Which is First?

No, when we objectify a woman we directly empathize/sympathize with that aspect/s of her which are “objectified”. She is valued for being that which she is, and wishes to be. It just depends on what you objectify, and how accurate that is. And this works just as equally for men when it comes to women valuing us, too.

You think women do not want to be “objectified”? Lol. Empathy and sympathy mean understanding, and respect. Creating room for; protecting, valuing. Feminism has done so much to destroy the feminine psyche that now even men seem to think that it is somehow “bad” to objectify a woman, and there are even women who also think that they think this (but they never really do think it, in so far as they are women.

Anyone who doesn’t want to be “objectified” merely does not believe that there is anything about themselves which is worthy of being “object-ed”, turned into coherent and valued reality in the eyes of another.

Indeed.

Gods do not make leaps of faith. They make leaps of value.

urGod

I have to agree with Sauwelios here. It also means that men see women as more objects hence objectify and less equal and less human ~~ in other words, perhaps things or toys.

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you explain it. Maybe you are using language other than how I would use it.
What you seem to be saying is that you join the herd.
How does someone become capable in the moment of putting their self in another’s shoes and experience what they are experiencing (empathizing) or having a harmonious understanding of another ~ it’s like a chemical reaction of sorts (sympathy or simpatico) by objectifying them?
When a person is objectified, they become less human to the other. What ought to be an I and Thou relationship becomes an I and It relationship.

Perhaps you are using different language when it comes objectifying because I do not get it.
Objectifying a woman or a man is not the same as affirming them or accepting them as they are.

I know that I do not. What am I - a toy to be played with for someone’s pleasure?
Anyway, you need to see the INDIVIDUAL not the whole. We are not the borg.

.
Yes. So then how can you speak of objectifying a woman?
Hmmm… perhaps you are speaking of seeing a woman as she really is? But I don’t think that a man or a woman is capable of doing that since being human, there are far too many variables to us. We are too complicated.
But some can see more than others.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is feminism and then there is feminism. We have come a long way from where we were and into having our own sense of identity and worth. We are not so much chattel anymore.
Some men are more staunch feminists than are many women. Many men real men are happy that we have come into our own or are in the process of continuing to do just that. Kudos to them.

Maybe objectify needs to be re-defined here. Say what it is to you and what it isn’t to you.
Again, if you are using the term to mean to see someone (in this case) as they actually are, then it is your perspective and bias which can still objectify the woman and make her less than she is.

Say what? lol
It takes a lifetime to rid ourselves of particular kinds of conditioning and and self-patterns and beliefs and attitudes which have been pushed on us…and we are never quite done with that.
So how could what you say be otherwise unless these women met other women or even other men who could teach them differently? Some never lose the effect the parents perhaps especially that the father had on them and sometimes it is even more the mother – it’s an ad continuum. It takes time to become a Phoenix in one’s own right and over and over and over again.

We shall be consumed in the flames and rise up again ad continuum.

Utter nonsense. You cannot empathize/sympathize with tits or an ass…

Sure, I didn’t mean to suggest women never objectify men. I just used the most widely known example. And I was talking about understanding, not valuing.

I never said that.

Like battery caged animals? Those are surely valued and protected–as a resource–, created just enough room for; but understood and respected? empathized or sympathized with? I think not.

I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m saying it will keep you from understanding her. You may understand her wanting to be objectified, but that’s not the part that’s objectified…

::

Again, beside the point. You’re still on the plane of Gestell, not of Ereignis.

::

Of will?..

