Nietzsche's Higher Man

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
61

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 9:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I just realized that I don’t think any of these values are attainable without all of the others.

For safety one needs belonging, as otherwise one isn’t sure to not be expelled and only esteem gives true safety. Esteem is dependent on a degree of self actualization, which is basically power.
One also needs the physiological, and one needs tone self-actualized to not be a slave or an idiot, which aren’t safe thing to be.

One must be safe to be satisfied, safe at least in ones proper context of power; a general is safe in the military.

" 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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeFri Sep 08, 2017 9:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It will always be misleading to look at what the Dutch say of themselves.
They have ranked themselves in various surveys as the happiest on the planet.

But they have to say this, as they are so utterly desperate that to not rank themselves supreme in happiness (All you need is positivity-style) would mean a complete collapse. Think what would happen to our cynic if he would admit to himself the station at evolutionary life he is, all things considered.

One must be supremely dissatisfied to treat ones values the way he does - a state of dissatisfaction that Ive thankfully never had to endure. It means the absoute knowledge of never being able to satisfy ones true needs - only that would generate such a self-evident justification of an abusive personally that claims for itself the standard of happiness and peaceful cohabitation.

Arie is perhaps the only physiologically satisfied Dutchman Ive ever been sure to have encountered. Thats what I liked about him most. It was reflected perfectly in his cooking and joint-rolling - and in his visceral dislike of our cynic. It would be a bit weird to assume that intellect was what repulsed him, given that he invited me to live in his own house, and I don’t think anyone but the cynic himself would suggest that the cynic ever outranked me intellectually by any measure.

I aways had to take it supremely easy on him. He take it supremely on himself, as his sexual game demonstrates, and which is reflected in his relief to be able to have a woman without having his genes spread.

He is a form of a great disease, for which islam ma be the only cure; decadent slavishness. Islam could take away the decadence, and cover up what doesn’t really tolerate daylight anymore - which by and large is what once was the Netherlands.

Holland will, due to the natures of the like of our cynic and them managing manifest as a standard of wisdom and experience for better people, turn further and further into a slavish, intellect-less province of Germany. Only when this process is complete is there a chance for cultural revival - but within the Germanic, Continental spirit, where Northern Italy, Switzerland, Obedient France, Bayern and Austria will return our continent back to a new type of its former form, the holy Roman Empire of Pharma-Technocracy.

A scenario that seems hard to avoid, anyway.

The Netherlands can be summarized by its head of media: Matthijs van Nieuwenkerk, a completely feminine neurotic, aiming only ever to please, and to shriek his own being-pleased. He is the Jimmy Fallon of the Netherlands, but with us he must pass for a real man.

Lastly - the physiological satisfaction of my type is impossible in the Netherlands no tin the least because of the intense war that comes from the sexual competition - in me, the Dutch have always found a common enemy. This doesn’t work very well on the sexual market, as it is far beyond being a “bad boy” - it is being an outcast. It seems in general that Western Europe isn’t too favourable for me, I solicit only animal responses, which are in principle what you want form a woman, and how I got by, but it is impossible to relate to the society of people in general, as all men conspire behind my back, especially those calling themselves my friends, and among them, especially my family members.

But of all of them, I know not one who appears physiologically satisfied, as all of them were utterly and wholly neurotic. I appear neurotic because I am not too neurotic to deal with it. Our cynics personality is just a figment of a collective neurosis.

" 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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeFri Sep 08, 2017 10:08 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The degree to which the wealthy and sexually superabundantly provided with - “stars” - succumb to drug overdoses and suicides is indication enough that the west is physiologically structurally under satisfied.

If its ideals of satisfaction can’t even find satisfaction… but the very fact that the one man in that crowd that definitely did find satisfaction and still does wrote down those very lines is also telling - it is honesty that leads to satisfaction. Not the dominant pretence of already being satisfied.

Look at a lion that hasn’t eaten for a while.

" 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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeFri Sep 08, 2017 10:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ive read and heard many accounts of one night stands wrought in cafes in Amsterdam, and they invariably amounted in the astonishing conclusion of disgust. And I can concur - the one time I truly “ended up” with someone - where I had been entirely passive - I was indeed disgusted afterwards. Thats the only manner in which sex ever disgusted me, it not being the result of my very deliberate choice of a female, and the resulting will to make a sacrifice, which is the true aphrodisiac of the soul that advances toward the comprehensive psyche, the physiology as an order, a microcosm.

Apollo is not simply a tyrant, he is The Artist Tyrant.
His son Da(r)w(i)n shed some light on the methods.

" 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 Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeFri Sep 08, 2017 11:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Real women are still common enough in America. Glad Canada is on that level too, or at least Quebec.

“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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeFri Sep 08, 2017 2:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
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.

I didn’t mean to suggest that they can, but you wrote: “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.”

Sure, they gravitate to the rich and powerful, but the latter will repel most of them. So there are male and female hierarchies, based (simply put) on wealth and beauty, respectively, and only the most beautiful–according to the reigning standard of beauty, with which I’ve always only partly agreed (I value natural beauty infinitely higher than glitter, plastic surgery, etc.)–will gain access to the most wealthy. So both men and women will have to settle for someone of more or less the same status or lower, and if it’s more or less the same it will be at least somewhat tricky, yes.

Quote :
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.

There’s different levels of satisfaction, or there’s a difference between needs and desires. Eating shabby food will fulfill the basic need for nutrition, but it probably won’t satisfy you. Maslow’s pyramid is about needs, not desires. I’m pretty sure we’ve discussed the difference in the past, though I don’t remember the outcome. So here’s a quote instead…

“Against the theory that the single individual has in view the advantage of the species, of his posterity, at the cost of his own advantage: that is only appearance.
The tremendous importance with which the individual takes the sexual instinct is not a consequence of its importance for the species: but procreation is the genuine achievement of the individual and consequently his highest interest, his highest expression of power (naturally not judged from consciousness, but from the center of the whole individuation).” (Nietzsche, Will to Power 680 whole, Kaufmann trans.)

The first sentence is in agreement with contemporary Darwinism. The second is not (sex has evolved to be considered so important in accordance with the mechanism I described above), but even if it’s true, it’s only about individual achievement. Nietzsche called, e.g., Schumann a German event and Goethe a European event; he himself may in that light be regarded as a planetary event. Procreation was not or would not have been their highest expression of power.
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 Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSat Sep 09, 2017 2:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I can attest to the fact that one smokes (or drinks) usually because one lacks physiological and psychological security/wellbeing. The occasional times when I do have that security for a while I have no urge to smoke or drink. But reality always intrudes on heightened states, and I am thrown back into the need for cigarettes and drink. Others use hard drugs or cheap sex/porn as vices, but the need is always the same, I think.

“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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSat Sep 09, 2017 3:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, human collective consciousness (math, history, politics, language, art, culture - anything that has come to be over many generations and is not physically embedded inn the genetic body) is a chemical experiment, and thrives on somewhat ill health - on a state of suspended satisfaction.

When I am in nature for a few days, I don’t read a word except a runic one I carve in a tree, I don’t have the urge to listen to music,let alone to read or watch a story - all I want to do is breathe, and walk. The furthest thing from my mind is drugs and sex is not as much of an urge as nature constantly provides with a lot of what we need sex for.

In this sense, I think that human culture is absolutely impossible without bad habits, drug-use and vice. It is all the result of our looking for something more than what is plentifully given and on an important level entirely sufficient.

We can not be “in humanity” - concerned with the world - without wine, tobacco, weed, opium, LSD, whatever. Anyone who does not ever use any of such means is always, always, aways going to be very superficial and thus deluded, a slave - or a savage.

I would never be able to trust someone who isn’t familiar with drugs when it comes to politics, for example. That would be completely absurd to me - such people can be very noble but they are guaranteed to be naive when it comes to human nature.

" 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 Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSat Sep 09, 2017 3:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Yes, human collective consciousness (math, history, politics, language, art, culture - anything that has come to be over many generations and is not physically embedded inn the genetic body) is a chemical experiment, and thrives on somewhat ill health - on a state of suspended satisfaction.

When I am in nature for a few days, I don’t read a word except a runic one I carve in a tree, I don’t have the urge to listen to music,let alone to read or watch a story - all I want to do is breathe, and walk. The furthest thing from my mind is drugs and sex is not as much of an urge as nature constantly provides with a lot of what we need sex for.

In this sense, I think that human culture is absolutely impossible without bad habits, drug-use and vice. It is all the result of our looking for something more than what is plentifully given and on an important level entirely sufficient.

We can not be “in humanity” - concerned with the world - without wine, tobacco, weed, opium, LSD, whatever. Anyone who does not ever use any of such means is always, always, aways going to be very superficial and thus deluded, a slave - or a savage.

I would never be able to trust someone who isn’t familiar with drugs when it comes to politics, for example. That would be completely absurd to me - such people can be very noble but they are guaranteed to be naive when it comes to human nature.

Yes, I agree. These are really good 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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSat Sep 09, 2017 3:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sauwelios wrote:
Quote :
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.

I didn’t mean to suggest that they can, but you wrote: "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.

Sure, they gravitate to the rich and powerful, but the latter will repel most of them. So there are male and female hierarchies, based (simply put) on wealth and beauty, respectively, and only the most beautiful–according to the reigning standard of beauty, with which I’ve always only partly agreed (I value natural beauty infinitely higher than glitter, plastic surgery, etc.)–will gain access to the most wealthy. So both men and women will have to settle for someone of more or less the same status or lower, and if it’s more or less the same it will be at least somewhat tricky, yes.

Thats not possible though, if one needs to gravitate to the same status or lower, the other needs to gravitate to the same or higher.

But the thing is that an increasingly small percentage of the male population “consumes” the majority of the young, normatively attractive female population, these days. Like with lions. Whereas it is not the case that an increasingly small percentage of the female population consumes or wants to consume such segments of the male population.

So the relations are very skewed, the “sexual market” is not equal for men and women.
This has a lot to do with the nature of power as it differs in men and women. A man can get rich overnight and get himself a harem of very desirable women, a woman can never get that much more attractive over night.

Quote :
Quote :
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.

There’s different levels of satisfaction, or there’s a difference between needs and desires. Eating shabby food will fulfill the basic need for nutrition, but it probably won’t satisfy you. Maslow’s pyramid is about needs, not desires. I’m pretty sure we’ve discussed the difference in the past, though I don’t remember the outcome. So here’s a quote instead…

Thats the problem with that pyramid, isn’t it. There are only two real needs in there.
On top of that, in human beings, desires not infrequently trump needs, which is the cause of our complicated collective consciousness, our culture, which in no way is “necessary” and in no way provides us with necessities.

Quote :
“Against the theory that the single individual has in view the advantage of the species, of his posterity, at the cost of his own advantage: that is only appearance.
The tremendous importance with which the individual takes the sexual instinct is not a consequence of its importance for the species: but procreation is the genuine achievement of the individual and consequently his highest interest, his highest expression of power (naturally not judged from consciousness, but from the center of the whole individuation).” (Nietzsche, Will to Power 680 whole, Kaufmann trans.)

The first sentence is in agreement with contemporary Darwinism. The second is not (sex has evolved to be considered so important in accordance with the mechanism I described above), but even if it’s true, it’s only about individual achievement. Nietzsche called, e.g., Schumann a German event and Goethe a European event; he himself may in that light be regarded as a planetary event. Procreation was not or would not have been their highest expression of power.

This is a different subject, though. We are not here discussing what is the highest expression of 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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSat Sep 09, 2017 3:58 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Maslow’s pyramid was made in the spirit of an empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit paradigm in science. No real scientist like Newton or Einstein or Darwin would take it seriously. At best it is a guide, which can be said to be generally true more or less in certain limited contexts. But as Fixed points out, the bottom should really be on the top. The positivist idea that we can somehow draw a straight line from body needs to emotional needs to social needs to mental needs (or whatever) is embarrassingly naive.

“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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSat Sep 09, 2017 4:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From an old ILP post:

Fixed Cross wrote:
Faust wrote:
I think that the urge to screw should not be interpreted as an urge to preserve the species.
Correct. The causal logic of evolution-theory as actions (such as sex) leading to results (such as survival of the gene pool), is misinterpreted often as an active motivation operative in the species or organisms “will”.

Animals don’t do what they does to attain an evolutionary goal. If the tendencies of a species with a certain type of tendencies happen to result in procreation, obviously these the tendencies are what survives any continuation of this species. What has survived in general is not any species, but the tendency to engage in sexual activity.

More basically, what has survived is the type of organism to which sexual activity is pleasurable.

I’m sorry for stating the totally obvious, but it seemed to be lost in the teleological terminology so often mistakenly used to contextualize evolution and sexuality.

" 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_minitimeSat Sep 09, 2017 8:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Quote :
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.

I didn’t mean to suggest that they can, but you wrote: "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.

Sure, they gravitate to the rich and powerful, but the latter will repel most of them. So there are male and female hierarchies, based (simply put) on wealth and beauty, respectively, and only the most beautiful–according to the reigning standard of beauty, with which I’ve always only partly agreed (I value natural beauty infinitely higher than glitter, plastic surgery, etc.)–will gain access to the most wealthy. So both men and women will have to settle for someone of more or less the same status or lower, and if it’s more or less the same it will be at least somewhat tricky, yes.

Thats not possible though, if one needs to gravitate to the same status or lower, the other needs to gravitate to the same or higher.

True. I did realize that after posting my post, but I didn’t change it, because I was also talking about status, not class. So yes, I should have left the “or lower” part from my argument, except that I was wrong in the first place. The only men and women who will have to settle for someone of more or less the same status are those whose prospective partners and themselves give a hoot about status to begin with!

Quote :
But the thing is that an increasingly small percentage of the male population “consumes” the majority of the young, normatively attractive female population, these days. Like with lions. Whereas it is not the case that an increasingly small percentage of the female population consumes or wants to consume such segments of the male population.

Sure, I never meant to suggest that it’s a one-to-one equal distribution. But we’re still only talking about young, normatively attractive females.

Quote :
So the relations are very skewed, the “sexual market” is not equal for men and women.
This has a lot to do with the nature of power as it differs in men and women. A man can get rich overnight and get himself a harem of very desirable women, a woman can never get that much more attractive over night.

Well, the nature of political power. As Zarathustra says:

“Just see these superfluous ones! Wealth they acquire and become poorer thereby. Power they seek for, and above all, the lever of power, much money–these impotent ones!
See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss.
Towards the throne they all strive: it is their madness–as if happiness sat on the throne! Ofttimes sitteth filth on the throne,–and ofttimes also the throne on filth.” (“The New Idol”, Common trans.)

Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
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.

There’s different levels of satisfaction, or there’s a difference between needs and desires. Eating shabby food will fulfill the basic need for nutrition, but it probably won’t satisfy you. Maslow’s pyramid is about needs, not desires. I’m pretty sure we’ve discussed the difference in the past, though I don’t remember the outcome. So here’s a quote instead…

Thats the problem with that pyramid, isn’t it. There are only two real needs in there.

No, I disagree. They’re all needs.

Quote :
On top of that, in human beings, desires not infrequently trump needs, which is the cause of our complicated collective consciousness, our culture, which in no way is “necessary” and in no way provides us with necessities.

True, desires may trump needs; but only needs that are higher on the pyramid. For example, the desire for more esteem may very well trump the need for self-actualization.

Quote :
Quote :
“Against the theory that the single individual has in view the advantage of the species, of his posterity, at the cost of his own advantage: that is only appearance.
The tremendous importance with which the individual takes the sexual instinct is not a consequence of its importance for the species: but procreation is the genuine achievement of the individual and consequently his highest interest, his highest expression of power (naturally not judged from consciousness, but from the center of the whole individuation).” (Nietzsche, Will to Power 680 whole, Kaufmann trans.)

The first sentence is in agreement with contemporary Darwinism. The second is not (sex has evolved to be considered so important in accordance with the mechanism I described above), but even if it’s true, it’s only about individual achievement. Nietzsche called, e.g., Schumann a German event and Goethe a European event; he himself may in that light be regarded as a planetary event. Procreation was not or would not have been their highest expression of power.

This is a different subject, though. We are not here discussing what is the highest expression of power.

Well, if we suppose that one’s highest expression of power gives one the highest feeling of power, it’s very much what we’re discussing. The highest satisfaction.

::

Thrasymachus wrote:
Maslow’s pyramid was made in the spirit of an empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit paradigm in science. No real scientist like Newton or Einstein or Darwin would take it seriously.

