain configuration of these individual feelings-changes succeeds in rising above the background to which it also contributes we feel that configuration in a unique way, the self becomes aware of it as distinct); 2) over time and given the regularity of certain kinds of experiences people have given their social dynamics and social-cultural structures and systems, certain of such configurations of stand-out feelings-changes will reoccur many times given those regularities in the kinds of experiences we have; 3) the “emotion” is the fact that the feelings-changes reoccurring configurations in the individual act as a bridge between the final self-affective conscious experience that we feel and the deeper historical reasons for why that particular configuration has reoccurred over time. What this means is that the reoccurring feeling-change configuration of stand-out proprioceptive awareness comes to embody and represent the meaning or reason for its own having recurred, and the final awareness and subjective quality of the feeling in self-consciousness innately and inherently reflects-represents this meaning and reason although in a non-cognitive manner, in the manner that a feeling-state itself has come to act as a stable sign for a certain range of meaningful facts and aspects about the history of our human lives. This “being a sign” aspect is what transforms the configuration of the feelings-changes into a true emotion.
This is one reason why I think the social must be more than just the reflection of the animal-natural, because human beings automatically imbue the social with meaning in so far as we draw the actual causes and reasons for why certain social dynamic regularities reoccur up and into our cultural and individual experiences of what various feelings mean, wedding concepts with affects in the development of our emotions. For example, human beings still tend toward monogamous relationships and there are many reasons for this (increase chances of healthy survival of the offspring, stability and predictability in the interpersonal supports and pleasurable experiences we can predict for ourselves, reduction in the energy cost of interpersonal interactions) and those reasons in total and at the unconscious level actually comprise the meaning and content of the emotions in question which emotion acts as the sign of the reoccurring feelings-changing configurations of the physiological body, and those reoccurring feelings-changes are the affective qualitative subjective feelin of the emotion itself, although all collapsed together into a single feeling rather than as all of the individual feelings of the many body changes themselves that are so grouped into the reoccurring feeling-changing state.
All of this means, to me, that the social is more than just a reflection of nature, that for humans the social has been transformed into something more than just that reflection; the social is still this reflection as Parodites said, and indeed many of our social dynamics and norms do reflect the same kind of natural instinctive responses that can be found elsewhere in the animal world (play-fighting, displays of dominance and territorialism, submission gestures such as in primates we show the palms of our hands as a submission gesture (humans do this and other primates also do this), averting or making eye contact), all of these sort of social dynamics are animal-instinctive in nature. We humans even reconstruct these social dynamics in our languages, as language has many words or sounds or linguistic forms that serve the role of recreating those same animal-instinctive dynamics. But the social also deepens past this natural sphere, in part because of how we have emotions as I just mentioned and therefore the social sphere begins to represent and comprise meanings in was beyond what it can do in other animal species, but also I think because we humans do indeed use the social sphere to instantiate certain contingent or arbitrary norms and expectations, predictive forms, from one generation to the next. It is just inevitable that this would happen; humans are always reprogramming the social in part to cause the social to absorb as reflect-concentrate certain expectations and norms, certain patterns of information and prediction power, and this reprogramming is a kind of secondary war of forces of meaning within and upon the social.
