[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBzHqW4V3lA[/youtube]
Pascal Wintz live concert -playlist
youtube.com/playlist?list=P … 1D6EB230D2
Deadmau5 quarantine concert
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cf-m1PpqsA[/youtube]
Load it up, load it
Blow transmission she is bloated
go to goathead, try withhold it
Hold it mould it with precision
And then code it
She was moaning for me to go faster so I slowed it
Try to withhold it
Mould it with precision and encode it
Hold it.
Who the fuck am I to know this
I was chosen by the gnosis
Took a lot of dosage and I had a face to face like Moses
Fuckers getting cucked like Joseph
God be my broseph
symmetry and symbolism, symbiosis I was chosen
To fuck with all the hoes that homies keep as trophies.
cant seem to bleed for evil people
eaze off on the feeble and the freaky
peace offering on the table
gimme all the mares in the stable
in that case I might be able
to let you off with your lifeline cut like a crease in your lapel
I’m made of eight and I’m hateful
number nine gives a shiver of the spine and Im grateful
Jesus and the beast
were the dee ons of the feast
made of feelings from the east
made for healing of disease
that was alien to the baby in the cradle
alien to the lady of the geysir
alien to the Vanes and to the Aesir
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5flFKxijTw[/youtube]
Use his technique for the preparation for the release of the HULUGUNS
or Huuluguns but, yeah; check it and perform.
Literally no one:
April 24:
April 29:
May 11:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq-j1McWoP0[/youtube]
the words that I speak you will heed or youll verily perish
Styx is a well traveled river now, multiple ferries
shits getting hairy, haywire, more but not merry
gory and scary, the winners of this war will no doubt live on legendary
the Sun is on hot above I’m trying to get medicine in
guns are all pointed towards the entrance, aint letting shit in
I’m disinfecting and killing pests like penicilin
sky is an iron dome and I am a renaissance man
truth is a six figure payment for services rendered within
Recap:
like Iron Mike I was born for the fight
reborn on the mic
catch a hornet in flight
wake up in the morning and strike
don’t even talk to me homie you don’t even now me
inserting the molly and donning versace
lose track of logic
never lose sight of the project
Niflheim, Muspelheim
Pushkin restaurant ik moet in Moskou zij
Moskou op de brug, Moskou op de straat
Moskou dat is dag en nacht waar iedereen van praat
Een Moskoviet is geen Ossetier
zoals een bobslee is geen ski en een ski is geen driewieler
kan het nog debieler
situatie wordt penibeler en ik word iebel.
geen geginnegap en geen gegiebel
deze klas is zeer aan mn neus
ik neuk weer een masseuse naar keuze
neem haar mee en vul haar buizen
ze heeft haar zonder luizen
mooie krullen lekker dik maar dikker is mn lul
klik klak klik zegt haar keeltje want ze smult
ik ben lekker gul
zullen we nog effe voor de pret naar Vlissingen racen?
Geen politie kan me tracen me machine is gecamoufleerd
door een divisie van het leger
Recorded this a few weeks ago, the chorus is dope. The verse sucks.
Posting it to keep the idea in mind.
A personality is the circumference of a human quantum of power.
But such a circumference is not circular and can be configured in many ways. It can also be throttled or thwarted and subverted and mirrored and split and helixed.
quetz
quetz
Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-12-29
Age : 56
Location : somwhere else
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeThu Dec 29, 2011 10:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What’s wrong with value systems
Seams like sometimes the notion of value systems/judgements are assumed to be worthless, one may say; ‘that’s just a value system’ and in doing so make it seam as if ones ethics are defunct.
As long as value systems are adaptive and non-dogmatic I don’t see why they cannot be a basis in and of themselves. Moral relativism is a good thing imho but that’s surely not moral nothingness.
Lets take an extreme example:
Fucking female children can cause death via underage pregnancy [their bodies are too small for birth but may be fertile], thus it is wrong to do that.
Surely a value which works in its own right ~ even if there are other areas more questionable e.g. AOC.
btw, this is not meant as a debate about that topic specifically.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeSat Dec 31, 2011 6:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I suspect that they have a poor reputation due to being both ill defined and ill conceived.
“We ALL know that this… is bad. So lets all hate it together.”
The proposition that everyone should love or hate any particular thing alludes to mass delusion of righteousness and blind oppression. That isn’t to say that a system could not be devised void of such outcome, but I have not seen ye-ole typical onliner even come close.
The issue isn’t coming up with a system but rather finding that 1 in a hundred which is actually valid and helpful.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
Abstract
Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeMon Jan 02, 2012 6:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
Abstract
Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeMon Jan 02, 2012 6:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If there is a door “God” put it there to be opened… but humans are just good at opening doors at the wrong time.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
quetz
quetz
Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-12-29
Age : 56
Location : somwhere else
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeMon Jan 02, 2012 9:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
The proposition that everyone should love or hate any particular thing alludes to mass delusion of righteousness and blind oppression. That isn’t to say that a system could not be devised void of such outcome, but I have not seen ye-ole typical onliner even come close.
The two commandments;
X is right unless Y, Z, determines otherwise. [x may equal e.g. killing, raping, or the moral in the op]
Only apply where accurate I.e. don’t assume anything [like the woman is usually right/wrong].
Quote :
I’m beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?
Because ‘things’ exist.
