Nietzsche's Higher Man

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
41

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Forms of thought Empty
PostSubject: Forms of thought Forms of thought Icon_minitimeWed Aug 21, 2013 4:25 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What lies beneath the ether of the mind? Something impossible that the self divides itself from, but from which it cannot escape; it is not secrecy, but (a certain kind of) need.

Error is always internal. We impose errors upon things because to err is implicit in the forms of thinking. Out “good nature” is not deceived, for we have no good nature; our “natural relation to the true” is not maligned for no such relation exists (until it has been created). As with the improbable vexation, “what is stupidity?”, thought materializes as its own particular brand of excessiveness by which relations set their fixed points and chart distances along pre-ordained coordinates. We play out the same predestination from which we arise, moment to moment, and thought grasps only those facts which confirm or deny the formality of thought itself, without revealing its ground. This dogma is the philosopher’s enigma.

Madness is not enough, madness has never been enough.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Forms of thought Empty
PostSubject: Re: Forms of thought Forms of thought Icon_minitimeThu Aug 22, 2013 12:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, thought behaves as a hermetic self-valuing. Whatever it confirms is an extension of its own “perpetual self-stating”, it must be in harmonic relation to what came before. So thought procreates much like organisms, strictly in its own “DNA”, it’s terms.

That being said, there is a way to liberate cognizing from the strict causal strains of the intellect, and to bring it closer to its own ground. Naturally when we succeed here, cognizing becomes more passive, representational of its own structures. Kants a priori intuitions can be revealed to the mind, if it refrains from drawing conclusions, from synthesizing observations into judgments. I.e. if the value of the perceived is left purely “speaking for itself”, valued only in terms of it being cognizable at all, i.e. its basic adequacy to the consciousness itself.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Forms of thought Empty
PostSubject: Re: Forms of thought Forms of thought Icon_minitimeThu Aug 22, 2013 12:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Note that for the mind to observe the mind, it must be extraordinarily well controlled, its “climate” must be contained in a certain state, so that from one moment to the next, a continuity of perspective on it is possible to it. This is quite the balancing act, it requires the hands on control of the energy, a managing of the frequencies and amplitudes that make up an awareness-phase, containing them within a certain range.

It can be seen thus that as this process succeeds, the cognizing becomes no longer a function of itself, but of a larger process - of the whole of the individuals intent, which is supported and substantiated by his whole being. In such a way thought can be released from the sort of self-protective errors that usually pass for “ego-issues” and determine so many intellectual processes.

A mind set free from its own compulsive prescribing is now truly a tool, a mere machine, something without an identity of itself, serving at the pleasure of the whole entity. It is my belief that only in such a servant state, the mind can be seen for its truly splendorous power.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Forms of thought Empty
PostSubject: Re: Forms of thought Forms of thought Icon_minitimeThu Aug 22, 2013 6:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To unite the mind’s object with its subject. This is religiosity, the ultimate form of human knowledge. However, it is true that this knowledge has to be constructed even before it is thought of. It is the ultimate responsibility, the ultimate valuing for the ultimate tool.

Ultimate in the sense that it is an end. Every end is a death, a petrifying into place to handle further building which also slowly rots, ferments away. The last time I asked myself whether reality was worth assuming my answer was very much not rotting.

Madness is dedication. The difference between a zealot and a madman is that the zealot works on another’s madnesses. But no, it is not enough. A mother is not enough for a child.

Screen Shot 2020-05-31 at 12.21.03 AM.png

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

RM and consciousness Empty
PostSubject: RM and consciousness RM and consciousness Icon_minitimeSun Nov 24, 2013 5:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Consciousness is like a region of affectance, PtA; “awareness” is how each part affects others. There are a set but changeable number of “particles” in this region, those particles being the objects of thought. Objects of thought rise out of the background affectance of consciousness, to stand forth from it as separate. This is a function of awareness, of focus and necessity to something already in or just below consciousness.

When objects of thought are quantized up from the background affectance this occurs along a continuum, just as does the formation of particles on RM physics. Consciousness “notices” or “pays attention” to something within its field causing this thing to stand forth and act as an independent object. Relations form from this object to the background from which it came, along with relations that form from the object to other objects. These primary relations constitute “thinking” or focus; secondary relations form between primary relations themselves, independently of objects, and these are secondary relations that constitute “feelings”, or rather are those subtler affectance flows which are most able to stir the instincts. Just as cognitive and linguistic focus is organized by objects emerging against the background affectance, so too is instinctive and emotional sentiment organized by the largely independent relations between these objects, because these relations of relations form a kind of “network” which materializes a flow-space in which dynamism and flux, salient to consciousness, instincts gather and assume their chemical-hormonal responses.

Objects-to-consciousness rise and fall from and back into the background affectance based on the logics of those object’s functions and forms with respect to the background, and with respect to time parameters, namely the just-past and the just-coming moments. Consciousness is “full with time” and spans a few second of past and a few seconds of future. Previous organizations are compared to present and expected future organizations, and this produces a meta-flux affectance, which is truly what (self-)consciousness is made of.

Consciousness as remote recognition touches upon the internal modeling of outside circumstances that characterizes much of the function of consciousness; but this is an aspect of what consciousness DOES and not really a proper definition of what consciousness IS, since this as a definition is inadequate unless it includes all of the above kinds of behaviors, relations and forms. Once objects stand forth they are recognized (modeled) by memory comparison/contrast in terms of aspects of similarity of type, quantity, closeness, and power to cause (motivate), among probably other kinds of aspects too. Consciousness is always perceiving and recognizing itself and this is going on within the larger process of perceiving and recognizing the outside world. There must always be at least two objects to consciousness in existence, and if we consider human-like self-consciousness there must always be at least three: the background affectance presence (undifferentiated), and the self-relation which bears itself orientation toward this background (minimally or in terms of form this is constituted only as a consequence of the just-past moments organizations of background affectance compared immediately to present-moment organizations of background affectance), the relations of consciousness-to-consciousness. In humans we also have a third necessary object, which is a relation that bears itself orientation toward the relation of consciousness-to-consciousness, and this is minimally or in terms of form constituted only as a consequence of the just-future expected moments organizations of background affectance compared immediately to the present-moment and just-past organizations of background affectance).

Within these FORMAL relations and organizations there is content that forms, “clinging” to these materialities. The objects themselves are examples of such contents, and will shift and change, grow stronger, weaker and vanish at the behest of the entire conscious architecture. The basic structures of necessary relations are a consequence of underlying biological certainties such as the brain and sensory object structures. So consciousness is like a kind of reflection of the entire RM picture of reality itself on the basic level, a reflection that duplicates this picture onto another “surface”, that surface being what is potentiated in terms of energy and logic as structural forms and organizations of physiological materialities.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

RM and consciousness Empty
PostSubject: Re: RM and consciousness RM and consciousness Icon_minitimeFri Nov 29, 2013 1:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I could agree with almost all of that, but I feel like it is jumping from alchemy straight to organic chemistry. The world of psychology and the common terms used are still very much in the “non-exact Science” realm of thought. I discovered after the fact, that I was slotted back in the early 70’s to bring the field up to par with physics, but they made the serious mistake of not letting me know that such was to be my job, so it didn’t work out as they intended (and almost never does when secretly manipulating me).

My point is that in order to get a truly solid foundation concerning the mind and psychology, many new terms must be used along with almost totally different relationships, “forces” and “objects”. In physics, I can proclaim that there are these little “particles” that must exist and the common physicist will reply, “of course” and list a long string of names they have been given. But in the field of psychology, I can’t do that because frankly, despite the recent advances in mass hypnosis and manipulations, they are still somewhat in the primitive stages of a good psychological ontology. So if I were to say, “there are these particles that form in the mind”, I am likely to merely be sneered at. They have no means to recognize what I am saying nor verify it because they are busy doing their blind search thing with the assumption that no one knows anything that they don’t already know (much like internet forum people).

So to get into RM:AO’s version of psychology requires a fundamental restructuring of the language of psychology into a cohesive and definitionally logical ontology which hopefully would turn out to be demonstrable (else it isn’t within the definition and guidelines of RM).

RM:AO’s version of psychology to be used by Jack is very, very similar to this project;

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h06lgyES6Oc[/youtube]

And you can see why Jack seriously needs a much larger “brain”. Fortunately elementary physics is much simpler but still requires a tremendous amount of processor to display anything worth seeing. That project and its purpose is identical to that of Jack; “bottom up building and top down validation” = “Rational Metaphysics”.

Consciousness is a fairly high level of mentality, just as you have purported. There are a great many things going on much deeper and the common language of psychology doesn’t suit the situation very well at all. Words like “feelings”, “emotions”, “instincts” are all pretty vague and sloppy, resistant to coherent definition.

In your explanation, it appears to me that you have the process of consciousness a little backwards, but perhaps that’s just my reading issue. I define consciousness as “remote recognition” because that is not only what consciousness does, but also what it is. It is the process of recognizing “outside” affectants and that is all it is. If anything can do that function, it has consciousness. It is like saying that something has spin. The spin is not a thing that is possessed, but merely a function or process of the thing. There is no more to consciousness than that, despite the very many people who desire for it to be much more. But it is merely an issue of bringing a word into definable terms. The mind as a whole does far more, but the part called “consciousness” is merely that one part of all that is going on and is a pretty small part of the whole.

When a person is asleep, they are not conscious of outside affectants and thus are not conscious. As you mentioned, there are also types of inner consciousness; dreams, imaging, introspection (self-consciousness). And on deeper levels there are countless types of these segregated consciousnesses occurring often simultaneously. A consciousness is subjective, relative to its own portion of mind.

Any time an inner representation of an outer affectant is utilized in reacting, consciousness exists. And that happens on many “levels” as well as “areas” of the mind and brain. If we want to actually make progress in this field, we must create defined terms that might or might not directly relate to what the masses or professional psychologists recognize.

And I’m not really sure how important this particular aspect of the mind really is to study. Consciousness exists or it doesn’t, “conscious of this or of that”. There are parts of your mind that are conscious of other parts of your mind being conscious of other things and don’t like it (referred to as “demons” causing internal dissonance). There isn’t much else to it that isn’t really far more a part of the under-functioning; “subconscious” and “unconscious”.

I really prefer to build the psychological model from the foundation of potentials and affects, just as with physics. But in the case of psychology, the potentials are not electric potential, but rather the two polarities of “Perception of Hope” (positive potential) and “Perception of Threat” (negative potential). The analogy from there on out to RM:AO:Physics is pretty coherent and consistent. This builds a mind from the bottom up, revealing the entire nature of anything called “consciousness”.

By definition, any part of a mind that perceives a hope urges toward that hope and away from any perceived threat. Unfortunately most minds get so confounded that they misperceive and presume erroneously.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Alternate definition of love Empty
PostSubject: Alternate definition of love Alternate definition of love Icon_minitimeSat Oct 12, 2013 1:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Love can be defined as mutual self-valuing, as being a potential for another to self-value. Thus expressed in the opposite and negative, love is shaing in suffering with another.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
chise

Posts : 9
Join date : 2011-12-09

Alternate definition of love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Alternate definition of love Alternate definition of love Icon_minitimeSat Oct 12, 2013 3:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

The word and concept of Love is taboo. Speaking about it is liken unto committing blasphemy. But being the system buster I am I shall trend where angels fear to trend. Love in its real sense is a glue that binds together. There are no human definitions involved. The closest description may be a state of being.

You will excuse if I overstep but it seems like the definition you’ve offered is just what humans call compassion. Compassion, is the desire to alleviate emotional addiction and replace that with momentary redemption. The addiction is an addiction to suffering, all chemistry…
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Alternate definition of love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Alternate definition of love Alternate definition of love Icon_minitimeSat Oct 12, 2013 6:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Capable”

Quote :
Love can be defined as mutual self-valuing, as being a potential for another to self-value
.
Well, that is certainly perhaps one form of love. But that definition can also speak to respect of another, which isn’t necessarily loving someone, though I intuit that within real love there has to be respect.
And there is the phrase “mutual self-valuing”. That might beg the question - in which way? Self-valuing, as in the case of ego or narcissism, can at times lead to abuses, though I know that you do not mean “self-valuing” it in this sense.
But I will definitely agree that love can act as a catylyst for the potential of someone coming to know one’s self and to love and value one’s self.

Quote :
Thus expressed in the opposite and negative, love is shaing in suffering with another.
Chise is correct in that sharing in someone’s suffering is compassion.
Love I think is like a multi-faceted diamond - it has many facets to it but at the same time, Love is the diamond and it takes all those facets to create it. Each facet alone is not the Love but contributes to its reality.

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Alternate definition of love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Alternate definition of love Alternate definition of love Icon_minitimeSat Oct 12, 2013 9:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, respect and compassion are a one way street, and static in their dynamic. One simply values another in terms available to value also oneself.

Obviously Capable was talking about the reciprocal love that we are used to see as romantic, but that can extend to friendship. What happens in such a case is that both people find extra value in themselves because a person who they greatly value, values them in ways they didn’t. “I must be worth more than I thought” “I never knew I was valuable in this respect” - etc.

When someone respects you, you don’t necessarily believe that you truly have the quality he sees in you. Often you think you don’t. But when you respect a person who respects you, then that is love. You trust this persons judgment of you because it feels like an exalted extension of your own judgment.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Alternate definition of love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Alternate definition of love Alternate definition of love Icon_minitimeSat Oct 12, 2013 1:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Love is power to the second power.
War is the square root of power.

The goal of power is to experience itself.
Love and war are its means in this world.

" 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 Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Alternate definition of love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Alternate definition of love Alternate definition of love Icon_minitimeMon Dec 30, 2013 5:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross

Quote :
No, respect and compassion are a one way street, and static in their dynamic.

What do you mean by a “one-way street” with reference to THIS?

Quote :
One simply values another in terms available to value also oneself
By this, do you mean that we can only “truly” value others insofar as we can value ourselves?

Quote :
Obviously Capable was talking about the reciprocal love that we are used to see as romantic, but that can extend to friendship
.
Yes, friendship is a form of love…a real friendship that is…of platonic love.

Quote :
What happens in such a case is that both people find extra value in themselves because a person who they greatly value, values them in ways they didn’t. “I must be worth more than I thought” “I never knew I was valuable in this respect” - etc.
Yes, this is true. Many of us have discovered this. Sometimes we know ourselves through the mirror which people put up for us.

Quote :
Often you think you don’t. But when you respect a person who respects you, then that is love.
Sure, if there is love in the first place. But respect is not love when it stands alone. But I think that it is a requirement for love to exist.

Quote :
You trust this persons judgment of you because it feels like an exalted extension of your own judgment.
I don’t agree with this, Fixed Cross. You trust that person’s judgment because you have come to trust that person and in their sincerity.
The way you have phrased it appears, at least, to me, to be ego.
If you “know” yourself - as you said "an exalted extension of your own judgment - in a particular way, why would trust even enter into the equation?
Trust in a way is the same as putting your heart into another’s hands. If you know your own mind and judgment, there is no need for trust. At least, that’s the way I look at it.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeTue Sep 24, 2013 2:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In a reply to Blurry on ILP I wrote the following, which culminated in an idea that I think must be spread throughout our whole depressed society, and is summarized in this threads title.

The main problem with diagnosing depression is the assumption that it is wholly due to the individual, and has nothing to do with environment. That’s simply idiotic. All in all, given the state of affairs in this world (increasingly robotized and homogenized, much hope for interesting futures eradicated) it is very unnatural or narcissistic to not suffer from “clinical” depression.

It’s natural that an affirmation of a positive element in the environment (such as a genuinely empathic and understanding mother) is a profound release from the causes of depression.

I dealt with my own depression a few years back by making an effort to re unite my family and take a way a feeling of despair my mom was suffering from. I improved my closest environment slightly and this resulted in a powerful healing process from which others benefitted as well.

Depression is largely the result of the idea that the world is globalized, one, both incredibly large and unchangeable as well as totally dimwitted, sociopathic. Just look at what depression started to become a “clinical” diagnosis. It’s a reflection of the world, and all you can do about it is turn inward in your circle (if you have it) and become outwardly critical, stop believing in “the world”. It doesn’t exist, only in the minds of those who seek to exploit, and the depressed.

Congratulations on your depression, and on finding the true way of dealing with it.

Viva la depresión!

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeTue Sep 24, 2013 2:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I mean that depression is the state of mind which is the soil from which the revolution must follow, if it is left unmedicated.
Thus, depression-medication is a direct means to stop the revolution.
This makes so much sense to me, fuck.
I’ve always known.

The most extreme result of depression, suicide, is among the most radical revolutionary means available to man.
But whatever is the unmedicated result, it must be revolutionary, re-valuating. There is no other way, since depression is the state of mind that is bred on the ground of nihilism.

The only choice is: drone or revolutionary.

Value ontology was born in the aftermath of a suicide.

I am right in this, my whole nervous system is singing.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeTue Sep 24, 2013 3:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That The World only exists in the mind of the exploiter and the depressed, couples with the idea that depression is the revolution in this way: The World At Large is subject to only these two: the capital and the revolutionary.

It does not exist to the one who is passively happy and non-sociopathic. Such a person lives always in a bubble, in a secured perimeter of self-valuing, healthy and ignorant.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeTue Sep 24, 2013 3:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So here is the conflict as it re-emerges:
One can battle depression either by reinforcing ones own “bubble” (negatively put, I simply mean a sphere of self-valuing) or by aggressively engaging the supposed sphere that is The World, from ones individual core values, i.e. primal rage.

Core Value + World At Large = Primal Rage.

But the first option is also a revolutionary act. If one re-enforces the family/local sphere, manages to make this a healthy organism with a sound “anentropic shell”, then one has already broken the hegemony of The World At Large.

The very objective and power-will of the TWAL is that it breaks down all smaller orders, forces the individual to value itself in terms of this whole, rather in terms of the value-projections that this whole secretes inward. In turn, the whole only exists by the response to those values from the great number of subjects who fall for it.

As soon as these numbers turn back inward, the whole collapses.

" 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 Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
    James S Saint
    rational metaphysicist
    rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeSun Oct 27, 2013 4:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The main problem with diagnosing depression is the assumption that it is wholly due to the individual, and has nothing to do with environment. That’s simply idiotic. All in all, given the state of affairs in this world (increasingly robotized and homogenized, much hope for interesting futures eradicated) it is very unnatural or narcissistic to not suffer from “clinical” depression.

It’s natural that an affirmation of a positive element in the environment (such as a genuinely empathic and understanding mother) is a profound release from the causes of depression.

I dealt with my own depression a few years back by making an effort to re unite my family and take a way a feeling of despair my mom was suffering from. I improved my closest environment slightly and this resulted in a powerful healing process from which others benefitted as well.

Depression is largely the result of the idea that the world is globalized, one, both incredibly large and unchangeable as well as totally dimwitted, sociopathic. Just look at what depression started to become a “clinical” diagnosis. It’s a reflection of the world, and all you can do about it is turn inward in your circle (if you have it) and become outwardly critical, stop believing in “the world”. It doesn’t exist, only in the minds of those who seek to exploit, and the depressed.

Congratulations on your depression, and on finding the true way of dealing with it.

Viva la depresión!
One of the best commentaries on Depression I have ever read.
But then, I have been telling people that for 20 years, so maybe I’m biased. Cool
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeSun Oct 27, 2013 2:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thanks. Yes, it does not surprise me that you agree.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeFri Nov 01, 2013 9:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Depression is the art of killing inwards, though it is sadly usually experienced as a self-motivating sort of inward killing virus instead of an impulse that can be motivationally described, as you have. People call their self a virus and attack it aggressively, with the joyful help of the hidden priests of medicine.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeFri Nov 01, 2013 9:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Only an honest look at the impulses attacked by ones self during depression, taking control of the depressive impulse itself while respecting its destructive power, can make it useful.

The revolutionary is and always has been much more useless than the exploiter, which is why even they hate themselves.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeFri Nov 01, 2013 9:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And on the subject of love, depression well experienced is first and foremost an act of love/hate as instinctual grasp of value while exploitation is an act of fear/cozyness in the same sense.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeSat Nov 02, 2013 8:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You are a Brother of the Left Hand Path if I ever knew one.
I like how you see things very much. And of course, I recognize much.
However, I think that what you describe is not so much depression as spontaneous occult initiation.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeSat Nov 02, 2013 8:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Here we are back at the question of the Temple.

The occult initiate must build the temple to serve as a vehicle for those who do not spontaneously self-ignite into the chosen paradigm.

I have been looking at images of Cathedrals and I always come to the sense that they stimulate a sense of enclosedness, and then I realized that the greatest virtue of these buildings was that the housed people, protected them from harm.

Within safe confines of the Church, one could seek deeper than every day rain and wind, toiling in the mud and being beaten down over some cattle or a bag of grain.

But now the safety has encompassed us as the State. The State is the narrow confines of the Christian temple. The new temple would be a lens, allowing a perspective to escape his compressed modification.

Light thus and glass.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1
Join date : 2014-01-04

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeSat Jan 04, 2014 3:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

The main problem with diagnosing depression is the assumption that it is wholly due to the individual, and has nothing to do with environment.
And there are a lot of reason they pathologize individuals: 1) you sell brain Products to these individuals/Money 2) it’s easier than dealing with society level problems 3) people love magic bullets and pills are magic bullets, or, at least, attempts to be magic bullets.

It’s not just the pharmaceutical companies, their clients collude with them to pathologize themselves. That the pharaceutical companies and psychiatric organizations Control media aids in this collusion.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeSun Jan 05, 2014 1:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hello Coben, welcome here.

You are right about influences and incentives upon people (doctors, patience, everyone else) to pathologizing individuals when it comes to depression, and to ignore society-level concerns. The effect is sort of self-sustaining, the more one is “depressed” the more one is told that ONESELF is the problem, and blames oneself. Pills and therapy are prescribed, with little emphasis on examining one’s situation/environment, relationships, and nutritional intake, which are the true (present-situational) causes of depression.

Depression is just a kind of self-feeding psychological mechanism that applies filters to experience, to create certain tendencies and dis-create others. Depression is learned, and a direct consequence of inadequate philosophizing, which is to say one becomes injured in the course of living, as is inevitable, but this injury festers deeper in “unconsciousness” and is not dealt with. Subsequent effects of this deep injuring work together to produce the self-sustaining phenomenon called depression. Two primary of these effects being: 1) inability to map/plan and intend one’s life and decisions, thus getting trapped in situations and environments which are undesirable or harmful, and 2) lack of motivation in the face of hardship/improper environment, this lack being the consequence of a lack of strength and “confidence”.

1 and 2 stem directly from an inadequacy of consciousness to its own need and purpose, which is to say an inadequacy of philosophy. And those society-level concerns you mention are very good at keeping “philosophy” (rational/clear thinking and knowing) away from most people’s lives and concern.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeTue Jan 07, 2014 1:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Coben wrote:
3) people love magic bullets and pills are magic bullets, or, at least, attempts to be magic bullets.

It’s not just the pharmaceutical companies, their clients collude with them to pathologize themselves.

Certainly. It is always bizarre, the extent to which the average human allows others to tamper with him. One wonders if not most beings are unfortunate accidents in the first place, to have such terribly low standards.

The human being who takes pills to kill his depression is responsible for the decision to radically alter his brain. Doctors try and make this decision for you but they can’t, not unless you’ve committed a crime, so when they tried it on me, I simply refused to take the shit. Instead I set in motion a chain of events that led me out of my depression and onto a path to power.

It is different when we’re dealing with children. Parents allow doctors to stuff them with Ritalin and screw them up before they have a chance to think things through. I’m not sure how heavy ritalin is but recently I am hearing bad news about it. In the meantime a whole generation is growing up on it.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeTue Jan 07, 2014 4:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is “speed”.

Any parent who gives that shit to their kids deserves to be shot in the face. Or, more seriously, to not be a parent at all.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek

Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild

Depression is the Revolution Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the Revolution Depression is the Revolution Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 2:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Depression: a state of mental energy reduction.
The external world depresses the mind, forcing it inward, into the darkness of its own self-pity.

Modernity depresses in that it only offers materialistic, hedonistic, avenues for expending energies, the rest forced into repression causing stress/anxiety.

The liberation of females and the restriction of masculine responses, depresses males.

Depression can also be the result of disenchantment with an idealized object/objective, one it is approached, or attained to a degree.
The disappointment caused by the discrepancy between the IDEAL and the REAL causes the mind to flinch backwards, back into its cranial shell.
A period of depression follows. Then a new IDEAL goads the mind out of itself.

42

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeMon Aug 12, 2013 9:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What does it imply? What is implied by it? What is it?

For that matter, what is sexuality?

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeMon Aug 12, 2013 1:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It seems that it’s just another form of valuing, just one that will logically always be extraneous to the main evolutionary currents.

I mean, we could seek for particular deviations from the normal human or animal constitution, but then we’d be abandoning the idea that life just happened to happen like it did. It’s just possible, and thus it occurs.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeWed Aug 14, 2013 4:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As a node, it touches a great many biospheres. Sexual ritual is a constitutive part of pretty much all identities, which are human relations in themselves, and to shift it so harshly from an equally harshly imposed discipline of specificity in ritual can mean many things. It seems to me that it springs from a deep, preexisting incongruence with ritualistic identities common around such people, usually due to some really fucked up thing in their childhood. It has historically driven people to secretive, complex lives where a lot happens. One would venture to guess that all great artistic movements have had a good number of homos at their forefront. These days, though, it has become such a strong political movement, or counter-political, because the system-resisting aspects of it have become very relevant to all unsatisfied members of societies, members who have increasingly good footholds in the Marxist struggles. It’s worth remembering, with homosexuality as with marihuana, that it is the second of three classes which gets uncomformist. The first classes are in charge and the third ones don’t have time or energy to give a shit.

Sexuality is identity, which is communication. What can I do with you? Within some two or three minutes I already know much of the answer.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeWed Aug 14, 2013 4:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is not that homos are weak so they get abused and develop a weak identity, it is that they get abused so they get access only to weak identities. In the era where Jesus really dies and it really becomes up to us to deal with weakness, we have so far chosen to take ownership and protection of the weak. Those who never had Jesus in their lives get not to care sometimes, and this is healthy for societies. What isn’t healthy is Jesus zomby people, who do care but still want to expect some supernatural force to take care of it.

There is a closeness between the homosexuality and marihuana identities of struggle. Both weak extrovertedly, but strong introvertedly. Both fuel for the arts and reasons to be disliked a priori. Both conscious choices of breaking codes and recieving forbidden knowledge and secrete pleasure.

There is much to be admired in homosexuality. They haven’t always been fighters, but they have always been artists.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeWed Aug 14, 2013 12:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Like sexuality, all elements of identity, which can also be reduced to identities themselves, are perceived in these religious languages as things themselves. This gives the useful idea of separation, of this and that. More to the point, there is no separation like this. Each identity is a chaos of fadings-into and interfadings, as if movement in 5 dimensions. Sexuality is not quite within everything, but it can be used almost at will and has been. The question is not quite “is the violent moment sexual?” but “what is the difference between the sexual and violent moments?”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeThu Aug 15, 2013 6:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What does it imply? What is implied by it? What is it?

For that matter, what is sexuality?
It implies that there is no such thing as the “norm”. Perhaps that a so-called deviation from evolution is not a deviation but simply a building upon something more or the other side of the coin. Perhaps it is an equalizer.

What is implied by it - that evolution will proceed as it will.
Sexuality is the instinct to will to live to create and even to die.

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeThu Aug 15, 2013 6:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
There is much to be admired in homosexuality. They haven’t always been fighters, but they have always been artists.
I would dare to say that many have been fighters. And many have NOT been artists. Our sexual leanings/inclinations do not make us either wimps or warriors. The wimp or the warrior derives from the heart/the spirit and the genes. But perhaps it might be our upbringing also, the way in which we have been coddled or allowed to grow and to become self-determined creatures, which accounts for the individual whom we are…and are still becoming. There has been much to admire in many “individuals” - gay or otherwise.

To make such a statement as you have above, diminishes them. A gay person is equally as individual and unique as is a straight person. But there may be a few who are happy that you feel such admiration for them just as there may be a few straight people who are happy that you admire them too. Rolling Eyes

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek

Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeMon Jan 20, 2014 11:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Homo sexuality…Sexuality presumed and then miraculously abandoned because…life…sort of happens.
Like digestion.

What does it matter how or why it evolved or what purpose it serves when we can do without it?

What this forum needs is a thread like “What are you doing?”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 3:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Gay is a way for one to own one’s sexuality in a more intense and novel way, to associate the sexual instincts as reward and pleasure with something more under one’s control – oneself. To be sexually attracted to the same sex is a by-product of this basic identity shift; one identifies oneself with one’s own gender. This is done because such an identification internalizes one’s sexuality: the object of the sexual instincts (in most cases, other people of the opposite sex) becomes associated in a way where this object is brought into a person’s own control and remains always present in them in their behaviors, thoughts, speech, mannerisms, feelings and motives. Thus a form of control as ever-present release of suffering/frustration, and therefore an inability to ever really be let down sexually. A person thus learns how to gain a degree of sexual reward just by being themselves, through how they act, speak, etc. The subtle differences produce a small amount of background sexual self-satisfaction, like masturbation except less intense and more omnipresent.

Homosexuality is more about the psychological identity and mitigating stress and feelings of lack of control than it is about satisfying an instinct for sexual release and power. This is akin to children who develop addictions to masturbation because it gives them pleasure and a release from an uncomfortable and painful family situation; perhaps there is constant fighting or abuse going on, in which case masturbation and homosexuality both give respite from this.

In the latter case of homosexuality the negative sentiment and the frustrated motives/desires are partially mitigated by a state of sexual confusion, a turning of the focus of desire and pleasure-reward upon oneself. Once this occurs then, secondarily and as a consequence, one begins to develop sexual attractions to other members of the same sex. The confusion has taken over. Of course this “confusion” is a de- and re-territorialization of the typical (base) sexual feeling and excess, not some kind of “immorality”. But it would be interesting to explore in greater depth the consequences of this basic confusion and reversal, with respect to all relevant facets of the individual.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 4:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think this might be accurate for male homosexuals, but I know some lesbians for whom the opposite seems to be the case. They seems to desire nothing more than to deny the given of sexuality. When it is embraced momentarily it expressed like an act of hatred and contempt.

Then again I know lesbians with wholly different inclinations.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 4:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Homosexuality is a genetic mutation - an unfit and parasitical one - which increases when sheltering permits uncontrolled reproduction, in this way propagation compounding mutations which are never culled out of the genetic pool, using natural processes.

If homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, because female homosexuality is part of the female sexuality - females being sexual in a more profound way than males are - is beneficial to the nihilistic system, because it produces effete, psychologies, which will not challenge the abstraction of institutionalized masculinity.

Hyper-masculinty, and females pretending to be like males, in but a (re)action to this diminishing masculine energy.
One overcompensates, and the other pretends, taking on the symbolic appearance of maleness, while remaining feminine in psychology.

γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 5:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was riding through the city the other day and heard an urgent, very effeminate voice talking into a phone. What I caught was just this: “Nobody dares to say it, but Michael Bolton…”

I realized that in this man’s universe, there is a fact about Michael Bolton that represents a controversy of great weight, a controversy on which everyone has an opinion. Somehow I saw with great clarity that gay men are in general ultra obedient to power, and find their rebellion and self-assertion in very inconsequential forms of controversy. But then this is the case for most humans.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 5:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
By the way, we are all amalgamates of genetic mutations. It speaks for itself that the mutation that makes a gay person does not have as much chance of procreating as straight mutants.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 5:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
By the way, we are all amalgamates of genetic mutations. It speaks for itself that the mutation that makes a gay person does not have as much chance of procreating as straight mutants.
No shit Sherlock?
Shocked

“Not as much chance?”

Homosexuality has to contradict itself to reproduce itself…otherwise it relies on parasitical strategies or on technological methods.
On its own it has zero chance…it is unfit in the evolutionary sense.

If sticking a penis up your rectum is not for you a disgusting thought, then who am I to judge you?
I could not care less.

In nature homosexual displays are used for particular reasons and within particular circumstances.
Dominance displays, stress relieving processes where internal conflict is avoided, within social groups where beta-males are included rather than expelled by the alpha-male…a redirection of libidinal energies when resources, particularly females, are in short supply.

γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 5:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sexual instinct itself has no “proper” object toward which or in the presence of which it releases itself. The impulse to excessive and then release of feeling that defines sexuality is its own entity, an instinctive one, which is made us of in the intermix of individual and society with the consequence of, sometimes, causing procreation. If you think the “purpose” or “function” of sexuality is to cause procreation, you would be very mistaken.

And homosexuality is very much passed on genetically regardless rather or not individual homosexuals procreate (which often enough, they do)-- whatever amalgamation of genes gives cause for tendencies to homosexual development can be passed on passively or actively, partially or completely, as is the case with all coherent genotypes.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek

Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 5:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The need to feed, which is what sexuality is the evolutionary adaptation of, also feels a need it has to satisfy.

To eat one has no other purpose than to maintain self.
The frenzy of sexuality has no focus, but it does evolve to reproduce the genes.

The organism need not know why it eats or drinks…no more than it must know why it goes into a state of sexual frenzy wanting to release energies within a particular otherness.

If you think otherwise then you are a fool, and a Modern.

In my view sexuality is an adaptation of feeding, and it continues to display the same feeding frenzy and the same displays…right down to kissing and its exchange of food …between mother and child or between social companions, such as in canines.
It evolved later and so had to adapt certain chemical inebriations to make it possible. Its newness on the scene of survival strategies also explains its fragility…how a slight hormonal imbalance can cause it to become dysfunctional.

Sexual instincts does have an object…and that why a well-rounded rump and breasts become its object/objective.
In simple animals, simpler minds, the object/objective need not be projected far, for it lacks the abstractive ability and the imagination.
Its projected object/objectives are more immediate, in the time/space sense.

This is why immediate gratification and shallow perceptions are the hallmark of a stunted and/or inferior mind, or a less sophisticated one.

γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek

Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 6:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Libido is the intuitive, instinctive, automated - genetically - focus of Will upon an object/objective.
No understanding is required…in fact understanding would inhibit its force.

Sex is blind need, evolved to be automatic, stimulated by particular triggers…like emotions are.

If the wiring get fucked-up then the reason why heterosexual reproduction evolved loses its focus.
The organism is unfit.

γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
apaosha

apaosha

Posts : 5
Join date : 2014-01-21
Age : 33
Location : Ireland

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 8:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My opinion:

Lust evolved through natural selection as the impetus to procreate. Thus those who find themselves sexually attracted to the opposite sex are to be considered fit in this regard. Consequently, homosexuals as well as other forms of sexual dysfunction such as pedophilia and zoophilia are genetic dead ends in that they represent a physical and/or emotional urge without any purpose or evolutionary advantage, beyond the immediate of social bonding rituals. Moreover they represent a maladaptive sexual mutation which encourages behaviours contrary to the species/group’s own advantage.

The confusion of “love” with “sex”, or spiritual or emotional connection and respect with base animal drives expresses a deep lack of appreciation for human relationships and perhaps an inability to form lasting examples of such.

An individuals own psychology expresses itself through their sexual practises. One becomes excited by domination, or being dominated. But whereas normally this is played out in the gender roles, in sexually dysfunctional individuals they adopt the roles interchangeably (thus representing a degeneration of type for their respective gender) or project them onto others in the case of pedophiles or zoophiles. Sex moves away from it’s purpose and becomes another expression of socialization, a masturbatory pastime for one or more undifferentiated individuals. Eventually it becomes boring and extraneous - overcome, surpassed, transgressed. It is entertainment consumed in the same way as television or fast food, an ugly reflection of this civilisation’s decline.

The “threat” that such dysfunction poses to a society is that increasing levels of unfitness will cause the whole to collapse under it’s own inability to support itself. As a society is built upon the strength of its males, and preserves itself against competing societies with these males, their degeneration and effeminacy is directly linked to the health of the society.

Today we live in an age where such symptoms of decline are everywhere.

Fixed Cross wrote:
It may be a cliche, but I’m pretty confident that someone who makes a big point out of homosexuality being low is a closet homosexual, that is, he feels that his genes are being threatened from procreating if he is not extremely intolerant towards this tendency. This is not an absolute.

This reminds me of the woman who when confronted with the fundamental differences between the genders, immediately redirects into the personal, the emotional commentary - misogynist, sexist, wife-beater etc. A black would do the same with Race; whitey jealous cos a nigga is stealing his women or something.
For a fag, it must be because one is secretly also a fag and in denial. There’s a sort of confirmation bias going on here: either one is indifferent to homosexuals, or one is a homosexual.
It’s not an argument. It’s irrational flailing about. I mean by the same logic a distaste and opposition to the practice of pedophilia, necrophilia and zoophilia must also suggest a personal motivation of self-denial, no?
I liked the caveat at the end of “This is not an absolute.” when in fact this is exactly what you are suggesting - an either/or dichotomy.

To develop this point beyond your level; do you think it’s possible to view the effect sexual dysfunction has on a society and then be able to perform a value judgement on that? Do you think it’s possible to have a negative valuation of sexual dysfunction without possessing that sexual dysfunction?

Perhaps we could extend it further: do you think it’s possible to have any sort of negative valuation towards anything without also indulging in self-denial, self-hatred or sexual dysfunction? Or are you suggesting that all negative valuations derive from these psychological conditions?

Does that then mean that a positivist is uniquely possessed of health? Or that by definition health means positivity?

…

Have I shown how absurd you are yet?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail knowthyself.forumotion.net/
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek

Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 9:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
apaosha wrote:

This reminds me of the woman who when confronted with the fundamental differences between the genders, immediately redirects into the personal, the emotional commentary - misogynist, sexist, wife-beater etc. A black would do the same with Race; whitey jealous cos a nigga is stealing his women or something.
A pseudo-intellectual douche-bag defending his world-view from the encroachment of reality, the last resort, indeed, is this personal assault.

you’ve seen it on ILP…
I didn’t even say anything against this turd, but he drew first blood.
See now, when I rip him a new asshole to go along with the one he’s been abusing all his life, I’ll be the “bully”. and he the innocent victim who was only trying to have a civilized conversation.

The emasculated turd always need to protect himself form his won condition., getting up his corn-hole is a respectable, loving lifestyle with no implications about his character or his nature.

Nature, you see, produces homosexuality accidentally.
Sex evolves just because…just s a pastime.

He truly belongs on ILP…home of the modern twat.
A genius Bull-Dyke once informed me that sex has nothing to do with copulation…and so I must take it on faith that sex did not evolve for the purpose of reproduction. It was an accidental lifestyle choice.

When speaking honestly, there must be a latent fear involved…ya see?

By the way, I’m gayer than gay. I’m a flamer.
I luvs dat dick.

γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek

Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 10:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s when it becomes a political statement to consider why sex evolved that dialogue becomes impossible if it is not filtered through the appropriate political correctness.

Perhaps the anus did not evolve to dispose of toxins and it was meant to help with pleasure.
If I say something out of sorts I might be accused of being a latent something or other…fear must be behind my views because…what else could it be?

γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 11:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think homosexuality rises after a civilization has reached its peak of industrial prowess. For obvious reasons, obviously. Then, I think there are both cool homosexuals and annoying homosexuals. I don’t like to see two men kissing. I do like to see two girls kissing.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 11:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would hazard a comment if I were not afraid of saying something contrary to popular morality and modern mythologies that would uncover me as a latent barbarian, indulging in what he dares to declare unfit.

Perhaps what I have learned over the years is that the other will most probably be current, and in his currency one must take care, because currency is about value and what I value most is my time.
I hate wasting it on the dead and buried.
And what are we living in if not the culture of walking dead…zombies?

And why would the dead care about life?
Life is for the living, and for the dead there is the current, the slow tides of time washing their bones clean of whatever remains of their rotting flesh.

To speak of life, of nature, to a cadaver is to speak of light to a blind man.

γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Last edited by GoatMan on Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:50 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mr. Oikos
Modern Greek
Modern Greek

Posts : 38
Join date : 2014-01-20
Location : Wild

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 11:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I think homosexuality rises after a civilization has reached its peak of industrial prowess. For obvious reasons, obviously. Then, I think there are both cool homosexuals and annoying homosexuals. I don’t like to see two men kissing. I do like to see two girls kissing.
“Annoying”?
Have you reduced your judgements to ones of taste?

Are you incapable of reading, or did you not notice how I describe how and why homosexual displays appear in social species other than man?

If I were to say that bestiality and paedophilia are also unfit, from an evolutionary standpoint, and how both behaviours can be witnessed in other social species, would a retard, like you, accuse me of being a closet paedophile or one who secretly indulges in animal sex?

Are you a moron or just a degenerate modern?

How perfectly you fit into the ILP.

γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Last edited by GoatMan on Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 11:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
lols

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Homosexuality Empty
PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality Homosexuality Icon_minitimeTue Jan 21, 2014 11:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
GoatMan wrote:

Have you reduced your judgements to ones of taste?

Reduced to taste?

How fitting.

43

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Clever Empty
PostSubject: Clever Clever Icon_minitimeWed Jan 22, 2014 12:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Man prefers rather to be seen as clever than “good” (holding to his own values, rational, wise).

If it appears otherwise that is only because a man has no other better means of being seen as clever.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Clever Empty
PostSubject: Re: Clever Clever Icon_minitimeSat Feb 22, 2014 5:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Man prefers rather to be seen as clever than “good” (holding to his own values, rational, wise).

If it appears otherwise that is only because a man has no other better means of being seen as clever.

Perhaps ONLY the man who NEEDS to be seen as clever. Does this absolutist statement leave much room for the individual, for the particular man?
Does a “noble” man need to be seen as clever or can he necessarily BE clever without judging himself as such?

To Be or Not to Be - clever or good? That is the Question at hand.
The way I look at it, a man seeing himself as clever is no better nor worse than the man who sees himself as good.
But the man who simply holds to his own values, rational and wise, without judgment of it or himself, but rather from necessity and self-hood, that is the noble man.

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Clever Empty
PostSubject: Re: Clever Clever Icon_minitimeMon Feb 24, 2014 12:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I agree. Nobility requires that one risks looking like a fool, to some people, at least once in while.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Clever Empty
PostSubject: Re: Clever Clever Icon_minitimeTue Mar 04, 2014 3:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes. Good, just, wise, creative, these have lost their nobility and become merely derivative, subtler forms of clever-ness.

Truth will always be the best lie.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Daemonic explosion of concepts Empty
PostSubject: Daemonic explosion of concepts Daemonic explosion of concepts Icon_minitimeWed Dec 10, 2014 4:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In terms of the excess, I decided to try breaking down some concepts.

“The good” is the ground and expanding space of excess that is latent to idealized conception in terms of that conception’s imaginative-aesthetic base, essentially a kind of unitary series of principle reconciliations that emerge from that in our ideas which proceeds both from the concrete and the abstract, or specific and general concepts held together in a single idea. Good is distinct from pleasure in that pleasure is a form of reconciliation between the instinctual-hormonal network of chemical cause-effect systems in the body and the concepts (objects) in the mind. When we have an “idea” the mind is working with an internally modeled object that possesses space, time, form and content and bears relations to other such objects, and when these ideas are working in tandem with, or recall, or are recalled by those instinctual cause-effect systems we have forms of relation that we call feelings, such as pleasure or pain; a pleasure or pain is a stimulus-response paired to a cognitive object and associated relations thereof, for example; but where these ideas relate and give rise to forms of reconciliation amongst themselves, there we find not pleasure or pain or any other ‘feeling’ but rather ideal goods, what we call the moral self. Ethics is the consistency and configuration of relationships between objects of consciousness, and of course our pains and pleasures also become such objects, secondary to themselves, and thus enter via this route into the moral sphere.

The “idealized concepts” which are a part of the substantial ground of the good constitute a kind of excess of imagination and memory; the self emerges along with the capacity for active as opposed to merely passive recollection and along with this capacity’s developed ability to project empty forms of itself within itself, to engender “imagination”, namely objects that have never existed and do not exist yet become objects to the mind nonetheless. This ‘empty form of memory’ is an excess of memory, a kind of “overflow of strength” of the recollecting-synthetic system that has become able to posit formal objects with contents removed from those objects; we call such formal objects logic, grammar, mathematics and language. Language is the wider system that has grown up around these empty objects of memory as they have become inscribed external to the individual mind and become able to be related to each other in regular knowable patterns. The grammar underlying our languages has its basis in logic, which is to say correct in relation to reality, and it is not language nor its grammar that deceives consciousness as to that reality, but rather the imaginative sphere evoked necessarily when that consciousness fills in its mental objects with its own musings. Man’s capacity for thought and knowledge are also his capacity for imagination, error, deception and falsity, these go hand in hand and the one speaks directly of the other. These temper each other which is the implicit ‘goal’ of reason, an effective self-regulation and active and engendering reflexivity between reality-apprehension and positing the imaginative-unreal.

The good occurs because this idealized system of abstract conception and its conjunctive workings with the memory system from which it came are drawn up into those principles of reconciliation for thought generally and become formal to those reconcilations: we begin to become capable of imagining what we might have done rather than what we did, we envisage goals, ends, and become in part teleological beings, for example; we project thoughts against each other and posit mental experiences and objects not just in terms of their generative reality or their immediate utility or effect/desirability but also in terms of their long-term predicted and anticipated outcomes, we generate imaginative images of future states of existence for ourselves and others and defer our ideas to these images, in order to weigh and judge between those ideas. The good is an implicit and emerging contextuality embedded within these kinds of imaginative-aesthetic affective judgments, for the entire understanding of morality lies in its being itself a formal kind of ground for this very imagination and aesthetic action, those which act as formal principles and delimitative constraints upon thought and affection generally are themselves delimited and formally bound by the most abstract, derivative and metaphysical ground as consequence of thought and its objects and which makes itself salient and essential to those thoughts and objects, to thinking generally. Morality is the highest-possible synthesis in potentia between series of conceptual and affective objects of consciousness, which necessarily manifests in a formal and “linguistic” sense operating on a kind of implicit grammar and logically-structured ordering but whose actual contents are immanent, often non-cognitive and also often quite non-moral contents, for example the excesses latent to the instinctual systems governing behavior or inclination, factors of personality and our psychologistical components which arise as consequence of the active workings of that personality, or even wholly abstract “pure thought” in the greater, most comprehensive and numinous echelons of our reason and philosophy; these sort of experiences point consciousness to its moral good but cannot instantiate or elaborate directly upon that good, for these appear within and in part as a direct consequence of that system of goodness itself so close to the linguistic-formal and imaginative-recollective framework of consciousness.

