Mitra-Sauwelios was a false start.
“Your symbolical, lyrical and musical world can become an absolute standard. That is to say the highest on Earth.” (Fixed Cross, “Re: A letter for the King” (return email to yours truly!), my translation.)
[size=62]kali maa jaap mantra {om aim hreem kleem chamundaye vichaye}[/size]
“didja read that great wall of text he wrote? i’m tellin’ you, ollie is the grand master of the esoteric and eclectic. if there IS something more to life, something extramundane or divine or whatever you wanna call it, ollie will figure it out” (Zoot Allures, to phoneutria, about yours truly.)
I, Oliver, “Ollie”, have figured it out. For there is something (more) to life. And now it’s time to manifest as the absolute standard.
First philosophy as metaphysics or cosmology, philosophy proper.
“A Nietzschean history of philosophy recovers in Plato what is fundamental to all the greatest philosophers, what ultimately moves or motivates them. Most fundamental are two passions or loves. Philosophy is the passion to understand the whole rationally, the love of wisdom that is, Socrates indicated in the Symposium, the highest eros of a whole that can be understood as eros and nothing besides. Political philosophy, the acts of communication and legislation undertaken on behalf of that primary passion, is driven by love of the human, philanthropy, as Socrates indicated in the Phaedo where Plato has him pause at the center to state that the greatest evil facing humanity is misology, hatred of logos or reason that entails misanthropy and stems from reason’s inability to prove that the world is what the heart most desires it to be. The fundamental connection between these two passions, love of wisdom and love of the human, can be demonstrated exegetically in Plato only through detailed study of the Symposium and Phaedo, the study to be undertaken in the book to follow this one. The present book concerns Plato’s presentation of Socrates’ philanthropy.”(Laurence Lampert, How Philosophy Became Socratic, pp. 13-14.)
I wonder if Lampert’s second book on Plato, which is set to come out this winter, will indeed demonstrate that fundamental connection. I have already figured it out, however. But first, ontology.
With Value Ontology, later called the self-valuing logic, and now Valuator Logic, Fixed Cross claimed to have perfected Nietzsche’s doctrine of the will to power, by filling the lacuna he had found within that doctrine with what he’d come to understand as his own deepest nature. I, however, think I’ve found something even more fundamental.
What I always missed in Fixed Cross’s logic was precisely the notion of “will to power”. Fixed Cross first explained it to me as what Aleister Crowley had called “Love under Will”: there is something underneath the will to power, and that is “self-valuing”. Excuse me if I don’t do justice to how he phrased it, but I think this is a sufficient paraphrase (for now).
My formula for Fixed Cross’s logic is: “self-Valuing through other-Valuing”. One will note the capitals (and the lack thereof). In this I follow David Farrell Krell, who uses similar capitalisation in his translations of Heidegger. I contend that being is self-Valuing through other-Valuing, but Being is not. Fixed Cross had claimed to have sublated this distinction—Heidegger’s “ontological difference”—, but I beg to differ. I contend that Being is what I called spacelight, which I will now call light-space. (For the form, though not the content, one may want to compare the term “wave-particle duality”. In my view, space and light are a duality, that is to say a unity.)
Even more fundamental than self-Valuing through other-Valuing is what I now call self-Light’ning into light-space (zelfverlichting in schijnvrijheid). First and foremost, beings aren’t self-Valuings through other-Valuings, but self-Lightenings, that is to say Lightenings of those very Lightenings. The feeling of power, the feeling of—free—will, is most basically the feeling of getting lighter. At the most basic—quantum—level, all “beings” are getting lighter all the time, less all the time, meaning more and more space emerges. This is the infinite universe-equivalent of the “expansion” of the universe.
‘I now think the accumulation [of forces] is secondary, whereas the discharge is primary. I can’t even say the accumulation is the means whereas the discharge is the end, for this would ascribe an intentionality to the accumulation process which I don’t think there need be. When power is discharged, of course it doesn’t disappear into nothingness; it is discharged somewhere, which means someplace else is getting charged… At the most basic level, accumulation is simply this getting charged. And the feeling of power is not in the accumulation, but in the discharge (seine Kraft herauslassen, letting out one’s force). This is why I now call the will to power a “self-Lightening”: the feeling of power is the feeling of getting “lighter”; and the Lightening gets “lighter” by this very Lightening: it becomes less in one place but greater (“heavier”) in another. It never comes to a standstill!’
