[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8pOAsERcg0[/youtube]
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.
The birth of morality and a new unease. View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
The birth of morality and a new unease. Empty
PostSubject: The birth of morality and a new unease. The birth of morality and a new unease. Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 12:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It seems to me that what has been called morality has thus far existed for the sake of incorporating what seems strange and fantastical, what seems ridiculous and improbable- for example, the freedom of the will or the idea of the self-caused, into an active and participatory consciousness. Thus, the conception of the freedom of the will has been rendered palpable in our feelings of guilt. These ridiculous conceptions, at least for our ancestors, posed a great riddle, for in their lack of knowledge they had no alternative explanation and had to accept them, they had to accept the reality of the gods, of the free will, of the absurd. In order to force themselves to accept such ideas they began to moralize. We now have many contrary explanations and no longer require the acceptance of ridiculous concepts, yet because we have no need to incorporate them into an active and participatory consciousness our truths have no chance of victory in the struggle with those errors which, over the centuries, have been wed with the stuff of life. We require some new order of poets to render us uneasy with regard to these truths, poets who have forgotten man as well as god, poets who are capable of championing under the banner of tragedy that young soul which must wrestle with the question of acceptance with regard to so many unfavorable truths for, insofar as joyousness is always the product of refined, deliberate craft, and the fruit of a peculiar ingenuity, it shall be precisely this neediness, the need for bearing the truth joyously as opposed to the need to accept the absurd for want of more reasonable truths, that will in the long run allow us to finally overcome our errors.
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist
Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeMon Feb 13, 2012 6:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is value-ontology to be associated with;
A) all people should seek to assess value as defined by their own Self/Existence/Soul,
B) some people should submit themselves to the value defined by society or evolution (inherently the Nobility - Socialism),
C) all people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?
Once that decision is made, Value-ontology can have a basis for deducing ethical standards and morality and thus gain social significance. Until then, from my perspective, it will remain merely more noise.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeMon Feb 13, 2012 11:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From my understanding, what we call value-ontology here is a reversal of the classical philosophical paradigm. Philosophy has first studied the nature of being, ontology, then built a morality on top of that. What we think is that ontology, that being, can only be discovered after valuations have been made, after a value system has been established. The primary ontological factor then, for a morality of this kind, must be that entity which empowers and makes the valuation possible in the first place: the valuing and creating self. The study of ontology then becomes the study of what is theoretically possible, conceivable, for the valuing subject in terms of experience, it becomes the attempt Adorno pointed towards in this quote, “Perspectives must be produced which set the world beside itself, alienated from itself, revealing its cracks and fissures, as needy and distorted as it will one day lay there in the messianic light.”
Morality (value) as primary, ontology as secondary, that is the basic premise. Following it through would eradicate the distinction between essence and appearance, noumenon and phenomenon, that Nietzsche often criticized and which had stifled philosophy by the 19th century.
This value before ontology notion I would sum up with this quote by Athanasius: Ει ουν φιλοσοφητέον είτε μη φιλοσοφητέον, φιλοσοφητέον. [Man, by virtue of his daemonic nature, must be a philosopher, rather he wants to or not, rather he philosophizes or not.]
The corruption of philosophy, morality’s loss of its primary quality, goes as far back as Plato.
Traditional ethical philosophy and morality have phrased the Good in a language quite distinct from the language that traditional philosophy uses to phrase the True. The true has always been purely representative. The truth, in the old Platonic sense, as the Ideas, are not positive specifications of knowledge. They are conditions of possibility of knowledge. Like the law of identity, a thing is what it is and no other thing. That is not itself a positive piece of knowledge, but is rather a representative kind of knowledge: it merely represents the transcendental object by which the empirical consciousness holds itself in existence and sustains the process of thought. I want to begin a new ethical philosophy that treats the Good in just this way, as purely representative, as a condition of possibility for the empirical, lived, finite, meaning-seeking consciousness. Our morals do not accomplish such a representative act, they do not represent to us a transcendental object. Our moral and ethical philosophies have tried to be merely positive designations of knowledge. Do this or do not do this. This is a virtue, that is a vice, etc. This owes itself to the primal error by Plato, who spoke of the good in a different language than he used to speak of the true. The true was spoken of as a representative idea, whereas the good was discovered within Eros’ loving gaze, was born of this gaze, and because it was related only to Eros, only to the lover and not the beloved object itself, not the transcendental order to which truth belonged, which truth represented, this “good” served for Eros as a merely positive objectification of knowledge rather than as a representative of the transcendental. The foremost goal of a new ethical philosophy must be to re-imagine “ethical ideas,” that is, purely representative goods. In the way in which the idea sustains the process of thought and holds the empirical consciousness in existence, “ethical ideas” must sustain a process that I call the “erotic-daemonic,” and that new ethical philosophy which engenders them must hold the transcendental objects and those truths which represent these objects in existence, must hold the “ontological” philosophy in existence, by continually recovering those conditions of limitation within the empirical consciousness from which such truths were born.
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
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2012 10:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sooo…
Was that A, B, or C ?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2012 10:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A) all people should seek to assess value as defined by their own Self/Existence/Soul,
B) some people should submit themselves to the value defined by society or evolution (inherently the Nobility - Socialism),
C) all people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?
The questions you posed are irrelevant. All people already do seek to assess value as defined by their own self. It’s a psychological fact and reality, not a point of debate. That’s why Christians cherry pick what they like out of the bible and ignore the rest. Some people submit to the value defined by the society they live in because they’re weak and they like order, they like to be ordered and to take orders. Here they are still valuing on the basis of their own self and what they are. And I am pretty sure the only way to define a value system is “cognitively” and the only way to apply it is “as we wish.”
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
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2012 11:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So “Value-Ontology” represents (C).
Is that the consensus?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2012 12:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan … if_srs.jpg
images.cheezburger.com/completes … 77e794.jpg
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
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2012 1:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So value-ontology means, “life and reality are whatever you want them to be” -the motto of the anarchist and solipsist.
“Truth (ontology) based on want (value)”?
Hmm… a bit disappointing.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2012 9:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
First of all, that has nothing to do with anything I said, second of all, want is not value, third of all, see above.
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
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2012 11:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites has answered the question of a value-ontological morality as far as it can be answered directly, which means that he already took the step from “pure” value-ontology to describe the sort of ethics that derives from it. But such ethics have nothing to do with the type of commandments you (James) seek. The simplest answer to your question is: An ontology does not describe what should be, but what is. Value ontology does not prescribe anything to man that man does not already prescribe to himself. It is at first a means to un-prescribe impossible, nonsensical and useless prescriptions, and therefore enables/opens up, rather than that it imposes on man any limitations or laws.
The only commandments/prohibitions that can be seen as following from value ontology directly are those that can be imposed on external rule, government. The individual can not be effectively commanded except by manipulating the commanding that he himself is. He can not be directly, unconditionally commanded except by threatening him with suffering and death, and this does not produce any allegiance, reliability. He is best commanded by manipulating his perception of his own commanding nature (manipulating his self-perception), so as for it to suit the type of commands one wants to give him. One can only precisely and enduringly command an individual by making him think that he is being commanded in name of himself – in terms of his self-valuing. In this light I can address the three options.
“A) all people should seek to assess value as defined by their own Self/Existence/Soul,”
People, and al beings, inevitably do this, whether anyone says they should or not. Value ontology explains this inevitability. If tere is any “should” here it id that we should give up the effort of trying the change this tendency, and aim for a flexible society with no direct commands, except for a few “thou shalt nots” (kill, etc) and a few provisions from which one can only benefit (roads, clean water, etc).
“B) some people should submit themselves to the value defined by society or evolution (inherently the Nobility - Socialism),”
Society represents the social terms in which a human can see his own self-valuing reflected. An individual simply can only submit himself to a rule/law that something in his being agrees with. If there is nothing to agree with, he will rebel or allow himself to be imprisoned / killed.
There are weaker and stronger self-valuings (beings), just as there are more and less stable elements. The weaker a self-valuing is, the more it will tolerate of society and the less it needs of society to conform to him. A being of maximum strength/stability is able to exist either alone or commanding whatever is around him. Society may try to regulate self-valuings interactions with each other so that a strong beings tyrannnical influence (what Nietzsche calls “bestowing virtue”) is only exerted on those who benefit from this rule/standard-giving.
A society based on value ontology can have no central value-prescribing command, it can only limit what strong entities do to weaker entities who do not voluntarily submit, as well as provide for goods/values that are of general benefit. It would follow that ideally, government is sustained not by taxes but by voluntary contributions.
“C) all people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?”
In as far as an individual has the need or desire as well as the capacity to cognitively define at all, they might benefit from defining their value system so. But since a value system is already implicit in anyones being, it works whether it is cognitively defined or not. What should be cognitively defined is a philosophically sound model for the interactions/exchange of values. The absence of this is the only real problem of our current world. This is the void from which all modern evils (such as the ones you are predicting will bring the end of the homo sapines) are spawned.
" 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
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2012 11:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross has pointed out what I did, my rationalist meta-physician friend. Your questions are irrelevant. The point of debate is how values are actually created and defined, how they should be defined and created. Value ontology is a method for creating values, as opposed to the other methods that exist.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2012 11:59 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The errors of ontology have been manifested in morality, because man’s existence as an ontological subject has taken primacy over his existence as an ethicizing subject. For example, free will is a major basis for modern morality, when it is in fact nothing more than an error of ontological philosophy. Inverting ontological and moral philosophy would eventually help us realize a philosophically accurate and rich concept of experience, something that eluded Kant and for which he has been criticized, as I said:
The primary ontological factor then, for a morality of this kind, must be that entity which empowers and makes the valuation possible in the first place: the valuing and creating self. The study of ontology then becomes the study of what is theoretically possible, conceivable, for the valuing subject in terms of experience…
Value ontology would be a method for refining a self-consistent, internal vision of life which, objectively specified, would provide such a “philosophical concept of experience.” The philosophy that emerges out of it would deal, even in the extremity of its ontology, with things rooted in perception and experience, (and therefor the truth) since everything must first pass through the refining, self-consistent, internal conception of the world and the self, established through a cultivated valuation(s).
A quote by Nietzsche seems fitting:
This ridiculous overestimation and misunderstanding of consciousness has the very useful consequence that it prevents an all too fast development of consciousness. Believing that they possess consciousness, men have not exerted themselves very much to acquire it; and things haven’t changed much in this respect. To this day the task of incorporating knowledge and making it instinctive is only beginning to dawn on the human eye and is not yet clearly discernible; it is a task that is seen only by those who have comprehended that so far we have incorporated only our errors and that all our consciousness relates to errors.
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
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 1:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
One must always point the way to others in accord with where they stand.
…assuming that one isn’t interested in merely talking to himself.
Assuming that none of the options in the OP were applicable, an appropriate response would have been something like;
“None of the above, but instead,
D) Value-ontology should be associated with…”
rather than the somewhat egotistical and nonsensical response, “your [OP thread topic] questions are irrelevant”
I seriously have no need for a lecture from any of you about how reality or a mind functions nor the errors of society’s mental acrobatics. You expose how you think with every statement you make, for example your blindness to the connection between “want” and “value”.
Parodites wrote:
Fixed Cross has pointed out what I did, my rationalist meta-physician friend. Your questions are irrelevant. The point of debate is how values are actually created and defined, how they should be defined and created. Value ontology is a method for creating values, as opposed to the other methods that exist.
In that very short quote (compared to all you have written), you point out the exact reasoning for the question (the ONLY question that is relevant in THIS thread). You state that value-ontology is a method concerning how ethics “should be defined”. That is exactly what the “irrelevant” OP question is about. It is not about how everyone throughout history has been inferior and all of the foolish errors those pathetic people in the past have made. If you want to lecture about that, at least provide an example of such an obvious error, but on a different thread.
As implied in the OP, until you can get your mind out of the dark cloud that you seem to have labeled, “value-ontology” and relate it to something other people can see clearly (as well as clarify it better to yourselves), you will not be able to sensibly define any morality or ethics and the entire notion will remain in the eyes of society as “some Nietzschean nonsense that a few guys were babbling about”.
And btw, a physicist is not a physician.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 1:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I didn’t notice your sub-name was “rational metaphysicist.” I always glanced at it and read it simply as “rational metaphysics,” because my brain tends to just ignore things that either don’t exist or don’t make any sense, like “metaphysicist.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 1:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Look, fuckhead, I told you what value ontology was to my mind, others have no doubt done the same before. The only dark cloud I have my head in is my reason for still talking to you. Don’t tell me about being egotistical, either. I don’t much enjoy talking to other human beings in the first place, I’d prefer to just bury my head in a bottle of pills and listen to music all day, and I consequently don’t have any qualms about speaking to those human beings that fail to amuse me, provoke me, or give me something to think about in any way I see fit. I said your OP questions were irrelevant because they’re irrelevant. I defined very specifically what I see value ontology as. I’m not going to reduce either it or myself to fit into the cloistered sentence-long verbal turd of one of your stupid fucking questions. Anything else?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 1:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“All people should cognitively define their value-system for themselves to be applied as they wish?”
No, man. They should define it lymphatically, or testicularly, or with their pituary gland. What other way is there to define it besides cognitively?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 1:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
By the way, looking through all of your posts, I am convinced you are either suffering from some form of dementia, or you are out of your mind.
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
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 2:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If the intention behind the OP is to acquire a morality in the form of a “thou shalt” (to humans) then value ontology should be ignored. It should indeed be considered irrelevant to the traditional moralist (the “thou-shalt”-sayer), as it reveals the cognitive void underneath such moralities.
Untranslated, the OPs points are very far away from having to do anything with value ontology. However, efforts have been made to relate value ontology to the intention suspected behind the OP. It seemed that the intention was to find out what type of morality can be won from value ontology. These efforts have apparently been wasted on you, yet you confirm the suspected intention by quoting “method concerning how ethics “should be defined”” as what the OP is about. Why then have you ignored answers you have received, and say that you have gotten no answers?
The only reason I can think of is that the answers you have received are not simple enough for you. If this is the case I have to disappoint you – indeed, there is no simple, swift and conclusive way from value ontology to a formulation of a morality. We’ve just begun the work, and since it is philosophical work, which means that it runs deep and moves slowly, we will not be finishing it anytime soon. Panicky calls about the end of mankind are not going to speed up the process.
The only effort you could make that would speed up this particular process is trying harder to understand what value ontology is, and trying harder to understand the replies you get and the posts you respond to. If the OPs point was simply to discredit value ontology as “vague” or “a dark cloud” to provoke the authors to change it, then it is fortunate that it has been misunderstood and caused some useful replies.
"As implied in the OP, until you can get your mind out of the dark cloud that you seem to have labeled, “value-ontology”
It is convenient to know how you really stand toward this thinking.
“and relate it to something other people can see clearly”
It has proven perfectly understandable to a good number of people already, all of them (how coincidental!) of highly refined intelligence. It has met some resistance from people who want to use it in a way for qwhich it is not designed (you) and those who feel threatened by it (certain Nietzscheans)
" (as well as clarify it better to yourselves),"
Presumption. That you fail to see clearly it does not mean that this unclarity exists outside of you.
“you will not be able to sensibly define any morality or ethics and the entire notion will remain in the eyes of society as “some Nietzschean nonsense that a few guys were babbling about”.”
Ignoring for a moment that we are sensibly defining already, such a prospect is delightful compared to the prospect of scrambling to mutilate the thought to fit the urge to be subjected to “thou shalt” like commandments.
It may take one year, ten years, or a thousand years for this thought to take hold on a large scale. It may never take hold. In any case it will not be compromised by its creators to suit fearful urges or anti-philosophical demands.
" 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
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 2:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let him hodgepodge some more random math and science concepts together and call it a ToE.
Why are you even on this site Saint? You have more posts than any member of this forum and you aren’t even interested in value ontology, you’re here to rant about how you discovered a Theory of Everything.
