No, simpleton they are what?
What does valuing , needing, willing have in common?
Are ou sure…'cause you’ve stated that you are a genius.
Can you think of another way two forces can merge that does not involve a word insinuating a motive?
How does one note harmonize with another?
So, you claim intent is present in non-living unities, like an atom?
I claim that it is more sensible to reduce ourselves to the atom than the other way around.
Does that sentence make sense to you?
I know you’ve gotten away with shit like this, but does it make sense to you…honestly?
Instead of shutting the fuck up when you do not know, you must pretend that you do know with nonspecial sentences like that.
So, Nietzsche, for you, is the epitome the top, the god?
Can you tell me what was his contribution to philosophy, from where you “took over” my idiot8ic self-declared genius?
What did you take over from?
Moron, that strategy does not work on me. Nonsense is nascence…and you pretending it makes sense doews not make it so.
Why ‘value’ imbecile?
Why not ‘love’? To pretend you invented something new?
Really?
You sound like a school girl who just got fucked under the bleachers by the school jock.
I feel like I’m god…no, a butterfly…no…Schopenhauer’s cousin.
Do you have testicles?
You lick them…and suck Nietzsche’s dead cock…but do YOU have testicles?
But VO covers everything…it is so vague and nonsensical that it can encompass everything.
Why did Freud come up with the Oedipus Complex?
To a human, moron.
humans measure it.
Do they have value in and of themselves?
Tell me its energy.
Then why did you call it 'value, hypocrite…why not energy?
I ask again 160+IQ…what is common between your simplistic value, and will, and desire a nd want, and need?
Energy was a hint, you imbecile.
So value applies as a measurement, huh moron?
a measurement of what?
You stopped there, like a pathetic Jew.
Above I almost tell you.
Stick with astrology moron…you ain’t good at psychology.
Maybe Jupiter entering mars will give you a hint.
Ha!!!
When you go off the prose and poetics your true intelligence shines.
Tell me…what am I wearing…hint…nothing.
Ha!!!
You know, I’ve come across superstitious old-wives…but a theoretical male, like you?
Never.
Most astrologers I’ve met had a bit of a kink in their wrist….fags.
Someone told me you once ‘fucked a man’…or did he do you and you inverted the memory?
No shame…taking it up the arse is…in, these days,.
it is related to Freud’s Oedipus Complex theory. How he tried to convince us all that we wanted to fuck uor mothers…did you?
Sounds like the theory of natural selection of natural selection I brought up before. Experience responds to itself previous to consciousness, the unconscious experience embedded in psyche or “chaotic mental” is directly relative to that experience of which responds to itself. It is the archaic, primordial makings of all that is currently. The fabric of consciousness and reality.
The first beginning of natural selection is to do with the unconscious facets of reality, energy and matter in different forms/variables responding to each other, inevitably leading into the subconscious aspects, which is life, single cell and animalistic and other instinctual life, which then grew complex via experience and inverted, which is what consciousness is, now we have all three and the power of consciousness is to become aware of what is not directly experienced consciously but buried in psyche by the unconscious experiencing were attached to and come from, thus, there is no imagination due to this, only reality not confined to the present moment quite yet. Past or future tense.
When the subconscious aspects of reality began, so did the easily observable 2nd form of natural selection, which has to do with life, trial and error and survival of the fittest. Perhaps not always the fittest, but the more complex. Which Darwin discovered this 2nd natural selection regarding life, due to its being blatantly there.
Note that I did not so much propose a model though as Im making an observation using elementary logic to ground Silhouette’s argument in empiricism - erm, experience. Experience must relate to itself to exist.
Silhouette denies the existence of discrete causes (even using discrete causes to deny them), so it is not fertile to engage him in that direction, but I figured a thinker should at least be able to recognize that experience, when we wish to envision it as a continuum, must be responding to itself - as responsiveness is what it is.
What is experience besides responsiveness?
Natural selection is a logic only established after the fact - it simply observes that what has been selected has been selected.
No notion of life is required for this - Atoms too are product of natural selection.
Im no sure it is inevitable, other than that indeed it happened - why do you say that?
In order to make the subconscious conscious, we must “identify it as experience”.
Check this out, this is, if I say so myself, a very good text I wrote early on after having developed VO. beforethelight.forumotion.com/t3 … experience
This text too has, I believe, been “stolen” and used by academics. Except it isn’t theft, I put it out there for free because to be stolen from as a thinker is the greatest reward.
Better than being paid to say some trivial shit with no consequences.
Listen though “survival of the fittest” is a circular term which doesn’t have is origin with Darwin, but with his readers. “Survival of the fittest to survive”.
