The primordial activity of all beings is self-valuation, and valuation of other potential in terms of its own self-value. From this follows the activity of being, balanced increase. Being, as a verb pertaining to all that to which this verb pertains, is composed of beings. But!
Existence is not included in being.
– Not all existence self-relates, is able to attract other ‘stuff like itself’ nor retains of itself a ‘form’ of any kind. Quantity without quality. Perhaps; lack of electromagnetism.
It is by a small accident that quantity emerged with a quality, and even rarer that it emerged as the very specific quality of self-relating – that is to say, having the capacity to attract more quantity on the terms of ones own existence – an element, a value.
element-essence-consistency-
what combines these is a quality which manifests as an activity, but which itself is not an activity.
What I propose is that we break this logic and say that element, essence, consistency is simply a type of activity, amounting to a form. A specific type-of-activity, i.e. the type that gives rise to form.
In general; Activity is nothing else than the presence of this emergent quality in a limited quantity of existence.
Consequently: we do not “act” in the proper sense – we enact our formula – what we call acting is what may also be perceived as stillness, consistency, quality – if we do not relate it to ourselves. Our own perspective is what calls for a notion of value, valuation – but if one would stand outside of it, all being is, is automatic value-attainment enabled to a specific, rather complicated, ultimately intelligent type of valuing.
Intelligence can be understood as being a result of valuation at the same time as a way of making valuation into a being. Intelligence, acting – both are implicit in being. When we say “he acts intelligently” we mean “he exists effectively”. When we say “he is intelligent” we do not imply as much - but we should.
An intelligent life-form is not usually how we address a lone creature dwelling in itself failing to procreate. On the contrary, we see group-mechanic, self-assertion as the ground of intelligence. So whereas the specific intelligence of the loner is often the key to strange and wonderful portals, the intelligence of the most successfully procreative being is ‘intelligence at its finest’. But procreation of humanity happens on different levels.
The primordial activity of all beings is sex, and masturbation of other potential in terms of its own porn-collection. From this follows the activity of being, bumping nasties. Being, as a verb pertaining to all that to which this verb pertains, is composed of beings. But!
Existence is not included in being.
– Not all existence masturbates, is able to attract other ‘stuff like pussy’ nor retains of itself a ‘pussy’ of any kind. Plonker without pussy. Perhaps; lack of horniness.
It is no real accident that plonker emerges with a pussy, and even commoner that it emergers as the very specific quality of jerking off – that is to say, having the capacity to attract more pussy on the terms of how much it spends on dinner – the bill, a payment.
sex-porn-consistency-
what combines these is a plonker which manifests as an erection, but which itself is not an activity.
What I propose is that we use this logic and say that sex, porn, consistency is simply a type of sex, amounting to blowing a load. A specific type-of-activity, i.e., the type that gives rise to babies.
In general; Sex is nothing else than the presence of this emergent load in a limited quantity of pussy.
Yes! If that’s how it’s easiest for you to see it, it works in these terms as well.
Not quite. Describe to me what causes the attraction to the pussy, and we’ll have the connection to your thread with the unfinished sentence, and what you are refusing to acknowledge there.
Value is a term to describe the mechanics in all areas of life, of being, of consciousness -
interestingly, it is also the seed, tree and fruit of the current financial crisis.
Value-theory has value at this specific paradigm-end. If the western world cracks down on itself, we – the philosophers - will know exactly why this was happening, and it will be able to absorb much of the disoriented, disorganized, randomly-valuing intellect around it. To build an economy, to rule a state through legislative logic built on sound axioms, to allow for art, for the greatest expressions of beauty - to gain health, power, endurance, - is this not all the product of vision?
Value and vision -
Arriving at the second stage of this philosophy,
the part where it begins to make more literal sense.
Nature likes to hide but I like to watch it.
It attacks from within and I like to watch it
It becomes me I become it I attack myself
and my watching has become predatory
Life is suffering, cruel selfconsuming
but to the attentive there is teaching
and knowledge, deep enough to resist
is able to convert energy into power
and power into control through cultivation
of those things that matter to good people
work, dining, a movie and sex.
producing physical or metaphysical value, consuming physical value, consuming metaphysical value, consuming the merger of metaphysical and physical values.
