Oh, I’m not the prophet that I used to be. The corruption of the world has taken its toll.
But I want not for that which is not to be. I’m patient.
If it doesn’t come to me, I don’t reach out for it. And I might not anyway.
The “Ubermensch” is a collective, not an individual.
Refuse any collective and you refuse the Ubermensch.
Refuse to delay, collect, the money, and you refuse influence.
A less late-night reply will follow.
I can apprehend quite a lot by my own devices, which makes me most interested in influencing what comes after it’s come to that. Value ontology teaches man to control his potential. Right now, no individual mans PtA measures up to the momentum of secular scientific capitalism. Right now, all but the very select philosophers value is measured within this momentum instead of in relation to it.
Value ontology’s use is as a tool to uproot ones PtA from the context of the whole - i.e. to structurally alter the whole as a set of relations. The revaluation of all values happens when man owns his power to interpret, uproots it from the context in which he was brought to experience himself. But this is only possible when he fully realizes that he is nothing but a continuous interpreting of his potential in relation to what he is not.
And only if he realizes this will he become interested in the science of the will to power. Which is what RM is, seen from the perspective of the freed offspring of Nietzsche. Nietzsche did not objectify his insight, he kept it at his chest and released bits in lightning flash type insights, and presented it as a centralized vision of the experience of power. RM is not concerned with the role of man or experience per se, but does sustain Nietzsche’s vision.
I’m sorry. I don’t suppose you’d like to get more concrete than that.
True enough.
But a collective isn’t a collective until it has a shared value.
And money isn’t that value. Neither is PtA. It’s identity, and the experience of it as power and its justification. This constitutes health and happiness.
True. But the matter in question is the vessel of the delay. The identity of the influence.
So your intention is to have a momentous affect.
In order to have an affect, one must have the potential for affect.
How much potential in that arena do you have?
By what means would you attempt such an effect?
You believe that a film will have a much larger affect.
But the truth is that a film will only affect those who are already inclined.
You will be obliged to those who already prepared society, and for their own agenda.
How will they respond with their extremely greater affectance potential?
Why would they allow your particular influence?
How will you gain influence in the midst of the giants already exercising their own?
Influence, like money, is entirely relative.
Momentum of affect is an issue of the rigidity, “strength” of the affect and its propagation speed.
Momentum decides all struggles.
What cannot be identified, cannot be targeted.
What I’ve seen value ontology do in the 2+ years I’ve used and taught it suggests a rather significant future effect. But I did not describe my own predicted influence there, just a hypothetical situation that may become real by some means.
It would be foolish, at least useless to discuss that here.
It will inevitably be be part of the changing, but film is not a political means unless one has the weapons to back it up. It will only explain a more concretely made point.
Absolutely. “Film” is created by the Austrian-Hungarian/American machine called Hollywood. Human all too human as I am, I admire and love it, but it’s not going to defeat the system it facilitated into being.
Yes, but that goes both ways. How do the giants exercise their power? What is their most vital means?
Indeed. The world is quite simple like that.
In a sense, “my” PtA is already implicit in both the situation as a whole and each individual component of it. The Identity of an experience enables that experiences PtA. This is why a relativist is powerless. Value ontology destroys relativism. It does so by driving it to its ultimate consequence, thereby breaking it down to include its opposite, which appears as the signifier that was eliminated. As always with a philosophy deserving the name, the thinker finds an absolute security of a single positive fact in his universe, which is in this case the changing of the changing, i.e. the stabilizing inward vis a vis the destabilizing outward. Inward includes all like-minded, like-valuing.
Infiltration, obfuscation, redirection (false flags), and extortion.
Or with a little more detail;
corruption
obfuscation
interference
confusion
blindness
forgetfulness
Many differing words can be used to describe the formula.
That sounds… hmm… interesting.
Are you proposing to know the “consequences”?
To create a little too much peace, is to cause war.
…and vsvrsa.
No, it’s sex.
Sex is used to corrupt, obfuscate, interfere, confuse, blind, and make forget.
Sex and drugs. But mainly sex.
It is the single most powerful destroyer of morality.
Abstinence is not an option, as people must do the work and they will not abstain. So philosophy must become a thought that includes not only the notion, but the very pathos of sex. Hence, Plato’s “eros” - freely translated, valuing.