Daemonically we can identify the excess to concepts and draw out that excess in its antithetical forms in order to derive the concept itself, that ontological real ground which is in fact its sufficient cause for existing and often in term as its continuing to be a phenomenon to human consciousness; out human will and “will power” or “freedom of the will” for instance can be daemonically exploded in terms of the other series of concepts referred to as freedom and causality, which each become direct experiences to a mind, indicative of its limit and its powers and which thoughts bind the mind to experiencing itself and its objects in such a way as gives rise to an experience of being a willful, intentional self. Freedom is the antithetical non-dialectic counter pole to the causal, traditionally posited in the idea of God and human divinity, and it is in the active operation of these two kinds of objective systems of ideas which are each irreconcilable to each other qua experience and even abstractly in the mind, and even in terms generally of philosophy which has failed to derive the proper reconcilations between these two series of conceptualizations, where we find the human experience of will. Will is being for which its own being is felt dynamically as an active pressure under its own powers and control in so far as that pressure is experienced as arising solely from within the bounds of that being itself. External agencies and causes are reduced to secondary, contingent status as the mind’s own structure and need form the only real and important ground of the will, thus man becomes convinced of his own absolute power of action, of intentionality and volition, of his own divinity and mentally “non-causal” status, namely man possesses a soul. The will is the daemonic outcome of the irreconcilable co-extensive systems of concepts loosely gathered under the terms “freedom” and “causation” and is the active and actual, living experience and subjectivity of that co-extensive, irreconcilable series. Likewise freedom and causation themselves, as concepts, can be daemonically exploded as well to reveal their own underlying serial co-extensive irreconcilabilities, for example the concepts of eternity and death or of the sensed infinitude/ boundlessness in the possible and finite limitation in the case of freedom, or of the concepts of the regularity, ordering and logical structure of the cosmos and our unknowability of essential aspects of those structures and our own experiences of contingency and irrationality in the case of causation.

Freedom in a psychological sense is edified subjectivity, edified in terms of its strengths and of the ranges of its felt powers and demonstrable effects. A wide-ranging, stronger system will be more free than a more narrow and weaker system. Human beings are examples of systems that are relatively wide-ranging and strong, relative to the other biological conscious systems we observe around us or imagine typically to be the case elsewhere. Daemonically it is our freedom and “free will” that unites the lesser strains of infinitude and limitation, of the pure-possible and the actual-real in us as the dynamic experience of these serial incongruences under which so much of our conscious subjective experience takes place. The good itself becomes instantiated in more particular and limited modes bound to historical, geographic, social concerns and becomes cultural, religious, racial, individual. Conscience is a monad within larger monads.

Daemonically exploding the will and the good relates also to the daemonic character of the self in terms of the real and ideal egos, to use Parodites terms. Freedom and goodness are ideas as principles of inter-relation between the real and the idea, ways in which divergent series manage to converge and cohere a kind of inter-formative ground of possible action and synthetic subjective understanding. The self is this very convergence and coherence, its character is both spatial and temporal, in the conventional sense as well as in how Kitaro applies these terms in his Logic of the Place of Nothingness and the Religious Worldview. We find that regret, nostalgia, every “existential suffering” of the psychological being has its roots ultimately in this selfhood which is constructed daemonically, namely these take their formal character and shape from the contesting reciprocal and reflexive relationship between real and idea in us, even as the individual character or content of these sufferings draws from our more cultural or individual experiences, namely as these express contingently with respect to the ‘existential truth’ itself. The ideal and real correspond generally to the imaginative-aesthetic and the psychological-willed beings respectively, what we might call mind and body in simpler terms, but truly are constructed in terms of memory and of that capacity to unite experiences with each other by holding an experience in existence in the mind longer than that experience exists in fact, or to hold the effects which impose upon us and are causal to those experiences longer in memory than otherwise would be the case, in order to compare, contrast, juxtapose and form active relations among our constituent experiences and those stimuli which act upon us, again as Parodites outlines. This edified capacity of memory is at the heart of what it means to be conscious, for without memory, either the backward-looking memory of active recollection or the forward-looking ‘empty form of memory’ of active imagination, consciousness would be collapsed to the flat dimension of the pure-present and would remain merely incipient, minimal and with no substantive content to speak of. The real-ideal system is that which is rooted directly in this dynamic inter-reflexive and oppositional contrastive system of memory acting upon our experiences at every moment, it is the multi-layered geometry of mind which forms out of the myriad tactile, imaginal or affective data-streams that flow into synthetic memory and embody the mind’s character and content in terms of every present moment of consciousness, as just the objects of that consciousness at any given moment which objects are necessarily synthetic, abstracted and partial and as a whole constitute a kind of inner flux that we like to call “unconsciousness”. We also have identified this setup with the name of self-valuing, and posit that every being in existence of any scope or character possesses this basically self-valuing, daemonic structure.

Thus every experience or idea, rather human, divine or otherwise can theoretically be subjected to daemonic analysis to obtain that formative series of irreducible, divergent yet co-extensive grounds out of which that experience or idea has come and from which it draws its own substance and enduring quality; this also therefore would reveal much about the larger relations between these and other ideas and experiences of ours, leading ultimately to a larger picture of the self, of consciousness, of life and the rules and natural laws that bind things to each other, rather our ideas to our ideas, humans to other humans, future to past, or life to death. And in so far as the mind and the ideal ego works dialectically in terms of kinds of analysis and synthesis there exists a derivative kind of contradiction between the mind and its own ground, or between various of the mind’s objects and others in and of mentality; psychologically-speaking consciousness is both daemonic and anti-daemonic or “dialectical” and it is through reason and higher cognition that the dialectic emerges from the daemonic, as its own partiality and antithesis qua process. Thus a greater daemonism exists through which these two co-extensive series of daemonic consciousness and dialectical reasoning mind are united in their highest possible expression; terms under which this greater daemonism might be elaborated or explored seemingly do not yet exist, and pose the challenge and task for philosophy going forward, indeed this is already what takes place on the level of every genius when that genius invents its own personal philosophy and self out of the ashes of its old self, it has daemonically cohered and constructed itself anew and in terms of its own irreconcilable and inexhaustible self-relations, the terms of which go on to implicitly define that genius and the ways in which it acts and relates to itself and to the world. This process must be expanded beyond the individual, however, it must be formalized and rendered in philosophical terms that it be consciously grasped and allowed to re-make philosophy and the mind generally. For that, we will need more than an individual system of self-created greater daemonics, we will need a philosophically-articulated rational theory of daemonic explosion of every important concept in the history of thought. This would bring the “method of genius” directly to man, instantiating it in terms of his historical, spiritual, rational and psychological character.

Addiction

The entire idea of addiction is bullshit. People do what they want to do. No one is addicted to doing something they don’t want to do. A heroin user wants to shoot up, regardless of the consequences. Likewise with people who smoke or drink. We want to do these things because we value doing them more than we value avoiding the negative consequences associated. There is a “pressure” inside when we try to resist doing these “addictions”, it is “hard” for a smoker to try forcing himself not to smoke, for example; this pressure (pain) is not a sign that we are “addicted”, it is a sign that we are attempting to act contrary to what/how we are.

“Addiction is biological”, yeah we hear this retarded non-idea all the time. “Depression is a medical condition, it is biological”, same nonsense. Who the fuck is thinking anymore on this planet? Apparently no one.

There is no such thing as addiction. There is desire and behavior. We act on what we desire, and we desire what satisfies or completes a self-valuing process in us (removes or keeps avoiding a pain, and/or brings satisfaction-satiety to an otherwise disjointed affective-valuational process in us). We are what we are. Desires are negative (seeking-drawing) expressions of our self-valuing, joys are positive (removing-discharging) expressions of our self-valuing. Energy in, energy out.

Yet when there are processes in us which we do not understand, we act on the desires that result from such a process and then confusedly think that we did something we “didn’t want to do”. Not so.

Even under the conventional definition of addiction, even if we accept it, is it possible to be addicted to something that brings no pleasure at all rather psychological or physical, something that we do not want to do? Of course not.

“Addictions” are behaviors that give a person, based on who and what they are, pleasure or value but for which the processes of desire from which those behaviors stem have not yet been reconciled by that person with his understanding, resulting in confusions. “I did it but I didn’t want to” or “I want to quit but I can’t” are deliberate destructions of one’s own responsibility, one’s own understanding and one’s own self-valuing, which are all the same thing.

Valuing as desire Valuing as desire Icon_minitimeSun Feb 08, 2015 5:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We implicitly desire in terms of what we already have (what we are) and explicitly value in terms of what we do not have (what we are not). In this way the “are and are not” are synthesized like two whirlpools coming together to meet at the points of their funnels. Actions are pushed outward in two directions, “to the inside” and “to the outside”; what moves to the inside is our inner sense of value, of meaning and motive, also called self-understanding, and what moves to the outside is our actions, what we actually do or say.

Sometimes our own thoughts and feelings are expressions of the outward movement, yet for whatever reason do not find natural expression outward and remain hidden inside us. In this case there is a confusion of what is implicitly vs. explicitly desired. One word for this “confusion” is reason, another is love.

Reason and love are poles upon a hierarchal continuum of self-reinforcing knowledge-states of the soul. Both act to unite oppositions within themselves, both are in this sense unifications-as-such. Technically love is built upon a ground of reason, or: that which reason brings together and unites is, in giving way to love, brought into an even higher-order unification and utility. Let us be clear, we are speaking here of redemption. Love and reason each possess their own gravity and constantly pull against each other, and create storms and nebulas in the soul because the reason in love and the love in reason each extent outward tendrils of themselves in many directions, which entwine with many things which they are not.

Men are like Jupiter, a continuous gravity of storms and conflict wed together into a massive self-sustaining sphere; man even has an ‘eye’, a greatest-storm that never abates, this we call our self-awareness or our sense of identity, a continuity across time. But that continuity would be nothing without those other storms and forces around it that, in always coming into existence and perishing, sustain the fire of the eye.

Desire is very close to the center of the self. Desire is also very misunderstood, in part because of those synthetic-rationalizing spheres of reason and love; desires at once emerge from the whole being as well as emerge from and resonate or center within both reason and love independently, either as form or shadow: technically every desire is a new self born from a world which it can never know, for desire is precisely that which may never know itself well at all, if it is to remain what it is.

We all know that one desire can birth a world of passions and powers in us. The desire for immortality birthed God, the desire for knowledge birthed reason, the desire for the other in whose image desire is most concentrated birthed amor, love. Man is immortality, reason and love. A storm without end. Socrates believed he had proved the immortality of the soul by the fact that unlike ailments of the body, which can bring about the death of the body, ailments of the soul never bring about the death of the soul in likewise fashion. The soul seems to suffer endlessly, for no matter what sickens it the soul never perishes, so therefore must have some sort of life which extends beyond the plane of existence in which the body is centered.

D&G got close with the concept of desiring-machines. Such a concept can be seen in how it emerged out of a difference + repetition conceptual framework Deleuze develops in his major work DR: difference-in-itself is the given (this is self-valuing in an ontological sense) from which repetitions follow given the fact that difference is perhaps fixed in space but not in time, or that difference is perhaps at other moments fixed in time but not in space. Kant notes that space and time are absolute categories; Kitaro also centers the self and its life experience in this mutual contradicting point and meeting between space and time, between extension and duration. The one enters the others and ‘flips’ to become a soul, a spirit, a ghost in the machine. The other, the body/mind/world is a matrix holding it in place, and it becomes free.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Valuing as desire Empty
PostSubject: Re: Valuing as desire Valuing as desire Icon_minitimeThu Feb 26, 2015 1:11 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
We implicitly desire in terms of what we already have (what we are) and explicitly value in terms of what we do not have (what we are not). In this way the “are and are not” are synthesized like two whirlpools coming together to meet at the points of their funnels. Actions are pushed outward in two directions, “to the inside” and “to the outside”; what moves to the inside is our inner sense of value, of meaning and motive, also called self-understanding, and what moves to the outside is our actions, what we actually do or say.

Sometimes our own thoughts and feelings are expressions of the outward movement, yet for whatever reason do not find natural expression outward and remain hidden inside us. In this case there is a confusion of what is implicitly vs. explicitly desired. One word for this “confusion” is reason, another is love.

Reason and love are poles upon a hierarchal continuum of self-reinforcing knowledge-states of the soul. Both act to unite oppositions within themselves, both are in this sense unifications-as-such. Technically love is built upon a ground of reason, or: that which reason brings together and unites is, in giving way to love, brought into an even higher-order unification and utility. Let us be clear, we are speaking here of redemption. Love and reason each possess their own gravity and constantly pull against each other, and create storms and nebulas in the soul because the reason in love and the love in reason each extent outward tendrils of themselves in many directions, which entwine with many things which they are not.

Men are like Jupiter, a continuous gravity of storms and conflict wed together into a massive self-sustaining sphere; man even has an ‘eye’, a greatest-storm that never abates, this we call our self-awareness or our sense of identity, a continuity across time. But that continuity would be nothing without those other storms and forces around it that, in always coming into existence and perishing, sustain the fire of the eye.

I am quite in awe of this whole insight, and the Jupiter reference is fascinating. I offer an expansion on the astronomical metaphor; if men are like Jupiter, woman is like Saturn; cold and elegant, balanced, the signifier of cycles. Metaphorically Jupiter is sun-like, Saturn is moon-like. The man is more electrical, the woman more stable. Perhaps desire itself created that division, in order for it to be able to desire stronger. The desire for greater desire, the explosive self-valuing of desire itself. Indeed Jupiter is a very good symbol. But in woman the desire is rather to be desired. She is conservative and smooth-surfaced, her rings, adornments belong to what she is. In occultism Saturn is called the dark mother, and she is the throne to the daughter-queen, the world, with its seasons. Demeter is Saturnian, the sorrowful one, the bitter sea. Persephone, in her going down in animality and re-emerging as purity, is the focus of the life-sustaining mysteries of the west. Love is called victory and mercy, reason is called splendor and severity. Two lesser polarities standing to each other in a greater polarity. victory and severity are matched optimally as are mercy and splendor. And in between them is balanced the king, beauty. The son of the lightning and the bitter sea, the sometimes darkened groom of the shifting, Persephonic world. When it emerges the spine of creation shivers with life and the serpent is stirred. As he crawls upward pain turns to beauty and beauty becomes terrifying and the need of justification is created; so great is beauty that it must be divine; divinity not out of lack but excess. No human can humanly bear his own immortal gaze, arches though the sky are required to conduct that inspiration, and so the world of man comes to be cultivated under a huge expanse of magnificent bows and as an ensemble of strings, tied between the limits that represent the beyond, eternal, helplessly music. To play and to play reasonably well, this is the task at hand for all of us. But the task required to perform this task is to discern to the greater harmonies, and not only the closer strings. Humanity’s health depends on the effective distribution and reception of individual expressions. Art, but also the apparatus that finances and disseminates art, organs without which consciousness can not survive itself.

Quote :
Desire is very close to the center of the self. Desire is also very misunderstood, in part because of those synthetic-rationalizing spheres of reason and love; desires at once emerge from the whole being as well as emerge from and resonate or center within both reason and love independently, either as form or shadow: technically every desire is a new self born from a world which it can never know, for desire is precisely that which may never know itself well at all, if it is to remain what it is.

We all know that one desire can birth a world of passions and powers in us. The desire for immortality birthed God, the desire for knowledge birthed reason, the desire for the other in whose image desire is most concentrated birthed amor, love. Man is immortality, reason and love. A storm without end. Socrates believed he had proved the immortality of the soul by the fact that unlike ailments of the body, which can bring about the death of the body, ailments of the soul never bring about the death of the soul in likewise fashion. The soul seems to suffer endlessly, for no matter what sickens it the soul never perishes, so therefore must have some sort of life which extends beyond the plane of existence in which the body is centered.

A pain and a desire for resolve, and a delight in the pain and in the seeking of resolve, and an encounter of more pain on the path to resolve, sidetracked into slippery paths through the frozen trees, this is reason out of love for reason. To be lost out of time and space. A bliss increasingly common to man. Bliss as a phenomenon; in the old yogic formula, awareness equals bliss equals love. But for good reason, yoga itself means union - the good reason being that division, difference is the primordial state. That seems to me to be the reason that one of the titles of beauty is the crucified king. Another is the child - who unites his mother and father, and is the ultimate power; the future embodied. Potential is innocent, in consequence lies either learning and growth or bitterness and decrease. I suppose the latter are always going to be the majority, hence the bitter sea as the Saturnian gravity and Jupiter as fortune and the higher law; the positive law; which is the negation of direct consequence the suspension of disbelief, the space where both reason and love can generate themselves, from the creational plasma that is desire-for-desire.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Thoughts and glue Empty
PostSubject: Thoughts and glue Thoughts and glue Icon_minitimeWed Oct 02, 2013 4:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What holds thoughts together at the “bottom” of cognition is a kind of sticky glue, something that normally holds them next to each other in a seeming continuity, but can actually be pulled apart. You see the residue clinging to each separate thought, if you do this.

When you pull the thoughts apart like this and look at the darkness underneath them, through the residue of the glue strands, what you see is raw affect. Basically this is just primal feeling, the sort of intense and undifferentiated emotional state and comes over us when the fight or flight response takes over, when we are confronted with abject fear, for instance. Cognition is suspended temporarily and thoughts form a kind of waterfall-effect in slow motion, and the feeling’s raw power dominates the psyche for a while. (But when we deliberately pull apart the thoughts and look into this darkness underneath, we are not controlled by its power but maintain a nice objectivity to it.)

The rawness is what lurks underneath these thoughts. Above the base level there is no real glue, or rather the glue is just the actual logical (semantic and grammatical) consistencies which arise derivatively from thoughts with respect to each other. Emotions help to smooth this process, and here the emotions are refined and “tame”, not visceral.

It’s funny to watch even intelligent people when they approach the glue-limit. They can do nothing but bark and howl irrelevancies and insanity to stave off the need to apply enough effort to pull the glue apart and look underneath. It would seem that there is nothing rational at all about the way the base of cognition is constructed, despite how the upper echelons of this cognition do seem to attain a great degree of rationality and logical coherence.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Thoughts and glue Empty
PostSubject: Re: Thoughts and glue Thoughts and glue Icon_minitimeSat May 30, 2015 8:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
What holds thoughts together at the “bottom” of cognition is a kind of sticky glue, something that normally holds them next to each other in a seeming continuity, but can actually be pulled apart. You see the residue clinging to each separate thought, if you do this.

When you pull the thoughts apart like this and look at the darkness underneath them, through the residue of the glue strands, what you see is raw affect. Basically this is just primal feeling, the sort of intense and undifferentiated emotional state and comes over us when the fight or flight response takes over, when we are confronted with abject fear, for instance. Cognition is suspended temporarily and thoughts form a kind of waterfall-effect in slow motion, and the feeling’s raw power dominates the psyche for a while. (But when we deliberately pull apart the thoughts and look into this darkness underneath, we are not controlled by its power but maintain a nice objectivity to it.)

The rawness is what lurks underneath these thoughts. Above the base level there is no real glue, or rather the glue is just the actual logical (semantic and grammatical) consistencies which arise derivatively from thoughts with respect to each other. Emotions help to smooth this process, and here the emotions are refined and “tame”, not visceral.

It’s funny to watch even intelligent people when they approach the glue-limit. They can do nothing but bark and howl irrelevancies and insanity to stave off the need to apply enough effort to pull the glue apart and look underneath. It would seem that there is nothing rational at all about the way the base of cognition is constructed, despite how the upper echelons of this cognition do seem to attain a great degree of rationality and logical coherence.

So the glue could be seen as resistance and the pulling it apart could be the beginning of acceptance, or embracing the reality of things. Just to open this up.

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Thoughts and glue Empty
PostSubject: Re: Thoughts and glue Thoughts and glue Icon_minitimeSat May 30, 2015 9:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, I know this glue from the deepest of meditations. Is there a greater liberation than to engage this glue with all ones fire and minerals and tear it apart? Those avalaches of new born consciousness that result, that is my paradise. The best ripping art is born from it like vapor from a waterfall, or like the rainbows when the sun hits these vapors. Yet that tearing apart the glue itself is so much greater even - but it is too raw and dense and subterranean to be “beauty”. I think the waterfall metaphor is good because the place where the glue is torn feels like the place where a waterfall hits the water surface and rips through it and then churns in extatic awareness of its own density, which is its true world.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

AI or biosynth amalgamation Empty
PostSubject: AI or biosynth amalgamation AI or biosynth amalgamation Icon_minitimeFri Aug 14, 2015 12:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Should we expect to see software programs uploaded into the neural architecture any time soon? The brain may act as a large hard-drive for a more advanced kind of computing, running complex programming languages and algorithms directly in the brain. Of course this would screw up a lot in that brain so some areas of minimal intrusion would need to be identified, but since even a small chunk of neural matter could probably run a lot of computing power (once languages are written to take advantage of the structure of neurons and how they establish transistor states) - I mean why not? A concentrated brain imaging could find an area of underutilized neurons, very small area, map it entirely and model how the insertion of new energetic relationships among those neurons could be used to sync with an external computer system. I’m no sure how the artificial pathways would be created, maybe a combination of direct surgical electrical stimulation and targeted learning programs that you run the person through to “tune up” the area to spec.

If this happened we might develop a subtle area of feeling in our minds that would be located by feeling toward that “area” in mental space or by thinking certain kinds of images or concepts to activate it. Once active our subjective awareness would be able to see or interact with contents dumped into that area by outside computer hookup. The forcibly re-wired neurons would act as a bridge. Or an AI schema could be laid down forcibly over a larger area of brain matter, re-writing that matter almost entirely. Trial and error would probably identify a few small regions in the brain able to be messed with like this without causing severe damage. In this case with the AI our minds would become occupied partly by another presence, maybe it would speak to us or show us thoughts or images, maybe we would load thoughts or memories into it mentally for permanent archive or extra processing power.
The density of birth.

44

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Havoc between words and world Empty
PostSubject: Havoc between words and world Havoc between words and world Icon_minitimeMon Aug 17, 2015 5:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It occurred to me that I don’t realize enough how much of the capacity to speak is used, and has probably been used from the very beginning, to indicate things that are not there. As soon as the capacity to represent came about, the very first experiments people played with it has involved lies, I am sure of that. Why? Because the probability of a symbol representing to someone who reads it precisely what was in the mind of the writer, is almost nil. That seems like a metaphysical relation, but what I mean in reality is that meaning in communication is a question of willing approximation, whereas communication itself is a matter of chaos. The word a first spoken was a distraction. The first function of the word is to distract from physical reality. In some cases, the distraction involves a connection to some aspect of that world, but it is never physical itself. Stone-carving and calligraphy are attempts to make physical the symbol, to bridge the gap between the real and the lie. It is thus a form of dance which is physical but rather than a representation it has become a new thing. The runic eye dances between the world and the word, and is therefore represented as a hazardous passage of deliberate suffering, a storm that wreaks havoc, an untamed gods kiss of breath to a first man.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Havoc between words and world Empty
PostSubject: Re: Havoc between words and world Havoc between words and world Icon_minitimeSat Aug 29, 2015 3:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I agree with this, physical reality is a very low standard of existence and “what is real”, physical-materiality is only the easiest possible such standard. But all this physical stuff is only a very low emanation of ideal-logical relations, or maybe “meta-logical” we might say. Parodites insight that we can replace a concept of identity for a concept of brute physicality in our standard for “what is real” is very useful, recapitulating Plato and a more true philosophical aspiration than all the mere technics of lower-threshold recognitions.

Language enabled us to form bridges upward to more significant realities; conception abstracts more universal truths as facts and as ideas, ideation is always-already rooted essentially in a kind of factuality. To lie about the merely undeniably physical world around us would represent an early and noble stage in the development of consciousness; human consciousness signifies various points along that more universal developmental continuum, and our subjectivity is eminently rooted in our linguistic capacity, in our enculturation to the history of thought, emotions, values, myths, that entire cultural edifice being a ground through which more universal logic can achieve living realization.

“The runic eye dances between the world and the word”, yes I see this as the world-daemon by whose higher triadicity and irresolvable daemonic manifestations man and world are dually brought together, in part, never in total. A dance… I like that image.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

I suddenly understand Nietzsche Empty
PostSubject: I suddenly understand Nietzsche I suddenly understand Nietzsche Icon_minitimeTue Sep 08, 2015 6:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As a god in the act of committing suicide.
Some of his work is a mere suicide note, full of petty pathos.
Some of it is the actual suicide. It’s brilliant like a butchers blade on a summer morning.

Some logics can be constructed for fun in retrospect; god created all, god is dead, therefore god created his own death. God caused his own absence.
But did he not do this already when he banged the big one?

In any case.

It was a fine ritual.

God died at the horse.
Hitler was conceived on that day and life must have of moral necessity reversed its course. Morality was born at Auschwitz and Stalingrad. Morality as a synthetic principle was forged in the heat of the torn apart self-valuing of a hundred million men.

The black sun. Gods suicide stopped time. WWI and II were the crunch of the iron balloon coming to its final expansion, and turning back inward, morally inward.

This is why we can as the first men see god; we give birth to him now that we perceive where we are going; toward the moral singularity now; toward the total collapse of all being into one point.

I feel obliged to add “Haha”.

Yet,

Necessity is “hard yes”, Moral is “soft no”; if it is too hard it will break even against the adamantine outer layers of necessity; morality is the sculptors marble and hammer, necessity is the fact of force and its immanent consequence form; what lies in between and holds each on one hand is called consciousness, but on a more animal and animist level it is called fortune, ‘guiding spirits’… all sorts of glowworms in the grass of darkness, the ‘entities’ which guide human sprits, hopes, over the mountains of their despair.

Stay low to the ground little friend… llightning is angry here… and deer can crush you so don’t make a sound… what a wonderful universe fear is, once you learn to navigate it …
‘courage’; being deliberate in a state of fear to address the cause of that fear
‘military’; professionally operating in a state of justified fear toward neutralizing it’s cause
‘philosophy’; by necessity operating within the element that normally causes fear; the unknown, the knowledge of pain, and the certainty of death.

‘Übermensch’; man become fear-full - fearsome, as if fear itself, when it strikes the heart; ferocious, the lion, but more so, the child.

The unconditioned daemon, the cosmic child, this is the fickle spirit we all have to deal with; it is impossible to grab its attention or calm it down by reason, it can be done repeating the same thing in a droning voice or by tricking it into a path by knowing what it likes. “Fortune favors the bold” - but - “the gods have a way of punishing those who grow too powerful or beautiful”. With god, one has to balance between boldness and too-boldness.

Consider how one gets a pregrammatical child to engage in a game. It can only be done by making the first move and doing it very dramatically. The child will want to imitate and surpass it. The same with God; deep down he knows we all come from the state he’s in, but deeper down all he wants is to be like us.

to navigate that desire, gods desire, is to ride the stallion of the absurd, the particular, ‘life itself’ - those moment where, so to speak, the volcano is fluid.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Drugs Empty
PostSubject: Drugs Drugs Icon_minitimeThu Sep 10, 2015 4:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
All drugs have the effect of unravelling for us parts of the world we know we don’t know. That is what they are for.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Drugs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Drugs Drugs Icon_minitimeFri Sep 11, 2015 1:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I remember writing that drugs thrust consciousness into a different view of itself, sort of like an artificial and temporary philosophy. Normally consciousness gets stuck in patterns and habits of perception, thought, motivational thresholds, all that, but drugs stir up the mix and allow new configurations. Drugs don’t somehow give an experience, they confuse the current experience enough to force it to change. How it changes, then, reveals a lot about who and what we are, and about the objects of thought as you say, unraveling unknown parts of the world to us.

For me a theory of mind boils down in a large way to the concept of perspectives, quanta of perspectives, the logic of interactions of perspectives, scope and degree and depth. Drugs operate right at the heart of this, at least some drugs do.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Drugs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Drugs Drugs Icon_minitimeFri Sep 11, 2015 3:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There’s a theory that an accomplished enough buhddist monk can access all the areas of consciousness that psychoactive drugs produce. Their pathos is absolute knowledge. They want nothing hidden from the world.

Drug users are couragous in this way, they accept the reasons to hide and must find answers.

Buhddist monks unsettle a european spirit.

In terms of value ontology, non-psychoactive drugs also have the effect of unravelling parts of the world for us that we know we don’t know.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Drugs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Drugs Drugs Icon_minitimeFri Sep 11, 2015 3:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That we value as presently unvaluable.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Drugs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Drugs Drugs Icon_minitimeFri Sep 11, 2015 4:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, and I think these monks experience something different. If it were all the same you’d have a lot of movies and inventions coming out of Tibet. I agree with these definitions above. Drugs are simply cocktails of chemicals to the chemical process that man is already being, they completely alter what a man is in that moment when the chemical is being absorbed (the absorbing is the strange part of the trip) and quite alter how he comports himself when he has grown back to his normal state. Precisely because the drug is imperfect and can be bad and unnatural it is incomparable to the states of bliss and vision that a yogi can attain. His sammasamhadi states can perhaps absorb a bag of xtc pills without being much altered, but be can not experience the state of going from good into bad and back, which is where our art comes from.

Western man places himself below art, that is why he is so depressed and unhappy and unreasonable to himself. He lives for his states of world-contradicting awesomeness, and also for the greasy dirt he has to clean behind the closet every day.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Drugs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Drugs Drugs Icon_minitimeFri Sep 11, 2015 4:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The addict, then, tricks himself into believing he is the funk. Once he realizes the trick and understands he has melded in himself bad with good, revocably, he is invaded by a sense of urgency.

This state would be blissful if it didn’t scare. Full of blissful promise.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Drugs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Drugs Drugs Icon_minitimeFri Sep 11, 2015 5:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Right, exactly. This urgency is lacking in the sober state, which then becomes an urge itself, an urge for the greater urgency.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Drugs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Drugs Drugs Icon_minitimeFri Sep 11, 2015 5:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
(Nietzsche condemned this. This was my great betrayal and liberation…! The reason I feel so full of grace and debt with the irresponsible youth of modern man. This is his will to power.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Drugs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Drugs Drugs Icon_minitimeFri Sep 11, 2015 6:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is also a remedy against soulcancer.

45

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Justice, one attempt Empty
PostSubject: Justice, one attempt Justice, one attempt Icon_minitimeSat Sep 12, 2015 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Justice

From my Weltanschauung.

Justice was, as a child, percieved as a function of a bleeding principle, a developping instinct. For instance, not coveting my neighbour’s wife was just: it could not be just (as a child I already rejected universality), this justice must be pointing me to a real instinct. “But not seeking out my neighbour for fear of her husband is not noble,” I went on. Yes… Nobility is an instinct, and justice part of the triad that helped develop it. Justice was the taming of instinct for the searching of excelence in society, fear and universality forsaken.

Bleeding because it allows for stupid comments, for comments to be painfully stupid.

Alas! Society turned out stupid. But evolution has other ways than nobility to achieve excelence.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Immortals Empty
PostSubject: Immortals Immortals Icon_minitimeMon Sep 14, 2015 8:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The philosopher is after one thing, has his straight line from the moment of his birth:

Immortality.

This itself already justifies Eternity, Gods, and any other immortal myth.

Last edited by Pezer on Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:58 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Immortals Empty
PostSubject: Re: Immortals Immortals Icon_minitimeMon Sep 14, 2015 9:00 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Incidentally, this is not the case for the Superman, who is an instinctual being.

This explains the bloodyness of his historic appearances.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Immortals Empty
PostSubject: Re: Immortals Immortals Icon_minitimeMon Sep 14, 2015 9:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Your highness.”

Highness is there for three people: the philosopher, the superman, and the pothead.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeThu Nov 24, 2011 1:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It just occurred to me that repression works through shielding/reflecting.

I had a glance of the back cover of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, and a second later of a stray-lying dvd case of “Gomorra.” My mind got entwined into a momentary fascination of the jagged image, purple and white, cutting strangely through my objective, and then became aware that I had been repressing the memory of Adolf Hitlers face by maintaining a forced fascination of something else near my field of attention. It felt like I had to create the thwarted perception of an other random object (before hand was the useful connotation of lesser violence) to distribute the surplus of the affect of the immoral power. The rejected-affect was put into a distortion of the image, of my perspective, of my standing-to my world.

I can imagine that this process would be operative constantly, that we jerk our perception out of its balance in order to pay attention to something else - anything. I experienced a dominantly visual play of this, giving the impression of a shielding by reflecting on mirrors put at odd angles to each other.

Psychoanalysis would be the study of the hands that put the mirrors there – “magick” or any kind of internal yoga would be the art of re-aligning them to refer to a full image, instead of a perplexity of perspective-facets

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
without-music
builder
builder
without-music

Posts : 37
Join date : 2011-11-16

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Nov 28, 2011 2:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps the thought of repression becomes intolerable; it appears to us as childish, neurotic, weak. We forbid ourselves, we strong ones, from indulging in such infantile luxuries. Perhaps repression itself is repressed – and the project of ridding our conscious minds of an insufferable idea is refocused, consolidated in a new way. A forced change of attention, a displacing of focus from the intolerable image onto a replacement, an image to fill the mental gap left by the displacement: this works as a mental acrobatic aimed at the same goal, taking the place of a repression (to distribute the affect, as you write) once repression itself is thought intolerable. Indeed, we might take this acrobatic movement of the mind as the object of our study, the object of the psychoanalytic gaze, and find our way much deeper into the darkened, forbidding realms of the mind. I suspect such mental acrobatics, such contortions around the nexus of repression are never-ending. We are constantly playing a sort of perverted catch-up with our unconscious selves. Only once in an age are we able to stumble upon the type of thought that allows us a strangle-hold, a leg-up on the unconscious, a foothold from which we might propel ourselves forward into the unknown. Intriguing thoughts, FC.

“…to act is to modify the shape of the world…”
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
James S Saint
rational metaphysicist
rational metaphysicist

Posts : 244
Join date : 2011-12-26

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeThu Dec 29, 2011 9:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The typical homosapian mind functions via over focus and exaggeration as a means to distract from over focus and exaggeration. What can’t be avoided or digested must be deflected, reflected, or coated with a seal.

But the struggle of minds today is not so much with the easy to repair software, but the very difficult to repair wetware.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeTue Sep 15, 2015 2:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
An insight, with all honest respect to satanists:

Repression doesn’t hide a whole, it hides that there is yet no whole.

In this sense, philosophy must build. Humans are silly to seek anything pure in muddled thought but instinct. This is why gods have been useful, and would reproach this if they cared more.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeSun Sep 20, 2015 4:11 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Repression doesn’t hide a whole, it hides that there is yet no whole.

and drugs are a means to endure that there is yet no whole. That is why all drugs lead to a form of laughter, and why laugher is whole-some;

by embracing the unwholeness there is a wholeness, but it exists only in motion, rapture - what man used to find in the hunt and the fight for survival.

There is thus only one way to get rid of an addiction: the creation of a path through danger by the setting of a goal pertaining directly to his self-valuing. That means: rearranging his instincts.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 1:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Pezer wrote:
Repression doesn’t hide a whole, it hides that there is yet no whole.

and drugs are a means to endure that there is yet no whole. That is why all drugs lead to a form of laughter, and why laugher is whole-some;

by embracing the unwholeness there is a wholeness, but it exists only in motion, rapture - what man used to find in the hunt and the fight for survival.

There is thus only one way to get rid of an addiction: the creation of a path through danger by the setting of a goal pertaining directly to his self-valuing.

This reminds me:

On page 106 of his Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, Laurence Lampert wrote:
[…] Strauss states that nature is a fragment unless willed as a bridge to the future: the complementary man complements nature by completing it, in a way ending its fragmentariness. Nature is provided with synonyms that stem from Zarathustra and that link nature and history: “the gruesome rule of non-sense and chance, nature, the fact that almost all men are fragments, cripples and gruesome accidents, the whole present and past.” This catalog states what must be willed in willing suffering and inequality–the accidental past, human nature as it is, the whole present and past. This totality of present and past remains “a fragment, a riddle, a gruesome accident unless it is willed as a bridge to the future.” Present and past are made whole in a future only if everything that was and is is willed; only if the fragmentary is affirmed by a piece of the fragment can it attain a kind of wholeness. And by putting the emphasis on suffering and inequality, Strauss puts the emphasis exactly where Zarathustra himself put it in “On Redemption,” the crucial chapter in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (2.20) from which the argument is drawn: what is hardest to bear in willing the whole natural order, the whole of the natural process, is to will suffering and inequality, to will the fragmentary character of humanity, to will the absence of redemption from the natural human condition with its order of rank of the natures.

Consider also the notion of the eternal recurrence as a time-fetish–a healthy time-fetish as opposed to, say, the unhealthy Zoroastrian-Abrahamic time-fetish, the straight line segment (reminiscent as the latter is of the phallus, as opposed to the circle which is reminiscent of the vulva).

FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 4:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Perhaps justice, in this willing of the suffering and/in nature in history, is to find a justification of it, as you say, not in a falic time fashion, but a vulvan calm passion of the eternal recurrence. Not a repetition like a movie, but a volving of the same instincts and potentials. So justice is creative, but not genetic. Suffering is willed, but not as an end itself.

If we turn away from the falus, much of the responsibility turns to the eternally recurring participants themselves. Justice is not then Roman but… Different. Maybe reminiscent of hinduism, remembering your old avatar. But vaguely.

As a side note, the eternal recurrence as falic, a movie, is quite the fucking trip. Beautiful and, ultimately, the birth of Existentialist morality.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 5:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Perhaps justice, in this willing of the suffering and/in nature in history, is to find a justification of it, as you say, not in a falic time fashion, but a vulvan calm passion of the eternal recurrence. Not a repetition like a movie, but a volving of the same instincts and potentials.

This mediates the time fetish concept sufficiently for me to relate to it, and now I can actually see it. I see that the phallic time, the straight line fro beginning to end, is an overheated, ‘hysterical’ experience of time. I can quite strongly feel its feverish quality.

The vulvic time (I like these expressions, vulvic time and phallic time, it would be fun to discuss them aloud in the street) was not understandable to me, as the ER so far mainly served to me as a symbol of the cyclical nature of… nature, not as an actual picture of it , but in this sense of ‘volving of the same instincts and potentials’ it is more than imaginable.

Perhaps men seek a circle because they are fundamentally happy with their nature, and wish to arrive back upon it, and women see s straight line because the want proceed, ahead from where they are now - the circle is voluptuous, like woman as the possession of man - referring to that notion of freedom as a function of possessing.

So, yeah.

obelisk_wallpaper_by_s3mmy.jpg
obelisk_wallpaper_by_s3mmy.jpg800×600 35.6 KB

magick mirror Obelisk_wallpaper_by_s3mmy

Quote :
So justice is creative, but not genetic. Suffering is willed, but not as an end itself.

Suffering is willed as the soil and the seed, the moment where the seed breaks open into the soil, for the two to receive each other.

Quote :
If we turn away from the falus, much of the responsibility turns to the eternally recurring participants themselves. Justice is not then Roman but… Different. Maybe reminiscent of hinduism, remembering your old avatar. But vaguely.

As a side note, the eternal recurrence as falic, a movie, is quite the fucking trip. Beautiful and, ultimately, the birth of Existentialist morality.

Black Panther wrote:
Quote :
Chiron is birthed by Cronos in the form of horse, a night-mare, a crisis. The Plutonic healing is cathartic.
The opening of gaps - forgetfulness - is a precursor to health. Dissolution of old, weak forms shedding away to a becoming, a growth.
Chiron’s hybridity is a formal riddle. Burkert [Homo Necans] cites the ancient I.E. rite of horse-sacrifice [including the story of the Trojan horse] which involved incubating the horse’s head as healing the entropic time.
Horse as the symbol of time, the sun rising and setting as Apollo drives it as his chariot across the sky is an old metaphor.

Horse, Ehwaz, (“equus”?); the long distance, which can only be crossed when man and beast are in Harmony. Apollo’s chariot: consciousness as a extended time, time as conception.

Quote :
A glance into the absurdity of the world can be won only with an absurdity, a play, a riddle… and a peek of truth is caught in the lightness of playing although the riddle itself may be serious and deadly.
The solving of the riddle joins the fragments and fragmentations.
The Kenaz rune ’ < ’ is like an inward thorn or arrow upon oneself, like Chiron shot with a poisoned arrow.
The rune of knowledge is also the rune of wounds, rot, putrescence, burns, inflame-ation, scorching blisters, volcanic light, sacred fire of sexual generation (kennen: to know, to beget)…

And what causes Kenaz but the thorn, the first blood-drawing edge of the Futhark:

Quote :
Apollo the scorcherer and the sender of plague is also the enlightener and light of any hierosgamos, marriage of two things that is number, proportion, healing music, a re-membrance over the gap of forgetfulness.

The aspect of scorcher and enlightener together in the lightning: Thor, Thunder, Thurisaz.

Next level pain = Hagal:

Quote :
Hagalaz – “Hag-all-az” – Literally: “Hail” or “Hailstone” – Esoteric: Crisis or Radical Change

A storm of thorns, moving into Nauthiz - Need/Necessity Moving into… Isa, ice, isolation, I, Individuation.
Then only then: Jera - year, cycle, recurrence - the recurrence is a circle around the I.

Now the Futhark crosses into the next half by giving Eihwaz, the inversed Sun principle, the Zodiac, the world turned inward, the black sun. The next following rune is better not mentioned.

Relevant here being the notion of the recurrence, as circle, revolving around the I, the straight line. What this means to me is that in order to solidly hold a ‘vulvic’ conception of time, one must have a ‘phallic’ conception of oneself. And this corresponds with my experience. I on’t care about death, about morality, about the finitude of it all, because I now that the only relevant thing I can know about it is how I stand with respect to it; I will ‘turn out to’ interpret time as an exact reflection of how I live my life. If I live it with great electricity, I know I will magnetize time, and time will come to revolve around ‘me’, that is to say my ‘phallic nature’, which is to say my work, my will. I know death is a function of life, and I sense that it is quite merciful if life gives it the opportunity to serve. It becomes tyrannical if it is given the chance to dominate. It doesn’t want to dominate. Death is ‘feminine’ in this sense, she becomes a crone if there is no king.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 5:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I like the modern symbol for chaos, all fali pointing outwards, seeking each the largest portion of self indulgence, germination, wounding, effective experience they are able to allow themselves without the other cowering together.

That they radicate from a center is merely a geometric expression of space, and maybe that non-geometric center is justice.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 5:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Death makes angels of us all and gives us wings where we had shoulders smooth as ravens claws.”

Does this not reflect death as the circle? Life is the straight line that the good death bends into a circle. And only the good life can beget the good death. That means that only the naturally straight line (whatever that may mean) can be closed in the end - the dimensions are always easily bent at such all-giving junctures - for its end to refer to its beginning, in the way character is fate. The point where the errors fall into place, tragedy acquires its aesthetics, life transfigures into eternity, principles become tangible for a second.

A man who lives his life by laws had better make sure these laws derives from the same principle from which he derives. It is infinitely better to live a lawless life out of principle than to life a lawful life without principle. The latter is not a life, not a straight line and can never become a circle. This is perhaps what is meant to the perpetuating wheel of rebirth; one must live a straight line to complete the circle, which is the escape the wheel.

This is all that matters to me, or the only thing that vitally matters to me, when we are discussing the recurrence - it’s effect on how we live life. This was the first way in which I picked it up when I was an philosophical rookie - as an occult technique. It works very powerfully in that way, and I’ve always respected my own handling of the idea more than I respect the passage where Nietzsche brings it forth, namely, I use it as the fiction that it is, as the tool to bend the mind into a more sound shape, I think that to a sound mind, such a notion of eternity is meaningless - it is, in the analytical sense, both fictional and hollow, because eternity is made out to be a timeline measured by the absence of change. I can only imagine a ‘divine’ eternity as an endless curve of increase, something truly as unfathomably limitless in its whole(some)ness as the greatest things in life, whereas all eternity that is merely a loop of creation and destruction of the same is equal to only one such cycle, and is measured only by the best thing that happens in that cycle; that best thing is the correspondence to the straight line that, in my conception, curves upward into infinity or simply justifies itself; which is, pragmatically, the same thing. And in the end the philosopher is pragmatic. Wisdom is pragmatic, whereas truth is merely real.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 6:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If modern man were enlightened, his first thought would be “all these phalli, crowding in on my shit! Isn’t there a seeming infinite expanse to phallicate?”

The philosopher so far, as you have said with the drowning metaphor, has been the unspeakable brave and hazardous task of finding some free range from where the philosopher stands, avoiding groping hands. This is not natural, other dicks gotta fuck off and find their own space.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 6:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of courtse it is not infinite, and this proximity represents the healthy retrofeeding space between friends and enemies, between rivals and allies.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 6:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No, that is already too specific: between explorers. Anyway, between phalli.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
Sauwelios

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 7:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Perhaps justice, in this willing of the suffering and/in nature in history, is to find a justification of it, as you say, not in a falic time fashion, but a vulvan calm passion of the eternal recurrence. Not a repetition like a movie, but a volving of the same instincts and potentials.

Yes, well put. The circle is still a time-fetish, as it’s simply a line segment whose beginning and end meet (and which is therefore not straight but crooked).

I’ve been thinking more about historic than about eternal recurrence lately–the eternal return, not of exactly the same, but of essentially the same.

Quote :
So justice is creative, but not genetic. Suffering is willed, but not as an end itself.

Yes. Nonteleologically, it’s willed as an effect of the exercise of one’s power; teleologically, as a means to future human greatness. In both cases, the end is enjoyment.

FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 7:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Whose power? That seems phalic. I was thinking more, like FC said, as the suffering inevitable to a breaking open of seed to soil, as the suffering of the first clumbsy steps taken by these recurring elements in history.

If we are going to be Nietzschean, let’s be Nietzschean: there is no power willed or willing, only will to power willing more will to power. Power we might call incidental to the process. The light that emanates from the place where it all happens.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

magick mirror Empty
PostSubject: Re: magick mirror magick mirror Icon_minitimeMon Sep 21, 2015 10:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Whose power? That seems phalic. I was thinking more, like FC said, as the suffering inevitable to a breaking open of seed to soil, as the suffering of the first clumbsy steps taken by these recurring elements in history.

And that was taken from Parodites’ pentad post. And that was sown by your conception of funk. The Wheel; this is how ER of Essence works. ERE; or not, not eternal recurrence of essence, but recurring of essence, rather than eternal recurrence (of the same); RE instead of ER.

Corresponds to Jera, the rune of the wheel of time, the seasons, also cognate with reward, happiness. That is the very meaning of natural recurrence; addition, stock, layering, building, preparing for ‘consumption by fate’ - the voluptuous death of harvest, an in this way the thought of the recurrence as a rams fleece, shields us through in the winter of being, where faith is not grounded in the earth but in the progressions of the stars.

A thought that wraps itself around us at a certain cue. It is a different type of god, it is better than a god, but it is still not man.

Quote :
If we are going to be Nietzschean, let’s be Nietzschean: there is no power willed or willing, only will to power willing more will to power. Power we might call incidental to the process. The light that emanates from the place where it all happens.

Beautifully said! And that reflects so well how I envisioned philosophy conducting politics without compromising itself.

Human telos is the many formed and irresolvably conflicting circumference to the philosophical will, the pure will, which is its own telos formal telos by definition.