Er, isn’t Newtonian mechanics the epitome of empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit science? And Einstein rejected quantum mechanics because “God does not play dice”, i.e., it isn’t classical mechanics. And Darwin, too, reduced evolution to mechanisms.

Quote :
At best it is a guide, which can be said to be generally true more or less in certain limited contexts. But as Fixed points out, the bottom should really be on the top.

Well, I don’t agree with Fixed on that.

Quote :
The positivist idea that we can somehow draw a straight line from body needs to emotional needs to social needs to mental needs (or whatever) is embarrassingly naive.

Okay.

::

Here’s something I wanted to say. Maslow considered all four needs below self-actualization mere “deficiency needs”. This reminds me of the following:

“It is a common opinion that the human activity called philosophy is neither necessary nor useful, and the prevalence of this belief compels philosophy to justify itself. The justification often involves asking, first, about what is necessary and useful for man, and eventually about the nature of man himself. One way to approach the question ‘What is man?’ is to look at man’s place in the world and speculate about the things that might distinguish men from other beings that one sees or imagines. The question comes down to this: Is man’s reason or intelligence something different from the rest of the world of nature and from those other parts of man’s being that he shares with the higher animals? Or is man’s reason simply a more complex mental mechanism than those of other animals, merely an extension of, or an improvement on, animal faculties–one that serves to satisfy the same needs, desires, and passions that animals experience, but in a more efficient and perfect fashion? This question is inseparable from the question of what constitutes politics.” (Muhsin S. Mahdi, Alfarabi and the Foundation of Islamic Political Philosophy, page 16.)

On the next page, Mahdi formulates the second alternative as “the view that the proper aim of political life and of man himself is to gain greater efficiency in attaining ends that are not specifically human but are more elaborate versions of ends pursued by certain animals–pleasure, wealth, honor, and so forth.” (op.cit, page 17.) I’ve always found that intriguing: do animals pursue wealth and honor?

Now I know both of you reject the kind of “humanism” to which Mahdi seems to point. But even if the traditional view of “animals” as opposed to “human beings” is wrong, in the sense that it does justice to neither “non-human animals” nor to “human beings”, it may still be correct in a different sense. It may do justice to the difference between the many subhuman members of our species and the few veritably human ones. Mahdi also writes:

“Islamic philosophy shared the ancient view that man is a special kind of being; that his ability to reason–his power to know himself and the whole–is the activity that marks him as different from other animals; and that reasoning is therefore the ultimate purpose of his existence.” (op.cit, page 16.)

That ancient view is the Aristotelian view. But compare the “power to know himself and the whole” to Being and Time:

“Dasein is an entity which, in its very being, comports itself understandingly towards that being. […] The previous disclosure of that for which what we encounter within-the-world is subsequently freed, amounts to nothing else than understanding the world–that world towards which Dasein as an entity always comports itself.”

The difference between the (sub)human and the (super)human may then be the difference between inauthentic and authentic Dasein. To be sure, though, Strauss writes:

“The plebeian character of the contemporary scholar or scientist is due to the fact that he has no reverence for himself and this in its turn is due to his lack of self, to his self-forgetting, the necessary consequence or cause of his objectivity; hence he is no longer ‘nature’ or ‘natural’; he can only be ‘genuine’ or ‘authentic.’ Originally, one can say with some exaggeration, the natural and the genuine were the same (cf. Plato, Laws 642c 8-d 1 777d 5-6; Rousseau, Du Contrat Social I. 9 end and II. 7, third paragraph); Nietzsche prepares decisively the replacement of the natural by the authentic. That he does this and why he does this will perhaps become clear from the following consideration. He is concerned more immediately with the classical scholars and historians than with the natural scientists (cf. aph 209). Historical study had come to be closer to philosophy and therefore also a greater danger to it than natural science. This in turn was a consequence of what one may call the historicization of philosophy, the alleged realization that truth is a function of time (historical epoch) or that every philosophy belongs to a definite time and place (country). History takes the place of nature as a consequence of the fact that the natural–e.g. the natural gifts which enable a man to become a philosopher–is no longer understood as given but as the acquisition of former generations (aph. 213; cf. Dawn of Morning aph. 540).” (Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, “Note on the Plan of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil”.)

The genuine philosopher “must reinstate nature or assign limits to its conquest” (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 105). Nietzsche did so by teaching the eternal recurrence; Heidegger, by teaching our mortal dwelling with things. As I wrote near the end of my “Note on the First Chapter of Leo Strauss’s Final Work”:

“As in Heidegger’s work, so in Nietzsche’s the room for political philosophy is occupied by gods or the gods: Dionysus and Ariadne (cf. paragraph 15 of the central chapter).”
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 Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSun Sep 10, 2017 2:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Quote :
Maslow’s pyramid was made in the spirit of an empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit paradigm in science. No real scientist like Newton or Einstein or Darwin would take it seriously.

Er, isn’t Newtonian mechanics the epitome of empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit science? And Einstein rejected quantum mechanics because “God does not play dice”, i.e., it isn’t classical mechanics. And Darwin, too, reduced evolution to mechanisms.

I’m genuinely confused why you would equate “mechanism” with positivism and “empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit paradigm.”

Quote :

At best it is a guide, which can be said to be generally true more or less in certain limited contexts. But as Fixed points out, the bottom should really be on the top.

Well, I don’t agree with Fixed on that.

Quote :
The positivist idea that we can somehow draw a straight line from body needs to emotional needs to social needs to mental needs (or whatever) is embarrassingly naive.

Okay.

Okay.

“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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSun Sep 10, 2017 2:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Attempting to understand something in terms of underlying systems and mechanics does not automatically make one a positivist or a “materialist” (which is already a stupid and hopeless term). Logic does not preclude… logic.

“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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSun Sep 10, 2017 5:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sauwelios wrote:
True. I did realize that after posting my post, but I didn’t change it, because I was also talking about status, not class. So yes, I should have left the “or lower” part from my argument, except that I was wrong in the first place. The only men and women who will have to settle for someone of more or less the same status are those whose prospective partners and themselves give a hoot about status to begin with!

Sexual status would largely be defined as appeal, though - and everyone cares about that.

Quote :
Quote :
But the thing is that an increasingly small percentage of the male population “consumes” the majority of the young, normatively attractive female population, these days. Like with lions. Whereas it is not the case that an increasingly small percentage of the female population consumes or wants to consume such segments of the male population.

Sure, I never meant to suggest that it’s a one-to-one equal distribution. But we’re still only talking about young, normatively attractive females.

Well, “only” is a bit out of place, as that is the center of the “market” - almost all masculine seductive resources, (powers, moneys, charms, etc) go into obtaining the favours of that group.

This is tired to my entrap point, that sex is not just a personal matter, it is what drives economies, and has driven them since time immemorial.

Quote :
Quote :
So the relations are very skewed, the “sexual market” is not equal for men and women.
This has a lot to do with the nature of power as it differs in men and women. A man can get rich overnight and get himself a harem of very desirable women, a woman can never get that much more attractive over night.

Well, the nature of political power. As Zarathustra says:

“Just see these superfluous ones! Wealth they acquire and become poorer thereby. Power they seek for, and above all, the lever of power, much money–these impotent ones!
See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss.
Towards the throne they all strive: it is their madness–as if happiness sat on the throne! Ofttimes sitteth filth on the throne,–and ofttimes also the throne on filth.” (“The New Idol”, Common trans.)

Do you mean to equate monetary power to political power? I don’t think they are the same thing.
I think ven that N here alludes to the same distinction as Frank Underwood does in season 1 of House of Cards.

Quote :
Quote :
Thats the problem with that pyramid, isn’t it. There are only two real needs in there.

No, I disagree. They’re all needs.

That would mean one can’t exist without them. I strongly disagree.
I don’t think self-realization, to begin with, can be called a need.

Quote :
True, desires may trump needs; but only needs that are higher on the pyramid. For example, the desire for more esteem may very well trump the need for self-actualization.

By now the system has been shown to be a random hodgepodge of terms. At least to be far too inefficient to be dealt with logically. It needs tone conditioned, amended, we need to debate what is a need and what is not - it is completely inexact. And intact things piss me off to no length if they make claims to being a system.

Quote :
Quote :
This is a different subject, though. We are not here discussing what is the highest expression of power.

Well, if we suppose that one’s highest expression of power gives one the highest feeling of power, it’s very much what we’re discussing. The highest satisfaction.

It is not what we have been discussing at all, which is whether or not we can identify with some exactitude and logical consistency satisfaction, need, desire, and power, in terms of such a neat pyramid and in terms of such neatly separated categories, which I must conclude has been proven to not be the case. This pyramid is a remarkably feeble pretence to order. Seeing as you, as its defender, have had to amend it to be able to keep discussing it.

Quote :
Thrasymachus wrote:
Maslow’s pyramid was made in the spirit of an empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit paradigm in science. No real scientist like Newton or Einstein or Darwin would take it seriously.

Er, isn’t Newtonian mechanics the epitome of empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit science? And Einstein rejected quantum mechanics because “God does not play dice”, i.e., it isn’t classical mechanics. And Darwin, too, reduced evolution to mechanisms.

Ah - I misread this. This is in part true. Einstein ejected the implications of the uncertainty principle because they would not allow for the universe to be regarded as a Newtonean mechanism.

Goes does not play dice mean: there is no uncertainty in the mechanism of physics.
In short, he didn’t have VO. He didn’t see that the logic on both scales (QM and GR) is the same, though the manifestations form a dichotomy of sorts.

Having said this, obviously Newtonean mechanics apply completely and totally to this universe. I don’t know why anyone would call them bullshit or reductionist. Newton certainly never reduced anything. He observed some exact certainties. That we can’t apply Newton to what isn’t technically matter does not make Newton reductionist.

f=m.a. Is that to be regarded reductionist bullshit now? Postmodernism is really aggressive.

Adding: I do not think there is a coherent system called “Darwinism”. I think there is Darwin, who observed a sublime mechanism, but never reduced anything to mechanistic views at all. Im rereading the Origin of Species at the moment. Darwnism is the least Darwin-like thing there is. Just like most Nietzscheanism tends to be a bitter embarrassment to Nietzsche, as we see on ILP. There is Nietzsche, thats it.

(I am certain that VO is the proper continuation of his project of transvaluation toward the Earth and the superman, but this does not give me any claims to Nietzsche himself.)

I thank you sincerely for showing up here again at my request - what this exchange between the three of us has done though is demonstrate to me that I really need to stop this public philosophy - it doesn’t attribute the proper value to any of our minds. If anything is reductive bullshit, it is the way we are having to reduce ourselves to make sense to each other now. Or quite as bad, reduce each other.

More pride. More power. More realism.
That is the new paradigm.

" 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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSun Sep 10, 2017 5:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Darwin did not reduce evolution to mechanics. He discovered evolution. He posited a logic. Yeah, logic has a mechanistic aspect. Is now everything that has a mechanism a reductionist bullshit? This is going very far in the wrong direction, very fast.

We really need a lot more respect for thought. To begin with, that means no longer sharing it for free.

" 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 Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSun Sep 10, 2017 6:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:

We really need a lot more respect for thought. To begin with, that means no longer sharing it for free.

Agreed.

62

“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

The Hierarchies of Human Values Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values Icon_minitimeSun Sep 10, 2017 2:56 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As I start writing this, I haven’t read anything since posting my last post.

I had this further thought. According to Spiral Dynamics, there have been six first-tier ages or stages, and only two second-tier ones. Likewise, according to Maslow, there are four deficiency needs and only one non-deficiency need. Now according to Spiral Dynamics, there will ultimately also be six second-tier ages or stages, which are the higher-tier equivalents of the six first-tier ones.* Perhaps then Maslow’s “self-actualization” or “self-transcendence” really consists of the non-deficiency equivalents of the four deficiency needs!

  • Something similar is the case in (Western) astrology, where the first six signs are something like the “I” or “Self” signs, whereas the other six are something like the “You” or “Other” signs.

Thrasymachus wrote:
Quote :
Quote :
Maslow’s pyramid was made in the spirit of an empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit paradigm in science. No real scientist like Newton or Einstein or Darwin would take it seriously.

Er, isn’t Newtonian mechanics the epitome of empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit science? And Einstein rejected quantum mechanics because “God does not play dice”, i.e., it isn’t classical mechanics. And Darwin, too, reduced evolution to mechanisms.

I’m genuinely confused why you would equate “mechanism” with positivism and “empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit paradigm.”

Mechanism reduces everything to the mechanical parts (unities, particles–or even units, quanta) it posits as given to experience (empiria).

::

Thrasymachus wrote:
Attempting to understand something in terms of underlying systems and mechanics does not automatically make one a positivist or a “materialist” (which is already a stupid and hopeless term). Logic does not preclude… logic.

I agree, but then those systems and mechanics (logic) mustn’t be understood in terms of givens, as all (modern) science does (it does not think, beyond them).

::

Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
True. I did realize that after posting my post, but I didn’t change it, because I was also talking about status, not class. So yes, I should have left the “or lower” part from my argument, except that I was wrong in the first place. The only men and women who will have to settle for someone of more or less the same status are those whose prospective partners and themselves give a hoot about status to begin with!

Sexual status would largely be defined as appeal, though - and everyone cares about that.

Sure, but appeal to whom? Social status is status in the eyes of society at large. Sexual status, i.e., social status with regard to sex appeal, is then only about sex appeal to society at large; not to individuals whose self-classification is not in accordance with their social status. To be sure, as that passage from Eysenck says, “the Av group tends to think of itself as middle class” etc. I connect this to Heidegger’s concept of falling into the They-self (what “they” say determines what one thinks).

Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
But the thing is that an increasingly small percentage of the male population “consumes” the majority of the young, normatively attractive female population, these days. Like with lions. Whereas it is not the case that an increasingly small percentage of the female population consumes or wants to consume such segments of the male population.

Sure, I never meant to suggest that it’s a one-to-one equal distribution. But we’re still only talking about young, normatively attractive females.

Well, “only” is a bit out of place, as that is the center of the “market” - almost all masculine seductive resources, (powers, moneys, charms, etc) go into obtaining the favours of that group.

This is tired to my entrap point, that sex is not just a personal matter, it is what drives economies, and has driven them since time immemorial.

I’m not contesting this, but for me the key word is “normatively” (see above). Now as I said before, I have always partly agreed with that norm, that standard of beauty or attractiveness. Recently however I’ve finally had the insight that such females can never be “mindmates” to a philosopher. Since childhood my main concern was with “love/belonging” in that respect (including sex, of course, but then the position of sex in Maslow’s hierarchy is controversial, and indeed: can one be dying from lack of sex as one can be dying from hunger? I think not); now, I think it should rather be with “esteem”.

Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
So the relations are very skewed, the “sexual market” is not equal for men and women.
This has a lot to do with the nature of power as it differs in men and women. A man can get rich overnight and get himself a harem of very desirable women, a woman can never get that much more attractive over night.

Well, the nature of political power. As Zarathustra says:

“Just see these superfluous ones! Wealth they acquire and become poorer thereby. Power they seek for, and above all, the lever of power, much money–these impotent ones!
See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss.
Towards the throne they all strive: it is their madness–as if happiness sat on the throne! Ofttimes sitteth filth on the throne,–and ofttimes also the throne on filth.” (“The New Idol”, Common trans.)

Do you mean to equate monetary power to political power? I don’t think they are the same thing.
I think ven that N here alludes to the same distinction as Frank Underwood does in season 1 of House of Cards.

I suppose then it’s not even the nature of political power. Of what power is it, then?

Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
Thats the problem with that pyramid, isn’t it. There are only two real needs in there.

No, I disagree. They’re all needs.

That would mean one can’t exist without them. I strongly disagree.
I don’t think self-realization, to begin with, can be called a need.

That’s not what “need” means here;

“The most fundamental and basic four layers of the pyramid contain what Maslow called ‘deficiency needs’ or ‘d-needs’: esteem, friendship and love, security, and physical needs. If these ‘deficiency needs’ are not met–with the exception of the most fundamental (physiological) need–there may not be a physical indication, but the individual will feel anxious and tense.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27 … #Hierarchy)

Only the physiological needs are needs in the sense you mean, and only insofar as not meeting them directly results in one’s demise.

Quote :
Quote :
True, desires may trump needs; but only needs that are higher on the pyramid. For example, the desire for more esteem may very well trump the need for self-actualization.