Or if there is a creator god, not all things are created. We change stuff, the world changes stuff. The original creation idea/manifestation becomes non-derivative.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
Abstract
Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeMon Jan 02, 2012 2:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
quetz wrote:
Quote :
The proposition that everyone should love or hate any particular thing alludes to mass delusion of righteousness and blind oppression. That isn’t to say that a system could not be devised void of such outcome, but I have not seen ye-ole typical onliner even come close.
The two commandments;
X is right unless Y, Z, determines otherwise. [x may equal e.g. killing, raping, or the moral in the op]
Only apply where accurate I.e. don’t assume anything [like the woman is usually right/wrong].
Quote :
I’m beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?
Because ‘things’ exist.
Or if there is a creator god, not all things are created. We change stuff, the world changes stuff. The original creation idea/manifestation becomes non-derivative.
Creation aside… that’s not where I am coming from… I’m thinking more along the lines that the universe cannot be upheld in its very nature without what things do exist in it… as such all things must serve some function that by being crucial to existence makes any negativity we perceive of it nonetheless ‘fair’.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeTue Jan 03, 2012 6:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A value system is a philosophy or “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
The problem isn’t so much having such a tree, but rather the serpents that are found within the branches.
One must be designed such as to naturally inhibit serpent sustainability and in fact, repel such.
It isn’t hard. What is hard is getting anyone to see it before they fall prey to the serpent that they already have.
It is a question of how to bring sight to the “blind of value” when their sight is blinded by the lust of presumed value. “We already know what is good and evil.” Really?
We “know” that dogma is bad. And do we know that? Well, because experience has shown us. And by what means did you observe experience if not by the eyes of value already presumed? Preseeded value guides sight, causes both blindness and awareness. Once a value system is accepted, even if injected without awareness, the eyes of the mind and heart are already shuttered. The blinders are already formed and placed. The horse is already prepared to see only what his value-system blinders allow.
The trick is to ensure that the only value system accepted is one wherein each moment is monitored for the correct concerns and filters out only what was not of the correct concerns. But to fashion that, one must know what would constitute correct from incorrect, fundamentally what is good or bad to the life itself.
Life, any life, has specific needs that can be outlined, categorized, analyzed, and labeled. Fundamentally, they are all the same for every instance of life. But beyond the fundamental category, all else is relative to the individual situation, hence from that point upward, all secondary morality is relative or conditional. What is not conditional is the set of fundamental values that allow for the life to persist at all.
Thus to design a value system that does not mislead, one must first know of what a life is and thus know its most fundamental needs for sustainability and persistence. Within that knowledge, is the knowledge of how to discern the conditions of the secondary moralities. Regardless of what those secondary moralities turn out to be, the ability to discern the conditions must be maintained, else they cannot function in accord to their own conditional restraints.
Discerning conditions or situations is called “awareness”, “sight”, “enlightenment”, and “clear mindedness”.
And in that, you have what I always have accepted as the very first concern of Life, “Clarity”.
To allow oneself to become unaware, is to force oneself into presumption, acting unaware; the very seed of sin from which ALL error/sin arises.
And there you have, merely for an example, the beginning of a value system that does not in itself confine the individual to dogmatic particulars, but rather merely states;
“Thou Shall NOT Intentionally Do What Brings Confusion to the Mind and Heart.”
Or from the more positive perspective;
“Thou Shall Always Seek Optimum Clarity of Mind and Heart.”
Serpents function by virtue of shadows, obfuscation, and confusion.
“The devil hides in the details.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
without-music
builder
builder
without-music
Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeWed Jan 04, 2012 3:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Seems suspiciously Socratic, James.
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeSun Jan 08, 2012 12:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
The trick is to ensure that the only value system accepted is one wherein each moment is monitored for the correct concerns and filters out only what was not of the correct concerns. But to fashion that, one must know what would constitute correct from incorrect, fundamentally what is good or bad to the life itself.
Life, any life, has specific needs that can be outlined, categorized, analyzed, and labeled.
But in exactly knowing these needs, could an amoeba have evolved to man. Evolution occurs through the combined factos fo consistent self-valuing and the random or unpredictable encounters with different types of factors and conditions, of which parts may be valued in terms of self-value and of which parts may not. Coincidence is as instrumental to evolution and therefore to life as as consistency in self-valuing, or as you call it, clarity. It is true that this consistency is logically prior to what the being is consistent towards, buit it does not hold the answers as to what it may be in itself. Not unless all the possible factors which are not itself are known by it, and this almost amounts to a logical contradiction, for knowledge also constitutes being. It seems that one would already have to be “God-like” to amount to the clarity your ethics demand.
Quote :
Fundamentally, they are all the same for every instance of life. But beyond the fundamental category, all else is relative to the individual situation, hence from that point upward, all secondary morality is relative or conditional. What is not conditional is the set of fundamental values that allow for the life to persist at all.
Which is the same as “holding itself as a value”. Can this be specifically determined, explained, explicated, categorized? I think that it can be approached, but not intellectually so much as by various types of activities, such as “kung fu” as you have mentioned (which by the way means “good work”, which is an apt summary of what we are looking for), but I can not see that it can be formulated “on paper”, as metaphysics. I wonder how you have managed to done this and to what extent this accomplished amounts to an effectively attainable ethics.
Quote :
Thus to design a value system that does not mislead, one must first know of what a life is and thus know its most fundamental needs for sustainability and persistence. Within that knowledge, is the knowledge of how to discern the conditions of the secondary moralities. Regardless of what those secondary moralities turn out to be, the ability to discern the conditions must be maintained, else they cannot function in accord to their own conditional restraints.
