Finally

“That philosophy died yesterday, since Hegel or Marx, Nietzsche, or Heidegger—and philosophy should still wander toward the meaning of its death—or that it has always lived knowing itself to be dying… that philosophy died one day, within history, or that it has always fed on its own agony, on the violent way it opens history by opposing itself to nonphilosophy, which is its past and its concern, its death and wellspring; that beyond the death, or dying nature, of philosophy, perhaps even because of it, thought still has a future, or even, as is said today, is still entirely to come because of what philosophy has held in store; or, more strangely still, that the future itself has a future—all these are unanswerable questions. By right of birth, and for one time at least, these are problems put to philosophy as problems philosophy cannot resolve, and therefore must rely on promethean75 to be answered.” - derrida

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194699&p=2718282#p2718282

Is a cruelty. On the weak, the unworthy. A selecting mechanism.

Hahaha. What could possibly be tougher than philosophy?

For all his excitingness, Nietzsche is technical at heart, German. Nietzsche was my stepping stone, for lack of a better word - the only man who ever wrote anything down who offered me a challenge, a nut to crack. Value Ontology is what Nietzsche worked to enable. Indeed it had slipped my mind in all our reminiscent playfulness that your approach has long been to look away from my true work, from my power, and imagine you could “liberate” me. I went along with that because, I suppose, I could use a break. Being what I am, I never put down the hammer without taking up some other instrument. Music has always come natural to me, but it is, like everything besides philosophy, too easy.

Once, you made attempts to prove yourself as a thinking man.

Pedro Engel said,

"Blegh. Enough.

I’ll just say, historical dialectics is about as complex a philosophical notion as hitting a rock with a stick. “Ooooo, it’s so complex!” No it’s fucking not. The reason it’s such an effective weapon is its retarded simplicity."

Is it so, really?

After all , immaterial dialectics have been around quite a while and the fact that it did not go down without a whimper, is proof positive, that so much blood, sweat , and tears it took, to transvalue it into substantial material.

Does this kill political philosophy and jurisprudence?

Sure, -‘real’-, down to earth romantic revival is an abject notion, which, a rotted out phenomenology, sent a message of fait accompli, but for real,
Such appearent shift, did not reduce the eidectic along with the phenomenal apprehension.
World war two, then, from an armchair, could be represented to young history students, as merely a test of conflicting ideologies.
Zizek, has been reincarnated by Trump, and he really has not read history, to ascertain that he will not have to repeat it!
And that such be missed in the twilight years of rationality can be illustrated by the persistence of racial and other kinds of de-facto oppressor/ sion of dejure states of political affairs.

One can argue of and for change toward betterment for all, but arguments cease to be effected when social reality does not support the change.

And, vice versa.

How are you going to toughen anyone up by avoiding the toughest work before you?

VO expresses the utmost hardness of Nietzsche’s demands by actually making them demands. I don’t “inspire”, I don’t give a “dangerous phrase” which can be taken by all kind off lackadaisical poets to mean anything they like. The logic Ive hammered out of Nietzsche’s marble is inhospitable to those who insist on standing aside from themselves, like our good friend above here, for whose sake Ive transformed you into an angel simply by addressing you forcefully. How easy it is for a hard man to make angels.

But you are no angel, Pedro I. Rengel. You once had hardness in you, and I will go back to addressing you in the natural assumption that hardness endures. Im done playing games, Im done trying to seduce the weak, the pointless, the superfluous to strength. Im done trying to make marble out of pudding, Im done trying to prepare a heap of coal for what will always remain the privilege of the diamond.

I feel like I just read the transcript to a Shakespeare play.

What you need is a good job, Jake. Give you something productive to do and make you feel better about yourself. All this high-falutin philosophy talk is nauseatingly overdramatic and terribly out of character.

Shit, maybe I could get you a job with United Fruit. I got a buddy with United Fruit. Get you started. Start with strawberries, you might work your way up to these goddamn bananas!

When, boy? When…are you going to get your act together?

Well hate to be a spoiler or spec ulatus
Interruptus, but this website is supposed to be ILP {I love philosophy) and not the joys of fruit pickin’ for pete’'s sake.

But honestly, there is merit (some) in your detractions.

.

Pete (kropotkin) works in produce and he’s an unstoppable philosophical machine. Arentcha, Pete.

The double play can also be sliced , so it really devoid of argument

But I can understand whwre you-'re coming from.

I just felt I should say that for Pete’s sake.

Well said, I do declare.

I never felt about Nietzsche as a nut to crack. He only ever pointed out to me.

VO I did see as a nut to crack. And delicious it was. Plus it was a good way to try to reach to Capable’s philosophic toes. What a goddamn machine. If the world got wind of a single of his whispers. Yeesh. That’s ripped straight from the soil. I knew I couldn’t address him straight at where he worked, but, through you, through VO, maybe we could somewhat converse. Like a tectonic intellect sitting at a park with a child, having genuine fun. And by God it did save my life to be able to say something above BANANA!!! with another human being.

Forgive me if my reaction to you, the one who gave us a home, to me, to Capable, was to try to liberate you from things that, listen, no human sees all of what another human sees, and well there’s no shame in that. And making music is goddamn fun, and maybe you could use some notgiveafuckness. To remember. What selfishness truly means, what it’s for.

Maybe it was a lowly miser trying to teach a Great Man something, I don’t discount it. But hey, I gotta go with what my heart tells me. It’s an offering, a gift, if you want it cool, if not then there is no contract broken.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YruFQVExmb0[/youtube]

Reverence, evil good brother. For philosophy above politics, for the good place that Capable and I built… Reverence for your own. That’s all this was about. Without it, the world is bleak, empty, run by maggots and marxists.