I think this impressing of new meaning upon the social is another aspect where we cannot say that the social is ONLY the reflection of nature; humans go much further than other animals and we actually use the social as a field or substance on which to impress our other meanings, I would say religion and politics are clear examples of this. But in general I agree with Parodites that the social is to a large extent the reflection of nature; but in addition to this the social can be involved in contributing to or inhibiting certain “social constructions of identities” although never absolutely, because the left-postmodern paradigm is incorrect to assume that no hard innate differences exist. There are hard innate differences between men and women, also probably between one race and another, it would be absurd to claim no such differences exist between races; but I would be careful not to use this fact to claim there are significant meaningful differences between either men or women, unless we define a standard of measure such as “become a philosopher”: in that case it is clear that women innately have less of the enjoyment of conditions favorable to becoming a philosopher than do men, but that does not mean that women are intellectually or subjectively incapable of becoming philosophers. I think women could become philosophers as much as can men, intellectually and subjectively speaking, but it’s just that women don’t really want to do that, they are not driven by their desires and pleasures toward those conditions that are favorable to philosophy. The issue of race and philosophy, however, is less clear since western philosophy is part of the European (“white”) tradition and it naturally takes outside cultures longer and more work in general to penetrate into that tradition when they are not a part of it; in other words there is a natural a contingent pressure in the social that acts to keep westerners philosophy within the western world and regardless whether or not other cultures or races could in fact success equally in that philosophy as do westerners (“white”) people. But even if we assume there are significant genetic innate differences in other races that make it less likely for them to seek and enjoy the conditions favorable to philosophy (such as I agree with Parodites that this is the case with women in general) that will always admit of individual exceptions, and again this is just one standard of measure we have chosen by which to determine if there are significant meaningful innate differences across genders or races. Regardless of the answer to that question for any given standard of measure, it is still the case that to some degree the social does indeed act to construct certain possibilities and predictive expectations upon certain identities, in part with reference to any innate differences that exist but also in part with reference to the secondary reprogramming of the social, but as to whether any actual person conforms to those identity-construct pressures will be more of a matter of individual lives and experiences. Of course another problem for the theory of innate racial differences is that most people today are hybrids of different races, that we can go back so many generations and find one great-great-grandparent or whatever that came from another culture or race, and even if we cannot do that there is no “white race” but just the many different European cultures and races which are somewhat genetically distinct from each other. So Europe itself as tradition of western philosophy demonstrates how it is possible for many different races to contribute into the same activity such as philosophy in this case. Although it’s also interesting that certain European races contribute more and in somewhat predictable ways to philosophy (the Germans, French and English all have a generally different approach to philosophy, for example). How much of that is “only cultural” versus generic and innate? Since the cultural comes from the innate and since the innate is refocused and concentrated in certain of its aspects by the cultural, there is probably no way to know for certain. In fact it might make the most sense to view the innate-generic and the cultural as a single substance with multiple parts, rather than as two fundamentally distinct substances.
“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 Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:00 am
I tend to a similar view as Parodites, because to me there arent any analytic differences between beings, as long as they are self-valuings (of course there are heavy and crucial synthetic differences); their structure, their working, the way they integrate parts into their own wholeness, is identical in any living being. A culture, a people, is obviously a living being. Such a being responds instinctively for 99 percent, and there is a small degree which can be said to respond consciously - parliament, referendums, or very talented statesmen, etc. But in general, my issue with global government is that it would by definition be a beast.
Obviosuly, there is no neutrality in the world. Self-valuing precludes it. So any construct, however balanced its parts against each other may appear to be at one point, will be a monster. It must be. It would be an entity so large that it scopes the globe, and thus it would incorporate all human malice.
This is absolute; One can not organize humans without accumulating their malice. Hence, why states are always at war with some other state, in some form.
At no juncture could be logically expect any lessening of malice, of subjectivity, of self-interest, of ‘wisdom’ let’s say, by the means of combining more people under less heads.
The Social: all animals are social, they all live in organized groups, and all mammals have complex emotions. If you interact for some hours with a dolphin or a cat, or with a wolf, or with a horse, you will see that they have emoptions quite comparable to the sort of emotions 99 percent of humans have - the only difference is that the do no think (equally like humans, generally) and thus have none of ther deeply complex emotions that form an artists soul, which is a soul that, through art, is implanted in most humans, on top of their proper, animal emotions.
Most mammals are monogamous. All nature has organized functionally, this is what self-valuing is - all behaviors are ‘instinctive’ - no matter of their are atomic or human or divine or plant - even computers behave in the same way, when they are well integrated in a workflow and network. Humans are computers environments; they self-value in terms of us. But they are entities.