I am going to offer the absolute briefest explanation of value ontology which I can:
Value ontology is a way of philosophizing that grants ontological primacy to the human agent (the valuing subject, named many things by many people- for Nietzsche, will, for Heidegger, Dasein, for me, the daemonic, for Kierkegaard simply the self or that which despairs) rather than ousia or being. It gets beyond, in this way, the distinction between truth and appearance and deals with questions of being in a language derived from a philosophically accurate and rich concept of experience rather than an abstract, Aristotelian table of categories, something which Kantian philosophy has always lacked.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 12:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
Value ontology is a way of philosophizing that grants ontological primacy to the human agent (the valuing subject, named many things by many people- for Nietzsche, will, for Heidegger, Dasein, for me, the daemonic, for Kierkegaard simply the self or that which despairs) rather than ousia or being. It gets beyond, in this way, the distinction between truth and appearance and deals with questions of being in a language derived from a philosophically accurate and rich concept of experience rather than an abstract, Aristotelian table of categories, something which Kantian philosophy has always lacked.
As an absolute briefest explanation, I’d say that’s not bad.
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Empty
PostSubject: Re: Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Does the Value-Ontologist Agree to… Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 1:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
As implied in the OP, until you can get your mind out of the dark cloud that you seem to have labeled, “value-ontology” and relate it to something other people can see clearly (as well as clarify it better to yourselves), you will not be able to sensibly define any morality or ethics and the entire notion will remain in the eyes of society as “some Nietzschean nonsense that a few guys were babbling about”.
This sums well the core of your critique here: value ontology cannot produce anything which can be related/relevant to “other people”, it is a unclear “cloud” with insufficient (or at least insufficiently demonstrated) substance.
Unfortunately, I guess for you, as you may have noticed here much is being written and worked on with respect to this, the supposed unclarity of the thought, as well as its supposed irrelevancy to the world at large. Thinking back to when this site was created, about 3-4 months ago, what we call “value ontology” (remember this is just a label, the content is always much more than a label can capture, and the collection of this content/s under a single name is more of a regrettable necessity than anything else, at least for me) was something barely in its infancy compared to what it has become now. Which is not to say that it is presently “very much”, with respect to what it could be, must become, will become. It is a work-in-progress, and as Fixed Cross noted, such works as these philosophical projects take much time and the progress tends to be slow. The thought has become much clearer, more defined and delineated. At times this takes a form of declaration and explication, at other times a more negative form of “what it is not”. Both are acceptable, of course. Also important is to note that defining a thing is never as clear-cut as “this is that”, “x=y”, that sort of thinking finds a home in mathematics, perhaps in some sciences, but has little home in philosophy. To believe that a thought, any object of thought or philosophic inquiry – indeed any subjective experience or “will to” subjectivity at all – can be absolutely defined in this manner is nothing short of idiocy. To believe such reveals that one fundamentally misunderstands what it even is that is going on when we say we are “thinking” or “philosophizing” or “seeking truth”. Experience is not black and white, no matter how much you (think you) want it to be.
Value ontology largely precludes truth/s as closed-impositional constructs, “thou-shalt”'s, solely positive-empirical or -nominal declarations. Rather the truths of what can be gathered under the heading “value ontology” are far more phenomenological, subjective and applied-direct. Their borders extend outward and vanish from sight behind horizonal lines, and inwardly these continue to vanish ahead of themselves, always hinting at what later begins to more fully and substantially disclose itself. Space/s are mapped, terrains marked, but no absolute boundaries are discovered.
As has also been pointed out already, failure to see clarity cannot be assumed to result from without alone. You must factor in the possibility that such unclarity is arising as a consequence of you yourself, for whatever reason. To circumvent this possibility it would be necessary for you to construct a sufficient and precise critique that would show where and how value ontological thought/s are inadequate, miscalculated or incorrect. What I find unfortunate is that you have not seemingly attempted any such precise critique, not generated of such a counter-position a substantial content and possibility for exploration, but have rather only stagnated at the most basic polemical level, interjecting occasional implied hints toward your own ideas as if this sort of vague inference constituted an actual argument, much less a rebuttal.
I for one would love to see a detailed critique of “value ontology”, which would mean you first define its core concepts as they seem to you and then proceed to demonstrate their partial or total invalidity. I am serious, I really wish you could provide such a demonstration. As a young and still-developing thought, value ontology desperately needs such attacks – but they must be good, useful attacks, of course. Potent, powerful, specific, forcing change/s upon the attacked object. In short, drawing blood. My main problem with your critique/s is they entirely fail to even bruise, let alone draw any blood.
A new ethics. View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
A new ethics. Empty
PostSubject: A new ethics. A new ethics. Icon_minitimeThu Feb 23, 2012 12:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In contrast to the theory of repression and sublimation which Freud elaborated from Nietzsche, I have my own picture.
I have gone on about my theory of consciousness, the reflexive nature of it, and the disintegration of the drives… Instead of the repression of one drive by another drive or drives, you get simply one drive acting separately from the others. Instead of sublimation, you get multiple drives operating in unison. This unison I called active consciousness, because it is involved in the higher ventures, like art, the production of genius, the creation of values. You could picture the consciousness of man as a number of pendulums swinging… In most men the pendulums are separated by a great distance, they swing not together but at different speeds, by different paces, etc. A lot of them do not swing at all, they have run down over time, a particular drive has atrophied, ie. human domestication prevails. But in the man of genius all the pendulums- the drives, instincts, thoughts, and emotions which constitute consciousness… are close to one another. If one pendulum swings, it hits up against the one next to it, and it to the one that follows, and so on, until all the pendulums are operating equally. Genius is measured by how little stimuli is needed to induce the entire consciousness to activity, the greatest geniuses need only a little stimulation to become very, very conscious. The fact that the drives operate as one leads to the strange behavior that allows the association between genius and insanity to be possible. Sexuality, intellect, all the emotions, etc… all operate as one. Of course this is all archetypal, no genius, no man, has every united in his consciousness absolutely all the constituent drives available to human nature. They have achieved greater and lesser degrees of such a union, which always operates against a much stronger, much larger background of the unconscious which, again, is not repressed memories and drives, but those drives, thoughts, etc. which resist integration and still operate as separate forces.
"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.” "
From Hamartia.
One only needs to think of human sacrifice, self-torture, cannibalism, death worship, all common in the earliest human societies. Why is this destructive “disorganizing force” preservative of the human species? It is a greater impetus to life, it is “stronger” than the half-slumbering active consciousness achieved by re-harmonizing the drives through “thinking.” It provides a greater way of cohering a social order. When man made the switch from small hunter-gatherer tribes to larger communities, it found its best soil.
" 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. "
It allows contrary mental states/affects to be grasped simultaneously. That is much easier, comparatively, then achieving genuine mental integration.
So we have one group that grasps contrary emotional states in an abstraction, through discontinguous states of consciousness, so that the intellect operates separately from the emotional organism, the egoic consciousness wholly circumscribed by the intellectualiation and narcotisized as it were. Everything is morally good which provides this respite, anything that reawakens emotional and sensual life (which must be highly painful, granted the contrary passions) is bad, like sexual desire, etc. Another group, who achieve mental integration, are not hurt by the same things that awaken for the former the drives, because their drives do not exist in such destructive configurations. But these two classes of people do not war, they integrate, socially, over time. Those who are not harmed by the drives, as the drive for sex, become early priests, the administrators of the Gods, and teach others how to tolerate these drives through things like sex rituals, as was practiced at the temples of Athena. The grasping through abstraction of contrary drives and the active integration of compatible drives, as two tendencies or psychological strategies, operate together, producing the model of the modern human being, a highly compartmentalized, coping-efficient, somewhat “less insane” psychology.
But the truth is often spurred along under the wing of madness.
But for us philosophers of the future, what do we need to do to intentionally produce what all genius has heretofore only for-shadowed? A truly active consciousness? It involves a new way of valuing, of creating morality.
“… doubt and suffering can only serve as the presentiment of a replete and living self, of some vital power within us that longs to be exhausted, and certainly can never extinguish such a vitality; for who and what a person is depends in the final case, not on the truth he has acquired or the morality for which he lives, but rather on the number of passions, joys, sufferings, and thoughts that he can unite within the circle of his comprehension, it depends upon the breadth of that image, of that idea, which he is capable of drawing from out of their opposition and turmoil, for anything not held within the confines of this image will certainly be lost amidst the passage of years, and everything not informed by its singularity destroyed. It is what Shelley called the hope which has created from its own wreck the thing it contemplates; it is Eros, that love which ennobles philosophy, which searches into the depths of mortal passion, which chastens the springs of joy and suffering, which raises our passions and experiences into the higher language of ideas; it is love, which engenders within that suffering which is the bitter fruit of all practical morality the seed of heroicism, that unites the disparate elements through which our individuality comes into being. When the sky darkens and the storm sets in, the bird does not cease flying because it is afraid, but because it can no longer see the horizon in its infinite distance, and it longs to brave immensity and impossibility, and cannot live under anything but that boundless horizon; so too does a man live and take shape only in the horizon of his love, his hope, and his ideas.” – Hamartia
The logic of the daemonic and the idea of reflexive consciousness I developed before I ever caught word of what you were doing here. Once I familiarized myself with value ontology I realized my concepts of the daemonic and my theory of consciousness could be used as the psychological basis of it, of value ontology. The psychology of the daemonic also articulates a new conception of morality, the idea of transcendental goods. Value ontology, when it has been fully formed, might be understood as the science of articulating and creating such transcendental goods, transcendental values, values which intentionally provoke the daemonic side of man. All of these separate ventures are different components of a new philosophical movement I don’t have a name for.
“All youths are prophets. Is not all of our wisdom only a long interpretation of the poem and dream of youth?”
- Hamartia
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
A new ethics. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A new ethics. A new ethics. Icon_minitimeThu Feb 23, 2012 1:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This was supposed to be a reply to a PM by Capable, and I accidentally posted it in ethics. I suppose I might as well leave it here.
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
A new ethics. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A new ethics. A new ethics. Icon_minitimeThu Feb 23, 2012 1:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is good that you did post this here. This is quite substantial. I would first like to focus on one small part here (essentially I feel like I understand most of what you write here - although it has taken me a while to habituate to your language and terms - so I want to focus more on where I so far have less grasp on your meaning),
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.” "
Why/how was this first experienced as a suffering, as a negative expression? Delimitation of what I will call the human-subjective drives from a functional unity-whole into discrete units (“thoughts” or ideas/conceptual-perceptive imaginings, and distinct “feelings”) would seemingly have schizophrenized the human mind, introducing total confusion and chaos into the human. Suddenly man is experiencing powerful “thoughts”, internal images that are not memories but vivid imaginings of presently unreal conditions that yet seem entirely real, and intense passional-emotional states that linger and seem to arise “out of nowhere” rather than as a result of immediate environmental stimulus. It seems like “chaotic” and confusing would be a good way to describe all this. What I want to get at is more exactly what you mean by, “very painful, and constituted a kind of negative expression of the organism”. This negative expression resulting from how a single moment of consciousness is now being defined-constituted by a more limited-narrow experiential stimulus rather than the result of a unified functional whole of all relevant internal states, drives and affects (“instincts”) given the stipulations of the environment of the immediate moment? That each moment of such a now highly compartmentalized consciousness is an expression of more “lack” of “what is not there, what is not saliently functional” than what is?
I am also curious in what manners this would have been so seductive and socially useful to man. Probably the emergence of shaman and language (or further development of language) was spurred by the necessity of coping with this now-schizophrenized consciousness, which had previously known only “animal unity” of a more or less functional whole “image” of consciousness where no single drive or impulse would have unduly impeeded upon the rest (out of sync with environmental necessity, of course). Now picture this new man, this ape, standing around experiencing these inner turmoils that have no immediate environmental stimulus. Certainly language and social force, in other words the imposition of powerful regulatings and limiting mechanisms that would have been recognized by this ape (e.g. elements of the social sphere, power hierarchies, words/sounds designating known threats or desired objects, etc.), would have been needed. Those early societies which survived were the ones that developed more useful mechanisms of limitation and constraint with respect to this newly compartmentalized-freed system of drives and affects? In otherwords, without an “animal” functional unity the consciousness needed to supplement itself in part with a new sort of compensational unity, one borrowed from the social sphere.
Assuming this is hitting on where you are going with this, I would like to further explore how this situation led to the emergence of conscience, specifically what this conscience was, consisted of, at first, and how our modern experiences with it can be seen as derivative of these earlier states. I suppose I have a preconceived connotation of what “conscience” means and is, and there is some lack of overlap here with regard to how this may be seen to have derived from the early condition of man just having developed rudimentary self-consciousness and “reason”, and a basic symbolic-representational language in such a way so as to experience the delimitation and compartmentalization of the various inner sensations from each other, and what this situation would have been like and what it would have necessitated on a social-collective scale.
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
A new ethics. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A new ethics. A new ethics. Icon_minitimeThu Feb 23, 2012 5:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To answer Capable’s questions… Nietzsche often makes the point that we cannot understand the origin of a thing based on what it does or what it is used for now. In the present time we understand the conscience to be the internal voice of a moral system. It has, or produces, this inner sense of right and wrong because the moral system has been so thoroughly ingrained in a person that he no longer has to think about it, it is intuited.
When man first learned to look beyond the veil of time, when he began to think… He very quickly learned how to differentiate internal states of emotion and drive in accordance to the now easily divisible world outside of him. Man could now only act in accord with a particular emotional state that was paired with a change he wanted to see in the world outside of him. He could no longer behave as animals do, he had to think, he now possessed a will. The problem is that individual drives do not possess enough power to compel man to act, save for those drives directly involved in his survival, and that is only because they overcome his reason. Starvation would compel him to eat. But there was no way to evolve social bonds, a culture, anything beyond hunter-gather societies. There was no way to value. The fact that the individual drives were not powerful enough to seduce man to action is exampled by the fact that they do not grant him the capacity to value, and it is only value that will satisfy that hunger which no other animal possesses, the hunger of his newly developed intellect.
He could only pair one drive with an intended result, he could not appraise many results and value them against each other. He was just a clever animal at that point. He needed a lot of stimuli and got only a little consciousness out of it… He needed a way to weigh many different decisions and drives against each other, but for that he needed a developed sense of self-hood.
So now a “self” had to be developed, the thing that values… Something that can apprehend the variances in drive and emotion, between internal states, that can comprehend them and itself as something enduring throughout them. The disorganization of his integrated sensuality, the separation of his animal nature into constituent drives through his reason, took on a life of its own. Two inner states were reified in an abstraction in which their discontiguity, their variance, their difference, could be comprehended. This is the beginning of the spiritualization of man and world, and the development of the “self,” of the psychological sense of selfhood, in such abstractions. Those abstractions in which man grasped the changes, the transformations and difference between his emotional states, granted him more and more consciousness of his selfhood. So the first stage of the development of the conscience, the capacity to value, was the intuited sense of self-permanence, self-hood.
Contrast is then the basis of our consciousness. There is no consciousness without the separation of inner and outer phenomenon into opposition, oppositions which must be reified in some abstraction that makes us conscious of the variance between two things or inner states. It would have been psychologically painful at first because all the drives responsible for the survival of man had to be placed in opposition to one another. Death rituals that celebrated life, things of this sort, took place. Mass suicides, cannibalism, death orgies, pain festivals. All of this was necessary. It formed the first social connections beyond hunter-gather, ie. religious connections, as well as helped develop self-consciousness. The failed abstractions, the values that proved suicidal or ended up leading toward death, obviously we don’t know of. The failed cultures to which they belonged never lived long enough to write their own history books. But there is an extensive history which we have no knowledge of which details such failed cultures, the forgotten madness of our species, and much self-imposed torture. Only the “sanest” values and value-creators survived, all the history and culture we know is of them. The values and moral philosophies of this survivor culture are no more credible though, they just didn’t end up killing us. Well, they didn’t end up killing all of us.
In our time, in recent history… this process of reifying the variance of the inner life, of extending the sphere of consciousness over the collapsed foundation of animal instincts, is only carried out by “geniuses,” through moral philosophy, art, etc. But in our early history all men were doing this, in order to deal with their destroyed psyches and broken drives. Values are created only in response to the fact that there is no impetus to live. All men once needed that impetus, few men do now.
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
A new ethics. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A new ethics. A new ethics. Icon_minitimeThu Feb 23, 2012 5:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
However that impetus to life has dimmed and is dying, Nietzsche called it nihilism. The brutal process I just described and all the madness that comes with it- much greater madness now though, since so many centuries of philosophers and knowledge-workers have differentiated the drives, the animal pathos… All of that must be done again and endured again. You see, we have already seen a few failed cultures and noted their dying rituals. The madness of the Nazis, for example. More of that will come. Nietzsche himself is an example of a failed culture, perhaps. Maybe we all are too. Hard to say.
