The Philosophers

The idiocy of analytic thinking View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: The idiocy of analytic thinking Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Kripke uses it as a concrete demonstration of (his interpretation of) Wittgenstein’s rule-following considerations, framing them as a skeptical paradox. The problem is, if you have never added together numbers higher than 50, all your additions are compatible both with taking “add” to mean “mathematical plus” and with taking “add” to mean “quus”. It may be that everyone asking you to add things together has really been meaning you to quus them all along, and you’ve been plussing them. It’s only when we deal with numbers over 50 that we start to see that plus and quus are different, and the question arises of which rule we are meant to follow when we are told to “add”, and we discover whether we have been following the same rule as everyone else. But more than that, in what way is it true that we have been quusing when they have been plussing, because in what have they following the plus rule rather than the quus rule? Not because of what they did, since what they did was compatible with both rules. And not because of what they thought, because it’s possible that they never even considered what they would do when dealing with numbers over 50 (have you ever consciously considered how you would answer 547+789? Maybe you would answer ‘5’. You probably wouldn’t, but that fact doesn’t come from what you have consciously thought before about what you would do in this situation). And of course you can’t try to explain by using other rules (like ‘x+y means give the yth successor of x’), because those rules are themselves subject to the same ambiguities, and indeed in the case of mathematical rules are just restatements of the problem in other words (‘the successor of x’ is no less ambiguous than ‘x+1’).
So how are we ever able to learn, and use correctly and in the same way as everybody else, rules that cover an infinite number of different circumstances, when we can only learn from a finite number of circumstances, and when an infinite number of eventually-conflicting rules are compatible both with our finite experiences and with any attempt to describe the rule in language?

What is analytic thinking? Essentially it is a deliberate removal of a given appropriate range of meaning/context and of ‘information’ from acts of consciousness, usually these acts of consciousness being what are called thoughts. The specter is raised that the analytic error could easily also apply to literal acts, not just speech (which is easy to see) but also behavior, movement, motivation, and feeling. The analytic method exemplifies a near-fundamental problem of human consciousness: the fact that we are capable of extracting objects rationally-perceptibly means that we can also extract from objects other objects within them (typical abstract-conceptual thinking) but which is also possible to objectify-extract away a critical component of that object, to “cut out the heart” of the object in our rational (or again, behavioral or otherwise) analysis and act. When the rational extraction yields the falsification of that from which the object extracted came, certain logical and psychological phenomena appear or become possible to appear as a result; one test of honesty and of the capacity for honesty is whether or not these newly-appearing phenomena are sensible to a mind and whether or not, if they are sensible, one responds to and prioritizes these phenomena. These are the signs of intellectual honesty which simply indicate the methodology of consciousness before the possibility of the presencing of an error. Over time the methodology here will become either more or less honest, which is to say more or less sensitive and self-directed toward error. The method of analytic thinking is based on the fact that the larger methodology with respect to how to approach and deal with possibly-sensible errors has over time cornered itself into a rut, wherein the fundamental error is repelled both in form and in the specifics of the given situation and problem, and what is most interesting is that as a result of this fact other facts appear: that the refusal of the fundamental error yields a proliferation of more superficial errors which gravitate to themselves their own ‘fundaments’, their own acting as if they were fundamental (not just to the erroneous analysis in question but to the form of such analyses, and even to analysis as such). In this way conception is broken apart and fragmented, and it becomes the task of the analytic thinker to attempt to “mend back together” these fragments, however he cannot do so for the simple reason that the breaking-apart itself is the very absence of that which would allow for the fragments to be brought back together. The psychological devolution and series of devolutions arising from the original fundamental error is unable to be recovered by any derivative order or end within that same series.

I have made it one of my tasks to analyze and expose analytic thought, although this is a somewhat depressing task and perhaps I could be concerned with greater things rather than mucking around like that. The reason I am interested however is because this analytical problem has infected, in the sense that I wrote about magical-pathological infection of triadic sign systems, much of philosophy today. One reason for the easy spread of this infection is related to how well analytic thinking is able to function smoothly within capitalist systems, not the least of which being how well it acts to further and lend an image of credibility (threshold-ignorance vis a vis pre-emptive catalytic stasis) to empiricism and scientific work today. The philosophical vacuum in which such work takes place is able to be ignored more effectively by the addition of a little “analytic philosophy”, which demonstrates one of the effectivenesses of the original error of analytic method, and also as psychological type.

I am becoming more convinced that pathological personalities in philosophy, and in science (which is to say, in the deliberate absence of the philosophical qua intellectual effort) are caused by this analytic infection. The infection may exists even if the awareness to identify it with analytic thought is not there, and even if the person themselves has no idea what analytic thought is – such an awareness would be required to understand their fundamental, original error from which they are vainly trying to extricate themselves. The mind is inherently, naturally noble and always attempts to right itself, like a spinning top that actively fights gravity and friction, but the lack of proper tools and the continued presence of harmful and insane environments (think ILP) makes recovery effectively impossible. So the error continues to divide and propagate, leading to the emergence of whole worlds of psychological motivations and incentives to cover over errors either as form or content and to painting-over this cover with new images of meaning and thought. In the example quoted above, this painting-over as image has taken the form of the possibility of infinite deduction inherent to speculative reason as such. In other words: the analytic trick is to conceive an image for themselves (i.e. a “paradox” or logical problem) in which their own thought is reflected back to them under the form of impossibility for that thought to recognize itself in that reflection, thereby further obscuring the operations that lie in possibility for touching upon and resonating with one of those ‘errors that conceives its own fundament’. By making refusal structural, the analytic thinker ensures that every act of approach will slip away into void, thus the world of images of the refusal is extended over time to include multiple and different kinda of contents capable of arresting voids within simulations of pre-existing ‘relations of meanings’. It is perhaps in those relations of meanings, the justification per se of the image-world as such, where the only hope for recovery from analytic infection resides.

Please contribute anything you can to the critical understanding of analytic thinking and ways to both avoid and correct it. Its structure and operation must be exposed to help save philosophy at this point ; although philosophy itself could never be affected by idiocies such as are represented by analytic ‘thought’ there is the danger that new minds in the field become swept up within analytic pathology and become lost forever, rather than conversely had they discovered real philosophy and so become capable to contribute something to history and to the great human task.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A noble task, but a very dirty one - the idiocy you so well expose is discouraging, it is rather hard, if not almost impossible to believe that there are people who take analytic philosophy seriously, and not as some sort of morose joke on the capacity for arbitrariness of the human brain.

Whenever I am confronted with analytic thinking I cringe and throw away the book or throw myself away from the screen or the conversation - or if in company I like to respect (as company) I smirk and whistle a bit, and make some visceral comment - that is to say, something Nietzsche, or Parodites might have said - a painful fact about consciousness. A glorious, true fact but something that carries to the heart and causes laughter and anguish and silence and stammering.

The idea that through the word as such, meaning can be found, derived or established, is such a fatally helpless impulse that I can only marvel at the distance that, apparently, exists between tradition and sanity - and I can not deny that belief in an omnipotent creator, as silly as this belief can be understood to be, is at least life-serving in some way, or can be made to be - whereas outright stupidity of belief in language-as-such as creator is neither life-serving nor in any way redeemable. It is not even life-destroying. It is only life-deflating and brings about a virtual absolution of the human mind from its origins. But perhaps this is the entry-key, Capable. Perhaps this weakness is so neutral in its will that it can only be taken up as an instrument.

Consider the world as a gigantic herd that is begging for direction. And consider its means of communication to be the purified absolution of being that is analytic philosophy as its consequences reverberate through the herd and tune the peoples ears to its demands and givens. Now then if you have control of the language that speaks such value-configurations, and if you have a slyness, admittedly, then… well then the possibilities are limitless.

“Possibility” - of what?
An aim, considered; one step further than prudent, ; - there is the possible thought of impregnating China, in order to force the west, by tougher aesthetic-ethical (‘higher self?’) competition, to overcome its feebleness, which allows it to take stock in the power of the word to astound the mind that is not up to the potential of grammar.

Semantically, China is Marxist; and what is more, in China, language is transmitted through means of directer sensory representation; their symbolic characters, of which there are several thousands, all representing more or less directly, at least recognizably their visual origin, their object.

It would be a challenge; One should learn much from the lands of the rising sun. Who knows what tools one may find to apply - and do what was set out - recreate language so as the represents the speculative ethics of Parodites’ 2011 language - the fact that language is itself an ethics is wonderful; that ethics is speculative is masterful.

Mastering life through language demands a master-language, which means a language that commands not only mans notions but also the way he arrives at them; his motions. The language might be seen as explicitly interactive. It may adapt violently to the person who speaks it.

A self-inserting or self-imposing movement that is able to cohere itself in the fabric of the usurped code. For example; Tatsumakisenpukyaku; this phrase among others, lingers in my memory because its origins had shaped for some years my mind, and strewn its seeds across the mind. Similarly, Nietzsche was able, and so was Kierkegaard, and all visceral philosophers, to scatter terms into the minds of man, and Marx was even able to cohere into the chaotic terms of man into a movement, violently chaotic and personable, particular to the extreme, in spite of or naturally rather as a counterbalance to the fact of its general application to radiant instincts that so often are give no mirror-receptor; no medium to cohere self-valuing, so that only raw instinct and flimsy social contracts can bring them into calm sustenance of the ideal… which creeps into the fibers of the soul of man, his speech.

Infuse, inseminate, inject, infect mans speech with the notions we hold high; the end not only justifies the means, the means have created the end. (Now the cyclops leaves the others and enters his cave and eats the last of Odysseus men. His lair must be kept clean.)


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I too used to think about the creation of a new language, and then I realized that this was already taking place in what is called philosophy (good philosophy), and perhaps an interesting semi-parallel in modern “leet speak” and jargon/colloqualisms-like trends; these are like two opposing poles of development in which language is getting stretched and tested. Languages and organisms evolve, language is a technology of life, like eyes or a mobile body, these are all appendages and extensions of ‘the organism’, of consciousness/self.

The total neutrality of the analytic method, as you point out, I agree could be turned against analytic method and used for the ends of philosophy, indeed this is probably what is already happening and what always happens anyway— the elaboration of the technical means and various permutations of surface arrangements that are inevitably put to use by life and meaning, the surface bound to the depths it actively denies (and must deny, qua ‘surface’).

I don’t much try to break into analytic minds anymore, since I’ve tried this so many times to realize the futility there; but I was able to probe enough times and deeply to come to understand the structural nature of analytic thought, both cognitively and emotionally-psychologically. These analytics really have no objective self-view, nothing stands to them as a mirror reflecting back to them what they are, probably because the whole discipline has become so extensive and suffused with a pseudo-prestige and image of authenticity that respectability bestows. Plus the complex intellectualist-logical games played by analytics serve as endless fancies and distractions by which efforts they become convinced that what they are doing is synonymous with philosophy and though as such.

Psychoanalysis is good because it gets inside of the relationship between self and its externalizations, between meaning and word, act snd symbol. Phenomenology and existentialism are also implicitly structured with this in mind, hence their nobility among the various methods of philosophizing. Pragmatism, utilitarianism and positivism are all simply shades of the surface-elaborations that strive to conceive meaning in the void. A massive unification and corrective synthesis is needed to both analytically reveal the error of analytic thought as well as philosophically reveal the direct and real relationship that analytic method bears to real philosophy. That is basically my task, to contribute toward these two ends.

Philosophy rightly remains indifferent to analytic games, but that doesn’t mean large numbers of people including students aren’t tricked into those games, losing their soul in the process. I contend as I mention in the OP that all the various pathologies and errors of personality in either philosophers or otherwise could theoretically be traced to some form of “analytic assumption”, as you say the assumption that language as such yields meaning per se. This also ties into the error of modern capitalism, or rather this error of capitalism is one more derivation of merely analytic fallacy.

In terms of controlling or coordinating en mass the activities of countless people who blindly follow these errors, I am not so interested; what use trying to rule or control unintelligent herds that can’t even comprehend or be counted on for anything? I have no interest in trying to use the ignorance in people, my interest is in truth itself and in spreading truth as anti-ignorance as far as it can possibly permeate into people and the world. I personally also think that the desire or will to control and utilize ignorance or low, enslaved elements/people is another form of the “analytic error”, namely a kind of degeneration of hope and spirit into activities and supposed ends misaligned and categorically counter to that spirit and hope, which spirit/hope is only truth, after all.

If we use people then we capitulate to the very fact that they remain in a state of being able to be used like that; in other words, a ‘capitalization’ as opposed to a truth-movement. Perhaps a necessary endeavor to some degree, but not one I can reconcile to the means and ends of philosophy.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Sat May 14, 2016 3:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Based on my sampling of “philosophers” I’ve talked to online over the last couple of years, and what I’ve read in articles, it seems that only 1-5% of these people understand how to think properly-- the rest are to some stage lost in the insanity that characterizes so-called analytic philosophy. The rare person who can clearly see and think through these convoluted, deliberately confusing and confounding “ideas” and “arguments” in this analytic philosophy usually doesn’t have much interest in analytic philosophy or in laying out its errors systemically to help correct the problems, usually because they have better things to be doing with their time.

The rest of 90%+ of philosophers are insane, meaning they think that idiocies like “if two things have the same name, and believe they are the same, then are they really the same?” actually counts as interesting philosophical work. You cannot reason with these people, simply because they have no working reason at all. I can see clearly into their reasoning and thought-process exactly where their insanity is, but there is seemingly no way to fix it.

Analytic philosophy has apparently won. It already dominates in US philosophy and it offers an approach that seals away a person from reality, creating a fake experience in place of truth and cutting off any possible routes of escape. I don’t have the energy or time to properly write out a clear program and explanation for how to help these people; I wish I did, and if I had perhaps an entire year of free unhindered work and space/time I am certain that I could achieve this task, by making a detailed study of analytic philosophies and breaking it down from the larger perspective, from the vantage of truth. But I don’t have that opportunity, and even if I did it most of these “philosophers” would remain happily ensconced in their little pseudo-intellectual non-realities, content with the hubristic vanity of their world-wide academic circle jerk as Bukowski called it.

So anyway, with that statement of facts laid out now, I declare that I will be devoting myself to more important matters, or at least to matters that interest me personally and for which I actually have enough space, time and energy to pursue and complete. I hope that someday another true philosopher is able and willing to expose this unprecedented madness that has infected modern philosophy so completely.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Mon May 16, 2016 5:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
On a similar note, I seem to have some pathological obsession with discussing philosophy with analytic thinkers… I think on some level I am trying to break through their insanity, I want to witness a miraculous transition on their part, from unreality to reality, or from lower reality to higher reality. I’ve never seen this occur, which maybe makes me even more obsessed somehow in looking for it.

These analytics are the most inhuman monsters you could ever meet. They have excoriated their own souls, in such a complete way that they have no recognition leftover whatsoever that this is what they have done.

The simple fact alone that this is possible is terrifying. Is this what academia is for now?


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Mon May 16, 2016 5:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is a deep connection between “working” (employment) and analytic thinking. I don’t yet know all the full scope of the logic of this, but I know that it is based on suffering-made-value.

Employment presupposes suffering-made-value, otherwise typical employment/jobs would be impossible. This is categorically different than the kinds of corporeal or human-social sufferings we know are necessarily woven into the fabric of our human lives.

Analytic philosophy was produced as the attempt at justification of the suffering-made-value that became incidentally necessary for employment in the modern world. Anyone who is a “worker” (me included, of necessity I am afraid) and especially anyone who is a “full time worker” (again, unfortunately includes me) is necessarily and de facto “analyticized” to some or other degree in their philosophy and thought. This explains my observation in the previous post, my obsession with talking to analytic philosophers… I am unconsciously trying to work through and overcome this error in myself.

This is true (" Anyone who is a “worker” and especially anyone who is a “full time worker” is necessarily and de facto “analyticized” to some or other degree in their philosophy and thought") based on the simple fact that if one were totally free of the insanity-error of analytic philosophy, then employment/having a "job"would be absolutely, completely impossible.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Wed May 18, 2016 5:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is fucking brilliant.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Wed May 18, 2016 5:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is the most devastating insight.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Sat May 21, 2016 1:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Society has labels for people who are on either end of the extreme… on the one hand you have people who are not analyticized or very minimally so, society calls these people artists, or “mentally ill”; on the other side you have people who are maximally analyticized, society calls these people CEOs, senior managers, marketing consultants, etc. The labels correspond to whatever role in the world these different kinds of people are able to have by social sanction.

Most people are somewhere in the middle, and have a kind of inner war with their humanity. Technological rationality would like to reorganize that humanity of theirs into something “productive”, while that humanity resists this to whatever extent it can (usually only unconsciously/instinctively).

Maybe this war isn’t always bad, it does help define boundaries and isolate the scope and effectiveness of powers. If the world has become a giant “analytic” machine then humanity needs scores of people actively struggling with and translating this analyticization back and forth between their humanity, to the always only partial gain of either. The absolute polarity and difference between humanity (includes true philosophy) and analytic philosophy bends somewhat to the daemonic active inter-relation between the two, at least given the kind of world and societies we happen to inhabit at this present moment in time/history.

Human being (again including true philosophy) will ultimately succeed in re-inscribing this analytic trend back into the fold of truth, but imagine the sheer power and depth of being/life that would be needed to achieve this. The impulse to divide into artificiality and falsify for the sake of a convenient simplicity and psychological denial system is very potent, as alluded to by the quote in my signature right now. This is a great warring daemonism of self-valuing pushing being up into higher and more sophisticated tectonics. Make no mistake, the entire world is a massive hurricane; Jupiter’s red spot… a grand contesting of “wills” and natures, human being and the analytic chief among these powers. Based on what I see deep into truth, life and other people I would place my bets on human being, on this one particular mode of truth, which is by every manner of falsification and moral confusion/conflation presently attempting to win for itself a more active, immediate, authentic and ethical existence. All true work in art or philosophy (including politics) is working for this end, whether or not it realizes this fact-- but politics has a more difficult time of it, since the world-forms, the great machinery and weapons of war, come down hardest and first on the political.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would like to update that, upon another long conversation with an analytic thinker, I can see the depth of their fallacious way of thinking.

Analytic metaphysics in particular here. The idea that we can divorce determination (necessity) from causation in order to rescue free will, is this other guy’s position. He thinks that causation is still meaningful without necessity and within contingency; his specific argument: “Things could always have been otherwise than they were, even if they are always the way they are and not otherwise; therefore causation is the case but so is contingency”. His ‘reasoning’ rested heavily on modal logical contortions.

I am not kidding. You can read an article he linked me too where some modern philosophers are talking about this: academia.edu/20883864/Causat … Your_Enemy

In this article they attempt to separate necessity out of causation, rather than accept that freedom and determinism are entirely compatible. This position of theirs rests on the idea of a fundamental contingency regardless of what actually takes place and why. This “and why” is even more significant of an error on their part, because they can accept all the logical, physical, natural laws, etc. reasons for why something happens, and accept that it will always happen like that, but will also still claim that it could have been otherwise due to the “agency power” within the thing itself which makes the not doing what it didnt do a contingent fact, contingent upon the ‘power of the agent’ because the agent has the “capacity” that might or might not be “freely realized”, and this is totally without regard to the logical or physical-material causes behind the thing or act in question.

Yeah. I am seriously not making any of this up.

The funny part is that in that article above, the authors dont even want to deal with the “compatibilist” idea that freedom and determinism-necessity are compatible, they just acknowledge that this is one possible argument but then say this argument isnt good enough because we want “real libertarian free will”, which is somehow “stronger” in their view than the “compatibilist” idea. Lol.

Ok I have reached my saturation point for this bullshit. Time for a cigarette.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You know I actually made it halfway through that article I just linked. Go ahead and try it. This is what passes for high work in academic philosophy now.

There is barely even a single coherent argument anywhere in there; its full of endless “conclusions”, unacknowledged shifts of perspective and imprecise meaning of terms used, categorical fallacies, openly undefended assertions, and vague moralistic statements such as claiming that one thing is better than another without any criteria or further explanation of that.

Goddamnit.

What the fuck is wrong with the human species, that it can produce the following in the year 2016:

Quote :
The Mumford and Anjum account adds significantly to this view insofar as it offers an alternative account of causal production in which it involves a sui generis modality of tendency or dispositionality. Causes tend or dispose to their effects with varying degrees of strength in different cases. They often succeed in producing those effects but, even when they do so, they did not through any necessitation. Mumford and Anjum (2011: ch. 3) have an antecedent strengthening argument for this conclusion. A test of necessity is offered. Where A genuinely necessitates B, then as long as you have A, then still B even if C, for any C. In other words, you should be able to add anything else to the situation in which A occurs and you will still get B, if A really does necessitate B. This does not seem to be the case in natural causal processes, which can be prevented from realising their usual effects if something else – an interferer – is added. Hence, dehydration typically produces a headache: but not if a paracetamol is taken. Even where an effect is indeed produced, this form of argument still holds. Had some further factor, C, been added to the cause, it might well not have produced its effect, B. So even there, we cannot say that B was necessitated by its cause.

If you ever doubt your resolve against academic philosophy, just recall the above paragraph.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: The idiocy of analytic thinking Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Analytic ‘philosophy’ is bullshit. Just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: How does ideology operate? Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
First I’ll turn to Zizek for a short introduction on this issue:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkSV4xyKkds[/youtube]


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: How does ideology operate? Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
One of my working definitions of ideology lately has been to see ideology as the collapse of the self (or thought, or reason) into its contents. By this I mean something clear and very precise, but it’s a little difficult to explain in words; essentially what happens is that the mind, which always posits many ideas and concepts and operates by valuing these in various combinatory ways, stops that value-process at the level of contents-ideas in active combination and instead descends to the level of the contents of those concepts-ideas, as if a content in question were actually the concept and idea toward which it contributes. Ideology is well known to be the fact that thinking stops and “brute facts” are asserted in the place of any former or possible critique. Appeal to brute facts is anti-rational and opens the way for pathology to grip the mind because of how the content without its proper form (the proper form of a content is, in this case, that concept and idea toward which it contributes) immediately dissociates from any form “above” itself (forms in reason) and makes itself freely available to act as a surrogate form for other things, namely for other contents.

This is how a feeling can link directly into a pre-conceptual content in order to generate what looks like a concept and idea but is in fact nothing at all like a concept and idea, it only shares a superficial image with conception and likewise reason is impossible to replicate at that level of the pure image. This loss of reason is the form of the pathological, while the content of the pathological is simply whatever false content-links are directly forged at the pre-conceptual level. Thesw contents must still be grounded in something, so that lacking any rational conceptual structures in which to meaningfully participate they instead find a loose grounding in other contents, in direct associations of proximity and power.

The issue of proximity is easy enough to understand, but what about the issue of power? This power is a power of the false linkage to release another content (including a feeling) into direct expression extra-rationally or I should say pre-rationally. Suddenly the mind experiences a freeing of inner contents (feelings, inclinations, biases, justifications, images and memories, desires, etc.) directly and as if “by magic”, without any need for a rational order or meaning to it all. This form of subjectivity can become intoxicating, indeed it is the cause of many problems including religious insanity, trolling behaviors, and of course ideological thinking. This is what I mean by saying that the mind/thought/reason collapses into its contents: reason is suspended as being no longer useful or necessary since direct stimulation of various subjective-conscious contents of experience can be obtained simply by adhering to an open-ended, non-critical process of “mental ejaculation”. And it isn barely even mental, more like simply low-key immediate subjectivity experience with minimal context or extended meaning.

