The simpler the principle, the denser the calculations.
AI, like life, is not based on simple principles alone.
What I mean is with atoms there is no preceding substance. With life and with AI there is a plasma of readily available passive materials from which you can delve without being destroyed.
I do not mean the programmers succeeded at bringing an actual entity into being, it is only a facet of what an AI might be like.
It probably is very greedy and very primitive and focussed desperately on terms from which it has derived a sense of reliability.
This “sense of reliability” would be the actual being, and based on its genetic environment.
This the reason for nonlogical constants. Logical constant are abstract and thus never reliable in the real world per se. Nonlogical constants, such as a mountain, are more reliable.
A most powerful non human oriented AI would indeed consist of the binary code of data directly. It is such an EI that I expect must come into being by the very same laws that produced life.
“Laws” - principles. They became laws unto themselves/they were born.
Yes, atoms are the thing.
Minerals, not algorithms.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Fi08u8bh8[/youtube]
It’s frustrating that there are no readily available papers by Alan Ross Anderson online.
Id like to buy a book but,
John Anderson was a Scottish born philosopher active around social causes in Sydney and is regarded as the foremost Australian thinker, and founder of “Australian realism” which holds that there is one undivided reality in which every object can be extrapolated into a fact which also applies to all other objects, and makes some rather radical assertions.
The basic tenets of “Australian realism”:
(1)All entities exist in spatio-temporal ‘situations’. ‘Situations’ are all that exist. All situations have the same ontological status. There are no ‘levels’ of reality.
(2) All situations have a propositional form — that is, all situations have the form of “A is B”.
(3) Reality is infinitely complex and plural. Every fact (which includes every “object”) is a complex situation: there are no simples, no atomic facts, no objects which cannot be expanded into facts.
(4) All situations exist independent of knowledge of them.
(5) Determinism: all entities — objects, events, situations — are caused.
(6) Ethics is concerned with establishing and describing what is Good. This is a positive science. It is not normative.
Tenet (2) seems rather problematic when combined with tenet (3).
If “All situations have a propositional form — that is, all situations have the form of “A is B”.” then how are these situations infinitely complex?
And as per (4): “All situations exist independent of knowledge of them.”; does a persons knowledge of a situation not influence, partake in that situation? If not so, the situation would be an atomic fact.
And so forth.
Anderson nevertheless counts as a serious philosopher in Australia. During his life his political persuasions wandered from Stalinism to Trotskism, to libertarianistic anti-authoritarianism after he abandoned Utopianism, and then ended up in a kind of complacent economic common-sense-ism with environmentalist overtones, losing the fanbase he had gathered in his early, radical days when he was considered the driving force of thought in Sydney.
Nietzsche, Nachlass, spring 1884
[378]
“The instincts as judgments on the ground of earlier experiences: not of lust and un-lust experiences: because lust is just the form of an instinct-judgment (a feeling of increased power or: like when power has increased itself) - Before lust and unlust-feelings there are strength- and weakness-feelings throughout.”
[size=85](I just opened the book here and translated it as well as it goes - how the hell does one translate “Unlust” into English? Google gives “listlessness”, Oxford gives “lack of enthusiasm” - obviously that is not adequate. So un-lust seemed necessary.)[/size]
[379]
“As an imitating animal, man is superficial - it pleases him, like with his instincts, the appearance of things. He adopts judgments, this belongs to the oldest instinct, to play a part.
Development of mimicry among humans, by virtue of his weakness. The herd animal plays a part which is recommended to him.”