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
A new ethics. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A new ethics. A new ethics. Icon_minitimeFri Mar 09, 2012 9:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I just made a connection between something I wrote in the topic ‘What is religion?’ and your new theory of ethics.
I wrote,
But whereas actual children grow whether they want to or not, are forced to grow and overcome themselves again and again even if they do not wish to, the adult “child” of the religious type has no such organic-physiological necessity. Man can remain child-like throughout his entire life, child-like when it comes to the character and quality of his consciousness. This lack of an impelling necessity for growth to continue outside of actual child-hood might be one of the severest problems we face as a species.
And your ethics now stands as a solution for this lack: what man lacks, presently, is a psychological necessity which would impel him to continue “growing up” once he has abandoned childhood and become an “adult”. But this necessity would need to be of a psychological, conceptual, ideational form, and would need to draw heavily from affectation as well. Religion merely appropriates this lack, utilizing it rather than filling it in or answering it. What your new ethics here speaks of is a totally new way to fill in this lack, to give man a powerful and vital psychological necessity that would impel him toward higher degrees of self-actualizational development, growth. It is easy for us to see how religious methodology does not produce psychological necessity but rather represses this possibility, disguises and degenerates the feeling/sense of this otherwise lacking need. Philosophy can create some necessity here, but it is haphazard, insufficient, not yet fully formed. I think you have gathered these fragments and fused them together into a new ethical order and potentiality, one which now would generate in man a significant psychological necessity were it to take hold in him.
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
“There can be no recompense…” Empty
PostSubject: “There can be no recompense…” “There can be no recompense…” Icon_minitimeSat Mar 17, 2012 4:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There can be no recompense for that mighty liberty which, bounded only by birth and death, is called Life. Not with pain, love, malice, or joy can it be rewarded, for these belong unto it, but only by the man himself. Earth claims earth, life has no end other than itself, and the heavens regard only their own: this law is what the Greeks named fate which, in great opposition to our conception of it, offers itself as a limit to man, world, and god, rather than an indifferent litany of their impending tragedies, failures, and victories. This truth cannot be realized in the visions of the saint and does not lie within the grasp of contemplation, but must be resolved in the movements of life- ethos anthropos daimon. Like all real truths, destiny confers to us no maxim of conduct, but rather that light in which the image of human life, once diffused and disunited in time, is concentrated and beheld sub species aeternitas, which is to say in its unity. All great symbols, as all great ideas which stand as representative of some portion of human existence, suggest one another in their finite number as naturally as the musical notes induce their own infinite combination and recombination in the soul of the artist, and because life offers up to us essentially the same incorruptible, indivisible experience the genius of their unity is realized only to the extent that one has indwelled in life. The beauty of a supreme work of art or philosophy is a refrain of the indivisible sum of experience that is called human life which, however much of a variation upon the eternal theme it may offer, is nonetheless equivalent to it, and recognizes its birth and death, its fate, in it. The world is a poem for the poet, a cross for the saint, a sphinx for the philosopher. There is a universal justice, but it is that which we render upon ourselves in following upon the course of thought like a dying star in slow extinction before the pale bound of the firmament. In this slow death do we finally recover something of life; that sweet dialogue which is attended to in secret between ourselves and our own soul, to speak with Plato, which is incapable of communicating itself to all but the most superficial periphery of our existence in words and deeds and is resolved silently in the drama of the ideal. The suffering of Empedoclean man, of the longing for personal immortality, and the suffering of Faustian man, that all-embracing hunger which clamors in its own pain but to taste existence, are reconciled in the heroic annihilation of being in becoming; the forgery of human happiness, the idol of virtue, all the mortal and immortal powers of the earth and heavens strike us as a remarkable fatuity when beheld against this secret and this silence, against that unfathomed peace to use the expression of Leopardi, the unknowable basis of that dialogue which is after all only the rarest species of the knowable, be it called sin by the saint, desire by the Buddhist, or death, for it must lead us into heaven, nirvana, and life, for it must lead us to that point where the transient play of appearances ceases to offer up to us vacant forms and we, at last peering into the remote fulcrum of our life for we are at last peering into the remote fulcrum of our own self, declare with Tasso, ich weib es, sie sind eqig, denn sie sind. [Only what truly is endures.] Our character is but the extremity of the ideal; our personality, only the degree of some predominant conception raised to the highest power. Every mind has its own nycht or hemera in that general nychthemeron of the soul; every personality, as the high point and the moment of greatest vitality of some conception, as necessarily only a moment of tension in the idea, can find a repulsive note and answering strain in the progress of the intellect and thereby awaken to that desire to reconcile knowledge and being, to the daemonic, and to recognize what is called fate. Philosophy is nothing less than the aspiration to complete humanity.
– Hamartia, Essays Toward A Speculative Ethic, Afterword.
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
Art and Reason Empty
PostSubject: Art and Reason Art and Reason Icon_minitimeWed Mar 28, 2012 5:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is the “inherent” (intrinsically-holding, or assumed, or ‘automatic’-structural) relationship between art (aesthetics, beauty, passion) and reason (logos, ethics, inference and imagination)? Is there such an inherence of relation here? Is art ethical? Does the play of art fall upon the passions, the moralisms and thus exclude itself from an ethical purview and possibility – is it the (social, psychological) morality that is the being of art, must we, like Kant, understand art to be an activity outside of a direct relevance and necessity to/for the ethical?
Or does art become ethical, reasonable (reason-ably motivating, intended, purposeful) through a process of subjective (re-)creation and valuing-application? Does the rational-conscious being draw art within itself to lend to art some quality of its own reason and ethical possibility? Is art a medium through which the ethical of the subject draws forth and gathers to itself its own possibility while the “animal”-psychological of the subject finds instead therein a passional release, respite and higher synthetic apprehension? Does art gather the subject at all levels of its being?
What is the ethics of art?
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
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
Art and Reason Empty
PostSubject: Re: Art and Reason Art and Reason Icon_minitimeFri Mar 30, 2012 3:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable
Quote :
What is the “inherent” (intrinsically-holding, or assumed, or ‘automatic’-structural) relationship between art (aesthetics, beauty, passion) and reason (logos, ethics, inference and imagination)? Is there such an inherence of relation here?
I’m not sure if there is an ‘inherent’ relationship between art and reason…
Inherent:
1.Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: “inherent dangers”.
2.Vested in (someone) as a right or privilege: "the president’s inherent power
You used the word ‘imagination’ above. I might say that it is our imagination that connects the two but is there anything inherent within it?
Quote :
Is art ethical?
No, it only appears to be ethical because it is endowed with the values and morals of the artist creating it - with or without intention or to the one perceiving it as such. It may change us in such a way that we become more ethical or moral beings as a result of it. So, in that sense, can art be considered ethical?
Quote :
Does the play of art fall upon the passions, the moralisms
Are the artist’s passions and morals responsible for and influence what he/she creates - yes, at least in part they are. They are the real material for creating. But perhaps real art must also be in the moment simply according to what one perceives, without the play of passions and morals. Our emotions do enter into our creative flow but there are degrees of difference between one’s emotions and passions. You use the word ‘passions’ which may also mean something that we desire/crave which goes beyond reason - but our emotions must necessarily be a part of the creative process - since the connection between the seer and the seen lies in the human being.
That might be a much more difficult kind of art to create - a more subdued emotionally but yet reasonable kind of art based on the desire to reflect the truth of the human experience in all of its reality.
Quote :
and thus exclude itself from an ethical purview and possibility
I suppose that would depend on what one would call art and again, the artist’s intentions. Some looking at The Rape of the Sabine Women might think it gross and anathema and that it came about as a result of the inner, out of control passions of the artist. Perhaps how we view art, tells us more about our own psychological selves than about the artist himself. I may be digressing here.
Some might consider and feel that The Declaration of Independence is also a written work of art - thereby it would be purviewed as within the realm of ethics, not excluding it …just as much as a wonderful painting would depict the truth of the human experience or the beauty, reality and truth of something in the universe.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…
Quote :
– is it the (social, psychological) morality that is the being of art, must we, like Kant, understand art to be an activity outside of a direct relevance and necessity to/for the ethical?
In part, yes. We are social, psychological beings. But I would hope that art is so much more than that. It is also the creative freedom which draws itself from an inexhaustible source within our own personal spirits, our cores - as Nietzsche has said that “love is beyond good and evil” — art must necessarily go far beyond our social, cultural and psychological selves - I hope.
If i understand you correctly, or Kant, that is, and perhaps I am not, yes, art has great relevance and necessity, but must extend far beyond the ethical scope if it is to depict reality. It must be free to soar and to become, it is an expression which is in the moment and ever-changing in one’s imaginaton. That may include ethics but must reach beyond it to show the world and the human being in its reality and its illusion. In order to do that, ethics must sometimes fail.
Quote :
Or does art become ethical, reasonable (reason-ably motivating, intended, purposeful) through a process of subjective (re-)creation and valuing-application?
Only within our own minds perhaps…but I may be wrong. I think my issue is with the word “become”…
Quote :
Does the rational-conscious being draw art within itself to lend to art some quality of its own reason and ethical possibility?
Is art a medium through which the ethical of the subject draws forth and gathers to itself its own possibility while the “animal”-psychological of the subject finds instead therein a passional release, respite and higher synthetic apprehension? Does art gather the subject at all levels of its being?
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is that art shows us or reminds us of who we are…art is the ‘lender’ or the giver. We are the receivers. We can only see what we already are. Art is more like a mirror which reflects our inner selves.
Art is also like a dream. Perhaps it can only gather in those parts of ourselves in which we have some conscious awareness – enough to at least listen to what the work wants to tell/show us. Then perhaps it may flow through more of our being.
Quote :
What is the ethics of art?
My first thought is something which I read somewhere.
A Always
R Respect
T Truth
So for me the ethics of art in part is to always respect and to bear witness to the truth…
Another part of its ethics would be discipline, sacrifice and hard work…struggling to complete, out of love and the desire to go beyond ourselves, to create something hopefully which becomes a revelation, a dropping of some veils of the world surrounding us…which remained hidden and mystery before that time…and which perhaps will remain in part still hidden. If that makes sense.
…ad continuum…
Edited: On March 31th
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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
Art and Reason Empty
PostSubject: Re: Art and Reason Art and Reason Icon_minitimeSun Apr 01, 2012 5:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
VaerosTanarg wrote:
Capable
Quote :
What is the “inherent” (intrinsically-holding, or assumed, or ‘automatic’-structural) relationship between art (aesthetics, beauty, passion) and reason (logos, ethics, inference and imagination)? Is there such an inherence of relation here?
I’m not sure if there is an ‘inherent’ relationship between art and reason…
Inherent:
1.Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: “inherent dangers”.
2.Vested in (someone) as a right or privilege: "the president’s inherent power
You used the word ‘imagination’ above. I might say that it is our imagination that connects the two but is there anything inherent within it?
I mean inherent as in structural, structural to either art or ethics. I am not assuming there is such a relationship, but I am interested in determining if one can be identified. To do so would require of us that we first know both what ‘ethics’ is as well as what ‘art’ is.
Quote :
Quote :
Is art ethical?
No, it only appears to be ethical because it is endowed with the values and morals of the artist creating it - with or without intention or to the one perceiving it as such. It may change us in such a way that we become more ethical or moral beings as a result of it. So, in that sense, can art be considered ethical?
Art can stimulate change in one’s ethical stance, then. Or stimulate new ethical awareness. Art as one means toward ethics. If this is true, then art possesses something inherently ethical, at least on the level of possibility.
Quote :
Quote :
Does the play of art fall upon the passions, the moralisms
Are the artist’s passions and morals responsible for and influence what he/she creates - yes, at least in part they are. They are the real material for creating. But perhaps real art must also be in the moment simply according to what one perceives, without the play of passions and morals. Our emotions do enter into our creative flow but there are degrees of difference between one’s emotions and passions. You use the word ‘passions’ which may also mean something that we desire/crave which goes beyond reason - but our emotions must necessarily be a part of the creative process - since the connection between the seer and the seen lies in the human being.
True. Art (is able to) reach up from all levels of subjective being.
Quote :
Quote :
and thus exclude itself from an ethical purview and possibility
I suppose that would depend on what one would call art and again, the artist’s intentions. Some looking at The Rape of the Sabine Women might think it gross and anathema and that it came about as a result of the inner, out of control passions of the artist. Perhaps how we view art, tells us more about our own psychological selves than about the artist himself. I may be digressing here.
Some might consider and feel that The Declaration of Independence is also a written work of art - thereby it would be purviewed as within the realm of ethics, not excluding it …just as much as a wonderful painting would depict the truth of the human experience or the beauty, reality and truth of something in the universe.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…
I separate moralism from ethics. Ethics is strictly-speaking anti-moral, non-moral (this does not mean it cannot and indeed will not have moral consequences, however).
Quote :
Quote :
– is it the (social, psychological) morality that is the being of art, must we, like Kant, understand art to be an activity outside of a direct relevance and necessity to/for the ethical?
In part, yes. We are social, psychological beings. But I would hope that art is so much more than that. It is also the creative freedom which draws itself from an inexhaustible source within our own personal spirits, our cores - as Nietzsche has said that “love is beyond good and evil” — art must necessarily go far beyond our social, cultural and psychological selves - I hope.
If i understand you correctly, or Kant, that is, and perhaps I am not, yes, art has great relevance and necessity, but must extend far beyond the ethical scope if it is to depict reality. It must be free to soar and to become, it is an expression which is in the moment and ever-changing in one’s imaginaton. That may include ethics but must reach beyond it to show the world and the human being in its reality and its illusion. In order to do that, ethics must sometimes fail.
I believe that ethics emerges from a totality of view, from a more comprehensive and dispassionate reason. What is ethical emerges of necessity. Contrast this with the passions: they emerge out of arbitrariness, out of an evolutionary mandate which (largely) no longer (for us) exists. Or: ethics is the necessity of moving beyond the ‘evolutionary mandate’ of the moral-social being, it is the becoming-arbitrary of this being and the subsequent elevation of sociality to an entire new realm of possible utility and value-power.
Quote :
Quote :
Does the rational-conscious being draw art within itself to lend to art some quality of its own reason and ethical possibility?
Is art a medium through which the ethical of the subject draws forth and gathers to itself its own possibility while the “animal”-psychological of the subject finds instead therein a passional release, respite and higher synthetic apprehension? Does art gather the subject at all levels of its being?
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is that art shows us or reminds us of who we are…art is the ‘lender’ or the giver. We are the receivers. We can only see what we already are. Art is more like a mirror which reflects our inner selves.
Art is also like a dream. Perhaps it can only gather in those parts of ourselves in which we have some conscious awareness – enough to at least listen to what the work wants to tell/show us. Then perhaps it may flow through more of our being.
Yes, I believe art can and should reflect parts of ourselves back to us. The more we bring to artistic experience, the more we get out of it. Art potentiates being.
Quote :
Quote :
What is the ethics of art?
My first thought is something which I read somewhere.
A Always
R Respect
T Truth
So for me the ethics of art in part is to always respect and to bear witness to the truth…
Another part of its ethics would be discipline, sacrifice and hard work…struggling to complete, out of love and the desire to go beyond ourselves, to create something hopefully which becomes a revelation, a dropping of some veils of the world surrounding us…which remained hidden and mystery before that time…and which perhaps will remain in part still hidden. If that makes sense.
…ad continuum…
Yes, creation and the “truth of creation”, what is true about the creative act. Art is an unveiling, a dis-closing of (the) being (for whom art is art).
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
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
Art and Reason Empty
PostSubject: Re: Art and Reason Art and Reason Icon_minitimeSun Apr 01, 2012 10:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As I experience the creation process, art sometimes transcends my moral notions, surprises me in showing what also can be included in the good. It is a way to allow the passions to flow out into ethical form, I might say, so as to reflect on morality and show how fragile the cherished and protected judgments are. By the use of beauties, harmonies, symphonies, aesthetic relations and arrangements, elements that by themselves would be condemnable can be perceived as part of a structure that causes such a joyful experience that it myst be considered at least in part, or potentially part of, good. So, for me art has the power to be at once a-moral and towards higher ethics. But not all art does this. Mainly art that carries what I have come to call in the past weeks a “Luciferian” element, a playing-with-evil, which means a subjecting of evil. I say “not all art” but I mean hardly any art. Art is as yet too timid to play around with morality in this way. Whether art is tragic (condemning-liberating) romantic (idealistic-comforting) or nihilistic (condemning-comforting), what is lacking is a true affirmation. Hitherto, only in comedy, such affirmation has been attained, but this works on a very superficial level, which also means that it is instantly rejected as a pleasant moment of relief/oblivion, away from reality. What would be required for art to become truly transformative and empowering, in the sense of driving to surpass the deplorable state of the tool-wielding ape towards full being-hood of self-consciousness, a state of which “man” is but a precursor, is that the perspectival method that is exclusive to comedy, the “playful malice” that looks as if god-like from above and yet profoundly, un-hypocritically involved, is expanded in its application also to “serious” narratives. The subject needs to be forced to identify with more, needs to be deepened, made to feel more responsible, more real.
