"I highly recommend this in depth article on the ME and the Arab spring. Edit: if you find any inaccuracies or lies in this article please call attention to them.
nytimes.com/interactive/2016 … pe=article
From what I can tell, Gaddafi was in the running to be replaced for a long time, at least since 2003 in the Iraq invasion. Bush Jr really started this off. Of course he was just continuing the Bush Sr and Clinton program. We need look no further than Yugoslavia to see what Clinton creates as a precedent for NATO being the bitch of western corporate imperialism.
Again, I have no love for the Clintons. I’m just saying that Trump is a false flag. Hell, he has been friends with the Clintons. And Trump is surely on the side of pro-Bush Jr just like the modern US Right mostly is, remember these are the same “conservative” voters who supported Bush and the Iraq war who are now backing Trump, and of course now we know that originally Teump did support the Iraq invasion (despite lying about that fact now), in his own words.
The deeper problem is that these Iraq, Egypt and Libya tyrant governments were set up by the west. There is bo real government there, just arbitrarily lines drawn around older colonialist demarcations. Gaddafi was a brutal dictator of a totalitarian state, yet he had socialism like Saudi Arabia today so we are supposed to assume he was “ok”, ha-- no, socialism in that sense is just buying the relative complicity of the people so you can go about with executing and imprisoning anyone who steps out of line. The concept of human rights is non-existent in these places. NATO backed Arab spring uprisings against Gaddafi due to his brutal crackdowns on protesters and of course because the west wanted to see him go, just like Saddam he was a petty tyrant who got big ideas about biting the hand that feeds. If you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman you’ll see how the west manipulates and forces compliance out of these cheap petty dictators-- or removes them. Clinton is just as guilty here of supporting this fake system that props up sham governments and dictators and then removes them when it seee fit to do so. Again, I’m not supporting Clinton.
But I have to ask: you despise Islam, and in general you seem to adhere to the principle of western power and of the will to power as idea; what is, very clearly, the basis for your rejection of this kind of western neo-imperialism that makes the ME the bitch of the west? I understand that you do hold some regard for the Arabs in general and the Kurdish fighters specifically. I am just curious on hat basis do you oppose western new imperialism such as seen by the west supporting people like Saddam and Gaddafi for a while and then overthrowing them when they step too far out of line?
I certainly oppose this kind of neo-colonialism, I oppose it largely on moral and rational grounds. I don’t have the same antipathy you do for Islam, however I would never support islam directly and I understand that teaching archaic old world ideology to children by the billions is not a good thing. In general the west’s position toward ME certainly post-Jimmy Carter but going even further back has been to sublimate global colonial ambitions to capitalist intrusions and prop up fake regimes for westerners gain. That all seems very “Nietzschean” to me, I would have a hard time finding anything in Nietzsche that would have much of a problem with any of that, certainly when you factor in the extremely adverse sentiment toward modern Islam that you and I am sure Nietzsche would also have felt. My point is that it takes a kind of always-already moral “humanist” sentiment and value to even oppose this western neoliberal global capitalist imperialism in the first place, I don’t think it can be opposed simply on utilitarian “amoral” grounds alone.
Why does Trump think we should stop meddling in the ME? Is it because Trump represents this moral rational position that such meddling is inherently immoral (unphilosophical) and cannot be rationally supported? No, his opposition is basically that it just costs us a lot of money. I mean I’m sure you can see the difference there. This is perhaps a subtler point I am trying to make here but I trust you will grasp it and reply in kind.
In the issue of corporations, I agree they should be held to a standard of social beneficience in general and all other things being equal. Corporations are not persons, and money is not speech. Perhaps we can all come together here around our opposition to the corporate oligarchy state. But note that the idea that corporations should be held to a standard of social beneficence and should not be given individual rights is inherently a Leftist position. The Right here supports the Citizens United ruling and opposes the EPA and other means of making sure corporations are not fucking up the common social spaces too much.
“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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
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 Oct 04, 2016 2:45 pm
Parodites -
I agree with your breakdown. I have much to say to that specific nature of the gods you describe, too much at this point. That is always the case with such thoughts - they address the things that I have had kept silent for twenty years precisely now, because there was no language to express them in.
