A fish in a puddle breathes a rarified mud.
In the past, yes, Electronics and others, and I know some Physics and such, etc. Just follow the Supercomputers improving and notice no real great breakthrough anymore (top500 org). I may be wrong, since the field is vast and many engineering subfields and such, but all and all, I have a strong gut feeling that it is over and done with, the 20th century Great Leap Forward is over, now we have to change our Brains, Put engines in our Brains, Brains with Pistons and Turbines and Gasoline and All Crazy Gears Inside, put valves and circuits and machines and complex crazy machines in Solid State Brains, Planet Size Brains made of Iron and Steel with Nuclear Reactors inside Our Mind doing all kinds of Groovy Stuff…
THE APE STAR, THE APE TURD, THE 8 MEN…
I agree with at least the fact that the thesis of the OP is proposed. Not being a mathematician I can’t say with certainty that its correct, but mathematics, by the nature of the abstraction of values it relies on, does not appear to have the ontological scope, because its premises do not have the epistemic depth, to describe more than simple, suborganic systems. In order to describe further, man would need a method that roots constantly in the subject it is describing.
To this end we may use the logic we’ve been working on here – “value ontology” - a logic based on the nature of the concept value and its logical implication. Recognizing and discerning value is of course a root requirement not only of logical formulations, but of all beings. It is necessary to draw logic deeper into the concept from which it derives, and open it up in directions dictated by this root concept instead of by the optimistic speculation that by quantizing we can calculate all relations of qualities.
Value logic has not yet been made into a system of axioms from which models can be built, but it serves beautifully to analytically root any sort of system or entity in its origin, and designate the conditions for its existence and the hierarchy of priorities for its functioning, etc - in short things that get too complicated for a “flat system” such as mathematics, where the accuracy of all steps relies on the possibility of abstraction of what is investigated.
Mathematics relies on the trust that existence can be quantized in isolated bits. In general, logic tends to rely on this trust. Value ontology does not, as its arguments start with the origin of the value - the valuer, the hub of the (any) system in which the values are determined as values.
In short, the logic adds a dimension of depth to the existing field of possible relation-constructs, “formulas”.
FC, that link isn’t working for me.
I have personally extended mathematics far beyond Georg Cantor’s work to include many of the concerns dealing with cardinals of infinities. So I know without question that formal mathematics hasn’t actually peaked.
The Pharaohs forbade the general populous from learning reading and writing. The purpose was simply to keep them down so as to keep the Pharaoh on top. Mathematics is along the same lines as reading and writing in that it provides not merely a means of communication, but of precision. But why would we want the populous to have such means of self actualization and defense? Isn’t it wiser to ensure that the populous be dependent upon the Pharaoh in all things?
But mathematics relies on the implications of the original axioms. as far as I know these do not permit a variable of the epistemic pureness of the abstractions. If it does, it would only require an extra variable, which is a set of entropic ‘noise’ - a ‘random’ factor that is never actually random because the unknowns are always in part filled in by the specific particular terms that the situation in which the calculation applies provides.
Logic-in-time, I would call this -
and it relies always on an ‘uncertainty principle’ that is, in and only in case of a calculation, always certain in effect, and always uncertain in origin.
For this logic to work man would have to rely on non-exact language, and define his real world values into exacting formulations.
- the link is fixed.
The mathematics doesn’t. Your use of it will. Mathematics is based on definitional logic. It is up to you to accurately apply the defined entities to your experience. Just because every apple isn’t identical, doesn’t mean each isn’t still an apple with known qualities. Value is usefulness, ensuring that your tomorrow is more ensured by what you do today. It is useful to know that merely 100/100 apples a day will save you from your doctor tomorrow.
Do you think they had to know ahead of time the perfectly exact number of people that would be killed by dropping the bomb?
Enough probability is all you need. Exact perfection is for the philosopher, not the utilitarian or emperor.
The Uncertainty Principle, like Relativity, only applies to observational science, not the mathematics of strategic analysis.
Man is not God.
And God never asked for him to be.
Even definitional logic is dependent on irreducible assumptions, such as the law of identity, which is a force-feeding of fiction (in this case abstraction) into existence.
Value is not only usefulness, it is the very perceptibility of a substance to the subject. it is the rudimentary identities of the (things that make up the) world, prior to any logical equations involving abstractions of them.
Mathematics as it exists now is perfectly adequate to destroy people, cities or the entire planet, whichever is the choice of the day. But this is not a goal I value very much.
