Self-valuing

Growth is a change from one state to another in which what was in the previos state is translated into the next state as the same thing but bigger. Though the thing that grows remains the same in most aspects, it nonetheless changes in at least one aspect, such as, for example, volume.

Apparently, if one values one’s self, which means, if one strives to preserve one’s self in its original state, then growth is not desirable. It might be accepted as a necessity, but it is not, and will never be, a preference.

This is, of course, if we understand self as some sort of previous, or original, state.

But there is another way to understand self, and this is the way which interests us the most. Indeed, it is the way in which I understood it when I started this topic.

Self understood, not as some kind of state, but as pattern of change.

If we understand self in this way, then growth and any other kind of change would not necessarily be opposed to self-valuing. They would be, but only in the case that such a change is not part of the pattern that defines the self.

Thus, in this sense, to value one’s self means to change one’s self in accordance with one’s natural (= internal = inherited) pattern of change.

This appears to show that self-valuing, understood in this manner, as natural-pattern-of-change-valuing, is not the same thing as self-preservation. But it is, and I am going to show why it is.

WTP is not the same as self-valuing because WTP values growth unconditionally. Self-valuing only values it conditionally, naturally of course, since its supreme value is not growth, but self (in the sense of natural pattern of change.)

What does it mean that growth is a conditional value?

It means that whether one values growth or not depends on whether it supprots one’s supreme, which is to say unconditional, value.

In the case of VO, this supreme value is SELF, or ONE’S OWN NATURAL PATTERN OF CHANGE.

This means that one will grow only under the condition that growth is part of one’s natural pattern of change.

In the case that it isn’t, one won’t grow.

Similarly, the pattern of growth is wholy determined by one’s natural pattern of change. One won’t grow when one’s body does not tell one to grow. One will only grow when one’s body tells one to grow.

If by some accident one’s instinct for growth – instincts being how this natural pattern of change is encoded – disappear then one will cease to grow.

Indeed, unless it is within one’s genetic code, one won’t bother trying to animate the dead instinct for growth. (The instinct must animate itself, otherwise it is not part of one’s true self . . .)

In VO, body decides what to do and what not to do.

In WTP, one’s own mind decides what to do and what not to do, whereas body merely SETS LIMITS.

Thus, self-valuing is another word for self-preservation.

Note that in the universe of flux there is no such a thing as self-preservation. Nothing is ever preserved. However, what there is self-retardation, and that’s what is meant when people say self-preservation.

Valuing → ‘auto-evaluating’, is literally the subconscious calibrating function of intellect/brain. It is not like a mystical will-to-power or something, it just is what it is and nothing more. All of the senses have their corresponding instrumentation, all of which has to be calibrated such for the brain to build a single signal, such to build an experience of a ‘rolling’ [continual] world.

Pretty much spot on. But you still emphasize the ideal self more than I would. Perhaps that is necessary because people massally believe in it.

Indeed the term is intended to mean only the valuing of valuing. It has the dash, “-”. Magnus doesnt see the dash. He is bizarrely incapable of reading or using the term “self-” in a grammatically correct way.

It is too tedious. This is my last post in response to Magnus for this year… giving them something invariably results in them getting all entitled.

All these people on that forum have been writing about my logos for over 3 years straight and none of them has come close to cracking it.

It is a zoo.
But that is the best illustration of what all of them are trying to twist and make easier and less hard, they are now all functions of me.

This is what pisses me off: they fucking falter all the time. Magnus is nothing more than a bolt in some machine that tries to become my servant.

It now dawns on me how the notion may have been interpreted by these people… as an imperative.

Oh… dear me.

They thought I meant to say “value thyself”.

I just realized they think this is what philosophy is: life mottos.

When we say that someone has self-respect, what we mean to say is that he has respect for himself. What we do not mean to say is that he has respect for respect.

When we say that someone has self-confidence, what we mean to say is that he has confidence in himself. What we do not mean to say is that he has confidence in confidence.