It leads up to the following, which crosses over a field of possibility I had out of prudence not yet considered.
Quote :
the task of fully developing the concatenation and combination of the inner
and outer worlds of man and nature, involuting and extro-verting the original image of
Being into the multitude of created forms, until at last, as Levi-Strauss said, the whole
symphony of combinations stands abrupted at the pinnacle of those combinatorial
resources and collapses into silence.
Ah! This is a perfect reflection on a higher arc of how I see the periodic table to have come into being; as a final result of a symphony of (an endless array of dimensions of) combinations of the self-valuing principle.
Yes, this is the aim. This is the very aim of creating the just-human-enough-human, that Nietzsche perhaps sought to circumvent in disgust with the all-too-human.
Quote :
Human speech does not name anything, it verbalizes or speaks itself into existence and asserts the ground of its own genesis, which is silence: in the beginning was the word and the word was god and the word was with god. The first model or image of Being to which man awoke from out of the animal paradise, namely the model of civilization itself as told by the Sumerians upon the mount Eridu- the image of creation, which became the sight of our first city, afforded an initial break with nature and organo-affective unity into mythic consciousness as Levi-Strauss called it, and we may consider our language to have developed so as to reconstitute the intrapsychical dimension after this Fall, after this reflective silence as lies both before and behind us, after the ecstasis, as within a new medium unaccounted for by the natural world- that is, within the medium of language itself. In summa: the discontiguity of techne and language, of being and time, of the symbol and the symbolized, of the mythos and the logos, of the model and the descriptive sign-system, is not the barrier to thought but the very engine of consciousness and of concept-creation. ]
Correct, I think - I treated the word and the idea in the same way, so as to arrive at the word “valuing” as being the most comprehensive reflection of that very beginning. It is as a full reflection, thus as a basic asymmetry, thus as a proper phenomenon, that it works; therefore it calls into being its own logic, i.e. its own grammar.
Ive found the word that can commands the entire logos, and logoocized it to perform that task.
Quote :
The silence following the death of God on the Cross, this has not been understood yet.
Therefore there hasn’t been a resurrection.
Quote :
[ As in Rosenstock-Huessy: “Language is not speech, it is a full circle from word to sound to perception to understanding to feeling, to memorizing, to acting and back to the word about the act thus achieved. And before the listener can become a listener, something has to happen: he or she must expect.”
Indeed, language is the self-valuing non-human being in which terms all humans that arent of pure poesis value themselves, thereby being less than fully human, or ‘all-too-human’ - what N aimed for as the Superman is, I am beginning to think, the man of logoic poesis who cures mankind of its pale and lethargic conceptual grammar, allowing a fully fledged species of joy to come into being; a need this to reinterpret the Superman, perhaps more into what Sauwelios has been aiming for - himself. Ourselves. And thus, the Superman as a means rather than an end; all ends must become means for either good or ill.
Quote :
[ As in Rosenstock-Huessy: “Language is not speech, it is a full circle from word to sound to perception to understanding to feeling, to memorizing, to acting and back to the word about the act thus achieved. And before the listener can become a listener, something has to happen: he or she must expect.”
Precisely. Therefore we who have been expecting and finally received a fully fledged ontos, can never trust any operative terms but those very ones we forged the heat we were personally able to generate in our expectation.
Quote :
This expectation, this passivity which is transformed in activity back into passivity and vice versa, is precisely mythic consciousness, which through the closed circle of the logos is opened up to Being. Giambattista Vico draws attention to the semantic discontiguity built into the very concept of mythology, insofar as it combines two antithetical words- myth and logos, the structure of narrative and that of truth, mimesis and reason, the poetic and the rational, the fiction and the reckoning. His thesis is that logos cannot ground itself, a thoroughly modern problem that only reappeared in the light of Nietzsche and Heidegger: the problem of philosophy’s self-grounding, its immanent locus, the point of departure for the vicious circle of the logos.
Precisely. Hence the fact that only the term valuing is suitable. Only this term refers directly to the objective groundlessness of objectifying identification, as well as to the objective ground of subjective iodentification; it is a proper ground to build. Not to “existence” - obviously any ground of existence would also have to exist - thus can not exist.
