The Holochrist: Saving the Holocene with an Xtian Holocaust.

[Parodites]

_
Religions are divisive methods of growing one’s tribe to biblical (pun intended) proportions, nothing more.

Dude, you're a fucking idiot. Seriously. Every post you make is a conversation-ender. The worth of a philosopher is the fertility of his word, the depth of conversation it might bring about. Your words are, however,- infertile. There is nowhere else to go. Religion is tribalism. End of conversation. Nothing. Your mind is closed, which means: your philosophy is a dead-end. It is of no account. History will not recall it. Your image will be lost, like all those staked against the longing of the sea. Your wave will never reach the shore. Even archaeology contradicts you, let alone, you know... 'thought'. A nobody trying to bring everyone else down to your level. That's why I spend 20 hours a day stoned, drunk, doped, and fucked out of my mind: I simply can't share your reality. To say that all religion is... is a method of growing one's tribe... Do you need me to link you the 10,000 books and 100,000 papers on the subject? Do you need me to go through it all with you? Do you need me to tell you what being a human being is?

[MagsJ]

Religions are divisive methods of growing one’s tribe to biblical (pun intended) proportions, nothing more.

Dude, you're a fucking idiot. Seriously. Every post you make is a conversation-ender. The worth of a philosopher is the fertility of his word, the depth of conversation it might bring about. Your words are, however,- infertile. There is nowhere else to go. Religion is tribalism. End of conversation. Nothing. Your mind is closed, which means: your philosophy is a dead-end. It is of no account. History will not recall it. Your image will be lost, like all those staked against the longing of the sea. Your wave will never reach the shore. Even archaeology contradicts you, let alone, you know... 'thought'. A nobody trying to bring everyone else down to your level. That's why I spend 20 hours a day stoned, drunk, doped, and fucked out of my mind: I simply can't share your reality. To say that all religion is... is a method of growing one's tribe...

Conduct (religion) started out as a tribal affair, and as tribes grew into communities, religion (conduct) grew along with them. I know what religion is currently like.. now, but my interests always lay and pull me toward, wanting to know the beginnings and origins of all things that did not exist before but now do.. call it proto-history, if you will.

Unless you believe that religion is a latent given.. a universal concept that even space/time, holds, as true? Imagine trying to capture that down on paper, huh.

The majority of atheists, globally, follow local customs and norms, so adhering to local codes of conduct.. they may be irreligious, but they certainly aren’t immoral.

Do you need me to link you the 10,000 books and 100,000 papers on the subject? Do you need me to go through it all with you? Do you need me to tell you what being a human being is?

Sure, why not.. go ahead, be my guest.. I love a good read.

On the matter of what being a human being is, it sounds like you need a lesson on the matter.. as well as I, and anyway.. who made you the knowledge-keeper, on what being a human being truly really is..?

[Dan~]

Dude, you're a fucking idiot.

That's rude. I would prefer if you were polite from here on.

[Fixed Cross]

Here's something I wrote in a private email late last month:

I've formulated [VO, or whatever it's called these days] as "self-Valuing through other-Valuing" (note the Krellian capitalisation). The closest formulation by Nietzsche that I can think of is this:

"[N]o things remain but only dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their 'effect' upon the same[.]" (Workbook Spring 1888 14 [79]; cf. [80].)

Two notes;

1 - I reject the claim to knowledge that one quantum must have effect on all other quanta. Neither do I claim to be able to absolutely deny that it may be the case, but I reject the idea of a unified All, since it doesn't follow from the analytic certainty of the necessity of being, which I discuss below.
However, the underlying idea is to the point, that the essence of quanta lies in their relation to other quanta. Not entirely accurate though - a good deal of their essence lies in their relating to other quanta. Not in which specific relations they have. That is kind of a conditional quality, a condition which can be changed. Note, as an example (extrapolating 'quantum' to 'being'), our relation to each other. we do relate to each other, that will not change. But the nature of our relation changes.

2 - This however is only a general description -- VO offers a completely specific definition; the nature of this relating is always valuing.
Thus, not some neutral kind of relation such as "being proximate to" or "being twice as great as" or whatever objective relation. The nature of relating is only understood in terms of involvement'; love, hate, like, dislike, embrace, reject, as well as more complex forms of valuing. Thus, true understanding of a being can only exist in terms of itself. Thus, a being can only be understood by itself. And then not even completely (because to understand oneself completely one would have to understand completely all the factors that work into oneself from the outside, which has just been indicated as being impossible), unless there is nothing specific to understand, such as the case of a babe of the abyss. What is understood in such a case is that there is no relationship;
thus in turn, full understanding of a being which is in the web of some world, never occurs.
But in as far as there is a true understanding, it pertains to the completely subjective orientation of that being.
This is corroborated by the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, negating Einstein. The properties of a quantum can not be made fully explicit in terms other than its own - when observed from the outside (as an object, rather than from the inside, as a world) there is necessarily a distortion - a portion which is lost in translation. A limit to accuracy, an uncertainty.

This is closely related to the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination. [...]

Dependent origination in terms of a world, where being exists as separate things.
Origination itself is not dependent on relation, but merely of the fact that absolute absence of being is impossible. Being by its own definition exist, therefore there is being. In so far as we speak of being, this being is.
(This is what I see as pure metaphysics - the codependent origination into a world includes another theoretical order, as it involves that which can only be understood through relating to the vivid experience of valuing.)

Thus far philosophy as cosmology or metaphysics (First Philosophy). Now for political philosophy. Why must the philosopher become political? [...]

The philosopher, who as such has gained insight into the will to power (by whatever name), must will the show [Schein], the whole play and spectacle [BGE 56], because that insight tells him he himself, too, is the eternal flux... But what does it mean to will the show? [...]

In the first place, for the philosopher to will the show means willing the more or less stable collection of self-Lightenings that he is (even if that means willing his own death, like Socrates)—in other words, willing the collection of valuations that he is!

I would slightly but significantly modify this - he must absolutely value the collection of valuings that he is.
He must value his valuing activity - not so much the precise coordinates of value in which he thereby ends up entangled -
because valuation is close to evaluation, and evaluations pertain to the outside rather than the inside.
He must thus, while valuing, remain detached from that which he values. Even if his valuing is absolute!
A contradiction, or so it seems when we formulate it.
He must, in other words, value without asserting true knowledge of that which he values.
All that is truly known is the valuing. And the object of value is valued because it offers the opportunity for valuing, as that is all that is truly known about it. After all, the object which is valued can not be known in its own terms except by itself, as discussed above.

The show will go on in any case: the heat death of the universe is an end that never ends.

Because being is constantly in the process of emerging, there can not ever be a heat death.
I offer that the background radiation which leads to the hypothesis of a big bang is really a constantly emerging being from the void of Ein Soph, or Ginnungagap. (the nothingness which, even though it may be absolute (I havent fully understood that yet), must negate itself by virtue of its quality of nonexistence)

But his valuations, being the valuations of a particular being, pertain especially to a specific part of the show.

One the one hand one could argue they could also pertain to to show-ness, the fact of there being a show, rather than any specifics of that show. On the other hand, any notion of such show-ness must indeed be grounded in particular experiences.

The most spiritual means to my panhuman pleistocaust

lol

is simply the transmission of the abysmal thought:

"The Grade of the Babe of the Abyss [...] is an annihilation of all the bonds that compose the self or constitute the Cosmos, a resolution of all complexities into their elements, and these thereby cease to manifest, since things are only knowable in respect of their relation to, and reaction on, other things." (Aleister Crowley, "One Star in Sight".)

Then what remains is not knowledge - Daath - but only that which lies beyond.
Obviously it would be folly to attempt to formulate such a remainder in conclusive terms. Hence the virtue of the Rock of Understanding; silence.



++

The short word of it is that VO brings metaphysics into the direct apprehension, out of abstraction.

It is exact without requiring abstraction - because, I realize, it is absolute.

Experience is never more unified than in "acts" of valuing.
The graces of the Samurai, the tea ceremony.
That is life understood, being as valuing (other, indeed) and through this, creating a self-valuing, which is the resonance of pride, that which speaks to the mind not in reason but in grace.
Why reason when there is grace? That is the beginning of the trip as I remember it.

I required a more graceful form of reason, a more nimble and at the same time a graver discipline, more seriously aimed to make conscious life more directly involved with itself. It is good that it has been understood by grave men.

[Zeroeth Nature]

Here's something I wrote in a private email late last month:

I've formulated [VO, or whatever it's called these days] as "self-Valuing through other-Valuing" (note the Krellian capitalisation). The closest formulation by Nietzsche that I can think of is this:

"[N]o things remain but only dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their 'effect' upon the same[.]" (Workbook Spring 1888 14 [79]; cf. [80].)

Two notes;

1 - I reject the claim to knowledge that one quantum must have effect on all other quanta. Neither do I claim to be able to absolutely deny that it may be the case, but I reject the idea of a unified All, since it doesn't follow from the analytic certainty of the necessity of being, which I discuss below.

Granted, this seems to follow from Nietzsche's premise of a finite world. I haven't accepted that premise for a few years now, although I now think the infinite is filled with stuff that indefinitely becomes smaller but will never be infinitesimal.

::

However, the underlying idea is to the point, that the essence of quanta lies in their relation to other quanta. Not entirely accurate though - a good deal of their essence lies in their relating to other quanta. Not in which specific relations they have. That is kind of a conditional quality, a condition which can be changed. Note, as an example (extrapolating 'quantum' to 'being'), our relation to each other. we do relate to each other, that will not change. But the nature of our relation changes.

