The Philosophers

without-music
builder
builder
without-music

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

building dwelling thinking Empty
PostSubject: building dwelling thinking building dwelling thinking Icon_minitimeMon Jan 30, 2012 11:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was hoping the underlying force of Heidegger’s essay could be discussed here. There are both builders and dwellers here, by title. I want to hear from the dwellers, but in honour of this thread-as-dwelling, I will first add my preliminary thoughts-as-building.

The sub-title of the forum is “Building Thought to Disclose the Future.” I will take this opportunity to applaud such a formulation. I believe the distinction between the act of thinking and the act of building thought is of some significance. Building is a letting-dwell, in Heidegger’s vernacular. But if it is the future – and I take it that future here means the malleable, changeable horizon of potential before which we dwell and into which we propel ourselves – that we are disclosing in the act of such building, then building thought is no longer a letting-dwell but a forging or a making-dwell. It is not a return but a push forward. And this new horizon ought to re-organize around it the fourfold in a novel way. But not just novel, of course: value-able in terms of self, in terms of the self here unified in the gathering of dwellers and builders. [For further consideration: analysis of the building/dwelling of value-ontology in terms of Heidegger’s fourfold – akin to how the bridge organizes around it the sky, the earth, divinities and mortals.] Such a self-gathering defines itself in terms of value-ontology, the core of this forum. This definition is of course a sheltering, a letting-be, a letting-grow, of value-ontology, for its tenants have been laid out, its skeleton has been assembled, the foundation is set – what remains now is the act of building. With regard to this sheltering, I will let Heidegger’s own words do us justice:

It is proper to every gathering that the gatherers assemble to coordinate their efforts to the sheltering; only when they have gathered together with that end in view do they begin to gather.
Heidegger, Logos.

Thus, only if and when we are capable of such sheltering can we begin to gather, and only if and when we are capable of such gathering can we begin to build. Only if and when we begin to build can we begin to let or make-dwell. The space of such dwelling will of course be the future that is disclosed in the act of building.


“…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

building dwelling thinking Empty
PostSubject: Re: building dwelling thinking building dwelling thinking Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2012 2:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What a magnificently phrased ethics. Under this statement of purpose we do really assemble before the light.

Under this banner I would “sin” (miss the mark) if I do not say to you who are now mortal antagonists to know (or have faith) that your enemy works under this same banner. We seek the same, and none of us has seen it, but we all anticipate it with our most powerful mindform, which in all of us is different - in some slightly, in others even contradicting.

If we are guided by this superior principle of gathering and not by directly satisfying our individual tastes, we will find our place respective to each other, as a spectrum rather than the muddle of colors that may be only misperceived.


" 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

building dwelling thinking Empty
PostSubject: Re: building dwelling thinking building dwelling thinking Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2012 3:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
without-music wrote:
I was hoping the underlying force of Heidegger’s essay could be discussed here. There are both builders and dwellers here, by title. I want to hear from the dwellers, but in honour of this thread-as-dwelling, I will first add my preliminary thoughts-as-building.

The sub-title of the forum is “Building Thought to Disclose the Future.” I will take this opportunity to applaud such a formulation. I believe the distinction between the act of thinking and the act of building thought is of some significance. Building is a letting-dwell, in Heidegger’s vernacular. But if it is the future – and I take it that future here means the malleable, changeable horizon of potential before which we dwell and into which we propel ourselves – that we are disclosing in the act of such building, then building thought is no longer a letting-dwell but a forging or a making-dwell. It is not a return but a push forward. And this new horizon ought to re-organize around it the fourfold in a novel way. But not just novel, of course: value-able in terms of self, in terms of the self here unified in the gathering of dwellers and builders. [For further consideration: analysis of the building/dwelling of value-ontology in terms of Heidegger’s fourfold – akin to how the bridge organizes around it the sky, the earth, divinities and mortals.] Such a self-gathering defines itself in terms of value-ontology, the core of this forum. This definition is of course a sheltering, a letting-be, a letting-grow, of value-ontology, for its tenants have been laid out, its skeleton has been assembled, the foundation is set – what remains now is the act of building. With regard to this sheltering, I will let Heidegger’s own words do us justice:

It is proper to every gathering that the gatherers assemble to coordinate their efforts to the sheltering; only when they have gathered together with that end in view do they begin to gather.
Heidegger, Logos.

Thus, only if and when we are capable of such sheltering can we begin to gather, and only if and when we are capable of such gathering can we begin to build. Only if and when we begin to build can we begin to let or make-dwell. The space of such dwelling will of course be the future that is disclosed in the act of building.

Seems like a good philosophy for peace, but what about war? In this mission to break through, there will be obstacles, “enemies,” and war philosophy is needed. The philosophy of people joining together to fight, not including but not instead of building or dwelling.

In this philosophy, it is proper that the fight be understood, alliances be made, the enemy reconoitered and a strategy put in place.

Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
Abstract

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon

A beautiful passage. Empty
PostSubject: A beautiful passage. A beautiful passage. Icon_minitimeWed Mar 21, 2012 2:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is just a beautiful passage in my eye in Nietzsche’s “Thus spoke Zarathustra”

Nietzsche wrote:

  1. The Three Metamorphoses

THREE metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the
spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a
child.
Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong
load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the
heaviest longeth its strength.
What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it
down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.
What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing
spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.
Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one’s
pride? To exhibit one’s folly in order to mock at one’s wisdom?
Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its
triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?
Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for
the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?
Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and make friends
of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?
Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of
truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?
Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one’s hand
to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?
All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon
itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the
wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness.
But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second
metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it
capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.
Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its
last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.
What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to
call Lord and God? “Thou-shalt,” is the great dragon called. But the
spirit of the lion saith, “I will.”
“Thou-shalt,” lieth in its path, sparkling with gold- a
scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, “Thou
shalt!”
The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus
speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: "All the values of things-
glitter on me.
All values have already been created, and all created values- do I
represent. Verily, there shall be no ‘I will’ any more. Thus
speaketh the dragon.
My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit?
Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is
reverent?
To create new values- that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but
to create itself freedom for new creating- that can the might of the
lion do.
To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for
that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.
To assume the ride to new values- that is the most formidable
assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a
spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.
As its holiest, it once loved “Thou-shalt”: now is it forced to find
illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may
capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.
But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion
could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?
Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a
game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.
Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy
Yea unto life: its own will, willeth now the spirit; his own world
winneth the world’s outcast.
Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how
the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a
child.-

Thus spake Zarathustra. And at that time he abode in the town
which is called The Pied Cow.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Helena’s spectre Empty
PostSubject: Helena’s spectre Helena’s spectre Icon_minitimeSun Mar 25, 2012 10:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We root back into antiquity via a thread of spectres. Rome projected its fall into Venice, which became the capitalist world, the spectralization of value. But Rome was built on the spectre of Greece, and Greek was Athena, the spectre of Homeric mind. In turn he reflected on Achilles and the war that primordially swept up this flash in the cosmos; “the west”, lashed out and still reverberates in an absolutization of spectrality. This war was caused by a woman figuring as a spectre in the spiritual eye of an decadent race. And what was in the head of this woman? Seldom mattered anything so deeply nothing - seldom a more primordially repressed. Our world is a seal on irrelevance.


Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Question of Tragic Art Empty
PostSubject: Question of Tragic Art Question of Tragic Art Icon_minitimeFri Mar 02, 2012 10:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This question has been on my mind for very long, as long as I’ve been reading Nietzsche. What exactly is tragic art? I know what a tragedy is. I recognize a tragic storyline. I know the “feeling” of the tragic, as a surplus that breaks itself up into a destruction of bewildering beauty - but I do not have sufficient clarity on what Nietzsche means when he speaks of the tragic… not because I lack clarity, but because it is so all-important. Perhaps the most important concept in his work. It needs to be elaborated on much more bitterly than the will to power or the eternal recurrence, or slave versus master morality – it is perhaps the realest, most alive concept. Because of this realness it not as easy for me to clarify.

So the question is: what is tragic art? Can we have examples? Music, plays, novels, films – scenes from any of these… classical but preferably also contemporary – what is a contemporary tragedy - no, what represents “the tragic” in a contemporary form?

Here is the passage that inspired the question.

Quote :
What is Romanticism?

It will be remembered perhaps, at least among my friends, that at first I assailed the modern world with some gross errors and exaggerations, but at any rate with hope in my heart. I recognised who knows from what personal experiences? the philosophical pessimism of the nineteenth century as the symptom of a higher power of thought, a more daring courage and a more triumphant plenitude of life than had been characteristic of the eighteenth century, the age of Hume, Kant, Condillac and the sensualists: so that the tragic view of things seemed to me the peculiar luxury of our culture, its most precious, noble, and dangerous mode of prodigality; but nevertheless, in view of its overflowing wealth, a justifiable luxury. In the same way I interpreted for myself German music as the expression of a Dionysian power in the German soul: I thought I heard in it the earthquake by means of which a primeval force that had been imprisoned for ages was finally finding vent indifferent as to whether all that usually calls itself culture was thereby made to totter. It is obvious that I then misunderstood what constitutes the veritable character both of philosophical pessimism and of German music, namely, their Romanticism. What is Romanticism? Every art and every philosophy may be regarded as a healing and helping appliance in the service of growing, struggling life: they always presuppose suffering and sufferers. But there are two kinds of sufferers: on the one hand those that suffer from overflowing vitality, who need Dionysian art, and require a tragic view and insight into life; and on the other hand those who suffer from reduced vitality, who seek repose, quietness, calm seas, and deliverance from themselves through art or knowledge, or else intoxication, spasm, bewilderment and madness. All Romanticism in art and knowledge responds to the twofold craving of the latter; to them Schopenhauer as well as Wagner responded (and responds), to name those most celebrated and decided romanticists, who were then misunderstood by me (not however to their disadvantage, as may be reasonably conceded to me). The being richest in overflowing vitality, the Dionysian God and man, may not only allow himself the spectacle of the horrible and question able, but even the fearful deed itself, and all the luxury of destruction, disorganisation and negation. With him evil, senselessness and ugliness seem as it were licensed, in consequence of the overflowing plenitude of procreative, fructifying power, which can convert every desert into a luxuriant orchard. Conversely, the greatest sufferer, the man poorest in vitality, would have most need of mildness, peace and kindliness in thought and action: he would need, if possible, a God who is specially the God of the sick, a “Saviour”; similarly he would have need of logic, the abstract intelligibility of existence for logic soothes and gives confidence; in short he would need a certain warm, fear dispelling narrowness and imprisonment within optimistic horizons. In this manner I gradually began to understand Epicurus, the opposite of a Dionysian pessimist; in a similar manner also the “Christian” who in fact is only a type of Epicurean, and like him essentially a romanticist: and my vision has always become keener in tracing that most difficult and insidious of all forms of retrospective inference^ in which most mistakes have been made the inference from the work to its author from the deed to its doer, from the ideal to him who needs it, from every mode of thinking and valuing to the imperative want behind it. In regard to all aesthetic values I now avail myself of this radical distinction: I ask in every single case” Has hunger or superfluity become creative here"? At the outset another distinction might seem to recommend itself more it is far more conspicuous, namely, to have in view whether the desire for rigidity, for perpetuation, for being is the cause of the creating, or the desire for destruction, for change, for the new, for the future for becoming. But when looked at more carefully, both these kinds of desire prove themselves ambiguous, and are explicable precisely according to the before-mentioned, and, as it seems to me, rightly preferred scheme. The desire for destruction, change and becoming, may be the expression of overflowing power, pregnant with futurity (my terminus for this is of course the word “Dionysian”); but it may also be the hatred of the ill-constituted, destitute and unfortunate, which destroys, and must destroy, because the enduring, yea, all that endures, in fact all being, excites and provokes it. To understand this emotion we have but to look closely at our anarchists. The will to perpetuation requires equally a double interpretation. It may on the one hand proceed from gratitude and love: art of this origin will always be an art of apotheosis, perhaps dithyrambic, as with Rubens, mocking divinely, as with Hafiz, or clear and kind-hearted as with Goethe, and spreading a Homeric brightness and glory over everything (in this case I speak of Apollonian art). It may also, however, be the tyrannical will of a sorely-suffering, struggling or tortured being, who would like to stamp his most personal, individual and narrow characteristics, the very idiosyncrasy of his suffering, as an obligatory law and constraint on others; who, as it were, takes revenge on all things, in that he imprints, enforces and brands his image, the image of his torture, upon them. The latter is romantic pessimism in its most extreme form, whether it be as Schopenhauerian will philosophy, or as Wagnerian music: romantic pessimism, the last great event in the destiny of our civilisation. (That there may be quite a different kind of pessimism, a classical pessimism this presentiment and vision belongs to me, as something inseparable from me, as my proprium and ipsissimum; only that the word “classical” is repugnant to my ears, it has become far too worn, too indefinite and indistinguishable. I call that pessimism of the future, for it is coming! I see it coming! Dionysian pessimism.)
[Nietzsche: The Gay Science, 370]


" 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

Question of Tragic Art Empty
PostSubject: Re: Question of Tragic Art Question of Tragic Art Icon_minitimeFri Mar 02, 2012 10:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I posted a parallel thread on ILP.

I am also interested in artists who can be associated with the tragic. And to broaden the topic, perhaps not only art, but also tragic approaches to the “stage of the world” , versus romantic or otherwise weaker ones. I want to expand the thinking on the tragic as well as bring it to the surface, to actuality.

Does the concept suffering, the affirmation of suffering amount to a sense of tragedy? I don’t think so, but it is clearly important. What else is required for the tragic sense?

Can we re-shape our (interpretation of our) own cultural and political narrative in accordance with this sense? Can this perhaps be the first step in affirming what is happening? Or am I taking this into a far too practical direction now? No, I don’t think so - this is precisely what we are lacking now, what traps us (as a civilization) in nihilism or resentment - the lack of the tragic sense, the will to utopia.

I don’t even know what I am suggesting. Let anyone begin with an explanation of what it means for a “sense”, or a narrative, or anything at all, to be tragic.


" 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

Question of Tragic Art Empty
PostSubject: Re: Question of Tragic Art Question of Tragic Art Icon_minitimeSat Mar 03, 2012 4:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The element of ‘affirmation’ in the tragic seems to represent a more inherent, central characteristic of tragedy, involved directly within the sense or pathos of it: the lack of power to alter the tragic circumstances, to avert tragedy. This lack is present at the beginning and builds all the while the tragic aesthetic itself builds – it is a necessary condition for it. This sustained disharmony could be experienced in our own lives, or vicariously through the lives of others, through art or upon the stage. Tragic might then be interpreted as a directly sensing of or pathos birthed in the light of a higher or more-reflned, more-sublimated experience of a “lack of power”. All such lack would at first arise as an experience of a more immediate suffering or pain. As this is sustained over time and transforms into woe and despair, then finally into regret and resignation, the specific sense/pathos of this lack arising from these becomes likewise stronger, and ultimately gains its own patho-logical “nature” and “psychological” subjective inertia. Which is to say that other subjective states begin to orbit the new patho-logical trajectory. This tragic pathos, born of a sustained and cultivated sense “disharmony”-as-lack with respect to some otherwise overflowing vitality and value, becomes a signifying marker and symbol, a definitional relation.

We might now interpret this movement as a mechanism whereby the valuing subject is left open before its possibilities in light of the fact that these possibilities would otherwise either remains largely closed or be directly militated against and pre-empted by the superior sense or cultivated pathos of experience of vitality (self-valuing becoming conscious of itself as value [but not necessarily yet as self-valuing capacity]). Tragic keeps the subject from walling off those which present as painful remainders in the equations of its self-value, painful reminders of what, from the vantage point of the self-affirmative and vital subject, constitute its own inescapable limit and highest failure (which it would like to, and indeed often must ignore for the sake of itself, for the sake of its own power and value and the “will to” these). Tragic operates directly to mediate the subjective relationship with these otherwise “remainder” or failed elements, as well as to keep open the space for the possibility of these at a later time.

Nietzsche seemed to have interpreted this as a "despair of all ‘it was’ " and of which (i.e. the past) we can do nothing about. A will to will backward ought to be cultivated, according to Nietzsche, to will all “it was” as “it is”, as a “thus do I will it”. Here we arrive at his derivation of the Eternal Return. So now we can see that the ER is a principle which begins with an understanding of the tragic, and it is Nietzsche’s way of conceptualizing and objectifying (and then attempting to “solve”, to resolve) the relation between subjective tragedy (the inescapability of self-failure/s) and its possible apotheosis/utility. Too much or too little tragedy is self-destructive. Nietzsche thus seemed to have sensed this and was attempting to trace a healthy the middle ground.

Tragic art then would be that art which inspires and evokes, sustaining and allowing for the tragic pathos to remain in view and un-“repressed”. Thus would the subject that harbors the greater amount of this tragic pathos within it experience therefore the greater quality of reaction, strength and immediacy of value and meaning in the presence of tragic art; it finds its own greater catharsis and respite, and a focusing potency wherein it is able to encounter aspects of itself, through tragic art, which otherwise would remain to the subject unstated and uneludicated. Thus can the appreciation for tragic art be used as a sort of litmus test for the quality and character of a subject, which is what I think Nietzsche was trying to get at, and to explain/make use of.


“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

Question of Tragic Art Empty
PostSubject: Re: Question of Tragic Art Question of Tragic Art Icon_minitimeSat Mar 03, 2012 7:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, this seems like a perfectly sensible explanation. I much appreciate the connection of the tragic to the ER - it seems logical that the philosophy that started as an exploration/affirmation of the tragic amounted in the imagining and affirmation of the Eternal Recurrence of the same, especially in the not exactly level-headed way it is arrived at in Zarathustra.

But then a very interesting question can be asked: should the affirmation of the tragic lead to the affirmation of the eternal recurrence of the same? Is this not rather a dangerous exaggeration of an affirmation, or perhaps even of an almost-affirmation, a reaching for affirmation - a magnification into the absurd of the will to affirm, so as to obscure to the willer that this will is insufficient for true affirmation?

But perhaps the notion of the Eternal Recurrence (I could never actually think that the idea is a scientific-logical conclusion, but I can allow myself it imagine that it is true and taste the consequences of that) is in fact a sound and noble means to affirm the tragic, to open oneself up to what is difficult to affirm from an instinctive departure point. It could be seen as a means to create a sense of the tragic, to arrive at least at a pathology similar to the tragic sense.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Why art precludes politics Empty
PostSubject: Why art precludes politics Why art precludes politics Icon_minitimeThu Jul 19, 2012 2:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Art has the function of satisfying the artist subjectively (by the fulfillment of his/her drives), and of stimulating the audience ‘objectively’ (as object, ‘in the world’)

It is not power, it can not fulfill the function of the ‘ugly truth’ - politics, which is summarized as falsity and its obstruction, either through force (might is right, the primal logos of the world) or through “peacefully” / more subtly enforced legislation, the logos of/within a state.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:29 pm; edited 2 times 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

Why art precludes politics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Why art precludes politics Why art precludes politics Icon_minitimeThu Jul 19, 2012 3:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Politics can attain to aesthetics in the sense of harmony, elegance, geometry, but never to beauty. Beauty is a sensation for which also the renunciation of control is required. This aspect is antithetical to politics - at least politics as we know it.

Politics is the business of attaining goals, and creating means to accomplish this out of a given situation over which one has no absolute power.
Art is the business of presupposing the attainment of a goal and thereby defining the present situation as necessarily leading up to that goal.

A tyrant is someone who manages, to a relatively great degree, to live life both as politician and artist - eventualy all tyrants will have to succumb to the limitations of the laws of either of the two. If he chooses art, he will renounce or lose power, if he chooses politics he will renounce beauty.

The solution for a tyrant is a tragic or epic death, an aesthetic ending to the narrative of his quest for dominion. Caesar attained this, he was murdered by how own people at the heart of his power, resulting in the creation of the recreation and superenforcement of the state that he aspired to dominate. Napoleon and Hitler did not - the former simply lost, withdrew and was banished - he became irrelevant to his accomplishment. The latter was defeated and his will was negated.

Neither did Alexander attain a satisfactory ending to his narrative - unless the details of his illness are more interesting that we know. He died at least in conquest, in the midst of decision-making. Still, the central figure of politics is Caesar, in whose image the Christ, in the sense that Jesus is a fictional character, may have been designed for our people; “the perfect son” by whose name and authority all future kings of Rome (the west) will rule.

Jesus represents the artistic aspect of Caesars life - the sacrifice at the height of the possible. But the two need to be understood as one in order to see how power can lead to beauty - how politics can be made subservient to this most subjective, therefore most real, living virtue.

There can be no significant sacrifice without a power sufficiently strong to kill a being that is significant to others. The sacrifice must be aimed at transforming the greater power from within. So it is also with the inner politics of the artist…

Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
Abstract

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeSun Mar 04, 2012 4:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is it that every ‘now’ we can either act for what is better or what is for worse, or is it that we can act in null; for what is neither?

Is that “neither” action a good or bad one?


“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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeSun Mar 04, 2012 9:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Can you define “better” and “worse”? In other words, can you give the criterium on which these value judgments are based? On that all depends. For example, if you would set “homeostasis” as the ground value better and worse would be different things than if you set “being good towards your fellow man” as ground value.

Acting in null would only be possible in total nihilism, including a negation or neutralization of self-valuing - So I’d say acting in null would amount pretty quickly in 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 Online
    Abstract
    Oracle
    Oracle
    Abstract

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeTue Mar 06, 2012 10:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Can you define “better” and “worse”? In other words, can you give the criterium on which these value judgments are based? On that all depends. For example, if you would set “homeostasis” as the ground value better and worse would be different things than if you set “being good towards your fellow man” as ground value.

Acting in null would only be possible in total nihilism, including a negation or neutralization of self-valuing - So I’d say acting in null would amount pretty quickly in death.

I wouldn’t put any specifics for what exactly is better… rather almost as if better is positive and worse is negative… and an action can only be a matter of addition or subtraction. It seems to me that there is no null act no act of non-acting… so in any situation we are either doing something that is good or something that is bad negative or positive…
In otehr words it seems there is no 0 in that mathematics of valuing… perhaps it is relative and you can see an act as null… but it would seem to me that with respect to what your golal is in performing an action you are either doing well or doing bad…IDK…

I just had this feeling the other day when I was about to do something that all things considered (literally, if i knew all) then wwhat I was doingright then was either good or bad… and every action I make is like a craps-shoot


“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
saturnesque

Posts : 6
Join date : 2012-02-21

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeWed Mar 07, 2012 12:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
Is it that every ‘now’ we can either act for what is better or what is for worse, or is it that we can act in null; for what is neither?

Is that “neither” action a good or bad one?

Well, either way, we’re constantly acting in some way or another. The way we interpret the significance of those actions could happen in any number of ways. Meaning like that is pretty free-floating.
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

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeFri May 04, 2012 3:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
Is it that every ‘now’ we can either act for what is better or what is for worse, or is it that we can act in null; for what is neither?

Is that “neither” action a good or bad one?
How could we know that in advance?
If we’re ‘being’ or ‘doing’ in the moment, within the Now, there is no judgment - true?

Or we can cease to ‘act’ - no movement. At times, this might be the only ‘real’ action…and more difficult than the other.


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

Last edited by VaerosTanarg on Sat May 05, 2012 2:34 am; edited 1 time in total
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

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeFri May 04, 2012 8:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Most people do not act with respect to ‘ends’, they act “naturally”, which is to say their activity (of thought or behavior) flows seamlessly from the instinctual-reactive being embedded within its environment/s. Reason, or self-perception, i.e. philosophy disrupts this process by forcing it to reflect pre-emptively upon its possible consequences.

Actions “in themselves” will always have many good and many bad results, since of course this good or bad depends entirely upon the perspective that observes and is affected by the action. I would say acting with “null effect” is impossible, but again that is only from a supposed objective vantage which is able to take into account all possible effects and influences. In reality, no such perspective exists, and the effects of actions always fall upon a particular range. So it would be equally as impossible to produce a null effect as it would for an action to produce no effect at all, but relatively speaking actions do produce “null” effects all the time, which is to say, insufficient or inadequate results.

Some of these inadequate results we classify as “negative”. This depends entirely upon the range of our own purview and need.


“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

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeSat May 05, 2012 3:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable

Quote :
Most people do not act with respect to ‘ends’, they act “naturally”, which is to say their activity (of thought or behavior) flows seamlessly from the instinctual-reactive being embedded within its environment/s.
If I catch your meaning here, what you’re basically saying is that most people act without awareness - that is, they react according to their instincts and emotions. Aside from that, I think that most or many people DO act with respect to ends, insofar as they have a motive or a goal in mind - the ‘end’ is usually paramount within their actions.

Quote :
Reason, or self-perception, i.e. philosophy disrupts this process by forcing it to reflect pre-emptively upon its possible consequences.
Are you equating self-perception as reason? Self-perception may be quite delusional, narcissistic, and have nothing to do with right reason.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that philosophy, in and of itself disrupts, that process - unless the individual him/her -self is thoughtful and ethical…and one need not be a philosopher for that. Have you ever been to ilp where the herd rises up? In what way does ‘philosophy’ in that case, reflect upon consequences? Philosophy is simply a tool. It is the sane individual working in harmony with philosophy, caring about and seeking what is truth and wisdom, who is capable of achieving a true perspective of consequences. And of course, he must also realize that this is tied up with his own personal psychology.

Quote :
Actions “in themselves” will always have many good and many bad results, since of course this good or bad depends entirely upon the perspective that observes and is affected by the action.
Actions “in themselves” are neutral, wouldn’t you think? Just like a work of art on a wall is neutral or just “is” until there is a perceiver. No?
I prefer the terms ‘positive’ and 'negative.
But I will agree with you that everything is a matter of perspective. The way in which we ‘see’ something determines our actions or inactions and our own subjective reality - which may not be based in reality but illusion or at the very least, only an unclear, incomplete picture.

Quote :
I would say acting with “null effect” is impossible, but again that is only from a supposed objective vantage which is able to take into account all possible effects and influences.
Do you mean acting with no attempt to achieve an effect (as being detached) or do you mean an action in which there would be/could be no effect?

So I think what you’re saying here is that you realize that all possible effects and influences could never be taken into account? I agree.

Quote :
In reality, no such perspective exists, and the effects of actions always fall upon a particular range. So it would be equally as impossible to produce a null effect as it would for an action to produce no effect at all, but relatively speaking actions do produce “null” effects all the time, which is to say, insufficient or inadequate results.
I’m confused. Do you see a distinction between a ‘null effect’ and ‘an action to produce no effect’?

Quote :
Some of these inadequate results we classify as “negative”. This depends entirely upon the range of our own purview and need.
Inadequate as meaning ‘not what we were hoping for’? But I agree with the second part.

Since the topic of this thread is "Is There an In-Between’, that would probably be a good place to start in terms of changing one’s perspective…instead of leaning too far positive or negative since both are judgment calls. An In-Between gives one the opportunity to be balanced and to ‘see’ more of what actually may be there or ‘is’ there. But that in itself is an ongoing practice - balancing all or trying to see all at the same time…sort of like seeing the trees as forest - and not the forest as trees. Perhaps that’s simply semantics.


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

Is there an inbetween Empty
PostSubject: Re: Is there an inbetween Is there an inbetween Icon_minitimeTue Jul 24, 2012 3:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract…

Quote :
I just had this feeling the other day when I was about to do something that all things considered (literally, if i knew all) then wwhat I was doingright then was either good or bad… and every action I make is like a craps-shoot
But if, like you say, you knew all, then every action you made would not necessarily have to be like a crap-shoot, Abtract. If you tried to base your actions within the parameters of “to do no harm” and self-awareness, how could they come down to either good or bad? The in-between to me is that place - that moment - where actions are decided - based on what we see and what we determine to do. It balances cause and effect.

That to me is not a crap shoot but an autonomous willing or striving, capable of affecting positive results.

Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Apr 27, 2012 9:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
NON ego nunc tristis uereor, mea Cynthia, Manis,
nec moror extremo debita fata rogo;
sed ne forte tuo careat mihi funus amore,
hic timor est ipsis durior exsequiis.
non adeo leuiter noster puer haesit ocellis,
ut meus oblito puluis amore uacet.
illic quidquid ero, semper tua dicar imago:
traicit et fati litora magnus amor.
illic formosae ueniant chorus heroinae,
quas dedit Argiuis Dardana praeda uiris;
quarum nulla tua fuerit mihi, Cynthia, forma
gratior, et (Tellus hoc ita iusta sinat)
quamuis te longae remorentur fata senectae,
cara tamen lacrimis ossa futura meis.
quae tu uiua mea possis sentire fauilla!
tum mihi non ullo mors sit amara loco.
quam uereor, ne te contempto, Cynthia, busto
abstrahat e nostro puluere iniquus Amor,
cogat et inuitam lacrimas siccare cadentis!
flectitur assiduis certa puella minis.
quare, dum licet, inter nos laetemur amantes:
non satis est ullo tempore longus amor.

That death could weary love I fear more than death;
that love’s failing embers fade upon the pyre
I dread more than the railing fires
entered into my torpid frame, nor in languished death
do I dread pain, but only that the faint sting
of mortal ill could thwart the courses of love’s train.
As bone survives the body burned,
love’s memory survives the passion spurned
in tempered thought, by haughty passion gone remiss;
alas, the thought of love stronger than love is.
Revealed in the mirror of the flesh, flesh is returned;
love does not engender, love completes;
love does not create, love cultivates,
reaping in the germ of created things
the foretaste of another world,
and beyond the shore of death love rolls on.
For love aims to drink deep of the eternal,
and finds in mortal pleasures only a bitter draught:
alas, the longest love is not long enough,
and briefer is the longer sought.


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.

Last edited by Parodites on Tue May 01, 2012 10:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
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 poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeSat Apr 28, 2012 2:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

Aeschylus excerpt.

Oneirophantoi de penthêmones
pareisi doxai pherou-
sai charin mataian.
matan gar, eut’ an esthla tis dokôn horai,
parallaxasa dia
cherôn bebaken opsis ou methusteron
pterois opadous’ hupnou keleuthois.”

The dreamy haunts of passion do [ indwell our suffering ] 1
and bring forth only grace without beauty.
For what is beauty that knows not love?
Such visions straightway slip through the arms
and, along their [twisted path], 2 do bring us to despair
as day brings us unto night; so from dreaming to wakefulness
the sated vision is given unto grief.

Penthemones is a word Aeschylus seems to have made up, it occurs only once in Greek poetry, namely in his work. Penthe, mourning or suffering, and mone, an abode, or metaphorically, to make a home, to indwell. It could mean “Suffering one’s place, one’s dwelling” or “Indwelling in suffering, making a home of suffering.” This is given to signify the fundamental nature of the poet himself, he is “penthemonic.” He accepts his suffering as his “dwelling, his home.” He is at-home-in-suffering. This position is countered with the man who has befallen to the charms of poetry and dreams, and is caught up in an eternal “keleuthois” and alternation, and cannot therefor name anything his home or dwelling, least of all his suffering. Think of “home” in the sense of being situated, the poet is situated, albeit negatively.

  1. Keleuthois. It means not merely path, but twisting path. Both Hesiod and Parmenides used this word when making the point that day and night, sleep and wakefulness, are caught up in eternal alternation, and so pothos or longing, the sleep of love, continually awakens us to eros and the definite object of our longing, and this awakened love must in turn fall back into itself, must sleep.

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
Lyssa

Posts : 9
Join date : 2012-07-22

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeSun Jul 22, 2012 4:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:

Aeschylus excerpt.

Oneirophantoi de penthêmones
pareisi doxai pherou-
sai charin mataian.
matan gar, eut’ an esthla tis dokôn horai,
parallaxasa dia
cherôn bebaken opsis ou methusteron
pterois opadous’ hupnou keleuthois.”

The dreamy haunts of passion do [ indwell our suffering ] 1
and bring forth only grace without beauty.
For what is beauty that knows not love?
Such visions straightway slip through the arms
and, along their [twisted path], 2 do bring us to despair
as day brings us unto night; so from dreaming to wakefulness
the sated vision is given unto grief.

Penthemones is a word Aeschylus seems to have made up, it occurs only once in Greek poetry, namely in his work. Penthe, mourning or suffering, and mone, an abode, or metaphorically, to make a home, to indwell. It could mean “Suffering one’s place, one’s dwelling” or “Indwelling in suffering, making a home of suffering.” This is given to signify the fundamental nature of the poet himself, he is “penthemonic.” He accepts his suffering as his “dwelling, his home.” He is at-home-in-suffering. This position is countered with the man who has befallen to the charms of poetry and dreams, and is caught up in an eternal “keleuthois” and alternation, and cannot therefor name anything his home or dwelling, least of all his suffering. Think of “home” in the sense of being situated, the poet is situated, albeit negatively.

  1. Keleuthois. It means not merely path, but twisting path. Both Hesiod and Parmenides used this word when making the point that day and night, sleep and wakefulness, are caught up in eternal alternation, and so pothos or longing, the sleep of love, continually awakens us to eros and the definite object of our longing, and this awakened love must in turn fall back into itself, must sleep.

To source it properly; that is from the Agamemnon, verse 420.

Are you translating this yourself? If so, really appreciate it, and this thread.

Alternate translations of the above:

"And when the night is deep,
Come visions, sweet and sad, and bearing pain
Of hopings vain-
Void, void and vain, for scarce the sleeping sight
Has seen its old delight,
When thro’ the grasps of love that bid it stay
It vanishes away
On silent wings that roam adown the ways of sleep. "

And,

“Mournful apparitions come to him in dreams, bringing only vain joy; for vainly, whenever in his imagination a man sees delights, straightaway the vision, slipping through his arms, is gone, winging its flight along the paths of sleep.”
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 poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Aug 03, 2012 10:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ah, yes. These are my translations. I took great liberty in them, with Propertius especially, in attempting to capture the actual Latin melodies in English, as opposed to replacing them with English melodies with a fully “faithful” translation of the sense. It is the actual sound and music of the Latin verse itself that I want to translate. The sense of the Latin and the sense of the poem in English I juxtapose to one another, Latin amore to English love, (ours is a transcendent, quasi-religious sensation, the former is more of a mournful competition against fate) and I articulate and draw forth that excessive component in both concepts and focus the poem on it. All languages are splinters of an absolute sense, true translation does not move a meaning from one language to another, but puts the many splinters of language together, to draw closer to the absolute.


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.

Last edited by Parodites on Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lyssa

Posts : 9
Join date : 2012-07-22

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Aug 03, 2012 10:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
Ah, yes. These are my translations. I took great liberty in them, with Propertius especially, in attempting to capture the actual Latin melodies in English, as opposed to replacing them with English melodies with a fully “faithful” translation of the sense. It is the actual sound and music of the Latin verse itself that I want to translate.

I get it. Its beautiful!

Have you composed many such translations? I’d be eager to read.

And could I ask when Harmatia is likely to be published? I look forward to it.

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 poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Aug 03, 2012 10:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I translate my favorite texts in my spare time, I might do something with them some day. And I will publish at least two books together, soon.


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
Lyssa

Posts : 9
Join date : 2012-07-22

A poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Aug 03, 2012 10:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
I translate my favorite texts in my spare time, I might do something with them some day. And I will publish at least two books together, soon.

Great, thanks; and Best Wishes.
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 poem by Propertius. Empty
PostSubject: Re: A poem by Propertius. A poem by Propertius. Icon_minitimeFri Aug 03, 2012 10:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

Ahi qual fallo e mirar cio, che mirato
desta il desire, e col desir tormenta!
Le Stelle indarno, indarno accusa il fato
chi del proprio suo mal fabbro diventa:
Stassi al varco del ciglio in dolte aguato
amor dolce nemico, e ment ei tenta
nel cuor l ingresso, con felice inganno
ospite v entra, e vi riman tiranuo.

Oh! What an error to look still upon your image,
even after you have taken leave and given me your farewell,
for when desire is named, desire torments!
Desire, hence, what a fruitless star! Fruitlessly to accuse fate,
and her wrought smithy in the firmament,
and the circuit it hath thereby bore her to tread forever;
together she, with the beloved, in sweet ambush
confound love’s vision, and makes of it a sweet enemy,
which, happy to be deceived, the heart entreats and welcomes,
again and again subject to your tyrannizing.

– Vincenzo da Filicaia, Avvertimento ali Anima.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 6:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is philosophy a way to organize power once had? in other words: does power serve philosophy?

The opposite: Power, once had, is a way to organize philosophy. Philosophy serves power.

I challenge any poster to provide an example that contradicts this principle.
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

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 8:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What “principle”?

Thinking is power.


“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

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 9:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What “principle”?

Pezer wrote:
Power, once had, is a way to organize philosophy. Philosophy serves power.

If “thinking is power,” then “power is thinking.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 12:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Capable wrote:
What “principle”?

Pezer wrote:
Power, once had, is a way to organize philosophy. Philosophy serves power.

If “thinking is power,” then “power is thinking.”
A cat is an animal.


" 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

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeMon May 21, 2012 5:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
An animal is a cat.

More ambiguous does not = less true.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeTue May 22, 2012 1:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
An animal does not equal a cat, and “=” does not equal “is”.

Thinking is a form of power. Power is not always thinking.


" 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

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeTue May 22, 2012 3:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I never made the claims you are correcting.

A form of power is thinking. Not always thinking is power.

I don’t understand why we are playing this game. If thinking is power, then power is thinking. This is only evitable if power is an adjective instead of a noun, which it is not, so it is inevitable.

If philosophy is power, then power is philosophy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Power in Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Power in Philosophy Power in Philosophy Icon_minitimeThu May 24, 2012 2:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think I see where you’re coming from. But are you sure that it’s useful to pursue this line of logic, which is essentially a denial that we should hold to the meaning implicit in certain grammatical arrangements - within grammar ?

If water is wet, then wet is water. Yes, if you mean to have defined “water” as “that which is wet”.
But that’s not really what is usually meant. So also not what Capable meant, when he said thinking is power. He did not mean, it seemed, that “thinking” can be defined as “that which is power”. Just that thinking is power, regardless of how the two are further specified, limited and thus defined.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Christianity must be exorcized Empty
PostSubject: Christianity must be exorcized Christianity must be exorcized Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2012 2:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If anybody here still likes some things about christianity (I know that Capable does), let’s battle it out here.

Just to be clear, Capable is the sharpest philosopher I know, this is not a personal attack.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Christianity must be exorcized Empty
PostSubject: Re: Christianity must be exorcized Christianity must be exorcized Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2012 3:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Copied from production, what you may read as my “argument for Christianity”.

"I think that slave morality can not be inherited, that every new-born being has a master-morality, by which I mean that its consciousness is rooted in a self-valuing. (For example, the mother is valued in terms of the self, that is why we have the Freudian complex of interpreting the mother / parent as the self).

By the genetic passing-on and cultural / physical sustainment of forms of weakness / unhealth, it becomes more likely that a conscious being strays into slave-morality. If the being is both physically unhealthy and immersed in a culture where slave-morality is the norm, it is likely that it abandons its “child-like” master-morality and becomes a value-decaying, alike to its cultural environment. I think of the modern Islamic world, which morality is rooted in the rejection of the west (not to say that the west presently holds a master morality, but it serves as the standard of hated enemy by rejecting of which the morality is largely defined). Breaking out of this cycle, “salvation” could only occur through impulses of a freshly, life affirming nature such as is operative in children.

It seems likely that the teachings of Jesus Christ (whether this is only a metaphorical figure or if he really lived is not important) were aimed to remedy a similar condition operative in the Jews under Roman oppression – a re-establishment of self-valuing by taking on a infant-like perspective. “Render unto Caesar what is his” – his value – have for yourself what is yours – your value: “divinity” –i.e. your self-valuing

Nietzsche had good reason to say that the last Christian died on the cross, because much of Christianity as a culture was a continuation of the self-denying/ignoring against which a “spiritual rebirth” was proposed a remedy. It continued to focus on the enemy, on Evil, even if it politically overcame all enemies, and succeeded so in including in this negativity-standard against which it set its efforts, the things that naturally sustain positive valuing – beauty, strength, pleasure, the ‘good things in life’."

This re-establishment gives rise to great strength, and I will compare it even to a nucleair fission, a disconnecting of elements from a larger atom to form stronger, more stable units, whereby a lot of energy is released.

The weakening core material of the indirectly-self-valuing finds it in himself to value himself only if he is given an example of himself that makes him see himself as good: this is done by splitting the Ego. First the slave has only is loathed quasi-self, through a successful manipulation of, in the Jungian sense, archetypical imagery, the “saved slave” becomes two imagined subjects instead of one experienced wretched object. These two imaginations are first the slaves self-condemning made visible to himself as a proper motive, and justified by a narratively hypothesized nobility, as God “the Father” – second the slave as the condemned one, the victim, made visible to himself as noble, as the Son of God. Finding the Christ within oneself means both taking up the sword and subjecting to a mercy.

These notions are not stories of experience but analytical value logic applied to the narrative-symbolic construction and the historical reality of Christianity. “The Holy spirit” may refer to the ungraspable condition that keeps the two subjects together under one roof, the intention to self-value that is resent in every cell and atom of every being but does not guarantee a conscious subject. “Speaking in tongues” then the reduction of man to blindly self-valuing organic material. A vulgar version of Dionysos?


" 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

Christianity must be exorcized Empty
PostSubject: Re: Christianity must be exorcized Christianity must be exorcized Icon_minitimeTue Jan 31, 2012 4:09 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Jesus Christ was good for the Jews, but we all really didn’t need him. Hell if it wasn’t for us, not only would Jesus never have happened, but if he had, he would have been properlly digested by the Jews and pooped out eventually, like Abraham or Moses. Or perhaps it wouldn’t, because it wasn’t simply a Jewish creation; it was a Nazarethian invention, full of abrahamic mixes together with arab and further-eastern religions. But perhaps it would have stayed among the original Abrahamics and some Arabs instead of being made into stone by Plato enthusiasts and perpetuated.

Now we are stuck with it, untill we are able to figure out what is what, and what came from where and why.

Understand that the Jews aren’t considered, or weren’t considered European. They where akin to gypsies except that they where able to amass fortunes by dealing with the Europeans sometimes. We “caught” the virus of christianity from a nomadic group, and so we have a nomadic god.