Quote :
This is why the logos must enter into relation with myth, for the fictive or mimetic
genesis of what I call the techne or model of the cosmos provides the logos and language
with a point of departure upon which to begin verbalizing or announcing itself. Vico
asserts that the primordial silence of man becomes explicable by the logos from the
standpoint of the mythic model, such that language can begin to evolve as the
externalization of the structure of logos in relation to its mythic foundation in techne.
When language first appeared it was, as Vico points out through the lens of Egypt, in the
form of hieroglyphics, still bound to the natural imagery around whose silence it had been
first inaugurated, enclothed in this way by the shadow of the object, or, in Kantian
language, as so many empirical images not yet configured by transcendental imagination
in a schematism of non-sensible images, in a state more or less of sur-reflection as
Merleau-Ponty phenomenologically designated it- that is, an account of the effects of
reflection in passivity to the spectacle. The specifying and identity forming power of
language- the general language of Being established by logos, when first confronting the
domain of mythic silence before the model of creation- before the cosmic image of Being
itself, spoke the lesser images of beings, of the hieroglyphy, into existence through the
medium of human consciousness. The heiroglyphic stage is the mimetic stage of language
and is the one that most fascinated Mallarme, who identified the mimetic act as a
perpetual allusion that does not shatter the mirror, or one which installs a space of pure
fiction- that is, myth. Within the immanent plane of language so it happened that the
logos enacted within its own vicious circle the continuous submergence of individual
beings within one another, through a concatenation of the natural world, producing men
with the heads of dogs and so on, with the sign-symbol emerging as the discontiguous
threshold of transition between techne and logos, myth and reason, the model and the
word, and all the gods themselves upon the first pronouncement of the mystic syllable
EL.]
I go to the end in agreeing here, as this is the path that I have followed to end up at self-valuing logic. I need only say this to you, I think; the first thought that entered the realization of the logic was: then all the myths and gods I have, in full irony, chosen to fully believe (where my smile was thus forever private, a painful affair), are just as fucking real as I thought I had to imagine them. Then I fully understood the nature of the imagination. Instantly, of course, I nodded to Schopenhauer, who is truly Nietzsche’s begetter.
change, from:
EL.
Elohim,
etc
to
Val - (root)
Valor (prime identifier)
Valuing (concept)
Valency (application)
Value (Universal)
etc
Quote :
And thus the anti-dialectic I outlined is my formalization of this “Within the immanent plane of language [mythologos] so it happened that the logos enacted within its own vicious circle the continuous submergence of individual beings within one another…[this submergence is what myth became within the circle of the logos, the mythos on its own was a pure affirmation of Being in innumerable unconnected forms]” In essence: a logic in which Being does not contain the seed of its conceptual opposite or negation as it does in Hegel, where Being has an entirely affirmative content.
Yes, pure negation -
One pillar against the two by his sides. Difference and repetition; but with the consideration of the vertical plane as a result.
Tectonic pile-ups, mountain-ranges; this is the human being. The inward negation by necessity of its own conditions as it confronts itself as time, refined into what we call excellence, or beauty, or culture, or intellectual hygiene.
" 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 Oct 04, 2016 2:49 pm
Capable wrote:
The deeper problem is that these Iraq, Egypt and Libya tyrant governments were set up by the west.
I will be back to address your post in the full, I have to meet someone -
but yes - this is the issue. The death of the Ottoman Empire has not been absorbed at all. Two world wars did very little to discharge that order of violence.
As to regards my valuing of Islam, in the terms you put it - please, watch my document, It is a year of my life, one fully dedicated to Islam, in the midst of muslims. I have been among the religion all my life, It is incomparably more powerful here than Christianity. It holds sway.
I dont loathe it. I loathe its imposition on my own values - and it is largely if not purely come to think of it the school of which Clinton is the spearhead now that that is responsible for this.
I had friends and girlfriends form muslim families since I was 2 years old.
" 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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:23 pm
Everything I am saying, I say respecting the honesty of your intentions, without any feeling of maliciousness. Sorry if I sound otherwise, I’m attacking your politics, because I have to, not you.
"remember these are the same “conservative” voters who supported Bush and the Iraq war who are now backing Trump, and of course now we know that originally Teump did support the Iraq invasion (despite lying about that fact now), in his own words. "
He did oppose the Iraq war. And your claim that it’s the typical conservative Bush voter that’s voting for Trump is objectively incorrect. Trump has pulled in a record number of voters to the Rep. party in the primaries: obviously it’s not the typical Republican that’s giving him all the votes. A lot of people who voted for him admit to never having voted before in their life. He’s getting more of the minority vote than Bush or Romney, even blacks. This statement is not true. Pretty funny that he’s the most racist bigoted guy to run under the Republican party yet he’s gotten extremely impressive percentages of the minority vote.
Capable, your entire dismissal or Trump as well as the Washington Post article is a baseless accusation and a reflection of a defensive reaction to your not wanting to be lumped in with the lowly “rabble rousing Trump supporters”. I have no qualms of taste about being lumped in with them for the same reason I have no qualms of taste about being lumped in with drug addicts: when one is above something, one can indulge it freely. Your dismissal of Trump is accusatory and psychological: my support of him is objective and logical, as I provide reasons not insults. I pecked at that article you posted for a bit and moved on because there is nothing to respond to. I have outlined my own politics and reasons for backing Trump, I’ve specified the historical role he is fulfilling, (all men who have come to political power have simply fulfilled a historical role, they themselves are of lesser importance- that’s why Trump himself doesn’t really matter, his external character is a fabrication anyway) and I have modified my own position in relation to your own throughout these exchanges, but you have not budged and it always comes back down to, quite simply: He’s Hitler, he’s a liar, he’s a racist, he hates women, because that’s all the stuff I heard about him and I don’t want to be associated with any of that. I cannot argue with it. You say he’s a racist bigot, I advise you that he’s said nothing racist, and then you specify that you’re using the word racist in an entirely different sense, etc.
You do a similar thing with fascism as you do racism- it’s not an actual political scheme, it’s just “an attitude.” No, it’s a very definite political schema that Trump has nothing to do with. I don’t use words to draw and quarter those who offend my taste, or neutralize other people’s lines of thought until I can shuffle them away into a little box, as those who use words like racist, misogynist, etc do.
" Trump isn’t a solution to anything, he is a fake populist anti-intellectual puppet and empty sour of brainless reactionary meme-speak with zero political knowledge or experience…"
You request an argument to that? I can only argue with an argument, not an insult.
" As for Hegel, I find it amusing the trepidation he inspires, the loathing and dismissal. From where does this come, I wonder? Well I don’t really need to wonder, I happen to know."
What are you talking about? The dialectic has been utilized by philosophers since Hegel developed it, I don’t see a bunch of Hegel-hate when I look around. Not that I hate him: I take him as having schematized a degenerate way of thinking about the question of Being that was waiting to fully burst through for a long time. I don’t hate him. The reason I dislike Hegel is not malicious, it’s because I reject the fundamental premise of Hegelian philosophy. His system does not make sense. I hate his prose style though, I’ll give you that. The basic premise of Hegelian philosophy (And Western philosophy in general right now) is that Being contains within itself the seed of its own negation, and the fundamental premise of my own philosophy is incompatible with that. I cannot logically accept him as anything but an example of my “antipode” as Nietzsche would say. It is good to know where one’s antipodes are though. Even the quote in your sig now, “clings to finitude and thus to contradiction,” becomes instantly translated for me, “clings to love and thus to death,” “clings to earth and thus to sin,” “clings to Being and thus to Nothing.”