By now the system has been shown to be a random hodgepodge of terms. At least to be far too inefficient to be dealt with logically. It needs tone conditioned, amended, we need to debate what is a need and what is not - it is completely inexact. And intact things piss me off to no length if they make claims to being a system.

Quote :
Quote :
This is a different subject, though. We are not here discussing what is the highest expression of power.

Well, if we suppose that one’s highest expression of power gives one the highest feeling of power, it’s very much what we’re discussing. The highest satisfaction.

It is not what we have been discussing at all, which is whether or not we can identify with some exactitude and logical consistency satisfaction, need, desire, and power, in terms of such a neat pyramid and in terms of such neatly separated categories, which I must conclude has been proven to not be the case. This pyramid is a remarkably feeble pretence to order. Seeing as you, as its defender, have had to amend it to be able to keep discussing it.

Quote :
Thrasymachus wrote:
Maslow’s pyramid was made in the spirit of an empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit paradigm in science. No real scientist like Newton or Einstein or Darwin would take it seriously.

Er, isn’t Newtonian mechanics the epitome of empirical reductionist materialist non-philosophical bullshit science? And Einstein rejected quantum mechanics because “God does not play dice”, i.e., it isn’t classical mechanics. And Darwin, too, reduced evolution to mechanisms.

Ah - I misread this. This is in part true. Einstein ejected the implications of the uncertainty principle because they would not allow for the universe to be regarded as a Newtonean mechanism.

Goes does not play dice mean: there is no uncertainty in the mechanism of physics.
In short, he didn’t have VO. He didn’t see that the logic on both scales (QM and GR) is the same, though the manifestations form a dichotomy of sorts.

Having said this, obviously Newtonean mechanics apply completely and totally to this universe. I don’t know why anyone would call them bullshit or reductionist. Newton certainly never reduced anything. He observed some exact certainties. That we can’t apply Newton to what isn’t technically matter does not make Newton reductionist.

f=m.a. Is that to be regarded reductionist bullshit now? Postmodernism is really aggressive.

Well, I did say “Newtonian” whereas pseudo-Thrasymachus said “Newton”. And yeah, consider what I said about systems and mechanisms (logic) above.

f=ma may not have been superseded, but p=mv has: it turns out it’s really (rather) p=γmv. It’s just that gamma is virtually 1 except at tremendous speeds.
γ*m is what’s been called “relativistic mass”.

Quote :
Adding: I do not think there is a coherent system called “Darwinism”. I think there is Darwin, who observed a sublime mechanism, but never reduced anything to mechanistic views at all. Im rereading the Origin of Species at the moment. Darwnism is the least Darwin-like thing there is. Just like most Nietzscheanism tends to be a bitter embarrassment to Nietzsche, as we see on ILP. There is Nietzsche, thats it.

Well, I don’t mean to be facetious, but Nietzsche is dead. What there is is the writings of Nietzsche and interpretations of those writings. My interpretation is most indebted to the interpretations found in Lampert’s Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, which is in great part Lampert’s interpretation of Strauss’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s interpretation of–being…

Quote :
(I am certain that VO is the proper continuation of his project of transvaluation toward the Earth and the superman, but this does not give me any claims to Nietzsche himself.)

I thank you sincerely for showing up here again at my request - what this exchange between the three of us has done though is demonstrate to me that I really need to stop this public philosophy - it doesn’t attribute the proper value to any of our minds. If anything is reductive bullshit, it is the way we are having to reduce ourselves to make sense to each other now. Or quite as bad, reduce each other.

More pride. More power. More realism.
That is the new paradigm.

::

Thrasymachus wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:

We really need a lot more respect for thought. To begin with, that means no longer sharing it for free.

Agreed.

But that is what the Sophists did. To demand money (or goods) for one’s thoughts means that one presents one’s thoughts as wise. “Receiving my thoughts will be good for you.” Receiving a grant is different, for then one is enabled to spend more time and energy on the thinking that one already shared for free. I think it’s unwise to present one’s thoughts as wise. The less intelligent or developed may actually believe it and do the most foolish things on that basis. I will not teach my thoughts without teaching that they’re at least on some level wishful.

“Unlike most thinkers of this century, [Heidegger] was clear that neither his country, nor her universities existed or have any right to exist apart from the resolve to have them. Consequently he despised any allegiance which assumed that its object exists independently of the will that it be. Self-assertion, the willing of its self, is the only existence moral or communal things can have. Heidegger, therefore, rejected Hitler’s claim that Aryan superiority over Jews exists by nature apart from will or self-assertion. He traced Hitler’s error to ‘fishing in the murky waters of values and universals,’ that is, to what Spinoza called superstition. For Hitler wanted his biologists to prove his racial theories scientifically.
Heidegger despised Hitler for this ‘Platonic’ enslavement to the common sense need for independently existing moral standards. The lesson of 1933 was responsible for Heidegger’s liberal contempt for politics. It taught him that Hitler’s enslavement to superstition was no exception, but the necessary hallmark of political or moral life.” (Neumann, Liberalism (1991), “Illiberalism or Liberalism?”)

“Being is Self-Valuing”, as I put it in my Value Philosophy signature, means Being unconceals itself as self-valuings. But Being conceals its unconcealing, which means it may reveal itself differently at some point. Now Lampert writes:

“Nietzsche cannot and does not magically dispense with nature, transporting himself into some radical historicism that supposes it can solve the problem of nature by treating nature as a conceptual fiction. Nietzsche does not conquer nature conceptually, denying its sway and affirming the modern fiction of our radical power to make ourselves whatever we fancy. Nor does Nietzsche surrender to nature under another name, affirming the radical subjection of our minds to the shifting power of what is given, to Being, say.” (Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 104.)

The former temptation is what Heidegger came to fear most:

“The possibility that we might become mere resources, Heidegger explained in an interview in 1969, is an even more dangerous consequence of technology than weapons of mass destruction: ‘I think about what is developing today under the name of biophysics. In the foreseeable future we would be in the position to make man in a certain way, i.e. to construct him purely in his organic being according to how we need him: as fit and unfit, clever and stupid’ (Wisser, p. 36). For many, of course, the prospect of biological engineering is one of the great promises still to be realized in technology. For Heidegger, it would remove the last obstacle to completely reducing us to a resource. At the point that we can create ourselves in whatever way we see fit, there will no longer be room to acknowledge any constraints on us or any demands on us that we need to respect. We will no longer encounter anything which can provoke us to find new ways to be human.” (Mark Wrathall, How to Read Heidegger, final chapter.)

But the latter temptation, to conceive nature or Being as something that eludes even the greatest possible grasp of transhumanism, does not suffice. What we need is natures, plural, for example human nature. Provoked by this problem of nature, the will to the recurrence is the new, current way to be human, the way to be human in the Nietzschean age. It’s a self-actualization, a peak, on the level of Homer, Plato, Machiavelli, and their peers. At least that’s how I see it, and want to see it.

::

In the meantime I’ve jogged and thought of two things I still want to address. The first is that the philosophers who opposed the Sophists did of course also make the less intelligent or developed–the natural victims of sophists–believe that they were wise and do the most foolish things on that basis. The difference was the difference between the short term and the long term. The way I see it, the Sophists had short-term bad influence whereas the Socratics had short-term good influence and long-term bad influence. The Platonic age was the aeon whose word, according to Crowley, was AIO (I just looked this up): the Logos, the Demiurge, the God of the philosophers. In this it was a continuation of the Homeric age. The Machiavellian and Nietzschean ages are the aeon whose word, according to Crowley, is Thelema, the Will.

At this moment I’m entertaining the thought that the Demiurge is what Heidegger criticized as the conception of Being (To Be) as one being (entity) among others, albeit the highest. In any case, the second thing I still wanted to address is VO’s being a logic. I’ve basically been insisting that it be a “thelemic”. The novelty of the Nietzschean age is, in my Lampertian reading, that the setting for philosophy has changed, under the influence of Christianity and the Enlightenment, so that it’s no longer a viable strategy for political philosophy to pass off as truth what is “in truth” semblance. I’ll conclude with a Picht quote (note that the phrase by Picht I was just thinking of reads “to pass off as Being what in truth is semblance”):

“The truth is not outside of creating, it is rather the carrying-out of creating itself. The truth is the composing [Dichten, “poetizing”] of truthful semblance. Since however the composer of this semblance is himself only a dream, only the mask which Dionysianly conjures the omnipresence of the horizon of the millennia, the composer becomes transparent to himself as the steward of the dream of history on which the whole past continues to compose. He is the dreamer who knows that he’s dreaming, that he’s being carried, led, formed, guided and composed by a power which eludes his own control. Hence ‘Joyful Wisdom’ 54 begins with the statement: ‘How marvelously and newly and at the same time how horrifically and ironically do I feel disposed towards the entirety of existence with my cognition!’ (V 2, 90) The marvel is the discovery that, through the inversion of the statement ‘God is dead’ and through the cognition of truthful semblance, the appearance of the world beams forth in a divine radiance. The new is the discovery of the future, the horrific is the shattering of the subjectivity of the subject, is the cognition that the subject is nothing else than the embodiment of past and future history, thus, as I’ve said, the mask in which the omnipresence of history is conjured in the creative moment. This discovery is horrific for this reason, that through it the principium individuationis [principle of individuation] shatters, that man becomes aware of the fact that his own existence, too, is only a dream, only semblance, only a designing-oneself in new possibility, only a hovering without support. The irony, finally, is in the fact that the man who has attained to the cognition of this truth is like a dreamer who knows that he’s dreaming, like a creator who no longer creates unconsciously but sees through his own creating at the same time. In this way existence becomes perspectival in the dual sense that it’s conscious of the historical limitedness of its own horizon and at the same time knows that, precisely through this limitedness, it provides and possesses insight into the contradictory structure of the Being of being as a whole. The dreamer who knows that he’s dreaming is a symbol which sees through itself as a symbol.” (Georg Picht, Nietzsche, page 319, my translation. The earlier phrase is from page 282.)

I’ve decided to go a little further after all. The first of the following two passages reminded me of the second:

“For Heidegger, by contrast, the primary worry about technology is not that we are becoming dependent on machines to supply us with the necessities of life, nor that machines hold more power to destroy life than the world has ever before seen. The real danger is that technology will deprive us of our essence as human beings: ‘Human being is, according to its essence, compelled to always new experiments [on ways to be human]!’ But in the technological world, ‘the danger stands that man is completely delivered over to technology and one day will be made into a controlled machine’ (‘Aus Gesprächen mit einem buddhistischen Mönch’, in Reden, p. 590).” (Wrathall, ibid.)

“For philosophy, Kant’s knowledge that reason only has insight into what it itself brings forth in accordance with its design can, if finite reason is historical, only mean that thinking, in an ever-revolving change, makes its own designing of the design the object of its knowledge. If the knowledge however is to be true nonetheless, then absolute spirit must manifest itself in every finite form of reason. For a thinking which radically carries out the change of consciousness, the self-knowledge of reason in the act of its designing becomes a ‘phenomenology of spirit’, that is to say a doctrine of the forms in which the absolute essence of spirit appears as finite. Now Nietzsche carries out a change which puts into question even the fundamental presupposition of Hegel’s: that the absolute in and for itself is already with us. Kant’s doctrine ‘that reason only has insight into what it itself brings forth in accordance with its design’ is taken so radically that it now comes to light how reason itself has been brought forth in history by man, in accordance with his own design. The force which brings forth and determines both reason and the principle of identity that constitutes it bears the name ‘the will to power’. Thinking, knowing and acting is now interpreted out of the historic carrying-out of designing, that is to say out of value-determination. Whereas in Kant the apriority of reason is condition of the possibility of designing, through the change carried out by Nietzsche the design becomes the condition of the possibility of reason. The model from which the essence of the design can be read, however, is still the experiment. Hence philosophy as a whole must now emerge as an attempt, for the attempt is the design of the open horizons for the future forms of thinking and acting. The attempt is the design of the possibilities of the future history of mankind. […]
If the attempt is understood as the design of the future possibilities of historic existence [Dasein–Picht had just mentioned Heidegger], the experiment carried out here can no longer be interpreted as if the experimenter stood toward the experiment he conducts as an impartial observer. In this design he designs his own possibility. The carrying-out of his own life [or living–Leben] is the attempt. […]
This is the total sublation [Aufhebung] of the traditional distinction between theory and practice. Since Nietzsche, every thinking is reactionary which does not venture to accomplish the entire life of him who thinks as an experiment of the knower, as a designing [Entwerfen, lit. “unthrowing oneself”] into the future possibilities of human history.” (Picht, op.cit., page 72.)

Sorry for quoting at such length. Also, it wouldn’t surprise me if this Picht stuff is precisely what VO teaches. I am still missing, in both Picht and VO, the connection between the will to power and the eternal recurrence I’ve found in Strauss, though.

Last edited by Sauwelios on Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:48 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Corrected one word in a quote.)
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_minitimeSun Sep 10, 2017 4:02 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As long as it is clear that Maslovs pyramid is not a logical system of any sort, neither relies on nor offers a method of science, but rather has the criteria and substance of a new age sort of model. “The individual will feel stress” … heh. Its nicely evocative and associative, and you can draw it with rainbow colouring. It has (beyond the quoted marijuana prescription) no syntax to connect its terms though, which makes it logically null and void, as Im sure we can all agree.

Yes, at tremendous speeds, energy ceases to behave as mass, the mass disintegrates into force and even less “substantial” self-valuing; thus doesn’t apply to Newtons laws about mass.

Note that Newton had no laws for light. He does not enter that equation, he does not construe gravity mathematically from another value, he rather uses it as a standard for his applied mathematics. He doesn’t describe the quantum universe, but the Newtonean one - the one described by his three laws. This universe is the standard for all practical science, as well as for the sets of calculations that amount to the relativistic one, as well as the quantum one. We might say that Einstein was simply overambitious, and that GR does not apply necessary to the whole of the cosmos but simply to the universe of mathematical reference frames built from empirical data of astrophysics.

Like the Nietzschean universe is that which is described by the will to power.

You ask what kind of power money is – I am not sure if that is not a sophism on your part, if it really has you puzzled, it is certainly an interesting question to ponder - as most lives surely revolve for a good deal around acquiring monetary power to obtain sustenance. What makes power different from money?

That is a question for the Federal Reserve.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

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

The Hierarchies of Human Values - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Sep 10, 2017 4:53 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Does Nietzsche turn into a sophist when someone pays for his work? I am sure I do not follow that logic. Especially since people are actually buying his work, since unlike ours it is in book-form, and since no doubt he was paid when he lectured at the university.
Im sure you are kidding. Unless you are referring to my playful call to sophism here.

Quote :
Sorry for quoting at such length. Also, it wouldn’t surprise me if this Picht stuff is precisely what VO teaches. I am still missing, in both Picht and VO, the connection between the will to power and the eternal recurrence I’ve found in Strauss, though.

Picht tends to make a lot of sense to me. It also makes sense that VO does not imply the eternal recurrence of the same, as of course the only thing that implies such a thing is Nietzsches hypothetical ad-absurdum calculation with 19th century speculative physics - but what VO does show is how affirmation of the ER indeed characterizes a strong state of being, a self-comprehensive valuing.

We see thus that to believe in a fiction can be a very real strength, if that fiction can’t be disproven. And it can’t be disproved if one doesn’t listen to argument. That is how religion works, and how belief in the ER should work.

“The ER is real, therefore blah blah blah”, rather than “blah blah, therefore the ER is real.”
But anyway I don’t believe in it. I think it’s a bunch of bullshit, myself.

Considering the style of the chapter wherein it is celebrated, I also severely doubt that Nietzsche managed to believe in it. Ive often mentioned this, but the time I read it in German, which happened to be in the Alps, it made me nauseous with pity. Nausea perhaps because pity is the very last thing I want to feel with respect to Nietzsche - but more likely because of how the verses were wrought.

The artifice isn’t sublime, not forest-like, referring to your psychedelic German encounter that started all of this. No, it is his least Nietzschean writing. And yet, the idea itself still does him justice, as an ornament. He sacrificed a bit of his philosophership to also be an initiator of a religion. But Im not in that particular sect.

I do think there is very much sense in it as a metaphor, that applies to various different orders of being and exactitudes of recurrence. For example, it can easily be argued that time revolves around actions, rather than that actions take place in time. That would allow certain types of action to stand beyond time, as first causes of paradigms, worlds, theoretically even universes.