What we know, Anglosaxons and affiliated culture, is that we like individual freedom, and are willing to play a big price for this. What Arabs want is clearly something somewhat reversed; they always go for group-identity at the cost of individual liberties. Fine - let them. If there are exceptions, theyll come to the west. But if the west invites all of thje non-exceptions, the west is going to have to fight for its life, its values, its instincts, its freedom - and change, expel or kill the newcomers. Since our values preclude killing them inside of our borders at least, and our governments force us to take them in, we can only change them, or accept that they change us. Hence, we have war to look froward to, and this is only to blame on the ones who thought it was wise to invite these people without setting some standards for them, so that they can adapt to the part of life they now have come to serve under, which is freedom.
This is what we, the west, should say, regardless of anything we do overseas; Freedom is our religion, and if your religion is okay with that, then ours is okay with you. If your religion denies freedom, you need to get the fuck in a boat and drown at sea.
Literally, all that exists, is standards.
If we sacrifice our standards for the comfort of others, we are nothing but death waiting to happen.
" 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 Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:20 am
Im going to introduce a big and clunky psychological concept into this discussion. Whether a man identifies more with his mother or with his father, in terms of worldly outlook. It just struck me that this must be fundamental. The mother represents the home, the father the outside world. So a maternally oriented outlook might produce more of a conservative patriotic mindset, whereas a paternally oriented one would produce an progressive, idealistic one. I wonder if this is the case - I know it’s true in my case, that when I consider my mother, I know Ill destroy billions of lives in a second to keep her safe, so thats conservative. If I think of my father, I dont think of protecting him, but I think of designing, of a cool mind that can insert magic where it wants, and has no fear of losing its base.
Im bringing this in because we need to cover a lot of bases first - most importantly of all things political and organizational - what drives the human to his extremes?
Reasonability, normal ness, humaneness, common sense, all that is wiped away in an instant when passion rears its head. Passion shapes the world, and it is only passion that I seek to direct. Therefore I dont believe insetting rules or cognitive standards before redirecting passions. On ILP that is all Im doing now. To rout passions away from oblivion, relativism, nihilism, moralism, into the will to penetrate into the heart. Thought follows from this passion. Some people have that passion latent in them. These people, those are my people. I do not care about any of the rest. This month Ive emotionally cut off much of my family, cousins, all that, because they have shown that they’re opting for standing by. Fuck everyone who opts for that.
I now only care for people who actively cultivate their passions in a philosophical way. These are my ‘race’ - these are the ones I fight for, and with these, we will create the capital of a new order, a structure of worldly ethics of which we now only know that it at its centers is a library.
This is how I see the mothers and the fathers boys come together. Local, truly pleasant centers of culture that radiate outward in ideas. But no fucking institutional enforcers of any sort, in my world. Just real humans.
Any time a state grants a man the right to decide for another man, it creates two vampires. It breaks two beings.
Once more, consider that Im writing this in an associative way; the coming Jupiter year will be a year of debating and finding common ground; the previous year was one of creating foundations. 13 months from now, in the next year, which is of Scorpio, our work will begin to turn to political power. By that time, many organizations will be have their hands stretched out, as the only surfacing part of a drowning body - as has been the case in all greay political crises, philosophers will be the last resort for the wicked in power - because all others are too afraid to look them in the eyes.
At that moment, the tide, which has stationed the past year, will begin to turn. When we look the politicians in the eyes with a judgment so vastly differing from what they feared, our standards will begin to take over the global standard of power-thought.
All paradigmatic battles come down to a staredown. And all staredowns come down to what is behind the eyes. No man in this word has more fire behind the eyes than the people right here.
This is what standard-setting is in the final human instance; demonstrating ones fire.
A nod to Heraclitus, who understood this so well.
" 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
Sponsored content
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law
Before The Light
‘Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.’
