Standards

Repost request from observer.

There are a set of basic, fundamental, needs all organisms have.

Energy assimilation (feeding, assimilation, integration, domination), Energy utilization (lubrication/conductivity, storage, preservation), Energy direction (willfulness/consciousness).
Primal Drives

From these all value judgments are produced.
Underlying them all is lack, the absence of an absolute.
We, as organisms with a certain nervous system with a processing hub/nexus (brain) feel this absence as need - suffering being need left unsatisfied, warning the brain and demanding its attentions.

The absolute, because it is absent, can take on any form; it can be imagined in any way it can be symbolized in any manner.
But this shaping of the absolute’s imagery, its conceptualization, is based on the experienced, the known…even the inherited, through the genes, experiences.
Therefore, the absolute’s varieties are restricted by the organism’s experiences (stored, as code, of interaction between organism and otherness/world), its knowledge (inherited experiences), and its imagination (ability to combine said experiences/knowledge in novel ways).
Then, the organism may project this abstraction of the absent absolute, as an object/objective…which will guide its willfulness, its striving.
The Will is a mental agency which directs the organisms aggregate energies, known and unknown, through the nervous system.
This movement towards creates the organism’s character, its personality shaped by how this movement towards is shaped by its inherited organic internal relationships.
Psychology being the internal structures of an organism, their weaknesses and strengths, and how these interact internally and then in relation to an alien, indifferent world.

The projected object/objectives can be shaped by external wills, by providing the brain with a set of imagery, accepts, and standard of measuring otherness as these relate to its original primal drives.
The object/objective will acquire a value depending on the dominance of each drive, within each particular organism, and the need associated with it, due to environmental conditions or circumstantial factors.

For instance feeding might be insignificant, under certain circumstances, and fundamental, central, in others… within the very same organism’s lifespan.

Values are dependent on standards.
The environment determines the standards.
Changing environments can result in changing standards.

The noble mind is characterized by a dominant will.
Its standards do not vacillate, as they do for weaker minds.
Order, is its character trait.
It makes it predictable, reliable, steadfast, loyal.
Its values are steady, and unyielding, and they might even be of a qualitative superior nature in that they are longer-lived, from a temporal perspective.
The only way a standards can be long-lived is if the brain can project further than the average brain, and see more than the average brain…and so construct values that are not as dependent on the ephemeral social, and/or environmental, circumstances.

The most vacillating brain is the Modern brain:
Shallow, weak-willed, cowardly… adapting to any slight change, altering its values with the slightest discomfort.
It is, in fact, proud of its own malleability… and considers itself open-minded, enlightened, progressive, because of it.
It’s weak-will, superficial awareness, stupidity, retarded psychology, feminine disposition, is twisted into a positive attribute, simply by changing the words, and the reasons… in true nihilistic form.

As need/suffering decreases the quality of the values decreases proportionally.

No experience with need/suffering, means no contact with the organism’s own essence, as a non-absolute, striving towards an object/objective.
It constitutes a partial, never completed, detachment form existence - a form of numbness which imitates indifference by never having to go through the prerequisite stages of empowerment and adaptation.
The brain is thrust into a fabricated, externally guaranteed, state of immediate gratification…and there it wallows like a pig in the mud. It’s sensation of independence, from its past, from nature, is an artificially produced form of dependence. It never attains it, or any level of it, because it has a “right” to it…for an undisclosed price.

Values becomes trivial, ephemeral, they lose relevant, severity…they become a joke.
Cynicism ensues.
The brain, finding itself in a sheltering, ordered, protective, system, not of its own doing, becomes arrogant, demanding, with a false sense of entitlement.
It wrongly assumes that the order present is a reflection of its own order, its own power.

Value standards revert to the base, which can never be denied, not neglected.

The brain, not having to develop, because it is not stressed, declines, never matures - it is retarded in the maturation process towards its highest potential.
It’s standards become infantile, or an non-existent, fleeting, continuously changing…but never diverging form the sheltering entity’s order, the dominating values of the system offering it the sense of safety, of value, and power.