Central logic is again VO - against the Mechanistic universe - only the empirical instance of pure being forms the hub of the axes that designate the context where we can speak of being; this is Dasein - but Heidegger wasn’t explosive enough to fully explicate the world-shaping power of this primordial phenomenon of mind.

It occurs to me that VO is prescribing Dasein even through how one reasons with it - constantly going through the process, forming cycles of time with the mind.

Future patterns…
A game of chess, self-valuing as the king, VO is the board.
the rules are daemonic. The game is speculative ethics.
the winner is… king, self-valuing. The other is not only disproven king, but disproven existent. Failure to self-value. Disclosure, indeed, but not only - the game itself is the self-valuing we are speaking about really. King vs king, wave vs wave. Which collapses into which? It is always clear. A stalemate is a mutual collapse.
Whether the game itself self-values depends on the players - if they both exceed the sum of their own parts engaging the other as a valuable resistance, then the game might draw both players into itself and perform a magic, bring one of them immortal victory, in which he transcends himself completely into the greater order of Chess - or War, or Science – or you name it, as long as it is Great.
That is positivism, to me - the positing through the will to power in a limited environment manifested as intelligence. Creative intelligence, to be more precise. Its not mere deriving - it can’t derive down, into lesser orders, it must explode itself into a greater order, or perish.

" 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 - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Sep 11, 2017 2:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I didn’t mean that, if the world is the will to power and nothing besides, the eternal recurrence must logically/necessarily be a fact. What I meant is that, if the world is the will to power and nothing besides, viewing the world as such must mean willing it as such. But precisely if it is, it cannot be willed as such.

My first formulation of this problem, before I found it explicitly in Strauss, reads thus:

I wrote:
Nietzsche’s philosophy is the philosophy of the eternal recurrence [i.e., not of the will to power] […] for the following reason. Nietzsche defines philosophy as the most spiritual will to power which prescribes to nature what or how it ought to be ([BGE] 9). Nietzsche’s philosophy prescribes to nature that it ought to be will to power and nothing besides. However, this means prescribing to it that it ought to be what it most probably is. In other words, commanding it that it be what it most probably is. But how could something not be what it is? How could I command a miserable wretch about nihilism to be a miserable wretch about nihilism? He could not do otherwise if he wanted to! So that’s not much of a command. Therefore, the command must be, “remain what you are”. But of the essence of what nature is is change. Nietzsche does not command nature to stop changing. What he does is, he commands it to keep changing to all eternity. But change is not all there is to nature; it is a series of specific forms. What Nietzsche does is, he commands nature to be that series of specific forms to all eternity. In other words, he commands it to eternally recur. This is why Nietzsche’s philosophy is not simply the philosophy of the will to power, but the philosophy of the eternal recurrence of the will to power: Nietzsche’s philosophy prescribes to nature, not that it be what it most probably is, but that it recur eternally as what it most probably is. In other words, he does not prescribe to nature what it ought to be, so much as how it ought to be:

“The determination ‘will to power’ replies to the question of being with respect to the latter’s constitution; the determination ‘eternal recurrence of the same’ replies to the question of being with respect to its way to be.” (Source: Heidegger, Nietzsche, Vol. II, Chap. 26, trans. Krell.)

In the meantime, I’ve reformulated it several times, but can’t readily find those formulations right now. Strauss’s explicit formulation, or at least the part of it that I saved, is this:

“We start again from the premise that reality is will to power, and there is no essential difference between men and brutes; there is no nature of man strictly speaking. Given this premise, the doctrine of eternal return, which means, subjectively, transformation of the will into acceptance, is the only way there can be knowledge, as acknowledging of what is, and it is the only way in which there can be nature; that is to say, that which is by itself and not by being willed or posited. But precisely because acceptance is transformed will, will survives in the acceptance, in the contemplation. Contemplation is creative.” (Lecture transcript of May 18, 1959.)

And in my book draft, I’ve formulated it as follows:

Quote :
“Where is innocence? Where there is will to procreation. And he who seeketh to create beyond himself, hath for me the purest will.” (Thus Spake Zarathustra, “Immaculate Perception”, Common translation.)

The will to create beyond oneself is the pure form of the will to power. But this will is present even in perception. Perception necessarily “maculates”, that is, re-creates its object. All perception involves interpretation. And this does not just apply to sense perception, but to intellection as well. Thus the word translated as “perception” by Common is Erkenntnis, “cognition” or “knowledge”. Cognition is necessarily maculate, for knowledge is a mental image of something else–not of itself…

Now Leo Strauss rightly discerned a problem within the doctrine of the will to power:

“Precisely if all views of the world are interpretations, i.e. acts of the will to power, the doctrine of the will to power is at the same time an interpretation and the most fundamental fact[.]” (Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, page 178.)

The doctrine of the will to power is the doctrine that all occurrences are acts of the will to power. Thus Nietzsche wrote:

“I recognized the active force[,] that which creates[,] in the midst of the coincidental
–coincidence is itself only the colliding into each other of creating impulses” (Nietzsche, Notebooks Winter 1883-1884 24 [28] = section 673 of The Will to Power.)

But the word translated as “recognized” is erkannte, “cognized”; the doctrine of the will to power is not a discovery through immaculate cognition, but itself a creation, an imposition, a violation of the way things are. It therefore cannot simply be the most fundamental fact. The “recognition” that all occurrences are acts of the will to power is a willful re-creation of those occurrences.

Now we can only know what happened in the past. As Crowley says:

“[W]e can never know what is happening, but only what has just happened, even when most actively concentrated on what we call ‘the present’.” (Crowley, Little Essays, “Memory”.)

Yet we cannot will into the past. The will is directed into the future. And we cannot will things to be exactly what they are or were, for then it’s not a case of willing at all. In order to see all–past–occurrences as acts of the will to power, therefore, we must will them to be what they were–but now in the future! We must will them to recur, as acts of the will to power. This is the necessary connection between the doctrine of the will to power and the idea of, nay the will to, the eternal recurrence.

[…]

Now even if we limit our acceptance of the will to power doctrine to cognition, the necessary connection to the eternal recurrence still holds. In order to see all–past–acts of cognition as acts of the will to power, we must will them to be what they were, but now in the future. We must will them to recur, as acts of the will to power.

I will probably delete this last quote soon. For now I’ll add, though, that if all acts of cognition are acts of the will to power, all cognition must be a willing into the future. I’m reminded:

“Said ye ever Yea to one joy? O my friends, then said ye Yea also unto all woe. All things are enlinked, enlaced and enamoured[.]” (Zarathustra, “The Drunken Song”.)

Perhaps cognition itself is always a joy, even if what is cognized is woeful. Compare:

“We cannot exert our understanding without from time to time understanding something of importance; and this act of understanding may be accompanied by the awareness of our understanding, by the understanding of understanding, by noesis noeseos, and this is so high, so pure, so noble an experience that Aristotle could ascribe it to his God. This experience is entirely independent of whether what we understand primarily is pleasing or displeasing, fair or ugly. It leads us to realize that all evils are in a sense necessary if there is to be understanding. It enables us to accept all evils which befall us and which may well break our hearts in the spirit of good citizens of the city of God.” (Strauss, “What Is Liberal Education?”)

The realization that cognition is will to power is the noesis that noesis is poiesis. As such, it’s not just a realization, but also an actualization. Self-actualization.
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 - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchies of Human Values The Hierarchies of Human Values - Page 2 Icon_minitimeMon Sep 11, 2017 4:13 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Excellence. Lets hope WL and Bill are lurking.

Ill be contemplating this for a while, as your book quote finally made me understand why one would from an analytic perspective find it necessary to affirm the Eternal Recurrence of the Same.
I admit it is far deeper, more demanding, more Heideggerian than I had figured.

I can easily accept it without feeling I have missed things I shouldn’t have though, because it is also clear to me that VO is a means to affirm the recurrence “grammatically”, syntactically. Selfvaluing logic is a picture of itself, thereby it is a knowledge that forges a unity knowledge and being - (a unity - and it claims that there is no the unity) and thus destroys the difference between ontology and epistemology.

I am glad to see that not only you have at last set yourself to write a book, but that also the first thing I read from it clarifies what has had me puzzled for fifteen years or more - your insistence on the ERs crucial importance for philosophical course of action, a politics of philosophical life.

Very interesting. Ive saved the text to my hardddrive. I do believe this stuff needs to be rewarded, that it can’t be thrown like pearls to the swine. Here, it is in its place as it is valued in the terms it carries (not to say in its own terms, I can’t make that claim, obviously), but even so you must indeed make sure you don’t lose the momentum of your book to free publications of its first part.

It is not proper to not derive power from power. Philosophy must stand in the world, otherwise there is no Dasein.

Now our philosophies may merge. Parodites, Aletheia-Thrasymachus, Pezer, you and myself - all of these now, in my mind, address, if entirely different universes and orders, also the very same thing. A form of consciousness that is a proto-mind from which we derive the mind anew, this time it is not shaped haphazardly from a derangement of the instincts, but as an architecture in time, a true meddling with the process. It is not without trepidation that I praise all this.

Parodites was the first to reveal to me the possibility of truly cracking the mind. More crucially, of having that intention. Now, every one of the other 3 has shown me not only this intent but also the accomplishment. And none of that really surprises me - Ive anticipated this moment even as I sat on your couch below the poster of that British girl.

Now I can place that memory - it was the period in which I was practicing affirmation of the ER. Streetfighter EX lent itself very well for it.

63

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Love Love Icon_minitimeFri Mar 16, 2018 1:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The perfect person will just slip into your soul and fit there perfectly, and you into theirs. No force or pressure is needed.

This is what love means, to me 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
Styrkjar
bowstring
bowstring
Styrkjar

Posts : 27
Join date : 2018-01-21
Age : 22
Location : The abyss

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeFri Mar 16, 2018 9:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I completley agree, it’s an absolute certainty. If she is the right one it just feels right.
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeTue Mar 20, 2018 11:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Real love will always rescue you from the depths of any hell.

“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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeThu Mar 29, 2018 1:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Shit I figured it out. What Love is.

Two souls tangled up with each other.

Look at this from the vantage of VO.

Omg. This is real.

“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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeFri Mar 30, 2018 1:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, this is when its real and it ends, death is a natural result. To live on after this actually means to have to become something else. Which is why the modern world with all its miracles exists. People that got destroyed had to somehow continue existing, and took radical measures: creating a kind of life out of the rubble of their remains.

" 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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeFri Mar 30, 2018 1:56 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s also why VO exists. VO is the re-employment of my being after I was torn apart completely. Which in turn followed the suicide of someone who didn’t choose to re-employ. Not just my being was used, of course, my way of recreating life just happened to be with philosophical and scientific materials.

Science and philosophy now are even more alive. I only came alive again after VO led me to another love, which never could become fully unfolded and which the will never have to fully die, and which thus won’t have to kill me. Ill tay sort of entangled with her forever.

But yes when two souls get entangled they also get violently ripped away from their old world. Which is why in family oriented societies love is nearly impossible. All that is allowed by the forces of nature there is hypocritical relationships. When there is love it will remain secret, a private affair.

So we are talking about love here as it was invented in the early Middle Ages as the Roman Empire fell apart and the virgin cult branched off into an earthly ideal, the damsel in the tower and the French language.

LANGUEDOC

" 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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeFri Mar 30, 2018 2:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So Parodites is right that before Christianity there wasn’t such a thing as a soul. Not in such a way the it could be entangled with another. It was all still more physical.

What proto-soul and entanglement there was was between members of the same sex. The Greeks -

You may forget but
let me tell you
this: someone in
some future time
will think of us

-Sappho

" 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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSat Apr 14, 2018 5:29 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I suppose the power to create is equal to the power to destroy, if nothing else, itself. Love is a really crazy intense experience of subjective edification, pleasure in the loss of control over oneself that means and requires the existence of higher and deeper orders of control. Thus why love is so close to what freedom is and means.

I think love breaks us down what we used to be and reconstitutes us anew and continually from moment to moment, we become a “self-making making-ness” as such, almost as if the creative-destructive loop were being compressed in space and time: in space as the offshoring of the destructive element’s activity through the most narrow and specialized threads of subjectivity such that is allowed continuous flows of new contents into the soul by way of these more or less stabilized-reified connections so that a machine is set up whereby destruction is applied instantly to anything outside the domain of thd closed love-loop ouroborus between two lovers; and in time as the entrapment of phenomenological quanta in this looping river between and as two souls so utterly connected to each other and in such deep ways even they cannot know and must only “feel”, so that even the experience of meaning itself is changed and time becomes something you define based on every moment with the other person and every little shade and iteration and nuance of that moment, rather than time being something that defines 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSat Apr 14, 2018 5:51 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
How do I know these things, how do I figure out these things? I am a relentless excess. My soul is such that it generates continuously this overflow and I must do something with it; I drink to suppress and manage it but then the drinking also causes it to overflow out of me, unstoppable, until I drive people away with my manic energy and constantly messaging them, because for me every single moment and idea and sentence spoken or written between myself and another person becomes a potential universe, into which I am able to dump some of my excess out of myself. Philosophy is a side effect of all this, for me anyway. Love seems closer to the roots.

I enliven my soul in love, in enjoying and partaking in the pleasures of other’s excess so that I have something to relate my own to more truly and completely. Taylor Swift’s music for example, or a great conversation over drinks with a great woman. In a back and forth existential dance I want to intake all of their excess into myself and discharge all of my own excess into them, and since we are like volcanos always erupting inside of ourselves this just works. And yes this means of communicating soul to soul and excess-exchanging has to be created, had to be created in human history. And it barely just exists, it is very rare. But imagine down the road at some point in the future when this thing I am describing, this thing called love, is as common as simpler pleasures like drinking a glass of wine.

“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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSat Apr 14, 2018 7:18 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This kind of love activates me in ways I cannot be activated otherwise. It needs to be reciprocated moment to moment, then this kind of excess-looping thing can generate totally new subjective states and possibilities in me, and I can become like an entirely new person, the best version of everything good in me. It all comes out, naturally and effortlessly, one after another after another, ideas, emotions, energy, all of it. Everything in consciousness. Therefore I conclude that this kind of experience of love is basically what consciousness is, at root; what we call love is the totalizing self-activation of consciousness aggregating itself hierarchically within itself according to its own principles, and requires this presence and image of the other person for whom this activation can occur and be equally as meaningful as their own activation is for us. The elevation and exchange of excesses in motion.

“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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Apr 15, 2018 10:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
All of this bullshit about love, it’s unrequited nature in my case, is turning my focus back to my writing. I’ll push my books out to the world, now. And try to market them as I’m able.

I’ll be remembered as the Future Nietzsche. Maybe I’ll change my name on the books to that.

Also I’m going to publish all of my writings in private message, chat, and letters about this love experience I had. “Love’s Excesses” will be the title. With the intro I’ll write it should be at least 200 pages. And I already know the quote or at least the person I’ll use to quote from, to open the book. Rachel Whetzsteon, a poet from NYC who killed herself on Christmas due to extreme boredom and unrequited love. It’s perfect. She is a great poet too.

Bleed openly.

“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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Apr 15, 2018 10:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Also a line from Taylor Swift, to open the book.

After all that nice smooth tequila this beer tastes extra bitter. Good. How appropriate.

Four books, not too bad. About 1000 pages. But I can do better. It’s only a beginning. Daemonic excess, Value Ontology, and tectonics break upon the shit in the soul and transform it into something qualitative, something vital, something necessary. Something living.

So glad I’m over her, finally. She taught me how to unlock myself and live outside of myself. But then she abandoned me and forced me back into myself, and I can’t see ever coming out again. Oh well. Good.

Bleed excess openly. That’s the only motto for living that I know.

“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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Apr 15, 2018 10:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have no shame. Good.

“Guilt is merely the first form of knowledge. And pride, not even the first.” -from my lost writings

“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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 2:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
i now realize the emotion of love is a psychological capitalism. love is the feeling of deep mutual interconnectivity per what i’ve outlined in Social Webs; massive constant exchanges of excesses back and forth are freely given by both parties in order to generate new value on both ends. each excess exchange represents increase in value on both sides.

this increase in value due to the transaction of excesses, is what we experience as the emotion of love.
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 3:28 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Or maybe it’s more simple. Indeed a christian thing, and one Aphrodite and Eros laugh at.