Discerning conditions or situations is called “awareness”, “sight”, “enlightenment”, and “clear mindedness”.
I agree with this, but with the condition that this awareness must comprise an embracing of the unexpected. There is no gain without risk. Indeed, risks can only be taken responsibly if one is aware precisely of what one wishes to gain, and where this gain is possible in the encountered.
Quote :
And in that, you have what I always have accepted as the very first concern of Life, “Clarity”.
Then it is of the greatest importance to further define this concept, Clarity.
Is it the capacity to extract value from uncertainty? If so, clarity is the same as active and consistent self-valuing.
Quote :
To allow oneself to become unaware, is to force oneself into presumption, acting unaware; the very seed of sin from which ALL error/sin arises.
And there you have, merely for an example, the beginning of a value system that does not in itself confine the individual to dogmatic particulars, but rather merely states;
“Thou Shall NOT Intentionally Do What Brings Confusion to the Mind and Heart.”
Or: You shall not value that which can not be valued in terms of your own self-valuing.
Quote :
Or from the more positive perspective;
“Thou Shall Always Seek Optimum Clarity of Mind and Heart.”
Or: You shall continuously seek to be aware of your own self-valuing.
But whereas I agree that, wherever LAW exists, this must be it, I do not think that always keeping to law is the most effective way to attain vitality, or vital experience. What is lacking her is the concept of suffering and overcoming suffering. Without allowing itself to fall prey to “sin” or uncertainty or unclarity for limited durations (limited so as for the threats not to get at the root of self-valuing) there is no possibility for the joy of extended power, overcoming, superseding ones expectations.
Compare the fate of Jesus, to stay in Biblical idiom: If he had not allowed Judas to betray him, he could not have been resurrected. By the ethics you seem to propose, Jesus would simply have avoided his capture, he would have have chosen to let the cup pass him by.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:51 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeSun Jan 08, 2012 12:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
But whereas I agree that, wherever LAW exists, this must be it, I do not think that always keeping to law is the most effective way to attain vitality, or vital experience. What is lacking her is the concept of suffering and overcoming suffering. Without allowing itself to fall prey to “sin” or uncertainty or unclarity for limited durations (limited so as for the threats not to get at the root of self-valuing) there is no possibility for the joy of extended power, overcoming, superseding ones expectations.
Consider the last part of the post linked here.
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t … rime-mover
And let me extrapolate “life” to “being”. It seems to me that being, following your ethics, would always amount in noble elements, and never into something as fragile as life.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
without-music
builder
builder
without-music
Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeSun Jan 08, 2012 7:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We ought always to keep in mind that an increase of power, as well as joy, results from over-coming. Indeed, the strong man seeks out obstacles to overcome: he affirms his suffering in order that he may grow from it. Without “sin”, no increase in power.
“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeMon Jan 09, 2012 6:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
without-music wrote:
We ought always to keep in mind that an increase of power, as well as joy, results from over-coming. Indeed, the strong man seeks out obstacles to overcome: he affirms his suffering in order that he may grow from it. Without “sin”, no increase in power.
The last part may be overstated, as the concept of “sin” as Jame uses it may refer not to the concept of uncertainty, but to not doing the utmost to increase ones structural integrity (self-harmony) in the face of uncertainty.
Of course, the the subject, its surrounding reality is always uncertain, and he can only be certain of how it applies to him, if he has in fact formulated (brought to consciousness) to himself entirely his own worth to himself, in all its technical particularities.
I doubt that this is possible, but “sin” may also simply mean “to do what is necessary to maintain ones structural integrity”, in which case, it may include a certain kind of risk-taking, within the margin of the expendable.
"We ought always to keep in mind that an increase of power, as well as joy, results from over-coming. Indeed, the strong man seeks out obstacles to overcome: he affirms his suffering in order that he may grow from it. "
Yes, this is where James’ ethics differ from Nietzsches. To Nietzsche, I would say and perhaps you would know where to find this, far greater risks and experiments are justified than what may amount to losses falling within the margin of the expendable. And I would say that nature itself takes such risks, continuously, as nature is not per definition “clear” in its intentions, it is just that the type of nature that is “clear” in this way has a greater average chance of survival. It does not however have a greater chance at greatness – for this a balance is required, a risk taking that measures the possibility of attaining enormous gains against the likelihood of death, instead of the likelihood of survival against the possibility of death.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeMon Jan 09, 2012 10:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
The trick is to ensure that the only value system accepted is one wherein each moment is monitored for the correct concerns and filters out only what was not of the correct concerns. But to fashion that, one must know what would constitute correct from incorrect, fundamentally what is good or bad to the life itself.
Life, any life, has specific needs that can be outlined, categorized, analyzed, and labeled.
But in exactly knowing these needs, could an amoeba have evolved to man. Evolution occurs through the combined factors of consistent self-valuing and the random or unpredictable encounters with different types of factors and conditions, of which parts may be valued in terms of self-value and of which parts may not. Coincidence is as instrumental to evolution and therefore to life as as consistency in self-valuing, or as you call it, clarity.
“in exactly knowing these needs, could an amoeba have evolved into homosapian?”.
My first thought was “Emm… knowing those needs, I’m not so sure that an amoeba would want to.”
But presuming that homosapian is in fact a higher or better life form to be taken, the answer is “certainly”.