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in
Before The Light :: Tree :: The World Share | Actions
The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : Previous 1, 2, 3 … 21 … 40 Next
Author Message
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 Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:50 am
Fixed Cross wrote:
I tend to a similar view as Parodites, because to me there arent any analytic differences between beings, as long as they are self-valuings (of course there are heavy and crucial synthetic differences); their structure, their working, the way they integrate parts into their own wholeness, is identical in any living being. A culture, a people, is obviously a living being. Such a being responds instinctively for 99 percent, and there is a small degree which can be said to respond consciously - parliament, referendums, or very talented statesmen, etc. But in general, my issue with global government is that it would by definition be a beast.
Obviosuly, there is no neutrality in the world. Self-valuing precludes it. So any construct, however balanced its parts against each other may appear to be at one point, will be a monster. It must be. It would be an entity so large that it scopes the globe, and thus it would incorporate all human malice.
This is absolute; One can not organize humans without accumulating their malice. Hence, why states are always at war with some other state, in some form.
I don’t put inter-state warfare down to malice, in most cases I think such war is the result of economic factors internal and inter-related to states combined with a political escalation of subtle psychological factors amongst leaders and between leaders and their people, such that “saving face” requires continuing the escalation rather than diffusing it. The end result of such political psychological escalation is open war, but it isn’t malice that causes this to occur, rather the psychological effect of political realities that are still largely unconscious and depend on things like not appearing to be weak or back down; and again coupled with economic problems within and between states.
Those economic problems provide the ground on which those political psychological (pathological) factors such as needing to save face and not appear “weak” end up driving a gradual escalation of tensions until the point where the high level of tension sparks a military encounter, at which point the same pathological factors that led to gradual escalation now force escalation of military hostilities.
I don’t give leaders or countries generally the kind of credit to suppose that something like war would be the direct result of something like malice. Leaders and nation-states generally are still far too unconscious for that.
Quote :
At no juncture could be logically expect any lessening of malice, of subjectivity, of self-interest, of ‘wisdom’ let’s say, by the means of combining more people under less heads.
I tend to see it differently. I think group dynamics can contribute to reductions in personal pathological states such as irrational malice; note that in one of the Zizek videos I recently posted he talks about how for a jealous husband, even if his wife is in fact cheating on him, his jealousy is still pathological. This is how ideology works, it simply uses truths or falsehoods to feed itself but doesn’t at all reduce in itself to true versus false states or situations.
Aggregating people into larger social groupings will achieve conflicting ends; it can and will reduce some pathological factors but also can and will increase others. It comes down to the KINDS OF social group forms that people are gathered into. The group form imposes its meaning and value standard upon those in the group as a kind of potentiating psychological model.
The view you espouse seems to preclude the possibility of individuals forming large groups in stable ways; but individuals already do that and have been doing it. We already have nation-states and international organizations and bodies, for me the next logical step is to continue universalizing these groupings, just as thought itself, subjectivity itself are always attempting to best universalize themselves. Of course even a true globalism isn’t a universalization, but just an attempt in that direction. To me, global doesn’t mean homogeneous or universal, it means a common minimum standard of interaction.
Quote :
The Social: all animals are social, they all live in organized groups, and all mammals have complex emotions. If you interact for some hours with a dolphin or a cat, or with a wolf, or with a horse, you will see that they have emoptions quite comparable to the sort of emotions 99 percent of humans have - the only difference is that the do no think (equally like humans, generally) and thus have none of ther deeply complex emotions that form an artists soul, which is a soul that, through art, is implanted in most humans, on top of their proper, animal emotions.