More self-deceit than actual transaction.
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 3:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In my experience, the main function of love is to shield the lovers from real world forces. A cowardice.

Nietzsche said it was a victory over christianity. Yes, like in the sense that covering one’s self in shit is a victory over a rapist abductor with OCD.
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 3:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
read my thread on social webs.
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 3:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ok. But a thing to add first.

Indeed Astarte would veritably scoff.
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 3:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Where is it?
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 3:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1260-social-webs
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 3:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is called love is a proxy for knowledge; knowledge of oneself, of others, of information (facts) generally. As well as a proxy for being able to process and do something with that knowledge, to link things in more interesting ways wherein the addition of one new piece of information is able to properly change the entire knowledge-structure if that is what is logically called for.

This is one reason I am a misanthrope now - most people are utterly incapable of doing this, of properly processing new information. At best they attempt to catalogue it somewhere appropriate in their knowledge-sphere, but nowhere does the new piece of information cause logical chain reactions that would produce massive new changes that would be called for, derivatively, based on that new addition of knowledge.

Philosophy, philo-sophy, is called a thing about love for a reason. Love is indeed a proxy as I noted above.

When it comes to personal intimate love of another person, it is all about the excess-transfers between ‘souls’ (phenomenologically, metaphysically speaking, etc.). Yes we have a soul, and no I am not talking about some religious idea. The soul is a collection of the entirety of our being, at every possible level in which this occurs. Ideas, feelings, remembered experiences, inner visualization, rote perception, heuristics of behavior, desires and goals, actions, language and ideas, unconscious impulses, number and degree of facts accumulated and understood, and of course the impulse or lack thereof to assemble all that together in the most comprehensive, coherent and powerful structure possible. <— that is literally what “soul” means.

When two people are in love, their respective souls entwine. This is why the phrase “soul mates” has real meaning, why such a phrase even exists. Before you even meet your future lover, your two souls are already in sync and agreement simply due to the large number and degree of similarities between you two with regard to the aspects of what soul means, which aspects I just outlined above. Now when you actually meet such a person, your and their soul immediately begin to form intimate deep interlinkages, threads like a spider’s web, and on those threads your respective excesses begin to transact. You move some of your excesses to the other person and they move some of theirs to you. This is why I stated that love is a kind of psychological capitalism, because in such exchanges of excesses every single transaction is freely chosen and represents an increase of value on both sides.

Our body, hormones, etc. are attuned to produce a feeling called “being in love” which feeling is a subjective emotive expression of the fact that such a vast excess-transaction is occurring and more importantly that such an occurrence is producing new value for you, is actually growing and expanding and deepening you in the most literal sense possible. You can liken this to Nietzsche’s notion of the feeling of the increase of will to power. We feel ourselves becoming more. That is partly what the feeling of love indicates. But the feeling of love also indicates other things, like security and understanding, new possible plateaus on which to act and engage productively based on how we determine productive engagement according to our own standards of self-valuing; expanded novelty is also an important function of the experience of love and which the feeling of love represents.

Love is simply the ‘emotional’ (define emotional: bio-psychological body proprioceptive process of feeling massive physical and psychological changes occurring all together at once and felt/experienced as a single feeling and change rather than as all of those individual feelings and changes that in fact amassed together in the same moment to produce the overall emotion) representation of a fact, namely the fact of productive soul-interlinkage causing real and literal increase in our being.
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 5:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This logic of yours. It’s a superstition.
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 5:47 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
explain what you mean, and then prove it.

i don’t do bullshit. such as one-line dismissals with… nothing else.

ffs this is a philosophy site. i mean jesus
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 8:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Is bullshit rather not ignoring what is obvious between people who know eachother and eachother’s reference points all too well?

But then that is what I mean by the superstition of logic. You ignore what is real by pretending it is it that must pass your test.

Like Zoot. Except you at least have the balls to bring metaphysics into it.
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

Love Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 8:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I take valuing as the axiom and from there I explain things like logic.

Love, to me, is simply a strong valuing. Without this very powerful, all consuming, all encompassing experience, the notion of valuing as will to power would not have occurred to me; love to me simply means the thing by virtue of which I understand other things. It is the most irreducible concept in my life, precisely because it is the most comprehensive and all consuming.

It would be impossible for me to understand or approach love as being built up of other things, or to derive it from a combination of other concepts, because I can not conceive of anything anymore as not being built out of valuing, and I can’t really conceive of any worthy human made thing, concepts included, as not being built out of love.

Hormones are valuings, and indeed they work together in cohering and amounting in a greater valuing, but I don’t think they “cause” love - rather I think love, as a phenomenon, is what causes these hormones to have a function, terms in which they are valued and van self-value; and thereby causes them to exist.

A hormone did not come into being without a function, it did not exist as a consistently appearing substance without its function; it came into being because valuing was expanding and required new configurations of itself.

This is how I approach love in my own life too, as the means by which I know myself, become myself, the criterium for my existence. I don’t give a shit about “success in love”, I just care about whether Im still driven by love, or by something lesser, in which case I will have to conclude that I no longer exist.

Pezer
builder
builder

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

A Note for Saweliows Empty
PostSubject: A Note for Saweliows A Note for Saweliows Icon_minitimeTue Jul 24, 2018 2:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The weak don’t want to live at any cost, they want not to feel pain. They’re afraid of death because of the pain and dying without having known release from pain. Of course Buda comes along on a mission and yells “Bitch!”
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

A Note for Saweliows Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Note for Saweliows A Note for Saweliows Icon_minitimeWed Jul 25, 2018 12:05 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To base one’s understanding of the child on children one knows, such as nieces and nephews, is duzzumb. Because the whole point of a child’s power is that an adult, specially an adult of the family, will neeeeeeeeever see the true child. They put on the weak mask for adulsts, they know they like it. Adults simply do not know how to play or what is worthful in life, they lost it somehow along the wizzay.

A girl is a little different, she is quite at home with adults. Boys are incredibly attracted to this strength, this ability to inhabit the boring, misterious and powerful world of adults. When they later come to play, how can a boy feel more lucky? Power towering over any big stick victory over other boys. The alpha child will drop the war game with zero explanation and go play house. He will, of course, be the father and call the shots, or that is the only victory. Maybe he’ll be the doctor…

Anyway, the chizzild cannot be seen by adults. Like hobbitses! Maybe JRR Tolkien’s only faliure is the faliure to imgine the true life of a child.
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

A Note for Saweliows Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Note for Saweliows A Note for Saweliows Icon_minitimeWed Jul 25, 2018 12:26 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, adults tend to be just the remnants of children.

This is so painful for the child as it grows to see, that it begins to pretend to respect the parent. And so another adult is born.

This whole society is remnants of children that forgot the bullshit for which they gave it all away.

Philosophers, shamans, musicians often among the exceptions. Sports players are the worst of the rule - having become adults (prefessionuls) on the most facile, pointless seriousness.

In old age humans tend to remember glimpses of reality, and become close to children. Or if these aren’t available, to animals.

The thin hollow life of most adult humans is akin to the waste of natural systems through careless pragmatism.

" 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

A Note for Saweliows Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Note for Saweliows A Note for Saweliows Icon_minitimeWed Jul 25, 2018 1:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I guess Zarathustra represents the ultimate care in pragmatism.
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

A Note for Saweliows Empty
PostSubject: Re: A Note for Saweliows A Note for Saweliows Icon_minitimeWed Jul 25, 2018 2:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol, did I say only victory?

No, there are a lot of games to be played with girls.

The first times I tried playing with more than one girl at a time, I had already a girl I’d played with for a long time and so I was the father, she the wife, and the other girls members of the family, serving us. Vying for her spot. They were never gonna get it. If a boy insisted on playing with us, he would be a pet.

But as my wife left me, I was able later to realize that any number of games are possible with more than one girls, where not necessarily one gives any single girl supremacy in any clear or absolute way.

The last time I tried the wife thing… It is very hard, upon gazing opon a powerful girl, not to simply want to make her wife. Sort of cruel not to. The only way is to make one’s self far more powerful than any one girl.

64

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 8:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Oh yeah and I don’t believe love is reciprocal, or meaningfully so. Sure it can be, but thats just a lucky accident. It doesn’t add to the truth or power or integrity of the love or anything like that.

All acts of love are indifferent to what will be received in return; love is of course the will to sacrifice oneself for a higher arc of oneself. If there is no will to sacrifice, there certainly is no love.

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 8:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Is bullshit rather not ignoring what is obvious between people who know eachother and eachother’s reference points all too well?

But then that is what I mean by the superstition of logic. You ignore what is real by pretending it is it that must pass your test.

Like Zoot. Except you at least have the balls to bring metaphysics into it.

i have literally no idea what you’re talking about.
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 8:54 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So there I actually did “reduce” love to another concept; the will to sacrifice.
By sacrifice I don’t mean “throw away”.

Sacrificing something means to give something an extraordinarily high purpose and thus value.
It is then transmuted in the fire of valuing into something “sacred”.

The concept, sacredness and sanctity are crucial in how I approach VO; they allow me to deal with my own existence without compromising it through pulling it through a semantic wringer.

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 8:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Is bullshit rather not ignoring what is obvious between people who know eachother and eachother’s reference points all too well?

But then that is what I mean by the superstition of logic. You ignore what is real by pretending it is it that must pass your test.

Like Zoot. Except you at least have the balls to bring metaphysics into it.

Ehm, thats a bit over the top dude…

Zoot?

That guy can’t even hold together the most basic logical strings.

I also assume Capable doesn’t know who Zoot is, because he would not have a reason besides the bad luck of having stumbled into him.

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“i have literally no idea what you’re talking about.”

You are literally lying.

‘Your God is imaginary, made up of your imaginación.’

‘Those words in that configuración produce no meaning in me. For me to understand, help me see how it is my God that made it so.’

‘Lol old trick. Funny how it used to hold so much power. I’m a little disgusted. You’re smarter than this. I hope.’

----------------

Fixed:

The power of a tonic is not proof of its revelation of truth. One expectats revelation of truth to come with powerful elation, but to equate the two is to prefer feeling good to being right.

This love you now describe, I discussed it with Parodites once. The love that demands all things reveal their names.

For now, I will simply ask: can these hormones not arange differently and produce different states than love?
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have recently begun cautiously worshipping Astarte (she’ll pull you right quick if you’re not careful). She arranges those hormones into desire rather than love. Power proper, the classical understanding of what it is.

And there are other uses.
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
If I had to guess why Romans grew such a preferente for love, I would guess that it makes happy men who are easy to rule by any clever enough to have names wating for the momento of revelation.
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I prefer Jodorowski’s concepción of love, which is at one time more honesto, Humble and infinetly mire ambitious:

Two lovers laying in a bed, with infinity crawled up in the córner of the bed like a cat.
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To be clear, I have found all these things because my question was always: what is the greatest thing one can want? The most wantable thing?

And uh, hoo boy, love is faaaaar behind it.
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
To name just one drive that opens far more doors: boredom.
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:31 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster

"The power of a tonic is not proof of its revelation of truth. One expectats revelation of truth to come with powerful elation, but to equate the two is to prefer feeling good to being right.

This love you now describe, I discussed it with Parodites once. The love that demands all things reveal their names"

No no, thats not what I mean. I mean the love that caused me to be within an inch of death. Fuck name giving at that point. Just pure phenomenology. Recognition of the core of all events of which I can reasonably consider myself aware. Without love, no true awareness, and with love, no more things. As things don’t exist, only valuing does, and where love is as total as it can be, all valuing is absorbed into it, including eating drinking and breathing.

Im not then simply equating this love with being, Im just saying that in this state of being usurped by love and having become its wheel, I was able to see into the urgency of atoms and this capacity to see allowed me to advance the WtP theorem in terms of valuing.

“For now, I will simply ask: can these hormones not arange differently and produce different states than love?”

What if I say no? I get to laugh, and nothing else happens.

Thats what Ive unlearned, using hypothesis that I can’t prove.

But one may of course assume that all kind sof sensations are possible through these hormones. I seriously doubt it, by the way, as there aren’t that many real sensations, and most that there are are parts of love.

But say that a few can combine into a totally alternate sensation - which still would have to be valuing though, as there is nothing else — still even if this valuing were in no way related to love, a very unlikely case, then still this doesn’t touch the point of the increasingly comprehensive self-valuing of love having caused these hormones into existence in the first place. Even if they might be bastardized later on by some use value, their root is love, and they can only be explained in terms of love.

I appreciate N intensely for stressing the difference between explication and explanation.
Science only explicates, philosophy may attempt to explain. Explanation always requires reference to a broader and looser context, and thus always requires some art, some effort on both the part of the writer and the reader.

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
To be clear, I have found all these things because my question was always: what is the greatest thing one can want? The most wantable thing?

And uh, hoo boy, love is faaaaar behind it.

Power, of course.
But the point is that love is the worst thing you can lose.
It the foundation of all true power you have.

Denying this would only discredit yourself - as your love of this life and this world, its uncanny purity, is what allows your style of asserting.

Caesar loved Rome, Alexander, Venus, the honour of it all, this is why he cared to dominate.

When you subtract love from your conquest, what is left is a mausoleum.
Why VO is such a juicy conquest. There is no death, no hollowness. All paths are beset with the flora of life.

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What I see, with all the respect I do have for you, is you imposing direction on things that predate you. Love paints everything. And hate too.

But there are higher States that create, notice and care about more. Because this history of directions is not only ancient, but infinetly so.

Love is produced. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean materially by hormones. I mean by other uh things even more primordial than love.
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Not power guy. You still don’t understand.

Will to power.
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What is lofty enough to use love, rather than be of use to it?
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Even the question gives me a slight fear boner.

I’m not used to being UNDER that question.
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 9:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Well I used love to create VO. Boredom, there was a lot of that too alone on these Viennese afternoons. Im talking here about one that had a guy killed and me nearly dead, an existential predicament of value identity, not some breezy affair. People die for love plenty. I thin you’re being childish in the face of your own great love for, for example, your country. Or Trump, or even Obama. These aren’t trivial choices, this is what you are. It indicates what you will do with power. Will to power means willing to power, you can’t will to will to power, that is as if you don’t already will to power.

Try to realize how I think, what Ive done to (my) thought.

I reversed the order of things, I made it so that you have to start with the most comprehensive attainment to address the simplest thing; all else is vanity and just piss poor weakness.
But this requires a magnificent leap not of faith but of actual self-valuing - it has to be capable of being a fact - has to be capable of demonstration.

*When I say love I don’t mean man woman kiss kiss make baby.

I mean obsession and consequences - transmuting oneself entirely through the experience of oneself, which always has to go through a big outside world with significant outside beings in it, god plant man animal or just breath. They don’t need to be human or alive at all.

Love is what you love. You love a lot of things. Thats not a hormone. The hormone is a unit in a set of data representing units that we’ve brought into connection with other such units when we observe them while love occurs. Love is valuing with necessity.

The only other things are pain and fear.

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 10:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Granted, you can wish for a greater will to power.
An such wishes are sometimes granted.
But this is not different from willing to power, as there is no other means to power than will.

Still, an interesting concept, the will to increase the will.
Id rather see it as explicating the will, cracking it open.

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 10:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Drugs can be used to increase the symptoms of the will to power, in other cases it can work to transmute the character of the will into a different modification, perhaps to align it with logic or with some specific being - but “All that matters is the quantum of power that one is - the rest is cowardice.” - N, The Wil to Power

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 10:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Love gives the risk of annihilation of subjectivity - it can be the harshest condition for it. Therein is its value, a breeding place for strengt; love is very akin to despair. It is the other side of the coin.

I see it as the most violent phenomenon, consuming lives like Saturn reaps them, and changing billions of young people into functions of a new human, rendering will irrelevant in the majority of cases - if there is one will to power in Homer that warrants attention it is that of Helen, or of Venus and Eris and all the goddesses that forget their ethics and all become like Venus, the crimson dame, she who hovers above death.

Life can’t exist if not to sacrifice itself. This is just the basic condition. All else is slave morality.

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 10:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
What I wish to accomplish I keep for myself, as every wise man does.
But what I know, what I have, what Ive been and seen, of this I speak freely.

And of this I derive semblances of my goals, lesser forms of them which I may speak to see if there is any interest in that direction.
But don’t expect me to speak philosophically of my own goals. That would be very foolish of me to do, I would dissolve into my own philosophy, even worse than when I did when my only goal was to make sure VO gets explicated enough for future scientists to understand its most empirical purposes. I will certainly want to see a bit of that myself.

