"Inside" Experience

Silhouette · December 5, 2019, 4:27pm

One can never explain a dogma is correct - for the very specific reasons that I’ve covered.
Yet operating without a dogma is always either baseless or circular, as I’ve covered, and the only way to reconcile this with the fact that some knowledge is better than others is to have a founding dogma, as I’ve covered.

In this way, we know a dogma exists by trying to explain around it or without it. This doesn’t mean we’ve explained the dogma, because the dogma necessarily has to be void of explanation. If it wasn’t void, it would be part of the explanation and not the inevitable dogma that all knowledge must necessarily regress back towards. You cannot require then that the dogma must be explainable by its implications, because this inverts the dogma to discrete experiences that premise Continuous Experience: committing the fallacy of reverse causation.

Explaining presupposes a dissection, so cannot be a fundmental: explanation can only exist after the existence of a fundamental to ground it. This is why Epistemology must follow Ontology, because knowledge must first of all exist before it can develop. Continuous unity therefore has to be the nature of a fundamental axiom.

It’s not an arbitrary decision of mine that experience is this axiom - as I’ve covered. It’s the only possible conclusion. And due to the nature of inevitable dogma, it defies terms and implications itself. And only due to the axiomatic imposition of an unaccountable dogma can you proceed to divide it up into concepts and conceptual models.

What does “all” abstract from? There’s nothing greater than “all” from which to abstract “all” or it wouldn’t be “all”. The best you can do is describe “all” tautologously, which is to say “meaninglessly” - simply rephrasing in terms of synonyms - or you can describe it as the sum of its constituent parts: in terms of discrete experiences and losing out on its gestalt. As such, “Continuous Experience” by itself doesn’t tell us anything meaningful - it is tautology to meaninglessly rephrase it in terms of synonyms. The words “continuous” and “experience” only function as the remainders of all possible equations that we can construct from discrete experiences - the words may as well be “unabstractable/undefinable existence” or “all”. Concretely, “all existence” directly and immediately confronts us as experience, which is unbroken such that nothing can be said about it. But is saying that nothing can be said about it through the word “continuous” really saying anything about it? And is using the concrete term of “experience” saying it’s an abstraction? Words are circularly defined terms of discrete experiences, so can never suffice to encompass what they aren’t, but “Continuous Experience” is just about the best you can do given the necessity of words to communicate meaningful knowledge. It’s a problem even to give “Continuous Experience” a name at all, but to do so exactly fits the problem shaped hole left by dealing solely in discrete experiences - as its inevitable remainder. It doesn’t need a name, as it’s immediately inevitable with or without having a dissected discrete term to describe. The point is you get to “that which Continuous Experience refers” from either and any direction inevitably.

So your mention of classical philosophy where no one premise can stand alone is false. Philosophy since then, as I covered with mention of Russell, the Zermelo and Fraenkel guys who resolved his paradox, and Godel who poked a hole even in the ZF resolution, has advanced beyond classical philosophy. We already knew about circular reasoning before then (no premise standing alone requires infinite premises - “turtles all the way down” - or circular premises that all try to stand on each other and thereby stand on nothing as a whole). You have to advance on from classical philosophy once you realise its flaws. We already knew tautologies are meaningless and logic cannot exist without premises etc., but those guys formalised this whether they intended to do so or not. I’m simply coining the result as “Experientialism”.

Your 3 premises of valuator logic are fine as just another way to have pre-dissected Continuous Experience into discrete experiences and connect them back together into a conceptual model. Let it do battle with other conceptual models of discrete experiences. I’m staying back a step further to address a fundamental problem of Epistemology that it cannot fundamentally be either baseless or circular, with each term relying on a previous premise either indefinitely along a line or indefinitely around a circle, and at the same time have a fundamental starting point. You need an axiom or whatever you say is either linearly or circularly baseless.

Aegean · December 5, 2019, 5:27pm

That’s a declaration.

Desiring, anting, willing…and valuing, only apply to life.
To presume that valuing, like willing, is a universal truth, applicable to the non-living, would have to also presume that because you are aware that all existence is aware.
That’s a superstition.

An ashtray has a utility that gives it value to the one that designed it.
If it were made from stone then the stone would acquire value to the designer, because of the need/desire ti was made to satisfy - tis utility.
A stone, not even a gold nugget, has an intrinsic value…unless it is given one by a living organism wanting to build a house with it, or a dam, or wanting to display his quality, his rarity.