Certainly, but I'm pretty sure that's what Nietzsche means. Thus the word Kaufmann translates as "effect" is Wirken, "Working". To be sure, Nietzsche says Verhältnis, not Verhalten, but he sometimes seems to use those words interchangeably, and in any case the English "relation" can mean both an active Relating and a passive Being-related.

It's fundamental to the abysmal thought that relations, and thereby essences, are subject to radical change at every moment.

::

2 - This however is only a general description -- VO offers a completely specific definition; the nature of this relating is always valuing.
Thus, not some neutral kind of relation such as "being proximate to" or "being twice as great as" or whatever objective relation.

No, but Nietzsche, too, offers a specific definition, of course: will to power. I just didn't include that in my quote—except for the "Wirken" part—, because I could assume that would be understood by my intended reader.

::

The nature of relating is only understood in terms of involvement'; love, hate, like, dislike, embrace, reject, as well as more complex forms of valuing. Thus, true understanding of a being can only exist in terms of itself.

I don't see how that necessarily follows; your "thus" requires a second (if only a minor) premise. Can you state that, please?

::

Thus, a being can only be understood by itself. And then not even completely (because to understand oneself completely one would have to understand completely all the factors that work into oneself from the outside, which has just been indicated as being impossible), unless there is nothing specific to understand, such as the case of a babe of the abyss. What is understood in such a case is that there is no relationship;
thus in turn, full understanding of a being which is in the web of some world, never occurs.
But in as far as there is a true understanding, it pertains to the completely subjective orientation of that being.
This is corroborated by the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, negating Einstein. The properties of a quantum can not be made fully explicit in terms other than its own - when observed from the outside (as an object, rather than from the inside, as a world) there is necessarily a distortion - a portion which is lost in translation. A limit to accuracy, an uncertainty.

Well, you first say a being cannot be completely understood even by itself, and then basically just say the same thing about its understanding of other beings...

On the basis of its—incomplete—understanding of itself, a being can understand that other beings, too, are not just objects, but worlds in their own right. This may be what you mean by understanding nothing specific, though.

Understanding with a capital u is attained through the grade of Babe of the Abyss. More on this below.

::

This is closely related to the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination. [...]

Dependent origination in terms of a world, where being exists as separate things.
Origination itself is not dependent on relation, but merely of the fact that absolute absence of being is impossible. Being by its own definition exist, therefore there is being. In so far as we speak of being, this being is.
(This is what I see as pure metaphysics - the codependent origination into a world includes another theoretical order, as it involves that which can only be understood through relating to the vivid experience of valuing.)

I (dis)agree, because this distinction is an expression of duality and thereby an instance of Knowledge, not Truth... Still more on this below.

::

Thus far philosophy as cosmology or metaphysics (First Philosophy). Now for political philosophy. Why must the philosopher become political? [...]

The philosopher, who as such has gained insight into the will to power (by whatever name), must will the show [Schein], the whole play and spectacle [BGE 56], because that insight tells him he himself, too, is the eternal flux... But what does it mean to will the show? [...]

In the first place, for the philosopher to will the show means willing the more or less stable collection of self-Lightenings that he is (even if that means willing his own death, like Socrates)—in other words, willing the collection of valuations that he is!

I would slightly but significantly modify this - he must absolutely value the collection of valuings that he is.

For the distinction between valuations and [V]aluings, compare what I said about "relation" above: I was distinctly aware of that when I wrote the last sentence you quote here.

And as for the distinction between Willing and Valuing, I understand Willing—to power—to be elaborated as Valuing—namely, as (self-Valuing through) other-Valuing—, and other-Valuing, in turn, as self-Lightening (and self-Valuing through other-Valuing as self-Charging through other-Charging, i.e., through self-Discharging (=self-Lightening)).

::

He must value his valuing activity - not so much the precise coordinates of value in which he thereby ends up entangled -
because valuation is close to evaluation, and evaluations pertain to the outside rather than the inside.
He must thus, while valuing, remain detached from that which he values. Even if his valuing is absolute!
A contradiction, or so it seems when we formulate it.
He must, in other words, value without asserting true knowledge of that which he values.

Valuing one's own Valuing, "directly", is only possible by way of the duality between oneself as "nothing", as absence of being(s)¹, and oneself as a being, a Valuing—which is not an objection, by the way. Again, still, more on this below.

¹ Compare: '[W]illing is transformed into acceptance. The knower thereby transcends the will to power, and becomes one with the "Nothing", which is and is not will to power—is and is not a being.' (https://pathos-of-distance.forumotion.com/t107-spacelight-continuing#2566)

::

All that is truly known is the valuing. And the object of value is valued because it offers the opportunity for valuing, as that is all that is truly known about it. After all, the object which is valued can not be known in its own terms except by itself, as discussed above.

The show will go on in any case: the heat death of the universe is an end that never ends.

Because being is constantly in the process of emerging, there can not ever be a heat death.
I offer that the background radiation which leads to the hypothesis of a big bang is really a constantly emerging being from the void of Ein Soph, or Ginnungagap. (the nothingness which, even though it may be absolute (I havent fully understood that yet), must negate itself by virtue of its quality of nonexistence)

Here we finally arrive at the "below" I kept referring to.

Note that, on page 1 of this thread, I also said: 'The heat death of the universe is [...] the end that never ends, just as the Big Bang is the beginning that never began.'

How can the beginning have never begun? Well, consider this passage from Nietzsche (as mistranslated by Kaufmann!):

"Lately one has sought several times to find a contradiction in the concept 'temporal infinity of the world in the past' (regressus in infinitum): one has even found it, although at the cost of confusing the head with the tail. Nothing can prevent me from reckoning backward from this moment and saying 'I shall never reach the end'; just as I can reckon forward from the same moment into the infinite. Only if I made the mistake—I shall guard against it—of equating this correct concept of a regressus in infinitum with an utterly unrealizable concept of a finite progressus up to this present, only if I suppose that the direction (forward or backward) is logically a matter of indifference, would I take the head—this moment—for the tail[.]" (Workbook Spring 1888 14 [188] = WP 1066, with added emphasis in underlined script.)

The manuscript actually reads "infinite progressus up to this present"... The Big Bang as a beginning that never began actually reconciles the concept of a regressus in infinitum with the likewise realisable concept of a finite progressus up to this present!

Now for nothingness or the "nothing" (WP 1067). Some pointers:

"According to Tsongkhapa, for the Prāsaṅgika the philosophical position of emptiness is itself a non-affirming negation, since emptiness is a 'lack of inherent existence.' One is not affirming anything in the place of that absence of inherence. It is not the presence of some other quality. If one were to describe emptiness as the presence of some quality—for example, a 'voidness' or a 'thusness'—it would linguistically and philosophically contradict the nature of the object which it is attempting to characterize.
[...]
Inseparability of Conventional & Ultimate Truth
According to the Prasangika, dependent-arising and emptiness are inseparable, and exist in a relationship of entity or identity. A relationship of entity or identity is one in which two objects are merely conceptually distinct, but not actually distinct. [...] Additionally, this relationship applies to impermanent phenomen[a] and products: if it's impermanent, it must be a product. Similarly, if it is a conventional arising then it is emptiness, and if it is emptiness, then it is a conventional arising. These two are merely conceptually distinct, but not actually distinct. [...]
'Form is empty. Emptiness is form.
Emptiness is not other than form; form is also not other than emptiness.
[...]'
All phenomena are of the nature of emptiness and emptiness is nowhere to be found except as the nature of all phenomena. Emptiness is established as being synonymous with dependent arising. Dependent arising, also, is established as being synonymous with emptiness. The mere appearance of phenomena due to dependent designation [i.e., to the designation of being(s) as separate things!—compare Silhouette's "continuous experience"] is inseparable from the non-obstruction to their arising, which is emptiness.
Emptiness of Emptiness
According to both Tsongkhapa and Nagarjuna, emptiness is also empty of inherent existence: emptiness only exists nominally and conventionally. Emptiness is co-dependently arisen as a quality of conventional phenomena and is itself a conventional phenomenon. There is no emptiness just 'floating around out there' or a 'Great Emptiness from which everything else arises.' For example, a table is empty of inherently being a table from its own side. This is referred to as 'the emptiness of the table.' The emptiness of the table exists conventionally as a property of that particular table. Lama Tsongkhapa quoting Chandrakirti:
[']Since there is nothing at all that is not empty of intrinsic existence, it is perfectly reasonable to say that even the emptiness which is a seedling's lack of intrinsic nature lacks essential existence. [Which Chanrakirti agrees with when he states] If that which is called emptiness did have some essential existence, then things would have intrinsic nature. However, it does not.[']
From the Prasaṅgika point of view, it is the same with all types of emptiness. There is no 'independent emptiness' or 'ultimate emptiness.' Therefore, emptiness is an ultimate truth (a fact which applies to all possible phenomena, in all possible worlds), but it is not an ultimate phenomenon or ultimate reality (something which has always existed, is self-created, and is self-sustaining). It is also not a 'Tao' or a primal substance from which all other things arise. Buddhapalita comically equates someone who thinks emptiness is inherent with someone who doesn't understand what 'nothing' means:
[']There is no way to overcome the misconceptions of those who think that emptiness is a real thing. For example, if you tell someone, "I have nothing." and that person says, "Give me that nothing." How could you make that person understand that you have nothing?[']" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasaṅgika_according_to_Tsongkhapa, with added emphasis in underlined script.)