I see this kind of ideology at work in both the political left and right in the US. I see it in Trump, although I could side with Zizek and say that Trump is nowhere near as bad as someone like Cruz in whom this pathological ideology has become complete and reason completely silenced. In Trump at least there is some extension beyond the ideological sphere into the real world of meanings and reason, even though as far as I can tell those extensions are flimsy at best. Trump still had his reason but it is playing the role of servant to his ideological “purity”, and this purity of being entirely ideological is what is required to win votes from the right-wing side of politics now in the US (it also helps the left-wing to invoke pure ideologies, and Obama is a master at this; I believe Obama has rational structures extended from his ideology similar to how Trump does, in fact I think for Obama his ideological purity is actually a secondary function of that reasoning, yet he hides the reasoning and more often defers to the ideology sphere. Why? Because it works… Because as Zizek also said, most people do not want real democracy but to have the appearance of choice while also subtly being told how to vote; most people want to be able to act as if they do not know the harsh truths of the world, and democracy is like a large zone separating people from those truths. This is a “proper” function of democracy and Obama defers to this function, this is partly the cause for his evasions and lies and especially his use of ideology when he could instead have used reason. Trump and the politicos right wing, on the other hand, have abandoned this deferment to the proper role or democracy and instead decided to shove unwanted truths on people as a form of psychological breakdown and appearing to be a power-player. I would argue that it is because they have lost true power, by totally capitulating to pure ideology and abandoning reason as such, that now they are becoming the ones going for the shock value sucker punch to the gut approach).


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: How does ideology operate? Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This descent into the pure contents of consciousness admits of degrees; as one begins the descent away from form and reason proper one first enters the ideological realm… if one keeps descending one becomes a religious or political fanatic of some kind, a true irredeemable ideologue… keep going still deeper into the contents as such, and one arrives at psychotic mental illness of delusional and hallucinatory schizophrenia.

As the contents of experience (experience’s many multi-part conditions) are progressively allowed to take over the central governing mechanisms of subjectivity-consciousness one becomes further detached from reason’s formal (speculative transcendental, ontologically driven) power and isolated contents and their pure often irreducible logic increasingly overdetermine the actualizing self. We all see things imaginatively that overlap our real sensory experience, we all hear voices in our head, we all have strange flashes of mad or paranoid or irrational thoughts, but proper rational formal consciousness keeps all that in check by blending it seamlessly into the larger subjectivity-patterns of hierarchical contents contributing to the meta-perspectives which in turn comprise true ideas and emotions (ideas are the summative meta-perspectivizing process of a certain kind of contents, emotions are that same process but for different kinds of contents).

With a descent too far into content as such (loss of reason) ideas and emotions both begin to break apart into their constitutive content-pieces. Ideology is technically a mild from of schizophrenia.

Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Metaphysics of Freedom Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We all know intuitively that we are absolutely determined in what we do, but knowing this doesnt mean we know what we “should” do before we do it, therefore we are thrust against the limit of our knowledge with respect to the intuition of those determinations which impose upon us in any given moment of thought, feeling or action, i.e. we gain the freedom of choice, which is a kind of self-apotheosis at the subjective level, a process of progressive understanding as peeling back layer upon layer of our ignorances… the necessity of making a “choice”.

 Christological	View previous topic View next topic Go down 

Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am going to take a term that Zizek uses at least once, Christological, and use it from now on to distinguish the logic of the Christian metaphysical from Christianity as religion or even from Christianity as historical event. The system of Christianity is different from the logic underpinning it, the system at best manifests this logic materially in the world and at worst just represents this logic indirectly as a sort of gesture or image.

Zizek’s point here was that the logic of Christianity is deeply Hegelian in how Christianity created a space for human meaning beyond the cultural symbolic order, beyond the dynamics of the family and beyond the state. Christ was this kind of radically contingent event, Christ as man, through which a larger metaphysical symbolic possibility was realized in so far as the contingency is required to allow the necessary “absolute” structure to function in real life; a distinction he makes here is between two forms of society and governance: the modern state of the rule of experts and technocratic bureaucracy, versus the older monarchies where experts existed more in the background and did the real work of understanding and crafting policies and actions for the king or leader figure to simply sign. He claims that Hegel’s point is that’s society needs an empty figurehead at the top in order to enact governance in a more human way, that the direct rule of experts or direct popular vote is s tyranny of positivity that can only work well when supplemented with the radically negative figure of the leader whose job is to fail to understand the policies and actions that he signs into law.

He uses a line from Lacan: “madness is not only the beggar who believes he is a king, it is also the king who believes he is a king.” This is profound. The real logic of necessity is only able to act as governance and intelligent actions and will if there is a kind of empty symbol for this action and will, because of the distance required between the true rationale behind an act and the act itself. The psychoanalytic term here is symbolic castration, which means the irreducible (in so far as we remain truthful as subjectivities) gap in subjectivity between what we are to ourselves, our inner experience and self, and what we are to others, our roles in society, the function we have to others and how others perceive us. I am not fully convinced that this gap is totally irreducible because instead of trying to reduce it “downward” toward the conditions of the gap itself we can instead reduce it “upward” in philosophical and artistic activity. We can try to change our world to reflect our “inner truth” and gain proper recognition by that standard, but perhaps even this is a form of castration as well, an external rather than internal castration.

The Christological formula was to introduce radical negativity into humanity at the intersection between individual and state/society and between individual and other people. It was no longer enough to have this ideal of perfectly filling out our social role and position in peaceful harmony with our state or culture; Zizek notes how he went to China and asked them about the nature of their state communist administration of capitalism, and was told that they have abandoned the idea of communism for a more practical peaceful homogeneity between individual and society, where everyone knows their proper place and role and is genuinely happy and self-actualized in fulfilling that place-- “sure”, Zizek replies, “we ourselves in Europe also have a term for this ideal state of peaceful social harmony of perfect functioning of individuals and social role, it’s called corporate fascism”.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
His point is that we should defend Europe and US against this contemporary critique that goes something like “Europe/US are oppressive colonial powers of hegemony that tyrannize “local peoples” and cultures”, we shouldn’t defend the imperialism but we should defend the Christological gap within the proper human subjectivity, a gap that always makes utopian perfection whether as the naive communist idea or as corporate fascism impossible.

The idea of communism is simply that eventually the need for wage-labor work would fall away due to this work being taken over by machines. Since the need to work in the common social economic sense of “having a job” is still always the case, communism is only a distant vision of a possible future where the symbolic castration would no longer govern sociopolitical affairs. But of course this is also naive in so far as machinery can only remove physical materials labor and cannot actually remove mental and emotional labor. Capitalism today has pushed work-labor into the immaterial realm as society is more and more overtly defined by this inner logic of human subjectivity wherein the distance required between oneself and one’s actions or “image of oneself” functioning in society is still irreducible. The “human element” is the required contingent factor of imperfection and unpredictability around which capitalism’s drive for necessity and perfection (homogeneity, absolute control and prediction) rotates.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Interestingly this idea is almost the exact opposite of Plato’s vision of politics given in The Republic. The supposedly wise leader who sees himself as fully embodying his role as political leader without any remainder is only another kind of tyranny, Zizek makes reference here to Stalin as a perfect example; the people will always treat the political leaders as if they had some sort of divine wisdom and as if they are in fact synonymous with the role they occupy, and the gap between the leader and his role is rendered invisible; but when the leader himself acts as if this gap didn’t exist, when the leader truly believes that he is this role himself, that is is king, then we must only get another form of absolute tyranny.

Democratic republics today in US and Europe have partially solved this problem by making the position of leader an empty role that is filled only temporarily by various elected officials. In this way the justification for being in that role is no longer the supposition that the leader has some divine or perfect mandate justifying his occupying that role, because now we all know that the leader is simply whoever is chosen by a majority of the people. The leader may still pathologically associate themselves literally with the role they play, thereby forsaking their humanity and pushing the gap of symbolic castration deeper into repression, but now there is always the threat that this facade will be exposed as a sham, for the simple reason that there now exists a mechanism for selecting leadership that is entirely beyond the leader himself. The leader must submit himself to the imperfections and contingency of the will of the people as hypostasized into a single “majority vote”, and this is a necessary remainder of political leadership that works against pathological associations of leaders with their roles. The king who REALLY BELIEVES that is IS king, this is the problem that the Christological formula militates against.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Zizek also here makes the point with regard to Plato, that a hypothetical perfectly just society would be an absolute terror.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I find this a good reading of Christianity. To my own great cheerfulness, I am instantly grounded in opposition to this formula of government; as a philosopher-legislator, I believe in philosopher-kingship, in direct logos-to-praxis downward, with the hirded help of whatever experts are necessary for any given context.

Zizek expresses here the pure negativity in terms of human will that Christianity represents; the simple ontic inability of regulating his species, and his species representing nonetheless his will.

Now, that philosophy is coming home, which means back to its throne, this system becomes obsolete, and a true horror. Now that god is dead and humans are being born into sanity again, the time has announced itself where we need proper leadership, a commander, who knows what he is doing, unlike any ‘experts’… who are after all specialists, and can thus by definition not know politics, which is comprehensive.

It is time for positive leadership again - we humans arent anylonger ashamed of our drives, which is why we could not have direct leadership - we had to hide our drives form ourselves, make this strange circuitry outside of ourselves, to exclude ourselves from our will, which was sinful to us, but needed to be done anyway. This is why the king was an illusory figure, his role is to hide shame and guilt, and for this he needs to be transcendent, or to forge a psychoanalytic term: sublime-perverse. The apparatus we are now about to vote out of power is thus sublime-perverse kingship, president Obama probably the most sublime-perverse human to ever ‘rule’; be entirely powerless, and ignorant about ‘his’ domain while speaking the ruling logos, blindly superimposing the given mediating matrices of shame and guilt on society to regulator its will into narrow, puny paths that can be controlled; man under god was simply a harvesting machine without a pilot, so he needed a great artifice of government.

In this world to come now, we need self-valuings, individuals, who are actual humans, and can know what the humans in the world really need now; apparently the time has come, where we can be proud enough, sane enough, un Christian enough to take our fate into our own human hands.

‘Masters of the Earth’, Nietzsches greatest project, to which the notion of the Superman and the ER is but a small catalyst… to open the paradigm to this very mastership is our task as philosophers before the light.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides
    Back to top Go down
    View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So if I’m correct here what you’re saying is that the problem isn’t really the fact of symbolic csstration and its repression, but actually the problem is sublime-perverse drive-confusion they can only be organized in terms of a leader/spiritual teacher? I agree it is possible to have truly wise leaders. So I agree that the problem isn’t that leadership is always unwise qua leadership, he problem is more like how utterly rare it is to have leaders who are wise (and sane), as well as how to tell the difference. In Plato’s system there is no real mechanism for preventing the inevitable rise of an unwise/insane leader. I suppose the other way around this problem of the rarity of wisdom in leadership is for the people to grow in their own wisdom. That seems to be what you’re saying?

While it’s easy to be cynical and dismiss that idea, I do happen to agree. “The people” should keep raising their standards of life and in so doing come closer to a need for truth both in life’s beautiful gifts as well as in the ennui that follows achieving quality of life with regard to material need. The ennui of “rich white America” that is a well known side effect of capitalism here can be seen as a kind of breeding ground for an elevated standard to come, for the need for truth.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 756
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
" Zizek’s point here was that the logic of Christianity is deeply Hegelian in how Christianity created a space for human meaning beyond the cultural symbolic order, beyond the dynamics of the family and beyond the state. "

My problem with this in general is reading Christianity independently from the Judaic underpinning from which it evolved. The basic idea in Judaism is that the mundane affairs of family life are themselves vehicles through which the divine re-participates in the creation; that one can literally lower and raise the universe simply by being a good father or wife, etc. So if the emergence of Christ is read against that more ancient theological background, Christ does not represent the opening of a symbolic possibility beyond the mundane reality of state and family life, but rather, an inversion of that symbolic order; in Judaism, man expresses the divinity latent in nature through good acts, while, after Christ, that latent divinity is no longer latent, it is actual, thus “the kingdom of heaven is within you.” Agape or the spirit of god, brotherly love, becomes the main focus of worship- and man expresses divinity through that, rather than by fulfilling stifling and static social roles deemed as good in the Judaic tradition. So Christ is not an empty signifier between god and man here or a radical negativity, rather, he expresses the divine actualization or radical positivity of humanity as agape or love, so that man no longer needs to relate himself to God through the established forms of society/ “filling their proper place” in Judaism (symbolically castrating himself) in order to express the divine. Christ removes the distance between man and the divine. Neither Christ or God exist as the radical negativity of the other; they are both negated on the basis of a mutual affirmation, so that the affirmation can be reified through the Christ-God’s death as agape or brother love. This love or agape allows things like family life and the mundane affairs of living to become active rather than passive expressions of the divine as they were in Judaism: that is the fundamental gift of Christ. And this is my system. Two being(s) are irreducible and cannot be brought into a negative relation to one another- because they are both affirmations of Being, that is, positivity, as Christ and God; negative reflection * isolates the positive core which they share by negating them both at the level of the symbolic- hence it wasn’t god and man that died on the cross, it was the god-man and god; finally that positivity is reified, or reproduced in a new form.

  • [ For Holderlin, all knowledge stems from an original division by reflection within athesis
    through which Being is positioned as an intellectual intuition, that is, not as identity, but
    as a transcendental relation between the subject and object that cannot be synthetically
    unified within consciousness, and whose specification can therefor only take the form of
    tragic poeticism, an aesthetic of the mourning introduced into the Eden of nature with the
    fall of man into reflection and immanence. In my view, because man can reproduce
    intellectually his own lack, through what I call negative-reflectivity, he must be initially
    divided from himself in pre-reflection. This lack is man’s Being. The transcendental
    relation of subject and object becomes in this view an immanent relation between man’s
    consciousness and the Being of that consciousness, with the reproduction within
    consciousness of the lack representing the reification of the Being of consciousness- a
    reification of the transcendent object missing in a Nature mournful over the absence of
    the divine.]

In other words: Christ does not provide a radical possibility beyond the mundane, family etc. Christ allows the mundane to be expressed as the radical metaphysical possibility.

A similar inversion politically is possible. Man does not express his will positively by relating it to law under a king; man expresses law by positively relating his will to a leader. The idea is that law itself is not a passive symbolic structure but an active real structure. Both the individual and the leader are pure affirmations of a basic ontos, law; the structure of the new polis serves to negate them both so that the positive core they share can be isolated and reified in a new form, as “the people,” a political category that was only properly articulated in America and which represents law in its activity rather than passivity.


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 Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
So if I’m correct here what you’re saying is that the problem isn’t really the fact of symbolic csstration and its repression, but actually the problem is sublime-perverse drive-confusion they can only be organized in terms of a leader/spiritual teacher? I agree it is possible to have truly wise leaders. So I agree that the problem isn’t that leadership is always unwise qua leadership, he problem is more like how utterly rare it is to have leaders who are wise (and sane), as well as how to tell the difference. In Plato’s system there is no real mechanism for preventing the inevitable rise of an unwise/insane leader. I suppose the other way around this problem of the rarity of wisdom in leadership is for the people to grow in their own wisdom. That seems to be what you’re saying?

I believe only in nominal control, I believe that arms should be in the hands of privates, always. Never a monopoly on violence by an institution. That is my philosophical idea, and with this idea I try to come to rule. I think of philosophy as supreme - and of myself supreme only in as far as I philosophize - go inward. I cant bopth be supreme and command downward; but I can cast possibilities to the mind, which are paths and destinies. I see Greece as having come into being as such, and I continue this line with a joy that is incomparable to any other, the very joy of philosophy.

I do not take philosophy or wisdom as possibilities, but as givens, now on Earth, this moment, this opportunity, us together- and who knows all the others - to me there is nothing abstract about philosophical rulerships ambition, it is purely personal, about values, and self-valuing.

A tyranny is collectivism; the collective is united by a sublimated passion mixed with fear. But our form is self-valuing, the fire itself that builds the entity.

Quote :
While it’s easy to be cynical and dismiss that idea, I do happen to agree. “The people” should keep raising their standards of life and in so doing come closer to a need for truth both in life’s beautiful gifts as well as in the ennui that follows achieving quality of life with regard to material need. The ennui of “rich white America” that is a well known side effect of capitalism here can be seen as a kind of breeding ground for an elevated standard to come, for the need for truth.

Yes, teaching is the only form of government there has ever existed - we’ve forgotten this as we became the greatest power.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
" Zizek’s point here was that the logic of Christianity is deeply Hegelian in how Christianity created a space for human meaning beyond the cultural symbolic order, beyond the dynamics of the family and beyond the state. "

My problem with this in general is reading Christianity independently from the Judaic underpinning from which it evolved. The basic idea in Judaism is that the mundane affairs of family life are themselves vehicles through which the divine re-participates in the creation; that one can literally lower and raise the universe simply by being a good father or wife, etc. So if the emergence of Christ is read against that more ancient theological background, Christ does not represent the opening of a symbolic possibility beyond the mundane reality of state and family life, but rather, an inversion of that symbolic order; in Judaism, man expresses the divinity latent in nature through good acts, while, after Christ, that latent divinity is no longer latent, it is actual, thus “the kingdom of heaven is within you.” Agape or the spirit of god, brotherly love, becomes the main focus of worship- and man expresses divinity through that, rather than by fulfilling stifling and static social roles deemed as good in the Judaic tradition. So Christ is not an empty signifier between god and man here or a radical negativity, rather, he expresses the divine actualization or radical positivity of humanity as agape or love, so that man no longer needs to relate himself to God through the established forms of society/ “filling their proper place” in Judaism (symbolically castrating himself) in order to express the divine.

Yes, this is also in line with what I was trying to say, although I probably expressed it inadequately. “Christ does not represent the opening of a symbolic possibility beyond the mundane reality of state and family life, but rather, an inversion of that symbolic order”, in fact I think these two things are the same thing: the opening of the (new) symbolic possibility beyond the mundane is equal to the inversion of the (old) symbolic order as such. The old order it is taken as a givenness and meant to symbolize God itself, directly as you say, but when Christ inverted this formula he placed the symbolic itself at the heart of human being because, once freed from the old tyranny of God-symbolizing, the reality behind the older symbolic order, the family and social relations, etc., was freed into more direct being. Christ divorces humans from being inextricably, unconsciously bound up in social and family relations and thereby Christ frees that in those relations which was actually real and always there to begin with. The old order which bound everything up tightly together had obscured this truer reality. This is why Christ was not saying we should seriously hate our parents and brothers and sisters in order to love Christ, in that famous saying of his, it isn’t meant to be taken literally like that. He was saying that we are now free to love beyond the bounds of what had formerly been (falsely) called love. Love didn’t really exist before Christ. Love is radical distance which respects its other as itself categorically, as an immediate metaphysical truth, like with what you say about mutual affirmation I think.

Essentially, the philosophical rational notion of equality among categorical partners. All human beings are, potentially, categorical partners in this way. Christ was not saying that all people are equal, he was saying that all people equally share the same category and regardless of how things actually turn out in practice. And this equalization of the human race under the same category is at the metaphysical level replacing the old idea of God: God in pre-Christ is just the stand-in concept for the supposed absolute reality of the “big Other”, whereas God in post-Christ is the proper distance from that Other so we can start to form real relations with the actual others in our immediate lives. That is how I see it anyway.

Quote :
Christ removes the distance between man and the divine. Neither Christ or God exist as the radical negativity of the other; they are both negated on the basis of a mutual affirmation, so that the affirmation can be reified through the Christ-God’s death as agape or brother love. This love or agape allows things like family life and the mundane affairs of living to become active rather than passive expressions of the divine as they were in Judaism: that is the fundamental gift of Christ.

I agree. I think this is also Zizek’s point with his reading of Hegel and Christianity that I was talking about in the OP here.

Quote :
And this is my system. Two being(s) are irreducible and cannot be brought into a negative relation to one another- because they are both affirmations of Being, that is, positivity, as Christ and God; negative reflection * isolates the positive core which they share by negating them both at the level of the symbolic- hence it wasn’t god and man that died on the cross, it was the god-man and god; finally that positivity is reified, or reproduced in a new form.

  • [ For Holderlin, all knowledge stems from an original division by reflection within athesis
    through which Being is positioned as an intellectual intuition, that is, not as identity, but
    as a transcendental relation between the subject and object that cannot be synthetically
    unified within consciousness, and whose specification can therefor only take the form of
    tragic poeticism, an aesthetic of the mourning introduced into the Eden of nature with the
    fall of man into reflection and immanence. In my view, because man can reproduce
    intellectually his own lack, through what I call negative-reflectivity, he must be initially
    divided from himself in pre-reflection. This lack is man’s Being. The transcendental
    relation of subject and object becomes in this view an immanent relation between man’s
    consciousness and the Being of that consciousness, with the reproduction within
    consciousness of the lack representing the reification of the Being of consciousness- a
    reification of the transcendent object missing in a Nature mournful over the absence of
    the divine.]

In other words: Christ does not provide a radical possibility beyond the mundane, family etc. Christ allows the mundane to be expressed as the radical metaphysical possibility.

I think your view and the Zizek-Hegelian view are essentially the same here. “In my view, because man can reproduce
intellectually his own lack, through what I call negative-reflectivity, he must be initially
divided from himself in pre-reflection. This lack is man’s Being.” --this is pointing to the psychoanalytic insight that the concept of symbolic castration is also saying: “Lacan turns Freudian castration into “symbolic castration.” The latter, rather than being a real or imagined scene in which a specific threat to bodily integrity is issued, designates the dual somatic and psychical discombobulating effects upon the premature human animal caused by insertion into and subjection to surrounding socio-symbolic contexts, of being made to depend on the foreignness [distance, lack, unknowable] of signifiers and everything they bring with them.” (Plato.sanford.edu).

The human being already lacks something, even before it is a human being, and this lack manifests itself as a gap within thinking whereby that which in fact determines this thinking is, initially, entirely obscured from thinking itself; we cannot think our thinking directly, but even more problematically we cannot think the base of thought itself. Philosophy is the only cure for this that I know of. Psychoanalysis is on par here, because psychoanalysis is basically a system for producing philosophical insights in people who are not philosophers.

But note that in your above description there are two lacks: there is the original lack, and then there is the lack in thought that arises because of the original lack; thought is a reflective process that reproduces the original lack first indirectly and then, finally in the finished philosopher, directly. Any true philosophy must always take stock of this original lack through its direct conscious understanding of the lack in thought, because philosophy proceeds from a high precipice of thought-substances and gradually works its way back down through these and to the ground; philosophy must build up its mountains of concepts and ideas only so that philosophy can gain the possibility of climbing back down through these to return to the original ground, a ground that was only possible to even glimpse, let alone ultimately grasp, because we had to first build the massive mountain from which perspective and height we could finally see this ground. This is also Hegel’s idea of absolute recoil: the “fall” (original sin) that by falling creates that from which it is a fall. There was no perfect original Absolute, no pure state of grace, no initial utopia; we actually create this ‘perfect state’ only because we fall from it. In positive philosophical terms: only because we build the mountain away from the ground do we become able to actually see the ground qua ground, to even become aware of its existence (and therefore our own existence, too).

Quote :
A similar inversion politically is possible. Man does not express his will positively by relating it to law under a king; man expresses law by positively relating his will to a leader. The idea is that law itself is not a passive symbolic structure but an active real structure. Both the individual and the leader are pure affirmations of a basic ontos, law; the structure of the new polis serves to negate them both so that the positive core they share can be isolated and reified in a new form, as “the people,” a political category that was only properly articulated in America and which represents law in its activity rather than passivity.

I am not sure what you mean here, are you saying that human being is the realization of a purely rational-logical structure (“law”), a kind of metaphysical Being that becomes real through the human beings that have been formed according to it? Please elaborate this point so I can grasp better what you mean.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Christological Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I thnk what P is sayinng is more simple; in general I think that the “Trumpian” position is toward more simplicity, and away from metaphysical differentiations of man from man; as I read it, P is simply saying that a leader does not have to be a symbolic-metaphysical representation of a process that is not entirely human, at least not entirely fed by true humans, positive beings - but that a leader can simply be a strong man that is actually worthy of being followed, because he does good stuff. I at least think that this is what we need to be getting back to - the system, and I don’t mean the corporate system but the philosophic-metaphysical system, is failing us.