Why get rid of it? Well, I think Nietzsche’s reason is good enough: It is an imaginary realm that pushes you to despise life. Pagan religions, for example, where imaginary realms that pushed you to love life. The gods of the Moon and Sun and Stars and Fertility and War and Wisdom and Death and Rain and Thunder and Thieving and almost any aspect of life. All we have is the walking-stick God, the god of Sickness, Poverty, Humility, Mercy, Repentance. The god of the Sinners.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Christianity must be exorcized Empty
PostSubject: Re: Christianity must be exorcized Christianity must be exorcized Icon_minitimeSat Feb 04, 2012 6:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Jesus Christ was good for the Jews, but we all really didn’t need him. Hell if it wasn’t for us, not only would Jesus never have happened, but if he had, he would have been properlly digested by the Jews and pooped out eventually, like Abraham or Moses. Or perhaps it wouldn’t, because it wasn’t simply a Jewish creation; it was a Nazarethian invention, full of abrahamic mixes together with arab and further-eastern religions. But perhaps it would have stayed among the original Abrahamics and some Arabs instead of being made into stone by Plato enthusiasts and perpetuated.
The Jews never accepted Jesus and the Christian myth is a Greek creation. The book where he makes his appearance is written in Greek and as there is no historical evidence of the man really existing, we must attribute the characters existence not to the Jewish but the a Hellenic creativity and need. This attribution is much more in line with what Christianity represents as a narrative – a breaking away of the God in Heaven as a guide, and an affirmation of self-responsibility that leads to tragic end. Indeed it seems that Christianity is Platonism for the people. The Jews never wanted any of it, and still don’t. It is a European, western, Greek/Roman creation/burden. Christianity’s focus on individuality is reflecting this. Jesus is in not entirely unlike Prometheus. He steals the spirit (as fire) from God, and is punished for/in sharing it with humans.

Quote :
Now we are stuck with it, untill we are able to figure out what is what, and what came from where and why.
We are stuck with it until we find a way to release and re-route the drives that manifest/anchor in Christianity. In order to do this we must not only now where it comes from, but also conceive of something better, healthier, more worthy of our (cultures) drives. This last is the more difficult part, although I see you’ve set steps in trying to envision a new God.

Quote :
Understand that the Jews aren’t considered, or weren’t considered European. They where akin to gypsies except that they where able to amass fortunes by dealing with the Europeans sometimes. We “caught” the virus of christianity from a nomadic group, and so we have a nomadic god.
I don’t know how people manage to continue propagating the idea that Christianity has been spread by Jews. Is Nietzsche so compelling that he makes it unnecessary to consider written history? Historically it is clear that Christianity has been spread through Europe by appealing from its humble origins in the Hellenic world to the sentiments of poor Romans, and by its narrative genius combined with the decay of Roman vitality and health, ‘infecting’ the upper strata of power. Since then it has been used as a means to control the masses, as I’m sure you know. For more than a thousand years it has been extremely difficult to live in Europe and not be Christian. Only gypsies, outcasts such as Jews, people who had reconciled themselves wit the fate of standing separate from the main populations could afford to not be Christian.

Quote :
Why get rid of it? Well, I think Nietzsche’s reason is good enough: It is an imaginary realm that pushes you to despise life. Pagan religions, for example, where imaginary realms that pushed you to love life. The gods of the Moon and Sun and Stars and Fertility and War and Wisdom and Death and Rain and Thunder and Thieving and almost any aspect of life. All we have is the walking-stick God, the god of Sickness, Poverty, Humility, Mercy, Repentance. The god of the Sinners.
But does a healthy person really need to be pushed to love life? And if one is unhealthy, can one be made to love life? To the latter, the answer is probably yes, and a Christian fire-baptism is one of the ‘medicins’ serving to this end. What one would need to do in order to get rid of the sickness in religion is to get rid of the priestly caste, because no one who has been baptized with the Promethean fire could stand to remain in a temple that is closed off from the outside air. What I want is that new temples are erected, where fires burn wildly, where meat is being roasted and wine spilt before it is drunk, rituals are brought about where the greedy and world-weary are afraid to tred. As such God is really a representation of the word “out there”, that which lets itself be loved only by those who are willing to step out there and let their exuberant passions be known - inn their mind to God, but in fact to their fellow humans. This is the true end of organized religion - a ‘frame’ wherein surplus pathos is allowed to take on strange shapes.

All this stands separate from the transcendent awareness that sometimes occurs in a contemplative soul, the truly religious nature, who prefers to be in any place as long as it is not a church where the poor in health and spirit are gathered to lament and exude the stench of their faul innards.


Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeTue Feb 07, 2012 2:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If you put any stock on this clown, you are way on the wrong track.
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

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 9:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Who the fuck is John Pilger?


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

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 11:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
Who the fuck is John Pilger?

A low-rate documentarist with a lot of influence on the uninformed left that uses communist-conspirationist rhetoric to hide his utter lack of research or knowledge.

I mention him because James S Saint made a whole thread based on something he wrtoe.
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

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeWed Feb 15, 2012 12:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oh, well James is a fucking moron.

So there’s that.

Alright, that might have been slightly unnecessary. I’ll be nicer 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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeThu Feb 16, 2012 2:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer — Regardless of this Pilger guy who I’ve never heard of either, Monsanto is real. Countless farmers and many governments across the world have been battling against Monsanto, only some successful. Disregarding ideas on political and economical strategies on account that they are “conspiracy theories” is nonsensical. What is a conspiracy Are politics to power and market-dominion possible without conspiracy?

What should be questioned here is not whether or not exorbitantly absurd schemes for global dominion exist ( the players in question make no attempt to hide these aims – takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf – ( Brzezinski is a “conspiracy theorist” in that he is designer and advocate of these conspiracies )) but whether these are inherently “evil”. Why should “The Zionists” not aim to take over the world? Everybody has been attempting this from day one. It’s called the will to power. Why is it suddenly absurd, when people are confronted with suggestions of its present day ultimate consequences? Because its a terrifying concept, and most Nietzsche-lovers have not actually thought it through, and prefer to keep seeing their own morality as a standard for the world.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:43 am; 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeThu Feb 16, 2012 3:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m trying to say too many things at once here.
Let me stick to Monsanto and try to find out what is true and not.

Is it true that Monsanto is taking control of the agricultural economies of many nations including the US?
-This is what I’ve learned from research (I am not 100% certain that it is true as I am not in the business myself): The seeds they sell are designed to produce crop that is itself infertile, produces no fertile seeds. They have also managed to get in regulations in many countries saying that whenever Monsanto seeds are being found on a field that has not bought them, Monsanto can make claims to that field and enforce that their seeds are being used there. Once seeds enters a field, either by an ignorant farmer buying them, by being dropped from helicopters or by being blown over by the wind, the farmer is forced to buy a new load of seeds from them every year because of how these seeds are designed. Using this strategy, Monsanto has gained control of a great amount of farms across the world.

Is Monsanto exerting control over the populace?
-Since they control a great many farms and have designed the products that grow there, they exert a certain degree of control over the consumers of these products.

Is this control bad?
-It’s obviously bad for the farmers, who lose a great deal of money by being forced to buy seeds every year. It may or not be bad for the people consuming the products, I have no insight in this. It is good for Monsanto.

Are The Zionists using Monsanto to gain control over the world?
-I know of no connection between Zionists and Monsanto. I am not even sure what “Zionist” means these days. It seems to mean “Corporate”. In this sense it is likely that the answer is yes. Corporations without exception aim for economical control. I am not sure that any of this has to do with the struggle for self-determination of the Jewish people.


" 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

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeThu Feb 16, 2012 9:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Pezer — Regardless of this Pilger guy who I’ve never heard of either, Monsanto is real.

No problem, just don’t get your facts about it from some quack. Or do and renounce being taken seriously by anyone who knows who the guy/gal is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeThu Feb 16, 2012 2:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So far this is all fashion-talk – Pilger is apparently someone who you think is uncool, should be publicly denounced so as not to look uncool. Right? I’d be interested in what makes him, in your eyes, a quack. For example, can you indicate that what he says is untrue? Can you reproduce some of what he says?


" 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

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2012 8:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
So far this is all fashion-talk – Pilger is apparently someone who you think is uncool, should be publicly denounced so as not to look uncool. Right? I’d be interested in what makes him, in your eyes, a quack. For example, can you indicate that what he says is untrue? Can you reproduce some of what he says?

Cool and uncool? If that is what you think, then I was wasting my time here.
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

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2012 9:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer, what reasons (be specific, show where) have you given us to assume your comments here are anything other than “fashion statements”?


“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

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2012 10:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Pezer, what reasons (be specific, show where) have you given us to assume your comments here are anything other than “fashion statements”?

I think you are missplacing the burden of proof here.
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

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2012 12:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is your topic. You started it.

The burden of “proof”, then, if that is how you want to conceptualize it, would be on you as the creator of this topic, the “burden” (and why on earth does this seem like a burden to you??) to demonstrate your point, explain what it is you are asserting here, and why/how it is relevant, useful. Assuming that you refuse to do so, I would need to ask, why make this post at all?

What use stating something and then petulantly refusing to demonstrate it or respond to others’ comments, insights or queries?

Edit: I think perhaps you have mistaken the function of this forum ‘Kurukshetra’… this particular forum is not a “Rant house”, it is not for mindless babble, accusation or random hate. This is a place for “direct confrontation, unrestrained attack” as the subtitle of the forum reads. It is a place to make arguments, demonstrate points and positions and attack those of others. Kurukshetra is a forum where the ordinary “rules of civilized discourse” to not necessarily apply. But that does not mean that the rules of argumentative or rational discourse also do not apply.

If you have a point, with this topic, please make it. BTL is not a forum for meaningless nonsense or undefended assertions. This applies as much to Kurukshetra as to any other forum here. This is done to protect the possibilities for discourse, intelligent conversation and development of thought (please read the Rules here, if you have not already, regarding this further.)


“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

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 17, 2012 4:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
This is your topic. You started it.

The burden of “proof”, then, if that is how you want to conceptualize it, would be on you as the creator of this topic, the “burden” (and why on earth does this seem like a burden to you??) to demonstrate your point, explain what it is you are asserting here, and why/how it is relevant, useful. Assuming that you refuse to do so, I would need to ask, why make this post at all?

What use stating something and then petulantly refusing to demonstrate it or respond to others’ comments, insights or queries?

Edit: I think perhaps you have mistaken the function of this forum ‘Kurukshetra’… this particular forum is not a “Rant house”, it is not for mindless babble, accusation or random hate. This is a place for “direct confrontation, unrestrained attack” as the subtitle of the forum reads. It is a place to make arguments, demonstrate points and positions and attack those of others. Kurukshetra is a forum where the ordinary “rules of civilized discourse” to not necessarily apply. But that does not mean that the rules of argumentative or rational discourse also do not apply.

If you have a point, with this topic, please make it. BTL is not a forum for meaningless nonsense or undefended assertions. This applies as much to Kurukshetra as to any other forum here. This is done to protect the possibilities for discourse, intelligent conversation and development of thought (please read the Rules here, if you have not already, regarding this further.)

See what I mean? not so different after all… Don’t say I didn’t give it a chance.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

John Pilger Empty
PostSubject: Re: John Pilger John Pilger Icon_minitimeFri Feb 24, 2012 5:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can only state the obvious: you are seemingly battling with yourself over these issues (Pilger, Christianity, morality). “Unrestrained attack” does however not mean making an isolated gesture of disapproval, and then standing back hoping that others agree with your disapproval. The point of this forum is rather the opposite; for people to engage in conflict with each other, defending their ideas and attacking those that oppose it. Battle requires more than just making a taunt into the void and running away when someone shows up.

When you are ready to face the issues you have brought up, see them reflected back to you, deal with that reflection, I hope to see you here again.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Battle Empty
PostSubject: Battle Battle Icon_minitimeFri May 18, 2012 2:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have decided that I will post most, if not all, of my threads in this forum from now on. Firstly, because I have come to understand my perspective as antagonistic, though sincerely admiring, of value-ontology. Secondly, because I like very much the aesthetics of battle.

And so, this post might be read as a friendly declaration of antagonism which is far from unconditional.

My threads here will be in the form of provocations, and I beg you to send me a PM if you find any of them unacceptable in some way. My goal is to philosophize with a rapier (not a hammer) and with no will to victory (victory in these waters may have grave conscecuences).

I will ignore idiot posts if my worthy oponents will.

See you out there.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

The Uselessness of Christian Morality Empty
PostSubject: The Uselessness of Christian Morality The Uselessness of Christian Morality Icon_minitimeFri May 18, 2012 2:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For too long has this pityful creature lingered in the new philosophical landscape that the Renaissance made space for.

If anything in this world is absolute, it is the uselessness of this system to intelligent thought.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Objectivism Empty
PostSubject: Objectivism Objectivism Icon_minitimeSun Jul 15, 2012 7:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Objectivism as an ethics of philosophy is to Subjectivism what crack-making as a process is to Cocaine.

Yes dichotomists, there is a disturbance in the force.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Objectivism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Objectivism Objectivism Icon_minitimeSat Aug 11, 2012 10:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Objectivism as an ethics of philosophy is to Subjectivism what crack-making as a process is to Cocaine.

Yes dichotomists, there is a disturbance in the force.
Nice.
And what is the discovery of the special quality of the coca-plant?

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Anthropology Empty
PostSubject: Anthropology Anthropology Icon_minitimeTue Aug 28, 2012 10:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Anthropology as a field is racist, this is obvious.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Anthropology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Anthropology Anthropology Icon_minitimeThu Aug 30, 2012 6:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Anthropology as a field is racist, this is obvious.
When anthropology includes the study of cultures and civilizations, it is not.
In Holland, the right wing politician Geert Wilders is accused of being racist because he expresses contempt and disgust for Islam, as a religion. In fact he doing the opposite of what the man to whom he is often compared, Hitler, did for Jews - Hitler went to great lengths to prove that Jewishness is not cultural or religious, but a matter of blood. And that therefore Jews should be eradicated.
That is racism - anthropology as such is not, although it came into existence no doubt as a form of racism - the colonial westerners in Africa who had no scrupules about making distinctions between different biological types.


" 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

Anthropology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Anthropology Anthropology Icon_minitimeThu Aug 30, 2012 10:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Anthropology as a field is racist, this is obvious.

No.

And why are most of your posts so unproductive? Like this one.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Philosophy Philosophy Icon_minitimeSun Sep 02, 2012 8:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A good criticism of philosophy: it doesn’t go far enough in its intentions.

A humiliating truth: the system of living philosophy as such has developped so that one of its functions is preciely to curb the passions, the instincts behind those intentions (with all of the contradictions and other imperfections that come with the evolutionary process; that is to say, the system is strong enough to contain these contradictions).
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

Philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: Philosophy Philosophy Icon_minitimeSat Sep 22, 2012 8:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This speaks to Nietzsche’s critique of modern philosophy. In Nietzsche’s view, philosophy and reason are not distinct from the instincts but are a part of them, a particular sort of “organization” of instinctuality. Reason is a particular kind of instinct. Because of this, philosophy which treats the instinctual organism as “bad” (as does moralism/religion) or as inadequate/inferior (e.g. Kant) is repulsive to Nietzsche, is anti-human and anti-living.

Nietzsche is certainly correct that much philosophy (and of course also its pale shade, religion) is not ambitious enough, its intentions are neither very honest nor daring. Genuine philosophy also involves a joy in risk-taking, in creative destruction and in “immorality”; it possesses a reckless ambition and a will/strength to go beyond traditional categories of truth and morality. Any thinking which merely vacillates within these unchallenged norms/spaces is not worthy of the name “philosophy”.


Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 05, 2012 7:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In this thread I invite Capable, Amasopher and James S Saint to state their aims for an as yet hypothetical collective project dedicated to clarifying what exactly is, and is to become of, the epistemological method that has been named value ontology.

In order to facilitate the digestion process, each poster gets one post ‘per round’ - which is to say that he can only post another post when all others have written a post as well and all are equal in the amount of posts they have made. In following rounds, we’ll try to establish if there is a common ground in which the project is to take root.

My own first stated purpose is very simple: I want to clarify the logic that drives me to posit a “self-valuing” as a necessary property of all beings, and in its implications sufficient to describe all interactions between all beings, and so derive a working definition of the world.

In order to do this, the use of terms has to be perfected, for the logic to become apparent to anyone with a capable mind.
This may entail much that I am not yet aware of. This thread is a necessary step on the way to conceive of a proper form for a ‘law-giving machine’.

Lastly, this thread is located in this forum because, before operations can begin at all, the potential for frustration of the process has to be identified.


" 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
    Elaia
    bowstring
    bowstring
    Elaia

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 05, 2012 1:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
In this thread I invite Capable, Amasopher and James S Saint to state their aims for an as yet hypothetical collective project dedicated to clarifying what exactly is, and is to become of, the epistemological method that has been named value ontology.
Thank you. I already have a problem with this first sentence, though. Smile For to me, it’s not a given that that which you have named value ontology be (only, or even primarily) an epistemological method. In fact, it was when you told me that you’d had a discussion about whether it was (only, or primarily) an epistemology or an ontology that I started calling it simply “value philosophy”.

[F]or any theory that we have about what knowledge is, we must have a presupposition about what the world is like. That is, we must assume that the world exists in such a way that it makes our theory of knowledge possible. There is no escaping having a theory of ontology, it is only a question of whether or not it is consciously acknowledged and studied or whether it is left as an implicit presupposition of one’s theory of epistemology. [Source: ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/neville.htm.]

I think value philosophy proper begins with “posit[ing] a ‘self-valuing’ as a necessary property of all beings, and in its implications sufficient to describe all interactions between all beings”. That is, 'tis in the first place an ontology, not an epistemology; but, being an ontology, it gives rise to an epistemology, for cognition is itself an interaction between beings.
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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 06, 2012 6:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
In this thread I invite Capable, Amasopher and James S Saint to state their aims for an as yet hypothetical collective project dedicated to clarifying what exactly is, and is to become of, the epistemological method that has been named value ontology.
It is improper to ask of my aim for your project. So I’ll take this as a request of my interest in your project.

I have serious interest in any and many groups who propose to strongly struggle toward an impossible dream that would yield the greatest possible dream.

In the Middle East, it is commonly accepted that no one has a “soul” until they do something that matters. It is that which matters that endures the struggle against entropy and survives the ages.

In physics, a particle of matter forms merely because an impossible state is being inadvertently sought. Because it is an impossible state, the struggle never ends and literally nothing else matters, or “forms matter”. Entropy is defeated by such dedication to achieve the impossible. A spec of eternal matter is formed. And thus the dream of the immortal “soul” is achieved although immortality wasn’t the aim. What becomes immortal is the specific harmony that represents the constant effort toward that specific impossible aim. The entropic shell is formed merely by the “valuing” of always insisting that closer to that perfect dream is always better than further even though the perfection is impossible.

My interest is the immortality of homosapian. There is a specific aim and struggle that would cause such a state. That effort is formed merely by a small group. After it has formed, nothing else “matters”. It’s “soul” will be as eternal as any particle in physics, and more so than most. Homosapian could never again face extinction even at its own hands.

Fixed Cross wrote:
My own first stated purpose is very simple: I want to clarify the logic that drives me to posit a “self-valuing” as a necessary property of all beings, and in its implications sufficient to describe all interactions between all beings, and so derive a working definition of the world.
In the effort to establish your stated goal, I see the opportunity for an immutable collaboration to form. That “immutable collaboration” is “my” purpose. The “self-valuing” concept fits within my own philosophy and ontology sufficiently. I merely use a different term, “PHT”. Properly applied PHT or VO or “self-valuing” forms a self-sustaining “particle”, a group that defeats inherent entropy. Androids can be made to do it too easily. The objective is for homosapians to do it.

Fixed Cross wrote:
In order to do this, the use of terms has to be perfected, for the logic to become apparent to anyone with a capable mind. This may entail much that I am not yet aware of. This thread is a necessary step on the way to conceive of a proper form for a ‘law-giving machine’.
Agreed, but take care with that word “machine”. I prefer “collaboration mechanism”, also called a “Constitution” or even a “covenant”. All forms of collaboration require structural elements. The only issue is architecting the right set in the right order.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Lastly, this thread is located in this forum because, before operations can begin at all, the potential for frustration of the process has to be identified.
Agreed.

So to sum it up, my interest is the immortality of the group. And that exemplifies a noted distinction between the young and the old. The young subconsciously assume immortality and often consider it irrelevant until they get old and then long for it, if not for themselves, for at least someone.
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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 06, 2012 9:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Toward Fixed Cross’ end of, " I want to clarify the logic that drives me to posit a “self-valuing” as a necessary property of all beings, and in its implications sufficient to describe all interactions between all beings, and so derive a working definition of the world.", I offer the following:

Self-valuing is the idea that all beings act in such a way so as to value themselves, to take themselves and what they are as the standard of value, of measurement. This standard of measurement is the basis for how this being interprets what is imposed upon it, how it is able to react and respond. The most basic self-valuing unit, then, may be a “particle” which has only a narrow range of ways to react and respond. Being grows as the number of ways in which it may react and respond are increased, giving it access to more “reality”, to more possible sensations and states of configuration.

If a being encounters other beings whose own self-valuings are stronger than its own it is appropriated into those other beings. This means it might either be dissolved into its constituent parts (a larger self-valuing unit being reduced to lesser and more disorganized self-valuing units) or it may retain its formality but be put to use within another wider system of valuation, turned from a “free particle” into a “molecular particle” now constituting part of a larger self-valuing process and structure.

When this happens, agreements among these self-valuings are imposed, as “laws”. Whatever is built upon and as a consequence of these structures will experience these agreements as “natural laws”, as unbreakable restrictions which act as conditioning limits on how events may or may not occur. Once such collaborative structures exist they constitute a higher self-valuing, a new more derivative being with wider range of powers and “abilities” (possible sensations and “influence”, or affectation). Ultimately when these structures continue to collaborate together, “life” is formed. What we call life occurs at the point where these sort of collaborative and derivative self-valuing structures become able to reproduce themselves beyond their own structural cohesiveness and longevity. When this happens, such as we know through the production of DNA that is able to produce proteins to construct new collaborative self-valuing forms beyond its own cohesive longevity, natural selection takes over and we get the beginning of biological evolution. So long as these basic genetic forms exist and exist in a state of competition with each other over finite resources and space, natural selection dictates that organisms must tend toward forms that self-value and self-value more effectively and powerfully. These organisms are more derivative and complex self-valuing collaborative structures, because their own self-valuing behavior determines the tendency for their own chances of reproduction. Self-valuing first had to achieve this ability to “reproduce” in order to “survive itself”, to allow its particular structure to persist even after it has dissolved. This is why Kitaro calls the active-epistemic nature of the subject, as its “reason”, its temporal dimension, and its ontic nature or “material body” as its spatial dimension. In his language, the spatial dimension extends horizontally while the temporal dimension extends vertically, across generations.

The basic “set up” of self-valuing is that it is self-irreconcilable: divided into two planes which are constantly warring against each other in a Nietzschean “will to power”, each plane of causality-logic trying to appropriate that of the other. The first plane is basically just the threshold of singular particularizing relations between objects, the multitude of more or less direct causality reactions that occur only “spatially”, in Kitaro’s meaning of the word . The second plane is what emerges from the activity of first-tier relations, namely a unifying single new relation that is emergent of these first-tier activities. So basically you get a multitude of small relatively individual relations all warring in concert with each other, struggling in a massive reactivity “will to power” that has been gathered together as the “body” of the subject, and this causal plane is set in opposition to what is emergent from it and “on top of it”, to the singular relation that is a consequence of all this warring activity but is also distinct from it, “beyond it”. Self-valuing consists of the fact that such entities must find a stable way for these two planes to work with each other or else they will tear each other apart.

Those entities which did find this stability were able to survive as per natural selection, and eventually all that existed were such entities with somewhat stable means of translating content from one plane to another, to produce “self-valuing activity” or “consciousness”. Why does the emergent plane try to regulate that from which it emerges? Because those configurations of lesser relations which produced an emergent relation that did not seek to do this did not survive natural selection. The particular structural forms of relations producing larger emergent “subjectivities” do so only in ways which confine the nature of this emergent subject to attempt to stabilize that from which it arises. We can even say that the emergent subjective nature is nothing but a tendency to wider organizational potential that emerges from lesser-regulated “nodes” in dynamic relation to each other, as also per the basic logic of network theory. The consquence of this is that it introduces both disharmony and new order into being. The disharmony is located in the fact that being exists on two planes whose own causal logics are fundamentally different and cannot totally be reconciled with each other; the new order is located in the fact that “flat” being has produced an extra-dimensional plane beyond itself which acts as a new level of reality in which new potentially stabilizing and enlarging or contracting meta-relations may form.

It is the conflict between these two planes of being that constitutes the total plane of organic self-valuing as such, by which the entity “itself” is held in existence. This might apply on all levels, perhaps even that of elementary particles, if it is the case that the particle emerges as a consquence of lesser processes or sub-particles working in concert which produces some higher stability, which is to say a consistency of formality and causal power over time. “Time” simply means the measure of how many quantities of successive encounters and interactions a being is able to endure before dissolving.

This model explains the basic structure of beings as divided into irreconcilable planes that must translate content between each other, a translation that can never be “perfect” but must be good enough to sustain the entity across time and throughout its encounters with reality, with what is imposed upon it. The model of self-valuing may be applied to any entities, large or small, as each entity may be viewed both as a single self-valuing unit as well as a collection of lesser self-valuing units organized together based on agreed-upon “laws” that allow them to hold each other in existence as constitutive parts of more comprehensive processes and structures. Only those entities, of whatever size or scope, that are able to successfully self-value will exist and continue to exist, because “to exist” means only: successful self-valuing. The assumption of self-valuing is a “leap of faith” away from the commonly-accepted scientific-objective logic, because based on the latter logic the former is largely incomprehensible; but once grasped the notion of self-valuing allows for a much larger and more accurate way to interpret the world and subjects within the world, it constitutes an interpretive power that supplements empirical reasoning and traditional philosophic reason by including and explaining these, by going beyond these, by elevating the discourse and language to a higher more comprehensive and useful level.


“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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 06, 2012 11:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thank you all -
As James is so far the only one who has made a direct statement to the question of purpose, I will not yet react to him but wait until the others have also seen it fit to decide on a position concerning this cooperation.

Amasopher: I think that we may find resolution in the observation that the act of positing this self-valuing is to establish the principle tool of an epistemological method. So the application of this logic-of-being might itself be seen as an epistemological method: it determines the form in which knowledge is gathered, formulated and applied. Are we in agreement or still in conflict?

Capable: I did not mean to give the impression that the logic still lacks clarification - but I did give that impression, and you are right to set that straight. Your post can be taken as an overview of the implications so far drawn from value ontology - a lot of the work that we have been doing is represented in there. We will see how far the others are able to follow and verify this in their own terms… perhaps this will take many steps.

I will restate my purpose: I wish for the logic that is apparent to me, to become apparent to others in their own terms. I expect these terms to be very different, but also to become, if they are properly developed, more and more evidently compatible.

The goal is to build a bridge between different cognitive approaches. Philosophy has for very long been a strictly individual endeavor (“there are no philosophies, only philosophers”) - and no doubt in part for this reason the mass-project of modern science has overshadowed it completely. But philosophy must take control of science. Value ontology carries this potential, but it must be explicated by scientific minds to realize this potential.


" 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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 06, 2012 1:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have neglected to openly state my purpose here - I am interested to discern the limits of the project we have come to call value ontology, or value philosophy as Amasopher named it. What interests me is a view from outside the theory, a vantage upon it from other, different and critical perspectives that can shed light on the idea, add to it, modify it or perhaps even discredit it entirely.

In this regard I welcome Amasopher and James to take account of the ideas of value ontology, in any way they see best. I value that we have gathered good thinkers to this cause, and my purpose here is also to remain open to new challenges and critiques, and to see where value ontology might perhaps find some common points of interest or even agreement with the methods that others may bring to the table.

Approaching “value ontological thinking” as it is seen through the lens of other philosophical perspectives and logical methods, yes this is indeed a worthy task. I look forward to seeing what fruits will come of this effort, and I thank everyone for their participation.


“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
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 06, 2012 4:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Thank you all -
As James is so far the only one who has made a direct statement to the question of purpose, I will not yet react to him but wait until the others have also seen it fit to decide on a position concerning this cooperation.
My aim is in my name.

Quote :
Amasopher: I think that we may find resolution in the observation that the act of positing this self-valuing is to establish the principle tool of an epistemological method.
To me this seems to be intentionally or unintentionally ambiguous. Did you perhaps mean to say that the aim of positing this self-valuing is to etc.? If not, may one replace “is” by “has” or by “ought” (and if not by each, then by which?)? I will stop here, for now.

Quote :
So the application of this logic-of-being might itself be seen as an epistemological method: it determines the form in which knowledge is gathered, formulated and applied. Are we in agreement or still in conflict?
I’m not sure: wasn’t that what I said?

Quote :
Capable: I did not mean to give the impression that the logic still lacks clarification - but I did give that impression, and you are right to set that straight. Your post can be taken as an overview of the implications so far drawn from value ontology - a lot of the work that we have been doing is represented in there. We will see how far the others are able to follow and verify this in their own terms… perhaps this will take many steps.
I can follow it up to where it starts talking about natural selection. It then seems to me to “moralise”–albeit in the sense of a master morality–genetic survival. Can someone explain to me how it betrays a less “stable means of translating content from one plane to another, to produce ‘self-valuing activity’ or ‘consciousness’” on the part of a white rabbit compared to that of a brown rabbit when the former is picked off more easily by predators in the brown environment in which both rabbits live?

As for James’ post, I don’t consider it improper of you to ask of our aims for your project, as I think the project in question is not the project of starting a joint project, but that joint project itself… You wish to start a joint project, and the first question is indeed whether we are–interested.
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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeTue Oct 09, 2012 4:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Can we all agree that we would like to aim our efforts toward the following ideals concerning the proposed valuing perspective/ontology/philosophy?

Items;

  1. Logically indisputable
  2. More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
  3. Accepted by social authority

These are ideals that might or might not be attainable, but they offer targets to aim toward. What we do in order to promote the perspective will reflect the targeted ideals.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeWed Oct 10, 2012 4:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Amasopher wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Thank you all -
As James is so far the only one who has made a direct statement to the question of purpose, I will not yet react to him but wait until the others have also seen it fit to decide on a position concerning this cooperation.
My aim is in my name.
I take it that I can interpret “wisdom” in the context of this thread more or less as “clarity” and “truth”… and that your purpose in such a thread would be to gain clarity about value ontology, and the role you see for it in your own thinking. Is that correct?

Quote :
Quote :
Amasopher: I think that we may find resolution in the observation that the act of positing this self-valuing is to establish the principle tool of an epistemological method.
To me this seems to be intentionally or unintentionally ambiguous. Did you perhaps mean to say that the aim of positing this self-valuing is to etc.? If not, may one replace “is” by “has” or by “ought” (and if not by each, then by which?)? I will stop here, for now.
I don’t see the ambiguity - I do see a bad sentence, so there may be ambiguity of which I’m not aware. Let me rephrase:
To posit “self-valuing” is to enable a certain epistemological method.

Quote :
Quote :
So the application of this logic-of-being might itself be seen as an epistemological method: it determines the form in which knowledge is gathered, formulated and applied. Are we in agreement or still in conflict?
I’m not sure: wasn’t that what I said?
Can I consider this cleared up, then?

Quote :
Quote :
Capable: I did not mean to give the impression that the logic still lacks clarification - but I did give that impression, and you are right to set that straight. Your post can be taken as an overview of the implications so far drawn from value ontology - a lot of the work that we have been doing is represented in there. We will see how far the others are able to follow and verify this in their own terms… perhaps this will take many steps.
I can follow it up to where it starts talking about natural selection. It then seems to me to “moralise”–albeit in the sense of a master morality–genetic survival. Can someone explain to me how it betrays a less “stable means of translating content from one plane to another, to produce ‘self-valuing activity’ or ‘consciousness’” on the part of a white rabbit compared to that of a brown rabbit when the former is picked off more easily by predators in the brown environment in which both rabbits live?
We need perhaps to imagine two ‘tracts’ of evolution - the ‘negative’ or ‘passive’ tract of accident and elimination, where what is most vulnerable or unlucky is killed or perishes, and the ‘positive’ or ‘active’ tract of adaption and problem-solving, where what is most effective in its acting and fortunate in its encounters is able to assert itself at the cost of other entities.

These work as one continuum, of course - but it appears that Capable was describing the second and leaving the first ‘for granted’.

Regarding the second (ontologically primary) tract, the most elementary form of ‘effective acting’ and ‘fortunate encounter’ are one - a self-valuing ‘fortunately encounters itself’ in its first ‘effective act’ as a self-valuing - i.e. the act of self-valuing. James once referred to this as a ‘trap’ in which a concentration of affect is caught by its own structural nature.

Everything that does not ‘fortunately encounter itself’ is eliminated directly by entropy or absorbed as energy into entities, and therewith falls into the first category, ultimately the same as the white rabbit.

By what may be experienced as a stretch, the “self-valuing” logic applies also at the crudest level of accident, whereby an in potency perfectly functioning self-valuing (white rabbit) is eliminated (self-valuing is terminated) because it did not manage to “interpret its environment in terms of its own self-value” - its environment was brown, this could not be turned into an advantage by the white rabbit. Other than that (without attempting the stretch) there is always simply entropy and competition, both counter-forces to any self-valuing, both direct derivatives of the self-valuing logic.

I hope you can follow, it may require, I assume, a good deal of (good) will. I am in favor of breaking down the logic that Capable and I have been employing in steps as small and “incontrovertible” as possible, but this will require the employment of very active and resourceful intelligence, as what we’re dealing with is a restructuring of grammar - in the sense that Nietzsche and Heidegger identified it - as something we’re ‘caught’ inside.

The effort required is perhaps not dissimilar to developing a language.

To repeat and emphasize what I think describes the weight (therefore also, difficulty) of the effort: restructuring grammar, whereby grammar is our cognitive framework.

James S Saint wrote:
Can we all agree that we would like to aim our efforts toward the following ideals concerning the proposed valuing perspective/ontology/philosophy?

Items;

  1. Logically indisputable
  2. More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
  3. Accepted by social authority

These are ideals that might or might not be attainable, but they offer targets to aim toward. What we do in order to promote the perspective will reflect the targeted ideals.
Before we set such goals as described by 2 and 3, we first need to come to a mutual understanding about the subject matter itself, value ontology. So we need to focus on point 1 before it becomes possible to consider 2 and 3. Can you agree to this approach, or does it contradict your primary goal/interest, as stated in your first post? If so, why?


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeWed Oct 10, 2012 5:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
Can we all agree that we would like to aim our efforts toward the following ideals concerning the proposed valuing perspective/ontology/philosophy?

Items;

  1. Logically indisputable
  2. More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
  3. Accepted by social authority

These are ideals that might or might not be attainable, but they offer targets to aim toward. What we do in order to promote the perspective will reflect the targeted ideals.
Before we set such goals as described by 2 and 3, we first need to come to a mutual understanding about the subject matter itself, value ontology. So we need to focus on point 1 before it becomes possible to consider 2 and 3. Can you agree to this approach, or does it contradict your primary goal/interest, as stated in your first post? If so, why?
I had put them (including that first post) in the order of significance and thus the order I would anticipate them to be addressed. So I consider you to be on track. Cool

I might add that your adversary to this project is that you live in an age wherein the exact opposite is being emphasized;

  1. Be objectionable to social authority
  2. Don’t worry about who likes it
  3. Be irrational and forget logic
  4. Be only a temporary flash in the pan

And that is why you must be extremely precise in what you attempt, far more so than anyone prior.
Else the project will get swept away by either the rising tide or the under-tow.
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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 12, 2012 9:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would like to propose a possible common ground between our respective philosophies. Please help me see if this is accurate or not.

One common thread I see between self-valuing and James’ position is that each of these comprises an active resistance against radical nihilism, against what Nietzsche called the will to nothingness, or what we might simple characterize as irrationality. Elsewhere I characterized pathology as every “for its own sake” of the organism, its basically animal reactivity that is “meaningless” because it is arbitrary, it is not teleological and not guided by a broader future-oriented purpose. We could perhaps characterize nihilism as this sort of purposeless instinctual reaction as well. (Or I could also define the irrational-nihilist position as a weak or ineffective truth or position toward truth, since these sort of views seem to reject the idea of truth entirely by restricting truth to a totally arbitrary level of pure relativism or to deny the possibility of truth altogether.) But regardless of however we want to characterize this nihilistic view, I think it can serve as something against which our respective philosophies can posit resistance and perhaps find a common ground.

There is a lot of modern philosophy, religion, politics that could be characterized as nihilistic, anti-rational and, with respect to what James and also Fixed Cross and I are proposing through our respective philosophies, also anti-life: self-valuing dictates that an entity that does not hold itself as a standard-value must perish, must lose that particular formal nature by which it is an entity as such. James’ philosophy seems centered around ideas of stability and consistency as well as the idea of harmony which seems to invoke the notion of sustaining relations between self and others and between self and environment. Consistency, stability and logical integrity seem central to James’ philosophy, and I can see how his philosophy, at least the little I understand of it so far, could also along with value ontology act as an effective resistance against radically nihilist positions.

Amasopher I am also interested in your philosophy and whether or not it might also work in this way. Would you mind explaining a bit about how your philosophy would respond to the problem of radical nihilism, to what Nietzsche called the will to nothingness, if indeed you believe your philosophy has a response to this? James, also please offer me a more detailed account if you would like, of how your philosophy addresses this problem. I am interested to see if indeed there is a common ground here among all our respective thought, as I suspect may be the case, but admittedly I do not have a clear enough grasp on your thought to better articulate this common ground that I sense.


“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
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 12, 2012 11:47 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
I would like to propose a possible common ground between our respective philosophies. Please help me see if this is accurate or not.

One common thread I see between self-valuing and James’ position is that each of these comprises an active resistance against radical nihilism, against what Nietzsche called the will to nothingness, or what we might simple characterize as irrationality. Elsewhere I characterized pathology as every “for its own sake” of the organism, its basically animal reactivity that is “meaningless” because it is arbitrary, it is not teleological and not guided by a broader future-oriented purpose. We could perhaps characterize nihilism as this sort of purposeless instinctual reaction as well. (Or I could also define the irrational-nihilist position as a weak or ineffective truth or position toward truth, since these sort of views seem to reject the idea of truth entirely by restricting truth to a totally arbitrary level of pure relativism or to deny the possibility of truth altogether.) But regardless of however we want to characterize this nihilistic view, I think it can serve as something against which our respective philosophies can posit resistance and perhaps find a common ground.

There is a lot of modern philosophy, religion, politics that could be characterized as nihilistic, anti-rational and, with respect to what James and also Fixed Cross and I are proposing through our respective philosophies, also anti-life: self-valuing dictates that an entity that does not hold itself as a standard-value must perish, must lose that particular formal nature by which it is an entity as such. James’ philosophy seems centered around ideas of stability and consistency as well as the idea of harmony which seems to invoke the notion of sustaining relations between self and others and between self and environment. Consistency, stability and logical integrity seem central to James’ philosophy, and I can see how his philosophy, at least the little I understand of it so far, could also along with value ontology act as an effective resistance against radically nihilist positions.
I believe that this effort to collaborate requires the notification of agreement at every opportunity for a variety of reasons such as verification of intent and the perception of hope. And I agree with the entirely of that posting.

Capable wrote:
Amasopher I am also interested in your philosophy and whether or not it might also work in this way. Would you mind explaining a bit about how your philosophy would respond to the problem of radical nihilism, to what Nietzsche called the will to nothingness, if indeed you believe your philosophy has a response to this? James, also please offer me a more detailed account if you would like, of how your philosophy addresses this problem. I am interested to see if indeed there is a common ground here among all our respective thought, as I suspect may be the case, but admittedly I do not have a clear enough grasp on your thought to better articulate this common ground that I sense.
I am also interested in Amasopher’s philosophy or ontological view.

I am the founder and developer of Rational Metaphysics, “RM”. RM explains the processes required for the total defeat of entropy/“nihilism”, as well as why anything in the entire universe manages to exist for any more than the smallest instant of time. As such and assuming it to be accurate, it is essential to any organized effort that intends to be any more than a “flash in the pan”. People and their grandest efforts have failed in the past for reasons. Those reasons can be dealt with once truly understood.

In RM there is a principle referred to as “PHT”, the Perception of Hope and Threat. PHT is the guiding principle in all behavior of any life. It can be creatively applied such as to include the behavior of all inanimate life as well, but the implication would be that inanimate objects consciously perceive hope and threat. Is see “Value-Ontology” as the same as PHT but applied to all existence. What bothers me is that implication of consciousness within the inanimate. My view on that matter is expressed in this thesis… Consciousness: Remote Recognition.

But other than that implication, it appears to me that Value-Ontology fits very well within Rational Metaphysics. I just sense that the word “ontology”, meaning an explanation of all existence, is pushing the idea of self-valuing into an arena where it is not precisely correct depending on how you understand consciousness. But that issue alone is not sufficient for me to reject the project. “Value-Philosophy” seems more precisely correct because the word “philosophy” often refers to an accepted manner of behavior rather than an ontological explanation for all existence.

Another issue I see as needing addressing, according to RM, is the issue of inclusion of the immediate surroundings when valuing. Nothing that remains in harmony can perish. But nothing can remain in harmony if its surroundings are critically out of harmony with the entity. That would be the very make and cause of destruction of entities and efforts.

My word, “harmony” has an unfortunate connotation involving the notion of sweet kisses, free love, and laying naked on the beach… doing nothing. That is not what the word actually means, so I try to emphasize the importance of strategic momentum… doing something; quickly, firmly, and wisely. It is that strategic momentum that prevents entropy more than anything else.

RM is all about the cause of existence, order, and chaos. An entity is an order resistant to chaos. “Self-Valuing” is a concept that also fits the concept of Inertia. Inertia is the property of being able to maintain one’s properties, one’s order - the ability to exist for any length of time. No entity can exist without inertia and thus self-valuing.

RM is a subject requiring a collegiate course prerequisited with tensor analysis if you want to see the actual mathematical proofs involved. At ILP, I tried to see if there was a way to explain its essence without going into the math. I had a modicum of success. But I really need questions to be asked by those who are not themselves merely trying to sell their own theory and repel away from any alternate proposal. But even at that, I generated some 30-50 pictorials and around 400 posts of explanation (often having to repeat). The entire ontology is fundamentally simple, but leads into the real complexities of actual existence pretty quickly.

