Yes. As my philosophical thinking emerges from a Nietzschean context, I am highly distrustful of the term truth. But it is the case that value ontology is essentially a fundamental form of perspectival logic, so the concepts “true” and “false” do seem to belong within its framework. I have not yet attempted to formulate what such truth would be defined as specifically, beyond the general observation that it is a “true-to” and not an objective, meta-truth, such as the will to power.
When that word is defined in a specific manner, I can fully support the notion and concept of “Value-Ontology” and can even incontrovertibly prove its validity. But on the other hand, if left loosely defined or undefined, much like the issue of the undefined “God”, disbelief and serpent bane is inevitable. And because the word was not defined by the authors of Value-Ontology, I could only support its notion casually and by exception of noting that the word “probably meant a specific thing, although since it was never defined”, much like the Bible, it becomes anyone’s guess and not worth the political struggle to support whether it was true or not, valuable or not. It loses its value due to its obscurity and vague implications, which in the case of Nietzsche leads directly into serious selfish conflict and disharmony.
You and I have of course different approaches to Nietzsche – I would even say that your approach to Nietzsche is the same as Sauwelios’ – in that you both read him as an ontologist, cosmologist, a writer who makes claims to the absolute. Of course the difference is that where Sauwelios affirms this ontology-cosmology, you reject it. I also reject Nietzsches ontology when it makes a claim to a technical definition, as in fact it does not attain to this at all. I agree with you that when the will to power is pursued as if it is a complete logic, it leads to disintegration.
Where I have had use of Nietzsche, more than of any other philosopher, is in his approach to the subject as the standard, and his strong focus on valuing power, of honesty in valuing, on life as art. I have agreed with Nietzsche that all rationalist and logicians approaches to the world have been quite futile in explaining anything about man to himself, they failed in being meaningful. In this light we may perhaps see here that you and I both have come to a similar conclusion as he has; that rationality as it has been practiced so far has in fact been irrational. But Nietzsche did not keep the prudence that must follow from this. He posited his own absolute, his own objective truth, the will to power. I have the impression that this fanaticism has led to his demise.
We now both depart more prudently from the observation that rationality must be rooted in the subjective, not observe with a seeming birds eye view that the subjective is the real. The will only does the latter, it is not itself rooted in what it describes. It is not a logic, it is quite simply what Nietzsche says it is, a portrait of a monster. The theory is perhaps best seen as an object of art. It is certainly not the result of Nietzsches greatest clarity – I find his most valuable work to be whatever he writes concerning value.
I have taken up the work from this summit of his thinking, before he went downhill in his own will to control all of existence in a single definition. I have picked up his work where there was still fluid enough to forge something out of it that is beyond it, where it has not yet solidified into the material of dogma. Where he had “dug up” the concept of value as a fundamental activity, I have forged a logic out of this by formulating the conditions for this activity. With this, I have arrived at a point where it seems that you have also arrived, by a different path – of the intellectually conscious scientist. Scientists have so far not had an intellectual conscience – they have assumed that they stood themselves outside of that which they discovered. It seems that you have not fallen in this trap, refused to think that observations directly point to the truth, but, as I and also Nietzsche in his clearest thinking, looked at the mechanism of observing (and defining, comparing, classifying - using as ground for action) itself as the ground from which an understanding of truth may be established. Truth has always been there, you say - and indeed, if we are operating logically, we can hardly assume that we can do this while rejecting the distinction between true and false.
Being a little familiar with Fixed Cross, I can surmise what he is intending to say and can confirm, assuming I have guessed properly, that Value-Ontology is in fact valid and valuable as a real and fundamental philosophy of life. Presuming what it really means, I can state that reality itself does in fact work exactly as is being described. Entities respond to all things with respect to their own “self-interest” or they perish, in all cases. Value-Ontology in the interest of its own name, must learn the self-value of fully knowing thyself, and in this case, revealing it in clear text.
But a small bit of advice would be to very quickly establish the proposed means to avoid the train of disharmony quickly approaching by very thoroughly specifying by what means any particulate harmony is to be established under such a value system or thought. That which cannot maintain its “self-interest” harmony (Self-Harmony), WILLs itself to the power of extinction. Homosapian as a species is quickly actualizing that as we idly converse.
It is of course extremely difficult to move from the general to the specific. I have several angles but not yet summoned the momentum to take a path from theory to definitions and follow it through to the end of enabling methods. I much appreciate this stimulus and I hope that you will keep revealing bits and pieces of your own findings to facilitate this process.