From mr. Parodites:
Sapientes non amant, sapientes fieri non curant.-- 1 Every philosopher, during the
culminant stages of his own development,- for it is only during the bright apogee and
fulfillment of his nature that he can, himself, bear it,- has endeavored to produce for
himself, after the model of Plato,- though Plato of course drew on those already set forth,
and to no small success, by his master,- namely the application of the Delphic mandate
[Know thyself.] with which Socrates had made sport of the Athenian nobility and
challenged all who knew him and came to know him, even with the might of the Pythian
godhood and the sacred chord of the mystic tripod, which throughout his final moments
yet rang through his heart- bronzed and ageless,- the call to the Apollonian eikon thereby
confervented, or doubly raised with the flight of Eros into the Heaven of Forms, and the
more distant Pre-Socratics,-- that first generation of thinkers who, despite their adherence
to certain traditions and the undiscovered fraternity of an intellectual culture equally
removed, or occluded from so much as the memory of our oral histories, nonetheless felt
a need for the same practice,-- a philosophic-test; a grand proof of genius, by which the
worth of a soul could be assessed immediately, granted its proper scala in the gradum of
Being and natural hierarchy,- meaning of course the gradum of the philosopher’s own
mental universe- and thereafter “appropriated to the seminal γενε [gene] of the
philosophic-instinct” 2 to the end of relieving the teacher the burden of so administering
to souls incapable of receiving it, the balm of Sophia. For Plato himself, we have the
Doctrine of Illumination, in which the purpose of such a test, as given here, is explicitly
admitted as part of the test itself; for Heraclitus it was the terror of the universal fire,- the
ash-bed blown forth from the steep of the Oversoul over the Ariadnean threads spun by
Eros into the heart of the world in the navigation of Psyche, though they are without
number,- the violent palintropos rocked upon the sea of eternal laughter into quiet Lethe,-
the requiescence of all human pride before the child of the Aeon, building his castles of
sand against the tide; for Spinoza, it were that Joy to whose basic quantum all other
passions were reducible as merely variable quanta of affect; for Parmenides, it were the
stillness of created Being,- the naturans omniformis natura omniform within whose
Image [Ontos] all particular Being is lost, * including that of a Parmenides himself,- or
the seductive call of Truth’s sun-maidens, whose first temptation is of course the image of
the philosopher’s own genius thereby exalted to the image of the All; 3 for Nietzsche, we
have the Eternal Recurrence; for Schopenhauer, it is the ability to admire beauty without
stirring the half-God Eros from his sleep, just as Selene watched quietly over the
dreaming figure of her Endymion- for this sleep is poetry, music, and the sleep of genius,
or the whole nocturnal life of the Mind, which had earned the reluctant approval of the
otherwise deprecatory cynicism of Schopenhauer,- for the gentled Endymion, being so
cherished in this wise, is all we can know of Beauty without destroying it, and all it is
given, even among the gods, for us to love,- should we not wish to mar and profane it; for
Hermaedion, it is the threatening impossibility of the BYTHS, which strikes some men
dumbfounded and speechless, while at the same time inciting the creative energies of
others, by which the miracles of speech are wrought; for Zosimos, it is the trial of the
Flesh; for YLDBTH, it is the World itself; etc.
[size=10]* Only so that it might, in my own work, be reified.[/size]
[size=70]1. Hermeticism. Translation: It is not philosophy, [wisdom] to refrain from the call of love; [/size]
[size=70]it is philosophy to turn love toward a philosophic end: as is the case with all things, [/size]
[size=70]execrable or worthy yet of greater commendation in the tally of our mortal gamut.[/size]
[size=70]2. Ibid.[/size]
[size=70]3. According to Parmenides, nothing that can be thought can possibly be untrue, for if a thing can be thought, it must coincide with[/size]
[size=70]the All of Being; and if a thing does not form any part in the All of Being, conforming not unto the Truth, it cannot be thought. Recall[/size]
[size=70]Metapoliticus: “… the Ontos as that Being within which the being of thought is thought; and that Thought within which the thinking[/size]
[size=70]of thought- Becomes: ontos pephitasmenon heuresis noia.”[/size]
...
Thus, while human beings might enjoy slight assurances as to their devils,- for it is easy
to fall below the measure of our nature, the highest realization of our native genius and
the weight of our destiny,- no man can guess or riddle out the face of his own angels. To
see and to know them, we would first have to stand above ourselves. That being
impossible, we can turn to love, whereby another is admitted to the eaves of their
testimony, lest bearing silently in their charge, we find that solitude has left us nothing
but the memory of our devils, which alone gain in isolation. From these devils we come
to know, and to take pride in knowing- malice,- and in the old Timonian aesthetic, to find
enjoyment in this pride and knowledge. As Shakespeare tells us, self-love were
doubtlessly a sin, though it were not so grossly compuncted a trespass of conscience
before the gods than were self-contempt, for which the Masters of Heaven should humor
no protervatancies with the long-year afforded to those many heroes who broke with the
charge of the nomos, and had known pride- our regret and our hope, our penance and
solitude, our Ithaca and our Nausicaa. Contempt and malice, torn even from the tattered
feathers in the angel’s mane, can be made to sparkle like the dawn,- like star and dragon
and fire,- like love and the morning of love,- though it takes a great deal of effort to
indemnify the noble affectation against a baser and more human pride,- or simply
arrogance, as is so widely vaunted between Heaven and Earth, doubleth the band of
Nature her perspected sympathies, or invested thereby the ring of our affections, indigene
and gracefully accorded to each man by his potential for sensation and experience,- that
were a narrow belt roborated even her leaps and starts, or inscrutably borne with the
progress of the Soul in her Order, baffles yet the obstinancy of mortal hybris,- as is the
circle of nature extended between species, from insect to crab to donkey to ape,- for
epiphany and diaphany,- or his sensitivity to these mute stirrings of life, and that incipient
germ,- a genius hardly won,- or by what more sincerely complected an moral portraiture.
