Ill respond to the other segment on another post.
The above is summarized more or less in this;
The self-valuing principle is the only universal. All phenomena that are brought into being by this principle permutating itself so as to create being in time, are particulars.
Values are particular, so are self-valuings; they are synthetic functions of each other. Values and self-valuings together amount to self-valuing in terms of acting, and will to power in terms of being.
The will to organize the global value-grid in homogenous terms is perhaps the strongest will there exists, at least the most tyrannical one - but it is a will that if it will not bend, and thus must ultimately break; as all that does not bend does break. Especially light.
Then again, broken light is hardly wasted light.
" 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 3:45 pm
Capable wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
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.
I think we need to clearly separate three forces, rather than two; there isnt just the immigrants and ‘the west’ - but there are immigrants, peoples, and governments.
For the past 60 years, governments in the west have excluded their peoples from decision making, while at the same time importing huge amounts of peoples with radically opposed values. As people defended themselves against female circumcision, condemnation of science, beating women to death in their own house, etc etc, the governments started labeling this as racist and xenophobic.
So we have three forces:
islam
international fascism
individuals.
Among all muslim peoples are individuals. By inviting people over without stripping them of their most horrible customs, we both destroy the chances of freedom loving Arabs and such, and we destroy our own values.
On the other hand, if Obama hadn’t been such a fool of monstrous proportions, millions of coming immigrants would still have homes where they were born - so it is already too late - because France was such a big part in this disaster, Europe cant avoid absorbing these people in any sensible way - its all the result of meddling in the middle east - still none of that excuses in the least giving away a hairs breath of our freedom… that is precisely the wrong approach to take.
After all, we did not invade Lybia, or draw red lines in Syria. We did nothing to cause these people to move to our cities - it is rather that we are the only ones who can salvage the situation, precisely by not conceding to either the muslim priests or our own unelected institutions.
The EU and the US government arent anymore related to any standards of proper occidental quality. This is why they are falling apart. This is why Trump will win; he represents basic human values of the not fully civilized individual, of the raw culture-building forces.
“Culture and civilization are opposites.” - Weary Locomotive
There is much sense in this. Civilization could be seen as the circumference of culture. When it gets too heavy, i.e. too sensitive to weakness, it crushes its heart, the cultivating self-valuing that produced it as a mere facilitator.
When a civilization begins to speak out universals, it is about to splinter. It has lost its particular focus, its ‘spin’, its perspective - it will no longer be able to cohere with other particulars.
" 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 4:01 pm
Capable wrote:
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.
Consider that when Christianity held sway, there weren’t any allowed books except the bible. A religion can not possibly maintain itself if books are freely published. Whatever is published is filtered and edited to fit precisely into the ruling code. So authorship isnt a cultivated quality. Literature isnt spontaneous, it’s the result of centuries of deference to the free mind.
Im sure you are familiar with Salman Rushdie. He was just one guy who, despite mortal danger, decided to puyblish a book. He isnt safe anywhere on this planet.
Do you want to tolerate that? I dont. I even think it warrants nuclear holocaust and elimination of human life to prevent such codes from ruling.
All this is self-valuing. Placing real particulars higher than hypothetical universals. I act only out of love, and love only what I truly love. I dont pretend to love what tries to kill me. I happily send to its grave all that wants to kill what I love. I believe that the west is infinitely superior, and has the duty to eradicate childrape. No universals are in play here excpet self-valuing itself; universal monotheism simply is a negation of it. Only Judaism is valid as monotyheism, precisely because it is tribal, particular. It is their god. So they fucking leave us the fuck alone.
Quote :
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 can only rely on one thing, which is our own values. Everything else is about to collapse.
This is what it means to be philosopher in a cultural cataclysm. The last man standing.
Like Tolkien, in the trenches of World War one, consolidated the values of his friends, who were dying around him, in a manuscript that eventually became the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, much in that way we must collect and assemble the highest values of our culture, and produce a grand narrative-architecture, within which sciences and culture can continue to thrive in freedom.
We are going back to a time of castles and wilderness. Philosophy is the only discipline that is happy in both. Our time is actually coming; but it is coming to only our most bold and proud aspect - in a word, Jupiter.
No man will ever rule the Earth. No human government ever will. The hearts of humans will always rule, and this is why ‘the gods’ are in charge.
Hence, Government of Muses. A muse is an intermediary between man and god. A muse makes sure that both exist.
