I didn’t see how the CRH would usurp authority from any existing Western government other than perhaps granting free speech. The Asians might not like it.
I suspect that you’re missing the point of the groups. No matter what the surrounding circumstance, it helps to have allies or friends. The SAM constitution seems to merely provide for allies regardless of life’s concurrent challenges. It really wouldn’t matter what kind of government you were under unless they expressly forbid SAM type groups. The SAM Corp (or later called “Coop”) is merely a structured agreement between friends to provide for mutual support. There doesn’t seem to be anything sinister, nefarious, or rebellious about it. It seems to be, and as he stated, merely like a small business agreement that pertains to more than merely making money. And I’n sure that making money isn’t forbidden either.
In this case, “natural outcome” doesn’t imply the existence of an unnatural. It merely emphasizes that things happen for understandable and expected reasons, like the “natural consequence” of a rock rolling down a hill or perhaps a parachute not opening in time.
So you don’t believe in determinism - everything is a consequence of what came before it?
At this point I think you have answered why you thought that James was proposing a socialist and fascist government. He was proposing the exact opposite, but I can now see why you thought otherwise.
We aren’t really talking about James anymore, but socialism. Do you have a preferred thread where we can discuss your ideas concerning the proposed benefits of socialism?
Nah I don’t hunker down and get involved in serious debates/discussions anymore. I learned years ago what a waste of effort this is. I’m only here because I’m a forum addict.
James was here for a long time discussing stuff with me. He once said I was the main reason he was here. When we had a falling out he began slowly withdrawing. He developed much of his ideas on cooperation in the period we were trying to get something on the rails. But meanwhile he was calling my friends snakes who would betray me. He was right about one or two by the way.
Its true many people aren’t here to take but to give. Everyone learns from each other though, except perhaps you, but thats not our problem.
Not to mention, will to power is what got them there in the first place. Usually, if not always, the party-leader types were, and I am from the heart of European Communism so I really have known them, the machiavellian and person-glorification types. Underneath them they have a layer of sycophants and actual hard loyalists, and these control what gets access to the leader.
How is anything more promising for socialism now? Where do you see any openings?
James completely opposed socialism because he opposes anything besides the Constitution of the US, which he intended to amend with this laborious procedure of perfectly justified adaptation to new circumstances which is partly outlined above. He didn’t intend to begin from scratch.
Either he was slipping here or was misunderstood; In physics, the “negative” should be entropy and “positive” anentropy, “self-harmony”.
Quite clearly, whereas in the lower categories, the “negative” and “positive” are value-judgments based on the standard of power, whereas “positive” or “negative” referring to electric charge isn’t a value judgment. An electrons state isn’t less desirable than a protons’.
Disagree?
Search James for Anentropy and self-harmony.
Wouldn’t that distinction be the “philosophy” category rather than physics?
It seems to me that he used the general idea of objectively constructive or gainful as the “positive”. I guess there are times when that could be merely a value judgement.
In his The Communal Particle thread, he states:
That would match with the entropy and anti-entropy. The anentropy (he explains as being the stable state) would perhaps refer to the neutral? Neither gaining or losing, but still being the most valued state in many regards.
James had pointed out long ago that life is actually not a pursuit of growth, gaining, and spreading as has been promoted for a long time, but rather life is actually interested in maintaining. The effort to expand (anti-entropy) stems from the higher concern to merely ensure maintenance (anentropy). Sex is instilled as a means to surround and protect a body with compatible defense.
He explains that the WtP thing is actually just the anti-entropy beginning stage of seeking anentropy. And that thought complies with Marx, Lenin, Hegel, and most political theorists who I know anything about.
even in this maintaining there is active force, and that we call one kind ‘defensive’ and another ‘offensive’ is really beside the point. so preservation and maintenance are just another instance of dominating, only here we call it reactive rather than active. but to be clear it’s not entirely sensible to talk (simpliciter) of intentions to grow and expand and preserve when referring to nature, because these characteristics are only attributed to language using people for describing various behaviors. of course you could say ‘this system is pursuing stability’, but it wouldn’t mean the same thing as saying ‘joe is pursuing some stability in his life.’ only a being capable of knowing and planning and anticipating can be said to ‘pursue’… while, say, a plant might be observed to be in a stable, balanced state, but this isn’t because the plant pursued these things. but james isn’t the only one guilty of this gross pathetic fallacy. here’s another guy who did the same thing…
now all this does apply to human beings and how they can understand the fundamental dynamic underlying their pursuits… but it cannot apply to things that do not consciously and intentionally pursue anything. to do so would be metaphorical and not literal language.
the grey area is… how complex does a life form have to be in order to be accurately described in such a way. are we taking monomeric molecules, polymeric molecules, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, what? at what point does it make sense to talk of an organism as actively engaging in behavior that can be defined as ‘pursuit’? i’ll tell ya. when that organism shares a public language with other language users. if a mawfucka don’t speak your language, it makes no sense to try and understand his behavior as such.
in that sense i can’t conceive of a will to power pervading through all that exists, much less that these things might have a ‘will’.
philosophers luuuuv to do this, man. and really it’s something they can’t help. they bring to life the entire universe with these metaphors and absentmindedly think of it in this distorted, anthropomorphic way. bergson does this. holy shit does he do this, man. schopenhauer as much as nietzsche, too.
Around 2014 and onward.
I started elaborately talking to him in I believe 2010.
I was just pissed off, this site has been unfathomably rich in constructive dialogue. (Ive been here since 2006)
No, because James explained atoms and even protons, neutrons and electrons in terms of anentropy and self-harmony.
Exactly. There is nothing less objectively constructive and gainful about an electron than about a proton.
Well, given the laws of thermodynamics, maintaining stability is a positive thing, requiring concerted effort.
Thats kind of the mystery that makes western philosophy superior to eastern types - the acknowledgement that neutrality and balance is an active thing, not a passive property of the universe.
What he doesn’t deny is that gaining power is required to maintain anentropy. Thus that therefore anentropy is “about” gaining power just as gaining power serves anentropy.
No one said anything about becoming manic.
It is rather that the word “power” makes people afraid, whereas it is a very morally-neutral term in physics. (Im coming from a physics background) Power doesn’t mean “crushing others”, it mostly means things like having a heartbeat. (As you know heartbeat is electrically powered so to want to keep ones heart beating is will to power.)
I personally do not believe there is any specific goal to existence. Will to power is simply a phenomenon that one can observe in all behaviours. So is anentropy a state that is observable in all stable particles and beings. My intellectual humility prevents me from prescribing a universal goal to the whole of existence. I just observe that all goals are values, thus that all goal-orientedness is valuing and that all activity which has as its orientation the maintenance of the self (indirectly, through appropriating the values proper to survival) is self-valuing.
I do not agree with James that nature has any concerns. His teleology for nature goes too far for me.
I only see tendencies which survive (due to logically clarified reasons indicated above) and tendencies which don’t.
“Will to power” is a tendency which survives because it supports itself. I call that “self-valuing”.
That makes it a profoundly fundamental thing though, doesn’t it?
Haha - don’t let James hear this. He absolutely loathed Marx.
But again will to power isn’t a political concept but one of physics and ontology, which explicates into more complex and particular fields such as human behaviour. Just like RM:AO and Value Ontology and any serious philosophical model.
I am not finding any discussion between you and him. Were you using a different name then?
I thought he explained everything in terms of affectance and anentropy was merely the stable state of gaining and losing affectance (subtle influences) at the same rate. Anything stable would be “anentropic” including those particles. Or am I missing something (I am jumping around a lot)?
He defined one as being of more affectance than what is around it and the other as being of less. Guess which was which. Both were called “anentropic” particles.
Maintaining merely means that something is enduring through time. Whether that is positive or negative is a value judgement. If you like whatever it is, its maintenance is positive. If you dislike it, it’s negative that it persists.
Apparently James agreed with that, although he has some Taoist references in there. The Taoists were anything but passive.
But he called it “anentropic” only when it is gaining no more than it is losing, like a stable economy.
That one makes me think that James would definitely be a Trumpian.
And also:
Where did James say anything about existence having a goal? I’m not finding anything.
I don’t see any disagreement with that.
“No concerns”? You believe that people and animals just live and die in blissful harmony, void of concerns?
You might want to inform the Buddhists. They seem to be wasting a lot of time teaching that trick.
Yes but you seem to be attributing concern and casting teleology now. A will is a desire. At what point does the physical mechanism become the willful incentive?
He certainty had a serious distaste for socialism.
I’m not so sure that is true. The will to power mantra has been used throughout a great deal of revolutionary politics.
I never knew how much trouble people were going through to do all of the quoting. It’s kind of a pain in the butt.
Are you referring to his proposal to make US laws obligated to their statutory goals? I’ not finding anything else concerning James being a fanatic about the USC.
He really prophetically hit the mark on that one. They aren’t hiding it any more. Trump bumped their timeline.
And his SAM Coop is completely separate from the USC. He was understandably a bit fanatical about that constitution concept.
Lol I spent years discussing it with him in dozens of threads. If thats all unsearchable, forget it, its pointless.
He wasn’t prophetic, he was just not sedated. Neither am or was I ever sedated, I feel anyone could have seen this coming.
Trump made sure its not going to happen under your radar. In their insane response to Trumps election the totalitarians have revealed themselves to you and to about a billion other reasonably sentient humans.
Could be it was mostly in PMs actually, but definitely not just.
There be some in the beforethelight.forumotion links.
In short his view was that the Consitutions only flaw is that it doesn’t have a proper process for accepting and rejecting amendments. His whole deal here with me and mine at first was to try and create a hermetically rational consensus-building protocol, which he wanted to see realized somehow into a legislature of the future.
Power is “the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way”.
That’s Google.
One can think of Superman who has numerous super powers such as “the ability to fly” or Heracles who was able to hold the world on his shoulders.
WTP, short for Will to Power, is the idea that everything we do we do in order to attain as much power as possible.
This means that we’d rather live a life that is short but powerful rather than a life that is long but powerless.
This is different from what JSS thinks to be the case. Using Nietzsche’s naming convention, you can say that his position is WTMIJOT (short for Will to Maximum Integral Joy Over Time.)
JSS would rather live a life that is short and powerless but high in IJOT than a life that is long and powerful but low in IJOT.
I never saw the “Will to Power” thing having anything to do with how long someone lived although the greater the power, the better the chance of using it for longevity.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something but doesn’t IJOT require longevity?
And then he also defines “joy”:
IJOT seems to be an idea that forms what he considered the “supreme goal”, MIJOT.
So MIJOT must then require a maximum power to form eternal survival in a state of highest joy.
I am not seeing the “short and powerless” that you mention. He has very many other references concerning the idea. I hadn’t read many of them so I am glad you brought it up.
