Jakob,
What do you mean HERE by truthfully? It’s kind of ambiguous to me.
Would you say that any part of that sentence ought to be looked at in a way which problematizes the so-called value you might place on it?
I totally agree with you of the importance of problematizing value. If we can’t do just that, don’t have the courage to do just that, then we’re cowards who want to stay safe in our own little cocoons of little thinking.
Yes, Arc, in fact that is a very proper aphorism. Perhaps the tightest, sleekest and densest youve seen here.
I recall a time and a post where you greatly affirmed Erik’s mind, Jakob…way back when.
Why have you changed your thinking based on his honest assessment of just one thing which you wrote?
This is an example of why it is important to problematize value - I agree with you there - because often it is based solely on our own subjective thinking and emotionalism, not on a much larger picture and not necessarily on what is true considering our blind spots.
Convince me. Explain why you feel that way.
Have you gotten so used to fools that you refuse to think for yourself about a phrase you read? I know you havent.
I am actually very much not arrogant, as i refuse to spell things out for intelligent people.
I dont believe in that.
that is what aphorisms require… confidence in the reader.
whether warranted or not in any particular case…
I d say problematize your entire machinery for consciously identfying values. A whole person will discover a world.
But Im not talking to you as your valuing is already philosophized.
Well then.
you see that is the effect of an aphorism. Thought, and then (dis)agreement.
I still do. He is one of the real ones.
That means the opposite of me taking it easy on him.
You should try aphorisms.
the trick is to not spell things out, but be more thought provoking than that while still speaking your mind. And be concise. Say several things at once, including about language if you can. As I did in the OP.
in 3 words I made people think very hard.
thats the art.
Value and knowledge are the problem of reality. Knowledge can’t be first, but value being first means no knowledge.
it means no objective universal synthetic knowledge. Which was obvious to begin with, except to psychos/prophets/etc.
It also means absolute analytic knowledge. It means we can begin to think.
For what purpose? And what is the means of the beginning?
Fixed Cross
We are all fools at times Jakob. I know that I am. You are also in that category at times.
You might have understood that I was asking that question because I was, in actuality, thinking for myself.
Is “with proper discernment” and “right reason” included in your meaning of “truthfully”?
Sometimes people who love in “your” way are not the sanest - they may be unbalanced, dependent and lacking in compassion. It just depends on how they think. Is it real or is it delusional?
I don’t know, Jakob, but I don’t consider it to be arrogance to answer a question which leads to more clarity.
On the other hand…
Freddie’s aphorism or whatever you wish to call it" “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger!” comes to mind. In and of itself, I’d say it requires a lot more thought than given.
Like the buddhists’ “Life is suffering”.
The way I look at it, what aphorisms require is “thoughtfulness” in the reader.
I may be being dumb here, but that might be taken in more than just one way. Care to elaborate?
Yes, I know this…but not always disagreement but exploring further possibilities, painting the canvas a bit more. But your so-called aphorism was atypical. A few words which provoke thought [don’t] an aphorism make]. But anyway this thread isn’t about how aphorisms are seen.
Would you call a camel a horse because it too has four legs, Jakob?
Health, joy, to pervade the Earth and all its creatures.
Politicizing the philosophy that is headed for this.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=188756
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t7 … as-all-law
Well Arc, truthfully certainly doesnt mean “agreeing with me”.
It means all you think it means. Indeed, the aphorist does not explain his choice of words, he chooses his words because of how he expect the reader to struggle with them. It is the struggle with words that leads to thought - belief in words is the opposite.
No word actually means something isolated. We know words subconsciously as the context in which we have seen it used most often.
And surely Ive been generous in my responses, when they were to a particular point.
(‘this is vague’ is an extremely vague and unspecific non-point, and I know Erik understands more than he tends to let on - likely because he’s been conditioned a bit by Satyr and others who frown on intelligence)
Then we look at it the same way after all.
I did not care to explain the aphorism, as the aim was for it to provoke thought. That thought is the real value.
Ive seen you grow and become tougher and more subtle in 5 years. It’s been good to watch.
No, I wouldn’t But I would call an aphorism an aphorism when it is an aphorism. Which is what I did.
It’s evidently too dense and subtle for most - which is the point of an aphorism, to challenge the highest readers.
For what purpose?
[/quote]
Health, joy, to pervade the Earth and all its creatures.
Politicizing the philosophy that is headed for this.
Can you elaborate on that second answer?
Also, Arc -
isn’t an aphorism, but a maxim.
is fully aphoristic.
Yes, also this is why I posed the links - they are elaboration and even explication.
We have developed a logic, called value ontology or self-valuing logic or spherical-synthetic logic or living logic and many other names - this logic is oriented on actual existence, that is to say it doesnt seek for a hypothetical ‘element’ but observes all the actual elements around us; beings - and we count every paradigmatic element of any of our thoughts to be beings - there is nothing dead or neutral.
All of logic so far has been based on the dead law of identity, “A”=“A”, which on a purely epistemic-ontic level is either gibberish or simply false; all math and conceptuality that is based on this method of equation leads inadvertently to dead results. The key to any proper creative ethos is the recognize the (joyful, dancing, vital) asymmetry of being even at its most fundamental level.
“A” >< “A”
that is how it works. Much more stable, hence, much deeper, hence more dynamic.
“A”><“A” means:
every [i]instance “A” (rather than “object “A””) is unequal to nothing in by the same measure that the next instance “A” is.
But the instances aren’t equal to each other; they are only equally unequal to ‘zero’.
Because ‘zero’ doesnt posit any criteria, this does not mean that the two instances have any true bearing upon each others natures.
It is foremost a prudence in identifying; quite obviously, by strictly analytic standards, “this equals that” is per definition an error. If it would equal it, you could not possibly differentiate them to put an “=” in between.
“A” is something vastly different, in all real ways, to “A”.
Only religious belief in language as coming from God the Absolute directly would cause a belief that the two instances of writing actually designate a reliable equation.
The very (f)act of writing two separate "A"s already points to what mathematics really is; a form of metaphor.
Theoretical math revolves around the fundamental asymmetries that produce the semblances of symmetry; this is why math is progressive, dynamic, creative. The same can be discovered in pure logic; this is what we will be pushing scientists to discover, when all this political madness takes one definitive turn or another.
Sorry, but I am still at a loss as to how all of this didactic “analysis” is applicable to the distinction that I make between assessing whether Mary did or did not have an abortion and if in fact she did assessing whether this abortion is moral or immoral.
Again, imagine we are outside that Planned Parenthood clinic debating the various conflicting “judgments” that are been hurled back and forth. Various combinations of reason and emotion.
If what you are arguing about what I am arguing about above is true, what exactly are you telling these people about the fact of the abortion and, having established the fact of it, their reactions to the rightness or the wrongness of it?
What are we able to establish as “judgments” here that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share?
We have developed a logic, called value ontology or self-valuing logic or spherical-synthetic logic or living logic and many other names - this logic is oriented on actual existence, that is to say it doesnt seek for a hypothetical ‘element’ but observes all the actual elements around us; beings - and we count every paradigmatic element of any of our thoughts to be beings - there is nothing dead or neutral.
All of logic so far has been based on the dead law of identity, “A”=“A”, which on a purely epistemic-ontic level is either gibberish or simply false; all math and conceptuality that is based on this method of equation leads inadvertently to dead results. The key to any proper creative ethos is the recognize the (joyful, dancing, vital) asymmetry of being even at its most fundamental level.
[/quote]
What you speak of correlates with my questions like teddy bears and planets, or television and national history. I believe that the atom doesn’t exist, but the need of balance is that therefore any event doesn’t exist - there was no Vietnam war, or is no Stonehenge, or no Oscars ceremony.
If one assumes that a war is real, what is it real relative to? The same with an American family, in any US state - whatever the event in the history of the family, what is the reality of that event relative to?
The “dead” law of identity does not say that A’s are one and the same A only that they are equal in relevant aspects. Kinda like what your “alive” law of disparity says.
It’s interesting to note that you are replacing one kind of equality (identity) with another (same degree of inequality to zero.)