James S Saint

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.

Do you remember about what time period that was?

Why would you think that I am the exception?

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…

theperspectivesofnietzsche. … nwill.html

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.

Solid reply obsrvr.

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.

Then could you provide a link to any of it?

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.

The difference is a very subtle one.

There is also the WTETMASBIFOM (will to eat this mushroom and Swiss burger in front of me).

Is it a universal will, Mr Frank?

That’s not fair, ANDY. I haven’t posted a Zappa song in at least a month, so stop sweatin me, haus.

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.

WTP and WTMIJOT (an ancronym I invented for the sake of convenience) are merely two different ways of valuing i.e. two different ways of ranking lives. They are two different formulas for calculating the value of any given life.

WTMIJOT is well defined and learning how to calculate the value of any given life is straightforward. You need not concern yourself with how JSS defines the word “joy”. We all know what happiness is. We know it’s a specific type of feeling and that’s enough. In order to calculate the value of any individual’s life, all you have to do is measure how happy they are at regular intervals. You could represent happiness on a scale from -100 to +100. Negative numbers would represent pain and positive would represent pleasure. At the end of their life, you’d take these numbers and sum them up, and the result would be IJOT – Integral of Joy Over Time – which would also be the value of their life.

The question you’re asking is: does IJOT require longevity?

Suppose you have a man who died at 40 but who experienced around 100 points of joy each year. The value of his life would be equal to 40 x 100 = 4,000. Compare that to a man who lived to be 100 but who experienced around 20 points of joy each year. The value of his life would be equal to 100 x 20 = 2,000. According to JSS, the man who died at 40 had a much better life than the man who lived to be 100. This shows that according to WTMIJOT not every life that is long is better than every life that is short. WTMIJOT does not prioritize longevity. An eternal life of hell is not better than a finite life of heaven.

On the other hand, JSS does think that a society consisting of individuals who are very good at maximizing their IJOT is much more durable than any other. But that’s a separate issue.

I believed but had to verify the thought that Nietsche’s WTP was primarily about social and political power rather than personal power - the will of the people to rise up and take over.

That form of WTP is what the current democratic or socialist deep state party in the US Congress is attempting to use to overthrow President Trump. It is largely associated with James’ PHT and hidden subtle affectance.

President Trump along with a few republicans are more about your WTMIJOT. And Trump is winning for that reason. WTMIJOT is about a functioning momentum and is more structured, goal oriented, and openly solid. WTMIJOT seems more associated with James’ signature statement - “Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony”. That is very precisely what Trump has been doing against the US Deep State, solidifying a foundation for long term national and even global security.

Recently I have realized some interesting associations between Trump, the globalists, and James. But that is another subject.

I guess that I can agree but I’m not comfortable with how you use the word “value”. It seems to me that value is something that a person assigns to something else in reference to their own goals rather than something they would assign to their own life. But I think that I know what you mean.

I wasn’t asking that question. I was stating that MIJOT must require it. In this case the “M” is important. In order to maximize the “integral” (or the sum of those measures you mentioned) the most time must be allowed, the greatest longevity.

If both person A and person B get 20 points every year but B lives longer than A, person B gained a higher MIJOT score (or “value to their life”).

And I agree that according to James, if person B was certain to get only negative scores for the rest of his life, his greater score would be acquired by dying sooner. I am going to have to see what he had to say about mercy killing.

And now I have to wonder if Abu Bakr was absolutely certain of a miserable future or merely suicidal.

Yes that does seem to be the case and gets back to Trump’s solidifying of the USA through a WTMIJOT or “Clarify … to Anentropic Harmony” strategy.

More everyday I’m getting that gut feeling that James knew far more about the deep state in America than meets the eye. He stated that Trump was going to win but that they will try to give it to Hillary - exacty what they are still trying to do.

Ok.

I accept that you’ve taken another form, James.

I love you, friend.

It was a gift and pleasure to have crossed paths [and perhaps walked alongside, for a time] with you, and I have deep gratitude for the compassion you showed myself and many others here.

You have influenced many in a beautiful way, and inspired positive change - living in accord with your principles.

You will always be part of me, and I will not forget you.

And until our paths cross again,

Thanks for all the joy and love, brother.

With all my heart,

Ben

Quote:

“James defined Affectance as:
) Subtle influence(s) {as used in Infant Psychology},ultra-minuscule, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses,
) Actualization of potential(s) to affect
) A region of varied and subtle changes
) An amount of subtle affects”

                                              <
                                        <<
                                   >
                                <
                   >




 >><

}>{<<<<<<<<<<}

Precognitive learning can be split into an either/or world , reduced subtly, so as to acquire proper translation.

It can work reversely, retroactively within the bound sets of natural, bonding deconstruction.

So it does makes ’ sense’ .As this process goes on, the diminutive 'affectance’does appear to actually send subtle communication , appearing as working a reverse, backward temporal flow.

It works like the emerging Piaget two way mirror:

In that experiment.a child was placed on a glass ledge of a balcony, totally invisible. The child below a certain age did not notice the depth beneath him, until a succedingly later stage of development. At that time, he fearfully retreated .

He actually reversed to focal plane from upside to downside.

I feel like I am becoming James (so I hope wherever he went was a good place) - but I am NOT James.

I thought I would store this post from another thread here just so I don’t lose it -