A strong leaders is not a fuhrer. I am also a leader, here, as are the both of you. We command respect in each other, and in ones less advanced, and there is no principle of law or humanity or society that we obey to indirectly; we simply know how to value, and express ourselves directly, most directly of all to those in charge of whatever matters. I tend write so that politicians can make sense of it, and I know we’re being seen. Tough this is just the beginning, this thing we do here is government of the future, no less - there is absolutely no more conscientious and human agency active on the planet than this, I am sure. In happy case, we may have some equals. But we dont need them, we have enough here to make another round of ‘Founding Fathering’, pretty soon.

We have ethics. That is what, to my mind, Hegel and Marx negated. They did not start from the generative logic of the individual, therefore they necessarily disacknowledge the individual, and his logos.

I’d like to focus on that point, that Hegel did not put forth the self-valuing principle before he started juggling around with these archetypes supposedly referring to humans.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Parodites
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 756
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Christological Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lacan’s Lack is the lack of a primary object in eroto-genesis. The consequent dependency on foreign signifiers is different than the negativity or lack I imagine. For, in Lacan, the subject is split from itself- it cannot rise up to the category of representation beyond reflection so no primacy objectification appears in erogeneity:

[ … the Lacanian model- a model which is all based on the idea
that erogeneity remains nebulous and that no definite primacy ever develops between the
anal, oral, genital, etc. stages. For him each libidinal circuit merely “rotates” around a
center of gravity without ever attaining any object, generating a subjective awareness of
the impulse only at the completion of each cycle, which splits the subject into conscious
ego and unconscious.]

For me, the subject is split not from itself but from the Object, namely in pre-reflectivity. With reflectivity, the ego represents its division from the Object (the shadow of the real) as itself. This auto-representation is my version of Holderlin’s intellectual intuition. The basic lack lies in the fact that the act of representation always cleaves the subject from its object, until it reproduces its own negativity as its object in transcendental specification, that empty object taking the form of the god-idea. In the mortis imago or image of death, it perfectly represents this division from the Object and finds its representation. This representation is the material of the symbolic order, human civilization and culture. The death anxiety and erotic pathos appears with it:

[ In pre-reflectivity,
as in the Greek consciousness, the self exists for the world beyond itself, and
kenotically experiences the unity of subject and object as its own self-emptying into
creation or representation, reading itself back into the forms it has liberated from the
dance of ages as from out of the text of the old pantheon, but in reflectivity it begins to
exist for itself and mirrors its own separation from things in the image of death, death
which is a final separation of subject and object, and of objects themselves from one
another, losing the capability of representing its deepest interior contents, becoming
secretive to use Kierkegaard’s terminology and aware of the hidden, nameless God of
Abraham, in whose abyss it finds something of its own emptiness. The moment the ego
associates itself in pre-reflection as the subject of a specific object, namely a metonym, so
a loss occurs, a fall from grace, and the potency of organo-affective unity is transformed
by the attempt to fill the narcissistic wound from the basic life-force into a negative
kinesis, a thanatos or tension which the ego attempts to push out of consciousness in
reflectivity by reproducing the empty ego-object of the metonym for new objects, a task
for which Eros emerges, until the whole kingdom of the body is precipitated as a series of
metonyms in erogeneity. ]

As that representation or symbolic order becomes more evolved throughout the derivations of the epistemes, the self is finally convinced that it is this representation of its division from the object, its division from Being or basic negativity to use philosophic terms.

[The narcissistic wound imposed by the catastrophe of Nature, which
births the real-ego in the pre-reflective infantile progression, ie. the psyche or
psychoanalytic subject, brings with it the death-anxiety which serves as the motive of
somatic regression insofar as the transcendent wish of the reflective childhood
progression has not successfully reproduced its own empty object, for it is upon the basis
of this object, ie. the mother-figure, that the negative kinesis of libidinal tristia generates
the ideal specification of the ego, ie. dike or the philosophical subject, … ]

So this post-reflective or representable self essentially exists as an articulation of the very forces whose tension gives rise to it. :

[ … the episteme is therefor much
like the tautegory of Schelling in that it represents (in my logic, it reproduces through
negative reflectivity) the very conceptual oppositions that gives rise to it. ]

[As in Schelling, for this subject Being is seen as merely
the temporary object of resistance against which the finite self sets itself against itself in
reflectivity and develops into de-objectified geist, the Spirit that can be known only in its
objectless activity, like the Atemwende or respiration and expiration of spirit and flesh, a
counter-word set against Ousia like that uttered by Lucile in Danton, accounted in Celan’s
Meridian as indicative of the self that goes out beyond itself to seek itself, to seek its
deobjectified geist.

While thanatos aims to return the ego to the peace of inorganic existence, a pre-reflective
unity that never existed even in memory, a wish expressed unconsciously by the vision of
heaven, nirvana, etc., Eros would aim ultimately to express the totality of human nature, a
project jeopardized insofar as erotic pathos has regressed into the furious defense of the
god-ego in primary narcissism, in the face of Death and reality, leading to the self’s
fragmentation and both the suspension and preservation of feeling- if only in a kind of
death, holding love back from extinction yet also from life, to recall Freud’s Mourning
and Melancholy. The task of Eros recalls that of Schelling’s lost identity for whose
existence the identity of the self is only a symptom, in that Love, too, is a symptom for all
that love has lost, cannot accomplish and has failed to gain. ]

The ego in my writing is similarly created by the very problem of representation which the existence of the ego creates.

To articulate the self without that illusion of representation- the illusion of the real or the ego, requires a break in the dialectic (which is what I mean by “reproducing the negativity of thought as the object of thought, as thought’s transcendent signification.” )-

[ Yet for the very same reason that Eros has no place for the time of pleasure’s
arrival, it has no place for the recognition of death, for death which opens the white-lilied
heart of love and steals the breath from the gasping lightning, whose thunder never peals
over the gorge torn open in the flesh of longing: one’s death confesses one’s love, but
one’s love cannot confess one’s death. ]

– requires an act of love through which alone death can be psychically incorporated, for the mortis imago or image of death within which the ego represents itself to itself in the shadow of the real, is only a kind of reflective fabrication preventing man from establishing his true positive orientation:

[ Love is a break in the dialectic, for love is the negation not of
the negation but of the ideal whose content is affirmed through the negation, for the
negation is our own self, or the intact body that is repaired by being broken apart- for it
was made whole by means of the loss of what was most integral to it. ]

And when I mentioned “the people” as a political category that was first articulated in American constitutional philosophy, I meant that it serves there a similar purpose that agape served Christ, as a break in the dialectic.


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 Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Christological Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“The People” is not actually a category, as it isn’t juxtaposed against something that negates it. It is a direct address of… well, the people. There isnt another way of addressing people.

We could say they are juxtaposed with the government, but the government is of and by the people, only therefore, for the people. They are the same substance, but their selfvaluing excess (moral values) are pressed upwards by self-valuing difference which seems close to what you mean with antidialectic, rather than resolved into each other, and rather than that the people and government are resolved by each other, like in a categorivcal divided society is the case, time and time again.

Capital has both ruined and increased aristocracy - if I am totally definitive about my aim, it is to restore aristocracy ad a fluid system defined by osmosis, namely (economic) equality before the law, and simply allowing for industries to create wealth and a positive inequality, that causes the Dream.

The most genius thing a nation ever did was the identify with the term Dream. What Magicians. The identification of values with that state certainly induces a lot of alpha wavelength, and causes pure fluidity, and a very functional irrationality; it completely dampens the need for morality. Of course, this only goes for free spirits. The others do seem to not carry the burden of flux, of self-responsibility, very well – but the United States will nevertheless determine the fate of the world into the next centuries - pride is essential. Pride is what activated Marxism - it made Communism, and that was good. But as soon as it was given the means to embody a System, Stalin and Mao were more or less exact logical operators of that logic; the history of Stalins purges of the original revolutionary generation is the most palpably theoretical dialectical materialism after Mao’s Great Leap Forward. The strange thing is that indeed the very theory of Marx exudes a pride - the same with Hegel. Most philosophies are more subdued in this, less pre-emptively imposing, more of a lure to the right kind of lovers. Marx does not include the notion of love, which is just a very pure and potent, challenging selfvaluing, into his calculations, which makes them all categorically false… (kek)

Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Self-valuing: a theoretical examination Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The two main dialectical (expressed as two sides in contrast and conversation with each other) paradigms in philosophy at the metaphysical (onto-epistemological) level have for a long time been: being vs. becoming, and materialism vs. idealism. One great thing about the VO idea of self-valuing is that it jumps over both of these paradigms. It’s like these paradigms break down completely under the assertions of VO. I want to create an analogy here to how edified logic breaks down typical paradoxes in philosophy of logic:

The Cretan paradox of speaking “All Cretans are liars” when one is a Cretan oneself. This is supposed to produce a paradox because if one is oneself a Cretan and proclaims honestly that all Cretans are liars then one has spoken a truth, thus refuting the original claim that is spoken, so that it becomes impossible to express the claim without refuting it. This is clearly among the more stupid things produced by philosophy. I only mention it because of how the supposed paradox literally dissolves when we push just a little deeper into it: what does “are liars” mean, that all Cretans never always only speak the truth, or that all Cretans are always lying? The latter of course is required for the paradox to even make sense, and yet as we move to this latter position on the meaning of “are liars” in equal measure the situation becomes literally meaningless: all Cretans are always lying? Everything spoken is a lie, no non-lies are ever spoken? Everything is supposedly a lie therefore nothing truthful can be said-- this is nonsense, more importantly it isn’t a paradox at all, it is just a stupid way of constructing a thought experiment. If someone always lies then they cannot tell a truth, but then by some magic you say “A ha but here they may have said a truth!” you’re just refuting your own premise that the person always lies. It’s unfortunate that this sort of thing persists as “philosophy”.

“A is never B
But some thing here of A looks like a B (because I subtly refuted my own principle of A in my formation of B)! Paradox!”

Idiotic.

So anyway, just as the paradox dissolves once we really examine what is meant by the terms in the premises, namely the paradox only exists because of a deliberately vague use of concepts, I think the typical dialectical paradigms in philosophy also dissolve once VO proposes its core idea of self-valuing. Self-valuing doesn’t claim to know what a self is or what beings are, they could be “material” or they could be “ideal”, they could be “being” or they could be “becoming” but in any case whatever they are they are always a self-valuing, something which holds itself in existence precisely because it “values” itself as itself, namely interprets interactions in such a way that it always holds itself as the standard for those interactions. The idea is deeper than the typical philosophical categories here; “what being really is” is suspended because we don’t really care about that right now, we say that no matter whatever we might say being is, we already know that it is self-valuing. Although VO does not go the “extra” step and claim that being is self-valuing and nothing besides which is a huge strength on the part of VO, as I see it. The false metaphysical leap is avoided, suspension of judgment is imposed just so that a core truth can reign free regardless of however anyone wants to describe or define “what beings really are”. We may not know what they are, but by strict logic we can know that regardless of what they are, they self-value. This is one reason why self-valuing is superior to N’s will to power, because N makes that metaphysical leap when he doesn’t need to (when it isn’t justified to do so).


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Self-valuing: a theoretical examination Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hegel’s idealism is interesting, as far as I’ve been able to tell so far by reading him directly and going on Zizek’s readings of Hegel, because of how material is governed by the ideal yet the ideal both rises out of the material and is not reducible to the material. As materials organize they become governed by ideal relations as the ideal is for the material its universality, but not just “its” universality, rather universality as such. The material becomes capable of expressing through itself something that is entirely non-material.

This is the essential contradiction. The original “split in being”, because the material could never truly become ideal just as the ideal could never truly become material, although the idea acts as if it were material in so far as the ideal, by coming through the material, interacts directly with the material to organize it in new ways. Said in my terms, consciousness is literally its own contents but in such a way that consciousness cannot be reduced to those contents; the contents construct consciousness by filling it in but do not describe consciousness at the formal level, rather the filling in of consciousness, its reality, takes place within the bounds of the universal become “material” for being able to interact directly with material on the material level, through instantiating as materials.

Hegel says in PS that even if beings (human beings) work only at the level of the direct contents (materials) of their consciousness and deny their universality they are still in fidelity to that universality for the simple reason they their contents always already express that universal, and the universal is realized by realizing contents at the content level. The very fact that we are “interested in” some object or event that is not-us is the fact that this object or event has already been assumed in our own contents in sudh a way that universality is seen in it, and works itself through us in it or through it in us. But the truly moral dimension comes when this consciousness turns its always already realizing universal as its direct (universally denying) content-fidelity into a direct object itself, namely another content of consciousness; at this point consciousness gets a hold of itself within itself in a new way, grasping universals as such or “philosophic ideas” and the material of the contents of consciousness are now organized again in new ways. So the universal now can live through those contents in a wholly new and different way.

I’m not very far yet in my understanding of Hegel’s system here, but what I see so far is powerful indeed. I am going to fathom these depths alongside Parodites’ daemonic and Fixed’s VO. Another interesting thing I notice is that people talk about how Hegel never really wrote about the dialectic for which he is so famous, yet when I read Hegel this dialectical logic can be seen everywhere in him; this must separate good from bad philosophers, true philosophers from mere scholars of philosophy since the latter point to the “mistake” that we credit to Hegel this idea of the dialectical development when in fact he never said that, yet the former such as Zizek and Marx are able to extract this critical logic from Hegel even as Hegel never explicitly lays it out-- Hegel lays it out indirectly, as if following his own logic of how the ideal universalized materials through those materials which can never become ideal themselves.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Self-valuing: a theoretical examination Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is extraordinary.

Working Through The Logic View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : 1, 2 Next
Author Message
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Working Through The Logic Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Does logic make assumptions? If so, what are they and are they justifiable? Let the investigation begin.

Okay Capable, add your best definition of logic so I have something to work with that we can both agree on.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Logic is simply the conceptual recognition of necessity as such. Logical systems and languages (formal logic, math, linguistic grammar) unfold from this.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would add that logic requires an artificial discontinuity; the idea that there is an existential interval between observed situations.
This discontinuity is directly related to the law of identity, which posits an artificial homogeneity between observed situations.

These two somewhat opposite ‘symptoms’ arises from not knowing what we mean with ‘is’ or ‘=’ or ‘being’.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    WendyDarling
    arrow
    arrow
    avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
CP,

Sorry, but the animosity I feel towards that definition you keep reiterating (ILP all over again) makes me combustible. There she blows!

I’ll retrieve a few online definitions to get me going.

FC,

How can “not knowing what we mean with ‘is’ or ‘=’ or ‘being’” but cause tremendous issues/miscalculations?

So logic accounts for the positives(perceptions), but what about the negatives? How are “unknowns” regimented into logic’s framework? To me, that is a big question. If identifiable in the definitions, then that is the first assumption I’ll be checking in to. If logic leaves no room for possibilities, they do not exist, which leads to not knowing a plethora on down the line. Hopefully this does not involve maths. Did I mention that I hated school after the 4th grade? Oh, and this place feels like a tomb. Just saying.

Need those definitions first to get the proverbial ball rolling.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Definitions of LOGIC:

Google Definition

log·ic
ˈläjik/Submit
noun
noun: logic
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
“experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic”
synonyms: reasoning, line of reasoning, rationale, argument, argumentation
“the logic of their argument”
a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference.
“Aristotelian logic”
the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument.
plural noun: logics
the quality of being justifiable by reason.
“there’s no logic in telling her not to hit people when that’s what you’re doing”
synonyms: reason, judgment, logical thought, rationality, wisdom, sense, good sense, common sense, sanity; informalhorse sense
“this case appears to defy all logic”
the course of action or line of reasoning suggested or made necessary by.
“if the logic of capital is allowed to determine events”
2.
a system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements in a computer or electronic device so as to perform a specified task.
logical operations collectively.

Mirriam-Webster Definition
Full Definition of logic
1
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2
: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wiki

Rival conceptions of logic[edit]
In the periodic of scholastic philosophy, logic was predominantly Aristotelian. Following the decline of scholasticism, logic was thought of as an affair of ideas by early modern philosophers such as Locke and Hume . Immanuel Kant took this one step further. He begins with the assumption of the empiricist philosophers, that all knowledge whatsoever is internal to the mind, and that we have no genuine knowledge of ‘things in themselves’. Furthermore, (an idea he seemed to have got from Hume) the material of knowledge is a succession of separate ideas which have no intrinsic connection and thus no real unity. In order that these disparate sensations be brought into some sort of order and coherence, there must be an internal mechanism in the mind which provides the forms by which we think, perceive and reason.
Kant calls these forms Categories (in a somewhat different sense than employed by the Aristotelian logicians), of which he claims there are twelve:
Quantity (Singular, Particular, Universal)
Quality (Affirmative, Negative, Infinite)
Relation (Categorical, Hypothetical, Disjunctive)
Modality (Problematic, Assertoric, Apodictic)
However, this seems to be an arbitrary arrangement, driven by the desire to present a harmonious appearance than from any underlying method or system. For example, the triple nature of each division forced him to add artificial categories such as the infinite judgment.
This conception of logic eventually developed into an extreme form of psychologism espoused in the nineteenth by Benno Erdmann and others. The view of historians of logic is that Kant’s influence was negative.
Another view of logic espoused by Hegel and others of his school (such as Lotze, Bradley, Bosanquet and others), was the ‘Logic of the Pure Idea’. The central feature of this view is the identification of Logic and Metaphysics. The Universe has its origin in the categories of thought. Thought in its fullest development becomes the Absolute Idea, a divine mind evolving itself in the development of the Universe.
In the modern period, W. V. Quine (1940, pp. 2–3) defined logic in terms of a logical vocabulary, which in turn is identified by an argument that the many particular vocabularies —Quine mentions geological vocabulary— are used in their particular discourses together with a common, topic-independent kernel of terms.[1] These terms, then, constitute the logical vocabulary, and the logical truths are those truths common to all particular topics.
Hofweber (2004) lists several definitions of logic, and goes on to claim that all definitions of logic are of one of four sorts. These are that logic is the study of: (i) artificial formal structures, (ii) sound inference (e.g., Poinsot), (iii) tautologies (e.g., Watts), or (iv) general features of thought (e.g., Frege). He argues then that these definitions are related to each other, but do not exhaust each other, and that an examination of formal ontology shows that these mismatches between rival definitions are due to tricky issues in ontology.
Informal and colloquial definitions[edit]
Arranged in approximate chronological order.
The tool for distinguishing between the true and the false (Averroes).[2]
The science of reasoning, teaching the way of investigating unknown truth in connection with a thesis (Robert Kilwardby).
The art whose function is to direct the reason lest it err in the manner of inferring or knowing (John Poinsot).
The art of conducting reason well in knowing things (Antoine Arnauld).
The right use of reason in the inquiry after truth (Isaac Watts).
The Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning (Richard Whately).
The science of the operations of the understanding which are subservient to the estimation of evidence (John Stuart Mill).
The science of the laws of discursive thought (James McCosh).
The science of the most general laws of truth (Gottlob Frege).
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 6:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
“experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic”

This is already perfectly sufficient to point to value ontology.

  1. Its validity is derived directly from the very root of the concept valid. (From value - from Latin valere, ‘to be worth’, ‘to be well’, ‘to be strong’)

  2. It pertains only to experience and never deduces away from it. A value can not be interpreted in other terms than experience. This is to say: “value” is the one term of language by which man is not able to escape consciousness of himself. All other terms provide means for delusion, value does not. Why it’s so god damned scary to the superficial, and repulsive to the repulsive.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    WendyDarling
    arrow
    arrow
    avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

If I’ve helped your VO cause before I’ve even begun my investigation of logic, then I work miracles. Happy that you’re happy.

Made some revisions to my ontology over at SickSadWorld forum, wherein VO may find a perspective foundation. It’s imperative to conquer “What is consciousness?” Processes are what’s occurring, but in what order? Consisting of what? JSS didn’t like my explanation of motion/movement being “it.” While I wouldn’t say process is synonymous with motion/movement or change even, they are similar enough for general relations.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
" MM’s Ontology

To me, reality simplified is made entirely of varying types of energy at varying speeds producing all objects.

What is the essence of existence? Movement

What is the essence of sentience? Emotional Energy (or GLUE…I’ll add clever later)

Emotional Energy= Intentional Movement towards Experience

Intentional Movement is creative force.

Experience is intersection or interaction.

Creative Force consists of patterned synergies of will and coherency.

The infinitely active impetus for creative force is the patterned synergies of will and coherency towards infinite intersections/interactions which is what all reality shares.

Actually, will and expansion were the terms I had chosen; I dropped the expansion albeit it makes sense in terms of pure object oriented reality, but I can do better to define creative force. I’m trying to define sentience, not physical reality as an observable.

I can’t stay stuck on the physical aspects of reality. To stay there, is to stay there. Possibilities are needed, not probability based scientific theories.

I’ve already scrapped expansion. Anentropy? Stability? I don’t buy it. Let’s say for arguments sake we’re “in” infinity; we’re an eternal part of it’s system. What is it that keeps us going (concepts that keep us going, not physical necessities)? We are entities of process, of processing who need data input (thoughts in an emotional context). When we literally shed our skin, what is left?

Type 1: Physical “static” reality (rock, dirt, water, planet)—>Type 2: Physical “non-static” reality (life-forms)—>Type 3: non-physical “static” reality (transcendental “forms”?)—> Type 4: Non-physical “non-static” reality(energy of pure consciousness?)—>Physical “static” reality—>yada, yada, yada, loop indefinitely in any direction.

Static is patterned motion type 1.<—Needs modifications/defining

Everything consists of energy. It’s all in motion. Forget particles. There is no thingness; that’s illusion.

Being is redundant. Everything is in that state already whether we can “see/identify” it or not. Perhaps my terms sound traditional in terms of physical associations you are already familiar with, but I’ve defined them differently in the MM ontology.

Motion is “it”. "

sicksadworld.forumotion.com/t133 … s-ontology

My gut reaction is positive.

My question is “what moves?” but this is not to mean “you are wrong”, at all.The strongest part of your formulation of your ontology so far is, to my mind, the part about emotional energy.
I would like to see this expanded. You are good at this. It is a value-paradigm where you are powerful.

By advising you this I mean to say: I concur that this is useful to me, too - especially in that particular sense.
We need to get to a new way of navigating reality.

When I say value you might as well say emote - and when I say self-value you might say emote creatively and intelligently.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    WendyDarling
    arrow
    arrow
    avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Creative Force consists of patterned synergies of will and coherency.”

Edit above:curiosity rather than coherency.

Without an emotional baseline such as ‘curiosity’ covering raw thinking processes which can develop into the values of other emotions, there is no change occurring. It’s like will without reasoning; emotions form the basis of our reasoning. How to prove that emotions form the basis of our reasoning? The seed emotion would have to be curiosity.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Correct.
Curiosity is an openness to valuing -
the outside world might - is expected to - contain values.

Curiosity is necessary for organic self-valuing.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
“Creative Force consists of patterned synergies of will and coherency.”

Edit above:curiosity rather than coherency.

Without an emotional baseline such as ‘curiosity’ covering raw thinking processes which can develop into the values of other emotions, there is no change occurring. It’s like will without reasoning; emotions form the basis of our reasoning. How to prove that emotions form the basis of our reasoning? The seed emotion would have to be curiosity.

It helps to understand what emotions are: pure value. I mean value itself, not the object of value. This is very hard to put into words.

Technically we have no words to describe what value is itself. We can only speak in approximations. Our languages are superfluities to value itself. But this is not God; these “before-words” commune with each other, there is an entire world inside this: emotions are the entry-gates into that world, a world without speech. This is why emotions are pure qualities and belie description.