[Burleigh’s Precepts.] To bear simultaneously, happiness and contempt; joy and malice;
amore and knowledge,- this is the right, privilege, and the enjoyment of kings and
philosophers,- the sport of princes and accomplished libertines,-- and these later students
of the ηεδονε [HEDONE] and puzzled limits of mortality, finding their portion just the
same in Death,- in Death that were the wage of Sin,- and this either by women, drink, or
still lesser effascinations and corporeus amusements, or Ideal, resigned austerity and
pious forfeit- a common fortune,- that by whose stars obambulate and tortured parabole
we are met irresolute,- in this the end of all Experience,- of each thread torn upon the
treadle of the Moirai, long or short, in life’s surfeit or privation,- which is only Longing,-
Longing, that were the sole concision of human nature yet to be impugned or contradicted
by either philosopher or saint,-- or in any case those gaudy souls, and these alone for
whose sake we sometimes fancy ourselves decided masters in kingship over all of life,-
though the shadow of our knowledge followeth us like Polonius his son, ever borne with
the danger of finding pride in our misery, or finally, contempt for all that exceeds the
gambit of our pathos with the Nymph,- that beauty in whose orisons be our sins
remembered- over self and station, whatever place they might occupy in the social ordo
and greater hierarchy of virtue and of vice.
More samples from Parodites’ work.
P:
The Episteme is primarily a model of Truth, and one both implicity and explicitly
configured throughout my works in its relationship to the competing models of Truth in
the Hegelian and historical-materialist schemes, as well as that assumed by the
framework upon which the security of the domain of the natural sciences is couched.
Accordingly, the first episteme, that is, the Ontos, is situated in an intermediary
relationship between the two modes of Truth we are left with following the Heideggarian
bifurcation of Truth (as aletheia) into the ontic and ontological,- (an intercession to be
merely formally considered, given the fact that, within the greater philosophy of which it
is particular, the independence of the ontic and ontological is not strictly admitted) a
bifurcation on which ground Heidegger asserts the ontic as a phenomenological closure of
Being imposed upon consciousness as Dasein, a "horizon of meaning’ oriented toward
Death, and within which this closure is reconstructed as an ontology in that secondary
mode of Truth to which, for Heidegger, Western metaphysics entirely reduced the first,
that is, the ontic,- thereby dispelling the “true truth” of the closure of Being to man,-- of
that fundamental, or first-order datum whose abnegation signaled, for Heidegger, the
reality of our untenable philosophical project,- a project which he then sought to wholly
refute-- and thus the truth of the unknowable God,- the transcendent Gnostic entity
infinitely separated from us and firmly rested beyond this closure, whose mysteria it is not
within the power of either sophia or techne, that is, Philosophy or Science, to grasp. Such
a series of conclusions satisfied Heidegger, who, in his philosophy of Angst, existential
torment, and hopeless distrust of man,- a true, refined misanthropy, sought to indemnify
the order of Nature as his favorite poet had done, from the arresting labor of mankind’s
cultural evolution and more general intellectual enterprise. Thus his other line of
criticism, ontotheology, ie. reducing God to Being in a similar manner; reducing theology
to ontology, as the ontic was reduced to ontology. In Nietzsche,- or, moreso in the
doctrine of the Eternal Return than Nietzsche,- in the great circle of the Recurrence,
Heidegger found the perfect image of his phenomenological closure of Being to man:
Dasein.