As I recently wrote in a private message:

'Note though that "Buddha-nature" is precisely the lack of a "nature" in the strict sense: it is the emptiness of svabhava ("self-nature"; a combined Latin-Greek transliteration would be suiphysis).'

There is no difference between being(s) and nothing! And last week, I came to think of redshifting—as in cosmic microwave background radiation—like the stretching of a spring... I half-jokingly call this idea "spring theory". I'm thinking the higher the frequency of the radiation, the greater its radiation pressure! (Likewise the higher the amplitude of the radiation the greater its radiation pressure, just as two equal springs have twice the tensile force of one.)

::

But his valuations, being the valuations of a particular being, pertain especially to a specific part of the show.

One the one hand one could argue they could also pertain to to show-ness, the fact of there being a show, rather than any specifics of that show.

Well, I already addressed this when I said the show will go on in any case. Insofar as his valuations pertain to the show in general, there is no need for the philosopher to become political.

::

On the other hand, any notion of such show-ness must indeed be grounded in particular experiences.

Yes, but it can be generalised, like I said: 'that other beings, too, are not just objects, but worlds in their own right.'

::

The most spiritual means to my panhuman pleistocaust

lol

is simply the transmission of the abysmal thought:

"The Grade of the Babe of the Abyss [...] is an annihilation of all the bonds that compose the self or constitute the Cosmos, a resolution of all complexities into their elements, and these thereby cease to manifest, since things are only knowable in respect of their relation to, and reaction on, other things." (Aleister Crowley, "One Star in Sight".)

Then what remains is not knowledge - Daath - but only that which lies beyond.
Obviously it would be folly to attempt to formulate such a remainder in conclusive terms. Hence the virtue of the Rock of Understanding; silence.

...

[Fixed Cross]

Granted, this seems to follow from Nietzsche's premise of a finite world. I haven't accepted that premise for a few years now, although I now think the infinite is filled with stuff that indefinitely becomes smaller but will never be infinitesimal.

I personally go by the findings of physics in this regard, meaning I accept a Planck length as a true minimum. I recommend reading a bit of Niels Bohr on QM, you'll find it lucid in a philosophic sense.
The surprise encountered by the quantum mechanics is that on this scale, existence isnt a continuum, but changes stepwise, which entirely alters the math.
Essentially this means that the structure of the universe is numerical.
Thus indeed, made up out of value relations, where each minimal value is a (self)-valuing

However, the underlying idea is to the point, that the essence of quanta lies in their relation to other quanta. Not entirely accurate though - a good deal of their essence lies in their relating to other quanta. Not in which specific relations they have. That is kind of a conditional quality, a condition which can be changed. Note, as an example (extrapolating 'quantum' to 'being'), our relation to each other. we do relate to each other, that will not change. But the nature of our relation changes.

Certainly, but I'm pretty sure that's what Nietzsche means. Thus the word Kaufmann translates as "effect" is Wirken, "Working". To be sure, Nietzsche says Verhältnis, not Verhalten, but he sometimes seems to use those words interchangeably, and in any case the English "relation" can mean both an active Relating and a passive Being-related.

Right.

2 - This however is only a general description -- VO offers a completely specific definition; the nature of this relating is always valuing.
Thus, not some neutral kind of relation such as "being proximate to" or "being twice as great as" or whatever objective relation.

No, but Nietzsche, too, offers a specific definition, of course: will to power. I just didn't include that in my quote—except for the "Wirken" part—, because I could assume that would be understood by my intended reader.

Naturally. He was the one who introduced this specificity in philosophy.

The nature of relating is only understood in terms of involvement'; love, hate, like, dislike, embrace, reject, as well as more complex forms of valuing. Thus, true understanding of a being can only exist in terms of itself.

I don't see how that necessarily follows; your "thus" requires a second (if only a minor) premise. Can you state that, please?

It is because love, hate, etc are all subjective, one sided relatings.
y loves x doesnt say anything about x. Whereas y = 2x is a definition of y and x in terms of each other.
In the latter example we can understand y in terms of x, in the former we can not -
In the former example we may claim that what y loves in x is y's own love - or the power x gives y to experience love.
This is not a definitely explicated attribute of x.

Thus, a being can only be understood by itself. And then not even completely (because to understand oneself completely one would have to understand completely all the factors that work into oneself from the outside, which has just been indicated as being impossible), unless there is nothing specific to understand, such as the case of a babe of the abyss. What is understood in such a case is that there is no relationship;
thus in turn, full understanding of a being which is in the web of some world, never occurs.
But in as far as there is a true understanding, it pertains to the completely subjective orientation of that being.
This is corroborated by the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, negating Einstein. The properties of a quantum can not be made fully explicit in terms other than its own - when observed from the outside (as an object, rather than from the inside, as a world) there is necessarily a distortion - a portion which is lost in translation. A limit to accuracy, an uncertainty.

Well, you first say a being cannot be completely understood even by itself, and then basically just say the same thing about its understanding of other beings...

On the basis of its—incomplete—understanding of itself, a being can understand that other beings, too, are not just objects, but worlds in their own right. This may be what you mean by understanding nothing specific, though.

Yes, that is what I mean.

Origination itself is not dependent on relation, but merely of the fact that absolute absence of being is impossible. Being by its own definition exist, therefore there is being. In so far as we speak of being, this being is.
(This is what I see as pure metaphysics - the codependent origination into a world includes another theoretical order, as it involves that which can only be understood through relating to the vivid experience of valuing.)

I (dis)agree, because this distinction is an expression of duality and thereby an instance of Knowledge, not Truth... Still more on this below.

Granted, at least that my attempt at formulating there was the folly I speak of below.

I would slightly but significantly modify this - he must absolutely value the collection of valuings that he is.

For the distinction between valuations and [V]aluings, compare what I said about "relation" above: I was distinctly aware of that when I wrote the last sentence you quote here.

And as for the distinction between Willing and Valuing, I understand Willing—to power—to be elaborated as Valuing—namely, as (self-Valuing through) other-Valuing—, and other-Valuing, in turn, as self-Lightening (and self-Valuing through other-Valuing as self-Charging through other-Charging, i.e., through self-Discharging (=self-Lightening)).

I think that is a correct understanding.

He must value his valuing activity - not so much the precise coordinates of value in which he thereby ends up entangled -
because valuation is close to evaluation, and evaluations pertain to the outside rather than the inside.
He must thus, while valuing, remain detached from that which he values. Even if his valuing is absolute!
A contradiction, or so it seems when we formulate it.
He must, in other words, value without asserting true knowledge of that which he values.

Valuing one's own Valuing, "directly", is only possible by way of the duality between oneself as "nothing", as absence of being(s)¹, and oneself as a being, a Valuing—which is not an objection, by the way. Again, still, more on this below.

¹ Compare: '[W]illing is transformed into acceptance. The knower thereby transcends the will to power, and becomes one with the "Nothing", which is and is not will to power—is and is not a being.' (https://pathos-of-distance.forumotion.com/t107-spacelight-continuing#2566)

That seems right.

All that is truly known is the valuing. And the object of value is valued because it offers the opportunity for valuing, as that is all that is truly known about it. After all, the object which is valued can not be known in its own terms except by itself, as discussed above.

The show will go on in any case: the heat death of the universe is an end that never ends.

Because being is constantly in the process of emerging, there can not ever be a heat death.
I offer that the background radiation which leads to the hypothesis of a big bang is really a constantly emerging being from the void of Ein Soph, or Ginnungagap. (the nothingness which, even though it may be absolute (I havent fully understood that yet), must negate itself by virtue of its quality of nonexistence)

Here we finally arrive at the "below" I kept referring to.

Note that, on page 1 of this thread, I also said: 'The heat death of the universe is [...] the end that never ends, just as the Big Bang is the beginning that never began.'

How can the beginning have never begun? Well, consider this passage from Nietzsche (as mistranslated by Kaufmann!):

"Lately one has sought several times to find a contradiction in the concept 'temporal infinity of the world in the past' (regressus in infinitum): one has even found it, although at the cost of confusing the head with the tail. Nothing can prevent me from reckoning backward from this moment and saying 'I shall never reach the end'; just as I can reckon forward from the same moment into the infinite. Only if I made the mistake—I shall guard against it—of equating this correct concept of a regressus in infinitum with an utterly unrealizable concept of a finite progressus up to this present, only if I suppose that the direction (forward or backward) is logically a matter of indifference, would I take the head—this moment—for the tail[.]" (Workbook Spring 1888 14 [188] = WP 1066, with added emphasis in underlined script.)

The manuscript actually reads "infinite progressus up to this present"... The Big Bang as a beginning that never began actually reconciles the concept of a regressus in infinitum with the likewise realisable concept of a finite progressus up to this present!