Certainly complexity in itself is rarely an asset - look at the Neanderthal who had a much more complex cognitive process who gave way to Homo sapiens - in general, look at the basic human suff that pervades in the world - very simplistic hearts and minds, simple value structures, and it really takes formidable strength in complexity to get anywhere in this world; also, people with complex minds tend to not procreate as easily as people with very basic minds. Except where the complex mind has a particular sharpness about it, a way to use the complexity to outwit or outmatch the others.
This is the source of your self-aggrandizing psychosis.
This is why you chose to use ‘value’ when energy sufficed…to connect ti to Nietzsche. Because you covet his influence…the effect he had on you. You want to have that effect.
This is why you will fail. This level of derangement can go nowhere.
Know Thyself, inflated into a balloon, just begging to be popped.
I bet you see sings of your self-importance every day, and that you’ve had mystical experiences that prove, to you, that you are ‘gifted’, anointed by fate.
Someone who came to change the world…for the better.
A complex of Messiah.
You simply declare, imbecile.
You state, and then use poetics to imply depth.
You failed…over and over. You live in your head.
Convincing, seducing, manipulating, a few morons you found on-line is no great feat.
VO is void of content. It is a word-ploy, pretending to be more than it is.
Energy sufficed, but you had to connect it to Nietzsche, and gain some of his ‘magic’.
This weakness is what makes you fail…despite what you tell yourself.
I don’t deny the existence of discrete causes - I deny their existence at a fundamental level, but not their subsequent possible existence. Discrete causes are contingent, but not necessary. Is that clearer? All meaning in everything I say is in terms of discrete experiences, because it is in terms of knowledge, words, dissected experience into concepts and reconnected via conceptual models - of course discrete causes are involved.
The point is whether I approach it from this point or from the point of direct observation, Continuous Experience is fundamental. At that level, there are no discrete causes. At the level of discrete experience there are discrete causes.
This whole “responsiveness” thing just sounds like it’s either premised on dissected experience, for some thing to be responsive to something else, or it’s tautologically meaningless to say that it’s responsive to itself.
You mean the latter, I assume, but whatever way you mean it - it’s just another example of what I’m repeatedly pointing out about Epistemology: unless you have an unavoidable axiom it’s all circular/tautological/baseless.
My point remains, as it ever was, that “Continuous Experience” is a discrete notion, as is “Experience”.
There is nothing continuous or unbroken about it.
The same goes for your argument. It is built on discrete terms.
Im a lot more skeptical than you are, less eager to arrive at a conclusion - I would never trust such roads as youve taken.
How is it tautologically meaningless?
Do you mean its obviously true?
I agree that it is true, and not that this truth is meaningless, especially since you are claiming that it is not true.
That means all you say here is circular, tautological, baseless - since you didn’t use any axiom to arrive at your belief, but merely this belief itself. It is as circular as can be.
A word does not equal what it is meant to refer to. Thus: abstraction always precedes argument.
You are making an honorable mistake similar to the presumption behind the work of the earlier Wittgenstein.
The mistake is to derive “Continuous” from your own private notion of “Experience” and then treat it as if you started out with it.
The caveat with experientialism is that it allows its believer to ignore whatever he likes to ignore and convince himself “what I don’t experience doesn’t exist”.
With VO it is the other way around more or less -the more truth you ignore, the less you exist. And thats how it really is.
“A cat is a cat”. What does this statement teach you? What is a cat now that you didn’t know before? Is anything changed about cats or your knowledge of cats as a result of this statement?
It’s obviously true that a cat is a cat, but no knowledge comes from it. No progression has been made, nothing has been advanced or developed.
The same goes for “a cat is itself”.
“A cat is to itself” adds the term “to”, which implicitly imposes direction e.g. “from A to B”.
But what is A “from” such that something can thus arrive “to” B? Well in this case, it’s the “from” a cat “to” a cat (the same cat). But what direction has the cat or anything else “gone” from itself to itself? What direction is “from A to A”?
No direction? Perhaps away from the cat (implying the existence of “not cat”) and then back to the cat? Here “to” implicitly imposes both self and other.
“A cat is responsive to itself” adds the verb “to respond”: so the cat is doing something. What is it doing when it responds? You respond to a message, right? What is the message?
Communicating to yourself does nothing because the information that left you arrives back to you as it was before it left.
(Obviously there are further nuances upon consideration of the human psyche, e.g. talking to yourself can affirm a notion in your mind even though no extra information has been given or taken. But objectively no information has been gained or lost).
“Experience is responsive to itself” changes the discrete object of “cat” to a less distinctly defined and more broadly encompassing notion - perhaps if you’re referring to Continuous Experience then it’s maximally broad and minimally distinctly defined because it’s everything, unbroken.
And yet:
We have a direction “to” that went nowhere,
We have an action “respond” that gained/lost nothing, and
We don’t even have a specific thing from which nothing went nowhere, saying nothing…
A full deconstruction thoroughly shows your statement to be meaningless. As to whether it’s “true”? It’s not even internally consistent, as there is no non-experience to allow direction “to” experience (or away from it) and Continuous Experience is unbroken so no message can truthfully be abstracted from it (breaking it down into useful concepts to communicate).