What I do not mean is satyrical art. This is cold, distant and hypocritical, stands only above. “Luciferian” art makes it at once impossible to condone and to reject. It is thus beyond morality, addresses something deeper, or perhaps just greater, more difficult and more valuable. Its effect would be paralyzing to the traditional moralist, activating to the one who seeks to become free, and in general very difficult to deal with but also to resist. At this point our “God” is still “Evil”, as this is what we consider to be above us, beyond our reach. Whatever amounts to this need to be incorporated into an ethical realm. Art can do this, but can the artist?
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending
Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills
Art and Reason Empty
PostSubject: Re: Art and Reason Art and Reason Icon_minitimeSat Apr 28, 2012 5:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To Capable…
Quote :
I mean inherent as in structural, structural to either art or ethics. I am not assuming there is such a relationship, but I am interested in determining if one can be identified. To do so would require of us that we first know both what ‘ethics’ is as well as what ‘art’ is.
Well, barring morality, or our subjective ideas of what is good and bad, for me ethics is concerned with making careful and logical decisions, depending on particular situations and circumstances, where the greatest ‘real’ good may be achieved and where the idea of ‘to do no harm’ is always paramount in a person’s actions. Although emotions are important in these decisions, since we are human - at times, at least for me, I feel that emotions may get in the way of portraying stark reality, truth and fairness. But ethics has to be grounded in justice and fairness and what it means to be truly human - and I’m not sure that emotions can be taken out of that equation.
Quote :
Art can stimulate change in one’s ethical stance, then. Or stimulate new ethical awareness. Art as one means toward ethics. If this is true, then art possesses something inherently ethical, at least on the level of possibility.
But not of itself alone though. I think that there has to be within the individual a conscious awareness to begin with, or at least a growing awakening of consciousness. Then, art may stimulate ongoing ethical awareness (as you say) if that individual is indeed aware, to begin with, how art may teach and instruct and if they are open to it. For any kind of art to be ethical, for me, it must ALSO teach and instruct, it must be a mirror of the human condition and of one’s own inner condition.
‘Inherently ethical’ - as in structural again? For me, ‘possibility’ lies within the relationship between the individual and the object of art, if you understand my meaning here. Art alone, in and of itself, is nothing, without the observer. But much depends on the artist and the observer and his/her consciousness, essence, core and spirit. It is the individual who makes it come alive, just as it is the individual who, in actuality (where it counts) makes nature and the universe come alive. Okay, I’m digressing.
Quote :
True. Art (is able to) reach up from all levels of subjective being.
Do you mean that we ourselves draw out from within ourselves the expressions and interpretions which our own inner world and external world create?
Would there also be something called ‘objective being’ wherein no emotion is at play but simply reason and the desire to interpret the world in its true essence and reality? I may not have expressed that well.
Quote :
I separate moralism from ethics. Ethics is strictly-speaking anti-moral, non-moral (this does not mean it cannot and indeed will not have moral consequences, however)
Well, I don’t necessarily see ethics as anti-moral. For me, they do flow within the same waters, but I may be wrong here. For instance, the Ten Commandments can be viewed as being ethical in nature if one values them as standards of behavior or as a guiding compass in which one makes choices in particular moments and situations, and which lead to responsible decisions to ‘act accordingly’ where no harm is done - which may also be one’s own moral mandate - ‘to do no harm’. Would you consider The Ten Commandments to be moral - in that they implicitly deal with what is right and wrong? But I suppose I see your point since what is moral can become so blurred depending on one’s own religious and otherwise beliefs and what is also a matter of economics at times. Look at the abortion issue - at one time the taking of a life - as in abortion was considered illegal, immoral but it would seem that financial gain and the belief that a woman is entitled to own her own body, (which of course she is) and to do with it what she will, even at the expense of and having the choice to destroy the little life growing within her (which is separate from her own). I’m digressing here…
Quote :
I believe that ethics emerges from a totality of view, from a more comprehensive and dispassionate reason. What is ethical emerges of necessity. Contrast this with the passions: they emerge out of arbitrariness, out of an evolutionary mandate which (largely) no longer (for us) exists. Or: ethics is the necessity of moving beyond the ‘evolutionary mandate’ of the moral-social being, it is the becoming-arbitrary of this being and the subsequent elevation of sociality to an entire new realm of possible utility and value-power
I agree that an ethical person would necessarily want to see as much of the entire picture as is humanly possible before judging and assuming or presuming to know the right way to go, but I disagree with you here that that would come about from a totally dispassionate reason. The passions do emerge out of arbitrariness but are you actually saying here that there is no more necessity for them? Is it just our dry reason and logic which create the beauty of the world through art, paintings, poetry, books? Don’t be throwing the essential human baby out with the bathwater.
I don’t know - I may be wrong here or misunderstanding you, but if we move beyond the moral-social being, what is the point of ethical behavior? Maybe you can clarify what you mean. I’m probably missing your point. And what do you mean by possible utility and value power - does that pertain to the value of the human being or the power which some might exercise and control over the human being? Words don’t always explain much.
Quote :
Yes, I believe art can and should reflect parts of ourselves back to us. The more we bring to artistic experience, the more we get out of it. Art potentiates being
By instructing and teaching.
Quote :
So for me the ethics of art in part is to always respect and to bear witness to the truth…
Quote :
yes, creation and the “truth of creation”, what is true about the creative act. Art is an unveiling, a dis-closing of (the) being (for whom art is art).
It also unveils what is real and hopefully shows what is illusion. Even art that is fanciful in nature may be rich in disclosing a deeper meaning and reality of self - such as in the fairy tale, which points to something that cannot yet be gleaned until first going beyond what is on the surface, deeper and deeper into the story and allowing it to teach and instruct and reveal itself.
Having ENTIRELY NOTHING to do with fairy tales but …
I recently saw the movie “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” about two young boys who’s paths cross and who secretly spend time together and become friends. The one is a little Jewish boy, Schmael, who is emprisoned in a concentration camp and the other is Bruno, the son of a nazi commandant(?) who lives nearby this concentration camp. At some point, Bruno, out of curiosity, decides that he wants to sneak into the concentration camp, not really knowing nor understanding the reality of it. Bruno had recently seen in his home a Nazi-propagated film which was set up by his own father in order to perpetrate and continue the Lie, in order to hide the true purpose and reality of the concentration camps. So the boys plan this ‘adventure’ and eventually Bruno manages to get under the barbed wire and into the camp. While walking through the inner camp, Bruno asks Schmael to take him to the ‘cafe’ (which was mentioned in the Nazi film) and Schmael looks quizzically at him, telling him that there is no cafe there.
Suddenly the Nazi soldiers come, herding a large group of these human beings, including the two boys, into the ‘showers’. (No words can describe my emotions here). At this point, through tell-tale signs, Bruno’s father and mother had already finally realized that Bruno is missing and discover just where he is, running frantically to save him in time. But they are too late. And the father is left staring at the door into which his son entered and met his fate with his little friend. And the father stared and he stared into what must have been the gaping mouth of hell for him when he saw and smelled the putrid smoke rising in the chimney above.
I was sadly aware throughout this madness to save Bruno that I too wanted Bruno to be saved. At first I never considered the full extent of what that actually meant because I was so caught up in the happy ending…the underlying, ‘unconscious’ feeling was that Bruno just did not BELONG there…but it could never be a happy ending but I didn’t consider that until later on. Afterwards, I reflected on it and realized that if this movie was truly to be ‘ethical art’ - to reflect Truth and the tragic human condition - if Art was to respect Truth, and not give way to illusion, and if this movie was to be a true mirror of the terrible consequences of fear, hate and bias, then there could be no happy ending. The only ethical and real conclusion to this movie was that Bruno could not be saved, as difficult as it is for me to say this because the saving of even one human life, especially that of a child, is the most important thing I feel, above all. But to make one life as more valuable and important than another, especially that of an innocent, and a child’s, under these circumstances, at least for me, not only dehumanizes us, but hides the awful truth.
For the writer to have done this, would have been to totally dis-value each and every human being everywhere and within that camp and within any concentration camp. So this to me is where ethics and art meet - and truth and reality triumph over illusion and the big Lie.
A Always
R Respect
T Truth
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
Negative Definition Ethics Empty
PostSubject: Negative Definition Ethics Negative Definition Ethics Icon_minitimeWed May 16, 2012 10:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
During discussions with James S. Saint and now also Capable, I’ve been made acutely aware of the gap between value ontology and a practicable philosophy that is non-mystical, logical. How to proceed from the notion of self-valuing and value deriving from that, to a concrete conception of value? I think I just got an idea for an approach. If self-value is so fundamentally embedded in all my reflections, it must perhaps remain unattainable to me, my type of reason. The most fundamental “things” I may “observe” are perhaps the objections to my self value - that which functions as a negation of it, me, - what is bad for me. I must try to externalize what limits me by conceptualizing it in terms of a physics, chemistry, electricity of valuing. The dynamic divided in objects, restrictions.
A first classification of restrictions; necessary ones (implicit in the being that creates its environmental cosmos) and unnecessary ones (subject only to the laws of time-space, the “consensus between subjects”, the common ground without which the majority could not survive.)
Ok, this gets overly political in its orientation – good, because chemistry is nothing other than the different distributions and tensions of commonly recognized qualities, politics.
Someone now opens the french windows next to me and cold streams in. Let me just repeat that an ontological ethics means a scientific ethics, and that this must contain what (I) clearly perceive as a threat.
The reason for this to work is its geometry. Logic is subservient to a triangle: object subject and otherness. These can be both forces for good and bad, in any given situation - what matters is the proportion of the facets.
I am taking a direction on speculation. I am only sustained here by the Parodital term ‘speculative ethics’, and by my own inexhaustible taste for speculating ‘intuitively’ - recklessly, without hindsight.
The intuition that came to me writing this post… and it makes sense because geometry is a form of beauty, and beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder, but despite its pure and exalted subjectivity, or even because of it, conceptions of it range within certain bounds - beauty not to be confused with ‘object of desire’. A thing is only beautiful if one can enjoy it without possessing it.
What this has to do with negativity, objections and negative powers, - my coffee is getting cold.
" 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 Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
Negative Definition Ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Negative Definition Ethics Negative Definition Ethics Icon_minitimeWed May 16, 2012 10:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
- The distortion of beauty, the reduction to appetite.
The meaning of philosophy/art/evolution.
All is driven by art. The means to overcome unattractiveness, to cause attraction.
Essential attraction is unoperative without a pulsating dynamic pushing outward. “Time” is such pulsating sustaining the noticeable attraction/value.
- The cessation of time/pulsating dynamic.
Hmm, so next to ugly lust, lethargy is bad. Now then pride… which is perhaps the distortion of self-value by exaggeration of its contextual importance – by misplacing it out of excessive demand. Pride is then excessive demand (for being) - lack of being. Would rank pride as one of the severest conditions.
- Manipulating the affect of lack into the appearance of excess so as to draw resources under false pretenses. (Would require a lot more specification)
Wrath…
4. Destruction of objects that negate ones values.
Is this a sin against value, under the paradigm of value ontology? “Questionable.” - Nietzsche.
Then there is the most obvious “sin against the spirit of value”… envy.
- Valuing a value one desires negatively because of an incapacity to attain it.
A strange version of misplaced value:
- To draw in materials containing strong value-signals, to experience these signals as value. (Interesting that gluttony would be the sin related to my Pentad post on Interestedness).
OI have to play the movie in my head to arrive at the seventh sins. The blood on the carpet.
Greed is perhaps jealousy continued in the condition of wealth. Greed is perhaps the automated mechanism of the experience of chasing value as value. Wrath and Greed would be lesser sins in a Nietzschean paradigm, envy would be far greater sin in a Nietzschean than in a Catholic world. Envy makes one a slave. Greed can be highly useful in becoming a master at times. So, and certainly more so, will generosity, voluntary expentidure of strength.
Of course envy can lead to a stimulus too - but Greed is self-sufficient - it relies on an aberration in the self-valuing rather than a systemic lack of it. It could be ‘positively cured’ - turned into a systemic advantage. It includes knowledge.
I am making a case for Greed to not be a sin on ethical ontological grounds. It means: taking advantage of the resources of others without consideration to suit a superficial fascination with the capacity to acquire. Or? Am I so greedy perhaps that I do not see greed for what it is??
- Abstraction of value…?
" 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 Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
Negative Definition Ethics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Negative Definition Ethics Negative Definition Ethics Icon_minitimeWed May 16, 2012 11:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For badness beyond the seven sins I’ll have to draw in some more spiration. It’s largely about a misplacement of the value because of an interpretation of it pertaining to a minor attribute of the value.
(Not) discerning the values in the goods.
Arg. A workable ethics requires a hierarchy of all the known attributes of all the known objects, as well as all their consequences. Difficult, heavy work bound to fail. The result of it would be quite beyond imagining - an active existence. Willing existence precisely away from the recurrence of the same.
Screw the same, never anymore the same! Let’s hijack the universe, propel it from here into the billion year glory of the galactic polis, the mining of the black hole, -
But this is my positive ethics, composed perhaps of a mixture of the above mentioned conditions, be it from the seed of my virtuous philosophy.
Pezer
builder
builder
Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
A Question To Philosophers Empty
PostSubject: A Question To Philosophers A Question To Philosophers Icon_minitimeThu May 17, 2012 10:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I want to ask a very important question that I personally believe separates the men form the boys in philosophy, and I believe it is an ethical one:
What justification can you produce for publishing philosophical thought?
The answer should probably read like a mission statement, but who knows?
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
A Question To Philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers A Question To Philosophers Icon_minitimeThu May 17, 2012 11:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Shouldn’t the text itself justify its publication? I mean the philosophical element, the evolutionary agent.
I have published a handful of short philosophical texts on media other than free access fora, but I would not make explicit my motive for their publication to the platform where it is published.
The beauty of a philosophical idea is that it is not integrated by a mind on the terms of that mind, but that it rewrites these terms, breaches them and installs new ones.
I don’t want to install half ideas. I wish to publish on value ontology only when it is also taking on the shape of a cosmology, wherein a narrative may take place. In other words, when it is clear to me what it means for it to rule.
For it to rule elsewhere I have to let it rule my own psyche and actions - and this requires that I make choices in terms of historical truths. I can’t hold a birds eye perspective on the historical dialectic, anymore, I am in the process of cutting ties with false or thin loyalties and identifying my weakest necessary links. This world is in danger, as mastery over it is not yet an overt claim, even if it is the objective. All this can still be an advantage to us (you, Pezer, me, the others who are reading). The danger to the world consists precisely in the lack of an ontology of value. “Flexibility” is the enemy of this philosophy.
I do not wish this to be the enemy to the beneficiaries of the current science of value, to the realm of speculation. I remind myself to see the historical relation between banking and the renaissance, to the creation of real ‘surplus’ or splendor using an imagined capital. A Trust. The world runs on trust, placing investments. Capitalism is where it’s at, or is at where it is. There are a few basic syntax errors, benefitting conservative holders pf large real value, enabled and suggested by completely isolating the capital market from the market of goods.
Value ontology is of course a tool to identify different types, categories of value - it helps to connect aims to real possibilities, and to project corners to turn and transformations to sustain and dominate in the future, given a certain valuing become action. Not only would it be more difficult to get insanely rich overnight over the back of a couple of million others, but it would become harder to lose value in investments. I do not think that any wealth should be redistributed, but I do want existing wealth to be invested into projects benefiting the cultivation, from this violent testtube content, western civilization, of a veritably super-human type. It’s the only way out of this reaction for us, apart from disintegration. It will certainly happen to a segment of the population in some way - the abyss between master and slave is widening. “99%”… the term says it all.