I think there is a risk of falsely anthropomorphizing animals. How can we really know if their inner experience is on par with our own, emotionally speaking? I think true emotions come from inner distance imposed on the self as well as a highly conceptual-based accumulated experiences of meaning. Since a dog for example has no idea what a tree or a squirrel or a human being actually is, much less could know what it means to be alive or the fact that itself will die someday, how could a dog or any other animal really imbue its experiences with meaning, with understanding? I think emotions are very much products of meaning, understanding, accumulated daemonic inner differences formed hierarchically over time in such ways as to act as Signs pointing to meanings in derivation, predictive consequences of significance. I just don’t see animal other than humans able to do that. But I know from being around my dog that dogs at least do have strong feelings, like affection and fear and contentment and excitement, I just don’t think that can be on par with human emotions or if it is on par then it’s on par at the level of pure affective quality of feeling only and not because the animal really “understands” these feelings at all. I definitely want to keep developing theory here.
Quote :
Most mammals are monogamous. All nature has organized functionally, this is what self-valuing is - all behaviors are ‘instinctive’ - no matter of their are atomic or human or divine or plant - even computers behave in the same way, when they are well integrated in a workflow and network. Humans are computers environments; they self-value in terms of us. But they are entities.
What we know, Anglosaxons and affiliated culture, is that we like individual freedom, and are willing to play a big price for this. What Arabs want is clearly something somewhat reversed; they always go for group-identity at the cost of individual liberties. Fine - let them. If there are exceptions, theyll come to the west. But if the west invites all of thje non-exceptions, the west is going to have to fight for its life, its values, its instincts, its freedom - and change, expel or kill the newcomers. Since our values preclude killing them inside of our borders at least, and our governments force us to take them in, we can only change them, or accept that they change us. Hence, we have war to look froward to, and this is only to blame on the ones who thought it was wise to invite these people without setting some standards for them, so that they can adapt to the part of life they now have come to serve under, which is freedom.
This is what we, the west, should say, regardless of anything we do overseas; Freedom is our religion, and if your religion is okay with that, then ours is okay with you. If your religion denies freedom, you need to get the fuck in a boat and drown at sea.
Literally, all that exists, is standards.
If we sacrifice our standards for the comfort of others, we are nothing but death waiting to happen.
This goes to what I posted in Archives, we need to identify the means and meaning by which our own cultural values are instantiated as standard. Physically removing people who do not conform to our values already exists, we call it the criminal justice system and prison. The law exists to define a line within which differences of values are tolerated and outside of which they are not, and the law does include plenty of determinations as to a person’s values beyond their actions, as it should. Muslims living in the west going to their Mosques and praying in public isn’t a violation of our laws, and I don’t think it needs to be. Enforcing integration at the point of a gun is sociopathic and fascistic in my view, and the mere fact that we feel a need to enforce it like that already indicates our own values and our faith in them has severely waned. The west is secular and tolerates a huge range of differing values-sets, and those we do not tolerate must be established in law as illegal.
Whatever it is that immigrants to the west do that is so offensive to us, those things must be clearly labeled illegal or we have no rational basis for pointing a gun at such people and demanding they leave. I agree that freedom is our “religion”, but freedom is not absolute nor “God-given”, and it’s meaning does change over time. I also agree that western nations should set reasonable limits on the number of immigrants allowed in, and some western countries have clearly exceeded such a reasonable limit. But I don’t think that justifies resorting to nationalistic xenophobic fascism. Again, the impulse to such a form of nationalism is pathological even if immigrants do indeed pose challenges to our societies.
“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
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 Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:02 pm
We need to clarify our intentions toward Islam-- the nationalists are taking advantage of a huge gray area here, and the left-liberals aren’t stepping in to demand clarity but are using that same avoidance of specificity to advance their own agendas.
What will the new laws be that we write regarding 1) Islam, 2) Muslim immigrants, 3) the teaching of Islam to children. The last one is the most problematic because it is so pressingly important and also there exists no historical context or legal precedent that I know of for doing this. Is it true that in Muslim countries and culture there are really no books except for the Koran? I’ve heard there are some kids stories and kids books, maybe a few, otherwise is it actually the case there are no other books but the Koran? That is insane if true. We can use such examples to inform the new laws we will write. And we can use the immanent danger to children as another solid reason, but then we’re stuck with the problem of differentiating between teaching Islam versus other religious beliefs. Do we really want to make it illegal to teach any religion to children? I don’t think we could do that even if we wanted to.
