James S Saint

On the questions of Daseins and different contexts colliding and colluding, i.e. the World which is weary of our questioning it.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=179858&start=25#p2695265
it strikes back at us
disallows us to walk it

then questions arise. “Why?” But “there is no why, there is only because.” - witchdoctor

Logic is the will to predict. Without it, nothing can live. We observe regularities, and note these and include them into a system of other already discovered regularities. This has allowed us to conclude so many things that we know even less than we did when we knew nothing, because we have been caged inside our regularities and predictions and all the as yet unclassified rages among us unseen, and causes havoc and the end of our world. Affectance-Storms, nuclear fallout from broken self valuings, splinters of the anentropic shells blasting through our world as it stumbles.

Did you not think that God, dying, might explode?
[Annoying Olympian Laughter]

Rather typical of you of late. A post made to sound astute, shrewd…clever?

But what are we to make of it?

Is it true?

Well, in reference to what particular context? A context that might enable us to grasp more clearly what the point actually is.

Instead from my perspective it appears to be just another intellectual contraption. The point is true if you can find others to agree on the definition and the meaning of the words used to make it.

Much like James encompassing RM/AO.

Now, in the either/or world, the science is [admittedly] often over my head. Me, I’m more intent on exploring its relevance to conflicted human interactions in the is/ought world.

Down here when values come to clash an exchange of intellectual contraptions just won’t do.

For example, consider the one from your link above:

Is this meant to be ironic? Are you exposing to James the same sort of intellectual gibberish he would often dump on me in my attempts to yank RM/AO down out of the didactic/scholastic clouds?

Really, seriously, what are we to make of this in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of moral and political conflagrations?

Why [for all practical purposes] should it matter to us?

Explain that please.

Well it has been well over two months now since we have seen any sign of James.

I am preserving his work on my forum and website as found in my signature and I hope to clear up some of the less easier to grasp concepts that he presents.

Aside from that, the conversations on the Neosophi Forum are starting to diversify and could do with some new content.

All invited:

http://forum.neosophi.net/

If you have any problems signing up - let me know straight away.

I see that Satyr has chosen to contribute here as well. And here, in part, is his own reaction to “affectance”:

And the closest he comes to bringing it all down to earth is this:

As with James defending his own “frame of mind” here, Satyr steers his arguments as far away from the is/ought world as he possibly can.

In other words, another nest of “serious philosophers”, another nest of Will Durant’s “epistemologists”:

In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company…he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him…He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist.

iambiguous

In my own defense, I am only new to philosophy in the last year so I am not always able to form wonderful philosophical arguments but I know for a fact that I can detect little subtleties here and there(id est by no means am I stupid). From what I can tell, what you are saying makes much sense to me.

I am going to say this straight up - I think James and Satyr have both created little shields around themselves and are very unwilling to see things any other way than their own way. In saying this however, I see value in what both of them say and I am sure they could offer much criticism on my open mind.

Personally I can not be bothered with dogmatic debate as I believe we are far from any definitive answers on life and what it means and why we are here and how we should be and whatever else you want to add to that list. I see value in debate when I see people willing to concede their own arguments but not necessarily close the door on what is of value in their original argument.

Obviously I have my own way of seeing things and I can see many problems with James’ philosophy that I think are fixable - for a start I think that what he is explaining should not be so connected with the physical but rather be used to explain away certain aspects of the physical(if that makes sense). Levels of Abstraction is what I am referring to and it comes from the philosophy of information and strangely and independently from my own philosophy that I have developed away from information - that is the same concept of Levels of Abstraction are used in both. James’ philosophy should be looked at as a level of abstraction and not a physics as such - at least for now. I think Levels of Abstraction could work fine in Metaphysics.

Affect does not focus away from the cause - simple.

And this is where my amateurness shines through - I have been reading your posts for a while and I still do not have a full grasp on the is/ought world. I nearly feel ashamed that I am unable to grasp something that you obviously find easy to communicate, but then I could just ask you questions.

