ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, WTP)

 Fixed Cross: I disagree with these points. Nothing is ever lost. We understand the genius of the nature god. It protects itself even if at the cost of modifying it"w own self conception through it's creation, namely us human beings.  The big one, the big war is coming, this here is the trepidation, before the storm. Nature is intrinsically intelligent, and the interpretation of her motives, desires, are goal oriented, to assure life toward the future.

The future is within this intrinsic realisation of many worlds to come,and their intrinsic existence has a backward effect of doing everything necessary to assure that their goal is assuredly is re-founded, re grounded.

This grounding assures tacitly that no amount of destruction we can impinge on our planet can have a decisively absolute realisation, since reality is always one step ahead and it has plans to stop whatever totally negative we have in mind in terms of our mutually faithless, absolutely forlorn seeking of the true nature and intent of the nature god. It simply will not be allowed. The limits reached will create illusions of the possibility of more and more progress,yet the acquisition of knowledge will always seemingly delimit, by the decreasing of overall scope by the increasing lack of coherence due to extreme specialisation.

For instance illusions are created toward the peaceful uses of atomic energy, yet everyone playing a game of wishing to believe that there never will be a use other than.

It is inconceivable that primitive societies will not want to play the ultimate game, that is the reason I have never been excited about game theory in any mathematical or rhetorical sense. Games of probability are heavily invested with a prejudice of the virtual reality created, and it is what it is, spells a resignation of sorts toward a shift into a blind material populism, which fore bodes nothing but a troubling sense of an absolute collapse, a collapse of an entropic thinning out of a being, which should be rehabilitated much more comprehensively than let’s say what green peace can do.

Therefore, things have to get really very bad, until the time comes when children will grow up and realize that play time is over.

In general I share these sentiments and conceptions - to think like this is my tendency as well. But considering that it may be true that the oceans will in 40 years be unable to support any form of life, I begin to think in terms of a whole different type of nature and evolution. Consider the possible transformation of the organic into the semi-organic. It is not unthinkable that a segment of humanity will adapt to its self-created environment and acquire all sorts of technological powers and immunities. Such things have been in the works and they’re certainly not being shared with the public, for ultra obvious reasons. What’s worse, I am not even certain that I can be against such developments. In the great scheme of things, where dominant species have a history of getting extinct by cataclysms, and where planets are swallowed by their suns, it would be pretty awesome if a part of humanity evolved to some kind of thousand-year-living supermen. Especially if normal humans can’t experience things like sea-life or general biodiversity in anymore.

I’m just on a speculative tangent here based on reports I heard yesterday. I’m not saying the ecosystem is certainly doomed, I am not a biological expert at all. My true hope and trust is in the capacity of humans to restore the ecosystem once the ridiculous oil interests are played out. I am fairly confident we already have the technology to counteract nuclear radiation, for example, and that this technology is being hidden and its creators murdered. That won’t go on forever. Right now the technocratic power of humanity is employed mainly to keep overtly available technology at a minimum level of usefulness.

Ayup.

And that is why one must abandon the current mindset, ontologies, and “theories” and quickly get ahead of the game.
… PM.

Yes. This also works in tandem with what you said, James, about “forces” being mystifications of old thinking, or however you phrased it.

On a side note, life will keep evolving and existing, even as we cause mass extinctions. Humans can constrict the sphere of life, but cannot eliminate it.

Also, the news (and science too to a certain extent) is in the business of depressing you.

Depressing and distracting - preventing as much as possible that people value the world in their own terms. Urging them, causing urges in them to find other “worlds” in which to see themselves reflected.

From the first time I watched tv I remember marveling at the bizarre and cosmic contrast of the repeating sequence commercials - news - commercials.

Nothing could be more effective in dislodging mans sense of reality.

It needs to be remedied all the way on the level of superpower legislation. Not International, law, but actual hard treaties between powers that fear each other.

Which Nietzsche coldly discerns at first as will-to-power.
which I then dissected as a matter of valuing.

All relating depends on valuing -
selective and productive relating - this is the only thing which can sustain any Existence.