If you want to talk of “an emotion” you can use many words and concepts, but those are not the emotion itself. A pure value defies all gods and all wills, because gods and wills are made of values; and the most pure wills and gods are made of ONLY values, and absolutely nothing besides.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Funny thing about a pure emotion (For example: Peace) from my experience is that primary emotions are combinations of lesser value emotions (Joy and Love). The feel of a primary emotion such as Peace, feels pure in its simplicity (like an a-ha moment) but extraordinary in power, in it’s presence as an energy in it’s own right. There is a hierarchy of emotions, many of which I have not experienced yet.

I cannot wrap my head around an emotion being pure value, but give me time. While I marinade, why don’t you guys wrap your head around the idea of movement manifesting reality. If Will is a type of moving energy and the hierarchy of emotions are other forms of energy which coalesce into different patterns that then interact/intersect to form form.

I’m rambling.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Philosophy needs to break down the emotions by phenomenological-existential method to really get in them and understand what they are, but this isn’t easy because of how emotions aren’t made of words (the reason that emotions are not made of words is because words are made of emotions); it’s something I’ve been trying for a while now, this detailed psycho-ontological-existential-phenomenological analysis and breakdown of emotions on their own terms (not any kind of materialistic reductive positivistic analysis, of course), but with only limited success so far.

I agree there are hierarchies of emotions but I also think that emotions are pure qualities in their own right, and therefore belie hierarchy because each emotion had something of its own true essence and inexpressible self-quality. So the hierarchy of emotions is actually two hierarchies, or one hierarchy operating on two principles or standards: 1) that some emotions are built from other emotions or that some emotions are more pure or intense expressions of other emotions (such as maybe anger → rage), and 2) that non-emotional standards and consequences can act as the means by which emotions are organized and arranged into hierarchy (for example using will, or power, or creative achievement, or existential authenticity, or courage… These things can act as separate non-emotional grounds on the basis of which emotions are organized into hierarchies and relations based on the degree to which an emotion achieves and assists that other standard).

This also changes from situation to situation, for example in some instances certain emotions might be most effective at achieving a given goal, while in other situations different emotions may be called for to achieve that same goal; or, in the same situation, different goals will require different emotions.

In terms of expeiencing different and new emotions, this is something Parodites has written about and something that his own philosophy can explain and account for, and predict. I’m not an expert on this aspect of his thought though, although I know it is connected to the psychic-ontological structure of the Self as “real and ideal ego” and how the line dividing real from ideal (unconscious from conscious, as I understand it) can move and change, forcing different patterns and organizations of the excess behind all consciousness which, in turn, leads to the production of different and new emotions. But again, you would have to ask him about it to get a clearer answer.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites,

Capable has referred me to you and your work regarding emotions. May I study your work? If so, where?

CP,

Just wish to be clear that emotions are forms of energy that are subtle/muted in the physical arena but pure/undiluted elsewhere.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So much for slacking. Logic is all that exists. Nothing escapes a logic, just an understanding. So logic is misconstrued, but how and where. I know why, we’re morons.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
At ILP, jerkey introduced me to the Mobius Strip concept. With all the stupid deja vus and precog dreams, THE LOGIC at play is not our own and that alien logic has been throwing me into loops that I’m tired of frankly.

In the ILP thread ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190801, I have indirectly voiced my opinion on the hidden hardware, which is the soul (not to be confused with Spirit), that needs a reckoning into existence for if this “tidbit” is what is holding us back or looped, it’s going to have to be dealt with by somebody who isn’t bedazzled by scientific contraptions.

FC, awhile ago I asked you for information as to the nature of what was happening to which I named specific individuals at that hub which was also named. I never received a reply. Something one way or the other, any honest answer would have been adequate. You failed me and perhaps the next trip around you will face what my questions concern.

JSS may have to expand his horizons or play your game of ducking the issue at hand.

Just realize that with every loop, I’m less pleasant.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
So much for slacking. Logic is all that exists. Nothing escapes a logic, just an understanding. So logic is misconstrued, but how and where. I know why, we’re morons.

Well, not all of us are. Hehehe.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:

FC, awhile ago I asked you for information as to the nature of what was happening to which I named specific individuals at that hub which was also named. I never received a reply. Something one way or the other, any honest answer would have been adequate. You failed me and perhaps the next trip around you will face what my questions concern.

I guess that just goes to show that we can’t always get what we want.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
At ILP, jerkey introduced me to the Mobius Strip concept. With all the stupid deja vus and precog dreams, THE LOGIC at play is not our own and that alien logic has been throwing me into loops that I’m tired of frankly.

In the ILP thread ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190801, I have indirectly voiced my opinion on the hidden hardware, which is the soul (not to be confused with Spirit), that needs a reckoning into existence for if this “tidbit” is what is holding us back or looped, it’s going to have to be dealt with by somebody who isn’t bedazzled by scientific contraptions.

FC, awhile ago I asked you for information as to the nature of what was happening to which I named specific individuals at that hub which was also named. I never received a reply. Something one way or the other, any honest answer would have been adequate. You failed me and perhaps the next trip around you will face what my questions concern.

JSS may have to expand his horizons or play your game of ducking the issue at hand.

Just realize that with every loop, I’m less pleasant.

Suck my dick a few times then we’ll see.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    anirban.metal

avatar

Posts : 2
Join date : 2016-10-25
Age : 26
Location : Bengal, India

PostSubject: Logic Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ll share whatever I know about logic.

We’ve got classical logic and intuitionistic logic, which varies in that in intuitionistic logic the law of excluded middle and the principle of double negation are not tautologies, and reductio ad absurdum fails to remain a valid approach to construct proofs as a consequence. All proofs are required to be constructive as in if one is arguing the existence of something, then an algorithm for it’s construction should be implicit in the proof.

Logic unfortunately, like the rest of mathematics, is based on the same Hilbert like axiomatic system. We have to take certain propositions for granted, as an example, modus ponens ({Px →Qx, Px} ⊢ Qx). Or the formula

∀ x : (Px → Qx) → (∀ x : Px → ∀ x : Qx)

has to be treated as a logical axiom. One could argue about their validity in a metalanguage, but I have never attempted it.

The axiomatization of a logical system can be done in multiple ways (as in one could ad libitum choose different sets of axioms but end up with the same logic).

A good property which we desire of any logic to have is completeness and soundness, which establish that one can syntactically derive a proof of a proposition if and only if it’s a semantically valid sentence.

After sufficient amount of bootstrapping, we get fancy meta theorems like the deduction theorem, reductio ad absurdum etc.


Yours Sincerely,
Anirban Mondal
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail yog_sothoth_the_lloigor facebook.com/anirban-metal
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
anirban.metal wrote:

A good property which we desire of any logic to have is completeness and soundness, which establish that one can syntactically derive a proof of a proposition if and only if it’s a semantically valid sentence.

And we don’t need to know much math for that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Well, not all of us are. Hehehe.

Well, that’s it, the nature of consciousness found above in “Hehehe.”

Sisyphus wrote:
I guess that just goes to show that we can’t always get what we want.

Destiny is a want? Why not frame that in the brilliant logic of “Hehehe” hall of fame?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Wed Oct 26, 2016 10:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Well, not all of us are. Hehehe.

Well, that’s it, the nature of consciousness found above in “Hehehe.”

Well, if a person can’t laugh then I would suggest that they have a very negative and boring life.

Sisyphus wrote:
I guess that just goes to show that we can’t always get what we want.

Destiny is a want? Why not frame that in the brilliant logic of “Hehehe” hall of fame?

There is no such thing as destiny. It’s a man made concept without any support. And hind-sight doesn’t count. That’s called history and it’s written in stone.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We are for all intents and purposes up against an alien logic that has locked us in its box and its time for a reckoning to break out of its box. This will be figured out with or without any of your contributions.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail

r Message
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Enjoy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Working Through The Logic Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
anirban.metal wrote:
I’ll share whatever I know about logic.

Hello Anirban, great post.

I’m going to go into one aspect of what you bring up here - I’ll be able to give some indications of what I wish to do with logic.

Quote :
We’ve got classical logic and intuitionistic logic, which varies in that in intuitionistic logic the law of excluded middle and the principle of double negation are not tautologies, and reductio ad absurdum fails to remain a valid approach to construct proofs as a consequence. All proofs are required to be constructive as in if one is arguing the existence of something, then an algorithm for it’s construction should be implicit in the proof.

Logic unfortunately, like the rest of mathematics, is based on the same Hilbert like axiomatic system. We have to take certain propositions for granted, as an example, modus ponens ({Px →Qx, Px} ⊢ Qx). Or the formula

∀ x : (Px → Qx) → (∀ x : Px → ∀ x : Qx)

has to be treated as a logical axiom. One could argue about their validity in a metalanguage, but I have never attempted it.

The axiomatization of a logical system can be done in multiple ways (as in one could ad libitum choose different sets of axioms but end up with the same logic).

A good property which we desire of any logic to have is completeness and soundness, which establish that one can syntactically derive a proof of a proposition if and only if it’s a semantically valid sentence.

After sufficient amount of bootstrapping, we get fancy meta theorems like the deduction theorem, reductio ad absurdum etc.

Value Ontology as we use it here has use of intuitionistic logic, that is to say that the notion of Truth is shifted from the outcome of the formula, to the mechanism of the formula itself.

The process, the way by which data is gathered into coherence, into a logical ‘object’, is that very ‘object’, prior to its specific content. The object, or ‘logical inevitability’ is thus presumed, or postulated empty and a priori as a necessary outcome, before the relevant data sets are led into that outcome.

We do this because in all cases of representation of knowledge, the ‘object’ is brought into being arbitrarily, haphazardly, and ‘accidentally’ almost - simply because there is no other way of representing.

But VO replaces ‘object’ and ‘truth’ and ‘result’ and ‘fixed value’ and ‘Constant’ and more with ‘self-valuing’, meaning an active agent, that enters into our logical faculties and processes as an active element, to which we respond - the formula is the axiomatic but truth to which the mind gives further substance.

The work of constructing a formal logic is predominantly problematized by the fact that ‘self-valuing’ is the only ‘empty’ value - there aren’t any variables except direct derivatives such as ‘valency’ - thus the process is changed and the concept ‘variable’ has taken on an entirely different meaning - after all, being itself is now a variable, whereas only Being as Logically Soundly Spoken is axiomatic, fixed, and operative.

I am not schooled in the terms of formal logic but all the more in its application, due to an early background in theoretical astrophysics, which is a field that posits, simply by observing reality, a lot of logical conundrums that, within themselves, contain proper logical propositions, that have not been yet derived, or made. Reality gives birth to logic, and value ontology is a logic without any presumptions of values, or constants, except the entirely unavoidable epistemic axiom that a statement of fact is itself a phenomenon, which’ ground does not need have anything to do with the ground to the fact it states.

It is a logic to contextualize logical formula and logically arrived-at truths within a logic about logic, or a logic about statements. It thus potentiates logical processes, as the very mechanism of its logic assembles all other types of logics and semantic substances its own context.

Obviously this method is entirely unconventional and ‘rogue’ -
it does not give a shit about line around concepts or languages.

Welcome to Before the Light, anyway,
a bit belated but certainly meant.

FC

Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Proof of self-valuing Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Humans respond more to their beliefs about reality than they do to reality itself.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Exactly right… hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I must, with sadness, agree.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Exactly right… hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.

cCh
scratch But are beliefs, in actuality,real? People believe in a Judaic/Christian God. But can you say that one really exists?
Does a belief make it so?

Perhaps beliefs are real in the same sense that an auditory or visual hallucination is but if examined further, it becomes something entirely different.

Quote :
their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Unfortunately this is true. But it doesn’t make the belief that was acted on as having any basis in reality except as perception and interpretation, wrongly conceived of.

I suppose that the question: "What can be considered as ‘real’ enters in here.


Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Exactly right… hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.

cCh
scratch But are beliefs, in actuality,real? People believe in a Judaic/Christian God. But can you say that one really exists?

You misread.

I said that the belief is real. Not the content of the belief. Read my post again please. Its not long and very clear. Belief causes people to act n a certain way. Thus, that belief exists.

Furthermore, I dont believe in “true belief” vs “false belief”. A belief is per definition a not knowing.

Quote :
Quote :
their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Unfortunately this is true. But it doesn’t make the belief that was acted on as having any basis in reality except as perception and interpretation, wrongly conceived of.

I suppose that the question: "What can be considered as ‘real’ enters in here.

Or rather “what do you believe can be considered as ‘real’”. And why you believe that.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

I said that the belief is real. Not the content of the belief. Read my post again please. Its not long and very clear. Belief causes people to act n a certain way. Thus, that belief exists.

I had a hard time with this when I first started interacting on internet forums. My problem was that I couldn’t establish in word what my understanding was regarding “beliefs”.

Yes, beliefs are real in the individual’s mind. But what is believed may be nothing more that illusion and/or delusion. But the belief still remains real.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Cause and effect: a person believes he can fly, but he cant. So he runs out of the window and dies. The belief has killed him. Id say that belief was pretty real. He was just wrong, but people being wrong is a pretty fucking real thing.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And by the way yes that really does happen. A fellow tried it above the garden next to my room when I was 20. So I have learned that idiotic beliefs are realer than brilliant insights sometimes. Because an insight doesnt necessarily lead to action. What’s even worse, often a brilliant insight is too comprehensive to be implemented in any other than a stupid way.

This is why Islam keeps winning, it’s just easy to believe all that and then die soon and gladly. Its just a path of little resistance, that has as its main generator a lust for the feeling of partaking in omnipotence. I can assure you it is a powerful drug Christianity in all its passion cant attain to the comprehensiveness of an Allahic release. To pour ones entire soul out, a heroin like relief.

Precisely like todays liberals: they feel entitled to the entire world and to the death of all those who feel differently, and this coincides in both cases with an absolute shutdown of thought.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, points well made. I’m not much of a “belief” kind of guy. I prefer proof gathered from experience. So, from your above, we have experience that man cannot fly. So don’t try it.

And really, if our belief defies the natural processes of nature/man then we should discard that belief. Religions are based in faith and beliefs without proof. And yes, Islam is worse than Christianity.

Self-valuing includes valuing the processes of nature. If we ignore the nature of the universe we are in fact placing false value on our self.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, but remember that believing isn’t only about the obvious content of the belief, it is also about the act itself of believing, what this means and why it is possible at all, and even the belief-contents are more complex than simply a direct relation to reality/nature or not. Human subjectivity comes before human belief; by this I mean that beliefs are symptoms, not fundamental. This is why judging people for their religious or politically beliefs is just a kind of pathological madness and not compatible with philosophy. Beliefs are secondary expressions of more primary processes, subjective process and historical process and existential process for example.

Many beliefs are justified only in how they A) link feelings together and justify/express feelings in certain ways, and B) form shared common connections and grounds between people. Beliefs regulate self-psychological and social phenomena, and this is often the more primary function of the belief than simply to render a decision about “what is real”. This is something that I notice atheists often miss, and why atheists are often so dull and non-philosophical; atheists often think of belief only as a kind of scientific fact-content expressing, the atheist will say “well if a belief doesn’t match with reality/nature then it must be rejected”---- not so. The at least equal function of belief to this are the deeper psycho-subjective and social implications of beliefs, namely the atheist is disregarding an entire scope of the value of beliefs.

And remember too that we often know things which we haven’t formulated clearly into “a belief”, and we also often act on knowledge that isn’t “a belief” but another kind of knowledge, such as pre-conceptual or instinctive or feeling-based action. What we call a belief is a very very small part of the overall process by which human beings act, have knowledge, and subjectively function and grow further into existence. What is meant by philosophical honesty and “soul” is far larger than what I said meant by “belief”. And in fact, under philosophy we see beliefs are transformed into a totally different quality, because the “belief” and its associated contents are paired more and more with those other subjective and knowledge ranges, and also with other equally deepening beliefs, thus filling out the inner mental universe as linking idea to idea and feeling to feeling, and idea to feeling and feeling to idea, until the old ideological method of believing that is common for most people just falls away and is replaced with authenticity of being.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If the atheist has his way and removes all beliefs that are “not true”, this would remove far more than just a bunch of untrue belief-contents. Also you have to remember that most people aren’t in a position to need to make 100% accurate true or false determinations all the time, our beliefs are simply not needed to be that computer-like and scientific most of the time. Atheistic despise for untrue beliefs, usually religious beliefs, is actually a form of analytic thinking that is deeply pathological and anti-philosophical when taken to this extreme, namely when applied out of context and beyond its mandate. We aren’t computers, and life isn’t a series of empirical tests performed in a lab. The scientific-atheistic, analytic mindset just isn’t required beyond a limited role it plays, and certainly should not be allowed to replace the deeper soul-regions of the human, most of which are still beyond the possibility to even speak about or “believe or disbelieve” in.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Exactly right… hence why their belief is as real as the reality they are ignorant of - after all, their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Weirdly thus, beliefs are entirely real, even if their content may be total bullshit. Same with Gods - they drive people, and are thus totally real.

cCh
scratch But are beliefs, in actuality,real? People believe in a Judaic/Christian God. But can you say that one really exists?

You misread.

I said that the belief is real. Not the content of the belief. Read my post again please. Its not long and very clear. Belief causes people to act n a certain way. Thus, that belief exists.

Furthermore, I dont believe in “true belief” vs “false belief”. A belief is per definition a not knowing.

Quote :
Quote :
their belief causes them to act, and these actions amount to reality.

Unfortunately this is true. But it doesn’t make the belief that was acted on as having any basis in reality except as perception and interpretation, wrongly conceived of.

I suppose that the question: "What can be considered as ‘real’ enters in here.

Or rather “what do you believe can be considered as ‘real’”. And why you believe that.

No, FC, I didn’t misread it. A belief is only “real” to the individual but not necessarily real. This is why I asked “what is real” or what can be determined to be real?
If one’s belief does not turn out to be true, fact, than it isn’t real. Just so much fluff.

How is the belief any different than the content? Aren’t they one and the same thing? If I’m wrong, explain. I can’t see the distinction between the belief and its content.

False belief is what turns out to not be based in fact.
What I meant b y true belief is belief which becomes real, in other words knowledge, by accident. One didn’t believe because they “knew”, that’s knowledge, one only believed because they chose to believe, to have faith in something they could not know.
Thjere is belief and then there is knowledge.

Perhaps we need Wittgenstein to explain this.
I know what you’re trying to say though that a belief is real. But on the other hand, if someone believes in elves, can it be said that that belief has any bearing in “reality”?


Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arc, youve failed.

Bye.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arc is pointing out the already stipulated to distinction between content of belief and believing itself, perhaps without realizing it. There isn’t disagreement here, just lack of precision to define.

Believing: the act of having belief.
Content of belief: what is believed.
Reality in terms of believing: what consequences or results follow from a believing.
Reality in terms of content of belief: the degree to which a belief’s contents are true without regard to the reality in terms of believing. (So called objective reslity of the belief)

Let’s say I believe I can fly by diving from a building. It is objectively untrue that I can fly by leaping from a building, therefore the content of the idea is untrue. We might say the reality of the content of the belief is lacking. However, when I jump and fall and die, those are actions and consequences in reality, therefore the believing itself was real in so far as its effects were real, regardless of the reality of the belief’s contents.

To the point about belief versus knowing: A) yes a belief can be defined as an absence of knowing ergo what is not known must instead be merely “believed”, but also B) what we call “believing” can alternately be defined as simply a strong affirmative stance toward something already known, in which case I can know that when I drop my cup it will fall; but the sheer force or affirmation of this knowledge of mine, based on induction and on understanding some physics, causes me to believe that if I drop a cup it will fall. The “belief” here is only an indication of the force or affirmation behind a given known thing and before the fact of the thing’s occurring (namely tied to a future-predicting), and C) saying “I believe the cup will fall” is just habit of language, which really means “I know the cup will fall”.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:11 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Yes, but remember that believing isn’t only about the obvious content of the belief, …

No disagreement with what you said here. I didn’t express myself well in that post above. Next time I’ll do better.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
If the atheist has his way and removes all beliefs that are “not true”, this would remove far more than just a bunch of untrue belief-contents. Also you have to remember that most people aren’t in a position to need to make 100% accurate true or false determinations all the time, our beliefs are simply not needed to be that computer-like and scientific most of the time. Atheistic despise for untrue beliefs, usually religious beliefs, is actually a form of analytic thinking that is deeply pathological and anti-philosophical when taken to this extreme, namely when applied out of context and beyond its mandate. We aren’t computers, and life isn’t a series of empirical tests performed in a lab. The scientific-atheistic, analytic mindset just isn’t required beyond a limited role it plays, and certainly should not be allowed to replace the deeper soul-regions of the human, most of which are still beyond the possibility to even speak about or “believe or disbelieve” in.

No argument. But I will point out that I’m not an angry Atheist. I just don’t hold to beliefs that I find serve no useful purpose for me. Useful/useless is an important concept for me. It is an attempt to reduce the amount of judging of things and people.

I’ve not mentioned it here yet but I prefer to live spontaneously as often as I can. Just do what feels natural. No, I don’t want to have a computer brain.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Arc, youve failed.

Bye.

Ouch.
But you’re correct. I will concede to your argument.
It’s always a good thing when I come to realize that I am NOT thinking out of the box and that I have a blind spot.


Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable,

Quote :
Arc is pointing out the already stipulated to distinction between content of belief and believing itself, perhaps without realizing it. There isn’t disagreement here, just lack of precision to define.

True but what I failed to do is to realize that there is not only physical reality but also immaterial or ethereal reality (if I’m using the correct words). That is the nature of belief’s reality - it is immaterial though it stems from the material brain to the mind to thought.
If I am to “see” my thoughts as having “existence” on some other level of reality, then I must also realize that belief is “real” too - is some kind of thing.
I see the flower - it is a material thing so it is real but so is the scent of that flower a reality.

I was so focused on “false” belief, that I equated that with belief itself having no true reality. I was blind-sided.

Quote :
Believing: the act of having belief.
Content of belief: what is believed.
Reality in terms of believing: what consequences or results follow from a believing.
Reality in terms of content of belief: the degree to which a belief’s contents are true without regard to the reality in terms of believing. (So called objective reslity of the belief)

True. That all points to belief as being part of reality.
What is the saying - “Something cannot come from Nothing”.
As FC and yourself pointed out - belief has “existence” because of cause and effect consequences, et cetera.
The material world and its influence brings it into existence.
I had to remember, to realize tat “reality” itself is not always physically tangible.

Quote :
Let’s say I believe I can fly by diving from a building. It is objectively untrue that I can fly by leaping from a building, therefore the content of the idea is untrue. We might say the reality of the content of the belief is lacking. However, when I jump and fall and die, those are actions and consequences in reality, therefore the believing itself was real in so far as its effects were real, regardless of the reality of the belief’s contents
.

Yes, I get that now. Again, I was more focused on the content of belief as cancelling out the reality of belief.
I can hardly believe that I’ve been in a philosophy forum all of this time, 8 years, and thought that way. Absurd.

Quote :
To the point about belief versus knowing: A) yes a belief can be defined as an absence of knowing ergo what is not known must instead be merely “believed”,

…taken on faith.

Quote :
but also B) what we call “believing” can alternately be defined as simply a strong affirmative stance toward something already known, in which case I can know that when I drop my cup it will fall;

But wouldn’t that still be called “knowing”?

Quote :
but the sheer force or affirmation of this knowledge of mine, based on induction and on understanding some physics, causes me to believe that if I drop a cup it will fall. The “belief” here is only an indication of the force or affirmation behind a given known thing and before the fact of the thing’s occurring (namely tied to a future-predicting), and C) saying “I believe the cup will fall” is just habit of language, which really means “I know the cup will fall”.

C) But would you really say “I believe” in this instance? The only time you might I believe in this situation would depend on perhaps how precariously slow to the edge of something the cup was, no? I’m not quibbling here - sometimes we can only believe and times we can know.

There is always two sides to the coin, at least figuratively speaking. I’m glad that this happened. It’s a reminder to me of how I often think.


Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Proof of self-valuing Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Capable,

Quote :
Arc is pointing out the already stipulated to distinction between content of belief and believing itself, perhaps without realizing it. There isn’t disagreement here, just lack of precision to define.

True but what I failed to do is to realize that there is not only physical reality but also immaterial or ethereal reality (if I’m using the correct words). That is the nature of belief’s reality - it is immaterial though it stems from the material brain to the mind to thought.
If I am to “see” my thoughts as having “existence” on some other level of reality, then I must also realize that belief is “real” too - is some kind of thing.
I see the flower - it is a material thing so it is real but so is the scent of that flower a reality.

I was so focused on “false” belief, that I equated that with belief itself having no true reality. I was blind-sided.

I see you’ve understood now Arc. So Im going to make it slightly more complex.

The term “false belief” actually never had any meaning for me because to me, all belief is “false” - i.e. “Belief” implies the absence of knowledge… which, in a certain way, makes it ‘false’ to believe, period. So belief is basically false to begin with. But that doesnt make the action fo believing less of a reality, as it grounds your actions, and these are real.

An action cant be “false”.

This is not a value judgment- the falsity of belief, i.e. of not-knowledge experienced as certainty, can lead to good things. We can believe a situation is better than it is and based on that belief, act with good spirits, and actually improve the situation.
Based on illusion, we can change reality for the better.

This is the great paradox of knowledge versus wisdom.

Quote :
Quote :
Believing: the act of having belief.
Content of belief: what is believed.
Reality in terms of believing: what consequences or results follow from a believing.
Reality in terms of content of belief: the degree to which a belief’s contents are true without regard to the reality in terms of believing. (So called objective reslity of the belief)

True. That all points to belief as being part of reality.
What is the saying - “Something cannot come from Nothing”.
As FC and yourself pointed out - belief has “existence” because of cause and effect consequences, et cetera.
The material world and its influence brings it into existence.
I had to remember, to realize tat “reality” itself is not always physically tangible.

Quote :
Let’s say I believe I can fly by diving from a building. It is objectively untrue that I can fly by leaping from a building, therefore the content of the idea is untrue. We might say the reality of the content of the belief is lacking. However, when I jump and fall and die, those are actions and consequences in reality, therefore the believing itself was real in so far as its effects were real, regardless of the reality of the belief’s contents
.

Yes, I get that now. Again, I was more focused on the content of belief as cancelling out the reality of belief.
I can hardly believe that I’ve been in a philosophy forum all of this time, 8 years, and thought that way. Absurd.

These are all relatively new insights.
In fact Ive not ever seen them formulated as straightforwardly as I do - often this comes across my path as my task, to rigorously formulate ideas that have been half-born by good, but soft minds.

Quote :
Quote :
To the point about belief versus knowing: A) yes a belief can be defined as an absence of knowing ergo what is not known must instead be merely “believed”,

…taken on faith.

Faith, or in the childs or artists case, imagination.

Schopenhauers idea of “will and imagination” might be interesting for you to look into.

Quote :
Quote :
but also B) what we call “believing” can alternately be defined as simply a strong affirmative stance toward something already known, in which case I can know that when I drop my cup it will fall;

But wouldn’t that still be called “knowing”?

A scientist will often say “I believe” when he means “I know”. It’s a way of covering the theoretical possibility of things going the other way by some yet undiscovered law, of which a true scientist is always aware.

A true scientist will, when he knows that he really knows something, be quite marveled. He knows how rare true knowledge is, how few things are truly certain.

Hume has explored this domain of almost-certainty, or what, with a stretch, we may perhaps term “true belief”; i.e. belief that has been verified, over and over again, so for it to become knowledge, even if the cause is not understood.

“True certainty” vs “false certainty”: in the former, the cause of the thing that is certainly the case is understood; i.e. it is understood why the thing is certainly the case. A false certainty can occur when it appears a thing is simply always the case, but one does not know why.

Quote :
Quote :
but the sheer force or affirmation of this knowledge of mine, based on induction and on understanding some physics, causes me to believe that if I drop a cup it will fall. The “belief” here is only an indication of the force or affirmation behind a given known thing and before the fact of the thing’s occurring (namely tied to a future-predicting), and C) saying “I believe the cup will fall” is just habit of language, which really means “I know the cup will fall”.

C) But would you really say “I believe” in this instance? The only time you might I believe in this situation would depend on perhaps how precariously slow to the edge of something the cup was, no? I’m not quibbling here - sometimes we can only believe and times we can know.

There is always two sides to the coin, at least figuratively speaking. I’m glad that this happened. It’s a reminder to me of how I often think.

These moments of change in the machinery of ones thought, that is what philosophy is made of. Be proud of your capacity to make such changes. It’s rare.

Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Meaning Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am working on the hypothesis that meaning is a literal, tangible, “physical” substance. This is per tectonics, of course. The brain is little more than a very sensitive recording instrument – it records meanings, and by virtue of how the rest of the body is also connected into the hub of the brain, the body becomes activate directly by meaning—namely, as “humanity”.

This is Logic 101 of the future philosophy.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Time for truth to surface.

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

“The Deceived”

Disintegration constituents to decompose of the parts
A malformation utopia systematic unity can’t be achieved

Be numb to all the things
That force you to frame

[We are the deceived
Lost in the foreseen]

To wait for aforementioned dreams time will only tell
Tell that the promised have been failed

Behold your fellow man through centuries of control
Adhering to the decrees of a manufactured god


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s sort of funny to be 100-200 years ahead of the curve. Oh well.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT_Z0ABYeqk[/youtube]


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

To staying ahead of the curve.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
I am working on the hypothesis that meaning is a literal, tangible, “physical” substance. This is per tectonics, of course. The brain is little more than a very sensitive recording instrument – it records meanings, and by virtue of how the rest of the body is also connected into the hub of the brain, the body becomes activate directly by meaning—namely, as “humanity”.

This is Logic 101 of the future philosophy.

While this may be true I suggest that it is only at the individual level and can never be used as a generalized statement. Just like dreams, they are real for the dreamer only.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is true at the level of individual brains, and since we all have those it is therefore true for all of us.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
It is true at the level of individual brains, and since we all have those it is therefore true for all of us.

I think you just cheated but I’m not going to say anything.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable

Quote :
I am working on the hypothesis that meaning is a literal, tangible, “physical” substance.

I think that meaning can be equated with “belief” - in the sense that it is also “real” but still intangible.
How do you see meaning as a physical substance? One can say that meaning issues from the mind and the emotions - they are “real” but are they physical? Do they have actual form (well perhaps yes) but real substance?

Quote :
The brain is little more than a very sensitive recording instrument – it records meanings, and by virtue of how the rest of the body is also connected into the hub of the brain, the body becomes activate directly by meaning—namely, as “humanity”.

Little more than? After millions of years, it is “little more than”? Mad Yes, they are recording instruments also… but little more than? Nothing complex about it? This physical reality which many call “the final frontier”?
Is it the brain which records meaning or is it the mind by way of the human experience/memories/patterns, et cetera, which does that?

Quote :
This is Logic 101 of the future philosophy.
Philosophy of the Mind?

I can though greatly appreciate those who have their own hypotheses which they are working on.


Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel

Last edited by Arcturus Descending on Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:57 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Capable wrote:
It is true at the level of individual brains, and since we all have those it is therefore true for all of us.

I think you just cheated but I’m not going to say anything.

It’s not cheating, it’s true. The brain is just a very sensitive organic computer, it responds to and records meaning. At first it does this “unconsciously” as creating hardwired instincts that solidify genetically via natural selection, basically just so the organism can survive long enough to procreate; but later in humans the brain becomes so sensitive and with the help of an externalized brain-surrogate model (language) starts to respond to meaning directly, which means to facts directly and to the significance of things. This allows us access to knowledge and ultimately to what is called consciousness.

The brain doesn’t create meaning, and meaning is not “in the brain”, rather the brain is simply a device capable of registering and reorganizing itself (neural structures) in terms of meaning (facts, larger significances). Ultimately this is all that consciousness really is.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Okay. My mind is at peace regarding this thread once again. I started thinking you were making inferences that I totally disagree with (universal consciousness). I had thought that you were too scientifically minded to be doing anything like that.

But then, I will add that some instincts are common within nearly all of the members of a species. But we each will attach individual meaning to our experiences just as we do regarding our dreams.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
The brain doesn’t create meaning, and meaning is not “in the brain”, rather the brain is simply a device capable of registering and reorganizing itself (neural structures) in terms of meaning (facts, larger significances). Ultimately this is all that consciousness really is.

Consciousness is more than what occurs solely in the brain of experience gathering intel.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
I am working on the hypothesis that meaning is a literal, tangible, “physical” substance. This is per tectonics, of course. The brain is little more than a very sensitive recording instrument – it records meanings, and by virtue of how the rest of the body is also connected into the hub of the brain, the body becomes activate directly by meaning—namely, as “humanity”.

This is Logic 101 of the future philosophy.

In as far as we speak of things this is meaning itself, and what we chase in life is meaning. But is breath meaning?
The Chinese live it as such. The breath of life - in Latin, breath is “spiritus”.

The Holy Breath.

There is no such thing as “spirit” in Latin -
the holy spirit is literally the holy breath.

What is the holy breath?

This?

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 … fea265.jpg

“That for which they seek is that which searches.”


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Meaning Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Because holiness is the meaning of meaning itself.

We give things meaning so that ultimately they can be hallowed, and we will hallow ourselves and be made holy thereby, and what is holy is everlasting.

I call this “standard” and “consistency” and “gold” and it comes about through heavy, elemental collisions.
From such heavy elements that don’t corrupt, the electrical currents are liberated into beauty.

The Soul is not made out of gold but woven between it.
Silver, therefore, is more substantial to the soul - the mother metal…
But Gold, trace from one owner to the next, and you shall find one of two things; loyalty or betrayal.

There is no middle path with gold and heed all ye who wear it the demons inside, for they will be magnified.

This is not artificial.

Illogic of retaliatory beliefs View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Illogic of retaliatory beliefs Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Islam and liberalism share in common the fact that if you disagree with these beliefs, then those who hold them will retaliate against you, often in open violence; and even if not in physical violence then certainly in words, attitude, and with an intent to discredit you and/or cause you harm.

If you are a conservative you must hide this fact from your employer, for example, because in many cases you will lose your job if they find out. This is a well known fact in America, and while there are exceptions they are just that, exceptions. Liberal-leftism has taken cultural hold here, in entertainment and media, in politics and jobs, in the social stratosphere of norms, and a conservative is far less likely to state outright his beliefs than is a liberal, because the liberal’s beliefs are socially-sanctioned and protected by the politically correct policing (thought police) that has become common here. Get this: Trump just won the presidency, the Republicans just won the House and Senate, and yet if many Americans were to show up to their jobs with Trump stickers on their car they would face severe retaliation from their employer and fellow employees, certainly being openly insulted and verbally attacked and ostracized, and in some cases including being fired.

The “silent majority” has been made to be silent. We live in 1984.

The same goes, obviously, for Islam. Muslims get upset whenever someone states that Islam is a violent religion – and the Muslim then immediately puts out a death sentence upon such an individual, proving that individual was correct. Why do you think anti-Islam politicians need such heavy security, and sometimes they still get killed anyway? Or they need to live in hiding for the rest of their lives, and yet we are forbidden from announcing this fact publicly, we must always say how tolerance and peaceful Islam is. lol.

I am claiming now that any belief or belief system that sanctions violence, force, intimidation or retaliation against someone else who disagrees with that belief system, to be total and complete shit. Liberalism is a form of fascism, I see this almost every day out in public, it literally controls people’s speech and actions. Islam is also a form of fascism, despite the fact that half of all Muslims can co-exist peacefully and moderate to some degree. The ideology itself is fascist, in a way that Christianity is not.

From now on I will oppose any belief, in religion or philosophy or politics, or otherwise, that sanctions the use of force/violence either directly or indirectly against anyone simply because the other person does not adhere to that belief. These sort of retaliatory belief-fascisms must be opposed. Fuck Islam and fuck the left. And fuck conservatism too if it becomes fascist in this same manner.

If they can’t win in the war of ideas and logic, then they don’t deserve to win – and they know this, which is why they get all emotionally bent out of shape and resort to violence when they can’t complete on the philosophical level.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Illogic of retaliatory beliefs Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m glad that most time I get to totally agree with you. This is one of those times. For me, a threat of violence against me allows me to consider the one making the threat fair game for a killing. Self defense.

I do not accept the actions of the present liberals or the actions of the militant Islamist. Change by force is unacceptable. I will resist to the maximum of my abilities.

And I will speak out against it whenever I have the opportunity.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Illogic of retaliatory beliefs Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes. I also take extreme joy in seeing the demise and death of anyone who is motivated by such violent retaliatory beliefs. It is the natural reward for their stupidity.

I essentially Trump their beliefs with a greater deathforce, afforded by a greater lifeforce: if you wish death upon someone that hasnt warranted this by my code, I say you will perish like the soulless hound you are.

Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Self-value categories Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am wondering if we need to create a new category, for things/entities/beings that exist only because they are valued by something other than themselves.

Could it be the case that something could exist and persist merely and only because another thing values it, and by valuing it so intensely or consistently basically gives existence to it? Or would this ‘something’ still need to actively self-value?

Or perhaps we might say that the fact that this ‘something’ has another thing that values it so intensely-consistently, and therefore gives existence to it, is precisely the fact of the ‘something’s’ own self-valuing already, namely that it values itself solely in terms of the fact that something else values it. Namely, that it self-values precisely, primarily and perhaps even only in the way that it has managed to get something else to value it so intensely-consistently.

Does this make sense?

We can already create two basic categories, more or less: simple and complex self-valuings. Obviously not a perfect categorization, but I would say something like a rock is a simple self-valuing, whereas something like a human is a complex self-valuing. Of course there are plenty more categories, and ways to parse them. And of course it can be argued that even rocks are fairly complex. But admitting that in a vague sense such categories do exist basically, we might try to find a necessary logical differentiation between them; namely, this one self-values like this, and another self-values like that.

Or is all self-valuing universally the same? Indeed by the very meaning of self-valuing, it is the case that all self-valuing is universally the same, namely is (a) self-valuing. Self is understood in terms of self-valuing, value is understood as self-valuing. Two sides of one coin.

Sauwelios said that will = power. Perhaps we might say that self = valuing? I am not too comfortable with these equations.

Basic certainty: self-valuing is a “metaphysical” (logical) postulate and principle that holds for anything and everything, necessarily, since it has already been defined/determined that if it did not hold for something then that something could not be. This approaches a truth-standard, but is not synonymous with truth itself, at least not in how I understand the meaning of truth. And yet this one truth is indeed certainly the case. Yes-- I see now that in answer to my first question here, if a thing existed that did not self-value but were valued highly by something else, this might theoretically-speaking grant existence to that thing, but in a practical or real sense it is not possible for this situation to arise, quite simply because there is no way that something could exist already in order to become valued like that by something else, nor could a self-valuing create something else that has no self-valuing of its own in order to then value-add it back to itself, attaching it to own value-sphere.

And even furthermore, it would not be possible for a self-valuing to value something else that, itself, had no self-valuing to speak of. This is indeed a matter of taste, and also of necessary ontology.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Self-value categories Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
I am wondering if we need to create a new category, for things/entities/beings that exist only because they are valued by something other than themselves.

Could it be the case that something could exist and persist merely and only because another thing values it, and by valuing it so intensely or consistently basically gives existence to it? Or would this ‘something’ still need to actively self-value?

Yes, I think there is a lot that operates like this - it selfvalues passively. It absorbs enough that it can continue its function, but it has no power to influence its environment, except to die or malfunction. From alfunction some new active selfvaluings could occur, as chaos allows for both types. And I would say the active type requires chaos to emerge. Dancing stars.

Quote :
Or perhaps we might say that the fact that this ‘something’ has another thing that values it so intensely-consistently, and therefore gives existence to it,

Yes = but this would be an active selfvaluing. Value-creating, meaning allowing for coherence and ‘the universe’ - such value-creations must always involve other selfvaluing particles. It is inadvertently interaction, any creation Nietzsches conception of master morality is what Ive takento mean active self-valuing, value creating.

A table is such a value creation.
It is also a passive self-valuing. It allows people to use it in its capacity more than in another capacity, thus it values its users in its terms. But it exists not because users are ofv alue to it, but because it has use-value.

Quote :
is precisely the fact of the ‘something’s’ own self-valuing already, namely that it values itself solely in terms of the fact that something else values it. Namely, that it self-values precisely, primarily and perhaps even only in the way that it has managed to get something else to value it so intensely-consistently.

Does this make sense?

Yes, exactly, Interestingly, this relates to Darwins peacocks tail paradox, where reproduction evidently involves a making-passive-to, anexpense of energy in order to be valued - as an object, essentially.

Quote :
We can already create two basic categories, more or less: simple and complex self-valuings. Obviously not a perfect categorization, but I would say something like a rock is a simple self-valuing, whereas something like a human is a complex self-valuing.

I would disagree to that - simplicity and integrity relate stronger than simplicity and weakness - a rock is not essentially a selfvaluing, as it can break into two and is then two rocks - nothing has changed. A human or a atom can not break into two anwithout release of gigantic turmoil and remain structurally the same despite having split mass. In that sense a worm is not really a self valuing.

Lets use strong and weak integrity. We can categorize at least 3 levels of this and remain exact and precise.

Quote :
Of course there are plenty more categories, and ways to parse them. And of course it can be argued that even rocks are fairly complex. But admitting that in a vague sense such categories do exist basically, we might try to find a necessary logical differentiation between them; namely, this one self-values like this, and another self-values like that.

Or is all self-valuing universally the same? Indeed by the very meaning of self-valuing, it is the case that all self-valuing is universally the same, namely is (a) self-valuing. Self is understood in terms of self-valuing, value is understood as self-valuing. Two sides of one coin.

The logic becomes more apparent when you reverse it: what is not entirely selfvaluing does not entirely exist.

Gold is perfect self valuing.
Its history of creation points to why that is. It has taken the maximal process that this universe has to offer, and is elite-outcome of that.

There are many levels of structural integrity systems, gold is the atomic level.
Humans tried to transform their consciousness to gold for ages. Religions are their posthumous dreams.

Quote :

Sauwelios said that will = power. Perhaps we might say that self = valuing? I am not too comfortable with these equations.

It is quite accurate in as far as there is a self-
selfvaluing is not itself a self that values, it is the valuing that is so consistent and ‘lucky’ that it refers back to itself.
A self would definitely relate most to itself through its valuing.
I do not see an atom as having a self - it is a self-valuing, it has some inner mechanism that we may compare to a self, but a self is a quite human and strange concept- is it the life, the moment, the experience, the actions, the values? Whatever it is, when it is active, and noticeable, thus when we can say that it exists
[onto-epistemic entity], it is in the process of strongly valuing. It ‘appears out of nothing’, it becomes ‘part of the equation’ when it is stirred to value. Ultimately it overcomes its ‘self’ which is a static image and becomes - power. Dionysos or rogue variable. Its actions cause the truth that its inner image represented and willed. (Only it looks different from the outside, like an animal)

Quote :
Basic certainty: self-valuing is a “metaphysical” (logical) postulate and principle that holds for anything and everything, necessarily, since it has already been defined/determined that if it did not hold for something then that something could not be.

The degrees of integrity determine the structures of the interactions: the golden rule - he who has the gold, rules - or simply, gold rules –
that is the most simple form of understanding how selfvaluing integrity reverberates rankingly throughout the entire tectonic cosmos. It is integirty that binds paradigms - all lack of integrity is stuck in and suspended between paradigms, all great integrity has several paradigms revolving around it, trying to synthesize themselves to each other in the central stars terms and thus explicating it into a general selfvaluing paradigm.

difference in:
1/ integrity
2/ content
3/ size

1: principle of logic, valuing-recurrence, consistency.
2: value, quality
3: significance, quantity.

Quote :
This approaches a truth-standard, but is not synonymous with truth itself, at least not in how I understand the meaning of truth. And yet this one truth is indeed certainly the case. Yes-- I see now that in answer to my first question here, if a thing existed that did not self-value but were valued highly by something else, this might theoretically-speaking grant existence to that thing, but in a practical or real sense it is not possible for this situation to arise, quite simply because there is no way that something could exist already in order to become valued like that by something else, nor could a self-valuing create something else that has no self-valuing of its own in order to then value-add it back to itself, attaching it to own value-sphere.

This is indeed how much of the universe would have come into being. Much that is not merely atomic, and much that is in weaker atoms as well. In the human realm, perhaps almost all content, cultural identity has come about this way. This is what Ive meant when I said that when I looked outside of my window in Amsterdam and saw people passing by, I had the distinct impression that they were not in the process of existing, but being-existed. In Montreal most people appear to have the innocence of existence about them- meaning men are more animal than cultural, and thus mostly withdrawn.

It is a big challenge for something as vulnerable as a living organism to be a pure self-valuing - and yet precisely because of this vulnerability, it is also highly necessary.
The problem of the Greeks.

Quote :
And even furthermore, it would not be possible for a self-valuing to value something else that, itself, had no self-valuing to speak of. This is indeed a matter of taste, and also of necessary ontology.

No, every thing that is valued must have the basics of self-valuing, it must be able to respond consistently, exist.
So what accounts for weakness and strength of integrity is whether the entity forces its valuer to value it as a whole, or for its parts… !

Ill be damned
that’s formula
We’re trying to look at the parts - but the whole observed paradigms structural integrity dissolves before us because of it.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Self-value categories Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Incredible, that post just blew my mind three times over. I’ll offer comments in a while.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Self-value categories Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Your inquiry couldn’t have been sharper.
Truth, as I understand your notion of it now, is probably the same as (the elemental value to) masculine self-valuing pure, in the human form.

A womans truth is her dream-man or man-dream, her ideal, around which her emotions revolve. Later it is her child, if she manages to have a worthy one, by being chosen right and by valuing that child so as for it to develop enough chaos within the order of nurture.

Chaos grounds
Order nurtures


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Self-value categories Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A table values people in terms of itself qua table-- fuck. Yes of course. A table is a creation with a specific purpose, a value; thus what the table is is a value-being-a-“table” and exists in so far as it 1) keeps fulfilling that function and 2) maintains its adequate structural integrity. The material constituents of the table (wood, nails etc.) have their own requirements to continue existing, and the sum total of those requirements in tandem and in agreement with one another maintains the structural existence of the table; but the table is only a table in so far as it has a value-purpose, otherwise it would not be a table but something else.

The tectonic implications of this are endless.

Rocks broken become more rocks, yes; a human without an arm is still a human, but not the same human, literally his “human-value-being” has changed at least a little bit, his future is different, his entire being may be fundamentally altered. He will self-value differently. There is a primary logic here that distinguishes kinds of beings as regards self-valuing, but I can’t quite articulate it perfectly yet.

But it’s basically what you said at the bottom, about valuing parts versus a whole. I can value a whole rock and if broken the rock is not valuable to me anymore. But it is no less a rock now that it is broken; value-making confers being by creating purpose as wholeness-functioning-valuing. A rock is only “less than a rock” when broken if another being is around to include that rock qua “whole rock” into that other being’s values-sphere, otherwise it is just a rock that becomes two rocks.

Lack of integrity-to-value is basically lack of consciousness or reason maybe, or what we call consciousness is already an integrity-being-making. Integrity integrates, rises; lack of integrity is equivocation. And equivocation lends itself to being valued actively by others and only passively by oneself.

What you say about people as lacking active valuing being more like animals. Not committed to anything, reminds me of something Peterson said, that men tend to polarize in IQ to either greatness or banality, high or low intelligence, you have men as either Michelangelo or men who fill the prisons, whereas women tend to cluster around the mean IQ. Let’s not underestimate the significance of this insight. But there are subtler tectonic layers too, and passive equivocation indeee gives rise to ordered power and valuing-activity, as you alluded to with your comments on chaos. Active self-valuing benefits from a passive more equivocating dimension of itself, if only to avoid the trap of overspecialization. ‘A system’ is thus formed between personality types, also between genders-sexes. Indeed, gender is only an expression of this system-forming that occurs at the deeper organic-psychosocial levels.