This I do understand and agree with.

I know James was writing a book. Is that book published? Does anyone know?

As far as I know he was still in the process of writing the book. So no, I dont think it is published.

Later on when I get enough time I am going to write a book on RM:AO - a guide for the rest of us, so to speak.

I found his ideas hard going and in need of a reference point so as to understand where he was coming from.

My own [and of late only] interest in philiosophy revolves almost entirely around the extent to which its tools are applicable when confronting the question, “how ought one to live?”

And, in particular, in what I construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningless world. A No God world that culminates in oblivion for each of us one by one.

Either abstract arguments – or its cousin, “general descriptions” – will go there or they will not.

James would never take RM/AO and/or the Real God there. Or, rather, not in a manner that we could both agree on.

It’s basically the difference between describing human interactions as they do in fact unfold from day to day, and assessing whether they ought to have unfolded in some other way instead. In order to be in sync with what is deemed to be rational or virtuous behavior.

It’s the difference between Donald Trump shutting down the Mueller investigation [he either does or he does not] and arguing that, if it is shut down, it was the right thing to do.

I really don’t grasp how others fail to see this rather clear distinction. One can be demonstrated to be true for all of us [sans sim worlds, solipsism, cartesean demons etc.] and the other is tangled in sets of political prejudices rooted in what I construe to be an existential interaction of human identity, value judgments and political power: out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

Either RM/AO and the Real God are applicable here or they are not.

What happened to Neosophi? It says “This account has been suspended” when I visit the link.

I will be paying the site fees over the next couple of weeks that is why the account is suspended. I have big plans for that forum and site and will be upgrading to a much faster server. I will post on ILP when it is back up and running.

Kind regards.

:smiley:

A single philosopher is no longer able to change the world in my opinion but the world needs to change. The world needs to change because there is very little anyone of us can do about the direction that technology is taking and the social impact that these technologies are taking. But in numbers the world is at least able to brace itself for future events and steer the direction in which future directions on top of this future direction will go. An oblivion can be avoided.

I will personally take abstract arguments and its cousin general descriptions there. You are correct about James never taking RM:AO there - but even he says that the rules must change to fit the situation.

This is something that I can relate to - by how you have put it here and I think it is a good way. Starting with current events and near future events is a great way to test philosophical theories in near real-time and making analysis of near past events(ie what was the better way) is at least useful for the time being(potentially the next 20 - 50 years).

RM:AO would require some work to fit such a scheme.

You might consider adding a PayPal option to accept contributions to offset operating expenses.

I think that is a wonderful idea and when I move the site to a faster host I think I will do such as you have suggested.

We have to start somewhere.

:smiley:

In no substantive way am I able to connect the dots here between what I construe to be one more general description of human interaction and a particular change imagined in the future involving conflicting goods we are all likely to be familiar with.

It’s just one more scholastic contraption re RM/AO, VO, or prismatics “progressive behaviors” narrative.

And how on earth in the absense of God’s immortality and salvation is the obliteration of each and every individual “I” accomplished?

For me, with respect to each moral/political issue in which there are conflicting valuations, it comes down to this:

I agree. And now apparently James is either no longer around to pursue that work or he has come to understand that it cannot actually be accomplished.

Still, there are plenty of other moral and political objectivists around who continue to make the claims.

Perhaps Fixed can consult the stars and let us know where James S is. i.e. Below or Above.

…has he become famous, and cut his ties with us/moved on to better things?

Neosophi is back up and running. Links should be accessible now.

:smiley:

Hope you’re doing OK, James.

Six months have passed . . .

“Good men must die, but death cannot kill their names.”
-Proverb

You are remembered James - may you rest in peace

I would suggest ( :stuck_out_tongue: ) that this may be a bit premature unless you know for a fact that James has died. Do you?

It is possible of course but it is also possible that he is living La Vida Loca somewhere else and I do not mean the hereafter.

This is where Rilke’s quote comes to mind.

Do not rest in peace, James ~~ give them HELL!