Challege to Zeroeth Nature viz. Self-Lightening

[Zeroeth_Nature (Self-Lightening, ΑΘΕΛΗΜΑ,)]

@Jakob

@Zeroeth Nature

@Jakob

As (far as) I understand it, this theory has to do with the notion of an expanding universe, wherein every natural object too is expanding. But I’m not sure at all. I only recently understood that it doesn’t refer to the phenomenon of Light, radiation. It would then be self-lighting.

I now understand that it supposes or claims that all beings are occupied making themselves less heavy. But with respect to what, and how do we do this, and what is the merit of the observation? As Faust once asked of astrology: how do I go about my day, armed with this knowledge?

Not sure it claims beings are occupied (with) making themselves less heavy; it depends on what you mean by that. To me, phrasing it like that suggests intentionality.
Likewise, “making themselves” suggests to me that they have agency.

The direct inspiration for the term “self-lightening” was this passage:

“[F]orce is the drive to discharge itself within a field of forces enacting the same necessity. […W]ill to power has no aim but discharge of the total quanta of its force at every moment; such discharge is always an event within a relatively unstable field of such impulses to discharge, the relation among them being simply that of greater or lesser; all beings are ultimately more or less stable collections of such impulses and themselves express the fundamental quality of impulse, will to power.” (Laurence Lampert, What a Philosopher Is: Becoming Nietzsche, page 264 and 266 note 29.)

And what of restraint?

Restraint is itself the result of impulses. Just as, like I said, bodies may interfere with each other, so may impulses. (In fact, bodies are themselves “ultimately more or less stable collections of such impulses”.)

“Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained”. (Blake, op.cit., plate 5.)

‘Those who restrain desire, do so because their desire to do so is strong enough for them to do so.’ (Zeroeth Nature.)

I could simply have called it “self-discharging”, applying the form of your term “self-valuing” to the self-reference of the phrase “the drive to discharge itself” etc. (where “itself” can have no other referent than “the drive” itself or what is being defined thereby, namely force). But I wanted to give expression to the connotation of feeling that the word “will” has, which is essential to Nietzsche’s conception.

But valuing implies significantly a selectivity, the idea that not all targets are suitable, or choosable. And thus also, that there are targets. That not all radiating of action is ‘berserking’ to use a term I employed earlier this morning.

The thing is, valuing to me is a side-effect of berserking. When a berserker happens to go berserk on another being which, in turn, happens to go berserk on our berserker, then I say they are self-valuing(s) through each other. So valuing can be positive or negative, in the sense that they may well rip each other to pieces. But as long as they are more or less stable rather than relatively unstable, they can be said to value each other in the positive sense of “feeding” one another.

Note, by the way, that, unless such a berserking is “fed”, its berserking gets ever lighter, since what it relieves itself of in berserking is itself such (a) self-relieving(s). And when such “waves” of self-relief are absorbed by another berserker, it drives him more berserk, because he thereby becomes a greater bundle of self-lightening(s). Heavier, more vehement, more intense.

In other words, it’s like a berserker lets out his rage by spawning other, smaller berserkers which may then fall upon another, bigger berserker—and even become part of him:

Now while “lightening” here means “getting less heavy” first and foremost, my using that word was certainly coloured by my earlier concept “space-light”. Radiation, for me, is a principal form of self-lightening. By radiating, bodies in principle become less heavy and smaller; the space around them becomes relatively larger.
I say “in principle” because bodies may interfere with each other. Lampert even supposes that they always do; but I think bodies or particles can be so far removed from each other that they no longer do so, and simply radiate into space-light until they are no longer even particles (collapsed waveforms), but waves, which fade away ever more, never completely.

I also suppose that they don’t - even a flame is a good example, the flame, despite its radiation ebbing away gradually, has a definite border. Which is interesting, a question of economy, consumption and concentration I think.
But yes, I think electricity has discrete spheres of influence, see the ring-system electrons are tied to.

Well, electrons and the like can be quantized, but I think even the electrical charge (e) is a self-lightening, in that e itself gets ever smaller (though ever more slowly). So it’s not that 1e becomes .5e, for instance, but rather like this: e [size=50]e[/size] [size=26]e[/size] [size=15]e[/size] etc. etc.

All this I understand by the expansion of the universe. Ever more space emerges relative to all particles, and even to the amplitudes of all waves.

Im just not too sure an infinite thing can expand, and I dont see how the universe isnt infinite, since to suppose a border to it would imply something beyond that border, which would have to be contained by it, if it is the All.

Yes, I agree that the universe (τὸ ὅλον) must be infinite. And I also agree that something infinite can’t expand. However, I’m not saying the infinite universe expands. I’m saying that everything in it contracts… So everything in the universe would eventually become infinitesimal, except that this process goes ever more slowly, so that it never actually gets there.

Of course, the “expansion” of the universe now seems to speed up, but I ascribe this to the interaction between its parts, which like I said may interfere with the speed and direction of their self-lightening.

As for Faust’s question, I think this knowledge may well dis-arm people, rendering them incapable of going about their day.

Ha ha
Im compelled to note that Ive had people say to me, when I had explained V O to them in a simple way (that all is valuing, that valuing is the end-all of considerations) that I had relieved them of a great burden, that they were freeer now, not depressed anymore.

Yes, that makes sense. And I also think the notion that all is self-alleviation may bring a sense of relief (“disarm” people in a positive sense—do the opposite of driving them into their harness, like we say in Dutch).