‘Discharge of force ultimately means that force (energy, “matter”) becomes space… The Big Bang is the absolute maximum accumulation of force discharging itself into space (the heat death of the universe is when the universe almost entirely consists of space). This is my thesis!’
‘Postulate of being as self-Lightening.—“[F]orce is the drive to discharge itself within a field of forces enacting the same necessity. […W]ill to power has no aim but discharge of the total quanta of its force at every moment; such discharge is always an event within a relatively unstable field of such impulses to discharge, the relation among them being simply that of greater or lesser; all beings are ultimately more or less stable collections of such impulses and themselves express the fundamental quality of impulse, will to power.” (Lampert, What a Philosopher Is, pp. 264 and 266n29.)’
‘[M]y thesis: space is the show-freedom [schijnvrijheid] of bodies. Every body is a light source (even though most light is invisible to humans: infrared, ultraviolet, etc.), and indeed I mean “show-freedom” in a dual sense: the apparent freedom to give light. In truth we give off space all the time, whether we want to or no; ever more space emerges, all bodies become relatively smaller all the time. Space is light that has not yet given light, given off energy; as soon as it’s done this it’s gone, no longer light but part of a body. This body “in turn” (really at the same time) gives off space, “radiation”. When we see light, this means the space between us and the light source has been reduced to zero: for the space between us and the sun this takes approximately eight minutes, but in the meantime the sun also adds a (more or less) equal amount of space: it is thence that we do not scorch our eyes…’
::
On to political philosophy. Phrased in terms of the first Lampert quote above, the connection is simple: when one has come to understood the whole rationally, when one is wise, one’s very understanding or wisdom impels one to love and, moreover, to will, all beings who are not wise.
‘The only thing higher to be loved than even wisdom is that which wisdom loves: wisdom is itself the highest kind of love—and this is what makes wisdom lovable!’
‘I just had the ultimate insight during my Holosync. I am now mad like Nietzsche.
[…]
Well, I’m also not mad, because my madness is the measure of everything. I am the mad God, Dionysus.
Everyone and everything who is not Dionysus is my Ariadne.’
I was wrong when I wrote: ‘What a Dionysus will do to his Ariadne is transform her into a Dionysus[.]’ Being a woman, Ariadne can never become a Dionysus; there can never be a Dionysa. What Dionysus will do, however, is present her ever more fully with His supreme manliness, His Kingliness—only to have her fly ever more deeply into her womanliness!
“[S]tronger, more evil, and more profound; also more beautiful[.]”
‘The way I see it—and note that I’ve been coming back to Nietzsche (and Hinduism, and religion in general) from within secular Buddhism or nihilism—, creativity is literally limited by Nothing… It is the Nothing or nothingness which is what I’ve called zeroth nature—that which alone gives rise to “natures”, “first natures”, e.g. human “nature”. Recall that thing I said […] about being bounded by boundlessness. This is the only true necessity: the maddening lonesomeness of the One or the Nothing, which impels It to WILL Its Other, Its Opposite, the loveliest being It could possibly imagine… No, not It; He: God is a Man, a Real Real Man, and His One True Love is a Woman, nay a Gentlewoman, Whom He will tempt to be His Lady!’
::
No, I was doubly wrong. Dionysus will transform some Ariadnai into Dionysoi (though not into Dionysai!), but only “the fewest”; by far the most he will cause to fly even more deeply into their womanliness.
“The saḿskáras [conditionings] of all individuals could be withdrawn in one moment if Parama Puruśa [the Supreme Youth] so desired. But He does not because it would stop His entire creative flow and lead to the dissolution of this world. […] To continue the flow of His divine play, it is not desirable that all entities of the vast universe should attain the Supreme stance [wisdom, enlightenment] at one time[.]” (P.R. Sarkar, Ánanda Márga Philosophy in a Nutshell, Part 5.)
[size=62]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q9xdzs-1eg&t=112[/size]