The conundrum may be this:

“Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the freedom which proceed from intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power, manifest themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not count when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and lack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them: whereas a man who would talk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five hundred convictions beneath him–and behind him… A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction belongs to strength, and to an independent point of view… That grand passion which is at once the foundation and the power of a sceptic’s existence, and is both more enlightened and more despotic than he is himself, drafts the whole of his intellect into its service; it makes him unscrupulous; it gives him courage to employ unholy means; under certain circumstances it does not begrudge him even convictions. Conviction as a means: one may achieve a good deal by means of a conviction. A grand passion makes use of and uses up convictions; it does not yield to them–it knows itself to be sovereign.–On the contrary, the need of faith, of some thing unconditioned by yea or nay, of Carlylism, if I may be allowed the word, is a need of weakness. The man of faith, the ‘believer’ of any sort, is necessarily a dependent man–such a man cannot posit himself as a goal, nor can he find goals within himself. The ‘believer’ does not belong to himself; he can only be a means to an end; he must be used up; he needs some one to use him up. His instinct gives the highest honours to an ethic of self-effacement; he is prompted to embrace it by everything: his prudence, his experience, his vanity. Every sort of faith is in itself an evidence of self-effacement, of self-estrangement… When one reflects how necessary it is to the great majority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and hold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense, slavery, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being of the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once understands conviction and ‘faith.’ To the man with convictions they are his backbone. To avoid seeing many things, to be impartial about nothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values strictly and infallibly–these are conditions necessary to the existence of such a man. But by the same token they are antagonists of the truthful man–of the truth… The believer is not free to answer the question, ‘true’ or ‘not true,’ according to the dictates of his own conscience: integrity on this point would work his instant downfall. The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions into a fanatic–Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon–these types stand in opposition to the strong, emancipated spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these sick intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the great masses–fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons…” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 54 whole, Mencken trans.)

I know this is ironic coming from me. It is, however, only ironic. I hope some of you may see that sometime.

FC: I post this, of course, not just in the expectation that you may see that, but moreover that it applies to you positively.

The conundrum may be this:

“Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the freedom which proceed from intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power, manifest themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not count when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and lack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them: whereas a man who would talk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five hundred convictions beneath him–and behind him… A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction belongs to strength, and to an independent point of view… That grand passion which is at once the foundation and the power of a sceptic’s existence, and is both more enlightened and more despotic than he is himself, drafts the whole of his intellect into its service; it makes him unscrupulous; it gives him courage to employ unholy means; under certain circumstances it does not begrudge him even convictions. Conviction as a means: one may achieve a good deal by means of a conviction. A grand passion makes use of and uses up convictions; it does not yield to them–it knows itself to be sovereign.–On the contrary, the need of faith, of some thing unconditioned by yea or nay, of Carlylism, if I may be allowed the word, is a need of weakness. The man of faith, the ‘believer’ of any sort, is necessarily a dependent man–such a man cannot posit himself as a goal, nor can he find goals within himself. The ‘believer’ does not belong to himself; he can only be a means to an end; he must be used up; he needs some one to use him up. His instinct gives the highest honours to an ethic of self-effacement; he is prompted to embrace it by everything: his prudence, his experience, his vanity. Every sort of faith is in itself an evidence of self-effacement, of self-estrangement… When one reflects how necessary it is to the great majority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and hold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense, slavery, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being of the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once understands conviction and ‘faith.’ To the man with convictions they are his backbone. To avoid seeing many things, to be impartial about nothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values strictly and infallibly–these are conditions necessary to the existence of such a man. But by the same token they are antagonists of the truthful man–of the truth… The believer is not free to answer the question, ‘true’ or ‘not true,’ according to the dictates of his own conscience: integrity on this point would work his instant downfall. The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions into a fanatic–Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon–these types stand in opposition to the strong, emancipated spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these sick intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the great masses–fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons…” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 54 whole, Mencken trans.)

That was beautiful. I don’t recall if I read The Antichrist.
Thank you for that.

That seems fairly remedial.

That which enters the mind through reason can be corrected. That which is admitted through faith, hardly ever. - Santiago Ramon y Cajal

A reasonable person will always be open to correction as he constantly refines what he suspects may be true. A cocky person has admitted by faith that what he knows is true, therefore he is unable to be self-correcting, evolving, capable of adaptation and inevitably will be wrong, given enough time.

So, therefore, we could say wisdom is a philosophy where one element is staying open to the fact that we may not know everything quite yet regardless how sure we feel.