Does this mean that we can not will anything in particular? No - it means that we have to find was to include (man + earth) into (philosophy + philosopher). That will require a reconfiguration of earth, from the very earth of man on up.

46

individualized

WtP

What we call will to power is a variance that lives in us as a reverse, delimiting causal structure such that we are unable to realize anything like a stable, total, complete, or quiet vantage point; anything like this kind of quiet stability would immediately cut off the flows of motivation, passion, energy coming up from the psyche, since these are more daemonic. Will to power is a value because it keeps us always in a frenzy, where every realization is temporary and only pushes a new variance and disturbance in us. If we take an alternate route and try to be “normal” or have a value of simpleness or kindness, to “just be”, to be satisfied in things, we find right away that such a perspective cuts us off from the daemonic underflow.

That underflow is the condition of our thought. So really, what the will to power accomplishes is holding thought open before itself, in terms of thought’s conditions. Peace can be willed only as the corresponding willing of thoughtlessness. This is a deep principle at work in (post)modernity.

Philosophy finds a different kind of peace, though. The stability of philosophy is not based on a cutting-off of the daemonic flow qua conditions of thought, but the opposite: of opening up everything in those conditions to its most natural and extensive expression, a procedure that the will to power is useful for at first but gradually becomes more and more difficult to contain it. Too soon the will to power starts falsifying that which it had formerly aimed to liberate unto its own nature, it begins to merely subjectivize where formerly it had aimed to objectivize, to “know”, so that we are required to abandon that point of view if we are to keep progressing. Since the will to power is merely that variance itself, en mass and taken as idea, it cannot in the final say act as an object for itself nor totalize any more than a limited range of its contents within that wider substance, in part because of the self-inadequacy of the image approaching its own totality but also because the reality of the mind is not in fact rooted in “quanta of power”.

So seek to abandon the will to power “above” yourself, in philosophy, and not “below” yourself, in simpleness.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 3:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Very good; this term does direly need to be clarified.

I think that we need to split up the conception of will to power in order to understand its human application, the way in which it ‘wills’ to ‘power’ in the cognitively driven human. Essentially the term reflects a state of tension. It is a will to power willing to more willing to power; it is forever unresolved, N is explicit about this. So the state of willing to power is basically one of recognizing, when sentient, the ‘overflowing inadequacy of oneself to oneself’. In this realization, the thinking or reflecting man sinks into this inadequacy and begins to investigate it. Herein the tension changes, becomes more complex, is no longer reducible to a binary state, which the term will to power suggests. Willing to power becomes in the human the will to embody this tension cognitively; in this way the human becomes philosophical (or properly daemonic) and begins, if he can not endure this form of being, to invent metaphysics. Now the greatest will to power in philosophers has endured this cleaved being until the very end, when it resolves itself in a notion (it resolves only in in part, of course, but that it does suffices to bring about a new kind of unity) like the ones we are working with today.

The notion will to power itself is such a notion as well. It emerged out of the relentless contemplation of the cleaved self, and is a reflection of it; but the first, uncomplicated, unreflected reflection.

Further reflecting, that notion becomes wider, able to encompass explicitly more of that which origins it substantiated.

It is clear that the terms ‘will’ and ‘power’ do not accurately reflect the process of ‘becoming oneself’ as you describe - but it is true that Nietzsche meant the composite term to reflect such becoming, where he saw the world as one such becoming and all entities as parts of unresolved tensions, for which the only outcome was to throw themselves at one another, and thereby at themselves.

Of course, there are many humans who still throw themselves at one another rather than have their inner world play itself out under the auspices of their radiant inner eye; they are part of the world-daemon, where the philosopher has become the guardian of a daemonic world.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 12:29 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The world is a collection of power-atoms for a lack of a better term, tiny self contained pockets of power or energy, that each have an internal quanta of force; that is the structure of both the world and man’s psyche according to Nietzsche, and these atoms recombine chemically, as the one with a larger quanta of internal force will appropriate the other to itself, absorbing it. Thus the Will to Power is an ontology that describes the self-identification of Power: will to power might as well be called the will to will or the power to power, for will in these terms is simply power acting on power based on the logic of recombination and appropriation of internal quanta of force. Spinoza shared a similar way of thinking, here is something I said on this forum about Spinoza:

"In the world of things there exists no particular thing, which can not be overpowered/surpassed by another thing that is more powerful/stronger. "

In this axiom Spinoza is indicating that the world is a Heraclitean contest of wills. Because every particular can be overpowered by another particular the universal can only be conceived of as the possible outcome of all possible contestations. Hence the idea of God as a substance with an infinite amount of attributes.

“By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite — that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
Explanation — I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.”

To conceive of morality in a universal rather than particular sense would then necessitate a conception of the good as a theoretical configuration of these attributes, that is, as a particular organization of wills in which the structure of competing forces proves conducive to some force that is operating at the behest of a human agency. That structure is “reason” for Spinoza. Hence he says:

“Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner.”

“A body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body. So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body.”

When this structure is corrupted and the force which operates for the sake of the human being is oppressed by forces that are “bad,” that are inconducive to him, then we have the development of his “unhappy passions,” like greed, anger, etc. The Heraclitean image of the world as eternally generating and disintegrating fire is necessitated by this axiom, and the proposition of a purely immanent God of infinite attributes is necessary to uphold universal as opposed to merely particular morality.

Something else I said on WTP:

To realize the will to power, which is the world, nullifies your existence as a human subject. You no longer exist as anything more than an incarnation of the world soul, an instance of will to power. The concept itself of will-to-power is a single line long ontology intended to describe all of existence. “Water is wet” is an ontology, but it only describes one small facet of the world. “Will to power,” as an ontology of similar length but much wider scope, essentially means there is a potential that is continuously recycled without ever becoming actual. This potential force is what reality is, and there is no way to “actualize” or “unpack” this energy, as if the world itself were a continually climbing orgasm that cannot be consummated in any release of the built up force. “Will to power” as a philosophical concept literally means an unrealizable force, a potential that is infinite not in extremity, dimension, or intensity, but by virtue of the fact that it cannot be made actual, it cannot be actualized. Thus this ontology implies a world of pure appearance, with no underlying noumenon. There is nowhere for the will to go, so it wills unto power, which is to say, it continues to be precisely that, will, and “eternally proceeds within its own being,” to use Spinoza’s phrase.

But there are ways to maintain your sense of self, even realizing the concept of the world being the will to power. If you were to realize that you were the dream of some God, you would awaken, that is to say, cease to exist… Unless you had a peculiar art for keeping yourself asleep. Unless you began to dream yourself, by embracing yourself as a contributory poet to the overall divine dream. How would we do this, embrace ourselves as contributory wills to “power,” to the monster of energy that is called the world? That is the question that I see value-ontology dealing with. This new contributory self would no longer need to bear or fight, it would no longer be camel or lion, but child. This valuing of the self, of the contributory self, would give birth to both truth and appearance. The truth, that one is a mere instance in the world soul, and the appearance… that one truly exists, that one is a self. As you say "the far more useful idea that value (more precisely the act of valuing) gives rise to both appearance and truth. "

Key to this logic of quanta is that in Nietzsche there is no tension or asymmetry within Being, a tension from which there appears to us the idea of Truth as the category of pure negation and the monadology of value-ontology with which the definition of identities are sustained in the irresolvable agon of conceptual oppositions and negations, for formerly philosophy used Hegelian dialectic to resolve questions of identity and this obviously requires resolution of conceptual tensions and absolute synthesis- a category of truth and tension within being thus beyond the scope of Nietzsche’s thought. In the Eternal Return, this recombination of internal quanta of force is absolutely resolved and sated, filled in on all sides, without tension or asymmetry, entirely self-contained and incorporated within a vast super-position of the entire spatio-temporal manifold and every particle of material that ever existed within it. In Nietzsche that means that the structure of human reason to which Spinoza appealed to justify his morality is untenable, for it represents a partitioning, enclosing within, and fracturing of the perfect superposition of wills grasped by the eternal return- to speak with the above paragraphs, it represents a conscious actualization of what must be kept in unconscious potential.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 1:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I disagree. I think there is a big bang moment in Nietzsche, so to speak, where will to power collapses. The quanta represent this collapsing, the eternal return is the theater of the collapsing of will to power. He doesn’t escape opposition, with strength and weakness operating as more or less capable of collapsing. Will to power comes after valuing, not before, and Nietzsche does precede will to power and nothing besides with “all I see is chaos” (supremely paraphrased).

This is why it is necessarily circular, a “fuck it” to the universal “why” that preoccupied philosophy before him. But an effective one, a victory over “because it is.” I have used before “because it evolved this way” as a recognition of the movement of will to power despite there being no universal start and stop lines. Infinity is contained in chaos, this is what Nietzsche did to Spinoza.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 2:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is really very good stuff, both of you. Doesn’t often happen that I really have to step back and take a while. First of all that is a powerful condensation of Spinoza, and that alone takes me a while to process. It is true that will to will and power to power (in Spanish at least) are are synonymous to will to power. But Pezer is right that where Nietzsche is not condensing his thought into one formula valuing comes before power, and there is a center to thought - the Child, indeed, but also his decision to write Ecce Homo, and the personification of philosophy in general in Zarathustra, and simply the fact that he is a psychologist before all else. As Sauwelios notes, N himself referred to the WtP as a pallid and weak metaphor, or something he was going to write about later when he would truly begin philosophizing.

The problem however with both Spinoza and the WtP that I had was that the relating of quanta is taken for granted. They exist in terms of their relation. But what is this relating itself? It must be important. Moreover, I could not see that ‘power’ suffices as a term of relationship. Th power must be about something, there must be a ‘turf’. If the will to power is the condition it can not also be the quality. Nietzsche figured it might as well be for rhetorical purposes, for the moment, before he had dealt with the problem of valuing, and all the ways in which one can will to power over another. This last bit is what value ontology resolves, and why I had to invent it: will to power only makes sense within a true context. That context is supposedly “this world” - but it doesn’t suffice this way. The will to power needs “everything besides” to even exist at all - WtP is itself the ‘final instance’, the way the world falls into place, but the origin is constantly emerging and we don’t know why except that it does and that this is the world.

It seems that the world creates itself. It seems that there is no beginning or end, but only depth, which is in some way the same as extreme locality, and in some ways universal. But it is universal only in its different-ness, its separateness, and this is the will to power.

In the strictest sense, the WtP describes the closed gate of the world, and estimates the nature of the world by its walls. All the ore intensely does he feel the absence of quality, of taste, and his greater work is a tribute to these things. The valuing of Nietzsche that strikes me as typical to what he was, is the way he expresses his distaste for pettiness through Zarathustra, this is where I see him really laugh. But this is something that may only be fully expressed in German, which is a very honest language when it comes to ugly things. He only wanted to overcome the times he lived in, he wanted them dead so he could value himself - as posthumous friends in his imagination. He lived to be with us in spirit at least, I am sure. Only overcoming was, then, the highest of all values. Transvaluation was the main value. For that purpose, the terms will and power are excellently suited.

But we are in world that overcame itself, and overcoming isn’t anymore the best term for what we want, what would entail mastery of the Earth or Hijacking the Universe - we must rather build on what stands. Nietzsche probably never saw the full thing standing, he could really only build and this he had to get out of himself, be that pure instance of will to power that defines the world in its harshest and self-less way.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 3:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The infinite attributes Spinoza had requirement of, are ‘filtered’ by VO: instead of infinite attributes or just one (WtP), being is not universal, and it can thus have different numbers of attributes; the potential is still infinite, but god no longer exists. There is no perfect coherence, at least this is not the predicate of being. Coherence is neither a matter of neat quanta of power nor of infinite keys, but of circumstance an ‘love’, what we know as love at least is a reflection of the ontic space where coherence takes place. I am as a philosopher an opponent to semantic traditions. I use the terms valuing, love, and such as ontological elements, because they are factually what determines our being. That is the new language that was spoken of, as far as Im concerned; the sharpest edge of vo is that it remakes the concept of grammar, it finally lays the subject object function to rest, by merging subject and object through finding and centralizing an fleshing out the only proper verb.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 3:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Technically all being is only historically certain to be self-valuing; the excess of the present moment, being is infinitely more, namely, valuing, the ‘infinite love’ of ‘being in the moment’; is quite real. It just doesn’t survive. What does not directly perish of its own nature we call self-valuing.

Will to power “as such” would perish of itself. The concept thus indeed represents a background of chaos. The Buddhists have a concept called “suchness”. It is precisely the opposite, or complement of will to power. The suchness of the will to power is thus always a self-valuing.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 3:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So there is a depth. The deepest we might call spatio-temporal, what is subject to the senses.

Philosophy has rejected this.

Will to Power explains what it is that redeemed that tradition of spacelessness: the naming of spacelessness in thought.

Whether thought has taste is something nietzsche got started on in the dissecting of thought. Magik joins highness here. (As a side note, I remember having this thought once: Nietzsche was alone. Today, magicians await.). Magik understands taste of thought, or no, rather it understands that it exists. Philosophy must go further: it must understand taste in thought. It must surrender pre-nietzschean spacelessness to will to power and apply itself to the spacial. If I conceded that magic waits for us there, I also say more firmly that science is nowhere near there. Science, or academia, is a weird suicide of senses through old philosophical spacelessness.

Philosophy of space brought to thought itself. Health. And I take the liberty of agreeing with Capable: gods and stars are too easy a place to start. Yet we can use them to the venture of beginning this philosophy, machiavellicaly, as will to power provides us the unity of being we need for this kind of “blind” faith. And value? Value will be the end product philosophy. Perhaps, Fixed Cross, you were also much ahead of your time!

Salut!
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 3:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You are beginning to see what VO means, and I am beginning to see why you thought I lacked animal experience.

Of course I am ahead of my time! What are we talking about otherwise? It will take man centuries to turn himself inside out, shed all universals, and become the gay reaper.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeSun Sep 27, 2015 11:06 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But Pezer is right that where Nietzsche is not condensing his thought into one formula valuing comes before power, and there is a center to thought - the Child, indeed, but also his decision to write Ecce Homo, and the personification of philosophy in general in Zarathustra, and simply the fact that he is a psychologist before all else.

Yes, but this comes from our understanding Nietzsche better than he understood himself, as we can read his philosophy from the outside. All textual evidence would suggest to me that he perceived himself as thinking that power was the original thesis, and everything is a relation of this power with itself, and that thought’s center is also something added by the human mind to the world-ontos, which in itself is just the will to power. When one values according Nietzsche, one is simply naming one’s highest, most commanding drive- this drive, in being named, becomes the center of one’s thought and appropriates all other drives to its purposes: this appropriation is in Nietzsche what a morality is.

"what we know as love at least is a reflection of the ontic space where coherence takes place. "

Yes I always speak of coherence as the property of love, (eros) the result of the episteme or thought-arresting-image Eros architects, which precedes the solidification of the real ego as the self-image required by the disintegrating stream of animal, reflexive drive formation and the libidinal threshold:

The episteme, defined as the pre-imaging of Being within the unworked stone or the blank canvass, upon
which Being in its ontic horizon is disintegrated and afterward re-cohered in erotic fixation as the preimagemade-
reality, the form of the revealed statue, I in other words refer to as the necessary thought-arresting
image, for it limits the unrestricted medium of the stone or paper and defines a boundary within which the
erotic form might take shape and reveal itself, within which the flight of thought might locate a new center
and point of departure in order to solidify in a new direction, p. 78, “There are a thousand limitations…”

There are a
thousand limitations, suppressions of cellular division, and contractions of the vital
impulse toward growth which must be passed through by the developing embryo before
the true moment of revelation and release is brought about in birth, in which this impulse
toward growth is given free domain to cultivate and extend itself in the world- selflimitations
without which it would not be able to attain its proper form, or any form at all,
without which it would not exist; so too, with our philosophy. The daemonic, that is a
self-limiting and violence of thought toward itself, a necessary series of limitations,
barriers, and suspensions that must be passed through, so that the mens heroica, in whom
the positive ground of thought has been liberated from passive reflection to active
existence and creative struggle, might be achieved. Indeed, just the other day I read
through my own works, trying to find my life somewhere behind the pages- I realized, of
course, that my life was the pages, was my philosophy; that my philosophy was,
consequently, more than the pages as well.

The artist, when
overcome with the inspired afflatus, must first inclose the obscure, unrealized object of
his artistic longing within a limit- a limit whereby all that is presently unknown may be
fore-imaged by an episteme, by what it is possible to know given this limit, rather such a
limit be found in the canvas or in the block of stone, and in a contrary movement must
release the latent energies of the pregnant tension belonging to this enclosure, he must
decompose the continuum of colors upon the blank canvass or chip away at the stone
until the statue finally appears, within which his horizon of meaning is erotically re-
cohered in a temporary form which, however finite or fleeting, nonetheless buries within
us the promise of eternity and happiness, the intimation of Being itself in its boundless
and imperdible power. Though this obscure object of the artistic longing must, for us, be
nothing other than our own selves, the involution of the epistemic-ontic signifies the first
movement given here, namely the rich intuition of Being within the immediate
phenomenon of conscious experience and the corresponding generation of a series of
possible interpretations of this Being in accordance with the presiding episteme, in
accordance with that shared system by which the inter-relating of the various datums of
lived experiences within a constructed ontology is achieved, that is, a range of possible
images that could be formed out of the stone; the higher-order involution of the
immanent-transcendent signifies the later movement, the movement whereby, in erotic recoherence,
the disparate intensities and potentials of the ontic are consolidated and
realized in an expansive continua out of which a single, distinct form is at last produced,
the stone having been turned into an image Aphrodite, ontology transcended by theology
and by the hypostasis of experience as a living God. The problem is that, before this
process, the self grasps itself obscurely and as mere pathos, and that after the process is
gone through, the self loses itself within a hypostasis of its own experience, within the
erotic form itself- a form whose boundaries and limit, though it must of course
continuously dissipate and throw the self back into the oscillations of daemonic
polarization and the exhaustless production of new erotic fixations and artistic forms, the
self takes to be its own boundary and limit- in that way, as Heidegger was with his dasein,
mistakenly blinded to the excess within which it is passively rooted and has the real
center of its life. The self, in other words, identifies the particular being of the erotic form
with Being itself; the contrary identification of the light of the absolute with the absolute,
the contrary identification, in hyperousian ekstasis, of the excess upon which the self is
centered, with Being, is the goal of my philosophy.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeMon Sep 28, 2015 2:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The goal of philosophy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeMon Sep 28, 2015 4:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Let’s play Nietzsche’s game. Will to power is so proud that it doesn’t question that which makes it collapse, it is part of the same thing. The value is the expression of will to power itself, not a relationship between it and some external thing. Thus, its collapsing is not a change, it lives within chaos as itself. Weakness is will to power unsure of itself. No less will to power. This is maybe why he used Zarathustra: there is an essencial duality of good and bad at work. Simly because of the excess of the movement of will to power itself.

This forces the philosopher into the arresting movement of the erotic self-image, and separates him from the transcendental horizon. Philosophy becomes will to power resolving the duality within itself, the same pride getting back up from the blows of weakness to appropriate the will to power in it.

The episteme is redeemed as a gift of weakness for the climbing of will to power itself. When Nietzsche talked about strength and weakness, he quickly followed with an assertion that he was not moraly inclined.

Power is movement itself, will to power and nothing besides the negation of stasis.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeWed Sep 30, 2015 2:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It dawned on me that Nietzsche may have, after his first works concluding in the Birth of Tragedy, in many ways his densest work, deliberately taken it upon him to simplify philosophical method, by basically positing something against it and taking philosophy to be only that which aggressively rejects that something. He takes the nature of philosophy to be its power to destroy what contradicts it but without positing something that is not destroyed, and thereby hones the destroyer aspect of philosophy to perfection, so as to work as mask to reveal the receded face of creation. But it could only be honed so well under terribly unjust circumstances - this is perhaps even what secretly nauseates Nietzsche, not that the last man must recur, but that part of him wants him to recur, and his biting off the head of the snake and his mad laughter is him overcoming his fixation on this conflict between his all too human condition of affection and his ideal ego. His laughter thus indeed the affirmation of the recurrence, but neither of superman nor last man but simply the man that he became when he affirmed himself. Much of his truest wisdom is developed in the storytelling art of today, if not to say that film is plainly the Nietzschean artform. He did say that he only used ink because there were no more efficient means for what he had to convey.

Given the subtlety of his self-mockery and a few open statements of appreciation here and there, I do not believe that Nietzsche did not understand the merit of the internalization of man as was done by Christianity, but to confront this merit was, obviously, not his work - that was what had been done for close to two millennia, after all and it had resulted in space for understanding, but not in understanding itself. For that, man first had to recover from all the sensitivity-gone-awry. He realizes that the idea of fixed truth has been the concept whereby weakness has been cultivated, so despite the fact that he clearly believes in the absoluteness of the truth that the world is will to power, it is truth that he decides to denounce. If we read BGE in this way, much becomes clear - he presents truth here as a woman, and there its worth as questionable, in a rhetoric effort, as a challenge to reason, making a mockery of it by overwhelming it with the signifying power of taste and inclination, physiological self-valuing. “What doesn’t kill it makes it stronger”, he must have thought, as he unleashed the wolves on the encampment.

Nietzsche’s idea of the absolute is the eternal recurrence. It is his most comprehensive exertion that he designates as a reference to the unchangeable. His more subtle and careful writings are about immanence. His archetype of the Child forms the bridge to other philosophies of the absolute, the camel is epistemic an the lion transcendent epistemic. But they do not all truly relate to the immanence that eventually incorporates transcendence; the former two are the shells of the final one. A real child is a camel, a growing man a lion and an old lion becomes a child when he realizes he’s not a only a fighter but a person with memory, experience and wisdom, which allows him to laugh at all times. I also compared the stages camel lion and child to the the higher hindu castes. The formation might have followed an initiative of he ‘strongest’ (‘fittest’ - preferred, in part: wealthiest) warriors had the lesser ones agree to a pact which would place the strongest at leisure in power protected by the lesser warriors who, as their part of the bargain, were elevated absolutely over the remainder of the population, of which the healthy were cast into the function of farming and merchandising, and the unhealthy were compelled - and this is what rather puzzles me - to become extremely unhealthy, to wash in their own filth, stuff that would make entirely different creatures out of them. But perhaps this was based on an understanding of catharsis, it could also have been a way o banishing the excess of society and form of it a scarecrow, a quite absolute negative example. What happened then was of course a slow daemonism between the classes, of which it is hard to say anything for me, except that it has produced a very proud form of philosophy, purely oriented on establishing an ontic absolute. This, in accordance with the strange mixture of elevation and degradation, leads to widely diverging methods. In a mindstate carried by the charged polarities in the physiology, some of them press down with burning breath to eliminate karma and end their stay on the wheel of suffering. This seems to me an example of the combination of the brahman and the untouchable - the brahmanic means are employed to serve the ends of the chandala, the one who wishes to dissolve into nothingness. This absolute is simply death, for which they are peacefully preparing. But the brahmanic absolute is - well, eternally different*. The two don’t match, and even the good new agers can’t help yoga in the west - what is needed is a western yoga, a union of the intellect with itself, a coherence, which as you say can only occur through a collapse of the aspect of negation into itself, forming a consciousness, somewhat like the slurf of a tornado, an extreme low pressure point of focus, within which the perfect silence is created. Man as a storm, Capable brought up Jupiter in this sense.

Continuing on this tract, affirmation is planetary (satellite-like), negation is Solar. The sun is a self-valuing only in that it has a consistent consequence, but it does not stand in relationship with its produced terms, as Zarathustra tells it to its blind face. A planet like Jupiter on the other hand is a chemical machine that contains phenomena, entities of change, that outlast every living process on this earth, and might very well contain all sorts of technically living self-valuing forms, forms which live by the our definitions as reproductive entities, but do not walk the surface but dwell within the surface and the depths of complex chemical chains (and are thus unlikely to attain such a transition as the cell underwent to the animal, bur rather remain immanent to the planet in the sense that we are transcendent to ours). I’m not saying that this is is so but it is perfectly imaginable. In the sense of self-relating, a planet is ontic where the sun is ontic-transcendent, in this sense the ontic is the transcendent of the self-valuing negation of self-valuing, the positive, fixed “case” as the excess caused by asymmetrical terms under heavy pressure, the pure possibility that radiates outward and causes planets to have chemical processes going on in them. Now they found flowing water on Mars… maybe the core of Mars is getting warmer. There are all sorts of slow chemical processes awaiting in those cores, billions of years worth of potential catharsis.

*I wrote to Parodites in one of those strange surges of inspiration to meld together disparate understandings in my head that I get when trying to grasp some of his terms; the Absolute in the Brahmans eye is - the white void, potential for potential as it identifies directly as consciousness, consciousness having eliminated its cause so as to stand directly on the ground of its possible forms, thus completely free in creation. The moment when self-valuing is completely extended across the normally faux beingness of the world; the lie that justifies all the reasons, the final eternity, beyond which we can not see an only guess, and believe strange old children.

This is what I would posit against the Eternal recurrence of the same - the horizon of being-conscious as, as it were, the ring of eternity.

The zen painter said that not Nietzsche but Wagner was right, because he was the one who had created a real magical ring.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeWed Sep 30, 2015 3:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I see now. The derivative-empirical quasi sciences of the Absolute are the observations of recurring emanations of ontic excess from the circular horizon of the galactic disk. Planets act not as emanators, but as lenses for stellar sources. Sirius is said the be the sun of our sun, infinitely larger and projecting its force into the sun, which reflects it through the planets onto the planetary plane, creating a field of immanence around the negative-transcendent sun, wherein ‘values’ take place by mixture of heavily filtered Siriusic qualities. Such theories are not uncommon, it is a matter of preference though, the Chinese draw directly from Big Dipper and use a 60 year cycle of the moon to trace the epistemic horizon of their psychology through the pancognate 12 fold division. The Pleiades are everywhere throughout history known as the sign of deep mercy and sorrow. Sirius is the head of the Egyptian pantheon, the star of Isis, on whose alignment with the Sun the Champs Elysées was projected outward to majestically accentuate the conjunction underneath the Arc de Triomphe, in a long standing tradition of attributions carried throughout the major capitals of the west, the Alexandrian world. It is strange, all Caesar did was bring the Greeks the the west and the north, long after Alexander had brought it to the Persians, Arabs and Indians. And long before Caesar arrived Stonehenge was pointing to the same conjunction of Sirius with the Sun, where Sirius is shining “directly” at us - it is said that the energy of Sirius can only come to the plants through the Sun. Because hey are of the same substance, the emerge per definition reaches the Sun before it can reach the planets, which are under the ontic umbrella of the sun.
In our time the conjunction falls on July 4.

[edit - I thought that Sirius is enormous. But it’s not really that massive. Theres something about it though apparently.]

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:00 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeWed Sep 30, 2015 3:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That’s great. I’ve thought about the weirdness of animal life, how it became separate from its world. Plants are grounded, but slowly changed into these beings that move away and change their relationship to their own ground-origin from self to non-self. I did read some science fiction one time that had floating gas bags on Jupiter, which were alive but I can’t recall if sentient. Deep down enough the storms must subside into a vast and differentiated ocean. The idea of negation here as defying what one is and changing the relationship one had to ones ground from a relationship of self to one of non-self… this is radical depth, “for its own sake”, absolute destruction and deterritorialization (Deleuze’s term).

Depth is only the helm of truth because the nature of being is self-irreconcilability. Will to power fits in there, but notice the overall context; power only exists because it is power to…- to do whatever, in this case the most primary power to avoid threshold collapse into a negation-horizon of one’s own being. Don’t negate oneself, rather even negate the entire world, as early life did when it first crawled around on legs. Or, like man today, don’t negate oneself, negate even the whole universe and truth itself, everything so long as it means we can… start crawling.

The Hindu observation reminds me of something I thought about recently, that society is naturally segmented and it will never be otherwise – being first lied to itself in order to start existing, most humans continue the lie and have no problem with it at all, while some fewer humans do have a harder time with it and begin slowly to ascend the ladder of consciousness. Human progress always occurs from the exception. The common and lowly exists to uphold the more elevated, just as in society today we have most people wage-slaving it up for a living in order to provide a material basis for a tiny rich class to enjoy life free of that slavery. Anyone who can live free of the need to “work” and simply may pursue the higher arts and leisure is already justifying everyone else who is slaving to make it happen… We just don’t like that fact because we’re on the bottom, not the top.

It seems to me that one requires an ontology of power only to the extent one lacks power, but thirsts for if quite simply because one understands on an unconscious, structural level that affluence is a justification for their own suffering, but this affluence they also lack. The justice is outside of themselves. A self-valuing process attempts to appropriate it toward the center, hence the success of consumer culture.

Real power in this world schemes and acts everywhere to gain control-- why? Is it not the same self-valuing negation-pull as if to appropriate to their center something which is their justice yet which too is lacking? This is why art and creation are in a certain sense totally bullshit; they only have some meaning when grounded, when they express what they are not, whereas art/creation ‘in themselves’ is meaningless, only another form of false appropriation behavior compensating for a psychologically-uncollapsible pain. But it’s probably inevitable these forces striving for power, striving out of blind if cultivated pathology, will achieve their success and remake the world-- not in the image of some overman, but in the image of the empty negativity/hatred which lives in their own hearts, which is the cause anyway of the death-bubble slowly proliferating across all the world’s surfaces.

I don’t believe anyone is even capable of willing to power, because no one really understands themselves. Only the “doesn’t understand” seems most to lust after its chance to “will”, and after a feeling of power. But that feeling tears open voids in the existential fabric, ultimately proves self-defeating in the sense that it cannot close up the distances (irreconcilables) within derivative being. But I’m not at all mocking or belittling this attempt, 99% of humanity lives and loves in this manner of the quiet unconsciousness, the (not so dark) night of the soul. It’s a beautiful thing, something we probably wish we could also participate in, except that we can’t, since after all we are philosophers.

Nietzsche as attempt to reimagine the meaning of philosophy as attempt to posit a final category of opposition against which things struggle and against which philosophy may find its own “return to nature” in that same struggle… yes I like that, we can only finally take our philosophy with us as we fall back into the non-philosophical world, enriching even life itself with our own over-abundance. This is our privileged pleasure as philosophers: that we may partake in the rarest thing of all, to truly give something in return, freely, for our having lived.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeWed Sep 30, 2015 4:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Philosophy and astrology… Is not the zen painter’s remark a revelation that Nietzsche hated Wagner on purpose? Almost to show that the greatest love of all, the love of the night sky, is a good example of how philosophy must value: negatively.

Change the world? Let the world change me… What I give back will be only fertility, so that when I return, it can change me all the more!

Philosophers’ love affair is with the world. But perhaps we are not wrong to seriously limit Nietzsche, and see what this love can do… on a condensed scale.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeWed Sep 30, 2015 11:34 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
" … deliberately taken it upon him to simplify philosophical method, by basically positing something against it and taking philosophy to be only that which aggressively rejects that something …"

Yes, but all philosophies do that, as the truth can neither be said or written. It belongs to the sphere of transcendence.

In the Recurrence of the Same, only what embraces itself as a member in the impartial totality of the world-ontos, spinning under the wheel of the eternal, returns, for everything else does not actually exist- and all suffering and life-negating values- that is, partial representations of the totality, therefor cease to exist in eternity. Only joy returns, then, only the will that wills, impartially, the totality- as Nietzsche said, joy is deeper than suffering, deeper than midnight. Thus the Eternal Return is neither a scientific theory or the psychological challenge most people think it is these days. It is a purifying principle, a way of theorizing the totality. This Totality is Nietzsche’s Absolute- the eternal recurrence is just the philosophical model to make it readable.

But consciousness, or rather the human existential-subject, must have an immanent grounding in this recurrence, and the WtP is exactly that grounding, a point upon which the Will can identify itself with the creative-destructive will of Being and Change- ie. as N says, the Wtp is the world seen from inside. This point of contact allows one to embrace one’s self as a datum in the impartial totality. One only returns to one’s self insofar as one wills to power; it is what I call an arresting image of thought. Ie.:

The problem is that, before this
process, the self grasps itself obscurely and as mere pathos, and that after the process is
gone through, the self loses itself within a hypostasis of its own experience, within the
erotic form itself- a form whose boundaries and limit, though it must of course
continuously dissipate and throw the self back into the oscillations of daemonic
polarization and the exhaustless production of new erotic fixations and artistic forms, the
self takes to be its own boundary and limit

In my philosophy this way of imagining the totality just amounts to what Pezer said: “This forces the philosopher into the arresting movement of the erotic self-image, and separates him from the transcendental horizon. Philosophy becomes will to power resolving the duality within itself, the same pride getting back up from the blows of weakness to appropriate the will to power in it.” So Nietzsche philosophically solidified his real-ego as much as it can be solidified, fortifying himself with this Totality and recurrence against what he perceived as destructive forces and dissolution.

The totality of beings is not Being in my system, for there is no Being behind beings. The totality becomes untenable, and also the eternal recurrence. But certainly not eternity.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.
47

Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeThu Oct 01, 2015 12:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In other words, the WtP functions as a stabilizing principle for the daemon. The quiescence and gaze of the not yet exhausted creator, with the conscience of active surfaces, incorporative genius, and formative powers- of a great innitency in that the weight of time seems to crush the stuff of mere matter, as most perfectly characterize music and architecture, signify the daemonic, not in heroic ascent, but in its attaining a certain degree of stability, in having at last arrested its own movement in the production of the erotic form; in having momentarily resolved the duality which it itself is and creates, in having unfolded from out of itself the continua of depth and height, horizontal and vertical space- of power, the underlying core of the vital forces, along with the basic discontiguity of underlying psychogenesis, thereby revealing something of what the Greeks call the psyche- the passive depth of the soul penetrated by the active nous; the reinscription of the structure of psyche upon this continua is a more fitting description of the heroic-daemonic, and what the Greeks juxtaposed with psyche- that is, dike, or Justice.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeThu Oct 01, 2015 12:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And just unifying and connecting my last couple of posts on the forum:

The quiescence and gaze of the not yet exhausted creator, with the conscience of active surfaces, incorporative genius, and formative powers- of a great innitency in that the weight of time seems to crush the stuff of mere matter, as most perfectly characterize music and architecture, signify the daemonic, not in heroic ascent, but in its attaining a certain degree of stability, in having at last arrested its own movement in the production of the erotic form; in having momentarily resolved the duality which it itself is and creates, in having unfolded from out of itself the continua of good and evil, depth and height, horizontal and vertical space, with the general discontiguity of underlying psychogenesis, thereby revealing something of what the Greeks call the psyche- the passive depth of the soul penetrated by the active nous; the reinscription of the structure of psyche upon this continua is a more fitting description of the heroic-daemonic, and what the Greeks juxtaposed with psyche- that is, dike, Order or Justice. The deliverance of Dike and the restitution of order, which Pound epitomizes in his translation of the dying words of Herakles- “in what splendor it all coheres,” in the Promethean myth indeed came of Herakles, and the later portion of this name comes from the “klea andron” or song of the heroes, the eternal myth upon which all the others are modeled and which serves as the undying wellspring of Greek memory, as animated the verses down through Homer, while Hera refers to the eldest daughter of Cronus; psyche impresses upon dike this Heraklean moment of perishing, splendorous coherence, out of which the articulation of the klea andron and the song of the heroes is generated, out of which the heroic is recognized. The libidinous dynamics of the Erotic create the surface topography or drama on the periphery of this depth- the symbolically reified mythos of psyche, in all the depth of daemonic agony and passion, into which Eros cannot fully descend by katabasis, though he finds his task in creatively cohering the horizon of meaning in ascent through the world of forms, with the unconscious remainder of Schelling left behind in the depth as the unincorporated psychic datum, some part of which is brought back to the surface with every new tension through which Eros heroically develops, the klea andron continually finding new names for itself, rather it is Achilles or Homer- or even Aeneas; the eroto-daemonic signifies the activation of the passive, in other words- something that the philosophy of the will to power cannot achieve, for, like a stretched spring, the will to power must remain a suspended consciousness and passive psychodymanic tension: if one becomes conscious of it and actualizes it, it is no longer will to power. All sickness and pain represents a threat to organo-affective unity, which we feel as our immediate sense of self or real ego, which operates as a threshold against dissolution, or to speak with the above- against admission of this Heraklean coherence, out of which the daemonic establishes its stability. One must allow such dissolution to displace one’s erotic center, through which the real ego acquires stability, so as to encourage the development of more comprehensive, discontinguous states of consciousness, and the orientation with the ideal; for the highest consciousness reconstructs the threshold as the potential excitability of the body as a whole, inscribing the structure of psyche within the liberated continuum of revealed creative forces, rather then using, as the real ego does, a small partition of the affects as the potentiation or state of excitability: the health of the new body that emerges here is free of sickness, for it is incorporated sickness- the old health is simply the ability to endure a certain amount of dissolution and return to the threshold level established by the real ego. Nietzsche’s will-to-power is the greatest realization of the real-ego. In the Recurrence of the Same, only what embraces itself as a member in the impartial totality of the world-ontos, spinning under the wheel of the eternal, returns, for everything else does not actually exist- and all suffering and life-negating values- that is, partial representations of the totality, therefor cease to exist in eternity. Only joy returns, then, only the will that wills, impartially, the totality- as Nietzsche said, joy is deeper than suffering, deeper than midnight. Thus the Eternal Return is neither a scientific theory or the psychological challenge most people think it is these days. It is a purifying principle, a way of theorizing the totality. This Totality is Nietzsche’s Absolute- the eternal recurrence is just the philosophical model to make it readable. But consciousness, or rather the human existential-subject, must have an immanent grounding in this recurrence, and the Will to Power is exactly that grounding, a point upon which the Will can identify itself with the creative-destructive will of Being and Change. The Will to Power is the world seen from inside, as Nietzsche says. This point of contact allows one to embrace one’s self as a datum in the impartial totality. One only returns to one’s self insofar as one wills to power; it is what I call an arresting image of thought, erotic fixation, or episteme. Nietzsche philosophically solidified his real-ego as much as it can be solidified, fortifying himself with this Totality and recurrence against what he perceived as destructive forces and dissolution. Herakles’ dying words, as translated by Pound- in what splendor it all coheres, are deceptive. He says it while he is dying because he “knows” that it coheres- the universe that is, even though he cannot understand the coherence or hold it together like the false constructed totality of the will to power; the Heraklean moment of coherence in heroic death points to nothing else but the transcendent, which the illusion that there is some Being behind beings, that there is totality, conceals- the illusion conceived in the philosophy that reconstructs the world out of itself, as precisely itself.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

Last edited by Parodites on Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeThu Oct 01, 2015 2:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From a message I wrote to Parodites, on the spheres of conscious experience/structure of this whole operation:

Certainly the concepts pertaining to the philosophy itself will span all spheres of meaning. Morality has been this task to understand how the same idea operates differently and means differently in different contexts, which also really means according to different fields of consciousness or identity spheres. One cannot reconcile them except through imposed falsification and denial, such as occurs in criminal justice/legal systems. Political correctness is another method of trying to remove the tension, but it cannot succeed since the tension is integral.

Epistemic and ontic: these are the base, we have a sensory stream of images and impressions, a “feels like” to being alive, proprioception and somnambulism like any other animal… “dreaming ourselves”; then upon that has been constructed language and Logos, so we become possible to factual understanding and objectivity. Language tries to impress downward upon the neurology of the episteme, but cannot alter that neurology in any fundamental way, therefore the immanent sphere is produced as simply the living tension of impossibility to reconcile language with sensory reality, to put it crudely. The immanence sphere is essentially composed of those possible experiences in which the tension is momentarily abated by virtue of the scope and range of coloring of that experience being significant enough to ‘hold’ both linguistic and sensory consciousness. Immanence is thus the sphere of emotions like happiness and sorrow, also the sense of a higher purpose, religious need, God etc. Simply put, these experiential configurations open up possibilities to the epistemic and ontic wherein both may process according o their own nature and not infringe upon each other.

The problem with that is, no immanence-space can really sustain that abeyance forever, because a new war appears in how both the epistemic and the ontic (sensory stream/feelings and language) are expanding into the immanent experiences and starting to saturate it; the immanence must continue to expand in parallel to the expansions of epistemic-ontic consciousness or else these latter begin to infringe upon each other. Thus we arrive at the transcendent, which is simply those experiences and states as most allow the immanent to maintain itself as living experience as a parallel expansion that keeps pace with, or outpaces, the growth of the epistemic-ontic experiences. These latter are laying down neurological fibers of “memory” all the time and immanence must either encompass those fibers’ electrochemical activity or it must be immune to that activity; where it encompasses it we have higher ideals, aesthetics, God, love, and early philosophies, whereas where it does not encompass it we have “sin”, self-falling into matter such as hedonism, anger and fear, the apotheosis of the animal organism. Here also we have an impetus for what Nietzsche called will to power, because to the immanent experience this “falling into oneself” as animality or the pre-ontic is a kind of quasi-immanence from the perspective of the sense-stream of feelings and immediate impressions, just too as a kind of falling into language and logical analysis (math, empiricism) is a kind of quasi-immanence for the ontic. Thus developing philosophy split along the lines of Nietzsche or Russell, continental or analytic, in order to attempt a partial reification of either the sensory-immediate or the linguistic modes.

The will to power represents an immanence that cannot keep up in its expansions but nevertheless attempts to stabilize itself against the epistemic-ontic intrusions by attempting to align itself with these others, to “know” them as they are, to apply transcendent love backward into the pre-immanent consciousness. This can only be partially successful, but it can be successful; the problem is that this is not what immanence really wants to do, this is another kind of falsehood against the self, a perversion of consciousness’ actual structure. The immanent ought to be expanding always enough to encompass both the sensory-impressions body and the linguistic-factually-oriented body, so that each may persist according to their own nature and need and find harmony with each other. When the immanent aligns its experiential parameters with the sensory-immediate or with the linguistic-empirical it achieves a temporary relief from its failure of adequate self-expanding but the cost of that relief is to fundamentally cripple the immanent dimension itself.

The transcendent is therefore simply the possibilities open to immanence as allow that immanence to avoid failure, failure either of slow or no expansion or a failure of the kind of Nietzdche or Russell. Transcendence is the realm of philosophy but also is the realm of human love and deepest passion and joy, since these achieve for immanence a fast enough expanding sphere of expedience able to successfully allow the epistemic and the ontic components to process naturally according most to their own nature. Love and joyful passion are a counterpart to philosophy because either accomplishes the same ends for immanence, but the methods are different in either case, since love or joyful work are a kind of “immanent immanence” wherein the limits or horizons of the immanent are perpetually self-deepening across all relevant fields of conscious experience whereas for philosophy we have that backward glance of immanence into, not merely either the epistemic or ontic alone, but both at once, uniting “feeling” and “thinking” in one experience-- “knowing”, understanding. Love and joy do not need to understand, for they are already alive and thus are literally already-always a form of understanding as such, whereas philosophy is simply that other pole of understanding which lives only in so far as it is actively reconstructing knowledge out of itself, as itself.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

WtP Empty
PostSubject: Re: WtP WtP Icon_minitimeThu Oct 01, 2015 4:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes Capable what you said about the transcendent is true- Love and joy do not need to understand. Herakles’ dying words which I mentioned- in what splendor it all coheres, are deceptive. He says it while he is dying because he “knows” it coheres- the universe that is, even though he cannot understand the coherence or hold it together like the false constructed totality of the WtP; the Heraklean moment of coherence in heroic death is the transcendent.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

What is addiction? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is addiction? What is addiction? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Oct 09, 2015 11:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Life is like a box of chocolates you know. They usually suck. Just get a bag of ferro roche instead.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

What is addiction? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is addiction? What is addiction? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Oct 09, 2015 11:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And if anybody else’s inhibits you? Cuts your money flow? Heh, I actually have a bunch of those myself. But I’d rather consort with chocolatiers and consume even better chocolate. And eat them in the setting I like. If I can’t, fuck chocolate. I’ll eat straight from the cacao.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

What is addiction? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: What is addiction? What is addiction? - Page 2 Icon_minitimeFri Oct 09, 2015 12:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That world is perfect precisely because it recognizes its own conditionality. The coherence happens within time, not beyond it, beyond the idea of it, into a greater idea. Philosophy must first arrive there, the peak of nihilism, as contradictory as that sounds, before it can turn its face back upon the world.

The model of the severed mind will be instrumental in the building of institutions per value ontological principles - P allows us to see how the mind forms its ideals, how the mind works that is not integrated with an organic context but rather integrated with the principles on which it, specifically, relies, which make it self-valuing-pure.

N could argue that this is simply the will to power as it expresses itself in the one whose energies can not find a way outward, and he says this of all philosophers, but of course with that, nothing is said. What I take from Nietzsche ultimately is that life is all about specific values, not general ones.

Only ‘self-valuing’ is a general value. Philosophical self-valuing must explore the path of the mind unto itself, the mind that no longer requires the body in its evolutionary process. This mind has a future, because it works both ways - it frees itself and illuminates the theoretical freedom every mind has. This is why it can build … Mannaz.

In part, because it doesn’t care. There is a relationship to Buddhism, but it is far more indifferent, which means it can be partial, and synthetically complete.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Jung on Wotan and Nietzsche Empty
PostSubject: Jung on Wotan and Nietzsche Jung on Wotan and Nietzsche Icon_minitimeFri Oct 23, 2015 5:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
philosopher.eu/others-writin … -c-g-jung/

“A roaring wind tore the gates asunder; whistling,shrieking, and keening, it cast a black coffin before me. And amid the roaring and whistling and shrieking the coffin burst open and spouted a thousand peals of laughter.” - N

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeFri Oct 23, 2015 9:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Reading through an oceanic correspondence, I noticed that I had been allowed a perspective on the emotion of philosophy. It was said that emotions are carried by their own history, which is also how the Chinese see it. Such histories are the organs from which the emotions. Theory prescribes an order between the emotions, the way in which they should ideally fuel each other to arrive at a justly angry fire of joy, which holds sway over the pool of other emotions. Herein poetry finds place, and a tranquil melancholy of life which is so dim an empty but yet so inestimable in its moments.

Philosophy of the west is not satisfied with such prudence and it begins to construct out of the poetry a discipline, an edifice of physiology and language that will come to be known far late as the imagination. Within this vast real of possibility and endless beauty, immortality and soul, the philosopher begins anew and sees that life is not thin and ethereal but that the moment stretches on forever in a frenzy that can be calmly beheld in a secret stance, for which the ultimate sacrifice must be put on the alter of effort: peace. Heraklean splendor is an emotion, and peace is found in it but only along a tremendous and severely light joy, I suppose K’s Fear an Trembling but a few steps ahead through the doorway.