It applies to real-world situations. But it has not yet been made into an agent of construction. Science has not realized the potential in this “noise” - does not know that when it is given its proper position in an equation designed to make things grow (such as economies, wealth, or happiness) it will provide the material for this growth automatically.
Purely abstract mathematics carries the seed of destruction, as it is detached from the natural processes in which to every entity there are more unknowns than knowns. The quest to define everything is the same quest as the one to level, reduce everything.
I feel this is a comment I might address to you, rather than the other way around. I mean for man to be a self-respecting entity that has no requirement of God.
No. It is entirely dependent upon definitions, defined concepts. Those concepts might turn out to be useful. They might not. The use of your concepts is up to you and your situation.
…and that is “only usefulness”.
What you value, is your choice.
They are trying. But what they choose to value, isn’t what you choose to value.
Every tool “carries the seed of destruction”. Again, fertilizing and nourishing that seed is anyone’s choice.
What is, is what is… “self-respecting entity” or no.
But defined concepts are, as far as I’m aware, dependent on the law of identity. Are they not? If not, can you give me an example of a definition not dependent on it?
I object to the simplifying effect of the term, but ultimately this is true, as indeed we only recognize things in some way in which they are useful to us, in which we can apply them to our being.
Yet I can’t make that choice, it is prefixed in what I am. In my way of valuing, of standing in the world.
I know they are trying and failing. Because they do not have this additional dimension.
Calculations depart from the wrong certainties, integers. The root of the calculations is effected by their outcome. They do not know how to make premises that allow them to set goals in terms of fixed, set premises. They do not yet work with a realistic conception opf values.
It’s still all a game, where “value” is sort of arbitrary.
Man is just playing games, he has no idea what he really wants to accomplish.
It’s a surreally limited and claustrophobic world, the modern intellect.
What is the seed of destruction carried by value ontology?
Yes, what is, is - self respecting entity or entity requiring the god- or objectivity-concept for its self-image.
What has been presented under the guise of God has always in part been useful and in part useless and an obstruction.
As of the useless myth is shed, the useful understanding remains, and the idea of objectivity is dissolved into the subjects certainty of his proper course of action, his true “ontology”.
ALL thought is dependent upon the “Law of Identity”… ALL thought.
If you think not, try to give me an example of one that doesn’t.
Well, my intent was not to simplify to the point of thinking that our cognitively derived assessment of usefulness is the only aspect involved. Things have usefulness/value that go entirely unseen by the conscious mind.
Your brain is “prefixed” or “prewired” specifically to make choices. That is its only function.
The cognitive mind is designed in such a way as to have to form an entire ontology of what is real on its own. From that ontology, it can then weigh-in on the more instinctive assessments of what is valuable. Your mind always has 2 independent views of the world; what it senses and what it cognitively realizes. It is also prewired to attempt to weight those together without giving either total control (unlike your governments).
I don’t think that I follow that…?
I agree, but what does that have to do with mathematics… merely a single tool of thought?
It’s misuse, just as with any other. surely you don’t think it can’t be misunderstood and misused? Man has no greater expertise.
So you are an advocate of the RR - the “Right Religion”?
The serious question is, “Why do you want to take away from the common people, a tool that helps them clarify (through simplification) their situation?”. Those who use mathematics to rule over you, certainly will not give it up, despite anything you say. So you are merely encouraging those who do not rule to give up any hope of seeing clearly their situation from a mathematical perspective.
Granted that mathematics often leads to over-simplification, as do all thoughts. But to remove something that points out mistakes in thought more than it adds to mistakes, is simply an effort to encourage moronic thought, the lack of clear thought. Is enforcing your domination your goal? Why else would you encourage people to not use the tools of thought, to not think clearly of the consequences of their actions?
Language is obfuscated and confused for sake of dominance. Mathematics is obfuscated and confused for sake of dominance. Why are you enthusiastic about being dominated?
Well, no - if we refuse to abstract further than our impression of some occurrence, if we do not generalize it and categorize it as an “A”, then the law of identity does not apply. We do not always need to fully abstract an experience to keep it in our mind. I am suggesting that there is another way of relating impression than direct and total abstraction. It is done in occultism.
We agree here.
Ultimately, the two should be brought as close together as possible.
Many occult techniques are aimed at facilitating this.
What is required is to expand the ways in which we can think, represent impressions without fully conceptualizing them.
It’s a bit vague. I’m not acutally sure that what I was trying to say here is correct, so never mind this one.