Anyway, it appears my Venus in Pisces placement shining through. It is dark there at the end, the Russian degrees. When my progressed moon crossed my natal Venus my friend committed his ritual suicide.

True Romance.

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

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 10:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It occurred ti me on my walk that the question with you is not what is lofty enough, but what is arrogante enough.

Flowers for Astarte. That is an arrogance that is definetely heroic.

I pledge myself to help you however I can.
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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 10:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yes, lol.

It was probably the first offering I ever made to a god, I knew only that I wanted to transgress.

It was very much an expression of the scarcity of my own life at that point, a willingness to go beyond mores with her was absolutely the refreshment, the direly needed entrance into the first halls of Taurus.

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 11:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
She was always quite a too far ahead in these days, I then simply wasn’t ready to assess my own worth, which is part of what a love goddess commands. But I never feared the tally, so I made an opening.

The statue you picked is very striking and I find it very pleasant to have this goddess mentioned in our midst.

But of arrogance before a god - reflecting on why you strike at this note, I see now that it is a safety measure boring them - or worse even, insulting them with pretence or even boredom before them - which is a true scorn on them and causes havoc, pure hatred of the gods for these false peons.

It is best to be clear about ones expectations in ones deeds.

" 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

Love - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 2 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 11:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As a Taurean Jupiter I take pride I knowing my well rooted place in a long hallowed tradition until and from here. It makes me feel like a tree, a wind-swept tree, ravens became my friend.

Why is it such an honour? One very simple answer might be because my gods strike fear even in atheist hearts. Their names tell them what they already know: there’s a storm coming in.

65

Pezer
builder
builder

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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 12:26 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Are we dust?

Pezer is walking down a downtown street in Caracas with an assossiate. They are both high on acid. It is night time. Lack and hardship is their lot, within which they are overfull and arrogant. The Nacional guard starts walking beside them. Pezer uses his jedi minf powers, deflects them. He later learns they stopped to have a chay with his assossiate. Now at the hight of the lsd orgasm, having faced and evaded great danger, he happens upon a well worn arch over a sewer gate thing. He stops upon it. His assossiate had been showing him something. What was it? Millions upon millions just like Pezer had walked upon that sewer gate thing. It was full of the dirt of hours, days, millenia, seconds. With a million variations of his own heartbreak with a million variations of him and a million variations of the girl. And a million variations of a million variations. All just like him.

I am dust, he pondered.

Hail Dionisus.

Hail the bull.

Hail New York and Paris.

Pezer moved on, in search of shelter and fire for the might, aware of his puniness at the magnifiscent river of life.

We are all crocodiles.

…

Are we dust?

Pezer thinks not.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 12:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Vultures became friends of mine.

Well they already were. But I understood better why. Powerful bastards.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 1:19 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The dust perhaps wants to be us, ancient dust once wanted to be us
and perhaps our most hopeless yearning is still this dust.
Well that is sure, and we philosophers are more dust like when we are young than when we become weathered;
the dust is still strong in this one, we may say of a youngster.
As the dust recognizes itself as such a thirst is allowed; thirst can be quenched quite well on the earth. What was once dust now is vine.

" 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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 2:15 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lol is now vine.

See? Arrogance.

I kinda like that. Wanna see where it goes.

Wanna help.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 2:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
i don’t appreciate being called a liar. especially when i’m not lying.

lucky for you i guess, i’m a misanthrope now so i don’t have such high standards for others (you) as i once had. feel free to sully yourself and abuse your host with absurd insults and refusal to think, just you’ll have to forgive me if i don’t give a shit.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 3:11 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
what’s the difference between me and you?

“Move units, then talk shit and we can do this
Until then - I ain’t even speakin your name
Just keep my name outta yo’ mouth and we can keep it the same
Nigga, it ain’t that I’m too big to listen to the rumors
It’s just that I’m too damn big to pay attention to 'em
That’s the difference “
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 3:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You don’t appreciate it?

Well, I don’t appreciate you inviting me here. To lie to me.

Yeah. Lucky me. You might hex me or something, not completely sure what the threat is. You talk a big game, that’s for sure.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 3:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I was always fascinated by your kind Jakob. Like a brilliant treasure I couldn’t quite understand. I knew about the violence, such a sensitive soul. I always tried to stick up for you, but an intelligence of that level inevitably carries a pride that can’t accept real sticking up for.

I’ll take all your advice with me. Good luck.

This is fucking sad. The ultimate playmate but you fundamental y cannot deal with, are offended by, the real world.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeSun Jul 01, 2018 11:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
“Bing bing boing boing”

-Trump

" 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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 12:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You wanted me to start beating on Capable with you didn’t you. “Help” me insult my friend.
That’s what “the real world” is to Pedro.

" 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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 12:57 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don’t understand what the hell you’re on about now, I guess it was the crocodiles?

Fine man were crocodiles.
Real crocs.

I’m not angry at the croc.

Just calm down man.

" 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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 2:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Are we dust?

Pezer is walking down a downtown street in Caracas with an assossiate. They are both high on acid. It is night time. Lack and hardship is their lot, within which they are overfull and arrogant. The Nacional guard starts walking beside them. Pezer uses his jedi minf powers, deflects them. He later learns they stopped to have a chay with his assossiate. Now at the hight of the lsd orgasm, having faced and evaded great danger, he happens upon a well worn arch over a sewer gate thing. He stops upon it. His assossiate had been showing him something. What was it? Millions upon millions just like Pezer had walked upon that sewer gate thing. It was full of the dirt of hours, days, millenia, seconds. With a million variations of his own heartbreak with a million variations of him and a million variations of the girl. And a million variations of a million variations. All just like him.

I am dust, he pondered.

Hail Dionisus.

Hail the bull.

Hail New York and Paris.

Pezer moved on, in search of shelter and fire for the might, aware of his puniness at the magnifiscent river of life.

We are all crocodiles.

…

Are we dust?

Pezer thinks not.

This was great.
Weird how you then have to slip back into the bourgeois.

The only other guy who ever figured he would lecture me on “the real world” had just paid for his own gay rape by a bunch of turks and then gave up his musical genius for a life of birdwatching. I hope the similarities stay superficial.

" 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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 4:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hahahahahahahahahaha

Lol no I’m just playin.

I don’t think I’ve ever had this much fun in my life.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 4:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Appearently my gambling house starts in aquarious.

So yrs. Try to imagine.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
you better explain what you mean about me “lying” to you, because i have no idea what you’re taking about and i won’t let such an accusation stand.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:14 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Omg man.

That you are less than forthcoming.

In the specific case it came up earlier, that it is clearly bullshit that you didn’t understand what I said. Is all.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Look, despite everything, we accidentally found a point of agreement.

Philo.

This love. I love football. Yes, for I do love wisdom.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Omg man.

That you are less than forthcoming.

In the specific case it came up earlier, that it is clearly bullshit that you didn’t understand what I said. Is all.

you mean this?

Pezer wrote:
Is bullshit rather not ignoring what is obvious between people who know eachother and eachother’s reference points all too well?

But then that is what I mean by the superstition of logic. You ignore what is real by pretending it is it that must pass your test.

Like Zoot. Except you at least have the balls to bring metaphysics into it.

yeah, i have no fucking idea what that is supposed to mean, it certainly isn’t in reference to anything i’ve written here. it’s unintelligible.

learn how to formulate your thoughts in a somewhat coherent manner at least, before expecting others to have an idea what you are saying.

and no i am not lying. i don’t appreciate being called a liar, for simply pointing out that i don’t know what you mean when you make incoherent statements like the above. and then you call me a liar a second time for saying i’m not lying.

just… you are exampling very well why i became a misanthrope.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:27 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer - dont think your clarity never fails you - it happens when you are expecting someone to understand things from where you stand even before you start to write. It is how all the world writes, but VO prohibits success here explicitly. No one can know what you mean like this, we have to guess. I can approach the meaning but I severely disagree with you, as this is not about aloofness but about real life judgement, necessities, which Zoot always panics to exclude, why he ends up where he does. Zoot is a tool. You can’t expect anyone to “understand” that Capable has anything to do with him, let alone demand of Capable that he “admits” 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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:35 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
i’ve never even interacted with this zoot person, to my knowledge. and i don’t seecwhat it has to do with my thread here.

pezer i’m still waiting for you to say anything at all about what i’ve developed here and in the social webs thread. you simply dismissed it all without explanation. that’s not… interesting to me.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Zoot is the guy seemed like a prospective philosophers clan member in the thread on ILP and made some videos, which were cool at first but then he invited heroin junkies in his van and soon after got convicted for dropping his pants before minors and went to prison. Haha been out for a few months. He ha read a bunch of philosophers and is just one of these supreme nuisances that use philosophy very deliberately for the purpose of staying distracted from truth. Which means, of course, that h get every single step in philosophical discourse wrong. He slips on every fucking rung. Since I had expectations of him I despise his failure.

" 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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
jesus. yeah i’ve never talked to that fucktard.
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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
Look, despite everything, we accidentally found a point of agreement.

Philo.

This love. I love football. Yes, for I do love wisdom.

Ive not enjoyed football this much since 1995.

Power / freedom. The power to do something / the freedom to do something.
The freedom to restrain oneself with ones own deepest values. We have a saying in my country: eerlijk duurt het langst; honesty takes the longest time.

The truth is not for the aloof. In fact thats what the distinction is; truthful vs aloof. This is the human condition. We can’t avoid to be aloof about many things, it is what we are truthful about that governs our conscience.

Why would we want a conscience? For the same reason a drug dealer needs an accurate scales.
putting your values on the scales in the moment of truth. “Philosophers” have feared this moment.

I cant believe philosophers have existed without campfires. I can literally not believe it, I don’t.

" 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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
jesus. yeah i’ve never talked to that fucktard.

Im sure it will remain that way.
For all the idiots that cross your path, may you be spared this one.

" 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

Love - Page 3 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 3 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 5:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As for misanthropy, Nietzsche was the greatest exponent of it so far, literally hating mankind so bad that he proposed that its only goal is to be overcome.

 Love	View previous topic View next topic Go down

Go to page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
Pezer
builder
builder

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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’m sort of half tempted to say something.

But I don’t. Not for now.

Thank you all, see you all next time.

Neymar has really grown as a person. This match was exasperating to me because I passionately liked both teams.

But I know Capable doesn’t like his threads highjacked. Enough for now, enjoy Japan Belgium.

. …

Wow wait. Lol. A misanthrope Nietzsche?

That’s like saying Copernicus hated the Sun.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:04 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The risk here is that one goes into an ivory tower.
Capable is constantly doing the exact opposite of that, engaging the marketplace like Zarathustra and constantly receiving the same responses.
I avoid both market and tower when I need to speak my mind clearly; I become the tightrope walker, just indicating the highest aspect of the process that is taking place.

Ive learned more from Zarathustra than from anyone else, including Nietzsche.
Im sure that goes for Nietzsche too. Zarathustra is the life that life cuts into. His blood is wisdom, why one reads that book so slowly or never and why I intend to never finish it. Odin is close there, much closer than a human can endure qua his humanity, and madness is found accordingly. Madness in the form of redemption.

" 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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:

Wow wait. Lol. A misanthrope Nietzsche?

That’s like saying Copernicus hated the Sun.

No, the opposite. N loved life and saw that humanity does not revolve around life but around death. From his perspective the Superman was required to redeem man.
He loved man when man becomes god or animal or superman, but not when man is intent on staying man. This he found sickening.
But we have grown since then - I know he would have liked to see us play.

" 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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:07 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
right. the misconception is that misanthropy is somehow closely related to nihilism, when nothing could be further from the truth.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Wagner convinced N that man is irredeemable. Wagner was his epic-liberal non sequitur, a lost dream.

Philanthropy and Misanthropy are very good friends.

I feel Im quoting st Augustine but one must decline the general nature of man to better it, and to better a nature simply means to make it healthier, more prone to enjoyment, thus more selective, more free in its will to power.

Ns very clear problem was that man wasn’t ready yet, that Bolshevism ad Nazism still had to wreak their havoc on mans self-image, and I think he just saw too much of the pain that was possible. Hence, what is the value of truth? That is a all one great euphemism for the biting off of the adders head, which is an euphemism for truth.

" 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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thrasymachus wrote:
right. the misconception is that misanthropy is somehow closely related to nihilism, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes. It is the wholesale condoning of mans crap that is nihilistic.

Mankind needs to be overcome, like the ape needed to be overcome, because it is possible. Greater things are possible. We will still have all that is vital but shed some unnecessary humiliations, like the ape shed so much that we are glad to have lost. And to he who say well we also lost, you can go to the gym. Enjoy ape and man at the same time. Nothing wrong with some of that. But the humiliations man must shed are precisely that liberal skin that is coming loose. There is much that is repressed, that is a ridiculous understatement - a tremendous fear of truth is what characterizes man to such an extent that Nietzsche found even he couldn’t escape it - and yet he tread where he feared. Why he is the ultimate hero, action hero even, superhero. But not yet a superman.

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

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:23 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
Pezer
builder
builder

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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
There is not a single post-Nietzsche thinker that I’ve seen address Nietzsche and not simply find a way to squirl away from his consequences. And to cover it up, make up some un related weakness. For Derruida, for instance, he claimed he used to like Nietzsche because he was an angry teenager’s.

Anyway, that is all I see still. Nietzsche was in fact so hopeful towards man as he was that he threatened to leave Europe if they did not come to their senses. History shew him an optimist.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I will concede that a radical reaction AGAINST Nietzsche would be so powerful, because Nietzsche was so powerful, that it would be worth seeing.

Not more worth seeing than a people that could actually read him.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
You seem to conflate misanthropy and pessimism. His greatness is in turning pessimism of strength into an optimism of strength. Previously, optimism had been some loose affair with a personal God. Now it became a task.

He was surely a philanthropist, but it was the loathing of the general rule as it stood for man was what inspired his most hilarious writing, his strongest happiest spirit. But I have the privilege of being able to read Zarathustra in the original text, which has been a bloody feast of recognition, dangerous laughter close to madness. Good book. There isn’t a decent English translation though, it all sounds absurd and far far away, where in German it is like the tale of red riding hood but even more wolf.

" 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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
These masters of to-day—surpass them, O my brethren—these petty people: THEY are the Superman’s greatest danger!

Surpass, ye higher men, the petty virtues, the petty policy, the sand-grain considerateness, the ant-hill trumpery, the pitiable comfortableness, the “happiness of the greatest number”—!

And rather despair than submit yourselves. And verily, I love you, because ye know not to-day how to live, ye higher men! For thus do YE live—best!

I damn sure know how to read that.

" 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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I don’t know. Until I see solid proof to the contrary, I will consider you a hard reaction against Nietzsche and follow you with great interest.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Remember that fascism is a hard reaction to communism. A hard reaction to something can be more akin to that thing than anything that came before it.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lukaku is one exciting motherfucker. He could single-handedly win this Cup.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 6:55 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course I am a hard reaction, like a billiard ball to another.
I existed, N hit into me, a reaction took place that was hard as all fuck indeed, and some ten years later this reaction amounts in VO.

I am a counterpart to N, for sure.
As our charts reveal.

" 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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 7:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Sure. We’ll leave it at that.

I am loathe to revive the actual philosophical discussion. Where you bring more pride than quality. Though you do have quality.

I know you are sensitive and easily offended. But by fuck, if this has any future, it will be with a bucketfull of honesty on my part. No more pasifying.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 8:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I guess that means it probably doesn’t have any future. Frustrating how I can never tell what it is that can keep this thing going.

Imaginary tug of wars in a dozen different directions. But if the images can’t keep up with reality, it becomes sterile.

I feel like shaking the computer.

MAybe that’s the problem, a computer again. Phones are more honest.

More likely your inability to remain current. Current, dog. What is the point of this damn forum if not my amusement?

I’ll go cool off. I can see I’m getting impertinent now.

See ya when I see ya.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 9:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I’ll be more specific, since this IS a thread about love.

I am restless to a point of transcendence as a default state. I cannot handle things going well and being on track: I either need an incredibly existential arch to do battle in or… I forget the other. You easily provide these, but they are shadows, nothing real. They don’t stand up to prodding. I can hear you thinking “that’s neither my goal nor my problem.”

Fuck I forgto the rest.

My main problem with life is how boring it is. Truly, it’s fucking boring. The girls are prudes, the men are cowards and the people in charge worship machines. And everybody is scared of themselves and life and anything that isn’t a spoon in their mouths.