I am not unmoved by the historical symmetry of Greece’s antithetical behavior to the ethics of the Eurozone - perhaps I should go and see with my own eyes what is going on there, to make up my mind on what is worth saying, and how it deserves to be said.
What is required is an ethics of power, which is to say that real power needs to be understood as arising from truthful, ontologically sound ethics. Searches will be enabled into the real mechanism of every power structure. Conniving will have to attain levels undreamt of by Machiavelli or even Spielberg, and sound ruling will become a much more easy task.
“Heisenberg says: Relax.”
" 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 Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
A Question To Philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers A Question To Philosophers Icon_minitimeThu May 17, 2012 1:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My justification for writing books is that I have something to say.
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
A Question To Philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers A Question To Philosophers Icon_minitimeThu May 17, 2012 3:52 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For the record, I am including internet forum posts in my definition of publication.
“Because I have something to say” sounds lazy at best, meaningless at worst.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
A Question To Philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers A Question To Philosophers Icon_minitimeThu May 17, 2012 10:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Spoken like someone who truly has nothing to say.
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
A Question To Philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers A Question To Philosophers Icon_minitimeFri May 18, 2012 1:47 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was attacking your ideas, not yourself.
Why do you get emotional? Most distasteful.
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
A Question To Philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers A Question To Philosophers Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 12:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I thought it wasn’t a bad summary of the justification of writing philosophy.
A newspaper writer doesn’t necessarily have something to say. Neither does the writer of a sitcom or a commercial. A philosopher writes with blood, Parodites may have understated.
Style is the skeleton of clarity.
A philosophy reliant on production of value is not a philosophy of terminology, it is a philosophical turmoil of strength and wisdom, a threat to society. Breaking the laws we are subject to when managers and women are the ones writing history.
Philosophers are like dragons - man can not tolerate them in his life, but needs them in his myths. He just not always needs myths. Philosophy is in a sense a luxury, provided by the abundance of mans dominion over other species.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon May 21, 2012 12:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
A Question To Philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers A Question To Philosophers Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 12:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No other species seems to create danger for itself, as man does.
Philosophy can be this danger, has been - it has accompanied man to the discovery of the means to his self-destruction. What Nietzsche concluded as the ultimate danger was true, the means he himself took to overcome it were false. But he knew this, it seems; he who turned out well - ceases to enjoy something when it is no longer wholesome for him.
But what is wholesome?
What could Nietzsche have done on that eve of the Apocalypse, but surrender to madness? This was the honest thing to do. This is where all philosophers are sick: they do not cease to enjoy truth when it is no longer wholesome for them.
" 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 Online
Pezer
builder
builder
Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
A Question To Philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers A Question To Philosophers Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 5:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I paraphrase here, but Nietzsche said something along the lines of “Through my Pride, my Truth. And if one must go, let it be Truth.”
Still, Nietzsche did justify his publications. That is, in fact, what set him apart from sand castle philosophers.
“Because I have something to say?”
No offense, but this is a teenager’s response. Yours, FC, was indirect, but sincere and with content.
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
A Question To Philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers A Question To Philosophers Icon_minitimeTue May 22, 2012 1:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The most direct answer I can give you now would be something along the lines of: I came into a world insanely ignorant of its drives and direction. Only twice or three times I found a thinker who had the vaguest clue as to what is going on. I drew what they touched with their fingertips into my full grasp. Now I could try to communicate this understanding to people who are otherwise content running around randomly and uttering fragments of long shattered possibilities.
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeMon Apr 02, 2012 11:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have in the recent weeks posted a few things on ILP and in another thread on this forum, on “Luciferian” x. The silence in reaction to these posts has been deafening and gave pause for thought. I realize that I may risk to alienate those with whom I otherwise have a strong philosophical rapport. Besides, these notions do not actually indicate anything concrete, they are merely suggestive, and perhaps suggestive of things I do not intend to suggest.
While writing these posts I already felt uncomfortable and uncertain. As they address the more uncomfortable and uncertain elements of our political society this is no wonder - but the question is whether there is any merit in posting such speculative and controversial thoughts that do nothing to clarify or to aid towards any ethical aim.
In terms of philosophy, I am 100% certain that I am making sense, and this is corroborated by my friends here on BTL. In terms of politics, I am almost 100% certain that I am only in part accurate. I always run into trouble whenever I try to define “what really is going on” in terms of politics - and have arrived at the conclusion that I am per definition wrong even if I am also right, whenever I try to sufficiently define, in terms of outlining, something in this context.
So I withdraw my notions of the Luciferian, or at least, take a distance toward them. I will proceed on the philosophical path you have come to expect of me, and which I am proud to be capable of walking.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeMon Apr 02, 2012 11:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I have in the recent weeks posted a few things on ILP and in another thread on this forum, on “Luciferian” x. The silence in reaction to these posts has been deafening and gave pause for thought. I realize that I may risk to alienate those with whom I otherwise have a strong philosophical rapport. Besides, these notions do not actually indicate anything concrete, they are merely suggestive, and perhaps suggestive of things I do not intend to suggest.
While writing these posts I already felt uncomfortable and uncertain. As they address the more uncomfortable and uncertain elements of our political society this is no wonder - but the question is whether there is any merit in posting such speculative and controversial thoughts that do nothing to clarify or to aid towards any ethical aim.
In terms of philosophy, I am 100% certain that I am making sense, and this is corroborated by my friends here on BTL. In terms of politics, I am almost 100% certain that I am only in part accurate. I always run into trouble whenever I try to define “what really is going on” in terms of politics - and have arrived at the conclusion that I am per definition wrong even if I am also right, whenever I try to sufficiently define, in terms of outlining, something in this context.
So I withdraw my notions of the Luciferian, or at least, take a distance toward them. I will proceed on the philosophical path you have come to expect of me, and which I am proud to be capable of walking.
This luciferian notion where applies to art has been useful for me. The word has a unique connotation here and implies something otherwise seemingly alien or which evades clear articulation. I have been trying to distill my thoughts along these lines, with regard to something which I feel must need greater explication here:
What ought be the role of luciferian art to aesthetics generally? The luciferian element seems a highest elevation of the principle of reaction, opposition in that it seems designed to push the moral-aesthetic to its furthest limit, and beyond. Lucifer pushed the limit of man beyond God; ought luciferian art also push art beyond the limit of all that has traditionally become able to encapsulate the aesthetic sense?
Maybe this topic should be re-named The Luciferian… but I do see your point, most people are unable to talk about this notion. Which, of course, makes it the perfect choice here. But I am interested in any difference you see between your conception of the luciferian here (as applied to art, aesthetics, creation) and a “mere” radically-oppositional reactionism. Of course this latter can be taken to induce a Hegelian sort of dialectical synthesis, so perhaps the luciferian is a way of provoking this sort of synthetic possibility?
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
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
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeTue Apr 03, 2012 1:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Great insights. I had not arrived at any of these thoughts as I remained morally bound, fearful and doubtful of the merit/value, justification of using the term Lucifer, which prevented me from observing coolly what I was actually putting on the table. I do not wish to immediately fill the space that you open here, I will take some time to reflect. I will however change the topics name as you suggest, because with your response the entire reason for this disclaimer vanishes, and what remains is the actual subject, which is indeed, The Luciferian.
" 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 Online
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
Abstract
Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeTue Apr 03, 2012 3:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Now i am interested, what where your thoughts on the Luciferian? heck i don’t even know what Luciferian means…? Embarassed
“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
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
Aleatory
Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeTue Apr 03, 2012 3:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What ought be the role of luciferian art to aesthetics generally? The luciferian element seems a highest elevation of the principle of reaction, opposition in that it seems designed to push the moral-aesthetic to its furthest limit, and beyond. Lucifer pushed the limit of man beyond God; ought luciferian art also push art beyond the limit of all that has traditionally become able to encapsulate the aesthetic sense?
When you say this, I’m reminded of impressionism, cubism, surrealism, abstract (esp. textiles), postmodernism, etc.—really every major movement since the late 19th century mutates through a weird syncretism of iconoclasm and apotheosis: deterritorialization and reterritorialization. Impressionism seemed to mimic the world reflected upon a zephyr-rippled lake (contra facsimiles of sybarite ‘Louis’s, corpulent concubines, and the decadent splendor of the court), they used violets and blues not for insalubrious, bruised flesh, but for the shadows cast upon the most fair of rosy complexions–and they did all this very fast; Cubism scrapped whole, congruous form—it’s shattered, a jumbled juxtaposition of abstraction qua cracked mirrors; Duchamp asked if a toilet isn’t art, Dali queried why an octopus isn’t a brush, Magritte levitated an apple to hide his face while saying “Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” Ernst did his thing and the rest followed suit; Postmodernism nidified sardonic lenses symbolizing self-applying salt shakers of irony and satire, insinuating themselves upon every applicable dish until pop culture’s salting itself mired the entire movement in a collective existential quandary; Rothko scoffed at Michelangelo and spun impossibly captivating fields of color, Pollack hurled frumious cans of paint in vain attempts to metastasize his alcoholism on the canvas, and countless campus-haunting aesthetes welded found objects together with neon paint and Elmer’s, turning for validation with imploring puppy-dog eyes to philosophy privy critics; a mousy, near-albino painted soup cans and icon-ized gratuitous nudity and salacious themes until a member of his artificial family introverted him by means of a pistol; a group of maverick virtuosos contradictorily disguised their work as photography—my montage (especially the second time through) is plagued by omissions and perhaps a bit of anachronism, but my point is this: if the Luciferian is as you say, then is it not the catalyst behind the evolution of art itself, and how then is it defined?—as an aesthetic, a(n) (a)morality, or a specific temporality (zeitgeist of an evanescent present moment)?
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
Last edited by Aleatory on Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:11 am; edited 1 time in total
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
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeThu Apr 05, 2012 11:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Aleatory – your beautiful post describes the diametrical opposite of what I understand as the limit to be pushed. In simple terms, the l9th and 20th century revolutions in art were an inquisition into what can be art, whereas the Luciferian would be a question of what art can be. In simplified terms, and doing a lot of injustice to a lot of great art, the movements you describe would have been a breaking open of the lower limit of art, thereby including what I would call the elements of chaos and the mundane into the realm of aesthetics, and in this process moving toward a-moralism. The Luciferian should be the breaking open of the upper limit of art.
This “upper limit” refers to the process of the creation of culture. As the Homeric art created the ethical groundwork (or perhaps more apt, heavenly Form) of the Athenian mindset, from which, through the immensely successful self-institutionalizing of this mindset, followed Rome, from which followed the Church with artists like Michelangelo, Bernini and such to shape the “upper limit” of the Catholic empire (Quite literally exemplified int he sistine chapel). We can see that the highest, most valued art has been the symbolization of morality, i.e. God as the upper limit of the state.
All the post-representative movements you describe represent to me the death of this God, or the loss of teleology in art, with as the remainder ‘l’art pour l’art.’ The Luciferian should be seen as the reintroduction of teleology into art, the effort of man to stop contemplating the empty throne of God, the vacuous upper limit (the naked object in the room, the toilet), and to boldly ascend to this throne himself, and take place in there.
What it would mean to claim the locus of what had until some 150 years back been felt as God, has up until this point been far too great a burden for man. God, as as noble and good as man thought him as he was alive and well, appears, when we consider what He has been responsible for, quite evil. And this is actually the most common present-day objection to God – not that He doesn’t exist, but that He is a violent maniac.
To take a position similar to what we have imagined as the divine position (and this is all God has been to art, an imagined position of supreme power) man can not simply be besides good and evil, in the sense of being anarchistic, not-valuing power-structures, but he must move beyond this duality, which means through it, breaking the notional realities of these judgments. This is not a question of disinterest, but of pain. We can not simply dismiss what is embedded in our moral skeleton, our physiology, our pre-cognitive impulses, our linguistic configuration, which has existed as long as written history. The de-hierarchizing art-projects of the past century have been attempts at condition-less, priceless negation of the burden of power. These attempts have failed the world, and man is back at square one, standing at Gods empty throne which appears to many as crueler and more forbidding than ever. Western man has exhausted all the energetic, courage-and liberty-generating resources of the subconscious to break with his responsibility toward God, only to be drawn into an extremely rigid shadow-morality, representing not any positive idea, but merely Gods absence and the reckless efforts of his orphans to obscure their anxiety to themselves by preaching happiness and enacting nothingness. The circuitry of a nihilistic society.
The moral fabric of these times are of a historical shallowness, as it is a continuous disowning of the void. Narrative art at this point is aimless, weak, spineless and far more conservative than it has ever been – speaking from a narrow mindedness belonging not to certain problematically privileged classes but to the generally dis-privileged creature than now calls itself by the name “we are all humans!”.
To move forward from this means to ove through something, destroying something, breaking away from this Demiurg, this thoroughly ignoble God-surrogate, abandoning the commandment that all be equal which implies that all is meaningless. The notion of evil has to be penetrated into its phenomenology, which means that it has to be touched. As before the death of God, mans greatest fear was to be touched by evil, he must now reach to touch evil himself, as a disowned remainder of his being, to make it his own, include it into a moral aesthetics – as far as this will prove to be posible.
(The limit of morality can of course not be itself integrated, but it needs to be pushed back by integrating that which presently represents this limit (in western mans own sphere of responsibility). Our type desperately needs moral breathing space, his self-negation can not go on much longer)
As Parodites has made clear, the new ethics shall be a speculative ethics; as art has been the explication of the limits of morality, the Good, “Luciferian art” means explication of the limits of the Daemonic. This is not a work for the faint of heart, and I stand before it in fear and trembling – I must address the darkest dagger in my own psyche before I can begin to move foward to claim for man the throne that he has hitherto filled only with his imagination. “Lucifer” represents something that is for man a necessary part of his worldview, but lies beyond the reach of his personal conscience.
I see this now as the only way in which man can theoretically regain contact with his political-economic actions, which are absolutely beyond the reach of his moral good vs evil logic. Man, at least the philosophical class standing between the working class and the ruling capital-machine, must establish value differences beyond good and evil. Until now the sphere “beyond good and evil” has for philosophy been a theoretical, an ideal, un-filled-in by reality, therefore undifferentiated, non-being. The concrete artist, not the abstract philosopher, must venture out as a pioneer into this terrain, establishing new law in the wilderness.
There is a great unchartd territory that is at this point unseen, hidden as the discrepancy between morality and futurality. To will the future, under all conditions, this means to integrate what is necessary and unavoidable into morality. Morality thereby loses its status as an absolute, fixed good, loses the power to result in universal principles, and becomes the continuous effort of a speculative ethics.
If this operation is to be successful, man will live guided by a philosophical machinery. Thinking will no longer be isolated incident, a curiosity - the thinker will no longer be the archetypical hermit ascetic, but part of a war-effort to keep mankind sane in the direct apprehension of his 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 Online
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
Aleatory
Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeTue Apr 10, 2012 11:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think perhaps this ‘upper limit’ has been breached, namely by surrealism. Andre Breton, in the manifesto: “Pure psychic automatism, by which one proposes to express, either verbally, in writing, or by any other manner, the real functioning of thought. Dictation of thought in the absence of all control exercised by reason, outside of all aesthetic and moral preoccupation.” Note that last bit, “outside of all aesthetic and moral preoccupation.” Though seemingly an apotheosis of the [un/sub]conscious mind, perhaps it neglects to deify itself. Well, but if God were a simulacrum in the first (and thus his throne a vacant altar from the get-go), what need have we to take this seat if not to wield the hegemony of Religion, the scepter of the Vatican against the people ourselves? Art as the expression of dasein, this attempt to make connections outside oneself despite this solipsistic condition; what should be a free territory if not this? And if we instigate an infection via the throne of God—whether he sit there or we affect an entirely one-sided coup—is this not the Trojan-horse-totalitarianism of Rousseau, the bacillus inherited by Marx and Nietzsche alike?—not just “If man will not be free, you must force him to be free” but ‘buy not the fantasies sold by civilization but those I sell you of a recursion to the natural order, of the Noble Savage’ (which finds its analog in Marx’s proletariat dictatorship as the reterritorialization of the bourgeois dictatorship and its metastasis in Nietzsche’s reterritorialization of Christian morality).