" 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 4:21 pm
If you invite something as hideous and coercive as Islam into the midst of your people, you must also allow all other types of bigotry and bias to run rampant, simply to protect life from this great bias against life itself.
It is all too easily forgotten that these gods of theirs all claim that man and this world are bad. This alone is enough to banish it from this world. But this does not mean banishing individuals. It means destroying gigantic power structures that have been rising for over a thousand years. It means terminating narratives that have run for millennia. It means, to so many, the end of times.
What one should tell an individual muslim immigrant here is: you are extremely welcome, to learn to be free here - if you speak one word of your sinister god to my children, ill wring you through the meatgrinder. That is how you show someone who doesn’t know what freedom is the path to freedom; by clarifying its worth to you - given that you would kill and die for it. Only one who holds it as dearly as that can make it understood, felt.
It must replace the idea of god, or at least force the idea of god to coincide with it. It is a pathos, a courage, a constitution.
As I formulated in Pezers ILP thread, for a full fledged being, freedom means to be free to ones values… and nothing besides!
" 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 6:09 pm
Parodites wrote:
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.
I do not see the possibility of a world-culture being brought into existence or have a desire that a species wide system of values be instituted either organically or by some kind of directed intention. Besides, it is impossible to create the kind of globalist institutions that could combat things like climate change without diminishing the power of the masses, the public, the individuals. Globalism is by its very nature a concentration of political force in the hands of the few. Death is preferable. Power doesn’t come out of a void somewhere. In order for these elites to have more power, I have to give them some of mine; we have to give some more of our power, our rights, our individuality, our emancipatory potential, some more of our father’s and forefather’s blood, to them. Not only am I not interested in empowering these soul-less agencies on the flimsy misplaced hope that they’ll combat the threat of a warming planet on our behalf as opposed to just stuff their fat fucking pockets, I want them to be completely disbanded and virtually all political power returned to where it belongs, the hands of the people.
Beautifully said. I have shared this elsewhere, among some other writing that you permitted. I do not worry that it will come to total chaos - civil life in most western nations of great international trade-networks is regulated in part by the significant layer of crime between law on the one hand and order on the other. Crime families that run local police stations are a veil that separates global elites from power on the ground, at least in democratic nations where the semblance of ground up influence is required to maintain civil society.
Capable takes the more difficult (bordering on impossible) approach - and this is crucial too as elites will continue to press for power, so the closer philosophy gets to relevance here, the more these elites can be curtailed to jobs that might actually be necessary, such as the containment of WMD. That is actually the only thing I can think of that justifies globalism in some way - it is curious that this view dawned on me reading a Jewish Kabbalah site that explained nuclear technology in these terms.
" 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 6:31 pm
All functions of government are meant to ward off some tyranny. Of war of hunger, of poverty and ignorance… or of political tyranny in the direct sense, either autocratic or ochlocratic - of harsh capital distribution, of all kinds of persistent discomforts and threats. But in no other way was it ever necessitated other than as as a measure against something. All the aspects of these things, peace, prosperity, culture, fairness, etc etc, these are all products of local human ingenuity and soul on the ground.
Mostly, government came to be as violent repression and extortion, simply out of the haphazard way in which nature distributes qualities and virtues. Mostly, that is what it remains. All the good that it claims is the work and initiative of the people it extorts. Governments are the parasites of cultures. They exist because the parasitical possibility is an implication of the self-valuing nature, but we need to get rid of the silly belief that they preside over them. We elect a scumbag to represent our more scummy instincts in an arena where no creator can breathe. Eventually it’ll die out.
" 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 7:10 pm
A government is essentially a crime organization that is so big that it can force people to call it “representation”. This is exactly how Mafia works (‘protection’) - but just bigger, and representing more slavish folk.
Italy will never be enslaved, precisely because their crime families represent roots to a more vital time, of more powerful governmental codes and values. Ive come to regard crime as preferable to systemic moral coercion, which is why I support Trump.
" 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 Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:49 am
For the same reason that government can never get rid of all crime, crime can never get rid of all government. Government and crime share bureaucracy in common, the mafia families have plenty of their own bureaucracy too. Petty chaotic crime is unable to ontologically structure itself into something socially significant and lasting; this is the problem that both government and the mafia have solved.
It is a problem of diminishing returns from either angle: if you want to get rid of crime or government corruption it is easy to start and deal with the biggest move obvious instances, but as you get closer to perfect elimination the task approaches impossibility. Malice, as you said, is part of human nature and bureaucracy is a perfect system for regulating (not eliminating) malice.