You at least overcome 99% of these fears. But you are a first world baby, actual danger turns you off. Except if it’s machinic genocidal danger, like Nazis, which you may or may not realize also provides detachement and thus avoiding from and of actual danger. The building up of forces on a scale that drains them from any individual humans, just the archetypical undercurrents.

This will not prevail, because I exist. You may also not understand that yet.

Only a pampered first world baby could consider those build ups appropriate sources of fun. Quixotesque to the max, without the charm of the scarcely populated world of medieval knights.

Fuck. Fuck your complacency. It is cowardice, I say this with love.

Oh well. Goddamnit. This boredom. On with taking over the world.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 11:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Stop looking at me like I’m crazy you fucking asshole. You’re the one that lit the beacon.

Who in the fuck did you think was gonna come?
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 12:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
I’ll be more specific, since this IS a thread about love.

I am restless to a point of transcendence as a default state. I cannot handle things going well and being on track: I either need an incredibly existential arch to do battle in or… I forget the other. You easily provide these, but they are shadows, nothing real. They don’t stand up to prodding. I can hear you thinking “that’s neither my goal nor my problem.”

The real prodding isn’t done here, among real people.
The problem is the path into the goo, the type of path Trump found.
Its not so much a problem as a case.

Im a detective in this sense. I like the action, but Ive got a purpose between the lines. Detective work is a lot of watching things unfold.

Quote :
My main problem with life is how boring it is. Truly, it’s fucking boring. The girls are prudes, the men are cowards and the people in charge worship machines. And everybody is scared of themselves and life and anything that isn’t a spoon in their mouths.

Hence the misanthropy.

Quote :
You at least overcome 99% of these fears. But you are a first world baby, actual danger turns you off. Except if it’s machinic genocidal danger, like Nazis, which you may or may not realize also provides detachement and thus avoiding from and of actual danger.

Ive always sought out danger to the point of getting hurt, it is why I don’t drink much. The nightmarish psychic memories of nazi times don’t allow for avoiding danger either, thats a misconception. My sister is the same in this way, walking into the ghettos of Johannesburg, got held up and robbed of course, didn’t mind it much, what counts is just seeing what really dangerous out there and what happens next, what you do next, to see if you’re helpless or not. Neither she or I are helpless in danger. Perhaps we both endure it a bit too well, causing the conditions for it around us. What to do with this dangerousness, this is the question. I am fortunate enough to have friends like these, there is a great deal of meaning to the danger. But knowingt he absolute reality of it, I am patient with what matters the most.

Quote :
The building up of forces on a scale that drains them from any individual humans, just the archetypical undercurrents.

This will not prevail, because I exist. You may also not understand that yet.

But then again, I might understand such things quite well. And they might be the very reason for what you see as complacency. Taurus isn’t complacent.

Quote :
Only a pampered first world baby could consider those build ups appropriate sources of fun. Quixotesque to the max, without the charm of the scarcely populated world of medieval knights.

Fuck. Fuck your complacency. It is cowardice, I say this with love.

Such a reproach is no insult. It is merely a call to action.
This is of course one of the reasons of my respect for you, that you give out this sort of reproach to the most complacent historical type, the philosopher; this is why we are a clan, if only bound by the fate of promethean vision.

Quote :
Oh well. Goddamnit. This boredom. On with taking over the world.

There is no other thing.
Boredom and love form a hard nut, the world itself, which needs to be made, usurped into life, the earth as a temple to the will. It must be erected, it isn’t already there. But as soon as there is one temple, one explication of life that suffices in Dionysos’ presence, as a theater, the age will have shifted.

I take your instincts seriously, this is also your Saturn year, the first year of the Saturn calendar, and with the Sagittarius Jupiter year starting inside of this Saturn year, I would be a fool to dismiss the signal of your increased unrest.

" 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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 12:38 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s just… Yeah, you would, the question is whether to incluye you or not. And since I know you have a similar path that you will follow anyway, I am willing to throw everything and the kitchen sink at it.

Which led me today to the Second great pain. The first was the Nazi flag. That sort of stopped me cold and drew me off of my happy dream. The Second was looking at my horoscipe in astrocafe after throwing you away. One of the things it said: Lilith making some aspect: avoid love at first sight at all costs for it will lead to ruin of all duties and projects. Which I knew when I saw her. But you know how those things go.

That pain is significante enough to send me into a tail spin. Fuck all the Gods.

So obviously fuck you too. And me.

So here we are. Faith now outside of me, hovering like Link’s fairy by my side.

Situation normal, dog.

Crazy game with that Japan.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 12:50 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Plus you have an ability that I can never have, no matter how hard I try: sitting still, riding the wave that you made, performing a proper stake out.

I’m a terrible fucking detective and I know it.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 1:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Also I’m quitting the smokes. Cheating often.

But I gotta do it. Can’t have the vultures laughing at me like that.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 1:36 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That’s not entirely true. I’m the finest detective in history after Nietzsche. Of real men. But what is needed now is what you say, detecting the goo. Working the goo. I could kill it. But the patience thing, it’s bad. Even though the gods offer me women and riches aplenty as a reward. I can’t ever hold it for long. I’m hoping as Saturn progresses and I amass the control that comes with the money I can be seduced by the gods. But, as you know, the from here to there is a problem. So here we are. Just me and fixed cross and the shadow of the dragonfly.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 1:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Also, this needs to be on the record, Capable is an unparalleled genious. I always tell him that he’s the only philosopher I know. His writings are some crazy fucking shit. They can actually highjack a Nietzschean. That’s impressive. But I can’t do battle AND read his shit. I hope a life or two from now I’ll be able to.
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

Love - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Love Love - Page 4 Icon_minitimeMon Jul 02, 2018 1:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
So that’s why I urge him to drop the hate and keep writing. He will be posthumous. But he will be up there with Nietzsche, past Nietzsche in many important ways.

To him I say: stop the hate fool. We got this.

66

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 10:01 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Friendships are scalable and transferrable. You can always add another person into your social connections web, grow the web like this, or take great experiences and feelings from one relationship and apply them into another relationship. Friendship, I mean real friends who actually care about you and you actually care about them, are this kind of values-web of real connections that extend into and as your own life. Obviously this is what romantic love is too, having one person with whom we try to replicate this entire structure in its entirety. But that isn’t necessary, instead we can have several or more good friends and the structure still exists, more spread out among different people. As far as I can tell there are both benefits and detriments to having it spread out like this, compared to the 1:1 relationship of romantic or serious love.

At the selfvaluing level (webs of values, daemonics, etc) it is such that it is impossible to connect to others without that connection going in both directions and to the same degree in each direction*. It’s hard to explain how such a basic idea hit me so hard and I was seeing it literally as a philosophical truth construct, something absolutely real and surprising, but basically there tends to be this idea that we can reach out to someone and exchange information or touch them or communicate or whatever else, and the interaction is one-way mostly or entirely, but I think that’s false. I think at the existential/phenomenological/VO level every connection is by definition mutual both/all ways to exactly the same degree. For interaction or exchange to move one way it must have forged already or simultaneously be forging, carving into the earth of being, a path back to itself and the mere existence of this path back is an interaction exchange as such already, because that is all that these sort of paths and “earth of being” are anyway.

*It almost always appears that there is difference in a connection, that one person is reaching out and touching more than the other person is; this is true, but only at the surface layers, at layers more derivative and secondary, more like constructs resting on surfaces that act more as symbols and discharges, growths like trees, rather than at the deeper tectonic levels. Deeper in the tectonics, at VO and Daemonic levels, there can be no connection one way unless it also exists in the opposite direction, and unless information is flowing back from the target toward the source to the same degree that information is flowing out from the source to the target. It is hard to explain exactly why this is, ontologically speaking the case, but it has to do with the fact that these sort of ‘connections’ are literally this kind of carving out of channels of information-transfer, they are these transfers of information and nothing besides. So if more overt information is flowing in one direction and not in the other, you can be sure that this indicates an imbalance between the target and the source with respect to their own individual self-valuings, as structures and as aspects of the social webs, for example; however, in the deeper and hidden tectonics, the connection is always equally mutual, and subtler flows will always transfer underneath your conscious awareness.

This is a new application of Newton’s law of equal and opposite reaction. It has massive implication in our relationships and to things like social media. For example now, with technology we can send a single image or a meme with text on it or gif whatever, and the amount of information that flows back and forth between ourselves and those who see our image/meme is essentially infinite, because of how deep that pool of information is and how we cannot probe it’s depths, how it can affect potentially everything. This is the actual power of memes. And why not just the existence of the internet but of social media was needed for them to appear. And it’s why things become polarized and magnetized now to a degree and in a way they didn’t before, which “upping the ante” has caused the rise in political correctness as a kind of desperate compensation attempt to keep things balanced on a more or less even keel. Assuming Trump as presidential candidate had even been possible before social media, he would never have led to the kind of insanity and outrage and chaos and all that did happen, without social media having existed, even if he said and did all the exact same things say 10 to 15 years ago. The insanity now is just a consequence of how the tectonics have suddenly deepened.

And I mean they have literally deepened. I can see it, and of course everyone can feel it. It actually gives the impression of shallowness at first, loss of depth, because we are now more isolated without our former grounding.

And true to my first insight about mutual connection, it’s also the case that my tie to others in this sort of pain/unlimited/negative implications way, which allows me to probe the limits of existence but also puts strain and danger into my social connections, and how this interaction and exchange allows me to create knowledge out of excessive experience, also works the other way in that once having gained knowledge by pushing experience past the limit and into pain/negative implication, I can then turn around and draw further excess back into the world of my experience from this new knowledge I have gained, which is what I am doing now by writing all of this right now. This additional connection here in this message I am writing is allowing a reverse flow back into my world/experience in such a way as attempts to correct for the imbalance of how some of the social connections I have elsewhere in my life caused my world/experience to destabilize (allowed me to destabilize my world/experience) as a consequence of the difference between their limitedness and my own and in a way that produced totally new knowledge for me.

This is maybe the trick of original thinking. Somehow this back and forth of exchange of excess and the needs/attempts to balance this out alternatingly one way then another, produces ideas from the world and the world from ideas.

All of these social connection things are like modules that hook up and create new social connection things, I don’t even have a word for it. The concept for it barely even exists, let alone any words to explain it. Also on the thing about the mutuality and equality of all connection, this logic appears at the far end of our knowledge in that the most abstract, penetrating and significant insights appear as the most simple, basic and obvious things, so obvious in fact that we cannot see them. Much less explain them; but when I am able to see a little into these things, and when I feel them out and approach them and do that whole exchange of excess back and forth thing, then I am able to find words to explain what is happening. And it takes thousands of words to barely begin to explain something as seemingly simple and obvious as the fact of “we make social connections to each other”.

“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 Thrasymachus on Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:22 pm; edited 5 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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 10:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
One reason people isolate into limited spheres of experience and interaction is for basic protection. When you share something with someone else you open yourself up to this other person to the exact same degree as you draw something from them to yourself. This is just how it works, existentially-phenomenologically speaking. This is also pure ontology. Tectonic, Value Ontological, Daemonic.

The need for control of privacy and for what one shares with others is very important. This boundary does not need to be absolutely firm, and should be somewhat of a gray area to allow for novel possibilities to present themselves to us, but the boundary should exist and be meaningful. Something you can control and change. This conforms to VO explaining how the self is a aggregate of valuings that achieve a mutuality of valuing each other to sufficient degree that both interconnectivity occurs and lasts, as well as that each value itself remains itself without compromising its own integrity too far. This delicate balance creates a web-like structure that stabilizes and coheres itself slowly, carefully, subtly, and grows like this over time.

This social web values thing (I don’t really have a good name for it, and it is a separate thing from the selfvaluing itself although it also a part of the overall selfvaluing) can be damaged by contact with others whose own valuing/s are too severely different from one’s own. Thus an extensive architecture of tools and techniques exists to mediate potential relations with new people. E.g. social convention, taboos, small talk, flirting, etc.

Well flirting is a special case, because here the two respective persons already share self-valuings that are similar enough to each other in their deeper structures and aspects so that a higher-order resonance occurs when they come into closer proximity with one another, and due to this resonance their respective social webs also immediately begin to link up to each other, automatically and instinctively. Then this linking and especially the significance and suddenness of it will impact each web, causing readjustments of excesses flowing around on the threads of the web, leading to transfer of excess to the new node, namely to the other person with whom one is flirting.

Each person’s web can only handle so much excess, though, and so when you dump a lot of your excess into their social web, even with flirting, this can be risky because it may cause the other person to get overloaded; their own web cannot deal with all of that excess, so the other person will pull away. This sets natural limits that are felt out over time, and a balance of sorts can be intuitively achieved between these two people. Over time, flirting may lead to deeper feelings of intimacy and love, in which case the respective self-valuings are becoming closer to each other, more threaded together, more entwined and interdependent, and thusly also the respective social webs are becoming better able to handle each other’s excess transfers – and this means that these two people can better understand, help, and appreciate/value each other.

“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 Thrasymachus on Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:29 pm; edited 4 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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 10:24 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
^ In addition, this produces one more intellectual, philosophical justification for the importance of privacy: the necessity, to the very core of our selfvaluing and daemonism, to our selves, to our souls, for being able to maintain some significant (although not perfect) control over managing the kinds and degrees of connections we have to others. Without a certain degree of privacy, applicable directly to the social web thing itself, much more so even to your selfvaluing as such, these subtlest of structures cannot cohere themselves beyond a very minimal level. This is how and why the concept of privacy and the notion of right to privacy appeared in the human world. And I would say it also exists implicitly but very strongly within the animal world as well.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 10:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
All of this connects to what I was saying elsewhere about Love:

"The perfect person will just slip into your soul and fit there perfectly, and you into theirs. No force or pressure is needed.

This is what love means, to me anyway.

…Shit I figured it out. What Love is.

Two souls tangled up with each other.

Look at this from the vantage of VO.

Omg. This is real. "

It is real. Perhaps the most real thing of 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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 10:33 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I have one issue with this, namely the there are vast power differences, and that what one person has to share is not necessarily available, quantitatively even, in the rest of the world. The person puts a lot out there, and this remains unresolved and become a standard of other peoples interaction, like a Totem actually, as indeed it would be identified with taboo.

" 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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 10:44 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I have one issue with this, namely the there are vast power differences, and that what one person has to share is not necessarily available, quantitatively even, in the rest of the world. The person puts a lot out there, and this remains unresolved and become a standard of other peoples interaction, like a Totem actually, as indeed it would be identified with taboo.

I absolutely agree with this.

And I see immediately how this awesome insight works perfectly with what I am developing here. Social connections are not all equal, because people are not equal; the equality of the mutuality of the exchanges of information along both directions of the connection between selfvaluings is something formal, structural, ontological, in so far as to be able to transfer information to someone else requires that you yourself be capable of receiving the exact same scope and kind of information from them in return. It is not always the case you will actually receive this information from them like that, but the mere fact of the necessity of the possibility for being able to receive it like that is what I mean by the equality/mutuality of these sort of connections.

So if there is a significant difference here as you mention, then yes a kind of Totem/taboo thing wold appear, a hard point in the webs of others to whom you connect, a kind of singularity. They will struggle to deal with this singularity and may simply attempt to avoid it or downgrade its importance in their web; but the significance of having such a singularity sitting there is going to force changes upon them whether or not they know or want it to. And then yes, extend that outward into/as the broader world as aggregate of numerous social webs all somehow connected into and through each other, nodes all over the place, threads spilling everywhere, you are going to see changes to how large flows of excess move around in the world of these webs, namely even excess flows very distant from you and to which you do not even have any direct or known contacts are going to begin to adjust their flows to the presence of these singularities which exist in the nodes of others, because you put them there as a consequence of how our interactions with others are so imbalanced in these ways.

So we might even say that the fact of such significant imbalances is a kind of super-node or glitch in this system, because ideally connections should stick relatively close to that lower tectonic layer of equality/mutuality in the formal structural sense, in order to achieve greater efficiency in the system overall and for ourselves generally, to achieve better more meaningful social connections and relationships with others, which allows better excess-flow exchanges for us and for them, which is sort of the entire point of all this sociality stuff; however, when severe imbalance occurs and the structural/formal layer down in the tectonics cannot sync properly with the salient surface layers, this is where those nodes, in other’s social webs, which represent you and your connection to them are going to become somewhat overloaded, massive, threaten to collapse like black holes from all of that additional mass that is not being properly regulated under the surface. The structure itself will vibrate differently, this probably is felt as some emotional friction or physical discomfort. But it is very hard to remove a node from one’s social web, once it is there, and I doubt people can really remove it even if they would like to. That is another reason to look at these kinds of social connections seriously and take them by the assumption as being very meaningful.