The fact that organisms evaluate existence using themselves as a standard, or they value what is part of themselves, is nothing new.
The Christians mystified the term ‘love’ just as you are attempting to do with the term ‘value’…and for the same reasons.

What you fail to do is understand the underlying cause of willing, desiring, and valuing. You stop at the subjective experience…like cogito ergo sum…what is the ‘I’. Valuing, judging, willing is its expression not its essence. It is what differentiate it from other life forms and form the non-living.
It cannot be valuing itself, for this would be circular.
Why and how do lifeforms evaluate existence?
Yes, using themselves as a standard, but what is the underlying cause of this need to evaluate and to will, and to want and to desire?

statiktech · December 5, 2019, 5:45pm

Isn’t this just kind of a round-a-bout way of saying that by valuing we demonstrate ourselves as valuers? Descartes covered this, so why the emphasis on valuation over thought?

Pedro - What do you mean by “subjective experience”? The reverse of objective object? Identity and difference would seem to be experiential concepts.

Ecmandu · December 5, 2019, 5:53pm

Proofs in philosophy require something both immediate and and the loophole of being nebulous and unverifiable.

You can take whatever side you want, although it’s considered disingenuous to argue the nebulous and unverifiable side… a side many posters here use.

What is the immediate part? Self evidential!

It is self evidential that nobody wants their consent violated. Consent is self evidentiary. There is no further regress here. Someone who claims they want their consent violated, would be violated by never having their consent violated. Which still solves (even in the opposite case) that nobody wants their consent violated. It’s not only self evidentiary, it’s a law that non-consent violation is what works for everyone in the ideal.

Since silhouette pointed this out, many other posters here have used it as well, that the phrase “nobody wants their consent violated” solves as a meaningless tautology: “people don’t want what people don’t want” But obviously here, logic is in it’s infancy, because when uttering it’s a meaningless tautology and then gets hit on the foot with a hammer, it’s now the most important thing to them for this phrase to be understood as NOT meaningless. EVERYONE knows exactly what the phrase, “nobody wants their consent violated” means, and it’s disingenuous to call it a meaningless tautology, it is NOT disingenuous to observe that tautologies are not always meaningless, and that logical operators haven’t advanced that far for certain circular (self evident) phrases.

It’s almost like seeing parrots type to each other “circular bad” “tautology bad”… I know they teach that in school, but this is the real world here.

I personally would really like it if people stopped parroting academia and look at these types of exceptions. “A banana is a banana” is an identity statement, all identity statements are tautologies… HOWEVER, there are many meaningful contexts where identity is not a meaningless way to teach about identity in terms of the existence we all share here.

Aegean · December 5, 2019, 8:05pm

If philosophy is about justifying word-games, then creativity has to be liberated from realism.
Declaring something and claiming ti is brilliant, is a start. It shows a desire, a need…a pathos.
But even a moron can do that.
How will we differentiate the true insight from the mystical manipulation of desire?
Should we use the oracles of Delphi as our muse?
Should we seek inspiration in the Old and New Testament, and its verbal seductions?
Shall we replace ‘love’ with ‘value’ or ‘power’, and declare it something profoundly new?

Let’s do all of that…and more.
Because, I am hungry for the taste of need that has defensively inflated its ego to a theoretical bubble, just begging to be burst.

Aegean · December 5, 2019, 8:06pm

Need is the most honest expression of self. Desire must hide in pretence.
I see plenty of that on this forum.
My friend was right.

Pedro_I_Rengel · December 5, 2019, 9:47pm

"How will we differentiate the true insight from the mystical manipulation of desire?
Should we use the oracles of Delphi as our muse?
Should we seek inspiration in the Old and New Testament, and its verbal seductions? "

Well, you know, that’s the entire point of philosophy. Not relying on anything outside one’s own capacity to judge.

Aegean · December 5, 2019, 11:04pm

Look into yourself. before valuing and willing…what is there?
What sparks willing and valuing and desiring and needing?

What is the pattern?
What does the ‘ing’ imply?
Value…ing….will…ing…desire…ing….want…ing….
What does a verb imply?
Before willing, valuing, desiring, wanting,…these are but expressions of a kind of this…
I’m not going to tell you.

Fixed_Cross · December 5, 2019, 11:05pm

Aegean - welcome.

Philosophy begins with minimizing the sort of errors you have made into a habit, no fault of your own most likely - you have been taught by inadequates.

Your beginners approach to written theory shows that valuing is precisely the unconscious part of you - your consciousness is a mere kite in the wind of your valuing;

you already know what you want to be reading before you begin, and only become conscious of those things your valuing lets through into your mind.

Sounds tricky, doesn’t it? It is. Philosophy requires that you shut off a lot of automatisms - of which you aren’t even aware you have them turned on!

So my first instruction to you, if you wish to be my pupil, is : try to finish reading a text (anything - it can be your salt-shakers ingredients label, which should be rather short, or a news-article or a page from a childrens book) and suspending your judgment of what the text means until you have read it completely.

Maybe you can even manage to double down and read it twice, before giving yourself the chance to formulate your interpretation of it.

Seeing as where you stand now, this exercise will be plenty difficult, so take your time.

When you have become acquainted with the haste of your own mind, you can begin to discipline this mind.
If you get as far as that you may begin to approach simple philosophy, like Plato, perhaps even Aristotle. We call these “deductive philosophers”.
We find ourselves in a more advanced age, but still, these ancient men were pretty smart even by comparison to the moderners who have taught you how to think!

Sound like a plan?

Let me quickly address your mistakes.

Of an observation.
Im starting with pure empiricism.

Ah! But I only said that I experience valuing, etc.

You’re running ahead - Im nowhere near close to explaining how I see valuing to apply to all being. Ive only observed, again purely by empiricism, that there is valuing, because I am witness to it by experience.

My experience is of willing (valuing), etc.

And yet, did you know that it has never been formalized into a logical method?

Here, you are simply using your imagination too much.

I will repeat what I made you aware of earlier:

Your beginners approach to written theory shows that valuing is precisely the unconscious part of you - your consciousness is a mere kite in the wind of your valuing;

you already know what you want to be reading before you begin, and only become conscious of those things your valuing lets through into your mind.

Yes, valuing it its own logical cause. It has no physical cause, it is physical cause to all else.

I know the following is a very taxing text, but the whole subject is taxing! Feel free to try and see how far you get in reading this. You can keep your prejudices switched on for now, as there is no way you are ready to read as much without the salt-shaker training.

[tab]

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.

[/tab]

The conscious valuing (selective response, as Ive explained) is merely an extensive form of non conscious selective response.

What is the cause?
Only the fact that nothing stands in its way.

Do you notice what Ive done here?
Why being and no rather nothing? Because nothing stands in its way.

Do you see?
That is how philosophy can, when diligently practiced, show the superstitions underneath our commonly accepted words!

Aegean · December 5, 2019, 11:09pm

Your master taught you about on type of this…valuing. and he flatter and promised you great things, if only you remained loyal to this one thing.
But a master that wants to remain a master is not one you should follow.
A master, like a father, liberates you from…him, first and foremost. His insights are applicable without his presence, like a good father teaches gis son to be free from his guidance.
any ideology, n matte how pleasing and sempower9ng it feels, that does not offer independence, is a religion…an Abrahamic nihilistic ideology.
A philosophy must be independent form the one that exposed you to it.

Pedro_I_Rengel · December 5, 2019, 11:16pm

“A master, like a father, liberates you from…him, first and foremost. His insights are applicable without his presence, like a good father teaches gis son to be free from his guidance.
any ideology, n matte how pleasing and sempower9ng it feels, that does not offer independence, is a religion…”

Now this is true.

“A philosophy must be independent form the one that exposed you to it.”

However, there is no “a philosophy.” Ehem, there is “philosophy.” Embarrassing as that is to have to say.

Pedro_I_Rengel · December 5, 2019, 11:18pm

“any ideology, n matte how pleasing and sempower9ng it feels,”

Except this part. This part doesn’t make a lot of sense. Also ideology doesn’t offer anything. It is not a thing. That can offer.

Fixed_Cross · December 5, 2019, 11:26pm

“A philosophy must be independent form the one that exposed you to it.”

ought implies can.
-Kant

Fixed_Cross · December 5, 2019, 11:51pm

Can this philosophy be seen separate of me?
Has any philosophy ever been separate of the one who brought it?
N says no, there are no philosophies, only philosophers.

Ideology is what reads this philosophy as an ideology - ideology serves to unthinkingly dismiss. Value ontology dismisses only by reasoning through to the bitter end of non existence, if indeed the case deserves dismissal. Therefore, it is very taxing and why is that valuable? Maybe it is not. Maybe it is merely a woman who can be dismissed. Or maybe it is too valuable to pick up, implying it was available; truth, a woman before whom most men are shy because they cant dance.