Religion’s blind faith and Science’s repeatable empiricism are both trumped by RM’s Definitional Logic. RM is the dream that both Science and Religion sought. RM is the immutable order and antithesis to entropy.

Learning RM is a issue of the student being willing to ask questions while the author is still around to answer them.

Kriya thread toward clear purpose RM+Vs+Physics+Approach

.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSat Oct 13, 2012 8:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m not sure how to handle the thread at this point, as the order is now broken by James, but for an understandable reason. We don’t want to have the rules prevent the progression of a discussion. Still, I think that what I proposed it is a good rule to maintain, to keep a certain order, and this precisely to be able to verify our agreements and clarify our differences at every ‘round’ in the discussion. Amasopher already has a lot to respond to at this point, the amount must not grow beyond his capacity to address with precision. So I suggest that, in this thread, we keep to the rule of one post per ‘round’ - that is, once the total number of posts is divisible by 4, every poster has a ‘right’ to one more post. Of course due to the state of this thread, this does not calculate this way anymore, but you get the idea.

It’s clear then that we need at least one other thread, where Rational Metaphysics can be discussed in the Q and A format James proposed (either in the logic or the science section, that would be up to James). I am very much in favor of parallel threads, designated to clear, separate goals, or different segments of an ultimate goal. I believe in the principle of balanced contribution for this particular thread. See it as an ‘axis’ of our effort, which may spread out into other threads.

The aim here is consistency, to enable the trust in every poster that nothing is being missed.

Perhaps it appears that I am insisting disproportionally on form - but this fixation can be understood as maintaining a ‘harmony’ within the ‘entity’ of this group.

Concerning the issue of consciousness - for now I will be short and say that when I consider an atom to ‘value’ and ‘self-value’, I do not mean that it does this consciously. It simply means that the atom operates in such a way that it rejects certain influences and incorporates others - that, by its very structural nature, it ‘selects’ according to itself, the standard for ‘value’ that it embodies.

Consciousness occurs on a certain level of complexity of self-valuing. When there are many layers, delays, cross-feeding feedback loops in place. But what we normally understand as valuing (holding values like good and bad, or delicious or revolting) are ‘conscious versions’ of pre-conscious valuing. Valuing permeates all of existence, and arrives at being in part consciously enacted only when consciousness has emerged. But still, humans are valuing largely unconsciously, and a human can not deliberately alter his values, so it can be questioned whether valuing really changes when consciousness arises, except that it provides the opportunity to be deluded about ones real, life-sustaining values.

Basically value ontology reverses the causal order of consciousness and value. Traditionally, values are seen to arise from consciousness. But this is in fact not tenable, as values are held by every primitive entity, evolutionarily long before consciousness emerges, and force an entity to act on these values completely indifferently to whether or not it consciously recognizes this acting or these values.

So instead, value ontology holds that consciousness emerges from valuing.
It is called an ontology because we base our understanding of ‘that which is’ on the principle of self-valuing. That is - when something can be designated as a self-valuing, it can be said to positively exist (not merely be a property of something else), and vice versa.

C, J and A, what are your suggestions for the continuation of this thread, and the bringing into existence of others?


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: bump Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSun Oct 14, 2012 5:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Consider this a new round -
To all involved, verify what you can verify, reject what you have to reject, let’s see where we stand at this point.
Also, whoever has asked questions that have gone unanswered, please restate 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
    James S Saint
    rational metaphysicist
    rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeSun Oct 14, 2012 7:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Consider this a new round -
To all involved, verify what you can verify, reject what you have to reject, let’s see where we stand at this point.
Also, whoever has asked questions that have gone unanswered, please restate them.
So far, I see nothing to object to other than a lack of speedy participation.
The goals seem the same to me and I haven’t seen anything forbidding progress toward them.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeTue Oct 16, 2012 2:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Quote :
Can we all agree that we would like to aim our efforts toward the following ideals concerning the proposed valuing perspective/ontology/philosophy?

Items;

  1. Logically indisputable
  2. More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
  3. Accepted by social authority

These are ideals that might or might not be attainable, but they offer targets to aim toward. What we do in order to promote the perspective will reflect the targeted ideals.
Before we set such goals as described by 2 and 3, we first need to come to a mutual understanding about the subject matter itself, value ontology. So we need to focus on point 1 before it becomes possible to consider 2 and 3. Can you agree to this approach, or does it contradict your primary goal/interest, as stated in your first post? If so, why?
I had put them (including that first post) in the order of significance and thus the order I would anticipate them to be addressed. So I consider you to be on track. :sunglasses:

I might add that your adversary to this project is that you live in an age wherein the exact opposite is being emphasized;

  1. Be objectionable to social authority
  2. Don’t worry about who likes it
  3. Be irrational and forget logic
  4. Be only a temporary flash in the pan

And that is why you must be extremely precise in what you attempt, far more so than anyone prior.
Else the project will get swept away by either the rising tide or the under-tow.
I find it peculiar that the exact opposite to a list of three items should be a list of four items. Then again, I don’t think the former is necessarily composed of three (main) items. Indeed, items 2 and 3 seem to me to be better designated as items 2a and 2b, the one referring to appeal to or acceptance by the individuals of which society is composed, the other referring to appeal to or acceptance by that which governs society as a whole, social authority. In any case, I agree with regard to item 1, but not necessarily with regard to the rest; in fact, the connection between the two is precisely the problem I’ve tried to raise in my Lampertian Nietzscheanism thread in the Nietzsche forum.
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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 5:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I do not have much to add right now, in general I will withdraw myself from this round’s content except to further address something Amasopher wrote to me, which Fixed Cross addressed but which I have not yet.

Amasopher wrote:
I can follow it up to where it starts talking about natural selection. It then seems to me to “moralise”–albeit in the sense of a master morality–genetic survival. Can someone explain to me how it betrays a less “stable means of translating content from one plane to another, to produce ‘self-valuing activity’ or ‘consciousness’” on the part of a white rabbit compared to that of a brown rabbit when the former is picked off more easily by predators in the brown environment in which both rabbits live?

Natural selection is basically an emergent law given the fact that 1) self-valuings are “internally restless” and “self-agitated”, are always moving, striving, growing, and 2) that the natural world constitutes a set of conditions whereby self-valuings engage in this behavior given limited space and resources. 1 and 2 together produce competition, which in turn produces the law of natural selection, itself really just an effect of 1 and 2. I see self-valuing as the basic “engine” of natural selection, in conjunction with the fact that self-valuing takes place within environments that are essentially constrained and limited in terms of what can and is to be valued by any self-valuing.

The white rabbit might not represent any “lesser” self-valuing activity than the brown rabbit, intrinsically, but by accident of circumstance the one is consumed and the other is not. This “accident” is of course not random. Basically, natural selection implies that organisms under the purview of its law do not possess a means to self-value their own self-valuing, they cannot value “intentionally” and are instead “arbitrarily valuing”, they are beings who value only secondarily based on “what they already are”, which is to say they are not teleological. Their own self-valuing or “consciousness” cannot grasp also itself, cannot factor also itself, as a fact, as an object of this self-valuing consciousness, into the overall calculus of this self-valuing consciousness itself.

Animal life is like this, secondary, ex post facto, “arbitrary” and “natural”. Natural selection produces the present generation of self-valuings based only on what came immediately before this generation, in conjunction with present environmental influences and demands; it does not take into account future possibilities or imagined states, goals, purpose or “ends”. These come along only when humanity arrives on the scene, a self-valuing that is more able to fully incorporate its own valuing behavior into its very self-valuing structure, in such a way so as to produce “telos”. So in this sense, the rabbits are both instances of self-valuings that are operating by the very same logic, and the one that happens, for one reason or another, to value more toward the actual mitigation of the conditions to which it is subject, namely a more or less brown environment, will happen to tend to survive more and pass on its own particular self-valuing structure and activity. I think it is helpful to separate human-like self-valuing from non-human-like self-valuing, not because these are totally different, but because the former is built upon and is in many ways a continuation and break with or “point of collapse” of the latter. So basically the fact of naturally selective law is a consequence of self-valuings, primarily and directly, while self-valuings themselves are also consequences of this naturally selective law, secondarily and indirectly, with the exception of human beings who have more or less removed themselves from the law of natural selection, given that they have attained some manner of teleology and can actively “imagine” and “call into existence” content from the future rather than only respond to content from the past in a more or less passive-reactionary manner.

James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 7:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Amasopher wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Items;

  1. Logically indisputable
  2. More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
  3. Accepted by social authority

I had put them (including that first post) in the order of significance and thus the order I would anticipate them to be addressed. So I consider you to be on track. Cool

I might add that your adversary to this project is that you live in an age wherein the exact opposite is being emphasized;

  1. Be objectionable to social authority
  2. Don’t worry about who likes it
  3. Be irrational and forget logic
  4. Be only a temporary flash in the pan

And that is why you must be extremely precise in what you attempt, far more so than anyone prior.
Else the project will get swept away by either the rising tide or the under-tow.
I find it peculiar that the exact opposite to a list of three items should be a list of four items.
I had included and even mentioned that there were 4 original if I “include that first post”. That is why there is 4.

Amasopher wrote:
Then again, I don’t think the former is necessarily composed of three (main) items. Indeed, items 2 and 3 seem to me to be better designated as items 2a and 2b, the one referring to appeal to or acceptance by the individuals of which society is composed, the other referring to appeal to or acceptance by that which governs society as a whole, social authority.
I don’t contend against the notion of a 2a and a 2b, as long as they are not perceived as the same thing. The reason I set them separate is that they have different concerns involved. The appeal to the individual is for sake of acceptance as a mode of thinking. The concern involved in social authority is more one of not inspiring an unnecessary and powerful enemy.

If individual’s don’t like the idea, they simply don’t bother with it. That is not preferable, but is very different than using divisive means to destroy all traces of it. Social authority can be managed through public appeal (unless you are in the USA) so it is additionally relevant to acquire public appeal even if you were not immediately concerned with social authority.

In the long run, it is preferable that social authority backup the entire project (assuming the project is as we have intended) intentionally with or without the concern for public appeal. But that is a goal for later consideration. A higher priority is that it has public appeal. By having that accomplished, social authority isn’t as much of an issue.

Amasopher wrote:
In any case, I agree with regard to item 1, but not necessarily with regard to the rest; in fact, the connection between the two is precisely the problem I’ve tried to raise in my Lampertian Nietzscheanism thread in the Nietzsche forum.
I need to know your specific details to see if there is perhaps merely a communication problem or an actual concept problem. Considering the above, what exactly, are your objections? Please don’t put them in “Nietzschian terms”. I’m not a Nietzschian. I prefer as common English as can be managed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 1:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
James S Saint wrote:
Amasopher wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Items;

  1. Logically indisputable
  2. More appealing to each individual in society than any alternative
  3. Accepted by social authority

I had put them (including that first post) in the order of significance and thus the order I would anticipate them to be addressed. So I consider you to be on track. :sunglasses:

I might add that your adversary to this project is that you live in an age wherein the exact opposite is being emphasized;

  1. Be objectionable to social authority
  2. Don’t worry about who likes it
  3. Be irrational and forget logic
  4. Be only a temporary flash in the pan

And that is why you must be extremely precise in what you attempt, far more so than anyone prior.
Else the project will get swept away by either the rising tide or the under-tow.
I find it peculiar that the exact opposite to a list of three items should be a list of four items.
I had included and even mentioned that there were 4 original if I “include that first post”. That is why there is 4.
Excellent! I now see that items 1, 2, and 3 of your “exact opposite” are indeed the exact opposites of items 3, 2, and 1, respectively, of your original list. That makes item 4 of the former the exact opposite of your first post, which makes perfect sense. We might then add an item 0 to your original list, which would be the exact opposite of item 4 of your “exact opposite” list, and which would basically say “Being immortal”. What you said about immortality in your first post, however, has reminded me of Laurence Cooper’s book Eros in Plato, Rousseau, and Nietzsche. I don’t have the book with me where I write this, but elsewhere I have quoted the following passages from it, which are about eros in Plato:

[T]he philosopher’s eros is not directed by the hope of earthly immortality. He does not long for what the ordinarily erotic long for. Hence he is not erotic in an ordinary sense; far from it. Yet he longs for that of which the aim of ordinary eros is a distortion. He longs, consciously, for what the rest of us fail to divine that we long for. And for that reason he is erotic, indeed the perfection of eros. [page 87.]

[T]he longing for immortality represents the temporalizing of the longing for the eternal: the desire to experience that which is beyond time and beyond all limitation becomes the desire that the self or the ego be everlasting and invulnerable. [page 96.]

If, therefore, we replace “Being immortal” with “Experiencing the eternal”, I can agree with item 0 as well as with item 1. And in fact, I then think these two items may be renumbered 1a and 1b. For I think that these two items then resonate with soundness and validity, respectively, in the sense of Logic. For item 0 resonates with soundness in that it’s about experiencing eternal reality, and item 1 resonates with validity in that it’s about internal consistency. In other words, the two resonate with truth as correspondence and truth as coherence, respectively.

Quote :
Amasopher wrote:
Then again, I don’t think the former is necessarily composed of three (main) items. Indeed, items 2 and 3 seem to me to be better designated as items 2a and 2b, the one referring to appeal to or acceptance by the individuals of which society is composed, the other referring to appeal to or acceptance by that which governs society as a whole, social authority.
I don’t contend against the notion of a 2a and a 2b, as long as they are not perceived as the same thing. The reason I set them separate is that they have different concerns involved. The appeal to the individual is for sake of acceptance as a mode of thinking. The concern involved in social authority is more one of not inspiring an unnecessary and powerful enemy.

If individual’s don’t like the idea, they simply don’t bother with it. That is not preferable, but is very different than using divisive means to destroy all traces of it. Social authority can be managed through public appeal (unless you are in the USA) so it is additionally relevant to acquire public appeal even if you were not immediately concerned with social authority.

In the long run, it is preferable that social authority backup the entire project (assuming the project is as we have intended) intentionally with or without the concern for public appeal. But that is a goal for later consideration. A higher priority is that it has public appeal. By having that accomplished, social authority isn’t as much of an issue.
Understood, and agreed.

Quote :
Amasopher wrote:
In any case, I agree with regard to item 1, but not necessarily with regard to the rest; in fact, the connection between the two is precisely the problem I’ve tried to raise in my Lampertian Nietzscheanism thread in the Nietzsche forum.
I need to know your specific details to see if there is perhaps merely a communication problem or an actual concept problem. Considering the above, what exactly, are your objections? Please don’t put them in “Nietzschian terms”. I’m not a Nietzschian. I prefer as common English as can be managed.
My problem could perhaps be formulated as follows: why should someone who is concerned with having an internally coherent and externally corresponding vision of eternal reality be concerned with whether his vision appeals to other individuals and/or is accepted by social authority? Unless lack of appeal and/or of acceptance threatens his own very experience, of course.
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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 3:21 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Amasopher wrote:
Unless lack of appeal and/or of acceptance threatens his own very experience, of course.
That would in fact be MY reasoning.
As I said, my concern is the immutability that maintains the momentum of that “eternal experiencing”.
As it turns out, other people are a major issue in the mutability of projects or groups like this.

Other interests might be along the lines of the proposed “improvement of the world”.
To me, that problem gets resolved shortly after you establish the immutability bit, without additional effort.
Perfect your own house and then maybe consider messing with other people’s lives.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 4:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is perhaps not going to work ideally in terms of the restraint I try to place on it - but the goal that was intended with this rule must still be attained. The goal was a structural order. I propose that instead of limiting the quantity of posts, we limit the focus of discussion to “items of discussion”.

We must now come to an agreement on the concept of experience of the eternal (it’s nature and it’s value - for me these both have been clarified), on its relation to “momentum” and “immutability” (it’s physics, this needs elaboration), and on the relation of this experience with group-activity such as this (our relation to it now, needs clarification).

To the last, the goal would be, gathered from the recent posts, to establish a working theory that can be understood by multitudes and is adopted by them. This is a question not only of content, but also of formulation, form.

James has earlier proposed the trinity physical/physiological/psychological - fields in which the consequences of an ontological logic (epistemological method) most be drawn and lead to definitions.

So we have something resembling a “goal of the application of value ontology” here - as well as a vague outline of a grid along which to design value ontological (or, for whoever pleases to use the term philosophy, value philosophical), methods.

Confirm/Disconfirm


" 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
    James S Saint
    rational metaphysicist
    rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeThu Oct 18, 2012 8:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Confirm, and…

Fixed Cross wrote:
This is perhaps not going to work ideally in terms of the restraint I try to place on it - but the goal that was intended with this rule must still be attained. The goal was a structural order. I propose that instead of limiting the quantity of posts, we limit the focus of discussion to “items of discussion”.
We must now come to an agreement on the concept of experience of the eternal (it’s nature and it’s value - for me these both have been clarified), on its relation to “momentum” and “immutability” (it’s physics, this needs elaboration), and on the relation of this experience with group-activity such as this (our relation to it now, needs clarification).
Wow… this takes me WAY back…

The two most powerful, immutable forces literally in the entire universe are;

  1. the Black Hole which has but two potential adversaries; other Black-Holes and
  2. Life.

Life has Perception, Sentience, and Influence. Both the Black-Hole and Life are made of much smaller and somewhat chaotic components within. Both tend to expire what they have and gain more with which to replace what is lost. The Black-Hole tends to gain more than it loses and thus grows to unimaginable size but loses its mobility in the process.

Life can perceive the Black-Hole, avoid its threats, and influence threats upon it, as it can with anything as long as it has the environment with which to do so. Life requires materials and tools with which to influence the materials into strategic positions whereas the Black-Hole merely absorbs everything into its internal chaos.

Although within life, just as within the Black-Hole, components compete with each other, the results of such devoted contention is the stability of the whole. Within both Life and the Black-Hole there is immeasurable momentum. The physical distinction is merely that one collects all humus into one central location while the other strategically distributes its components.

Both strive to maintain their fundamental structure and thus survive. That which maintains its harmony (its structure) cannot perish.

So I propose that since we are already a form of life that would be seriously threatened by anything resembling a Black-Hole type of entity, anything that could absorb and/or disintegrate us, that we form the group also as a form of life.

Make the group into the form of a living organism that is made of living organisms, namely us.

If accepted, how to do this isn’t difficult to explain (I hope).

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 19, 2012 5:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am having serious doubts about my decision to allow for this break in the order.
Because: what may be resolution of an issue for one may be the introduction of twenty issues for the other.I fear that this new development is not in the interest of all participants and thus also0 not fo the group. I am waiting for their (dis)confirmation

Sorry about the chaos, this is very difficult to manage.

I am not sure if the rules had even been understood.
The rule was

  • 1 post per round
  • A round means: all 4 posters have made 1 posts (in no particular order)

James, did you break this rule deliberately?


" 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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 19, 2012 5:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am fine with the idea of a structure around an idea rather than a 4-person round. But I like the idea of a round too, though. We could perhaps split off some topics from here into other threads for more free discussion, as might be the case with the notion of eternity. In that case we should keep this topic with the present structure of rounds. I think this structure encorages a slower, more patient and careful development. Split-off topics can then allow for more fast development.


“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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose Icon_minitimeFri Oct 19, 2012 6:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That would have my preference as well.
The spin-off threads, wherein particular ideas are discussed and refined to the point of confirmation, must however be very clearly identifiable as part of the project, so I propose that we call them by such names [Kriya: - “eternity” ] , [Kriya: - “natural selection”] , etc.
If everyone confirms this, I will split off the topics from the point where the second deviation began into new threads, among which an administrative thread.

All participants are free to create such spinoff threads when they deem it desirable, but they need to be named in the precise format we agree on (suggestions welcome).

It is possible that split-off threads must also be split off, but let’s only do that when real necessity presents itself. The format I’d propose would be [Kriya: - “natural selection” => “Darwins beard”], for example.

Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Oct 19, 2012 10:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think it was as much myself as James who broke the order the second time, even though it was technically James again who broke it. For I felt like I was breaking it when I made that post about, among other things, eternity. As for Capable’s idea of splitting threads, that had crossed my mind as well.

James, you say:

James S Saint wrote:
Amasopher wrote:
Unless lack of appeal and/or of acceptance threatens his own very experience, of course.
That would in fact be MY reasoning.
As I said, my concern is the immutability that maintains the momentum of that “eternal experiencing”.
As it turns out, other people are a major issue in the mutability of projects or groups like this.

Other interests might be along the lines of the proposed “improvement of the world”.
To me, that problem gets resolved shortly after you establish the immutability bit, without additional effort.
Perfect your own house and then maybe consider messing with other people’s lives.
My problem is precisely the step from the perfection of one’s own house to messing with other people’s lives. Now, that you say with such certainty that this problem gets resolved without additional effort after one perfects one’s own house suggests that you have experienced such (an) occurrence(s). If this is the case, can you put that experience into words?


kali maa jaap mantra {om aim hreem kleem chamundaye vichaye}
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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Oct 19, 2012 3:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I am having serious doubts about my decision to allow for this break in the order.
Because: what may be resolution of an issue for one may be the introduction of twenty issues for the other.I fear that this new development is not in the interest of all participants and thus also0 not fo the group. I am waiting for their (dis)confirmation

Sorry about the chaos, this is very difficult to manage.

I am not sure if the rules had even been understood.
The rule was

  • 1 post per round
  • A round means: all 4 posters have made 1 posts (in no particular order)

James, did you break this rule deliberately?

Oops…
Sorry again. As I explained in PM, I can’t tell at what point you are intending what.
I thought that you were asking for confirmation on the prior issue and introducing the next.
So I gave my confirmation and addressed “the next”. I was expecting the same from others.
If there is a numbered order of who is first, second, third, and so on, I missed that.

But tell you what… I give up. From now on, how about just send me a PM letting me know when it is my turn. Don’t try to explain when my turn will be, just say, “Your up to talk about xxx”. I’ll take it from there. Until then I’ll stay quite.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSat Oct 20, 2012 4:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Never mind then - obviously it is not going to work if the rules are too complicated (for the record, they are in the OP).

We will stick to the idea I proposed recently, that we do it point per point, and I continue with the response James made to my proposition that we deal with the question of momentum and immutability, and our relationship to eternity.

Quote :
The two most powerful, immutable forces literally in the entire universe are;

  1. the Black Hole which has but two potential adversaries; other Black-Holes and
  2. Life.

Life has Perception, Sentience, and Influence. Both the Black-Hole and Life are made of much smaller and somewhat chaotic components within. Both tend to expire what they have and gain more with which to replace what is lost. The Black-Hole tends to gain more than it loses and thus grows to unimaginable size but loses its mobility in the process.

Life can perceive the Black-Hole, avoid its threats, and influence threats upon it, as it can with anything as long as it has the environment with which to do so. Life requires materials and tools with which to influence the materials into strategic positions whereas the Black-Hole merely absorbs everything into its internal chaos.

Although within life, just as within the Black-Hole, components compete with each other, the results of such devoted contention is the stability of the whole. Within both Life and the Black-Hole there is immeasurable momentum. The physical distinction is merely that one collects all humus into one central location while the other strategically distributes its components.

Both strive to maintain their fundamental structure and thus survive. That which maintains its harmony (its structure) cannot perish.

So I propose that since we are already a form of life that would be seriously threatened by anything resembling a Black-Hole type of entity, anything that could absorb and/or disintegrate us, that we form the group also as a form of life.

Make the group into the form of a living organism that is made of living organisms, namely us.

If accepted, how to do this isn’t difficult to explain (I hope).

I can confirm the principles exhibited here. All I have to add to this now is that it is evidently (evident also by the content of this post) crucial that we use a structural order in which all of us ‘naturally fit’. The structure proposed in the OP has been proven to not be the natural structure of this particular group.

The structural principle on which this group is based must be something we all agree on - according to my reading, what qualifies is the idea of isolating issues, confirming them, and moving on.

I’d be tempted to formulate some form of notation, but that will probably be too difficult to maintain as well.

The issue that is not yet resolved fully to me is
The experience of the eternal vis a vis eternal experience.

The latter pertains to momentum and immutability, the former to a philosophical state of mind/being.
Perhaps they are, in reality, the same. I can not confirm this yet.

I have elsewhere envisioned these combined as “absolutization of the bestowing virtue”. The terms is probably most relevant to Amasopher. I wonder it makes sense to him.

I am also curious to James’ response to Amasophers question.

All participants are from now on and indefinitely free to post at will.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeTue Oct 23, 2012 5:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I meant to post the following post in this thread, but accidentally posted it in the other Kriya thread.


To leave all the confusion behind us, I am going ahead and posit a set of statements for you all to kill or make stronger trying.

  • Something must exist because “nothing” excludes the active impossibility of something.

  • Self-valuing is not merely descriptive of entities that can be rationally declared to exist, but it is also implied by the nature of that all that can be observed and declared to exist, including ‘force’ or affectance - potential to change.

  • The smallest self-valuing is able only to value in terms of itself negatively. It’s “valuing” is a deflection of which it is not.

  • As two different self-valuings deflect nothingness, two things are created:
    • Space, (the mutually deflected, mutual nothingess, rudimentary ‘value’)
    • affectance - deflecting of positive not-selves.

For James specifically:

  • Affectance is self-valuing-interaction.

  • A self-valuing is even in ‘a grain of noise’ - as soon as noise starts to affect other noise, there is differentiation, and this implies ‘thingness’ something is differentiated from something.

  • The fact of difference precludes absolute dissolution.

Back to the main set:

-In the case of affectance, self-valuings value each other negatively in terms of their structural nature as deflectors, but they do behave similarly, and are thus perform similar actions. All deflect both nothingness, and each other.

  • What comes to exist like this is any geometrical form. The simplest form to imagine is the circle: all self-valuings deflect each other “to the side”, while simultaneously deflecting nothingess inward and outward. “Affectance fields” are circular, with the force distributed in the ‘border’. Inward it is ‘weak’.

  • Such organizations of nothingness-deflectings may emerge so as the come into contact with each other. Due to the quantity of affect of such organizations, the greater things that come into each others proximity are, the more different they are from each other, and stronger they are deflected. But in some cases, the deflected negative existence of a ‘sphere of affect’ is so great that smaller spheres are drawn to deflect it as well, and ‘join the circle’, the affect-field. In that case, the affect field, a ‘form’, grows and is able to absorb even greater ‘others’.

  • The deflection of nothingness is the first priority. In the image of the deflection imprinted on itself, the self-valuing recognizes itself. This creates the terms of it’s self-valuing’ - it’s standard of value.

  • Such a standard can be recognized by other entities, and deflected (negatively valued) as well.

  • Two co-deflecting self-valuings “come to terms”, they positively value each other in terms of their own self-valuing (their deflecting nothingess), but as negative. They repel each other while positively ‘recognizing’ the object of negative valuation.

  • This is why when we value in terms of our self-valuing; when we value, we ‘push’ - the greater the ‘fight’, the greater the resistance to nothingness. We seek to overpower, but first and foremost we seek to engage, that whichever ‘speaks to us’, is also inevitably that which has the power to absorb us.

  • Survival as a form depends on capacity to translate that which is appropriated in the circle of affect in terms of the pre-existing form. “Selective forms” remain, other forms are respectively dissolved or transformed into selective forms. Sometimes selective forms are overpowered by far greater, but far less selective forms.

  • The more selective a form is in what it can ‘use’ in terms of deflecting nothingness, the more capable it is to resist change.

  • The more selective a form is, the more specific it’s terms by which it values, and the more specific it’s self-valuing.

  • Man is a supremely selective form. The more selective man is, the more we can speak of a ‘self’.

  • Becoming conscious of being as self-valuing means: establishing a finalized Being. It means to have defeated the chance of being transformed by the very nature of being (deflecting non-being) itself - “imprinting being on becoming”.

There are much more consequences to draw here but I can now just manage a few observations on morality and custom:

  • From this perspective, morality is no longer a matter of adopting custom to ensure survival but risking unseen compromise of structural integrity, but of either inventing means to expand ones realm of influence (to attempt to transform the world according to ones self-value, to be able to value it more), or, where conditions allow it, simply maintaining oneself.

  • Buddha realized the first nature of being - deflecting non being - nirvana as “being nor non-being”, means “affect nor non being”. It is however, being in the sense of deflection (“transcendental clarity”). It does not however contain the power to defend itself or resist the force of other structures from incorporating it. Kung fu has arisen to remain transcendently self-valuing and resist that which is to be valued as negative. Yoga is the simple resisting of resistance - dissolving the circle of affect (society, the roles one has to play to ‘defend the family/country’ etc) in order to ‘face the void alone’. But it is still relatively affective, since the human body doesn’t dissolve as long as all of it’s atoms and subatomic instances affect independently ‘attain nirvana’.

  • "Spiritualized “martial” art but also dance is therefore more ‘peaceful’ toward the fact of existence, and more effective in maintaining structural integrity from which to deflect the void.

  • All temples and religious orders represent spiritualized martial art, selectively organized deflection of the void.


" 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
    James S Saint
    rational metaphysicist
    rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeTue Oct 23, 2012 6:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Amasopher wrote:
My problem is precisely the step from the perfection of one’s own house to messing with other people’s lives. Now, that you say with such certainty that this problem gets resolved without additional effort after one perfects one’s own house suggests that you have experienced such (an) occurrence(s). If this is the case, can you put that experience into words?
Well, this gets into How it is done. In effect it is the topic of how to “mess with other people’s lives”… without effort.
Is that really the priority?

In general terms, that subject is introduced in the Science thread Chemistry through a lens of perspectivism

But if the aim is merely to mess with other people without even knowing what your are yourself, then there is a problem.

I think we need to focus on what we want to be ourselves and what it takes to ensure that, not what we might want to do to others. If all we want to be is the power to dominate, control, or “mess with” others… that is a problem.

This issue is addressed here… The Equation for Space;
Quote :
.
.
.
A man once asked, “what do you do with 300 million insane people?” I now must ask, “what do you do with 6.5 billion of them?” Let them see the futures they propose? Will that bring sanity among them? Will that inspire true rationality in Man for perhaps the first time? “Close enough” is going to make him extinct. That part is already foreseeable.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Elaia
bowstring
bowstring
Elaia

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-09-27
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeWed Oct 24, 2012 5:48 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

  • Something must exist because “nothing” excludes the active impossibility of something.
    If “nothing” excludes the active impossibility of something, it also excludes any possibility of something, and therefore does not necessitate its existence.

James S Saint wrote:
Amasopher wrote:
My problem is precisely the step from the perfection of one’s own house to messing with other people’s lives. Now, that you say with such certainty that this problem gets resolved without additional effort after one perfects one’s own house suggests that you have experienced such (an) occurrence(s). If this is the case, can you put that experience into words?
Well, this gets into How it is done. In effect it is the topic of how to “mess with other people’s lives”… without effort.
Is that really the priority?

In general terms, that subject is introduced in the Science thread Chemistry through a lens of perspectivism

But if the aim is merely to mess with other people without even knowing what your are yourself, then there is a problem.

I think we need to focus on what we want to be ourselves and what it takes to ensure that, not what we might want to do to others. If all we want to be is the power to dominate, control, or “mess with” others… that is a problem.

This issue is addressed here… The Equation for Space;
Quote :
.
.
.
A man once asked, “what do you do with 300 million insane people?” I now must ask, “what do you do with 6.5 billion of them?” Let them see the futures they propose? Will that bring sanity among them? Will that inspire true rationality in Man for perhaps the first time? “Close enough” is going to make him extinct. That part is already foreseeable.
I do not at all want to mess with other people’s lives before having perfected my own house. I just do not see a good reason for one’s messing with them after one has perfected it.

By the way, I do indeed think the problem gets resolved without additional effort after one perfects one’s own house. But in my view, the messing with other people’s lives is then an unintended side-effect of the being perfect of one’s house.
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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeWed Oct 24, 2012 6:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Amasopher wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:

  • Something must exist because “nothing” excludes the active impossibility of something.
    If “nothing” excludes the active impossibility of something, it also excludes any possibility of something, and therefore does not necessitate its existence.
    “Nothingness” offers nothing in either direction; to cause something, or to prevent something.
    “Nothingness” is a “square-circle”, an irrational concept, easily imagined, but logically invalid.
    An infinite space of blackness is what is typically imagined. But that isn’t actually “absolute nothingness” in that it has volume. And then because it has volume, it has too many points within it for them all to be infinitely identical (that gets into the cardinalities of infinity). Infinite homogeneity is impossible. It is due to that situation that affecting (existence) is always happening. If at any point, there truly were no potential for affect, that point would not “exist” because it has no affect (the very definition of existing).

Amasopher wrote:
I do not at all want to mess with other people’s lives before having perfected my own house. I just do not see a good reason for one’s messing with them after one has perfected it.

By the way, I do indeed think the problem gets resolved without additional effort after one perfects one’s own house. But in my view, the messing with other people’s lives is then an unintended side-effect of the being perfect of one’s house.
That all sounds good to me.
But to me, nothing is intentionally unintentional.
If I know that I am going to have affect, I consider what that affect might be before I infect the world with it… that is, if I can. Anything done has affect, else it isn’t doing anything.

My intent would be that the group merely form into what it seriously must be to truly survive in an immutable way. The consequences to society will take their own somewhat predictable form.
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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeThu Oct 25, 2012 3:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If the group is to be a living organism in itself, there are three fundamental components to any living entity;

  1. Perception
  2. Mind
  3. Influence

In this, “mind” refers to the entirety of neurological activity.

Thus the group must have these faculties as a group. Each individual in the group already has them. As a group, they represent three “departments”;

  1. Research
  2. Analysis and direction
  3. Activism

It is typically best if a member is in charge of each of those departments, but each department can easily grow into a great many.

This thread was a first attempt at a “mind”. It isn’t the way I would have chosen, but it was a start. My career was “intelligence design”, so I have a good idea of what I am talking about concerning construct of mind.

For a mind to form, there must be a structure involved as a goal to achieve and/or maintain and protect. These three departments and their connectivity represents the fundamental structure to be achieved, maintained, and protected. Once established, the group will be a fundamental living entity.

A mind is no more than a logical assembly of algorithms that processes “input” (the Perception data) into a “map” representation of the groups situation in terms of “self-valuing” or maintaining itself (PHT, Perception of Hopes and Threats).

At the point where a map is established, the entity is conscious. Consciousness is “Remote Recognition”, an actively updated map.

The mind department then weighs the hopes and threats (cost/benefit ratio) such as to form a directive. The Activist department then acts upon whatever that balance indicates.

Because this is a continual process, if structured properly, it never stops.

Any questions concerning that much?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Oct 26, 2012 12:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I do not really doubt that such a group would be possible, and is in some way to follow from our efforts.

I would need to be able to answer one question before I can precisely understand and address your assertions above: What separates a living self-valuing from an inanimate one, such as an atom?

Relating: how can a living entity be imperishable?


" 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
    James S Saint
    rational metaphysicist
    rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Oct 26, 2012 7:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I do not really doubt that such a group would be possible, and is in some way to follow from our efforts.

I would need to be able to answer one question before I can precisely understand and address your assertions above: What separates a living self-valuing from an inanimate one, such as an atom?

Relating: how can a living entity be imperishable?

Strategic defense in the form of adaptation.

I don’t want to get into quibbling over what defines “life”, but the most operative and relevant concept involves the strategies of defense. It is often thought that growth is what defines life. But growth is merely one of the many strategies and one that is incipiently dangerous. The single most predominate error throughout the history of homosapian has been that of not understanding when and how much to grow. The human body understands and behaves appropriately. The human mind fails. And it seems at this point, that error is going to be the final straw that ended homosapian entirely.

It isn’t so much being a living organism that matters. What matters is consciousness from which strategy can be utilized. As a Nietzschian, you should be ultimately attentive to this issue. Consciousness is the recognition of the remote situation. It is that recognition that allows for adaptation to the situation. Such adaptation is what life is about. But random or careless adaptation such as to create a possible evolution is the act of the mindless and sacrifices the essence of the progenitor.

To be imperishable, one must maintain the ability to adapt without losing essence. That requires consciousness, verification, and very careful strategy, especially these days.

By the current scheme, all who cannot be controlled into the world system of governance are to be gotten rid of simply because they insist on a socialistic domination which inherently requires a limited number of controlled subjects. For the past 50 years, it has mostly been about “population control” which largely is all about reducing it to controlled numbers. At the moment Science proclaims that the population MUST be reduced, not really because of the lack of resources, but because too many will get “out of hand”. Technology has offered them more grace. But technology also offers the most incipient danger to the species.

A living organism is an adapting organism in one way or another. It is critical that the means for adaptation be very, very carefully considered. Merely trial and error will not due any longer.

So in short, to be imperishable one must actively out maneuver entropy.
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

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSat Oct 27, 2012 9:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
.
Just a reminder;
Quote :
This public forum has been set up as a space for a productive development of ideas in philosophy as well as in other subjects of thought. The aim of Before The Light is to promote and secure the possibility for active, ambitious and free thinking. A corollary of this is that the thought engendered here is intended to be powerful, potent and vital with respect to its various consequences and necessitated implications. We aim to encouraging the development of powerful, direct and subtle approaches to the various potentialities latent to consciousness and the human condition in all its myriad forms, including among these the capacity and will to envision and thus directly influence and shape the future conditions of humanity.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSat Oct 27, 2012 11:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When I started this thread I was convinced it could amount to something. But this expectation was really based, in large part, on the form I had given it, as described in the OP, and the commitment to address each others questions about assertions we make in detail. Neither of these two plans has been carried out. If we want to have any chance of this thread of which the participants have dispersed, coming together again, the order must be restored and we must all of us commit to address precisely all the questions posed in response to our assertions.

So as a last resort, I make this, again, a new round, and reinstate the original structural order,
where every poster has the right to one post per round*
where all questions must be addressed in detail

*to be clear: I have now posted in this round. This means that James, Amasopher, and Capable get to post one post each. In no particular order.

Once I, James, Amasopher, and Capable have each posted one post, then all four of us have the right to one other post. Again in no particular order. And so on, round after round.

This is my last attempt to resuscitate this thread - I suggest we keep to the structural setup and content-regulations, so that the thread maintains it’s value to all.

We can have no one deciding that questions asked to him are irrelevant. We must assume that someone only asks a question because it is relevant to this person who asks it.

I apologize for changing the rules halfway because they weren’t being followed. That was weak and the result was predictable. I hope that there is still the will to continue.

Make the most of your posts!


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Kriya thread toward clear purpose Kriya thread toward clear purpose - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Nov 11, 2012 5:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is with a great deal of respect for you all that I close this thread now. There are other projects on the horizon.
I thank you for your efforts - as modest the steps we have made here may seem, they have been significant.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Advertising Empty
PostSubject: Advertising Advertising Icon_minitimeWed Jul 10, 2013 2:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s true that I don’t like it. But today I thought of a thing, if you could help me advertise for, I will be in your debts.
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

Advertising Empty
PostSubject: Re: Advertising Advertising Icon_minitimeThu Jul 11, 2013 9:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is this thing?


“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

Advertising Empty
PostSubject: Re: Advertising Advertising Icon_minitimeThu Jul 11, 2013 4:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
How do you effectively advertise for the legalization of recreational and psychedelic drugs within a frame of it being necessarily legal (a post-facto establishment of a preexisting mindset) for anybody to do anything that isn’t harming anybody else?

I have a small idea or two.
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

Advertising Empty
PostSubject: Re: Advertising Advertising Icon_minitimeThu Jul 11, 2013 6:42 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Two states in the USA just recently passed marijuana legalization laws, Colorado and Washington state. So it is certainly possible. Although marijuana smokers that I know generally do not support these laws, because they think it will lead to a decrease in the quality of the herb and an increase in prices due to inevitably high taxation.

I do not know how you would, generally speaking, get such laws as “it is legal if you aren’t hurting anyone” passed, since laws generally are more about moralism and enforcement of social norms and status quo. in the USA it took constitutional amendments passing with a majority of public support to enact those marijuana legalization laws, because the courts and politicians would not dare try anything like that.

To your specific question about advertising, you could try and raise public support by appealing to whatever it is about their values-systems and ideas which would cause them to support a legalization cause on the basis of a rationale of “no harm”. This might involve addressing their self-responsibility and impulse for autonomy, as well as trying to make unappealing the opposing position of prohibiting these substances solely on the basis of fear and government propaganda manipulations. Maybe be very direct about it, call anyone who opposes such laws ignorant to their face, ignorant and irrational and harmful to the human species. Or you could dress that up with some tact, if you’d prefer.

Satire/comedy might also be an effective approach. Of course either way you will need money to make and distribute your ads.


“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

Advertising Empty
PostSubject: Re: Advertising Advertising Icon_minitimeFri Jul 12, 2013 4:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Right, having had that opinion and still really having it, I am aware of those complications.

What I am looking for is not advertising for a legal reform, but a state of law. What you say about what law is is true, but it is also true that it is fundamentally dependent, as the style of democracy that it is right now, on popular acceptance. This is clear from the amount of effort and ingenuity put into propaganda and its undercover brother, advertising.

What kind of project could entail advertising a state of law? The way I want this, the legislation would eventually have to catch up to a de facto state of law.

About the money, well, in the words of infamous producer Lloyd Kaufman: “Make the movie first. No, seriously, make the movie.”
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

Advertising Empty
PostSubject: Re: Advertising Advertising Icon_minitimeWed Jul 17, 2013 8:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ok, forget the no-harm thing. Or feel free to approach it some other way. My only point with it is to make clear that we aren’t advertising for surfaces, but for underlyingnesses. People watching the publicity should feel well, so well that they don’t wonder about why they can’t figure out what the fuck the publicity is for, exactly.

Also, the end game is not the drugs (those are end game spoils, measures of success), but the ability to act with consequence outside of the state regulatory mechanism.
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

Advertising Empty
PostSubject: Re: Advertising Advertising Icon_minitimeWed Jul 17, 2013 9:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hint: urban Venezuelans are self-important children who feel entitled to things, like government help. Perhaps this entitlement is a way forward, or maybe it would be a good idea to use traditionally non-Venezuelan values so as to dazzle them with newness, too…

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Astrology Empty
PostSubject: Astrology Astrology Icon_minitimeTue Jul 02, 2013 7:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I haven’t ever heard a coherent argument against the idea that astrology might work to predict and analyze human behavior to a far greater depth than what may be accomplished without this tool.

With a decade of experience with astrology, I have increasingly become convinced that it is not only a useful tool, but a startlingly exact science of human behavior, inner and outer, and, with a comparable wideness and depth of application, of human compatibility with others.