An example. What is the most fundamental difference between “terrorists” and “the free world”?
This pathos is there for any talented tyrant to seduce and control. And all successful philosophies have been such endeavors. But no philosophy up until now has been honest about that. Plato saw his valuing as Forms, Descartes as Truth, Nietzsche as Power, but none purely as extensions of their structural requirements. Because this would have to have meant that they saw through themselves and saw “God”.
“Sex, drugs, and rock-n Roll”. 
I try to think in higher terms, myself.
Sex could be totally eliminated (as well as drugs and RnR).
… by the right (or wrong) designed affect.
That’s probably a problem.
Can you prove that?
Where do you think all of the homosexuals are coming from?
I have met quite a number of women in a male environment who ardently deplore being touched by men.
Psychology and a few chemicals, both well applied, and sex isn’t even in the picture any more.
And it’s rather “Sex, Saint Paul’s Cathedral and the Washington Monument” than what you’re offering.
These serve to obfuscate, Rock 'n Roll only clarifies.
Drugs is a lot of both.
Homosexuality is not sexual?
Sex, inspiration, and devotion are merely tools.
The 3 M’s are the makers.
Life has a limited tolerance for imbalance and without a control feedback system, goes to Hell pretty quickly.
…and homosexuality is an example of “controlled sexual behavior”.
… as is castration and euthanasia.
Tools can be destroyed or limited.
The 3 M’s are eternal.
I’m still a little curious what you see coming from an entire nation filled with people of the VO perspective.
Realize that every prior SuperUber has had very little tolerance for the Galileos and Espinozas. The one you have now is extremely high tech and has no need to tolerate anyone out of line. And in the long run finds no need to tolerate organic life at all.
As I asked Sauwelios, why exactly do you want a SuperUber?
Where exactly do you see yourself in that picture?
You’re just saying things now. Make a distinction between what you can prove, make clear by logic, and what you express merely as an opinion.
Spinoza was successful. He was excommunicated by the Jewish community of Amsterdam but wasn’t stopped. He ended the Middle Ages.
Homosexuality is as old as written history. But that is besides the point. You’re interpreting “sex” like I’m strictly talking about the act of intercourse between man and woman. I already made it clear I was talking about the general principle of eros. Good luck to any “SuperUber” eliminating that.
I have no idea why you imagine that I want a “SuperUber”. You’re erring. This thread was developing nicely before. What have I said to make you abandon your style of patient and rational explanations?
Truth is a value based interpretation. Something is true only in terms of some system of interpretation.
Also, “You have read this sentence” is irrefutable. But it’s not true as I write it. It’s easy to say something that’s not possible to refute. Irrefutability of itself has no value to me.
I’m doing no such thing. Value ontology clarifies how truth is always part of a system, and how systems are determined by the structure of the perspective engaging them. It’s not antithetical to experientialism, but it’s more sceptic - it does not make any claims like “what I can be sure of is necessarily all there is”.
Yes, truth is determined in terms of a perspective and its values, and within a system.
Often the perspective is unaware that it operates within a system, that its mind selects systemically in terms of what sustains that system. A value ontologist is aware of this, hence his mind is a meta-system, despite the fact that his personal preferences still form an integer, local system.
That’s a claim you’ll have to back up.
I can only agree that your/my conception of the workings of the universe is derived from your/my experience. That is a vastly different claim than " the workings of the universe are derived from experience", as I’m sure you’ll agree. Even if the very concept of “workings of the universe” is an interpretation, it does not follow that that which the interpretation interprets exists only by virtue of it being interpreted. You can’t refute it but you can’t prove it either. It’s thus close to being meaningless. Except if it provides you with meaning - but that isn’t clear to me yet.
I maintain that the dynamic between a perspective and its values is the cause of experience. But then I do not take perspective or values to necessarily be properties of an animate being, as discussed below.
I agree with the former, the latter is unproven.
It’s not strictly metaphor. It’s rather dissecting the term “value” to arrive at what it means in terms of functionality, mechanism. It strips it of its mystical meaning - and this strips man himself of his mystical meaning. Man, consciousness, experience and values, none of this is “special”. It’s all extension of the same principle - selection in terms of perspective, and the evolution wherein the “fittest” (often meaning “most lucky”) selectors are selected by trial and error and so evolve, ultimately to become conscious of this selecting, and calling that “choosing”.