" He appeals to cheap reactionary fear- and anger-based rhetoric, inciting anger and disaffection and targeting it at certain groups we are supposed to assume are the cause of our problems-- Muslims, Mexicans, the Chinese. "
People aren’t really apprehensive about more terror attacks (perhaps some pretend to be) by Muslims- that cannot really be stopped, it’s going to continue happening. The reality is, Muslims do not integrate into our society. Multiple studies have show that the second generation of a Muslim migrant is even more “extremist” that his parents were, and they get more and more extremist as the generations pass. Want to know why? Because Muslims are alienated in our society, and the first person that comes along with words that can stir his racial sentiment and make him feel like he has a voice again, a connection to his fraternal spirit- he takes that person as a master. He becomes “radical.” Because the first person he encounters with those words if often a radical, preying on his sense of isolation. And the Islamic faith is unique in how powerfully it can tap into this, while also being far more expansionist and theocratic than the other Abrahamic faiths. Trump is not attempting to deport a bunch of Muslims who are already citizens here- that would be illegal. But it is within his power to bar the entry (without extensive interviewing) of people coming from certain areas in the world where we know they kill women to save their honor, circumcise females, and have a history of sponsoring terrorism. A nation-state has an immortal right to self-determination. If a nation-state cannot determine what kinds of people and values it wants to be freely brought into it: then the nation-state does not exist. The fucking Chinese are fucking us. It’s not just a blind hatred, they are negatively, along with the rest of the global-state, impacting the US.
"Why does Trump think we should stop meddling in the ME? Is it because Trump represents this moral rational position that such meddling is inherently immoral (unphilosophical) and cannot be rationally supported? No, his opposition is basically that it just costs us a lot of money. I mean I’m sure you can see the difference there. This is perhaps a subtler point I am trying to make here but I trust you will grasp it and reply in kind. "
See, right here, you’re just calling his character into question even when the action he proposes is good, you still have to find a negative intention buried in it somewhere- that we discontinue operations in the ME. I cannot argue with an insult. I don’t know- cannot know, the man’s true character, all I know is the actual function he accomplishes. Even his use of memes sets off your alarm it seems.
"My point is that it takes a kind of always-already moral “humanist” sentiment and value to even oppose this western neoliberal global capitalist imperialism in the first place, I don’t think it can be opposed simply on utilitarian “amoral” grounds alone. "
I oppose it because it destroys everything I value in life: beauty, personality, philosophy, personal freedom, national freedom, etc. If that’s moral or amoral, doesn’t matter to me.
As for serious philosophy: politics isn’t philosophy. Politics is an application of philosophy. It’s applied philosophy.
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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:40 pm
" As a matter of pure taste, Trump is lower than low. No serious thinker, no one with any shred of heart left, could ever cultivate any sort of taste for him. Nor am I interested in petty utilitarian ideological (religious) moralizing and metaphysical prophesizing about “what will happen if so and so is elected”, like we’re some sort of fucking partisan news commentator on CNN."
The first sentence is just an egregiously small-minded accusation, of the kind befitting religious people- oh, this person does this one thing I disagree with so his entire character is demonic and he’s destined for hellfire, etc. The later is nonsensical. It’s religious to respond to the actual world? To consider the causes and consequence of particular things in the real world- that’s what politics is. And something about CNN.
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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:44 pm
“You like Trump so your entire personhood is invalidated” is what that statement you made means. And then you accuse others of being religious. Others of being bigots. It is hard to respect the purity of your intentions when you say things like this, because this is the same mechanism that allows religious people to discount entire segments of the populace as condemned and set in the loft of moral certainty. I despise the SJW type hyper-liberal from the bottom of my heart and even I would still not say something like “If you vote Hillary you’re completely invalidated as a human being.”
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
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 Oct 04, 2016 4:57 pm
The principle produces instances that attain not quite fully to it, because to do so would require for it to be alone, or in absolute control -
there is never a full negation - nuclear blastwaves are the result of approaching anything like negation - and stars are this limit - but there is a pure negation of every other entity that every entity starts out as, in order to affirm itself; or rather than to negate, it sculpts its image of it as either a function of itself, or moves to destroy, or if possible, disregard it. These: destroy, disregard, or integrate/integrate oneself into are the values to the variable ‘chaos’ or ‘random’.
Trump is moving the population back to such a negating of the other in order to afrfirm the self; but what is really happening is that he affirms the principle of self-affirmation, as a result and cause of self-determination, which is a universally applicable principle, and he thus stimulates all humans implicitly to rise up against their totalitarian governments, and all governments to get their hands out of other countries.
The big oil Saudi clan of which Clinton is a function on the other hand seeks simply to keep the middle east a hell so that it is easy for Saudi Arabian royal house to keep its minority position as the rule and standard of all the worlds power balances and transactions, and remain the controller of the world economy. Her program, besides deeply warmongering, vaguely reminiscent of some humanist slogan, is only an excuse to keep the Saudis in control. They paid off Iran just to keep the panicky Saudis calm. Saudi Arabia owns all this process, it obviously created Isis - it’s really all absolutely inhuman. Obviously, female children are the main victim. It’s thus a matter of my deepest tastes, instincts, will, standards - this global rapist clan should not be elected again.
