a bitch make it yours
Baal of poetry
unleash opium crack dark glass crystal doors of apperception
life is acid
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 03-30-2013 08:08 AM by pezer.) Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Furnace Language
life is acid
Crack, Pot, Baal, Mal,
We can travel true, false, and almost any which way
and often…
FORGET WHERE WE STARTED
And then we laugh, laaaaugh laugh laugh.
When I come back to, I was already someone else.
EVOLllllluuuuuutt
ttt
tt
t
t
.
Funny Jokes, One Remembers One Never Did
And Execretes Decietful Lust… Or doesn’t!
Words… I wonder… I wonder when the Power will come that you will be shown Powerless.
Until then, I remain,
Your faithful lover.
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 08:12 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Furnace Language
Zoper Speaks, Remembering His Peer Abstract.
The Coordinates of Existance
:
I just forgot.
Bloody weed.
Oh yes.
Sorry, I sneezed.
The coordinates of existance:
To exist, we need coordinates.
Because to be is to percieve, and to percieve is to know information.
There-fore, if the information has no coordenates, the perception will hover…
The being might dissipate.
As soon as coordinates are found.
The fog is condensed, being is returned with its pulling vacuums that never are.
Stoping time and space themselves.
Or, rather, pushing against them.
Placing it in shifting equilibriiums of artifice.
Surviving only because the equilibriums jive with whatever it is our coordinates seek…
Or something else, perhaps,
But something.
And we can love and and call it names.
Or revile it;
Keep it in the shittiest of pools.
As long as it has nutrients…
As long as the coordinates work…
As long as they lead to their own prolongment.
Anything can survive.
Without coordinates, one is not surviving, but being kept alive.
Prevented from dying, the Grim Reaper Evolved.
What is the distance between the loss of necessity and the appearance of the Grim Reaper?
I don’t know. It must be life.
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 08:52 AM Post: #4
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Furnace Language
Burtation
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I’m full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:01 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 05:01 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #5
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Furnace Language
Warpath
black death
curse purge
crawl deal
fear streak
eat me
rust trust
break oak
gnaw plunge
syringe
dance
dark ark
feud lure
pure
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:04 AM Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Furnace Language
need more pressure to crack them
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:09 AM Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Furnace Language
Agnostic
Wavering
Strong
Stable
Unstable
Unstable
Unstable
Unstable
Unstable
Unstable
War
War. The law of war. No law. No wall. No war.
Dead things rising, Risen things dying. The path of the Christ! The path of the Friends and enemies of Christ!
Life as fancy. What a fancy!
Fancy dress, fancy press. Fancy door, fancy poor. Flight of fancy… Fancy that!
Open the doors of perception, and let the shit come flooding in.
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 06:08 AM Post: #8
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Furnace Language
still beauty must remain.
life trespasses the void into victimhood.
life is that in the open, in the dark death is cornered Zanzibar.
The castle rose before myne eye and
oh the doors which are spikes no they open
now it reaps.
the turbulence ceases, the silent harvest has begun
for ever less
Beverly Hills
020102010292929292929
zero zero
Gobbo is my hero.
12x
on the techno beat at 1:06:30 of his concertpost. Hosts of wonder path to moonrise in deep harp cursehorns, emerald memory, elephant. (he who steals elephant steals also memory)
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 06:32 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 06:34 AM by pezer.) Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Furnace Language
Zanzibar, it seems, burns brightest in death. Well, surrounded by death. Assailed by it.
The crisp fire burns loudest yet smallest.
a leaf, Wet,
under the dusty
and over the dusty
Frodo lives…!
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Posts : 1237
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: Natural World Ashes Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:26 pm
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
Ontology and epistemology
Fixed Cross Wrote:
existence
late 14c., “reality,” from O.Fr. existence, from M.L. existentia/exsistentia, from existentem/exsistentem (nom. existens/exsistens) “existent,” prp. of L. existere/exsistere “stand forth, appear,” and, as a secondary meaning, “exist, be;” from ex- “forth” (see ex-) + sistere “cause to stand”. (see assist).