You seem to have a very narrow idea of what is being objectified. And why.

Since when can we talk about understanding without taking about valuing?

But you don’t answer the question either.

You act as if there is only one kind of objectifying… the lowliest kind.

Does Sauwelios mean “always looks down”?

Desire and understanding are forms of valuing. By objectifying something you turn it into something that you are able to desire and understand. Tell me how something could be desired and understood without first being “object-ed”?

You have this typical leftist sort of very naive, linear view that so much can fail under the label of “objectifying” and that this is somehow bad, as it destroyed empathy/sympathy. This view could not be further from the truth.

The differentiation is not between objectifying and not objectifying, it is between low and high objectifying. What is objectified and why? More importantly from where does the impulse come to do that? Yes you can have lowly objectifying of women, but unlike you I am not restricting the issue to what the scum of the earth do.

Please feel free to try to be coherent. I’ll wait.

Yes quite ironic coming from someone who says that objectifying someone destroys ability for empathy/sympathy.

“Will” is not a fundamental concept for me. Leaps of will mean nothing except the courage to act on values.

Doubt is a wonderful tool.

I know nothing but far from being restrictive I find it very liberating for there is so much knowledge to acquire
To know everything would be so intellectual debilitating for I would have no need to learn anything ever again

Yep, you may learn yourself out of existence as if yang consumed yin because the known only exists relative to the unknown and if there were no unknown, there would be no known.

Once the first bite of the fruit of the tree of knowledge has been taken, one must eat all the fruit to escape the game.

Feel free to expound.

The point is that we can talk about valuing without talking about understanding. And that is a problem, as I’ve been trying to bring to you guys’ attention.

Anyway, you said she was “valued for being what she is, and wishes to be.” First off, what she is is of course not what she wishes to be, necessarily (though what she wishes is of the essence of what she is). And when she is valued as an object, that may be what she wishes to be valued as, but it’s not what she is; she’s a subject, like you, after all…

Of course, she’s also an “object” (which I define as a subject or a group of subjects that is or are not her), namely her body, but you cannot understand her body, in the sense of “understanding” I mean, without answering the question “what’s it like to be that?”

Wasn’t it rhetorical? This one is.

I provided a counterexample. Deal with it.

If you haven’t expounded yet, as I asked you to do above, kindly do so now.

You make an odd kind of switch here. I was talking about her desire (her wanting to be objectified), not yours.

You’re unable to understand her without understanding her understanding. So yes, we cannot under-stand anything without first conceiving it as an object, but we still won’t understand it if we don’t subjectify that object–empathize/sympathize with it. This is indeed a pro-jection of us sub-jects on our ob-jects.

It’s bad if you’re concerned with understanding, as philosophers are supposed to be.

Don’t project your view of the typical leftist on me. I’ve already pointed out to you that you made unwarranted assumptions (abductions?) based on what I said.

As I said, I gave a counterexample. Your assertion that I’m restricting the issue is just another unwarranted assumption.

Kindly give an example of a high objectification, explicating what is objectified and why, and where the impulse to do that comes from.

It coheres with what I said immediately before that. But yeah, if you’re unfamiliar with Heidegger’s use of those German words, it may seem incoherent. In any case, that was a deliberate mystification. Here’s another:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRkZZ23rIY[/youtube] Heidegger on the Law of Identity, Part 4 of 4

As I argued earlier in this thread, being at its most basic is determinic upon, willing:

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2676503#p2676503
http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2676719#p2676719

This means that values, too, are determined upon by the will. That is to say, willing does not occur on the basis of values, but itself first sets all values…

You remind me of what Heidegger said about national socialism:

“What is offered everywhere today as the philosophy of national socialism, but actually has nothing to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely the meeting of global technology and modern man), is fishing in these murky waters of ‘values’ and ‘wholenesses’ [‘Ganzheiten’].” (Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics.)

Now of course, you’re not fishing for your values in the outside world, but in your inner world. But insofar as it’s unconscious, that world might as well not exist…

"Nietzsche has recourse to the will to overpower [sic] primarily to overpower a nihilist reality in which any moral-political concern is futile. His aristocratic contempt for contemporary egalitarianism forced him to reject the inherent nihilism of conscious experience in favor of that unconscious will to overpower it. Thus the will to power is primarily a will to overpower nihilism. […]
The superman’s will to save the common sense universe (by willing everything’s eternal return) springs from repugnance to nihilism. If reality is nihilistic–and Nietzsche never denied this of all conscious life–that repugnance is directed against reality itself. It is a desire for vengeance against reality, a need to conquer nature. […]
Since that subconscious will or self is unavailable for rational scrutiny, nobody can know whether it is essentially aristocratic, egalitarian or even nihilist. For, unlike Freud and others, who consciously and rationally try to examine the unconscious self, Nietzsche realized that such examination literally would be self-defeating, restoring the nihilism which the primacy of inner, dionysian depth was meant to overpower. Since that inward depth has no external, conscious manifestation,

there is a famous danger for this inwardness about which it is assumed that it cannot even be seen from outside: It might some day take the opportunity to vanish. From outside one would notice its absence as little as its previous presence. [Nietzsche, Uses and Disadvantages 4.]

At bottom, recourse to the redemptive powers of Dionysus, of unconscious experience, is a deus ex machina for halfhearted nihilists incapable of overcoming their moral-political needs. Those needs are responsible for Dionysus, the concept of an unconscious instinctual will to overpower the nihilism of Apollo’s conscious, common sense world. Dionysus is the yearning to bestow depth or substance on what is in reality groundless, if god is dead." (Harry Neumann, Liberalism, "Nietzsche’, Part II.)

Now I’ve spoken before of “willing, or […] having the feeling of will.” This phrasing shows “the inherent nihilism of conscious experience”. In our conscious experience, the will is a mere feeling, an accompaniment of an event, a phenomenon. In Mach’s terms, a “sensation”; in Hume’s, an “impression”. It is my deepest experience that it appears most strongly as the will to be more than a feeling, to actually be a will, an affect, a cause… But this does not make it so.

The temptation is to be-lieve, to think wishfully. Philosophy has always been the uneasy straddling of the fence between skepticism and faith or conviction (Nietzsche says somewhere that men tend to prefer to speak of their “conviction” whereas women tend to prefer to speak of their “faith”…); between leaping up and falling back down; between strength and weakness of will:

“This is the first preliminary schooling in spirituality [Geistigkeit]: not to react at once to a stimulus, but to gain control of the inhibiting, secluding instincts. Learning to see, as I understand it, is almost what, unphilosophically speaking, is called ‘strong will’: the essential feature is precisely not to ‘will’, to be able to suspend decision. All unspirituality, all vulgarity, is due to the incapacity to resist a stimulus–one must react, one follows every impulse. […] A practical application of having learned to see: one will have become slow, mistrustful, recalcitrant as a learner in general. In an attitude of hostile calm one will let the strange, the novel of every kind come to oneself first,–one will draw one’s hand back from it. To stand open with all doors, to prostrate oneself servilely before every little fact, to always be eager to put oneself in the place of, plunge into other people and other things, in short the famous modern ‘objectivity’, is bad taste, is ignoble par excellence.–” (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, “What the Germans Lack”, section 6.)

It may be a consolation, though, that only the God of the philosophers, Reason, is dead; only the herd-moral God is dead… Also, there’s a difference between the Apollonian and the Socratic or Platonic. There is wine, there is water, and there is–

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2673493#p2673493
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=161070

Sauwelios - your first point is disagreeable to me, as I do not consider people a category of any logical merit.
I think in terms of types of being, and types are determined in degree of integrity.

I compare the philosopher of power to a noble metal and a lion in terms of how he/it pictures the world.

I am not in the same category as say () or - they will always see worms all the way down, I see integrity and valuing - indeed, willing - all the way down. I exist in my thinking, they do not think and as thinkers thus do not exist - they lack integrity, self-valuing, set no standards - they are people though. Humanity is like a layer of excrement of the elemental gods, on which al sorts of species thrive and compete for and over shared values. (e.g. a place in the sun, gold, love)

What we see depends on our power and our cleanliness before it. It does not matter what species of being one is, I understand gold better than I understand Satyr, and gold understands me better, unconsciously, than Satyr understands either. Gold values kings in its ultra violent historical terms and shines black laughter.

The world is will to power - and nothing besides. And you are also will to power, and nothing besides.

The capacity for will, which is for a good part resistance, is a matter of structural integrity, which in simpler terms means strength. The strength of the type is my standard throughout the whole matrix of types and their integrities. Value is produced when strength relates to strength; it is the common term between them.

The strengths are the self-valuing that together bring about an objective evaluation - a hierarchy of power.
Ask Cat 1.

&

Gold grasps what proper philosophy grasps: itself. Iron does not grasp itself, it corrodes by the mere presence of other elements. So do all species except the noble ones.

&

If we draw a line under the relevant items in the matrix for our integrity standard and we look at the column of people, what is underscored besides those well described by the term philosophy are those with a heart of gold; reliable, good ones that last unchanged relative to their environment. Of course within the gold, there is tremendous activity, but simpler and less consistent beings can by their definition not penetrate or grasp any of that. In any case, in such people I have decided some years ago to put my trust. As gold commands, it is a violent process, but as integrity generates, it is worth its resources.

A philosopher type will always draw close to the goodness in peoples hearts, as well as to the power scheming of nature herself is sometimes the is present in human form, as some German thinkers beheld her in Napoleon, and some Romans in Caesar, and some Greeks in Alexander, and some of us in Trump. Nature likes to hide, because she must to survive herself - in more composed times, she can’t endure her full self - this is differentiation, the rainbow, the political spectrum, the semblance of peace through mild contrasts that brings real peace. The avoidance of that splitting headache from which the future’s born, the primordial one who doesn’t exist for his own sake. The world exists so that God doesn’t have to. Existing is a nuisance, if all you’ve done so far was being born into existence. Puberty is where existence becomes a “selfing”. The Hagalic crisis of elements resulting in the knot, Nauthiz, need-fire, restriction toward formation, followed by Isa, the isolated I, the prideful resistance. Then, harvest comes in Jera, ripeness. And from thereon, the heroic down-going begins, ending in Dagaz, Daybreak.

Value is the passive element, valuing the active.
Value could be seen as the sediment of the conflict between valuing - the riverbed in a sense, thus the “form” of the river… which is nonetheless never the same, because its elements are constantly changing.

The wanted-ness of the value is its value, a value is a condition that is required for the existence of a will, which I have called a self-valuing for the reason that, in order to relate to value, there must a value-standard, and this standard must be set, and that is what happens when a will becomes manifest.

Self-valuing = consistency = will to power = standard = standard-setting = being = Relativity, it could be argued ad nauseam even that it equals experience, though I disagree.
The term in any case is a matter of which concepts we wish to relate the underlying understanding to. Why I disagree with experimentalism - I do not wish to make things more subjective. Rather, value objectifies even power, by interpreting it in terms of its end - its self-overcoming.

We could say that gold is being that has overcome itself entirely so that it now reflects no other being in an unfavourable light. It has been hammered into beauty by the utmost brute force that this cosmos produces along with the utmost of “luck” - what are the odds of two dead stars colliding? Further, what are the odds that the greatest structural integrities of the clash find their way into an inhabited planet? But of course there is a relation between the presence of gold, and of lesser minerals, and the existence of life, namely that the former is required for the latter.

We naturally even contain a degree of gold. From my calculations it appears that in terms of the current goldprice, a human is on average worth about one cent of a dollar or euro.