These are simplistic terms of ritual. Our life consists entirely of making what we do understandable - and thereby acceptable to us. We convert it to our own terms. Ritual is the original means man developed for this. Later, this became custom, and later even fashion. But ritual has always remained valid in its primal form.
Vision and ritual
the mechanics of valuing and being of value
more and more we produce ritualistic visuals
and hold to them, depend on them
visual rituals, constantly, our life becomes it
where 20000 years ago, only the Shaman was
privy to this kind of mayhem.
The shaman suffered, disproportionately
he saw and endured
the others could remain blind
but as of recently
our eyes have been opened
in ambiguous accident
of government incompetence
non-being allowed
or caused - self sabotage
Spirit is life that cuts into life
We were witness to that spirit
the holy spirit - it’s sin, not against it, but committed by it.
The committing of it, the actual fact, the factual act
the moment of transformation of matter
to annihilate for a moment the belief
in a conceivable world. Cruel and evil;
Spirit does as spirit is in shaping the good and righteous.
[size=95]Another translation of valuing to sexuality:[/size]
[size=85]“The chaste man, the true Knight-Errant of the Stars, imposes continually his essential virility upon the throbbing Womb of the King’s Daughter; with every stroke of his Spear he penetrates the heart of Holiness, and bids spring forth the Fountain of the Sacred Blood, splashing its scarlet dew throughout Space and Time. His Innocence melts with its white-hot Energy the felon fetters of that Restriction which is Sin, and his Integrity with its fury of Righteousness establishes that Justice which alone can satisfy the yearning lust of Womanhood whose name is Opportunity.” - [Aleister Crowley, Little Essays towards Truth][/size]
But to focus on this is beside the point of value - it is an excess, marked to create a reference. Valuing to the top of our limited capacity is an art, and the only artform that makes a human happy, which I think largely means willing to procreate.
This willing to merge with the world that is philosophical conception is a specific type of self-valuing, born out of an intellect bound to its superiority to its teachings. Anyone who has been taught worse than they were worthy of has an advantage in critical thought, and an averse attitude to normalcy. We are critical of normalcy – the entire conception of being as chaotic, coincidental, deterministically understandable – this all has been assumed with great ease after the rewards of such belief proved to be powerful means to create powerful means to create powerful means, etc.
We are a utilitarian race, though sometimes we arrive at a reason for all this utilizing of means to attain the end of more utilizing. NIetzschean ontology has this as the highest race, the higher man and thinks he will be unique and short lived. We may see it as the necessity of evolution – because evolution has been newly explained. Specifically, self-valuing as primacy in determination of evolutionary direction means in human terms: vanity. Natures ‘vanity’ is what accounts for the deeply cleft differentiation between species.
Every atom has a tendency to be what we call ‘unique’. Only to be so found it must play a part in a greater whole. He must become a necessary, wanted, desired substance of a molecule. He must feel his value, and be dependent on it, for the ‘rush’ (enhanced energetic context) it gives him to participate in this well oiled machine of strong monads. So the world creates itself as increasingly delicate value-attaining systems, who by their increased momentum of the coursing energy remain stable.
Our culture has arrived at a point where the rush is eroding our very being – only a skeleton will remain of what was once our sceptic wise-arse culture. Only the criticism remains, what dies is the presumption that the criticism is the truth. We philosophers of the future do not mistakes our tool for the artwork itself.
Glad I dwell beneath the mountains
Smiling in the darkest night;
Here of love are many fountains
Flowing daily free and bright.
Dismissal of the primal act inferred:
Birth of quality (from quantity), given into a form. Certain prescriptions of law account for the organization and interactions of these forms. Careful not to effect too much distance here: from where do these laws arise, are they called into their existing by the very act of formation? Or are they that which guides the possibility of this formation before it is? Empiricism and teleology meet here, somehow (not yet entirely mapped out). So return to the primal act perhaps: employing coincidence here appears as a veil, masking deeper truths, smuggling in hidden assumptions outside the purview of the system.