Fascism is when the immanent perception of need is supposed to outweigh our more general lasting and deeper values, and to collapse contradictions to one side only, the side based on immediate fear and need to “act”. I want to avoid subverting our thinking to such a need, but that doesn’t mean I don’t see how pressingly important these problems are for Europe.
“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 Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:46 pm
Capable wrote:
I don’t put inter-state warfare down to malice,
Nor do I - I put it down to bureaucratic power, which is basically a power not backed by ontos.
I dont see how globalism would work without massive increase in bureaucracy, rather than massive decrease, which is a first prerequisite to sanity.
Did you read the Law of Parkinson link? Its an Englishman work that anecdotally, but credibly proves how bureaucracy can not avoid becoming bloated. But we only need to look with our own eyes.
Open war on the other hand is just the explication of valuing. It is much preferable, because it is always temporary, as well as actually existent.
Quote :
Quote :
At no juncture could be logically expect any lessening of malice, of subjectivity, of self-interest, of ‘wisdom’ let’s say, by the means of combining more people under less heads.
I tend to see it differently. I think group dynamics can contribute to reductions in personal pathological states such as irrational malice; note that in one of the Zizek videos I recently posted he talks about how for a jealous husband, even if his wife is in fact cheating on him, his jealousy is still pathological. This is how ideology works, it simply uses truths or falsehoods to feed itself but doesn’t at all reduce in itself to true versus false states or situations.
Aggregating people into larger social groupings will achieve conflicting ends; it can and will reduce some pathological factors but also can and will increase others. It comes down to the KINDS OF social group forms that people are gathered into. The group form imposes its meaning and value standard upon those in the group as a kind of potentiating psychological model.
The view you espouse seems to preclude the possibility of individuals forming large groups in stable ways; but individuals already do that and have been doing it. We already have nation-states and international organizations and bodies, for me the next logical step is to continue universalizing these groupings, just as thought itself, subjectivity itself are always attempting to best universalize themselves. Of course even a true globalism isn’t a universalization, but just an attempt in that direction. To me, global doesn’t mean homogeneous or universal, it means a common minimum standard of interaction.
I said that humans can only organize in groups, as equals, as individuals. This is the exact opposite of having overhead decision making processes.
Groups are, as you know, formed around values. They are similar valuings grouping together to become stronger.
Values are by definition differentiated though - they are very much product of the environment. And this is beautiful.
I find diversity beautiful, good, righteous, true.
Quote :
Quote :
The Social: all animals are social, they all live in organized groups, and all mammals have complex emotions. If you interact for some hours with a dolphin or a cat, or with a wolf, or with a horse, you will see that they have emoptions quite comparable to the sort of emotions 99 percent of humans have - the only difference is that the do no think (equally like humans, generally) and thus have none of ther deeply complex emotions that form an artists soul, which is a soul that, through art, is implanted in most humans, on top of their proper, animal emotions.
I think there is a risk of falsely anthropomorphizing animals. How can we really know if their inner experience is on par with our own, emotionally speaking?
How can we know this of humans?
I kmow for a fact that I emotionally interact with animals ona sophisticated basis, and that with most humans, this is impossible.
I know no beings inner world except my own - I find the belief that one can know another humans motivations and inner workd to be pure superstition - humans differ from each other more than they do from animals.
All creatures feel pain, all warm blooded creatures emote. Birds have very complex cognitive processes in time, as proven by their ultra sophisticated behavior. Look at a crow solving a puzzle.
Only I experienced the creation of VO, but a raven was sitting in the windowsill, keenly observing me. Between that bird and me was friendship.