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
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
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeWed Apr 11, 2012 1:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The problem with the abandonment of moral concerns in art I is that this scepter against ourselves continues to be wielded, despite a surrealist awakening of an anarchistic instinct in the individual. What I mean to point to is indeed a new form of imperial art, but not to glorify the noble savage or any Nietzschean ideal, but to make accessible the “machine” (capital) to human valuing capacity.
I am not sure that capitalism can or should be overthrown, as it is a much more direct manifestation of man-as-valuing than any communitarian models can be. It should rather be refined, at the same time as mans morality expands, becomes less cramped - so that morality and machine move towards a synthesis.
Surrealism is a liberation of the individual from the machine, but it does not thereby render the machine obsolete, does not contradict the machines hegemony. The new art I propose is a celebration of the machine, not by making it into something that it is not (God) but to allow for man to morally take part in the machine, and thereby refine/reform it into something (more) truly beautiful.
In short, art represents the power to make known and acceptable by making beautiful - to reveal the Real as accessible by masking it as recognizable. This stands in direct opposition to the power of science to “disclose as-is”, which is simply the invocation of formless force into the image of the world, brutalizing, making unaccessible to ethical being, “objectifying” - reducing all to function of a purposeless inevitability, negating the general ground of being in the finalizing of its most artificially isolated set of consequences. So far, man has only been able to discern aesthetics in the apprehension of phenomena disclosed by science - not to subject the approach to science (the capacity to objectify, brutalize) to aesthetics, which is to subject force to form, which is to create in the sense of living (re: building, dwelling, thinking).
To apply the ethicizing, perspective-enabling power of art to the economic-political status quo requires a furthering of capitalistic thinking, not an anarchistic will to be free of the capitalistic machine. So I am not speaking of the individual and his art (in this sense I might agree that art has already disclosed thinking) but of society and its art. We can not, as a society, be free from “evil” or tyranny. “Society” is precisely what it means to be tyrannized. But tyranny by what? Largely a matter of (re)defining the will to comfort, and the means we use to battle for this comfort.
In this sense it will be useful to look at the classical word - how it defined itself in its most conservative form - its rituals and institutions. It was at ease with its will to dominate all other life, and was at ease by virtue of its ritualized institutions, its state-art. Enlightening state art might mean a return of the colonial spirit under different, more refined terms. It must mean the institutionalization of the will (of the west) to persist. Institutionalizing means to cast into form, which means forging into an aesthetics.
" 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 Online
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
Aleatory
Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeThu Apr 12, 2012 3:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Then you believe in an objective aesthetic or that if an intersubjective aesthetic cannot be agreed unanimously upon, we will be forced to accept your aesthetic? Luciferian aside, this seems awfully fascist—removing the possibility for outward subjective valuation by force. “True” beauty—what is this? Who defines what is “truly” beautiful and is this in fact “truly” beautiful or merely what Mrs. Rand dictates is suitably labeled beautiful? “If man will not be free, we must force him to be free.” In these cases, or even with Nietzsche’s morality, these authoritative objects (“true”, “free”, “moral”) lose their meaning; truth metamorphs to opinion, freedom to dog runs, morality to will, these words become denominations relative to the preference of the ruling power–Thrasymachus’ justice. Celebrating the uncomfortable nature of high art—as it is practiced even today—is one thing, and a totalitarian rule over something as precious to an individual nature as art is quite another. But maybe I’m missing your point here, as you bring up culture.
So this aesthetic is not of the individual but of the cultural order? (and further it is to “celebrate the machine” whose tyranny we currently enjoy? We celebrate our own oppression? Is this like the field mouse who scurries to the cat so as to expedite his death, an ironic resignation, or what?) Do you mean to have us enforce some quasi-eugenics of art, a nationalist aesthetic like the Big Five did for the Russian Symphony (except they didn’t insinuate this aesthetic upon others)…I don’t know, I’m afraid I’m not clear on what you’re implying we do—or at least I hope I’m not. Art has a much greater purpose than Heidegger purports; more than cultural, more than economico-political, more than allegorical representation of the world, it is personal expression, an attempt to reach out and connect, to—for just an evanescent moment—escape this terminally solipsistic condition—and in this way its purpose, its telos, is infinitely discursive. Art isn’t something you can constrain; it’s an unbreakable horse, an inexpugnable force of human nature that will have its way…and what you seem to be describing feels akin to the US Corps of Engineers and the Mississippi River. It’s better to let it run its course…in my opinion.
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
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
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeThu Apr 12, 2012 6:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I realize this is a sensitive subject, (see OP) but that is no reason to misread me as you have. A few points: You conclude, not from what I write but in some other way, that I would want to ban any kind of art. Of course, I don’t. And you suggest that a culture or collective is objective, or warrants objectivity. It isn’t, and doesn’t - culture is always the product of vital expressions of a particular, context bound subjectivity, with which other subjects, sharing in part this context, can identify as subjects.
Quote :
So this aesthetic is not of the individual but of the cultural order?
As Mozarts music represented an Empire to itself (which means to the people of which it is constructed) much in the same way as Greek architecture did, the aesthetics I propose would be of a cultural order. But I don’t believe in a duality between culture and individual. Culture is the medium for individuality, and cultural order is the result of art. We probably use very different methods of reasoning, so this may not make sense to you at all - but be careful not to infer too much too easily.
Quote :
and further it is to “celebrate the machine” whose tyranny we currently enjoy? We celebrate our own oppression?
I am not actually tyrannized. I live in abundant comfort with a lot of possibilities for expression. These possibilities have increased over my lifetime.
Of course I can go along with all the objections against all social injustices. But part of the function of this art I propose is to liberate art from its role as “rebel”, something at which it never was any good. Art, as it liberates the individual from all kinds of isolation, within and without himself, always sustains order. It is the lifeblood of culture, without which the machine (the “monster” of will to power) is incapable of forming a social order.
So when I suggest that art celebrates the machine, I want the machine to become a space for a social order, so as for humans to claim responsibility for the machine. The machine exists as will to power, no matter that a mans conscience has him withdraw from cognitive acceptance of this fact. As soon as man feels himself morally superior to the system that supports his life in practical terms, he has several options, e.g. - to attempt to leave; to become a “rogue cell” out to create disorder and to disrupt or overthrow power; to become passive-aggressive towards his direct environment; to actively transform the system from within so as for it to become morally on the level of that individual.
For this latter option to be possible, some positive, if perhaps latent, qualities of the machine have to be recognized, as a ground to build on, to improve. These would logically be the qualities that lead the morally superior man to his moral superiority. I think that much of the moral opposition against the capitalist tyranny is groundless (the ground of the morality by which the order is judged to be tyrannical is not identified as part of the ground of this order), and therefore ineffective.
As the state is always built on representation (art, artifice, symbolics), the symbols attributed to it shape the states essence.
" 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 Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeFri Apr 13, 2012 11:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What are we actually against ?
Let’s explicate what is wrong with the machine.
Let’s not assume anything, no pre-given morality, no a priori categories of good and evil.
The expositions and arguments for condemnation of power-that-is range from the implausibly plausible to the absurd. What, in all of its mechanism, is invalid ?
I withdraw my suggestion that art should celebrate the machine - it should celebrate a machine. As we envision it.
For the meaning of “machine” I refer to without-musics post here.
" 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 Online
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
Aleatory
Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeSun Apr 15, 2012 3:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I had started a reply to your previous post, but it feels largely irrelevant to me now. I still feel I should relate this snippet from it: “Regrettably, I misread two or three sentences leading to “removing the possibility for outward subjective valuation by force.”—this is not warranted by your text and I apologize. My main objection is of proposing an aesthetic rather than creating it, otherwise leaving the rivers and rivulets of art and aesthetic to run their course; if you wish to start a new movement, do so.”
Fixed Cross wrote:
What are we actually against ?
Let’s explicate what is wrong with the machine.
Let’s not assume anything, no pre-given morality, no a priori categories of good and evil.
The expositions and arguments for condemnation of power-that-is range from the implausibly plausible to the absurd. What, in all of its mechanism, is invalid ?
I withdraw my suggestion that art should celebrate the machine - it should celebrate a machine. As we envision it.
For the meaning of “machine” I refer to without-musics post here.
And I think at least one form of art—which for some absurd reason I’ve neglected to mention—already has achieved this end: jazz. (Capable’s culpable for my sudden application of this form; I’d recognized its relevance to the topic, but didn’t think of bringing it up until Capable suggested it.) I mean, jazz simultaneously obeys, contradicts, and transcends all musical precedents: you can describe it in terms of music theory, but it changes key more whimsically than Debussy or Ravel, uses tonalities as daring as Stravinsky, and is absolutely irreverent; contrast the technique of Chico Marx to someone performing Liszt.
Jazz is, to me, the apotheosis of these machinic multiplicities—likewise of rhizomatics—each machine connected to and reciprocally driving one another, infinitely interwoven double articulations; ear-brain informs thought-emotion informs thought-action informs appendage-instrument, etc.—and on so many strata I’m simply unable to list a significant fraction of. Observe the musical strata of the piano in a line by Peter Martin (or any great jazz pianist) where branching lines of flight lay before him, taking at his digression one or another: if this isn’t actual machines, actual rhizome-proliferation…I don’t know. Am I making any sense? I’m going to leave off here and go play.
I’ll leave you this video, perhaps it will illustrate what I mean.
There’s a single theme, a single point of departure from which this all proliferates.
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
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
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeSun Apr 15, 2012 12:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Aleatory wrote:
I had started a reply to your previous post, but it feels largely irrelevant to me now. I still feel I should relate this snippet from it: “Regrettably, I misread two or three sentences leading to “removing the possibility for outward subjective valuation by force.”—this is not warranted by your text and I apologize. My main objection is of proposing an aesthetic rather than creating it, otherwise leaving the rivers and rivulets of art and aesthetic to run their course; if you wish to start a new movement, do so.”
Yes! This is of course the only possible way to approach it, art. You can not pre-conceptualize art. Or - can you? Honest question. Did Pythagoras not pre-conceptualize art with his invention of our basic string-tuning mathematics? I want to know what you, a musician, think about this. You have already said a great deal, as Jazz does in a sense defeat the pre-conceptualized rules that the system imposes. This defeating the rules led to whole new forms of music, new rules - I want to know the most pro-active, self-defining music you can think of, and how this music can be pushed.
Can we push without preconceptualization?
Please give links.
Let this forum be flooded with art.
I know nothing of post-jazz “classical” music, which is how I’d interpret what you describe from the outside - I take Jazz to be improvisation on a set of chords - the stuff you mention - is that written reproduced?
I am fearful to post art as I am unspecialized to the extreme - there is no field in music where I am actually knowledgeable, surpass others in knowledge. Except maybe for filmmusic of the 80’s and 90’s. I could not find anything that isn’t obvious. I guess to a great extent, I only trust the obvious. But music makes obvious the previously unobvious.
Preomethean (I like better) Art is preconceptualized as lightenin our path, taking control of vision.
Beyond fire as God, toward filre as man.
Has not fire, as destruction-regeneration of carbon, always been elusive as long as death was respected as beyond?
Therefore: Art, music that introduces us to the death that is already here.
this is what I seek - not to end the cycle, but to include the end of the cycle into another cycle - a vaster, more European-Asian, Land-(not sea) based experiments toward self-recognition of a desolate world. How long has our history not been an accumulation of misery?
Where did this start?
My answer: since nature lacked music and became man.
Man and music have been separate. Jazz, it seems true, has re-integrated man into music.
Which jazz-piano piece would you name most Promethean?
Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:
What are we actually against ?
Let’s explicate what is wrong with the machine.
Let’s not assume anything, no pre-given morality, no a priori categories of good and evil.
The expositions and arguments for condemnation of power-that-is range from the implausibly plausible to the absurd. What, in all of its mechanism, is invalid ?
I withdraw my suggestion that art should celebrate the machine - it should celebrate a machine. As we envision it.
For the meaning of “machine” I refer to without-musics post here.
And I think at least one form of art—which for some absurd reason I’ve neglected to mention—already has achieved this end: jazz. (Capable’s culpable for my sudden application of this form; I’d recognized its relevance to the topic, but didn’t think of bringing it up until Capable suggested it.) I mean, jazz simultaneously obeys, contradicts, and transcends all musical precedents: you can describe it in terms of music theory, but it changes key more whimsically than Debussy or Ravel, uses tonalities as daring as Stravinsky, and is absolutely irreverent; contrast the technique of Chico Marx to someone performing Liszt.
Jazz is, to me, the apotheosis of these machinic multiplicities—likewise of rhizomatics—each machine connected to and reciprocally driving one another, infinitely interwoven double articulations; ear-brain informs thought-emotion informs thought-action informs appendage-instrument, etc.—and on so many strata I’m simply unable to list a significant fraction of. Observe the musical strata of the piano in a line by Peter Martin (or any great jazz pianist) where branching lines of flight lay before him, taking at his digression one or another: if this isn’t actual machines, actual rhizome-proliferation…I don’t know. Am I making any sense? I’m going to leave off here and go play.
I’ll leave you this video, perhaps it will illustrate what I mean.
youtube.com/watch?v=i-GTsDFFckI]
Hmm, that link did not show up before.
Let’s press it…
" 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 Online
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
Aleatory
Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15
The Luciferian Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Luciferian The Luciferian Icon_minitimeMon Apr 16, 2012 6:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This will take a little bit to explain, and probably a few sittings. Jazz, firstly, is a word whose density is that of a neutron star; what is defined as jazz is a topic heatedly debated since its coining circa the 20th’s teens and has lost no steam. I consider it an Afro-Cuban art in origin (its current multitudinous sub-genres are the offspring of Hispanic and Afro-American progenitors), but it’s practiced by every culture (save probably some aborigines) on the planet. I mean, the variety is simply nuts. For instance, you’ve got the classics like Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers, Armstrong, Calloway etc., who were just stepping out into the thing to come, still heavily preconceived but featuring the variation in solo. Now these cats didn’t disappear, but this field of art, this territory, evolved at breakneck speed, so you had these new free radicals popping up like, Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Ellington (he began with the earlier swing group and isn’t as daring as the rest of this group, but I felt obliged to include him). Then Coltrane began to stretch out, but Cecil Taylor said “not nearly enough,” Gillespie re-emerged with the Afro-Cuban movement while Miles Davis got fast, Buddy Rich screamed at his band (pushing the instrument rather than the music), Gets & Gilberto did Coltrane one further with the bossa nova, Jaco changed the bass then made a band (watch this too), Metheny got indescribable, Tortoise and Mercury Program said goodbye to rock, Europe had a break through and you begun to get bands like Jaga Jazzist. Elsewhere Screaming Headless Torsos made their own recipe, Hiromi met Corea, Fitzgerald said no to words, and pardon the abrupt ending, but I’ve already skipped over soooo much. All of this is interconnected, not a chain or hierarchy but a field of grassroots, chaotic, obfuscated. My list is horribly limited in scope, but I just wanted to illustrate the range this word “jazz” covers, and I’ve probably failed to do that even, so I’ll move along for now.
Who do I think is the most promethean? Cecil Taylor, by and far. Interestingly enough, though Wikipedia doesn’t mention a thing about it, you can find Taylor’s main influence in a few Debussy pieces: feux d’artifice, ce q’ua vu le vent d’ouest, le vent dans la plaine, les sons et les parfums tournent dans l’air du soir, la serenade interrompue, brouillards, la puerta del vino, etc. But I’m at my limit and must play now. I know Without-music plays piano (and guitar, if I’m not mistaken?), so perhaps he could fill some of the numerous gaps I’ve left?
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
Man’s final solace. Empty
PostSubject: Man’s final solace. Man’s final solace. Icon_minitimeSat Aug 04, 2012 1:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From my latest writing project:
Above all else, man endeavors that he might at last know life, not that he might love it, and thereby abdicating that stolid post for his soul’s salvation, bore in futile solitude, he avers himself this garb of flesh in the name of neither pleasure or spite, and lives neither for the sake of happiness nor for the sake of conquering pain, for he recalls that suffering of old Job, which could be assuaged neither with the promise of heaven’s riches nor with anger, with neither hope, pity, or with the unseen movements of some inhuman justice, but only with awe. Indeed, it is the awe of life which is man’s final comfort, not pleasure, with its vague intuitions of the earth’s great bounty, nor even love, in its definite grasp, in its confidence and pious severity, nor does this last comfort lie in the mind, regardless of what the saints and philosophers might tell us- the mind, in all its vast epicycles and supernal brilliance, which is only the glint of that star which, upon the mirrored face of the sea into which it leads us, appears then so meager, and but a weary, dwindling beacon. The stillness of the uncreated, the womb of all that is yet to be and live, or truth eternal in its placidity, unmoved by the avarice of death and nature- that music of the spheres, which choirs with the wisdom of the dead and with the dreams of the forgotten, are perhaps the hopeful banners under which the unborn and the departed might bear their fate, but it is just that the living, who alone have the need of it, are alone provided the most perfect solace, namely awe, or wonder, as the Greeks so named it. Life is a dying flame, that needs must feed itself with the living earth.