Now for nothingness or the "nothing" (WP 1067). Some pointers:

"According to Tsongkhapa, for the Prāsaṅgika the philosophical position of emptiness is itself a non-affirming negation, since emptiness is a 'lack of inherent existence.' One is not affirming anything in the place of that absence of inherence. It is not the presence of some other quality. If one were to describe emptiness as the presence of some quality—for example, a 'voidness' or a 'thusness'—it would linguistically and philosophically contradict the nature of the object which it is attempting to characterize.
[...]
Inseparability of Conventional & Ultimate Truth
According to the Prasangika, dependent-arising and emptiness are inseparable, and exist in a relationship of entity or identity. A relationship of entity or identity is one in which two objects are merely conceptually distinct, but not actually distinct. [...] Additionally, this relationship applies to impermanent phenomen[a] and products: if it's impermanent, it must be a product. Similarly, if it is a conventional arising then it is emptiness, and if it is emptiness, then it is a conventional arising. These two are merely conceptually distinct, but not actually distinct. [...]
'Form is empty. Emptiness is form.
Emptiness is not other than form; form is also not other than emptiness.
[...]'
All phenomena are of the nature of emptiness and emptiness is nowhere to be found except as the nature of all phenomena. Emptiness is established as being synonymous with dependent arising. Dependent arising, also, is established as being synonymous with emptiness. The mere appearance of phenomena due to dependent designation [i.e., to the designation of being(s) as separate things!—compare Silhouette's "continuous experience"] is inseparable from the non-obstruction to their arising, which is emptiness.
Emptiness of Emptiness
According to both Tsongkhapa and Nagarjuna, emptiness is also empty of inherent existence: emptiness only exists nominally and conventionally. Emptiness is co-dependently arisen as a quality of conventional phenomena and is itself a conventional phenomenon. There is no emptiness just 'floating around out there' or a 'Great Emptiness from which everything else arises.' For example, a table is empty of inherently being a table from its own side. This is referred to as 'the emptiness of the table.' The emptiness of the table exists conventionally as a property of that particular table. Lama Tsongkhapa quoting Chandrakirti:
[']Since there is nothing at all that is not empty of intrinsic existence, it is perfectly reasonable to say that even the emptiness which is a seedling's lack of intrinsic nature lacks essential existence. [Which Chanrakirti agrees with when he states] If that which is called emptiness did have some essential existence, then things would have intrinsic nature. However, it does not.[']

Very interesting, but I am not sure I agree with the last statement, on which the rest seems to depend.
How can emptiness have an essential nature? Only by standing in relation to non-emptiness, and only when non emptiness has an essential nature - which it does, namely, valuing.
Thus, emptiness itself is a reflection, in as far as we can speak of it at all, of non-emptiness - we can only speak of emptiness in terms of that which is not empty.

We can presume an emptiness without an essence, but not engage on in some logical thoughtform.
I suppose therefore, final emptiness is experienced as sublime, rather than as worthless.

From the Prasaṅgika point of view, it is the same with all types of emptiness. There is no 'independent emptiness' or 'ultimate emptiness.'

There is no independent emptiness but there is I would say, as I just did, a final emptiness - at least a finality to all analysis and experience which its emptiness.
This emptiness is final for all intents and purposes.

Therefore, emptiness is an ultimate truth (a fact which applies to all possible phenomena, in all possible worlds)

Where I would say that only a very limited number of kinds of worlds is possible - precisely because emptiness does have an essence - which in turn, is because non-emptiness must have the essence of WtP / valuing.

All worlds conceived by James S Saints and other substance-neutralists, are impossible.

, but it is not an ultimate phenomenon or ultimate reality (something which has always existed, is self-created, and is self-sustaining). It is also not a 'Tao' or a primal substance from which all other things arise.

rather, the Tao arises from the apprehension of emptiness.

Buddhapalita comically equates someone who thinks emptiness is inherent with someone who doesn't understand what 'nothing' means:
[']There is no way to overcome the misconceptions of those who think that emptiness is a real thing. For example, if you tell someone, "I have nothing." and that person says, "Give me that nothing." How could you make that person understand that you have nothing?[']" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasaṅgika_according_to_Tsongkhapa, with added emphasis in underlined script.)

I seem to have been making the same point.

As I recently wrote in a private message:

'Note though that "Buddha-nature" is precisely the lack of a "nature" in the strict sense: it is the emptiness of svabhava ("self-nature"; a combined Latin-Greek transliteration would be suiphysis).'

I disagree, as I see Buddha nature as the orientation by a human on emptiness, not emptiness itself.

There is no difference between being(s) and nothing!

Therefore, this does not follow for me.

And last week, I came to think of redshifting—as in cosmic microwave background radiation—like the stretching of a spring... I half-jokingly call this idea "spring theory". I'm thinking the higher the frequency of the radiation, the greater its radiation pressure! (Likewise the higher the amplitude of the radiation the greater its radiation pressure, just as two equal springs have twice the tensile force of one.)

It is true that the shorter the wave, the harder it is for it to penetrate anything - because indeed, it forms more of an actual pressure.
(Hence why the current generation of communication signal, a very short wave, had to be amplified tremendously with respect to the previous generation to be able to pass through walls (so much so that the signal is actually a significance force causing very magnetic fields heavier than our own), and why light, ultra short wave, cant pass through walls at all, unless it comes in such power as to obliterate the wall.

One the one hand one could argue they could also pertain to to show-ness, the fact of there being a show, rather than any specifics of that show.

Well, I already addressed this when I said the show will go on in any case. Insofar as his valuations pertain to the show in general, there is no need for the philosopher to become political.

Indeed.

On the other hand, any notion of such show-ness must indeed be grounded in particular experiences.

Yes, but it can be generalised, like I said: 'that other beings, too, are not just objects, but worlds in their own right.'

Yes, but the term "world" is inevitably understood in terms of ones own world.
And that such terms may differ quite fundamentally is becoming clearer and clearer these days.

[Zeroeth Nature]

Granted, this seems to follow from Nietzsche's premise of a finite world. I haven't accepted that premise for a few years now, although I now think the infinite is filled with stuff that indefinitely becomes smaller but will never be infinitesimal.

I personally go by the findings of physics in this regard, meaning I accept a Planck length as a true minimum. I recommend reading a bit of Niels Bohr on QM, you'll find it lucid in a philosophic sense.
The surprise encountered by the quantum mechanics is that on this scale, existence isnt a continuum, but changes stepwise, which entirely alters the math.
Essentially this means that the structure of the universe is numerical.
Thus indeed, made up out of value relations, where each minimal value is a (self)-valuing

Thanks for the recommendation. As for the Planck length: even if it's the true minimum, I contend that that, too, becomes indefinitely smaller! though it will never be infinitesimal. More on this below.

And as for the surprise you mention, it reminds me of this:

"Let’s consider the shortest interval of time and the smallest extent of space. These units are determined by an observer. When the sampling rate of the observer reaches its limit, space and time stop being continuous and start to be discontinuous. In other words, the motion of the object will change from being smooth to occurring in jumps [...]. If the object changes location between the smallest units of time, then its change in location is instantaneous. There is no unit of time small enough to measure between the smallest units of time. Likewise, an object is stationary during its appearance for the smallest interval of time because there is no unit of space small enough to measure between the smallest units of space possible." (Source: http://rosmappedcmmodel.com/public_html/Images/ROSMappedCMModel.pdf.)

::

He must value his valuing activity - not so much the precise coordinates of value in which he thereby ends up entangled -
because valuation is close to evaluation, and evaluations pertain to the outside rather than the inside.
He must thus, while valuing, remain detached from that which he values. Even if his valuing is absolute!
A contradiction, or so it seems when we formulate it.
He must, in other words, value without asserting true knowledge of that which he values.

Valuing one's own Valuing, "directly", is only possible by way of the duality between oneself as "nothing", as absence of being(s)¹, and oneself as a being, a Valuing—which is not an objection, by the way. Again, still, more on this below.

¹ Compare: '[W]illing is transformed into acceptance. The knower thereby transcends the will to power, and becomes one with the "Nothing", which is and is not will to power—is and is not a being.' (https://pathos-of-distance.forumotion.com/t107-spacelight-continuing#2566)

That seems right.

Good. Still, I want to add something. I now realise the duality mentioned is basically Heidegger's "ontological difference": the difference between Being, or the meaning (sense!) of Being, and being(s). In order to value one's own Valuing, "directly", one needs to sense one's own Being, one's Being-a-being... (Actually this Sensing is itself already the Valuing of one's own Valuing! For it is aesthetically "pleasing", "pleasurable",—beatific!

::

All that is truly known is the valuing. And the object of value is valued because it offers the opportunity for valuing, as that is all that is truly known about it. After all, the object which is valued can not be known in its own terms except by itself, as discussed above.

[...]
Because being is constantly in the process of emerging, there can not ever be a heat death.
I offer that the background radiation which leads to the hypothesis of a big bang is really a constantly emerging being from the void of Ein Soph, or Ginnungagap. (the nothingness which, even though it may be absolute (I havent fully understood that yet), must negate itself by virtue of its quality of nonexistence)

Here we finally arrive at the "below" I kept referring to.

Note that, on page 1 of this thread, I also said: 'The heat death of the universe is [...] the end that never ends, just as the Big Bang is the beginning that never began.'

How can the beginning have never begun? Well, consider this passage from Nietzsche (as mistranslated by Kaufmann!):

"Lately one has sought several times to find a contradiction in the concept 'temporal infinity of the world in the past' (regressus in infinitum): one has even found it, although at the cost of confusing the head with the tail. Nothing can prevent me from reckoning backward from this moment and saying 'I shall never reach the end'; just as I can reckon forward from the same moment into the infinite. Only if I made the mistake—I shall guard against it—of equating this correct concept of a regressus in infinitum with an utterly unrealizable concept of a finite progressus up to this present, only if I suppose that the direction (forward or backward) is logically a matter of indifference, would I take the head—this moment—for the tail[.]" (Workbook Spring 1888 14 [188] = WP 1066, with added emphasis in underlined script.)