This philosophy is the philosophy of power, i.e. will to power sufficient to attain independent ontic status, being. That means that this philosophy is only value-able for people who value the style in which it is presented.

This is what follows from Nietzsche.

What we are overcoming is the notion of personal liberty; what we require to combat the death-forces of technology and liberalism is an order of rank.

Now I may not be worthy as a person of being anyones Master, but my style is perhaps worthy of commanding. Thankfully it is not the only one that is - value ontology itself precludes a monolithic ontos. We are legion, as they say. But we’ve not yet come to know ourselves.

Fixed_Cross · December 6, 2019, 12:04am

Aegean, you speak from experience and not from presumption.

This is all quite true. But to liberate from what?
I may just liberate you from the idea that philosophy is some kind of clean, objective already-there object to polish and behold. It is more like birth, there is a lot of screaming and yelling, confusion and uncertainty about the outcome but not about the general principle we’re dealing with.

All proper religion, not just Abrahamic religion, is empowering. No one would put faith in a god who doesn’t open doors. All people subscribing to a religion but not feeling empowered are atheists living in shame and fear.

Philosophy on the other hand is simply revealing.
Where you are powerful, revelation feels good. Where you are not, not so much.
Men are mostly, myself included, powerful in some regards and weak in others; the consequences of both are magnified.

Fixed_Cross · December 6, 2019, 12:13am

Presume there is no point.

I do not believe in pre-establishing points and then reasoning toward them.

I am merely setting out to see, if I observe valuing, where I arrive.

My philosophy has made me interested in valuing as a mechanism.

Aegean · December 6, 2019, 12:50am

World vomit can be self-satisfying.

Fixed_Cross · December 6, 2019, 12:54am

youtube.com/watch?v=T9P1KxVrrWM

Aegean · December 6, 2019, 1:05am

How do you know that? Have you read my star chart?

I love the emotional choice of words. I’m sure it has some kind of effect on the minds you seek to exploit…but it has zero effect on me. I am outis.
I know what words are and why you choose those and not others. I know …you.
I was balling and crying and screaming as I posted this. Emotion is your craft and your demise.

True…but the specifics of each religion…or should I more accurately say, ‘spirituality’, exposes the minds that follow it.
Are ou a wannabe shaman?

And what has VO revealed, other than the already established? Life is attracted to elements that are part of itself. Brilliant.
Do you know how…no. you simply stay on the valuing part.
What is new, my friend. You just altered the terminology.
What is new and inspiring in VO?
A modernized Christianity. No…post-modern Judaism, with a bit of Spinoza.

[quote]
Where you are powerful, revelation feels good. Where you are not, not so much.
Men are mostly, myself included, powerful in some regards and weak in others; the consequences of both are magnified.]So humble you’ve suddenly become 160+ IQ.
i never forget…not like these imbeciles.
I recall…because it reveals patterns.
A friendly gesture today, must be juxtaposed to a slap in the past.
Oh, how out of your milieu you are.
Shall we cRap?
Perhaps tell a buddy what a brillant lyricist he is…to keep him around.
Huh?
Let me trace a rune on your arse, dear boy.
It’s magic…I promise.

Fixed_Cross · December 6, 2019, 1:26am

What are you doing now… it is still honest to a degree but off topic.
Im not interested in your personal affections, I have none for you, which is why I banned you from BTL. You manage to spread an actual bad odour through the internet.

So, can we get back to topic?

Ontology is not about life.

We knew life values.

We didn’t know atoms value.

Valuing equates to love only in an infinitesimal percentage of cases.
Your everlasting romance with idiocy prevents you from following even the first steps I keep repeating.

Why do you think you are here?
Did I invite you ?
Would I ever even address you even in your own home, after you had invited me?
Your arguments are like turds, you shit them out and wonder why no one wants to pick them up.

You pick up my arguments with the same filthy hands which pick up your own to throw it at people who won’t crouch down below you, like the Joker who I presume called you, his eternal father, to help him out because I had bullied him. I hope for your sake that thats the reason and that you didn’t come in here on your own initiative to wallow in your lukewarm shit, because then you are truly lost. Ive never shown you respect. Don’t pretend like you’re here because you respect yourself, or philosophy, you only respect the Joker, I think, because he has a talent you like to have. But you of course make sure he doesn’t capitalize on it. Dumb American basterds.