It is true that natural evolution (no longer existent on planet Earth) depends on naturally occurring accidents. But then a natural amoeba wouldn’t be able to know of its needs.
Look at it this way…
In the interest of self-preservation, a man chooses to not sleep with a particular prostitute because he is aware of his needs as well as suspecting that she is carrying a particular retro-virus designed to reduce his particular set of genomes to a state of defenselessness.
Now is that “natural evolution”? Or is it a life being aware of its needs, aware of its situation, and making a choice to maintain its integrity? But then it doesn’t stop there…
That same man, being aware of his actual true needs, discovers a food substance that seems to have no more effect than to enhance his awareness of his situation, it perhaps improves his eye sight or hearing, or better, his clarity of mind and heart. Does he choose to eat only other things? Does he choose to only accidentally imbibe the nutrient that he has discovered? Or does he intentionally eat of the fruit that promises to enhance his survival and “will-to-power”?
Is that “natural evolution”?
The filtering process that a life imposes upon itself is the issue. It seeks to have no more accidents of consuming foods that are not of sustaining value nor continue to allow itself to be exposed to other life forms (viruses or germs) that would diminish its capacity to cope. It chooses not only to protect what it currently is, but also seeks to enhance what it currently is into something greater, stronger, more capable. It chooses to not allow evolution, natural or not, to destroy it. And it is only by that method that evolution can actually work. Evolution can’t function in a positive direction unless it is resisted fore it is a process of that very same filtering of all life, “I, Evolution, choose to no longer allow lives on Earth to choose the wrong path to survival. I dispel the effort, the spirit, the life that chooses wrongly.”
Do you choose to have Evolution make your choices for you and thus defeat its very positive nature? Or do you choose to defend against Evolution in every way you can manage so as to either lead to the eventual success of your replacement or grow to the point of not being able to be filtered out of the mix and noise and having no further need to individually grow any greater?
Man doesn’t survive by the evolution process. He merely comes closer to the lack of its ability to filter him out by ensuring more and more that each individual is in itself less susceptible to damage. When he chooses to allow evolution to filter out the “unchosen” by his own design and value system, he either becomes what life always was, or he proposes to dictate what life is. In the first case, he becomes great and eternal. In the second case, Life will End Him. So for sake of his own value ontological system, he will only survive by conforming to what Life has always been.
Thus yes, by truly knowing what constitutes true life to the last detail, even an amoeba, would ascend to the form of an eternal life, be it homosapian or what is replacing homosapian.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeMon Jan 09, 2012 3:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If you place on a list the exact constituents of the essentials of your life, a value-ontology is easy to derive;
A) That which enhances the items listed is to be valued as “good”. {helps}
B) That which destroys the items listed is to be valued as “bad”. {hinders}
It might help to remember that often a challenge, although seemingly in the direction of a bad, can actually be a good, so the degree of disruption of the fundamental self-harmony is the actual issue, not a mere black-white or dichotometric assessment of “helps vs hinders”.
The balance of the essential self-harmony guides the assessment.
It is that simple.
…well, until you get to the next stage… growth. Cool
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2012 4:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The problem is that can not see value directly in terms of “items”.
For me the term holds a more fluid, more rudimentarily experiential - value.
What is the used meaning of the word value? A problematic question, related to that of the word power.
Power compares to valuing in terms of oneself as the feeling of power to self-valuing.
will-to-power is what the totality of these two things amounts to, and this is “the drive” “life”, as a noun.
Will to power is a noun, where self-valuing is a verb as which this willing must be explained.
That which is good, i.e. of value, is what structurally (not momentarily) enhances the feeling of power.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending
Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2012 4:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
If there is a door “God” put it there to be opened… but humans are just good at opening doors at the wrong time.
Sometimes WE are the ones who create the door so it’s also within our OWN power to open it to enter or to leave…or to simply leave it open to see what possibilities occur.
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.
Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."
“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”
Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending
Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills
What’s wrong with value systems Empty
PostSubject: Re: What’s wrong with value systems What’s wrong with value systems Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2012 4:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
I’m beginning to believe that if something exists, there is at least something good about it, otherwise why would it exist?
Perhaps it exists for you to ask that question.
Does it exist because it IS something good or is it the meaning which we place in something which ultimately gives rise to and creates its own value?
There is nothing under the sun, at least to me, which cannot at some point be seen as having a purpose. We draw that purpose out.
We are the ones who, depending on the amount of light which we allow into our experience and interpretation, will see either brilliant colors, black, white, or shades of gray.
There is absolutely nowhere that a lemon cannot be made into lemonade. Twisted Evil
There need be nothing wasted nor lost with nature
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Group ethics & selective “unfitness” Empty
PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective “unfitness” Group ethics & selective “unfitness” Icon_minitimeFri Feb 10, 2012 9:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What is missing in the human equation, now, is higher degrees of conscious control and will toward “ethics”, ethics being (as it is being used here in this response of yours; it is also this, but much more, in my own usage here) a stand-in term designating regulative and prescriptive methods and perspectives, conditioning-delimiting of human affects and ideas and the potentialities therein.