The manuscript actually reads "infinite progressus up to this present"... The Big Bang as a beginning that never began actually reconciles the concept of a regressus in infinitum with the likewise realisable concept of a finite progressus up to this present!

Now for nothingness or the "nothing" (WP 1067). Some pointers:

"According to Tsongkhapa, for the Prāsaṅgika the philosophical position of emptiness is itself a non-affirming negation, since emptiness is a 'lack of inherent existence.' One is not affirming anything in the place of that absence of inherence. It is not the presence of some other quality. If one were to describe emptiness as the presence of some quality—for example, a 'voidness' or a 'thusness'—it would linguistically and philosophically contradict the nature of the object which it is attempting to characterize.
[...]
Inseparability of Conventional & Ultimate Truth
According to the Prasangika, dependent-arising and emptiness are inseparable, and exist in a relationship of entity or identity. A relationship of entity or identity is one in which two objects are merely conceptually distinct, but not actually distinct. [...] Additionally, this relationship applies to impermanent phenomen[a] and products: if it's impermanent, it must be a product. Similarly, if it is a conventional arising then it is emptiness, and if it is emptiness, then it is a conventional arising. These two are merely conceptually distinct, but not actually distinct. [...]
'Form is empty. Emptiness is form.
Emptiness is not other than form; form is also not other than emptiness.
[...]'
All phenomena are of the nature of emptiness and emptiness is nowhere to be found except as the nature of all phenomena. Emptiness is established as being synonymous with dependent arising. Dependent arising, also, is established as being synonymous with emptiness. The mere appearance of phenomena due to dependent designation [i.e., to the designation of being(s) as separate things!—compare Silhouette's "continuous experience"] is inseparable from the non-obstruction to their arising, which is emptiness.
Emptiness of Emptiness
According to both Tsongkhapa and Nagarjuna, emptiness is also empty of inherent existence: emptiness only exists nominally and conventionally. Emptiness is co-dependently arisen as a quality of conventional phenomena and is itself a conventional phenomenon. There is no emptiness just 'floating around out there' or a 'Great Emptiness from which everything else arises.' For example, a table is empty of inherently being a table from its own side. This is referred to as 'the emptiness of the table.' The emptiness of the table exists conventionally as a property of that particular table. Lama Tsongkhapa quoting Chandrakirti:
[']Since there is nothing at all that is not empty of intrinsic existence, it is perfectly reasonable to say that even the emptiness which is a seedling's lack of intrinsic nature lacks essential existence. [Which Chanrakirti agrees with when he states] If that which is called emptiness did have some essential existence, then things would have intrinsic nature. However, it does not.[']

Very interesting, but I am not sure I agree with the last statement, on which the rest seems to depend.
How can emptiness have an essential nature? Only by standing in relation to non-emptiness, and only when non emptiness has an essential nature - which it does, namely, valuing.
Thus, emptiness itself is a reflection, in as far as we can speak of it at all, of non-emptiness - we can only speak of emptiness in terms of that which is not empty.

We can presume an emptiness without an essence, but not engage on in some logical thoughtform.
I suppose therefore, final emptiness is experienced as sublime, rather than as worthless.

I see now that the last statement you quote here is indeed paradoxical. However, what is meant is that, if emptiness would have some essential existence, then things would have the intrinsic nature of emptiness. But "emptiness" does not designate something that things have, but something that they don't have: as mentioned in the first statement, it's a non-affirming negation. (More precisely, it designates things' not Having something, namely an intrinsic nature (svabhava, atman, etc.).)

In my understanding, that all beings are Valuings and nothing besides is precisely why they are empty! To be sure, though, what you say here does make me realise that my subsequent understanding of Valuing as self-Lightening implies that beings are not absolutely empty—and thereby relatively full—in the following respect. A self-Lightening is a Lightening of itself, i.e. of that very Lightening. As such, the Lightening, (even) if it is not recharged by other self-Lightenings, becomes ever lighter, less vehement, meaning it lightens itself ever less. This is why it can never become infinitesimal, never disappear completely, and thereby never become absolutely empty in that respect! It will always have something left of which to lighten itself. However, compared to absolute fullness, it's only relatively full and in that respect absolutely empty... My cosmology holds that the Big Bang is the beginning that never began, in the sense that the "beginning" of the Big Bang is an asymptote, a limit, something that would never be reached (even) if time was reversed! And likewise, the heat death of the universe (Big Chill, Big Freeze) is the end that never ends, not in the sense that it's an eternal standstill, but an eternal Standing-stiller ("Standing" in the dynamic sense, of "Causing-oneself or Being-caused to stand, to be static"—).

'The heat death of the universe means that the universe approaches (but only as an asymptote, a limit that can never be reached but only approximated) absolute darkness and cold. I was thinking absolute darkness and cold could again give birth to light and heat if confronted with another darkness and cold. What's certain is that, to absolute darkness and cold, another absolute darkness and cold would not be dark and cold—and therefore, relatively bright and warm, if formerly the former was not absolute... This means the absolute darkness and cold which our universe "approaches" becomes ever less dark and cold to it. Logically, it's the same limit as that "before" the Big Bang... The only thing missing for the ER according to current scientific consensus, then, is that the limit is actually reached.' (https://pathos-of-distance.forumotion.com/t107-spacelight-continuing#2721)

But: it doesn't matter if the limit is reached or not! It doesn't matter whether the cosmic serpent bites itself in the tail or ever so slightly misses the mark. (Reminds me of a D&D session in which Bobo, as the dungeon master, said the spider that sat on my arm tried to bite me but missed... (What he meant was the spider's fangs failed to pierce my scales.))

"Movement [of history] in a circle can have a beginning and an end (a single great cycle ending in a universal conflagration or an eschatological cataclysm) or, like a pure circle, have no beginning and no end. There will then be eternal return." (Mahdi, "Religion and the Cyclical View of History".)

::

From the Prasaṅgika point of view, it is the same with all types of emptiness. There is no 'independent emptiness' or 'ultimate emptiness.'

There is no independent emptiness but there is I would say, as I just did, a final emptiness - at least a finality to all analysis and experience which its emptiness.
This emptiness is final for all intents and purposes.

That whole long Wikipedia excerpt is about Prasangika according to Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelug, the youngest of the major Tibetan Buddhist schools. I value him greatly, but I also really value the oldest of those schools, the Nyingma, and the closely related Bön religion (which is now also considered a school in its own right). Note that the Dalai Lama belongs to the Gelug, but somewhat controversially practices Dzogchen, which is rather a Nyingma and Bön technique. Dzogchen is aimed at becoming and remaining aware of "the Ground", which is basically a "voidness" or "thusness", a "Great Emptiness from which everything else arises". (I identify it with the Abyss, the Abgrund, "Offground".) So I do value the idea of a final or ultimate emptiness. However, in my view this emptiness is not absolute (nothingness) in the respect indicated above; instead, it is "empty space", which as you know I take to constitute a unity with light: light-space, or in other words the space-radiation duality. I contend that where there's space, there is radiation, and where there's radiation, there is space—within "matter" as well. In fact all "matter" ultimately is radiation/space, and as such is "empty". The amplitude and the frequency of all radiation may become ever lower, but it will never completely flatline. In that sense, "emptiness", being self-Lightening, is a relative fullness and, compared to absolute nothingness (which doesn't exist—), even an absolute fullness, yes... The universe is a self-Lightening—an infinite one! And as such the only one.—

::

As I recently wrote in a private message:

'Note though that "Buddha-nature" is precisely the lack of a "nature" in the strict sense: it is the emptiness of svabhava ("self-nature"; a combined Latin-Greek transliteration would be suiphysis).'

I disagree, as I see Buddha nature as the orientation by a human on emptiness, not emptiness itself.

Well, so I see Buddha-nature as the orientation by emptiness on a—being! :)

::

And last week, I came to think of redshifting—as in cosmic microwave background radiation—like the stretching of a spring... I half-jokingly call this idea "spring theory". I'm thinking the higher the frequency of the radiation, the greater its radiation pressure! (Likewise the higher the amplitude of the radiation the greater its radiation pressure, just as two equal springs have twice the tensile force of one.)

It is true that the shorter the wave, the harder it is for it to penetrate anything - because indeed, it forms more of an actual pressure.
(Hence why the current generation of communication signal, a very short wave, had to be amplified tremendously with respect to the previous generation to be able to pass through walls (so much so that the signal is actually a significance force causing very magnetic fields heavier than our own), and why light, ultra short wave, cant pass through walls at all, unless it comes in such power as to obliterate the wall.

Excellent! And you're talking about 5G there, right?

::

On the other hand, any notion of such show-ness must indeed be grounded in particular experiences.

Yes, but it can be generalised, like I said: 'that other beings, too, are not just objects, but worlds in their own right.'

Yes, but the term "world" is inevitably understood in terms of ones own world.
And that such terms may differ quite fundamentally is becoming clearer and clearer these days.

All worlds have some space, no matter how small; some light, no matter how dim. Have an enlightening, mind-expanding year!

::

I didn't address this bit before, but I will now:

The nature of relating is only understood in terms of involvement'; love, hate, like, dislike, embrace, reject, as well as more complex forms of valuing. Thus, true understanding of a being can only exist in terms of itself.

I don't see how that necessarily follows; your "thus" requires a second (if only a minor) premise. Can you state that, please?

It is because love, hate, etc are all subjective, one sided relatings.
y loves x doesnt say anything about x. Whereas y = 2x is a definition of y and x in terms of each other.
In the latter example we can understand y in terms of x, in the former we can not -
In the former example we may claim that what y loves in x is y's own love - or the power x gives y to experience love.
This is not a definitely explicated attribute of x.