Though it flirts with many ideals, object/objectives, it never dares to contradict the values of the institution that provides it with the privilege of remaining flighty, flaky, feminine, child-like.
Nothing matters to it, particularly whatever fashion trend it is indulging in at any moment.

Reality, engages superficially, acquires the qualities of a walk in the ark, a trip to an exotic destination, a flirtation with a philosophy, an ideology.
It is insignificant, the flavor of the month, because the underlying values are never in question.

Sex, race, family, blood, heritage, all become fashion statements, and nothing more.

The primal drives are sublimated, directed by a foreign will, towards object/objectives it is trained to associate with their satisfaction.

The position that values are subjective, falls into the detached perspectivism of the modern.
He must detach value judgments from anything which he cannot control, forcing him to adapt, rather than simply to change his mind.

Whether a man values knowledge or not, this does not make him immune to his ignorance.
If a man does not value his own life, he dies.
If a man does not value understanding how nature woks, makes him a victim of natural processes.

Value is external, independent from man, as man is a product of processes the preexist his consciousness of them.

As always a word, a concept, a mental abstraction,loses meaning if it is not connected to something real, something perceived, something outside the human brain, forcing him to move towards understanding.

Value, for me, is a description of temporal persistence…its longevity. We can call it its resistance to entropy, its predictable, consistent, pattern…or it is what contributes to the maintenance of such a temporally resistant, persistent, becoming, or other form of pattern.

Whether the perceive is negative or positive in relation to the observer’s interests, beliefs, hopes, does not lower its value, as something to be accounted for, dealt with, reacted to.
A man who does not value what he does not like, will fall victim to is own stupidity.

A man who cherry-picks knowledge, perceptions, according to how he feels towards it or what utility he can find for it, will remain ignorant of everything except what he feels positive towards.
He will be selective, in his awareness, and retarded in his evaluations.

To make of the perceived a phenomenon dependent on a human’s evaluation of it, is to reduce reality to a human limitation.
If man does not perceive something this does not reduce its potential impact upon him…
His evaluations do not affect what he perceives, because his evaluations are products of his past, and so imperfect, imprecise, lacking.
Valuing only what is positive towards you makes you a compartmentalized thinker.

The value of the perceived must be judged by criteria independent from the observer’s tastes, and preferences.
Reality does not give a shit how humans react to it or how they feel about it.
An error in judgment, in evaluation, only affects the individual, not reality.

We need to be both flexible and inflexible, depending on each situation.
I think the brains of the dark ages were more shallow than the brain of a modern .

That is all I have to say so far for your OP.

He claims not to know who you are. How did he request this?
Are you being honest?

No, he posted that on his forum before he was banned and we had a personal exchange. You can confirm with him at his place.

Self-Affirmation is to accept the entirety of your past/nature as necessary in your presence; your appearance, your phenomenon now discovered noetically.
One does not choose this past, nor does one will it. One only chooses to uncover it, discover it, see it, or hide from it, bury it, turn away from it and forget it.
To affirm is to accept what has already been decided, accenting it as both benefit and burden; as both restriction and expansion of probabilities.
One does not choose self; one affirms what self has become, by accepting all that participating in its becoming; its presence.
Self-Chosseness, to affirm being chosen, is to affirm another’s will.
To be chosen, or one of the chosen, is to be chosen by another.
You were chosen by some “other”, not by your own will, but by an alien will.
You did not choose yourself; yourself was chosen for you.
To affirm this choice, of another, is to feel pride in being one of those chosen: the feminine psychology; power through proxy, identity in association.

One does not have a choice over what this past/nature is, but only a choice over how much of it one will strive to know, and how much of it he will accept.
To be chosen, to find identity in being amongst the chosen, is to be affirmed by another – egoism via otherness; hypocrisy of humility, the cowardice of the meek.
Sell non-egotism, selflessness, while you redirect yours through a convenient abstraction.
http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1621p360-daemon#38176

The act of choice is the quintessential act of Will.
To will is to choose what is absent in you; it is to appropriate the possible, making it probable.
Where there is no life there is no choice, as choice presupposes a cutting off, a distancing, a separation.
Choice is the only expression of willing, and though it is not free (but contingent and dependent), it has freedom as an option.
The choice of freedom is to choose detachment from the given options; freedom being another term for independence.
To choose to be independent from your dependencies; which is an act of will and the ascetic expression of it, as the rejection or refusal of dependencies.

To choose self is not an option, because self is that which has the option to choose; choice is the expression of self within selflessness.
One can only choose to not choose, which is a choice in itself, or to deny self as a choice - to negate self as a possible choice (self-negation).

To be “chosen” is not an act of self, but the abandonment of self to other.
To be chosen by other, or to be the others chosen, is to refuse self as a choice, so as to make self the others choice - the slavish psychology.

To affirm self is to lend credence, to support, acknowledge, accept, embrace, what self is: sum of all past/nature.
To affirm it is to consciously, willfully, accept it as necessary.
To affirm is to lend your willful support to what has been revealed, and has already been present.
http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1621p360-daemon#38197

We use what we wish to be(come) as our standard for evaluating who and what we are.

The self is the assertion of presence - as a negation of otherness.
“I am, what I am into.” then “I am not other”.

In this context agon makes sense, as the struggle of self-assertion within the world.
Not Being but Becoming which begins with the “I” of self-maintenance, which is not passive but aggressive - the “I” or “I am”.

Appreciation of self, this self-evaluation, is this self-assertion which has as its standard need.
In its most primitive form the organism is a self-asserting “I” relating to other as need: edible/inedible, threat/non-threat.
The satisfaction of this need become s the measure of its self-assertion.

As the organism evolves, becoming increasingly complex/sophisticated, self-consciousness is the evaluating of consciousness in relation to what is perceived - a detachment where noumenon and phenomenon become the juxtapositions required in all value-judgments.

The juxtaposition takes on the form of past (education/historical narrative second-hand knowledge, experiences as first-hand knowledge), is juxtaposed against the sensually perceived present (immediate past), the ongoing flux perceived as phenomenon (the apparent), experienced as a looking back, and then projected as a hypothetical, theoretical, ideal future.

The past/future are the noetic aspects of human judgment, and the present is the phenomenal aspect.
The degree to which the past is detached from the present determines its idealism.
The degree the future is detached from the present determines its idealism.
The present being the reality of the organism’s presence.

Because the human can exist within a deeper time/space environment - not as limited as an animal would be to the immediate or to a very shallow past/future noetic world - it can draw ideals from further back, and project further ahead.
The danger being that by doing so it might become disconnected from what is present before it - particularly when this present is an artifice disconnecting it from an immediate perception, or forcing it to dismiss the apparent on some past/future noetic idealization.

Being encased within a technological/technical cocoon the phenomenon can be discounted, or only appreciated via a noetic ideal past, projected as a noetic ideal future.
All discourse takes on a dialogue between narrations already established - debated over how ideal they are, in relation to the projected ideal future.
A debate over who represents the dead-thinker’s ideals - the proxy mind’s premises - most accurately; then determining what coming future is the most ideal within those premises.

Value-judgments occur within this oscillating shared paradigm.
A mind appreciating self within the contexts of inherited standards projected as possibilities.

Since all value-judgments are a juxtaposition of I with Other(s), or Other with An-Other, when it is self-valuing it becomes a juxtaposition of the apparent self in relation to the idea(l), or the possible future self, or in relation to the past historical self, which can be extended to include race, nationality, religion, or any historical identifier.
http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1597-self-valuing-ethics

The assertion of self, mentioned before, is not a static event, in space/time. It is an ongoing assertion demanding ongoing expenditure of energies - continuous (inter)activity.
The “inter” indicates a friction of the asserting emergent unity, the Becoming, with the otherness, taking the form of a pushing-away, or pulling-towards - hate/love - rejection/assimilation.
This relating, this (inter)activity is what, on a general basis, adds to the increasing chaos/randomness.
It is experienced - interpreted by an organism - as need.
Need is simply the necessity of self-assertion, and its ceaseless (inter)activity.

The organism, like all that exists, is never static, never absolutely at rest, never Being.
This means it is never complete, never satisfied, never perfect, never an absolute - always a process.

The ‘Will’ is the focus of the organism upon an object/objective.
It’s first role is to direct the organism towards the energies required to continue to assert its presence.
If this is accomplished it can then direct itself to longer-term object/objectives all to enhance and promote its assertiveness.
This is “Will to Power” or “Will to Life” or “Will to God” or any “Will to…”.

Will is an indication of need.
I will what I lack in an absolute.
need is the recognition of this imperfection, this absence of a complete absolute.

The idea(l) is another word for this projected, into the future, object/objective.The movement towards it is the “agion” part - the striving, struggle, increasing attrition upon the organism’s established order, increasing its energy requirements - thusly increasing its potential needs - and so its propensity to experience suffering/pain, but also pleasure due to the temporary and partial negation of these needs.

A more sophisticated mind, being able to draw from a deeper past and project further ahead into the probable future, exposes itself to more sources of suffering - it suffers more profoundly than a simpler animal does, only existing within a shallow perceptual-event-horizon with its simpler more immediate needs.
As such it is also capable of more profound experiences of pleasure, as a profound suffering based on a deeper/broader temporal horizon, would also make its alleviation, temporary and partial as it might be, more profound than any a simpler creature could experience.
http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1597-self-valuing-ethics

The assertion of self is the assertion of a more profound sense of self.
No longer based on a shallow perceptual-event-horizon, not extending much further than the present/presence, or the more immediate past, but now extending further back, to establish and root self, and as a result, being able to project further into the future a more complex/sophisticated idea(l) self.

The danger increases when this idealization of past, supported by an artificial present, results in a detached, from reality, projection of a future idea(l).

Nihilism is an example of an idea(l) which rejects the phenomenon, if it contradicts the idealized past/future.
Detachment from the past means a detachment from nature - Detachment from the immediate past, the present, is a detachment from reality.
From this detachment from what is, essentially a shallow and/or deeper knowledge/experience of past/nature, any projections of a coming, future will be idealized in delusional, unrealistic ways.

The individual will now appreciate an artificial self - a detached from past/nature - in relation to a detached from reality future, idea(l) self.
It self-valuing will be delusional and unrealistic.
Such a mind can only survive within controlled, manmade, artificial environments, which protect it from this erroneous evaluation/estimation of self - its value of self will be overestimated or underestimated, selectively as it relates to its adopted narrative of the past (expreinces now contained within artificial environments necessitating pretenses, and knowledge educated into it as the shared narrative).

Only within these human environments are pretenses possible as long-term personae, because within natural environments they would shatter when they (inter)acted with a reality that is indifferent to human noetic devices.

From this, we can now see how and why value-judgments can be warped and socially/culturally directed, and how a population can be manipulated using delusional idea(l)s.

The symptoms of hyperbole are evident in Modern environments.
Individuals overestimate themselves, and sometimes, underestimate themselves, in accordance to value-judgments established on warped projections of past/future.
Most, finding ti difficult to reconcile the contradictory data settle for the easier method of remaining in the immediate present, cynical (antipathetic) to all past and future projections - only caring about their immediate needs and gratifying them.
A reversion to an animal state, to remain comfortably numb.

http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1597-self-valuing-ethics

Value in relation to time:

1- We value what promises to lengthen the preservation of order in time; a measure of its resistance to entropy, to temporal attrition; its resistance to Flux, the constant (inter)activity of existence.
We value what offers us strength, power, constitution; what increases our order, making it more resistant and more beautiful to behold; we value what differentiates us from chaos and the increasing randomness, or what is superior, in order/symmetry to that of an other.

2- We value what is rare, in time: an ephemeral form of order/symmetry which surprises us with its appearance, and graces us with its temporary inspiration; a reminder of our own ephemeral ordering within the Flux.
We value those delicate forms of symmetry/order/beauty because they remind us that within the increasing randomness, and chaos, order is still possible.

3- We value what we refuse to compromise; what we refuse to forfeit so that we may increase our presence in time.
In this case our willingness to sacrifice time, and our own ephemeral order within the Flux, to preserve what we consider a fundamental part of this ordering, is what gives what gives value.
This is a product of nobility, built upon self-knowledge.
That which we value is our core identifier.
If it has no relation to 1 & 2 then it is a subjective idea(l), with little objective value.

The projected subjective idea(l) is a value yet to be tested - yet to be evaluated pragmatically - if it has no connections to the sensually perceived or to the past, from where we draw all our experience/knowledge.
The more detached from the sensual, the past/nature, an idea(l) is, all the more fantastic it is.
The more contrary to the sensual, from the past/nature, an idea(l) is, all the more nihilistic it is.

Value in time, is a product of coveting and of being reminded of our own essence.
http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1621p360-daemon#38146

I can agree with pretty much the entirety of cassie’s original OP and certainly most of this above one. But can I ask if there is an intention or aim proposed in revealing that particular issue? If there was a “Therefore …”, what would follow? How is any of it related to governance or society?

“Value” has been evangelized over the last several years, more often than not as a subjective issue that is to be sustained and given authority. That post appears to be more. But to what end, if any?

No ends, end-solutions are proposed by Satyr as you know, he only describes reality as he sees it, as most discriminately possible by him.
Its placed in the Society section as Humean back then objected to ‘Observer’/‘Satyr’ posting it in the Philosophy section. If allowed, I will develop it gradually with his writings systematized to this context as and when time permits.

Actually, I don’t know that and have gotten the exact opposite impression. I haven’t read everything he has written, and don’t intend to, but everything I could see was merely demeaning of other individuals, races, or society in general. He didn’t give me the impression that he sees hope in anything but putting down “the other guys”, with no better solution in sight.

On the other hand, if he proposes solutions, I am interested (but not enough to weed through a hundred pages of endless bitching).

I agree with this, as far as I can tell at this level of abstraction. From the next post…

Could you give a concrete example, probably best from your own life rather than a made up example, working in the terms ‘act of choice’ ‘what is absent in you’, ‘detachment from the given options’ and ‘dependencies’.

For those still interested.

Yes. All organs have the task of processing values, either refining them or breaking them down.
The organs are all self-valuings, they are of value to each other.

But one can never know all the potential shapes the organic system can take on; Bergson here. The present is not fully reducible to the past, as each moment is an accumulation of all previous time.

Yes, in as far as it approaches the absolute, it tries to escape from itself. The absolute is a veiled death; the wish for God is the desire for life, which is a struggle and relies on hardy joys, to come to an end.

The key is only to have the organs well attune to each other.
Oriental martial and healing arts are designed strictly for this purpose.

[tab]


[/tab]

I say we move rather from within; power sets goals.

When a being is weak, it sees only wretched outcomes, and can only value in very unhealthy ways.
When a being is vigorous, it projects loftiness in its own future without having to consciously undertake this; this is nature itself. It wants more experience of itself, which means it can neither stay the same nor cease to exist; health is propelled blindly forward. In human form it sets conscious, sometimes even nominal goals so as to be able to see where it is already going, and employ more power to that end.

We wish to expend ourselves, and depending on what we have, we decide what to impose ourselves on. And depending on how healthily we self-value, our imposition ranges from a sickness to majestic offerings.