I see bureaucracy as a necessary part of human life. If not for it we would not have such things as computers or the internet, for an easy example. We would be restricted to mere localism and barter system type quasi-anarchic modes of life, which to me is fucking pointless. So the trick is to see how bureaucratic forms can evolve over time; this is what capitalism represents, I think. And my position toward globalism is entirely motivated by the fact that I see globalism as inevitable, so my personal feelings either way are entirely irrelevant. I might hate or love the idea of globalism, but globalism is going to be the case either way. Globalism is basically just the logic of the nation-state with no exteriority (with the exteriority posited internally rather than externally). Yes this raises definite problems and risks, I agree. So I want to look at how to mitigate those risks and solve those problems.
In my view time (history) only moves in one direction – forward – and never backward. Like a mind, history is always looking back and recollecting things, reanimating them in the present moment but this is always done at the express logic and behest of the present moment posited forward toward its predictable future/s. The past only lives in the present because the present is the condition of possibility of that past-recollecting; and the ways in which the present is able to posit-predict its possible futures is going to determine the ways in which the present recollects elements from its past. If we look at the last 2500 years we see a clear progression of history. I have not studied anthropology and pre-ancient Greek history enough but I assume that if we were to extent that to say the last 10,000 years the same would hold true… but even if it didn’t, modern history of the last 2500 years is sufficient to demonstrate the case that we are now on a more or less linear track, and globalism represents the limit of that linearity in so far as positing itself under the old models of interior/exterior mediation of forms. Society itself needs to be rethought once a truly global situation presents itself. And with the re-thinking of society comes the re-thinking of the subject and its psychology as well – Marx for example understood the globalizing nature of capitalism, and Marx thought that this global capitalism would reach its limit and then collapse into world communism. The only justification of capitalism is that it organizes production so efficiently that it is able to produce all the objects, machines, technologies, capital etc. that will later be distributed throughout the world in a communist State; his idea of communism was a post-global capitalism situation and not really the kind of nation-state communisms that we saw in the last century and which mostly all failed. (Not saying that I agree with his idealization of the world communist state, of course, I think he was utopian just like Nietzsche was, namely precisely where they were positing their higher values in imagined future forms of a theoretically pure or total absolution.) Capitalism will always eat such communisms, but only until capitalism reaches its final limit and collapses; that is Marx’s idea anyway. But Zizek uses Hegel to point out that it is impossible to envision this collapse and reformation in advance, that any attempt to achieve a revolution is doomed to failure yet it is precisely that failure and the how and why of it that is the condition of possibility for the later realization of the ideal of the revolution as such, albeit in some other form (modern capitalism is the realization of the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat, we have won out freedom “from” the old labor systems but this freedom is only a freedom “for” converting ourselves into subjectivity-as-labor as such, the self as its own commodity, for example.)
“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
Last edited by Capable on Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:43 am; edited 1 time in total
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 Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:40 am
Another interesting point here about nature and its relation to human being: “Imagine all of nature waiting for the invention of (human) language so that it can finally be expressed how bad it is to be a vegetable or a fish.” Lol. This point is a Heideggerian one regarding dwelling: rocks have no world, animals have a desire for a world that is not present to them, and only in human being is there the possibility for truly Dwelling (for having a world). To employ Zizek again, the idea is that we should not be asking what is human language that it cannot step outside of itself to perceive nature or animal “in themselves” as if we could never escape the ontological horizon of our own meaning therefore such a stepping outside is impossible, therefore we can never know nature or animal “really”… No, the idea is that we should ask “what is human language to nature”, what is the invention of language from the perspective of the non-linguistic natural world and how does the arrival of language allow that natural world a new means with which to articulate its truer reality or essence?
The idea of course now is that self-valuing can mediate this distinction; because nature is a self-valuing and because an animal is a self-valuing and because also a human being is a self-valuing it is now possible, armed with a theory of self-valuing as such, that the gap can be bridged on account of the true ontic similarity between all beings of all kinds in that all beings are always already self-valuings and therefore in some way both obscure and immediate are able to “know” each other. Perhaps a crow knows that a human is a self-valuing, for example. But this glosses over the idea that there must be radically different kinds of self-valuings and that even if one kind can always approach another at the basic level of form (being a self-valuing) it is still possible that no actual content could be communicated or transferred there; but I believe that self-valuings admit of degrees and progressive development not only formally as Heidegger said that man is that being for which its own being is an issue, but more significantly because man is that being for which its own being has become able to be an issue for it —why “able to be”, what does it mean that this holds for a human and not for a crow or a fish or a vegetable? I think that the consciousness is a substance and that self-valuing prescribes the basic form but not the actual contents within that form. And that it is the actual contents that, in sum and as accumulated hierarchically over time into metaphorical, metonymic logical structures within being, are really what defines what a being is or what consciousness truly means.