- online etymology dictionary
I have heard to has been said that ontology as well as epistemology is metaphysics, and therefore has no place in a Netzschean philosophy (by which is understood a world-affirming one), which must aim at describing particulars and dismiss the notion of universals. It seems to me that this would mean that the will-to-power, as a universal definition of being, must be disregarded by such Nietzscheans, as it is an ontology. But I consider the idea that ontology is the study of universals a mistake. At the root of this mistake is the idea that terms describing many, or even all perceivable particulars, are necessary universals, and thereby metaphysical. This error has to do with the idea of cosmic totality. The universe as a neatly limited collection of things, itself a thing. Whether we understand ‘thing’ as ‘object’, ‘force’, or even ‘subject’ as Nietzsche does, such a notion is not founded in observation and deduction, i.e. scientific method, but it is nothing but an assumption. The very notion of universals is dependent on the possibility of a definable totality.
The philosophy I am developing departs from the assumption that the universe is a neatly limited quantity, and necessarily a closed system. The law of conservation of energy may not apply to the universe (and there are indications that energy increases). More matter may come into existence. More matter may stand forth, appear. And I think that this is indeed what happens. It is possible that universe (as being) did not come into existence in its entirety, by Gods hand or by the Big Bang (effectively the same idea, a pushing back of the problem of origin behind an impressive display of power) but bit-by-bit, as matter began to stand forth / appear out of chaos, or no-thingness. This chaotic non-existence is thereby taken as the limit to existence – but, and herein lies the epistemic ground to this new philosophy, this limit is understood as the limit of our mind, and not pertaining to objectivity in any way.
Epistemology and ontology are ultimately the same study. The study of being is the same as the study of knowledge. When we study what exists, we must also study in what way we can know. To not understand this is to believe in the thing-in-itself. Such understanding necessitates either belief in God or the active abandonment of reason. Belief in God being the passive abandonment of reason. What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic. Nature gives us no reason to think that we must conceive of existence in terms of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, of 1 and 0, which are mutually exclusive and cannot follow from each other. Such is an artifice that only applies to abstractions, not to life. Philosophy must leave behind this abstraction, and become as life. The strange logics of Heidegger are the beginnings of this process.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-24-2013, 01:55 AM (This post was last modified: 01-24-2013 01:57 AM by JSS.) Post: #2
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ontology and epistemology
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I have heard it has been said that ontology as well as epistemology is metaphysics, and therefore has no place in a Netzschean philosophy (by which is understood a world-affirming one), which must aim at describing particulars and dismiss the notion of universals. It seems to me that this would mean that the will-to-power, as a universal definition of being, must be disregarded by such Nietzscheans, as it is an ontology. But I consider the idea that ontology is the study of universals a mistake.
Definitionally correct.
Ontology has nothing to do with “universals” other than to imply that there might be some.
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The philosophy I am developing departs from the assumption that the universe is a neatly limited quantity, and necessarily a closed system.
That is logically provable.
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The law of conservation of energy may not apply to the universe (and there are indications that energy increases). More matter may come into existence. More matter may stand forth, appear. And I think that this is indeed what happens.
Conservation of energy on its most fundamental level, “Affectance”, can be taken as an absolute certainty. “Matter” is an entirely different issue and you’re are correct in that matter appears and disappears quite frequently.
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
It is possible that universe (as being) did not come into existence in its entirety, by Gods hand or by the Big Bang (effectively the same idea, a pushing back of the problem of origin behind an impressive display of power) but bit-by-bit, as matter began to stand forth / appear out of chaos, or no-thingness.
There has always been matter, just not always the same amount (except perhaps by average) nor in the same regions.
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
This chaotic non-existence is thereby taken as the limit to existence – but, and herein lies the epistemic ground to this new philosophy, this limit is understood as the limit of our mind, and not pertaining to objectivity in any way.
I would like to see that expounded upon.
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Epistemology and ontology are ultimately the same study. The study of being is the same as the study of knowledge. When we study what exists, we must also study in what way we can know. To not understand this is to believe in the thing-in-itself.
Ontological construction is a choice to make. It has never been an issue of what is or what isn’t, but merely what is to be distinguished from what by name or concept.
And you are right, the distinction between epistemology and ontology is trite.
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Such understanding necessitates either belief in God or the active abandonment of reason. Belief in God being the passive abandonment of reason. What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic. Nature gives us no reason to think that we must conceive of existence in terms of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, of 1 and 0, which are mutually exclusive and cannot follow from each other. Such is an artifice that only applies to abstractions, not to life. Philosophy must leave behind this abstraction, and become as life. The strange logics of Heidegger are the beginnings of this process.