All that is not an expanative demonstration of “world” as unfolding the inner sensitivities of perspectival agon, which are comprehended to us not in speculation or thought, but as being, namely, as wanting and desiring and aiming and anticipating, and all these apprehensive elemental experiences, which we call valuing when we are deliberately neutralizing our own valuing of that valuing when we are being ‘objective’ which simply means dispassionate and our for reliable results, when we set some rigorous standards for ourselves (it is still subjective but takes itself seriously as the error that must be understood as itself a being, for it to relate to being, let alone correct itself by it to its qualities and measure) – all that is weakness.

DP

Advice for all politicians - don’t show - tell. Tell how, tell why, but never when. When is not in your hands, why entirely is and how to an extent, and the very fact of opposition offers the chance of gaining honour, which is what remains in mens minds and hearts effortlessly, is what showcases ‘integrity’ from the skies into the cave and makes it known to the … them, they, it, “us” - the lesser. All who lack integrity.

God is a concept, but it was always considered abstract. Non-empirical. But how in the hell could god be anything other than the most empirical facts of life?
How in Hell indeed.

Christ is the transfiguration of the spirit and in as far as he went we are in his debt. But what remains is the descent of man into matter voluntarily. Nietzsche announced it, going down and will to power - but now, we are in the valley, where Nietzsche is true but no instrument - and we must go up. Ascend, not look down on man and laugh, and congregate with truth on mountaintops and distant shores, but ascend as truth.

These “we” are far and few, willing and aware, or maybe we are many! Who knows? Only on the rise does the rising-lording which is becoming know itself and thereby births itself as a being. Knowledge is power because knowledge is being - that which is not primarily discernible as flux. Illusion or Maya? No, the machinery of the universe. So in this machinery rises the figurehead, the mediator between power-as-such and want of power - this mediator is the will to power. The image, on account of which being comes out of its its hiding.

‘agon’, sure. before all else anything existing must first perservere and hold its mass together. this is anthropomorphic language but it must be used to get this point. these not-yet-biological physical entities are not ‘valuing’ when holding together their mass. this is simply an expression of the natural forces at work. they are not what they are because of ‘valuing’, because being all encompassing, there is nothing that is not valuable, nothing that ‘could have been better than it was’, nothing that is ‘more important’ than something else, and therefore the term ‘value’, here, is meaningless.

once these entities arrange into biological and organic sentient beings, the physical and chemical forces are formed into more complex orders which require lower orders of arrangement (atomic, sub-atomic) to maintain their relative statis, in order to function. but here it is still ‘war’, still struggle; being more complex, there is an increase is vulnerability… more can go wrong… but there is still no valuing going on despite the increased possibility of system failure.

‘value’ simply does not exist outside of its use as a concept to describe the behavior of a language-sharing animal. without all these components in place, value won’t exist. what it means won’t exist.

but being that ‘agon’ is that fundamental beginning state of any unity in system… especially the biological… think of the effort a cell must make to maintain its cellular wall barrier from external bodies… it must ultimately give way to a contract between individual warring entities that find themselves working together to compose some greater whole. this, at a meta-biological level is the meaning of ‘objective’. there is no ‘neutralization’ of the ‘objective’, as you put it. in fact, these higher orders or organization give structure to the objective, which is nothing more than information exchange… information about physical processes that change at a slow enough rate to still be predicted, or rather, anticipated. again, anthropomorphic language here, but necessary. it’s the only way to describe these processes as if they were valuing… but still they are not. not yet. antibodies are not produced by the cell because it senses danger and values its life… but because a chemical trigger automatically begins the production of such. strange that it works this way, and mysterious, but this isn’t a discussion about intelligent design or irreducible complexity.

at the level of complexity that brings about intelligent creatures such as ourselves, there is a tremendous degree of ‘objectivity’ because the amount of information and exchange is much greater than that at the lower levels of complexity and order. the fact that a organism this advanced can hold itself together (at a cellular level), and be consciously aware of its environment which is relatively ‘stable’ enough to be repetitious and predicted, means the change of information frequency is incredibly slow. when this is slow enough, you get what might as well be called objective conditions. these are the circumstances that are what they are regardless of how the organism interprets its environment. this information/feedback is present and is being processed without the slightest recourse to ‘subjective’ experience.

and what we highly complex creatures call ‘value’ is a feature that’s existence comes so later on in this hierarchy of innumerable processes that it might as well be called epiphenomenal… and yet here you are declaring it’s the genesis of all being. you couldn’t be more wrong, but i understand why making this error in reasoning is so easily done.

if the final verdict is, you think you’re on to something, or think you’ve come up with a unique philosophy (VO) never before conceived (or thoroughly dealt with already)… i say go for it. all that matters is that you believe you understand something meaningful and profound, and i’m not being sarcastic when i say this.

nietzsche’s question ‘why truth… why not lies’ is answered, and has been answered clearly in practice for thousands of years. you don’t need the truth. philosophy, in its business for ‘truth’, puts nothing in danger when its work is nonsense. it is both the hyper-activity of mind/language and a useless vestigial organ at the same time. what it can ‘know’ is already claimed by science, and what it can not belongs in poetry. the rest is language games and a few truisms in the structure of the logic of our grammar.

I guess the point is,

You wouldn’t know about grams or logic or mass or atoms or information or natural forces etc,

If you didn’t value them.

So is it that without those things value wouldn’t exist, or exactly the opposite?

Mais la. Here I’ve gone and dialecticized both Nietzche AND the Fixed Cross.

" philosophy, in its business for ‘truth’, puts nothing in danger when its work is nonsense."

Agred. Marxism is largely thrill-seeking.

“This is boring. Let’s go fuck things up.”

And schop was like "boring?

This is why I’m depressed."