Yes, we are most vulnerable and therefore it is most necessary that we address our vulnerability. And this fact is encoded fundamentally in our own self-valuing, and as our self-valuing.

To your last point: Marxism is valuing as parts, capitalism is valuing as wholes. Ironically this leads to a reversal wherein Marxist entities require to develop a deceptive image of “the whole”, to compensate for the lack of it, while ‘capitalist’ entities (living beings, etc.) require to develop a deceptive multiplicity as catharsis-exporting of the already-whole (of “soul”). Namely Marxists value in terms of groups/class, capitalists value in terms of individuals/“resources”/“utilities-to”. This latter is because a whole is already logically a “final” thing, and even the Marxists with the perversion of the whole into a mere image of deception-compensation cannot shake their valuing-being from that truth.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Self-value categories Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Something just dawned on me.
Selfvaluing-pure is the unfulfilled potential to value. *
As soon as valuing is attached to a specific value, the purity is no more.
Thus, there are no pure organic self-valuings. An atom is, as far as I can tell, a pure-selfvaluing, as it requires, once it has come into being, no external circumstance. Please correct me if I’m wrong, in that case a pure-selfvaluing might only be pre-existent, a hiatus in the world, a space of pure chaos, from which an autonomous possibility emerges, that can sink its hooks of potentiating into this or that selfvaluing beyond the chaos.

Philosophic skepsis in combination with creative powers is, that I understand, how a human can relate to self-valuing pure, to lack of attachment, to the full potential to value without any outstanding investments.

Fools try through askesis to also do away with the physical valuing, but they would have to do with air pressure and gravity and heat, and yet it does work to exalt ones self experience momentarily, if one abstains from certain values considered more or less essential, such as in a fast - or in the extreme some asphyxiatic methods - and yet all of this is ultimately nonsense, as it is a arched, not a reified state of detachement.

Philosophic skepsis is a a reified lack of need for definitive truths. It opens up the self-valuing to the thing called sometimes mind, sometimes, freedom, sometimes even god, but the thing in any case from which effortless power, vision and joy issues, waters that touch but never attack to the worlds already-existing values. And wherever valuing has run scarce in the world, the mere potentiating gaze of the self-valuing acts like water on dry clay.

A table has very little potential to reach such a state, as it exists by virtue of being attached to this value of it, the person who wants to have a table.

This allows us to distinguish active from passive self-valuing by means of principle -
we can trace what remains of the being if it has withdrawn all of its investments.
Organic life is always part of an ecosystem. This system regulates the integrities with respect to each other in time, life.
Abstract thought can attain to a sphere analogous to pure integrity.

The perfect mathematics only relates to itself.
The perfect logic relates everything to itself, and allows for no investments in anything that eludes it.

minumum: selfvaluing pure (dancing star)
maximum: selfvaluing complete (gold)

the equation of god and money View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : 1, 2 Next
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: the equation of god and money Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The faith in gods of fate such as Zeus or “God” is the manipulation of thehuman mind in adequate terms of the possibility principle.
Now the uncertainty principle refers only to the possibility of not-nothing that will never be completely filled in, for it to not negate itself.
It is toward this principle that all consciousness is directed. The skygods represent this upward gaze into uncertainty as a positive, as a drive.

So the name and word of god is a vessel for an orientation on an uncertain future which by that name is pre emotively turned into a victory. In turn, the human is oriented on such victory and senses at once the overwhelming power of being aware of the game of odds, and the law of the supremacy of consistency.

In this day and age gods arent needed for many people oriented on what once god allowed. But for others, they still represent the powervacumm behind the uncertainty principle/ratio.

God faked his own death more than once. Same with Wall Street.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So what are you saying here? God runs Wall Street? There are no gods, remember? They are nothing but the imaginations of the human mind. The dinosaurs didn’t need any gods.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
They didnt need any money either. So money doesn’t exist. Right? Your logic.
You need training.

Or maybe just the patience to read my posts all the way through.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Im no longer going to go along with what people of relative intelligence often do and waste their minds with nowadays, which is to stop thinking, reading, applying logic and making an effort once they have read the trigger-world “god” in a text. I have always felt “oh, I used to hate the idea of god as a child when I was still only into astronomy and nuclear physics, so I can sympathize.” But it is unproductive to sympathize with habits that disrespect the mind.

I now ask of my readers that they keep their brain operational even upon gazing upon the magical-spell “god” which normally disables them.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
They didnt need any money either. So money doesn’t exist. Right? Your logic.
You need training.

Or maybe just the patience to read my posts all the way through.

You made a false link between money and gods.

Even if gods exist in your mind but don’t exist in mine it only means that you are being delusional.

If money exist in your mind and the same piece of paper has the same value to me then money does exist.

It is your logic that is in error, not mine. You might want to go back to school. Just because it seems logical in your mind doesn’t mean it will seem logical to anyone else.

I do my best to read and understand you posts. Sometimes you say thing which you believe to be true but I have no proof of it being so.

Tell time is for grade school. Real life requires show time.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
They didnt need any money either. So money doesn’t exist. Right? Your logic.
You need training.

Or maybe just the patience to read my posts all the way through.

You made a false link between money and gods.

Even if gods exist in your mind but don’t exist in mine it only means that you are being delusional.

I recommend you stop your dogmatic ranting. I am getting nauseous by the lack of discipline in your posts, so I’ll ignore you for a while, I need to eat my breakfast. You debase yourself.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Anyone who wants to know what money is, just check out my Econ 101 topic. Money is very easy to understand once we get past the false ideas about it (false ideas like “money isn’t real” or “money is evil” for example).


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And the ideas that money is God, or that money is inherently valuable or the most valuable thing, which many people intuitively believe, are just more false ideas about what is money.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
They didnt need any money either. So money doesn’t exist. Right? Your logic.
You need training.

Or maybe just the patience to read my posts all the way through.

You made a false link between money and gods.

Even if gods exist in your mind but don’t exist in mine it only means that you are being delusional.

I recommend you stop your dogmatic ranting. I am getting nauseous by the lack of discipline in your posts, so I’ll ignore you for a while, I need to eat my breakfast. You debase yourself.

My dogmatism? You should be ashamed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Anyone who wants to know what money is, just check out my Econ 101 topic. Money is very easy to understand once we get past the false ideas about it (false ideas like “money isn’t real” or “money is evil” for example).

I will stay with you in that discussion as long as I can. Hey, we might even find agreement now and then.

No, money isn’t evil.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The faith in gods of fate such as Zeus or “God” is the manipulation of thehuman mind in adequate terms of the possibility principle.
Now the uncertainty principle refers only to the possibility of not-nothing that will never be completely filled in, for it to not negate itself.
It is toward this principle that all consciousness is directed. The skygods represent this upward gaze into uncertainty as a positive, as a drive.

So the name and word of god is a vessel for an orientation on an uncertain future which by that name is pre emotively turned into a victory. In turn, the human is oriented on such victory and senses at once the overwhelming power of being aware of the game of odds, and the law of the supremacy of consistency.

In this day and age gods arent needed for many people oriented on what once god allowed. But for others, they still represent the powervacumm behind the uncertainty principle/ratio.

God faked his own death more than once. Same with Wall Street.

To clarify, are you saying that money has now taken the place of the function of the skygods? Namely allowing humans to orient themselves upward to future in such a way that converts uncertainty into possibility and positive drive? If so, that’s a really interesting idea. I would agree, based on what I have discovered to far regarding the ontology and function of money.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
At first the god-concept allowed the ontological sphere (values and self-valuing) to expand exponentially due to expansion of the existentia (humanity)-- now money can achieve this same end. The alchemical conversion of religious state-ism into secular economics. Thus a very philosophical progression, now at present culminating most recently in capitalism.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Christianity therefore having laid the possibility for capitalism due to how Christianity divorced state-ism (religion) from the existentia, reorienting existentia back to the individual, to coherent self-valuing qua logical fundamental principle.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Christianity has always been a capital based institution. It is very easy to replace god with money.

However, this does not imply an upward movement of the humane state of the human animal.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Christianity has always been a capital based institution. It is very easy to replace god with money.

However, this does not imply an upward movement of the humane state of the human animal.

Why not?


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
T - yes, such is my logic.

Note that I do not consider the skygod perished or castrated by his successor / child, money. They exist in parallel and enhance each other.

(skygod-orders are invariably monetary orders, theyve evolved along)


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Christianity has always been a capital based institution. It is very easy to replace god with money.

However, this does not imply an upward movement of the humane state of the human animal.

Why not?

I wasn’t suggesting that it cannot, only that it may or may not.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Thrasymachus wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Christianity has always been a capital based institution. It is very easy to replace god with money.

However, this does not imply an upward movement of the humane state of the human animal.

Why not?

I wasn’t suggesting that it cannot, only that it may or may not.

I know, and my question to you had that in mind.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So, is there no answer for the question that needed not be asked?

BTW, I like having the little bit of money I have. It leads to a better life than living on the streets. But I don’t worship it. If I lose it there is always more to be had.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring

Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 57
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Fri May 05, 2017 6:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah - there is more money to be had. But… do we at some point get “too old” to earn it?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail facebook.com/debbie.styers
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 12:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Drops_Of_Jupiter wrote:
Yeah - there is more money to be had. But… do we at some point get “too old” to earn it?

Sure. There are few companies willing to hire an old person who requires a two-hour mid-day nap and must use a walker to go to the restroom.

But we could always just stand on a corner in a town somewhere and pan handle.

Maybe sell the secrets of our old age.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring

Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 57
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 2:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol!!! Who would buy secrets from the wise ( mostly older people)? Believe it or not, I’m finally at a stage in my life where I cherish advice from older people. It took me a long time to get here.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail facebook.com/debbie.styers
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 3:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The few times one of my grandparents have given me a direct advice, I was filled with gratitude and went on to apply it, and always with wonderful outcomes. Nothing beats experience.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 7:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, older people might not be fast any more but once they do get a round off it normally hits the mark.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 9:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
youtube.com/watch?v=_HJiOc-qNik

Go to page : Previous 1, 2
Author Message
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 11:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
youtube.com/watch?v=_HJiOc-qNik

Yeah, just like that.

I don’t know if I mentioned this short story here but here goes:

A Martial Arts teacher had a favorite student with hopes that the student would carry on the lineage.
The student trained hard and learned everything the Master taught him.

One day the student was feeling a little cocky and challenged the Master.

The exchange began as within one minute the student was flat on his back totally defenseless.

The Master bent down and said quietly, “I taught you everything you know. I have not yet taught you everything I know.”

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 2:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Have you ever heard of the Tai Chi master who was so good that he could only get excitement out of fighting himself in his mind? I think he said he fought a dragon - he had no equal in this world, and he only got better and better. All good arts and ethics teach a man not to resit his own strength.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: the equation of god and money Sat May 06, 2017 11:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Have you ever heard of the Tai Chi master who was so good that he could only get excitement out of fighting himself in his mind? I think he said he fought a dragon - he had no equal in this world, and he only got better and better. All good arts and ethics teach a man not to resit his own strength.

No, hadn’t heard that one. But yes, I can see the logic in that. To fight one’s self is a challenge because you know your own weaknesses. You would naturally go after those weaknesses and then you would have to create defenses for those weaknesses.

I’m not sure about fighting the dragon though; Chinese dragons are pretty much peace-loving dragons, bringers of the rains and other good things.

But generally speaking, one must learn from someone who is better than we are. If we have no challenges we become complacent.

End of the era of a common truth View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: End of the era of a common truth Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ve not yet seen this idea before, but it occurred to me that this current situation where the left and right have formed separate and competing world views to the point that neither agrees with the other on even the most basic issues, like facts, is actually a very good thing. Both the right and the left are deploring the “post-truth” now that half the country believes one set of facts and the other believes a different set of facts, because of course both side thinks its own facts are the correct ones.

But really what has happened is that no one simply believes what they are told anymore. Long gone are the days when NBC and CNN and NYT can print something and virtually everybody takes it as gospel. The left and right have split and each has their own news and sources they trust. I think this is really great, as it allows for a cutthroat competition of ideas and world-interpretations. Both sides reject the ‘facts’ that the other side espouses, and the “war” is simply which side will end up winning the most people and the most positions of influence in society. A kind of super language game, a contest with two discrete sides, and with reality as the final arbiter in the long run.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: End of the era of a common truth Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps in the long run it may be a good thing but in the short run we have to wonder how many people are going to make grave mistakes based on the lies they read from their favored media?

If both sides continue to present their altered truth then who is going to be the objective truth sayer?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: End of the era of a common truth Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Only reality can be that standard. Humans and ideas will ultimately rise or fall depending on the degree to which they adhere to reality or fail to do so. And yes many mistakes of grave proportions are inevitable, but I’m quite happy that the “universal” standard of facts/truth has broken down into two opposing groups.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: End of the era of a common truth Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“And the word became flesh”

yes, I think you’re right.

Curvature comes to the formerly flat pages. Some words take prominence; words that can easily be used, abused, and pre-emtively used to avert abuse, and others that are capable of initiating great changes.

A politician always has some heavy ammo words in his back pocket. A rhetoric master is someone who knows not just the meaning of words but also the impact they tend to have, and the sort of meaning systems they activate.

Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Glimpses into the reason and madness of the US Supreme Court Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I will be offering some of the arguments and logic of some key decisions. To start I’ll look at the decision from two years ago that legalized gay marriage, looking at Scalia’s dissent, since the majority opinion isn’t even a legal text at all but reads more like the flowery poem of a teenage girl. Don’t believe me, go check for yourself. Link below to all decisions on this case.

Scalia’s dissent is not only far more rational and responsible, and true, than the majority opinion in this case but is also quite badass. Unfortunately the copy/paste won’t show any italics, but again you can read his dissent at the link below which will include italics.

=====

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting.
I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im- portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

I

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of mar- riage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.2 The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule— constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”3 denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States,4 prohibiting the free exercise of religion,5 abridging the freedom of speech,6 infringing the right to keep and bear arms,7 authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,8 and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”9 can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?
Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):
“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”10
“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”11
But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not under- stand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.12 We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt what- ever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.
But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13 That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ”14 One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”15 The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.17
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers18 who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South- westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

II

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amend- ment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those free- doms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop- philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff con- tained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.


Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabash- edly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 … 6_3204.pdf


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Glimpses into the reason and madness of the US Supreme Court Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Next I will offer Robert’s written majority in the case regarding the individual mandate of Obozocare. While Roberts came down on the right side of the gay marriage case, he not only came down on the wrong side of the individual mandate case but actually tipped it in favor of the wrong side, in a 5-4 split. His “reasoning” in this decision is so utterly insane that I have to wonder whether or not he is actually just trolling. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he got ordered how to decide the case and then just wrote some bullshit to try and make it look passable as a decision.

Anyway I’m too tired to do it right now, but for the moment you can read the decision at the link below. I’ll also offer the dissenting opinions too, when I get around to it.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 … 93c3a2.pdf


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Glimpses into the reason and madness of the US Supreme Court Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Styx is entirely wrong on this point here, because he fails to see that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the legal right or power to force the states to adopt any one definition of marriage. It isn’t about the equal protection clause (which Styx keeps referring to wrongly as the 13th amendment, lol), the Court made a blatantly political and illegal decision which the more conservative justices correctly called out as terminating the debate amongst the states and the people with regard to gay marriage.

The Constitution limits what the federal government can impose as law, and reserves all other issues of law making to the states. The Constitution says nothing about marriage. Therefore unless there is an amendment added that does mention about marriage, the Supreme Court had no ability to say that states with laws defining marriage as beteeen a man and a woman were being unconstitutional.

The problem now is that the Supreme Court has made itself into a mockery of justice and of jurisprudence. Thus federal courts and state supreme courts are sort of free to disregard what the US Supreme Court has said.

The real 13th amendment ended slavery; why didn’t the Supreme Court at the time just rule that slavery was wrong/illegal? Because the Constitution didn’t say anything about slavery, so a new amendment needed to be ratified and added to the constitution. The same goes for gay marriage, and it might have happened has the crazy liberal wing of the Supreme Court not legislated from the bench like they did.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUl-egacHbs[/youtube]

Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … ed-720.gif

PostSubject: π Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Staring at this animation, I came to feel utterly in the dark as to why this number is this number.

I remember finding a lot of beautiful logics inside the not-numbers notorious decimal tract, and one stood out: there seemed to be an unwillingness of similar terms to be close to each other. In other words, the phenomenon of maximized difference seemed to regulate the distribution of numbers in the decimal range. So - Pi is simply a phenomenon refusing to be a number, refusing to fit into the law of identity beyond usurping the “A” and putting itself there. Pi is Pi, I won’t argue with that. But Pi is not “3.14…”, but rather the always different calculation with Pi in three dimensions - though time is technically also a function of Pi, as it is measured in orbits or pi-based waveforms.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: π Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quite obviously it seems then, Pi must be included to get to a regulatorvalue between GR vs QM…
Somehow.

Gravity compresses on Pi. Pi becomes compromised as many of its own calculations are in play at the same spacetime. By what ratio? Whats the corruption rate of Pi that accounts for the ellipse, and the hyper ellipsoid dark mass of certain new galaxies?

Hell: the square root of Pi. The seventh ring of hell: the 7th order root of Pi.
Maybe thats the deformation rate in black holes.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: π Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So this is a threat mixing fact and fantasy about 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190914564856692346034861045432664821339360726024914127372458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261179310511854807446237996274956735188575272489122793818301194912983367336244065664308602139494639522473719070217986094370277053921717629317675238467481846766940513200056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014654958537105079227968925892354201995611212902196086403441815981362977477130996051870721134999999837297804995105973173281609631859502445945534690830264252230825334468503526193118817101000313783875288658753320838142061717766914730359825349042875546873115956286388235378759375195778185778053217122680661300192787661119590921642019893809525720106548586327886593615338182796823030195203530185296899577362259941389124972177528347913151557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509838175463746493931925506040092770167113900984882401285836160356370766010471018194295559619894676783744944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949129331367702898915210475216205696602405803815019351125338243003558764024749647326391419927260426992279678235478163600934172164121992458631503028618297455570674983850549458858692699569092721079750930295532116534498720275596023648066549911988183479775356636980742654252786255181841757467289097777279380008164706001614524919217321721477235014144197356854816136115735255213347574184946843852332390739414333454776241686251898356948556209921922218427255025425688767179049460165346680498862723279178608578438382796797668145410095388378636095068006422512520511739298489608412848862694560424196528502221066118630674427862203919494504712371378696095636437191728746776465757396241389086583264599581339047802759009946576407895126946839835259570982582262052248940772671947826848260147699090264013639443745530506820349625245174939965143142980919065925093722169646151570985838741059788595977297549893016175392846813826868386894277415599185592524595395943104997252468084598727364469584865383673622262609912460805124388439045124413654976278079771569143599770012961608944169486855584840635342207222582848864815845602850601684273945226746767889525213852254995466672782398645659611635488623057745649803559363456817432411251507606947945109659609402522887971089314566913686722874894056010150330861792868092087476091782493858900971490967598526136554978189312978482168299894872265880485756401427047755513237964145152374623436454285844479526586782105114135473573952311342716610213596953623144295248493718711014576540359027993440374200731057853906219838744780847848968332144571386875194350643021845319104848100537061468067491927819119793995206141966342875444064374512371819217999839101591956181467514269123974894090718649423196156794520809514655022523160388193014209376213785595663893778708303906979207734672218256259966150142150306803844773454920260541466592520149744285073251866600213243408819071048633173464965145390579626856100550810665879699816357473638405257145910289706414011097120628043903975951567715770042033786993600723055876317635942187312514712053292819182618612586732157919841484882916447060957527069572209175671167229109816909152801735067127485832228718352093539657251210835791513698820914442100675103346711031412671113699086585163983150197016515116851714376576183515565088490998985998238734552833163550764791 and beyond.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: π Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fact and fantasy, as I see now that it can not have been Pi, in which I observed this - it must have been the primes.

Doubtlessly many mathematicians have wasted their lives in deciphering the relation between Pi an the primes. It seems one would only be able to do that from the back-end of Pi, the pot of gold at the end of it; when hell freezes over, when a circle becomes a square.

Message

Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Against nothingness Wed May 17, 2017 6:29 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Next time someone asks you “oh yeah, well why something rather than nothing!?”

1- something exists (we know this for certain, based on experience, and the fact that in order to make a statement like “something exists” then logically something must exist to make that statement).

2- because something exists it is not the case that nothing exists.

3- principle of sufficient reason (PSR).

4- because of PSR it is not the case that something can come from nothing.

5- by combining (1) and (4) we get that it is not the case that nothing has ever been the case

6- ergo, something has always been the case


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Against nothingness Wed May 17, 2017 11:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I go through that fairly regularly with my Buddhist friends.

The conclusion is obvious (to me) that things exist. I generally use my chair as an example. If it didn’t exist my butt would right now be on the floor.

The sad thing is, the Buddhists, and others, have a misunderstanding of their own teachings. The Buddha never said things don’t exist. He said things don’t exist permanently (all things pass) and things do not exist (functionally) independent of other things.

A similar discussion is that of “emptiness”. I always argue on the side of “fullness”.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Drops_Of_Jupiter
bowstring
bowstring

Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 57
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

PostSubject: Re: Against nothingness Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is interesting. Is something always better than nothing? For those of us who don’t believe in heaven and hell, there is nothing waiting for us.

It is the fear of nothingness that drives people to believe in false God(s). Why is nothingness so difficult to accept?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail facebook.com/debbie.styers
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Against nothingness Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Drops_Of_Jupiter wrote:
This is interesting. Is something always better than nothing? For those of us who don’t believe in heaven and hell, there is nothing waiting for us.

It is the fear of nothingness that drives people to believe in false God(s). Why is nothingness so difficult to accept?

For me, it depends on what “nothingness” we are talking about. The physical (manifest) universe exists. The Ten Thousand Things (all things in the universe) exist until they no longer exist. And true, at some point in time they did not exist.

Same with the human body. At one point it did not yet exist, it was born (creation), lived for a while and then died (destruction). It is a cycle that is ongoing since the manifestation of the first “thing” (I call it the Big Bang).

It’s really a very simple process. We see it all the time with plants in our gardens.

And as the Buddhists say: First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

Or modifying the process, first there was no mountain, then there was a mountain, then there was no mountain.

Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:52 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You can’t say everything, and its best not to try.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Where of course Sokrates began that whole sharade. He said: Help, theres stuff I don’t know, and its pretty important.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And then Nietzsche, after some millenniums of pretty bad shit altogether, said dude, you don’t wanna know.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But you see, he was actually talking about different shit to not know than Sok was talking about not knowing, and Aristotle was talking about accepting precisely by omitting it in your speeches.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Since Rumsfeld identified unknown unknowns to CNN, nature has doubled down on her efforts to hide.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
words are essentially, all of them, attempts to not hide too much.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Authority Figure: What you you do?
Me: I speak for that which cant be lowered to words.
Authority Figure: …

Bam. Results.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“I speak for that which cannot be lowered to words”, damn. I like that. I might use that line in a conversation someday.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Aristotle in a nutshell: Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Where is that man who teaches without words? I would speak with him.

This is why modern math is retarded View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=s86-Z-CbaHA[/youtube]


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, ‘math’ as a means to unlearn logic.
Obviously none of that is really mathematics, it is simply word-play, where the word ‘infinite’ is radically misunderstood to begin with, as ‘a size’ .(???)