“Binary logic” has always been a strawman so as to persuade people against the use of logic and reasoning. Logic has always been trinary;
A) True
B) False
C) Indeterminate / Unknown / Irrationally constructed thought
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-25-2013, 05:32 AM (This post was last modified: 01-25-2013 05:33 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #3
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ontology and epistemology
Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The philosophy I am developing departs from the assumption that the universe is a neatly limited quantity, and necessarily a closed system.
That is logically provable.
How?
Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The law of conservation of energy may not apply to the universe (and there are indications that energy increases). More matter may come into existence. More matter may stand forth, appear. And I think that this is indeed what happens.
Conservation of energy on its most fundamental level, “Affectance”, can be taken as an absolute certainty. “Matter” is an entirely different issue and you’re are correct in that matter appears and disappears quite frequently.
Excellent.
Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
It is possible that universe (as being) did not come into existence in its entirety, by Gods hand or by the Big Bang (effectively the same idea, a pushing back of the problem of origin behind an impressive display of power) but bit-by-bit, as matter began to stand forth / appear out of chaos, or no-thingness.
There has always been matter, just not always the same amount (except perhaps by average) nor in the same regions.
Are you certain? Why is a state where there is only flux impossible?
Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
This chaotic non-existence is thereby taken as the limit to existence – but, and herein lies the epistemic ground to this new philosophy, this limit is understood as the limit of our mind, and not pertaining to objectivity in any way.
I would like to see that expounded upon.
“Not pertaining to objectivity in any way” is overstated. It is what passes for objectivity, and thus what we regard as such. The whole point is a reversal of the solipsist stance that the self is the most certainly real - my statement is that of the self we know most definitively the limits of its valuing powers - the power to absorb affect so as to add to its momentum. Of the rest of reality, we can not be certain that it shares these limits.
Our ontology is certainly real in our universe, but by the very nature of its mechanisms (the logic of correspondence), it sets limits to what is real whereas not providing exactitude over what is not besides “that which it is not”.
I mean that we use our laws as borders to our land.
Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Epistemology and ontology are ultimately the same study. The study of being is the same as the study of knowledge. When we study what exists, we must also study in what way we can know. To not understand this is to believe in the thing-in-itself.
Ontological construction is a choice to make. It has never been an issue of what is or what isn’t, but merely what is to be distinguished from what by name or concept.
EXACTLY. This was the insight that spawned value ontology.
Quote:
And you are right, the distinction between epistemology and ontology is trite.
Voila. I’m glad I posted this.
Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Such understanding necessitates either belief in God or the active abandonment of reason. Belief in God being the passive abandonment of reason. What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic. Nature gives us no reason to think that we must conceive of existence in terms of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, of 1 and 0, which are mutually exclusive and cannot follow from each other. Such is an artifice that only applies to abstractions, not to life. Philosophy must leave behind this abstraction, and become as life. The strange logics of Heidegger are the beginnings of this process.
“Binary logic” has always been a strawman so as to persuade people against the use of logic and reasoning. Logic has always been trinary;
A) True
B) False
C) Indeterminate / Unknown / Irrationally constructed thought
Interesting point.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 08:07 AM Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
The world is a chaotic flux of springs whose activity we are part of. It does not matter what words you use. Take acid one day and do your normal day’s schedule, go as a listener to a university class. There is no thing in itself indeed.
Your web of concepts is a largely dirty thing that accumulated by happenstance. You accepted this, now casted that, all the while allowing the stupid beast to make most of the discernments. You are right, Fixed Cross: the philosopher isn’t good at choosing, he is good at discerning. We might say that his art is discernment, which is the only art that marks humans as mighty. Magic is an understatement, and shackles, says I.
It is possible to become aware of value, and to shift - reevaluate - your webs. All it takes is acknowledgement of what you can tell, yourself. For this, you must know your enemy, too. If not understanding is a limit, then so is your enemy. That is why fighting monsters makes you monstrous, no? You are largely determined by what you fight.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-03-2013, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 04:58 AM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ontology and epistemology
(01-25-2013 05:32 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The philosophy I am developing departs from the assumption that the universe is a neatly limited quantity, and necessarily a closed system.
That is logically provable.
How?
I meant to say that is logically probable that the universe is NOT a closed system. That conclusion is derived merely from the concept of infinity.
Quote:
There has always been matter, just not always the same amount (except perhaps by average) nor in the same regions.
(01-25-2013 05:32 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Are you certain? Why is a state where there is only flux impossible?
Quote:
Since you have actually already agreed to the concern at hand but merely disallow yourself to see logical proof, let me now show you the point to those last thoughts.