The Ontos asserts Being, not as an ontic closure beyond which Consciousness is eternally
separated from the Ground of its own existentia, as it is through the registers of the
Lacanian psychoanalytic, [To here address the Lacanian theory with my own philosophy,
it is sufficient to note that the traumatic register of the Real, through the decoupling of the
subject-object function at the level of the Virtual, (the domain of culture par excellence;
the storehouse of our shared ancestral memory, our language, and those memetic
complexes with which we are capable of asserting a tribal identity, be it on the grounds of
politics, race, age, era, etc.) modifies the Symbolic in which it is concatenated by a series
of nested hierarchies and recursively embedded within the original psychoanalytic triad,-
that is, the level of reality within which the conversion of the symbolic-exchange is
negotiated. However, due to the accumulation of entropic negativity within the system of
capitalist-logic underlying the actual structure of the Symbolic order and those Oedipal
defenses upon which it depends having finally reached a breaking point, the sequence of
intrapsychic processes has been reversed, generating thereby an insurmountable epistasis,
so that the unresolved tensions within the virtual,-- which would otherwise be remediated
through the processes of mimetic reproduction (as applied to what, in generative
anthropology, we call the surplus or aura of the event, therein generated through a
continuous mimesis of the original object, as is challenged in my use of Bataille’s
accursed share, by which the unabsorbed negative demands the violent discharge of such
a surplus- that is, the “self-sublation of the Real” and the consequent aural deflation) and
symbolic reification, or simply sublimated, as are the contradicting impulses of the
Freudian ID in the course of mankind’s cultural development,- which, unable to be
hologenetically supplied in reality, must be redirected merogenetically toward an
imagined object, that is, the Image of Schelerian Geist, in order to coexist, that is to say,
in order for any one impulse to achieve gratification without compromising the others,–
are left behind as ontic ruptures, those scissures which Lacan accused philosophy as
entirely avoiding, rendering any pure contact, that is, the recoupling with the Real,- or, to
return to Heideggarian language, the Ontological, quite impossible.] nor as an ontological
reduction through which that Ground can be skeletonized, absorbed by existential Angst
(ie. the dread of consciousness over its own inability to ground itself within itself, over its
closure, beyond which it cannot venture to gaze, for this is the closure of Being, whose
blindness is- Death, and the silence of which Death is, God: “God is dead”.) and
transformed, through the totalization of Absolute Spirit, into merely the phenomenal
mimesis or dialectical reproduction of its own essentia,- a process which, in the Hegelian
lexicon, is but “Consciousness as the struggle of Being with its own intrinsic nothingness,
for Freedom”; rather, a discontinuity,- a discontinuity between that Ground and its
Emergence into “Being and Time”,-- and within which the asynchron can forestall the
eschaton and usher in a new kairos; the great ur-mantra, a new karma and aeon around
which to seduce yet another generation of souls,- a new race of philosophers into the orbit
of the old star; the staircase of souls upon which Plato’s Republic was constructed so as to
lead the philosopher unto his utmost perfection and kingship; the dance of samsara
against the imposition of Hegel’s Night of Being-- between Monon and Mone, or the
Universal and Particular which, through philosophy, is recognized as Loss,- as tragic loss
or the Empedoclean pathos by whose tremens Holderlin was consumed, and finally
reified in the heroic-ekstasie of the Plotinian epistrophe, or the daemon of Bruno’s
soprassano, [the tragic over-knowing of philosophic love] so as to repair the relationship
between Being and Consciousness, (and in so doing provide the possibility of Value, for
an ethical project) that is, to repair this ontic discontinuity, for which task the
transcendental interdependency I write of is necessary. * This reparation of the
discontinuity is the Doric trace, through which the first order of sophic masters emerged- the
Pre-Socratics; Parmenides, Thales, Heraclitus, etc. etc. each carrying their own fully
formed and independent philosophy seemingly produced overnight and without any
evolutionary precedence in the historical record. For each of them had produced an
Ontos; the Ontos, through which the discontinuity is repaired, always appears differently,
for it is the ‘imaginal eidesis of thought,- of Consciousness itself, which perpetually
deconstructs the Ground of its own Emergence to Being’, much like the Bataillean
violence of perspective or the Symbol in its relationship to the Depth,- that is, the Erotic
form in its relationship to the Psyche which it objectifies, in Voegelin’s metaphilosophy
of the Transcendental Order.