We start with an is. This has always been the only place to start. If that is so, what then is the meaning of asking “from where” of this is? Discursive refraction and loss of focus, it would seem. Light hitting the diamond thought and straying dissolving into meaningless darkness. Can we shelve the question of ‘from where’ for the moment? I think we must. Such questionings ought appear before us when properly called for, when these questions properly call us, and not as an immature and premature objectification in the service of abject maintanence through control as closure. Moreover, if finitude cannot be overcome then at a certain point this objectification MUST stray from itself and lose its potency.
Systems organized as structures hinged on the forward momentum of energetic controlled release. The ultimate vanity: to concern oneself with one’s own system in the face of the process itself. Only the most vain, most valuing and brimming with potential for power might attempt this. Ignorance is lack of contact with the destabilizing other; where structure militates against this contact structure serves the ends of the beings of which it is ground and form. For what is this ignorance saved, then?..
So might we not waste this potential on postulatings that contain no actual implications from which a future might be derivable? Crude object-hood being the last refuge, we might call to this nihilism rather than resist it as if it were worthy of our efforts of resistance, as if it had such power. Warping the unknown into the image of an empty known: the last attempt to maintain artificial closure. But we now have a goal that is able to subordinate this need for seeking refuge in the already known.
Next stage?:
Unifications of formal content sublimated into velocity; e=mc^2. Must release mass as potential for movement if forward inertia is to be maintained across bridgings to new territory. Alchemy might be necessary here. Divine archetypes just might contain enough force to provide a railing on which to cling as the storm approaches. But the longevity of these constructs is a serious liability if they lose coherence where stripped from their archaic grounds. Should we content ourselves with seeking to clarify into sight the vision of the next stage, or with forming the art of a new Century within which mankind might come to forge the images of new constructs capable of withstanding the g-forces of exponential acceleration? We have determined outselves to be VAIN enough; how then might we concretize that around which we allow our intention to gather?
Only if they are continuously understood, projected and perceived as continuously coming into being. Their power is in their spontaneous emerging, not in their intellectual truth. Understanding not as embedding a routine conception to represent some generalization, but as a more comprehensive perceiving-interpreting, making use of perceived limits to ‘guess’, to induce, to create. The adoption of the scientific method has been such a self-manipulation, we must now make another step. Vision itself no longer hidden as observation, but cultivated as the act of valuing, and consequently, of seeing deeper, valuing greater. This alone is healing, this alone can save races from decadence.
Therefore we construct these constructs from the ground up.
As order is being defined, a pre-order is continuously being manifested. Since from such fluid grounds symbols emerge, we must relu on the self-creation of mythical narrative, under our intersubjective supervision. Regulating bu the purposeful juxtaposing of different aesthetics as if they are elements – with the intention to create a higher value, as in alchemy.
it will be useful to construct plays, narratives, symbolic conflicts. Above all, we must cultivate what hatred we feel, no longer dissolve it. Hate is no longer a sin, it is a requirement. A measure of it – no all consuming hate of course, but a biting, poisonous, aggressive and unpredictable lashing out against that which is troubling us, rather than to lash inwards, as philosophy has always done. The philosopher may come out of his cave, out of his jungle - as once he came from the mountain as a civilized saint, we come out of our wilderness with much less innocent intentions.
Are we to succeed, we also will cause mockeries of ourselves – the resistance we seek to develop to the rapid erosion of particularity has to mean something primarily to us, who are resisting. By resisting we create meaning, we derive meaning directly from the inflation of meaning, we’re reverse-speculating, and in the long terms this is of far greater interest than trend-surfing. Trend-creating is done by defying the operational logic of our lunatic society – lunatic, lunar, tides, phases, rhythm – setting in a new one. What we might ultimately aim for is to orchestrate our financial world, which is now hardly controlled, wild pulsating of value-attributions, into something of a symphony, where newly springing trends are assimilated into the melody, so to speak.