There is a force at the heart of all ethos- at the heart of the “valuing animal,” which is what man is after all, rather than the “rational animal.” … A force which is preventing the “evolution of conscience” which you are pointing toward. Something I wrote:
In nature, the animal man’s instincts were coordinated in such a way that the expression of one instinct was not merely the expression of its own force, but that of the entire organism, that of the consciousness. Consciousness is only this unified force, this reflexivity. To call forth the greatest store of consciousness with the slightest amount of sensory excitation, that was the “goal” of nature. Man’s reason eventually separated the instincts from one another, it introduced discontiguous states of mental affect into a consciousness born out of the need to grasp through continguous impressions relations of temporal and spatial nature. Such discontiguous states of affect we now recognize as “ideas,” words, abstractions. To reason, to arrange aesthetically the same kinds of relationships arranged metonymically by the early consciousness, relationships between events, things, and feelings, that is to say, to arrange them in accordance with these abstractions and the relationships suggested by an appeal to their standard (such as causality) man would have been provided with an advantage over the other beasts, the advantage of anticipation, imagination, and strategy.
His reason, in short, had the psychological consequence of a disruption in the metonymic structure of consciousness so that man began to experience the force of the instincts individually. The sensation of distance and gulf within himself inspired him with the thought of the soul, the thought of a self. The self represents a kind of abeyance of consciousness, the repose of a continuously discharging instinctual organism, a fragmentation of this activity in accordance with which the instincts could be re-coordinated, through “thought.” But this “thinking” could not realize a harmonious order of the instincts like that which nature took thousands of years to produce. The first thoughts to lend their coloring to the humans soul were accordingly very painful, and constituted a kind of negative expression of the organism, the force not of an organization but of a disorganization, from which man still suffers, for this disorganizing power of thought was doubtlessly very seductive, the force it was capable of generating far surpassed that of the organized instincts and the individuated instincts, and was in its power very compelling to early man, offering to him an impetus toward action and life that could not be denied, even if the life and the acts it led him to were dangerous, painful, tragic. It took root in the deepest parts of his consciousness. It is his conscience. The conscience juxtaposes instincts and passions of contrary dispositions, as the sexual drive and the metaphysical need are counter-poised to produce the inspiration of the Christian saint, and grasps this disorganizing power, this inspiration, in an abstraction, in a discontiguous state of consciousness. The disorganizing power of thought is the most seductive and powerful impetus to life that has been produced by nature, and for this reason it persists in man. This is only because thought has still been unable to realize a harmony of the instincts equal in power to that of his original nature.
The conscience, then, is the perishing and diseased nature which still lives within a consciousness attempting to actively realize an organization of its constituent drives, attempting to attain through discontiguous abstractions a new organization of the forces engendered by these drives as well as by the senses which disturb and incite it to life. In short, it is the voice of a disintegrated nature, a compendium of all bestial life, it is the voice of a being trying to become human.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
Group ethics & selective “unfitness” Empty
PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective “unfitness” Group ethics & selective “unfitness” Icon_minitimeMon Feb 13, 2012 12:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
His reason, in short, had the psychological consequence of a disruption in the metonymic structure of consciousness so that man began to experience the force of the instincts individually. The sensation of distance and gulf within himself inspired him with the thought of the soul, the thought of a self.
Very interesting. The notion of the self then as resulting from the absence of the effective, continuous integrity of - well, the self. That make sense. Of course here we get the concept of the “higher self” which is then indeed a good term, as it is something to be attained by conscious and creative effort, not given by animalistic nature.
“The ego” falls in a strange void here – what would it be? The remainder of the integrity of the animal, which can only be a perversion, as, as a passive given, it must be incomplete, un-integer. Mans struggle between ethics and survival/power – between power in the world and a feeling of power over oneself is hereby understood quite well.
What is a healthy ego? Surely the ego of someone who is not blessed with a lot of consciousness. This would explain why it is so attractive for humans to be dominated, to be told what to do – not to think. Why humans are seeking dogma – “God” or “Der Führer” in whichever form, as long as He is not experienced as part of the sel, as long as his rules are simply obeyed as they are conveniently written down or dictated, allows for the instincts to remain more or less animal, for the ego to be a simple expression of instinct.
Quote :
The self represents a kind of abeyance of consciousness, the repose of a continuously discharging instinctual organism, a fragmentation of this activity in accordance with which the instincts could be re-coordinated, through “thought.” But this “thinking” could not realize a harmonious order of the instincts like that which nature took thousands of years to produce.
Naturally it could not as long as thinking represented simply that very aberration of the instincts, their estranging from each other. But thought struggled to become its own antithesis – perhaps this is all thought is! But then, by understanding thought, we have arrived at the end of thought.
Quote :
The first thoughts to lend their coloring to the humans soul were accordingly very painful, and constituted a kind of negative expression of the organism, the force not of an organization but of a disorganization, from which man still suffers, for this disorganizing power of thought was doubtlessly very seductive, the force it was capable of generating far surpassed that of the organized instincts and the individuated instincts, and was in its power very compelling to early man, offering to him an impetus toward action and life that could not be denied, even if the life and the acts it led him to were dangerous, painful, tragic. It took root in the deepest parts of his consciousness. It is his conscience. The conscience juxtaposes instincts and passions of contrary dispositions, as the sexual drive and the metaphysical need are counter-poised to produce the inspiration of the Christian saint, and grasps this disorganizing power, this inspiration, in an abstraction, in a discontiguous state of consciousness.
Right. Christianity then as the honesty of the aberration toward itself as such – how natural then that humanity is here seen as inherently sinful! How well we can now understand the profound inspirations of the “Fall” and the hallucinogenic imagery surrounding it – amazing how human history is coming together now.