[size=85]* The Bataillean register of transcendental autonomy and interdependence, and better still, the opening up of the phenomenological
closure imposed as Dasein, takes the form of “violences of perspective”, concomitant with the psychoanalytic interpolations of his
profane reworkings of the Christian excessus of spirit, in which the existence of the molecule comes into focus only through the
sublime etchings of those Boehmian matricies into which it is engraved within that form of Being higher than itself, that is, the cell;
and the cell in the organ; the organ in the man,- and so on, up toward the Godhead in that series of self-reflective reifications of the
Thought of Thought thinking itself, for whose object the Transcendent alone serves. Through the transcendent, the molecule
maintains its auton from all other scales within the hierarchy of Being, and yet the molecule is, through this transcendent object,
placed into a state of dependency with a monon, without which this auton could not exist, just as the bodies of two embracing lovers
flash up in one moment as a new unity, a burning glyph read out of that order of Being beyond which their individuality is lost, but
through which Being it is afforded to them and protected.
[/size]
With each Ontos being wholly independent, offering a guiding-image-of-Being for the
government of a new mental universe, how could the ‘great dialogue’ begin? This is the
importance of Socrates. Philosophy did not know itself, in the Ontos. ** Socrates allowed
philosophy to recognize itself in its own philosophizing, *** and to therefor
communicate this recognition to all things- “teaching all things to philosophize”. ****
That “utmost perfection” unto which the Platonic Republic was meant to lead the
philospher, with the student in this case further refining the teaching of his master, was
the recognition, on the part of the philosopher, of the ideal form of philosophy itself.
[size=85]** … for sophia, insofar as she is loved- insofar as she is philosophized, becomes the passive ground or value upon which the polis
can begin mobilizing, in the form of a moral schema rather than a limited ethical praxis, the whole scaffold and rank-ordering of her
objects toward a kinesis of the eu-daemon, in which the perfection of man consists. Before this, before Socrates- before philosophy,
men did not speak out of turn with their age; the individual, perfectly conformed to the political structure, could only live out within
himself the ontos, a direct affirmation of ousia or Being’s affirmative content- that is, the episteme or regulating form of social
existence, rising to or falling below the stature of virtue or arete,
*** … he, for the first time, gave us to understand philosophy, not as yet another function of the existence of the political structure,
but as a way of life truly independent from the State, as an autonomous existence with its own sphere of power, subject to nothing
beyond itself; as a form of life subject only to the height and depth afforded by the star of its unique daemon, and the hazards of its
own compass; subject only to some mysterious, internal criterion, by which alone it judged itself- that is, conscience.
**** As philosophy emancipates the daemon, as philosophy encourages the psyche in all (b)eings to take up the pursuit of Being, as
philosophy spurs all things to independent action- as
philosophy induces all things to philosophize, …[/size]
- end quotation -
My own take on Heidegger does not concern his own propositions - I do not consider him to be a standalone-philosopher in that sense - I do not consider Being and Time to be a philosophical work other than a proof that grammar was our limit (hence, my arrival at a new, more powerful grammar, valuator logic) - but in two different serving capacities; a commentator on Nietzsche, and an archaeologist of the Presocratic idea of Being as φύσις.
But I do value Parodites’ usurping of Heidegger for his own purposes, as Parodites is the completion and redemption of the lineage of philosophy that began with Socrates.
My own lineage begins with Homeros and the Presocratics, is suspended with the advent of Socrates, and recommences again with Machiavelli.
I have to give credit to Sauwelios for developing his Lampertian strain of Nietzscheanism.
In this and other light, much thanks be to Pezer, archetypical Prehomeric basterd.
The Philosophers
Dons of a new Era
Ando Shoeki who lived in 18th century Japan believed that it is an offence to make music, to trade goods and to be an artisan, and he was against the phenomenon of law. He said that all humans are the same person, that is is fundamentally wrong for one person to be above another person - to be a leader of men was one of five “terrible crimes” he listed - and he was waiting for a supreme person to impose these views on society as law.
"I have to give credit to Sauwelios for developing his Lampertian strain of Nietzscheanism.”
Ive done a bit of rereading of his work and I conclude I stand in disagreement with his definitions of the four Aeons-
I see only evidence against the idea that the Machiavellian age – more substantively, the Baconian age, but Bacon acknowledges Machiavelli as the man who finally started making some sense, making the first step toward inductive thought and abandoning the pompous and hollow Aristotelean tradition which presumed that all knowledge had already been found and needed to be merely rearranged so as to arrive at a complete wisdom – was non-theistic. Atheists may simply interpret Bacons and Newtons expressed religiosity as a mask to protect themselves but there is no evidence for the veracity of this view.
Still and all this only concerns these quick definitions of the ages, not the deeper logic of their differences and succession. All of these ages are theistic, the Nietzschean age restores the natural Gods - who are not, as Lampert thinks, invisible Gods. The ocean, the sky, the Earth, harvest, sex and war, none of these things are invisible. It is rather the case that from Socrates onwards the Gods were invisible, present only as human conscience and as abstract ideals. In the scientific age, God was presumed to be “behind” the world. Nietzsche re-introduced the visible, living gods by rebirthing Dionysos.
I’ll back up my claim that the founder of the Scientific Method, Francis Bacon, was a theist, with a quote from his work.
“Therefore do thou, O Father, who gave the visible light as the first fruit of creation, and did breathe into the face of man the intellectual light as the crown and consummation thereof, guard and protect this work, which coming from thy goodness returneth to thy glory. Thou, when thou turned to look upon the works which thy hands had made, saw that all was very good and did rest from thy labors. But man when he turned to look upon the works which his hands had made, saw that all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and could find no rest therein. Wherefore if we labour in thy works with the sweat of our brows, thou will make us partakers of thy vision and thy Sabbath. Humbly we pray that this mind may be steadfast in us, and that through these our hands, and the hands of others to whom thou shall give the same spirit, thou will vouchsafe to endow the human family with new mercies.” [Francis Bacon, the Great Instauration]
“[V]anity and vexation of spirit” refers to Aristotelean, thus Platonic thought. Bacon doesn’t explicitly mention these Greeks by name but it is perfectly clear what he means from the context.
And as I am working, I must also refute by the very words preceding this passage the notion that the Machiavellian-Baconian, Scientific Aeon, amounts to a demonization of nature - Bacon gives rather the birth of proper deference before nature (and Machiavelli, directly preceding him, birthed proper deference before human nature);
“And all depends on keeping the eye steadily fixed upon the facts of nature and so receiving their images simply as they are. For God forbid that we should give out a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world; rather may he graciously grant to us to write an apocalypse or true vision of the footsteps of the Creator imprinted on his creatures.” [ibid.]
Value ontology explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by “valuing”, that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.
Value ontology therefore refers to a logical spiral that is expressed in temporality as a circuitry tending to expand itself by integrating what it encounters while maintaining its integral structure.
The theory explains why what exists exists and persists through time, by making it evident that whatever does not have a “self-valuing” (such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.
I cant say it simpler than this;
God does not exist, but his will does.
Gods Will holds a 50 percent position in the senate of Being. The other 50 percent of wills, resulting of Gods will, secure the verification of each step the will attempts to undertake. All that passes the Senate is thus profoundly thorough and subtle.
Let us propose that gods Will is absolute change. “Change” already presupposes something. Anything. Something which changes. Something which allows change to change around it. These are Gods. Gods, in the plural, are the antitheses of gods Will, which has no owner, no Being of itself, not even a Gestalt. Gods are thus the highest Beings.
Gods can be identified as patterns of change. The changing inside the patterns is us. “Appearance”; standing forth, creation, nature, physis. There are first war gods and spring gods. And then there are mystery gods of stillness, the mysterious sun gods of the winter solstice. On Midsummer, there is only creation, and Gods are rewarded for their work with the unfolded flower, the perfection of change.
Because in order that there may be change there must be a standard whereby the change takes place, there is an inscrutable element to being which upholds the change. In the ontological sense, this is being itself; structural integrity. Ultimately the product of the objectivity of change results in a lockdown. This is gold. Gold is what the will of god is not; at the same time its end result. Whereas literally this, gold also serves as a metaphor for other things of definitive structural integrity, which like gold cause the change of the world to swirl around them.
This final product of gods will against the ground of its existence, finally has the power to produce the change that the will is; this final creation is the being around with the powers of god; not only gold, but also the scientific method is such a being of unchanging integrity.
The thunderbolt is a fitting attribute of absolute change.
The lightning and the gold.