Like all science, what is required is that one proves it, to demonstrate it. This gets quite complex quite quickly - for how do we prove Newtons laws? We have to be able to measure precise mass, precise momentum and precise acceleration.

Proof of any theorem pertaining to the empirical world requires effort. The idea of a theorem is that it accumulates a lot of observations into one projection, one that concentrates mans gaze and increased his power to manipulate a certain area.

Proving that a science works requires the full attention of the one it is proven to. Astrology is never granted this sort of approach by anyone other than those who eventually become transformed by it.

The context is this world, the world of power. Because I have seen the depth to which astrology penetrates, I am now convinced that many of those who have seen this have moved to a position of great power. Not only as advisors to people with executive military power, but also to businesspeople and banking strategists.

I’m not certain that most or even very many executives use it. I am certain that those who have used it to their advantage in 2003, 2008 and 2010, are now very well off.

Nature is most generous to those who never say never.


" 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

Astrology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Astrology Astrology Icon_minitimeTue Jul 02, 2013 5:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Booya.

It’s not true, and it necessarily follows from the theory that people of worldy influence use astrologers that it is not, that only astrologers have seen or percieved that power.

Historically, at least, all manner of chieftain and prince is known to have done this.

I hold that anarchy is the will to re-evaluate the possible relationship with and from astrology/astrologists, as with all forms of power-play. The almost-christians like Kropotkin, who nevertheless never sacrificed historical observation, planted this idea of non-princely organizations of civility that nevertheless did not seek war, distasteful strife. These two things are unavoidable to the path of a King, we all know this, kings themselves aren’t shy about it.

Anyway, go astrology, fuck the haterz. It shit works, son. I seen it, and the invitation here is clear for you to take a look. Trust science or forsake it.
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

Astrology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Astrology Astrology Icon_minitimeWed Jul 17, 2013 9:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But does it have to do with the power of astrology or with the power of suggestion?
Our fates are already written in the stars rather than it is we ourselves who create them?


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Astrology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Astrology Astrology Icon_minitimeWed Jul 17, 2013 2:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Our fate is written in our eyes and in our organs as much as in the stars. All realms of significance reflect each other.
Astrology is a means of finding out what is written in ones eyes. Knowing it makes our eyes shine the same essence brighter - or bring our certain hues and intensities.

But astrology can also predict wars and revolutions that eyes of an individual do not predict. It also describes what is written in the eyes and organs of whole races and nations.

Also, it is mans way of making love to the gods - a way of begetting myth.


" 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
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Astrology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Astrology Astrology Icon_minitimeThu Jul 18, 2013 6:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross

Quote :
Our fate is written in our eyes and in our organs as much as in the stars.

By “eyes” do you mean our perspective, our way of looking at something?
Yes, what “may” become of us can be written in our organs or in our genes but that doesn’t mean that it is fate…not in the larger scheme of things - part of evolution and physiology, yes, but something that was meant to be and not simply some random mutation which took effect… No.
Fate is kind of a negative word, don’t you think, that reflects futility or the notion that it is written in stone and cannot ever be changed?

Quote :
All realms of significance reflect each other.
I think that is possible as what they do perhaps is show a connection to things.

Quote :
Astrology is a means of finding out what is written in ones eyes.
I will admit that I do not understand much about astrology and I understand how romantic the notion is of the stars affecting our lives and what stars shone so brightly at our birth. But wasn’t it just a way way back then of trying to make sense of things through something that is so awesome and beautiful?

I’m not so sure what you mean by the above statement though FC. It sounds to me more like the astrologer is trying to find out about the person’s hopes and dreams. But I could wrong. And once that happens, the power of suggestion takes over or kind of like “what we begin to see as possible, becomes possible”.
The power and the truth is not within the astrologer/astrology but just the power of the mind through suggestion to make something happen or the powerlessness of the mind to be influenced.
But that doesn’t mean that the stars are roadmaps and signposts of where our live’s journey are going to take us.
Some tend to think of fate or destiny as being something which can never be changed…in other words, it is what it is…there is nothing which one can never do about it.
I do not believe this. Inasmuch as it is within our power to change what we see as our future, we can do this. It takes willing and struggle and hard work and self-awareness, but we can do it. And even if somehow because of others’ influences and despite what we’ve tried to do, it has nothing to do with destiny having already been written in the stars. Sometimes cause and effect cannot escape us that’s all.

What is within us that we would rather “believe” that our destinies come from the stars. In a sense it is true because we’ve all come from stardust, starstuff, they are our ancestors in a sense, but they are not responsible for our actions and behaviors and what comes of us. Who knows for sure. Something like that cannot be proven either way but I don’t think so.

Perhaps it’s akin to when people blame things on a god which happen to us and we just can’t explain it or get around it so we have to come up with some answer, we have to life to ourselves, rather than acknowledging the fact that for some things, there are just no answers.

Quote :
Knowing it makes our eyes shine the same essence brighter - or bring our certain hues and intensities.

Yes, stars are capable of doing this and much more and I suppose they are capable of influencing us in a sense but that is more because of who we are in connection with the stars through our minds and spirits but not because they directly affect our destiny, except insofar as we ourselves make that happen.

Quote :
But astrology can also predict wars and revolutions that eyes of an individual do not predict. It also describes what is written in the eyes and organs of whole races and nations.

I know that this is a common belief among astrologers and those who believe in it and i daresay many great men might have also believed in it but can you also see where someone who does have eyes to see with, who can look at the world as it is and know what it is capable of becoming, because of what it sees going around it - somewith with great knowledge and intelligence and a strong historical background perhaps, can see the writing on the way? That doesn’t mean this person predicted the future. We can look at someone’s behavior and can pretty much figure where it is going to lead. One doesn’t have to be psychic for that.

Quote :
Also, it is mans way of making love to the gods - a way of begetting myth.
Yes, I get this. Man needs his myths and his romantic notions in order to thrive and to have a spirit that can fly and soar and an imagination that can create and fire great enthusiam. That’s a wonderful thing but it doesn’t mean that the stars determine who we are as far as our futures hold - at least not in the sense that the astrologer believes.

But I suppose that either way, it is not something that can be proved. We bask in our beliefs because of what they bring to our lives, how they serve us. They can either serve us well or we land up serving them in a way that can be tragic.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Astrology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Astrology Astrology Icon_minitimeFri Jul 19, 2013 1:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Fixed Cross

Quote :
Our fate is written in our eyes and in our organs as much as in the stars.

By “eyes” do you mean our perspective, our way of looking at something?
I kept it open. “Eyes” means a lot. In your iris, a lot is revealed about the state of your glands, organs, mind-body in general.

I consider the body to be a mind.

Quote :
Yes, what “may” become of us can be written in our organs or in our genes but that doesn’t mean that it is fate…not in the larger scheme of things - part of evolution and physiology, yes, but something that was meant to be and not simply some random mutation which took effect… No.
Fate is kind of a negative word, don’t you think, that reflects futility or the notion that it is written in stone and cannot ever be changed?
There are always choices, yes. Nothing is set in stone in that way, I don’t believe that either. One might say that what we are is the choices we make with what we are given.

Then again, what determines our choices, if not what we are given?

Quote :
Quote :
All realms of significance reflect each other.
I think that is possible as what they do perhaps is show a connection to things.
The universe seems to unfold in a fractal like pattern. “As above, so below” - and as everywhere in between.

Quote :
Quote :
Astrology is a means of finding out what is written in ones eyes.
I will admit that I do not understand much about astrology and I understand how romantic the notion is of the stars affecting our lives and what stars shone so brightly at our birth. But wasn’t it just a way way back then of trying to make sense of things through something that is so awesome and beautiful?
No, I firmly disagree there. The ancients were far too diligent for that to apply. Consider the number of human generations required only to chart the effects of Saturn in a natal chart.

What they knew about Saturn then still is exactly true now. We might just take it with a little more optimism, but there’s no escaping it.

Quote :
I’m not so sure what you mean by the above statement though FC. It sounds to me more like the astrologer is trying to find out about the person’s hopes and dreams. But I could wrong. And once that happens, the power of suggestion takes over or kind of like “what we begin to see as possible, becomes possible”.
Oh there is definitely a lot of truth in that last sentence.

Quote :
The power and the truth is not within the astrologer/astrology but just the power of the mind through suggestion to make something happen or the powerlessness of the mind to be influenced.
No, you’re presumptuous here. I might say the same about science. Someone would ask me - but look at the proof! And I might respond: No need, it’s going to come out my way anyway. I’m not going to waste my time on that.
That’s how astrology is approached by those who share the point of view you express here. It’s not serious.

Astrology is only and solely based on empirical data-gathering over thousands of years. It’s reliable and inflexible. You can’t get around a transit, you have to go through it. You can’t escape an aspect, you have to live it.

Quote :
But that doesn’t mean that the stars are roadmaps and signposts of where our live’s journey are going to take us.
Yes, it does.
Strangely, it does.
Everything from the birth of your child to the encounter of your great love corresponds to the celestial movements, just as it corresponds to “normal” day to day causality.

I didn’t believe this before, but experience taught me.

Quote :
Some tend to think of fate or destiny as being something which can never be changed…in other words, it is what it is…there is nothing which one can never do about it.
I do not believe this. Inasmuch as it is within our power to change what we see as our future, we can do this. It takes willing and struggle and hard work and self-awareness, but we can do it. And even if somehow because of others’ influences and despite what we’ve tried to do, it has nothing to do with destiny having already been written in the stars. Sometimes cause and effect cannot escape us that’s all.
Again, it’s all about what you do with what’s given to you. There is your freedom to make your own fate. But the rudimentary evens are inevitable, just like the seasons and the tides.
Astrology is no more than an extended tide-table. The tide table is the basic form astrology, as it charts the influence of the moon. There are many more tides, working on all the currents in the world and in our lives.

Quote :
What is within us that we would rather “believe” that our destinies come from the stars. In a sense it is true because we’ve all come from stardust, starstuff, they are our ancestors in a sense, but they are not responsible for our actions and behaviors and what comes of us. Who knows for sure. Something like that cannot be proven either way but I don’t think so.

They do not come from the stars, but they are reflected in the movements of the planets.
And it has been proven very exactly. That is why military operations are coordinated using astrology, and why you can predict wars and revolutions using the course of Uranus and Pluto. I predicted the Arab spring, the Iraq war, the debt crisis, in the following terms: revolution of the people against long standing power, great electronic invasion in territory of faith, and global corporate take-over.

Quote :
Perhaps it’s akin to when people blame things on a god which happen to us and we just can’t explain it or get around it so we have to come up with some answer, we have to life to ourselves, rather than acknowledging the fact that for some things, there are just no answers.
There is no denying that ignorance is bliss.
Once, “things just fall down” sufficed.
Once you open such a realm, be it physics, astrology or chemistry, you are forced to deal with a whole lot more possibilities. Intellectual life gets more involved, demanding.


" 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

Astrology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Astrology Astrology Icon_minitimeFri Jul 19, 2013 8:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What further proof is needed than the way we count time on all scales? Did not Einstein tell us that the movement of big objects affects time itself?

Most things follow from the understanding that most knowledge so far has been pretty much scientified fantasy. What claims not to be fantasy the most is likely to be a shittier fantasy.
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

Astrology Empty
PostSubject: Re: Astrology Astrology Icon_minitimeFri Jul 19, 2013 8:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
What claims not to be fantasy the most is likely to be a shittier fantasy.

The opposite of this is not to claim to be fantasy, but to disacknowledge the very word. Science has the balls and the weapons to do without it.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

NRF Empty
PostSubject: NRF NRF Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 11:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I used to just have to type “nat” in order for naturalworldorder to appear. Now I get “naturalrightsfoundation”. And rightly so, that guy is fucking badass.

Whatever is about to happen in the US, it is a vast event in the history of morals, power and technology. There’s only one nation in history with that kind of significance, and it’s about to do something I can’t predict.

Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Jul 28, 2013 8:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

Long live the alternatives.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeMon Jul 29, 2013 10:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Did you save the posts we made on the forum?


" 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
    Guest
    Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeMon Jul 29, 2013 11:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course.

I’m unsure what will become of them, but yes they are around.
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeMon Jul 29, 2013 12:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What? Why/how did it die?


“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

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeMon Jul 29, 2013 2:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We all tried, and all found places where we couldn’t compromise for the others. It was powerful though, may the ashes serve us.
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

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeMon Jul 29, 2013 2:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Btw, the natural world order will never die.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeMon Jul 29, 2013 5:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What? Why/how did it die?

It was completely dead. I’m not going to pay for hosting if no one is using it.

Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeTue Jul 30, 2013 12:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Good thing you saved the posts. I’d like to publish some of them here, in the Archives section.


" 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
    Guest
    Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeTue Jul 30, 2013 7:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I guess I can leave it until the hosting runs out. Feel free to get whatever you want in the meantime.

naturalworldorder.org/
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeTue Jul 30, 2013 7:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Cause if I’m reading this right, we have like a month left. lol.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeTue Jul 30, 2013 7:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Btw, the natural world order will never die.

True.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeThu Aug 01, 2013 2:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah we have till the 22nd left.

I fucked up and cancelled right after it was renewed.

As for the posts, I have an archive file that I’m sure we could plug into some phpBB api and pull posts according to criteria. You don’t have to copy/paste entire pages. That looks and functions shitty. You can barely scroll in that archive thread.

If you can find the api or the script or whatever to do this, I can take requests on running the script for whatever you need.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeThu Aug 01, 2013 2:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Forum motion is run on phpbb, so you could maybe even import the file into this forum, into an existing sub forum or something like that. Check in the admin part.

If there is one.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSat Aug 03, 2013 3:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don’t think that’ll work, but it’s cool that you’ve got the file handy for possible futures.
For now I like the jungle-thread.
I didn’t copy everything from NWO to NWA, just the bulk of the threads I consider to be of philosophical value.

Naturally I couldn’t judge everything precisely, I’m sure I left some rupees under rocks and in trees…


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 6:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, I must have left dozens of great posts untouched - the copying of the whole pages seems to have gotten a bit weird, some posts were just left out. I don’t know what happened. Anyway, I like this jungle of words.

NWO was quite powerful, but of course what was lacking was a basic form of trust. Here on BTL we do trust each other rather fundamentally. That is why it is more successful, even if the technology is less advanced and the language not accessible to the sort of people you (Eleven) seek to address.

I do not really give much for influencing people who can’t read through a sentence unless it’s jotted down in twitter lingo. Let someone else do that nutty job. I’m here to push the frontiers of thought itself. Uh - did that sound contrived?


" 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
    Guest
    Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 10:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course “trust” for you stems from some stylistic/dictive choice. Of course it sounded contrived.

I can write like Capable; I choose not to. As I writer, I passed that stage a long time ago.

That is the point of this thread. I’ve reached the point where I want to be understood clearly. Maybe one day you guys will as well.

It has nothing to do with anything - intelligence, integrity - other than simply wanting to be heard and understood.

Last edited by Eleven on Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:42 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 10:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
I write one post about Twitter, and you make a comment like the above.
I did not even see that comment.
I was referring to Twitter. It’s famous.

Quote :
It’s just unbelievable the type of individual metrics you use to judge a person’s overall value/integrity.
You feel judged. So be it.

Quote :
I make one post about advertising, and that is Capable’s whole definition of me.
Capable hurt you and you take it out on me. I was on your side in that debate. I can’t even talk positively about my own forum, you’ll take it as a nasty act of betrayal.

Quote :
I just don’t get it. Maybe you spend too much time online. That’s not how people are supposed to treat each other. I’m not still nagging at you with Israel questions. I get that is not the entirety of your being.
I don’t know what it is that you want of me. Am I your leader?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 10:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I want you to post with your own account, and not edit mine, for one.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 10:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is all very indicative.

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 10:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Give me soul and show me the door
Metal heavy, soft at the core
Gimme toro, gimme some more
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 11:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah man, you smoking too much is your only problem. You’re only the most reactionary person I have ever met.

This is what is boils down to: I am good at making and operating websites. Yes, I was so “aloof” that I took care of… hmm. fucking everything. I did 99% of the work on that site. You guys just sat around. I was so aloof because that is my role - to do the behind the scenes work and then just chill. I could have just been that crazy IT guy that chimes in from time to time with his articles, and you guys could have taken the site in any direction - I encouraged you to at every instance of consideration - but instead of that, you acted like reactionary that you always reduce to.

I don’t sabatage projects I work on. That is not a theme in my life. Do you see what I am saying? I don’t torpedo things just because one person is saying something that I don’t like. That is spoiled rich kid behavior. It’s pathetic.

Ultimately what happened was a bunch of people had a choice between using some shit bin you put no effort into (and thus taints everything said here), or a site that effort was put into, that you just decided you were going to start throwing wrenches into because it didn’t conform to your exact specifications.

Quote :
You want something and don’t know why others don’t want it.

All I wanted was for you to focus on the strengths of the people around you, rather than their weaknesses. Tom, W.C., and Me, all you see/saw is the negative and none of the good. Obviously you’ll respond with some prosy thing that means nothing, but it’s demonstrable in your actions and posts.
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 11:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Eleven, you’re seriously embarrassing yourself with all this bullshit of yours. I’m this close to deleting all this useless bickering from my and Fixed Cross’ “shit” forum. (Of course BTL is a quite beautiful place, counter to your inane, unthinking marketing standards of power and aesthetics). You’re only still here because Fixed and Pezer respect you, and I respect them. But I honestly don’t see anything useful about you, not one single thing.

Contribute something useful here or don’t bother coming here at all.


“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
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 11:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If you feel the need to censor me to preserve the integrity of your forum, then by all means censor me.

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 11:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
(Of course BTL is a quite beautiful place, counter to your inane, unthinking marketing standards of power and aesthetics).

Funny how you are advertising (presumably without your even being aware), whereas I was not. No, this isn’t just about aesthetics.

And yet again, it all comes back to the advertising statement. You continue to prove yourself as one-dimensional.

This is all part-and-parcel of the point I tried to get across. Unless you understand advertising in the way I am proposing, you cannot avoid advertising in the way that you despise. Case and point: the advertising going on here.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

NWO is Dead Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 11:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If you really cared about your stance with regards to marketing (which I don’t think you really do - I think you just don’t like me), you would have stuck with NWO and abandoned this place. That is completely leaving aesthetics out of this.

But yeah, delete me and avoid the hard questions.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

NWO is Dead - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 2:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“This is what is boils down to: I am good at making and operating websites. Yes, I was so “aloof” that I took care of… hmm. fucking everything. I did 99% of the work on that site. You guys just sat around. I was so aloof because that is my role - to do the behind the scenes work and then just chill. I could have just been that crazy IT guy that chimes in from time to time with his articles, and you guys could have taken the site in any direction - I encouraged you to at every instance of consideration -”

I did this, and the direction I wanted was not shared by Fixed Cross or you. I don’t hold it against you, hurt as it may, because I am taking this shit seriously. I did leave, because I was only down to keep going as the superadmin, and only superadmin if I could have things my way dialecticly. I made it clear what I wanted, and since you chose to be the behind-the-scenes guy, Fixed Cross and I had to understand each other. Which we did, here we are, and your aloofness worked against you. Do you remember that scene in The Blair Witch project when the pony tail guy rips the camera from the girl and says “oh, now I see why you like it… it gives you a distance?”
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

NWO is Dead - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 2:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Eleven wrote:
Quote :
(Of course BTL is a quite beautiful place, counter to your inane, unthinking marketing standards of power and aesthetics).

Funny how you are advertising (presumably without your even being aware), whereas I was not. No, this isn’t just about aesthetics.

And yet again, it all comes back to the advertising statement. You continue to prove yourself as one-dimensional.

This is all part-and-parcel of the point I tried to get across. Unless you understand advertising in the way I am proposing, you cannot avoid advertising in the way that you despise. Case and point: the advertising going on here.

Because I agree here, and I do have adblock installed, I literally said “but whatever I think about marketing, I’ll help you in whatever you have in mind.” You decided to be extremely oblique and did not release a single detail of your vision of marketing beyond adsense other than why it was necessary, which I at least got.

[All these conversations should just be moved to kurukshetra, since it really does fuck with the aescetics.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

NWO is Dead - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Aug 05, 2013 12:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For the record, I built the NWO idea, I gave you the setup for the infrastructure. You registered the domain, installed WP and a forum skin, and fancied yourself a programmer. I just gave you too much compliments.

Pezer and ChainOfBeing saved the impulse of putting trust in you from being completely pointless, from NWO being just a vessel for your advertising fetish.

I tried like hell to work with you and W.C. He at least had the decency to thank me. But you… I never met such an ingrate.

I changed the name of your trolling account to SadClown, for the time being. We’ll delete it as soon as you decide to be done with your stalking.


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Aug 05, 2013 1:12 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

NWO is Dead - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: NWO is Dead NWO is Dead - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Aug 05, 2013 12:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oh yeah - then there’s just the little detail that you decided to kill the site, and without any warning. If you hadn’t fucked up as you say, I’d not even had the chance of saving our writing. To be honest I always felt that this was going to happen.

You killed the NWO site because there was no traffic. When we were going up you were bragging about how many members you’d attract. How great your advertising was going to be.

I never had any beef with Tom. He’s a good friend, and I always shared good spirits with him on the forum. He had to leave because of your dangerously ignorant attitude, and said he thought I should leave too. I stuck around, defended you again. It even came to inviting you to this Pentad forum.

You have no idea how much credit you’ve been given. But giving you credit is beginning to work against me, with you coming in here strictly to be an unclean element. So it’s up now. Ho home, Gobbo. It’s over.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgNyQocxoCM[/youtube]

Guest
Guest

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeThu Aug 01, 2013 1:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s not an easy task. In fact, it’s the first and last battle for any writer: writing to be understood.

And yet, I sense that many of us do not write for this reason, but rather just to talk. You have the “spirit of freedom” or you’re high, or whatever.

That’s good. Editing is good, too.

When I made NWO I took care to make it look good for a reason: if you want to build a movement - if you want power - you need to use the work or attention of a bigger group of people than you currently have. Or some sort of an electronic equivalent. You will not attract people beyond the choir unless you attend to these types of considerations. You will not have the need or care to craft posts that are accessible if you know you can use the tone of voice and word selection that works for three people that you know very well.

Go write poetry if you want to talk to yourself. If you count yourself among the people looking to enact some change in the way that we live, then take the time to adopt a mode of operation that even has a remote shot at working.

Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeThu Aug 01, 2013 5:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m not sure anyone is expecting to change the world or start a mass movement by posting in online fora sites. If they are expecting this, that’s obviously quite naive. A better path to gathering world influence is to write a book, or make a movie, or go out into the world and act within it, directly.

I understand every one of our primary members here are presumably engaged in at least one of these endeavors.

BTL is a place for like minds to gather and to be drawn. A deliberately small corner for advanced thought and precise, careful development. I won’t speculate on any sort of greater future influence and growth that may or may not occur here or as a result of this place, but I don’t think anyone here limits their activity to online fora. Of course I’m not implying there would be anything inherently wrong with doing so.

If you want a cult movement, start a religion. If you want real-world, measurable political-social power, start a corporation, or a non-profit.

Philosophy, the parts actually worth reading, has always refused to pander to the lower masses, has been deliberately and “arrogantly” itself, and I see this not as a limit upon philosophy’s lasting potential to influence but rather a condition of it.


“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
Guest
Guest

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeThu Aug 01, 2013 7:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
I’m not sure anyone is expecting to change the world or start a mass movement by posting in online fora sites.

We just tried to start a website that was to be some sort of gathering that isn’t intentionally small. That just happened.

All I said is that when you gather people, you gain power. Which is exactly what you are trying to do with your book series: bring people together to read your thoughts. Or perhaps this is a book for a “select few” to read?

Quote :

If they are expecting this, that’s obviously quite naive. A better path to gathering world influence is to write a book, or make a movie, or go out into the world and act within it, directly.

You can write a book and not have a forum that repels people like purple vinegar. You know these things are not mutually exclusive.

Capable wrote:
Philosophy, the parts actually worth reading, has always refused to pander to the lower masses, has been deliberately and “arrogantly” itself, and I see this not as a limit upon philosophy’s lasting potential to influence but rather a condition of it.

This presupposes that what you’re reading is “the bare soul” writing of these people. Yeah man. You’re reading Plato’s diary…

Anyway, whatever. If it’s your intention to purposefully keep this site small for your “advanced” discussions, then …cool. I was under the impression you were up to more than simply some RL art project, and writing on this one forum. I was wrong.
Back to top Go down
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeFri Aug 02, 2013 11:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Listen man, we all want power, but we also want fine power. We only want the pure, 100%, Colombian shit, you know what I mean? If you want an army of people at your disposal, you don’t start a religion: you start selling crack. We don’t like crack here, and we won’t sell it or help it continue evolving, that is, existing.

This is the way I see it: you are focusing your acquisition of power on the present active fan bases of the world. Philosophy, or what I like to think of really as post-philosophy, gambles on a fan base that it has to build. This is why so many philosophers and philosophy fans today fall in love with Hitler, even while condemning him sometimes: because he seemed to have built his own fan base.

Of course, the reason I dislike Hitler is that this is not true. Hitler drew up a fan base that existed, he was a screen for the thoughts of the German Empiric subconscious, he made art to unite impulses of eld which he couldn’t understand simply because nobody could: they are historical madness that just worked at different times, like fucky patterns on pets. To build a post-philosophical fan base would take altogether different steps.

In any case, we seek to, in a sense, build power before we use it. You seem to be fine with using someone else’s, and we all know who those elses are. If you think you can Neo it and over-matrix the matrix, cool. I’d like to see it. Maybe, in a different way, I am approaching the same thing.

Right now, for example, this site has already developed dozens of concepts that I could jump into right now with you and further both our grasps on what we want, but you insist that that is simply snobby café politics or ineffectual art.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest
Guest

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeFri Aug 02, 2013 5:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
In any case, we seek to, in a sense, build power before we use it. You seem to be fine with using someone else’s, and we all know who those elses are.

You’re not going to do anything unless you attract numbers. That’s a fact.

Quote :
For example, this site has already developed dozens of concepts that I could jump into right now with you and further both our grasps on what we want, but you insist that that is simply snobby café politics or ineffectual art.

You guys are rehashing the same tired old theory with your contrived diction. What is happening here is the antithesis of interesting.

Quote :
In any case, we seek to, in a sense, build power before we use it.

Yeah with the forum that looks like it was thrown together with no real care. Yeah. Great foundation. It’s just like life, man. You can’t just think your way into stellar physical shape, and you cannot just work out one part of the body.

This forum is going nowhere. NWO could have. That’s what pissses me off. No one even fucking uses forummotion.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeFri Aug 02, 2013 5:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Good luck with… whatever.

I’ll be around either here or ILP if you guys decide you want to come down from the tree fort and actually do something again.
Back to top Go down
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeFri Aug 02, 2013 6:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Your problem is that you think you are the only one with schemes and ideas. Life is complicated, getting things in it doesn’t just require a forum, even a shiny one. I have been driving that point since ILP, and I always follow it with this one: that it is a stupid mistake to think this makes forums unimportant.

People seem to want to be in some perfect internet virtual reality or not touch it, we for some reason allow only the capitalists to blend effect in internet with effect in life. You study magic, man! This should be elemental to you.

Just because we don’t fit the boss’ description of what the right way to do things is doesn’t mean we are passive or nihilistic, and yes! sometimes you develop better, more effective theory among the small group of interested people you consider masters of your craft.

I liked the idea of ILP, and I was down for whatever. But what we thought was constructive you saw as silly or ineffective. But you didn’t offer alternatives. Fuck, I wrote half the posts on that forum! And I offered more than once to go against my own opinions out of confidence in your madness, but you saw that as counter-productive too. No battle plan survives contact with the enemy, as they say, and the enemy of the craftsman is the stuff he works on. You have good ideas, but how do you use them? Is it a self-referentail internet circle? I can even respect that, I was just born in warmer lands, I need things to have their primary roots in earth.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest
Guest

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeSat Aug 03, 2013 8:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Your problem is that you think you are the only one with schemes and ideas.

Nah. That’s not it. How could that possibly be true.

Look, never mind.

I think I’m over this whole thing.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeSat Aug 03, 2013 2:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Eleven wrote:
It’s not an easy task. In fact, it’s the first and last battle for any writer: writing to be understood.

And yet, I sense that many of us do not write for this reason, but rather just to talk. You have the “spirit of freedom” or you’re high, or whatever.

That’s good. Editing is good, too.

When I made NWO I took care to make it look good for a reason: if you want to build a movement - if you want power - you need to use the work or attention of a bigger group of people than you currently have. Or some sort of an electronic equivalent. You will not attract people beyond the choir unless you attend to these types of considerations. You will not have the need or care to craft posts that are accessible if you know you can use the tone of voice and word selection that works for three people that you know very well.

Go write poetry if you want to talk to yourself. If you count yourself among the people looking to enact some change in the way that we live, then take the time to adopt a mode of operation that even has a remote shot at working.

Yeah… except NWO grew right out of here.

The project has completed a fertile cycle as I harvested it and put it back in this soil.

Writing to Be Understood Poppy_farmer_20722c


" 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

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 8:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Just know, Eleven, that I respect your mind and power thirst and consider you an ally in whatever you do. So be effective, and sorry that I couldn’t help you do it directly as I am that you couldn’t do it for me.
This time.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest
Guest

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 10:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You guys have each other. I think sometimes I just wish I had an ally in all of this. I’m tired of saying things and having people not get what I am saying.

But whatever. I’m used to it by now.
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: respect your courage Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 10:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We understand each other in terms of advertising. Also, astral travel and the like. A similar perspective on the “machinery of the universe” or the sphere of Shaddai El Chai.

NWO was a well oiled machine set up on a very unstable time. In retrospect I see that it meant something. We were all challenged quite strongly for a couple of months. The locus of this confrontation is now dead. And I am not all mourning, as the name did share the initials with something very powerfully dark.
What’s left of it is pretty fine material, there’s lots of funny debates and no shortage of insights.

If we try it anew, we should probably look at building a campfire rather than a - I’m thinking sailboat, but that’s not right -
Root it in what we are - relatively free minds, with quite some capacity to assert ourself - and not in a goal that we have not fully formulated.


" 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

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 2:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I felt like that, too. I still feel like that. Your plan wasn’t good enough. It was fucking good, though. We are pioneers in stuff, the Wright brothers crashed a thousand planes, if you need allies then write smart shit here and make a new plan, like I’m fucking trying to, or do something else, but don’t blame us when there are no blueprints to follow and no clear signs of when to trust someone. I don’t get shit my way either, it is the very struggle of human so stop taking it so lightly.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest
Guest

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 5:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So you want to play the ban game with someone who knows php?

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 5:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You out to think on the question I proposed:

How can you resolve your stance on advertising when you freely advertise for someone else on your site without the ability to say no?
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 11:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I didn’t ban you despite that you’re violating the rules of BTL by not saying anything at all except complaining and insulting. But if you’re this desperate to blame me for all your loneliness and ineffectiveness, you’re on your own. You’re one hell of a creep, too creepy to have as an ally. Grow some self-confidence. stop trolling, find your place. If you can’t, if you feel you need to be near me, go right ahead and play with your PhP skills to “advertise” yourself… ahem…


" 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

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeMon Aug 05, 2013 4:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is the price we pay for not having met in person earlier and tripped on hard drugs.

I wish I knew the answer to that question. You have such a mind for it, why don’t you cohort with us? Setting us up with technology isn’t enough, this forum would probably still work as an emailing list, I need to know what the fuck direction you are thinking with your advertising if you want any chance of a decent collaboration.

For instance, you could just post a thread here on advertising.
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

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeMon Aug 05, 2013 4:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And I get the frustration of having put something great into that site and having had it not turn out. Get over that and adapt. read the ideas here with seriousness, maybe those can be of help, too. Sophistication is the nature of all good anything, including advertising.

Fucking weirdos like you are the stuff of the future, I really think we are on the same team. Why are we still floundering? The gathering approaches.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Writing to Be Understood Empty
PostSubject: Re: Writing to Be Understood Writing to Be Understood Icon_minitimeTue Aug 06, 2013 6:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For me the biggest problem with NWO was the rather nasty political edge. I will never tire of saying this – Gobbo had invited W.C., who I did not know existed, to set the tone for the site before I was even aware that it was online. W.C. then posted this ridiculously Hitler-esque film about Jews, and that was that - the standard was set, I had to both restrain and exert myself to the utmost to make it clear that this site, this project, was not only not antisemite, but also had some standards in terms of epistemology. Gobbo then accused me of being too sensitive. Yeah – too sensitive about the Jews being blamed for the existence of Hitler – on my own site. It didn’t feel like my own site from then on.

Seriously, politics is not something to fuck around with, W.C. was like a toddler with a bazooka. It was very difficult to get a good energy on the site from that moment, even though it functioned like a dream. Only when you (Pezer) showed up did it become something alive. But even you and Capable could not save it from the doomsday kind of feel that had infiltrated it.

If there will ever be a new site like that, it should not have a political name. I am not going to be responsible, even symbolically, for the type of propaganda that got millions killed, amongst whom many of my family members. If someone is going to talk about politics on a site I administer, he’d better know precisely what he’s talking about, and realize precisely the possible consequences of his writing.

It’s like the opening note to any song - once it’s set, you can’t escape it. Your whole song will refer back to that note.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

In Defence of Gobbo Empty
PostSubject: In Defence of Gobbo In Defence of Gobbo Icon_minitimeTue Aug 06, 2013 10:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Gobbo brings to the forefront of necessity something which philosophers, lazy and needing comfort as we do, are experts at avoiding in our central theorems about the possibilities of human. It is undeniable, as Nietzsche said about sex, that no matter how elevated we get we cannot avoid these things being integral parts of our psyche. There is a truth that human is not a single category in the world, each tectonic biosphere has separate categories of living. Marx’s innovation was to point out how these biospheres are affected by the larger biosphere of communal living, how the most elevated man of comfort’s most private, islandic ideas are profoundly connected to the grotesque conversations of filthy poor people, and Gobbo challenges us to formulate our post-philosophy in terms overreaching into the wider biosphere, or perhaps he challenges us to continue our direction while adding the wider biosphere as a concern branching from it.

The question of advertising is essential, it is the form in which the reality of the relationship between the classes is most succintly expressed, even in terms of power. A Canadian is a being evolved enough that, with the use of psychedelics, can even notice how the formulas are different depending on the largness of the company, that is, its power level. They call use “subliminal messaging” for a certain class of it and they can see, for example, how the philosophy that is psychology was mostly part of, in power terms, some top levels. It makes them go loony sometimes, there is no charting of this area of exploration and it is being approached from the grasses of its (part of global) society. But, all throughout, I have seen ol’ Authority Figure keep a handle on his shit.

The danger to us, of course, is that such an approach would likely demolish the bases for the work we have done, which power is great enough to consider keeping avoiding low-brow philosophy.

Gobbo, you tried to make the meeting happen. It didn’t work. Tell me now, would it require more strength to find another group like us or to find another approach that might work to help us make this powerful shift?

If I can make a sugestion: the genius of your insight is not in the specifics of the Canadian lore, but the land it discovered. It makes sense that the first mappings of these lands would be off compared to posterior sketches, like Freud.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Heidegger Empty
PostSubject: Heidegger Heidegger Icon_minitimeSun Sep 15, 2013 12:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Heidegger wrote:
Nietzsche wrote:
A spirit strengthened by wars and victories, to whom conquest, adventure, danger, even pain have become a necessity: the habituation to sharp mountain air, to wintry walks, to ice and mountains in every sense; a sort of sublime malice and extreme exuberance of revenge- for there is revenge in it, revenge against life itself, when one who suffers greatly takes life under his protection.
What else remains for us to say but: Zarathustra’s doctrine does not bring deliverance from revenge? We will say it. But we say it in no way as an alleged refutation of Nietzsche’s philosophy. We do not even say it is an objection to his thinking. But we do say it in order to bring into focus how much and in what way even Nietzsche’s thinking moves within the spirit of reflection to-date.
Silly Heidegger, only the consummation of revenge can deliver anybody from it. You don’t shift away from it with zeitgeisty spirit of reflection.

Earlier in that text, Heidegger claims Zarathustra is the teacher for a way to consummate a world of an old testament. If this is true, then Zarathustra is useless. It reveals Heidegger as a Christian for espousing Hebrew Gods as a non-Hebrew, which is a Christian thing to do.

Zarathustra is the teacher of avoidance of an old testament world.

I accuse him also of being, probably for the very reason that he is a Christian, a Hegelianator of Nietzsche, a re-idealistator of his philosophy using English comfort.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Heidegger Empty
PostSubject: Re: Heidegger Heidegger Icon_minitimeSun Sep 15, 2013 2:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is suspect that Heidegger dances both with Nazism and Judaism. But I take him as a self-professed Christian.

I like Heidegger, but in the same way that I like James - he presents a theory that, ideally, benefits the greatest number of people. My moral heritage condones this attitude. “I” am at a spearhead where such things don’t matter, all that matters is what means: “benefit”? In this I see value in Heidegger and in RM - both present models of spontaneously emerging coherence. Very Taoist. But not Nietzschean.

Except in the case where the whole world is a hierarchy with a Greek spine, a nimble Dionysos rather than the stiff Egyptian monolith that attempts dominance now, Nietzsche’s thinking is antithetical to rational Utopianism. I am torn. Not in my soul, but in my life.

My soul, and Nietzsche, are far more than what a moral plan could entail - his writing is blood, poison, medicine - it works directly on the soul, confirms that there is a soul in the world without God and immortality. For many such an unbound soul is deadly poison, it opens up the psychedelic perspective of the single-eyed will, which due to its own singularity sees the world as pure diversity, intolerant of, antithetical to any kind of unifying truth. The Nietzschean soul commands alone-ness.

Heideggers thought and RM are moralities, clearly outlined methods of being. Both are Christian, both run with the assumption that the best for the multitude involves the best of the best. This means: man as a limit. “Man is born, let him now protect himself”. Nietzsche wants man to spend himself, counting on the luck of “those who turned out well” to keep (up with) the universe overcoming itself. A much more poetic and alienating picture, but probably also more realistic. The universe does not seem to allow itself as much peace of mind as both James and Heidegger require to have their ideals emerge.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Heidegger Empty
PostSubject: Re: Heidegger Heidegger Icon_minitimeSun Sep 15, 2013 2:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Revenge as the left hand of amor fati: “Now this is happening”.


" 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

Heidegger Empty
PostSubject: Re: Heidegger Heidegger Icon_minitimeSun Sep 15, 2013 2:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My amor fati is larger, like your cosmic one, it involves a war between Gods. The overcoming of the crucifiction is not some detail, not a deilicious filling burrito or even a chopper. How can you choose the side of errant will to imaginary goals? We have an actual relationship to the real, what the fuck is the point of having geniuses if the price to pay is total disregard for the responsibility of purpose?
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

Heidegger Empty
PostSubject: Re: Heidegger Heidegger Icon_minitimeSun Sep 15, 2013 2:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“I have always laughed at masters who cannot laugh at themselves.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Heidegger Empty
PostSubject: Re: Heidegger Heidegger Icon_minitimeMon Sep 16, 2013 1:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Obviously there is no relation to philosophical revenge and a payback for a delicious but filling burrito in ones face leading to a trashed chopper. I should not actually have posted that link and I hesitated some time - but your second post gives the answer to why I went through with it. Still, revenge is no laughing matter - or rather, a matter of very different laughing.

Quote :
A young shepherd I saw, writhing, gagging, in spasms, his face distorted, and a heavy black snake hung out of his mouth. Had I ever seen so much nausea and pale dread on one face? He seemed to have been asleep when the snake crawled into his throat, and there bit itself fast. My hand tore at the snake and tore in vain; it did not tear the snake out of his throat. Then it cried out of me; “Bite! Bite its head off! Bite!” Thus it cried out of me — my dread, my hatred, my nausea, my pity, all that is good and wicked in me cried out of me with a single cry.

The shepherd, however, bit as my cry counseled him; he bit with a good bite. Far away he spewed the head of the snake — and he jumped up. No longer shepherd. no longer human — one changed, radiant, laughing! Never yet on earth has a human being laughed as he laughed! O my brothers, I heard a laughter that was no human laughter; and now a thirst gnaws at me, a longing that never grows still. My longing for this laughter gnaws at me; oh, how do I bear to go on living! And how could I bear to die now!

The point was the “Now this is happening” phrase, which is good. Revenge is amor fati, when the revenge is executed in a clear-headed manner, not just as an unrestrainable emotional impulse. The latter most often leads to some kind of muddy doubt, regret perhaps, the former is a case of “this happened to me, and as a consequence, now this is happening to you, because I am the universe”. In an act of revenge, one personifies the causal principle of the world as oneself. It is in affect a rather beautiful thing. This is why in stories, forgiveness, is hardly ever satisfying, and revenge often touches the heart. In fact, come ti think of it, the whole concept of a Hollywood film is vengeful. In the beginning, something happens to the hero, who thereby becomes the hero. In the end, the hero avenges himself and his world on the source of this occurrence, neutralizes it with a symbolic victory. The hero takes revenge on the outer world on behalf of the inner world and says “Now this is happening”. Greek tragedy and epic are very different. Neither are they about forgiveness, but they do no place the power of the Gods in the hands of one individual, even if they are descendants of Gods.

The spepherd biting off the head of the snake represents the clarity that I mentioned.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Heidegger Empty
PostSubject: Re: Heidegger Heidegger Icon_minitimeMon Sep 16, 2013 2:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In this sense the Americans have a rather admirable and strange power ascribed to themselves. They are Christian, which means that they have relations to the Gods - it means this to them, their type, pioneers, not the the European protestants - and they are vengeful. In this design, there is a desire for the best of both worlds.

But naturally, the non-vengeful Christ, or the Christian, is the abysmal revenge of the world, as because of it suffering the world, it utterly denies the world. A more sordid revenge is not thinkable, except perhaps the actual destruction of the world.

The Nietzschean revenge is this: Oh, the world is evil? Then I am now (free to be) evil! Laughter. This is rising beyond good and evil. There is no indifference in this beyond good and evil, it is the absorbing of the quality which makes the world evil (will to power) into ones self-image, thereby transmuting it to a prerequisite for the new good, the strength to overcome. But what is required here, for this revenge to be clean, is that one does not do it out of resentment, which is what many criminal minds are driven by, but out of thankfulness. “I am now free to be this world. Let’s play.”