What I am getting at is that philosophy is itself an emotion that if not annihilates then changes, ‘compromises’ the earlier emotions,it starts to effectively value them in terms of itself. Sorrow, joy, anger, fear and calm are torn apart for their ingredients, but joy is the most simple in its ingredients, as it burns everything, so it weds itself to philosophy, on which it keeps burning as philosophy raws out sorrow upon fear upon wrath to sustain the philosophical heart, the teacher of humanity in the swamp of fear-of-sorrow…

It also occurred to me that the Superman is the third point needed to dissolve the Freudian polarity, which taken to itself is neurosis. The superman as a concept is the resolution of human neurosis. The ER is the fixation of neuosis on its permanent nature… haha, no. Well.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeFri Oct 23, 2015 11:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ve come to think that each man may have a different emotional hierarchy and that emotions may be experienced differently yet called by the same name for linguistic convenience; how can we know what another means when he says joy, or anger, or fear? The inward phenomenology of such experiences is known to us alone who have such experiences. But even if the emotion is mostly the same from one to another person, the order of rank of emotions will vary: over time the various emotions stabilize a hierarchy relation to each other where one emotion will try to follow another in natural succession, one will relieve another’s burden, one will potentiate or justify another, etc. And they oppose each other by self-valuing act, so the “sea of affect” as Parodites calls it aggregates into pools. Or whirlpools.

Each “emotion” represents a unique history of the existential nature of humanity, and each emotion is thus different from others. It is somewhat erroneous to refer to all of them by the same label, since they aren’t by any means the same thing, not even the same substance in biological or psychological terms. The emotion is dual, consisting of the after-the-fact teleological meaning-substance and causality-power it has over us, this includes all the poetic meaning and perspective embedded to the emotion, and then there is the feeling of the emotion or its character. The character of the emotion is simply what it is, how it feels is what it is “and nothing besides”, in so far as a feeling is itself- a aggregate number of distinct physiological responses across the spectrum of the body that all take place at relatively the same moment in response to a given range of stimuli, and when an adequate number of such bodily responses (muscles contract, blood flow increases here or decreases there, adrenaline is released, etc. etc.) all happen simultaneously we feel the sum of them and existentially cohere it all into one single feeling. That feeling is what we call the emotion itself.

Over history and culture different social heuristics, ideas, common experiences, and generic predictabilities have come together to cause a finite number of such cumulative bodily-response states to appear; what we think of as our various emotions. But this is very existential, since it is required a kind of consciousness that is symbolic-abstracting and rooted textually in a cultural substance and history to be capable of fusing all those different physiological responses into a single moment and being able to act as if the sum-effect were “one thing”.

If philosophy is an emotion it is because philosophy represents a still-higher threshold of the existentially-human, one that is able to fuse distinct lesser existentials into a single moment of space-time and thus re-configure various feelings associated to those others. Philosophy can take one of two paths here (well there is a third path of radical denial, the “empiricist” path, but that doesn’t really count): it can attempt to value this fusing in terms of those materials which are being fused and thus can remain consistent and authentic to its real past and history, or it can attempt to value that fusion in terms against that history and in terms of the idea-object and experience by which the greater fusions are occurring. Great philosophy is possible to either case, but the nature of the philosopher will vary greatly, since the first path opens up mind to existing Being while the second path opens up existing Being to mind. The first path prioritizes what Being is, the second path prioritizes what Being can become. Thus two different existential modes.

A limit: the existing emotions and corresponding rigidified human-existentialities can only endure a certain amount of change and “stretching” to fit new categories and experiences, before the emotion itself begins to break down. This is good news for the second type philosopher, who uses those broken-down pieces to nullify his own human-existential body and create new affect- and action-polarities-logic in terms of his Idea, but is not good news to the first type philosopher who must search into his Idea all those subtler traces and more specific-precise experiential requirements as corresponding situational elements would allow for an edification-progression of the existential without crossing too far against those limits. The first type wants to take care and tear himself to pieces only as needed and in service to existence, the second type wants to brashly tear existence apart as desired in service to a greater-dimension of image, of Imagination.

…I notice that Nietzsche tried to thread the needle and respect both paths, which only means that he himself was made of both causalities-materialities-worlds respective to both types. A tragic fate for him. Also a measure of his potential greatness to work in two opposing directions. In the end, we must come to accept our own nature, we cannot “choose” a type or path-orientation except to choose what we already are and have always been.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeFri Oct 23, 2015 11:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Language has become very democratic… It doesn’t allow for much subtlety in terms of concreter experiences communicable. This has had the wonderful effect of uniting all worlds under the potential gaze of the philosopher emotion. Much aristocracy is needed because much experience, genomemetic, is needed to apply this psychology onto depth, which from the deeps up is power. But aristocracy itself isn’t enough, ordinaryness is essential for the travel a philosophic emotion requires. It is right it is its own emotion, it is well it distance itself appart from its findings from all other emotions, so that its findings or materializations can be accorded proper rank, proper placement in the holder of the emotion’s priorities.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeFri Oct 23, 2015 4:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The emotion of truth is what I talking about. Of ‘revelation’, because truth itself isn’t an emotion, Im talking about the emotion that directly engages truth. Emotions are a remnant of instinct, my daemonic process seems to engage what used to be thresholds as almost lines to walk, balance - the borders between the emotional states, to nimbly balance oneself on them is a path that allows me some freedom from the necessities; it is aimed at the futural now, yes, the hand at the curtain of apprehension, the ritual before the fight, the setting of the stage - and yet it has taken me a long time to ground this perspective in historical ‘blood’, root, truth. The superman is a root to a thought, a final cause to a will… the father of people who come before him.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeSat Oct 24, 2015 6:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable and me having been talking about what emotions are. My basic position is that what we call our emotions and our human nature in general has changed over time, and thresholds I call topos or places represent new configurations of the basic psychodynamic of the real and ideal ego out of which our emotions descend, that is, a new daemonic enfoldment. Each time one of these plateaus is crossed, through Hellenistic religion to Judaism to Christianity, some of the older psychology is lost because it cannot be any further cognized and the experiences and emotions that characterize it represent the limitations of man to forces of nature and time, while the part of it that indeed reflected something immanent to subjectivity is further mobilized toward the ideal, towards a more complete awareness. The psychic role of Fate in the Greek mind for example was lost when Judaism was arrived upon, as it reflected limitations of the Greek subjectivity in its confronting reality, while the Eros of the Greeks was preserved and further developed, for it reflected hidden aspects of the human subject; it was further developed even more in Christianity, which has not yet exhausted it.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeSat Oct 24, 2015 7:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Beautifully clear. Am I to take you own philosophy as a continuation of the Christian path, when you say that it has not yet been exhausted?

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeTue Oct 27, 2015 2:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It wouldn’t be correct to classify a daemonic philosophy by a particular stage in the development of the daemonic consciousness, or of a society or people, since the philosophy spans all stages real or possible. Similarly Christianity can’t be considered a continuation of the Greek path or Judaic path since there is no “path” because Greek, Judaic and Christian reflect stages of a wider development and are not reductive to each other as if in a temporal sequence. The only thing which these various stages are reductive to would be truth, or we can say, the ideal.

Daemonic consciousness is the unfoldment of various partializing stages or topoi as Parodites’ term, each topos is representative of a given range and saturation of the real with ideal-spaces that have managed to win reflection within the living world. Life is the slow, gradual saturation of the world-existence with ideality, which means with truth. Humans as a whole could be categorized as representing a massive tectonic plane within which multiple topoi-stages are unfolding and have unfolded, but that human-plane itself is also only one “meta-topos” within the larger world-history of nature and Earth as a whole span of 4 billion years or whatever and includes also all the future self-aware species or technological/AI and human-AI synthetic life forms that will probably eventually develop. Since nature and the first organisms congealed from out of the non-living substances of the Earth it is all connected, all part of one massive tectonic super-evolution. The key principle underlining the continuum is excess and “a-causal” differentiation associated to an excessive unfoldment whereby ideality (or factuality, or truth) are represented materially with increasing scope and precision.

The will to power principle and natural selection are also important factors. Will to power occurs because excess-unfoldment from the ideal and into the real produces fractures in existing tectonics, partializing differentials that by definition cannot be reconciled to each other except by to continue that same daemonic fracturing process even more; therefore each ‘moment’ of an existing topos (each individual, or species group, culture, etc.) will be defined in terms of certain expressions of the real-ideal while other moments are defined by different such configurations of real-ideal, leading to a “war” of perspectives as “values” are discharged from every tectonic threshold-encounter of moment to moment, in a kind of derivative frenzy of dialectic will to power out of which the real dimension of nature takes shape.

Now in terms of emotions, an emotion is a concentrated living history of part of a given topos, as per that “fusion” (like with unlike) of real-ideal and pertinent to the larger more stable encounter-patterns that have most allowed individuals or “moments within the topos-field” to cohere with regularity over time. Consciousness and the real naturally gravitate to consistencies in this way, the real stabilizes itself within the larger ideal-flux which flux results, again, from the fact that each individual or moment will always express a somewhat different configuration of the real-ideal.

An emotion like joy, sadness, fear, expectation-anticipation, or anger is quite literally a living history for the pathways of stable recurring tectonic flows of longer-term daemonic configurations of real-ideal, which means of the body and the mind, of physical and non-physical in how physiological responses in the body (hormones secretion, neurotransmitter release, blood flow patterns, musculature contractions, etc.) occur in stable-recurring patterns and groups in response to a more or less consistent range of symbol-encounter: thee individual encounters a certain symbol or symbolic experience, and these physiological responses are triggered en mass, the result being a conscious experience of both at once- we have on the one hand a sum of all those body feelings’ proprioception which taken together actually feels like one larger feeling instead of many smaller ones, and on the other hand we have that sum-feeling taking place only within certain understandable and consistent patterns of symbolic perception encounter. Those two “epi-phenomena” taken together is what an emotion is. This is why emotions are so rooted to our human meaning and wider experience, and why philosophy only undercuts emotion at its own expense, or as I’ve said many times because that philosophy is only a reflection of pathological elements (certain emotion-orientations and “blockages”, or faulty wiring in the real-ideal) anyway. Yet philosophy (reason) tends to undermine emotion, because of the one-sides emphasis placed on rationality as objectivity thus projects the individual self outside of its own former real-ideal orientations as it is trying to find new orientations. So emotions for the philosopher maybe keep losing and rediscovering themselves along ever-changing tectonics.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeTue Oct 27, 2015 10:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
It wouldn’t be correct to classify a daemonic philosophy by a particular stage in the development of the daemonic consciousness, or of a society or people, since the philosophy spans all stages real or possible. Similarly Christianity can’t be considered a continuation of the Greek path or Judaic path since there is no “path” because Greek, Judaic and Christian reflect stages of a wider development and are not reductive to each other as if in a temporal sequence. The only thing which these various stages are reductive to would be truth, or we can say, the ideal.

But still I am interested in whether Parodites considers Christianity to be unexhausted also in terms of its philosophical ‘fuel’. I a asking so directly, bluntly perhaps, because I always intuit a depth in Christianity that I can not personally explicate very well. It is clearly not yet exhausted in terms of its power to hold sway over people, but is this relevant to us? It would be, in some way.

Parodites says that by the development of man into of Judaeo Christianity, a greater depth was found, a depth that could harbor a more complete immanent transcendent process, if I use the terms correctly.

Quote :
Daemonic consciousness is the unfoldment of various partializing stages or topoi as Parodites’ term, each topos is representative of a given range and saturation of the real with ideal-spaces that have managed to win reflection within the living world. Life is the slow, gradual saturation of the world-existence with ideality, which means with truth. Humans as a whole could be categorized as representing a massive tectonic plane within which multiple topoi-stages are unfolding and have unfolded, but that human-plane itself is also only one “meta-topos” within the larger world-history of nature and Earth as a whole span of 4 billion years or whatever and includes also all the future self-aware species or technological/AI and human-AI synthetic life forms that will probably eventually develop. Since nature and the first organisms congealed from out of the non-living substances of the Earth it is all connected, all part of one massive tectonic super-evolution. The key principle underlining the continuum is excess and “a-causal” differentiation associated to an excessive unfoldment whereby ideality (or factuality, or truth) are represented materially with increasing scope and precision.

The will to power principle and natural selection are also important factors. Will to power occurs because excess-unfoldment from the ideal and into the real produces fractures in existing tectonics, partializing differentials that by definition cannot be reconciled to each other except by to continue that same daemonic fracturing process even more; therefore each ‘moment’ of an existing topos (each individual, or species group, culture, etc.) will be defined in terms of certain expressions of the real-ideal while other moments are defined by different such configurations of real-ideal, leading to a “war” of perspectives as “values” are discharged from every tectonic threshold-encounter of moment to moment, in a kind of derivative frenzy of dialectic will to power out of which the real dimension of nature takes shape.

Now in terms of emotions, an emotion is a concentrated living history of part of a given topos, as per that “fusion” (like with unlike) of real-ideal and pertinent to the larger more stable encounter-patterns that have most allowed individuals or “moments within the topos-field” to cohere with regularity over time. Consciousness and the real naturally gravitate to consistencies in this way, the real stabilizes itself within the larger ideal-flux which flux results, again, from the fact that each individual or moment will always express a somewhat different configuration of the real-ideal.

An emotion like joy, sadness, fear, expectation-anticipation, or anger is quite literally a living history for the pathways of stable recurring tectonic flows of longer-term daemonic configurations of real-ideal, which means of the body and the mind, of physical and non-physical in how physiological responses in the body (hormones secretion, neurotransmitter release, blood flow patterns, musculature contractions, etc.) occur in stable-recurring patterns and groups in response to a more or less consistent range of symbol-encounter: thee individual encounters a certain symbol or symbolic experience, and these physiological responses are triggered en mass, the result being a conscious experience of both at once- we have on the one hand a sum of all those body feelings’ proprioception which taken together actually feels like one larger feeling instead of many smaller ones, and on the other hand we have that sum-feeling taking place only within certain understandable and consistent patterns of symbolic perception encounter. Those two “epi-phenomena” taken together is what an emotion is. This is why emotions are so rooted to our human meaning and wider experience, and why philosophy only undercuts emotion at its own expense, or as I’ve said many times because that philosophy is only a reflection of pathological elements (certain emotion-orientations and “blockages”, or faulty wiring in the real-ideal) anyway. Yet philosophy (reason) tends to undermine emotion, because of the one-sides emphasis placed on rationality as objectivity thus projects the individual self outside of its own former real-ideal orientations as it is trying to find new orientations. So emotions for the philosopher maybe keep losing and rediscovering themselves along ever-changing tectonics.

By and large Christianity is an emotional religion - it is indeed emotion that philosophy has trouble locating and justifying, and a road such as you take, to trace its working in these surgical ways, is powerful, bit it is also a road too dangerous for me to take, because indeed thought about emotions do much to destroy these emotions, and to me eotion is required for truth, because truth to me is directly tied to the notion of selfvaluing, an the notion of selfvaluing is, per truth, directly tied to myself, which means, to emotional nature. I am fearful of going deeper than truth than I can truthfully verify, if that makes any sense.

I consider emotions purely as I encounter them, an I notice that their nature changes as my heights increase. As they change, different factors begin play a part in them, which causes the the change again - an yet the same chemicals are being used. The being simply revaluates those chemicals and those patterns to produce the ‘sensation’ that best mirrors the ontic state of the self-valuing. But the ontic here as including the transcendent.

As man grows towards a greater comprehension of himself, he necessarily grows toward greater coherence with his cosmic environment. He must grow more electrical and more powerful an learning new emotions. It will never end, likely. We will grow more and more entwined with our own necessity, as our self-valuing becomes conscious of being the one factor that drives all the other factors. Ethics is born out of the naked, unpolished power that one wakes up to when one realizes all actors only serve that to which they lead up - an that it is up to him to say ‘the means create the ends’ - to him to return nature to nature, to hone out of mans transcendent movements an ‘instinct’. That’s what I regard as philosophy, and what I try to train in men with my writing and, as clumsily as that goes, videos - Parodites has taught me the fate of the instincts, I respond to that fate differently than he does. I take it as a departure point to bridge the gap bac to the origin of the animal instincts; the Earth. But I know this is a transcendent movement. It can only be scaffolded, upheld, yea justified in terms of aesthetics, which is the perpetuum mobile of the spirit.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeWed Oct 28, 2015 8:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sorry about not being very active on the forum lately, my brain is fried from having wisdom teeth pulled.

I am in the process of exhausting Christianity and moving into a new stage, which like Capable said does not follow the one before it causally, but represents the formation of a new subjectivity that cannot be reduced to the Christian subject. In a similar way to the Christian subject existing more deeply than the Jew, and the Jew moreso than the Greek.

As I wrote:

Yet, by uniting their wills to the will of universal creation and destruction, as
in the orgiastic ritual and the Saturnalia, so it was that the Greeks- at least the pre-
Platonic or Hellenistic Greeks, protected themselves from the agapeic rupture of the
transcendent into consciousness, fortifying their real-ego from the collapse necessary in
the transitional orientation to the ideal in whose higher species of daemonism, namely the
eroto-daemonic, Judaeo-Christianity arose, which brought with it a more pregnant and a
generally deeper subjectivity, inspired with the concept of an existential burden not only
to God but to the universe of Being and to life itself, the later exampled in man’s having
been given dominion- which means responsibility, over the Earth. The Greeks were
capable only of utilizing the basic impulse of life, namely the sexual instinct, to whose
phenomena belongs the reproduction and continuation of organic existence, as a means to
bringing themselves and their own will into accordance with the universal will,
daemonically recombining within their own erotic pathos the self-destructive longing of
the flesh for flesh and the supra-abundance of life’s primordial energies, as typifies the
socio-cultural function of the orgiastic rituals which provided the basis of what we now
call festivals- they were thoroughly incapable of recognizing the existential burden of a
moral universe.

Nietzsche did not truly understand Christianity let alone surpass it, in my view. His genealogy of morals is a mind-numbingly superficial explanation of comparative religion, and Kierkegaard is far more relevant to the question of Christianity. Nietzsche had greater strength when talking about the individual psyche rather than the psychodynamics of periods in history or whole religions.

48

Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeWed Oct 28, 2015 8:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
About emotions. Animals do not have emotions, they have a continuous stream of affect (which I have always referred to as reflexive)- nature organizes the nerve tracts in the brain in a purely causal formation of recurrent sequences, and every time the animal responds to something this causal structure is simply outputting this sequence, as though the whole body and nervous system reacts at once as a primordial organo-affective unity; in man, because reason destabilized this structure by introducing discontinguous, acausal states of consciousness, a base threshold of affect potentiation was developed- our real ego or immediate sense of self: affective energy that crosses that threshold (Nietzsche, unable to see beyond it, called the threshold the Will to Power) is not integrated into the reorganized linguistically-coded (ie. semiotically reinterpreted by being referred to the psychic center of the real ego) neural sequences we as humans create with our neocortex, and through which a psychic unity can be sustained as a smaller partition of the much larger affective surplus of the whole body out of which the animals react. These partitions of that affect-surplus preserve the ego’s fortification against disintegration in excessive psychic forces, and we internally feel them as emotions, each of them having a basis in particular organizations and sequences of partitioned affect as Capable says. Part of what philosophy does, is allow us to see through the illusion of this psychic center or real ego, and utilize more expansive states of discontiguous consciousness in order to develop larger partitions of that affective energy which was pushed outside of experience by the libidinal threshold: emotions that are realized in this way I simply think of as higher emotions, and each new topos, from the Greek to the Jew to the Christian, brings with it an enlargement of the domain of this psychic partitioning of the affective surplus (this is why as you said the nature of your emotions change as your heights increase). I said this in a slightly different way here:

Affect in itself is pure quality and is boundless, while the reflexive organization of affects in animal life has coordinated it to produce reliable nerve tracts that create behaviors beneficial to survival. Human cognition destabilized this structure of causal chains of reactive affective discharges, and to compensate the real ego was evolved to preserve a feeling of organo-affective unity; the brain reifies itself as an object of consciousness by establishing a basic liminal threshold, transforming the infinite potential of the primordial vital impulse, of pure quality, into a formal, limited continuum- emotional experiences are sequences of affect that can be organized on this continuum and registered by the conscious mind as an intensification of the ground state in which the brain has reified itself as our sense of being a self, as the real ego, while affective events that exceed its potential excited state are simply pushed into the unconscious. In this way the feeling of organo-affective unity is reconstituted and maintained, which fortifies us psychologically against the threat of dissolving forces and death. Philosophy, by reorienting the real ego with the ideal, allows the underlying primordial impulse, from which the affective series are produced for the real ego as small partitions of what is actually boundless quality, to be brought into the conscious mind; the immanent subject in this way achieves transcendence and the real ego is transformed into the ideal ego, whose range of emotions and possible states of consciousness is without limit.

Emotions themselves are degenerations and re-partitions of the reflexive, primordial, affective-organic unity that stretches throughout all animal life and represents the primal energetic potential of the body itself, of what it means to be an organism- the original vital urge; a kind of degeneration like that of James’ bicameral mind and what you describe with mental disorders- a degeneration that was produced by the conscious mind which needed to semiotically reorganize the internal world of the emotions and sensations so as to reconstitute that feeling of organic unity which was destabilized by humanity’s first awakening to transcendence and the symbolic order by referring everything to a centralized and immediate sense of selfhood, the Real ego. Only a small amount of that emotionality and inner world can be referred and consciously directed toward that Real ego, while most exceeds the threshold established by it and passes into the unconscious, which is not simply a storehouse of repressions like in Freud. Man is in other words confined by a subjectivity that dis-associates him from his Ideal, eternal ego; our emotions are simply unincorporated remainders of malformed processes of a cognition that, above all, my philosophy- insofar as that philosophy is not merely apprehended theoretically, but actively pursued and lived, is intended to re-construct. Our emotions and their totality- our subjectivity, are just a kind of libidinal closed circuit which our conscious mind, our immediate and Real ego- the finite subjectivity, utilizes so as to set up a blockade or threshold between itself and our inherited, animal, evolutionary vestiges- even more, between itself and the forces of dissolution and matter to which those vestiges are vulnerable and opened up- the hard and bitter earth behind everything human as you put it. These emotions of ours- and our affects in general, be they pleasurable or painful, along with that finite, real ego to which they belong and semiotically attach themselves- whose principle Nietzsche called the will to power, are but the shadows of a higher nature that can be truly arrived at only by daemonically transcending one’s self into the Ideal ego- a higher nature before which the meaning of the thing in itself is accessible, a cognition that operates outside of the normal limitations of the human brain and all that inhibits it, as time and matter and the finite, subjective universe of our unawakened emotions do: this is the goal; the most internal, esoteric, and defining purpose behind my writing. The philosopher- the one who has reoriented his affective energy with the Ideal ego, certainly feels, but he does not feel “emotions,” at least not what we refer to with words like anger or pain or happiness or jealousy.

I too share a veneration of human subjectivity and emotions, but I differentiate the affective potential of the real and the ideal ego. The emotions and even senses themselves which are commonly experienced are simply formal partitions of a much larger organo-affective unity and storehouse vitality- partitions with which the real ego reconstitutes itself as immediate and existing, fortified against the intrusion of the material basis of the body and the dissolving forces to which it is subject- that is, death, for they are partitioned through the brain’s application of an essential schema, whereby all change in the affects gets falsely reinterpreted as a modulation of intensity with regard to a basic ground state, (ie. the real ego, which does not actually exist) a schema made possible by or perhaps directly following the emergence of rational cognition in man. So I do not mean to abandon the emotional self, but to reorient the ego with the Ideal so as to reintegrate into conscious experience that larger affective storehouse from which the real ego has been estranged; I mean to reintegrate all the affects that have been pushed out of consciousness by the dynamic of the real ego. That unconscious- this store of unincorporated affects which have exceeded what I always call the libidinal threshold, replace the fragile and egoic emotions of the real with more complete and comprehensive affective states. The emotions of the real ego are just points on a continuum with a beginning and end, just like the continuum of colors, and that high and low point is a measure of threshold potential beyond which things get pushed into the unconscious, while the emotional continuum itself represents the causal-reflexive series with which the brain reconstitutes our feeling of immediate presence continuously by referring all affective states to a measure of intensification of a basic potential excitable state- a state which is what we feel as our self, that is, our real ego; if you enlarge or even remove that threshold, the low and high points, and turn the continuum into an infinite line going in one direction into the beyond forever, (ie. toward the transcendent ideal ego outside of time) then new affective states can be arrived at- new emotions that are produced, not through the affective partitioning supporting the real ego structure, which is always a very small piece of the body, but produced rather by the body itself in toto, as a whole, with the ego in this way shifting from the real to the ideal. It is only through the symbolic order and philosophy that one can destabilize that threshold and look beyond the false semiogenesis with which the brain reinterprets all sensation and affect as a modulating intensity on a basic ground state, on the real ego. One essentially “thinks the body into consciousness,” or transforms the organo-affective unity now pushed into the unconscious, upon which the thin film of the real-ego or immediate self drifts, into philosophy. As I explain it in A Glorious Risk:

By reorganizing the psychodynamic processes in relation to the ideal ego, one thinks the incomplete libidinal closed circuit that is the real ego, along with the body itself which it has attempted to shield itself from, into that mysterious diaphanous element, an expansive field of potential representing the excitability, not of the small, fragile ground state, but of the body itself, that is, the whole organism- all that it feels and has not ever felt. Everything that has been felt and thought by man is a small glimpse of what can be thought and felt in this way, through that “diaphanous element” or spiritual body to borrow the phrase from Novalis.

Emotions are simply the reorganizations of sequences of affect- of neural impulses, so as to create partitions of the primordial organic-affective unity that succeed in modulating the basic state of potential excitement created by the brain that I call the real ego, from which firstly our immediate sense of self emerges; there is an infinite sea of recombining affective sequences, and the brain uses rational cognition to isolate a very small number of them that it can utilize and reorganize to reconstitute itself as an object of consciousness- fortified from the dissolving forces of creation and death to which the physical body is subject- reconstituted as real ego. But if you look beyond the falsity of the real ego and reorient with the ideal, you can reorganize that essentially infinite combining and recombining storehouse of affects into an equally infinite number of new emotions and affective states.

The easiest way I could say it would be that the emotional responses of the real ego like love, happiness, grief, etc. are essentially distortions of the much larger affective surplus that was pushed into the unconscious, and this larger affective surplus is capable of being configured into emotions that also simply fall outside the normal range of human feeling and have no distorted equivalent in normal perception; there is a higher equivalent to each of them (love, joy, grief, etc.) for the ideal ego, and one can expand the real-emotions into their higher ideal equivalent as you were saying you have been doing, but there are also emotions producible through the surplus affect that have no equivalent in the domain of real ego. Each unfolding of the topoi and new daemonic plateau, each new configuration of real and ideal, as from primeval man to the Greeks, then to the Jews, and then to the emergence of Christianity, has carried with it a deepening and a transformation of subjectivity and a releasing of some new part of that buried surplus affect, as, for example, with Christianity there became available to man certain experiences and emotions that were simply impossible to conceive of from within the Greek mind. The basic task of my philosophy is to provide the means to fully submerging and releasing that surplus within the subject, whose fulfillment would be a mens heroica, the heroic mind.

The higher existential subjectivity which the present canon of emotions represent as you say, they do represent, but they represent it to consciousness as a distortion within the domain of the real ego confined- distorted, by time and finitude; that existential universality-potential of the immanent subject is the true possession of the ideal, and can only be fully developed in orientation to the ideal- that is why the subjectivity and emotional depth of the Christian man was more developed than that of the ancient Greek. The new emotions I am talking about are further exposures of the underlying immanent subject that simply exist as far beyond the Christian type of man as the Christian exists beyond the Jew and the Jew beyond the Greek. The Romantic love and its emotion first appeared with Christianity so it is a good example to take, and it combines Judaeo-Christian psychological concepts of transcendence, divine ecstasy in relation to the monotheistic God, the fusion of two separate souls, etc. with the historically older emotion that the Greeks discovered- Eros. My sense of this emotion however is very different and involves a fusion, not of eros and agape or divine transcendence in one object, but of eros and hope, courage and dissolution and death, as two beings reach out for their different perfect forms in the heaven of ideas along side one another, though still marked with separation upon the earth in which they dissolve and which had denied their attempts at completing themselves in mortal life, in which nothing ever finds fulfillment or is seen through to its end. I describe this emotional experience here:

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeThu Oct 29, 2015 2:24 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think my only point of disagreement is that the “unconscious” can be mobilized in such a total way, the affective surplus freed into dynamic consciousness outside the bounds of a real ego filtering/limiting. I don’t know how ideality could live in that way, as thought, or as a self, because thought and selfhood are measured by the intersection of both real and ideal, the inside and outside perspective of conscious and unconscious. Without a real ego-threshold to draw affect into organized acting and effecting a common body and perspective, without the “illusion” of being a self or real ego, how would consciousness or subjectivity make any sense? Wouldn’t these simply vanish back into a kind of animal pre-conscious immediacy in the moment kind of awareness, if the irreconcilable dynamic of real and ideal were transcended by way of re-orienting the real self entirely to the ideal?

The real ego has made a reality for itself and this is what most people experience as their existence, and these human existences have much room to be expanded and deepened toward truth, certainly, but this is not by extension to say that the real dimension is fundamentally flawed in so far as it is composed of false or distorted emotions and ideas that must be totally overcome, reconstructed absolutely in terms of the ideal only. What would life even look like if that were to occur? Non-human animals are immersed totally in the present moment and sensory environment, they don’t have “facts” but they have awareness, they react with pure reflex and to me that is what it would mean to get rid of a real ego to replace it with direct assumption of the ideal ego itself: the real is the outside perspective from ideality that is required to make ideality possible to manifest itself in existence, and also the real ego is the storehouse for all of the accidental or coincidental development of human social reality and shared meaning, including a lot of how thought and ideas work, and the means of regulating the body-feelings into coherent emotional states. In short I don’t see that real can ever be adequate to ideal, or that ideal can ever be adequate to real; I see progress and philosophy’s goal as to continue to refine toward the ideal that in man which is able to be refined in this way, to expand the sphere of his ideal consciousness and emotions as you say but not with an end-goal of somehow transcending the real absolutely. Pure brain+AI minds in jars linked to computer networks is the only way I can see an idea of pure transcendence of the ideal making any sense: man would need to totally leave his body behind for a virtual or artificial environment rooted in computers and cybernetics so as to lose entirely his ability to feel his body, all of the body-related feelings and ‘instinct memory’ which the body contains genetically as information passed on from evolution and man’s social history would need to be erased in favor of migrating cognating thought and ideation of a factual nature into pure virtual awareness as immersion in the immediacy of such a computer/robotic environment devoid of the earth, devoid of the body, devoid of any physical sensation of pleasure or pain and of any memory of these. Such an abstract “mind in a jar” could probably reach the kind of transcendent ideality where no real ego-threshold holds sway over the manifest of ideas, but in what sense could we even say that such a consciousness is composed out of a “sea of affect”?

The excess is an earthly excess, the mind derives from the body’s excess in combination with encounters to the ideal-factual, which in fact the body indirectly represents in a structural and formal nature by virtue of evolution and history; getting rid of the body or of the real ego, qua real ego, would actually get rid of the whole cumulative historical life-project which had been the evolution of nature and into humanity whereby such an unconscious history the ideal is in fact reflected and made to manifest in reality, as man’s implicit categories of consciousness and physiological structures by way of how the libidinal threshold determines which experiences get conscious reflection and which are shunted off into the larger unconsciousness as you have pointed out. Or maybe I’m not well grasping this aspect of the philosophy, the psychology of the heroic mind – have you developed a detailed accounting of the mens heroica yet? This does seem like one of the next areas we really must explore.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeThu Oct 29, 2015 4:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What values? Self valuings that can. What self valuings can?

Telos. The ideal and the real make sense only if they are valuable to that which can value, that is, that which can value what isn’t yet valueable. To get rid of ideality, or reality, we would need to be convinced that the result of either would be valuable beyond what was valuable before it, and with a teleological aim that evilly whispers the suggestion of a whisper which is: “more…” No, not more. What is more? Simply movement in value.

The philosophical emotion is the telos that grasps value crisply and is able to even consider what doing without ideal or without real would bring in terms of value. But it is an emotion and a telos because it will not do either until crisp value is discerned teleologically preferable. Philosophy without bias is no philosophy at all, and that is what emotion indicates.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeThu Oct 29, 2015 5:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The ideal is the dimension of eternity, truth, and “fact”, totally opposite the subjective dimension of the real ego, however it is the ideal that is the truly living one of the two egos-- this is a critical point I think is hard to grasp at first. Real can only live because it is partitioning ideal contents’ intrusions into its own spaces, the real is what shapes the ideal into an individual, time-space limited form; think about ourselves, what is most living and truly existing for us? It is that of ourselves which is the mind, which reaches to and from the eternal; it is “love” and the whole life which is itself nothing but the continuous work of love, as Parodites said. This isn’t a sentimental notion, it speaks to how truth manifests in concrete form with real effects and consequences.

Our values are the result of points of contact, tectonic fracturing, between real and ideal. A value is the product of an implicit determination-judgment of perspectival interpreting given pre-existing context and categories in which judgments are able to take shape. That high level of perspective is only possible because the self is made out of two opposite and irreconcilable substances, the real and ideal, or body and mind to be crude about it: if we use value as the fundamental principle of the self’s psychology then we will achieve what Nietzsche achieved with the principle of the will to power applied in the same manner, a collapse of the transcendent dimension into the immanent dimension as Parodites called it, but at least with the improvement of the concept of value over will we have an innate joining recognition of ideality with reality, truth with untruth, fact with act, objective with subjective; but value naturally and necessarily pre-supposes the daemonic setup, which pre-supposition is part of its great functional power, yet it would prevent analysis from descending any further into the psychological self than this level of given presupposition.

Value is maybe the first philosophical principle of action, of the daemonic self as gively daemonic in its psychology and sociology. Yes, this makes sense to me. But how are we to understand where this given ground comes from and why? We need more existential or “phenomenological” conceptual constructs that develop the logic of self-valuing, namely real and ideal which involves several key concepts such as excess, non-dialectical asynthetic development of difference, and irreconcilability, also the intersection of the spheres of identity through which subjectivity takes shape. The subject and the values will always reduce to each other in this sense, because they are linear along the same plane-level and ouroboros-like. So the daemonic philosophy aims to get below that in order to open up new spaces of potential change and development to life or to “what it means to be a self.”

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeThu Oct 29, 2015 7:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sure, but what I think what philosophy as emotion aims to make clear is that even this exploration or definition, rather, of self requires a previous starting point, that one doesn’t wonder about daemonic processes without needing to for a reason other than it. What keeps philosophy honest, whether it please the philosoher or not, is that he will always be embedded in reasons outside philosophy. Philosophy is the subject of, its object responds to. Even value is simply useful. What Parodites has achieved, I would argue, is comparable to any other world shaking philosophical insight. The danger of such a thing is that it lose sight of its ground, of its use to its weilder, or his necessities.

Perhaps counterintuitively, this alows for the insight to fully take on its own logics, its own weight. We have a distance from it: we need it, it needs nothing. As it takes its own weight, we can reap from it. If we insist its weight is the same as ours, we will never reap anything and also stump its growth. The ideal is not the mind, it is the matterless thing the mind finds. The mind matters.

What value ontology holds, as opposed to daemonic philosophy, is that to find a “why” and a grounding requires as much a reason to be saught as that which prompted the question. Or, not reason, but sifting through reasons, wondering whether it is a question of any value.

Excess the idea is seperate from that which observes it, as you say, irreconsileably, which is not to say that one cannot justify the other.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeThu Oct 29, 2015 7:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The reason for the philosophy is rooted in the philosophy itself, since everything is “a philosophy” anyway, by that I mean a process of excess-unfoldment along the horizons of dialectically-possible world parameters. We can ask why this philosophy exists easily enough, we simply examine the philosopher, ourselves. We find right away that we are ourselves representing lack to itself, voids that drive growth, the psychology is incomplete and always pushes beyond itself becoming either more honest or more dishonest in the process, “better or worse philosophy” but either way is always going to be the case, no matter what human were talking about.

We don’t invent philosophies because of utility purposes, but because we are already “a philosophy-process” and nothing besides-- philosophy is simply an extension of what we and everyone else already is. Why does it “extend” like that then? Each philosopher has his own life-circumstances by virtue of which he was at one point or over a period of time “accidentally” awoken to the possibility of truth. That insight made living into the flesh of a mind changes the fundamental nature of subjectivity, it begins to align it more to its true nature first in a purely virtual sense and with many errors but eventually in an actual sense too. Only philosophy can heal, every healing or strength of the soul is already a form of philosophy.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeThu Oct 29, 2015 8:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Rock on, then.

But I know, because I know lack only exists at the behest of need, that this isn’t true.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeThu Oct 29, 2015 8:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I look at need as a psychological or biological interpretation of a lack. My cells lack nutrients so they draw these from the blood around them, they “need” the nutrients because fundamentally in their structure there is a lack of them. The fact of the lack was created via natural selection working through genetics and environment, but I don’t see that as a telos. To me, telos can only really mean something when we’re talking about the ideal, factual or “conscious” aspect that can really orient itself within its own future and possibility-as-such.

In what sense do you mean “this isn’t true”? What specifically do you see is untrue?

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeThu Oct 29, 2015 8:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In addition, I should add that lack is never an absolute basis or ground, but a constituent state that arises from a greater abundance and over-plenty, an excess. The cell is a self-valuing that represents something greater than itself, namely the whole physical process and world/history, natural laws, logic, and all such conditions that have truly made it what it is. The cell is a structure driven by lack, but that specific lack (from which needs arise) was itself produced as a consequence of much more extensive and greater excess-conditions; basically an excessiveness in the environment produced the cell-as-lack, and that excessive component lives on in a deeper sense as was eventually released more and more into manifest existence as life evolved toward complexity and consciousness.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeThu Oct 29, 2015 9:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Without need, that lack would be an end, or it would simply continue to make part of the different processes that configured it. Need is telos because that state of affairs that consequence finds itself in suddenly wants, that is, has its own need of consequence, sees itself, values itself, and only thus is appart from the processes that made it be, not sepaate in anything but in telos. Can this be beyond human conscience? I believe we are way too early in our understanding and fullfilling of our own telos to truly be able to ask that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeFri Oct 30, 2015 3:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To me, need and lack are connected in that lack is a state of absence of something, need is a statement of fact regarding a lack. My body is consuming oxygen as we speak and has a continuous need for more oxygen, why is this? Because consumption processes at the cellular level are using available oxygen and they do not stop doing that, therefore on a continual basis more oxygen atoms are required if that process is to sustain itself; there is no reason why the process “should” sustain itself like that, for instance I could stop inputting oxygen into my body and those cellular processes would eventually cease for lack of more oxygen, and I would die. The cause-reason for the continuous inputting of oxygen into my body is found in the fact that I have an autonomic nervous system that regulates abdominal muscles to contract and expand over and over again, causing pressure differentials between my lungs and the outside air, leading to a drawing of air from outside and into my lungs, where capillaries in the lungs’ alveoli absorb O2 molecules, this absorption occurring only because the blood that happens to be flowing through those capillaries at that moment is not saturated with oxygen per its potential to be saturated in that way.

The whole process is mechanical and automatic, and it only exists because in the distant past genetic alterations at the behest of natural selection happened to give rise to oxygen-respiration systems in certain organisms. I don’t see any telos anywhere in any of that. This oxygen-respiration system didn’t evolve because it wanted me to exist, or because it wanted any sort of end-goal at all: it evolved entirely by accident of evolution given the available materials and the extant environmental conditions of the present and immediate past. Evolution had no purpose, no goal and no end, it is a blind stupid process that leaves tailbones and appendixes and webbed feet in humans despite these not being required anymore, and it is a process that kills off most species in the course of evolving a very small number toward a more stable survivable form (stable only in so far as the environment doesn’t change too greatly).

Nature doesn’t care about making better organisms, just like evolution didn’t care about making nature or life or self-aware life. There’s no end goal or purpose behind it. Instead, I locate an end-goal and a purpose (a telos) in humanity only, by virtue of how humans became able to negotiate between truth itself and the rest of material-accidental existence: humans learn about abstract concepts and facts, we become able to respond to a state of things and the fact of things rather than simply to things themselves, as the rest of all life does. Humans can understand and thus form complex judgments and extract deep knowledge from reality that was never available to any other life-form before humans. So because of this humans live partly in a “third universe” of ideas themselves, eternal facts, Plato’s Forms or we can just call it “the future” that we immerse ourselves into, and this living partly outside of ourselves and into an alternate future-universal existence is what enables us to become teleologically capable life-forms.

That’s how I see it anyway.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeFri Oct 30, 2015 3:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
More so in more interesting and human terms, need is greater and more significant than lack, because need is motivating to produce meaning (existentia): let’s say I want to draw a picture because I have some sketching supplies here, and I can’t think of anything else to do. So my level of motivation and interest is small and I’m sort of bored just sketching things for fun, but suddenly now someone else actually wants my sketches for some reason, say they are interested in my talent or they simply like me and are interested, or they have their own need for them for some reason… now my motivation and interest level is much greater and I will obtain far more meaning out of the activity of sketching. The other person’s need or desire relative to my task is going to infuse that task with greater significance for me, at least in a general sense.

We need each other’s interest and desires/needs in order for ourselves to have meaningful experiences, at least again speaking generally, and the other side of that is how we produce desires and needs on our own such as with our personal interest in philosophy. The existing need gives rise to an existential substance in man. The notion of lack by itself cannot account for that.

And furthermore, it is only because of man’s ability to live partially in that “alternate reality” of facts, conceptual abstraction, emotions and “third universe” that any of this is even possible. My dog has basic feelings and simple anticipations, thus it is also able to draw some extra meaning-motivation from certain experiences more than others (I.e. it is capable of becoming bored or excited psychologically-speaking), but a dog’s level of this will never come close to a human’s level of it.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeFri Oct 30, 2015 5:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That’s right, need hijacks the process and gives it unity separate from its origin within a larger scheme of necessities and processes. This is all I’m saying: lack doesn’t exist without need, otherwise why is anything lacking? Lacking what? For what? There is an eternal regression problem, eventually something was needed. Why does your aggregate self refuse to stop the functioning of your lungs? Why does lack care?

An animal may not have the same abstraction processes as a human, but isn’t there a difference, too, between a monkey and a crocodile? The problem of value is: what regards value? Only symbols? Or does the whale will itself to be whale-like?

I have things in common with a rock. If either of us is dropped, we fall onto the next closest solid thing between us and the Earth, and our molecules are racked.

The rock shares a value with me. Not to go all dialectical on your asses, but I feel a little weak. What is able to value falling? Is there only one way to do so?

A non dialectic theory then: the philosophical emotion is embedded in value chains that precede it and make part of it, and to struggle with these values already presupposes a valuing of styruggle, a need. Struggle doesn’t just “happen.” I don’t question the daemonic theories, only their genealogy. Lack being reflected onto itself… Somebody needs to do the reflecting. Also, conflicting needs, as evolution is anything but single-minded.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeFri Oct 30, 2015 8:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I will post a few other things I have on my mind about this, but really quickly I want to address Capable’s inquiry as to the kind of animal state of the pure affective surplus I claim appears after fully orienting with the ideal ego.

The animals do experience the entirety of their organo-affective unity, their entire body and nervous system fires in unison as a single affective flow, while in man the real ego formed to compensate for the disintegrating intrusion of a higher cognition as was afforded by an expanded neocortex and brought with it our emotions as the continuous-intensifications of an immediate, temporally constructed sense of self which serves as a potential excited state and liminal threshold to the truncated and partitioned affect-surplus itself. When man fully reorients the real ego with the ideal, he too will experience the organo-affective unity of his entire organism again- but here is the central difference… man’s organism is far more complicated than any animal’s, to the point of constituting a phase transition and qualitative rather than merely quantitative advancement beyond their capacity. So if a human were to experience his organo-affective unity it would be very much different than when the animals experience their own: symbols, words, differentiated emotions etc. are all parts of his organic capacity and are datums in that potential unity. This is why the organo-affective unity and surplus of a human would be very different than that which the animals do indeed experience- there is no human being that has ever lived who has experienced it, and I have not either, at least not yet, so I cannot say much more about what it would actually be like, I can just say that, for this important reason, it would certainly be very different than what animals experience.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

too much or too enough Empty
PostSubject: Re: too much or too enough too much or too enough Icon_minitimeFri Oct 30, 2015 5:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Though there is definitively a qualitative difference between ‘consciousness’ of animal and ‘consciousness’ of man, in the sense that you have described, thee is also a tentatively comparable threshold between reptiles and mammals, cold and warm blooded animals. The difference is this; when a reptile is idle, he lurks, waits for something to respond to, but when a mammal is idle, he plays, has to keep himself occupied. He is too ‘spirited’ with his hot blood to remain passive. Here, the instincts begin to transform into ‘meaning-giving’, an it is only in recording meaning and representing it abstractly that humans are almost fundamentally ‘estranged’ so to speak, in need of a metaphysical coherence, a ring of time or an eternally combusting explosion, or an absolute in any sense - this dis-coherence is indeed absent in animals. And yet - is there not something in the ape that is already man? But this is it; in ape, nature had become so playful as to become serious about its ‘self’. It had invented the ultimate plaything. And he was never ever going to share it.

Incipit ‘sapientia’.

49

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The Horned One Empty
PostSubject: The Horned One The Horned One Icon_minitimeFri Nov 06, 2015 4:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The ‘soul’ - lostness itself as it was, once it was established as a notion and a center of yearning, was turned to be the seat of virtue.
Hence the Devil was born. Virtue postnatally aborted, didn’t even get access into heaven. Wherever he roams he claims.

Built on the Consummation of Man, this creature’s standards of living are improbable.

No Man can claim this beast. Rather this beast claims all men, except those who fall away. By the Horned One we are born into the world, several times in our lives if we are really in the world.

Satan either buys or kills the soul, whatever it take to free man from his roots in nothingness. Lucifer separates man from the sun and turns man into a self-sustaining flame. The sun (like all birds besides crows) is unfathomably evil. It is life-giver, but by degrees of cruelty the gods separate in lineage.

Against procrastination (and bad breath); doors that want to open become mouths that want to devour.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

A Functional View on Depression Empty
PostSubject: A Functional View on Depression A Functional View on Depression Icon_minitimeFri Feb 12, 2016 9:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Depression is an intellectual illness, it is an emotional response to the hardness of the contact between truth and power that intellectual activity yields.

There are pills and hypnotic techniques to assuage the discomfort of it, but these interrupt the intellectual process which entanglement will effectively rout the depression by an instinctive separation from an unaproachability.

The functional way to treat this state is as a passing symptom, let the contact form fully and allow for the next state that will lead to depression. Sticking to the emotional approach to intellect at all costs, with no exacerbating entanglements.

This is the perfect justice for the perfect crime. Also, the pacing that Nietzsche so bravely did without. In Nietzsche’s case: intellectual approach to emotion at all costs.