So I’m less concerned with the pure form of “all being is a self-valuing” and more concerned with what are the actual contents and experiences that have so far been accumulated to a given self-valuing and what does this say as to the potentials and powers open to that given self-valuing? I think it is on the basis of shared contents that truly significant (and ontic or abstract-transcendental) relating between beings is possible, and not simply on the basis of a shared form (of being a self-valuing). It is as if the shared form is just a condition of possibility for relations of shared contents to appear. In this sense I think we can say that being or consciousness is literally its contents and nothing besides. And so that raises the question: what are the contents of the consciousness of a crow, or a dog, or a fish, or a vegetable?
“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 Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:32 am
To the last post first; I would say the content of a crows self-valuing is far closer to mine than the content of a typical Hillary Clinton voter. I mean that - as indeed of course humans seem more alike in their capacities, also for holding things in the mind, but crows can actually solve puzzles that people with low IQs can not. Animals also have extensive memories, and gorillas can learn to paint figuratively. That last fact is proof of representational and abstract consciousness. But so is the crow solving the puzzle.
I am leaning to the idea that them brain is really more of a filter than a construct of drives.
Likely it will simply be impossible for us to come to terms on this view on animals - I expect Parodites will agree with you… but I do not see the regular human as capable of existing in ways remotely similar to how I exist, am conscious of myself - this is precisely why I turn to specific animals – cats, wolves, squirrels and crows most notably now - they inhabit a world of values and instincts that resonate with me, that vitalize me, that clarify things to me.
Here and there, a human with a historical mind exists. Absent that historical mind, human consciousness is not, to my understanding, much more complex or involved than animal behavior, except in that it forms more complex knots - but these arent functional.
So far Id say human complexity vs animals has mainly resulted in a diminished self-awareness, and a strange construct of ‘awareness as such’, a kind of collective conscious that does not really partain to much except its own permutations and lust for itself… valuing humans in its terms.
truly I do not consider the human species as homogenous at all, least of all in terms of awareness and historicity. My experiences with creatures tell me that awareness isnt sufficiently hierarchized in terms of species, but also needs to differentiate specimens inter-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
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 Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:25 pm
I agree that is pretty cool of the crow to do that. I’ve seen gorillas smoking cigarettes, chimps using sticks to get at insects inside logs, and there was an experiment that supposedly demonstrated dogs can use logical deduction (the dog is walking down a hall following the scent of food, when it is confronted with two passageways as the hall splits in two directions. The experimenters have set it up so that the smell of the food stops before the split, and no smell of food continues down either passageway. The dog would sniff the first passageway and, not finding the scent, immediately dart down the second passageway before even testing for the smell there… the obvious idea that the dog deduced “if not this one, then that one” which is a purely rational deduction).
I certainly agree that animals can do these sort of things. But I don’t really think this speaks to my larger point. A crow doesn’t know what the Earth is or even that there is an Earth, much less other planets, gravity, it cannot solve arithmetic equations, it cannot formulate in philosophical or conceptual terms something like justice, love, hope, truth, art, beauty, or freedom; such ideas are simply beyond that range of non-human animals as I see it. But certainly animals possess the kind of instinctual organic basis in which these conceptual ideas are themselves originally rooted, namely pleasure and pain differentiations and trying to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain, and making self-valuing distinctions of which other animal or situation or food is more valuable than another, etc. Animals can definitely do those things. But I think humans do those same things as well as build atop them. And this is the reason why some humans aren’t even as “pure” in their self-valuing as the animals: humans are capable of making mistakes, of not acting according to an immediate values-need for example, precisely because humans have surpassed that level. The capacity to make a mistake is an active, positive capacity whereas the capacity to solve a puzzle is just rote learning. Undoubtedly that crow had to go through extensive training on how to do those things it did, putting each piece of the puzzle together and then in what we saw it performed this all over again but in a slightly different order or arrangement of the steps… yes indeed that is impressive, but I don’t think the crow is able to make a mistake in the way a human can make a mistake. Making mistakes is divine, it isn’t a mark against humanity that we are often stupid, ignorant, pathological, because the fact we can do these “deplorable” things is simply the fact that we have developed something more than rote immediacy of animal consciousness and are now in the middle stages of trying to unpack and learn about this “something more”, we haven’t perfected it yet but we are in the process of doing so.