Self valuing is relative both to the one doing the valuing and the environment in which said valuing is taking place
But because of its subjective nature [ that cannot be overcome ] it cannot be regarded as an objective philosophy

A mind may for example self value with regard to its immediate survival but could end up losing it because its judgement was faulty
So while self valuing can simply be classed as the subconscious desire to exist and nothing else that alone will not guarantee success

I see a connection between Nietzsche and Crowley here as the latters own philosophy was do what though wants according to the law
This can be regarded as a type of self valuing as well - even though one could argue that ANY desire to live is self valuing by definition

However one could also say that the opposite is true - that is that the rational desire to end ones own life is also a form of self valuing - a very liberating one
Because by doing it one is performing an act that will guarantee no more suffering ever again - one of the truly most powerful things that anyone can ever do

Yes. So you see that it is an objective ontology. Not an objective ethics, not an ethics at all. It describes what is, must always be.
There are I think two meanings to the word philosophy; a form of understanding the world (“is”), and a way of life (“ought”). These are very different things - though because objective ontology is never wrong, any “ought” can be tested for its viability by pushing it through the algorithm and seeing if it still exists on the other end.

I was about to ask (finally) - “So what is this Value Ontology all about?” - but I think you just answered that (realize even the word “ontology” is relatively new to me). It seems you should have named it “Self-valuing Ontology” - but either way - I get it (I think). But that raises question -

That is a reflection of a person’s suffering being the value involved rather than their existence. So does that qualify as an ontology (being totally about what exists)? - Maybe a “suffrage ontology” or something.

And then - what kind of ethics is implied by that Value Ontology (although recognizing that it isn’t directly about ethics)? - With VO in mind - how should people rationally behave toward each other?

I’ve come to the realization that most of reality has a form of peace to it.
It’s one of its main values. Being / Existing is another common value.
Being is similar to being alive, but life has a kind of work to it.
And higher forms of life have a sort of agitation,
but they still have their slightly elevated being.

Hopefully this makes sense.

Okay, excellent question.
I had some trouble formulating the response, as it is deep intuitive. I see it, but I don’t have the words for it. Self-valuing ontology is more accurate but deep down I don’t care about naming this logic. I kind of liked to have it for myself, with only those people understanding who have some resonance with me. Thats basically me obeying the principle, letting myself be swallowed by it. It has changed me completely. And Ive learned from that, how hard it is to exist in such pure terms, only spontaneously emerging from the truth about myself, which I don’t even know. Its a way of learning what I am without protocol. Just the pure consequence of my hearts and minds integrity. They need to work together, along with all the organs, I can’t be repressing things. So powers vie for dominance in me through my pure responses to the responses my actions get from the outside. Basically I allowed my values to change freely to become suited to my self-valuing.

In case of the suicidal one, the self-valuing has found that in the world there are no values which correspond truly to it, and there is no way, no power, to transform the prevailing values into suitable ones. Then, the valuing is thrust upon itself, when it sees that the real value giver, the standard of all the values one can experience, the ultimate value itself is the self-valuing. To die voluntarily in rejection of the poverty of the world, to choose to remain rich with oneself, fulfilled in at least that basic, ontic sense, is an act of pure self-valuing, much more so than being hooked up to a phone all the time. A phone predicates much of the interactions to its own self-valuing. The being is largely a function of the smartphone, which has a greater structural integrity than the mindset of a lot of our species. But that is a dirty subject, it feels bad to my self-valuing, Probably I have the wrong approach. Perhaps smartphones are passive and should be regarded with mildness, they could help us very much. If we managed to value them in our own terms, rather than valuing ourselves in their terms.

That is the basic master-slave dichotomy played out, but there is no dialectic in the essence, there is merely a battle of wills, of structural integrities growing so as to be immune to the damage the other can do - they don’t shift back and forth in relation, that is the process of the being valued by the phone, that is itself a dialectical process. We are broken down in that process, put together differently and with parts of others in us – it reduces structural integrity. But we are tough, I hope at least, I am tough in this sense, I resist it well, maybe because I have this theory, which explains to me not to surrender to other structural integrities except as the values instinctively dictated by this extra instinct, instinctive intuition, which the logic provides, because it is a rendering of life.

Now the other part which is being valued. This is where it gets complex and mathematical, why this aspect is prey to AI.
To what extent do we need to be valued to exist? Or do we only need to be valued to procreate? Though for a man, to value a woman is technically enough. A woman needs to be valued. This is how the primitive woman values herself, why pride is so direct, and easily hurt. Any fully developed woman however has more than procreational objectives in which she values herself, though in this fragmented world where so much power is being given to the primitive aspect of being valued, the old virtues in terms of which one valued oneself in less weird times, are being tested gravely. Whoever manages to value herself in this time in terms of being valued for virtue would be very powerful, though it may not seem so on the surface. It is not only a strong will that is implied in being focused on purity, but also the already being present of a standard, a quality which is not metaphysical, a nature which is manifest, which causes itself to stand out against the primeval soup which we are reentering - an agent of evolution thus, a primordial sign.