Anno 2011 no human plays the cosmic drum, there is no shaman great enough for all of us – still, all modern music is an attempt at this stabilizing representation. What lacks now is an honest vision, or simply honest, deliberate vision, a projection of a relatively exalted future. Vision made itself known to our time for a decade, in the beginning of the second half of the past century, we should not underestimate this remarkable time in the history of vision induced by music, sex and intoxication. We must hark back, and re-understand those principles on a higher arc. Arriving at a matured understanding of what the lads back then intuited – “The music of the spheres” as we may understand the electromagnetic webbing forever impacting our nervous system, could be the infrastructure of a relatively calm economic pulsating; reliable, predictable, well sustained. Under such circumstances culture would thrive, a global culture could be possible. It is still the question if this is desirable enough, desirable over enduring violent conflict.
Art and war – we may learn still much from how such a temporary gazing into the half cruel half beatific truth of the times as occurred in the 1960’s, produced the means of vision and ritual. This reckless visioning is going to be the measure of our philosophy – can we surpass the LSD - generation in terms of compelling vision? Can magic truly be made to happen, as a result of a philosophical project? This is of course highly doubtful – but to solidify whatever potential is given is a first step. This brings us back to the ‘divine’ archetypes – divinity is built on archetypes, as is man. But since these archetypes are derived from man, we have forever te freedom to interpret them as we wish, as we see fit, as they serve us best. Our mind has limits, these limits are the root of our creative power. We should master the essentials. To construct according to physical ‘logic’, learning about necessity. We are bound to the limits of our presence. But these limits are the requirements of creative power, the aesthetics of increase.
If you ask me, there are no such things as laws, just tendencies. The idea of absolute natural laws will always be invalidated once it has taken hold again.
No, I think that this is not the case.
Yes, the question must be “how is what is, is-ness?” Being as an activity, as a verb. A particular type of activity. We might even propose that not all activity is being.
I agree, we need to abandon the notion of origin in terms of time and space. The origin is entirely in the activation of a mechanism, and this is due simply to the possibility of it occurring. The entire big bang theory, as ridiculous as it is as an attempt at explanation, may be abandoned.
Not to state that there has never been a big bang, but to observe that the notion of it isn’t very helpful, that it is not very different from “God”
For being. In first instance, for the understanding one himself.
Recent philosophy and morality has made it impossible for man to exist as a proper being – it places him in a context that provides no ground for being, only for disintegration, enslavement to greater forces at the cost of loss of identity, self-value. We seek to reestablish the ground of being in an intellectual form. This has not yet been attempted. We can not yet say what the consequences will be for the rest of the world – for us however it means for one thing, total freedom from the degenerate stupidity that passes for an intellectual conscience. It might mean the means to a great, enduring power, sufficient to ultimately reorganize human thought and politics, to work on morality, to reinterpret morality in terms of a profound understanding.
What may be wasted on such postulatings is out time — and no doubt, much time is wasted in this way. But we can not waste the potential of the notion itself. The question is: can we exploit this potential? Are we smart enough, is our will strong enough, are we power-hungry and practical enough?
Yes – our only ‘refuge’ is the future, the increase of spirit, of power, of vision, of experience, that comes with rooting oneself in the understanding of valuing as the root of being.
To organize in these terms is quite another step, and it speaks to reason that this requires much experiment. But experiment requires boldness, and boldness requires confidence. I am confident that value-theory warrants bold experiment, that it will produce new methods to power.
When the time is ripe, when value-theory has been sufficiently understood and experimented with, forms will begin to arise automatically. The imagination will be affected, impregnated, and as collective, democratic, shared, broken up, compromised, castrated imagination declines in influence, there is now an alternative for the doom-scenario of ‘1984’ – power may now self-organize philosophically, for which it never before has had the means.
[size=85]WHAT HAS BEEN OVERCOME BY THE INVENTION OF VALUE-THEORY:[/size]
This problem has been solved; by understanding the atom as self-valuing, physics has become accessible to the heart.