It is as if, you watch an ape being taught by its parent how to use a stick on the anthill to get the ants, well the ape at first just smacks the stick around randomly and doesnt perform the finesse needed to get the ants, and so you declare that the ape is somehow less evolved or lower in consciousness than other animals that simply use their long tongues to get out the ants much more effectively. But the young ape is learning something higher, and just because it isn’t quite there yet doesn’t mean it isn’t already entirely beyond those other animals that use their naturally specified tongues or whatever to get to the food. The difference is categorical.
Precisely humanity’s deplorable, pathological, unrefined, ignorant qualities proves that humanity is already beyond the level of the rest of the animal kingdom. Not very many animals will act with cruelty toward another for no reason other than to be cruel, humans will do that and so will some other primates, but that is all the examples I’ve heard of. Likewise other animals do not go to war for ideas or because of the joy of war, to self-actualize themselves, they will fight for concrete reasons such as territory or access to resources. Mobilized war and human psychopathology are deplorable not because humans are less than animals, but because humans are still in the much larger process of learning about precisely how humans are always already much beyond the animal level. At least this is how I see it.
I am not criticizing your connection to animals at all, I have this connection too. I am just not using such a connection as a means to demean humanity simply because humanity must, in addition to being “immersed in the immediacy of pure natural instinctive awareness” or whatever kind of idealized state of nature we might imagine they exist in, actual work and suffer and error in the process of discovering who and what it really means to be a human, to be oneself. The error in man is beautiful, as Holderlin’s “where danger is there grows the saving power”, humans are in a state of danger for which there is no parallel in the animal natural kingdom anywhere. A crow does not have an existential crisis, is what I mean.
“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 Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:59 pm
I also reject the opposite polarity as yours, the one that says all of nature is brutal pain and suffering and horror, and that only the human world overcomes this and introduces any semblance of meaning or value into existence. I think these two views represent polarities and the truth is somewhere in the middle. The “state of nature” is not something that I idealize, simply because I imagine having to live in the wild scrounging for food all the time, being cold and dirty and in fear of predators, probably usually hungry; even if I were incapable of aspiring to any kind of human values or quality of life, that still sounds miserable. But neither do I think that nature is one massive horror show of suffering insanity and constant death and meaninglessness, a “rabid rat trapped in a cage forever devouring itself” as I remember Inmendham called it in one of his videos. That isn’t correct either; we should try to develop a philosophy of nature, a true theory here. In such a theory I would tend to come down more on your side Fixed than on the other side.
I see humans are entirely natural, except that we “broke the wheel of evolution” as I think Parodites said once, and because we are no longer subject to natural selection (since just about any human and regardless of the state of his genes can procreate). But our selection mechanisms are different ones now, we can align them to truths and to fact as such, at least as far as we are able to tell thus-far (yeah we make plenty of mistakes here, but I think over history we are getting better, closer to truths).
Here is an easy example of what I mean: imagine someone like Einstein or Shakespeare or Nietzsche, highly intelligent and refined emotional and creatively, with tons to contribute so much so that the future of humanity can be altered just by this individual person’s work… except this person lives in a state of nature type anarchy society, and one day they are assaulted by a gang and killed for their cash… the false paradigm of anarchy would say because the person could not defend themselves physically they “deserved” to die, because as we know this paradigm believes that might makes right. But that isn’t correct at all. The value of Nietzsche or Einstein or Shakespeare or any number of great genius people is infinitely more than their capacity to physically defend themselves from others, and the standard of physical defense is infinitely lower than the standards by which the genius individual operates and can contribute to. Imagine a world like this, a humanity where “might makes right” it somehow or another to some degree instantiates as moral truth; that would be a fucking disaster, hardly anything good could arise out of such a world. Certainly humanity would evolve at a snails pace under such conditions, and indeed the slow curve of progress that was early humanity until the last couple thousand years represents this fact: culture and knowledge, higher values, were unable to be valued directly in the ancient past because indeed might made right in that past, humans were still very close to the state of nature and dominated each other physically or through surrogates of physical violence (fear, psychological tricks (religion), etc.). Now finally we have started to climb up the curve of progress and escape that state of nature.