" 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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:02 pm
It’s not even Trump. It’s the death of one political axis and the birth of a new one, and a movement within the changing society, that is expressing itself in the form of Trump, because he happened to have the money, resources, and the ability to play the media in order to actually win. You insult and tear down this one man like it would really matter even if all your accusations were correct about him.
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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:04 pm
Even if Trump himself falls short of the idea of ending the globalist state and re-affirming the self-determination and rights of sovereign nations, you are not looking at it properly: that idea now has, through Trump, a public voice- a public force now strong enough to get within an inch of the presidency, where formerly it was relegated to the remote periphery of public discourse.
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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:09 pm
So a politician looks at the common sentiment and pronounces it to get an easy vote, as Clinton has: a leader looks at what the few are saying, though saying fervently, and pronounces it, in order to get people who never even bothered voting before to vote, and finally be heard. Trump did the later.
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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:12 pm
Though I will give Capable the benefit of the doubt: no serious person could cultivate taste for the bigoted genocidal maniac compulsive liar woman bashing bullying psychotic fascist you have turned Trump into, in your own mind.
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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:19 pm
But by all means, allow Clinton, a person who unironically suggested to drone strike Julian Assange and threaten Russia with war over her hacked server, accepted funding by Saudi tyrants, and essentially promised a ground war with Iran, to be voted in, because Trump called Rosie o Donnel fat. Because these two people are equally evil.
If Clinton is elected, her fiscal policies will tank the US economy and her actions on the world stage will invite the condemnation of every other Nation in the Western world and bring about our fall, economically and politically.
Trump’s fiscal policy- in essence a drastic simplification of the tax code, will boost our economy and his return to national sovereignty will re-solidify our position among the world-powers.
You have taken the one election that does matter and turned it into the election that matters the least.
Trump is: antiglobalism and a return to nationalism and national sovereignty, with the US in a leading position among the world powers.
Clinton is: globalism, the deconstruction of the very idea of a nation-state, and the subordination of the US to the political hegemon of a global state.
The tertiary capital I have elaborated demands the continuation of the project of a global state. It implies the fall of the US. Trump will stall this process and bring about a global conflict, but with a rebirth of national liberty all over the world eventually. Hillary will complete it, sink the US into civil unrest and lose our positioning among the world powers, and blanket the human spirit in the night of a borderline communistic global state. Based on my theory of capital, it’s not a prediction: it’s a conclusion.
If we’ve ever had a true choice in an election before, this is a choice. I believe it’s a choice which, if you have understood it, you are morally obligated to make.
This whole thing about how can a philosopher support Trump: how did Aristotle support Alexander? Was Alexander a beautiful image of philosophic and cultural refinement, while he was cutting off people’s heads raiding all over the place?
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
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 Oct 04, 2016 5:48 pm
The reason I think Clinton might still be elected, despite all that is known about her, is this Japanese saying, ‘in the depths of their hearts, all men long for the end of the world.’
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:57 pm
The decision the world is facing:
Do we take Hillary and inherit the cold, depressed world our fathers and mothers left us, or do we take Trump and act on all the instincts of need, thirst an will that we have learned to feel since Hitler was crucified?
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:58 pm
And one other thing about Hegel.
It is a property of dialectic reason in general, the way that some people choose to use words like racist, misogynist, fascist, etc. By not ascribing affirmation to Being, you have denied affirmation to all being(s)- all affirmative content is evaporated from philosophy, and all identity is lost, until there are no principles left, no oughts, no realities, and everything means everything else. Fascism has the seed of its own negation in it, absorbs with its opposite into a synthesis, and so on: this degenerating, emptying of affirmative content has been going on in philosophy for long enough to take us to the total annihilation of the political discourse, an annihilation epitomized in Clinton, the old axis. The Hegelian dialectic is even itself subject to the dialectic: “I’d be on your guard if you’re reading Hegel, as Hegelianism is like a mental illness; in order to understand it, you have to subvert your own understanding of it, and become blind in a sense. Hegel’s dialectic is itself subject to the dialectic, and transforms itself without your realizing it; it changes into its opposition and synthesizes.” The only way to escape it, to escape this evaporation of philosophic content, is by parting ways with Hegel at the most obvious spot: his most fundamental starting point, his point of departure.