I must say I find this quite odd, coming from the founder of Value Ontology! I'd say that, insofar as we know y, "y (dis)values x" tells us something about x; whereas, insofar as we know x, it tells us something about y. Also, that what y (dis)values in x is that y is able to get charged by or discharge itself into x... This is the abysmal thought! "[T]heir essence lies in their relation to all [their] other[s]", that is to say in their Affecting them and their Being affected by them. As I wrote in the sequel to that private message I mentioned:

When Zarathustra says that all feeling (in the sense of "all that feels": alles Fühlende) suffers in him and is in prison(s), what he means is this: feeling is something passive, i.e. something "suffering" in the sense of "undergoing". Willing (Wollen, "to will"), on the other hand, frees (befreit, "emancipateth"), in the sense that it's "liberating" because it feels free (I think will is nothing else than the feeling of freedom, which in turn is nothing else than the feeling of power; will is the feeling of {free will}/{willpower}...).

In other words, feeling is something unfree, something that overcomes you, whereas willing appears to be active (i.e., involving agency, "self-acting"), spontaneous. Now Zarathustra says this in the second chapter of Part II, but by the twentieth chapter (out of twenty-two), he has learned that the will itself is still a prisoner ("Redemption"). The will is a prisoner, is in prison(s), because it's something passive—a pathos, as N says in WP 635 (passio(n-) was used as the Late Latin rendition of Greek pathos; "the Passion of Christ" doesn't mean his strong emotion but his suffering).

"Are you now prepared? You must have lived through every degree of skepticism [...]—otherwise you have no right to this thought [i.e., the idea of eternal recurrence.]" (Nietzsche, workbook Autumn 1881 11 [339].)

The skepticism immediately preceding this demand, in the same workbook, involves what I used to translate as "the imagining Being" [...]. I will now translate it as "the (re)presenting Being". Here's from entry [324]:

"Feeling and will [Gefühl und Wille] are only known to us as (re)presentations, so their existence is not proven."

Here feeling and will are presented, not even as things that befall us (things that truly exist, noumena, things-in-themselves), but as mere semblances that befall us (things that merely seem, phenomena, appearances). And here's from entry [325]:

"The (re)presenting Being is certain, indeed our only certainty: what it (re)presents and how it must (re)present, is the problem. That Being (re)presents is not a problem, it is just the (matter of) fact [die Tatsache]: whether there is another Being than the (re)presenting Being, whether (Re)presenting doesn't belong to the property of Being, is the problem."

This is the highest degree of skepticism. It's what I meant when I wrote that Nietzsche and I were 'both coming from the most extreme skepticism (nihilism).' Note that Greek skepsis literally means a "looking-on", and that the first Skeptics were followers of Pyrrho.—

And again in that private message itself:

[T]o stand "above" everything as its own heaven etc. means to adore it from the deepest point of view. (Compare the Seventh Seal: "Thus however speaketh avian wisdom: 'Lo, there is no above and no below![']")

Note though that "Buddha-nature" is precisely the lack of a "nature" in the strict sense: it is the emptiness of svabhava ("self-nature"; a combined Latin-Greek transliteration would be suiphysis). Compare:

"Nothing is easier to perceive than reality's emptiness. Genuine philosophy or science is the realization that nothing, no divine or natural order, endows anything with a non-arbitrary [B]eing,¹ an identity not subject to radical change at any moment. There is nothing in (or behind or above) things to make them more than empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them. Reality and everything in it is nothing but empty impressions, experiences, bigotries, dreams whose dreamer is himself a dream." (Neumann, "What is Bigotry? A Note on Academic and Un-Academic Philosophers", with my emphasis.)

¹ "Being" is cognate with bhava and physis.

Nietzsche's blessing, then, finds a very early formulation in The Birth of Tragedy, chapter 1, where it says: "It's a dream! I want to dream it further!" (Note by the way that Neumann elsewhere speaks of "dreams whose dreamers are themselves dreams"—so it's not as if there need be only one such a blesser.) Picht complements Neumann when he says:

"The truth is not outside of creating, it is rather the carrying-out of creating itself. The truth is the composing¹ of truthful show.² Since however the composer of this show is himself only a dream, only the mask which Dionysianly conjures the omnipresence of the horizon of the millennia, the composer becomes transparent to himself as the steward of the dream of history on which the whole past continues to compose. He is the dreamer who knows that he's dreaming, that he's being borne, led, formed, guided and composed by a power which eludes his own control. Hence 'Gay Science' 54 begins with the statement: 'How marvelously and newly and at the same time how horrifically and ironically do I feel disposed towards the entirety of existence with my cognisance!' (V 2, 90) The marvel is the discovery that, through the inversion of the statement 'God is dead' and through the cognisance of truthful show, the show of the world rays forth in a divine lustre. The new is the discovery of the future, the horrific is the shattering of the subjectivity of the subject, is the cognisance that the subject is nothing else than the embodiment of past and future history, thus, as I've said, the mask in which the omnipresence of history is conjured in the creative moment. This discovery is horrific for this reason, that through it the principium individuationis [principle of individuation] shatters, that man becomes aware of the fact that his own existence, too, is only a dream, only show, only a designing-oneself into new possibility, only a hovering without support. The irony, finally, is in the fact that the man who has attained to the cognisance of this truth is like a dreamer who knows that he's dreaming, like a creator who no longer creates unconsciously but sees through his own creating at the same time. In this way existence becomes perspectival in the dual sense that it's conscious of the historical limitedness of its own horizon and at the same time knows that, precisely through this limitedness, it provides and possesses insight into the contradictory structure of the Being of beings-as-a-whole. The dreamer who knows that he's dreaming is a symbol which sees through itself as a symbol." (Picht, Nietzsche, page 319. The word I've translated as "cognisance" is the same word Common translates as "discernment", by the way; it's usually translated simply as "knowledge".)

¹ Dichten, literally "poetising" or "tightening".
² Schein, literally "semblance" or "shine".

::

[...T]he inversion of the statement "God is dead" would be: "Life [or existence] is divine" (compare BGE 37: the God who is now dead was rather the Devil). But look how this is attained: the will to appearance (Schein) is deeper, more original, more metaphysical than the will to truth [WP 853 III], precisely because of the nature of truth:

"All striving to do or be anything arises from a nihilist will to overpower nihilism, the will of nothing to be more than nothing. Like everything else that will is nothing." (Neumann, "Nihilism Challenged and Defended". This is from the same page as his mention of dreamers, plural, by the way.)

It is precisely because of the nature of truth—i.e., because the will to appearance is so deep, or in other words because the world is false (WP 853 I)—that the will to truth can develop: for the show (maya) veils the truth, so that its terrible nature is concealed and the show itself gets to be seen as terrible.

The redemptive quality of nihilism, i.e. of the truth, then, is again [i.e., as in the case of procrastination] in its being an example of that fragment from Heraclitus: "Sickness makes health agreeable and good, hunger satiety, fatigue rest." To be sure, Neumann himself could not access this redemptive quality, instead exclaiming:

"[H]ow anyone can experience nihilism as pleasurable is beyond me!" (Neumann, "Reply to Professor Shadia Drury".)

This is what he was replying to there:

"The philosophers alone have the fortitude to withstand nihilism or the truth. They alone can love myth and illusion while knowing that they are merely products of art. [...] In the face of the nothingness of reality, they are the makers of [so-called] truth, the interpreters of the nonexistent text. No activity could be higher or more pleasurable. This is not to say that the order the philosophers impose on reality's chaos is arbitrary. Even though nature and human nature set no limits on human conduct (they contain no moral standards), they nevertheless provide the rough outlines of what is necessary for collective preservation. The philosophers fashion the horizons of the herd which endow the good and evil with meaning, but the philosophers are themselves beyond good and evil." (Drury, "Strauss and Nihilism: Response to Professor Harry Neumann". Compare Z II "On Self-Overcoming"/"Self-Surpassing".)

Again, this is complemented by Picht. I can't do justice to it without quoting him at length, though:

"The traditional, metaphysically grounded morality [...] is false in the sense of falseness raised to a higher power. It does not just posit the necessary show, but on top of that it passes this show off as truth. Traditional morality is therefore false in a dual sense, whereas the world is only singly false. In morality, the spiral of show is, if I may say so, rotated a full rotation further. Therefore, the truthful show of the world is not affirmed; the world is rather, on the basis of an additional deceit, negated in the name of the alleged truth. [...]
Now [Nietzsche's note] continues: 'The will to truth is a making steadfast, a making true/permanent, a making disappear-from-view of that false character [of the world], a reinterpretation thereof into something being.' Here we again run into the concept 'will to truth'. On first sight, the opinion must suggest itself that, by 'truth', at least at this point only the so-called truth of metaphysics can be understood—after all, doesn't Nietzsche say that the will to truth is a making disappear-from-view of that false character, a reinterpretation thereof into something being? The will to truth is thus determined here as the will, active in metaphysical morality, to the reinterpretation of show into something being, thus to the grounding of the fundamental error of metaphysics. The true is understood in this will as the permanent. Permanent however is only the imaginary counterworld to the absolute flux, permanent is therefore only show. No doubt: the truth, thus understood, is show and, when the show is passed off as truth, error. But how does it stand with the will to truth? Nietzsche does not say, as would have to be said from the standpoint of metaphysics: The will to truth is the will to cognisance of the steadfast, the true, the permanent; he rather says: 'The will to truth is a making steadfast, a making true/permanent', a reinterpretation of show into Being. When one oneself first makes what shall be cognised as true, when one gains Being only thereby that one reinterprets show into Being, then the will which accomplishes that cannot avoid eventually discovering that what it must first make steadfast is not yet steadfast by itself, and that the permanence which it must first create is not already given in advance. As Nietzsche puts the concept 'will to truth' in place of cognisance of the truth, he has thus carried out the great inversion. He wants to cognise the problem of science no longer on the soil of science, but sees the process of designing the schema of a permanent world from the perspective of the artist. From this perspective, too, the truth is still only so-called truth; it is the show in which the counterworld shows up. But only when considered from the standpoint of the will to truth does it come to light what is really true about the so-called truth, namely the necessity to found an abiding order, in which life is possible. Once again it turns out that Nietzsche's inversion of metaphysics has a double meaning. On the one hand, the fundamental error of metaphysics is as it were unmasked; it is now no longer possible to pass off as Being what in truth is show. On the other hand, however, it is through the exposure of the will which is active in its ground that the proceedings of metaphysics in their inner necessity first become understandable and in this sense get justified. Only through the overcoming of the error of metaphysics does what had been true in all metaphysics come to the surface. If one understands 'truth' in the concept 'will to truth' as the truth in truthful show, then the will to truth is no more only a will to so-called truth; it is then rather the will to poiesis or, as Nietzsche says here, to 'making', that is to say to the production of a show which does not negate life but affirms it; which is thereby in unison with life and thanks its truth to this unison." (Picht, Nietzsche, pp. 280-82, with added emphasis.)

"The ancient tradition that the world will be consumed in fire at the end of six thousand years is true, as I have heard from Hell.
For the cherub with his flaming sword is hereby commanded to leave his guard at tree of life, and when he does, the whole creation will be consumed, and appear infinite, and holy whereas it now appears finite & corrupt.
This will come to pass by an improvement of sensual enjoyment." (William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.)

I now take this to mean that the philosopher takes upon himself as his ownmost the political task (Aufgabe, "Given or Giving up"—) of no longer imposing a herd-preserving order on reality's chaos—so that by far most people must perish!

I now take the sensual enjoyment mentioned to be especially that of the sense of Being.

"Enough!" (ibid.)

[Fixed Cross]

;;


EdIt; I clearly blasphemed my gods by answering, indulgently and lazily, the way that I did.


Likewise with Pezer.

I am a fucking fool
Whenever there is finally some discipline I ruin it by being too grateful for it.

[Fixed Cross]

Thanks for the recommendation. As for the Planck length: even if it's the true minimum, I contend that that, too, becomes indefinitely smaller! though it will never be infinitesimal. More on this below.

And as for the surprise you mention, it reminds me of this:

"Let’s consider the shortest interval of time and the smallest extent of space. These units are determined by an observer. When the sampling rate of the observer reaches its limit, space and time stop being continuous and start to be discontinuous. In other words, the motion of the object will change from being smooth to occurring in jumps [...]. If the object changes location between the smallest units of time, then its change in location is instantaneous. There is no unit of time small enough to measure between the smallest units of time. Likewise, an object is stationary during its appearance for the smallest interval of time because there is no unit of space small enough to measure between the smallest units of space possible." (Source: http://rosmappedcmmodel.com/public_html ... MModel.pdf.)

But this is not the issue in QM - it is not merely that we can not observe smaller than the planck length - Im not sure we can observe it at all -
the surprise is in the drastic failure of spectral logic as it applies in Newtonean physics to account for the building of spectra on the quantum level. What comes to light in experiment could only be explained by calculating with a step wise logic rather than a continuous one. Influence doesn't exist except if the influence is precisely the required quantum. So I suppose VO may be seen as the Vision of the Machinery of the Universe - the trance pertaining to the Almighty Living God.

The conclusion is thus that the universe is indeed numerical (discretely value-based) and thus infinitely more complex than a Newtonean sliding scale-based one would be -
the possibility of parallel dimensions and such things occurs in a very early stage, far before the emerging of consciousness. Because of this realization I understand the fractal like structure of cosmos.

"The ancient tradition that the world will be consumed in fire at the end of six thousand years is true, as I have heard from Hell.
For the cherub with his flaming sword is hereby commanded to leave his guard at tree of life, and when he does, the whole creation will be consumed, and appear infinite, and holy whereas it now appears finite & corrupt.
This will come to pass by an improvement of sensual enjoyment." (William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.)

You remain an impeccable archaeologist of the spirit.

I wish you seething silence at the center of the storm.


Ave!

[Zeroeth Nature]

Influence doesn't exist except if the influence is precisely the required quantum.

This in turn reminds me of the following:

'I learned that a computer registers bits (a "1" or a "0") by checking whether there is a ~3 volt pulse or no pulse during a certain (short) period of time. I now wonder what happens when there is a ~2 or a ~1 volt pulse. I guess that more or less is good enough for the computer, for instance a ~2.999 volt pulse. My question is: if we count down from ~3 volt, at what voltage does the computer not register a "1" anymore?' (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070719151934AATcJkb)

Sorry to see you edited your previous post the way you did, though. I will still do what I was planning on doing, correct myself where I think I didn't fully do justice. And right now, I will respond to your original post from heart. Yes, it may be that I've only risen to the Supernals of Assiah, and that, insofar as I've risen to its Kether, I'm actually looking at Assiah from the Malkuth of Yetzirah. But yes, for me there's only one world (except in the sense that every being is a world in its own right). And lastly, as for my dance of the fire-shin:

'[M]y neighbours recently accused me, completely out of the blue, of being in a cult of Satanic ritual abuse, including sexual abuse, including that of children... [...] I suspect the real reason for [the lady of the house's] accusations is that I, a Nietzschean Dionysus, have been visibly working out every day, usually bare-chested, and she has a teenage daughter... Since then I've only done so in better light, with more audible music, and I've even given the world its first glimpses of my "Shiva-dancing"!' (https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2781653#p2781653)

[Urwrongx1000]

Why are you so concerned about the Holocaust when you are promoting a new one and a new form of violence, with your recent support of death threats and threats of violence?

Hypocrisy of the highest order? Yep!

How does it feel to be a Nazi?

[Fixed Cross]

Influence doesn't exist except if the influence is precisely the required quantum.

This in turn reminds me of the following:

'I learned that a computer registers bits (a "1" or a "0") by checking whether there is a ~3 volt pulse or no pulse during a certain (short) period of time. I now wonder what happens when there is a ~2 or a ~1 volt pulse. I guess that more or less is good enough for the computer, for instance a ~2.999 volt pulse. My question is: if we count down from ~3 volt, at what voltage does the computer not register a "1" anymore?' (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070719151934AATcJkb)

Sorry to see you edited your previous post the way you did, though. I will still do what I was planning on doing, correct myself where I think I didn't fully do justice. And right now, I will respond to your original post from heart. Yes, it may be that I've only risen to the Supernals of Assiah, and that, insofar as I've risen to its Kether, I'm actually looking at Assiah from the Malkuth of Yetzirah. But yes, for me there's only one world (except in the sense that every being is a world in its own right). And lastly, as for my dance of the fire-shin:

'[M]y neighbours recently accused me, completely out of the blue, of being in a cult of Satanic ritual abuse, including sexual abuse, including that of children... [...] I suspect the real reason for [the lady of the house's] accusations is that I, a Nietzschean Dionysus, have been visibly working out every day, usually bare-chested, and she has a teenage daughter... Since then I've only done so in better light, with more audible music, and I've even given the world its first glimpses of my "Shiva-dancing"!' (https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2781653#p2781653)

Hahahahhaa
you are truly true to yourself.

I am happy you take it all this way.

By the way I did not say that you have only risen to that sphere of that world, but that you do not care to understand the other worlds. It doesnt mean you havent seen them. In fact I would find it hard to imagine how without experience of them one could maintain such a violent spiritual discipline.

You probably have reversed the tree in some sense. Well, the only sense in which that would not be heinously ugly - the Nietzschean sense.


The path from 0 to 1 is the path of the Fool - it doesnt know itself. Nor does it know anything other than its choice to be on a path. It is the path of pure self-valuing; not yet other-valuing; the path is the fool. In whom else but a fool would it occur to leave the Throne?
Thus Buddha was a fool. (A kingly reproach!)


As to your question - it is a matter of mechanical calibration. It would differ with different computers - newer ones, with more conductors in the same space, would have to be more accurate. Or so it seems to me.



I would also think that the emerging of the self-lighting, the pure valuing, from the void is not necessarily, probably not even, a matter of discrete quanta, but that the manifestation of such light into a particle which can subsist, exist in time, in Relativity which is Assiah, does require this discrete minimal value of effort.

How this whole thing is possible is again the same logical issue;

https://youtu.be/mIV_iCnKySk?t=555


It appears to come down to the conclusion that for the self-lighting to attain true existence (self-valuing), it must not merely stand out against the void, but affirm this along with its consequences. This is a complex operation compared to standing against the void and to this discrete minimal complexity the minimum value can be attributed.

untab

[Fixed Cross]

Im with Urwrong politically of course - Ollie, if you would do your 'mundane' political research and thinking with a tenth of the discipline, seriousness which characterizes your philosophic research and thinking, you would soon find out that all that you think is too absurd to be true (and for which you look down on what you see as Christians) is very true indeed and that the things which are true are darker and more ugly even. Because you are good at researching.