The state of nature is just fine for animal life because animal life is unable to aspire to higher values; an animal pursues pleasure and avoids pain, and would rest in a state of comfort, but otherwise isn’t able to value a higher quality of life, or values as such. Animals do not care for knowledge, for truth, they cannot really build anything like culture at all. This is also why I still disagree with Parodites’ view that human society is a reflection of nature, because while it is true that part of human society is indeed this reflection, there is much more about human society that is far beyond that level. The state of nature for animal life, the natural societies of animals entirely lack what we might call culture or higher values, overall knowledge or progression toward truth, precisely because they are locked in the survival of the fittest game of might makes right, so that higher values are unable to appear (and even if they did appear, they would vanish just as quickly). Humans struggled for probably 50,000 years or more in that kind of state to gradually, gradually overcome it by the tiniest of increments until finally we founded culture, language, and were able to somewhat escape the state of nature into something ontologically higher on the continuum of being.
I agree with the respect and love for animals, I consider my dog to be my true companion and indeed we understand each other very well. But I think were I differ from you is that I still hold humanity in highest regard, and I consider whatever is best about animals is precisely what defines human being already, even or perhaps especially where human being is capable of erring in terms of it. We should show more respect to animal life because what is best about human being and ourselves, this is also shared, at the foundations, with the animals. And you are right in the sense that we can never really know the inner world of the animal, the crow might have a fully developed subjectivity, personality, forms of knowledge, a kind of understanding of values like justice etc., I cannot say for sure that it doesn’t. And regardless if it does or not, its form of life should still be respected, and not only because we too share in that form of life of the animals, but because our human form of life is not necessarily the highest or best one; we preference our own form of life because it is ours, in proper self-valuing fashion. The ‘objective’ measures that we use to defend that anthropocentric valuation notwithstanding.
“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
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 25, 2016 9:18 am
About Trump’s Muslim ban- he revised it a long time ago to be a ban from specific regions in the world, not a religious ban- regions of the world with a known history of sponsoring terrorism. Regions of the world where ripping a girl’s clitoris off is common- a crime that goes basically unpunished by European and British authorities who don’t want to be racist and prosecute Muslims.
And one quick thing on globalism:
“You can’t solve this problem, so you, the people, have to surrender your power to us, to our political elites and social institutions, we will counter these problems on your behalf…” that is the kind of thinking behind the worst catastrophes of the last century, rather it was communism addressing poverty or now globalism addressing climate change. In a text on Zizek, I find the following, directly admitting this elevation of the political elite to illusory heroes to save the masses from themselves:
Speaking against democratic values: "There is a name for the politics that glorifies risk, decision, and will; that yearns for the hero, the master, and the leader- that prefers death and the infinite to democracy and the pragmatic; that finds the only true freedom in the terror of violence. Its name is not communism, but fascism. In his most recent work, Zizek has unarguably revealed himself as a kind of fascist. He admits as much in Violence, where he mentions “the re-emerging left-Fascist whispering at the borders of academia, where I guess I belong.”
This is fucking disgusting, to be blunt. That a person like Zizek not only admits the thought-policing fascist scheme which the Left basically represents now, which would have me thrown out of academia for what I’ve said in this thread, which would bring back book burning if it could, along with this heroic elevation of political classes who ask us to give all of our power to them- so that they can betray us, and even seems proud of it… I have very little respect for the guy, and zero respect for his politics.
This country, the US, was founded on exactly the opposite principles: it was founded on the de-centralization and the separation of government powers. It was founded on: no heroes, no masters. And this country became in 200 years the most powerful force on earth because of it, only so that I now have to endure people preaching the virtues of taking a completely opposite path, people saying “fuck localism,” or to translate it, fuck having a functioning community, fuck having a politically empowered public, etc. Give all your power away to them, these political classes. That, in order to combat climate change or poverty, we must surrender our power to a centralized government, to larger and more powerful institutions, is a religious idea. You also mention that somehow without these piece of shit administrators that parasitize us and betray us we wouldn’t have computers and the like. How? Centralized government and Statism are the enemies of enlightenment, philosophy, and civilization. The state has held civilization back, not pushed it forward.