I dont care for people who disbelief in my friendships - philosophy can take so many forms that maybe two or three humans happen upon. That’s what I share with Pezer - the love of the wild. It totally trumps any desire to control my fellow species. ALl I wish to do is to allow people to experience the wild, which is all that is needed to end fascistic impulse, which is all that is really needed in general. But to this modest end, everything that the highest men can summon is required. Because what we are attaining, slowly, philosophers and artists and all vital humans, is the end of slave-instinct.
It is the slave instinct thsat requires government, rather than friendship.
Friendship will be the rule of my kingdom. It is the rule of my kingdom. Step by sterp I expand my kingdom, utterly uncompromising, always placing the individuals self-valuing above universal ideas, always thereby selecting individuals that can endure other individuals.
The only thing that ever goes wrong in a society is having too many dependent people.
Student debt is a means of creating dependency, of destroying human resilience to humanity.
Ah yes - humanity, the phenomenon that means only resilience to itself.
In its very highest form, the principle of government comes down to the same. It can thus never be imposed top-down without contradicting its only justification.
A contradiction well have to live with, but the influence of which I will be minimizing with every post or article or book that I write.
Self-valuing logic virtually precludes bureaucracy; there is only one way in which it can work, which is as an extremely proud, thus self-correcting function of a very fluid entity. Empires in their prime have functioned as such, but because these empires were built on plunder, that phase was always short.
We’ve never had a vital bureaucracy based on production. I think that is because bureaucracy is essentially derivative. It is simply the element of laziness. It works fine with pride as long as there are immense violent gains, but when the lands are stripped bare, bucreaucracy consumes first its subjects, and then its lower ranks, then its mid ranks, and then turns to military fascism, and then kills itself in a conflict between various honorless factions. It is the road to absolute annihilation, as we’re seeing in the middle east, which is a function of the bureaucratic “Peace Process”…
har har.
This is why we must be romantic not to turn cynic. Or why only romantic philosophers survive.
Quote :
I think true emotions come from inner distance imposed on the self as well as a highly conceptual-based accumulated experiences of meaning. Since a dog for example has no idea what a tree or a squirrel or a human being actually is, much less could know what it means to be alive or the fact that itself will die someday, how could a dog or any other animal really imbue its experiences with meaning, with understanding? I think emotions are very much products of meaning, understanding, accumulated daemonic inner differences formed hierarchically over time in such ways as to act as Signs pointing to meanings in derivation, predictive consequences of significance. I just don’t see animal other than humans able to do that. But I know from being around my dog that dogs at least do have strong feelings, like affection and fear and contentment and excitement, I just don’t think that can be on par with human emotions or if it is on par then it’s on par at the level of pure affective quality of feeling only and not because the animal really “understands” these feelings at all. I definitely want to keep developing theory here.
All mammals understand death. All mammals have complex emotions. I content that they are usually far more complex than human emotions, and that these mammals are far more conscious of what it means to exist than any human who spends more than 4 hours watching tv.
Ive seen my cats, two brothers, grow up and die, Ive seen them as they saw the death of one of them approaching, I saw them preparing the dying together, I saw the good-byes, I saw the mourning, I saw the psychological transformation, the depth increasing behind the eyes, the thoughtfulness of his gestures toward my sister, who was also sad…
Elephants treat death in a way that proves they are far more aware of what it is than we are. No walking self-valuing is unaware of itself, awareness is nothing besides self-valuing in a changing environment. Rather, it is the speaking self-valuings that have partially grown unaware, static; precisely because they began misunderstanding awareness as a static state, as ‘contemplation’ or ‘reflection’ rather than the most intense acting, which energy expenditure wise, it is.
You could tell me all of this is projection - but I assume you know me, and human nature, to well for this. Either all of it is projection, or we learn to trust our experiences as the only reality we have to work with. And when that happens, we begin to discern what we project and what is truly there.
That is how self-valuing came about as an idea.