It is only natural that we interpret self-valuing as that which values self.

You went from “valuing in terms of oneself” which makes some sense to “valuing valuing” which makes no sense.

How can you so much as suggest that you have clarified anything?

You are doing nothing but evading.

Actually, I think that you have no imperatives. You are a lazybum and your philosophy reflects that.

This is reflected in the fact that you think that there is no such a thing as “ideal self”.

Sure, but that’s when we’re talking about a being (for example, “someone”, as you say). But what Fixed Cross says is that beings are self-valuings. This is like Heidegger’s calling human beings daseinen (there-Beings). In fact, it’s probably better to write “self-Valuings”, with a capital. This has to do with what Heidegger called “the ontological difference” between Being and being(s): he did not write “Daseienden”, after all…

Don’t worry, I’ll explain. In English, the difference is between the gerund and the nominalized present active participle. If we de-nominalize the noun “being” (as in “a human being”), we can speak of “being ones” or “being things”. The latter means “things that are”. But when Fixed Cross says that beings are self-valuings, he does not mean that beings are things that value, but (rather) that they are processes of Valuing. Compare:

“If the innermost essence of Being [Sein] is will to power, if pleasure is every increase of power, displeasure every feeling of not being able to resist or dominate: may we not then posit pleasure and displeasure as cardinal facts? Is will possible without these two oscillations of Yes and No? But who feels pleasure?.. But who wants power?.. Absurd question: if the essence itself is power-will and consequently feelings of pleasure and displeasure. Nonetheless: opposites, obstacles are needed, therefore, relatively, encroaching units… Locally—
if A has an effect on B, then A is first locally separate from B” (Nietzsche, Nachlass Spring 1888 14 [80], entire.)

If one conceives these encroaching units as power-Willings, as distinct from power-willings, that does not explain how they are even relative units. The old (soul-)atom is let go of in making that distinction (the unit is no longer thought of as a power-willing thing), but thereby the who or what, the essence, is absolutely lost. In order to rescue Nietzsche’s relatively encroaching units from being reduced to nothing (as they are in Satyr’s “philosophy” of “flux”), Fixed Cross has complemented Nietzsche by thinking through power-Willings as self-Valuings.

A self-Valuing values all other “things” it encounters insofar as they enable it to continue being a self-Valuing (though not the same self-Valuing–unchanged from what it was before. In fact, encountering other “things” necessitates it to change if it is to remain a self-Valuing). It first and foremost values itself, as a self-Valuing, and consequently values all other “things” it encounters in terms of itself–that is, in terms of the self-Valuing which it is.

I did not read Heidegger, nor do I have interest to ever read him. His jargon is enough to tell me that he’s yet another pretentious philosopher.

I hate it when I use unnecessary complicated terms in a forum post. What do you think, how much would I hate it if I, or someone else, did the same in a book?

The thing is that the transition from particulars to universals must be gradual. You must make sure that you know your specifics very well before you move onto observing general patterns.

I understand very well what you mean by the term “valuing”. I know very well that what you mean is not conscious activity of valuing. I know very well that what you mean is some sort of unconscious activity of valuing. I know that your beings do not value. I know that they are valuings, which is to say, processes of valuing. I know of all this, and if you bothered to read my recent posts, you would know that I do know what you think I don’t know.

I am not going to repeat my points. Instead, I am going to ask you to go back and (re-)read what I wrote, then try to make a meaningful response.

Why self-valuing and not self-ordering (or quite simply ordering)?

I’ve previously said that order should not be an end, but that may be because nothing should be an end.

Rather than thinking in terms of linear (= one-way) development perhaps we should be thinking in terms of non-linear (= two-way, or multi-way) development.

Order in this sense would be an anti-end. This does not mean that there should be no ends, since that in itself would be an end, but rather, that every end should merely be a temporary end to be eventually replaced by, not upgraded to, another end.