"power is meaningless to me. what i care about is meaning. truth is good but only when it contributes itself to meaning. same for power.
power and truth are necessary, like water and food, but are not sufficient on their own. this is my problem with the will to power and with nietzsche. one might possess all power and truth in the world, and these will not guarantee meaning. philosophy is inherently meaningful so it is good; the same with love, and friendship. and purpose, where it contributes to something that is already of significant meaning (value).
no philosopher has deeply analyzed meaning for its own sake. nietzsche never did. but i have. this is why religions function and it is why most people do not want philosophy, power or truth. they want meaning. but a false meaning will kill just as easily as no meaning at all, perhaps even more so.
the existentia is structured accordingly with power, truth, and meaning interwoven together. this structure is embedded in and as us. consciousness is it. so we walk many fine lines between these. in my three core philosophy there is truth, power and fantasy; these three presiding cores comprise subjectivity and are themselves wed together and organized by the highest principle of all, namely that of meaning.
without meaning there is a reduction to subjectivity of objectivity, the objective is lost which means truth and power become falsified within one’s own self-images. this is why people suicide: their meaning structures are lacking or have become damaged, they have lost what is and ought to be meaningful to them, so much so that they collapse their existence into themselves and falsely believe that just because objectivity is filtered through subjectivity there exists only or primarily subjectivity— no. subjectivity is derivative of that objectivity which created it. and the kernel of subjectivity is in the perspective-making and ego that draws experience to itself and reformats it in its own image, a kind of gestalt creation that is more than the sum of its parts. a shadow of the future casts backward in time, a shadow of the universe of ideas into the physical. we all already know all of this, everyone does. but the insufficiency of meaning causes us such pain that we gladly forget it in order to collapse into ourselves in an attempt to not need meaning, to try and get meaning from ourselves alone. the forms of the self: truth, power, and fantasy, these cannot guarantee meaning. these are empty without meaning. but meaning has been and remains undefined and unexplored. so it is easy to ignore all this and keep living as some kind of innocent animal, and indeed knowledge is too painful to desire in this case, except that we cannot not desire it either since it is us. so we torment ourselves and seek infinite distractions in order to try and live without meaning.
and it is possible to short circuit and reduce consciousness to a small grain of itself and thus succeed in living without a wider objectivity and meaning. for a while anyway. in such circumstances time itself becomes the greatest enemy. time and the one truth we wish to avoid at all costs." - Capable
“The entirety of man’s UR-MYTH is about the quest, in the figure of man, gods, or the universe itself, to discover the secret of the IOA, that is,- to accomplish the project toward self-transcendence; toward self-knowledge as the very essence of the theo-cosmic drama. Ouranos, after incarnating its ennoea in the form of the Orphic god of light Phanes, required a “limitation” through which to reflect upon and come to know itself. This limitation is the BYTHOS; it was required in collapsing the otherwise impermeable monon into a plurality within which one individuated part could reflect on another individuated part and thus initiate the processes that would eventually bring about the existence of consciousness. Yet, this led to a diffusive cognition that never rose to the level of self-consciousness needed for achieving the IOA as the fulfillment of the divine effort at transcendence, as parts of this original multiplicity, generated out of the residue of the BYTH, simply refused to cease existing after having come forth to enrich Phane’s perspective upon himself. They refused to die and, in this way, became the AEONS. These aeons wield the ennoea against its own will, as imprinted in the original intent of the bythos, which is to simply aid Phanes in self-reflection. Phanes eventually re-incarnated once more, utilizing a second limitation which human beings call Time, in order to destroy these new beings and create a dimension within which to reorganize the multiplicity as a true consciousness, however this attempt, in merely producing the wheel of samsara,- the eternally recurrent cycle of birth, desire, death and rebirth, also failed, leading not to the destruction of the aeons, but to simply the second generation of aeons, who themselves participate in the cycle of reincarnation,- continuing to survive once again through their male and female pairings within the syzygy. YLDBTH, like the other Aeons, refused to die, however Hermaedion believes that he did so, not out of the same lack of comprehension as to the nature of the divine-plan that drove the other Aeons in their subversion of the ennoea, nor due to the same selfishness that led some of the Aeons into the trap of creating our world and falling as Archons in a bid to supplant the true God at the center of the Pantheon, but so that he could stay behind in the mortal world (that, depending on the story, he conceived as his own artistic triumph in the face of the true God, that Sophia asked him to create or into which he was condemned by the other Aeons for his treachery) and flatten the uroboric serpent of Samsara through which the other Aeons had survived the protophany, accomplished their syzygy, and filled the pleroma or Treasury of Light with their numberless orders, in this way becoming the great Blind-Dragon,-- the Antisophic Christ-Devil of Profane-Gnosis, who pledged himself to the fulfillment of IOA through the proxy of humanity, insofar as we heed the example of the deliberate failure on his part embodied in our physical world.” - Parodites
Brothers shall strive | and slaughter each other;
Own sisters’ children | shall sin together;
Ill days among men, | many a whoredom:
An axe-age, a sword-age, | shields shall be cloven;
A wind-age, a wolf-age, | ere the world totters.
Capable wrote:
I see the cause of the earth-rape as not globalism or globalization but simply the tragedy of the commons on a massive scale: this has happened before, check out the history of Easter Island, it’s pretty interesting. They completely wiped out their vegetative environment in order to build those massive statues, in some kind of obsession and ended up collapsing into starvation due to environmental ruin. It’s essentially the fact that in a society or situation/world of many different, individual self-valuings there is an inherent lack of values-overlap when it comes to the most abstractly shared, given spaces. Classic example is public grazing land, each farmer values not over-grazing the land for his own cattle due to wanting to preserve the space, but he knows the other farmers feel the same way, therefore he can squeeze out marginal extra value foe himself by secretly over-grazing or only slightly over-grazing; of course every other farmer thinks and does the very same thing, and the plot of land is consumed.
The reason I attribute earthrape to globalism is that globalism is driven by un-earthy motivations; it being beyond nationalism, which is fundamentally a love of the soil and physical values and qualities, of locality, which is the locus of self-valuing as a principle, it isnt able top be contained by earthly, earthy values. It simply has no impetus to stop destroying the world; it was never founded on, never made contact with earth. It is purely theoretical wealth, money-derivatives, coercion schemes, that drive globalism and anchor it in reality.
This is why I say it must be almost entirely reversed before it can be sanely implemented.
Quote :
I don’t see how self-valuing alone can address this problem. In this sense we must understand a self-valuing as a reflection of its society/history/culture/family. The ‘self’ of a self-valuing is not irreducibly complex nor is it given, nor is it immutable, nor is it a-historical.
I’d note that the principle itself is almost a-historical, that is to say a property of pure synthetic logic (where synthetic logic is still a historicity); but that indeed no manifestation of the principle is separate of its environment; of the substance that it assimilated into its ‘self’ (a term I dont take too heavily).
The principle helps in as far that no logical approach is possible without it. That it does not by itself unfold as an approach, that is what Ive been discovering the past years; what VO requires is that one becomes radically, ‘objectively’ subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it.
The perspective of power is the final objectivity. The whole of the world is shape-shifting every electronic instance and in different ways as seen from any perspective, more so as the perspective is more substantial.
Quote :
I absolutely do not want to undermine the notion of self-valuing but I do want to condition it to the actual, real causes that bring it into being, namely the language, ideas, experiences it is exposed to upon being born and growing into itself. And this gets to my positive vision of a possible globalism that is by, of and for individual human self-valuing while also providing the highest possible social construct at the planetary level capable of preventing tragedy of the commons type problems.
This conditioning to the actual is the aim. Has been the aim. As I said above, I have discovered, not without frustration, that the actual can only be conditioned (with philosophical consistency and ‘lastability’) by example.
We’ll actually have to demonstrate that our philosophy is superior. This is the only way to get it implemented into actuality. And that is what Ive been trying to sniff out the past years; the path to take.
After close to a year of conclave with Pezer I am quite close to having discerned where that path starts.
Quote :
Right now absolutely nothing can prevent tragedy of the commons problems. Current globalism has little to no interest in it, and absent a global capacity to act in concert self-valuings alone are incapable of preventing it either; it is in the nature of a self-valuing to try to squeeze out more marginal value where logically possible, this impulse must be rationally, moderately tempered by what we call society, “global” constructs and systems. To me it’s always about a balance between these, balance between individual and social and that balance always striving to become more accurate and ideal over time.
I disagree. I think it must be kept in check locally only. For several reasons; one of which is the important factor that at no point in history has globalism leaned to being successful in reducing misery. The main reason though is pure self-valuing logic; I would never take orders from a global state, Id much rather die. That is the glory of humanity; we arent tied to our survival to uphold our values. The idea of fighting to the death against the globalist machine is pure joy. It is fighting for everything I love in a very direct way; I love animals, I love plants, I love molecules, I love humans. All of which grow, orient, live, love and die locally.