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I had someone tell me about this, claiming “math proves” that you can take a 3D object and cut it apart then put it back together making two objects of the same volume as the original… I couldn’t believe someone can be that idiotic. Even the Cantor “proof” is just idiotic, that there are supposed to be more numbers between 0 and 1 than there are integers. Give me a fucking break. This sort of “math” is just a litmus test of non-thinking.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, theres supposedly different orders of infinity, but all they are referring to is different ways of using math to arrive at the conclusion that you can keep counting, because it is abstract and has no weight. There is no actual, measurable infinity, as a measure is a limit. But surprisingly, this is too philosophical for mathematicians.

The order of real numbers offers a lot of numerical ways into infinity, just as it offers a lot of numerical ways in general. That is all.
They dont stop to think that real numbers are formulated and arrived at by the same decimal system that produces the sequence of integers.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
On a science documentary one of the physicists said that whenever their solution included infinity it means they made a big mistake somewhere.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
On a science documentary one of the physicists said that whenever their solution included infinity it means they made a big mistake somewhere.

Haha, yeah.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
math.ku.edu/~jmartin/course … cantor.pdf

kek


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am beginning to wonder if the field of mathematics is little more than a lack of philosophy, a lack made functional by the fact that mathematics itself is already simply a language based on logic and reality, so that no matter how much mathematicians butcher it it still keeps on working.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“A set S is finite iff there is a bijection between S and {1,2,…,n} for some positive integer n, and infinite otherwise. (I.e., if it makes sense to count its elements.)”

Lol, no, a set is finite if it has a limited number of items in it. A set with 5 or 500 or 5000000 items in it is a finite set, that is what “finite” means. To have a definite, limited quantity.

Not sure why this is so hard for these “mathemagicians” to understand.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: This is why modern math is retarded Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Apparently studying even basic logic isn’t a requirement for being a mathematician.

Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: No more net neutrality? Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is the logic of this move, what does it mean?


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
What is the logic of this move, what does it mean?

think it means that what google has been doing is now legal.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, legal for all access providers. A new way for the wealthy to make more money. It’s all about money. Providers can now sell premium access to anyone willing to pay. No pay? Slow service.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course it sucks and I think it will be undone.
Even the big tech grants are rebelling.
Probably because on a slow and restricted internet no one is gong to bother with internet at all.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ah ok

lol

Breitbart wrote:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” on Thursday, which will repeal the agency’s 2015 net neutrality regulation.
Chairman Pai told Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Monday, “I think what net neutrality repealed would actually mean is we once again have a free and open Internet. The government would not be regulating how anyone in the Internet service providers, how anyone else in the internet economy manages their networks.”

The FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom order will reclassify the Internet as an “information service” compared to the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality order, which regulated the Internet as a public monopoly. The order will also require Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast or Verizon to release transparency reports detailing their practices towards consumers and businesses.

The FCC’s net neutrality repeal order will also restore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) traditional authority and expertise to regulate and litigate unfair, deceptive, and anti-competitive telecommunications practices without onerous regulations and increased cost.

On Monday the FCC and the FTC agreed to share the responsibility to police unfair ISP practices regarding unfair or deceptive practices to block, throttle, or promote web content.

Chairman Pai explained in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal why repealing net neutrality will preserve a free and open internet.

Yeah that makes sense.

“Public Monopoly” is literally Socialist tyranny.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol “Net Neutrality” needs to be understood in the same vein as “Gender Neutrality”.
I.e. an attack on the internet.

That Google and Facebook are for “Net Neutrality” gave me some pause.

I now see “Net Neutrality” means that only those sites are going to be allowed that are neutering influences.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah makes sense. If Obozo, Gulag, Fakebook, etc. all wanted Net Neuter-ality then I am tempted to oppose it without even knowing any of the details. But this breakdown is helpful.

I heard someone panicking over it yesterday, they said “Trump just repealed net neutrality!” Someone asked, “What does that mean?” and they replied, “it means websites can charge you to use them now”. I was like um they can already do that…

Zzz


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m glad you guys are keeping up with what’s happening here.

There is still a lot of fake information flying around about this.

Thanks for keeping me informed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
Yeah makes sense. If Obozo, Gulag, Fakebook, etc. all wanted Net Neuter-ality then I am tempted to oppose it without even knowing any of the details. But this breakdown is helpful.

I heard someone panicking over it yesterday, they said “Trump just repealed net neutrality!” Someone asked, “What does that mean?” and they replied, “it means websites can charge you to use them now”. I was like um they can already do that…

Zzz

LOL

Fucking gold.

But yeah. That was my sense too - ‘Wait what, Obolko did something moral? Eh no. I don’t think so.’

Obolkonet was just a net where eunuchs worked around the clock to sabotage and censor people with potential, will.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Obolkonet”, hahahaha. Fucking priceless.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Stranger: I made the mistake of reading articles on net neutrality, and now I’m stressed Sad
You: Oh, haha yes I was discussing this earlier
You: Most of those articles you read are biased…
Stranger: But it is bad right? Getting rid of net neutrality?
You: It was basically a government power grab over the internet, under Obama
You: The internet got along just fine before net neuter-ality, and it will be just fine after it
Stranger: But won’t it get worse now?
You: No I don’t think so
You: Part of it is also that the FCC is more empowered now to crack down on ISPs who abuse the law, for example they cannot deny you service in the economy for arbitrary reasons, same reason McDonalds cannot deny you service based on arbitrary stuff like what books you read or what you wrote in an essay
Stranger: But websites can charge you to use them now
You: They already can, that has always been a thing
You: Ad revenue still exists, that hasn’t changed
Stranger has disconnected

TOPKEKZ


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That might have been me you were talking with.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: No more net neutrality? Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol

Summary of value ontology View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : 1, 2 Next
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Summary of value ontology Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
First Definition

Value ontology is the interpretation of “being”/“the world” as composed of beings, subjects. It explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by “valuing”, that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.

Value ontology therefore refers to a logical circularity that is expressed in temporality as a circuitry tending to expand itself by integrating what it encounters while maintaining its integral structure.

The theory explains why what exists exists and persists through time, by making it evident that whatever does not have a “self-valuing” (such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.

Exact Explication

“Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself- he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself “man,” that is, the valuator.”
(Zarathustra, of the Thousand and One Goals)

Fundamental to mans consistent being-as-himself, is his activity of valuing in terms of himself. By this he assimilates material and grows as himself. How is a consistent valuing possible? The simple answer would be: by being a consistent subject. But this only create a a circular argument, and leaves open the question of how there can be a valuing, a being. How does a subject maintain its perspectival consistency, its structural integrity, whereby it values in terms of itself? To explain this we must posit a self-valuing, which is to say, a holding-oneself-as-value, whereby this “oneself” is nothing else than this consistent holding-as-value, in engaging the outer world. This consistency of a self-holding standard-value, is what amounts to being, the accumulation of more and more material to feed and sustain a structurally consistent growing, “a becoming”.

We are faced with the problem of identifying in technical, specific terms what this self-valuing is. We may not be able to describe or define it in the terms we are used to, in which we like to acquire knowledge, the terms which are developed to describe the manifest in exact measurements. The collection of these terms and their proper logic, that of mathematics, is what we refer to as exact science.

Observing the manifest world in scientific terms, we use principles such as quantity, causality, energy-tranferring and interacting, motion, temporality. All these are enabled and interconnected by the laws of mathematics, which is the logic of objective equalies. It relies on given and exactly determined values, which can be defined in terms of each other. It is here that the philosophy of value ontology posits a break with the method of science. The philosopher is not satisfied with positing values as if they are unquestionably given, it is his task to investigate why, or more precisely, how they are given. Mathematics can not provide an answer to this, as such would go directly against the axioms of this science, which include always the word “if”. If “A” is given, then A is given as A. It does not posit that A is given - it is as if A can be anything - which is not the case. Possibilities are limited. Deepening of logical power occurs now that we have abstract terms for the possibility of existing.

The aim is to embed language into being, to absolve it of its abstracting, detaching compulsion. The means is to embed being into grammar.

The great philosophersof the modern age have attemped such positive statements in various ways, beginning with Descartes, who posited the certainty “I think therefore I am”, or, read properly in context, “I question that anything is, therefore I am”. Nietzsche and others observed that this “I” who questions is not actually given as an exactly understandable unit. What is this “I” that is, and that questions that anything is, and that posits that he is because he questions that anything is? Descartes accomplished bringing himself the experiential certainty that there is such a thing as himself. He does not bring the certainty that anything else is, in fact he calls this somewhat into question, challenges the other to reveal itself at least to itself; he does not reveal what they are or why they can be said to exist; If the only ground for knowledge of what is is to cognate in the way Descartes was doing, then only thinkers can be known to exist, and only by themselves. Clearly this is not a useful definition of being. It is also not an exact application of logic, as it assumes the “I” both in “I think” and “I exist”. The terms “I”, “exist” and “think” are not a mathematical terms: “I exist” can not mathematically be inferred from “I think”.

To draw certainty from Descartes logic, we must look at the meaning of the word “Am” in “I Am”. We must correctly observe the meaning of the verb “to be”.We must logically be satisfied with the given that what we call “being” by definition is in being (exists) - this is the only meaningful and correct way to employ the verb at all. The analytical certainty is “I am, therefore I am”. By this phrase, “I” is defined, namely, as that which, apparently, is said by itself to exist. What have we come to know by this? Nothing.

It is here that philosophy must break from science, from the pretense to be able to define the terms “I” and “exist” and “cognate” in terms of each other by exact inference. We must simply be honest, and admit that all three of these terms are simply understood by us, to mean precisely… what we understand by them! No further explication is necessary, no more exact explication is possible. The terms were called into being to describe exactly what we mean when we use the terms. They hold no deeper meaning than what they were invented to convey.

So to further philosophical understanding, that to which the terms “I” and “think” and “exist” were invented to convey must be explicated in more exacting terms. We can observe that these terms all three of them refer to the very same thing. “I”, “think” and “am” are all words indicating the same. This also includes the things to which other terms refer, such as “eat” or “walk”. As true as “I think, therefore I am” is, is also “I eat, therefore I am”. By disconnecting Descartes logic from his situation in which it emerged, we see that the “I” is posited as a condition of “think”, as much as “think” is a condition of “I”. Therefore, when I posit that “I eat”, I posit an “I” which, by common interpretation of grammar, means that I posit that (an) “I” exist(s).

We see that “I” simply means “existing” and that this existing can be expressed in the endless variety of verbs that may pertain to a posited I. That is all the I is; it allows a verb to make sense, to indicate an activity.

The I is thus always an activity.

In short, we relate activity to values, we act to express and obtain values, and these values allows us to continue acting. The values thus reflect a central value, the acting agent, the “I”, who is by all acts bestowing value on himself and so creating his world, which is largely defined by the way he encounters it. If he encounters it consistently, he becomes master over it. If he encounters it according to the ways in which the world engages him, he becomes slave to it. In a normal being, there is a balance. Happiness in mastery increasing, unhappiness is responsiveness increasing. Depression is overloaded responsiveness. The only cure for depression is physical, physiological expression of anger and undergoing the consequences with a measure of of indifferent curiosity toward ones own psychology, so that one can begin discerning ones natural values and reject imposed, unnatural ones.

To exist, one must be able to value consistently, which means that the standard must be consistent. I act so to obtain a value, an object, a thing-and-goal. But if I do not structurally attain my goals, my self-valuing will suffer. So establishing the appropriate values is implicit in existing. Since all that I do is predicated and justified by a specific type of valuing, and since “I” can only be explicated in terms of what I do, the I is nothing besides this establishing-value-to-myself. This is what we seek to maintain or repair - the activity of structurally setting attainable values, the attainment of which will result in a capacity to attain higher values. This is how power increases, by structural value-setting. In man, this needs to be conscious, because those that do this consciously win, defeat others. Man is conscious being so his self-valuing needs to be conscious in order for his integrality, his structural integrity, his ‘soul’, to survive. His intellect needs consistency.

Ontologically, in all cases the value-establishing to the I leads to a continuation of its capacity to set values for itself, this type of valuing must be understood as a constant, a type of valuing that is itself a consistency, a standard of value – which means that its consistency must be understood as an activity.

Consistency is the fundamental activity.

We can verify this in terms of the periodic table and at the same time we so verify the logic of this categorization that nature apparently produces on her own accord, by asking what makes for a consistency of an elements. We may consider the most consistent to be those which are least influenced by other elements or energies. The are the ‘noble’ elements. What make as an element noble is that it does not change internally in reaction to outward stimuli. It holds no potential for internal change, is never inconsistent with itself. It is universe enclosed in itself, all of its values are perfectly attainable, for ever. Gold is this absolutely active; it holds in its structure the maximum amount activities, its many electron rings are filled, its inner tensions are all in play. Maximization of activity within a given structure amounts to a maximal consistency.

Contemplate the correspondence between consistency, activity, the noble elements, and value.

[Jakob Milikowski 2011/2012]


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:47 am; edited 14 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
without-music
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
…(such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.
I find attractive the machinic – I want to say “metaphor,” but that term doesn’t quite apply so neatly here – image you invoke with regard to the valuing-subject. The subject is in-the-world, of course, and what is the world but a matrix of flows, intensities, lines, forces? How perfect, then, the mechanical vernacular. In the midst of a web of intensities, placed between two or more flows, the machine functions to connect, to interrupt, to re-direct, to modify, modulate, in a word: to affect the flows that simultaneously serve as its life-force, its nutrition, and as its excrement, its waste. This affect, always in-the-midst-of, always between. This affect is, of course, valuation, the subject-machine’s valuing-capacity, tendency, function. Defined in terms of its capacity to value, that machine incapable of doing so breaks down, its flows overrun it – it is eaten up by the world, it disintegrates.

And here I can’t help but quote Deleuze & Guattari, for their words currently haunt me: “Everywhere it is machines – real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections” (Anti-Oedipus, 1). This it is the world, the body of warring intensities and flows, a matrix of machinic chaos. Machines driving other machines: what a perfect image of the world as will-to-power (understood on the basis of self-will/value). The necessary couplings and connections are valuations. There can be no absence of valuation, for all life valuates – where it is absent, there life is naught. Rather, only differing intensities, weaker and stronger capacities, active and reactive forces, noble and slavish wills. In supplementing “machine” for “subject,” I believe the scope of value-ontology is significantly widened. Indeed, there has already been extensive work in this vein on this forum: society as valuing in terms of self, economy, politic, religion, and so on. Instead of using the subject that wills as a metaphor for what a thriving, flourishing empire does, I think a mechanistic, de-centered (de-subjected) vocabulary makes possible a more focused, less metaphoric, project. Note how Deleuze takes care to emphasize: real ones, not figurative ones, these machines. Not metaphor, but image. Not subject, but machine. The subject does of course come in to play along with consciousness, but such subjectivity is not a condition for the possibility of self-valuation; rather just the opposite. Which is to say that the self-valuing subject is not absolutely primary, it is not the most basic term of such a metaphysic, for not all valuation necessitates subjectivity. I propose, as a more foundational ontological unit, the machine. In any case, I put these thoughts forward with the hope that they will in turn spur more.
[/quote]


“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
without-music wrote:
Quote :
…(such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.
I find attractive the machinic – I want to say “metaphor,” but that term doesn’t quite apply so neatly here – image you invoke with regard to the valuing-subject. The subject is in-the-world, of course, and what is the world but a matrix of flows, intensities, lines, forces? How perfect, then, the mechanical vernacular. In the midst of a web of intensities, placed between two or more flows, the machine functions to connect, to interrupt, to re-direct, to modify, modulate, in a word: to affect the flows that simultaneously serve as its life-force, its nutrition, and as its excrement, its waste. This affect, always in-the-midst-of, always between. This affect is, of course, valuation, the subject-machine’s valuing-capacity, tendency, function. Defined in terms of its capacity to value, that machine incapable of doing so breaks down, its flows overrun it – it is eaten up by the world, it disintegrates.

And here I can’t help but quote Deleuze & Guattari, for their words currently haunt me: “Everywhere it is machines – real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections” (Anti-Oedipus, 1). This it is the world, the body of warring intensities and flows, a matrix of machinic chaos. Machines driving other machines: what a perfect image of the world as will-to-power (understood on the basis of self-will/value). The necessary couplings and connections are valuations. There can be no absence of valuation, for all life valuates – where it is absent, there life is naught. Rather, only differing intensities, weaker and stronger capacities, active and reactive forces, noble and slavish wills. In supplementing “machine” for “subject,” I believe the scope of value-ontology is significantly widened. Indeed, there has already been extensive work in this vein on this forum: society as valuing in terms of self, economy, politic, religion, and so on. Instead of using the subject that wills as a metaphor for what a thriving, flourishing empire does, I think a mechanistic, de-centered (de-subjected) vocabulary makes possible a more focused, less metaphoric, project. Note how Deleuze takes care to emphasize: real ones, not figurative ones, these machines. Not metaphor, but image. Not subject, but machine. The subject does of course come in to play along with consciousness, but such subjectivity is not a condition for the possibility of self-valuation; rather just the opposite. Which is to say that the self-valuing subject is not absolutely primary, it is not the most basic term of such a metaphysic, for not all valuation necessitates subjectivity. I propose, as a more foundational ontological unit, the machine. In any case, I put these thoughts forward with the hope that they will in turn spur more.

I would agree that D&G use wonderful terminology here and this must become a part of the overall schema which we employ. The conceptual precision they bring to the table must serve as a model for us. The reason I use machinic language as a supplement – and not a substitute – for valuing/subject language is that the object-centered, non-teleological empiricist causality (however “transcendental”) which “runs” D&G-like machines is in itself insufficient as an ontological or phenomenological principle. It tends to obfuscate certain essential elements, tends to enfame these within a confining and imposed model and possibility simply because of the nature of the language employed (it may cause “horizons to withdraw”, albeit in a far “better” and more accurate/useful way than almost any other philosophical conceptual systems).

I also like valuing-subject oriented langauge because it is both precise but also imprecise, broad enough with respect to our connotations and habitually-used meanings that it can serve to identify a whole host of various sort of beings and possibilities, and it leaves the horizon wide open rather than closing it up within itself. Not that D&G overtly fall prey to such a closure, but the machinic language itself can tend to act as such a self-enclosing, an “enframing” system (to invoke Heidegger a bit here on technology, and of course language is a technology) that can co-opt possible meanings and contents before they find a chance to otherwise emerge more naturally, carefully and quietly, after-the-fact and without regard to prior mandates inherent to and often embedded invisibly and indivisibly within form/s-as-structure/structuring possibilities.

D&G’s language in Capitalism and Schizophrenia is very useful and indeed has been a large inspiration for me. I view D&G’s conceptual terminologies as models, languistic and highly useful tools to be employed, but tools ultimately subject in their usefulness and accuracy to an appeal to a broader, quieter and often as-of-yet imprecise/vague framework and possibility than these tools alone are able to capture. To approach this most sufficient frame and possibility of being we need to “impregnate” the machine with that “part” (necessity) of the machine which “speaks a different, non-object-oriented language”, which escapes the confines of boundaries and possibility for delimitation under the current systems. We must have an account of a machine which allows for the je ne sais quoi of that machine itself. D&G make good efforts in this direction, but I also see value ontology as essential here. I see valuing/subject(-ive) language and appeal as setting object-ification within what is most necessary and sufficient for it, the valuing/s goings-on (however relatively centered or de-centered as the case may be) that give rise to objects (machines, images) and to object-relations (machinic processes and functions, flows/etc), that aim to identify and carefully trace the myriad intricate and often convoluted, barely articulable interpretations at the heart of all being/s. (In otherwords I do not think we need abandon the metaphor, not at all, indeed we need to rescue it, re-value it). I think value ontology, as a supplement to D&G-like machinic assemblages, helps to keep being open before itself and to ensure that what does arise does not do so prematurely, inadequately or as the result of prior unseen assumptions.

“To speak without speaking (falsely)”… such possibilities more afforded through the poetic or aesthetic experience become necessary methods if our ontological approach is to avoid falling prey to an objectivist-empiricist reduction. I worry that machinic language in itself or as a/the conceptual basis/ground flirts with this sort of reduction.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Indeed, the core of the self-valuing entity can only be described, objectified, as a machine. It does what it does because of an inevitability that we may deduce from being, our own being and whatever this implies… We may deduce it from what we know, the full extent and depth of it. We can not indicate anything that exists without seeing how it must hold itself as a standard with the aid of what we perceive as some mysterious force or quality. Gravity, strong force, the facts of nature we can not penetrate into by isolating the things they pertain to from us, these are expressions of what we can understand when we take ourselves as a model for such machinery.

This is where the distinction between subject and machine dissolves. A subject is a machine. We are conscious, yes – Parodites is making vast strides in describing what this particular form of self-valuing/machinery is, how it stands apart, what it produces, what we may attain with it, and what we may/can/must value in it., as ourselves. I have identified the other way end of the scale – but the mechanism, the machine is still the same. We perish if we do not function as such a machine. Therefore, as vast and interesting and even crucial to know in order to aim for our ends the difference between the subject and the atomic machine is, they are still. under the definition of value ontology, identical at their basic machinery.

So, in line with what Capable says, We must affirm a more object-based descriptiveness within value ontology, and refer to what now stands in Production under “naive valuation” – the concept of valency. This derivative of the concept “(to) value” stands precisely between the valuing “subject” (self-valuing/self-sustaining standard) and that what it values, “the world”, the other, the object. It is in this medium of the universe, the true “ether”, entirely a matter of possibility and correspondence, where “all is properties and situations”, that we may identify the machine-like infrastructure, the circuitry of the machine.

We can not penetrate deeper into the core of self-valuing than by knowing comprehensively our own self-valuing. This is the phenomenal/phenomenological task before us, and this is the perspective that I hold in regard to a new ethics. Very elementarily, we take our organism as the axiom from which to penetrate into the logic of the atom. In this, the subjective, including what we refer to as consciousness, stands logically prior to the things from which it is seen/interpreted to emerge/be constructed. So the study of phenomenology and ontology now must be a study of psychology, but not the categorizing kind, rather a new direction (of which the 21st century has seen preludes) – something we may call experientology. The categorizing not of “effect” of “substances” but of modes of being, as recognized and categorized by beings as resulting from a certain “brew of passions” which is enabled by a certain valency-structure. This is and has always been the study of economics and politics, the true social sciences, working mass-psychology. We have just found its proper terminology, the scientific language for the subjective – the means to objectify subjects into machines without devaluating them.

There remains the fundamental difference between a machinic object (a car, etc) and a machinic subject (a self-valuing). We may however understand now why we create machines around us, and why they so easily fit our valuing system. Our cosmos is host to and product of a machinal structure. At the core of all machinery is (identified from a human perspective) this machinal inevitability that is also at the ground of evolution - a mechanism that only in retrospect appears as logic. From its own perspective this mechanism can not be exhaustively conceptualized, but we must, as Capable notes leave room for the undefined of the machine, that makes it so distant from an automobile which only functions by knowing exactly what it does – the quality of the machine that makes it not a tool, but a tool-wielding, interpreting all machines as its own functions. We can only approach and delineate this. What we can define is that which approaches and delineates it – valency.

In order to articulate the categorical science of valencies, our area for objectification, it is useful and necessary to understand the subject and its non-conscious counterparts in terms of the machinal. But at the same time we have an overlap, a twilight zone between the visible / technical and that ‘je ne sais quoi’, the area where valency becomes value, where our approach is suddenly reversed mid-course without changing direction of its course inward – the realest and most bewildering revaluation of values – the moment where the machinal, first approached as the most precise, as we touch on its core appears entirely imprecise. This is the moment where “the severest self-legislation” is required, which means not only to set laws for oneself, but to set oneself as a law. Science has not been supported by ego’s strong enough to attempt this - it has so far been the domain of the Camelof Zarathustra’s metamorphoses of the spirit.

With the introduction of value ontology into science, there is an “I will” required. Science must deliberately impose itself on its subject matter, in order that its subject matter does not impose itself any further on him. The “I am” of science is still very far away, we stand at the beginning of penetrating into the machinal, the “machinery of the universe”, by introducing ourself into its vital functions.