In RM, it is proposed that every point in space cannot be infinitely identical to the points around it and thus affectance waves proceed in all directions. As a consequence of that ontology, it must be true that all points in space must always have waves of affectance passing through them from all directions at once (similar to TEW’s elemental wave concern).
As waves cross a point, they add their affects at that point. If the MCR (Maximum Change Rate) has not been challenged, they simply pass through and continue. But since there are literally more than an infinite number of such waves converging upon every point and adding their affects at each point, they cannot always merely pass through.
[Image: MCR+Challenged.jpg]
Given an infA^2 number of waves traveling toward a center point, some rising and some falling, if their average PtA change happens to be less than 1/infA (using the same defined infA as before), they have no reason to not merely pass through the center and continue. But if their average PtA increase or decrease happens to exceed 1/infA , when they meet at the center, the PtA rise time and the PtA value at that center would have to exceed infA.
It is logically impossible for such an infinite rise time to occur as well as such an infinite PtA level to be attained. Thus the waves have no choice but to be delayed until enough time has passed. And for every circle (or sphere in 3D) outside the one shown, there are even more than infA^2 number of points heading toward that same center, requiring that their average be even less. A sphere of merely 1 toe in radius has 4π*infA^2 points on its surface each with PtA waves heading toward the center.
[Image: Number+of+Pnts+on+Sphere.jpg]
That is the beginning of inertia and the formation of a particle. The initial delay spawns more delays surrounding the area that increases the probability that the center will encounter another MCR challenge. Thus the particle, by challenging an impossible task, sustains its continued existence as a particle. It becomes anentropic.
The ontological components proposed by RM and the logic that demands this situation are logically impossible to not exist, merely because an infinite value cannot be attained.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-07-2013, 12:11 AM Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ontology and epistemology
I can see that this is necessarily so, within the framework of RM, that is to say within affectance ontology.
Value Ontology does not hold a definite standard of affectance per se (AO is alike to Nietzsche’s will to power, in that it proposes one form of affectance, in that all affects all) and allows theoretically for more types which do not necessarily affect each other.
I assume you object to this.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-07-2013, 04:54 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 05:02 AM by JSS.) Post: #7
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ontology and epistemology
(02-07-2013 12:11 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
allows theoretically for more types which do not necessarily affect each other.
I assume you object to this.
I would object based on the fact that such a realm would defy the meaning of existing (that which has affect). How can you say that something exists if that something has no affect on anything?
You can have a “subontology” wherein objects are defined as collections of undefined sub-objects, such as a mind ontology that (somewhat) ignores the neurology involved. This would constitute a type of cardinality shift wherein one doesn’t care about the infinitesimal data bit streams going into the mind, but instead merely refers to the larger picture of sight, sound, touch,… As long as the details don’t become relevant such a cardinality shift, even though ignoring some details of reality, can still function and even be “holy” (coherent, consistent, and comprehensive) but it must allow for potential detailed thought later and it must not leave out anything having relevant affect.
“To affect” merely means to cause change. If you have a proposed ontology wherein the existence or non-existence of something doesn’t change anything, why have it there at all?
In VO, what would be the range of values if measured? How do you propose to handle infinitesimal values and infinite values? Positive and negative values?
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-07-2013, 09:36 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 09:56 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #8
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ontology and epistemology
Quote:
I would object based on the fact that such a realm would defy the meaning of existing (that which has affect). How can you say that something exists if that something has no affect on anything?
Quote:
“To affect” merely means to cause change. If you have a proposed ontology wherein the existence or non-existence of something doesn’t change anything, why have it there at all?
I mean that not all affectance has to affect in the same realm. You separate mind and brain, indeed but these at least correlate to a great extent. Atom and foot is already quite different, and at one point a threshold may be reached (or never a connection made) where one sphere of affectance no longer ‘answers to’ another, where realms of affectance go by each other separately in different times.
Quote:
You can have a “subontology” wherein objects are defined as collections of undefined sub-objects, such as a mind ontology that (somewhat) ignores the neurology involved. This would constitute a type of cardinality shift wherein one doesn’t care about the infinitesimal data bit streams going into the mind, but instead merely refers to the larger picture of sight, sound, touch,… As long as the details don’t become relevant such a cardinality shift, even though ignoring some details of reality, can still function and even be “holy” (coherent, consistent, and comprehensive) but it must allow for potential detailed thought later and it must not leave out anything having relevant affect.