So it would have been better for me to call it the opposite of a tautology: “a contradiction”. What I meant by tautology is that what you’re saying is circular, adding nothing: similar to saying “given value, therefore value”, or “nobody wants their consent violated”: it says nothing, goes nowhere, and does nothing. The net effect is of a tautology, but you’re right: “Experience is responsive to itself” isn’t even tautological because it’s obviously not true.
But aside from truth: to “utility”. If you’re talking about “discrete experiences”, then you can talk about things being responsive to themselves as you’ve already dissected continuity.
Yet even then, where does the direction of “to” go, just to come back to itself? What is gained or lost from being responded to when the source and destination of the message is the same place? The objection stands even in terms of utility, as well as in terms of truth.
My argument “from” discrete experiences “to” Continous Experience is built on discrete terms - I’ve never denied that. In fact I acknowledged the fundamental issue of using words to communicate “Continuous Experience” because doing so will necessarily be in terms of discrete experiences: there is no other option for meaningful communication than the use of discrete experiences. But then I need merely draw your attention to what’s going on to prove “Continuous Experience” to you - the discrete terms serve only to approach the issue from the other direction. Using discrete terms just highlights the unresolvable remainder of a grounded (and not circular or baseless) Epistemology requiring the direct axiom (that is Continuous Experience), which is evident simply through existing.
You keep making the criticism that the wrong tools (discrete experiences) make what you’re using the tools on (Continuous Experience) invalid. Discrete tools aren’t what make Continuous Experience valid - existence in its evident concrete form directly makes Continuous Experience valid. The fact that using the wrong tools also highlights the same thing only rounds out the whole Epistemology: completing its legitimacy via both approaches.
So from the above, the “axiom” is the direct concrete symptom of simply existing. Its existence isn’t down to some derivation in terms of discrete experiences: that would be circular. Its derivation in terms of discrete experiences is problematic through its own form, but it still comes back to the same thing. That’s how you know it’s correct: it’s inevitable from using either a direct or any problematic indirect approach.
“A word does not equal what it is meant to refer to” is a theme I’ve been supporting consistently throughout my posts on this forum, but maybe not ones with you, I can’t be sure.
But I’ve been doing so using the terms of de Saussure rather than in reference to Wittgenstein: “signifers” and the “signfied”.
So I’ve been making no such mistakes, in fact I’ve been saying exactly that words are not what they refer to - that’s the whole point of why Continuous Experience is directly what it is and not the discrete words of “Continuous” and “Experience”. The words are the signifiers, and Continuous Experience is what is signified. The signified is directly unavoidable whether words are used or not: it’s existent completely independent of any words used to signify it. Using signifier words just happens to come to the same conclusion.
My own private notion of “Experience” requires first that it’s mine, which fundamentally it isn’t as it’s continuous. There is no “me”, or “other” or any concept dissected from Continuous Experience “in” Continuous Experience. Such notions of “private” require it’s dissected first, into discrete experiences. Continuous Experience is directly the starting point as it’s the concrete form of existence as a whole. “My own private experience” requires that it’s broken down first, and my denial that this is the starting point is the whole point. Fundamentally it’s not mine, nor anyone’s - it just “is”.
See you keep saying you understand Experientialism and you still come out with things like Experientialism saying “what I don’t experience doesn’t exist”.
No, Experientialism says that experience exists as the concrete form of existence - that anything that can be said to have any existence necessarily has to be able to take the form of experience.
What “I” experience has nothing to do with Continuous Experience at all, and even in terms of discrete experiences, “I” is a dubious enough term as it is. Even given “I” in terms of discrete experiences, experientially the “I” must be divided from something else in order to come into its own discrete existence - relative to some “other”: Continuous Experience divides the “I” from something else. To say only the “I” exists in terms of discrete experiences is like saying only 1 side of a coin exists - it’s why Solipsism must resolve into Experientialism in order to become consistent with itself. So the Solipsism of which you’re accusing me is invalid to both Continuous Experience and discrete experiences.
S - thanks for the reply. I hope you don’t take offence at my being rather economical in response - these are points which can be made without a lot of fuss.
That is indeed your axiomatic assertion on which all the rest you claim relies. And as Ive explained in quite a number of ways now, I see this as pertinently false.
This certainly was not included in you 2014 rendering - I distinctly remember presenting this formulation of “anything which can be said to exist is self-valuing and valuing in terms of self-valuing” against the more monolithic statement of “existence is continuous experience”.
I still do not agree that all that can be said must take the form of experience, as a computer can also say things.
But to be clear, do you reject the notion that continuous experience equals existence?
Then how did you make the observation? Or did the observation make “it-self”?