The functional approach reaps what the Nietzschean approach sows. The latter begins from power, the former begins power.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

A Functional View on Depression Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Functional View on Depression A Functional View on Depression Icon_minitimeTue Feb 16, 2016 11:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Depression is an intellectual illness, it is an emotional response to the hardness of the contact between truth and power that intellectual activity yields.

There are pills and hypnotic techniques to assuage the discomfort of it, but these interrupt the intellectual process which entanglement will effectively rout the depression by an instinctive separation from an unaproachability.

The functional way to treat this state is as a passing symptom, let the contact form fully and allow for the next state that will lead to depression. Sticking to the emotional approach to intellect at all costs, with no exacerbating entanglements.

This is the perfect justice for the perfect crime. Also, the pacing that Nietzsche so bravely did without. In Nietzsche’s case: intellectual approach to emotion at all costs.

The functional approach reaps what the Nietzschean approach sows. The latter begins from power, the former begins power.

Does that really work? I mean, if I understand you, you’re saying that intelligence and reason can ward off depression or keep it in balance?
Depression is a form of mental unbalance, so how would that work - unless as I said, I am misunderstanding you here.

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

A Functional View on Depression Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Functional View on Depression A Functional View on Depression Icon_minitimeSat May 07, 2016 2:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Depression is an intellectual illness, it is an emotional response to the hardness of the contact between truth and power that intellectual activity yields.

There are pills and hypnotic techniques to assuage the discomfort of it, but these interrupt the intellectual process which entanglement will effectively rout the depression by an instinctive separation from an unaproachability.

The functional way to treat this state is as a passing symptom, let the contact form fully and allow for the next state that will lead to depression. Sticking to the emotional approach to intellect at all costs, with no exacerbating entanglements.

This is the perfect justice for the perfect crime. Also, the pacing that Nietzsche so bravely did without. In Nietzsche’s case: intellectual approach to emotion at all costs.

The functional approach reaps what the Nietzschean approach sows. The latter begins from power, the former begins power.

Yes I’ve found this to be the case. Depression comes in degrees but should be dealt with the same in any degree: letting it pass as a natural symptom. It isn’t as if, when we have the flu, we focus totally on our symptoms and refuse to identify the flu that is causing those symptoms… I don’t sit around when having the flu and obsess over the fever, low energy, muscle aches, and even as these symptoms start to gradually decline as I get better I wouldn’t continue to focus and emphasize on the symptoms as if they were their own reality. Depression is a symptom, period; it isn’t an illness.

The DSM is a very damaging and “evil” (inhuman) manual. For example it classifies what it calls “Tobacco Use Disorder” and lays out criteria by which a person is deemed to have a mental illness, a “disorder” because one smokes or chews tobacco. The subtlety of these tactics belies our ability to directly approach them from a rational level and refuse them rationally, so forces our more human responses and defenses against this madness into one of two categories: either a person can simply refuse the DSM paradigm outright and in a “belligerent” and non-rational way, or a person can critique the DSM paradigm. Most people wouldn’t be able to do the critique approach and so use the first one, of blatant refusal. This is a human response to the inhumanity of DSM, and probably the best response to take, but unfortunately since the larger system is already capitulated to the DSM paradigm this natural refusal ends up disempowering oneself with respect to keeping oneself safe and effective against the system… This is why so many people end up institutionalized for mental illness and have their rights stripped away, permanent diagnosis placed on their medical file from which they will now never escape. This is how the system works: you are free to simply ignore and refuse it from a healthy human angle, but then the system simply labels your ignoring and refusal as a disorder too. “Non-compliance”, “lack of insight”, “uncooperative”, “anti-social”, “danger to self”, etc. Courts strip away people’s rights every day based on these classifications.

That is why I focus more on direct and rational refusal, so we need to force ourselves to understand the insanity of DSM-based paradigm and approaches so we can effectively talk about how and why these are incorrect. With tobacco for example-- smoking is a choice and like many things involves cost and benefit, every “addiction” is a choice that generates tension based on the detriments involved in the choice. Pleasure reward isn’t the only domain of “addictive” power of an activity, mostly it is about securing meaning for ourselves: when we have other reasons in life that push pain and lack of meaning on us we naturally resist by generating meaning and pleasure elsewhere, we stay human in this way; smoking and drugs generally are one way of doing that. With more hardcore drugs these can warp the mind and body with long-term use and overuse, same with alcohol and even tobacco to some extent, but that is an example of overdose. That some substances are more prone to overdose use than others is really the heart of what it means for something to be a “drug”. Pretty much any drug in moderate or small doses and used only infrequently would be healthy. Most drugs are not poisons or toxins, but can have a toxic and harmful effect on the body, mind and emotions with overuse.

Engaging in addictive behavior is a choice, as Fixed said recently it comes down to “what we really really want”. Desires and desires in conflict. I have a new system for helping people break “addictions” and it is very different from AA, NA etc.

On the subject of depression, one can actively resist the DSM paradigm by realizing that depression is a healthy and honest reaction to threats against one’s health and self, especially where these threats are of an existential and phenomenological nature. Because many people lack the tools and insights with which to combat such threats their bodies, minds and emotions response with symptoms of shutting down to the problem: lack of energy, sadness, inability to feel pleasure, lack of motivation, apathy, self-harmful activity are all symptoms of one’s perceived inability to fight back against these subtle threats. But life naturally carries itself forward and beyond the threat, in time we are naturally and “unconsciously” intelligent enough to find ways of saving ourselves… Depression occurs as the symptoms associated to the point before which we have become capable of acting in our own self-defense and for our own self-valuing; freedom and an openness to the world as well as the generally chaotic nature of life tend to “shake up” the threats against us and we naturally find ways out of them. But the real danger is that instead of those natural cures we capitulate absolutely not only to the symptoms but also to the existential and phenomenological threats, meaning we remove the chaos and life-openness that would allow the unconscious-natural efforts to break free ourselves from the threats and we treat the symptoms as entities in themselves, as hard realities. This is the result of taking pills and going with the DSM paradigm, is that the threats become impossible to deal with in human terms, in terms of our own self-value, and the symptoms are given their own reality status and classified as a “medical disease”, which flies in the face of what medicine and medical disease etiology are actually all about. In this case with the DSM paradigm a person’s depression can and often does become permanent.

beforethelight.forumotion.com/t714-the-object

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Empty
PostSubject: Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Icon_minitimeTue Oct 04, 2016 11:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Rapport is the agreement that a good thing is possible. Implied in this is that a bad thing is also possible, and that it appears to each to be clear to each which is which.

Agreement on the other hand merely that a bad thing is the case builds an alliance, but not rapport. All such alliances fall apart before or once the bad thing has been overcome, unless a common good is synthetically arrived at and symbolically agreed upon. The good has symptoms, the bad has enemies; by bad government the good acquires semblances of being its own enemy as its symptoms take on evil masks to hide their rugged faces to the structural failure that is also a product, and no less a consumer of the reality.

“Dutch” (Nederlands, Hollands), Thorbecke styled American styled government is the art of riding out the subtle guiders of discomfort (Lacanian Law) to the end of refining a system of contradictions that amount in a positive statement of a condition.

As Leonidas says in the Movie, more or less… : This. Is. Government.
I did not really go after Zizek. But I had a movie quote and Lacan in it.

And I do like Zizek -
Or rather like him, I like how it keeps popping the Cokey - and if I see him I will dare him to go into Spielbergs Tom Cruise movies.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Icon_minitimeTue Oct 04, 2016 12:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The condition that is thus stated and introduced as reality, is always of the same nature, but comes in different linguistic forms. Some examples, as put forth by various types of people.

(1) Life is tough, and it can be made good by intelligence and courage.
(2) Existence equals the good equals the necessary; this is god.
(3) The ultimate goal and soul of all is freedom.
(4) All is united in mortal difference. This is why we love, and why we despair most when we love, unless we also understand. This is why we can not understand without loving.
(5) All must go their own path; no man over another a priori. All situations are new, all powers are real, all values are legitimate until they have been cast out by greater affirmations of other value.
(6) No values are protected from above except the right to value as one does naturally, as long as this does not infringe on others natural valuing. The means of making this system mobile is money, which is the delay of pressure, and the introduction of time into the relations of power and creates a running condition out of what was formerly merely an accident; opportunity, and what we know as economy.
(7) All men are created equal and granted by their creator the inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness.
(8) The goal of government is to contain itself, and to occupy the power vacuum, and keep mafiosi out of it, so that the world can revolve around the essential securities it provides. These securities come down only to every persons right to his own life, and the implications of this in a society with unequally distributed gifts. The basest and thus most fundamental political-philosophical problem is the penal system; what to do with individuals that the society of individuals can not value among its individuals?
(9) All being is valuing and amounts in self-valuing in all instances; the most comprehensive valuing is the absolute valuing of the self-valuing principle, and the most comprehensive self-valuing is the conscious grasp of the world of self-valuings, which is what the Greeks referred to as Poesis, and which has since then become a bit more dangerous.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Icon_minitimeTue Oct 04, 2016 12:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Government is always seen as a necessity… I see it only as a fuck you to powerful people. The perfect government:

Government is just a maze with a Minotaur in the middle that must be fed. The fear of the minotaur, enclosed by the maze, the frantic ceremonies of sacrifice…

JFK was lying. Rather than fear being the only thing to fear, government considers it is the Minotaur. Quite offensive, unless one is the minotaur.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Rapport. An attempt at Zizek without Zizek but with Zizek lurking around the round corner. Icon_minitimeTue Oct 04, 2016 1:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Rather than saying that this is too vague for me to quite grasp, I take the direction todays philosophy has pushed for, the genesis of concepts from the mythos, and as the mythos; the cauldron of the mythos that brews up primordial concepts; please elaborate, put some more words around the name Minotaur, as this creature does very much stand at the center of the intricate and vinelike mysteries of our Meditarraenean origins of creative nobility…

Theseus was the first hero I read of in an ancient language. Minos was the first realm that I studied of that world, of which I realized that no one had understood it.

(It was hard, winter-born FDR who said that fear thing, by the way - earlier than I had figured…his first inaugural address, long before WWII.
historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/ )

50

Men are will to power, Women are power View previous topic View next topic Go down
Go to page : 1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 5:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Men are will to power, women are power, and will to execute that power.

Women are thus immoral - they must break rules, as that is what power does - men are moral, they must assemble and build rules, as that’s is what acquiring power is.

Men are becoming, women, being.
Women want becoming (destruction, beying destroyed, being used, becoming a process, a pregnancy, and a sacrifice upon hich to become a goddess, a Creator, a mother.)

Men want being (construction, ruling, using, making the world into ones process, sacrificing it upon the alter of ones self-valuing, to become a god, a Creator, a father)

Nietzsche was aware of this but not of what it meant to the will to power.

What it means is this: that women do rule, and thus must rule; but not as will, but as standard.
Man is the world that lives up to that standards, or dies trying.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 5:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Now unfortunately ladies, that means the burden is from now on all on you.

All that is wrong with the world, with what men do, is because you don’t tell him to do a better thing.
The only reason man destroys earth is to attract you and to keep you.

What Women Want:- for the whole world to burn for their privilege; their uninterrupted comfort - nature luxuriating in itself in particular, at the cost of itself at large.

If the world is to improve, it is only when the most desirable, (powerful, ‘potentially-pregnant’) women will conspire to make a higher standard out of themselves; to hold up Man to a higher standard.

Whenever a woman blinks, the soul of a crimelord changes.

Only the philosophers are still sex and rock and arrow to you - all other men are mere boys, Hunger and Thirst are the names by which you can call them.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 5:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The dynamic between desire of the other who represents either immoral or moral power, for just as man and woman both respect in certain term both male and female power, so too does there exist a subtle and alien logic by which moral and immoral expressions of power dynamically assert themselves as pure standard together, through, as, with, without and against each other, are such a dynamics and ‘psychology’ that has yet to be properly fathomed at even the formal levels much less at the levels of content, of meaning. As you point out and as I agree, what we can do is simply state the problem-- the fact that such a more precise articulation is possible and how this possibility drives human being.

Most likely the problem must remain veiled and only partly expressed; for as Nietzsche intimates this is one primary way that moral and immoral, human power express and raise into being, into a truly living reality participation with/in the cosmos.

Dionysus against the cross… yes, and also: the earth-bound dynamics of living power against the analytic machinery of meaningless death.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning

Last edited by Capable on Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 5:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The image and falsity is redeemed when it allows itself to be put to some true use. Falsity is noble precisely because it loves what it can never be.

That falsity and image which does not love in this way, is simply death, N’s spirit of gravity.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 5:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Now unfortunately ladies, that means the burden is from now on all on you.

All that is wrong with the world, with what men do, is because you don’t tell him to do a better thing.
The only reason man destroys earth is to attract you and to keep you.

What Women Want:- for the whole world to burn for their privilege; their uninterrupted comfort - nature luxuriating in itself in particular, at the cost of itself at large.

If the world is to improve, it is only when the most desirable, (powerful, ‘potentially-pregnant’) women will conspire to make a higher standard out of themselves; to hold up Man to a higher standard.

Whenever a woman blinks, the soul of a crimelord changes.

Precisely.

Power for its own sake is always banality. I think N knew this but didn’t know how to include this fact into his formulations of the will to power.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 6:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A woman’s will to pregnancy is her fate-to-power. She will be selected, and it is up to her to waver this or that way. Hers is the art of wise wavering. A lightheartedness that no man can fathom, as it is produced directly out of pressures beyond life itself - the Tides, the billions of years of rhythm regulated by the Moon-Earth dance. Woman is this drift. All women are billions of years old - this is why they can not afford profundity in down-gazing. They would turn everything to stone. Medusa is thus an image of the open-eyed woman. She can not get pregnant as easily!

For a woman to open her eyes to her suitors fully is to see through them their fate. Only a fool or a philosopher can withstand the open eye - A philosopher is a man who has already been turned to stone, and found his way back. Hades turned to Dionysos - now truth serves rather to bring back the heat of pulse; when Medusa comes through the garden gate, the magmaic heat suddenly awakens in the rock of an ancient house.

How now brown cow
Ive written myself into a crossroads…

Men are will to power, Women are power 1d8lve

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 6:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A woman who became a true philosopher would be to even the best male philosophers what the best male philosophers are to everyone else. History is still aching to be impregnated by male philosophy that it could give birth to female philosophy. This is certainly still centuries away; women are still transfixed by feminism and machismo, philosophy is not yet deep and high enough to be capable of signaling itself to true feminine pride.

If one thing is clear from The Shield it is that strength is properly selective against what would serve to destabilize that strength, that there is a world of difference between being and acting. To act is to become what one is; to be, is merely to “act” in naive and desperately fearful self-preservation. It isn’t that strength doesn’t care for its preservation too, but that strength preserves itself precisely by acting without regard to what for other is the entropy of survival. And in this way, strength grooves an aesthetic beyond survival, and so survives in a categorically higher way. Even and especially when strength is tragically destroyed by some petty world-fate.

Joy is only possible to conquerors who hazard their own existence for the sake of their values.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 6:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Power for its own sake is always banality. I think N knew this but didn’t know how to include this fact into his formulations of the will to power.

He did not, or did not get to it, although he knew that value is the key - and I have had the impression that he has chosen what to exclude with the same swordsmanship that substantiates what he does say; by making this very partial point of his, he at once makes a point for partiality. And as he makes it with style, the partiality becomes an ontological ground qua an psychological consistency. Then he paves the way, by exalting two women as he brings them into the narrative - Ariadne and the old lady are his Judge - and by proposing a marriage, on his terms, with a woman called eternity - and subsequently going mad ---------, he gives us the key to the castle.

The maiden in the tower-chamber, as the Troubadours envisioned the spirit Most High and Homer attributed to all-cause as Helen of Troy, is still how the world works - and it must be noted that all the lady can do in that chamber is to read, and to look out over the world with a comprehensive perspective.

She can not act. She can not order. She can allude to her wishes, and they shall be fulfilled with as much zeal as any order given by a man to another man could be blessed with, but with far more zest.
And this is the joy of the world - the busy bee - the honey is made by men fora a queen. All flowers, all children serve this purpose.

Now - before the blessing moves beyond its peak- the sad fact is noted that very few women indeed are living up to the power they have. And it is not simply that the men cant handle that - though at this point, there are many who would be hurt - it is that comfort has always been a feminine property.

Now, for the sake of enduring comfort, so that being may persist in luxuriating, we shall elect a First Queen.

Your nominations please.

Every season, we will elect to exalt the power of a generous woman, to symbolize womankind as upholding the standard of Earth, Truth, Good, and Humanity.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 6:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
A woman who became a true philosopher would be to even the best male philosophers what the best male philosophers are to everyone else. History is still aching to be impregnated by male philosophy that it could give birth to female philosophy. This is certainly still centuries away; women are still transfixed by feminism and machismo, philosophy is not yet deep and high enough to be capable of signaling itself to true feminine pride.

In as far as I apply the term “philosopher” to myself, I don’t even think it is possible. I think that woman can not endure it, and should not be brought to endure it, except under difficult circumstances, wherein someone like Ayn Rand appears rather than the full flower of being.

The Word is Masculine.

And apparently the pain level of a kick in the balls far exceeds that of giving birth.
The scope of philosophy in a nutshell…

Quote :
If one thing is clear from The Shield it is that strength is properly selective against what would serve to destabilize that strength, that there is a world of difference between being and acting. To act is to become what one is; to be, is merely to “act” in naive and desperately fearful self-preservation. It isn’t that strength doesn’t care for its preservation too, but that strength preserves itself precisely by acting without regard to what for other is the entropy of survival. And in this way, strength grooves an aesthetic beyond survival, and so survives in a categorically higher way. Even and especially when strength is tragically destroyed by some petty world-fate.

Joy is only possible to conquerors who hazard their own existence for the sake of their values.

Awesome observation.

I think thats the arena wherein the Heraclitus’ notion of character as fate relates to his notion of Fire.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 7:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I actually think that a feminine philosophy is possible, but very rare. Can you imagine the sum of true philosophy held in the breast of a woman who retains her “woman-ness”? We have a word for describing that possibility: God.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 7:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think men live under the impression that woman suffer more than men do. I have just recently realized that they don’t - they are just more sensitive to discomfort. This is what makes them fickle - always leveling to the surface of homeostasis.

Thus her patterns are philosophical and the deths behind them unfathomable, but her mind is not. She lacks the will of the hammers because she lacks the hardness of the anvil. Sher lacks the lust for violence that accompanies the will to power.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 7:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think she balks at the immensity of the power she commands. Why? Because she lacks a man who could appreciate that hammer-power and still see her as a woman. Maybe this is a vanity on our part.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 7:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ive only seen and had women cut, never strike.

Yes, they do balk at their power - but I don’t have that vanity, and they still balk.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 8:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My purpose for woman is not to strike on the anvil that is man - Ive had enough attempts happen on myself to know that’s a futile thing in my world - (Im careful here) - but for her to nourish the world. This is power-as-such, a well nourished lifeform. Will to power is competition over nourishment.
These are beginning to be feminine terms. The WtP usurped by being ; a form of art is required.

Philosophy of Nourishment
first question
which instincts to feed?
Hierarchy of values.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 8:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So basically Ive found the cosmology I was always looking for in gender theory. Surely I have relied heavily on others (your explication once of women as goodness/cloudscape/firmament was a key) and only now that I have a female adviser I begin the penetrate into the nature that is behind the way woman decides. It is indeed that she is a surface - but only because her depth is not limited. But this in turn means also that she has no free will. But as a recompense, if she is in an environment that is both vast and pleasing to her, she is simply Free. In terms of primitive culture, when what a woman has the children she wants in the house she wants in the tribe that upholds her comfort as its aim, then this is ‘The Good’ as provided by nature into mankind. It is good to her, but also as pertaining universally, as it pertains to what the meaning of the word was born from; Standard. But a man must provide her with it. Or rather whole races of men - and also animals and flowers, and herbs and all of nature comes together to be touched by her - must war and conspire to bring about the circumstances that can give such fruits as to please her. In that state of pleasure a thing such as leisure, music, art, and then philosophy can be born, Finally also science.

VO can be ‘exploded’ via the sexes (synthetic difference) into a double dichotomy;
Woman is valuer, man is value-creator
Man is valuing, woman is Value.

Rather than the ancient sanctification of the child as culmination of identity, we now have captured the turbulent and never static image of birth as the ontic locus. Self-valuing is entity-ing. It arrives upon itself from all directions, and creates a center, that can contain, as we’ve all of us seen in this life, anything.

There is no law or limit
but there is, thank it for it, the possibility of standard-setting.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 8:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Marriage is standard-setting pur-sang.

That is why it is sacred, and why to entitle gay couples to it is a radical alteration of evolutionary paradigm. It gives freedom to a world that is not able to accept the terms of the old world. That it is being granted is only a sign that the old world has decided it has already crumbled too much to uphold itself - and welcomes that there is a new will somewhere.

Ive felt this as I witnessed by sister into marriage - and Ive seen my own life and that of my family dissolve for a while into a grey mist, after that. I’m now against it. Im even more against laws violence or therapies against gays, though. I just think it entirely wrecks the concept of marriage. Gay love is illicit because it is an admission to not wanting to cultivate a people, but move on to cultivate pleasures.

That is very much fine in a large society, but not something to be proud of. It’s a excess that settles into comfort. It can become extremely artistic, like Warhol or Wilde, but also petty beyond what heterosexuality is capable of, and infinitely perverse. It is precisely the not-institution. When it is institutionalized, it becomes the dominant institution and weakens the rest, as its fears are far greater and its fruits always thinner than blood.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 9:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My proposal would be to ban all laws against gay sex and companionship with consenting partners of a reasonable age, and also the lift all special rights for gays as a category. Just do not acknowledge it as a Self-Valuing - it destroys the erotic aspect of it anyway.

Can (should) gays raise children? Two men? No. Women will often end up doing it and I suspend judgment for the sake of particular couple, but I dont think it is normally worth the risk of putting a kid through an even more bizarre world of sex.

In order to uphold woman as Muse, she must function entirely as a Feminine principle. Thus, porn is much closer to what holds true to a politics of the future than politics. A woman goes into porn or prostitution because it is easy, i.e. natural - she is valued instantly for qualities she can not ‘enact’, but must be acted upon in order to merit as that quality. Be it moons around her sun, or being taken as an object, whores are mostly very generous women, and I would wager that of all the women that read philosophy, the promiscuous ones have most need of it - can endure it.

The ‘hammer’ she receives is not her own - and she isn’t an anvil either - heterosexual sex is infinitely more tender, even in its harshest forms, than the male homosexual. What she receives is the pain of man, and she turns it into happiness. It is as simple as that. And all she does is endure her being as it is experienced as The Object.

There is in any self-valuing instance at most one proper Object; the rest is “web” or for those of us at fire, pulsating flux.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 9:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can not avoid elaborating somewhat on personal experience, much like Nietzsche did with Wagner, on my environment to discern the direction of my philosophy. I dont think N’s comments on Wagner are of very great use, to people besides himself and those who simply enjoy his psyche (perhaps the greater part of “Nietzscheans”), but they had to be made for him to move on. I have to formalze my acknowledgement of being of a fundamentally different paradigm than the woman that has been y closest ally - to my own eyes - during my childhood, which formed also the fundamental values that I still uphold now. Because she is so close to me, the politics my sister has enforced (she is of capacity a political journalist) will stand trial before myself here, though I do not require a jury and will not even allow her to argue her case. I have simply suspended my judgment for two decades, and have become too healthy to continue doing so. I think that the homosexual inability to reproduce as a couple commands a certain humility in the family context. The ways of reproduction open to gays are not to be taken as the signifiers of the Institution of Family. Sexuality is savage in essence, its freedom of orientation is the antithesis to culture. It exists as Dionysiac for some, but can not persist under Apollo.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 9:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From what Ive seen, when a gay wants marriage, it’s not lve that drives him, but the eros of status in a heterosexual world. Ive seen it turn love into loathing, by wanting to make it equal to it. It’s produced the very antithesis of love.

I learned from my mother of a feminist couple she attacked in the paper once - this paper, but later on -

Men are will to power, Women are power 449.w635.5eb203a.a8c757f

Anneke van Baalen and Marijke Ekelschot, who had a publishing house in the 70’s and advised mothers to give less love to their sons – Ive seen the deliberateness of that policy at work in lesbian feminists. It is far from an unconscious cruelty. It is rather pure revenge on strength for being strong, by enforcing on it the taste of weakness. Which isnt properly taste at all, but rather a distaste for taste.

Sex is obviously a graver matter than war.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 10:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think homosexuality is a good example of self-valuing mutual irreducibility. To a hetero person, homosexuality is radically alien and unpalatable, but also represents a kind of hidden drive of perversion for the simple reason that it is perverse for a hetero perso to seriously imagine engaging in homo sex. That doesn’t mean homo sex is itself perverse, but that it is perverse to a hetero person’s self-valuing; this is why today we have the increase of politically correct rights and bending over backwards to make sure everyone knows one is not a homophobe and one considers homosexuality very well and fine-- this is all an acting taking place precisely because a hetero person can never feel entirely comfortable with the idea of homo sex.

The PC acting going on today of pro gay rights is for one’a own benefit, a kind of self-justifying of the self-valuing irreducibility. But that isn’t saying anything at all about homosexuality itself, just about how homosexuality is able to be valued by heteros.

Eventually I suspect that a majority of kids born in the first world will have some basic genetic engineering and will be raised not by two parents who conceived them sexually. I’m not saying I want that, but some kind of formalization into an institutional will of child-rearing is taking place simply because so many parents are either so bad at raising kids or find the experience and responsibility of it deeply painful beyond reason. I can imagine the role of child care increasing for example to include a kind of surrogate family that splits legal responsibility, after all if you count public schooling and after school daycare then kids are already being raised by a surrogate family 1/3 to 1/2 of their waking lives.

In such a context homosexuality becomes less meaningful to raising kids, and today two gay people can actually conceive a genetic child thanks to technology. A self-serving PC article on it: time.com/3748019/same-sex-couple … -children/

My question would be, how do male chromosomes morphed into an egg acquire female chromosomes (XX and XY), and vice versa? More importantly, what is the consequence of creating children with genetic lineage to the human history of only one of the sexes? Obviously the Time article doesn’t even acknowledge these questions exist-- that wouldn’t be “PC” to do, lol.

I don’t think that the inability of gay people to have kids should mean they cannot adopt or otherwise raise kids, nor that the inability to have kids has any philosophical significance. Plenty of people are infertile or choose not to procreate; in this human world we procreate in other ways too, our ideas, artistic work, etc… genetic procreation is ovviously very important and necessary but I have a hard time assigning it philosophically meaning on par with the works humans engage in within the existential sphere. In any case there has always been homosexuality as a kind of cultural excess, and I think everyone including heteros have deep homo anxieties simply because of how sexuality as biological instinct is at bottom not gendered, and this is evidenced by how straight people either feel weird about homosexuality or try desperately to cover up and ignore it… interestingly the anti-homosexual sentiments and the PC pro-homosexuality sentiments are each serving the same function of straight people trying to cover up homosexuality so the straight person doesn’t have to look directly at it.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 10:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I rather think that the species will and must be decimated before that happens. A child reared by institution is a non entity. The simply human errors of a family are the forces that cause character and particularity.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 10:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I understand most men are still simply apprehensive and think gay sex is perverse, but having lived in the world of its rulership, and also had an experimental relation with a man to clear up my idea of Eros, I do not suffer this ignorance - I have seen that gay people do not wish to carry a certain burden, namely that which I now hold as the very foundation of the universe. The war of the sexes; difference in time. Sexual polarity is quite simply human consistency itself - within that frame, homosexuality is delightful escape - freedom. But temporary only - it is excess, thus fleeting - it knows no loyalty. Not that a gay person can not be loyal, but it must be in terms of friendship.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 11:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I uphold the institution of the minimal institutions.

e.g.

Marriage as 1+1<=3

(1=3)

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 11:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
1=3, haha yes.

Self-valuing increase.

I think you are right about the errors of parenting creating particularity and character. But that is a very high price to pay. Plenty of people pay that price reaping far more detriments than benefits. Perhaps most fall into that category.

I am fascinated by the idea of a connection between sexual orientation, or gender, and meaning in the philosophical existential sense. I am still skeptical here. The fact that meaning often falls down, or seems to fall down, along either gender or sexuality lines is not, for me, proof that those lines are actually parsing that meaning. An example: one drops a bunch of sticks of X length onto the ground, and on the ground are painted parallel lines of X length apart. The ratio of the number of sticks that end up lying in such a way as to cross one of the painted lines, to the number of sticks that end up lying within the painted lines and not crossing them, approaches Pi exactly. Why is this? It has to do with circles and how the stick is a diameter. The random throwing of the sticks onto an ordered surface that just so happens to have been constructed with those stick-lengths in mind, produces perfect order. The sticks themselves, even without any painted lines on the ground, are already perfectly ordered in this way, we just wouldn’t know it; they look “random”.

Order from randomness; no, randomness as order. To me, sexuality and gender are randomness as order. The connection between philosophical meaning and gender or sexuality is an “accidental” one, meaning not directly derivative in either direction, more like a kind of isometry. Or more like how philosophical meaning writes itself upon raw biology in such a way that biology comes to resemble meaning without realizing it. The gender and sexuality splits are the product of self-valuing. But the breakages and deconstructions in those splits are also the product of self-valuing. Like sticks strewn about the floor, some will land across an invisible line and some will not, but an order is nonetheless present.

I don’t know if this makes any sense or not. But I think that once we gained the ability to manipulate our own genome directly under a microscope, a significant portion of the rule book was thrown away. And yet this, too, is only so many sticks thrown down upon some invisibly scored ground.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
Sauwelios

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Men are will to power, Women are power Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 12:45 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A couple of observations (to begin with):

Most of what has been said in this thread so far is beyond me. Still, I won’t just respond to the OP and the post I’ve been asked to respond to. Those first, though.

I think speaking of man and woman in terms of Being and Becoming and of power and the will to power may make sense, but only metaphorically, not metaphysically. Man and woman both have power and want power, both are power and will power.

Woman could indeed change man’s behaviour by refusing him, though he could of course always resort to rape. (If she doesn’t keep the most powerful part of the male population happy, there’s nothing to deter men from raping her.)

Now as for Capable’s contributions. I still seem to discern a certain liberal idealism in what he says. He seems to present as an ideal the free and full development of woman. I however think that such a free and fully developed woman would be the supreme abomination. It is the Great Black Goddess, Kali. Nevertheless, I still or again hope Hillary wins the election. I am for the further liberalization of the West, though not for its own sake but for the sake of a new rootedness beyond the rootlessness to which it leads. I think Trump represents an unintelligent reaction to the “victory of the town over the country, of the mobile over the deeply rooted, of the spirit of the Occident over the spirit of the Orient” (Strauss, “Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy”); to “the victory of liberalism over politics, science over philosophy, the West over the East, the rootless over the deeply rooted, the masculine over the maternal, Madame Bovary’s France over Salammbo’s Carthage” (Neumann, “Liberalism’s Moloch”). I sanction the development that started in Athens and Jerusalem, which I’ve called the liberalization of the West but which is really the West itself: the West is the liberalization of the East, from the East–the once global East…

51

individualized

Dude I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 2:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hillary represents an inhuman machine of slavery, rape, death and debt. How the fuck could you want that to win?

Even when I despised Trump I never once wanted Hillary to win. I am a human after all.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 4:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ll ease up a bit on the throttle now.

Capable - yes, this makes sense to me, the view of random as order, and the rulebook.
Yet, I take it upon myself to write my own rulebook, precisely because there is no valid one anymore.
Of course any particular standard is technically arbitrary - and thus there is also no philosophical objection.

Sauwelios -
I dont see Clinton as standing for liberalization. She has given no signals of that - her campaign is about heavy government spending on creating more legal restrictions, and about destabilizing Europe to fuck with Russia. She is very hateful of Russia, in what seems to be a banal hysteria.

Trump has always acted as a true New York liberal, sophisticated enough to personally do business with the Chinese. He is surely the most sophisticated and knowledgeable candidate at least since JFK, but I think since FDR.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 5:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In further response to your wondering, Capable -
the gender theory is philosophy in that exploded dichotomy, but the theorizing about homosexuality does not fall in the same category at all.
It is merely that now that I acknowledge gender as being absolute, (which is also the very reason why people want sex changes) I can utterly reject what has been shoved down my throat, the ideology of gayness. I respond with the ideology of not-gayness, so as to neutralize my world. I was force-fed all this shit about gay people being better than heterosexual people. At least better than me, because I was not gay, as was actually expected of me. Still faggots expect it of me. Not all gay people are faggots. Just those that expect people to become gay for their pleasure or emotional comfort. It’s rape.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 5:54 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Heterosexual sex is “philosophical” because it is reproductive, it is seed and ground.
Homosexual sex is arbitrary, produces only pleasure. That is why so many gays have such utterly rampant sex lives. It is not, to my idea, “philosophical”. Socrates as the anti-philosopher fits this picture.

I dont hate gays, but I despise gay politics. I’m fully behind Putins law against gay propaganda. The fact that gay propaganda presents this law as a law against gays points precisely to the necessity of outlawing such propaganda.

Who the hell wants to actively propagate a troublesome sexual orientation? And troublesome it is, Ive not seen exceptions. This is why the better ones become so refined, and the not so great ones so insidiously self-blind or perhaps worse, consciously deviant and devoid of conscience.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Oct 30, 2016 8:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I did not intend to draw you into this here, S - rather to discuss it in private- and that was before I went into the politics.

breitbart.com/video/2016/10/ … p-to-them/

It is looking less and less like Clinton is going to win. The evident illegality of her operation isn’t going away.
I can see willing a Clinton victory in terms of causing a violent cataclysm, but I think the result would simply be anti-politics and a kind of Terminator landscape. The Middle East is at this point far worse than that Terminator 2 opening, but Drones are the common factor. This all doubled or tripled with Clinton as SS.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 1:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I do not consider the function of sex being to make kids. That is the biological function, purely, what sex is for for non-human animals. But for a human, sex is primarily about intimacy. The fact that sex can (but does not always) produce children is a side-effect, for us humans. Most people have sex because of the intimacy, the existential completeness and closeness between two people, the worshipping of beauty and the immersion in desire and pleasure-value, and not just to procreate.

So I have a very hard time looking at sex as if the philosophical significance of it were simply to have kids, and if having kids doesn’t happen as a consequence of sex (for whatever reason) then somehow sex is supposed to not be philosophically significant… I cannot agree to that. Pleasure and desire are ends in themselves, and this isn’t itself philosophical yet but leads into the territory of the philosophical. Procreation is a biological necessity, and has been hard-wired in connection to pleasure and desire simply because natural selection found this useful to connect them like that. But procreation isn’t very philosophically interesting. A person’s value, life, contribution, meaning, philosophical quality or whatever you want to call it, has little or nothing to do with if they have kids or not. As far as I know, none of us here has any kids, and yet our contributions and philosophical significance are immense. And if one or more of us were to have kids that would not suddenly make our contributions and philosophical significance jump up, in fact it would probably cut it down by a huge margin.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 1:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And Hillary Clinton is a piece of shit, can’t we all just agree on one basic fact? There are only two reasons someone would like Hillary: either they haven’t been paying attention, or they are brainwashed by political correctness (and these two reasons are, more or less, the same reason).

She and what she represents are a part of the history of western civilization, but by no means the most significant or primary part, more like a deranged side-effect. You (Sauwelios) can connect Hillary to that tradition of western civilization and its values and progress over time, but that is basically to nullify that tradition itself for one of its pathological and excessive elements, something that grew up within that civilization and now needs to be cut off, like pruning a tree of its dead branches to keep the rest of the tree alive.

A “will to power” grew up in western civilization, many such wills have grown up within it, but this particular will which Hillary represents is especially insane and anti-philosophical (I absolutely disagree that Socrates was an anti-philosopher, by the way; that statement saying he is, causes me a great deal of… anger, I guess I would call it), and will happily keep destroying the world if we let it. This is another problem with Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power, and I an getting tired of explicating it every time the topic comes up, yet for some reason this insight has yet to really sink in: Nietzsche give no formula for distinguishing between wills to power, except to say that the “stronger” will conquers the “weaker” one, which is basically saying nothing than a truism of “whichever will ends up conquering, I am defining as the stronger one”. Wow, how fucking profound (not really).

Nietzsche’s view of the will to power and its values-architectural constructions is truistic like that, it is a closed loop, begs its own question, tries to define itself by what it supposedly is, a “quantum of power”. Ask Nietzsche what it means to be a strong will to power, his answer is going to be: ‘a strong will to power is a will to power that conquers other wills to power, that incorporates them into itself’. Ok, but that is just the definition of “will to power”, and not at all a statements about what it means to be a strong will to power, what “will” and “to” and “power” actually mean here, much less what a philosophically valuable will to power might look like. No one has apparently asked the simple question of Nietzsche: when one will to power conquers another will to power, what does this really mean? What does “conquering” actually look like, how does it take place, what is conquered and why; what is the standard for success and failure? Is that standard simply whatever lives and whatever dies? Pretty much, yes, that is what Nietzsche means, and what you mean too, if you look behind the protestations of “increases of power over time” and such nonsensical truisms.

Start asking those fucking questions, already. Jesus fucking christ.

And since Clinton and what she represents is as close to a “pure will to power for its own sake” that I can imagine, I am not surprised when you (Sauwelios) support that, even and perhaps especially with the massively inhuman default of true value/valuing that Clinton et. al. represent.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 5:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ive made a mistake drawing Sauwelios into this, nor was it my intention, I was just, as the OP can quite well tell for itself, rather upset and emotional. I can not realistically expect after 6 years that a shared or similar taste for philosophy between you two will arise.

However, Socrates.

C - you say it angers you to hear me say Socrates is an anti-philosopher. That is interesting to me, passion means there is something to be discussed here.

Ive never liked Soc. Ive read quite a bit of his dialogue, and find that he consistently tricks people into contexts without telling them.
I disagree with most if not all of his conclusions about the Good and the State and the Conscience of man, and the nature of Life, and the fate of death, he nature of the state , of the gods, on happiness, on masculine virtue, - I think he is just a brilliant comedian. I mean that. I dont see him as a philosopher, like I see Thales as one. I do not believe that Socrates has come up with anything at all.

I know I am quite alone in this, even Nietzsche, besides calling Plato a bore and all that, and Socrates as a decadent, also compares himself to Socrates. But Ive honestly only found Socrates to scheme, and there isnt a single thing he concluded that I know of and consider to be profound. In fact I consider his entire style of philosophizing frivolous and vain.

Sauwelios has spoken of Socs great weight in preserving philosophy for philosophers. In my reading, he simply marked the end of Athenian health, and nothing more. Surely a lot of intellectual contraptions were unleashed when that health was shed - but his notions of ethics, responsibility and and happiness do not seem to have produced much of any of those things in the world he left behind.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 5:19 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This most revered bit of his philosophy is to me the absolute hollowness, as later on Bertrand Russell would exemplify it. Honestly, I can not respect this even from a 13 year old mediocre student.

From Euthydemus

Quote :
“So what follows from what we’ve said? Isn’t it this, that of the other things none is either good or bad, and that of these two, wisdom is good and ignorance bad?”

He agreed.

“Well then let’s have a look at what’s left,” I said. “Since all of us desire to be happy, and since we evidently become so on account of our use—that is our good use—of other things, and since knowledge is what provides this goodness of use and also good fortune, every man must, as seems plausible, prepare himself by every means for this: to be as wise as possible. Right?”

‘Yes,” he said.

Is this not the ultimate ruin of substantive thought? Is this not the utter negation of valuing? Is this not the perfect hollowness? Soc. invents right here the horror of the empty-universal, which from here on goes on to signify the value of man to himself - as precisely 0.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 5:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Soc here conjures up the idea of “happiness as such” and “use as such”. He instrumentalizes the world, and the human, to a hollow end. Consumerism is the direct result actually.

What a god damn moron. Now theres a guy that truly pisses me off.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 5:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I see your points about Socrates of course, but where I disagree is that while S tricked people into contexts as you accurately point out this is precisely the birth of philosophy in a Nietzschean sense. The contexts were invisible, even to the pre-Socratics, therefore someone needed to make this fact known somehow. S asked into unstated assumptions and presumptions, which is exactly what honest philosophy always does. As for his ethics of philosophy as care for the soul (for the self, for the being which one is and how and why and what one is, which absolutely cannot be exhaustively explicated or even nearly so, thus S properly doesn’t even try) I see it this way too. Philosophy originates in “the soul” (the unfathomable Self, that which one is whatever it might happen to be (usually we have no idea what it is, now luckily we at least know that it is a self-valuing, and I also happen to know something of the nature of its consciousness as I’ve explained elsewhere)) and it also terminates there.

The Plato/Aristotle split is one thing, but Aristotle is only possible because of Plato, as a kind of fusion-return to pre-Socratic with Plato’a Soctates. I see a very interesting dialectic or daemonic procession here: pre-Socratics allowed for a possibility of a pure questioning and invocation of context-assumptions that were previously unstated, namely Socrates; he is like a null point that emerges as the antithesis ending acts as the Sign of that for which it is antithesis. Then we have Plato’s elaborating a new philosophical system and then we have Aristotle making use of that system to recoup some of the original pre-Socratic ground of assumptions to certainties, thus inventing science.

Socrates is noble in my view because he has no ax to grind, because he grinds them all and does so with the express aim of forcing more depth for its own sake upon Athenians. The fact that the Athenians cried and complained and didn’t like that Depth isn’t Socrates’ problem, in fact that is his very point.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 5:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes it is the birth of consumerism and instrumental reason or could reasonably be argued to be, but those things are truths that must be faced. Why fear (avoid) them forever? I’m not saying you do, I’m saying that Socrates shows ugly truths. We can’t fault him for the fact that they are ugly. In fact the quoted text you mentions breaks down on a single unstated assumption of Socrates himself, namely that people want to be happy-- much of the time that is precisely what people do not want.

It can also be interpreted, his comments on use, that he means the simple act of values-interacting and of valuing per se. That the analytic retards like Russell don’t think past “use” into value isn’t really Socrates’ fault, in my opinion anyway. Nietzsche certainly didn’t fall into that trap.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 5:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can respect that meta-philosophical, or historical view, and I would think its actually related to Sauwelios’ view. But I just can not respect Socrates’ method of arguing and disagree that it introduces a depth - as even if it may introduce a new probing, it disregards the depth of ground that brought about the Athenian consistency, it namely disregards particularity.

And all is revealed here, in that Thales and Parmenides regard being as fundamentally happy, overflowing, positive, and aimless, Socrates regards being as fundamentally lacking, and moving towards a theoretical universal of Fulfillment. He thus represents a thirst, which in turn represents an emptiness, against the fullness of the men of the 6h century BC.

How did Aristotle develop science, in actual functioning terms? I would attribute far more of it to Pythagoras, and people like Archimedes.

To my mind Soc was the first Analytic philosopher, the first one who refused to use his senses, who actively tried to work them out of the equation of valuing. I see this as the beginning of an unparalleled catastrophe of the soul.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 6:01 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I always see a pure joyfulness from Socrates. I think it was just his fate to be the anti-system builder par excellence. Nietzsche revived that tradition in the 19th century, thankfully. We absolutely need such people, but I agree with you that the primary task of philosophy is to build. With Aristotle I meant his detailed examinations of for example animals and nature, his applying firm rational objective standards to empirical inquiry, and the fact that he pushes into to many different areas. I always read Aristotle as someone who took philosophical method from the “pure thought” of someone like Plato and applied it with critical objectivity to the natural world. Aristotle values the natural world intrinsically and as a philosopher values his ideas and truths, to me that is science. But yeah you’re right that others like Pythagoras contributed a lot too, before Aristotle… I just see a kind of critical objectivity and “anti-pure thought/anti-idealism” in Aristotle, that seems lacking in other philosophers who came before him and also studied nature. Mathematics for example isn’t really science, it’s much closer to pure thought/ideality than to empiricism.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 6:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In the way you see Socrates as the first analytic, I understand your distaste for him. I just don’t see him like that. Maybe I need to go back and re-read him, it has been a while.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 6:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have the distinct idea that what Aristotle developed is precisely what science is not.
He was no empiricist, but an a-priori-ist.

From Soc via Plato to Aristotle, I see no substance being inserted - only an expansion of the hollow assumption - what later, in the Aristotelean muslims, was developed as the concept “0”.

Okay, so Soc. is responsible for the western notion of “0”. That makes sense. It is also respectable as an accomplishment.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 6:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
I always see a pure joyfulness from Socrates. I think it was just his fate to be the anti-system builder par excellence. Nietzsche revived that tradition in the 19th century, thankfully. We absolutely need such people, but I agree with you that the primary task of philosophy is to build. With Aristotle I meant his detailed examinations of for example animals and nature, his applying firm rational objective standards to empirical inquiry, and the fact that he pushes into to many different areas. I always read Aristotle as someone who took philosophical method from the “pure thought” of someone like Plato and applied it with critical objectivity to the natural world. Aristotle values the natural world intrinsically and as a philosopher values his ideas and truths, to me that is science. But yeah you’re right that others like Pythagoras contributed a lot too, before Aristotle… I just see a kind of critical objectivity and “anti-pure thought/anti-idealism” in Aristotle, that seems lacking in other philosophers who came before him and also studied nature. Mathematics for example isn’t really science, it’s much closer to pure thought/ideality than to empiricism.

Well thats the thing. Socrates is incredibly joyful. And I like him a lot as a figure, I laugh when I read his dialogues - but all I conclude from the way he comes and goes is: ‘this guy is such a dirty rat, lol, what an arrogant sack of shit…’

but heres the thing. The people he brings to their knees, these are all inferiors to him. They are already separate of the original philosophical impulse that was not Ahtenian but Ionian, western Turkey - Thales, Anaximander, Parmenides. These were knowers of the ontic.

POEM OF PARMENIDES
English translation : John Burnet (1892)

Parmenides wrote:

I

The steeds that bear me carried me as far as ever my heart
Desired, since they brought me and set me on the renowned
Way of the goddess, who with her own hands conducts the man
who knows through all things. On what way was I borne

5 along; for on it did the wise steeds carry me, drawing my car,
and maidens showed the way. And the axle, glowing in the socket -
for it was urged round by the whirling wheels at each
end - gave forth a sound as of a pipe, when the daughters of the
Sun, hasting to convey me into the light, threw back their veils

10 from off their faces and left the abode of Night.
There are the gates of the ways of Night and Day, fitted
above with a lintel and below with a threshold of stone. They
themselves, high in the air, are closed by mighty doors, and
Avenging Justice keeps the keys that open them. Her did

15 the maidens entreat with gentle words and skilfully persuade
to unfasten without demur the bolted bars from the gates.
Then, when the doors were thrown back,
they disclosed a widepening, when their brazen
hinges swung backwards in the

20 sockets fastened with rivets and nails. Straight through them,
on the broad way, did the maidens guide the horses and the car,
and the goddess greeted me kindly, and took my right hand
in hers, and spake to me these words: -
Welcome, noble youth, that comest to my abode on the car

25 that bears thee tended by immortal charioteers ! It is no ill
chance, but justice and right that has sent thee forth to travel
on this way. Far, indeed, does it lie from the beaten track of
men ! Meet it is that thou shouldst learn all things, as well
the unshaken heart of persuasive truth, as the opinions of

30 mortals in which is no true belief at all. Yet none the less
shalt thou learn of these things also, since thou must judge
approvedly of the things that seem to men as thou goest
through all things in thy journey."

II

Come now, I will tell thee - and do thou hearken to my
saying and carry it away - the only two ways of search that
can be thought of. The first, namely, that It is, and that it is
impossible for anything not to be, is the way of. conviction,

5 for truth is its companion… The other, namely, that It is not,
and that something must needs not be, - that, I tell thee, is a
wholly untrustworthy path. For you cannot know what is
not - that is impossible - nor utter it;

III

For it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be.

IV

V

VI

It needs must be that what can be thought and spoken of is;
for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for, what is
nothing to be. This is what I bid thee ponder. I hold thee
back from this first way of inquiry, and from this other also,

5 upon which mortals knowing naught wander in two minds; for
hesitation guides the wandering thought in their breasts, so that
they are borne along stupefied like men deaf and blind.
Undiscerning crowds, in whose eyes the same thing and not the
same is and is not, and all things travel in opposite directions !

VII

For this shall never be proved, that the things that are not
are; and do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry.
Nor let habit force thee to cast a wandering eye upon this
devious track, or to turn thither thy resounding ear or thy

5 tongue; but do thou judge the subtle refutation of their
discourse uttered by me.

VIII

One path only is left for us to
speak of, namely, that It is. In it are very many tokens that
what is, is uncreated and indestructible, alone, complete,
immovable and without end. Nor was it ever, nor will it be; for

5 now it is, all at once, a continuous one. For what kind of origin
for it. will you look for ? In what way and from what source
could it have drawn its increase ? I shall not let thee say nor
think that it came from what is not; for it can neither be
thought nor uttered that what is not is. And, if it came from

10 nothing, what need could have made it arise later rather than
sooner ? Therefore must it either be altogether or be not at
all. Nor will the force of truth suffer aught to arise besides
itself from that which in any way is. Wherefore, Justice does
not loose her fetters and let anything come into being or pass

15 away, but holds it fast.
" Is it or is it not ? " Surely it is adjudged, as it needs must
be, that we are to set aside the one way as unthinkable and
nameless (for it is no true way), and that the other path is real
and true. How, then, can what is be going to be in the

20 future ? Or how could it come into being ? If it came into
being, it is not; nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus is
becoming extinguished and passing away not to be heard of.
Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more
of it in one place than in another, to hinder it from holding
together, nor less of it, but everything is full of what is.

25 Wherefore all holds together; for what is; is in contact with what is.
Moreover, it is immovable in the bonds of mighty chains, without
beginning and without end; since coming into being
and passing away have been driven afar, and true belief has cast them away.
It is the same, and it rests in the self-same place, abiding in itself.

30 And thus it remaineth constant in its place; for hard necessity
keeps it in the bonds of the limit that holds it fast on every side.
Wherefore it is not permitted to what is to be infinite; for it is in need of nothing ; while, if it were infinite, it would stand in need of everything. It is the
same thing that can be thought and for the sake of which the thought exists ;

35 for you cannot find thought without something that is, to which it is
betrothed. And there is not, and never shall be, any time other, than that which
is present, since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable.
Wherefore all these things are but the names which mortals
have given, believing them, to be true –

40 coming into being and passing away, being and not being,
change of place and alteration of bright colour.
Where, then, it has its farthest boundary, it is complete on
every side, equally poised from the centre in every direction,
like the mass of a rounded sphere; for it cannot be greater or

45 smaller in one place than in another. For there is nothing
which is not that could keep it from reaching out equally, nor
is it possible that there should be more of what is in this place
and less in that, since it is all inviolable. For, since it is equal
in all directions, it is equally confined within limits.

50 Here shall I close my trustworthy speech and thought about the truth.
Henceforward learn the opinions of mortals,
giving ear to the deceptive ordering of my words.
Mortals have settled in their minds to speak of two forms, one of which
they should have left out, and that is where they go astray from the truth.

55 They have assigned an opposite
substance to each, and marks distinct from one another. To the
one they allot the fire of heaven, light, thin, in every direction
the same as itself, but not the same as the other. The other is
opposite to it, dark night, a compact and heavy body. Of these

60 I tell thee the whole arrangement as it seems to men,
in order that no mortal may surpass thee in knowledge.

IX

Now that all things have been named light and night; and the things
which belong to the power of each have been assigned to these
things and to those, everything is full at once of light and dark night,
both equal, since neither has aught to do with the other.

X

And thou shalt know the origin of all the things on high,
and all the signs in the sky, and the resplendent works of the
glowing sun’s clear torch, and whence they arose. And thou
shalt learn likewise of the wandering deeds of the round-faced

5 moon, and of her origin. Thou shalt know, too, the heavens
that surround us, whence they arose, and how Necessity took
them and bound them to keep the limits of the stars . . .

XI

How the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the sky that is
common to all, and the Milky Way, and the outermost Olympos,
and the burning might of the stars
arose.

XII

The narrower circles are filled with unmixed fire, and those
surrounding them with night, and in the midst of these rushes
their portion of fire. In the midst of these circles is the divinity that directs
the course of all things; for she rules over all painful birth and all begetting,

5 driving the female to the embrace of the male, and the male to that of the female.

XIII

First of all the gods she contrived Eros.

XIV

Shining by night with borrowed light, wandering round the earth.

XV

Always straining her eyes to the beams of the sun.

XVa

XVI

XVII

On the right boys; on the left girls.

XVIII

XIX

Thus, according to men’s opinions, did things comp into
being, and thus they are now. In time (they think) they will
grow up and pass away. To each of these things men have
assigned a fixed name.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 6:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is clear to me that I need to go back and re-read some Plato and Aristotle to have more to add here. It’s been years since I seriously read either of them. I suppose now with the philosophical heights I’ve found since then I will come to some different insights.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 6:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“For it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be.”

This is an immensity deeper than anything Soc. or Aristotle understood, though Plato was possessed of the idea as he was possessed of all the great logicians. I think now he possibly made Soc. up entirely.

It is also the statement that drove Wittgenstein into thinking that this means that there is such a thing as The World as an a priori logically or nominally or analytically coherent system of sorts consisting of discrete things that can /be thought /be - but that is nonsensical. Parmenides is uttering of self-valuing. He is saying that all of which we can say that it exists, is what we can say exists. He is is just saying that “being” is a thought, and at the same time thought is a form of being. He is saying the two words don’t ultimately mean a different thing than the relation between them.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 6:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
/edit
Hegel suggestion deleted
(I should stop prescribing)

Socrates will always keep merit as the genius who invented universal individualism. He is therefore responsible for all the worst shit, haha.

Before him, only true ontic individuals were individuals. After him every idiot wanted to be god. Jesus was the direct result, as this bullshit Testaments were written in Hellenic Greek as a cultural product of the lower classes of the Alexandrine world, which happened to include the Hewbrew tribes who produced such genius as no other and inevitably inspired some mysticism with their notions.

Look, this is what I consider Aristotle to be in the same category of, but infinitely lower:

300px-Tree_of_life.jpg

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 300px-Tree_of_life

Hebrew-Egyptian ontology

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 6:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes and now that I am thinking of it, I see philosophy (the real philosophers) break down into two camps (not the false camps of continental vs. analytic, since of course only the “continental” are truly philosophers): there is the one side of pure critique and depth for its own sake without attempt to build or assert certainties, without attempt to posit ground; and then there is the other side of system-building, positing grounds and employing certainties for construction purposes. On that first side we have Socrates, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, on the other side we have Kant, Hegel and Heidegger, for examples.

Parmenides is indeed profound. I remember being elevated into a strange place subjectively speaking, once when reading him, in my early philosophy years. Similar to what used to happen when I would read Tao Te Ching. I don’t get into these sort of texts anymore, I guess I have other things to work on, or I have lost patience or perspective for them, but they certainly have their place.

In terms of those two camps of philosophy, I consider myself as striding both camps equally. To my knowledge only myself and Parodites really do that. Nietzsche sort of does, but he should have built more. He focused on building a small set of key concepts, and that was about it. He certainly never took it to a level of building systems or worlds. But most philosophers definitively fall into either camp, and I think the rules and expectations are very different for a philosopher depending on which camp one is in. For instance, Wittgenstein as builder-philosopher is pure shit, but as depth-inciter and questioner-philosopher he has much to offer (often in spite of himself, of course).

Edit: No, I absolutely do want to bring them to Hegel, and him to them.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 6:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, but with VO I have transcended the distinction entirely.

In my case, every single thought for its own sake or depth for its own sake, which is how I have come into being indeed, is now systemic. But the system is my own creation, and (thus) unfathomable to me - this was the abyss I crossed, first in 2010 through near death to VO, then in 2013 through near death back to the World of Things, which from then on I have been animated from within, from a ‘thing beneath things’ - my self-valuing as a philosopher taken as the all-applying absolute.

As soon as my self-valuing as a philosopher clicked into place, which was by the gift of a dwelling to a fellow philosopher, a mechanism was triggered into my greater self-valuing, at the end of which I was financially free. It was a nuclear fission that I caused in order to atomize myself, withdraw from the bigger atom.

VO is system building proof that logic only exists as lubricant. It is a clean-ness of valuing from the very peak of human valuing - I stood at the peak we call philosophy-pure and was able to turn 360 degrees (abandon my perspective) and visualize a firmament on that height and then retain my perspective and go down the mountain. But it had grown very dark below… before the light… then I replied to your Kant post, and a torch was lit.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 7:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So the order is first I understood, the thought clicked into place, then while in infinite bliss of certainty of being I was in the dark as to the entire content of it, except my lover and this forum and the friendships on it. As I ended the relatrionship in confusion, BTL was all that was left of the valuing that had substance as pertaining to a possible synthetic fresh start - an ontic coup d’etat. Finally, it worked. With all the work all of us produced, something of a new Plateau came into being on which I could conceive an entirely philosophical Being. In that process I began to focus my actions more in these terms and this has paid off into what logically had to follow; a purified self-valuing, more power to know myself, which is the purest power. Consider that weakness is how we usually learn about ourselves, and what this means about how power takes shape when it is purified…

to begin small to grow very great;
Spontaneous Canadian wisdom, or the way of the seed

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 7:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To begin very small again also allowed me to re-learn the acquaintance with my friends and family — of many of them I found that they have structurally betrayed my trust in them. I think this was a large part of the scourging desert that I went through trying for a synthesis of my approach to the world with this newly born logic. I’ve had to disavow quite a bunch of them, because I could simply not reconcile how they’d made it clear to regard me with what I can understand a rational or dignified self-valuing to conceive of at the same time as interacting pleasantly with me. That to me is betrayal of an ontic order, and the loathing I feel for them is part of a coin of absolute bliss. Fuck Buddhism, fuck hate, only disengaging traitors works for me. Separation is the first step of the implementation of the revaluation of all values. As for system building, a corner stone is to identify what you wish to keep out. So these things have been happening at once; financial security and an expulsion of the unworthy. Valuing my valuing as reality itself is all it took.

52

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 7:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To continue upon Parmenides, the thought of building a system coincided with the knowledge of how to build a system, and the actual building of that system, and it then surpassing my expectations.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 7:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But this is what life is, the system of surpassing expectations.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 7:36 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
This most revered bit of his philosophy is to me the absolute hollowness, as later on Bertrand Russell would exemplify it. Honestly, I can not respect this even from a 13 year old mediocre student.

From Euthydemus

Quote :
“So what follows from what we’ve said? Isn’t it this, that of the other things none is either good or bad, and that of these two, wisdom is good and ignorance bad?”

He agreed.

“Well then let’s have a look at what’s left,” I said. “Since all of us desire to be happy, and since we evidently become so on account of our use—that is our good use—of other things, and since knowledge is what provides this goodness of use and also good fortune, every man must, as seems plausible, prepare himself by every means for this: to be as wise as possible. Right?”

‘Yes,” he said.

Is this not the ultimate ruin of substantive thought? Is this not the utter negation of valuing? Is this not the perfect hollowness? Soc. invents right here the horror of the empty-universal, which from here on goes on to signify the value of man to himself - as precisely 0.

Contrary to your own, Socrates’ questions are not simply rhetorical. His interlocutor agrees–as Socrates was quite positive he would–, but did Socrates himself agree with what he suggests? I think not. Also, I’m not sure who his interlocutor is in this passage, but if it’s either Euthydemus himself or his brother, I suspect he only plays along with Socrates for some of the others who were present. I suspect, however, that it’s one of the latter.

::

Suspicion confirmed.

The moron here is not Socrates, it’s Cleinias. And what Socrates is doing in dialogues like this is teaching his fellow Sophists how to be “philo-sophers”–i.e., how to compromise with powerful morons by telling them what they don’t even realize they want to hear. For the non-morons like Socrates and Euthydemus, the positive side of this compromise is that they can continue to be natural philosophers–scientists, like Thales.

Having said that, the problem with science after Aristotle, and especially modern science, is that it believes to have transcended common sense. The doctrine of the will to power is philosophical, as opposed to scientific, by embracing the heart of common sense, as I meant to indicate to the adept in this post: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph … 7#p2634017

By italicizing “induction” and following it with three periods, I referred my advanced students to section 550 of The Will to Power.

In my view of history, “classical” or “enlightenment” liberalism is only one relatively advanced stage of the Western liberalization.

“Humanity” is already an “inhuman” concept. The only “human family” is the paradoxical “philosophers clan”–Halevy’s “community of robbers”.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 8:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Very good - I’d stand corrected if the larger point did not confirm my own. In any case you have defended Socrates honor with verve.

Aristotle is however lost to us -
as it was precisely in Socrates personal approach that his greater logic of philosophy continued; self-valuing in the encountered terms, the sophists. There was enough for Soc to work with, the did not generate like Thales but he transformed, and was part of a degeneration of what Homer had seen generated. The terms are those of declining Athens, and Soc. exacerbates this process, thereby indeed creating something of a conscience. But it is a bad conscience is what I maintain — yes, because he used the gods to denounce fools, by making it seem as if the gods, or the Atheneans reverence for them, were not responsible for all the wealth these fools had. Soc. caused Athens to decline, he prevented any sort of Renaissance - he was thus a Luther.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 8:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Now I have smeared Socrates. That is a hard thing to do.

But they were in fact proponents of the exact same sort of conscience-ism, at the cost of all spring and summer like thought.
At the cost of all excess - thus at the cost of life.
But Soc was both wise, in that he enjoyed, and noble, in that he accepted death as a consequence to his contradicting the terms of life in Athens.
A scourge of the gods. Prometheus undone. After Socrates, art was impossible.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 8:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Athens was Dionysian self-enjoyment created by aristocratic rulerships and mild tyrannies in the archaic age, that flowered in a democracy of heroic politics and conquest (democracy is always warlike outwardly) in the Classical age as the Apollonian will to make the image of pride endure as beauty and hardness, and finally began to crumble into political pettiness, and sophism.

The Irony for me has always been and shall blissfully remain (as it is the very substance of comprehension of conflict) the Akropolis staring down on Socrates, and still staring down on the marketsquare, where people respect Socrates, and go to the marble as a tourist attraction. And pay money. No way in hell they’d pay to walk on the same ground as Socrates - they came for the gods. They are just too unselfvaluing to know it and enjoy it. they just feel compelled to sacrifice their money to them.

But the Greeks understand. The guards do, in the parks. I have seen it, Ive commanded them away from me in the name of the God at Delphi, and they’ve violently thrown out my insolent cousin who was wearing his netball shorts and his friend who pulled them down - they know rank.
Rank and marble - you dont need much more. Rank as in the capacity for deference.

Well all that, and one of the best habitats on Earth. The history of Rome is a continuation of Greece in these terms, and its decline a result of its integration of too many inferior territories. It became bland… boring. Perhaps boredom is a Roman invention. The systematization of wealth and the introduction of it in areas where it doesn’t naturally spend itself. You get consumerism.

Damn it, this fucking French poet in a preface is convincing me of the inferiority of Rome in some respects. Im trying to read Perceval in its original language but I cant get through the introduction as it is disturbing me too much. Also the first line is a hailing of Phillip of Flanders, who is an absolute fascist scourge to my own nation, before it was fully formed by forever wrecking the might of the foul Spanish empire and men like this monstrous decadent Christian ‘holy man’ Filip. Well, in Europe. The language survived in the better people they raped.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 9:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Still, the honor of Clinton no one has even ever attempted to defend. No one tries to prove the antithesis of a lucrative law. Clinton just tries to get away with it by redefining “honor”… Obamacare and such, “removing dictators”, in general gold and blood extraction. A very ancient definition.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 9:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Trump on the other hand is quite a master of Socratic method. At least the mechanism of his campaign works almost better than Socrates himself in dethroning the wealthy and their sophists.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 10:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No one even tries to defend Clinton – yeah exactly. Fuck her.

Fixed I see you as a builder-philosopher, definitely, and one that naturally incorporates the results of depth-inciting into the construction materials. VO is a philosophical artifact of its own kind.

Indeed Socrates doesn’t “agree” with the points he forces on those who converse with him. He is forcing them around to an uncomfortable position of needing to acknowledge that they were full of shit to begin with, that they had no idea what the fuck they’re talking about. That is true philosophy, man. Or at least one side of it.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 11:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster.” --N

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 11:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am willing to concede that it is a part of it - it certainly requires a certain skillset. But, somebody has to pit himself against him.
Let it be me this antiSocrates- I simply refrain from Socratic method (where N does not - Zarathustra is Socratic-Biblical); I do no coax agreement from fools, so as to let them feel like fools in the end - I simply say to them that they are fools and explain why. I know this may be less effective but it is also less dirty, and less tyrannical. Thus it builds a different kind of loyalty. Not one that can be broken, because adversity and contention is included in it. The loyalty commanded by a storm - by the head of Zeus, there is no higher love for me, and to follow the highest love is a wisdom which I love, etc - Socrates did right to the scum, but he did so in a city that had not long before been the jewel of the Universe - by believing in the Gods that Socrates was put to death for for denouncing - the gods and the youth, and the relation between these - he had severed it. I can never love that man. He said good bye to this world as gladly as a traitor of it would.

Shit -

I keep disvaluing him as much as I try to respect him.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 11:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The clumsy ills of his fellows in time did not justify the ingenious ill he conjured up in retribution.

I turn out to be more radical than Nietzsche in this. That is because I walk N’s path through.
Ive walked it back to Greece and take side with Apollo. Shoo, old beggard, I say to Socrates, but I will not harm him. I replace his method wherever there are pillars being built out of marble with the art of logical valuing.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Oct 31, 2016 11:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Haha, fuck yeah.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sauwelios
bowstring
bowstring
Sauwelios

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeTue Nov 01, 2016 7:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
He said good bye to this world as gladly as a traitor of it would.

Publicly, yes. But why did he cover himself as the effect of the poison moved up his body?

“Socrates’s fear of death required that he cover his face in the presence of those he had encouraged, made courageous, by his arguments for immortality.” (Lampert, The Enduring Importance of Leo Strauss, page 18.)

FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeTue Nov 01, 2016 8:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would say that rather fits his duplicity. He suffers from his method in the end, he does not, like Aleister Crowley, rejoice in both the phenomenon of the end as perfection of ones self-valuing and the possibility of a new thing. That is the only properly skeptical-and joyful attitude.

Why I prefer the Olympos over Socrates; Gods consist of valuing-pure, thus conscious and unconscious in one continuum, I believe it draws the mind into a richer soil. It has only one aim; to enrich. Marble is honest, it simply commands the highest order of men to it, by the difficulty of shaping it and its potential for hard beauty - the same goes for diamond.

Socrates was a hard material himself, against which Greece came to be shaped. However, I am his enemy, or natural adversary. His did not enrich, but impoverish; “because the Greeks no longer merited” one might say, but the fact that Rome stole predominantly the Gods and discarded most of the philosophy as inconsequential is enough to illustrate my point.

When the marble comes out, that is when things are decided, ties are cut that cannot endure, and visions of the future begin to demand sweat blood and tears without there being a war - the sap of the will begins to flow when the hammers and chisels are carried to the sacred stone. “If you build it he will come” is the law of the pagan gods.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeTue Nov 01, 2016 8:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What do you think of the claim that all humans suffer defeat in the face of death? Death properly understood, of course: viewtopic.php?p=2577467&sid=07dc3b45ce851e1162c0718ba5fe2673#p2577467

FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeTue Nov 01, 2016 10:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
IT IS TRUE

OUR VICTORY IS IN HOW WE MEET DEFEAT
IN WHAT IT IS THAT WE GIVE UP IN DEFEAT
AND HOW WE HAND IT OVER THE THE EARTH
THE NAME OF OUR BREATH IS OUR LAST

HA

SO IT IS OVERCOME
BY BREATH AS GIFT

BUT BREATHE DEEPLY
THAT A BUTTERFLY MAY BE BORN IN SEASON
AND NOT A MOSQUITO IN A DANK CORNER

FOR BLOODSUCKERS
ARE MERELY THOSE WITH SHALLOW BREATH

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeTue Nov 01, 2016 10:10 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
BREATH IS SPIRIT

SOCRATES IS A HERO OF A PLAY HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND
NOR DO I UNDERSTAND MY OWN PART
BUT THIS I KNOW -
!!

I KNOW THAT I KNOW NOT
WHAT SOCRATES CLAIMED IS TRUE

I KNOW IT NOT

I KNOW NOT THAT THE WORLD IS BAD OR GOOD OR EVIL
I KNOW THAT BAD AND GOOD AND EVIL ARE FEARSOME WORDS
AND THAT FEAR IS IN THE WORLD AS IS THE WORD

HA

IS THE GAME OF GOD

OR ONE MIGHT SAY SHHHVVVAH

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Men are will to power, Women are power Men are will to power, Women are power - Page 3 Icon_minitimeTue Nov 01, 2016 10:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
GIVE BIRTH YE SUPERWOMEN UNDER THE EQUATOR
IN SWEET RAIN AS THE GODS GIVE IT
TRAVEL EAST AND SOUTH
IN THE WAY OF THE SUN FIND YOUR LOCUS

THEN GIVE BIRTH IN THE MUD

apes we were, and hospital wards we have become

let us make another ATTEMPT,
BUT WITH A STRAIGHT ARROW

HAIL ZEUS THE EXALTER
HAIL THE ARCHER
HAIL THE ARROW

PHILOSOPHIA IS A MANIA
THE GARDEN KNOWS IT
ITS KNOWLEDGE IS THE SNAKE

THE HOUR OF THE SNAKE IS UPON US
AS THE TITAN CREEPS TO THE BULLS EYE
SARAH CONNOR ALREADY KNOWS

53

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

12 types of human negation Empty
PostSubject: 12 types of human negation 12 types of human negation Icon_minitimeFri Nov 06, 2015 1:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Failure
Isolation
Loss
Destruction
Dispossession
False Representation
Uprooting
Shame
Sloth
Decoherence
Subversion
Defeat

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

12 types of human negation Empty
PostSubject: Re: 12 types of human negation 12 types of human negation Icon_minitimeFri Nov 06, 2015 1:22 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From all such negating of its assumed (‘noumenal’) self-valuing by the consciousness, positive drives follow.

Aspects can be first marked as negatives to derive their positives by a kin of ‘all great (significant) things must wear masks’-logic;

Apollon sends plague upon man in order that the hearts and minds of the great ones may attain to their antitheses, which is greatness in its various human forms.

e.g.

Accomplishment
Coordination
Romance
Will
Possession
Right Word
Ground
Pride
Diligence
Coherence
Fearlessness
Attainment

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

12 types of human negation Empty
PostSubject: Re: 12 types of human negation 12 types of human negation Icon_minitimeWed May 25, 2016 6:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes I like this. The world is a crucible in which elements are separated by their purities. And the world is large enough still that such separated things can still mingle and mix around with each other, to meta-crucible effect whereby both the high and the low can become enriched, often in spite of themselves.

It is a strange and difficult logic, the transition from the negative to the positive. So much of what we are remains unconscious even while we are using it. It was recently pointed out to me by someone that while Nietzsche’s existentialism was good, his metaphysics were shit… to which I replied, Yes perhaps, but Nietzsche was already-always grounded implicitly in an upright metaphysical relationship, even though (and perhaps precisely because) he didn’t or couldn’t explicate that directly, coherently into his concepts, and he needed to some extent push aside metaphysics in order to focus on developing within the existentia. At which point I was accused of being a “postmodern, Marxist, jargon-user” etc etc… Ha.

Much easier to be good than to become good. This is a formula for naturally refusing the negative. What does this say about modern humanity today, which attracts the negative at least as much as it repels it? Nietzsche was right about the great world-historical process of human transformation. Things get confused when we forget the larger scope and purview, the super-process of which individual moments in space and time are but pieces, stages toward some end/s. Maybe the individual is a microcosm.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

12 types of human negation Empty
PostSubject: Re: 12 types of human negation 12 types of human negation Icon_minitimeWed Nov 23, 2016 7:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Failure
Isolation
Loss
Destruction
Dispossession
False Representation
Uprooting
Shame
Sloth
Decoherence
Subversion
Defeat

Perfectionism would be another I think - unless that would be part of false representation.
Believing ourselves to be beyond perfect negates our humanness, our self hood.

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Care Empty
PostSubject: Care Care Icon_minitimeSat Aug 10, 2013 7:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Carelessness is an essential part of life as conflict. It is a moment of battle where important things are risked with instincts. This is only possible when one can abandon care of certain things of value. Taking care is building value, defenses, in a state of control that precedes and builds the foundations of lacking care. One who has not cared is not careless, he’s buzzard food.

The work of a psychology of an uebermensch, which can be a single person, a family and even a race, is the work of building carelessness.

Philosophy is distinguishing. The christian philosopher only takes care, always shuns dance and battle into dark corners, and distinguishes precisely only in a state of perpetual caring. The philosopher of battle distinguishes the areas of caring and lacking care that feed battle instincts, which are largely the same as dance and exploration instincts and seek further material for caring and lacking care.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Care Empty
PostSubject: Re: Care Care Icon_minitimeSat Aug 10, 2013 7:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The philosopher of battle speaks: where must care be taken today?

The most profound foundations of our actions are proving not to correspond to a context which reveals even the greatest actions we have already taken. That God is dead means we can no longer be careless about our deepest motivations, which were God’s. Since God conquered all that is human for the 2000 or so years he was alive, there is no alternative we can care for that doesn’t derive from or isn’t attached to him. We must carefully build this alternative, distinguish the micro levels where care can grow it to this area of profoundest goal.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Care Empty
PostSubject: Re: Care Care Icon_minitimeSat Aug 10, 2013 7:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When the time comes to be careless, if care must still be taken, let it be woman who takes it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Care Empty
PostSubject: Re: Care Care Icon_minitimeMon Dec 05, 2016 4:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
When the time comes to be careless, if care must still be taken, let it be woman who takes it.

Why the woman? If I am understanding your use of the word “care”, women can be just as callous and apathetic as can many men.
So why the woman?
It all comes down to the “individual” ~ no?

Does care to you mean treating something with integrity and value and even reverence perhaps?

Pezer
builder
builder

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Zen Epicurianisms Empty
PostSubject: Zen Epicurianisms Zen Epicurianisms Icon_minitimeSun Oct 02, 2016 4:31 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When I light my first cigarette in the morning

I

Just let it burn…
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Zen Epicurianisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Zen Epicurianisms Zen Epicurianisms Icon_minitimeMon Dec 05, 2016 4:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I wrap my hands around the day’s first very warm cup of coffee enjoying its aroma while reflecting on the snow wolf before me ~~ I postpone the moment of placing it to my lips.
Perfect zen epicurean moment.

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Zen Epicurianisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Zen Epicurianisms Zen Epicurianisms Icon_minitimeMon Dec 05, 2016 4:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pretty similar situation as I just read this holding the mornings first coffee in my hand staring out at the snow falling down over sweet boulevard de Rosemont, just as white as when I first set foot here last year and decided this my place.

" 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 Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Zen Epicurianisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Zen Epicurianisms Zen Epicurianisms Icon_minitimeSat Dec 10, 2016 4:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Pretty similar situation as I just read this holding the mornings first coffee in my hand staring out at the snow falling down over sweet boulevard de Rosemont, just as white as when I first set foot here last year and decided this my place.

I absolutely love that first snowfall. I love all snowfalls especially if they do not “stick”, except for blanketing the trees.
Such a pristine landscape to me.
But the first one of the season is like welcoming an old friend back again.

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Zen Epicurianisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Zen Epicurianisms Zen Epicurianisms Icon_minitimeSat Dec 10, 2016 4:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
When I light my first cigarette in the morning

I

Just let it burn…

This is a very cool, laid-back kind of ambiance.
The rich glow in the dark.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeTue Dec 27, 2016 4:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Or rather the “emotional” consequence of it. In The Will To Power (should have been named The Revaluation of Values instead) Nietzsche defines nihilism as “the radical repudiation of value, meaning and desirability”. Yes, at the intellectual level this is nihilism but as manifest in the emotions or as our “spiritual” self, it is what is now called depression. N knew our modern and “post”-modern world was becoming more nihilistic by the day, as Christian humanism and today what we can call politically correct liberalism, along with its sister-ideology of political religious conservatism. The right and the left now both mirror nihilism within themselves.

Depression is the inability to be motivated, the inability of desire to move the self into action. Nihilism describes a process whereby the root of desire is cut out from the tree of the self, so that now that tree, removed from its proper earth and supplanted within a larger socioeconomic-ideological organism, slowly whithers and dies.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeTue Dec 27, 2016 4:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I agree with that, depression is literally a low pressure zone of will, or self-valuing. It can thus not move outward.

To have values means to be a pressure. The tension we call ‘will’. And to be a negative pressure, a suction… this is what a depressed person is. He depressurizes all vulnerable pressures around him too. This climatological phenomenon of the psyche explains our society, which is basically just a contest of who is the most depressed.

Obama is grand archetype of the entitled-depressed person. Has he ever said something not ironic, cynical or sarcastic while in office? No, right? Well, some condescending remarks about human being that clearly made him very happy to say. That pathetic loser forms the central axis of the whole of nihilistic humanity, Islam as well as fascist China included. Cl****n represents the impossible state beyond nihilism, the less-than-zero, the stench of rot beyond death, which appeals to all true nihilists more than the scent even of fresh fruit or sex or anything potentiating. (I believe most happy men love the smell of all combustibles.)

Our consumerist society itself is the vessel for a people without values, the products and malls represent the full potential depth of the depression and to dive into them is to deplete oneself further, is like a massive anti-storm, a low pressure area that reacts with extreme local turmoil to any positive pressure points within it.

Nietzsche speaks repeatedly of helping the miserable to their desired end. I think we must also have this mindset, to want the nihilist institutions to perish, rather than to want to redeem or transform them. There is no use for them in a world of values. They are only devices of despair.

As N says here, all the nobility related to such institutions is expended in their creation, in the striving for them; in the phase where it matters not that they are a gross misunderstanding at best, in that phase where they are simply an ideal, an aim, and provide a tension to the bow. So I perceive my communist grandfather, as a young, passionate, perhaps even philosophical man in the resistance, whose victories accomplished many of the opposite things he fought for, and yet whose relentless will to fight set free and ennobled his personal life beyond what most attain. A strong and direct enemy is worth more than almost everything else, given that one has inborn strength. A child growing up without the awareness of enemies, in the soft protection of a modern nest, will be an aborted human.

"My conception of freedom. – The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it – what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic – every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.

These same institutions produce quite different effects while they are still being fought for; then they really promote freedom in a powerful way. On closer inspection it is war that produces these effects, the war for liberal institutions, which, as a war, permits illiberal instincts to continue. And war educates for freedom. For what is freedom? That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one’s cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.” The human being who has become free – and how much more the spirit who has become free – spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior. How is freedom measured in individuals and peoples? According to the resistance which must be overcome, according to the exertion required, to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by “tyrants” are meant inexorable and fearful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves; most beautiful type: Julius Caesar. This is true politically too; one need only go through history. The peoples who had some value, who attained some value, never attained it under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit, and forces us to be strong. First principle: one must need to be strong – otherwise one will never become strong.

Those large hothouses for the strong – for the strongest kind of human being that has so far been known – the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice, understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand it: as something one has and does not have, something one wants, something one conquers." [Nietzsche, Twilight]

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeTue Dec 27, 2016 11:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ah! Some philosophy.

When I started reading Nietzsche I never thought that he was a Nihilist. Quite the opposite. He was indeed a very optimistic person; one who saw the possibility for greatness once again in the human animal.

Years later I encounter some who tried to define Nietzsche as a Nihilist and I always argued against their thoughts. Seems that all had only read what others had said Nietzsche had said but had never actually read Nietzsche at all. They all formed their opinion based on the false opinions of others.

Nihilism is a rather important concept for me as a Taoist because Taoism is very closely linked with Buddhism by many. As with Nietzsche, if Buddhism is misread it can appear to be a very Nihilistic belief system. I regularly have to get into discussions with people who think they understand Buddhism and present their thoughts in a Nihilistic manner.

And I agree that based on what I have observed of American society Americans, in general, are becoming Nihilistic. I can’t speak to other societies but I would imagine the trend is nearly equal to what it is in America. And worse, I think it is something that those in power are feeding. That is, the governments and institutions.

And yes, I think that the overman has the responsibility to help these institutions and governments to commit suicide. They are nothing less than an obstacle for the overman and should be allow to die a pitiful death.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeWed Dec 28, 2016 3:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, good thoughts. As for eastern religions, N calls these nihilistic because of how they focus on attaining “nothingness” and preach that this world is an illusion; also that they preach about an after-life. Any religion or belief system that teaches either 1) the world is an illusion, you are an illusion, 2) you should deny your desires because desiring is bad/evil/untrue, or 3) there is another life after you die, is pretty much nihilistic in the straightforward sense.

I’ve had good experiences with Taoist meditations, and I wouldn’t degrade it as nihilistic, but if the typical eastern-religious beliefs are also included then yes it would be trending toward nihilism. N doesn’t really distinguish between Christianity and Buddhism in this area, since if you’re teaching any of those 1-3 above then you’re basically teaching nihilism (“the radical repudiation of value, meaning and desirability” as N said) and regardless of whatever else necessity or benefits may be associated to the belief system.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeWed Dec 28, 2016 3:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I would add my own definition of nihilism to N’s: the deliberate and structural-unconscious avoidance of truth. When children fantasize and imagine they aren’t avoiding truth, they are seeking it. But when a person learns how to use this imaginative method expressly because truths are avoided in the psychological sense, that need is a seed of nihilism.

Nihilism makes peoole slavish, dumb, naive, lasy, and unhappy. These are all consequences of Christianity too, I’ve observed. I used to think that Christianity at least provided for some high values, and it’s true that some high values can coexist with Christianity, but those same values can also live without Christianity and perhaps much better without it.

Philosophy properly understood is the antithesis of nihilism. And anyone who says N was nihilistic simply doesn’t understand him at all. Attempting to rank-order values and meanings isn’t nihilistic, so long as it is undertaken with an eye and honesty for greater value, meaning and truth and doesn’t involve “self-denial” (for example, deliberately suppressing one’s own desiring as occurs in Buddhism).

On Christianity specifically I would point to Parodites’ insights here, that Christianity represents a stage of the development of subjectivity, and is more like a symptom than anything else. The attempt at a grand reification of the self qua self, the unification of the complex of the ‘godhead’ into a single image-idea in which we view ourselves negativity, as absence and longing, as lack; we are not the positive expression of nature but the negative expression of the lack of the divine, in Christianity. So interestingly Christianity is nihilistic but also potentially philosophical at the same time, or rather is like a womb from which eventually Christians are born as philosophers, leaving behind their Christianity and turning instead to truth. Christianity is a religion where even God turns upon himself and dies, it is the height of self-refutation and pregnant tension, qua system and in the psychological sense anyway. Even N observed with some fascination the deep psychological complexity of the slave-moralist, compared to that of the master-moralist.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeWed Dec 28, 2016 5:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Ah! Some philosophy.

When I started reading Nietzsche I never thought that he was a Nihilist. Quite the opposite. He was indeed a very optimistic person; one who saw the possibility for greatness once again in the human animal.

Years later I encounter some who tried to define Nietzsche as a Nihilist and I always argued against their thoughts. Seems that all had only read what others had said Nietzsche had said but had never actually read Nietzsche at all. They all formed their opinion based on the false opinions of others.

Without wanting to be facetious, it is always the nihilists who think N is nihilist - I assume because he explodes in their face as pure dread.

Quote :
Nihilism is a rather important concept for me as a Taoist because Taoism is very closely linked with Buddhism by many. As with Nietzsche, if Buddhism is misread it can appear to be a very Nihilistic belief system. I regularly have to get into discussions with people who think they understand Buddhism and present their thoughts in a Nihilistic manner.

Ive always practiced Taoism, as in Shaolin, which has been my school for 20 years. It is the philosophy of Action. I hold it in the highest esteem.

Of course, there are many versions and interpretation of Taoism.
But as you say, Tao is a verb.

Here’s my Shaolin teacher discussing the difference and overlap between Tao and Zen.

shaolin.org/zen/zen-and-tao.html

As anyone can see none of this relates to the despair and vanity of nihilism - it is all about reification in flux. The objective truth of Flux, which we, when our power is maximized, embody in incomprehensible joy. The cosmic dance, or the cosmic breath - the same are these, when properly attained - one can not fully breathe without dancing.

Quote :
And I agree that based on what I have observed of American society Americans, in general, are becoming Nihilistic. I can’t speak to other societies but I would imagine the trend is nearly equal to what it is in America. And worse, I think it is something that those in power are feeding. That is, the governments and institutions.

Yes, I believe that too. I am not clear on how conscious they are of what they are doing - as a nihilist can be methodically extremely clever, as Capable also alludes to, and still not know what it is he is trying for, or why, or what he’ll do when he succeeds at whatever his fight leads to.

I’m actually more and more convinced that it is all simply a collective compulsive neurosis. So that amounts the exact opposite to Tao.

The anti-path, which is walked collectively.

Quote :
And yes, I think that the overman has the responsibility to help these institutions and governments to commit suicide. They are nothing less than an obstacle for the overman and should be allow to die a pitiful death.

Nice.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeWed Dec 28, 2016 5:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
Yes, good thoughts. As for eastern religions, N calls these nihilistic because of how they focus on attaining “nothingness” and preach that this world is an illusion; also that they preach about an after-life. Any religion or belief system that teaches either 1) the world is an illusion, you are an illusion, 2) you should deny your desires because desiring is bad/evil/untrue, or 3) there is another life after you die, is pretty much nihilistic in the straightforward sense.

The afterlife is actually not something Buddha preached. I agree with you that he is in part nihilist, I had a conversation on this with Sauwelios yesterday who linked what I said here about soft benefactors vs strong enemies and the aborted human to Buddha.

Here is what N says about Buddha.

“This [revenge is forbidden for the sick] was comprehended by that profound physiologist, the Buddha. His “religion” should rather be called a kind of hygiene, lest it be confused with such pitiable phenomena as Christianity: its effectiveness was made conditional on the victory over ressentiment. -To liberate the soul from this is the first step toward recovery. “Not by enmity is enmity ended; by friendliness enmity is ended”: these words stand at the beginning of the doctrine of the Buddha. It is not morality that speaks thus; thus speaks physiology.” [N, Ecce Homo]

Quote :
I’ve had good experiences with Taoist meditations, and I wouldn’t degrade it as nihilistic, but if the typical eastern-religious beliefs are also included then yes it would be trending toward nihilism. N doesn’t really distinguish between Christianity and Buddhism in this area, since if you’re teaching any of those 1-3 above then you’re basically teaching nihilism (“the radical repudiation of value, meaning and desirability” as N said) and regardless of whatever else necessity or benefits may be associated to the belief system.

I would say that the Buddha stands, well, sits as a crossroads. One may from him either take the path into nihilism, through the beliefs you describe, and this seems the most often traveled path. Or one may take the path of honesty, and focus on improving ones physiology, integrating it with the ways of the Earth. This, to me, is Tao, as well as Zen. Zen does it radically, by a pure decision, and I think it is the most beautiful, as well as the most painful. Zen and pain are inseparable. Zen is the beauty of pain. The eye of the storm. But Tao makes the life into a happy fire breathing dragon. Both are majestic. And both require expression in the arts of war… Neither Zen nor Tao exist without the fist next to the open palm.

Zen is in my knuckles. 30 fist pushups on gravel is my morning bliss. Tao is very much in dance and love making. The fluidity of yin however requires the iron core of yang to be stable, gracious, beautiful and wholesome.

Beauty is in the eye of the storm.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeWed Dec 28, 2016 5:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
I would add my own definition of nihilism to N’s: the deliberate and structural-unconscious avoidance of truth. When children fantasize and imagine they aren’t avoiding truth, they are seeking it.

Good point. Very good point.

Quote :
But when a person learns how to use this imaginative method expressly because truths are avoided in the psychological sense, that need is a seed of nihilism.

It becomes a pathology.

And yet because of the methods purity, the goodness of the person is enclosed in his very pathetic-ness… it can not be resolved through ‘a bitter confrontation with reality’ brought about by some cruel father. It must be lured or driven out of the pathological fixation, into what is not ‘the reality principle’ but a daemonism between ‘bitter reality’ and the nektar of imagination which has been liberated into it.

Quote :
Nihilism makes peoole slavish, dumb, naive, lasy, and unhappy. These are all consequences of Christianity too, I’ve observed. I used to think that Christianity at least provided for some high values, and it’s true that some high values can coexist with Christianity, but those same values can also live without Christianity and perhaps much better without it.

Yes. I think Christianity is only viable when approached from the outside, as a curiosity, and that to grow up in it requires that one loathe it first. I now love Christ, but only because I had such fun in blaspheming him for 30 years and that only worked to tear veils of church and belief and patheticness away from what apparently this dude re/presented. He is a genuine badass, that should be clear. Napoleon was very clear on this too.

Quote :
Philosophy properly understood is the antithesis of nihilism. And anyone who says N was nihilistic simply doesn’t understand him at all. Attempting to rank-order values and meanings isn’t nihilistic, so long as it is undertaken with an eye and honesty for greater value, meaning and truth and doesn’t involve “self-denial” (for example, deliberately suppressing one’s own desiring as occurs in Buddhism).

To rank values entirely precludes nihilism, and nihilism is little else than the abolishing of rank, of difference in value.

(One can not rank no-value over no-value)

Quote :
On Christianity specifically I would point to Parodites’ insights here, that Christianity represents a stage of the development of subjectivity, and is more like a symptom than anything else. The attempt at a grand reification of the self qua self, the unification of the complex of the ‘godhead’ into a single image-idea in which we view ourselves negativity, as absence and longing, as lack; we are not the positive expression of nature but the negative expression of the lack of the divine, in Christianity. So interestingly Christianity is nihilistic but also potentially philosophical at the same time, or rather is like a womb from which eventually Christians are born as philosophers, leaving behind their Christianity and turning instead to truth. Christianity is a religion where even God turns upon himself and dies, it is the height of self-refutation and pregnant tension, qua system and in the psychological sense anyway. Even N observed with some fascination the deep psychological complexity of the slave-moralist, compared to that of the master-moralist.

Parodites’ view on Christianity is the most interesting one Ive seen. It certainly defeats Nietzsche’s view of it, even though most Christians are far better defined by Nietzsche’s analysis than by Parodites’ - P shows us the heights and depths that Christianity made possible, and it is even possible to see Nietzsche in these terms. Obviously, “the antiChrist”, when seen in terms of Christ-man as negativity, positively speaks volumes…

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeWed Dec 28, 2016 6:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
First, thanks for the link. I decided to not study Zen because in the beginning it was too Buddhist for me. But based on the little I know I agree with the person in the link.

Actually, Nietzsche wasn’t as hard on the Buddhists as he was on the Christians. That was actually a surprise for me.

I doubt anyone could make a case that Taoism is Nihilistic. The Taoist Sage? Maybe apathetic but not nihilistic.

54

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeWed Dec 28, 2016 8:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From the point of view that N takes, any religion or belief that teaches “reincarnation of souls”, for example, or escape from the karmic wheel of life into some non-entity status of pure bliss absent all desiring, is pretty textbook nihilistic. N’s points here on nihilism and religions are basically: demeaning THIS world and THIS life for the sake of an imagined other (whether as heaven with Jesus, karmic reincarnation or nirvana) is nonsensical and stems from a psychological defect in the one who believes such things. Teaching people that this world/life/self is temporary and inferior to a supposed non-temporary and superior world/life/self is worse than nonsense, it is a kind of mind virus. Imagine teaching that kind of shit to a child, and then hoping that child could grow up valuing truth… no, it only happens sometimes for example in Christianity and precisely where a Christian breaks free of his Christianity.

Like N’s comments about liberal institutions, these have merit only when they are being build, because they inspire war instincts; likewise, Christianity has merit only when it inspires the instincts to surpass and overcome Christianity. Yet I don’t see any similr surpassing and overcoming when it comes to eastern religions.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeWed Dec 28, 2016 7:37 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Note that Taoism doesn’t have the notion of reincarnation or afterlife.
These are Hindu notions.

Buddha, who was from India, is the end result of a very old tradition involving great majesty - a tired man with a pure heart. Not high, not low.

From his thoughts about detachment, a whole slew of ethical directions developed, so many it is impossible to count them.

“Buddhism” doesn’t really exist. It refers largely to insane clown posses of spiritualistic jungle dwellers who build eerie temples with bats in them and such. It’s the low forms that followed from Gautama’s dangerous words. Most of it is a continuation of the ‘spiritual filth’ accumulated, enforced by Manu’s law, by the Chandala caste. All of them yearn for absolution in an afterlife.

Nirvana is simply the experience of clarity about the physical universe manifesting (maya) (as opposed to being, ‘suchness’) entirely as a reflection ones nervous system, and not even permitted to the lower caste - it is a privilege of the Brahmans, the supreme caste. Even still, there are many levels of it, and indubitably philosophy is akin to some of the higher states. Not equal, but akin. Blissful not-erring. Reification of flux, in Taoisim notably through synthetic applications of the number 5.

The sole aim is health. Mans capacity for health is vastly expanded by the thousands of years of Taoist and Zen discipline. As N says, it starts with successfully bringing an end to resentment, starting by understanding it as a physiological phenomenon.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeThu Dec 29, 2016 1:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
From the point of view that N takes, any religion or belief that teaches “reincarnation of souls”, for example, or escape from the karmic wheel of life into some non-entity status of pure bliss absent all desiring, is pretty textbook nihilistic. N’s points here on nihilism and religions are basically: demeaning THIS world and THIS life for the sake of an imagined other (whether as heaven with Jesus, karmic reincarnation or nirvana) is nonsensical and stems from a psychological defect in the one who believes such things. Teaching people that this world/life/self is temporary and inferior to a supposed non-temporary and superior world/life/self is worse than nonsense, it is a kind of mind virus. Imagine teaching that kind of shit to a child, and then hoping that child could grow up valuing truth… no, it only happens sometimes for example in Christianity and precisely where a Christian breaks free of his Christianity.

Like N’s comments about liberal institutions, these have merit only when they are being build, because they inspire war instincts; likewise, Christianity has merit only when it inspires the instincts to surpass and overcome Christianity. Yet I don’t see any similr surpassing and overcoming when it comes to eastern religions.

Nicely said. My thoughts were pretty much this way even before I first read anything from Nietzsche. I guess that is why I became so attracted to him.

Eastern religions are similar to Western religions, and mot others for that matter, in that they all teach some wonderful after life without any proof whatever that such a place actually exists. All you need is faith and nihilism.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeThu Dec 29, 2016 1:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Note that Taoism doesn’t have the notion of reincarnation or afterlife.
These are Hindu notions.

Buddha, who was from India, is the end result of a very old tradition involving great majesty - a tired man with a pure heart. Not high, not low.

Very true. The roots of Taoism never talked about any kind of reincarnation or after life. That came later when Buddhism was taken to China.

And yes, Buddha was raised in the Hindu belief system. Apparently his belief was weak. Hehehe.

The practical teachings of Buddhism aren’t all that bad. They teach how to live a better life in the “now” - how to decrease one’s suffering.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeThu Dec 29, 2016 3:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But “decreasing suffering” is part of why N condemns these systems as nihilistic. They seek to minimize reality contact where that contact is painful even if truthful; I don’t know if Taoists run from pain and discomfort but I know Christians do, and it seems to me that so do Buddhists (monastic ascetics notwithstanding). N also writes somewhere about asceticism and stoicism also being suspect and not that great.

A philosopher uses his pains and sufferings and even inflicts these on himself to push his philosophy higher; philosophy is a crucible in which we burn our pains to produce truths from that fire. Philosophy as masochism, but not the kind that comes from self-hate, instead from simple necessity and the joy of truthfulness. The will to power expands in our increased strength for bearing our pains rather than running from them like a coward. That is the Lion who surpasses the Camel.

Based on what I’ve seen, Christians and Buddhists are definitely camels, at best, and blind stumbling unconscious camels at worst (denying the reality of their own burdens which they always seek to carry as badge of their “pride”, for example the “pride” of being a victim, or as ressentiment.) I don’t know any Taoists but I’ve read a great book on Taoist monks, they seem more joyful and earth-grounded and don’t seem to shy away from pain.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeThu Dec 29, 2016 3:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Per my definition of pathology that I riff off of from Lacan a little, “needing and wanting what you despise or resist; resisting the very effects that you deliberately caused” (for a recent example think of Ariana Grande and her rant about being unhappy men see her as a sex object… yes of course they do, since that is precisely how you want them to see you (although really these sort of feminist rants are only excuses to attack men qua male)), which is very close to how I understand ideology as well, pathology is essentially an expression of nihilistic consequences. Similar to depression, being pathological or ideological is a side-effect of nihilism residing in a person’s consciousness. It doesn’t even neee to be intended, since if enough nihilistic experiences and ideas are put into one’s memory and mind this will gradually skew consciousness in that direction, confusing it into ressentiment or Christianity for example.

A little nihilism is probably inevitable, at least until the Child appears (surpass the Lion). The world is basically still far too irrational for consciousnesses to form properly and without gross errors. Philosophy is the long slow struggle to fix this problem.

Just about everyone in the west is Christianized, this is our current threshold subjectivity type even if we aren’t religious. So we naturally draw the nihilism inward, where it can be worked on to produce more fire of self and motivation (unless we kill it with psychotropics and seeing a the-rapist).

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeThu Dec 29, 2016 4:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Haha, yes psycho-the-rapist, he knows what do do with your depression.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeThu Dec 29, 2016 8:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Judaeo-Christianity discovered the immanence of subjective existence, while the Greeks before them only progressed to a regard of the ontic, mirroring themselves through the logos within the image of the cosmos and vice versa. For the Greeks- and for Nietzsche, all suffering is a dispensation of fatum, and man must mirror this external imposition by the universe within his own internal will through the logos, in order to, in turn, project his internal will on the universe and reach the height of the ontos in amor fati, the love of his fate, of the whole.

But the Jews and Christians, understanding the immanent negativity of human subjectivity, and its basis in a fundamental lack that cannot mirror the cosmos or be mirrored in it, came to a far deeper psychology of man. All modern psychology is based on their insight- into the ego. Freud outlines the Ego as based in a similar lack. The whole Oedipal complex was configured in sexual terms merely due to Freud’s conceptual limitation, it is really about the fundamental lack and guilt that the ego is based on:

The real meaning of the Oedipal complex, the fundamental concept in Freud, (object-relations
theory is simply an expansion of Freud in opposition to Lacan) is the following:
the true source of man’s psychic power, of his very Will itself, is- guilt. Man’s psychic
wound is the source of all his power, of the very dynamic force responsible for
differentiation and individuation. As sexuality is simply one of many expressions of our
power, Freud took it as a distinctively primordial expression of man’s existential guilt,
which he could find no other way to configure save by an incestuous fascination with the
mother.

Becker read that primordial guilt as coming from Death-anxiety, I have my own view on it, etc. But the basic Freudian idea is the primordial guilt itself, Oedipal guilt around sexuality was merely Freud’s attempt to configure it. But the truly first in history to realize this primordial guilt or lack were the Christians working off what the Jews came to understand, and they configured it with the myth of Christ.

The need to configure that lack as guilt with a schemata or myth is what I call Representation. Lacan rejected this need and developed Reflectivity. For him, the “lack” is merely the lack of a primary object of desire, desire’s missing center of gravity. There is nothing to represent, we just narcissistically feed ourselves our own libido by endlessly preventing desire from arriving to its object, breaking all whole objects down into metonyms, objectifying ourselves and everyone into piles of body parts, etc. **

Having realized this, Judaeo-Christianity began to teach that all suffering was merely an outward projection of the fundamental lack, wound, and guilt that the human ego is generated by- a projection of it as impotent fury on the outside and on other people. And the reason why it is projected this way, is because people do not understand the reality of their unconscious, where this wound exists. They do not understand that all psychic power and dynamic energy for individuating the ego comes from this wound.

Thus, all suffering is merely the result of misunderstanding your own desires, complexes, and ego structure. And if people only knew the Truth, they would not suffer. Now The Christians did not have the conceptual ability to express this idea in anything other than religious terms, so they used the figure of the Cross and Christ to try and shock the merely external and phenomenal personality to make people look within, into their immanent subjectivity, in order to realize the guilt that is actually motivating them, which conceals itself through desire and the seductions of power. If they did, they would no longer misunderstand it, they would no longer project it blindly in rage on the outside as power, and thus that projection would not be continually defeated by life as it is, and thus they would not suffer anymore. The Cross is not supposed to make you feel guilty, it is supposed to shock the false constructed personality floating on top of your unconscious, so that you look within and realize the guilt, the all pervading negativity or lack, that is already there, that forms the core of subjectivity in its immanence, and which, while it is not understood, manifests itself as a furious projection of the ego on the outside, as an unrestrained dynamic force individuating the ego in all humans- as the Will to Power.

This immanent subject was necessary to develop man beyond the ontic, and the transcendent subject will be necessary to develop man beyond the immanent. That new subjectivity does not exist. Nobody has overcome Judaeo-Christianity yet. Nietzsche in many ways regressed to the ontic, he… became a Greek again. He escaped the Judaeo-Christian dialectic of spirit, but he did not overcome it.

** Lacan, Nietzsche, atheism, the whole modern complex of social forces seemingly, [feminism is for example neither an attack on men or a defense of women, it is a concealed deconstruction of the Oedipal complex and various other potential configurations of the representative function, and therefor an attack on the idea of immanence, psychic guilt,etc. As is communism and Marxism.] is eroding the fundamental ideas about the immanence of subjectivity which are necessary in furthering man’s self-understanding. On this psychological front, I have advanced my own psychology, which takes into account both Freud and Lacan, to the purpose of rescuing the idea of immanence and of representation for our hyper-modernity. Those ideas are necessary to advance beyond the immanence of Judaeo-Christianity. IE, this text summarizes my defense of representation and the mother standing in as a metaphor for a primary object in the Oedipal entanglement, but not through the configurations of Freudian incestuous guilt:

Representation is related to the role of the metaphorical function, by which the mother
comes to stand for something else in the psychic entanglement of the child, that is, a
whole object in an Oedipal complex: Lacan rejects this and the whole representative
operation of love, in order to replace the Oedipal complex with an irresolvable process of
continuous substitution and postponement of desire, the metonymic operation.
Reflectivity is related to this metonymic function in Lacan, the closed circuit of
continuous substitutions, one part for the part of another, through which no complete
object is ever formed upon which desire could arrive, and through which the mechanics
of fluids never achieves the solidity of representation. Thus, for Lacan, the mother cannot
serve the foundation of a functional metaphor or representation, instead she is actually a
nonobject, a semiotic negativity, through whose abruption the anti-oedipus prevents the
stabilization of a true ego or unitary subject: the symbolic gaps in this merely reflective-ego
prevent a whole body from ever forming on the basis of a desire for a whole object,
and erogeneity just amounts to a splitting up of the body into random zones without any
primary differentiation, just an endless substitution of one partial object for another, or
metonymy, a closed circuit that spins around and around and can only, in the end, take us
back to where we started, the collapse of the phallic metonym into reflectivity, the de-erection
of the partial, fictive self, the self which can never become whole, for it wants
only a part; the collapse of desire itself, into need, or lack.

In our current presentation, however, representation or the metaphor stabilizes reflectivity or the metonym, and vice
versa. The mother becomes a representation, not by coming to stand in for another mere
object in the child’s psychic entanglement- that is, for another empty object, as Lacan
reads Freud as indicating, but rather, when the infant attaches positive excitations in the
pre-oedipal stage to her, in the state of expansive oblation, so that she inaugurates the
function of the metaphor by projecting the drives discovered in the infantile metonymy
into the domain of signification; the mother becomes in this way a symbol for the era of
infantile omnipotence, for refuge, a protective shield, in which the ego hides itself from
the external world when its oblation is thwarted by trauma, so that it can continue to
safely develop through the reversal of the infantile progression in the next progression of
ego-formation, that of the child, when the traumatic register of the real is made, and this
idealization of maternal refuge is shattered- the function of the metaphor destabilized. In
turn the metonymic, or reflectivity, appears again, with the final adolescent progression,
in a closed, postponed libidinal circuit which negotiates the jouissance of the child’s
descent in Holderlinian joy into tragedy and abandonment, and partitions the memory of
the lost refuge in the mother so as to form the object of the secondary representation- the
“secondary object” which is the erotic fixation in another female, which is metaphoricity
itself, the symbol of a symbol: as the primary object or mother projects the infant’s pre-oedipal
excitations into symbolic space, representing safety and refuge, so the secondary
object closes off that space by projecting into it the guilt of abandonment following the
internalization of loss after that idealization is shattered, in order to represent a fantasy of
completion and integrity capable of opposing, of going beyond in Freud’s language, the
reality-principle or traumatic decoupling of subject and object. The metonymy, the
shattering of subject and object as results from the traumatic dissolution of the
idealization of the mother as refuge, allows reflectivity to bring the ego toward this
fantasy of integrity and completion, that is, the beloved, without ever completely arriving
to it, without entirely de-subjectivizing need or lack, and also to pull the ego away from
that fantasy, without fully leaving it behind, without entirely de-objectifying desire. Love
is just this: love is the lack through which lack can never be made the subject of an object
to merely suffer and need- thus the lack that forces us to become whole and desire; love is
the excess through which excess can never be made the object for a subject to merely
hold and want- thus the whole that forces us to lack, to become incomplete and to need. It
is for that reason that only love is capable of holding masculinity and femininity together
without dissolving their identities. All in all: Freud focused too extensively on the
metaphoric operation, or representation, while Lacan committed the same error with the
metonymic function, or reflectivity. There exists a third category yet unexplored, beyond
metaphor and metonym, beyond symbol and sign, namely the sign-symbol of
Romanticism or the tautegory, which represents the very tension or incomplete process
which gives rise to it, as representation and reflection here give rise to the liminal
threshold, love, through which they cross one another, out of which the male creates the
female through himself and the female creates the male through herself.

And to address depression and mental suffering in general on the basis of these ideas, I wrote elsewhere:

Normally the idealization of the mother breaks down in the later stages of childhood and
reflective guilt initiates the formation of the mature ego throughout adolescence, but if it
does not properly happen that way, that is, if the life-affirming impulses are not attached
to her due to some kind of trauma or the idealization is not appropriately deflated, then
the basic sense of loss never becomes differentiated in Milner’s language, so that there is
nothing to prompt the existential “search for the self” out of abandonment; such a person
is driven to look instead, desperately and often fatally, for some object in the external, for
some object in the world in which to symbolize their very reflectivity and differentiate
their guilt-object from their secondary-object or fixation, for their desire to become
nothing- their thanatos or fundamental psychic wound, cannot be recognized and
transformed into eros, as it is in the healthy individual, so as to generate, through the
Oedipal complex, a will capable of discharging the narcissistic reservoir, (roughly
equivalent to the schizoid defense before formation of the depressive position in Klein)
until they attach it to something neurotically interpreted as offending in the outside world,
a perceived threat often found in the mother, who, insofar as they admit some
consciousness of the desire to destroy her to themselves- often as a fear of their own
secret malice toward her before genuine guilt, (equivalent to Klein’s paranoiac positioning
between schizoidal separation from the world and depressive submission to it) allows for
guilt to finally stabilize an, albeit stunted, primary narcissitic fantasy and motive force for
the personality, that is, a project, however compromised, for self-discovery, which could
be compared with the Lacanian sinthome following the reconstuction of a transitional ego
beyond abjection, which really means here: after the total dissolution of the functioning
ego into reflective guilt. The resultant destabilized ego will either be incredibly
vulnerable to excitation, suffering emotional states of incredible intensity, and thus
inclined to secrecy and inactivity, or insensate and inclined to hyper-activity, that is,
either schizoidal or psychopathic.

So I am not in “agreement” with either Judaeo-Christianity or Nietzsche and atheism, or with either Freud or Lacan, or with either Marxism or Capitalism. I have a problem and a confirmation with each of them. Each is a symptom of the other to me. I’m only in agreement with my own philosophy and psychology. My philosophy of truth allows me this liberty, as I file everything away into different truth domains. Nietzsche, along with the Greeks, speaks from the ontic episteme. Christianity from the immanent, etc.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeThu Dec 29, 2016 12:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:
But “decreasing suffering” is part of why N condemns these systems as nihilistic. They seek to minimize reality contact where that contact is painful even if truthful; I don’t know if Taoists run from pain and discomfort but I know Christians do, and it seems to me that so do Buddhists (monastic ascetics notwithstanding). N also writes somewhere about asceticism and stoicism also being suspect and not that great.

Lao Tzu doesn’t even speak to the subject. Chuang Tzu does but basically what he says is that we should acknowledge “what is”.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeFri Dec 30, 2016 5:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
S - People tend to confuse India and China a lot. The idea that Taosim has to do with rejecting reality, instead of embedding oneself in ones physiology, must be blamed on the new age hippies who thought everything where you stretch your muscles and reflect on your thinking occasionally is headed for the afterlife. Where in fact, none of it is.

As I said, belief in and will to absolution in afterlife only lived among the Untouchables, the beggards, of India, as well as in the rich of California. Well, and the monotheists. About which:

Parodites wrote:
“Having realized this, Judaeo-Christianity began to teach that all suffering was merely an outward projection of the fundamental lack, wound, and guilt that the human ego is generated by- a projection of it as impotent fury on the outside and on other people. And the reason why it is projected this way, is because people do not understand the reality of their unconscious, where this wound exists. They do not understand that all psychic power and dynamic energy for individuating the ego comes from this wound.”

Even regardless of whether I agree with this, as a basis for method, this is about the most potentiating psychoanalytic structure Ive seen.

Factual truth pales in comparison to true method. A method is ‘objective’, like a hammer, it applies itself to a fabric and then we’ll see how the fabric responds. It is confident enough that it will always have its effect where there is value that meets it.

Method <=> Value

Christianity, in this definition, seeks the use the method of justification to transform the physiology of lack/resentment in a happy prospecting on the future. One may call it a collective compulsive neurosis banking on discomfort, aimed by genius at, well, more genius, depth, being.

Taosim in this definition, seeks to use the method of calming the nervous system, to transform the physiology of lack/resentment in a happy awareness of the present. This can lead to nothing very much removed from the departure point - it is a loosening of the bowstrings/wills tension.

Christianity is the phenomenal tension of the slave-will on the endless road of mastering itself.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeFri Dec 30, 2016 8:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
S - People tend to confuse India and China a lot. The idea that Taosim has to do with rejecting reality, instead of embedding oneself in ones physiology, must be blamed on the new age hippies who thought everything where you stretch your muscles and reflect on your thinking occasionally is headed for the afterlife. Where in fact, none of it is.

Exactly. The Chinese accepted the Buddhist Religion because they had no religion. But that is the only connection. Chinese culture, including Taoism, was unchanged for a few hundred years until the Taoists wanted to make Taoism a religion. At that time it was ordered that the structure of the Taoist religion must be similar to the well established Buddhist religion at that time.

New Age folks get the Eastern religions all mixed up but that is mostly the fault of the writers who really know very little of what they are writing about.

I had some good fights with the Buddhists when I first joined the forum because they were dominating all philosophical discussions and grossly misrepresenting Taoism. The Buddhists now have their own sub-forum so that they can talk about Buddhism all they want without interfering with the Philosophical Taoist discussions. And yes, Philosophical Taoism is very different from the Buddhist Religion.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeFri Dec 30, 2016 3:29 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
S - People tend to confuse India and China a lot. The idea that Taosim has to do with rejecting reality, instead of embedding oneself in ones physiology, must be blamed on the new age hippies who thought everything where you stretch your muscles and reflect on your thinking occasionally is headed for the afterlife. Where in fact, none of it is.

As I said, belief in and will to absolution in afterlife only lived among the Untouchables, the beggards, of India, as well as in the rich of California. Well, and the monotheists. About which:

Parodites wrote:
“Having realized this, Judaeo-Christianity began to teach that all suffering was merely an outward projection of the fundamental lack, wound, and guilt that the human ego is generated by- a projection of it as impotent fury on the outside and on other people. And the reason why it is projected this way, is because people do not understand the reality of their unconscious, where this wound exists. They do not understand that all psychic power and dynamic energy for individuating the ego comes from this wound.”

Even regardless of whether I agree with this, as a basis for method, this is about the most potentiating psychoanalytic structure Ive seen.

Factual truth pales in comparison to true method. A method is ‘objective’, like a hammer, it applies itself to a fabric and then we’ll see how the fabric responds. It is confident enough that it will always have its effect where there is value that meets it.

Method <=> Value

Christianity, in this definition, seeks the use the method of justification to transform the physiology of lack/resentment in a happy prospecting on the future. One may call it a collective compulsive neurosis banking on discomfort, aimed by genius at, well, more genius, depth, being.

Taosim in this definition, seeks to use the method of calming the nervous system, to transform the physiology of lack/resentment in a happy awareness of the present. This can lead to nothing very much removed from the departure point - it is a loosening of the bowstrings/wills tension.

Christianity is the phenomenal tension of the slave-will on the endless road of mastering itself.

That wound, rather it is configured by the image of the Cross in Christianity, Oedipal sexual guilt in Freud, etc. is the price paid for by civilization, namely the fall from innocence into sin, into knowledge- into death. I take it as factually existing, though it can be overcome, by moving beyond a view of man’s immanent subjectivity to a psycho-philosophy of the transcendental subject. Such a philosophy does not presently exist. Rather than achieving that, Nietzsche re-discovered what the Greeks were in my view- and in his view, namely by regressing to the ontic subject and becoming a Greek. He was a necessary step backward, so that man could move forward eventually.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.

                                    -- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeMon Jan 02, 2017 2:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Parodites wrote:
Normally the idealization of the mother breaks down in the later stages of childhood and
reflective guilt initiates the formation of the mature ego throughout adolescence, but if it
does not properly happen that way, that is, if the life-affirming impulses are not attached
to her due to some kind of trauma or the idealization is not appropriately deflated, then
the basic sense of loss never becomes differentiated in Milner’s language, so that there is
nothing to prompt the existential “search for the self” out of abandonment; such a person
is driven to look instead, desperately and often fatally, for some object in the external, for
some object in the world in which to symbolize their very reflectivity and differentiate
their guilt-object from their secondary-object or fixation, for their desire to become
nothing- their thanatos or fundamental psychic wound, cannot be recognized and
transformed into eros, as it is in the healthy individual, so as to generate, through the
Oedipal complex, a will capable of discharging the narcissistic reservoir, (roughly
equivalent to the schizoid defense before formation of the depressive position in Klein)
until they attach it to something neurotically interpreted as offending in the outside world,
a perceived threat often found in the mother, who, insofar as they admit some
consciousness of the desire to destroy her to themselves- often as a fear of their own
secret malice toward her before genuine guilt, (equivalent to Klein’s paranoiac positioning
between schizoidal separation from the world and depressive submission to it) allows for
guilt to finally stabilize an, albeit stunted, primary narcissitic fantasy and motive force for
the personality, that is, a project, however compromised, for self-discovery, which could
be compared with the Lacanian sinthome following the reconstuction of a transitional ego
beyond abjection, which really means here: after the total dissolution of the functioning
ego into reflective guilt. The resultant destabilized ego will either be incredibly
vulnerable to excitation, suffering emotional states of incredible intensity, and thus
inclined to secrecy and inactivity, or insensate and inclined to hyper-activity, that is,
either schizoidal or psychopathic.

I can confirm that this is correct, as some of my clients display this schizoid separation and paranoia just as you describe, under a neurotically interpreted symbolic orientation to the outside world in which the narcissistic reservoir is able to (somewhat and with structural distortions) discharge itself, if I am correct in understanding you. The image of the mother, as you say, is indeed useful here for these people. And as you say, these people are indeed very sensitive to excitation and experience an intensity of emotions, and become diagnosed with Schizoaffective and Bipolar Disorder as a result… and are inclined to secrecy and inactivity, as you say.

Another interesting one is Borderline Personality, this is where a person experiences extreme emotional instability and the emotions swing from moment to moment into extreme differences. The tiniest stimuli, like a single thought or the memory of something mundane from years ago, can trigger the reversal of the entire emotional machinery from happiness into despair, and vice versa. This condition is supposedly caused by the parents invalidating the emotions of the child, combined with an authoritarian military-like household where the child always knows what is expected and what will not be tolerated, and the child always experiences the conflicting pressure of knowing this and being forced to conform to it… because such rules are almost never spoken out loud but are left to be merely inferred. The child learns to cut down and suppress their own emotional reactions to certain things, and to fake emotions to other things, until this stabilizes as their subjective template for how feelings work for them. They become very manipulative, even when they don’t want to, even to themselves; no emotion is “just an emotion”, it always also includes a little kernel of extra self-awareness, the knowledge of the emotion and what caused it and why, which extra awareness was required in childhood to make sure the child was adhering to the rules of the household in such a way that didn’t evoke punishment but also didn’t make the parents realize the child was “acting” for their benefit.

So these people with borderline personality, as it is called, are treated with something called DBT, dialectical behavioral therapy. It aims to instantiate three dialectics of the individual, tensions they are subject to, and bring these into contrast with each other to provoke resolution. But more interestingly to me, I think these people are proto-philosophers: their hyper-awareness of their own emotional states extends not only to the emotion itself but to its how and why and where and what-if, they are extreme fantasizers and learn the subtlest routes in and out of their own emotional states, all tied into meaningful memories or experiences… for most people this causes tremendous suffering from which they cannot escape, because they lack the one thing that could teach them about themselves and how to control these extremes within them, namely they lack philosophy. “DBT” is designed to act like philosophy, to stimulate something like a philosophical project for people and therapists who are not philosophers and have basically no inclination in that direction.

Although perhaps every person with borderline personality disorder would be naturally inclined to philosophy, simply out of personal desperation to learn how to control what has happened to them.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Empty
PostSubject: Re: Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Depression is the spiritual consequence of nihilism Icon_minitimeTue Jan 03, 2017 12:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Such personalty disorders all originate in a dysfunction of the narcissistic reservoir, either in terms of externalization or internalization, using categories I brought up some time ago and am still working out. In the terms of the text I posted, externalization and the external personality are constructed by the metaphoric function- representation, while internalization and the internal personality are constructed by the reflective function. I had also used the category of integration, which in the text I signify by the autopoiesis of the sign-symbol.

The unintegrated personality cannot defend the ego from stimuli: both positive and negative reinforcement, both positive and negative stimuli, will further compromise its integrity- such a personality will bury itself in the secrecy of internalization in desperation for an adequate ego-defense, whose neurotic manifestation is paranoia, for the reflective function will become disconnected from the symbolic construction and deteriorate into a never ending reflective circle devoid of any contact with its representable object, or it will bury itself in the fury of externalization, whereby the symbolic construction of the metaphoric function will eventually become disconnected from reality, giving the neurotic manifestation of psychopathy and delusion, hyper-inflating the behavior and response of the person.

If I were to advance a theory of treatment, I would focus on this. Without re-establishing the autopoiesis and integrity of the ego-fortification, any resolution of what are in my view two basic personalities will never hold.

55

Free Will View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Nov 02, 2012 12:40 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To get the obvious out of the way - I do not argue for the existence of will, “free” or not, separate of causality. To me the ontological theorizing of self-valuing commands that all causality is seen as emerging from the logic of self-valuing, and that all constitutive grounds of self-valuings are ultimately reducible to the principle of self-valuing, as operative on the smallest scale; as ‘being sets itself against nothing’ - as it emerges, not in a Big Bang but gradually, from this first principle mechanism. So I see self-valuing as the first type of cause, the most fundamental cause that is possible to be conceived of.

But the implications of my view on free will are as follows. As self-valuing is the principle cause to all cosmic movements, and the forces between the most basic (principal) self-valuings and between and within the non-basic ones constitute multi-layered clockwork-causality, there is a dialectic between self-valuing causation and ‘objective’ causation. Most of this is captured in the objective frame, but, the logic of operation that a self-valuing is constitutive of, is not accessible from any other view than the value ontological view. In other words, we can not understand all the causal relations within a self-valuing otherwise than as constituting a self-valuing. Value ontology gives us a logos to interpret the causality within a system as a whole. Self-valuing logic is basically the key to intra-systemic causality, wherein ‘system’ is not identified as the whole of the universe but as systems we can identify as separate from ‘the whole’ if there is such a thing, in any case, of ‘the rest of the universe’, i.e. systems that we can identify as systems, with an operational logic and measure, at all.

This reflects on the universe and free will as follows: within the universe, there are smaller and greater self-valuing-systems, which operate onto each other, in such a way that they sustain each other or one destroys, compromises and/or (in part) absorbs the other. As self-valuing is the root-cause and the primal logic of this behavior (the will to power), and causality itself is subservient to there being a root-cause, a root-consistency (see my consistency post of a year ago), and since ‘will’ or ‘freedom’ are only the measure in which a system is able to operate on it’s self-valuing logic compared to the degree to which it is determined by encroaching systems, ‘free will’ simply means to me ‘determining power’. This does not mean that there is any kind of freedom from causality at all, because self-valuing is a hard causality. But it is significant nevertheless since our consciousness is nothing but a high degree of self-valuing. Consciousness is self-valuing, which means that consciousness is, when it is focused, concentrated, a fundamental cause. As fundamental as the cause of the universe.

The trick here is of course that we can not determine our consciousness - our consciousness can not operate on our consciousness as if from outside - everything we do to focus our consciousness and to increase and strengthen it, is derived directly, causally, necessarily, from the already-operative causality from which our subjective being emerges, which includes all the forces that work on, threaten and fortify our self-sustaining logic.

Many people have no ‘free’ or primordial will whatsoever as they are only conscious in a social sense, plus the instinctive sense of pain and pleasure. But as soon as a human finds a logos that allows him to direct his course based on his own conscious devices, which means, as soon as he is able to discern values that apply only to him privately, he has established a causal-chord connecting his actions (reactions) directly to the logical (not temporal) cause of his being as a structural coherence; self-valuing.

When a human has attained this degree of consciousness, he is unstoppable in whatever action he takes, even by (apparently) logical impossibility of his aims. Napoleon is a strong example of such a being, so is Nietzsche or Mozart. People who defy ‘reality’ are drive by this ‘free will’ - their will being free from absolute external conditioning. Even the slightest modicum of self-determining consciousness is experienced as an ocean of freedom. But, and here is the crux - it is a freedom that compels one to a necessity - to a fate. This is the very highest form of self-valuing in humans - the connection a priori to what they will amount to - to their penultimate experience and value. All other degrees of self-valuing (pleasure, comfort, power) are made inferior and can be discarded, once the supreme self-valuing of ones role as an individual, subjective cause, determining the objective cosmos is sensed. Napoleon:

" I feel myself driven towards an end that I do not know. As soon as I have reached it, as soon as I shall become unnecessary, an atom will suffice to shatter me. Until then, all the forces of mankind can do nothing to stop me. "

" All my life I have sacrificed everything - comfort, self-interest, happiness - to my destiny.
I felt that I could abandon myself to the most brilliant dreams. "

Self-valuing requires a context. The first context can be said to be ‘nothingness’. Napoleons context was the state of France, the European forces threatening to destroy France, the absence of leadership and organization (self-valuing) in post revolutionary France. In this context he was able to come to a supreme consciousness of his self-valuing, a supreme manifestation of his structural potential - an immortal destiny. So there are two logics operating on each other: reflective causality (objective, linear, inter-systemic) and deflective causality (subjective, circular, intra-systemic).

As concerns the predictive possibilities that the systemic universe provides, I agree that there are innumerable possibilities of the universe projecting itself on itself - and I would say that a proper human predictor would function as somewhat the opposite of Napoleon - someone whose self-valuing is entirely latent on the level of consciousness/will, someone whose consciousness is structurally determined by the extra-systemic forces, who reflects a larger system of which he is part in the placid waters of a very fine mind. Who is to the greatest possible measure a function of the world he is born in - versus the Napoleonic type, whose subjectivity, set in a relative power/causal vacuum, gives birth to a new world order.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeTue Nov 13, 2012 8:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This would seem to indicate that we do not inherently have free will but rather we can obtain free will, through i guess determination…

let me clarify something though its been a while sense dealing with your theory of self-valuing… how did the first self-valuing occur that effectively named (in the tao te ching meaning of naming)the universe? Or would you propose that there was no first that self valuing is like the god nature of the universe that has always existed?

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” -Socrates
“Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.” -Cicero
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it.” -Aristotle
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” -Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeSun Nov 18, 2012 2:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Abstract wrote:
This would seem to indicate that we do not inherently have free will but rather we can obtain free will, through i guess determination…
Yes. Freedom, which is never absolute, is won by force.

Quote :
let me clarify something though its been a while sense dealing with your theory of self-valuing… how did the first self-valuing occur that effectively named (in the tao te ching meaning of naming)the universe? Or would you propose that there was no first that self valuing is like the god nature of the universe that has always existed?
I created some thoughts on that, see below. But it’s not crucial or even important to the logic itself. I say with certainty that what did in the end manage to exist, “come from nothing” logically (stand logically against the concept of nothing) and continue to exist, is self-valuing.

  • Something must exist because “nothing” excludes the active impossibility of something.

  • Self-valuing is not merely descriptive of entities that can be rationally declared to exist, but it is also implied by the nature of that all that can be observed and declared to exist, including ‘force’ or affectance - potential to change.

  • The smallest self-valuing is able only to value in terms of itself negatively. It’s “valuing” is a deflection of which it is not.

  • As two different self-valuings deflect nothingness, two things are created:
    • Space, (the mutually deflected, mutual nothingess, rudimentary ‘value’)
    • affectance - deflecting of positive not-selves.

-In the case of affectance, self-valuings value each other negatively in terms of their structural nature as deflectors, but they do behave similarly, and are thus perform similar actions. All deflect both nothingness, and each other.

  • What comes to exist like this is any geometrical form. The simplest form to imagine is the circle: all self-valuings deflect each other “to the side”, while simultaneously deflecting nothingess inward and outward. “Affectance fields” are circular, with the force distributed in the ‘border’. Inward it is ‘weak’.

  • Such organizations of nothingness-deflectings may emerge so as the come into contact with each other. Due to the quantity of affect of such organizations, the greater things that come into each others proximity are, the more different they are from each other, and stronger they are deflected. But in some cases, the deflected negative existence of a ‘sphere of affect’ is so great that smaller spheres are drawn to deflect it as well, and ‘join the circle’, the affect-field. In that case, the affect field, a ‘form’, grows and is able to absorb even greater ‘others’.

  • The deflection of nothingness is the first priority. In the image of the deflection imprinted on itself, the self-valuing recognizes itself. This creates the terms of it’s self-valuing’ - it’s standard of value.

  • Such a standard can be recognized by other entities, and deflected (negatively valued) as well.

  • Two co-deflecting self-valuings “come to terms”, they positively value each other in terms of their own self-valuing (their deflecting nothingess), but as negative. They repel each other while positively ‘recognizing’ the object of negative valuation.

  • This is why when we value in terms of our self-valuing; when we value, we ‘push’ - the greater the ‘fight’, the greater the resistance to nothingness. We seek to overpower, but first and foremost we seek to engage, that whichever ‘speaks to us’, is also inevitably that which has the power to absorb us.

  • Survival as a form depends on capacity to translate that which is appropriated in the circle of affect in terms of the pre-existing form. “Selective forms” remain, other forms are respectively dissolved or transformed into selective forms. Sometimes selective forms are overpowered by far greater, but far less selective forms.

  • The more selective a form is in what it can ‘use’ in terms of deflecting nothingness, the more capable it is to resist change.

  • The more selective a form is, the more specific it’s terms by which it values, and the more specific it’s self-valuing.

  • Man is a supremely selective form. The more selective man is, the more we can speak of a ‘self’.

  • Becoming conscious of being as self-valuing means: establishing a finalized Being. It means to have defeated the chance of being transformed by the very nature of being (deflecting non-being) itself - “imprinting being on becoming”.

  • From this perspective, morality is no longer a matter of adopting custom to ensure survival but risking unseen compromise of structural integrity, but of either inventing means to expand ones realm of influence (to attempt to transform the world according to ones self-value, to be able to value it more), or, where conditions allow it, simply maintaining oneself.

  • Buddha realized the first nature of being - deflecting non being - nirvana as “being nor non-being”, means “affect nor non being”. It is however, being in the sense of deflection (“transcendental clarity”). It does not however contain the power to defend itself or resist the force of other structures from incorporating it. Kung fu has arisen to remain transcendently self-valuing and resist that which is to be valued as negative. Yoga is the simple resisting of resistance - dissolving the circle of affect (society, the roles one has to play to ‘defend the family/country’ etc) in order to ‘face the void alone’. But it is still relatively affective, since the human body doesn’t dissolve as long as all of it’s atoms and subatomic instances affect independently ‘attain nirvana’.

  • "Spiritualized “martial” art but also dance is therefore more ‘peaceful’ toward the fact of existence, and more effective in maintaining structural integrity from which to deflect the void.

  • All temples and religious orders represent spiritualized martial art, selectively organized deflection of the void.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 2191
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeTue Apr 30, 2013 10:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I believe you over-reach in your understanding of the destructiveness of opression.

  • Opression is a form, an organizational value that also happens to be able to hide much that it has no control over, like a pidgeon stretching out its feathers to appear to take more formal (as in geometrical form, like you describe) space, to deflect more nothingness and incorporate more self-valuing than it could be subjectively measured to. To over come opression often means to pat it lightly (no need to fuck up its plumage).

I also believe opression to be primarily a defense mechanism, used to scare both friends and enemies into belicose force re-direction. However, like all genetic memory, what is fine-tuned and forged to do one thing is often transformed into some greater evolutionary affectance, or many smaller ones, or more complex relationships. Quantum physics will be a silly parlor trick 1000 years from now, yet it may appear today to take up more space than is recovarable for other purposes. Its form requires this hiding, it is almost just a kind of consequence that later transforms itself into cause. There is actual, true power to a peacock’s tail, and yet…
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Silenus

Silenus

Posts : 7
Join date : 2012-07-21
Age : 54
Location : Candyland

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeWed May 15, 2013 4:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What, the hell, is “self-valuing”?

Is it another way of saying self-conscious?

Value judgments are based on comparisons.
This also applies to self-consciousnesses, as it is preceded by consciousnesses. Consciousness of other, is returned as a reflection, as a consciousness of self, in relation to the other - as a negation of it.

“I am that which is not the other”

To value yourself you must have a standard. The standard is either a human construct (wealth, status) or it is a product of nature (beauty, symmetry, dominance).

Clarify.

γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003741417025
screw-tin-eyes

screw-tin-eyes

Posts : 9
Join date : 2017-01-12

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeThu Jan 12, 2017 12:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Silenus wrote:
What, the hell, is “self-valuing”?

Is it another way of saying self-conscious?

Value judgments are based on comparisons.
This also applies to self-consciousnesses, as it is preceded by consciousnesses. Consciousness of other, is returned as a reflection, as a consciousness of self, in relation to the other - as a negation of it.

“I am that which is not the other”

To value yourself you must have a standard. The standard is either a human construct (wealth, status) or it is a product of nature (beauty, symmetry, dominance).

Clarify.

My question also.

Did you clarify?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 5:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
screw-tin-eyes wrote:
Silenus wrote:
What, the hell, is “self-valuing”?

Is it another way of saying self-conscious?

Value judgments are based on comparisons.
This also applies to self-consciousnesses, as it is preceded by consciousnesses. Consciousness of other, is returned as a reflection, as a consciousness of self, in relation to the other - as a negation of it.

“I am that which is not the other”

To value yourself you must have a standard. The standard is either a human construct (wealth, status) or it is a product of nature (beauty, symmetry, dominance).

Clarify.

My question also.

Did you clarify?

I suppose there are three kinds of posts: those that deserve a reply, those that do not deserve a reply, and those that deserve to be deleted.

Let’s find out if you can tell the difference. This current post of mine here notwithstanding, of course, and which is more of a courtesy to you.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 11:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Just to state my position to the concept of free will: I am a firm holder of the concept.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
screw-tin-eyes

screw-tin-eyes

Posts : 9
Join date : 2017-01-12

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 12:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable

I suppose there are three kinds of posts: those that deserve a reply, those that do not deserve a reply, and those that deserve to be deleted.
Let’s find out if you can tell the difference. This current post of mine here notwithstanding, of course, and which is more of a courtesy to you.

Oh? You see, I thought philosophy is dedicated to critical thinking and this requires an independent mind, therefore the man/woman (philosopher) who purposely excludes or ignores a person or text, to me does not sound like a person who wants to pursue reasonable discourses. In fact, he sounds very much like a person who is reduced to denial, simply because those that he chooses to ignore have “what it takes”.

Fearlessness is also critical in philosophy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 12:29 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Would a philosopher, or anyone else serious, entertain a troll?

Would you?

Quote :
Fearlessness is also critical in philosophy.

Yes, absolutely.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
screw-tin-eyes

screw-tin-eyes

Posts : 9
Join date : 2017-01-12

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 12:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From condescension to insult.

I will take note.

Would a philosopher, or anyone else serious, entertain a troll?

Who is this troll you speak of?

Is it the original poster?

Is it me?

Is it anyone who asks you for an answer?

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 12:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Stop being so ‘sensitive’, I was not calling you a troll. I was making the point that if a troll tries to talk to you, it would be absurd to entertain it as if it were serious or you had something to gain from the interaction. There are times when deletion of posts is necessary to keep the channels of real communication open.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
screw-tin-eyes

screw-tin-eyes

Posts : 9
Join date : 2017-01-12

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 12:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

Silenus wrote:
To value yourself you must have a standard. The standard is either a human construct (wealth, status) or it is a product of nature (beauty, symmetry, dominance).

Clarify.

Which one is it?

I would be interested to know.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 1:11 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The standard is yourself. That which you are is the logical basis for how you deal in the interactions that you have.

The standard of a being’s valuing itself is itself, its own existence. It is its own standard, which means that in whatever relation or interaction you want to talk about, it sets its own standard in so far as that which it already is is used to determine the measure of success or failure.

What you are determines what you “ought to” be, and what you aren’t yet but are capable of being is also a part of what you ‘are’, since the future unfolds from the present in causal determination. Possibilities comes from necessity. Self-valuing means that whatever a thing is, it “values itself” by setting itself as the standard for interactions. The actual standard will depend on the situation and circumstances. It could be strength, or wealth, or knowledge, or beauty, or any number of other things. That depends on the situation and circumstance at hand, but regardless of whatever the circumstance and situation merit here as a meaningful value-standard, the individual itself holds itself as the measure of that standard, as the originator and terminus of any value thereof.

What is the point of strength, or beauty, or knowledge, or wealth, if this has no translation into ourselves, if it means nothing to us? If that were the case it would be impossible to values these things. And yet, even though they are valuable, they are only valuable because they are valuable to us. Why?

Why is something like strength, or beauty, or knowledge, or wealth valuable to us? Because it enhances us, provides resources material or immaterial that assist our being that which we are, and increase our range of freedoms and possibilities available to us. Beings are built from truths, human beings are built from “ideas”. What we hold as valuable is what accords itself to that fact somehow, whether or not we really know it or understand how or why.

Other than all that, I will let Fixed explain the idea, since it is his idea after all.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 1:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is no such thing as a value itself, there are only values to something that is capable of having values. Food is only valuable to a being that needs to eat, and can happen to eat that particular kind of substance. Beauty is of no value to an ant, but high value to a human. A rock cannot value Mozart.

But a rock can value being a rock, in so far as “being a rock” is what a rock already is and is always doing: it holds itself as that which it is, it resists changing what it is. When a force passes through a rock the rock will resist being broken apart by that force, the molecules-in-relation and that constitute the ‘rock’ will try to maintain their cohesion as structure, and will do so unless the force is adequately strong enough to break that structure apart.

Everything that exists is a kind of structure, and every structure tries to hold itself as what it already is, to self-cohere, to self-value as FC calls it. Living things do that a bit differently and more complexly than non-living things, but everything does it. Existence from moment to moment is not given, it is something that is the result of the actions of beings. They act to keep themselves in existence, to resist and interpret outside forces and interactions in ways that are either beneficial or benign to themselves.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 1:28 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
screw-tin-eyes wrote:

Silenus wrote:
To value yourself you must have a standard. The standard is either a human construct (wealth, status) or it is a product of nature (beauty, symmetry, dominance).

Clarify.

Which one is it?

I would be interested to know.

Neither, as far as I can judge. You see, I didn’t come up with those sophisticated terms. I dont know that wealth and status are separated categorically from beauty, dominance or symmetry.

Where it regards value ontology, to self-value means to be a standard. Where there is an “I” involved, i.e. an ego, an illusory construct, then this ego can pretty much devalue itself as it likes, but its behavior will still tend force it to be part of the selfvaluing, unless he commits suicide by holding his breath.

Breathing is rather obviously the enacting of the valuing oxygen. Oxygen is not our “self”, there is no such thing as a “self”, there is self-valuing. Itself-valuing, one might say. I think silhouette came up with that after I taught him the logic.

Anyway, for a human, selfvaluing, when it concerns a life-form, tends to be based on the value exchange we call breath.
We’re not isolated. The Self is ones entire life including all that one touches. I dont think that amounts to “The All”, that is vanity. It just means the Self extends far beyond what one is aware of or could normally endure. “Know thyself” basically means the same as “nothing in excess”. Know how to know, that it is worthy of what you could become. That is one way to interpret it.

All being self-value. All posit their terms. Some are similar, some are repulsive, some are so symmetrically opposite that they become dependent, or were born of the same impulse. All of this is included for us humans, in taste. Smell, as the combination of breath and taste, is thus the most fundamental instrument of valuing.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

screw-tin-eyes

Posts : 9
Join date : 2017-01-12

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 3:20 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable
The standard of a being’s valuing itself is itself, its own existence. It is its own standard, which means that in whatever relation or interaction you want to talk about, it sets its own standard in so far as that which it already is is used to determine the measure of success or failure.

Is standard setting the methodology used to define levels of achievement?

Then there is the elephant in the room.

Oscar Wilde said, “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.”

We all have inherent value, why the need to rate ourselves, we should just be ourselves.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Free Will Empty
PostSubject: Re: Free Will Free Will Icon_minitimeFri Jan 13, 2017 4:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The same reason that you can eat an orange but not a nail. “You” are defined as a capacity for consuming what is an orange but not what is a nail. When you negotiate an interaction between oranges or nails this inevitably comes into play.

Being oneself is the mosr difficult thing of all. As Hesse said, No man has ever yet been himself. But we approximate it, and that approximation is indeed somewhat amorphous and vaguely defined. And that is a good thing, it leaves room for change, exploration, growth, and mistakes. Almost all of our knowledge was arrived by accident on our part, and not linearly derived. Also, I don’t think that we “rate” ourselves consciously very often, but we.do constantly do this at an unconscious or structural-psychological level.

And yes the basis for that rating can be comparisons to others and absorbing their ideas and standards, which then to an extent become our own, and also to an extent confuse the standards we already have. It’s very complex, that is for sure. Most of what you are isn’t what you “know”, and it is primarily philosophers who test and push back the limit. But of course the limits is always there. And yet even when we are inside that limit, that which we are yet are unaware of it is still determining our values and our standards of value. This is why so much valuing is automatic-unconscious.

56

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Forgiveness Empty
PostSubject: Forgiveness Forgiveness Icon_minitimeWed Sep 23, 2015 5:30 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A quote I saw today said, “People need love most when they deserve it least”. This is probably true.

Forgiveness being divine, when forgiveness has become a substance and inspirited itself within that nature from which it comes, as system and form, then we have what is called love. Love is a living self-value capable of inwardly cycling excess downward into the void and out of its own being. It occurred to me that forgiveness, not as simply an idea but as a real emotional experience, is probably one of the most significant human creations. The range of powers that are needed to forgive well, is tremendous; the excess that must be dealt with, almost compels philosophy for itself which makes me wonder what it is that ordinary people call forgiveness. Surely that must be something different.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Forgiveness Empty
PostSubject: Re: Forgiveness Forgiveness Icon_minitimeSat Nov 12, 2016 7:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Capable wrote:

Quote :
A quote I saw today said, “People need love most when they deserve it least”. This is probably true.

That might be based on christian thinking and feeling and on sentimentality. But I don’t think that it is necessarily true. That would depend on the individual and the circumstances.
Is it possible that giving love in these moments might be the worst that can happen to the person?
Maybe the person who we feel deserves love the most because of our misplaced compassion is the same one who feels he/she has the right to be loved above all others, their narcissism?
In what way does love serve that one?

Quote :
Forgiveness being divine
,

Why is it divine? Because to err is human and to forgive is divine?
In christian mythology, Christ uttered the words from the cross? “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Let’s not forget that it was (supposedly) the flesh and blood human hanging from the cross who also said that.
Forgiveness, real forgiveness, is a human choice.

Quote :
when forgiveness has become a substance and inspirited itself within that nature from which it comes, as system and form, then we have what is called love.

What substance and what nature are you speaking about? I look on forgiveness as an ongoing human process which eventually comes to fruition - - or not --like the process of grief in a way.
But there are people who do not have to go through this process. They just the capacity to let go and to let be. This is more of a psychological leaning I think than a divine one.
The ancient gods were not such forgiving entities, were they?

Quote :
Love is a living self-value capable of inwardly cycling excess downward into the void and out of its own being
.

I don’t understand this.

Quote :
It occurred to me that forgiveness, not as simply an idea but as a real emotional experience, is probably one of the most significant human creations.

It is an emotional experience and as such it is also a process. Just like grief is…denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. We may experience all of these, I believe, on the road to forgiveness. We do also bargain with ourselves and eventually have to give up a part of ourselves in order to forgive.

How is it a significant human creation? Do you mean human evolution? I see it as the instinct for the human species’ survival - whether physically or mentally/emotionally. So, yes, I agree with you here.
That instinct has evolved into compassion and forgiveness. It’s quite logical in a sense because in our forgiving, we are able to move on and experience living more fully and with joy.

Quote :
The range of powers that are needed to forgive well, is tremendous
;

…like clarity, inner strength, self-honesty, seeing the whole landscape of the situation and the other person and observing it non-judgmentally though that is difficult.
For some, that power is called adhering to god’s will and loving god’s creations but loving god’s creations is not so cut and dry.

Quote :
the excess that must be dealt with, almost compels philosophy for itself which makes me wonder what it is that ordinary people call forgiveness. Surely that must be something different.

That would depend on the individual. Some people feel they have forgiven but deep inside those waters still rage.
I think that the christian call to forgiveness and also our subjective thinking that it is the “right” thing to do at times leads to a lot of suppression and repression.

But is always forgiving the most loving thing to do?

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Forgiveness Empty
PostSubject: Re: Forgiveness Forgiveness Icon_minitimeSat Nov 12, 2016 7:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ive always been known to be excessively forgiving. I simply cant manage to hold a grudge. But this is only within the realm of forgiveable trespasses; I do not believe childrape can or should be forgiven. I think it should be punished very severely so as to compromise the life of the rapist irreparably. As it makes no sense to forgive a crime committed against someone who is ruined by it. Unless that person comes to forgiveness somehow - but to forgive a humbled rapist is easier than to forgive a proud one.

In the case of people who have violated my trust in the recent years, of which there have been quite a number, forgiveness is very attainable, as all they need to do is repent, and apologize sincerely. Then forgiveness will come naturally.

A Clinton can not be forgiven, an Obama can. The former acted in full knowledge and understanding of what she destroyed, the latter, I believe, did not. I do think of Obama as having a soul. Thats basically it, a person with a soul can be forgiven.

" 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 Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

Forgiveness Empty
PostSubject: Re: Forgiveness Forgiveness Icon_minitimeSat Nov 12, 2016 8:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross,

Quote :
Ive always been known to be excessively forgiving. I simply cant manage to hold a grudge. But this is only within the realm of forgiveable trespasses;

Maybe some of those times, there really wasn’t a whole lot of meaning in holding on? What I mean is maybe some of those times was just our own petty ego experiencing something which wasn’t there? We do that.

Quote :
I do not believe childrape can or should be forgiven.

As a Mom I agree with you. But maybe we need a different word there, FC.
The person who will or will not forgive is the person who is wronged and that can extend to others who loves that person.
But maybe I’m wrong here. We all feel rage and pain over a child being raped.

The law doesn’t forgive even though it eventually “let’s go” but it also never forgets.

Quote :
I think it should be punished very severely so as to compromise the life of the rapist irreparably. As it makes no sense to forgive a crime committed against someone who is ruined by it. Unless that person comes to forgiveness somehow - but to forgive a humbled rapist is easier than to forgive a proud one.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t usually compromise the life of the rapist irreparably. He gets out and rapes again.
It’s not for me to forgive a humbled rapist but one who does feel remorse and wants help can be understood better, especially if he was raped as a child.

I think that one of the main things that engenders forgiveness is the realization that the other party does feel remorse, knows/understands what the other felt, and the words “I am sorry” are spoken.
To be expected to be forgiven without the caring and the changed attitude which comes from that is just plain arrogance and ego.

Quote :
In the case of people who have violated my trust in the recent years, of which there have been quite a number, forgiveness is very attainable, as all they need to do is repent, and apologize sincerely. Then forgiveness will come naturally.

But do you ever ask Why they did what they did?
Is there ever a discussion? I mean is it possible that your violated trust was simply your perception but that there was no real basis for it?
Sometimes we feel wounded where there was no intent to wound.

And does that mean that they are automatically back within your trust?

Quote :
A Clinton can not be forgiven, an Obama can. The former acted in full knowledge and understanding of what she destroyed, the latter, I believe, did not. I do think of Obama as having a soul. Thats basically it, a person with a soul can be forgiven.

I don’t trust Clinton but I think in terms of forgiveness where that is concerned. But she definitely needs to be held accountable for everything.

A person with a soul? can be forgiven if he/she is sorry.

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Forgiveness Empty
PostSubject: Re: Forgiveness Forgiveness Icon_minitimeSat Nov 12, 2016 3:16 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Often Ive forgiven things that were actually deeply degenerate, just because I figured that person would not actually be that degenerate. Ive been a fool for very long about how wretched, stupid, stuned, blunt and ravaging people as a rule behave in my native country. Here in Quebec I feel only calm, pride and love, especially for the children.

It is possible to empathize with a rape victim who wants to relive the experience to get rid of it - but no. If you can forgive that, then you also forgive his rapist, and the one before that, and inevitably also the first rapist of the line. You have to judge fairly, by what you feel inside, the values you hold when you are happy, you also have to hold them when you are challenged by a bad thing. We must be strong in retribution, and not let the rapist think it is really okay because he was also raped.

Deep down he might even welcome the punishment as a justified reaction to what he has also suffered from. I am certain that childraping can not make a human happy. It violates the law of selfvaluing on all grounds but the most desperately dying, the selfvaluing of one about to dissolve can hold such urges, but I would not call the fulfillment happiness, as it does not move the rapist closer to love. It only may bring a second of homeostasis, after which the obsession is exacerbated.

I feel this is what “having a soul” means - to be able to feel about ones actions, and their results. And I dont see that HRC feels much at all except entitlement. She has ‘served’ 30 years and what has sahe accomplished? Name one good thing… but its easy to see how many millions of lives she ruined, and ended. She’s just bad, by any human standard Ive seen. But the collapse in the van may have been caused by something maybe vaguely related to the notion of “human emotion”. Also her relief at not having won was pretty palpable. They said it was her best speech.

Naturally philosophy is thinking about why people do things, so yes, I have a good idea of why a rapist rapes - it is a brutal desperation implicit in being in the context of absolute rejection. This instinct is primordial, it is present in all of us, but in most of us so minutely that we never have impulses from it. If a person is raped and raped and excluded and raped some more, what does he know but that? Still, it is hardly justified to let him perpetuate the pattern on a new human being. As the Sedona method says, wanting to understand a problem is planning to have it again.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 32
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 59
Location : Columbus, Ohio USA

Forgiveness Empty
PostSubject: Re: Forgiveness Forgiveness Icon_minitimeFri Feb 03, 2017 5:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
As the Sedona method says, wanting to understand a problem is planning to have it again.

Not sure what the Sedona method is. Never heard of it. Not yet sure its worth the time to investigate cause it makes little sense to me as used here. “Wanting to understand a problem” is NOT necessarily “planning to have it again.” Most adults understand that we are all teachers, and we care for our young and those not capable of caring for themselves. We seek to understand problems, to prevent others from going through the same unpleasant experiences as we did. My grandmother would say, “Don’t eat too many green apples or you’ll have a belly ache.” Now did I ever eat too many green apples? Of course! Did her wisdom go to waste? Heck no! I both learned to stop eating too many green apples and I learned to warn others of the resulting belly ache.

57

Pallas
bowstring
bowstring
Pallas

Posts : 15
Join date : 2012-07-19

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeFri Oct 14, 2016 3:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If I attempt to define “PSYCHE” I am at a loss.
I think of this.

65d16366bef75198f03f012f57f6197c.jpg

the [strike that] MY Psyche 65d16366bef75198f03f012f57f6197c

Is it me?

♃⚸♄⚴♅⚵☉
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pallas
bowstring
bowstring
Pallas

Posts : 15
Join date : 2012-07-19

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeFri Oct 14, 2016 4:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s an image, not a thing, but it’s a word, not an image.

You know what I mean?

i.imgflip.com/1cdl2n.jpg

the [strike that] MY Psyche 1cdl2n

i.imgflip.com/1cdmme.jpg

You know what I mean?

♃⚸♄⚴♅⚵☉

Last edited by Pallas on Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pallas
bowstring
bowstring
Pallas

Posts : 15
Join date : 2012-07-19

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeFri Oct 14, 2016 4:58 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
the [strike that] MY Psyche 1cdmme

♃⚸♄⚴♅⚵☉
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pallas
bowstring
bowstring
Pallas

Posts : 15
Join date : 2012-07-19

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeFri Oct 14, 2016 5:03 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You know what I mean?

I know what I mean. I know what you mean. I know what to mean means to you. (and to me)

You know what I mean?

the [strike that] MY Psyche 1cdnew

nothing

♃⚸♄⚴♅⚵☉
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeFri Oct 14, 2016 10:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.

Words are but a representation of our abstract thoughts at understanding reality.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pallas
bowstring
bowstring
Pallas

Posts : 15
Join date : 2012-07-19

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeSat Oct 15, 2016 6:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
No one trusts words.

We only talk to distract from other peoples words.

in bad taste we opine & mingle with words identical to our own which are not [though the typo says mot, french for word, I say not mot, not you overconfident weasel] our own at all but simple truth so we sigh to those that dont say the same, but a slightly different thing…
in good taste we seek out the words most remote from our own
to insulate from the power of words…
then, we learn to speak

speak Being

beyond speaking of being

all until then are incarnate

Designer-pain

in the beginning was the word
the word turned to flesh

easier said!
than fleshed out.

l o fucking l

♃⚸♄⚴♅⚵☉
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeSat Oct 15, 2016 11:07 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Neat response Pallas.

Sad that words include so many lies.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pallas
bowstring
bowstring
Pallas

Posts : 15
Join date : 2012-07-19

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeTue Oct 18, 2016 2:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Emotions

thought l feeling
memory l foresight l pain l pleasure

♃⚸♄⚴♅⚵☉
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeTue Oct 18, 2016 10:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Emotions: Some Buddhists tell us we should eliminate our emotions.

I don’t accept that concept. I think that emotions are a very important part of our natural life.

And I feel it is important that we understand our emotions as well as we possibly can. Most have their roots in our subconscious mind. Understanding the roots (triggers) will help us to avoid conditions that arouse negative emotions and seek out conditions that arouse positive emotions.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pallas
bowstring
bowstring
Pallas

Posts : 15
Join date : 2012-07-19

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeWed Oct 19, 2016 6:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The truth is an ancient man.
The truth is a boy,

The truth is a little kid,

The truth is a mouse, running

The truth is a cosmos.

The truth is this cup of tea
being far beyond truth

being well poured in fact!

♃⚸♄⚴♅⚵☉
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pallas
bowstring
bowstring
Pallas

Posts : 15
Join date : 2012-07-19

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeWed Oct 19, 2016 7:05 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
Emotions: Some Buddhists tell us we should eliminate our emotions.

NO!! Evil Buddhists. You will never take away my the [strike that] MY Psyche 200

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9jblPzauDk[/youtube]

The Psyche must get angry before it is too late…!!!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PGfgeValJM[/youtube]

Quote :
I don’t accept that concept. I think that emotions are a very important part of our natural life.

And I feel it is important that we understand our emotions as well as we possibly can. Most have their roots in our subconscious mind. Understanding the roots (triggers) will help us to avoid conditions that arouse negative emotions and seek out conditions that arouse positive emotions.

We must tell our world what we want to feel.

media.giphy.com/media/ya5zR5fOLvSxO/giphy.gif

media.giphy.com/media/CsX2sqtFlV55e/giphy.gif

the [strike that] MY Psyche Giphy

It will tell us what we need to feel.

the [strike that] MY Psyche Giphy

♃⚸♄⚴♅⚵☉
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pallas
bowstring
bowstring
Pallas

Posts : 15
Join date : 2012-07-19

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeWed Oct 19, 2016 8:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

the [strike that] MY Psyche Giphy

♃⚸♄⚴♅⚵☉

Last edited by Pallas on Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:48 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pallas
bowstring
bowstring
Pallas

Posts : 15
Join date : 2012-07-19

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeWed Oct 19, 2016 9:23 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When you ask to pass the salt but the food is already really salty

the [strike that] MY Psyche Giphy

♃⚸♄⚴♅⚵☉
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeWed Oct 19, 2016 11:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ah, yes, anger management. Some of us don’t do very well at that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeThu Nov 10, 2016 6:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus

Quote :
Most have their roots in our subconscious mind. Understanding the roots (triggers) will help us to avoid conditions that arouse negative emotions and seek out conditions that arouse positive emotions.

We have to dig deeper than that - deeper than the triggers unless that’s what you meant by understanding them.

What are their origins? Whether they go far back to our individual beginnings or were just born yesterday.

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeThu Nov 10, 2016 6:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pallas wrote:
If I attempt to define “PSYCHE” I am at a loss.
I think of this.

the [strike that] MY Psyche 65d16366bef75198f03f012f57f6197c

Is it me?

Some call it the Self - some call it the soul.
It’s all of you included.

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeThu Nov 10, 2016 9:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Sisyphus

Quote :
Most have their roots in our subconscious mind. Understanding the roots (triggers) will help us to avoid conditions that arouse negative emotions and seek out conditions that arouse positive emotions.

We have to dig deeper than that - deeper than the triggers unless that’s what you meant by understanding them.

What are their origins? Whether they go far back to our individual beginnings or were just born yesterday.

Agree. Are they there from personal experience or are they things we were taught that we never questioned?

There are a lot of things happening because of the info that is in our subconscious mind. We should try to understand what’s going on in our brain.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: The Soul the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeTue Jan 24, 2017 1:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Think of your soul as a diamond, and every waking moment a spark of light tracing one of the ridges between two facets, or dwelling at a crossroads.

How many roads, and how many one chooses to travel - this is depending on the soul and the personality respectively.

Do you have the courage to your own soul?
That not only depends on the type of person you are, but also on what the consequences can be, if you do.

“We rarely have the courage for what we truly know” said Nietzsche.
But there comes a time when the rare will determine the fate of all mankind.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeWed Jan 25, 2017 12:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I hold to both the concept of soul and of spirit.

However, for me, the soul is our subconscious mind and our spirit is our Chi energy.

When our body dies our soul dies as well. However, our spirit returns to the total energy of the universe.

The soul is from where our spontaneous inspirations arise.

Yes, a good question: Do we have the courage to follow our soul’s desires?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeSat Feb 04, 2017 8:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yoga is actually largely about anger.

sarahprout.com/spiritual-people- … 43cc6e0219

“Things got really ugly and my energy went berzerko (AKA batshit crazy). It’s a space I don’t usually allow myself to enter into, but my energy was so out of whack that I succumbed to the dark side.”

What you do in Kryia Yoga is fast burning of karma. So it is that they see it, I mean. It is a very aggressive style of dealing with Earths imperfections.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

the [strike that] MY Psyche Empty
PostSubject: Re: the [strike that] MY Psyche the [strike that] MY Psyche Icon_minitimeSun Feb 05, 2017 12:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, anger management is important. Too few are good at that.

58

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Psychiatry talk (the Philosophers) Empty
PostSubject: Psychiatry talk (the Philosophers) Psychiatry talk (the Philosophers) Icon_minitimeSat Feb 11, 2017 11:53 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8HDN-z_z64[/youtube]

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail pinterest.com/jakobmilikowski/soup/ Online
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Psychiatry talk (the Philosophers) Empty
PostSubject: Re: Psychiatry talk (the Philosophers) Psychiatry talk (the Philosophers) Icon_minitimeSat Feb 11, 2017 12:12 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fuck yes.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Psychiatry talk (the Philosophers) Empty
PostSubject: Re: Psychiatry talk (the Philosophers) Psychiatry talk (the Philosophers) Icon_minitimeTue Feb 14, 2017 8:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer is a genius.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Taste & Appetite Empty
PostSubject: Taste & Appetite Taste & Appetite Icon_minitimeWed Mar 22, 2017 2:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Taste reflects values, appetite power.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

To trust a woman Empty
PostSubject: To trust a woman To trust a woman Icon_minitimeThu Jan 26, 2017 5:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ive come to the conclusion that “a man” (basically, I qua man) can only afford to trust one woman at a time. And this woman must be the women that gives herself to me. I don’t think woman is capable of being trustworthy for the sake of it. She has no mind of such consistency - what I can trust a woman with is her feelings, and if these feelings run toward me and my satisfaction, spiritually and physically in love, then this is worth the highest of all trust, as high as the trust between a man and his god, which exceeds his trust in himself; trust in a value higher than himself in his own terms.

This means that often a man will not be able to trust any woman. I do not think one can trust ones mother, on general principle. Of course one must love ones mother and honor her, and be trustworthy to her, but one can never know her. You cant know the woman that knew you since you were nothing. She can never look at you as an equal, she can never fully submit to your will, not in equality. One has to overcome ones mother, and in this way one rewards her, and puts her heart at ease. But this must be done outside of her sphere of trust - generally with another woman.

As a man I can trust many men. I understand them, and can predict their behavior to not cross through certain limits. If Ive seen a man repeatedly prove himself noble, I trust that man, and such trust has never been betrayed. I know at least 5 such men, and I know I’ll always be able to trust them. But this trust means something different from the trust I give a woman. I don’t abandon myself to men, I don’t give myself in their hands, I don’t take their lives in mine. To trust a woman means to let go of all expectations, and put all trust in trust itself.

In this way, the universe of ones values is overturned. All things that were trusted out of tradition, custom, they become old and grey and fall apart like ashes. The birth of a child or a philosophy is a natural result.

Trust for its own sake -
much like Depth for its own sake.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

To trust a woman Empty
PostSubject: Re: To trust a woman To trust a woman Icon_minitimeThu Jan 26, 2017 5:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Having been married and divorced three times I likely wont have much to say in this thread.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

To trust a woman Empty
PostSubject: Re: To trust a woman To trust a woman Icon_minitimeThu Jan 26, 2017 5:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Since you’re here, Id still like to ask you a question.
Did any of these women merit your trust at one point, and did you gain anything in your heart or mind from trusting her?

My point is perhaps also about trust itself, about what it can do for us, even beyond the situation we find ourselves in with one we trust.

In fact, to trust a woman as Ive said, may very well mean that ones trust includes all sorts of untrustworthiness. To trust in a womans duplicity, to trust her not despite of it, but with it -

Come to think, Id never want to be with a woman behind whose eyes I didn’t suspect a whole web of intrigue. It’s that which in her reflects life, as directly as a lions growl reflects it.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

To trust a woman Empty
PostSubject: Re: To trust a woman To trust a woman Icon_minitimeThu Jan 26, 2017 11:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Since you’re here, Id still like to ask you a question.
Did any of these women merit your trust at one point, and did you gain anything in your heart or mind from trusting her?

That happened with the third one. She never questioned me and I never questioned her. Sad thing was that she became an introvert and I was left out of her imaginary world. No reason to remain together.

Yes, if trust is there, there will be no reason for questions regarding trust. One less trouble on the mind.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
Arcturus Descending

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

To trust a woman Empty
PostSubject: Re: To trust a woman To trust a woman Icon_minitimeSat Apr 29, 2017 9:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross
[quoteAs a man I can trust many men. I understand them, and can predict their behavior to not cross through certain limits. If Ive seen a man repeatedly prove himself noble, I trust that man, and such trust has never been betrayed. I know at least 5 such men, and I know I’ll always be able to trust them. But this trust means something different from the trust I give a woman. I don’t abandon myself to men, I don’t give myself in their hands, [/quote]
Couldn’t you say in a sense that you have “abandoned” yourself to these male friends of yours, based on their behavior in the past or so far?

Quote :
I don’t take their lives in mine. and put all trust in trust itself.

How does one put all trust in “trust” itself?

Quote :
To trust a woman means to let go of all expectations,

I have learned that it is not an easy thing to let go of all expectations. It might even be lying to one’s self.
Is that trust then? Sounds more like futility to me. lol

Quote :
In this way, the universe of ones values is overturned. All things that were trusted out of tradition, custom, they become old and grey and fall apart like ashes. The birth of a child or a philosophy is a natural result.

You mean you begin to see things with different “eyes” you become renewed and changed.

Quote :
Trust for its own sake -
much like Depth for its own sake.

Is that even possible?

Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.

Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."

“If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.”

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

To trust a woman Empty
PostSubject: Re: To trust a woman To trust a woman Icon_minitimeSat Apr 29, 2017 10:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Good day Arc, nice to see this thread revived. I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it, no content was lost as I put it back together but some form may have, if so I apologize.

Quote :
Fixed Cross

Quote :
As a man I can trust many men. I understand them, and can predict their behavior to not cross through certain limits. If Ive seen a man repeatedly prove himself noble, I trust that man, and such trust has never been betrayed. I know at least 5 such men, and I know I’ll always be able to trust them. But this trust means something different from the trust I give a woman. I don’t abandon myself to men, I don’t give myself in their hands,

Couldn’t you say in a sense that you have “abandoned” yourself to these male friends of yours, based on their behavior in the past or so far?

Parodites, Capable, Sauwelios and Pezer are my friends that you know, and none of them has ever not merited my friendship, and all of them contributed to my happiness significantly. Someone who doesn’t have an 11th house Aquarius Sun wouldn’t feel this as powerfully perhaps, and someone with less of a Leo influence might not feel the need to exult it as much.

Quote :
Quote :
I don’t take their lives in mine. and put all trust in trust itself.

How does one put all trust in “trust” itself?

I must have meant something but I cant recall what it was.
Ah - I meant that if one cant trust at all, then one… can trust no one. If you cant trust that trust is ultimately validated, then you cant trust at all.

Hence, I suppose, God. The image of the humans trust in trust, her faith in the justification of her trust.

Quote :
Quote :
To trust a woman means to let go of all expectations,

I have learned that it is not an easy thing to let go of all expectations. It might even be lying to one’s self.
Is that trust then? Sounds more like futility to me. lol

Or a catharsis.

Quote :
Quote :
In this way, the universe of ones values is overturned. All things that were trusted out of tradition, custom, they become old and grey and fall apart like ashes. The birth of a child or a philosophy is a natural result.

You mean you begin to see things with different “eyes” you become renewed and changed.

Yes, veils of pale shadows and spider webs fell away from before my eyes.

Recently, Ive been at a reception of Dutch people. I was reminded instantly of the veil.

Quote :
Quote :
Trust for its own sake -
much like Depth for its own sake.

Is that even possible?

At a cost.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Death and Taxes Empty
PostSubject: Death and Taxes Death and Taxes Icon_minitimeTue May 23, 2017 9:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is the particularly human capacity for debt related to his particular knowledge of death?

If so, how?

The death-drive is bullcrap, what we see in Freuds cases of study is rather the drive to avoid knowledge of death -
and this is precisely what occurs in Zizek, and in Stalin, who simply denied the fact of the existence - and thus also of the death - of his victims.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Death and Taxes Empty
PostSubject: Re: Death and Taxes Death and Taxes Icon_minitimeTue May 23, 2017 9:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
We can successfully negate the absoluteness of death in many ventures as humans - as animals we do it breeding, as scientists we do it conceiving of truth and modulating reality thereby, and as artists we simply create creatures of passionate valuation that roam throughout humanity’s sphere of knowledge… of death and debt, of chase, guilt, punishment, reward, overcoming the enemy who did wrong - making things right - the positivist drive that brings forth such ideas as justice, this is what the knowledge of death bestows on the human race.

Many animals know of death, clearly… elephants and vultures are good examples. They must thus also possess some rudiment of philosophic thought, of positivism - which reminds me that Pezer showed a great appreciation of the vulture.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Death and Taxes Empty
PostSubject: Re: Death and Taxes Death and Taxes Icon_minitimeTue May 23, 2017 11:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Taxes are getting higher. Death is still the same.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Empty
PostSubject: The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Icon_minitimeSun May 07, 2017 7:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arg.
I just saw a link to an article titled “what if a meteor hits the Earth at light-speed?”
The idea of people clicking that link and chattering about it excitedly somehow is as nauseating to me as anything.
The abuse, rape of scientific terms to satisfy the idiotic sensationalist brains of the postmodern hordes.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Empty
PostSubject: Re: The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Icon_minitimeSun May 07, 2017 8:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Empty
PostSubject: Re: The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Icon_minitimeSun May 07, 2017 11:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, “What if” questions are valid but they should always be based in reality. A meteor cannot travel at light speed. But they do hit Earth now and then.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Empty
PostSubject: Re: The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Icon_minitimeSun Aug 06, 2017 9:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I didn’t know where to post this, but realized this thread would actually fit. Imagine the terribly ugliness of this much ignorance being coupled with the “excitement” of the SJW type…

Also, I have worked in elementary schools before, and I can tell you that this is not entirely far off… logically this is the future, if the leftist marxists win.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM[/youtube]

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Empty
PostSubject: Re: The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Icon_minitimeSun Aug 06, 2017 11:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have had enough negative thoughts regarding the American education system. I don’t need any more negative reinforcement.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Empty
PostSubject: Re: The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” The ugliness of ignorance coupled with “excitement” Icon_minitimeMon Aug 07, 2017 3:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was tempted to post that video on Facebook, but I think most of my um “friends” on it would actually agree with the teacher.

59

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

“Cultural appropriation”, and sexual preference/mate selection Empty
PostSubject: “Cultural appropriation”, and sexual preference/mate selection “Cultural appropriation”, and sexual preference/mate selection Icon_minitimeSat Aug 12, 2017 8:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bVKIcP36es[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt4GEMQKrq0[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofvBFC3cFZQ[/youtube]

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Narcissistic encirclement Empty
PostSubject: Narcissistic encirclement Narcissistic encirclement Icon_minitimeMon Aug 14, 2017 4:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Just want to coin a new term for the barrier between self and ‘other’. By narcissistic I do not mean “bad”, I mean self-refractive like two mirrors facing one another, or like a pond surrounded by the shoreline. What I like is how we can navigate inside and also at the edge, and even peek out of the edge and glimpse the total difference of what is like outside the encirclement.

I think children (very young, as in age 4 and below) don’t have a narcissistic encirclement yet and so basically live in the outside world as a proxy of it. What madness they must experience! But also a kind of simple purity of action and willing, not confused by differences between inner and outer. But then “the self” forms, a personality can develop due to narcissistic encirclement, and also this thrusts upward being into new heights as dis/agreements are now needed to be negotiated rather than simply responded to.

A philosopher is someone whose narcissistic encirclement is very intense, the boundary is severe, but the ‘pressure’ of the inner space is so extreme that it forces expansions outside the encirclement boundary. When Nietzsche went mad he didn’t simply collapse with that horse and then lose his mind and stop speaking, no-- he collapsed and then went for a few days in a sort of in between state, alternating lucidity and madness, drawn aloft from himself into the world and without recognizing the boundary between himself and others (for example, didn’t understand how outside events were affecting him or focused on him), and then would switch to being trapped inside himself and unaware of the outside world and entirely passive in terms of it. I think the pressure of his narcissistic encirclement blew out the ‘ring’ boundary around himself, and he was forced to exist only by pure force of his own gravity of self, but without a boundary that isn’t possible to do and still maintain what we call sanity. There’s a nice epilogue in my book of his Letters that explains details from his last few days before being committed, and then a brief overview of some of his commitment.

Building up the inner pressure of our self requires a stronger boundary between oneself and the world. A philosopher is one who feels the heat and fire of the world so intensely that he is forced to augment his boundary, his narcissistic encirclement, in order to protect himself, and this reinforcement allows for much more inner self-pressure to develop. In fact the self-pressure must increase if the boundary is becoming harder and thicker, otherwise one feels that oneself is shrinking into oneself and liable to vanish.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Narcissistic encirclement Empty
PostSubject: Re: Narcissistic encirclement Narcissistic encirclement Icon_minitimeMon Aug 14, 2017 6:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course this isn’t entirely accurate, since even infants have a personality from day1.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Narcissistic encirclement Empty
PostSubject: Re: Narcissistic encirclement Narcissistic encirclement Icon_minitimeMon Aug 14, 2017 7:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thats a very good concept though.

I think philosophy requires that one periodically or continuously break open the encirclement so as to let it fall into place at a further horizon - to include as much empirical reality as possible into the sphere without having it lose its narcissistic integrity - its symmetry to itself, which is the self-valuing principle I suppose as it sets itself against other instances of itself in difference and opposition. Heraclitus statement of the river is still a fixed identifier, the flux has become a fixed center to which man relates as changeling.
This the pain of philosophy and of honourably self-valuing I general, as it may be painful for a flower to open to the sun.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Narcissistic encirclement Empty
PostSubject: Re: Narcissistic encirclement Narcissistic encirclement Icon_minitimeMon Aug 14, 2017 11:55 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
My personal life has boundaries. I have established these boundaries. The universe has no boundaries. Now and then I get to leave my domain and enter the domain of the universe.

Why do we establish our boundaries? Survival.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Why I hate academics Empty
PostSubject: Why I hate academics Why I hate academics Icon_minitimeMon Aug 28, 2017 9:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
These brain dead idiots do not know how to think, they do not even know that thinking exists. They are religious-ideological, pathological “thinkers” who are only interested in forcing everything to conform to the terms of their already given conceptual frameworks. Then they use those terms alternatively, switching between categories, in order to avoid more logical reconciliations and deductions.

Case in point, some cunt trying to refute my explanation of evolutionary epistemology, by saying that “necessity is a metaphysical term, not an epistemological one”. This cunt quite literally cannot think that our epistemological capacity derives from the necessities that pushed us to need to conform to natural selection in order to even fucking exist at all. The fact that if we could not judge visual distances accurately enough to successfully navigate the environment in a way that allows us to survive to reproduce then we would not even be here, then the capacity of visual identification would not even exist, is not something he can understand… he literally cannot grasp this.

He also claimed that evolution was prescriptive and ends-focused. I asked him how that works exactly, and he said the question “how?” was irrelevant because of the phenomenological explanation that renders evolutionary epistemology “merely descriptive”. Lol. I explained that evolution had no intentions and no goals, it is simply a blind after the fact process whereby random mutations and situational contingent circumstances lead some organisms to survive while others do not, and the surviving ones are the ones that end up passing on their structure through reproduction. Again, he rejected this not because he could refute my point, but by saying “there is a better explanation, that such and such property just exists and is a function x.” Yeah, I am not even making this up.

I fucking hate these insane idiots.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

Why I hate academics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Why I hate academics Why I hate academics Icon_minitimeMon Aug 28, 2017 11:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don’t know how you put up with them. They don’t even exist.
Hating them is already too much. They aren’t there. Thats literally the case, they aren’t entities self valuing toward you, they are literally just part of the environment, “saying things” like a brick emits a certain color.
You can talk to the brick but it won’t change its color. Just as little as academics will be able to change their mantras.

Indeed there can be no thought behind any of these uttering, and indeed thought is wholly unknown to them - all this is factual. they have heard these terms from a professor or read the in a book, and now these words have become what they are. In ten years they will be saying some other random crap, and they will still not exist, not any more than a brick exists as a self valuing.

They have been construed for certain purposes, they did not emerge on their own accord - their bodies did, but these are merely the hosts to the Academic Anti-Mind, which is collectivistic.

They are literally just another brick in the wall. At that, it is the Berlin Wall, and this is 1989.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Why I hate academics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Why I hate academics Why I hate academics Icon_minitimeMon Aug 28, 2017 11:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I don’t know how you put up with them. They don’t even exist.
Hating them is already too much. They aren’t there. Thats literally the case, they aren’t entities self valuing toward you, they are literally just part of the environment, “saying things” like a brick emits a certain color.
You can talk to the brick but it won’t change its color. Just as little as academics will be able to change their mantras.

Hahaha, yes exactly.

Quote :
Indeed there can be no thought behind any of these uttering, and indeed thought is wholly unknown to them - all this is factual. they have heard these terms from a professor or read the in a book, and now these words have become what they are. In ten years they will be saying some other random crap, and they will still not exist, not any more than a brick exists as a self valuing.

Lol. Yes.

I am glad you decided to reply here. I was beginning to lose hope but now I realize that hope is the antithesis of these non-beings, so fuck em.

Quote :
They have been construed for certain purposes, they did not emerge on their own accord - their bodies did, but these are merely the hosts to the Academic Anti-Mind, which is collectivistic.

They are literally just another brick in the wall. At that, it is the Berlin Wall, and this is 1989.

They exist only as subentities entirely passive to that which overvalues them. Yes. I like this.

Thus they do not matter, and I am free to not concern myself with their filth.

“Be clever, Ariadne! …
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? …
I am your labyrinth …”. -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sisyphus
Path
Path

Posts : 1647
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

Why I hate academics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Why I hate academics Why I hate academics Icon_minitimeMon Aug 28, 2017 11:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
While reading Fixed’s post a song came to my mind. It’s a Rock-A-Billy song.

The words that came to mind are:

I looked into her eyes and there was nobody there.

I’m beginning to believe in Zombies.

Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

Why I hate academics Empty
PostSubject: Re: Why I hate academics Why I hate academics Icon_minitimeMon Aug 28, 2017 11:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sisyphus wrote:
While reading Fixed’s post a song came to my mind. It’s a Rock-A-Billy song.

The words that came to mind are:

I looked into her eyes and there was nobody there.

I’m beginning to believe in Zombies.

Haha. Yeah man.

Zombie apocalypse, here we come. Need to get some Woody Harrelson over here.

60

800px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg.png
800px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg.png800×566 24.3 KB

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeThu Sep 07, 2017 11:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am transferring a discussion I was engaging Sauwelios in on his Facebook page to here, as I can no longer guarantee my emotional stability without completely avoiding my former network there.

I will first post his OP and then my response to it.

Sauwelios wrote:
“Let us begin by noting certain facts about the society in which we grew up, facts which every youngster learns in the course of his early life. The first fact we must know is that people differ with respect to their social status. By status we mean such things as the amount of money a man earns, the kind of education he has had, or which he can afford for his children, the kind of house he lives in, and the part of the town in which he lives, his accent, the kind of people he mixes with, and so on and so forth. […] In addition to status, which is an objective fact which can easily be ascertained with regard to any particular person, we have another concept which is much more subjective in character, but which is also of considerable importance in our analysis. That is the concept of social class. Whatever their objective status may be, people in the democratic countries tend to think of society as being grouped into various classes, and they tend to consider themselves as belonging to one or other of them. […] While the concept of class is subjectively dependent on each individual’s private opinions and beliefs, it does, in fact, have a strong factual relation to social status. The Av+ [status] group tends to think of itself as upper and upper-middle class; the Av group tends to think of itself as middle class; while the Av- group, and more particularly the very poor, tend to think of themselves as working class.” (Hans Eysenck, Sense and Nonsense in Psychology (1957), “Politics and Personality”.)"]

The Hierarchies of Human Values 800px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg
Maslows Hierarchy of Needs

In principle, everyone in the West can be sure to have their physiological needs and their need for safety met. The other three categories define, in my view, the three natural classes of human beings (as identified by, e.g., Plato and Nietzsche): 3. Those for whom love/belonging is the highest good. Among drug users, this is the XTC crowd. 2. Those for whom esteem is the highest good. Among drug users, this is the coke and amfetamines crowd. 1. Those for whom self-actualization is the highest good. Among drug users, this is the psychedelics crowd. “Love gives the greatest feeling of power. To grasp to what extent not man in general but a certain species of man speaks here. […] Here is the happiness of the herd, the feeling of community in great and small things […]. Being helpful and useful and caring for others continually arouses the feeling of power [here.]” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 176, Kaufmann translation.)"]

Ive always disagreed with such pyramids. For example, I think that physiological needs are the most difficult to meet (the true issue of evolution, progress), and that this difficulty is cause of the most insidious problems like sociopathy, which I see as ruling Northern Europe almost entirely. when I look at pictures of Northern European cities, I see a species in severe decay, with nervous systems that don’t really connect to the higher functions of the brain anymore - out of pure despair.

For a man, physiological needs can not be met in complacency, in the harmful “safety” of a European city - such cities destroy natural physiology, which is, I believe, the reason for “transgenderism”, which is really nothing more than a mask for voluntary castration, the self-chosen end of a genetic line – pure physiological failure.

I would argue that consumerism relies on the never-being-fulfilled of the physiological passion.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeThu Sep 07, 2017 6:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What you say reminds me of what Zarathustra tells the despisers of the body at the end of his speech of the same name:

“No longer can your Self do that which it desireth most:–create beyond itself. That is what it desireth most; that is all its fervour.
But it is now too late to do so:–so your Self wisheth to succumb, ye despisers of the body.
To succumb–so wisheth your Self; and therefore have ye become despisers of the body. For ye can no longer create beyond yourselves.
And therefore are ye now angry with life and with the earth. And unconscious envy is in the sidelong look of your contempt.
I go not your way, ye despisers of the body! Ye are no bridges for me to the Superman!
Thus spake Zarathustra.” (Common translation.)

All the needs Maslow lists are individual needs, and it’s only the highest kind of need, the need for self-actualization, that he essentially connects to self-transcendence. I think he is right in this, though I probably differ from him content-wise. But formally, I tend to agree.

The need for sex is an individual need. (Asexuals supposedly do not have this need, but you may rank these among transgenders and the like.) The pleasurability of sex has evolved because, other things being equal, individuals who want sex more tend to have more sex, and individuals who have more sex tend to have more offspring. The individual need have no awareness of this mechanism in order for it to work.

Moreover, it does not always work, because other things are sometimes very unequal. Take the example of bees. Worker bees do not procreate themselves. Genetically, they do not need to, for their “strategy” is much more successful: by working, fighting, and even dying for their sister the queen, their genes are much better represented in the next generation than if both they and their sister each just procreated modestly for themselves. And again, it’s highly improbable that they are aware of this mechanism. The modern-scientific view, at any rate, is that such behavior was just selected, passively, because of its evolutionary success. Countless different kinds of behavior were weeded out, even though they were no more irrational.

Now I do think modern science, and (thereby) modernity in general, are relatively sociopathic. It seems almost impossible to be successful in the higher echelons of business and politics without being a sociopath. The Machiavellian (i.e., modern) political-philosophical strategy has been precisely to give free reign to such people, letting them curb themselves by appealing to their psychology in the form of public praise/blame and monetary reward/punishment (“ignominy and fines”, as Bacon called the negatives). I say “relatively”, by the way, because I suspect it was always somewhat like this. I think tyrants have always been sociopaths or psychopaths.

Also by the way, here are a couple of strong literary connections between sociopathy and psychopathy on the one hand, and cocaine use on the other. The contemporary view of Sherlock Holmes, as depicted in the BBC series Sherlock, is as a “high-functioning sociopath”; and Conan Doyle’s original was a notorious cocaine user. My other example is American Psycho, which I surely don’t need to explain. Trump, by the way, was Bateman’s hero, and he’s certainly moved in those circles for most of his life, though this doesn’t mean he’s a sociopath. As I said, it seems almost impossible to be successful in the higher echelons of business and politics without being a sociopath. But if Trump is a Caesar, as I believe you think, it’s still true that there are tyrannical as well as royal Caesars.

Anyway… Modern science is sociopathic because it rejects the soul of Aristotelian science–the formal and final cause–, leaving only the body–the material and efficient cause. The way I understand (adopt) Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, self-actualization is nothing else than the final cause of man–that which makes him human, truly human. Compared to normal, subhuman so-called humans, this is indeed the Superman. But this does not need to consist in, or even involve, physical procreation. Thus Nietzsche writes:

“O afternoon of my life! What did I not surrender that I might have one thing: this living plantation of my thoughts, and this dawn of my highest hope!
Companions did the creating one once seek, and children of his hope: and lo, it turned out that he could not find them, except he himself should first create them.
Thus am I in the midst of my work, to my children going, and from them returning: for the sake of his children must Zarathustra perfect himself.
For in one’s heart one loveth only one’s child and one’s work; and where there is great love to oneself, then is it the sign of pregnancy: so have I found it.” (Zarathustra, “Involuntary Bliss”.)

As far as we know, most of the great philosophers did not physically, genetically procreate; but so much the more spiritually, memetically! In fact, I think what’s genetically inherited, for example the brain, is only the environment in which memes may survive and flourish–memes being ultimately nothing else than electromagnetic activity such as occurs in the brain. (In this view the ouroboros I sport as my avatar image is as such not a meme; only insofar as it’s perceived (seen, remembered, etc.) is it a meme.)

::

At this point I lost the vibe I was writing this in (I was at work). I could think of more to add, but I think it’s enough for now.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeFri Sep 08, 2017 3:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I largely agree. What I would note is that in consumerist western society it is very hard for a large segment of the male population to find sexual partners, and that this is largely due to the behaviour of woman in large populations, where they gravitate to wealth and material security, which is so superabundant in certain circles that it becomes hard for the lower echelons to acquire a mate. Since women more often than not gravitate toward money, and society evolves to economically exalt sociopaths, I would say it is n fact harder in western society for any people to get their physiological needs met than it is in say, the jungle of Africa or poor Favela towns in Brazil. Which of course is very much the West, but still.

Consumerism is perhaps a sociopathy stimulating economic model, and it certainly thrives on dissatisfied males, perhaps more even on dissatisfied females. Dissatisfied people simply tend to constantly want to consume stuff. For this and for other reasons I believe that western societies propagate the unsatisfied physiological state, and make sure that a good segment of the population is always in need.

" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 41
Location : Amsterdam

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeFri Sep 08, 2017 9:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But is it really so hard for a large segment of the male population to find sexual partners? There’s also a hierarchy among the female population, and the sociopathic male elite will only accept the top of that hierarchy: “hardbodies”, to speak with American Psycho. It’s a question of standards: a male can always wait in a bar on Saturday evening, till it’s getting late and all the pretty girls have already gone home with someone. (I don’t know this from personal experience, but thanks to a certain cynic.) Also, there’s prostitution, of course, not to mention sex without a partner: the whole porn and sex toy industry. Of course, the latter is not the same as a real female body, but I think that, as soon as it’s no longer just about such a body (an object) but also about the soul or spirit or whatever (the subject), we no longer find ourselves in the physiology department but now in the love/belonging department (note by the way that there’s no sharp distinction between the departments, and in between those two is the safety department: e.g., feeling safe, comfortable with someone).

As for the three upper departments, I think the love/belonging one is the highest with which the herd type is really familiar, and the esteem one the highest with which the “warrior” (serial killer) type is really familiar. As such, they do feature a form of transcendence, yet these forms don’t really transcend the individual. In Platonic terms, the love/belonging (eros/epithymia) level tends to involve seeking personal immortality through one’s offspring, but one’s offspring is just a partial genetic and memetic image (nature and nurture) of oneself; likewise, the esteem (thymos) level tends to involve seeking personal immortality through fame, but what’s famous is just a distorted memetic image of oneself. Only on the level of self-actualization (logos/nous) can real transcendence be achieved, for this is concerned not with immortality but with eternity.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7168
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeFri Sep 08, 2017 9:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is curious to hear you say that, as I think you personally know quite a few males for whom this has been a serious problem.
And I know this cynic you relate of, he is to my eyes always been an utter fool, he has never really made a lot of sense to me.
I know from experience that it does not work the way he says. Everybody has to make quite a controlled effort to find a mate. That the cynic is himself a bottom feeder does not mean that every individual can lower himself to that standard, that he is physiologically able of deriving satisfaction from that. And masturbation is definitely not a substitute for a human body. I think even that homosexuality is result largely of not having the prospect of a satisfying partner of the other sex. The numbers for the US suggest that about 70 percent of people have had sex the past year, which is to say far less than that woud be sexually satisfied, as the sexual need is a permanent affair, and need to be satisfied at least weekly, I would say, to be considered in the range of satisfaction. I would thin the number of people who attain that ratio is far lower in the west than it is in the south. It is lowest in Japan, which even though hit is Far East it could be said to have become a pioneer in western standards, to be the most advanced country in western terms. That country is dying of its populations inability to find even the hope of physiological satisfaction.

I rather count physiological satisfaction as the final, the top of the pyramid, as it represents the main criterium that matters in evolution. Mate-selection is the game with the highest stakes, and the most dramatic rate of failure.

Procreation is of course not the same as having sex, but it obviously requires it, the two belong to the same “value-physics” - external selection, which is a very tricky and/or violent affair in most sexual species and perhaps most of all in mankind. I think the structural lack of satisfaction in western societies is the driving force of the modern economy. To want to watch porn, I would hold, one must already be unsatisfied. Especially if one watches it with a sexual partner, real physiological satisfaction appears to be very hard to attain.

By extension, Id suggest that the populations average power to be sexually satisfied is dependent on cultural vigour. In a declining culture, people are just horrid, and they make do with defining specimens. For example, I was calling to my embassy today, the voice of the automated menu was so degenerate, I had to hold the phone away from my ears as I made my way to a person. That person was endurable in this case, but I have found that in Holland it has been nearly impossible for me to find a woman of Dutch origin with who I would want to mate. I would say I met, in the last ten years of my being there, one girl that seemed psychologically fit enough, but she was 19 and the absolute top league and I wasn’t doing too well at the time, living on my own attic above my cousin, having broken up with the very un-Dutch and very traditional and old fashioned, even Patrician K.

I know a to of people find partners. But I doubt that they are physiologically very satisfied. Our dear cynic certainly will never attain such satisfaction, given the standards he sets for himself, which are truly retarded, the standards of a spiritual leper.

I personally have enjoyed more the game of scaring the beautiful and amusing the most beautiful of the truly simple ones, thats a game that is always appreciated by the heart, and sometimes this resulted in an unexpected conquest. But it is only here, in the preserved wild of Quebec, that I find women truly agreeable as beings. And only here did I find complete physiological satisfaction coupled with belonging. The tongue - la langue - is to me the most physiological of things…