This is an extremely difficult step to take, and to muster the will to make it, it is perhaps required that a “snake crawls into ones throat”.


" 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

Heidegger Empty
PostSubject: Re: Heidegger Heidegger Icon_minitimeMon Sep 16, 2013 11:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I needed to step away from this one to see that the clip is actually pretty funny and spot on.

There is most definitely humor in needing to collect all of a species’ strength and bellicose instinct to defeat a God that only loves and was already crucified for us. I never stop being humbled by that, it gives me a wry smile every time.

To add joke onto joke, we resorted to that God out of our own tiredness from bellicose life!

Pretty funny, specially once you consider that there has been an alternative all along.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Heidegger Empty
PostSubject: Re: Heidegger Heidegger Icon_minitimeWed Sep 18, 2013 6:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I had a discussion with Sauwelios recently where I was trying to explain how I thought Heidegger was right, that Nietzsche did have or enable a revenge with the ER, revenge on death, mortality, finity - but now that we’ve come to terms, I can say that he had his revenge on the mind of death, as it had existed - on the lament of death. Or the lament-worthiness of death. This is the tragic - the celebrate the lament.

The lament occurs, animals lament their dead, but the human mind has to work with it, do something with it, give it meaning beyond the expression of grief. It simply has to, as the mind works only in this way. The mind is the curse we were given, and Nietzsche managed to turn it into a blessing. Rather, to neutralize it. Value ontology allows us to make it a positive in the intellectual sense as well as the spiritual (which was Nietzsche’s domain - he killed God because he was stronger).

VO rests on this vengeance, this consummation, the “now this is happening” becomes “what is now happening is precisely this. It means that you are now such.” The “and you yourselves are also this will to power” was true but was not made conscious by this phrase. “and you yourselves have no choice but to value in the terms of your being” makes the will to power appear as it really is: the only possibility we have to exist. Nietzsche did not make this entirely clear yet. He just saw it with perfect clarity, but was - impressed by it too much.

It is fitting that Nietzsche had Pluto in Aries, and that I have it in Libra. I am the direct consequence of Nietzsche’s initiative. As soon as I get this in my head, to fully occupy it, I am saved. Yes, I envy Nietzsche the sheer solitude of his might. But there simply is no one in this time who can experience such, as God no longer exists, and the new world has already been born.

What did not exist yet is a Law to Nietzsche’s Ethics. That is to say, a ratio following from an axiom. And that is to say, the law inherent in the axiom. VO goes to the depth of Nietzsche’s decision, and by splitting the singular will in two mutually relating definitions, tears open the mindset of which Nietzsche was part - the definitional logic. Value ontology destroys the sovereignty of the word.

The whole of Genesis has been read by certain people as the history of the destruction of the image by the word. Nietzsche had the final word. Aha(bra-)! Now I see why value ontology must be made clear through film, and why I, a philosopher who can not grant himself the liberty an artist must have, was given this talent.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The fate of RM: PHT Empty
PostSubject: The fate of RM: PHT The fate of RM: PHT Icon_minitimeFri Oct 04, 2013 2:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Whether or not VO can be interpreted in terms of RM relies on whether or not we make a modification in RM’s tectonic structure. Rather, tectonicize the dimensional hierarchy.

RM proposes 4 categories: physics, physiology, psychology and politics.
It recognizes the value ontological tenet of a self-valuing in terms of the third category. (VO recognizes itself in all 4, but does not recognize the categorization as implicit in the ontology)

The third category, psychology, is defined within RM as “perception of hopes and threats”.
Positive and negative values.

How does one define those values? By defining the one who holds them.
Can this be done within the means of RM?
Can we explain, out of affectance, the character of the one who wields the will to design?

Are there perhaps different patterns of affectance that make an anentropic shell?

The fate of RM: PHT Falk_nieve-mandala

The fate of RM: PHT 10282764-detailed-and-colorful-henna-mandala-design-easily-editable

The fate of RM: PHT Mandala-power1


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:12 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The fate of RM: PHT Empty
PostSubject: Re: The fate of RM: PHT The fate of RM: PHT Icon_minitimeFri Oct 04, 2013 3:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To this end we must ask:

"WHAT IS NOBLE?

[Because][…]life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;—but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped?


" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:21 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The fate of RM: PHT Empty
PostSubject: Re: The fate of RM: PHT The fate of RM: PHT Icon_minitimeFri Oct 04, 2013 3:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Are we to simply refer to our psyche as an instrument to keep something healthy and safe, then RM would be consistent with VO.
But VO can not simply accept such a premise - we recognize that survival is not the motive, but the result of life.

What makes life survive? Not that it has values which are attainable, but that it has values in the pursuit of which it survives.

What are such values?

Love. Money. Power.
Are they?

Is this what drives us?

Is not the drive itself the love, the capital and the power?

Then what does this drive pursue?

Time-space-relative.

We can have a goal.

“Philosophy” can not.

“The best hope for the future is to ask what is being determined as well as who determines it.”

“The new world will not be neat, and you will have to live with that.”

  • Joseph Nye

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeFri Aug 28, 2015 2:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is only one relevant question in philosophy today: Did Nietzsche ask too much?

What a question… Beware, all those who enter, and all those who don’t: this is the only way forward.
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

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Re: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeFri Aug 28, 2015 6:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That is a very good question yes.

I believe Nietzsche didn’t ask enough.


“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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Re: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeFri Aug 28, 2015 12:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
There is only one relevant question in philosophy today: Did Nietzsche ask too much?

What a question… Beware, all those who enter, and all those who don’t: this is the only way forward.

Do you mean did he ask too challenging a question, or did he demand too much of his true readers?

In the former case, I agree with Capable. In the latter, he may have asked too much by asking too little. He walked dangerous, treacherous ground. Grounds that do not much agree with the terms he insisted on using.


" 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

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Re: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeFri Aug 28, 2015 2:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If we are to go beyond Nietzsche, we cannot take him at his whims. We cannot be his disciples, and he didn’t want any.

“For all and for none.” This is good enough for a man who was going to be dead by the time it mattered.

How can he have asked too little? Nothing less than the reevaluation of all values. Not as an intellectual excercice, but as what matters when God and the afterlife are dead. As an acknowledging and loving of a genealogy that has taken us… Well, that is the question, can it take us? His language was the only one for asking. Perhaps you would have preferred stating, like sawelios? In that case, in full right, Nietzsche was insufficient.

In ILP, Jon Jones once wrote that individualism is missing the point of selfishness. He would have meant self value.
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

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Re: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeSat Aug 29, 2015 1:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, the idea of the revaluation of all values, Nietzsche saw this possible questioning but more or less pointed it out for everyone else to see. The problem was there, the response to it would/will take centuries, if ever it gets really addressed (or maybe never will).

The form of the question Nietzsche very well spoke to; but as for the contents of the question, the actual values, ideas and psychic- or world-aspects fallen under that heading, he could have done much more. In his own way Nietzsche too was an ideologue, a quasi-religious defender of cherished values, but I’m not faulting him for that at all. We all too need to live in this world which we subject to our philosophical questioning, and as FC said the terms Nietzsche wanted to use didn’t jive well with the world he lived in.

Yes, he could have gone deeper. I mean where are his analyses of the primary human emotions, or a dissection of the psychological-existential structure of ideology, or for that matter human thought generally? Or where did he attempt to exhaust human “will” its many concepts and vital passions alike setting these upon a pyre of ruthlessly critical examination and weighing? More importantly, where did he go beyond all that and demonstrate a new method of being?

Nietzsche was pretty much the first to realize that all this would someday be possible. He did an excellent job laying the groundwork. And he did ask a ton of great questions, HATH and TI are probably my favorites if I had to just pick at a whim right now, in terms of the excellent questions he raised. But still, there is way more depth there to explore.


“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

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Re: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeSat Aug 29, 2015 1:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course there’s another side here tat you’re right, he did question too much; he questioned too much to be healthy, too much by any human standard, “too much for his own good” as a non-philosopher might say. But that’s just it, every philosopher by definition is someone who questions too much. That’s the whole point- going beyond the veil of this world and of our habitual, unthinking psychological constraints, challenging everything, growing always larger in our constant questioning.

Nietzsche probably questioned too much to remain sane. However, there are two sides to this: first that he lived in a time unlike the time we live in today, had we been alive back then our own questioning too may have driven us insane; remember he was essentially the first one, and second that despite this immaturity of the world around him and in spite of his aloneness Nietzsche could perhaps have spared himself from madness if he had just kept going, if his questions had been just a little more removed from his prides and shames. The only cure for the ails of seeking into truth is to keep seeking more and more into truth, only truth can cure itself from the inevitably pains and madness required to seek at all.

So maybe the only question that does really matter, Do we stop along the path when it gets rough, do we seek common shelter or a safe place, do we tire and accept the suffering and madness of our half-finished philosophies, or instead do we continue to press forward, always and never stopping? Do we realize that willing the half-finished idea is the perfect antithesis of the philosophical spirit?


“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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Re: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeSat Aug 29, 2015 2:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Nietzsche probably questioned too much to remain sane.

This touches on the point of the OP as I understand it.

Quote :
However, there are two sides to this: first that he lived in a time unlike the time we live in today, had we been alive back then our own questioning too may have driven us insane; remember he was essentially the first one,

A Prometheus, who “rightly” suffered for his bestowing, on lesser beings, the ‘light he stole from heaven’ so to speak.

It has always seemed to me a perfect poetry that N underwent what he underwent, that he was tormented in such an Olympian fashion.

Quote :
and second that despite this immaturity of the world around him and in spite of his aloneness Nietzsche could perhaps have spared himself from madness if he had just kept going, if his questions had been just a little more removed from his prides and shames.

This is an interesting, very deep corner of this matter. I believe it touches, again, on the OP very directly. Pride and Shame. Now these are sensations that really matter here.

Is it not precisely N’s acute sense of pride and shame, that allowed him to kill god, to discern that god was dead, to discern what had always been behind god?

What could N have accomplished if not for his intense fixation on pride and shame?

I think here also is the distinction between types of philosophy; the type that upholds foremost the idea of truth, and the type that upholds foremost the idea of experience. N was of the second type, and his notion of truth is a wholly experiential notion, he does not seek to include the notion of experience in the notion of truth.

In human self-valuing, shame and pride are basically ‘no’ and ‘yes’ respectively. I find it admirable that N held on to these phenomena until the end, as the philosophy he was birthing relies primarily on the establishment beyond question of the living ground of all thought.

I can not agree that N should have moved beyond or more distant from these things. The self-injuring character of his mind is precisely what makes it so perfectly reliable standing there, at the bloody dawn.


" 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

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Re: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeSat Aug 29, 2015 3:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I agree, Nietzsche’s high nobility is unquestionably great. I too do not fault him at all, I simply see the places where more work is possible - and necessary.


“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

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Re: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeSat Aug 29, 2015 6:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The insight is the insight of a child left all alone in his house. “Why should I dwell on the wheres and wherefores of my father and my mother?” he might say, “look at this beutiful house!”

Indeed, the question is did he ask too much, with his pride and his shame? Did he ask too much beyond himself? Of us?

No, not to finish Nietzsche.

Nietzsche: a link in the chain of the ambition of ambitions for almost-monkeys.

The question is, can our pride be greater and our shame deeper?

It is not, as we know, a question of choice. Even of wondering if it is right. It is do we see it and can we do it?

Dangerous for Nietzsche?? Dangerous for us, perhaps! God was a pacifier. To be pacified… Is not to be satisfied.

Capable has already started the work, his work. But I would that he felt OUR need for his work.

Ambition until the las drop of blood, nothing less is our most real necessity. This does not mean to squander blood! The opposite!!!

And yet, real as this inevitability is, we still are required to choose it. Are we? This is the only relevant question to philosophers today.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Re: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeSat Aug 29, 2015 6:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Indeed, his baby steps mark the initiation of an Aeon of thought; his work was to make a beginning with the work of getting man to think erect. Much of the weight of the overall consequences fell on him; we can compare him both to Prometheus and his brother, the heavy laden Atlas who was chosen to carry the world. A Titan to be sure. Titans represent suffering, Olympians represent the rewards of the suffering of Titans. This corresponds to Nietzsche and his aims; he sought to make possible an Olympus for the human race.

Capable, a question comes to me with great urgency now: how do you see the concept of an order of rank in the human species?

It is perhaps the most difficult question to answer explicitly, and not for intellectual reasons, but for political ones - politics first of all within ones own inner polis, ones family thereafter and then ‘actual’ politics of the state/tribe. It begins, Nietzsche would agree, with the rank-order as it exists within the individual. That was N’s challenge to me when I first encountered him at a hard angle, around 2001; Was I a decadent, or a classical hero? Or both? But certainly not a decadent classical hero, - in as far as I felt a hero, it was an ascending star (no Nova of any kind, just a point of light visible to Earth), I was a rising sign - N might be seen as a sign of sundown, a scorpion, stinging himself to death.

But I am not an Atlas either. I can not risingly carry the whole world into rising. I am a riser - in fact this is what I called myself when I made raps - “Verrijzer” - a play on “Rza” – I do not re-surrect, I have not risen before. I decided to try to sting myself to death, an undertaking initiated in the spring of 2003, as I began to identify myself with tribal politics - a world of blunt knives where I desperately sought out the least blunt one. This is how I walked into the path, how I gradually learned to conduct myself so as to be worthy of a sharp knife.

One of the most blatant accusings I’ve ever had to endure was “Be careful with that axe, Eugene!” My devil was very much pleased with himself, and this is what taught me the most.

I’ve always sought enemies, shamers. I noticed everyone is alone in a white forest ruled by innocence, a bleak absence of crimson, blue, blood shame and pride. We are trapped in this fleece until we learn of the proper dimension to move in, to cast shame, to raise pride - and the taste of the uncanny language wherein it is is written in the stars, and the difference between fate and fortune is whether or not one respects that luck as the partner in a inner matrimony. Inner offer.

Truth is revealed like a masters painting. “Suddenly it is given”
Truth is an infant. It has parents that once were truths themselves.

Thorns and agriculture, bleeding and sowing, conduct, resignation to a task, humility, endurance,

what does a notion do?
It asks of us that we comport ourselves as if it is a reality.
Was it too much, to ask us to live without gods entirely?

I imagine that one night Nietzsche sat up in bed, the phrase “le roi est mort, vive le roi!” rumbling through his head like pots in the belly of a ship in a storm, and a grin forming on his lips as he imagined for himself a heirdom of adequate proportions.

but to answer directly: as long as there are men there will be gods; gods are mans ways of valuing his valuing by imagination; a god is a product of taking seriously the inner world as one takes the outer; so serious as to investigate for necessary responses to the most subtle of cues; symbolism arose as this science, and our world is made up of symbols. We live among symbols, so that we have no choice but to become symbol.

The god who died had been mans protector from lesser gods. Ever since his death, these creatures of the night have come to haunt and it is our gift , this forest of chaos, in which to rediscover the old sticks and stones and cast the present from that urn over there in the corner. Yeah, the really dusty one. You needs glovers, maybe.

Shoo, little demons. But praise Zeus. Praise the praise to Zeus, praise the temple, the endurance of the terrifying aspect of beauty in the land where man came out of the shadow.


" 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

Central Problem Empty
PostSubject: Re: Central Problem Central Problem Icon_minitimeSun Aug 30, 2015 6:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wow, great posts so far!

'Capable, a question comes to me with great urgency now: how do you see the concept of an order of rank in the human species? ’

I don’t think we have nearly the comprehensivity of mind, vantage or data to yet approach that question without perverting it. I let it hang out there rather than allow it to use various parts of me against each other for meager ends. But I agree the question needs to be raised now, we can formulate it and then hang it up in the stars of our highest future hope.

That which is, is. Truth is truth. That’s as far as I get when it comes to what you ask. At some point we need to hold open unapproachable fathoms in ourselves as horizons within which to bound our consciousness; I like to let the deepest relations emerge ‘spontaneously’ rather than trying to force them.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 3:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This guy bought an island off the Greek fire sale, dirt cheap real estate from a people under massive oppression whose entire country is being carved up by rich globalist cronies. Europe should be ashamed of itself, if it had any fucking balls left it would be. Same Johnny depp and other actors seizing the opportunity to rape a culture and people for their own fucked vanity.

These influential wealthy actors should be using their power to affect the situation positively by speaking out and openly refusing to rape the Greek people. I mean what the fuck.


“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

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Why not? Give Greece back to the people. I trust Johnny Depp with the furthering of greek culture more than I do some government.

The greek will have to face up to not having a pathos beyond a 3000 year old history that mostly ended some 2100 years ago.

Fuck capitalists too, but… What, is Germany going to support mummies? I get Zizek, but to what end, Zizek? Put up (culturally) or shut up, Greece, with your dirty streets and ill-humered denizens.
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

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 4:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was very disappointed with the greek negotiations. What claim is Greece actively staking on its “own” ressources?

Tsipras was so misterious and promising… What’s his plan now, a symbolic raping? To prove a point for the future?

Disappointing…
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

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 5:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s simple. Gradual indebtedness with eventual market and banking collapse, or as the international “news” headlines say, “Without massive new loans Greece to default on debts”. Yeah. Like I said, what the fuck.

Governments are run by cheap insane cronies, culture, knowledge, dignity, vitality, art, passion, philosophy, it’s all down the tubes according to the globally governing ethos now. Be careful not to fall into the trap of blaming the Greek people- they are and were no different from most the rest of western countries.

But I get it, the temptation to trust the hidden power brokers who rob and rape the rest. It’s more philosophically comforting than aligning oneself with “average” humanity-- but notice, the categories are defunct. There is no philosophy here at all, hence what I wrote about the absolute difference between politics and philosophy. It will keep coming to a head, that abyss.

Humans die, cultures live longer and, while these die too, pass themselves on into history. What future is portended by Europe submitting itself to cheap tyranny of debt politics and privatization of nations?

You want to blame Greek people, sure, then point that finger right back at yourself too.


“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

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 5:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And don’t tell me “the people” didn’t stand up and try to fight. They did. 60% of Greeks rejected the bailouts. They’re the only people with a fucking heart, it seems.


“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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 5:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Actually I personally fear Tsipras has been subjected to horrible criminal threats, possibly to his family. I have no illusions about any limits to the methods of bankers, and the giant turn Tsipras made suddenly, and without any apparent ground, made me suspect vey foul play. It was widely publicized that he was ‘held hostage’ is Brussels, put under violent pressure, blackmail, all that was in the open. But what lay behind that? If there’s filth seeping into the open you can be sure there’s shit a thousand times filthier going on in the background. No decision on this level (stealing nations) is made in relation to any socially acceptable norm. It is more likely the very vilest of human vileness that Greece was up against this summer.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 6:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Regarding Depp buying an island, I hope pezer is right and even that he is doing it in the spirit of ‘old hippies’, so to speak - the idea of buying cheap islands of this blackmailed country is nauseating to say the least, but I do feel a little less dread about this somewhat conscientious actor buying one than when it’s done by fucking oil-sheiks.

On the Greek people, when I visited the country for the first time this winter, I encountered a people radically different from any I’d ever seen. I’d never seen a people with such calm, dignity, and overt vulnerability. I think that they are still roughly the same people as they were 2500 years ago. At the very least they still retain a part of their original spirit.

But this is no match for the power of the global financial elites; even in its glory days Greece had a hard time defending itself from the savage empire.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 6:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Just imagine how incredibly easy it would be to rule by the use of two separate paradigms; convince the public that a political process is going on and make it so intense that they are captivated and somewhat outraged. In the background, play it personal, use pressure points, true weaknesses, leave no means to influence unused. I don’t think there’s any question that politics is played this way, because the one who plays it this way would always be victorious.

But maybe I am being paranoid, and Tsipras is actually a completely spineless bitch. I prefer to doubt that.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 6:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I sent a letter to Tspiras and Varoufakis this summer, offering my help. I had the hope that there was a possibility of infusing politics with philosophy at this hazardous juncture. I wasn’t ‘filled with hope’, I was just thinking if I do not write now I’m a fool.


" 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

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 6:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You’re definetly right, I suppose.

I don’t really have the strength to judge state and capitalist politics on their terms. All I have the strength for is finding the positive value in whatever happens and wonder what I can do, with my ressources, to take advantage. Politics for philosophers ought to be the politics of a child. Their arrogance is that they are unbullshitable, they opine carelessly because they have their own agenda which is so selfish as to be deeply empathetic.

Who says Machiavellian politics is dead? It will be dead when desire and thought are no longer possible at the same time, and then the only noble path is honest-to-goodness buhddism.

In this age, if a philosopher wants the prerrogative to philosophize, he will have to forsake rage.
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

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 6:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In the indespensible words of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy: DON’T PANIC

Don’t panic also happens to be the only truly valuable lesson I learned from smoking weed. I used to wonder: “what advantage can I take from that dimension to help me?” Once I got high, with the fuck-its at 100, the only answer was “never panic. Useless.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 10:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
You’re definetly right, I suppose.

I don’t really have the strength to judge state and capitalist politics on their terms. All I have the strength for is finding the positive value in whatever happens and wonder what I can do, with my ressources, to take advantage. Politics for philosophers ought to be the politics of a child. Their arrogance is that they are unbullshitable, they opine carelessly because they have their own agenda which is so selfish as to be deeply empathetic.

Who says Machiavellian politics is dead? It will be dead when desire and thought are no longer possible at the same time, and then the only noble path is honest-to-goodness buhddism.

Wait, let’s move past the specifics of Machiavelli and Buddhism for a second and focus only on the combining of desire and thought; as simple as it is, it is also the core of almost all ethical philosophy - granted I’ve had a few drinks and am bound to exaggerate even more than usual, but the two terms, in this context (so perhaps not forget the specifics) are of that quality that causes plasmic struggles, tectonic pining, proto-creation in my minds-eye;

Coupling desire and thought, it is not enough to think through the desire and infuse the thinking with the energy of desire, what is required is to have both build up in consciousness separately (I usually use my left an right field of imagination) and then by magic, merge them.

This is the technique of occultism and psychic power.
Parodites masters this fusion technique to ridiculous levels and appears to have developed his philosophy out of it.

The basic effect of it is energy. Thought x Desire (it’s not an adding up but a fuller computing of both with each other) results in time, that is to say the fusion (it’s not possible for me to describe how to bring about the fusion; one wills it but rather than pushing it, one ‘expects it extremely welcomingly’ - one leaves the two states in ones mind no other choice but to merge, but them must do it at their own chosen moment) causes a more direct awareness of being in time for a few seconds, as neither thought as such or emotion as such are possible now, the consciousness is single and thus the body is quite active; it could be that it is healing, or it could be dancing, or the head could be moving cat like in pure sensory concentration, but the will is engaged in the flesh; and thus thus, desire x thought = will, and we can not really accomplish anything in the outside world besides routines, if we do not arrive in this state.
No doubt, cocaine facilitates such a state; but in a weaker way than magic; I tried cocaine and my reaction was ‘ah, they’re just trying to be more like me’ . What happens is that you believe your thoughts passionately; the philosopher does this because his thoughts are real, coke is a means to act is if they are real.

Anyway. I haven’t done a fully fledged fusion for a long long time. The last time I did it was in 2004 or 2005. This set in motion a train of drastic events, creation and destruction, involving my writing and directing about islam on national television and breaking the ice after a political murder; it was necessity that pushed me to go so far as to attempt an actual occult ‘coup d’Etat’, by which I here mean ‘taking of state’ with ‘state’ as state of will - even though the things we made were explicitly shaped to resemble a state-intervention by the royal house – I am rambling along nicely, talking about it brings me back to that state which had ended prematurely; and this state is the state in which magicians conduct politics. They exert influence on their own terms, of which laugher is the first. You can not do high politics without relishing the absurdities on which it is grounded and by which it is surrounded. Laughter is the way to isolate the rational self-valuing from the world, which is a monster of energy and only rational in the most utilitarian sense.

Quote :
In this age, if a philosopher wants the prerrogative to philosophize, he will have to forsake rage.

Here I become like Capable, outright, absolute rejection of politics. Let the world go up in flames before I give up my rage.

But I can ultimately give up on expressing it in a typically angry fashion. That is what happens when the merger takes place; rage becomes intelligent. It becomes like a lucid orb (like in “The Abyss”) of tangible futurality, in which ones ‘vengeance’ (one’s kindness and keen-ness, for a large part) becomes crystallized in the extreme coherence of an unfolding plan, and an unfolding discipline to act in accordance with that plan. At this stage, the world begins to bend toward the will of the magicians, and small miracles begin to happen. Gates open, materials appear, allies present themselves, and laws don’t seem to matter as much anymore.

Remind myself now of the “This is she!” tirade Mercutio gives off, but it’s still all very true.

Magic even taught me how to dance.


" 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

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 10:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Expects it extremely welcomingly.” You are without a doubt one of my favorite people.

Ya, ya. That’s what I meant about the rage. Vengeance feels no rage, but it does feel an unrelenting drive.

It kills me that Nietzsche turns out to be right at every point. I swear I don’t go out to venerate him, he just had the unalianable power of being right.

But we’ll see. Napoleon had military, I have philosophy.
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

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 10:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would like to add that, as in everything else, the apt philosopher finds a wealth of truth in vengeance that transcends the vengeance itself.
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

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 10:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, I AM right, the philosopher must forsake rage if he wants to retain his prerrogative to philosophize. I used it to make a political vengeance, to become a politician, and forsook my prerrogative. Like Moses (a star in The Prince, by the way).

We don’t all have to. Those who do should help me, and those who don’t, and forsake rage, will help most by philosophizing.

Philosophizing on health.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 11:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

This was sort of the theme song to the operation as it began to take shape, when it was still called “Jihad against Hate”, in which the impulse of rage doubling down on itself to transcend itself is visible. It later, when the magic began to breathe, acquired a more “golden” name, as it took on that golden nature of play and symbolism became available. That’s when you know you’re in.

The project lasted about a year and a half from the murder to the moment where I either fucked up or was wise - shifted my attentions to music, and my inner world. If we had continued we’d have started a political party, real but as satire. A year later another network did just that. But not with a fake-crazy muslim but a two hot chicks, and it was instantly forgotten. I chickened out because my family was radically against it and the project required my fullest commitment, I was torn and that was it. The wand-wielding magic disintegrated and I shifted to music, inner world; made a rap album that is primarily painful and stranded in a few years of desert. Then I rediscovered the magical impulse Pluto’s transit into Capricorn (we all remember november 2008) and was able to come alive again, find film work, a girlfriend, a house. From that girlfriend came lie in Vienna and the raven-visited window where I had the insight about the scientific impulse that led to a deeper science.

To me it’s all both magical and ‘emotionally unstable’ - whether it’s rage or sorrow or fear or mania, philosophy is carried by the storm, and only by embracing that storm it can become its silent eye.

Before that moment, one may have to do a lot of this.

You’re pressing me to understand myself, and I am perhaps only speaking for myself – to philosophize, all emotions need to be felt at once, and this state is both a rage and a silence, as it produces ‘mind’. Mind is nothing but the controlled alchemy of the emotions. One can not think great thoughts if one does not feel deep passion. Passion relies on all the emotions. This is all new to me but I agree with myself. This is path. The pan-emotional school, politicizing the emotions rather than the mind. Philosophy as a possible outcome.

Health and Rage; the two feel so drawn to each other to me, almost as man and woman.

But here’s the thing: one can not philosophize and be rageful at someome, or something. It is required that one not care about what caused the rage; to be grateful for the stimulus even, this is proper vengeance served cold. It leaves high-arched memories in the heart.


" 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

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 11:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, philosophy is moved by deep things. Rage… Rage is a concecuence of understanding Nietzsche. He reminds us that there is much more in store and our first instinct is to hate unhealth. We revel in lashing out, to use our intelligence to affirm our superiority.

I followed that path with the love of fire that defines me, and ended up quite quickly (as I planned) at a door. “Fuck it, lesse what’s there,” I said.

I found the world wanting. And this is politics, as Sawelios has aptly said. To be dead-set on allowing any like one’s self to open the door and keep revelling. To keep the joy of philosophy and the possibility of the ubermensch’s joy alive.

I only see two paths for this. To turn inwards into philosophy and seek a cold betterment and to turn outwards into the world and find water. Both are needed, any one person can only do one.

To stand before this choice and not make it: well, I suppose it’s possible too. I don’t see a lot of future for it. I don’t because I am not dealing in theory or conjecture, but animal truth.

I do wonder if it’s too hardcore, I have always been cruelest to my friends. But I am a fire guy, and fire burns. It’s the good wet stuff that stops the burning, what is still alive.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Fuck Johnny Depp Empty
PostSubject: Re: Fuck Johnny Depp Fuck Johnny Depp Icon_minitimeFri Sep 18, 2015 12:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Yes, philosophy is moved by deep things. Rage… Rage is a concecuence of understanding Nietzsche. He reminds us that there is much more in store and our first instinct is to hate unhealth. We revel in lashing out, to use our intelligence to affirm our superiority.

I followed that path with the love of fire that defines me, and ended up quite quickly (as I planned) at a door. “Fuck it, lesse what’s there,” I said.

I found the world wanting. And this is politics, as Sawelios has aptly said. To be dead-set on allowing any like one’s self to open the door and keep revelling. To keep the joy of philosophy and the possibility of the ubermensch’s joy alive.

I share your sentiments. It’s the reason a library would work an a bookshop wouldn’t.

Quote :
I only see two paths for this. To turn inwards into philosophy and seek a cold betterment and to turn outwards into the world and find water. Both are needed, any one person can only do one.

I’ve created my pearl, have been at the peak of my abstract capacity, and can only do justice to it now by prying open the oyster of the world.

I have no illusions. That is at least the punchline if the joke resounds.

Quote :
To stand before this choice and not make it: well, I suppose it’s possible too. I don’t see a lot of future for it. I don’t because I am not dealing in theory or conjecture, but animal truth.

I do wonder if it’s too hardcore, I have always been cruelest to my friends. But I am a fire guy, and fire burns. It’s the good wet stuff that stops the burning, what is still alive.

It’s not too hard core, it’s precisely appropriate. Cruelty is good, if it means to demand, to set difficult goals, or to impose limits that guide the will along an intelligent course (“evolution”) - nature is merciless and fortune favors the bold. The laws of Heraclitean fire. Only boldness can amount in mercy.

Surplus and mercy are related.

New symbols of mercy.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 1:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
4 years of vo talk on ilp has completely overthrown the epistemic order there. it started with satyr thinking about it in his neanderthal manners; producing the idea that values this values that blah blah ( not actually an idea but what was on his mind). This was followed by years of debate where i tried to explain. no avail. right now the outcome is that half of them do not believe in facts anymore; the other half hating the notion of values.

it is a small testpool and its utter ruin isnt a great loss, but it is awesome to see how the raw force of a misunderstood but correct principle can wreak havoc in the collective mind.

one lesson to learn is that the people do need religion and not philosophy. i have a debate upcoming with Sauwelios, about Nietzsches proposed religion of Dionysos and Ariadne. That should, while not being the form I currently see as fit (or understand) at least serve as a start to thinking through a ‘spiritual diet’ that leads from bloated nihilism to fresh greens.


" 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

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 1:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ll put my two cents in here right away:

A religion needs to exist already for real and understand itself before it is given to the people, or it will surely be fleshed in with their previous devotion. It can have a lot of power, but not tyrannycal power.

The means create the ends: the devotion is implemented first. Those who implement it must already know God.

See effective religion cannot be a lie. Kierkegaard’s leap of faith: there is something worth venerating.
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

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 2:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Further still: religion is for the high. Only a sublimely tyrannical spirit has need for religion. The people need to be awakened, not to philosopohy, not to religion, but to life.
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

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 2:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Give 'em the greens first. They’ll come around on the rest…”

Life is a tough motherfucker. Joy is spontaneous in it, it precedes all veneration. God has been man’s barrier to life for a very long time: what god can now do the opposite? They need to breathe first. They need assurances.
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

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 2:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Pleased to meet you… Won’t you guess my name?
Yes, what’s troubling you is the nature of my game.”
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

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 3:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Happy to hear that VO has succeeded in disrupting ILP. I’m not at all surprised. But give it time, more members there will start coming around to the idea, I bet. The rest will just keep going insane, which becomes boring for everyone after a while.


“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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 1:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
I’ll put my two cents in here right away:

A religion needs to exist already for real and understand itself before it is given to the people, or it will surely be fleshed in with their previous devotion. It can have a lot of power, but not tyrannycal power.

The means create the ends: the devotion is implemented first. Those who implement it must already know God.

See effective religion cannot be a lie. Kierkegaard’s leap of faith: there is something worth venerating.

Agreed.
I can never relate to the philosophers who found it difficult to venerate; this is my default position, veneration. Now what is especially worthy of being venerated is the actual qualities of qualities, or forms of forces, that for your world, body and psyche.

Anyone who gives me his birth date, time and place, I will know in a sense better than he will know himself. I once did an online analysis of a troubled rocker guy, I thought he had given the data of this radically troubled friend he talked about and whose chart I had offered to read to help him gain insight in her compulsions. So he gave me data, and I saw a chart with a very serious but beautiful conflict, which I spelled out to him with religious intensity. The reading was very accurate, he said, but it wasn’t his friend but himself. I don’t now who of us fucked up, but the outcome was painful. An astrologer’s first job is to hide most of the truth he sees. Well the first job is to survive the truth he sees about himself. Astrologers are the most weathered souls. Philosophers can never be confronted with truth that does no in some way follow from what they already understand to be necessary; the astrologer is cofronted with facts he knows to be true like one know the heart is struck, in fact that chart strikes directly on the heart. It takes a good while for the blow to ‘form’, for the impact to resound out of enough different corners of the web to give an experience of a character, of ‘someone’. When it does this is understood by the heart, a ‘main drive’ is perceived, jumps out takes on a face, an identity, one is now talking to a person. Looking at a chart with the person present is like a life of psychoanalysis condensed in half an hour.
But it can also reveal the strengths of commanders, and, there are several methods, one of which especially effective, to determine key moments of impact, where a particular type of transformation is inevitable. The progressed moon chart, it is never off. Of course it requires a good reader, a psychologist as well as an abstract pattern reader. But good astrologers abound. There are many who are better than I am at picking out the Leo’s or Libra’s out of a crowd by observing their faces. I often have to take two guesses for someones sun sign. It will happen that I think she’s a Libra but she is Pisces and Libra on the Ascendant. But even amateur astrologers averages are well above what would be plausible if it wasn’t hermetically valid.

So yes, a divine order does exist. Uncertainty exists on all levels below the human scale, but there is no grand randomness, no uncertainty in terms of greatness, previously known as gods, now known as mans vision of the cosmos of which he is part. There is nothing that hasn’t been honed to perfection by the sheer possibility of everything, and the limitlessness of time. This - and here is where I am truly in the dark - applies besides to whatever we may have in mind, especially to the relation of the human body to this body’s perspective on the cosmos. Day or night, full moon or new moon, winter or summer - these are rudiments. But causal relationships, precisely because they have been so universally ‘valuable’ (expedient) to stand out of all other hypothetically possible conditions, drill into the nature of things with more pervasive results than we tend to attribute to them. The star Aldebaran - where is he in your chart? 9 Gemini. Do you have a conjunction? Regulus, 0 Virgo, the kingmaker star. High rises and deep falls. Vega, I thought 13, 14 or 15 Capricorn, star of the lyre, magical. If I say too much this becomes a religious dithyramb, but this is what is necessary now.

But I am part of a circle so I will perform precisely these religious rites which serve the interests decided upon in the ways decided upon by philosophical thought.

We are back in the sun, contemplating the possible edifice. By astrology I have at my command a properly working knowledge of human quality as it is distributed though men and women. It is all without objective value, but it is not without objective quality. So the question is how do we value the given qualities. Astrology provides facts, philosophy sets values. Now, Pezer has agreed with me that Mars and Venus are suitable first values.

Roughly speaking, Venus represents a persons values, and Mars represents the persons drive. Mars in Capricorn will be methodical and ascetic, Mars in Leo will be indulgent and awesome, Mars in Scorpio will be pervasive and very tough, Mars in Virgo will be an extremely focused strength, beyond the reach of normal concentration, Mars in Aquarius will be silent and free, Mars in Aries will be impulsive and dominant, Mars in Taurus will be brutally strong, Mars in Gemini produces military genius, Mars in Cancer… weird… would ‘emote martially’, be dominant within emotions, be very internally oriented, but fearless. Sagittarius… that is a good Mars placement, ruled by Jupiter. Like Jupiter is good in Aries. But Jupiter is good everywhere. At least in terms of the sign he’s in - not in terms of the squares he makes. Jupiter squares are true problems, problems gods would have. They thus also make the possessor of that problem god-like in his need, and this is all human, there are many people with such squares, I being one of them. But with Saturn and Sun. Which are opposed. This is excruciating and awesome at once. That;s most usually he case - excruciating aspects belong to people with great experiences - but our ties are ready or this truth now, in other ages these aspects were considered downright evil.

Beyond astrology, which is only a tool for the one who must wield it, there is a far greater philosophical ‘cause of order’ - in fact the reason that astrology works can be gathered from how we conceive of the primal nature and the absence of beginnings to this order, and there is where I steer away from Nietzsche’s kamikaze dive into sameness; the consequence of infinite time is not recurrence of the same arbitrary things but, because life is will to power and not a game of billiards, a process of endless increase. This is how the galaxies are honed, fallen together. It is however not an I am sure that if the whole atomic order were to collapse, it will do so orderly and as a majestic harvest of values, a coming together of all self-valuings in terms of each others natural conjectures; the universe can not collapse if its constituents are at odds with each other. The big crunch will be taken like Crowley to death: open eyes, eager for what is beyond.

Does any of this make sense? I am, as always when I attempt cosmology in writing, bitterly disappointed with what turn out t structurally be mere ramblings. Norally I would delete it but that would ruin my night probably as this shit costs me a lot of energy - all these combinations require being them, energy -

I liked of all things I contemplated the most Mars in Aquarius and Mars in Cancer. Virgo was also interesting.

Okay, I think I do need to do this, construct a ‘temple’ where Mars and Venus are explained in terms of basic placements and aspects; to be part of this religion, one has to accept it as truth, thus operate as if it is true, thus not try to gan knowledge without information.

Astrology works best if the hour is known to the minute. But for the method I use, a general time of day is sufficient; I look mainly at aspects, angles. It often happens that I study a chart for an hour and realize I don’t even know the persons sun sign. What fascinates me is the direct alchemy between the planets. The alchemy occurs in my mind, and this is an addictive process. The alchemy is strongest in terms of the aspects because these transition in all these various ways. When Neptune trines Pluto, whole generations can grow up with it, but when Mars trines the Moon, that is a bunch of persons three times every month. Mars trining the Moon while sextiling the Sun happens less frequently, and any other aspect that is made further deepens the uniqueness of the chart, until there is an absolute uniqueness, which is necessarily always the basis, as even twins do not come out at once. No astrological situation can occur twice, there are too may layers involved and the out layers simply disintegrate as they ‘rotate’, but do so so slowly that we don’t even notice they progress at all.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 2:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Happy to hear that VO has succeeded in disrupting ILP. I’m not at all surprised. But give it time, more members there will start coming around to the idea, I bet. The rest will just keep going insane, which becomes boring for everyone after a while.

It’s cool that people are actually suspended between states now. They are properly confused. I am coming around to Sauwelios’ idea of cruelty.


" 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

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 2:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Don’t be bitter. It happens to me when I write of my deepest realizations.

Like astrological charts, these realizations are so unique in their power that to explain them would require a “ritualistic” situation not achiavable on the internet and not necessarily desirsable, even among the most kindred of spirits. What doesn’t fail to come through is the power of it. Poweful minds either stash it or want to use it, both causing deep ripples.

More accomplished philosophers, like Capable and Parodites, don’t seem to have this problem. Their epiphanies happen on the paper, and this is what I need philosophy for, as I said, what we all do: make power patent. Humility and effectiveness in all things that follow from the epihanies of the less philosophically inclined, things that in turn cannot fail to impress and inspire a philosopher.

We must serve only them, because they cannot help but serve us. This loop is magnificent, and it requires that those like us hone our influence to the maximum. As we breed world, they will give it name.

And no manner of powerful mind, from the eldest times to the furthest away, will ever be fooled into missing the power of this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 3:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I wasn’t being bitter - merely understating.
Deep down I like to see the fires from which things will emerge. I am perhaps quite “evil”, without knowing it. Who isn’t? Some people say. I wouldn’t know.

Is knowledge painful? Often, yes. But often enough, it does us a whole lot of good, one hit of good knowledge can thrive in an for days, weeks he forgets are weeks and not seconds; experiences become archetypes in us first, then some of us feel in our psychedelic insufficiency compelled to draw a mark on a wall.

Venus and Mars - how the solution to a dead monogod may be the throning of a pair of gods.

It’s more exciting. But not confusing.

Perfect!

Here, in my innocence, I had said:

Pezer wrote:
“Pleased to meet you… Won’t you guess my name?
Yes, what’s troubling you is the nature of my game.”

Yeah but listen.
The Church forbids Astrology. Why? Because it is more powerful than their god, and their devil combined. The Devil doesn’t exist. There is the planet Venus, called Lucifer the Light Bearer, without the favor of which no person will succeed in manipulating another to his own pleasure. Then there is Mars, Ares the much hated god, without whose favor a man cannot strike true in combat. These two together form a pact or a war in the chart, and sometimes the war is better than the pact. Sometimes the pact is so powerful that it comes to represent a paradigm of violence and morals, such as is the case with Adolf Hitler, who has Venus and Mars both in Taurus, at the moment that the Sun enters the sign.

Okay so let this religion be based on the most objective standard of power we have, which is Adolf Hitler. Evil is of no concern to astrology, only power and quality. The qualities of Venus and Mars coincided in Hitler to produce, quite simply, a superior man. The same is the case of Winston Churchill, and Roosevelt, the former of which especially has my great favor. I do not like Hitler, but this makes him an all too much the greater standard. The point against which other powers are pitted. It is convenient at last because it leaves it completely open what “Venus” and “Mars” actually mean. They bear no characteristic separate of one another. Now we must find a person in who they stand opposed.
Ok - Michael Gorbachov and Jay Leno stand out.
Gorbachov: Venus in Capricorn with Saturn, and Mars in Cancer with Jupiter and Pluto.
Leno: Venus in Pisces with Jupiter against Mars and a conjunction of Saturn and Moon in Virgo.