Gold is not only structurally stronger than humanity, but humanity is even more evidently largely a function of golds self-valuing.
They die to obtain it, when they obtain it they kill using it to hire mercenaries. The golden rule applies: he who has the gold, rules. There is no need for gold to be conscious to be in control.

This is value ontological analysis as I practice it, on the earth, under the sun, not discerning between species, seeking out the highest types everywhere and setting them against each other as standards to produce a greater self-valuing friction and allow the creation of noble values from the material of consciousness, or lets say for your convenience, humanity, human self-awareness.

In a sense our approaches differ, opposing diametrically: where you see human consciousness as the basic element, I see it as something to yet be attained. I don’t think humanity yet exists. I think its wars are that from which it is going to be born. Soon, Thor is going to have to play the midwife.

&

Only apparently - in reality only in order to interpret your particular entity-specific agency as relative to the very weak category/standard of “people”.

In short: one can not successfully practice VO in another way than as a coup, an attempt at a law setting, species-defining “primordial crime” that wipes away all pre existing standards of consciousness. In this aspect one will recognize it as the true heritage of Nietzsche.

Sure, I was addressing “us people”. Regardless if you fall into the category “people” (a category which may have no logical merit but still exists, in minds), my point still applies: by psycho-logical necessity, for you it will always be Fixed Cross types all the way down. This does of course not mean that non-Fixed Cross types are also Fixed Cross types (law of noncontradiction), not that all types have the same degree of integrity, but that they all have some degree of integrity. In your understanding.

Exactly.

The concept of unconscious understanding makes no sense to me. I think Satyr is more understanding than gold because he is more conscious. To be sure, he may very well misunderstand gold more than you do, and you more than gold does.

::

I don’t see human consciousness as the basic element; rather my own consciousness. And I may define “human” that way, but that must then be made explicit.

I only know how things appear to me. You’re the only one who knows reality…

Meaning you agree, reluctantly, that indeed we do not see “people” all the way down. Or rather, a confirmation that you only see Sauwelioses - and certainly no Fixed Crosses.

Again, tacit agreement; gold doesn’t misunderstand, Satyr does. Satyr mis-appropriates, ruins. He could not exist in the wild, he does not understand, grasp, as I conditioned.

Bravo.
But I see human consciousness as a material with which I work through philosophy. I shape it to my will.
Most people aren’t conscious at all.
Philosophers are, so thats who I shape.

No, I have stricter standards of discernment, and of interpreting what I discern. I discern more of my interpretation. So I am realer. “In your understanding.”

S- it is not possible to love, or have romantic attraction for another example, without objectifying the other. As I said, objectification can be low or high. You are focused only on the low, I am focused only on the high. That is the difference between us and why you cannot see my view.

I do see your view, but I also see it is but one small and lowly part of a much larger richer whole. I never understand why capable minds choose to restrict their focus to a narrow bandwidth of the lowliest of the low. But this seems to account for a good deal of the need to mystify.

I am a god, and I will not stand to have a beautiful creation of value – objectification of the other – sullied by being dragged through the mud and then associated with that mud. Nonsense. Let us be men, not vermin.

Strife, as it was in the beginning when Faust invited me here – I will say in contrast that where it concerns his own standard-setting. I think Sauwelioses values are exquisite, such as the wheel of recurring cycles of human valuing, willing - his imagined, forged scheme has us plausibly heading in a lofty direction, that alone is worth a great deal, to begin with - but what frustrates is where he prefers to analyze in terms of what is given to him as seemingly self-evident rather than in what he evidently forces into existence – he, personally, which also means in connection to the others that work the same material - this is not abstract, neither is it fully personal, it is simply powerful - but this is either a new Athens with a consistency, a real context in nature, or it is simply another Vienna circle, a flash of brightness at the precipice of a great cataclysm. Is there something in the future to be loyal to? That is the question. For me it is easy to answer, but Ill still have to prove my answer to be correct. And that is not going to be happening in the form of a philosophical argument alone.

This is the first thing I must have written after I devised VO, before I had a name for the understanding.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175897