For this to become viable, tenable, this “self” has to be elaborated and even ‘celebrated’ like never before. The perspective, for every ontic machine is a perspective, every perspective is a machine, must be the new ‘atom’ of a new science. This will require an entirely new scientific caste – to which end we can only begin to inspire new students, seedling-thinkers. To this end the language of the machinal could be employed effectively – to draw out, “lure” rigorous, scientific minds into a realm of self-knowing by allowing the notion of self-valuing to express itself in the language of the machinal. We should appeal to the hardest, toughest and proudest with our project, for it carries the potency to bend the strongest steel, to shape everything around its dynamic core.

To make circles out of straight lines. value ontology does for logic what the notion that the Earth is spherical did for mans awareness of himself in relation to the cosmos. It places the limits of the subject (of logic) within itself, and describes the mechanism/cosmos wherein it exists in terms of the consequences of this centering. So as “gravity” first became the core from which effective physics emerged, so “valuing” becomes the core from which an effective thinking can emerge.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Sun Jul 20, 2014 7:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Value ontology therefore refers to a logical circularity that is expressed in temporality as a circuitry tending to expand itself by integrating what it encounters while maintaining its integral structure.

“[This] is not what is produced but what is original, and it is produced only because it is. It is therefore already in every thing which is. The power which flows forth in the mass of nature is essentially the same as that represented in the mental world, except that in the former it has to combat the preponderance of the real, as in the latter the preponderance of the ideal. But even this antithesis, which is not an antithesis according to its essence but according to mere potency, appears as antithesis only to him who is outside the indifference and glimpses the absolute identity itself not as the original one.”

  • Schelling

Quote :
[Self-valuing] explains why what exists exists and persists through time,

And the principle itself can be seen as underlying the mechanism of time.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
"Value ontology is, obviously, an ontology–that is, it claims knowledge of Being in some way. The knowledge it claims is that beings are self-valuings. This is to say that every being is a self-valuing. But it does not mean that every being values itself as a self-valuing. Only those who accept value ontology can value themselves as self-valuings, as opposed to simply as selves. For those who accept it, however, valuing themselves means valuing themselves as self-valuing-valuings…

One may distinguish between four basic levels of self-valuing.

  1. Most of existence consists of self-valuings who, however, have no knowledge whatsoever of themselves. That is, they value all things in their grasp in terms of themselves, but that is all they do. They have no notion of themselves.
  2. Some of existence consists of self-valuings who do have a notion of themselves. These are what may be called animate beings or the “souled”.
  3. Among the latter, there are those who, at least in theory, can know themselves and thereby the whole of which they are parts. These are usually called human beings. (Note that a human being in this sense need in theory not be a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens.)
  4. Among the latter, there are those who actually knows themselves (or at least can know themselves in practice). These are the ones who know that all beings are self-valuings.

If the self one values is a self-valuing, then one’s self-valuing is self-valuing-valuing; and as all selves are self-valuings, all beings are self-valuing-valuings. But in most beings this is unconscious. That is, most beings are unaware of just how alike they are to others. The vehemence of the adversity springing from this ignorance may even be proportionate to how close one is to enlightenment in this regard! Is there greater adversity than among so-called “human” beings, whether they have different skin colours or be fans of different football clubs or belong to different sects? And in fact, they are not wrong, as far as their self-knowledge is concerned; they cannot value the other, because he does not match what they hold to be their defining characteristics (note how football fanatics tend to be much less intolerant, in fact often do not even notice, those who do not care about football at all). An enlightened football fan would be one who realised that fans of the rival club love the same sport, and that that love is what makes one a football fan. Well then! An enlightened self-valuing is one who realises that all other beings value the same thing, namely self-valuing! This however means that the peak of self-valuing is to value all beings, to value the whole, to value Being itself. Nay more, it means that this is what all self-valuing is. But there is conscious and unconscious self-valuing. An enlightened self-valuing would value enlightened self-valuing the most, would value self-valuing more the more conscious it is. And this leads naturally to the preference of the souled above the soulless, the human above the non-human, the enlightened above the unenlightened. It leads naturally to a politics of soulfulness, of humanity, of enlightenment."

Sauwelios
Humanarchy


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

The soul and its excess, Ouroboros in/against time rather than above it.

this is selfvaluing and the pathos of distance it creates
the tangents of its dunamis hook into those of others, and thus we get friction called society.

Law and crime, status and disgrace, growth and error - the seams of the flower mark these… judgments.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Dualities and making judgements (prejudging) are concepts I speak to often on the Taoist forum.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am curious, Sisyphus, would you say a Taoist judges judging?

Ive often heard it say that one shouldn’t judge, for judgment is divisive and imperfect. But this is a judgment. A judgment on judgment.
It raises the conundrum to the second power.
Someone judges, then judges himself for having judged.

My judgment is that judging is what keeps us alive. Our joy is in refining our judgments and in strengthening our responses that follow from them.

“And the good saw that it was good” - “And the good saw that its seeing was the good” - circular judgments of positive existence, which is positive existence itself.

To cease judging means to dissolve. Many Buddhists aim for this. But to wholeheartedly judge all contradicting states and also their states of contradiction as good, is to fully self-encompass, to value all of which one can potentially be aware, that is enlightenment. From it issues forth a love that is infinite. In that state, no self-sustaining creature, nor any mineral, can escape ones ardent love. One sees the elementary love that brings forth such being, and all else pales in that light. “Compassion” is this - a love almost too strong to endure for the courage one sees in every single effort to live independently, i.e. to give freely of oneself in order to make a path.

Infinitude of possibility brought forth love as the most comprehensive resolution of that possibility. All else is just reference to these two, lesser forms of truth, partiality against partiality, paradoxically, partiality against being itself, and thus against ‘the whole’ - might it choose to exist.

The whole can not be loved as a whole. Being is loved in recognizing detail and nuance, in its ‘work’ - this is how a woman wants to be complimented as well, and how children must be raised - you don’t address the “I” of the child, you address its actions, which represent his far deeper identity, his world-shaping selfvaluing rather than his panicky survival circuit.

Apparently small children can’t conceive of “I” - this is taught. Selfvaluing is always a “we”.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Note that I added the word prejudging in my above post. This is a rather difficult subject in Taoism and I enjoy getting involved in all the discussions concerning it.

Yes, we all judge. Agree, it is what helps keep us alive. What I always key in on is the prejudging. And I don’t care too much about the need to “right” and thereby judge the other person “wrong”.

It is said that the Sage acts spontaneously. There is no conscious judging involved. A situation presents itself, the situation is dealt with, and then let go of. That is all. Was he right or wrong in his actions? He doesn’t worry himself with such matters.

Prejudging is what we should avoid. Making generalized statements is another. And, of course, dualities as much as possible (good/bad, beautiful/ugly, etc). To avoid this as much as possible I opted for useful/useless (to me). This way I can determine something useless to me but it may well be the exact thing someone else was in need of. This isn’t judging the item but rather judging my needs (wants, desires, etc).

In Chuang Tzu’s stories we see judgements all over the place. We can even see them in Lao Tzu. But both avoid prejudgements in the most part even though some arguments could bee made.

There is nothing wrong with judging that a meal does not have enough salt or that this woman who is making up to us doesn’t turn us on.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Prejudging is what we should avoid. Making generalized statements is another. And, of course, dualities as much as possible (good/bad, beautiful/ugly, etc). To avoid this as much as possible I opted for useful/useless (to me). This way I can determine something useless to me but it may well be the exact thing someone else was in need of. This isn’t judging the item but rather judging my needs (wants, desires, etc).

Nice wording but does it ring true? Prejudging a new object/subject, prejudging potential, prejudging the old object/subject unawares of new aspects/growth? Prejudging as in no prior experience with?

A sage lives in the moment and performs accurately? What is a sage?

I do what Fixed is asking all the time, I judge my judging, but a sage doesn’t need to? I’m not buying that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:

Nice wording but does it ring true? Prejudging a new object/subject, prejudging potential, prejudging the old object/subject unawares of new aspects/growth? Prejudging as in no prior experience with?

Yes, it really does ring true. This is linked to the concept of expectations. If we constantly place our expectations on others we are going to be constantly disappointed. To prejudge a person because of their skin color is insane. To prejudge how long a coffee maker will last will almost always find you wrong. We prejudge and place our expectations on others way too often. Likely many great opportunities will have been missed.

A sage lives in the moment and performs accurately? What is a sage?

The Sage is one who can travel anywhere on the planet and not offend anyone. He can walk through a village, invisible, and leaves no tracks. He lives spontaneously, doing only what needs be done, never under-doing or over-doing anything. And he never allows himself to get involved in any kind of conflict.

I do what Fixed is asking all the time, I judge my judging, but a sage doesn’t need to? I’m not buying that.

You are the worst judge of yourself. You will always judge with prejudice. I have been asked numerous time who/what I am and all I can do is to state that this is not for me to say. It is up to those who feel the need to judge to make those judgements.

It is true, the Sage does not consciously judge. We might say that his/her actions are inspired by the subconscious or by instincts but no conscious thought is involved. There are no questions like “What if …” (S)he does what needs be done and that is all. Judgements by others to what (s)he has done matters not.

I know that this is difficult to grasp because it implies one acting from a perfect altruistic essence. I regularly get the argument that there is no such thing as altruism. I always disagree.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There’s much romance in Taoism or your version of it. Growing sleepy. Until tomorrow.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Things are not the way they are, they are the way we are.”
(Talmudic saying)

This is in accordance with Sysiphus’ policy of not judging what a thing, person, or situation is, but what it’s value is to him. The wise one judges himself: he establishes whether he has any use for the appearing thing, or not. I find this wise and inscrutable.

My path consists much of such practice, I practice it wherever no red lines are crossed. But the way I am and love myself, I have plenty of red lines. When someone crosses that line, I judge that not only have I no use for that persons actions, but I consider that person to be an ill in the state he is in. In the same way as I judge a disease not only in terms of not requiring it, but with a bit more aggression, so I judge sick individuals, those whose actions have spoken loudly enough for me to know what to expect.

Once I judge another, I no longer judge myself. I know I cant afford to do both. Once I have judged myself as having less than no use for a persons insistent violations of my values (what it comes down to), I will shift my judgment to that person, and set myself to destroy his capacity to influence me or my environment. I take immense joy in this, as I know that once I have come to such a resolution and resolve, I am fighting not only for myself but for my entire world. The world I want to live in, and that wants me to live in it: once my red line is crossed, I know I have my whole ‘nation’ behind me. Even though my ‘nation’ is still small, it’s hard as diamond at its core and it will vanquish more than anyone here imagines, myself included. (I dont tend to imagine into the future, I just build on principle and sometimes receive visions based on observing history and current narratives)

This is a consequence of knowing valuing to be primacy. It allows for the spontaneity of judgment Sisyphus describes, but commits to judgment beyond a certain threshold, and from there on it becomes a straight line. Very much like the picture I posted.

A form of pain is a result of this, the social friction that Taoists generally want to avoid, this is the pot I like to stir… the world is my soup, my cauldron, as I stand over it with a rod…

Whereas only judging oneself in terms of ‘do I value this/that’ is perfectly healthy, judging ones own judgments is a disease. It is what westerners have been taught to do, and get cancer because of it. Judging is being itself, and to be structurally mistrustful of it, is to ruin ones mind and body.

Judge as you judge, but realize it is a judgment of your own situation.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I edited out a bunch of personal info here, its not the thread for it.
Still I’ll leave this remark standing:

Only my lovers know me. That is axiomatic, by the way: only love can know. Hence, no knowledge is objective - “objectivity” is the possibility of love, of deciphering a moment into pure being.

Once you’ve known unfragmented love, pure positive judgment, you know death is of no concern. Whatever really matters is beyond the strain of moment upon moment - it pervades the ground of everything, and is always the final consequence. Nihilism is little else than impotence before such love.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Sisyphus
    Path
    Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
There’s much romance in Taoism or your version of it. Growing sleepy. Until tomorrow.

So I put you right to sleep, did I?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

My path consists much of such practice, I practice it wherever no red lines are crossed.

Yes, the red lines, the limits we have established for our interaction with the universe. These limits dictate how and when we must judge. This actually goes beyond my useful/useless concept.

Actually, I think it is fair to state that if we do not have established limits (red lines) we do not have a functional life philosophy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

Once you’ve known unfragmented love, pure positive judgment, you know death is of no concern. Whatever really matters is beyond the strain of moment upon moment - it pervades the ground of everything, and is always the final consequence. Nihilism is little else than impotence before such love.

That is pretty profound. Maybe you could consider working it up a bit more, say like a little article?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed is a beautiful writer when invested and his insights pull you in to his gold mind. You must pen many books that mix renaissance poetry (Moby Dick keeps popping into my head for some reason?<—Not renaissance, but powerful writing I guess. I’ve never read Moby Dick.) with modern tensions. You mix potent imagery with your love of words and what exists is glorious. I’m a bit of a fan.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m confused by this endeavor of judging value as useful or useless against my needs. If my needs are unchanging as well as an unchanging object/subject, then it would make more sense with regards to a permanent judgement otherwise I just can’t grasp how to judge on the fly without really understanding what I’m judging. Further more, what about timing is everything and not being a shortsighted fool?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
I’m confused by this endeavor of judging value as useful or useless against my needs. If my needs are unchanging as well as an unchanging object/subject, then it would make more sense with regards to a permanent judgement otherwise I just can’t grasp how to judge on the fly without really understanding what I’m judging. Further more, what about timing is everything and not being a shortsighted fool?

Nice comments about Fixed’s writing.

But, to judging/valuing:

From my perspective, not speaking for Fixed,

Our values change through life until the time we have attained inner peace and contentment. That is, we place importance on our external environment and do our best to attain that state of being satisfied. We must judge in order for this to happen.

Over time we begin to hold values that are important to us only. Nothing to do with our external world. We have judged these values as being useful for us toward our attaining inner peace and contentment. Those things that do not add to, or even distract from our inner essence we judge as being useless.

Fixed has a different way of saying this and that’s good. His learning experiences are surely very different from mine.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Challenges to our peace cannot lead to unexpected growth?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
Challenges to our peace cannot lead to unexpected growth?

Of course they can. Thing is, if the challenges have upset our inner peace then our peace wasn’t as secure as we thought it was and tht means we have more work to do.

And remember, I am speaking to only our inner peace. Our peace with our externals are always being challenged. That is part of the dynamics of life.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don’t see how those modes operate independently, the internal and the external. If the internal is not affected by the

external are you living life to the fullest? Also by unexpected growth I meant our own as well as anothers, simultaneous

occurrence. By inner peace, you mean the perfection of love and joy mixed? I’ve only felt this three times for a period long

enough to realize what it was. It is the absence of fear and the acceptance and harmony with existence, which leaves you

with simply peace. Others were not in my company during those experiences.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
I don’t see how those modes operate independently, the internal and the external. If the internal is not affected by the
external are you living life to the fullest? Also by unexpected growth I meant our own as well as anothers, simultaneous
occurrence. By inner peace, you mean the perfection of love and joy mixed? I’ve only felt this three times for a period long
enough to realize what it was. It is the absence of fear and the acceptance and harmony with existence, which leaves you
with simply peace. Others were not in my company during those experiences.

Yes, we are talking about the same thing.

Internal: I have everything I “need” and I’m not having any internal conflicts (I’m not arguing with or disappointed with my mental condition).

External: This easy hair is broken and I need a new one. or My friend really pisses me off sometimes.

No, they don’t operate independently but I think that the two operate from different levels. The internals are based in our needs and the externals are based in our wants and desires. If we can keep our needs separated from our wants and desires I think we would have a better chance of attaining inner peace and contentment.

I don’t talk about love too much. To many attachments to the word. Joy, I would equate with contentment. Love, I would likely equate with peace, or perhaps no negative emotions; perhaps even emotionless - just being.

Yes, I’m sure many of us have the experience you spoke of but we fail to recognize the significance f it and more important, the conditions that led to that state. (What conditions caused us to be in that state of “just being”?

Summary of value ontology View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : Previous 1, 2
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi-D wrote:
I’m confused by this endeavor of judging value as useful or useless against my needs. If my needs are unchanging as well as an unchanging object/subject, then it would make more sense with regards to a permanent judgement otherwise I just can’t grasp how to judge on the fly without really understanding what I’m judging. Further more, what about timing is everything and not being a shortsighted fool?

As I wrote yesterday in a congested and deleted response, timing is entirely crucial, but it rests on the ground of consistency. One can not time well if one does not have permanent grounding.

In Kung Fu, or Aikido, or other ancient ‘dances of life and death’, the sole aim is to solidify ones body, physiology and mind so as to be able to produce the perfect spontaneous response to any given situation. Perfect in terms of what?

Exactly. That is the question.
The East Asians have arrived at a bottom line standard here which can be pointed out with words like aesthetics, cleanliness, purity. But we western philosophers are moving beyond this as we speak. A comprehensive answer to the bequest for a standard, life will provide to us individually, as we walk across the threshold of an age of greater humanity… guided no longer by the sky or the earth, but by philosophy, by an awakening to ‘raw valuing’, which, by the way, is experienced as a burning heart when it commences to take hold of a heart that has been placed by its owner on the altar of some deity or void.

Awakening hurts, and making judgments that result in further pain is required… only to those to whom the pain of tedium and nausea of the indirectly-valuing humanity has grown intolerable, the pain of standing utterly alone in the universe as a potential center (the solipsist makes an empty claim) is also a pleasure, a nektar.

Still introducing.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: Summary of value ontology Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A next phase is a demonstration and explication of VO.

Ive decided today, on recommendations of Pezer and in light of Capable’s valuing, to accept the arrival of the end of the forum phase, and continue the teaching of my philosophy through music.

It was this particular clan, which itself is the original explication of VO, that allowed me to step into music with absolute freedom - such freedom is the only absolute - and now Ive succeeded in setting a musical standard for my friends. The proof in the pudding.

This is only possible as a resolution now that the basic logos has been spread around the web and Trump has been elected in its spirit. The first phase of the work has been completed. The second part of the trajectory to 2023 began with Wolf Child.

As concerns the first phase: All of what we have written so far will be proliferated, by physical publications as wel as reposting. It forms a backdrop to the music as well as a world to which the music is a portal. This is the beginning of many beautiful friendships, and of friendship even of man with the Earth.

What does the world run on? View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: What does the world run on? Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oil?

No.

Money?

No.

Power?

Maybe.

Truth?

Not sure.

Philosophy?

Possibly.

But only in the reverse, maybe.
—-

What is under the surfaces of (the reversals of) philosophy’s governance of things? On what do humans rest their valuings?

I have an answer: a taste of freedom.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps a person becomes convinced to remain in slavery because being so enslaved he/she is able best to formulate a taste of freedom. Because he does not have it he therefore is able to desire it.

This thread belongs in psychology perhaps. Oh well fuck it.

The moral soul, a beautiful spirit, a heart overfull with sensitive feelings and a natural revulsion for all things crude, banal, crass, simple, insensitive, bawdy, unwholesome… such a soul as may possess also the intellect required to forgo religion and all superstitions, save one—the myth of goodness, or rather the clinging to goodness that remains unseen or unexpressed, at least far from adequately known much less willed to be known, and therefore is able only to know what is good through myth, as myth, as a kind of despising of any breaking of the dawn over the quiet landscape of the undisturbed soul, so replete in the tranquil conscience, and which would therefore shield its eyes from sunlight for finding the glare too harsh and unforgiving, yet still cannot find too much in common with the creatures of the night either; a poetic soul, therefore, who longs most for what he is steadfast in never possessing, namely a kind of freedom that would make the desire for freedom wholly unnecessary, and what could be more terrifying, more demanding, more painful, more unpredictable, than… freedom actualized? I’ve known only one person who took the true leap of faith, of the heart, as soul, and transformed themselves. I’ve done so but not of the heart and soul, rather of the mind. Other spirits walk quietly and quickly through the forest of the new, at dawn or dusk, always, but never linger long enough to see a sunrise or a sunset. I, on the other hand, see only… sunrises and sunsets. I long to transform as another has, but it is not so for me, because to transform the mind imposes certain criteria upon later transformations, and perhaps even the capacity for a mental transformation and freedom earned thereof necessesitates a kind of prior state of inability for certain emotional transformation when undertaken outside of the most ideal and perfect environments. But I have my freedom, and so I do not desire freedom, in fact I find that often the suffering of it balances overly against the pleasure and gain of it. But gain and detriment are already the words in the mouths of the dead, and we shall not sully ourselves here after the fashion of the dead. Rather we speak of pleasures and of sufferings, desires and the absences of desires, perhaps we may even speak of power and its lack, at times; yet how much of this truly runs the world? The very fact that we are supposed to think it runs the world, and the fact that we indeed do think this, remains the greatest thorn in the side of this supposed fact’s certain conquest over the philosopher.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
1 5 14 14
4 9 19 19


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Brilliant.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Pezer
    builder
    builder
    avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol, fool, it’s fear. And the pride that covers it.

If it weren’t for that pride, fear would not be so prevalent over the others. Like a dam.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 2190
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But this is the stuff of eons.

What right have you to speak of any of it?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
7

7


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
13 25 8 5 1 18 20 4 9 5 4 20 15 4 1 25

4 7 8 5 1 9 2 4 9 5 4 2 6 4 1 7

4 | 785 192 495 4264 | 17

(2397)

717


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
(M)isanthrop(E)

^ good name for a band.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
i now formally withdraw myself from all things political.

this world can burn.

if i find an isolated value that is worth it to me then i will value it, direct and out of context if needed.

fuck tectonics.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Capable
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
strong valuings are always disconnected gems in the dark. no tectonics underlies them. worlds are separate.

i have removed my books, because they were based on a faulty theory.

there is no order, there is no chaos.


“What are you?” asked Apollonius.

“We are gods,” said Icarus.

“Why are you gods?”

“We are gods because we are good men.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Agree about these gems in the dark.
A reverse of mining.

The gems have to mine their world for things to shine on.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Capable
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 5191
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : calmly outside of time

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
now i’m seeing there are connections, worlds, they’re just not “universal” in a reductive sense. well that’s probably a good thing.

worlds are made out of dust, like adam. our universe-reality is a multi billion year old world, our planet is another little derivative world inside that. i’m sure that tectonics structure the ascent and descent between worlds.

earth is a gem of the universe geology. and life is a gem of the earth geology. and human consciousness is a gem of life geology. or so
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
But this is the stuff of eons.

What right have you to speak of any of it?

What right has the sky to be above us?
What other rights would you take to create crimes?

Rather build a rocket.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
now i’m seeing there are connections, worlds, they’re just not “universal” in a reductive sense. well that’s probably a good thing.

It is the most excellent of things. It is the beauty of the value logic, there are only particulars, thus virtually all is hidden treasure. And hidden treasures don’t care about time, only about the one who finds them. Objectivity is a thin mist hovering low in the cave of the mind, which reflects in a pool in its midst the moon and sun through an opening in the roof. Sometimes it rains, then the mind is one with the world, or imagines so a it forgets its depths away from the openings and washes its nose.

Quote :
worlds are made out of dust, like adam. our universe-reality is a multi billion year old world, our planet is another little derivative world inside that. i’m sure that tectonics structure the ascent and descent between worlds.

earth is a gem of the universe geology. and life is a gem of the earth geology. and human consciousness is a gem of life geology. or so

So indeed.
Minerals, the beings between atoms and our lives, between light and the cosmos, I like them.


" 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 Send private message Send e-mail Online
    Fixed Cross
    Tower
    Tower
    avatar

Posts : 6274
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : the black ships

PostSubject: Re: What does the world run on? Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Its true, a taste of freedom is what the world runs on. It has been that way long before there was life.

Orbits are like ordered freedoms. The perception of freedom within orderly bounds as seen from the outside.