I do not perceive the leveling to have been completed yet, as Fixed does. You want my vision of the future of society, the completion to this leveling, at the coming dawn of the new, post-globalist era of western civilization? Europe continues its globalist policies, imports another billion Muslims, gets rid of borders and the idea of nation states, centralizes the power of its people in larger social institutions, and experiences economic meltdowns and civil unrest, to eventually become a third world, decimated kingdom of ghosts and broken dreams. The US does what Washington wrote of and told us to do centuries ago- it uses its unique position, separated from the rest of the world by an ocean, with an entire continent to itself, to isolate itself completely, becoming perfectly independent from the rest of the nations, then inherits the world after Europe collapses over a new pact with Russia taken over the corpse of Europe, clenching humanity between a new East-West alliance. Contra Zizek, you can see the collapse in advance, I do see it in advance. This is the inevitable future, not globalism: because globalism doesn’t work. Europe will never be a united states of nations because of its population density, because of its economic position, because of the fact that racial and cultural differences in humanity are real and social integration will never take place at the level required to push these globalist policies through to their conclusion. Europe will fall in the coming wars, the US will not only survive, but find the courage to conclude its true destiny, inheriting the Western mind and its legacy for a new continent. The left-right, capitalist-communist idealogical paradigm will be left behind, (I mentioned how capitalism won the battle for the soul of modernity in my first post in this thread) with a new post-ideology paradigm emerging between America and Russia, between our anti-globalist anti-statist system and the Eastern nationalism with its return to tradition, utilizing the familiar forms of the Church and christian symbolism to reconstruct a new national identity. The Russian constitution explicitly denies the existence of ideology, our constitution explicitly denies the existence of centralization. In this new paradigm, it is impossible to determine where the left and right are- this election cycle is just an intimation of this new karma. The new political axis will form between the political emancipatory potential of communities and the metapolitical emancipatory potential of traditions, not between left and right idealogy, not between the economic division capitalism and socialism. The axis and division I conceived between the State and Culture, will be brought to exist, as the alternative to globalism. The next aeon will begin, a new era for western civilization. It would be wise to mobilize our philosophies and the general philosophy of self-valuing toward filling the space of this new political axis that is forming, to become the logic whereby the new determination is made as to where one falls in it, as opposed to where one falls in the dying left-right axis. That is what I am concerned with doing anyway.
The light of Being has, as in Heidegger, been snuffed out by the accumulated forms of Being on the part of Western intelligence, (with postmodernity offering a glimpse into the abyssal end of history, the emptiness of neon lights and malls and Iphones) by the traditions and cultural forms which Liberalism has busied itself with rejecting, so that the final oblivion of Being has been reached, and nihilism touched upon all things; but, on the other side, the rejection of these forms, the Leftist push, has paralyzed the spirit of humanity upon the precipice of our karmic aeon, and deprived us of all emancipatory potential. This deprivation is what makes globalism and the end of history appear to be “inevitable.” This is why, as these old forms were done away with, no new forms arose to take their place, no “pure forms” as Capable imagined. Man turned out unable to fill the throne that he relieved God of. Nothing filled the place of God. But a people with no history or culture had taken an entire continent for themselves and attempted to form a new kind of society based around empowering the masses and stripping the political elites, while the Russians in the East worked off the failure of the German reich and attempted to piece together a new nationalism, a new national identity, with the tattered remains of Christian symbolism inherited from the church orthodoxy. And in the middle, Europe embraced the end of history, the Messianic fulfillment, leftist secular humanism and globalism, only to be undone by it, only to be mistaken. As the Europeans evacuated their nations of their cultural forms and traditions, as they accomplished the destruktion of culture, the Russians collected the shards of western intelligence in an attempt to peer through them from behind history into the light of Being, to dispense in the revelation of pure Being the foundation for the next karmic aeon to dasein, and salvage an ethos and new racial identity for the nation, while we, in America, outlined a new, thoroughly non-European form of government, to provide the masses with true political force. On either side of Europe, between these two formulas, between antistatism and nationalism, the new political axis will take shape as the left-right axis and globalism’s alternative.
The unspoken contempt has always been: there is no place for the Americans and the Russians in the new globalist utopian multiculture. The Americans especially have to sacrifice their leading position in the world, their economic power and independence, we have to export all our jobs to other countries, bankrupt ourselves on aiding them, send the fucking Jews 100 million dollars a day: Obama is right now trying to transfer control of the internet to the EU, by giving away our US controlled company that dispenses all the domain names.