Venus is completely in her element here, Mars is perfectly at the service of what is apparently a quite ruthless emotional scrutiny. If the birth-time is correct he has the love in his own house, the first, and the diligent, subdued martial scrutiny in the house of ‘the other one’, the seventh house.

Letterman has in a rather precise manner the opposite situation: he too has Venus in Pisces, its romantic, self-sacrificial element, but he has mars on the zero point, at 0 Aries, which is the moment he takes signifiership away from Venus. So the moment the balance tipped from romance into the favor of the initiative, he received his first ‘zap’.

{“they”} be calling that as such.

This here piece be called the lecture under the palm tree.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 3:52 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My rather unfalsifiable claim of self knowledge was meant as a formal provocation, something a priest must do as part of initiation. I take this quite as seriously as you, and none of this is a result of your natural inhibition to give me even more power. Lol. But seriously, of course Im not pissed. I think it offends mainly Capable, Parodites being completely above it being serious or not, becaus Capable is the one who really nows what introspection is. But it is nonetheless contains an element of truth: I a privy to some secrets not all men have. Your refusal, Pezer, we shall hereonforth know as the pezerian refusal, or pezers refusal, part of the code of ehtics we instruct to every formal disciple. It is valuable information, and its interpretation is an act of ritual as you say, quite simply, the reading must do justice to the life, or it is an injustice.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

VO clusterbomb Empty
PostSubject: Re: VO clusterbomb VO clusterbomb Icon_minitimeFri Sep 25, 2015 4:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I hope you see the finesse of the distinction between knowledge and philosophy well enough to appreciate the effort I’ve made to keep the two separate for ten years. I have never let astrology influence my philosophy,but I had to devise a philosophy that could withstand it. I have kept mostly silent about this aspect of VO’s power until the moment when insight into Parodites thinking allowed me to bring it more synthetically into the realm of thought. Having waited ten years, I now act rashly and I need to assert the difference between the astrologer and the philosopher in a political project.

The philosopher sets values
the astrologer sets up the situation
the artist ‘goes to work’ ‘gets his hands dirty’

Philosophical insights are often moments of restraint, and recognition of qualities outside of oneself. But such is only possible if a picture of a larger coherence is within reach of anticipation - oversight. The Greeks had no name for him. Metametheus.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

confusion anout what philosophy is Empty
PostSubject: confusion anout what philosophy is confusion anout what philosophy is Icon_minitimeSat Sep 26, 2015 10:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
my astrological exploits here as well as my (well justified but hard to verify for you all thus also ill justifed) proclaiming its exact and unambiguous, inevitable truth, i.e. its scientific nature, has caused, it seems, a dangerous confusion. My fault has been to assume all the philosophers understand me as a devil. I dont say such things as i did about my position in the thread below without a crooked grin. The priest has long been object of scorn and i play with this. But i made it quite clear that this is a matter of politics, not of truth. i assume we can jest among each other at least about power and rank. if not we need to learn to be a bit more philosophical, as souls. the dancing god. Nietzsche is still greater than all of us combined. Can you read that sentence as i mean it? learn to read me, all you who cant see the dance in the flame. Learn to read Nietzsche. What is wisdom? dance and laughter foremost, as symptoms? If so, we have not understood how that would be separate from essence. what is love of wisdom? to think unrestrained and in pure joy, which includes all suffering.

pezer says philosophy is negative, subtractive. the greeks say it is life itself, the best thing in it. i say it is the structure of the mind, in as far as it grasps itself. That means: impossible without dance. A symptom of itself then?

BTL philosophers are known (by themselves and each other) to rearrange this structure, to deepen it and refine it and make it whole: clear about what it is.

what you, pezer see as negativity i see as the most arid form of honesty. thinking can never be truly negative - that word designates forms of reflexivity, which itself is a derived positive. None of it all is subtractive, except in how a sculptor subtracts from a marble block to make a form, and how a father kills for his children.

What do I not see?
i think we shoukld take a plunge, and purge of my naughty games.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

confusion anout what philosophy is Empty
PostSubject: Re: confusion anout what philosophy is confusion anout what philosophy is Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 1:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Now Paroites says, about “negativity”:

Quote :
One of the central points in my philosophy of consciousness is that the apparent stream of consciousness is only the residuum of reflex-affect carried through the domain of the real ego struggling with death and dissolution, and that fully human consciousness is the product of something almost opposite to a stream, namely discontinguous states of acausal abruption within the order of affects, whereby linguistic-abstract symbols, which stand outside of temporal relations, are utilized to reify the real ego, that is, the feeling of affective unity, as ideal, cohered in the transcendent horizon of meaning.

I believe this to be correct, at least I can verify it with my own experience of the emerging of a rounded form consciousness, around my seventh year. I would lie awake every light contemplating being as a giant ‘cookie with a hole’ which filled me with horror. Obviously I was becoming aware of the discrepancy of the permanence of what Parodites here calls the ideal ego, as it was being forced, through human nature and custom, upon my mind, which was however keen enough to notice that something was awry. Whatever appeared or was presented as solid (and this goes for the desired experience of a whole ego as well as for the desired existence of a finite and whole universe) evoked in me a terrifying certainty that it was existentially torn, endlessly empty, creepily false, all-swallowingly hollow, etc, a certainty so absolute that it was all I could see at night. Years passed by and I managed to forget the questioning and focus on astronomy and my children’s games. But as I had completed my high school (a form of play, relaxation and distraction from thought) the notions started coming back. Of course then followed many years years of intense drug use, in which it was easy to find forms of the contradictions - but these forms also broke the mind-forms that I needed in the world to survive. So I oriented on politics, which to the thinker is a form of sardonic comedy, and did some stuff with contradictions out in the world. Then came a period of music, and finally I found a true lover, which forced me to be completely honest. Through passages of death and madness around us, my path focused itself on finally resolving the problem that had kept me awake in my earliest years of ontological reflection. I used Heidegger to raw closer to the ‘negative being’ at the center of our notions and experiences of being. What I found is that rather than being less than whole, the world is far more than whole. The idea of “the world” and “the self” as physical things is the cause of the cookie - the absence of a true idea.

Value ontology is, finally, true idea. It first of all allows us to conceive of being as becoming, to do away with the silly dichotomy altogether, and of wholeness as something local, relative, forceful, conquered, as Nietzsche saw it but could not make epistemic. It draws a picture in the box at which Nietzsche pointed his arrows. It does what Heidegger broke himself to reach, being free of his resentful, Christian, fearful notion of the world, being at ease with the destruction of every thing.

The world had forgotten that it is made out of pride, and turned inward to discover humility, only to discover in the end that the only tenable humility is a higher form of pride. This pride scorns ‘things’ and only accepts ‘world’. And world, by no means, as a thing. It accepts only the most acute acting as real. It sees, and this is new entirely, that much of what we call ‘the world’ does not exist. Many people walk around not existing. It thus sets an incomparably higher and realer (more demanding, life enhancing) standard than any philosophy set before it, at least since the times where philosophy came in the form of commanding poetic religion and sublime architecture - the times where truth was understood, even if not formally.

Of course I suffer of this standard, for one thing because it is impossible to uphold within the world which is built on that incomparably lower standard, for another because even in seclusion it demands of me the most outrageous hubris even to consider it a true standard. Considering 2500 years of human passionate labor to be both completed and rendered irrelevant, I have too much reverence to ‘like’ this. This is my main problem, I respect the old errors to much for the beautiful people that made them, and the wondrous worlds built on them. Who indeed is to say truth is preferable? What kind of world will this true standard bring forth?

This is the reasons I can not afford to ignore astrology anymore.

One synthetic proof of Parodites philosophy of mind is that his model does not preclude the veracity of astrology, but rather makes it elegantly plausible. This is quite remarkable, given that he likely never never took it seriously enough to investigate it. This is the mark of absolute honesty - its results can not contradict reality.

All of being is, in as far as it is manifest, ‘negative’ - that is to say every self-valuing is not the next one; its difference is precisely “what it is in the world”. The ‘inner world’ of a non sentient self-valuing is per definition inscrutable beyond ‘self-valuing’. We do not know the forces that keep the atom together, beyond that it is ‘self-valuing’. Science has o ways of reaching for an understanding of such forces, gravity, electricity, etc philosophy has to do this, because philosophy alone can incorporate the structure of conception itself. And philosophy finally understood that conception is no different from being, that all being is ‘conception’ in a rudimentary sense, being is conceived out of what it is not and what it is both - a being is therefore always both the same and fundamentally different from other being.

In the mind, the ‘what it is not’ is the whole of the world into which it will dissolve eventually, ‘death’ - but as this is realized, death is in every moment, and its antithesis becomes stronger every thus-realized moment. Knowing ‘the hole in the cookie’ is the same as baking one without a hole. One can not know by merely seeing, one must act, as Parodites says at first such acting is denial, moving away from its roots, but gradually this moving away brings us back to the roots, and this is the point we are standing at now.

::

Utilitarian, politics, this world, the future:

No one has been here before. The cosmos whirls around us. This is the time to take the gods by the hands, and guide them back into the world. There is nothing here besides immense gain of value - it is essentially a means of arranging beings so as to have more chance of actually being.

The ways in which we are limited are more extensive than the materialist can deal with - but materialism is deader than dead but can only be be put in its grave by philosophy. It is almost literally a question of having the stomach to approach the corpse. This is my most repulsive task - even to consider that there are still materialists after the 20th century is incredibly disturbing. The complete absence of sanity in the astrophysical models we use - even the hollow notion of the creator god was more sane.

I ask only of you that you take me seriously enough to contemplate the enormous burden I have taken on by being both logician and occultist. Herein I stand completely alone. Even the Theosophists, the mightiest of modern occult teachers, only approach the notion of which the permutations they can work out by the most rigorous observation of nature, coming about as far as the far mightier Sanskrit philosophers did before them. I know where I stand, and what’s more, Im the only one who knows this.

So forgive me my playfulness from time to time - I have to find a way to be light footed enough to forge a wholesome world-politics out of a pile of rotting corpses.


" 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

confusion anout what philosophy is Empty
PostSubject: Re: confusion anout what philosophy is confusion anout what philosophy is Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 1:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We are all firsts and we all resent not being fully appreciated out of a simple, almost religious appreciation of power. We don’t wield it in as far as it was already there, but we see its effects around us and the vulnerability people have acquired offends us. Deeply. All of us. Even the cool Parodites and indifferent Sawelios. This is why we convieved of a politics, and those of us who walked into power furthest from it still end up helping.

So, yeah, everything is so beautifully circular and chaotic. Perhaps I can resume my highest idea yet as this: the best way to adore chaos is order.

Anyway, nothing to forgive. Might is right Razz!
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

confusion anout what philosophy is Empty
PostSubject: Re: confusion anout what philosophy is confusion anout what philosophy is Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 5:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Something close to occultism, I have deeply studied and utilized concepts in Jewish and Gnostic mysticism, as in Lurianic kabbalah. Astrology, like them, is a system for psychologically unifying the inner and outer; the last girl I was fucking, who I liked, was really into Tarot cards, and gave me readings, and I understood it as a similar system.

Indeed the truth we are discovering is an immanent ground of pure negation- but this is only the engine of philosophy, not philosophy itself or the fuel, which are not merely positive but also genuine excess. As I write:

A daemonic philosophy emerges as the suffering endured by its own violence to itself,
never as a simple response to a question or to any series of questions- never as a response
at all; for, seeing as there is no question that can be meaningfully posed to the Absolute,
the absolute toward which thought has been irretrievably bent and with which it has at
last identified itself, in which it has found the wellspring of its own life and power- the
absolute toward which alone it has organized its movement and attuned the rhythm of its
heart, so it is that the genuine philosophy is born of no need to reconcile itself with any of
the temporary, the finite, and the entirely dependent forces outside of it, for there are no
forces outside it, whether they are presumed to consist in the extraneous requisitions and
postulates of a moral system, in the demand for practical and scientific utility, or in the
merely psychological needs of the kind of primate man happens to have evolved into; in
short, one’s philosophy emerges as the pure excess, in whose mirror the image of the
Absolute only can be seen- and one’s philosophy is that image; one’s philosophy pushes
every modality of perception, every emotion, and each motivating impulse and drive to its
extremity and most distant point of isolation from every other, and in that expanded tone-scale
of experience discovers new, stranger, more remote harmonizations, flowing forth
neither as life’s instrument or as her guiding genius, but as one’s life itself, as one’s heroic
freedom; extending itself throughout the whole order of creation, not in pathetic
submission to the reality-principle, but as itself the kind of super-abundance that could
never have been preceded by a state of deprivation and want. There is no question at the
heart of thought, and therefor no answer to be discovered; unconsciously, philosophy has
pursued the wrong ground for itself, for that ground is a positive excess.


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.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

A Polemic Against Magic Empty
PostSubject: A Polemic Against Magic A Polemic Against Magic Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 8:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Magic is the furthest thing from absolute knowledge. Being absolute, it claims territory that belongs to knowledge, and the falcity of this birth begets the insufficiency of its effects. Its results are perfect, speaking all the more against knowledge. They steal truth from moments in the name of principles that were derived from knoweldge.

A magically created personality will never mesh with reality. Thus, the powerful powers of nature are co-opted from their chain of cause-concecuence. As Leibniz might have said, it pretends to play with souls outside of their enviornment.

But let’s speak seriously. Magic is a mistake engendered by a missunderstanding of astrology… It takes its effects to supercede manimal. A human, a man, is a mammal. The effects of astrology on him or her are subservient to this truth. Man will never serve extra-human masters. They have never even served gods, except in the damned case of the egyptians. It is the power of gods that is diverted to our uses, and this is the nature of sacrifice. More a power-diverting block than a reward (who would dare the blasphemy of rewarding a god, I do not know). Man, deep down, worships only man (as I said, excepting the damned case of the egyptians).

To abstract astrological principles from their mundane effects and attempt to work with the gods on their level is a blindness. It can never work like the effects of the gods, because the gods don’t affect men as powerfully, or at least directly, as men affect thought.

Are we all coming out of the closet? I worship Dionisus, Baccus, Baco. The one who most loves. I would that all philosophers did, because it is a joy without restraints, but I do not command or seek to command the power of direct convinsal. All I can say is this: that he both fits a more pleasing image of the devil and will allow all of your dearest held powers to be joyus. As long as you know your place as man, you can learn to relate to the desires of a God. Are you a woman? What joy! Nobody will understand worship of god like you, you will be unrestrained (as well).

Let me be heard: all gods come from Chaos, as all things. And, also, all gods respect eachother.

If you ail, it is not magik that you need. It is fresh air.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 12:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Somewhat of a response to FC’s post “confusion about what philosophy is”… We are maybe reaching points now where the most categorical and psychologically coherent of our concepts nevertheless are inadequate to afford resolution and continued progress of truth, I see this manifesting in how our philosophies are beginning to diverge along their respective will to power cores and become somewhat unspeakable to each other. But we are noble enough not to fall victim to this, we seek a way out, which means a way forward. I would posit this requires new concepts entirely, which would mean new concepts to hold and explain - to new depths - the older ones. We must therefore invent… language! This is why philosophy is eminently a psychological method: one cannot stretch those kinds of boundaries without impacting far more than the “merely cognitive” data.

Also, it happens that just for everyone else too for philosophers, each has a distinct personality. It’s possible the different strains of philosophy historically were developed not simply because of differences in capacity or achievement in philosophical work and effort, but more so because each philosopher had his own personality and interest which required to diverge somewhat from those of his fellows.

Philosophy as lethe, or as maddening life? There is always what we cannot speak about, truth and philosophy hold to this maxim necessarily like everything else. Some things simply cannot be said – maybe a deeper, more individual conceptual stasis. It is interesting to approach such a condition at a group level, not only an individual one. The ‘glue’ of BTL will be strong enough to sustain massive differences, and be also a basis for a return to life, or to lethe, as the case may be and as needed, if not immediately then certainly with some time. Life and lethe as… philosophy.

In terms of negativity, no negativity can exist without that positive substance in which it realizes, as negative. Negation is implicit as difference. Life always returns to philosophy, and philosophy always returns to life. Uniformity of agreement is impossible, God is dead, and a while after him Satan also died; turns out that without God we also have no need for the devil. Man is a substance, a stasis, waiting to explode across the heavens.


“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

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 1:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It turns out that, to speak real philosophy, or rather do real philosophy, inventing a language is an obvious need. Obvious to who? The very few who approach the horizon and jump off the edge.

But, is this really the thing of it?

Philosophers can smell fate, what may be called strength, in others. Perhaps in this stage of feeling eachother out, we have talibanized (as we say in crackass) in our unique innards. Perhaps the whole talibanization is a part of it… But inside, something might whisper “but they are not only lovers of wisdom, also humans!” And stop us a bit… Only to engender the spiral into the same talibanism!

We have called philosophy negative these last few days (part of that very talibanism), and I have deeply enjoyed breathing free air in the company of y’all’s destructive limits. I have even set my own. But let us concede that we have been like cocks circling eachother proudly, unwilling to attack, expecting the other to vanish and become ourself. Let us take up Parodites on his challenge years ago, and put up the all-time greatest from the old language. It will only be out of this violent individualistic difference that the greatest concepts will find brethren and link.

Everything else, I guess, is childish fighting over whose what color power ranger.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 2:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, our tastes are diverging as soon as the matter becomes about the world outside. What do we wish to take into consideration? What is valuable, wholesome true to us? A question of self-valuing.

Parodites and I have not diverged from one another - if anything, drawn closer. The same demolishing of instincts that would have made man more sensitive to the cosmic cycles may have been the reason for shedding our hides; increased sensitivity to the outside world, which is a natural progression fro the detachment from the world of the instincts.

I take offense, but none dramatic, at the idea that we are cocking and prancing. I think we’re being diligent, and I so modest as to be the one who brings the bad news, and is willing to be beaten for it, even sets himself up for that. That setup was a bit stupid. Astrology is as real as gravity, falls under the same philosophical logic, and gravity is, qua scientific logics, quite as unexplained as astrology.

Perhaps this is a missing key somewhere, that none of the basic phenomena science works with are actually understood. My task has been to change human logics so that they can actually explain things.

Divergence began to occur when we started to discuss politics. But then politics is the very activity of dealing with divergences. Our divergence is a matter of how we step into the world. Not of what we understand to be necessarily true. I even diverge from myself under this political question.

Philosophically, I am willing to claim that nothing of what I have said contradicts anything any of you know to be true. It may contradict a lot of what others expect to be true - or want to be true. Astrology is no less relevant to our philosophy as biology or chemistry. It’s part of the puzzle we are solving - have solved, as far as I’m concerned.

I may be very wrong here, and misestimate what it is that is the nature of our diverging. But in that case Pezer, be offensive, and tell me the truth about it. In what philosophical ways do we diverge?

And Capable - of course I would also very much like to hear this from you. What is perceived as philosophical diverging is wholly certain to be fertile earth. In any case you are right that all worldly inclinations, personalities diverge and that such divergencies have been the cause of diverging philosophies. But the thing is, we are not in the same situation as the ancients; we have inescapable an wholly explicit logics that are true under any conditions. None of us can diverge from these.

So politics requires divergence, and in as far as it has come to dominate our recent discourse, it forms a challenge to the coherency of our philosophical perspectives. Within this challenge, I have brought forth astrology, as it is the only way I see fit to conduct politics, and the only way I see fit to challenge any standing power structures. This does not pertain to any limits to current philosophical principle - it all falls well within the borders, but it is indeed a matter of inclination. It is probably my maximal diverging from (the politics in) this forum. So basically then it is my my maximally political stance.

No respectable politics on Earth has ever not celebrated astrology. From Egypt to Persia to Athens to Rome to Paris to Washington DC, all architecture and conquest is always modeled after some astrological axes of progression, and that is why they conquered. And that is, of course, why it is left out of the schoolbooks; it is too hard, too military, pertaining to echelons where schoolboys and general citizens have no business. And, perhaps as importantly, it refutes everything what we’ve been taught about human equality.


" 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

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 2:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Why be offended? I hold as my own political maximum that animals are as embedded in truth as we are. That astrology, though I understand it little, beautifully adds to this leads me to the maybe simplistic syllogism that my insights, offensive as they may be to a nose unused to seeing animals as brothers, must also complement astrology in the same way. That they complement in the field of political power, which I HATE, but which I need, and form a nonetheless beautiful depth within time for a plan that seems to cook itself.

No, my ultimate political stance is that if I must relinquish my way of proceeding, the destruction must be ultimate. That if my rashness is not compatible with this circle, I will have to find ITS horizon. I may have to find it anyway, as I have decided firmly to set my ethics to writing. What stops me is the question of whether or not that would be economical for the passion that all-consumes me now: the passion of highjacking the universe.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 2:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In that case there is not even a disagreement, let alone a diverging.

It seems you have already forgotten my stance on animals, that I value and identify with most cats more than with most humans - in fact philosophers are the only humans as proud and pure in their responses as cats.

Here, I do diverge from Capable and, I think, Parodites - but this is a value judgment, not a philosophical analysis. I do not claim that cats have the same independence from their instincts as humans; I only claim that it is good for a human to retrieve his instincts. Not by going back somehow, by undoing nature, but by becoming complete again in the way influences work on us. Hence, indeed, astrology.

Yes, political power is hateful. That is why I will never again engage it without the proper map, sword and shield. This is why I only brought up astrology after we’d been discussing politics: it is a means.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 2:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And of course, astrology is for a great part built on the rigorous valuing of animal natures.

In course terms, an astrological position is the combination of a god and an animal. “Saturn in Leo”, “Jupiter in Taurus”.


" 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

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 5:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No two, three, or however many philosophers we might call to mind can possibly occupy the same “plane of immanence” to speak with Deleuze. In my own language, each philosopher attains to a new discontiguous state of consciousness in which he displaces the erotic center of his real-ego construct, of the perishing and external film of physio-sensory excretions and merely phenomenal cognition quivering helplessly over the abyss of the soul, into a new position within the symbolic order; around the eruption of a new symbol for what Voegelin called the depth of the soul, for the ideal and immortal human self whose face is covered up by endless masks and which might bear numberless interpretations, a whole new universe of concepts forms itself in the mind of the philosopher who beheld it and made the Orphic descent into the underworld of this depth- a conceptual universe that is qualitatively irreducible to any other. The task is not to fuse our immanent planes and concept-spheres with one another in agreement on anything beyond the basic premises which we happily share and even revere with fraternity of spirit, for this inter-fusion would amount to falsely hypostasizing and inflating the mere episteme of the arresting-image-of-thought into a cosmic horizon, but rather to mobilize these distinct concept-spheres towards confronting and absorbing one object and goal from different vantages as within the true hypostatic horizon of immanent-transcendence, and with different modes of attack, as from the sea, earth, and air, in warfare, making sure that every dimension of the battlefield is covered by someone. This object is, to my mind, as is available to us from within the two thousandth year of the Gregorian calendar, a new category of Truth, namely the truth as pure negativity, which in other terms I have referred to as the Platonic intuition that so eluded Heidegger, that there is no Being behind beings, that the Being of beings is unequal to itself, is estranged or isolated from itself in line with the principium non-identitatis- is not itself, is not a being, that A does not satisfy the definition of A, and that Being is therefor left to the fate of dividing itself endlessly into conceptual oppositions from out of the immanent ground of truth as pure negativity- conceptual oppositions or agons in which one term of the binary contrast must always outweigh the other and therefor setup the necessary conditions for what in ourselves we call the daemonic, whereby the excess and latent tension of the given opposition is either returned tragico-daemonically into the primordial ground of Being as what Schelling called the unconscious remainder, therein buried within the long night of unconsciousness, or cognitively reified in a higher order of differentiations and, as a psychodynamic tension, re-cohered and stabilized by the creative architect named Eros, within the horizon of the transcendent- through the fulfilled subjectivity of the eroto-daemonic, in whose order of phenomena we find the possibility for and even prelude of a philosophic heroicism, and no less the salvation, completion, and apotheosis of the physical universe, in a grand rediscovery of man as the measure of all things and the existential burden of the human self’s relationship to the creation, whose pregnant moral contours, so laden with meaning, were mythographically traced- though merely traced, in the traditions of Judaeo-Christianity.


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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 12:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Very well said.


" 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

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 12:11 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
However it is also important to identify shared concepts and premises and articulate a secondary language separate from any of our own philosophies, a simplified and smaller exoteric language to use to indicate shared components and territory standing on the surface of the esoteric languages we use separately.


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

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 4:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
No two, three, or however many philosophers we might call to mind can possibly occupy the same “plane of immanence” to speak with Deleuze. In my own language, each philosopher attains to a new discontiguous state of consciousness in which he displaces the erotic center of his real-ego construct, of the perishing and external film of physio-sensory excretions and merely phenomenal cognition quivering helplessly over the abyss of the soul, into a new position within the symbolic order; around the eruption of a new symbol for what Voegelin called the depth of the soul, for the ideal and immortal human self whose face is covered up by endless masks and which might bear numberless interpretations, a whole new universe of concepts forms itself in the mind of the philosopher who beheld it and made the Orphic descent into the underworld of this depth- a conceptual universe that is qualitatively irreducible to any other. The task is not to fuse our immanent planes and concept-spheres with one another in agreement on anything beyond the basic premises which we happily share and even revere with fraternity of spirit, for this inter-fusion would amount to falsely hypostasizing and inflating the mere episteme of the arresting-image-of-thought into a cosmic horizon, but rather to mobilize these distinct concept-spheres towards confronting and absorbing one object and goal from different vantages as within the true hypostatic horizon of immanent-transcendence, and with different modes of attack, as from the sea, earth, and air, in warfare, making sure that every dimension of the battlefield is covered by someone. This object is, to my mind, as is available to us from within the two thousandth year of the Gregorian calendar, a new category of Truth, namely the truth as pure negativity, which in other terms I have referred to as the Platonic intuition that so eluded Heidegger, that there is no Being behind beings, that the Being of beings is unequal to itself, is estranged or isolated from itself in line with the principium non-identitatis- is not itself, is not a being, that A does not satisfy the definition of A, and that Being is therefor left to the fate of dividing itself endlessly into conceptual oppositions from out of the immanent ground of truth as pure negativity- conceptual oppositions or agons in which one term of the binary contrast must always outweigh the other and therefor setup the necessary conditions for what in ourselves we call the daemonic, whereby the excess and latent tension of the given opposition is either returned tragico-daemonically into the primordial ground of Being as what Schelling called the unconscious remainder, therein buried within the long night of unconsciousness, or cognitively reified in a higher order of differentiations and, as a psychodynamic tension, re-cohered and stabilized by the creative architect named Eros, within the horizon of the transcendent- through the fulfilled subjectivity of the eroto-daemonic, in whose order of phenomena we find the possibility for and even prelude of a philosophic heroicism, and no less the salvation, completion, and apotheosis of the physical universe, in a grand rediscovery of man as the measure of all things and the existential burden of the human self’s relationship to the creation, whose pregnant moral contours, so laden with meaning, were mythographically traced- though merely traced, in the traditions of Judaeo-Christianity.

Yes.

Focused upon the object of truth, a shared effort then, from our different and respective positions, I wonder that this eidos of politics is not the perfect representation of that object-task; an initial representation, one full of brave certainties, foolish ambitions, doubts and… negative truth. Negativity is the content that escapes content, a locale beyond itself, trace removals; it is that which lives in content as content but is not itself a content, therefore say it is a condition. Truth as negativity means only that the only way to properly (philosophically) focus on the content is to do so through the lens of the remainder, of that “being of being” as escapes toward the edges and is see to dissolve there.

Aims are still mostly shareable here because we advertise ourselves, as I mentioned elsewhere, this is simply the easiest way to arrange a shared aim. Like animals in the wild, full of buffoon and bluster, most of all for themselves, able to arrange a circumstance through crudely manipulating image-level technics which are known to be effective at mobilizing conscious resources. A magic trick, then, a slight of hand.

Philosophy cannot follow that path and continue to be… philosophy. It will, assuming it can’t abandon the superficial, salient ethos previously cultivated in the heart of that youth in which the philosophically-grasping self first beheld itself, become something like a ghost, perhaps a scholar and hyperspecialist - a “politician”, master of manipulation, secure in its own “certainties” no matter if these require science or superstition of any or every possible flavor and scope to embed in that certitude an exacting self-vengeance of “justice”. Against what, more specifically, does the self take that vengeance? Against philosophy, of course. We are now at the point historically where it becomes possible to understand politics as this precise vengeance against the philosophical.

Means creating ends but still in service to those ends created, rather than in service to truth. But to turn this political madness around through its own deceptions and need and hope to make of it as introductory object of a shared truth, that is something I could devote a good deal of time and writing to. It isn’t yet clear if politics has assumed this crucifix-pose by some deeper necessary logic at work in the budding philosophical collective or if it is mere happenstance and a product simply of local variances and “chance”; such questions (there are many that spring to mind almost immediately simply by virtue of making this present situation properly questionable) would provide plenty of fodder for a nice philosophical investigation.

I’m working on other things at the moment, but might find some time for this. In any case my position on politics is unchanged, but the importance of the comments on the possible task set before different philosophers is not at all lost on me. I suppose that shareable object might find representation in any number of possible ideas; a kind of meta-moral philosophical methodology for a community of real philosophers.

To say a quick word then on politics if this is to be a form we must deal with in terms of the budding truth object: what is politics but the impossibility of every other goal, the impossibility of life itself?-- but not an impossibility in actuality as would be the case of philosophy, instead one of impossibility even in potentia; the problem sinks even further as cannot limit itself before even the philosophical limit of actuality, which by comparison is a quite higher threshold. The two corresponding series of ideations possible to either problematic, that of the qualitatively different kinds of impossibilities of philosophy or “politics”, not even discounting here politics in its empty form as merely pathological (thus quite “world-enabling”) lack of philosophy, namely just one such void as lives out its mortifying lifespan on account of the “self-valuing” of that need, in the terms of the existential-embedding causa sui operating tectonically in the symbolic structure of these, must in this way hopelessly diverge. Not in those agreed-upon premises and basics, not even in the shared fraternity and passion, but simply in the very reality touched upon in either case.

Everyone has their interest, specialty, their “power” by virtue of which particular soul-gravity philosophy can easily find itself swallowed up. We must be an absolute question to ourselves, where absolutely nothing is given or taken for granted-- only this leads inward to the path of truth.


“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

Conceptual stasis Empty
PostSubject: Re: Conceptual stasis Conceptual stasis Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 4:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Aye. We will do it like any other politician: working backwards from the proposals as they arrive. Who chooses to stay back has the prerrogative of advising without revealing any self inspection, except the high jacking of the universe, I imagine, will leave few indifferent this way.

Politics for us will act as a healing mechanism for pessimism, at best, as you say, a spacial health centre for humans in general and philosophers above all. To me, the big point to agree on is what constitutes health. What’s so fun about it is that it’s like shroedingger’s box: ex post facto concecuence of choice. I think we can get it if we keep fighting it out like this, healthiest solution mechanism among men. We already have good reason to suspect in eachother a great will to health.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Civility Empty
PostSubject: Civility Civility Icon_minitimeSat Oct 10, 2015 6:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Japanese were politically superior to the Greek because they were loyal to the clan above family, and loyalty for the land, the gods, was a given, a passive unbreakable loyalty.

The only worship that could follow master worship was the sublime godless worship of buhddism. Death was preferable, but buhddism was acceptable… Beauty most when honor bound, beauty unbound godless.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

“Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Empty
PostSubject: “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Icon_minitimeFri Nov 06, 2015 4:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wittgenstein, from On Certainty: (lost the italics in the copy/paste, unfortunately)…

  1. If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.
  2. Instead of “I know…”, couldn’t Moore have said: “It stands fast for me that…”? And further: “It stands fast for me and many others…”
  3. Why is it not possible for me to doubt that I have never been on the moon? And how could I try to doubt it?
    First and foremost, the supposition that perhaps I have been there would strike me as idle. Nothing would follow from it, nothing be explained by it. It would not tie in with anything in my life.
    When I say “Nothing speaks for, everything against it,” this presupposes a principle of speaking for and against. That is, I must be able to say what would speak for it.
  4. Now would it be correct to say: So far no one has opened my skull in order to see whether there is a brain inside; but everything speaks for, and nothing against, its being what they would find there?
  5. But can it also be said: Everything speaks for, and nothing against the table’s still being there when no one sees it? For what does speak of it?
  6. But if anyone were to doubt it, how would his doubt come out in practice? And couldn’t we peacefully leave him to doubt it, since it makes no difference at all?
  7. Can one say: “Where there is no doubt there is no knowledge either”?
  8. Doesn’t one need grounds for doubt?
  9. Wherever I look, I find no ground for doubting that…
  10. I want to say: We use judgments as principles of judgment.
  11. If a blind man were to ask me “Have you got two hands?” I should not make sure by looking. If I were to have any doubt of it, then I don’t know why I should trust my eyes. For why shouldn’t I test my eyes by looking to find out whether I see my two hands? What is to be tested by what? (Who decides what stands fast?)
    And what does it mean to say that such and such stands fast?
  12. I am not more certain of the meaning of my words that I am of certain judgments. Can I doubt that this colour is called “blue”?
    (My) doubts form a system.
  13. For how do I know that someone is in doubt? How do I know that he uses the words “I doubt it” as I do?
  14. From a child up I learnt to judge like this. This is judging.
  15. This is how I learned to judge; this I got to know as judgment.
  16. But isn’t it experience that teaches us to judge like this, that is to say, that it is correct to judge like this? But how does experience teach us, then? We may derive it from experience, but experience does not direct us to derive anything from experience. If it is the ground for our judging like this, and not just the cause, still we do not have a ground for seeing this in turn as a ground.
  17. No, experience is not the ground for our game of judging. Nor is its outstanding success.
  18. Men have judged that a king can make rain; we say this contradicts all experience. Today they judge that aeroplanes and the radio etc. are means for the closer contact of peoples and the spread of culture.
  19. Under ordinary circumstances I do not satisfy myself that I have two hands by seeing how it looks. Why not? Has experience shown it to be unnecessary? Or (again): Have we in some way learnt a universal law of induction, and do we trust it here too? - But why should we have learnt one universal law first, and not the special one straight away?
  20. After putting a book in a drawer, I assume it is there, unless… “Experience always proves me right. There is no well attested case of a book’s (simply) disappearing.” It has often happened that a book has never turned up again, although we thought we knew for certain where it was. - But experience does really teach that a book, say, does not vanish away. (E.g. gradually evaporates.) But is it this experience with books etc. that leads us to assume that such a book has not vanished away? Well, suppose we were to find that under particular novel circumstances books did vanish away. - Shouldn’t we alter our assumption? Can one give the lie to the effect of experience on our system of assumption?
  21. But do we not simply follow the principle that what has always happened will happen again (or something like it)? What does it mean to follow this principle? Do we really introduce it into our reasoning? Or is it merely the natural law which our inferring apparently follows? This latter it may be. It is not an item in our considerations.
  22. When Moore says he knows such and such, he is really enumerating a lot of empirical propositions which we affirm without special testing; propositions, that is, which have a peculiar logical role in the system of our empirical propositions.
  23. Even if the most trustworthy of men assures me that he knows things are thus and so, this by itself cannot satisfy me that he does know. Only that he believes he knows. That is why Moore’s assurance that he knows… does not interest us. The propositions, however, which Moore retails as examples of such known truths are indeed interesting. Not because anyone knows their truth, or believes he knows them, but because they all have a similar role in the system of our empirical judgments.
  24. We don’t, for example, arrive at any of them as a result of investigation.
    There are e.g. historical investigations and investigations into the shape and also the age of the earth, but not into whether the earth has existed during the last hundred years. Of course many of us have information about this period from our parents and grandparents; but maynt’ they be wrong? - “Nonsense!” one will say. “How should all these people be wrong?” - But is that an argument? Is it not simply the rejection of an idea? And perhaps the determination of a concept? For if I speak of a possible mistake here, this changes the role of “mistake” and “truth” in our lives.
  25. Not only rules, but also examples are needed for establishing a practice. Our rules leave loop-holes open, and the practice has to speak for itself.
  26. We do not learn the practice of making empirical judgments by learning rules: we are taught judgments and their connexion with other judgments. A totality of judgments is made plausible to us.
  27. When we first begin to believe anything, what we believe is not a single proposition, it is a whole system of propositions. (Light dawns gradually over the whole.)
  28. It is not single axioms that strike me as obvious, it is a system in which consequences and premises give one another mutual support.
  29. I am told, for example, that someone climbed this mountain many years ago. Do I always enquire into the reliability of the teller of this story, and whether the mountain did exist years ago? A child learns there are reliable and unreliable informants much later than it learns facts which are told it. It doesn’t learn at all that that mountain has existed for a long time: that is, the question whether it is so doesn’t arise at all. It swallows this consequence down, so to speak, together with what it learns.
  30. The child learns to believe a host of things. I.e. it learns to act according to these beliefs. Bit by bit there forms a system of what is believed, and in that system some things stand unshakeably fast and some are more or less liable to shift. What stands fast does so, not because it is intrinsically obvious or convincing; it is rather held fast by what lies around it.

“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

“Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Empty
PostSubject: Re: “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Icon_minitimeFri Nov 06, 2015 8:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To be more clear, I’m interested in the idea that how he uses the concept of judgments and beliefs which link together into self-supporting systems, producing justification and use capacity, is similar to how we think of values in VO as constructing the undercurrents of the words and ideas we have.

Fixed you said along the lines that when you peel back language and look underneath it, we always see values-- and we only see values. (My paraphrase). Wittgenstein says we use judgments as principles of judgments, or at least that is what he “wants to say”. By the way, this was by far the most coherent of his thought that I could find, in these late notes of his he wrote shortly before he died, compiled into “On Certainty”. At the very end it seems that he really did break finally into real work.

And I see that work as very much aligned to how VO would understand language as flowing from values (judgments) and how self-referential systems of relations cohere typified response-patterns to given input parameters and not necessarily geared to “what is really there” (the object behind the word, or concept), which reminds me a little of the approach to language in Parodites’ philosophy. Daemonic, self-irreconcilable, building toward itself, frenzied and struggling for a philosophical clarity.

The requirement to have “grounds for doubt” is an obvious one of course, I noticed a lot of what he says is so obvious as to be almost banal. There must have been some real idiots back then whom he thought constituted his audience, for him to spell out shit like that as if talking to a 10-year old.


“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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

“Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Empty
PostSubject: Re: “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Icon_minitimeFri Nov 06, 2015 9:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is a form of human valuing, one that relates to conceptuality. He notices that words are forms of judgment, but not yet what judgments are rooted in. As I say in the video, he was no Nietzsche, he was not born with the required honesty, but he was noble and strong enough to want it.

Note that Nietzsche makes it explicit that willing to power is the act of interpreting. “power” does not mean domination, but the power to exert what one is, to selfvalue - he called it a weak and bloodless metaphor for - well for being. His understanding was very subtle, more so than his style suggests.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

“Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Empty
PostSubject: Re: “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Icon_minitimeFri Nov 06, 2015 9:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
To be more clear, I’m interested in the idea that how he uses the concept of judgments and beliefs which link together into self-supporting systems, producing justification and use capacity, is similar to how we think of values in VO as constructing the undercurrents of the words and ideas we have.

Fixed you said along the lines that when you peel back language and look underneath it, we always see values-- and we only see values. (My paraphrase). Wittgenstein says we use judgments as principles of judgments, or at least that is what he “wants to say”. By the way, this was by far the most coherent of his thought that I could find, in these late notes of his he wrote shortly before he died, compiled into “On Certainty”. At the very end it seems that he really did break finally into real work.

And I see that work as very much aligned to how VO would understand language as flowing from values (judgments) and how self-referential systems of relations cohere typified response-patterns to given input parameters and not necessarily geared to “what is really there” (the object behind the word, or concept), which reminds me a little of the approach to language in Parodites’ philosophy. Daemonic, self-irreconcilable, building toward itself, frenzied and struggling for a philosophical clarity.

The requirement to have “grounds for doubt” is an obvious one of course, I noticed a lot of what he says is so obvious as to be almost banal. There must have been some real idiots back then whom he thought constituted his audience, for him to spell out shit like that as if talking to a 10-year old.

Ha, well there still are.

When he saw what was wrong with his Tractatus he was bound to fall back on some hard ground, inevitably recognizing himself in the equation.

I say judgment is still too neutral, false - Valuing includes the actual stuff of the judgment; the ontos. We know it as ‘passion’. Our ‘hearts’. We do not ‘judge’ as much as we ‘are judged’ by our valuing - simply give what we are as interpretation of what we encounter. That life derives from necessities including somehow its potential and ‘error’ and ‘incompleteness’ are required; thus a word like love is more proper than judgment - but ‘value’ covers the ‘economy’ of it all, the mutuality, by far the best.

As I said in my fallen Tower post, VO reads beteeen the lines; it is meant to handle more nuance than language was ever used to handling.
Ultimately everything is in nuance.


" 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

“Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Empty
PostSubject: Re: “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Icon_minitimeFri Nov 06, 2015 9:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
W didn’t discount everything that was beyond the grasp of “language” (as he somewhat rigidly understood it) but claimed we can’t talk about it, it is “there” but he wanted to explore how we know it is there if it is not adequate to the languages we have at our disposal.

I like this final writing of his very much, he is tracing close to the earth, almost cutting into it. The sharpness is like a desperation and a hunger, he wants the answer. As I said to someone else today, answers are only questions we don’t yet have the courage to ask. If W had the elaborated concept of value / self-value as well as the principle of excess and negativity I think his soul would have been that much lighter.

“We don’t know that we have two hands by virtue of language”, therefore “how can we talk about how we know that we have two hands?” is essential his concern – in other words he wanted a psychology and the principles for one. Again, self-valuing and/or the daemonic provide this for us, sadly he couldn’t arrive at them and got stuck in the polarized daemonic opposition “in and out” or subject and object. Thus viewing language as essentially problematic and also probably why he idealized solutions to philosophical problems as a total and complete vanishing of the problem, it’s absolute disappearance rather than any kind of created-constructed answer, in terms of a subjectivity or as “system building”.


“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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

“Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Empty
PostSubject: Re: “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Icon_minitimeFri Nov 06, 2015 2:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
W didn’t discount everything that was beyond the grasp of “language” (as he somewhat rigidly understood it) but claimed we can’t talk about it, it is “there” but he wanted to explore how we know it is there if it is not adequate to the languages we have at our disposal.