I don’t hate, fear, or dismiss Hegel: I simply recognize that the Hegelian dialectic is a nonsensical system and is responsible for the evaporation of all philosophic content, all affirmation. Denying the purity of affirmation to Being is the greatest philosophical sin: from it, we have been taken to atheism, materialism, and liberal secular humanism.
This is the “danger” in him I mention. His system is not describing how concepts form- concepts don’t form, he is unknowingly describing how they disintegrate. Concepts appear in what I call the mythos, at the liminal boundary between transcendence and immanence I mention, by man’s intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through a limited image or episteme, and their genesis is inexplicable to the logos; the logos concatenates concepts in the vicious circle which it is, a concantenation performed by reifying them. That concatenation leading up to Straussian silence has the kind of genetic structure Capable’s talking about. But to try and fully explicate logos under the assumption that you can describe the formation of concepts merely from other concepts- this has the effect of evaporating all meaning.
Hegel thought he could get away with disconnecting logos from mythos, philosophy from life; he thought logos could be explicated. The logos has no starting point without intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through the episteme or limitation, which originally rendered Doric man passive, silent before nature, out of which receptivity the Gods first appeared. Without a true point of departure in mythos, the representative faculty never develops for logos: the Hegelian dialectic is simply the evaporation of all concepts on the plane of this defective logos.
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
Last edited by Parodites on Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:22 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:05 pm
But then you fall into a new trap: deny Hegel?
dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar
Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:06 pm
Just kidding.
My approach has always to take nothing seriously but my own perceptions. Some philosophers get closer to it than others. Hegel is fucking boring.
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:12 pm
Pezer wrote:
But then you fall into a new trap: deny Hegel?
Hegel denies himself, I don’t have to.
“I’d be on your guard if you’re reading Hegel, as Hegelianism is like a mental illness; in order to understand it, you have to subvert your own understanding of it, and become blind in a sense. Hegel’s dialectic is itself subject to the dialectic, and transforms itself without your realizing it; it changes into its opposition and synthesizes.”
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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:15 pm
Sure. Only a kid’s desires can take one in and out of the maze.
dionisius against the cross…
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:23 pm
Quote :
Concepts appear in what I call the mythos, at the liminal boundary between transcendence and immanence I mention, by man’s intuiting the pure affirmation of Being through a limited image or episteme, and their genesis is inexplicable to the logos
I wanted to lift this out - it is the affirmative ground of the negation of Hegel. It is true, this.
Hegel naturally forces one to become its terms; all philosophers do this, thus taste drives me away from many once I have understood them. I only read what I want to shape me - and this is basically one line of thought, the line that sacrifices all coarse things to beauty.
" 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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:24 pm
It’s only a maze if you want to get somewhere. Did Hegel want to get somewhere?
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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:28 pm
I read to be shaped also, but shaped by resistance. Like a blade on a stone. Thus I craft my own books: as sharpening stones. Those hard enough will be sharpened, those not, will be broken.
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
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 Oct 04, 2016 7:28 pm
Quote :
The History of the World travels from East to West, for Europe is absolutely the end of History, Asia the beginning.
Like Aristotle, he looked in the right direction, but was a total buffoon about what he figured we’d find there.
" 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 Oct 04, 2016 7:32 pm
Parodites wrote:
I read to be shaped also, but shaped by resistance. Like a blade on a stone. Thus I craft my own books: as sharpening stones. Those hard enough will be sharpened, those not, will be broken.
If you have broken Hegel directly by reading him, 弓. I found him a very hard and dry type of stone I’d just rather leave to its devices.
If these devices are indeed todays reality, then Capable must certainly continue reading him… if he has the courage, that is only an asset.
" 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
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 Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:33 pm
Nah, Hegel’s text isn’t a stone or a blade. He’s a melting furnace. I threw him into it."