I dont expect you to become serious in this regard but my ethics kind of command that I give you a heads up about this. I truly dont care that people let themselves be led in this way - Ive always known people are on by and large dishonourably gullible and usually believe precisely the opposite of the truth because the truth is always harder than they want.

I would in one sense like it if you woke yourself up to the truth in mundane politics - but I dont really care. What I care about is that you have persisted where you have.

Shalom, and Ave.

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

HAHA I am beginning to see where my step-daddy SATIRE got his obsession with quantum physics, physics, and atoms and all this shit from...the paranoid kook must have felt a need to prove himself better than this cretin Fixed Cross at one point and in his vengeful paranoia made up his own physics-philosophy satire cross-over to simply demonstrate that he is directly BETTER...sad and pathetic...Fixed Cross you twink...you run from me yet you shit post elsewhere...why not smash me and show me how much of an idiot I am when it comes to Nietzsche and 20th century???
Want me to bring my friend who studies physics over on this forum and we can verify all your physics claims???
one more thing...are you really a Jew???haha,,, with that ginger beard I can believe it!!!but you are a bit too daft to be a Jew...so I don't know...

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

Religions are divisive methods of growing one’s tribe to biblical (pun intended) proportions, nothing more.

Dude, you're a fucking idiot. Seriously. Every post you make is a conversation-ender. The worth of a philosopher is the fertility of his word, the depth of conversation it might bring about. Your words are, however,- infertile. There is nowhere else to go. Religion is tribalism. End of conversation. Nothing. Your mind is closed, which means: your philosophy is a dead-end. It is of no account. History will not recall it. Your image will be lost, like all those staked against the longing of the sea. Your wave will never reach the shore. Even archaeology contradicts you, let alone, you know... 'thought'. A nobody trying to bring everyone else down to your level. That's why I spend 20 hours a day stoned, drunk, doped, and fucked out of my mind: I simply can't share your reality. To say that all religion is... is a method of growing one's tribe...

Conduct (religion) started out as a tribal affair, and as tribes grew into communities, religion (conduct) grew along with them. I know what religion is currently like.. now, but my interests always lay and pull me toward, wanting to know the beginnings and origins of all things that did not exist before but now do.. call it proto-history, if you will.

Unless you believe that religion is a latent given.. a universal concept that even space/time, holds, as true? Imagine trying to capture that down on paper, huh.

The majority of atheists, globally, follow local customs and norms, so adhering to local codes of conduct.. they may be irreligious, but they certainly aren’t immoral.

Do you need me to link you the 10,000 books and 100,000 papers on the subject? Do you need me to go through it all with you? Do you need me to tell you what being a human being is?

Sure, why not.. go ahead, be my guest.. I love a good read.

On the matter of what being a human being is, it sounds like you need a lesson on the matter.. as well as I, and anyway.. who made you the knowledge-keeper, on what being a human being truly really is..?

These are lies, LMAO...you are one daft woman...and talking nonsense you know you have no clue about!!!polutting peoples heads with rubbish!!!
if anybody is seriously interested ...religious anthropology...start with Ludwig Feuerbach and the great Constant then Weber, Durkheim and maybe Marx(very very maybe) for solid theoretical frame-work...then look for anthropology and history in general, buy books on primitive religions, on magic and cults, on pre-historical religious activities and customs, then on progression from magic and occult to universalism from Mesopotamia to late A.Greece and to the shift in the degree of superstition...then connect that to the universal religions that sprung-up and the difference between them and the earlier forms of religious practise...to the scientific revolution and afterwards where I can recommend Stanislaw Lem as someone serious and scientifically very sound, bridging the gap and explaining the irreplaceability of religion with science.
Really, it depends what you want...David Hume and his 'dialogues concerning natural religion' book is also good, for a real Christianity Thomism is necessary as is good understanding of European History, you could also read anti-religious books like Dawkins and Hitchens to see and work with attacks on religion and Christianity but to be honest the modern American atheists are a bunch of hypocritical looneys and Feuerbachs critiques are much deeper and saner.

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

The above is a very Western centric approach...but I am a Westerner...so that is that.

[MagsJ]

MagsJ said: “Religions are divisive methods of growing one’s tribe to biblical (pun intended) proportions, nothing more”.

Dude, you're a fucking idiot. Seriously. Every post you make is a conversation-ender. The worth of a philosopher is the fertility of his word, the depth of conversation it might bring about. Your words are, however,- infertile. There is nowhere else to go. Religion is tribalism. End of conversation. Nothing. Your mind is closed, which means: your philosophy is a dead-end. It is of no account. History will not recall it. Your image will be lost, like all those staked against the longing of the sea. Your wave will never reach the shore. Even archaeology contradicts you, let alone, you know... 'thought'. A nobody trying to bring everyone else down to your level. That's why I spend 20 hours a day stoned, drunk, doped, and fucked out of my mind: I simply can't share your reality. To say that all religion is... is a method of growing one's tribe...

Conduct (religion) started out as a tribal affair, and as tribes grew into communities, religion (conduct) grew along with them. I know what religion is currently like.. now, but my interests always lay and pull me toward, wanting to know the beginnings and origins of all things that did not exist before but now do.. call it proto-history, if you will.

Unless you believe that religion is a latent given.. a universal concept that even space/time, holds, as true? Imagine trying to capture that down on paper, huh.

The majority of atheists, globally, follow local customs and norms, so adhering to local codes of conduct.. they may be irreligious, but they certainly aren’t immoral.

Do you need me to link you the 10,000 books and 100,000 papers on the subject? Do you need me to go through it all with you? Do you need me to tell you what being a human being is?

Sure, why not.. go ahead, be my guest.. I love a good read.

On the matter of what being a human being is, it sounds like you need a lesson on the matter.. as well as I, and anyway.. who made you the knowledge-keeper, on what being a human being truly really is..?

These are lies,

Proof?

Insults and ramblings are not proof so are not admissible and will not be counted, as proof.

!polutting peoples heads with rubbish!!!

People are free to refute me in the normal customary way, of refutation..

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

you are right...but at the same time i can see you are too daft to justify me writing up something good for you to reply with some generic and childish bullshit. conduct is religion and religion is conduct and morality is religion and religion is conduct and proto-reality is proto-hyper-ultra historicity of ultra-man hyper-post historicity in the post-modernity...and as humans developed so did their religions(wow!!!),,,and tribes!!! lets sprinkle some physics and time/space grandiose 'narratives' we dont fucking understand to intimidate cretins and then declare ourselves ABOVE IT as you are an 'atheist'(meaning...YOU HAVE NO???CONDUCT???SINCE CONDUCT IS RELIGION AND RELIGION IS CONDUCT????)

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

DO YOU CONDUCT
BABY GIRL???
IN THIS PROTO-HISTORICITY OF PULLING ONESELF INTO HYPER-MODERNICITYITY???

[Fixed Cross]

I am trying to convert Dark Side Zeroeth Nature to Jedi Knight Elaia.
Maybe he is old enough for that form now - old enough to come back on his teachings. As the christ would have, said Nietzsche, come back on his teachings in middle age, so would the antichrist.

Arth_tapestry3.jpg (255.25 KiB) Viewed 285 times

[MagsJ]

DO YOU CONDUCT
IN THIS PROTO-HISTORICITY OF PULLING ONESELF INTO HYPER-MODERNICITYITY???

I prefer to repel..

..nothing wrong in acknowledging the real.. as well as the esoteric side, of the nature of all human creations.. who knew that some would take it so badly.

The anger within..

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

DO YOU CONDUCT
IN THIS PROTO-HISTORICITY OF PULLING ONESELF INTO HYPER-MODERNICITYITY???

I prefer to repel..

..nothing wrong in acknowledging the real.. as well as the esoteric side, of the nature of all human creations.. who knew that some would take it so badly.

The anger within..

you are nuts lol

[MagsJ]

DO YOU CONDUCT
IN THIS PROTO-HISTORICITY OF PULLING ONESELF INTO HYPER-MODERNICITYITY???

I prefer to repel..

..nothing wrong in acknowledging the real.. as well as the esoteric side, of the nature of all human creations.. who knew that some would take it so badly.

The anger within..

you are nuts lol

Is there only one view of the world, that we have to see and experience it from?

I wonder just how many perspectives and angles that one’s existence can be experienced from..

[polishyouthgotipbanned]

What has that got to do with talking pretentious, pseudo-intellectual rubbish and using meaningless terms nobody but you(or even you also)can clearly understand??? Not everybody has the talent for philosophy, just like not everybody has the talent for maths or athletics and you clearly don't so admit that and quit polluting public spaces with meaningless strings of high sounding and monosyllabic words that convey content on an intellectual level of a 12 year old child. Just be yourself and stop acting and speaking weird shit.

[MagsJ]

What has that got to do with talking pretentious, pseudo-intellectual rubbish and using meaningless terms nobody but you(or even you also)can clearly understand??? Not everybody has the talent for philosophy, just like not everybody has the talent for maths or athletics and you clearly don't so admit that and quit polluting public spaces with meaningless strings of high sounding and monosyllabic words that convey content on an intellectual level of a 12 year old child. Just be yourself and stop acting and speaking weird shit.

Lololol.. you know nothing of my talents or where they lay, and yet you feel well-informed enough to comment.

I think it is you who have missed the tone of this thread, with your idle replies, and reducing it to rubble.

Try ignoring me, ergo.. a solution.