Think of vibratory motion. Vibratory motion is two-way motion around an equilibrium point. Every motion in one direction is balanced by corresponding motion in the opposite direction. The two directions are two different, not equal, ends. Unless, of course, we can interpret the two ends as being centri-petal motion that never stops at, but always goes beyond, the equilibrium point.

This would be the philosophy of lack (which I know you reject.)

Instead of focusing on some fixed point, you are focusing on your inner sense of right/wrong (= consonant/dissonant) which is supposed to help you locate the direction toward the center in the universe of infinite dimensions.

In this sense, whatever is dissonant is whatever moves you away from the center, and whatever is consonant is whatever moves you towards the center.

(This is different from one-way motion suggested by the philosophy of excess where dissonance is understood as “obstructed energy flow” and consonance as “unobstructed energy flow”.)

Nonetheless, this is still not the same as self-valuing, since not every being makes an active effort to order reality.

It’s also not about self, since self is interpreted to be incomplete, but about completion.

Haha! So true.

“Dasein”, “Thrown into the world”, “Throwness”.

Lots of verbal masturbation.

Same reason why I will never read Kant.

I can relate to that sentiment.

Well, philosophy often demands that one transcend one’s other loves and hates. Consider this quick translation of a tutorial I wrote last year:

“(I)n a guilt culture, too, there are always people for whom shame and the feeling of honour are more important than the feeling of guilt and a good conscience. Plato flatters these people with the idea that they’re philosophical because they love what they know and hate what they do not know. For, seeing as such loyal and watchful dogs are the pivot around which society turns, and are therefore held in high regard by the people, philosophy gets a better name if they call themselves philosophers.” (“A Tutorial in Platonic Political Philosophy”.)

If you understand what we mean by the term “valuing” so well, then why did you draw silly parallels like the ones I quoted? Like everyone else, we say someone has self-respect or self-confidence, but do we say someone has self-valuation or self-valence or anything like that? No, we say that everyone is a self-Valuing. And if a self-Valuing values itself, then what it values is Valuing rather than self. In fact, as I said, the Valuing is its real self. (To be sure, though, it’s usually subconscious of its real self, so that it consciously values only an illusory, ideal self.)

You are abusing the word to mean something other than it normally means. Valuing is a conscious activity, not an unconscious activity. Did anyone ever observe this “unconscious valuing”? No, it’s just an unsupported possibility, i.e. a speculation. Finally, you are implying that there is a universal pattern of behavior, which there isn’t, as there is no rule that has no counter-rule.

The universe is not WTP. WTP only refers to specific patterns within the universe. Not everything is WTP.

Buddhists, for example, do not “will power”. It does not matter whether you can bend what they do to fit your pre-conclusion. It does not matter whether you can find similarities between what they are doing and what WTP is. They simply do not “will power”. They “will nothing”. Literally.

Back to how values are determined.

Normally, I expect people to choose their values consciously. You on the other hand claim that values are determined unconsciously. This is very bizarre. I mean, it is not bizarre, because it is a real phenomenon, not even a rare one, but it is bizarre to me because in your case we have a person celebrating unconsciousness philosophically.

You did misunderstand Nietzsche, didn’t you?

When you make a claim that values are determined unconsciously, you are literally claiming that values are determined by your impulses, in the sense that, what is good is to follows one’s impulses.

Fundamentally, this is not different from a religious nut who determines his values by following instructions written in some Holy Book.

Do you understand the difference between being unconscious of your instincts and being conscious of them?

Do you understand that by surrendering to instincts you are losing peripheral vision, and in doing so, you are denying other instincts?

Instincts must be gathered in one place, not be scattered around, and that’s precisely the job of consciousness.

You must be the one animating your instincts, not your instincts animating you.

I said “subconscious”, not “unconscious”. Don’t you think we value when we dream?

What about that rule itself, then?