The lesser man wants to believe in objectivity, in determinism, in God, anything besides his own, acute valuation of himself and the world in his terms. Only strong subjects are capable of working with this theory.
Truth is seen to be less ugly as it was once assumed –
since every being self-values, there is no possibility for an initial ugliness, only for an initial aesthetics.
Nietzsche, while being co-responsible for this theory, has been overcome. At least his weaknesses have been overcome.
Again, a fundamental problem that has been overcome. “In vain”, what does that mean? It means: not pertaining to objectivity. Since objectivity is now understood as derived from subjective valuation, the act of valuing (also: vision) is seen as the ground of being, and can not be “in vain” – existence is no longer arbitrary, “outside oneself” – no, it is our work!
In vain to perhaps to God - but not to us!
Yes, yes, and with us, this stage has passed! A more direct, less ambiguous, self-simplified nature is being created – a type to dominate, a type in which action is justified, a type which can only be justified by action – a types whose actions justify the world to itself.
Yes; something is, and this existing implies a how, a manner(s) of existing. We can never exhaust this is, either through exhausting its hows or any other means. Understanding this frees us from the mistaken need to try to “know it all”, to derive the is.
Yes, that was a bad question.
You have made this point repeatedly recently, it is a good one. But there are those who define being as is, is as being; how do you address them? Re: Plato, for a thing to exist it must participate in the being-ness of its own being existing, a shared “being a being-ness” by all existant things by virtue of their existing. Of course we have already answered Plato, but the kernal of my question is: how, in your method, do we walk that separating line between (improper) metaphysics and (proper) ontology? Being tied to activity, to value, seems to be the way you accomplish this. Activity itself is not being, value is not being, because these are not universals “floating” or abstracted prior to their “instantiation” through some existant thing. But those things which act, which value, these may be said to be in possession of being…? We might see a gradiation of being then, a continuum from non-being (existant “things” which do not value, at all) moving to progressively higher being (things that increasingly value and self-value)?
Agreed. What needs to be abandoned is the fruitless effort to derive the is. Abandoning this then frees us for real work.
Perhaps this misguided need to feel oneself has derived the is in fact is only a veil utilized to keep one from coming into the possibility of a more mature and powerful self-responsibility.
Being as saved ignorance, as the raw potentiality of this saved ignorance to explode upon a new future moment with tremendous (self)valuing power?
It might happen. In fact we might go as far as to say it is inevitable given what we know of humans, human history and life on earth generally. But this inevitability does not preclude the possibility of a very long and painful transition period. Perhaps mankind must first move through the opposite of this sort of utopianism (purging the negatives within the perspective) before utopia becomes possible.
The notion of reincarnation might be useful here: individuals reincarnate through progressive lives in order to learn what they have not yet experienced, to grow in ways other than how they have in previous lives grown. Similarly the species man might need to continue to pass through what it has not yet experienced in order to evolve to a higher form. What remains unsaid poisons us from within, as you said. In this sense willing away the “bad” is a childish methodology that will have to be abandoned at a certain point in mankind’s history, whether intentionally or not, replaced perhaps with a calling to this bad rather than a fleeing from it.
Interesting. First I thought your statement false, that we can waste this potential itself. This seemed to me very obvious. Then I thought back on my own life and past, and realized this has never happened, even and perhaps especially when it should have happened, it didn’t. I believe you are right here, somehow the potential itself cannot be wasted, it is always there, always dormant. Does this imply that this dormant potential can always, in theory, be awakened? Of this I am not so sure.
Yes. Heaven has been replaced with the earth, as Nietzsche wanted; now we must replace the earth now with the earth of the future. Even if this means sacrificing our now for a future (and it always does mean just this, does it not?)
Yes. This provides plenty of justification for us to immerse ourselves in the project of this moment, this gives us plenty and more than enough to hope for. The loss of faith accompanied by Nietzsche has finally been allowed to renew, stronger, more potent and more practical than ever.
“The work of the eyes is done. Now go and do the heart-work on the images imprisoned within you.” ~Rilke