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites
Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11
The principle of the new philosophy. Empty
PostSubject: The principle of the new philosophy. The principle of the new philosophy. Icon_minitimeFri May 11, 2012 11:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A heavy section from one of my books:
Take Sartre’s (A writer for whom I find in myself very little affinity or respect. The love of freedom for the sake of freedom is something that instinctually reviles me, no matter how spiritualized it may have become.) summary of modern philosophy, that existence precedes essence. Most of philosophy held the opposite, that essence comes before existence, ie. that the soul predates bodily incarnation. My philosophy has endeavored to posit them both at the same level of philosophical categorization and therefor to affirm them as equally positive expressions; existence and essence are two terms in which that excess which underlies their very conceptualization and which cannot be truly contained by either idea is articulated. Thus: existence and essence are both coterminous, and yet do not contain one another, for as philosophical categories they do not contain the excess out of which they were produced and which is reflected in their differentiation. I would give a final formulation of the principle as: “Essence is not adequate to existence; existence is not adequate to essence.” With this principle one can defend the freedom of the will despite also accepting the existence of a determined universe, because essence (the will’s freedom) and existence (the material universe) are equatable and non-containing of one another, by virtue of their constitutive excess. So let’s say I do want to defend the will’s freedom. The terms in the conceptual opposition are the freedom of the will and a causal universe, and we can simply propose that there is an excess inherent in both of these concepts which neither contains, and then we transfer this excess to a new series of conceptual oppositions. What would be the excess in the first series, freedom and material? It is the idea of transcendence. The will must transcend its limitations, for it is not an infinite will, nor omniscient, but it must do so through the material existence in which it is embodied as a passionate and creative organism. Thus we get an image of the old Greek concept of Eros- I doubt anyone experiences love these days as they did, as tragic love, as the soul’s fall into matter and suffering of flesh, that “voluptuousness of Hell.” This idea of transcending the material and sensuous then is the excess inherent in the concept of human freedom, and by transferring it to a new series of conceptual oppositions we can defend the idea of human freedom and at the same time accept the existence of a determined and causal universe, because we have effectively transferred the question of human freedom to an entirely new field of philosophical discourse than the one which was open to the criticism of material causality. Now the question of freedom takes form in the dialogue about the relationship between the ideal and real egos. Freedom is reconceptualized not so much as an exercise of one’s will or as a state of being uninhibited by material existence, but rather is it reconceptualized as a kind of experience. This transference of a concept to a new, higher field of discourse- that is, to me, the meaning of the Platonic aporia, and the silence into which every Socratic dialogue is resolved, a technique I believe I have rediscovered in light of my own philosophical method. The aporetic meditation exhausts the content of concepts in order to establish what remains of their meaning as the indication of that excess underlying their creation.
Heidegger rejected Sartre on the basis that a reversal of a metaphysical claim (which is what his philosophy amounts to) is nonetheless metaphysical, and this point is very true. Heidegger however locates the excess in the ontic sphere, as I have said before, and like Nietzsche he uses the strength of the ontic subject (Will for Nietzsche, Dasein for Heidegger) to break completely through the epistemic, that is, the metaphysical. That rendered Heidegger basically philosophically impotent in the remotest extreme of his thought, and all he can do there is silently point to the truth of being. Perhaps, as he says, it can be found in music or poetry. At any rate he abandons philosophy at the extremity of philosophy. I have rather located the excess within the epistemic sphere, elaborating it phenomenologically, that is, in the way in which it structures human consciousness, as well as philosophically, with the concept of the daemonic. I have retained all the strengths of dualistic thought, ontology, and metaphysics, as well as all the strengths of ontic, monistic thought while having inherited none of their weaknesses. In my philosophy there is a monism of the human subject as an excess underlying all consciousness, as well as a philosophical dualism because it is through conceptual oppositions that the excess is reflected in consciousness, and at every step of the way the dualism can be dissolved or the monism expanded dualistically: that is the strength of it. These conceptual oppositions represent not synthesized polarities on the part of a Hegelian self-consciousness as they do in Kierkegaard, as between the eternal and temporal, but rather an immanent division of the human consciousness in an effort to reflect itself daemonically in the mirror of philosophical ideas as that excess which cannot be resolved into any conceivable polarity expressed by them. Philosophy, then, is essentially the stimulation of the real ego, the synthesizing and creative self, the self that lives, desires, and dies, which is worn away in the struggle of eternity and time, love and desire, by the ideal ego; that self which disunites, polarizes, and reflects, and the difficulty of philosophy is the seeming inability to relate the two, it is the fact that no eternity is able to express the beauty and the languishing of time, nor is time, in its last bitter extremity, able to express the absolution of the eternal, for the human self intuits within both terms some substance after its own nature, and which belongs to a still higher order of things in which the meaning of time stands of itself, and the meaning of the eternal is untouched by the walks of time. The real ego experiences the fullness of its life and will only in fleeting moments throughout the course of its existence, and it is this ideal ego which is the heart into which it lays this fullness. Nietzsche comes beautifully close to my conception in the thought of the eternal recurrence, yet he fails to draw out the excess inherent in the conceptions of time and the eternal and, thereby unable to transfer it to a higher field of discourse, he only succeeds in equating the two concepts. His thought perhaps succeeds in inducing a stimulation of the real by the ideal ego, but does not satisfy the real demand of genuine morality.
While the artist wants to stamp the eternal with the image of time, to extend the sphere of the living and perishing consciousness so as to encompass all the breadth of creation, mainly by way of realizing harmonies within the order of nature, the philosopher wants to stamp time with the image of the eternal, to contract his consciousness to a single point, to the ego, so as to encompass it by thought, mainly by dissolving those harmonies and relations, by introducing contrariety and antithesis into the orders of nature and thereby unriddling the impassioned and bodily existence in which he feels himself condemned back into the mute regions of thought. In this way he is afforded objectivity, a view beyond himself and the narrow bound of his egoic consciousness, so that he might comprehend the idea behind phenomenal appearance. True morality, on the other hand, which has been only profaned by the mocking idols of merely human happiness and virtue, in comparison to whose ardor the truths of man are only velleity and convenience, wants neither to extend the border of the egoic consciousness or to contract it, but rather to contract the creation itself by realizing the principium individuationis, the essence of the will, by means of the will. Stimulated by the ideal ego through philosophy, by the thought of the eternal soul, the real ego aims to lay into it its fullness and life, and realizes a morality. All moral realities thereby inevitably create their own objects, as love creates beauty, hope creates happiness, and freedom creates justice. The moral problem is the problem of realizing in the image of the eternal the meaning of the struggle of time and mortality. When beheld with this hopeless and yet necessary question in one’s mind, all the virtues and the sins of man become equally insufferable and petty folly.
One would not ask of a dog that it should become more of a dog, nor would one rebuke a dog for being any less of a dog than it should be. All animals live in accord with their fundamental nature, while man rarely rises up to the stature of his own humanity, and the far extremity of his own destiny remains unknown to him. Man alone fails to be what he is. Yet, he still cannot stoop below himself. He cannot even abandon himself and feed on wild grass with the oxen. “I could not become a beast, let alone an insect,” cries Dostoyevskian man, and it is a quite genuine lamentation. Bereft of Gods and Men, the individual is consigned to eternal isolation; unable to find any real object outside of himself upon which to direct his most vital power, he would find no contentment even provided all the breadth of the creation, nor is he able to “read in the tongues of heaven the meaning of the earth,” to speak with Holderlin. The real moral question is precisely this, the question of the relation between the living ego and the ideal ego, between individual man and universal humanity; the question which plays about the impotent prose of Kant, the question which he could never answer. In Kant the attempt to relate transcendental and empirical apperception, to unite the original consciousness of man as a particular subject, as a being in possession of a soul, as a self, to the consciousness of this self enduring throughout time and its many changing experiences, constitutes the form which the question assumes, and in which it could not be answered. The primal commandment of philosophy, Know Thyself, assumes as its foundation the primal commandment of true morality, Be Thyself, and neither taken alone or taken individually does either precept allow us to gain any deeper understanding of ourselves. Alas, there is so much virtue in man! But so little insight. So much knowledge! But so little sanctity.
This question is given varied forms in all great philosophies. In Plato it is depicted in the relation between man’s finite bodily existence and eternal soul. With the concept of the daemonic this question, to my mind, finds at last its perfect expression and, ultimately, its resolution.
ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
The principle of the new philosophy. Empty
PostSubject: Re: The principle of the new philosophy. The principle of the new philosophy. Icon_minitimeThu Oct 04, 2012 7:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The ontic subject or the “subject itself” simply means any particular “epistemic” structure whereby data, as stimulation of that structure, is translated by the particular logic of the structure itself, which is to say interpreted, into information; the structure takes account of that quality of the data which it is able to relate to itself, which is to say makes this data meaningful, and this meaning-giving act then renders the otherwise unintelligeble and useless subjective “excess” into manageable and usable objects. The venture of science is characterized by its narrow focus on these objects themselves, as in their objective quality, namely whatever is excessive about them as concerns the subjective structure for which the object is object; thus science, being born of philosophy, is a particular myopia of an otherwise broader philosophic reason that has become arrested at a certain stage of that reason, allowing it to perseverate and thus “gain some advantage” due to the limited range of its concern. The focus on object-qualities and measurements, after Aristotle, certainly has its advantages and is a particularly necessary component of philosophic method, contributing to the wider philosophic concern and interest. But it is this wider range of philosophy itself that concerns the entire process by which objects are object and may be said to come into existence at all; that particular epistemological body constitutive of the subjective meaning-giving power is the indirect focus of philosophy, whether this focus directs itself toward the periphery of this body, as metaphysics, toward the center of this body, as ontology, or toward the equivocating “middle ground” of this body, as phenomenology. An ethics can and does emerge from any of these methods, as either religion or science in the case of metaphysics and ontology or as something thus far without a name, a sort of amorphous ethical particularism that shuns broad categorical emphasis for a more narrow-minded multiplicity of differential planes of materialization, as with phenomenology. This latter ethics is the basis out of which a proper understanding of the excessive component itself, and eventually also an understanding of the daemonic structure of consciousness, must first come. We might then say that the phenomenological focus is the attempt of consciousness to self-value itself more directly and more all-encompassingly toward reducing the errors it engenders, toward greater precision and “controlled schizophrenization”. Certainly psychoanalysis is a method situated within this space and attempting a more nuanced articulation of daemonic process.
As this subject comes into existence through its own articulations of itself, our task, since we now grasp the basic “set up” involved, must be to provide a better method for subjective articulation, both for ourselves as well as for others. Identifying the excess within common conceptual oppositions is critical to transfer these oppositions and “common understanding” to a higher plane of discourse, where the old problems are seen in a new light, rendered unproblematic, and a whole new series of problems is allowed to arise in its place. This is really the raising up of self-consciousness, of the darmonic processes of self-engendering creation, and the sheer joy and awe involved in this alone makes it possible that this method, once initially grasped, will certainly bring philosophy “to the masses”, as they say. But it is only possible to grasp this joy once one has become capable of it, which is where the leap of faith is involved. We might attempt to communicate this leap of faith itself within the language of this daemonically constituted subject, since while the sort of leap of faith which Kierkegaard necessitates may, as you say, now be rejected we can reframe the leap as the step of moving from either subjectively-emphasized ontology, namely religion, or objectively-emphasized ontology, science, to a realm which is beyond either approaches and which includes both. The leap involves leaving behind the old antinomy of religion and science for real philosophy, and of moving beyond the superficial construction of man as either a dualistically or monistically constituted subject, in order to approach genuine morality, as you say. This would begin with a direct articulation of the nature of self-consciousness to itself as its own subjective potency, this potency now rendered and felt intelligebly by making visible, which is to say by making sensible the substrata upon which man’s current master-signifying terms, on either the individual psychological or group socological level, come into existence and by which as a consequence of this making sensible they may be regulated. Of course as a consequence of this this would also engender an entirely new order of relations among men and groups, a new politics.
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
Ethics of a Philosopher Empty
PostSubject: Ethics of a Philosopher Ethics of a Philosopher Icon_minitimeFri Dec 28, 2012 3:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
During the first year of building on this site I have experienced a strong resistance, like sap would experience as it flows upward in the tree, to amount in the leaves and catch light. It is hard work to catch light. We must go through the dark, eat it, absorb it and resist it, to become what we are - only the purest nutrients, life-giving potencies will pass the ‘test’ - this tree, this resistance upward growing from the soil of mundane human causal madness, the insane circuitry without resolution that finds its only solace in weakness, in conformity to dissolution. So this is our ethics, as long as we are philosophers, in every instance of being a philosopher, it is to resist, to ascend and to cause growth around us.
The wild growth of the thinking ape, who blindly grows by virtue of his rampant excess capacity, is justified by a strange force of concentrated excess - excess so strong that it has a momentum, and therefore a causal influence to all that surrounds it. Itself a product of the blind cumulative surging of semantic cognition deficiently coupled with animal instincts, the philosophical focus commands this blind excess to follow it, to take shape around it, to take on its form. As God is created by man to be the creator of man, so the philosopher - is God.
These ethics seek the bitter, the hard, the unyielding - how else can it exert the force of life - how else can it cause change? A sea of pure flux holds no pleasure for the thinker, who is like a ram, a bull and an eagle at once. The military mind can understand in part the will of the philosopher, its resistance is the world that is. The philosopher is resisted by the world that its not yet - and in this resistance the hands of the future and the philosopher reach and grab hold - suddenly the tree is blossoming, all the senses are revived, the tree is fully known.
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross
Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
Value Empty
PostSubject: Value Value Icon_minitimeFri Mar 15, 2013 12:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Watching a cat wake up to the chord of my phone charger and half asleep reach out to this irresistible value, I knew that my definition of value had been absent because I had not taken it to be movement, but thing-ness. “A value” is something that carries inherent momentum, that fits the momentum of the self-valuing (sustained (id)entity through time- ‘behavior’).
The value of the movement is in the movement itself, perhaps the value of hunting, of prey, is originally in the movement that it causes in the being, which is itself its behavior, its substance as an entity.
The difference beween the mineral world and the organic is this movement inherent - a rock of quartz is not an entity, it is a concentration of entities (particles) that value each other in their own terms, and cohere. Their valuing sustains an environment, not a development.
Trees exist ontologically between minerals and roving entities, it’s form is dependent on its physical origin, its ‘mother’ is still primary to its ontological definition - wow - sirens, a large fire somewhere close - the tree values the Earth literally as itself, as an animal values his movement as itself, and the root-ground as it’s past.
A tree is unconscious but awakes into futurality, “daylight”, the existence of a present, as divided by seasons from a past that figures as a future, and an eternal summer full of melancholy as the idea of time, drive away from the past and dive into the future, which now appars to be created in part by the organism, who changes, becomes, ‘acts’. The blossoming of a tree and it’s production of fruits is the root of acting-as-entity, ‘independence’.
What caused the separation of actor from its acting ground (root, mother) is Poseidons indifferent realm, Earths very own primordial soup where heat and electricity pervaded the waters and cosmic mechanisms took hold of the local ingredients and the element carbon became a vehicle for a self-valuing that drifted from accidental nourishment to the next, while speedily the electrical forces found new necessities and attracted through force and time the elements to sustain a greater charge and overpower all other charges.
Ultimately man is drawn to the pattern in which he sees his greatest ‘lockdown’, the consolidation of the greatest vision of what he is. Always, the opposite is the key to the completed self-valuing. Man with a mind for the world will make his image into something beyond a woman, though this will represent for him the female principle, and evokes the same fluids as those that ventured throughout and emerged from the primordial soup as entities that can only described as ‘courageous’. Courage certainly precedes consciousness.
So the conquerer is wise to speak to an Aristotle who can evoke an image of beyond the horizon, but unwise to take any mans word for what he wil find when he gets there. What he gets is implicit in his vitality only, it ultimately defies every physical root and becomes a ‘thing to itself’ only bound to the fleetingness of the unearthed state, thereby the freedom to forget the direct consequence of being, which results in the experience of the mind. As the fixation tilts to the future, values become properly externalized.
There is no way that man can not cause the immense trouble for himself that he does. Freud saw in America the mistake of roving life itself. His European Jewish root soul could not imagine the freedom from the past (atavisms, Id, the behaviorisms of the gene pool) to lead to anything but pure disaster.
Man always plunges himself into disaster because that is where is primal value is possible - the awakening to movement I saw in this cat who seems now fast asleep, the temptation to act.
Value: ‘fitting substance’ and ‘origin of action’.
We are all one, except we’re divided by the thing that makes us one. Morals and consequences depend on whether one has the proclivity to enjoy directly or to cause further enjoyment. Whether ones actions are oriented around the sudden emerging of opportunities or around the cultivation of environments rich with opportunity.
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
Death, and the Daemon Empty
PostSubject: Death, and the Daemon Death, and the Daemon Icon_minitimeMon Oct 29, 2012 1:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Something I wrote during a larger conversation with Parodites:
Time is indeed entirely relative. An instant can also be a lifetime. You are right that there is no higher perspective or frame from which another greater value might assert itself against us, as our own measure of ourselves within the other – no, we are that measure, we are that other. Man measures himself, and the time of his life, quite limited as it is, assumes whatever magnitude and depth of potency and vitality as a man is able to make of it. Mozart was said to be able to compose whole works in his mind in the span of seconds, to see a musical piece from start to finish in totality in the mind alone, in a heartbeat. Of course genius does this, it expands time by contracting itself relative to the temporal field of its exertion, it introduces vast and derivative combinatory forms into the moments of its relations, into a single brief instant of time so that time itself flourishes under this gaze, becomes a thing grander, fuller, and more ‘eternal’. Perhaps the genius indeed lives out an eternity in his thoughts, in his “subjectivity”.
I do not fear dying. I used to, until I really gave name and form to these feelings, exposed them as signs of an instinctive confusion combined with powerful emotions of regret, guilt and sorrow. These emotions still remain but have been delineated, identified and thus no longer does their existence constitute that vague dread in the idea of death, this idea which is really only an object in which all these individual passions could find a common point of reference and expression. Fear of death is like belief in god, both of these ideas arise due to a lack of a more complete enumeration and differentiation of consciousness’ contents, and it is the confusion of these contents with each other that gives rise to these strange “common points of reference”, these abstractions such as the notion of god or death that serve as arbitrary objects for the mind where these clouded feelings may each feel each other and come together to form a single “pathos”. This pathos is then (mis)associated with the object in which it expresses, as is the nature of our consciousness, metonymic, as you say. But a more active consciousness instead separates and comprehends the individuality of these conscious states, forges more teleological and intention relations among them rather than relying on the merely ex post facto metonymy of a disordered and arbitrary mind.
That being said, of course I know that I will die. “I” meaning the body-brain from which my conscious experience and “subject” arise as the emergent behaviors of these. I see all conscious experience and ‘qualia’, including also basic sensation interpreted from the conscious perspective of meaning, as emergent behaviors, and I see even the physical non-conscious relations of the body or brain as emergent behaviors of what is lesser than they, chemicals, elemental bonds, etc., all subject to “natural law”, to the causal logic of the fields and domains in which they occur. In this way everything is a summative, emergent formality of whatever for it serves as a constitutive ground. Consciousness and non-consciousness are “flattened” here, brought to the same ontological level, but of course they still remain distinct sorts of entities even so. My point is just that I am aware of the fact that my conscious experience, however deep, grand, and expansive, however lengthy I perceive this experience or however elongated it happens to be ‘in fact’, it will ultimately at some future time vanish from existence. Plato’s Forms are representations of the nature of consciousness grapsing for itself, of what thought is as the “materialized psyche” of the ideas, those qualities of consciousness such as cognition, affectation, projection, and recollection, all of which are entirely as “physical” as is anything else, but of course which occupy a far different plane of dimensions and causality – far different and also far more contingent and derivative, I would say. But experience is still eternal to itself in so far as it can never encounter or live its ends, either in birth or death; consciousness can never recall its origin nor can it experience it final end since at one moment it is here and the next is has vanished completely, there is no “experiencing death”, for the limit of death is also the limit of possible experience. Consciousness can at least repose in the knowledge that from its own perspective its existence can never encounter any absolute boundary or terminus, and this is the whole point, really: consciousness is never satisfied, never at ‘rest’, the daemonic frenzy itself is conditioned by the fact of consciousness’ total incommunicability and lack of total limitation to itself. It comes into existence as the delineated being within the margins of birth and death, the ultimate horizon lines, and then becomes more and more distinct the greater amount of new inward limits are introduced into it, the more it identifies and the more it names, and then it becomes an more active and truly living thing the more all this limited being “daemonzies” itself.
Perhaps perpetual novelty is the only ‘ideal’ or principle by which the highly differenced and active daemon can hold itself indefinitely in existence and avoid the sort of “burnout” end which you forsee for it. This sort of powerful thought does engender its own novelty within itself, needs less from the world perhaps, but ultimately it must run its course and begin to “consume” its own nature more totally, more voraciously, and with greater and greater “vengeance” and self-destruction. In that regard this daemon would need a strong community of other daemonic natures of like philosophical character and power in order to be afforded a continuous re-energizing of itself, a re-vitalizing intake of new novelty appropriate to its superme need as well as new pathways for the discharge of its own excessive quality, which too must only grow as the daemon itself grows.
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
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
Death, and the Daemon Empty
PostSubject: Re: Death, and the Daemon Death, and the Daemon Icon_minitimeTue Nov 13, 2012 8:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have often thought that if any amount of time can be a lifetime or simply a moment, as time is relative, then can we not say that relatively speaking my life time is infinite? I have even wondered if maybe time slows down as you die and maybe you end up experiencing eternity in your mind in some dream land…
sorry if i’m side stepping your thread…
“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
Pezer
builder
builder
Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
Death, and the Daemon Empty
PostSubject: Re: Death, and the Daemon Death, and the Daemon Icon_minitimeFri Dec 21, 2012 3:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps structure is a means to death, to end, which is non-inherent in usual experience and startling when it happens.
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
Death, and the Daemon Empty
PostSubject: Re: Death, and the Daemon Death, and the Daemon Icon_minitimeFri Dec 21, 2012 3:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
PEZER!
You are back.
Man, wreak havoc or create delicate oil at the new forum.
I have invited all our friends here - not many, but their force is unmistakably life-altering -
and what is life if not life altering?
and now all we have there is a stagnant pool!
Fixed
" 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 Online
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
Death, and the Daemon Empty
PostSubject: Re: Death, and the Daemon Death, and the Daemon Icon_minitimeSat May 18, 2013 5:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
I have often thought that if any amount of time can be a lifetime or simply a moment, as time is relative, then can we not say that relatively speaking my life time is infinite? I have even wondered if maybe time slows down as you die and maybe you end up experiencing eternity in your mind in some dream land…
sorry if i’m side stepping your thread…
Yes, There is a novel written around this very idea, Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World by Haruki Murakami. It’s a very cool idea, really, to create an eternity by endlessly dividing a finite quantity. In terms of the mind, this may require a sort of short-circuit, like setting two mirrors facing each other.
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
Death, and the Daemon Empty
PostSubject: Re: Death, and the Daemon Death, and the Daemon Icon_minitimeSat Jun 08, 2013 8:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Druggies are very consciously familiar with this effect of time relativity. It requires an antenna, a neurochemical affecting the level(s) of perception(s), which beat determine(s) the speed of time.
Perhaps that’s why they equate drug use with death wish. Hunter S. Thompson wrote about it, how one either pulls out in a cowardly bid for the future or dies in pure, true adventure. We surf death until we die… That’s a fair deal to live; our time is limited, with heavens only on earth.
XspartaX
XspartaX
Posts : 2
Join date : 2012-07-26
God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Empty
PostSubject: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Icon_minitimeMon May 27, 2013 7:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Good and Bad. The two change from culture to culture. That is because different cultures, have different objectives and a different priority given to each objective. There, in order to judge what is correct/incorrect, one must first find a Universal objective. An objective which “wants” to be realized in any position in the Universe. For there to be an objective, there must be a mind which is at least, capable of “creating” this objective. A God, even if it is the Universe itself. If this is untrue, whatever I say from now on, even if the rest of the text is filled with contradictions, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Even in the “extreme” case of killing a neighbor, again, there would be nothing fundamentally wrong with it. This is you - Suspect
Let´s “work” with the concept of not being a God in the Universe. Look at that word. Universe. It is everything(don´t get me going on the Multiverse…). Including you. You have a mind. You can create objective(Or at least you have the illusion of choice, in which case it would not be intended by the Universe, but by a God which isn´t the Universe, or, by the “randomness” allowed according to the laws of physics). Since you really are a part of this Universe, I think you can safely say that your objectives are part of the Universes objectives(all which is able to create objectives, are part of the Universes objectives). Even if two people are to be fighting in a ring, in which both wish to win, these are objectives the Universe has. There is no contradiction because it doesn´t mean they both get accomplished(maybe physics would say that both possibilities do happen? Not absolutely sure.). Still… nothing wrong in the “extreme” case of killing. Or in the “extreme” case of the contradiction. Unless there is no intent to kill, and no intent to be contradictory, because no intent means no mind who created the end result by first establishing what the end result would be. If the Universe really was God, even accidents would cease to be accidents because the floor on which you fell on and died, would still be part of God. It was intended that you fell and died. But not in the case in which the Global Consciousness is called God. These would still be accidents…
Can a perfect dad be created by a perfect dad?
Emotions assume a shape - The shape of life.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized
Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars
God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Empty
PostSubject: Re: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Icon_minitimeWed Jun 05, 2013 4:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
XspartaX wrote:
Good and Bad. The two change from culture to culture. That is because different cultures, have different objectives and a different priority given to each objective. There, in order to judge what is correct/incorrect, one must first find a Universal objective. An objective which “wants” to be realized in any position in the Universe. For there to be an objective, there must be a mind which is at least, capable of “creating” this objective. A God, even if it is the Universe itself. If this is untrue, whatever I say from now on, even if the rest of the text is filled with contradictions, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Even in the “extreme” case of killing a neighbor, again, there would be nothing fundamentally wrong with it. This is you - Suspect
Let´s “work” with the concept of not being a God in the Universe. Look at that word. Universe. It is everything(don´t get me going on the Multiverse…). Including you. You have a mind. You can create objective(Or at least you have the illusion of choice, in which case it would not be intended by the Universe, but by a God which isn´t the Universe, or, by the “randomness” allowed according to the laws of physics). Since you really are a part of this Universe, I think you can safely say that your objectives are part of the Universes objectives(all which is able to create objectives, are part of the Universes objectives). Even if two people are to be fighting in a ring, in which both wish to win, these are objectives the Universe has. There is no contradiction because it doesn´t mean they both get accomplished(maybe physics would say that both possibilities do happen? Not absolutely sure.). Still… nothing wrong in the “extreme” case of killing. Or in the “extreme” case of the contradiction. Unless there is no intent to kill, and no intent to be contradictory, because no intent means no mind who created the end result by first establishing what the end result would be. If the Universe really was God, even accidents would cease to be accidents because the floor on which you fell on and died, would still be part of God. It was intended that you fell and died. But not in the case in which the Global Consciousness is called God. These would still be accidents…
Intention and choice are the result of complex processes taking place in organisms like animals, with the faculties to produce these phenomena. Intention and choice are also abstractions, sensations that these animals attribute, after the fact or at least alongside, to/of the causality of the intentional act itself. Whatever causes the choice also causes or participates in the causality of whatever produces the feeling of “free choice” in us, in that through which the choice manifests.
This is the simple version. The complex version is more difficult, since it includes the fact that human illusions are literally real and possess physical property and causality to humans and to whatever humans influence. Thoughts and feelings are not merely transcendental illusions or epiphenomena, but are tangible and real. What emerges from the brain-body also influences as a cause the brain-body. This is what consciousness is, the complex and insane self-reflection and self-reflexive causal looping and circles of sensate affection taking place between multiple dimensions and levels of physiological-psychological existence. If anything, thoughts and feelings are certainly more important and central to human consciousness than the molecular-atomic levels from which these thoughts and feelings “arise”, according to mere science. The base physiological level is only the foundation upon which higher-order expressions of force and causality occur, and to appeal only to the foundation is to exclude the higher emergence, the greater and more comprehensive unities and powers.
That being said, there is no reason for there to be a god or universe perspective or intention, in fact this defies logic. We know what life is, we know what consciousness is, we know what bodies and brains are, so there is no reason to think that phenomena like life and consciousness are able to occur other than how they do, other than how and why they must occur. I could pretend that this grapefruit here in front of me is conscious and aware of itself, that it is a god and participates in the universal divine creation of all things, but that is just a fucking idiotic delusion, it means nothing at all. Consciousness and life are kinds of highly complex and subtle activity of certain kinds of material structures and relations. Where do we see these kinds of structures and relations anywhere out in “the universe” or anywhere other than in more evolved mammals? Nowhere.
To think that the universe requires intention, causality, choice, freedom or consciousness is a gross distortion of basic logic, where it is not only wishful thinking of the intellectually and passionally poor. As to good and bad, good and evil, these are cultural constructs imposed into the individual against which the individual partially reacts and pushes back, forming his own unique interpretation and vantage upon the dominant moral ideas. If one pushes back enough and becomes a creator here, he becomes a philosopher and starts to flirt with self-sufficiency, with true freedom. Ethical ideas and feelings are methods, modes of causing certain things to happen, to potentiate and to hold in existence. These things are other affective and cognitive states. It’s all about methods of regulation and relation, regulations regulating other regulations, relations relating other relations. The real concern are the quality and quantity of these, their scope, their capacity to soar, to climb in themselves, to reach and to hold, to suffer, to comprehend and encompass, to discard and abandon, to self-value and to give cause for the emergence of greatness. In short, to apprehend truth. This is the philosopher’s method. The philosopher’s method is an improvement upon and extension of the method of all life, and until finding coherence in the philosopher life is only half-alive, at best. This is why life constricts the sphere of its awareness and potency-to-act, so that its affection not extend too far and draw itself out beyond the bounds of a contained and limited existence – it is life’s way of self-managing its own self-valuing and meaning in order to not burn out on its own nihilism, in order to create something of a semblance of truth for itself, that it might act, live and enjoy, and find value in itself and its living.
“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N
“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder
Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Empty
PostSubject: Re: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Icon_minitimeSat Jun 08, 2013 8:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The philosopher worships that which the Gods worship. Those who worship Gods are our parents, and we are equally thankful, because we understand that all that they are was necessary for us to become, and pitiful, for they are so far below in comprehension as to be like other animals that aren’t us. Will our children, too, worship gods? If we do things right, yes. God is lazyness of thought, and the quality of that which one is able to be lazy about determines the quality of the God.
Dionisus gave us wine. The philosopher worships the wine, our parents the Dionisus.
Our gods will be of a higher order, and in distilling atheism, God’s worship, from them, new Gods will begin to exist from creations they make (Merlinian creation). Those will be distilled too.
I fucking love evolution.
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
God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Empty
PostSubject: Re: God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. God and his necessity for knowing what is correct/incorrect. Icon_minitimeSun Jun 09, 2013 11:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is not the reality of ‘intention’/‘freedom of choice’ but the ethics caused by a certain perspective on the idea of these things, that - is real, exists, potentiates. Thus God does not exist, but the idea of God exists and is, where not itself a power, a fuel for a power-generating machine - the religious mind. And when this mind applies itself to ‘discover’ (invent) further this God, it is possible that this God becomes a ruler over the minds of many men, and thus a solid reality, even though not an entity, but a mere ‘word made flesh’.
Worship is thus acceptable (to me) only if it explicitly serves a certain purpose for which a great will has to be summoned. The object of worship (the god) is to be symbolically related to the reality it is meant to help bring about. I look at all religions in this way - a cryptogram of a destiny. It is very tragic to see people being born within the collective compulsive urge to worship for the sake of social acceptance - billions of lives simply sacrificed to the self-fulfilling prophecy of worldly nothingness.