Well, that’s what they say they do (nirvana, “extinction”).

You think much too simple-mindedly, too much black-and-white.

This correspondence is closed.

The more you are conscious, the better your judgment will be.

What about it?

Yes, and that’s also what they do.

Pardon my inability to think either-everything-is-black-or-everything-is-white. I just don’t like to blur distinctions the way you do.

Is that all you can do?

Yes, that is all he can do. In Aristotle’s Household Rules, he would of been relagated to the role between that of a woman or a slave, for it is debatable whether he truely possesses that capacity to rationalize and debate, for if he has it, he clearly lacks the authority to project it, and must rely on a sodomist to defend himself when he flees confrontations regarding hishis weak assertions. It is why you always see me say to Saiwelios not to rely on Fixed Cross to defend him- natully I am neither that much impressed or intimidated with Fixed Cross, but would like to see Sauwelios stand to a prolonged debate without breaking it off like a woman, fleeing into hysterics and hurt feelings. In all the years I’ve seen him post, he has never shown stamina save when copy-pasting other’s ideas. I don’t believe that qualifies as a philosopher.

I only bothered to post saying while I’ve abandoned using the word “Values” due to the meaningless mumbo-jumbo Fixed Cross and Sauwelios and the parade of Nietzscheans here have subjected it to (at this point the word effectively could mean anything, this isn’t the same as me saying there is no such thing as “Power” as power has a meaning, though deluded and false carried from Persian Boar Hinting cults to the present, it isn’t a valid scientific concentrate, in the same sense as Ether isn’t a physical state, or how I reject WTP as a partial attempt by Nietzsche to assert his own Categories against the Aristotelian & Stoic conceptions- it falls short, which is not Nietzsche’s full fault given it was a unfinished work… I reject them on their merits, in regard to how Value as a word is raped into metaphysical meaningless here, over the years, I’m just damn wary of the word now, no redefinition will ever reabilitate it given what those two idiots have done to it.)

I do however have to give a very, very, very rare compliment to a Nietzschean though, my main reason for posting. Magnus Anderson has made a attempt to digest the philosophical divide between Dualism and Non-Dualism, and came out in the Dualist School. I congratulate his sanity in this regard. I’m not impressed that he is hiding in the metaphysical remanants of Nietzsche’s thought, this will backfire as I’ve seen Nietzsche embrace both, and he never manages to die his ideas down to biological functions, the are floating in the air of metaphysics, abstractions, ideas, could mean anything in syllogism, beyond anatomical proof (I will just WTP a new frontal cortex bitches with this or that turn of phrase… gets tiring on these forums).

I’m a Cognitive Dualist myself. Search the website, you’ll see I’ve said that in the past. I’ve written a draft of a work called “Ontological Oceans” a while ago, was touching it up a bit yesterday. It has nothing to do with VO (utterly meaningless monkey babble that shit) and is more a attack on classical Non-Dualist Advaita, Monism, from a pans philosophical approach of Non-Dualist philosophers across history and the world, though most is original verse. I do attack self-proclaimed God-Men like Sauwelios and Dara Shihok (I don’t name Sauwelios by name, but anyone who knows me from here would know who) for being Monist…

Which is why I do congratulate you. You are the second person, after me, to of observed this. He does have a lot of these silly traits, he doesn’t go for the full Non-Dualism of the Astravakra Gita, he has read Heideggar but I think he remains largely ignorant of Shankara

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

If you understand Heidegger, your first off, full of shit, his system isn’t one that conforms to the mind, I don’t see neuralsurgeons anywhere going off his theories prior to a operation, but if you “get” Heideggar in a sense, your prepared to get Shankara, and if you get Shankara, you are in a position to approach Heiddegar or Dogen, or the Chinese and Japanese Nietzscheans, who while being Nietzscheans, a group I utterly despise, I recognize as your movements strongest breed. Ive said this years ago too on this site, recall it was to Pezer if you care to do a search.

If your debating Dualism vs Non-Dualism, your debating Shankara, and just don’t know it. Given you are doing so now Magnus, I’m forced to conceded a new level of respect. You’ve unexpectedly advanced well ahead of the rest of them here. Your ready to expand into very advanced and complex Asian Nietzschean schools these misfits largely lack the intellectual apparatus for.

And yes, I’m still quite Catholic, quite Stoic, in being a Cognitive Dualist, I said “school” would be misleading. I’m not a full blown metaphysical egoist like you, I hold to the principles of anatomy like a stoic or modern naturalist is supposed to. My reactive reflexes can start anywhere, but the mind us clearly centralized in brain and nervous system. This has been suggested for 1500 years, I’m not willing to shake it off for a Prussian with delusions of grandure and a clear case of syphilis infecting his brain and nervous system.

I don’t give compliments often, and won’t likely offer another again, like it or reject it, know it is a very rare act, especially on this God forsaken idiot forum ran by throngs of faeries crying the hendonistic joys of Nietzsche. I came out of a war hating ideas and concepts I later saw Nietzsche embraced, and my anger is sound and justified, they here only know how to preach Nietzsche as a lazy form of hedonistic epicurianism. They speak of spirituality, show absolutely no evidence of it, beyond a willingness to use drugs and gay-sex as their dues ex machina to the claim, which I wouldn’t recognize as such, but it is all they have. I consider these slobs, especially these two, (Cezar, where are you Cezar, it should be three) as the two dumbest pieces of shit I have ever encountered in all my years as a philosopher. And Sauwelios is twice as dumb as Fixed Cross, which explains why I barely tolerate FC but never Sauwelios (Cezar is smarter than them both Combined, but my cat is smarter than him).

I have said “Dualist and Non-Dualist” for years around them. Sauwelios undoubtedly has a thread from 2005 where he blunders around terribly in trying to explain the concepts, but not getting it at all whatsoever, as his proof he understands it. He is Mr. Copypasta, no ideas or understanding of his own.

“Your Persona Non-Gratis now Mr. Ferguson on all my Fora!!!”… There Sauwelios, I said your stupid imbecile reply for you. Of course… Fixed Cross will come running to your defence, Trixie will make some wry comment after googling Dualism/Non-Dualism that doesn’t show much insight, and Magsj will post some pictures of her food and PM me that I am intimidating Sauwelios, and Iambigious will post some chickens and Nets cause I said Heideggar, and Mr. Reasonable will say something pointless, high as a kite- denying he is high, cause all he had was this and that… that’s how these threads go.

I would like to someday debate a knowledgeable Nietzschean, and you appear to be the first Magnus breaking the low intelligence barrier all the misfits here ate cast in. Still quite some way to go, don’t expect it now, just know I’ll be watching for that day to come. I will give you hell for it once you grow in enough depth to be worthy of opposing me. You’ve shown the first evidence I’ve seen on this site period here in this thread. I await eagerly, though it may still take years.

Consciousness always works with something that is outside of it. To become conscious means to become aware of something that previously wasn’t within one’s consciousness.

Think about how memory recall works. Before you recall your memory, you are not conscious of the event that occured in the past. You simply do not know what happened. But once you recall your memory, you become conscious of it, and then you remember, then you know what happened in the past.

Consciousness works both with the internal, the body, and the external, the world outside of the body.

The more you are conscious, the more information you have. The more information you have, the better your judgment.

But consciousness has limits, so you cannot become conscious of too many things at once. You must select (which means, you must forget.) But in order to compensate for this limitation, you must make sure to rotate the set of aspects of reality that you are observing with sufficient frequency. You want to make sure that no aspect of reality is forgotten for too long.

This is what it means “to gather together your senses in one place”.

Every moment must have a connection to every aspect of reality. This makes it possible for one to quickly switch one’s focal direction in the case of emergency.

Think about the supposedly benign activity that is watching TV. When you watch TV, and when you deeply immerse yourself in what you’re watching, you feel pleasure. You feel pleasure because you are forgetting reality. You are focusing only on one aspect of reality while dismissing all other aspects. This, plus the fact that you’re doing something that is not met with resistance, is the reason you feel pleasure. As you watch TV, you lose connections to different aspects of reality one by one. This is why when you eventually stop watching TV and you reconnect to reality you experience a kind of shock. The realities that have been pushed away suddenly erupt into your consciousness and the contrast that they produce create an unpleasant feeling.

The same thing happens when you surrender to instinct without first consulting other instincts. Sooner or later, the forgotten instincts will enter your consciousness, and then you will regret your actions, if for no other reason than because you betrayed your instincts.

The interesting thing here is that the shock that is experienced as a consequence of reality forgotten for too long is not a hard limit. In other words, you do not have to reconnect to reality. Instead, you can just disconnect from it further. This will make the wavelength suffienctly long that you will almost no longer be able to experience shock as a consequence of disconnection . . .

But though you may no longer suffer from this shock, you will nonetheless be weak and thus at the risk of being conequered or destroyed by external forces.

This is why you need consciousness. The more you are conscious, the better.

Dreams are how instincts manifest themselves during sleep. They are a form of consciousness of very low degree.

Is that what you want? To be asleep? To be a zombie?

The universe is fundmentally random. This is what Nietzsche means when he says that “the universe is flux”.

That the universe is fundamentally random, however, does not mean that the universe has no patterns (= rules = laws.) What it means is that patterns emerge from randomness.

This means that patterns are temporary rather than eternal. They persist not because they are fundamental, but merely because the cosmic dice of infinitely many sides was not rolled in such a manner to change them.

A common view is that patterns are fundamental and that randomness merely emerges from patterns. This is the manner in which we normally understand the concept of randomness: as that which is a product of ignorance. If we only had all of the relevant information, we think, we could be able, at least in theory, to predict that which is perceived as random. This is epistemic randomness, the idea that randomness is merely in the head. (Note that this kind of randomness is real. I am not denying it.)

But the kind of randomness that I am speaking of here is not merely in the head, it is fundamental. It is ontic randomness.

Note that the word “random” means nothing more than “unable to be predicted”. It does not specify the reason as to why it is not possible to predict the thing. It might be because we are ignorant (epistemic randomness) or because the thing is fundamentally unpredictable (ontic randomness.) Thus, anyone who tells you that random means “merely this” (which always refers to epistemic randomness) and that any other kind of randomness, such as ontic randomness, is meaningless, you can be sure that they are lying to you.

Thus, at the fundamental level, the universe has no definite shape. Definite shapes are merely temporary phenomena. The universe may be anything, this anything extending beyond our imagination.

WTP is not the same thing as flux. WTP refers to a specific pattern within the flux.

WTP refers to an inherent tendency towards strength. It refers to an active effort of exposure to stress in order to build immunity.

It applies only to humans, and then, only to some humans.

Inanimate objects such as rocks do not have such an inherent tendency. Rocks clearly show no tendency towards strength.

There are ways around this, though. Perhaps in the case of rocks this tendency is suppressed. Maybe if we moved rocks to an adequate environment, maybe their inherent tendecy towards strength would become apparent. But how true would that be? How likely is it that rocks are latent rock-warriors?

This is speaking of WTP, which has a clear definition. What is left to say about VO, which is poorly defined?

This is what I mean. The term selfvaluing has become a selfvaluing to such a forceful extent that Turd is split in half.

He can not value the logic, as he thinks of it as ‘mine’ - but as this is the logic of value itself, he has to abandon the principle of value entirely, in his ‘discourse’.

The tendency towards strength of a rock is its gravitation. Just because we don’t observe much activity from a rock, on a superficial level, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any activity at all.