Quote :
The disorganizing power of thought is the most seductive and powerful impetus to life that has been produced by nature, and for this reason it persists in man. This is only because thought has still been unable to realize a harmony of the instincts equal in power to that of his original nature.
Until finally, perspectivism arose, and thought overcame its honesty toward itself, that is to say, learned to dismiss itself, broke out of its short-circuiting. With thinkers like Nietzsche, thought shifted its focus from its own nature to the nature of the animal that was still present in its most integrated, immoral and triumphant acts, as well as its least conscious dwellings. And now perspectivism has led to value ontology, which gives us a rational conception of the animal as unity that may be applied to man as it can be to animal. With value ontology, the self-estranging rational process has re-joined the road of unified experience, and enabled at least the conception of the possibility of a new harmony of the instincts, under a ‘command’ that resembles ‘nature’ – nature becomes conscious, consciousness become natural.
Quote :
The conscience, then, is the perishing and diseased nature which still lives within a consciousness attempting to actively realize an organization of its constituent drives, attempting to attain through discontiguous abstractions a new organization of the forces engendered by these drives as well as by the senses which disturb and incite it to life. In short, it is the voice of a disintegrated nature, a compendium of all bestial life, it is the voice of a being trying to become human.
The final battle, the theatre has been erected – yes, a beginning of an understanding of what humanity would mean to itself without the need for this conscience, has been created. But consciousness is still alive and well because it has come to represent the best of our values… That which in the end must be discarded as the hindrance to direct valuing, at this point encompasses our values! The struggle will mean the disentanglement of values from conscience, the disintegrating of values based in notional morality and at the same time the re-integrating of values into a living ethics, a ‘higher self’… not only of the individual, but of the self-image of mankind.
If Man is indeed the “rational animal” and we have arrived at the end of the line of this rationality, then it seems to me that we have in fact arrived at the power to manifest the object of Nietzsches longing - the Übermensch.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
Group ethics & selective “unfitness” Empty
PostSubject: Re: Group ethics & selective “unfitness” Group ethics & selective “unfitness” Icon_minitimeMon Feb 13, 2012 9:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
And now perspectivism has led to value ontology, which gives us a rational conception of the animal as unity that may be applied to man as it can be to animal. With value ontology, the self-estranging rational process has re-joined the road of unified experience, and enabled at least the conception of the possibility of a new harmony of the instincts, under a ‘command’ that resembles ‘nature’ – nature becomes conscious, consciousness become natural.
Due mostly to the inability within me to be certain of what is being meant by much of what is being said in this thread, I can’t agree to much of it. But that one quoted bit is probably the most significant thing revealing the value of “value-ontology”.
(from my perspective Smile )
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Empty
PostSubject: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Icon_minitimeSat Feb 04, 2012 10:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So you think mutation is the key to evolution. Consider why it is that you have been convinced of that;
American use of DU is “A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time.” US Iraq military vets “are on DU death row, waiting to die.”
James Denver wrote:
‘Depleted’ uranium is in many ways a misnomer. For ‘depleted’ sounds weak. The only weak thing about depleted uranium is its price. It is dirt cheap, toxic, waste from nuclear power plants and bomb production. However, uranium is one of earth’s heaviest elements and DU packs a Tyson’s punch, smashing through tanks, buildings and bunkers with equal ease, spontaneously catching fire as it does so, and burning people alive. ‘Crispy critters’ is what US servicemen call those unfortunate enough to be close. And, when John Pilger encountered children killed at a greater distance he wrote: “The children’s skin had folded back, like parchment, revealing veins and burnt flesh that seeped blood, while the eyes, intact, stared straight ahead. I vomited.” (Daily Mirror)
The millions of radioactive uranium oxide particles released when it burns can kill just as surely, but far more terribly. They can even be so tiny they pass through a gas mask, making protection against them impossible. Yet, small is not beautiful. For these invisible killers indiscriminately attack men, women, children and even babies in the womb-and do the gravest harm of all to children and unborn babies.
A Terrible Legacy
Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Depleted_uranium_effects1
Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998 said that as many as 500 children a day are dying from these sequels to war and sanctions and that the death rate for Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 23 per 1000 in 1989 to 166 per thousand in 1993. Overall, cases of lymphoblastic leukemia more than quadrupled with other cancers also increasing ‘at an alarming rate’. In men, lung, bladder, bronchus, skin, and stomach cancers showed the highest increase. In women, the highest increases were in breast and bladder cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.1
On hearing that DU had been used in the Gulf in 1991, the UK Atomic Energy Authority sent the Ministry of Defense a special report on the potential damage to health and the environment. It said that it could cause half a million additional cancer deaths in Iraq over 10 years. In that war the authorities only admitted to using 320 tons of DU-although the Dutch charity LAKA estimates the true figure is closer to 800 tons. Many times that may have been spread across Iraq by this year’s war. The devastating damage all this DU will do to the health and fertility of the people of Iraq now, and for generations to come, is beyond imagining.
The radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years killing millions of every age for centuries to come. This is a crime against humanity which may rank with the worst atrocities of all time.
We must also count the numberless thousands of miscarried babies. Nobody knows how many Iraqis have died in the womb since DU contaminated their world. But it is suggested that troops who were only exposed to DU for the brief period of the war were still excreting uranium in their semen 8 years later and some had 100 times the so-called ‘safe limit’ of uranium in their urine. The lack of government interest in the plight of veterans of the 1991 war is reflected in a lack of academic research on the impact of DU but informal research has found a high incidence of birth defects in their children and that the wives of men who served in Iraq have three times more miscarriages than the wives of servicemen who did not go there.