Yes, I agree but - this leaves the problem of the frame of reference.
Does our frame of reference, logic (a certain ‘density’ of mind), include imagination (less exacting, broader and soffer density, with thus different laws, and thus different potencies and possibilities) or is it used alongside of it? I choose the latter, though I am determined to have them at least correlate in some form of harmony. I have ye to set the first true step in the Walz,
Now I am suffering from cognitive dissonance, the music of the rhythm of logic and the melody of play. My “type” is artist - that means, I draw the greatest inner vitality from this type of work, the greatest peace and health.
Art is my natural way of affecting outwards. This scientific philosophy is the rearing of this affecting caught in a dispute as to the purpose. Now I am gradually seeing that the rearing creates the purpose - makes it visible. It allows for other possibilites. Infinity squaring (amounting in high complexity, perspective, reality) demands ‘The Chariot’ of the Tarot, which is followed by ‘The Tamed Lion: Strength’.
Then follows ‘The Hermit’. Only after that ‘Fortune’. The philosopher is captain at this wheel.
Quote:
In VO, what would be the range of values if measured? How do you propose to handle infinitesimal values and infinite values? Positive and negative values?
If I have to be as concrete as I can be right now, History boy just said something to day that points in the direction.
Historyboy Wrote:
Recently I have read a paragraph from the notebooks I think, where he speaks about the functions of the organs in a hierarchical order, and this order is maintained through virtues, i.e. the functions of the organs are separated by virtues. Maybe this observations are somewhere deeper developed by another author or maybe it’s his own work. I don’t know yet any of the French psychologists he knew and whom he hold in high esteem.
Anyway, what can be the outcome of such a study of an individual? Another great book that nobody will read? A new philosopher drowned in the sea of decadence?
For me the easiest way out of decadence is to adopt the Greek virtues and then, as a society, not as a blind obedient slave, like in the Happy Isles, to try to develop something higher. I strongly suspect that one of the projects for his masters of Earth was to “learn (all?) morals and philosophies. we don’t want to start from the beginning”. This morals and philosophies shall be offered to different peoples according to their rank. That is why he spoke about giving the Germans a higher rank. Psychology as the queen of sciences… sounds like mechanics of philosophy.
Value = 1 might be something alike 'full subjective vitality.
This value would change relatively to all other self-valuings, meaning that they to him become smaller. There would be the possibility of a formula describing, in restrained context of social and biological archetypes, the proportion of growth of the self-value to the decrease of the mean value. This would then have to include a complex algorithm describing the health of local other as beneficial to ones own health up to a certain point where it becomes detrimental - and I would not know where to begin defining the real world context for the standard-value except by setting an ideal number or limit to a population.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-07-2013, 04:28 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 04:28 PM by JSS.) Post: #9
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ontology and epistemology
(02-07-2013 09:36 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Value = 1 might be something alike 'full subjective vitality.
This value would change relatively to all other self-valuings, meaning that they to him become smaller. There would be the possibility of a formula describing, in restrained context of social and biological archetypes, the proportion of growth of the self-value to the decrease of the mean value. This would then have to include a complex algorithm describing the health of local other as beneficial to ones own health up to a certain point where it becomes detrimental - and I would not know where to begin defining the real world context for the standard-value except by setting an ideal number or limit to a population.
Sounds like Anentropics to me. In the end of the explanation, a cardinality shift is declared and the maximum Potential-to-Affect is set = 1. The particle devotes everything it does to maintaining that and disregards all else.
Logic and Art go easily hand in hand when understood (requiring logic to lead the way). In very many situations, the logic involved becomes arbitrary concerning a variety of issues. Two paths lead to the same destination and are not logically distinguishable. At such times, the choices are up for alternate arbitration with regard to other incentives or concerns not normally related and not requiring logical connection to the original priority concern; “This house needs paint (the rational logic). Choose your favorite a color scheme (the artistic freedom and imagination).”
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-14-2013, 02:43 AM Post: #10
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
I was blamed in ILP of transcendentalism and covert priesthood, and it was because of this:
Rationality works. It is a plane, though if you ask ChainOfBeing he would probably answer that it exists as a cover, a second tier description of a reflection of a series of constructions. Philosophers will have a full meal just with that, but I have a point to make. It is that the transcendence of rationality is no longer the realm of qualified priests or metaphyscicians, no longer must we wander about in the dark and wonder: is the mind just a dream of a singularity?