So basically people should first of all not behave towards one another, but to themselves. They should not look at the other person for their actions, they should look at their values for the other person. And they do this. In as far as humans are socially apt and happy, they behave like this. Only when they start looking at each other and mimicking they become lesser beings, a kind of ooze, which is a fascistic quality.

The crux of all of this is that we need to be honest about our power, before we can know what we are and act rightly. And the quickest way to become honest about “the quantum of power that one is - all else is cowardice” (Nietzsche) is to sink into ones self-valuing and see if it can take care of itself. No responding to automatisms anymore, only to truth. That truth is spirit, which self-values only in the purest terms. Spirit is most exclusive, and wealth now serves mostly to mimic spirit herein, rather than to serve it. Imagine what would become of the world if wealth would stand in service of spirit, if man did not value himself in terms of wealth, but wealth in terms of himself. Herself. Earthly man, the splendorous one, Zorba the Buddha, etc.

I hope this helps.

Yes, it does, because inorganic matter, atoms, can exist for billions of years, without any additional effort. They are a complex of efforts being made seemingly automatically.
I think this is because it would take more effort for there to be nothing, than for there to be something. Something would have to prevent being from existing, yet nothing doesn’t have the power to prevent anything. Mankind often makes an effort to not exist, to at least not be conscious of existence. It can’t endure the relentless effort of the atoms; the molecular, living organism isn’t up to the power given to it by its atoms.
Waking up without any specific emotion, just pure strength; we don’t usually do that because there is so much standing in the way of us exerting such pure strength. Society is an ailment, a dirty web blocking our sunlight from reaching the outer empires of our world, the eyes of the strange attractor, the mysterious heart of the universe which we must value in order to be fully awake. This mysterious heart is the self-valuing beholding itself in the mirror of reality, through time space, in the aspect of Victory, where the immortal chooses a mortal path to attain an earthly value. This is related in Kabbalah to the sign of Scorpio, “I desire”;

to desire is to allow the self-valuing to be unsatisfied for a long time, to become one with the unsatisfied valuing, which thrusts one back on the valuing itself, the value thereof; this is the pride of Scorpio.

  • I get the socially valued or being valued vs self-valued (a distinction between child and adult).
  • I definitely get the man vs woman dichotomy.
  • I get the reluctance of dissonance within - “structural integrity”.

But I am having problems consolidating suicide with self-valuing - kill the suffering body to save the soul? Wouldn’t that be like killing off all Americans to save the US Constitution from corruption (which does seem to be the current agenda except for saving the Constitution - to be annihilated also)?

  • that sounds like dispassionate usury (usually instigating problems between others for personal benefit - Satanism).

Is scapegoating to be avoided? And why?

Unlike the US MSM with O’Biden, I am more of the hard-question journalist. :smiley:

Btw that suicide bit you quoted was written by the poster I responded to. You quoted it without his name so it looks like I said it.

I simply concurred with the observation that even to kill oneself one must do it for a value.

So sorry - I edited the post -you can correct it in your copy as well.

And I am still waiting for an answer especially to -

Certainly I think scapegoating is a destructive exercise.

I think you misunderstood my comment about addressing the self - -
What I mean is, hardly anyone knows themselves, and when a self-ignorant person addresses another, it is impossible that he addresses the other properly. In fact there is a very real chance he will be scapegoating that person, projecting darker aspects of himself on that other.

We may have the same underlying concern.
My take is: to address the other with a favor without knowing oneself, one may actually be addressing the other with something much less than a favor.

So how does self-valuing remedy that? :-k

It seems like the self-valuing emphasis is on what best suits that person (not others) - and that is what tempts people into scapegoating (avoiding the judgement from others - at someone else’s expense).

If one manages to self-value as a human, that is to say, value the world truly in terms of what one actually is, one actually takes pleasure and pride in owning all of oneself. Rather than just the bright and cheery parts, one also owns the darker sides and doesn’t project them on another.
Im curious as to what percentage of humans comes close to this. It is the true Elite, in the cosmic, objective sense.

Wouldn’t that be taking pride in the talent of scapegoating to achieve more power for oneself?

That is definitely what has been happening for centuries and has led to the serious problems we have to live through - as people, especially in the most influential places, are still doing that - they value themselves more than anyone else - so why not shift blame onto others and take pride in the self-serving cleverness?