Since DU darkened the land Iraq has seen birth defects which would break a heart of stone: babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without eyes, or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the defects are almost unknown outside textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific.
Doctors report that many women no longer say ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’ but simply, ‘Is it normal, doctor?’ Moreover this terrible legacy will not end. The genes of their parents may have been damaged for ever, and the damaging DU dust is ever-present…
…Then, when a growing number became seriously ill, and should have been sent to top experts in radiation damage and neurotoxins, many were sent to a psychiatrist…
…Since DU darkened the land Iraq has seen birth defects which would break a heart of stone: babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without eyes, or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the defects are almost unknown outside textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific…
…Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. This is no coincidence. In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington was quoted as saying, ‘The [US government’s] Veterans Administration asked me to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body.’ He concluded, ‘uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow.’ Not what the authorities wanted to hear and his research was suddenly blocked…
…Entire article Rence.com
Israel’s war with their neighbors via the USA has all but ended homosapian. The same people are also designing the DNA of every source of food, and designing “proper thought and life”, all for the same purpose. You have been consuming it most of your life and it is just beginning to have its irreversible effects.
All is lost by virtue of victory at all cost.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Icon_minitimeSat Feb 04, 2012 12:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The subject is terrifying, the inferences made from it horrifying.
Can you combine this with the notion of health and momentum?
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Icon_minitimeSun Feb 05, 2012 6:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The subject is terrifying, the inferences made from it horrifying.
Can you combine this with the notion of health and momentum?
Every process, especially one of life, has an adversary to that process, an agent of entropy. The victor at every point of contention is determined by Momentum.
That DU problem is perhaps 10-20 percent of the current adversary to the life process of homosapian and cleverly initiated by homosapian. It is a tsunami more vast and momentous than his little mind can comprehend or believe. It is not a matter of something catastrophic that might happen one day. It is already on its way. It is kept under the sea, out of sight where it can build even greater momentum before even the notion to stop it can be inspired. Yet there is no stopping it. The components that comprise the danger cannot be removed, are already dispersed, and already spawning their effect and next unstoppable consequence. Homosapian’s hopes of victory, normality, and control are but fantasies, children playing on the beach, marking territories with lines in the sand, shouting noises into the wind, chanting the sacred tunes of mystical manipulations.
Momentum is an issue of volume of mass and velocity of that mass. The adversary has a mass volume too great to quantify, but its velocity almost too slow to perceive. But every contest is one of strategic momentum, the right forces being applied to exactly the right points until the adversary is no longer a threat.
The only way to survive such an extreme contest of momentum is with an extreme counter measure. No matter how great a momentum, it can never win a contest with the immutable. No matter how quickly that momentum rushes onward, it can never outrun what has already transpired.
The only hope of any life in the current, real, and present danger, is to become the immutable before the contest of momentum and mutation begins. I can spell out the principles of the immutable stone (more than the Ark), but it takes more than one person to manifest it. I am merely one distant voice in the noisy wind at the beach. None survive until two are immutable. Upon three, the contest is won. The noise, the fire, the corruption, the divisiveness, and all that comprise the threat are consumed into the Momentous Harmony/Health of Life victorious, ending the incredibly long struggle against itself.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Icon_minitimeSun Feb 05, 2012 1:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I hear you. This is my rationale: The only way to combat the momentum of capital, in whichever direction it is pushed, is to change, re-root, (suppant) the principle of value, on which capital is based.
I am stuck on the specifics of the 1, 2 and 3 in relation to each others.
Perspectivally, 1 is transcendent, self-enclosed, 2 is experiential, polarity, 3 is a continuos relation of potentialities, a manifest power.
Taking this logic further, from 4th power on the unit applies to the real world, the acquisition of this dimension is the crossing of the threshold from the archetypical/geometrical to the formative world of rewarding battle and riskfull identification, where a set of qualities is required to keep the boat afloat on the river of flux with the vortexes of entropy.
Abstractly, I understand these concepts. What I do not have is the variable-language representing 1 in relation to 2 and 3, enabling the permutations required to arrive from the singular at the multifaceted perspective.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Icon_minitimeMon Feb 06, 2012 8:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sounds a little like you are speaking of;
- Self
- Else
- Border between
Self is perceptive influence with a compromised potential interferometer (PI). The PI is constantly undermined so as to disable the natural perceptive responses. Very, very many important things are going on right “under your nose”. As long as you cannot perceive the potential of them, your influence has no self determining decision making capacity.
To re-establish the health and harmony of the perceptive influence (the “Self”) in someone who has been compromised, a type of baptism of the perceptive influence must be undergone (exorcism of the de-mons, the de-unifiers). Doing such a baptism of oneself is a matter of;
- TSLs - Temporary Self Locks
- PITs - Potential Interferometer Tools
A simple example is the self lock of insistence to sit and meditate on something for no less than 5 minutes. To self-baptize, one must minimize the potential interference (sit in comfortable a quite place, eyes closed). Then maximize the potential influence (focus on the breathing until you sense nothing else and can easily and consciously alter it).
The fundamental process of such an endeavor is universal throughout life and thus to enhance the Self, that process must be instilled through regular practice. The re-cleansing, exorcising of any spurious demons, re-establishing pure harmony within, Self-harmony, must be a regular part of life’s activities. Sleeping is merely a lower level of the same process.