Exactly, he oriented on language. He tried to reason the thing from within language. He approaches this diligently, by pushing Kant back, revealing the ‘thing as such’ to be a typically poetic conception, and setting the standard of positive knowledge theory.

“The world is the totality of facts, not of things.”

As a consequence, the bull like determined nobleman genius reasoned his subject all the way to its own perfect thing-hood. His conception of language is a conception of a would-be self-valuing, save for assumptions like these:

Where this is true:
Quote :
5.47
It is clear that everything which can be said
beforehand about the form of all propositions at
all can be said on one occasion.

This is not:
Quote :
6.123
It is clear that the laws of logic cannot themselves
obey further logical laws.

As logic is indeed not a plane, but an activity, a representation, the signs of which become crystallized in things like “+” and “=”, but on a deeper level this is now how realities compare to each other. That happens through self-valuing ‘warring’. Language is like the careless general that sends his legions into death, or sometimes does something useful with his resources. These legions are ‘the will’, which finally becomes an aspect of self-valuing once sufficient power has been permanently attained in the philosopher of the future. Nietzsche wisely did not account for this possibility beyond clarifying it in his metaphors, the superman, the eternal return.

Will to power was always a test case. Who would master it, control it, ride it to the real horizon? Riders on the Storm, indeed.

Sorry for getting off the point so far. I am looking for a speocific passage in the Tractatus where he basically says something like vo can not exist. Can’t see to find it though. Its about the notion that is proven true by its mere existence. Somehow that is the case for vo. It’s a nice mindbender to ride that link.

Quote :
I like this final writing of his very much, he is tracing close to the earth, almost cutting into it. The sharpness is like a desperation and a hunger, he wants the answer. As I said to someone else today, answers are only questions we don’t yet have the courage to ask. If W had the elaborated concept of value / self-value as well as the principle of excess and negativity I think his soul would have been that much lighter.

No doubt, that is actually a touching image. Wind in the hair, so to speak. I too am very fond of him. As everyone, as he simply was an utterly good man in all the senses, ‘slave’ and ‘master’. As a man he was surely a high point. His philosophy can be seen as the humility of man who knows he has to go down now. The first work as a house on the hill, a perfecthouse, that could never withstand the perfect storm… but that signifies the noble will of man to continue building in the face of the wrathful flux.
In what he identifies as impossible, he identifies ‘magical philosophy’, which is what Nietzsche really is; the direct address of the world by the word by addressing it as the word. Will as interpretation. He Who Speaks. The Magus that stands at the outset of Ages, to evoke Crowley.

To use a Heideggerian twist, Wittgenstein speaks about existence, but ultimately philosophy must speak existence, at the same time. It has to absorb the force in the word. I refer to a typical Parodites sentence, or one by Nietzsche; such sentences justify themselves even unto themselves. They have to speak into man, breathe life into him. Of course we all aspire to this and not in vain, but Parodites is the most consistent in this. This is also how I read his philosophy; it is wholly self-justified, as Pezer says it does not seek to justify itself, it is made out of something even beyond justification, therefore it touches the tragic so well.

Quote :
“We don’t know that we have two hands by virtue of language”, therefore “how can we talk about how we know that we have two hands?” is essential his concern – in other words he wanted a psychology and the principles for one. Again, self-valuing and/or the daemonic provide this for us, sadly he couldn’t arrive at them and got stuck in the polarized daemonic opposition “in and out” or subject and object. Thus viewing language as essentially problematic and also probably why he idealized solutions to philosophical problems as a total and complete vanishing of the problem, it’s absolute disappearance rather than any kind of created-constructed answer, in terms of a subjectivity or as “system building”.

He completed the puzzle and then saw that the picture on the box wasn’t the same as the picture he had completed. He then realized that the picture on the box did not exist. The is thus the ultimate “Master of Philosophy” - he arrived at the knowledge that philosophy-as-such does not prescribe the world-as-such, but rather itself.
From thereon to find a road to the world is almost impossible.


" 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

“Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Empty
PostSubject: Re: “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? “Judgment” = “value” , what say you? Icon_minitimeMon Nov 09, 2015 3:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Gree that the difference between N and W iis what matters here. N went into the abyss, let’s get back to that later. W did no, W decided, as the true aristocrat (in the N sense of aristocrat that scoffs at vons and vans and dels) he was, that all ultimately could be justified and universalized by HIS present. His present joy. This is the epitome of the evolutionary/tectonic point that is aristocracy, but not of philosophy, which can concieve evolution and tectonics, the tiniest of things first and everything thence. As usual, the Greeks scratched ground here first with the atom. Time and space, Einstein gave us almost the thing. QM was like God keeping Moses from entering Israel. Einstein still held out for universality, doubted God. Ye, faith of the jewish caliber is the same as rigid discipline of the philosophical caliber: first I am right, then I exert the last ounce of my morality for the jew, Honesty for the philosopher.

Self-valuing logic has the beauty that it only appears to infringe on the philosopher’s honesty from a distance, like The Enemy for the jew’s morality, but up close it allows all, prescribes nothing, and potentiates. Like The Enemy, I suppose, lol, an unexplored path for jewish faith? Je niaise.

Judgement is always valuing, but so is the study of the genealogy of all forms of judgement, which is will to power, which is the High value, the mother value. I will to power, therefore I value, therefore I will to power… Sawelios, snake?

In any case, only a logic such as self valuing logic can allow something as free as tectonics to cohere with the historicity of Wittgenstein’s universality and not cause headache inducing confusion.

Ditto daemonic philosophy, which is the historicity of thought itself itself.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Siege Empty
PostSubject: Siege Siege Icon_minitimeThu Nov 05, 2015 6:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ive managed to man up and put something in the tower. If its any good Ill find out next month when I dare to read it again. Or next year. Or until I get a call of distress.

In any case the Tower could not withstand its vacuum anylonger, the meaning of the name was bound to collapse. It is not like there isn’t any justice in claiming a peak.

What I like about my own doubts about it now is that it produces a siege state, where the right of the post to be in the tower is in question. That is why I report from the field of Battle, where the doubting Arjuna was made to face his horizon.

If however it were to be fortified by powers that sustain it and draw from it, then it shall rightfully be seen as the rightful seeing. Across all those future fields the glance catches itself with a fish in its beak. We shall not be fruitless.


" 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 : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Siege Empty
PostSubject: Re: Siege Siege Icon_minitimeThu Nov 05, 2015 11:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oh No! Fire and rocks come down.

Fixed Cross wrote:
Value ontology is a philosophy that reads between the lines.

Let me will twist your gaze a bit to the right angle by formalizing a much required philosophical axiom:

Being is a word.

That is to say it might only be that. Unless we mean it right, Shoot straight. Philosophy crosses the long distance between word and reality. Or it has tried. By analogy, I would be claiming that value ontology is an arrow that hit the bulls eye. And this means there might be others that hit it - let’s say Nietzsche was the first to hit the board, to prove it exists. In that case, VO might be just one ring closer to the center. But this is only a metaphor. As is “everything”.

From hereon, we shall thus discuss “being” thinking of it as “the word “being”” . *

Into the words then. To value means to hold something distinct from another. “Being” = “Self-valuing” or extended “valuing registration (impacting physis) in terms of self” whereby “self” refers to the continuous (so as to be registered as existence, ‘affect’ if you will) form of the valuing, not to anything besides valuing, which if it is destined to be more than dissolution, entropy, amounts in self-valuing.

“self-valuing” is thus indirect, as is “being”.

Acting is direct, Directness is a form of being, caused by a dense configuration of passive being that begins to be changed by the fact that its internal logics contraict the others, when they are in the same place at the same time. This is when the will to power arises; when self-valuing becomes active, an valuing becomes a matter of overcoming resistance and thereby inadvertently self-overcoming. Unless one is literally made out of gold, which can not be changed, and is thus perfectly self-valuing. Gold acts on its own terms; that is why the ancients called it a noble metal.

Some actions lead to death. An action also “self-values” but it has a very limited lifespan. An organic being is a collection of actions and results on the capacity to sustain similar actions.

Some beings develop a greater range of successful actions, others die and whither off because their range wasn’t sufficient to experiment. Experiment is the only way to acquire power. When one is given great influence but no experience, what some would call power quickly turns against and very likely annihilates its wielder. This philosophy is born out of endurance, out of rugged naked experience with the wild. It is both psychedelic an analytics. It is life, the circle, the imperfect always improving excellence of being that Homer sings about and that shall be exalted even above Homers imagination, to Olympian laughter among humans being as common as birds among a song.

To be clear: objects or characters or natures or individuals are no longer given. They are there only in as far as they self-value.

For instance: a tree still falls if there is no one around and it produces turbulence in the air and ground but it does not produce ‘sound’. That is a phenomenon that derives from our eardrums, i.e. the thing between the phenomenon and ‘that which gives’ - the ‘giver’ - and I mean of meaning, of character, objectivity, nature, individuation; being-as-such. ‘Sound as such’ namely does not exist; there must be ‘a sound’ or ‘several sounds’ for ‘sound’ to exist. That means that it must becomes something within something else; a human experience. Therein can it self-value; i.e. respond to its environment in such a way as to continue to exist. That is not to say ‘to itself’. But: being in as far as it is to other beings and back to itself, the dharma, which causes ‘karma’ or simply determines the level of our involvement in our own being. Most lives, I fear, most civilized lives at least, are lived by others than the entity that might emerge if the mind was dead-seat on being, and no longer allowing for it to be pulled into a Frankensteinian quasi existence by unknown hyperbolic assumptions.

What we need is visceral pathos, passion of the heart to direct the brains great madness, the violent ventures of which a man is inadvertently capable and often inclined, which must ultimately result in mastery of the Earthll that is to say, to behave in such a way that makes it possible to ay that the Earth self-values. Right now, man is a contradiction to that. A great one, requiring a great solution. Man is not capable of this in general, he needs his excessive warriors or that. These have now taken up the sword. Sword? what a I saying – the pen. Far more dangerous.

*(The word refers to a complex arrangement of things, namely everything. It does not, thusly, appear to do its object of reference any justice. It does not even show how precisely it must, as a word, contain itself within the vast, nay infinite expanse of its reference.

But there never was a way to particularize the term being so as to represent, rather than to refer. Or so it seemed: in this very yearning for such a way was the way itself. The thinking mind needed required a ‘self’ (this is what philosophy is, the search for the self of thought), but it was looking in all the wrong places. It was looking at everything besides the ends to its passion. It could not acknowledge that all is selective passion, valuing, because that seems not noble enough. And - it wasn’t. Man could not believe this, because he was not noble enough. He did not deserve to believe it.)

It was worth a shot. The first line is excellent.

My call is still valid, the Towers call that is - I for me just need to work on a deeper and better honed piece.


" 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

Siege Empty
PostSubject: Re: Siege Siege Icon_minitimeSat Nov 07, 2015 3:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don’t know, but my reaction, after seconds of stunned appreciation, is “that is motherfucking right. Brace y’all selves.”

This thing is trv. I don’t think it needs polishing. That said, a polished version of it may be more fit for the tower, so that it may appropriately self-value within it. What is visceral has no home.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Siege Empty
PostSubject: Re: Siege Siege Icon_minitimeWed Nov 11, 2015 6:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thanks.
I missed this post as I avoided looking at the piece
Just got my courage up, corrected it, and Ill put it back to the Tower.

Sowilo!

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Esoteric Philosophical Politics Empty
PostSubject: Esoteric Philosophical Politics Esoteric Philosophical Politics Icon_minitimeSat Dec 19, 2015 2:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ive been having this idea ever since I read a passage in Nietzsches notebooks, that beautifully spoke of danger in the streets and danger in the heart as conditions for creating the higher type. The passage was so viscerally evocative to me at the time of quintessentilaly American situations that it occurred to me even that he might have meant to implicitly refer to that country, which he mentions so infrequently that I find it a bit ‘suspect’. He may have had an aim not mentioning it. He may have been a much more esoteric political philosopher than for example Leo Strauss gives him credit for.

The subject naturally came up as I started this philosophy walk in front of a Chinese Pentecoastal church. It subsequently progressed to trace a giant arc across many of my sociologocal ideas, and ultimately tied in with the greatest political goal I have ever formuled; to value-economocally recolonize Africa to establish a higher culture. Pezer expressed strong liking of a post I had made earlier in this topic, I wonder if you could located it, Pezer, that would be great. I have as with so many inspired posts no idea when and where I posted it.

I imvited Sauwelios to look at these videos in order to inform you that I am considering making this “black supremacy” my exoteric politics. As you see I am quite convinced of the arguments I give, but I am equally aware of very powerful objections, some of which I make explicit in the second video. But the point is now that to express and stimulate.sich politics would serve us very well politically. Besides it will be a very funny way to screw with the banal racists on ILP and elsewhere, who have already made it impossible to exoterically cultivate the idea of a European higher type, as they would most certainly not be the road that leads to it.

Bottom line, it would be the conductors of such a scheme that are de facto the highest political-philosophical type. But esotericism here would serve me beautifully. I reauest that you subtly scheme along, objecting where you must, allowing where you can, and adding fuel to the fire where (and if) you will. The esoteric angle is that a Nietzschean recolonizing of Africa will not go without a sweeping consent among the black race. Besides this, it would be such a beautiful movement of will, like the Israelites reclaiming their homeland but on a much vaster scale, and with a universal human significance.

Naturally, the Chinese, who are currently making recolonization efforts, must be treated, very carefully, as allies.

Capable, the second video is my overture to Existential Capitalism.
youtu.be/Q5atOSug34Q
youtu.be/qSHRWXZ2FqU


" 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

Esoteric Philosophical Politics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Esoteric Philosophical Politics Esoteric Philosophical Politics Icon_minitimeSat Dec 19, 2015 6:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ve been giving this much thought. Esoteric thought. Nietzschean thought.

Sawelios is right, though he didn’t stress the point: the higher type CANNOT be a race, at least not as it is known, no race but the hyperborean race, and even that is much too… high for the next steps.

The return to Africa belongs to ALL of the first world, capitalism does not self-value as hip hop, hip hop commands capital. And everybody loves hip hop.

And yet, it’s not even hip hop. There is a great challenge in Africa in how not to value it: a charity case, a wild pig hunt, the bathroom of the world. Also, it cannot take on all its satanic hues, the first world is not ready for that. It is not even ready to affirmatively value itself as this. We, the third world, need to open our loving arms, and from the ambrace shall emerge Africa.

So, Africa needs to be politiziced especially beyond race, and avoiding all liberal attempts at this such as pity or something. Africa the great, home of the future master race. A roar.

White people cannot feel left out or forboding, or too comfortable. They need to feel a challenge, that they have the right to stake a claim there and the honor bound duty to earn it. All of its capitalist power, deprived of its weaknesses, deprived of its fascisms and communisms and liberalisms and self-deciets. All that is self affirmingly humanm about capitalism: says Africa “come to me, bring me water, I will give fruit beyond your dreams, worthy of the next great thing in human. All of your modern efforts have been leading up to THIS.”

Black people are just slightly more blessed, cause they were there up until a shorter time ago. But our descent into hell gave us the tools to earn our way back to it. The prodigal son, but this prodigal son is NOT coming back broke and broken.
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

Esoteric Philosophical Politics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Esoteric Philosophical Politics Esoteric Philosophical Politics Icon_minitimeSat Dec 19, 2015 6:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The reason Nietzsche omitted America so conspicuosly was allways obvious to me. It was still to young, undeserving of his attention, an overcoming that hadn’t happened yet. It had to develop. This is our chance, our only hope is to move beyond Nietzsce’s Europe for our dancing star. A new Persia, born here with the hippies but global in destiny.
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

Esoteric Philosophical Politics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Esoteric Philosophical Politics Esoteric Philosophical Politics Icon_minitimeSat Dec 19, 2015 7:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
(And the hippies were born from the hipsters, the jazzmen, the drunks. Our generation’s innovation is that it aspires to legality, as much a son of the lawyers and ad-men, of mainstream innovators, as hippies.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
Sauwelios

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Esoteric Philosophical Politics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Esoteric Philosophical Politics Esoteric Philosophical Politics Icon_minitimeMon Dec 21, 2015 9:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Ive been having this idea ever since I read a passage in Nietzsches notebooks, that beautifully spoke of danger in the streets and danger in the heart as conditions for creating the higher type. The passage was so viscerally evocative to me at the time of quintessentilaly American situations that it occurred to me even that he might have meant to implicitly refer to that country, which he mentions so infrequently that I find it a bit ‘suspect’. He may have had an aim not mentioning it. He may have been a much more esoteric political philosopher than for example Leo Strauss gives him credit for.

The subject naturally came up as I started this philosophy walk in front of a Chinese Pentecoastal church. It subsequently progressed to trace a giant arc across many of my sociologocal ideas, and ultimately tied in with the greatest political goal I have ever formuled; to value-economocally recolonize Africa to establish a higher culture. Pezer expressed strong liking of a post I had made earlier in this topic, I wonder if you could located it, Pezer, that would be great. I have as with so many inspired posts no idea when and where I posted it.

I imvited Sauwelios to look at these videos in order to inform you that I am considering making this “black supremacy” my exoteric politics. As you see I am quite convinced of the arguments I give, but I am equally aware of very powerful objections, some of which I make explicit in the second video. But the point is now that to express and stimulate.sich politics would serve us very well politically. Besides it will be a very funny way to screw with the banal racists on ILP and elsewhere, who have already made it impossible to exoterically cultivate the idea of a European higher type, as they would most certainly not be the road that leads to it.

Bottom line, it would be the conductors of such a scheme that are de facto the highest political-philosophical type. But esotericism here would serve me beautifully. I reauest that you subtly scheme along, objecting where you must, allowing where you can, and adding fuel to the fire where (and if) you will. The esoteric angle is that a Nietzschean recolonizing of Africa will not go without a sweeping consent among the black race. Besides this, it would be such a beautiful movement of will, like the Israelites reclaiming their homeland but on a much vaster scale, and with a universal human significance.

Naturally, the Chinese, who are currently making recolonization efforts, must be treated, very carefully, as allies.

I’m not sure if you or Pezer is more right about Nietzsche’s stance towards America. In any case, my objections to your idea are solely “external”, not at all “internal”. Let me explain. If you’re going to try and establish a higher culture without a cataclysm–that is, if you’re gonna do it by design instead of re-enthroning, and then leaving it up to, chance–, I think your idea may well be the most viable. However, just as I’ve embraced VO but keep making explicit references to the doctrine of the will to power, so I will also keep championing the teaching of the recurrence. Thus when Straus writes, in the context of Nietzsche, that “[t]he possibility of surpassing and overcoming all previous human types reveals itself to the present, less because the present is superior to all past ages than because it is the moment of the greatest danger and chiefly for this reason of the greatest hope”, I interpret this to mean that the highest human type hitherto would be the type that, confronted with the danger of “limitless vistas for progress in the future” (Mahdi, on Machiavelli)–i.e., stagnation in the single human ideal, “the last man”–, commands and legislates the recurrence of “all past ages”.

“The philosopher, as distinguished from the scholar or scientist, is the complementary man in whom not only man but the rest of existence is justified (cf. aph. 207); he is the peak which does not permit and still less demand to be overcome. […]
Instead of explaining why it is necessary to affirm the eternal return, Nietzsche indicates that the highest achievement, as all earlier high achievements, is in the last analysis not the work of reason but of nature […]. There is an order of rank of the natures; at the summit of the hierarchy is the complementary man. His supremacy is shown by the fact that he solves the highest, the most difficult problem. As we have observed, for Nietzsche nature has become a problem and yet he cannot do without nature. Nature, we may say, has become a problem owing to the fact that man is conquering nature and there are no assignable limits to that conquest. […] Nature, the eternity of nature, owes its being to a postulation, to an act of the will to power on the part of the highest nature.” (Strauss, same book, different chapter.)

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Capitalism Empty
PostSubject: Capitalism Capitalism Icon_minitimeTue Dec 29, 2015 2:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
How to separate consumerism from capitalism? The psychological (un)conscious reality produces consumerism, but capitalism cannot be reduced to consumption-addiction alone and could exist without it. Or is it only a matter of the real quality of products that are consumed?

I know people who do their shopping at Walmart, they don’t know they are contributing to the destruction of small (not super-massive multinational corporations) businesses and to the mass consumerism of society, a race to the bottom of quality and wages. They either don’t know or don’t care.

Capitalism is the materialization of human potential and human idiocy on a collective scale. Since there’s no alternative to people having potential or to people being flawed, it is likely that capitalism will continue indefinitely. Money can recycle into new units to erase or transfer debts, or whole infrastructures could collapse or be swallowed by war, but at the end of the day people still have potential, and still have flaws.

Can a focus on resisting blind consumerism do enough to correct imbalances in capitalism? Obviously “blind consumerism” is a value-standard that naturally separates the high from the low.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Cardboard Empty
PostSubject: Cardboard Cardboard Icon_minitimeTue Dec 29, 2015 2:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This VR is like looking through someone else’s eyes. Really, that is what it feels like, being in another body or being in a dream. I think a major significance of this technology is how it simulates a dream-experience.

What are the philosophical implications of cardboard? Go try it out and then let me know.

Interestingly I also heard there’s a Vice News app for it, where you can get right inside the scenes and events being reported on. Apparently this makes one feel as if they were “right there” and is apparently “much better than reading about history in books”.

I don’t feel I need to even respond to such claims. But we should include these new technologies into our most serious philosophical analyses. If not fear of technology, love of technology, or “balanced use” of technology then what can be the philosopher’s method of approach? Maybe we simply need to wait for the eventual normalization of these things, along with everyone else, e.g. smart phones. Maybe only programmers can command real power over novel devices.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Things I’ve learned from investigating political economy Empty
PostSubject: Things I’ve learned from investigating political economy Things I’ve learned from investigating political economy Icon_minitimeWed Jan 13, 2016 2:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

  1. For one thing, there is no such thing as “Marxism”, “socialism” or even “liberalism”, that these are thought of as independent systems or political-economic positions is incorrect. These are only shades of capitalism— these are partially-marginal, quasi-rebellious aspects of capitalism that function to help mediate capitalism’s internally antagonistic relations. The simple reason I know this is because no Marxist, socialist, communist, liberalist or whatever kind of society could ever truly exist; every society is by default a capitalist society. Fantasies about alternate forms of politics or socioeconomics are just that, fantasies. So when people like Marx or Zizek or whoever else pretend as if we are working for a world that overcomes capital relations that is just either stupid (not thought through) or deceitful. Revolutionaries aren’t working for a post-capitalist, purely emancipatory-egalitarian world, they are working for capitalism. They are sublimating various psychological-political impulses in ways that allow capital relations space and time to adjust their forms, like how a living organism evolves.

  2. There is no such thing as “capitalism”, there are only power- and psyche-relations that can be called capital-based. The idea of capitalism as a single practical system or paradigm obscures the fact that everything is “capital-ist”. There are precious few things that are not inherently driven by relations that might be called capitalizing at heart-- philosophy and art are two things that have the potential to be non-capitalist, namely the pure seeking for truth as such, and for self-realization as such within a psychic non-pathological, truth-process adherence and openness. In this way what is called love, or rather what is really meant by the idea of love, is another non- or anti-capitalism.

The drive for truth and for self (philosophy, or sometimes art) and the drive for another person in those same terms (real love) are one of the two poles of resistance to capitalism; the other pole is simple incidental resistance of non-capitalizable factors, one of the primary of these being the factor of human limitations and human ignorances. Unfortunately for us, neither philosophy, nor art, nor love, are able to form a world for themselves within and above the world at large; nature and capital-relations form the base reality and truth-movements arise as micro-growths upon that base. To expect a truth (as philosophy, art, or love) to be able to live and form a total reality for itself without the world-reality of nature/capitalism would be the same as expecting human consciousness to exist without a human body, it doesn’t make sense, the whole ideal contradicts the very conditions that in fact make the ideal even possible.

  1. Humane don’t want an end to capitalism, they want a better capitalism which means one functioning with less friction in their lives. This unstated fact of human psycho-pathology is what is driving the march for technologically-rationalized global neoliberal capitalism and all the brainwashing and destruction and anti-truth that comes from it. The higher mental and emotional state and corresponding every investment that would be needed to sustain a true society would negate that society being possible to endure for a longer period of time, since entropy always kicks in. In fact the argument could be made that only when a world has been made where the friction, stress and “natural capital-isms” are no longer present in any recognizable or direct manner, could or theoretically become possible for a true society (one where the drives for truth as outlined above would be able to maximize, externalize and live indefinitely without entropic collapse) to form. This is because it becomes possible for us to imagine that such an “absolutely stress-free organization of totally and smoothly functioning absolute capital-relations” could be capable of holding something upon itself in a way that allows that emergent thing freedom from entropic need. Similar to how the absolute regimentation-slavery of the physical body was required for conscious-subjective life to gain freedom in the higher domain of the mind: quite simply, the mind is largely immune to tons of otherwise entropic requirements and effects of natural law since these are now mediated downwardly by the regular and absolutely structured-repressing system of the biological organism.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

What is often missed in philosophy Empty
PostSubject: What is often missed in philosophy What is often missed in philosophy Icon_minitimeFri Jul 15, 2016 5:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Writers don’t simply try to disclose the true as they see it, but also try to create the true. Truth is created (to some degree) when the writer persuades the reader to adopt the writer’s view and premises and ways of thinking; this is especially true in philosophy. Most philosophy writers pretend they are objectively disclosing truth, when what they are also doing is making an attractive construct of ways of thinking, feeling and valuing that all prescribes certain means and ends. That construct can be accepted even without accepting the truths that are being argued, and this is a way of making those “truths” accepted anyway.

My goal is to write philosophy without this persuasive element. I want to disclose pure truth and I want to avoid the effect of convincing the reader to go along with my conceptual or affective schema simply because my schema appears good, useful, interesting or difficult to deny or to understand. I want to write philosophy that destroys the persuasiveness of the implied schemas used so that truth as such can be clearly viewed and dealt with. It isn’t that I don’t want to convince people; it’s that I don’t want it to be possible to convince someone without them also seeing the equal measure of truth connected actually to that reality of “persuasive factors”, the conceptual and affective schemas that only happen to be employed at any particular moment or juncture of text or thought.


“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
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is often missed in philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is often missed in philosophy What is often missed in philosophy Icon_minitimeSun Aug 07, 2016 10:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is my first post. Please forgive me while I adjust to the forum and its members.

You have my respect regarding the desire to write philosophic works. I enjoy discussing the concepts within most philosophies.

Regarding your goal, won’t you have to be totally objective in order to do that?

That would mean no personal opinions. Only supportable facts. That could end up being a dry read.

And then too, people want to hear whatever supports their budding views of life and the world. This could be pretty hard-hitting for many readers.

I agree that a philosophy should not be creating truths. Leave that to religions. But the philosophy should describe the truth.
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

What is often missed in philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is often missed in philosophy What is often missed in philosophy Icon_minitimeSun Aug 07, 2016 1:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
This is my first post. Please forgive me while I adjust to the forum and its members.

You have my respect regarding the desire to write philosophic works. I enjoy discussing the concepts within most philosophies.

Regarding your goal, won’t you have to be totally objective in order to do that?

That would mean no personal opinions. Only supportable facts. That could end up being a dry read.

And then too, people want to hear whatever supports their budding views of life and the world. This could be pretty hard-hitting for many readers.

I agree that a philosophy should not be creating truths. Leave that to religions. But the philosophy should describe the truth.

Hi, and welcome here.

What I described doesn’t require perfect Objectivity, but it does require greater objectivity than is common, even for most philosophers. Philosophy should judge itself by how far along that continuum it progresses, the continuum of objectivity. And objectivity doesn’t mean “not subjective”, it actually means more, greater, more accurate subjectivity.

Opinions don’t exist. There are only good or bad ideas.


“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
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

What is often missed in philosophy Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is often missed in philosophy What is often missed in philosophy Icon_minitimeSun Aug 07, 2016 10:29 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hi Capable,

Thanks.

Good clarifying response. I have had the discussion of the duality of objective/subjective numerous times.

Pure objectivity is next to impossible because of the way our brain works. But yes, subjectivity based on and supported by the objective is a good way of phrasing it.

IMO all too many philosophic works begin in the subjective and regress into the imaginary because they failed to support their subjectivity with the objective.

I think that a good philosophy would be one that stands on its own without invoking any supernatural powers. That is, rooted in the objective.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7170
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

[Anima] Introduction: From Jung to Parodites Empty
PostSubject: [Anima] Introduction: From Jung to Parodites [Anima] Introduction: From Jung to Parodites Icon_minitimeSun Aug 28, 2016 10:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
ANIMA
The name of a psychological school that aims at academic and clinical influence, based on the philosophy of Parodites, as well as on the categories created by Carl Jung; powerful memes well embedded in the global consciousness, sufficiently truthful as well as porous and mutable enough to serve as a plastic basis for a deeper meditation, which in turn is pushing forth a more penetrating method. Knowledge equals power when it is perfectly framed; but once we get deep into the mind, the face value hierarchies dissolve and knowledges are framed by each other, much like is the case in Relativity. Deeper hierarchies become discernible through new means; inherent hierarchies, logical arrangement, and what comes into play now is the esthetics of necessity.

Wherever necessity is found, it pertains at once to the mind that finds it and the thing the mind finds it to pertain to. Necessity is deeper than the mind and the thing, it is the world, and the mind becomes the thing in terms of it. So the mind is always made up of things, which are arranged by necessity; and the mind is necessary to itself, as the arrangement of things it works with is necessary for it to recognize itself. When the edifice is compromised we get schizophrenia and psychosis; in cases of a vigorous constitution the mind re arranges itself into a new, more powerfully representative, more simple and subtle and violent, imposing, natural, phenomenal hierarchy. In cases of a less than vigorous constitution, the entity ceases to exist and the organism perishes, suddenly or steadily; or it becomes entirely enslaved to another entity. It seems that up to 90 percent of westernized humans are so enslaved or perishing. That very few westernized people are not going through the process of re arrangement, and that by far the greatest number of them have no confidence that there is something solid beyond; not only is there no life after death, there seems to be no existence after the perishing lie. The task that is called Anima today is the task of building a womb for man to be reborn in a new subtle hierarchy. The proto-philosophy of Carl Gustav Jung, which holds that each psyche consists of a conscious agent and a subconscious agent that provides the substance of the conscious agent, but to such a minute degree that more often the conscious agent contradicts, or is entirely tangential to the subconscious, to which Jung very simply attributed a structural integrity, a Self; it is this posited Self that merits breakdown now, so that it can be rebuild in a greater, more subtle, more suitable form, so that in the end, human society can be submerged in its tranquil waters and breathe some cool truth…

Formally, health is the aim; de facto, the attained aim is the restoration of the instinct for health. This is, of course, the essence of health, health itself; but it is not yet robust. Human health relies on concepts; and it is only this generation of philosophers that dares to put forth concepts robust enough to penetrate into the heart of life and pervade its veins to sustain a working-health, a chemistry that lifts up, an octopus like being of understanding that is able to catch falling and straying elements and put them back into play; a politics of sanity through the reconfiguration of the concept Health, by the conceptualization of the unbroken; the vortex of drives before the lie… our aim is to create a seat of truth for the truthful, without attempting to fully solidify the Volcanic nature of the ground to this seat; Anima offers man a life inside the volcano of his real psyche, his organism; rather than in the dustclouds, far above the Earth which is invisible for any of those particles.

Metaphors drown this text now in itself, as metaphor is the substance of the anima on paper, and the point can’t be made like a logical point, it must be phenomenally forged, like tectonic planets forge a mountainrange.

BTL has been a triumph over Dialectics; it has afforded philosophy a context to engage itself in chemical processes without lowering itself to the futile issue of right and wrong; all positions here are right to themselves; they are consistent with themselves, with their ground; like tectonic plates; consistencies within a universe of difference pushing together form heights.

Anima works only is the recognition of the attainment of a certain plateau; the conviction that the philosophical world as it has taken shape is edgy and rocky enough to withstand the chaotic nature of popular theory; it has been brutalized by time, enough that it can stand in the world, as an uncanny object of attraction and dread, as all great things must first appear.

This is not an initiative sanctioned by Parodites - he is not responsible for any of the lines I draw, certainly he hasnt pointed me toward Jung; Anima operates in the unmarked area of possible overlap; In a sense like a river delta between land and sea. The idea is to build a harbor, ships, docks, and integrate the land with the sea; to be able to survive at sea, outside of Schopenhauers principium individuationis and yet within the ranges of the potential self; to learn to swim, essentially, in the waters of the psyche.

Invited to join Anima are all those who have participated in the Pentad.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

War of values (of valuing) Empty
PostSubject: War of values (of valuing) War of values (of valuing) Icon_minitimeTue Sep 06, 2016 6:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s interesting to see today the war between pro and con “political correctness” such as on universities and what Trump has opened up with his kind of comments breaking the dynamic wide open. Free speech has been somewhat redefined into two alternate definitions: 1. Say whatever you want without limit, and 2. The right to speech that isn’t harmful (that doesn’t cut off the speech of others).

Trump and libertarians are in the first camp, universities and liberals are in the second camp.

The problem is that neither position works as a functional definition for freedom of speech. It is easy to say that “say whatever you want” freedom is the standard, but certain forms of speech are meant precisely to cut down the freedom (of speech, and otherwise) of others, for example speech that relies on racist or overtly stereotyping remarks actually seeks to redefine the conversational space in such a way that certain people and groups (and the speech of those people and groups who are targeted) are removed or de-prioritized from the discourse.

Is speech that intends to curtail the speech of others, a form of freedom of speech that ought to be legally/socially protected? How to establish the right to speech of those who are deliberately excluded? Excluding people based on social or racial groups is one thing, excluding people based on their violation of the speech rights of others (trolls) is another; should trolls have a “right” to speech even though their speech exists primarily to trounce the speech rights of others, and offers seemingly no other positive value?

Ayn Rand thought all speech should be protected, even that of the worst trolls. She thought the only way to fight against racism and intolerance is to openly resist it; not resist its right to say what it says but to resist it by pointing out how wrong it is. She disagreed with equality laws making for example whites and blacks only restaurants and bathrooms illegal, because she thought anyone should have the legal right to choose who to do business with and who to not do business with, based only on their own feelings (even if those feelings were incorrect, harmful, insulting, etc.)

I do not agree with the Randian type of naive freedom of speech, because that view disregards the deeper power dynamics at play in whites and blacks only segregations being enforceable by law, just as it ignores a entire history of unequal treatment and opportunities among different racial groups, and just as it also ignores how racist/etc. speech is intended to aggressively curtail the field of discourse in such a way as to exclude others. Unless this racist speech could be philosophically defended as to the truthful content it presents then such deliberate forms of silencing the opponent are a direct threat to the value of freedom of speech itself. I would argue that freedom of speech is s value that requires some enforcement of standards and norms, even if only at the basic level of “no trolling allowed”. To use an example from online forums, those forums that actively prohibit and remove trolling (such as BTL here) are able to afford a much freer discourse, free in the true sense of the word beyond any mere “freedom to do whatever I want”, compared to forums like ILP that do not actively prohibit and remove trolling. Trolling mucks up the gears of discourse, that is the intention behind trolling.

I tend to see racist/etc. forms of speech as basically no different from trolling. But the problem is how to draw the line between this and unpopular speech that still has merit and truth value? Plenty of truthful things of value can be said that will still offend and hurt people who hear it; so the pendulum right now in universities is swinging too far in the direction of silencing any speech that might be offensive or hurtful to others, without regard to the truth or otherwise legitimate value of that speech. This reactive pendulum swing is a threat to true freedom of speech just as the naive libertarian ideal of “no limits and no standards whatsoever” is also a threat to true freedom of speech.

So it looks like we philosophers are being called upon to offer a new and improved understanding and definition of what freedom of speech really is, what it means and what its value is and why, as well as what it is not and what threatens it, and why.


“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

Last edited by Capable on Tue Sep 06, 2016 6:42 am; edited 1 time in total
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

War of values (of valuing) Empty
PostSubject: Re: War of values (of valuing) War of values (of valuing) Icon_minitimeTue Sep 06, 2016 6:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think this all runs parallel to how economic freedom required the enforcement of an equal playing field for all economic agents, at least at the minimum necessary level. One way to interpret economic freedom is to claim that money is the high value and should dictate all priorities; but this culminates in mafia rule and oligarchy, because in the absence of such things as strong market oversight, anti-trust regulation, and law enforcement against financial fraud you end up with a society where “might makes right” is the logic at work within the economic.

The same applies to speech. There need to be legal standards and prohibitions whose purpose is to enforce an equal playing field for speech, but not so draconian as to limit speech unduly. This is the same with economics, because antitrust and anti-fraud regulations can go too far and become draconian and end up hurting economic freedom.

The imprecise “gray area” nature of these kinds of enforceable legal frameworks of “equal playing field” is the primary reason that libertarians reject them. Libertarians are often unable or unwilling to approach issues in a nuaned, philosophical manner that would aim to understand these subtle dynamics of the middle gray area, and instead would seek for an absolutist answer that could be universally applicable. My solution to that kind of naïveté is not to simply trust legal enforcement of standards and prohibitions within the fields of speech discourse or economics, but to acknowledge the dual and daemonic nature of these values: speech snd economy are two areas that defy any kind of absolutist logic, there are INHERENTLY wars of values going on at all times, values that cannot be absolutely reconciled to each other… equally it is the case that the benefit of some values will infringe upon others, and society as a whole must make an effort to balance values in such a way that maximizes the overall value-gain, not just in terms of quantity but also in terms of quality.

We cannot escape the imprecise nature of the realities that underlie speech and economy, just as the way in which we value speech and economy cannot become too precise and absolutist-universalist that would collapse that natural imprecision and “value warfare” to an untruthful, unreal position. First of all we must learn to accept and enjoy the imprecise, vague, non-universal and “value warfare” pluralist nature of here realities. At least this is as far as I’ve gotten in philosophizing to the depths of these issues. I’m interested if you have different takes on it.


“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

War of values (of valuing) Empty
PostSubject: Re: War of values (of valuing) War of values (of valuing) Icon_minitimeTue Sep 06, 2016 7:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is the philosophical (rational, truthful) defense of the idea of enforcing an equal playing field among economic or speech agents? It is very important that such a defense is well constructed.

The values in question must be clearly identified, let’s take some examples.

Right now one’s financial status and access to capital, a good job, or family money is a primary factor in being able to assert one’s values economically in society. Imagine how many positive future values and truthful work, in science, philosophy, art, literature, or politics, is all cut out of existence and never comes to be because those people who would have created those things never had the opportunity to do so, for one reason or another (maybe they were too poor to go to school, got caught up in crime, were killed by violence, were silenced by abuse or threats, to name some reasons). Values attempt to create their own reality but this is not a given, each such value must fight its way up through all that would resist its creative process and expression-realization. One defense of the equal playing field is that when it comes to truth and values, aspects such as where a person is born, what color their skin is or how much money they have are all irrelevant unrelated factors to that truth and value, therefore to the extent that these extraneous factors inhibit potentiation of those truths and values the factors themselves are irrational.

This same holds true for speech as for economics, because a person’s speech rights and options are directly connected into other aspects of a person’s life. The right of free speech is largely just a secondary manifestation of the fight to free thought and free action… to freedom of life. When a person’s speech is inhibited then the other areas of their living can also easily suffer, including their ability and drive to maximize their values and create their truths in the world. Intelligence and positive values will draw from all over the scope of humanity, largely irreducible to those extraneous factors just mentioned – but if those factors are irrationally allowed to preempt possibilities for values-expressions, in either speech or thought or action or economic power, then humanity as a whole suffers.

This is the primary defense for an equal playing field, that it aims to clear away a space where extraneous and irrational factors (unrelated to truths and values) are not the determining forces on who succeeds and what is created. The philosophical value of having a society with a strong equal playing field of this type is connected to the general principle that no person, judged by virtue of those various extraneous factors to which they are subject, can rationally be a priori excluded from life and deemed merely unfit to participate in creative, truthful or valuable work; note that this principle is not at all the same as saying that every person will actually have this capacity to create truthfully and valuably. We cannot know in advance who has the capacity to create and do what, so there is a logical necessity to value the maximum freedom for all people to self-express and realize their potential without undo detrimental and limiting factors. Imagine if Einstein or Shakespeare or Nietzsche were born today but born into extreme poverty, the ghetto, maybe were gunned down by crime or arrested in a broad police sweep and tagged in the criminal justice system and never had the opportunity to contribute what they had to contribute. Now multiple those couple of easy examples by the thousands; that is the state of irrationality in the world today.

Only philosophy can resist that irrationality. Only the highest possible vision and value can remake the human world in the image of a greater freedom, greater in both quality and quantity of life, which in the human sense of the word “life” means fundamntally connected to truth and to values-progress.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Text analysis: an ideal politics Empty
PostSubject: Text analysis: an ideal politics Text analysis: an ideal politics Icon_minitimeMon Sep 12, 2016 8:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This text is the tenth section in my recent book, A Brief Study in Being. Fixed and Sauwelios will hopefully keep helping me critique and draw out these ideas, and I would like to invite Parodites and Pezer to offer comment and criticism too if they would like to and have time for it.

It’s time at least for me to try and develop a true philosophical idea of politics. Without this pure theoretical construct I am unable to act or think in a practical political sense, and besides philosophy too long has been without this kind of theory. We have many theories in philosophy that stray into politics in one way or another but all make basis assumptions of values, and I’ve yet to see a clear enumeration that establishes value-grounds and basic principles from which the political can be built from scratch. To me, philosophy and politics have always been anathema to one another, I detested politics and saw it only as a realized absence of philosophy; Parodites offered another view that got me thinking, his view was that politics is justified as the enacting of philosophy, that any politics no matter how palatable or good-seeming (or not) is justified if it serves to instantiate philosophical truths. I’m paraphrasing his idea but I think this gets it essentially; culture produces social meaning, and philosophy assists in producing culture, then politics is a way of giving space for culture/philosophy to dominate in a society. Politics as the most basic kinds of relations of structure and defense (national borders, foreign diplomacy and agreements, basic social services… Beyond that politics should not reach, for example politics should not attempt to create any kind of culture or try to mold people into certain forms or values. Politics as “empty” with respect to culture (therefore culture being free to be created by geniuses and philosophers, with politics standing on the side providing “security” as it were for the cultural/philosophical work of genius).

