The Philosophers

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGU-ov34WQg[/youtube]

Having listened to the Rabbi Wolf’s comments and watching your vids another element of the religious question began to form in my head. There are real psychological differences between Christianity and Judaism.

Jung said the difference between Freud’s approach and his own had much to do with Freud’s Jewish background and his own Christian up bring. There is truth in this.

Jung writes

"I suggested years ago that every psychological theory should be criticised in the first instance as a subjective confession…this subjective premise is identical with our psychic idiosyncrasy. Idiosyncrasy is conditioned (1) by the individual, and (2) by the family, (3) by the nation, race, climate, locality and history…I am proud of my subjective premises, I love the Swiss earth in them, I am grateful to my theological forebears for having passed on to me the Christian premise…

and Freud’s Jewish psychology is similarly conditioned by the history of the Jewish people

"May it not be asked wherein lie the peculiar differences between an essentially Jewish and essentially Christian outlook…? Are we really to believe that a tribe which has wandered through history for several thousand years as “God’s chosen people” was not put up to such an idea by some quite special psychological peculiarity? If no differences exist, how do we recognise Jews at all?

This deserves more research.

More relevant is that Freud was atheist, Jung theist.
One could not approach the tree through Freud (all viewers will instantly see this) but one could easily approach my views with a basis of Jung.

There isnt really a question that Jung used the Tree to develop his methods. It was as prevalent in occultist circles as it is now, and its carriers were all not Jewish. (Crowley, mcMathers, etc).

Christianity is a combination of Judaism and Apollonism. So is Gnostocism and Hermeticism.

hooded spirits, Celtic

Here I am talking to a guy in Lincoln Heights
vimeo.com/71337800

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8vmvrro7QA[/youtube]

Jakob, you have posted this before.

I don’t know what others feel and think of this vid, but I found it really bleak. The neighbourhood (Lincoln Heights? is this well known) is depressing, row after row of the same houses, the skimpy palm trees that line the streets struggling to flourish, the back concrete alleys are devastating to the gardens of a mind. It is not so much the deprivation that is obvious here, but the very starkness of it, reminds me of this scene.

youtu.be/UozhOo0Dt4o

The people, well… whatever I say it will be classified as ‘judgemental’ LOL.

Nevertheless I look forward to your vids and you always have the right choice of music to enhance what’s happening.

It made me realise how important it is (for me at least) to live in an environment that I can relate to and appreciate and I suppose how fortunate I am.

Hey SM thanks for the comment. Yeah Id say depressing is a euphemism. I was there looking for the areas they shot Terminator 2 in. It is a completely gang-owned area with only blind walls and cul de sacs… but that didn’t stop me from wanting to check it out. It all looked too photogenic and real to me, and then I saw this dude. Mexicans in pickups were patrolling their turf but I sensed I probably wasn’t going to get in trouble if I made it relatively quick.

So this is pretty much, almost, downtown LA. It is a weird city.

Music - drums by John Engels, my neighbour where I grew up. He is a world renowned genius, played with Dizzy Gillespie and all those guys.
Otherwise I think this is kind of nice stylistically.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkVRN9TNEuo[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdXvgF3n9pw[/youtube]

Some naughty gay person commented on this, I deleted the comment, but was happy to be reminded of the existence of this beat. It gets funky.

youtu.be/GiKSzwqwAj8?t=4m23s

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6LEJH4aJRA[/youtube]

Poetry in da field

soundcloud.com/user-704316029/s … ted-tracks


Pon the Earf

For Zoot and Sauwelios

beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 … logy#13662

Value Ontology is not merely philosophy, it is nature’s wisdom itself.
So you can see how I live so boundlessly. It is the fate of all my kind.
We did not come into this world to be enchained by other humans.
This world invited us into it for us to conquer it and transform it.

  1. Response to “Value ontology; the law of subjectivity” (http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t40-value-ontology-the-law-of-subjectivity).
  1. Response to “Summary of value ontology” (http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t130-summary-of-value-ontology).
  1. Same as 3.
  1. Same as 3 and 4.

Good that Zoot is trying to approach this. It may be his only way into Nietzsche. Ive had this happen before, that VO allows a person access to Nietzsche’s logics. Note that Nietzsche is all about and only about ways of valuing, subconscious ways for the greater part. Zoot is a novice, but he has potential.

There is no small number of mistakes in his approach. But he is clearly smart enough to make a real effort, which would inevitably lead to his embracing of the logic.

However the effort needs to be… consistent. And not just conscious, but also unconscious - it needs to come from his self-valuing, which is largely unconscious - in fact it is ultimately unconscious in all except the pinnacle-philosopher.

You can tell Zoot the breath example. The air we breathe is valuable to us, as it is indispensable. Our breathing of it is our valuing of it. But do we need to be conscious to breathe? No, but we need to breathe to be conscious. One of the many ways in which it can be shown that valuing precedes consciousness. You can also tell him about a sunflower tracing the sun, to be able to receive its vital values.

It seems so simple when I explain it, but people are too educated into inferior logic to see this clearly.

The step required first is to see that our actions aren’t ever not oriented on values. There is no action that isn’t a movement toward a value, as helplessly misguided or unsuccessful or even random in their manifestations these actions may turn out to be.

::

A self-valuing is not an atom. An atom is however a self-valuing.
Neither of the two exist out of time. An atom is not what Zoot thinks it is, it is rather a process of intertwined processes; an atom exist in time.
So does any self-valuing. For example, in a human, the self-valuing can be said to be the entire life, the life-span with everything in it.
It is in terms of this life-span that the organism values, and for the larger part subconsciously.

::

VO is the only way in the world that allows people to become entirely conscious of their valuing. So far, Zoots valuing, along with that of the vast majority of humans, only leads him to deception - meaning, the valuing and the consciousness aren’t soundly tied together. The consciousness misinterprets the valuing, and thus comes up with bizarre and counterproductive interpretations, and it secures this pattern of failure by asserting that for valuing to exist, it needs this agent of its derangement. Doesn’t that sum up humanity’s botchedness? And certainly it sums up all of Kants trying and failing, falling short, being too much of a pussy.

What Im saying: a person can not be fully conscious without VO. Philosophy is the process of waking up to the mind.

Okay, suppose this is entirely true. Philosophically as it were.

How then is it applicable to that which most concerns someone like me: How ought one to live?

Seriously, how is someone “fully conscious” of “I” in their day to day interactions with others? And, in particular, when those interactions come into conflict precisely over value judgments?