Nothing per se, only with its role in current planning and system making.
I really have a hard time seeing how this can be misused in the way science can be misused.
Not that I deny that it can be, it’s just not as easy to imagine.
For individuals, I would be. My point here is that once an individual establishes his self-valuing as a standard, he is capable of having an ethos derive from himself.
Do you think that one “Right Religion” applies to all humans? If so, does that not presuppose that all humans are equal?
I never meant to say that mathematics should be removed or replaced - that would be insane.
I mean that it can really use a nudge in a new direction, and I think valuer ontology may be the/a kay to make this possible, as it introduces a whole new type of constancy on which calculations can be oriented.
If anything I want people to position themselves in their calculations in a proper way, that does justice to what they are.
I am not dominated by such means, I can usually see through how a system is used into what it is meant for/capable of. And I am not enthusiastic about the ways in which I am dominated - the growing state apparatus.
But I refuse to focus all my mental efforts on the dominating factors, as I see plenty of potential for improvement on the horizon that needs all the hands it can get to grow to maturity, reality.
Nothing you could call an experience can occur without the Law of Identity. Literally your eyes and ears would not function. You couldn’t locate or identify anything. Your memory couldn’t function at all. Your “experience” would sum up to be no more than varying degrees of white noise. But you wouldn’t even be able to know that. The mind could not exist at all. You would be a vegetable.
Most occult “things” are aimed at eliminating that.
They call it Nietzschean - “pure MEism”.
It wouldn’t be “Right” if it didn’t.
It wouldn’t be “Right” if it did.
I can see how math can be applied to VO, but I can’t see how VO offers any change in mathematics.
As I explained to Eugene;
RM steps into your VO, from the ground upward. But I don’t see how VO has anything to do with any new perspective of mathematics. Mathematics is all about counting and proportions. The recent (occult) social agenda relates to removing those thoughts and abilities (“the domination”), “abstract thought is taboo”.
On that we agree also. But they DO need mathematics to do that on a conscious level so as to extend their instinctive level (the very purpose of the cognitive mind).
Know thy enemy.
I see what you mean but that’s stretching the law of identity to the non abstract, non lingual. And it seems that even a vegetable has need of what you describe.
We’re not on equal terms concenring the word occult. But again I see what you mean.
I have to disagree there - Nietzsche certainly has been misused in this way, also because his logic wasn’t complete. Value Ontology is functional as a remedy for this misuse, a missing element in the logic - allowing for a more accurate, natural definition of this “me”; defining it in such a way that we can see (roughly at this point) what it requires to thrive. It does not make for an incentive to isolate, it shows that one can never isolate oneself more than one already is, and that this isolation requires a place in a contexct.
Value ontology applies to all beings, but we haven’t forged a legislation or code of conduct from it, not only because that is extremely difficult but also because it is conflicting with the main premise, which has it that all self-valuings produce their own ethics as a function of their being. The idea is that we facilitate beings in refining those ethics into proper systems, so that in between entities that are in contact with each other there can be an actively, rationally sustained consensus.
Right, so how does one go about formulating such a religion?
What I hate about religions in general is that they make claims to all Earthlings, all souls. I would instinctively object to any religion just on those grounds.
It provides instructions on where and how to apply the mathematics, from which data one can formulate departure points, as well as a basic type of variable-flexibility.
The application of math to VO does something to the nature of the mathematics - but it does not undermine any of its existing laws. If anything it adds new restrictions, new ‘resistance’ so to speak so that more reliable susbtance can be produced from it.
I realize this is all quite vague. I don’t want to get in over my head as I am no mathematician.
I see that happening too. Like when Gobbo posted a video about the Earth being flat, and said he saw no reason to disbelieve in it. The message was basically - science is conjured up by evil people, don’t believe it.
Yes, basic mathematics, abstract logic, is necessary to establish a course in line with observations.
To a point, beyond which this begins to apply:
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
I’d say: when one sufficiently realizes what the enemy is, what it’s effects are, dissolve the focus on it. Keep it in mind but don’t press it. History is full of examples of noble resistance that turned into oppression, because it had understood and made its own too much of its enemy.
I think we all instinctively resist understanding too much of what we are not. We keep from incorporating ‘‘evil’’ logics. I did not heed this instinct for some years, and that honesty almost killed me.
But then, it didn’t, so it made me stronger.
I was referring strictly to the construct of any mind. I am not aware of anything one could justly call a mind in veggies.
Yes. The unseen is the adversary of all living things.
That is why you have eyes, ears, noise, touch, taste… and a mind with which to see what cannot be sensed.
You just pointed out exactly how it can be “misused”… and WILL be.
Man knows nothing to the extreme that he knows how to misuse what he is given.
…sounds like a religion (“ethics into proper systems”) and morality system to me.
Moral => “all self-valuings produce their own ethics”
Don’t think that religion means “all people shall always do exactly thus and so at all time or else.”
Religion means that all people involved have a common understanding of how they can conduct their lives in harmony with each other.
That is a very different perspective than “all shall do as told”.
Of course if they are told to “produce their own ethics [by some means such as VO]”, then the two perspectives become one.
Emmm… such a statement immediately coming from someone who just said, “Value ontology applies to all beings”…? 
Forming a religion is child’s play.
Ensuring it is the Right Religion, is the challenge.
I might have to see that.
Fair enough…
…just know that “point”…
… and how do you know the location of a point between A and B until you know both A and B? 
I’d ask for a definition of mind, but I realize it may then be ‘the faculty that allows for the law of identity’. Might we phrase it like that?
An occult act, as what it means to me, is a creation of a thought-form that except by experience of it in the terms of ones subjective being, can not be identified, has because of its subjective context no sufficient definition by which to communicate it. It can only be approximated through “poetry” in the etymological meaning of the word, from the greek verb poein, to make.
The creation of a new symbol for a new power “from scratch” - from only subjective purpose, energy, and structural necessity in a unique time-space context.
In a very basic simplification, I am saying that geometry precedes algebra, and algebra gives form to the law of identity, to the consciousness of the mind, where geometry directly gives form to energy, and is operative in every being.
Yes, any geometrical (natural, possible) structure can only be identified using the law of identity (self-evidently), but it does not need to be identified to be used in the plant, or in the occult… well, mind.
Because no concept so far was totally fitted to his mind. What he has been given were concepts that were in part requiring factors outside of the field of potential of his own mind to properly work. We relied on objectivism.
The logic deriving from value ontology prevents ‘metaphysical bridges between a known and an unknown integer’.
We can not arrive at truths, they must emerge in approximation.
An asymptotic logic, where the outcome is known to be unknown, but gets closer to identification along the way of its consequences - a purely and directly functional mathematics. Maybe it’s related to the sequence of prime numbers - given the indivisibility principle applicable to value ontology, I’d not be surprised.
I am not convincing anyone here, nor do I intend to for now.
Valid points. Yes, in this it is a formula of everything.
It’s about as great a challenge we can realistically face, and by all existing standards unrealistic.
Naturally -
Perhaps you can use your threshold of affectance-in/outflux as a metaphor - not all variables are permitted into the formula, not is every output allowed. Only in some cases (cases of value) the formula operates and produces result.
Extremely tentative, it’s not often I admit to that because it’s not often I speak out on mathematics, a subject for which I have the gravest respect. I just notice that mathematicians generally are idealists, but lack philosophical training, so they can not ‘ground’ their clarity, in order to initiate idealistic world-construction.
Pain, disintegration, “possession” -…
Let me add that my violent objection to antisemitism is result of having seen too deep into the eyes of the will to power.
It may not in all cases be rational - but I know now that my most basic value is on the line - Mercy.
In this case; “a mechanism with which to predict.”
“Occult” means a hidden/secret culture from “ocularis cultura”; Cabal, Homeland Security, Satanism, Magi, Ahdam and Eve…
You are thinking of “cultism” or the development of a culture, a modality of thought, a “mindset”.
Not all standards.
Both what you hate and the cause of hating are fathered by Presumption.
What you mean is “black magic”, which as its aim has personal power gain, and is irrational, antirational even.
Rational manifestation of occult method, or “white” magic, has as its aim to enlighten people into self-attained positions higher service, so that gradually darkness (presumption, confusion, dissociation, conflict, dishonesty, hatred) no longer holds sway in mass decisions.
The beauty of it is not the service itself but the requirements it makes of the adept - that he learn to see and eventually also think in terms of energy. He no longer needs language, Babel, to form his ideas - there is not a single lineair logic to them, but a symmetry - to put this in word is something few occultists have managed. This is of course why it remains such an obscure subject, and why the lower and the higher forms are not easy to distinguish from one another from the outside.
“Black magic” == deception used for bad.
“White magic” == deception used for good.
If magic is your aim, deception is your game.
Enlightenment is never the goal, merely the carrot.
Forget I mentioned it.