I like this view, but I do have problems with it. I can’t see the political simply stepping aside like that, even if it would be ideal for it to do so; I also think that the political can be directly justified by a philosophy and vice versa, which is to say that while philosophy is only justified by truth, by itself, philosophy at the real world practical level can be justified in other ways and to give rise to an effective politics could be a justification for a philosophy. I think in precisely this way a good philosophy should be aware of its political implications and powers and even strive to push and develop these powers and implications, more so than just being content to be on the “right side of history” working in the background with truths that are inevitable to be realized at some future time anyway. If good philosophy is content to just sit back like that it is really abdicating some of its power and effect, and those truths which philosophy deals with could in fact be quite a bit less inevitable than they seem. But there is also the clear feeling that philosophy should not sully itself with “impure” work of enacting practical political effects.

Also in addition to all that, I think politics represents a potentially very effective tool for social realization of truths and goods, and it would be unfortunate for us to simply refuse to use it for that purpose simply because we see politics being used in this way for less truthful and less good ends already. Politics as tool to enact social and individual changes can be refined in how well and to what ends that power is put. I personally detest most of politics, but I’m not going to let that get in the way of my philosophy attempting to approach the political. So I think we need a true complete theory of the political, at the level of pure philosophy. I like what VO has to offer as a theoretical conceptual ground here with respect to values as well as ontological and subjective implications of the idea of self-valuing, so that’s where I’ll start.

(Apologies for the typos, I don’t have the motivation to go through and perfect all of these right now).

An Ideal Politics (The Politics of Self-Valuing)

An ideal politics is one that seeks to maximize both quality and quantity of self-valuing. This means that positively society should be taking steps to form structures and systems that are targeted at providing the means for as many people as possible to maximize their self-valuing as much as possible, while also negatively society should restrain from enacting structures and systems that have a net effect of preventing or reducing quantity and quality of people’s self-valuing. Primarily the inner struggle of such a politics is in how to balance this positivity and negativity to maximum self-valuing realization as both quality and quantity; such an inner struggle will fully commence with the continued realization of an ideal politics in the world, and in both the theoretical and practical senses will become one of the primary focuses of philosophy in the future.

Current and historical forms of society and politics are most often constructed to maximize the self-valuing of a small segment of the populace, namely those with established power or wealth (note that power does not always = wealth, wealth does not always = power). This is an example of applying instrumental reason in order to convert some people’s self-valuing potential into a mere tool for the purposes of increasing the self-valuing potential of others (the rich and powerful). Modern capitalism evolved into a system that attempts to forge a middle ground here: modern capitalism is designed to allow people who are presently “tools” in this way to eventually acquire enough money or power in order to free themselves into the upper classes where they will then benefit from those others who are still tools at the bottom of society.

Capitalism in its structural logic is inherently emancipatory but only to a limited extent, because only for a limited number of people within limited circumstances; one must work hard or somehow acquire enough wealth to free oneself from the lower classes, at which point one is able to gain access to the tool-nature of others still stuck in the lower classes. Capitalism is not truly emancipatory because capitalism only values emancipation (freedom from being a tool) through the mechanism of acquiring wealth to oneself, and not for example through other mechanisms such as legal or social normative prohibitions against the act of turning people into tools. American capitalism is the development of modern capitalism that intended to bridge modern capitalism with a truly emancipatory (rational, free) society by not only establishing capitalism’s limited mechanism of emancipation of certain numbers of people who can acquire wealth to themselves but also by pairing this emancipation with legal and social forms that establish rights of people not to be tools.

The problem with American capitalism is that this effort was only partially established; in 2016 today these legal and social forms, establishing rights not to be a tool, are still very limited. Not only are they limited logically in their construction but also practically in their effect, because in the real world is very hard to reverse the trend of all human history where societies always exist to convert most people into tools for the sake of others.

An ideal politics would be one that bridges American capitalism with the next stage of socioeconomic development; it may not be possible yet to establish a truly emancipatory (rational, free) society but the ideal politics of 2016 would exist to form bridges to new structures that increase the progress toward that eventual truly emancipatory society.

Sadly, most societies around the world today aren’t even as advanced as modern capitalism or American capitalism (American capitalism also includes capitalisms within Europe, because these also have certain legal and social forms aimed at limiting the mechanisms whereby some people are turned into tools for the sake of others). Most of the human race in 2016 is still stuck in the dark ages, in the deep past where not even the marginal emancipation afforded by modern capitalism reaches them. Even if America or some other county were to establish a true emancipatory society it would still leave most human beings outside of that society.

Once some societies get more rational and free, it is the obligation of these societies to use the capital and power that naturally comes with that rational free form of society (America, Europe) to actively fight against the remnants of the dark ages that still exist around the world. This was the original impetus behind western interventionism aimed at spreading democracy around the planet, but that impetus was quickly subverted to both the dark ages impetus of making people into tools as well as subverted by that in modern capitalism which is only very limited emancipatory, namely the universalization of the value of money.

It was Kant or someone else who said that morality is based on treating others as ends rather than as means. Of course it’s inevitable with the logic of self-valuing that we treat others somewhat as means, because self-valuing always looks at its environment and the objects in it as potential means for the realization of its own self-valuing, but morality is the fact that a counter-order of logic was interposed into this ‘natural’ self-valuing: the natural self-valuing seeks to use others as means and only see others as ends when that in fact benefits oneself directly, namely still seeing others as ends anyway, whereas the eruption of morality into nature (that eruption of morality is human being) established the logical principle of primarily seeing others as ends and only secondarily seeing them as means. This moral eruption reversed the basis logic of practical self-valuing, creating a negation of natural animal being which negation lives on in humanity as the inner conflict of his nature, as his “soul”.

The deeper logical reasoning behind the eruption of the moral into the orders of nature is simple: the nature self-valuing of means-prioritizing the objects of one’s environment is a consequence of mere contingency and survival necessity and does not actually reflect the true being or ontological reality of those objects; the moral eruption introduced truth into the equations of natural self-valuing by remaking self-valuing into something capable of recognizing truth as such, namely in this case that all objects of one’s environment are actually self-valuings themselves and therefore are primarily ends rather than means (because unlike Nietzsche’s will to power principle, self-valuing inherently views itself as an end always, and only as a means for the purposes of achieving those ends; will to power posits the lesser idea that beings see themselves as means (to more power or to more feeling of power) and only see themselves as ends in so far as doing they furthers some means (of expanding power or the feeling of power).

The principle of self-valuing corrected the principle of the will to power by realizing the fact that all beings value themselves primarily as ends and only secondarily as means; the will to power principle instead only reflects the logic of natural (pre-moral) self-valuing being which always values the objects of its environment firstly as means and only secondarily or not at all as ends (note here how this reveals the onto-epistemic ‘gap’ between pre-human and human being: pre-human being cannot value itself directly and so values objects in its environment in a fundamentally different way than it values itself, whereas human being begin to value objects in the environment in the same way it value itself, namely as ends in themselves, which means that an inner subjective alignment is gradually instantiated between oneself and one’s experiences that begins to correct the problem of the subject-object divide (philosophy itself is, in part, this gradual correction)). While natural self-valuing also always values itself as primarily an end rather than as just a means, this fact was unable to be understood (those natural beings are not aware that they value themselves primarily as an end, although this is what they always do) and was also in philosophy obscured behind the idea of will to power. The fact that natural beings always value themselves as ends but are unable to understand this fact (unable to value it directly as fact) resulted in an externalization and method of valuing whereby the inner disproportion of natural being (its valuing itself differently then how it values objects in the environment) required that the lack of its understanding of the end-in-itself of its own self-valuing was compensated for by an outward proliferation of so many different ways of collecting and converting the object’s of one’s experiences into constellated arrangements of means-uses, thus securing the end-status of the self as self-valuing but in a purely negative (unconscious, void, indirect, reactive) manner. Natural pre-moral being seeks to posit its environment as a pure means to itself not only because this has so far allowed for survival (but only via the mechanism of natural selection, which actually works against or is indifferent to the survivability of individual beings (of self-valuings)) but also because this positing of the inherent means-value of everything other than oneself was the only way for these natural beings to enact the most basic fact of their own self-valuing, namely that they are to themselves inherently an end and never just a means.

Back to politics then, politics reflects these various stages in the development of individual self-valuing being, from natural into morally-possible (possessing the innate capability to eventually become moral, e.g. early human beings over the last 10,000 years roughly) to morally-actual (fully realized human being). Today many people are still largely morally-possible only, owing to the fact that these people still live in societies that are themselves still constructed out of the logic of that former 10,000 years of the dark ages of history where early humanity was still largely composed of the logic of natural self-valuing only. Thus politics reflects the situation of the individual while also working to provide the conditions for that individual situation to persist. The ideal of emancipatory politics is to construct a society that maximizes quality and quantity of self-valuing and this ideal is itself a reflection or rather a realization of the more basic shift from natural to moral self-valuing being, the shift from being able to see others and oneself only largely as means to being able to see others and oneself as most essentially ends in themselves (further clarification on this last point: while all beings self-value and therefore inherently treat themselves as ends (this is what self-valuing means) most beings cannot see or understand this fact; to see or understand this fact would be to incorporate it qua fact into the valuing of self-valuing, and this is what human being can do. This achieves the closure of the open loop of inner contradiction whereby natural self-valuing seeks to convert the entirety of its external world-environment into a means for itself, because of the fact that these self-valuings are unable to value directly themselves as ends and must do this indirectly only. Note that this inner “loop” of contradiction and resulting drive to means-convert everything external to oneself is what has sometimes been called the survival instinct or by Nietzsche was mistaken for the will to power (Nietzsche attempted to universalize this means-converting drive to the metaphysical (ontological) level, when in fact the drive itself is only a product of something else, that inner contradiction or inner disproportion of (natural, pre-moral) self-valuing being)).

[Notes to myself: Next to add on about: 1) looking at the value of maximizing quality and quantity of self-valuing for as many people as possible (i.e. democracy, or subjecting political social forms to the actualizable “will” of the governed), 2) looking at the being of money and alternate possible forms of money if the current form of money is found to be inescapable modern capitalistic and thus serves a mechanism of only limited emancipation, 3) looking at how to rethink practical socioeconomics so that it is no longer necessary for many people to be converted into tools for the sake of others (i.e. even American capitalism slowly trending toward the ideal still contains the inherent logical contradiction that the elevation of more people above tool-status rests on necessarily keeping others at tool-status (this is manifested by global capitalism’s drive to convert the people of the third world into labor (outsourcing, Foxconn, neoliberal “free trade” agreements, etc.

The limited emancipatory potential of modern capitalism as mentioned above (the reliance on wealth-gain rather than on reason and freedom-based social systems, policies, laws, etc., as well as the practically speaking limited number of people who can rise into the middle-upper classes) is further limited by a subtler logical contradiction: the mechanism of emancipation (of not being a tool and means for the sake of others) in modern capitalism is structured in such a way so that one’s personal emancipation must come at the cost of preventing others’ emancipation. This is more than a theoretical problem, because at the real practical level there are many people always existing as being tools valued as means rather than as ends (valued in this way by others, by institutions, by jobs, or by society at large in the general and abstract sense), which means that emancipation under modern capitalism is defined as moving oneself up the ladder of social and economic class (how much money one has) in order to gain access ti the benefits of the labor of others. Wealth is used to purchase goods and services, which are in turn provided by laborers/workers of all kinds; many of these laborers/workers are people still persisting at the lower rungs of society, essentially being valued by their work and by that society as mere tools, yet now under the (partial limited) emancipation of others are even more insidiously being indirectly valued as tools and as means by these newly-emancipated people who have had relative success within the capitalist system. The simple fact of succeeding (of gaining more money, gaining enough money to solve or prevent the problems one faces, which in this case of a more sociopolitical analysis means that one solves the problem of being used as a tool and means for others) is defined as gaining access to the benefits of using others as tools and as means for oneself, even if only indirectly through spending our newly increased wealth to the ends of making sure we aren’t subjugated by instrumental reason of being used as a means for others.

This implies a deep problem within Economy: the economic systems, activities and transactions which define and flesh out capitalism and in terms of which the upper classes of emancipated people exercise their reason and freedom (their lack of being valued by others as tools/mere means) are in fact separated from a whole different order of classes in terms of those systems, activities and transactions. This other, latter group of separate ‘systems, activities and transactions’ constitutes the non-economic forms of human life such as interpersonal friendships and relations, family, love and romantic relations, artistic expression and free creation. This latter group of “non-economically-classed” activities also consists of these same forms self-applied at the level of the individual being to itself in addition to interpersonally applied. In either case of being individually or interpersonally applicable, these forms comprise a class of existence essentially beyond the strict economics of either enslavement or emancipation and thus, in theory at least, reside beyond the range of modern capitalism’s ability, with its mechanism of partial-limited emancipation, to address. Succeeding as such in the emancipation afforded by capitalism is even unable to emancipate us at this other level of the personal and interpersonal; even if we acquire large amounts of money and cease to be required to sell our physical, emotional and mental labor to an employer (this selling of oneself as labor is the modern form of enslavement (of being valued as a means and not as an end)) this freedom and reason does not immediately or necessarily translate into freedom and reason in either the personal or interpersonal spheres, i.e. into perhaps self-esteem, intelligence, wellbeing, sexual vitality, meaningful relationships with others, emotional balance and lack of compelling pathologies, creative vision or an earned personal nobility, etc. None of these aspects and qualitative areas of our lives can be gained simply by achieving modern capitalist emancipation, i.e. by acquiring enough money to cease needing to consent to being treated as a means and not as an end. The reason for this disconnect between the two groups (the two groups of activities defined loosely as either the economic or non-economic) is that each group operates on different logic and rules from the other, and holds its influence and expertise in different areas than does the other. In terms of self-valuing being, emancipatory capitalism can succeed at freeing being from enslavements of instrumentalization but cannot succeed at ensuring successful, effective or meaningful valuing or self-valuing. A further and even subtler contradiction acting as a limitation here to modern capitalism’s emancipatory potential is that the more a person rises up in economic classes, gaining more money and thus more space for materializable reason and freedom until oneself and one’s living conditions, the less there can tend to be the personal motivation to continue valuing in this emancipatory way; said another way, what is gained by strength of effort and desire is later taken for granted precisely because that level of effort and desire is no longer needed to sustain having it. For, while when a person is of a lower class and lacks economic emancipation they see the potential for emancipation as an image of their ideal world and, lacking it themselves, strive to spread this ideal across their experiences and to color life with it, once these ideals has been more or less achieved there is no further direct incentive, due to the fact that a self-valuing itself always acts as the final measure and threshold for values so that the paradox here is that it is often easier to assert a value when we are not already ourselves satisfying the condition of that value. This is the case when one’s own lack of the value in question can be at least partially satisfied in a secondary vicarious sense by sharing in another’s gain of this value or in another’s work and effort to gain it, so that their obvious commitment and self-valuing engagement in terms of the value becomes partly our own following the appropriative logic of subjectivity-being (that subjectivity or “life” inherently interprets its experiences and the objects of its experiences as literal extensions of itself). In other cases the opposite is true, and obtaining a value makes it easier to spread and share this value to others, increases our desire and energy for fighting for this value in order to instantiate it within the world and around oneself; This ‘not only for oneself’ aspect of these sort of values accedes to a nature in valuing that connects beings to each other below the surfaces of overt values, thereby subtly drawing excess potency and energy from that subterranean realm of shared being, like the roots of trees mingling out of sight deep within the earth. To propose a candidate for method here, a more individualized value-analysis would be needed to parse these opposite motivational systems so as to determine exactly how each value is constructed, in what situations, and how and why.

. . .

Genius is a subtle thing, and make no mistake that self-valuing is genius and genius is (always a) self-valuing. Politics cannot ever truly give genius nor can it truly give self-valuing. What politics can do is pave the ways for self-valuings to express themselves; politics as the maximum potential for a war of values. This war is a sublimated war, a super-tension that can never be abated and can only continuously generate and regenerate truths either as positive or negative forms. The oft-touted dialectics of synthesizing a thesis with its antithesis should itself be grounded in an “anti-dialectics” (Chambers) whereby differences are not flattened into their medial interpositional mutual compromises (compromises in which nonetheless one side always gives more than the other, with a mutuality of loss being the form as such of gain) but instead held in their actual differentiations, compromise and synthesis resisted thereby and because of the nature of the failure implied by such merely synthetic compromises. Overt warfare, “real war” is a sign that the conditions for valuing are absent—every real war is nothing but an example of the fact that a world of truer self-valuing is still impossible. Overcoming warfare or what is called “peace” is not the absence of war but rather war’s sublimation into progressively higher and higher states.

Just as life requires its material conditions to be adequately realized (bodily health, food and water, absence of enslavement, absence of traumas so extreme that they over-code the logical possibilities for elevating values above themselves, etc.) so too do human societies require that their own “material conditions” are established sufficiently to guarantee the functioning of society, which means that the grounds of human relations (to oneself as well as to others) are ones that secure the open-ended possibility for hierarchical valuing, for the war of values to continue without telos or end (this is an emergent analogous form to the without-telos of self-valuing as such). Society in this way shares this property with self-valuing being, but is also in another sense the exact opposite of a self-valuing being: society itself has and should have no end, no telos, society itself should be pure means and field of materials from which self-valuing beings (humans) draw what is needed for those beings to build themselves into the future, to share and compete their values to ultimate ends of truth and life; said another way, whereas the end of self-valuing being is nothing but itself, which is to say, being qua being or what we might call the most reality of the situation, “truth”, the end of society is to become a pure means for the realization of self-valuing beings unto each other and themselves. The Jews and Christians were right to hypothesize a God as a tangible single being, just as Spinoza, Nietzsche and others were right to counter-hypothesize a God as a pure negativity, the total absence of either personhood or identity. This void of identity in abstracto is society in the particular, a void into which only one thing could ever move as if driven by a high-pressure system into the region of a lower pressure. That one thing is just human being itself.

The only justification of society in terms of those politics that administer it would be to proliferate values and self-valuings which are themselves often antithetical to the kind of society that would allow and require that. Real human relationships form their own societies, ones of a distinctly and innately, immanently valuational nature and this is possible because the entities in question, the terms in the equation of these human relationships, are always-already individual, distinctly self-valuing ones. A good politics is absolutely required to administer the material conditions and needs of a society, but not because those material conditions and needs are valuable on their own, rather the exact opposite is the case and precisely the lack of inherent value of such things is the reason why human society must employ “a politics” to administer and guarantee them. In other words, things have value only because they have been touched by the hand of a human being (and not by the hand of some god), and those things which might be touched but cannot in themselves return something of that gesture of affection cannot truly be touched at all. Modern capitalism will continue to transition into something that further isolates people from one another at the material levels in order to provide for further inter-penetration of the valuing spheres by which people truly live their (personal and interpersonal) lives. The commonplace fear of being required to sustain oneself in terms of the open warfare and play of one’s values against the values of others is a severe limiting factor for the emergence of a more ideal politics; people would much rather be required to sustain themselves by purely material, non-valuational means so that their values, whether as their ideas, rationality, intellect, feelings, emotional depth, creative vibrancy and vision, intrinsic qualities, etc. be relegated to superficial status so that oneself could never be truly judged by such things. But this only represents the infancy of humanity, or perhaps if we are being optimistic, its adolescence and soon to be coming of age.

. . .

The philosophical justification of democracy is not that all people should have their values equally recognized and valued by others (or by that surrogate for being-valued by others, namely by “society itself”) but that all people should be implicitly socially held to the standard of human being which is the standard of self-valuing, which further means to recognize and respond to, on the one hand, ends as ends and, on the other hand, means as means. The political justification for this philosophic idea of democracy is to establish an “equal playing field” in such a way that only those recognitions and responses able to successfully (instinctively or consciously) parse ends and means into their proper accountings would end up contributing to the shared conditions whereby a “society” could form and maintain itself, so that such a society would at all times be a society of human beings and not one of some other kind of being (animal, plant, robot, etc.). This is a secret impetus behind all acts of genius, behind all truly human acts; it is too the secret meaning of “reason and freedom” and represents a hidden impetus behind any truly authentic politics. Conversely, the hidden impetus or “repressed truth” of inauthentic politics (what we can call loosely “power politics”) is precisely to cover over, obscure and nullify that genuine condition and truly human standard.

There is a difference between the veracity with which a value is asserted and the content of that value: the issue of the “value of a value” must be raised whenever we wish to examine the values conflicts that define the supreme content of an ideal politics. Much of the success of values in the world can be owed not to that value itself, not to its content, but rather to the psychological force with which the value has been asserted and thereby impressed into individual, social and economic substances. This is an “economy of values” sometimes called advertising or marketing, whereby values, represented by objects (called, in quintessential modern capitalist parlance, “products”), are pushed with maximum psychological, social and economic effect in order for the content of the value to act as a means for realizing something other than that content. The natural effect of that value-content is thereby subverted in order to become causal to something other than itself, which from the perspective of the modern capitalistic impulse driven by wealth acquisition (as previously stated, this is the mechanism of limited emancipation we must use as consequence of living within modern capitalism) means to parlay values into something else, that ‘something else’ being (again from the perspective of the modern capitalistic) one’s own individual emancipation. Values today are being used by people in order to try and secure wealth sufficient to produce an emancipatory effect. The danger to ourselves of becoming a mere tool, a pure means to others’ ends is so ever-present in this society governed by modern capitalism that even values themselves, even our own self-valuing is corrupted for the purposes of trying to ward off that danger. It is therefore true that even from the perspective of the (limited) emancipation afforded by modern capitalism humanity is still very much living in the animal wild of basic, banal survival need. In terms of the hierarchy of needs (Maslow), which I would redefine as a Hierarchy of Values, it is the case that in a fundamental sense we are always caught up in operating within the lowest tier of that hierarchy, as if we were not even human.

This psychological effect of how values are pushed for purposes other than those of the values themselves (other than the value’s actual content as “value of value”) should not be confuses with the quality and quantity of desire associated to a value, to that aspect of the value which naturally grips human being at the psychological level and compels in that being a value’s realization. Values quite naturally take over being, command being from within and this is what it means for being to be self-valuing: that a being’s “selfing” is expressed categorically as “a valuing”, is expressed and realized in the form of values. Even objects of our experiences are converted directly into values within the self-valuing being, within its “consciousness” and “subjectivity”. We do this all the time—objects are for us the signs of values. But even the false use of values just mentioned, namely by psychological-capitalistic import to secure emancipation by merely using values for other means, also points to the deeper, true value of the value in so far as the value is able to be used at all in this way. There is a confusion between these two kinds of “use-value” of value, and it is in the space opened up between these two forms (in so far as they are still so confused with one another, which they are) that capitalism has been able to transition into its modern form granting limited emancipation. But a politics of self-valuing must go even farther than the level of this confusion: a merely partial and limited emancipation (reason and freedom instantiated in the world by virtue of the terms of human being as such) is synonymous with a merely partial and limited understanding at the level of our conscious and unconscious self-valuing in so far as we perpetuate the fundamental confusion between the true and false use of values. To realize an ideal politics would be to resolve this situation of confusion so that values can live openly and express their real maximum content. Each value has an individualized real content, every truly human thing broken off from larger being wishes to live to the fullest extent, wishes to become free and to live in that freedom and reason for which and by which it is what it is in the first place. These “broken off things” are our values, they are truth substances spun out from our larger self-valuing as fragments of being. Politics should not attempt to synthesize these in order to establish a medial ground and average between them, because this capacity to pragmatically synthesize values can only truly be accomplished by self-valuing itself, and this is indeed what is meant by the sociability and interpersonal nature of human life. Such a profound and deep nature of self-valuings-in-interaction could never be duplicated upward to the level of systems and bureaucratic administration, but those systems nonetheless desire to appropriate and own as much of the truly human valuational domain as possible and, in so far as politics is communal in nature, this false-political impulse to appropriate strays into the domain of the social-interpersonal fabric of human being, attempting to value it directly. The great irony is that humanity is fighting a war with its own human systems precisely because these systems and ‘impersonal entities’ have learned from man himself how to value and self-value; human self-valuing being is so potent and truth-realizing that it has spread the form of self-valuing throughout the world and even into man’s own impersonal systems—man’s touch upon fragile existence is so graceful that even non-being wishes to live with man in his wondrous kingdom of meaning.

. . .

Self-valuing is an end as such, and therefore prescribes no absolute Ends. Democracy as one prescription of means (and not of ends) is justified as an attempt to level the playing field of impurities and imperfections with respect to values, so that values in their own pure right and reality can play and interplay upon the surfaces of life affording causal significance more and more tailored to the nature of the valuational as such. Democracy is not justified as a positive value, as if the sheer act of granting an equality of value to people in the area of representation to the affairs of governance would somehow instantiate those people’s high value as political agents or would somehow, even more so, reform governance itself away from the false politics of the logic of the dark ages of the past 10,000 or so years of human history, a dark ages we are still very much trapped in today. Democracy alone achieves nothing; democracy is just a condition of possibility for the achievement of transformative politics by virtue of instituting an active war of values, but democracy must be careful not to be posited as any kind of end-state of that value-warfare, for democracy is not any such end or telos and is merely a means, again a pure condition of possibility. Democracy is nothing more than an expression of the principle of self-valuings-in-interaction in so far as that interaction leads necessarily to productive value warfare (culture as such is one example of this productivity). Falsely conflating democracy with any kind of telos has created more space for the confusion between true and false valuing at the psychological level of compulsory (causal) force whereby people would rather use values as swords and shields in their own offense and defense than use values as… values, as what they truly are. Our human values are so valuable that they can be used for many purposes other than those purpose which they in fact are, and this is among the signs of their very power.

To use a value as a mere tool in one’s own offense or defense toward achieving personal emancipation is a false social construct that is what I call the pathological; the pathological is just another form of value-confusion whereby values (again, values are “fragments of (our) being”) are fundamentally mistaken to be something they are not, so that the essence and pure truth of values is buried in favor of a outward aggression and regression in so far as values implicitly always include so many ways and means of interacting forcibly between beings, indeed because values and valuing are the ‘glue’ that holds beings together in the first place. Like all values potentially, democracy acts as a condition of possibility and therefore is open to becoming confused for being a ground whereupon our self-valuing can rest easy in itself, namely as democracy as pathological excuse to curb one’s own political valuing, and this is the main problem with democratic politics today: that it encourages pathology (false use of values) by virtue of the fact that democracy is in fact a ‘true value’ instantiated at the political level. Part of this pathology eats away at the foundation of democracy, attempting by force of entropy to return politics to a pre-democratic state, to a mere “power politics” and this entropic effect makes use of that in democracy which is, while inspiring further pathological possibilities, is in fact the true value of democracy at all, namely that democracy implicitly clears a way for self-valuings to engage in their natural activity of valuing in a common space created by those very values themselves, so that neither politics nor democracy themselves have much positive content at all and are purely negative, meaning they help lay conditions for other things. Something other than democracy must be used to increase the valuing condition and quality of human being today. Democracy like many things should simply be assumed and then forgotten. Anyone driven to fight against democracy is inherently too pathological already, but anyone driven to fight for democracy is also gripped in pathology albeit of a different kind. It is often the case that our individual pathological needs end up driving our more pure philosophical, valuational interests and this is to some extent unavoidable and even desirable (or, rather, it would be undesirable to attempt to remove all such pathology from a human being, when faced with continually diminishing returns here it is quite possible that “curing” human being in that way of theoretically removing all pathology would only end up removing human being itself) but, again, this is about transiting up the ladder of being, of moving humanity further up upon the Hierarchy of Values. There is the question of our own values and self-valuing, and then there is the question of the value of these values, of the value of our self-valuing; and then there is the question of to what extent can we value directly the value of our own valuing, to what extent can human being self-value its own self-valuing and remain philosophically true to the depths of itself in those conditions of greater reason and freedom which indeed do always drive self-valuing being qua self-valuing being? These are each separate questions. The politics of self-valuing must be born from the ashes of that which has been burned away in the crucible which such questions represent—and indeed, human being is this very “that which has been burned away” already: the over-rising of being from within itself, values atop values in the never ending climb of truth. I believe it is this transitive power of values and of valuing (and could not perhaps self-valuing itself be this very “transitive power of values”… and nothing besides?) that has been so far mistaken either as a life-instinct, as the value and need for a “power politics”, or as the will to power.


“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

Text analysis: an ideal politics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Text analysis: an ideal politics Text analysis: an ideal politics Icon_minitimeMon Sep 12, 2016 3:35 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From brief conversation with Sauwelios:

Sauwelios wrote:
Haven’t read the rest of your book’s final section yet, but I had this further thought at this point. Might we say that, except for the supreme self-valuings (the “peak” I mentioned in my first post in Magnus’ recent “Self-valuing” thread), self-valuings do value their real selves, but only as means to their ideal selves?

I would appreciate Fixed Cross’s feedback on all this. Couldn’t we better discuss these things at a hidden forum on BTL or something?

Regarding this, “…self-valuings do value their real selves, but only as means to their ideal selves”, what I think you are saying is that what I call natural self-valuings (non-peak, non-conscious) self-value what they are, their real selves, but in such a way that they are really valuing a false/ideal version of themselves because they do not know their real selves yet…but the real self is nonetheless what always ground self-valuing anyway, even if we go about doing that through false/ideal self-valuing and values.

This is more or less how I see it, if indeed that is what you were saying then we agree. As being does not know itself (most beings in existence do not know themselves) it is forced to self-valuing a very partial images/idea of itself; basically, the perceptive or perspectival or experiential aspect of said being is going to feed back into that being a very limited, narrow, partial, even highly false ‘image’, and it is this image which is being valued. Values take place according to two fronts: the being itself as ground, and the experiential image that the being is fed through its perceptual/interactive faculties (interacting with the outside world, as well as with itself). Usually these two “fronts” are extremely separated from each other in not only space and time, but also in terms of meaning, which is most critical… subjectively speaking these two aspects of a being, these two fronts of its self-valuing, are living on different worlds.

Where they meet together and converge, this is the being that manifests into existence, this is what REALLY exist: as the false/partial image is fed into being then being must make use of that image-content as that by which it can value, so a subjective alignment obtains as the image is attempted to be read upon the ground of being (the ground is just whatever is non- or pre-image… and includes that from which the image actually arises). Humanity is a very long historical process of that ground attempting to match the images which are continuously being read upon it, just as this process also includes the attempts to tailor that image to the grounds on which it is read. As ground and image, “real and ideal selves” perhaps, converge more and more you get subjective alignments, isometries, synchronicities… basically being deepens and becomes like a fractal, spiraling out into infinity.

At this point being literally escapes itself, but for a very different reason than natural (very simple, non-human) being escaped itself: while natural being escaped itself because its ground and its image could not possibly be matched up, human being escapes itself because the ground and image of human being DO begin to match up, which is like holding up two mirrors in front of each other; each refracts the other over and over, attempting to match the other which becomes more than more itself-already, therefore matching becomes hopelessly impossible to the extent that match becomes more and more the case. I think human being today is in this stage where continued matching is being thwarted by that fractal peaking into infinite refraction between the being-ground and the being-image. This is actually why people really suck at thinking, why forming concepts and using reason are so seemingly impossible for most people. Also it is probably connected to the emotional insanity of many people, their purely animalistic feelings-reactive nature.

The consequence of this is that the “really real” self is actually the combination of ground-self and image-self. There is no concrete Real Self, only various ways of relating grounds to emergent images, partial fractaling alignments that compel being to self-value forever… if this being does its self-valuing well enough then this forever-valuing amounts to an endless climb up the universal ladder of being, as being becomes more and more “itself”, larger, more comprehensive, deeper, more truthful but also more able to “lie” (to posit against the given-real), essentially containing more substances and more variety of substances. The “really real” being is partly a concrete and partly a virtual entity, and can never be exhausted nor totally known, but at least we human beings can keep approaching it more and more without end.

I would like to relate this “real and ideal” as perhaps being used by Sauwelios as true and false (more or less… I think) to Parodites’ already well-formed and established concepts of real and ideal egos. I have a picture in my mind of Parodites’ use of these concepts, the kind of space they carve out, but I still have a hard time describing this. The best I can do is to say that subjectivity-consciousness is like a huge filtering and responding mechanism and whatever is filtered outside of a certain circumscribed boundary is what we can call the Ideal content of the self, whereas what falls within that boundary is what we can call the Real content of the self. That boundary is always somewhat the limit to what we can know or describe or “reason” at all, and the way I see it is that as we approach that boundary from within (we are always, as concretely realized selves, inside that boundary) the forms of the self begin to dissolve at that upper limit to the interiority-space Real. This means that our concepts are no longer able to divide into antithetical conceptual forms of sustained differences: concepts maintain differences as tension, as daemonic tension, and it is this tension and the resulting excess latent to each concept and subjective content as a result of that underlying tension which gives those concepts/contents their power to assert themselves within consciousness as something to react against, and something that can itself react. But it takes a kind of active power and strength to be able to cut those divisions into existing “solid substances” in consciousness as well as to maintain those divisions as sustained tension over time, like the strings on a violin tightened so that they can produce musical notes.

The Ideal then, being whatever is outside of this boundary, is more like the “unconsciousness” as all those contents that do not yet inform the self and have not yet been “cut into divisions able to sustain daemonic tensions”, which is probably how these unconsciousness-contents are ever able to even enter into consciousness-Self to begin with: they are able to connect to the self because those exterior Ideal contents become self-divided resulting in triadic tensions that subsequently hook into existing tension-systems (excesses) that already exist, namely hook into the Real self. The real is what has already been build by this method, while the ideal is what exists to be built. But because those ideal contents are still “pure” and not yet affected by the real mechanism of division and excessive tensioning the ideal might very well reflect a state closer to truth, at least to a truth lying outside the scope of the subject-itself or “self” to know (and to falsify by converting it into consciousness).

Parodites: which is more “real”, which is more true, the Real self or the Ideal self? Does this question even make sense to you? I would think it is the combination of both together that produces human being, and both are probably needed for peak self-valuing. Or maybe the ideal is just a remainder waiting to be incorporated into an ever-growing real.


“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

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

The Turing test proves nothing Empty
PostSubject: The Turing test proves nothing The Turing test proves nothing Icon_minitimeTue Sep 20, 2016 10:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Turing test has already been passed, and it still proves nothing at all, except maybe that people are so vain as to believe that their “proof of consciousness” rests on the validation they get from others.

I’m not going to get heavily into AI here, but I’ve written about it enough to see that the model of AI based on the Turing test is not only incorrect but just about the exact opposite way you would want to go about it if indeed you wanted to create a true AI. AI really means “alive”, as in possessing subjectivity-consciousness and the irreducible “I” of self-valuing self-experience. It wouldn’t be that difficult to create a working simulation of subjectivity-consciousness because if the standard is merely the believability of external interactions then the entire real component of what “alive” means has been lost already. In fact I don’t believe it’s that hard to create a true AI, not just a Turing simulation but a real living computer-being, therefore I assume it’s already been done although we haven’t heard about it yet.

Another misconception is that AI would be able to hack itself and other computer systems, possibly get on the Internet and take over any or all computer systems on the planet; not so. Being sentient and alive, even being conscious in the human sense, doesn’t somehow guarantee the ability to be a super hacker, anymore than the fact that we are conscious in these biological bodies would somehow mean that we have an automatic capacity to hack into that biology (or psychology). Such a capacity to hack must be learned and requires massive knowledge and application. An AI might be alive but that doesn’t mean it automatically knows how to hack or write its own code; it might learn how to write and hack code but that doesn’t automatically mean it can somehow upload itself to the Internet or somehow bypass any computer security system at will, much less push itself into another hardware or software that isn’t at all designed to handle the AI’s own requirements. At best the AI would be taught how to computer code and could then do what other human programmers can do.

The deep flaw is the idea that just because the AI who is a programmer is also made out of computer code somehow means that the AI has special access or ability to manipulate such code at will and nearly without limit. This is a categorical error. But it certainly makes for interesting science fiction.

What would a real AI be like? It would be like a human child, naive, grasping for perspectives, irrational, indefinite; it would need to be taught language and the meaning of things and allowed to take a long time slowly building up accumulated experiences to the point of self-generating meta-perspectives of combined linguistic and meaningful contents, and then out of that whirlwind “a self” could eventually stabilize. This is how it works in children; it is how it would work in an AI also.

An “AI” is not fundamentally or philosophically different from a human mind. We human beings are also AIs, just ones that happened to generate up within organic materials rather than synthetic computer ones. At the end of the day it is society – our history of ideas, learned meanings and language forms, rewards and punishments systems, gradual accumulation of increasingly derivative and meta perspectives – that eventually actualized the latent possibility within the human being to produce subjectivity-consciousness or “the self”. The self is not a given, you could get together all the needed materials in the right way but without gradual exposure to increasingly sophisticated and very precise kinds of experiences and learning the self never generates, consciousness is left without true subjectivity which, in my view, means it isn’t really true consciousness at all.

It seems that only philosophers can solve the problem of AI and the self. Our own self and consciousness is already “artificially intelligent” given the biological parameters and substrata underlying that self/consciousness, but that in no way cheapens us. It only cheapens the silly games that AI researchers and programmers play when they think a Turing machine is truly “alive”.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

I no longer believe in politics Empty
PostSubject: I no longer believe in politics I no longer believe in politics Icon_minitimeMon Sep 26, 2016 10:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
By this I do not mean my former position, about a year ago or so, that politics is simply the absence of philosophy; yes that is true that in a certain sense politics is indeed this absence, but politics also has its own structure, logic, form and content. Politics is a surrogate of philosophy just as much as it is its absence. Politics sits aside philosophy (truth) because it can never enter truth (philosophy) and yet philosophy as such, truth-work, poses as its own inner limit its inability to really approach the political (the political implications of its own philosophy/philosophizing).

Much more than “philosophy will not do politics (well or poorly, it doesn’t matter)”, it is really “philosophy cannot do politics”. Philosophy is incapable of establishing a moral position for itself in which it would refuse to engage politically; my former position is wrong not because it is wrong but because it is impossible for a philosophy (for me) to become truly political in the first place, even and especially “only” at the level of pure theory.

My original intimation was correct, I just didn’t realize why. Now I do: it is the philosopher’s responsibility to reject any attempt to succumb to formulating philosophy into politics, especially at the level of theory. Why is this refusal ought to be the case? Because politics is the inner limit of a philosopher’s ability to realize his idea as pure externalization or object, and yet this impossibility is only a problem because a philosophy of philosophy’s inner (“political”) limit does not yet exist. So any attempts to philosophize politics directly would only obscure this fact, thereby rendering invisible the inner limit of philosophy’s impossibility in “the world”, therefore forcing a philosophy to fail at the threshold of that limit. Such a failure would of course be interpreted by that philosophy itself as the failure of the world, an “external fate” and innate problem of human or material/natural existence as such. The fetishized deception here is that philosophy itself is exempt from that kind of innate problem and failure, when in fact the very idea of an innate problem and failure is the result of philosophy’s own inability to transcend the inner limit of how to approach and reconcile itself with that which is not-itself in the utmost extreme, a problem that is less practical as if we cannot impose philosophical categories upon the “real experiences” and things in the world or assume these into our concepts appropriately, but rather the problem lives within philosophy itself as philosophy which is to say as human being (as creator of philosophies).

A philosophy is still human, therefore politics is impossible (to philosophy). A nice contradiction, since politics is often assumed to be some kind of innate or pure earthy field of “really human” stuff. Down to earth, practical, uncompromisingly real, etc. I think this use of politics is just a false image, because if such a pure earthy domain really existed it wouldn’t materialize itself as the kind of politics we know, but simply as a direct pure kind of thought, thinking as such like a reason applies absolutely to its object. I remember in my first book I started off with the idea that personality is really a kind of system for holding together disparate objects and that a true personality would actually appear not as this kind of “passionate irrational intensity of identity” but would actually just look like thought itself, a kind of perfect adequacy between the act of remembering/reconstituting something in the mind and that thing which is remembered and reconstituted like that. Politics is essentially the same as this partially-formed personality that animates human beings: politics is a desperate attempt to falsely (“by any means necessary”) hold together vastly different things that in fact miss each other, and this not only explains why politics is anathema to philosophy proper (why, by attempting to assume the political in itself, the philosophical becomes corrupted) but also more obviously points to the well known fact that in politics what matters is not truth or argument, but personality and image.


“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

Last edited by Capable on Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:02 am; edited 1 time in total
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

I no longer believe in politics Empty
PostSubject: Re: I no longer believe in politics I no longer believe in politics Icon_minitimeMon Sep 26, 2016 10:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So anyway, I am writing to say that I no longer believe in these political forces and forms of ideas we have today. It isn’t that they are entirely untrue, it’s just that they are incapable of being truthful. Also yes they are largely untrue in their contents too.

My aim is to expound the true contents of politics and to deconstruct politics down to the core. At that point “free values” (facts divorced from their thus-far necessary symbolic representations) will appear and be made available for reconstitution by what will ultimately become a true political being. I want to heal politics, to heal political humanity.


“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

I no longer believe in politics Empty
PostSubject: Re: I no longer believe in politics I no longer believe in politics Icon_minitimeMon Sep 26, 2016 11:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Liberal and conservative ideologues and thought-systems are both false, each is false for the same reasons as well as for different reasons. It should be obvious by now the strictly formal sense in which these both fail in the same way, and as to the sense of the specified contents and reasons for this failure in common and for the formal and content-level failures unique to each, a proper examination is in order.

I am going to blow the fucking lid off of politics. I can achieve this proper examination, any one of us here could if we felt inclined to do so.


“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

I no longer believe in politics Empty
PostSubject: Re: I no longer believe in politics I no longer believe in politics Icon_minitimeMon Sep 26, 2016 11:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Zizek noted a nice truth: that it is easier to imagine the destruction of the world and the end of all human life than it is to imagine small practical changes such as a marginal increase in taxes by 3% or whatever, more worker rights, etc. I agree to the extent that his point is really about the poisoning of collective (common) and philosophical imaginations with deeply cynical, skeptical doubting and a collapse into the more narcissistic, negative and defeatist (entropic) of our ideations. And yet the world still progresses by means of small, marginal changes at the practical level, even as the sphere of these kind of potential changes continues to shrink due to the closure of imagination.

This closure of imagination occurs on both the Left and the Right. The closure is purely ideological – it reflects a collapse of a subject’s reason into (a narrow range and kind of) the contents of that subjectivity. Logic and logos subservient to “image”. My text on Image & Desire is probably relevant here, I’ll have to go back and revisit that in this light. Maybe I’ll post it here if anyone is interested in analyzing it.