These extra-dimensions that Fixed Cross describes, and learned men like him and others of great rigor, discipline, and art in curiosity can, with time, realize, is today available o anybody with a week to read philsophy and $20 to buy high grade psychedellic drugs.
Psychedellic drugs. Are. The. Closest. Thing. To. A. Religious. Experience. That. Exists. Precisely because epistemology isn’t a given: it must be fought for and earned. Sought out and reaped from the very world.
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ontology and epistemology
(03-14-2013 02:43 AM)pezer Wrote:
I was blamed in ILP of transcendentalism and covert priesthood, and it was because of this:
Rationality works. It is a plane, though if you ask ChainOfBeing he would probably answer that it exists as a cover, a second tier description of a reflection of a series of constructions. Philosophers will have a full meal just with that, but I have a point to make. It is that the transcendence of rationality is no longer the realm of qualified priests or metaphyscicians, no longer must we wander about in the dark and wonder: is the mind just a dream of a singularity?
These extra-dimensions that Fixed Cross describes, and learned men like him and others of great rigor, discipline, and art in curiosity can, with time, realize, is today available o anybody with a week to read philsophy and $20 to buy high grade psychedellic drugs.
Psychedellic drugs. Are. The. Closest. Thing. To. A. Religious. Experience. That. Exists. Precisely because epistemology isn’t a given: it must be fought for and earned. Sought out and reaped from the very world.
Where do you think I got my initiation into philosophy? It is only from experience that my rigors have formed, and some of the most significant of experiences were given by psychedelics. It has been a while since I first managed, on behalf of my family, not to crush my skull against the wall to stop the terrifying onslaught of vision into the mechanics of the mind, but I remember these unfolding “forms” like it was yesterday, or just this minute.
But then, years later, I had my first “bona-fide” religious experience with an “angel”. This came to me solely through sorrow, the “Trance of Binah” as kabbalist will call it, and it was very different from the psychedelic experience, which is visionary, firelike.
This experience was water-like, emotional. “Normal” religion is, in my experience, emotion. In this emotional body of man, presences can become known which are described in scripture. I met “Magdalene”. She taught me the French tongue. Through force and brokenness this was given to me, and from then on I was able to express (and this experience) emotions deeper than I could ever express the way I was born, “meant”.
Not to say this was not “enabled” in the first place by psychedelics - just that there are several layers of the religious, of divinity - and I refer to the experience.
But tonight I had a dream, in line with what you have been saying recently, about the town of Carcassonne. I did not dream the whole story, but a shred of it was offered me, leaving me rather unsettled and awake.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 05:17 AM Post: #12
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
I don’t think it was coincidence, in the philosophical sense, that I walked the same path as you but facing the other way.
You and I, we’re like a Heraclitean dichotomy!
May the world brace itself for our sillyness. It will go deep.
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 06:05 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 06:06 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ontology and epistemology
“The world is deep, and deeper than the day had thought”
The “day” being the singular Apollonium. The day thinks, the world is. Thoughts collide, and become existence, spilling their lifeblood onto the ever thirsty earth.
COME! COME! COME! LET US NOW WANDER! IT IS THE HOUR: LET US WANDER INTO THE NIGHT!
Ye higher men, it is getting on to midnight: then will I say something into your ears, as that old clock-bell saith it into mine ear,–
As mysteriously, as frightfully, and as cordially as that midnight clock- bell speaketh it to me, which hath experienced more than one man:
Which hath already counted the smarting throbbings of your fathers’ hearts–ah! ah! how it sigheth! how it laugheth in its dream! the old, deep, deep midnight!
Hush! Hush! Then is there many a thing heard which may not be heard by day; now however, in the cool air, when even all the tumult of your hearts hath become still,–
Now doth it speak, now is it heard, now doth it steal into overwakeful, nocturnal souls: ah! ah! how the midnight sigheth! how it laugheth in its dream!
Hearest thou not how it mysteriously, frightfully, and cordially speaketh unto THEE, the old deep, deep midnight?
O MAN, TAKE HEED!
No day without a ending night. No night without a broken day.
How does the end of the night come? The day comes like a cruel conquerer, indifferent and already victorious, no sign of glory.
In this land there is a watery sun. It does not overwhelm.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 06:15 AM Post: #14
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
It is not overwhelming that the philosopher fears most, but underwhelming.
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 06:19 AM Post: #15
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology