The power of self-deceit

[Jakob]

I just came across this line in Heidegger that well touches upon what I perceive to be at the heart of my objections to your stated perspective here, at least in how I conceive of that perspective:

"Whatever our judgments may turn out to be, they are all baseless as long as it is not clear by what they are supported."

To me, absent such a grounding position or at the least a beginning and genuine attempt as establishing such a 'by what they are supported', everything becomes suspect and can be attributed no essential or authentic value... if all we care about is utility, then sure, there is no problem at all... and yet philosophy, and not only philosophy, is pointed toward and has its essential character in so much more than a contingent utility of the moment, more even than an all-pervasive utility of a prevailing and indeed perhaps otherwise important or unavoidable context.

I think it is supported by love.
Or by what we call it, including lusts.
No self respecting philosopher talks about this but its nontheless kind of obvious. That is where you get occultists, who state the obvious obfuscated by system so for it to look at least complicated. That turned out to be pretty cool, actually - but not something you need if you don't have an obsessive need for storytelling and imageblending and don't spend your time making films.

EROS is what holds the will together. Love under will means: will supported by love.
Basically here its not all that difficult when we see will as man, love as woman. Nietzsche made that unnecessarily complicated but said the same thing.
Lesbianism is fine - for them - but woman needs to support man as man makes life possible for her.
The two will always fight, this is their will and love.
Will as honesty - Love as the subtlest irony.

[Three Times Great]

I just came across this line in Heidegger that well touches upon what I perceive to be at the heart of my objections to your stated perspective here, at least in how I conceive of that perspective:

"Whatever our judgments may turn out to be, they are all baseless as long as it is not clear by what they are supported."

To me, absent such a grounding position or at the least a beginning and genuine attempt as establishing such a 'by what they are supported', everything becomes suspect and can be attributed no essential or authentic value... if all we care about is utility, then sure, there is no problem at all... and yet philosophy, and not only philosophy, is pointed toward and has its essential character in so much more than a contingent utility of the moment, more even than an all-pervasive utility of a prevailing and indeed perhaps otherwise important or unavoidable context.

I think it is supported by love.
Or by what we call it, including lusts.
No self respecting philosopher talks about this but its nontheless kind of obvious. That is where you get occultists, who state the obvious obfuscated by system so for it to look at least complicated. That turned out to be pretty cool, actually - but not something you need if you don't have an obsessive need for storytelling and imageblending and don't spend your time making films.

I guess that isn't me, then. I like movies and stories, but they are not centrally important to me.

I agree about love, however -- in a wide understanding of what "love" means to us.

All reason is ultimately grounded within sentimental-experiences, emotional needs, biological desires/drives. It is important to understand how reason is in fact constructed if we are to use it properly, else we end up like all the wittgensteins of the philosophical world.... just making shit up because we can't see the relationship between reason's constructs and the limits of reason as such... what's going on below the immediate surfaces..

EROS is what holds the will together. Love under will means: will supported by love.

When I interpret the words "will" and "love" in a certain and quite general manner (in terms of evolutionary biology, psychology and subjectivity) then I agree with this.

I am not sure if you interpret these words in the same (non-ideological, non-closed) manner, however. Or maybe you do.

Basically here its not all that difficult when we see will as man, love as woman. Nietzsche made that unnecessarily complicated but said the same thing.
Lesbianism is fine - for them - but woman needs to support man as man makes life possible for her.
The two will always fight, this is their will and love.

Okay, it is clear we are not speaking of will and love in the same sense or meaning, then...

Getting caught within gender labels and gender dichotomies is one of the most harmful, false and personally limiting traps a thinker can fall prey to. After all some of the greater minds in philosophy did get stuck there -- but we can and must do better.

Will as honesty - Love as the subtlest irony.

Will is often nothing but dishonesty, with oneself, a willing-away... name one will-toward that is not also a willing-away, and primarily a willing-away.. The impetus for overflow of energy comes from the catharsis such overflow affords to a pent-up excess of energy. We learn to run when we first encounter the predator, so to speak... yes it is more complicated than that, I know. But the point needs to be addressed before we can explore those areas of "will" that are somewhat less dependent upon such a prior reactionism... if indeed we are to find such a space at all.

To me, the drive to self-honesty does not arise from what you (or Nietzsche, or anyone else I know) calls will. This drive (or impulse, or mechanism) toward self-honesty with onself is a necessary product of the subject's self-encounter. It arises as an emergent need from within sufficiently developed (self-aware) subjectivities themselves, it is their mode of action, so to speak (their mode of action in so far as they form consistent and deep self-relations).... this is why self-honesty is often at such odds with the "willings" of both body and mind.

Love as subtle irony... can you expand on what you mean by this?

[Jakob]

I have to withdraw most of what I wrote in the post you responded to - I was not entirely clear headed when I wrote that, as goes for much of what I wrote in that week. For example, the notion of will and love as masculine and feminine does indeed add little to clarity.

Love as subtle irony - meant to pertain to erotic/romantic love - by no means a definition, but an observation of the attitude of accepting errors/flaws and delicately acknowledge/judge them - the subtler the recognition of errors, the more personal, intimate the love-play, the communication.

Lovers always have their code, their shared perspective on their relationship as it stands in the world - there is always a sense of irony, because one is always aware that there is a friction between the idealized real / realized ideal of a romance and the world as a non-ideal, as a rough given of crude communication and forced relations against which any successful endeavor of love stands out.

[Kriswest]

Society is a living thing unto itself. We are parts of that thing. In order for society to exist it needs its parts to cooperate. Deception is integral to that cooperation. There are lvels of deception that must be accepted as truth. If we seperate ourselves from society we are independent and can be truthful. Yet since we are social animals we cannot in general and on average seperate ourselves from society , we are and have become too dependent upon it . It is our mother and father, our self. Perhaps the primative tribes that still exist are great examples of this and in seeing them we can see our more complex deeper society thing. we must deceive ourselves so that our life survives. So that our society survives. Society has its own thoughts beliefs and ways seperate from the individual.

[Three Times Great]

Love as subtle irony - meant to pertain to erotic/romantic love - by no means a definition, but an observation of the attitude of accepting errors/flaws and delicately acknowledge/judge them - the subtler the recognition of errors, the more personal, intimate the love-play, the communication.

Lovers always have their code, their shared perspective on their relationship as it stands in the world - there is always a sense of irony, because one is always aware that there is a friction between the idealized real / realized ideal of a romance and the world as a non-ideal, as a rough given of crude communication and forced relations against which any successful endeavor of love stands out.

That is very beautifully put. I quite agree.

[HexHammer]

EROS is what holds the will together. Love under will means: will supported by love.
Basically here its not all that difficult when we see will as man, love as woman. Nietzsche made that unnecessarily complicated but said the same thing.
Lesbianism is fine - for them - but woman needs to support man as man makes life possible for her.
The two will always fight, this is their will and love.
Will as honesty - Love as the subtlest irony.

Do you even know the meaning of what you are saying?
Seems the beauty of the rethorics weight heavier than rationallity and logic.

Nothing of what you say seems to relate to the world outside of your door.

[Jakob]

That is very beautifully put. I quite agree.

Thanks, nice to know that this resounds.

[Jakob]

EROS is what holds the will together. Love under will means: will supported by love.
Basically here its not all that difficult when we see will as man, love as woman. Nietzsche made that unnecessarily complicated but said the same thing.
Lesbianism is fine - for them - but woman needs to support man as man makes life possible for her.
The two will always fight, this is their will and love.
Will as honesty - Love as the subtlest irony.

Do you even know the meaning of what you are saying?
Seems the beauty of the rethorics weight heavier than rationallity and logic.

Nothing of what you say seems to relate to the world outside of your door.

Give me a break Hex - first you "end our relations" in the second post you address to me, now you're reducing me to a source of purely solipsistic vanity - ... I actually mostly relate to the world outside my door, which is why I get so confused sometimes.

Maybe you live in a different universe, where everything is clearly understood, and no experimentation with terms is necessary to keep logic connected to the world.

[HexHammer]

Give me a break Hex - first you "end our relations" in the second post you address to me, now you're reducing me to a source of purely solipsistic vanity - ... I actually mostly relate to the world outside my door, which is why I get so confused sometimes.

Maybe you live in a different universe, where everything is clearly understood, and no experimentation with terms is necessary to keep logic connected to the world.

Forgive my rudeness, but I'm very puzzled by this approach to things.

[Jakob]

That's no reason to assume that it is nonsense.

I fundamentally distrust language in its formal form.

[HexHammer]

I fundamentally distrust language in its formal form.

On what premesis?

[Jakob]

Life. I've not seen it correlate with formal language a lot outside of science and the trivial.

[Arcturus Descending]

The power of self-deceit may be dispelled by the power of continual, hard self-honesty.

...................self-honesty smashing self-deceit to smithereens
.................self-honesty chasing self-deceit with the axe to use it (self-deceit) for firewood.
....................self-honesty facing down self-deceit in reasonable/logical argument
...............self-honesty trying to whack some common sense into self-deceit
..............self-honesty shooting down self-deceit to diminish its power
.......................self-honesty in a duel with self-deceit - eventually self-honesty may win out
........................self-deceit showing its great fear of self-honesty.

.......Self deceit may also be dimishined by transcending one's ego...


.......by sitting quietly and to sing
.......by thinking hard and long about the advantages of self-honesty over self-deceit
.......self-honesty eventually leads to a much and future.

Living within the matrix leads to all sorts of

That's all folks