But the real truth is: there is no place for Europe in the new dawning karmic aeon, the next political paradigm. Europe is dead and it’s head will finally be cut off in our lifetimes, and the globalist vision it has been at the center of blown away like the pitiable ghost it always was.
The first blow against globalism was struck with Brexit, Trump will win for the second blow, and not long from now this current system will fall.
Nobody wants to return to a state of nature, that’s not what anarchy means. We can have a stateless society, a society where the masses administer their own government to themselves, as opposed to giving their power away to be concentrated in the hands of an elite administrative class and centralized federal government. This is what the US was planned to approximate. It was the only government designed on philosophic principles, the spheres of power among the branches of government balanced mathematically in advance, to ensure the greatest freedom and emancipatory potential for the masses. Every other nation and government emerged out of the chaos of nature, arbitrarily.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
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 25, 2016 12:04 pm
“The unspoken contempt has always been: there is no place for the Americans and the Russians in the new globalist utopian multiculture.”
I laughed at this. Word to your mother, I did not realize the cluelessness.
Fuck Wagner.
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 25, 2016 12:27 pm
That Europe thought it could deny America its destiny is not the absolute punchline, it is not the most laughable thing. We have the three political fronts for the battle over the soul of modernity at the 20th century: communism, fascism, and capitalism. Capitalism won for the reasons I mentioned.
[Capitalism succeeded out of these three for a reason. It is not the most effective- none of the three are very effective, as they all reflect inaccurate understandings of human psychology. The reason it succeeded is because it naturally aligns itself with the Leftist secular humanism, and allows a complex to form between corporate power, democratic processes, the media, science, and military (via globalism) whereas this is difficult if not impossible with the other two alternatives. This complex is very powerful, physically speaking, if spiritually emaciated and lacking any vision for humanity or affirmative content, lacking ethos. It was inevitable that capitalism would win by allowing this complex of social forces to form. ]
This complex it formed: between capitalist economies, corporate power, the media, our electoral cycles manipulated as they are by the media, science, fetishistic technology, and the military through globalism…- this complex of social forces, is leftism. That is the punchline to the joke, leftist secular humanism isn’t even an ideology. The political, ideological axis between the right and left isn’t even real, it never was real. It’s a complex of various social forces that have integrated themselves into a single force, a single will, it’s not an ideology. It’s been using the myth of ideological struggle and that it has provided the end of history by concluding that struggle in order to keep itself in existence.
Additional afterthought: Heidegger thought that Leftist idealogy, with its annihilation of Being in the forms of being (culminating in technology replacing culture) originated with a core of enlightenment rationality implanted in the original Greek dialectic by the Asiatics, then later modified by the Jews in Rome, which has now broken forth and taken control of the whole thing. But truly, science and rationalism are merely another set of social forces transformed by and integrated within the complex that capitalism’s victory has enabled. So this was his mistake. And Nietzsche’s: the nihilism he saw rising had already been formed, hiding in the myth of ideology: the Leftist, leveling secular humanism has no intrinsic core, it is a totally phenomenal apparition- the struggle of ideology has not ended, because it never began. Nietzsche was himself the last man, for he was the last man to believe there was ever any struggle of ideas behind the dialectic of history. God did not die, he was stillborn: the dialectic of history that began in Greece never had a dispensation of Being to dasein, never had an intrinsic core, and because of that, this devastating complex of social forces has formed and taken control of the momentum of civilization. This leftist secular humanism has given us an apolitical world- it has shown us what the movement of history always was; a world where political decisions have been replaced by bureaucrats managing the masses of humanity in a purely economic and administrative capacity: Nietzsche was the last to truly believe there ever was a possibility for grand politics. This is why I envision my counter logic to the historical dialectic and my metapsychology, self-valuing, American constitutional political philosophy, and the Russian project of salvaging nationalism, ethos, and identity, as all converging on a metaphysical attractor point, which is gravitating all the marginal history, all that European culture has diffused and thrown away, to itself, upon whose precipice a new karmic aeon can be derived, upon which a new history can begin. A history grounded on the constant reification of cultural inheritance in higher forms, on the continuous derivation of epistemes or guiding images of thought as expressions of various communities’ emancipatory potential and identity, each one proving itself not so much in a debate or struggle against the others but in a nomadic bid to prove how effectively they can each capture the momentum of history for themselves.