Much greater uses of TSLs and PITs should be gradually introduced so as to enhance the formerly broken/divided life. Eventually there is no more need for any TSL other than the Self’s will and the potential interferometer (PI) is finely tuned. From there, more significant influence tools are developed with the same perception-to-influence thought instilled deep inside. The “Will-to-Power” is established in this manner.
The potential perception interferometer (self-valuing) and potential influence interferometer (together as “Potential Interferometer”) must be strongly enhanced so as to remove insidiously implanted effects such as hypnosis, blame-shifting, obfuscation, false flagging, and so on. Accuracy in perception is paramount (thus the need for the verification step often mentioned).
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Icon_minitimeTue Feb 07, 2012 7:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Continuing the Tsunami theme concerning the momentum that is soon to be on your beach and cannot be stopped…
I estimated that the DU contamination problem is merely perhaps 10-20% of that Tsunami building up. If that wasn’t enough to get your attention, perhaps another 25-30% is the following concern:
Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Monsanto2
Biotech or Die via Monsanto:
Quote :
(NaturalNews) The one man who may be responsible for more food related illnesses and deaths than anyone in history, Michael R. Taylor, has just been promoted from US Food Safety Czar to Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the FDA, a position which would enable the giant biotech company Monsanto to silently and legally feed cancer causing vegetables to every living person who is not 100% strictly organic.
President Obama has appointed the former Monsanto Vice President and lobbyist Michael R. Taylor to the throne. This is the same man who was Food Safety Czar for the FDA when Genetically Modified Organisms were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety or risks. This is like putting a terrorist in charge of the world’s food supply. What will the cancer numbers look like in 2016?
The GMO nightmare all started with the Dan Quayle led FDA/GMO marriage. Under George Bush Senior’s Administration from 1989 to 1993, Dan Quayle single-handedly catapulted GMO’s into existence through FDA’s anti-consumer right-to-know policy, which stated that GMO foods did not have to be labeled or safety tested. Yes, you read that correctly: There is no safety testing required whatsoever to take some Agent Orange pesticide and genetically mutate the seeds of vegetables in a chemical laboratory so that nothing on planet earth will eat the plant that grows from the ground except for all the humans who have no idea what happened.
Michael Taylor is part of a revolving door at the FDA, where Monsanto Execs just come and go as they please. First, Michael R. Taylor was an assistant to the FDA commissioner. Then he left to work for a law firm in the 1980’s to help gain FDA approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone (rGBH), which is directly linked to cancer. Then he became deputy commissioner of the FDA in 1991, and was later re-appointed to the FDA in 2009 by Obama. He is the food villain who tried his best to keep this “malignant milk of the turn of the century” from being labeled.
Michael Taylor is the epitome of everything Monsanto represents. Taylor is like a vehicle for Monsanto’s patenting of seeds and global domination of farming. He implements the government’s “favorable” agricultural biotech policies because it’s much more of a financially sure shot to use RoundUp in food than to farm organically and ethically. If the investments aren’t paying enough at the corporation, Execs just switch over to Federal Regulations and write some new Legislation based on “tainted research”, which allows them to pile more toxins on the American public and bankroll off it when they flip back to the corporate side.
Far more
Comprehensive Report.
A while back, Alex Jones had submitted this short 10min video on YouTube.
And since Micheal Taylor got appointed without public or congressional consultation, more investigation was made in this extensive 2hr documentary on Monsanto. Unfortunately the most interesting portion of that documentary comes at about half way up til the very end.
What is not so blatantly clear is the general method of control of life being discussed. It is obvious that any plant DNA designed to subvert all others is a bit of a problem. But the more serious issue is the very foundational method - “make the chosen immune and then ‘RoundUp’ (kill) all else that cannot be controlled.”
The newly designed DNA is self replicating and cannot be stopped any more than that DU contamination. In Canada, it was decided that if any part of a field became contaminated by the patented GMO seeds, the entire field belonged to Monsanto. In the USA, it works a little differently, but the results are the same. Europe has varying rules. Mexico has even less formal laws concerning it, but again, the results are the same - the unstoppable displacement of all uncontrolled, undesigned life.
What you can’t control, RoundUP and destroy.
From the 2008 motion picture The World According to Monsanto
Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations MonsantoL
It has been going on for many years. It is not something that you can rebel against any longer. It is not merely “under your nose”. It is literally in your mouth. You have been eating gold implanted, artificial genome foods which do not treat your body the same as their natural counterparts. It is already in your food, your water, your air. It is already there. Rebelling against it is futile. Like the DU contamination, the damage is already done and growing into a next even more unstoppable generation of attempts to dominate all Life.
Keep in mind, that if you have followed along, you are still seeing less than 50% of the Tsunami already coming your way.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Lust to Dominate, Evolution, and Mutations Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2012 11:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course, deeply unwholesome and threatening. But the grand scheme is not quite as bleak as you describe, not all governments are like sheep to the shepherd Monsanto. I just read this:
in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/1 … FQ20120213
But more importantly, Monsanto seeds have always been banned from Austria (as have all genetically engineered products), and, as far as I can find out, since some years from Germany as well. Not all the world is entirely lobby-driven, a notion of health does exist, even in (some) political circles.
I suggest the US based resistance builds from this awareness – of having stronger allies overseas – not from a position of utter abandonment and hopelessness, which is never a good basis for action.