“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 Thrasymachus on Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:48 pm; 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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 10:47 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
And in fact, consider the other person’s nodal point in their own social web, the node they have for you, for your connection to them: if indeed they are unable to come anywhere close to matching the kind of excess or information you are transferring to them, if the sync is not properly occurring between higher and lower layers in the tectonics between you two, then what will occur? This node in their social web is going to get oversaturated and begin to spill out its contents as excess in new ways, probably mostly at the lower structural/formal levels simply because the higher more conscious levels require that kind of conscious processing power and realization-ability which, most likely, is going to be largely absent for such a person for whom their selfvaluing is so significantly different and ‘simpler’ than your own.

If things cannot be understood, they are shunted down into unconsciousness; this does not mean they go away, far from it. In fact this is probably a large part of the basis for why this whole deeper tectonic, structural/formal system of managing these kinds of social connections even formed in the first place.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 10:57 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course then this also shows how philosophy works, how great art works, how truly epic personalities and minds literally change the entire world by simply existing, by simply maintaining some degree of contact with others and through that with the entire world.

These singularities are like glittering dark gems, I see them as a kind of deep green with purple sparkles all surrounded by clouds of black. Whereas the nodes themselves tend to be more white, light gray, tan, that sort of color. Also the nodes may be smaller or larger compared to the singularities, but the singularity is of a different kind, so almost resides in a separate dimension from the rest of the web in which it is sitting. I would assume singularities even from one web to another also create a kind of meta-connection to each other in how they lead to adjustments across multiple webs between them, adjustments of how information and excesses flow. But because a lot of that information and excess is trying to avoid the singularity, the webs are sort of adjusting themselves around these singularity-points. These singularities bend the world, consciousness, being, into rivers, or carve rivers out of oceans. [This must lead to higher kinds of organization, and therefore to greater abilities for reductions in overall entropy. So it might even be necessary that such singularities exist, that such vast differences manifested as nodal connection points between people are the case, even though ideally it might seem better that things were more evened out between us all.

No, that does not seem to be the case. We need these kinds of differences. This is true for many different (lol) reasons.* ]

Although that isn’t the more significant level of analysis here, not the most meaningful thing. What is most meaningful is not even accessible to us yet, because we lack the vocabulary and the philosophy to even approach it; the level of the meaningful as such, how the values themselves work, what they are, what facts/meanings have caused them to be and to which these values and aspects are connected and which they represent, etc. The deep structural intricacies of a single soul are so much deeper than we are capable of penetrating that it might as well be infinitely out of our reach. But I do think philosophy, and not only philosophy probably, will start to achieve this greater depth. The entire discipline of philosophy and by extension the entire world is already slowly building toward this point, at least it seems so to me.

So the singularity is just a node that cannot manage what it has absorbed, or is not synced properly, thus errors are flowing out of it. These errors generate logical as well as immediate-practical necessity for dealing with these errors. This necessity exists in direct proportion to the distance of an individual social web and selfvaluing to the errors themselves, which also means to the source of the errors. And then this necessity, like the pains of existing, of life, pushes subjectivity, consciousness, valuing, higher and higher upon the continuum of being.

  • Shit. I just derived how-why it is necessary that a large number of people remain at a lower level compared to the small number of people who dump far more excess and information into the world’s social web connections. These differences must exist, but also the entire structure must slowly rise up over time. In fact I would say this is what history shows is exactly what has been happening and continues to happen.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 11:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fascinating development.

It happened to me on social media during Trump rise, what I put out there caused such a black hole/negative totem which resulted in my cousin posting an actual death wish on my fb page and another cousin jumping in to be angry at me for saying something to the extent of fuck you then, and then it turned out a large part of my old social circle had just turned to zombies on account of too vast differences in power/truth.

I would say this “incorrect” or un-ideal stage can be represented as a very spiky irregular graph, and that it has to be smoothed out, through philosophy, or what we may call philosophical politics, through strategic investments and fertilizations, into more of a bell curve.

Essentially, what needs to be brought about is a proper order of rank.

" 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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon Apr 09, 2018 12:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Trump phenomenon and how people react to us even just saying that Trump is more or less ok, is a good example of how these things work.

I am going to keep focusing for now on the aspects of friendship and love when it comes to social connection, social webs and selfvaluing entanglements. But all this could also definitely also be applied more toward politics and philosophy-politics.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon Apr 09, 2018 12:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
But these were my friends.
Also the reason he gave for the death wish was my tribute to his dead brother, which he, because of my work to save us all from annihilation, interpreted in some sick perverse way.

I don’t experience this difference between friendship and other aspects of life; for me, friendship is total, or non-existent.

" 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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon Apr 09, 2018 12:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For 20 years Ive given this guy everything I could possibly share if I thought he could benefit from it in the slightest.
He has always been ungrateful and unreliable but I have so much love in my heart that I was constantly thinking he is still worth it. That was excessive valuation.

Thats something I need to become aware of and control, my tendency to overestimate people.

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

  • Thucydides

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:59 am; edited 2 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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon Apr 09, 2018 12:49 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
That’s interesting because for me it is always separate. Friendship occupies a specific area of my life and subjectivity, and might expand here or there from time to time but is always distinct.

I suppose this is why I conceive of the social web thing as separate from selfvaluing proper and as something sort of external to the self to which the self relates and into which the self transfers some of its excess (and from which it draws excess to 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
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon Apr 09, 2018 12:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
For 20 years Ive given this guy everything I could possibly share if I thought he could benefit from it in the slightest.
He has always been ungrateful and unreliable but I have so much love in my heart that I was constantly thinking he is still worth it. That was excessive valuation.

Thats something I need to become aware of and control, my tendency to overestimate people.

Yes I’ve had to work on that too. I’ve gotten better at it recently, which is nice. I still treat others as if I were overestimating them, to draw out whatever is latent there and also because it’s possible I could have underestimated them somehow. But I’ve become more accurate. It helps me value much better and more effectively.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon Apr 09, 2018 1:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It is heartbreaking to realize how lowly so many people are, how little they have to give, and how little they value people around them.
Most social interactions are entirely fake. I hadn’t realized how deeply I had become embedded in these fake structures, I had a blind spot to some sociopathic liars. I mean that in the clinical sense, Im not exaggerating or anything.

This is one reason why Islam will keep encroaching in Europe - muslims have a far greater loyalty between each other than the typical modern westerner. Our “species” is on the brink of extinction, when it comes to value-connections. The death of god has brought about a terrible lack of self-valuing. Self-Valuing can only exist through real interaction with other beings, and this is nearly gone from our world.

" 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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon Apr 09, 2018 5:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am not quite so worried about it as that, but then again I do choose to restrict myself to interactions with others who actually have real value. If I were to be more indiscriminate as to with whom I interact then I would probably be far more pessimistic. But I had to place severe limits on it for my is sake, and it’s worked out very well. I’m much healthier and stronger and more coherent-clear for choosing not to engage with subcreatures.

…

Specifically on the issue of love, I think love actually replicates the social web structure but with only one other person; normally a social web comes into existence as a consequence of many different friendships or relationships all mutually interacting, but between one person and just one good friend or relation you can have deep connections too of course, and these are based as all such connections are on shared values and shared self-valuing. Thus there is a “as below so above” format here: between you and just one other person with whom you are close (not even talking about love yet) there exist many shared values and self-valuing types and tendencies and actions, and every such point of commonality between you two becomes a node in a network, this network being the entanglement and entwining of your respective souls. This of course allows excesses to be transferred back and forth between you two, quite literally (onticly, existentially, phenomenologically) connecting both of your souls together.

This is also quite obviously very similar to what happens with the social webs. In a social web you have different nodes with each node being your contact point to another person with whom you are friends or have a close relationship; the web itself is the interlinkages between all of those nodes from your own perspective as oriented to the web. So the web is unique for every person who relates to it, even if it includes all the same nodes, however in virtually all actual cases no two people would have the same nodes in their respective social webs, since we all know and have different people as friends and close relations.

Now it is revealed that each node in a social web is actually a mini web of its own, a web composed of nodes each of which is a point of similarity or commonality between you and this other person with respect to each of your own values and self-valuings. This whole structure actually looks incredible, if you really look at it as I’m doing. Quite remarkable and beautiful.

Now back to love, love starts from this interlinkage between two souls wherein their connected souls form a network of nodes as mentioned above and as are similar in structure to the larger social web, and then love deepens and expands this network of connections until… what? Until a certain threshold is reached, until the connections become so extensive and deep that a larger significance appears and both souls in effect become two sides of the same soul, a shared soul. Two people merge together and become one, but also remain separate and distinct from each other.

This happens because in such close connection the excesses are in a state of constant transfer in and out of both sides of the connection, of both souls, so that the connection between two people stops becoming digital and becomes analog.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon Apr 09, 2018 6:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Now having connected his topic to what I wrote about love, I will attempt to also connect all of this now to what I was saying about virtual hologram girlfriends; these virtual hologram girlfriends (who do not yet properly exist at least publicly but I think will exist publicly soon) are much like our own dreams and fantasies about someone we barely know and with whom we have no real connections yet: based on a projection of our own values and self-valuing, we dream an ideal image of our love based on the fact that this image presents itself to us as a reflection of our own values and self-valuing. That reflection can be accurate or inaccurate to any degree but still functions as if it were real. And such dreams can serve to train us in ourselves, to give us better insight into what it is we are and what it is we want in another. This is why virtual hologram girlfriends do not worry me too much, despite that people will form relationships with them when in reality there are no shared underlying values or self-valuings in the hologram itself; what is in the hologram is a Turing model, and which model is continuously absorbing your own values and self-valuing patterns and then reflecting these back to you. Similar to our dreams and fantasies only far more potent. And it isn’t as if our dreams and fantasies are dangerous or harmful (although they can be if taken to a very far extreme of obsession), so too for virtual hologram girlfriends. These holograms are basically externalized dreams in a more potent audiovisual (and tactile, eventually) format than that of our imagination, but I see no fundamental difference between the hologram in this case and the dreams we have in our imaginations.

Dreaming come to life, perhaps that is what virtual and augmented reality is going to become. Well one must first dream, I suppose, before one can properly know and engage with reality. Dreaming as practice for reality engagement.

One danger I can see is a person might fall in love with a hologram. This seems hard to believe, for me anyway, because we know the hologram isn’t a real person; however, I have to assume that many people are too stupid to know this fact. Therefore such a “love” would be based on a deep failure of that person’s consciousness and understanding, would be like they literally fell in love with a dream or fantasy of theirs. And in a limited way this is what we do in real love, we tend to idealize the other person to some degree, we always build on the real deeper tectonic connections something more ideal and subject to our own determinations, ideas, desires, and dreams. But in such cases as real love the actual existence of the other person grounds the fantasy/dreaming idealization, in a pure fantasy or with a hologram no such grounding exists except for using oneself as a ground; therefore would represent a kind of narcissism. So distance must be maintained even as one forms relationships of a sort with one’s fantasies/dreams or with virtual hologram girlfriends. This distance keeps the experience from becoming a danger, and keeps the experience naturally pushed to the periphery of oneself, where it cannot affect one’s values and self-valuing in any significant or overly broad (in either space or time) way. This is why I see such experiences as basically practice for the real thing, as a kind of surrogate or externally manifested process of our own imagination.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeTue Apr 24, 2018 1:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I see now that for the social web thing to function properly each node must be separate from the others. Not totally separate but sufficiently so. The nodes should have some connections to each other, or at least that’s ok, and necessary for the social friend aspect in terms of groups, but each node’s connection to me, to my social web, must be independent and not tangled up in that connection with other nodes to which I’m also connected. I think this is why I keep things separate and tend to compartmentalize relationships. This delimitation causes more substance, more being, to come into existence.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeTue Apr 24, 2018 1:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I also realize now that it’s impossible for me to truly love more than one woman at a time. My soul will only link up in this way to one other soul. I can make good connections to more than one woman but not in whatever it is that love means. The more one love connection develops, the more the other declines. It’s a simple equation maintaining a balance. It’s ok for now but eventually I will need to collapse that equation into just one person, one lover. But I’m not going to force that and it will take time to allow this all to work itself out naturally.

Maybe Nietzsche didn’t have anyone to really talk to. Maybe thats why he died.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeThu May 10, 2018 1:48 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I had two primary nodes in much social web, two women I befriended closely and who I really needed and came to care about, and who I thought cared about me. All other nodes became secondary to these two. I was able to exchange unlimited amounts of excess for a while between these and myself, and a very delicate machine developed: emotional and love excess between these two nodes, social personality excess between a few nodes at my job, and then philosophical excess with Parodites and Fixed, plus some degree of overlap between all of these all flowing throughout me at the center of this vast web.

And then it all collapsed. All I have left are the two original philosophical nodes. The social nodes and the emotional/love nodes are all but gone now.

It’s crazy to have experienced this kind of phenomenological, existential machinery of subjectivity that I experienced and then to have it simply shut off.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeThu May 10, 2018 2:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s amazing the effect this has on me. I found out for a brief time, about two months, what it is like to have these female friends on whom I could truly rely. I was bouncing excess around without limit, like a god juggling universes. I could do anything. And then it all went away. That too is amazing just in a terrible way, to lose that power. I know why most people are so miserable, now. And why they don’t even realize most of the time that they are miserable.

I tried for years to find friendships like this with basically no success, and suddenly I had two at once. It freed me to use my philosophical friendships and my philosophical powers, rather than depend on these for everything which before putting this social web machinery together I didn’t even realize how to upgrade those nodes to higher quality excess contents.

I’m fairly sure that no one else understands these things. This is new philosophical territory. Most people just have no fucking idea what life can be like, their own lives. Subjectivity is untapped potential. Philosophy hasn’t really been born into the world yet, and neither has friendship, not really. Excesses are still highly limited and unaware of themselves, so used to never getting their needs met that they have come to take this state of non-fulfillment as totally normal. But a tectonic god like I am is able to pierce that veil, if only for a moment or two.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon May 14, 2018 3:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I realized now that love is a form of communication, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that communication is a form of love. And not simply verbal or written communication, also gesture and body language, touch, eye contact, subtle emotional exchanges, that sort of thing also counts. It is possible for two people to love one another and share that as communication in the moment even without speaking. But I do believe that love reaches its peak when all these various forms of communication occur at the same time, linking two souls together as deeply and fully as possible.

This is also touching on why love tends to be between two people rather than three or more, why polygamy is not natural. Polygamy may be natural in a sense of lust, sexuality, even co-habitation and caring about one another or raising children even, but when it comes to love it would be difficult to link up three or more souls. Or maybe not, maybe this would be just as easy as linking up two souls. It just seems that love is already so rare, it is hard enough to find another soul with whom one can truly connect like this, so to add a requirement of finding two other souls with whom you can truly connect would make it even more rare.

When another soul links up to your own, as communication because that is what it is, excesses shift and are released; this produces instant mania, euphoric energy and happiness. We call that “falling in love”.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon May 14, 2018 3:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Although with polygamy if you could actually find true love with two or more females, and they with you and each other, this would produce the most intense and deep social web ever. Like what I had with these two girls with whom I was close friends, sharing excesses back and forth like creating universes, only we weren’t actually in love mutually and if we had been the experience would have been a hundred times more potent.

Yes… communication is a form of love, of soul-linkage and excess-exchange. So is friendship, friendship is simply a watered-down version of love. Qualitatively or structurally-phenomenologically the same thing, but quantitatively reduced in scope and degree.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeMon May 14, 2018 8:03 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Although with friendship, it doesn’t need to or drive to progress into love, so it is it’s own phenomenon. Therefore possesses a nature entirely its own. And this is why it’s difficult to be good friends with a woman, because the friendship does tend to naturally escalate toward love. Thus heterosexuality is a useful stop-gap that allows friendship to exist as it’s own entity.

“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

Social webs Empty
PostSubject: Re: Social webs Social webs Icon_minitimeTue May 15, 2018 9:41 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The form of what we call consciousness is being able to feel or experience something from both sides, from the side of that which is felt and from the side of who feels. That’s what neurology does for us, and the nervous system generally, it takes the fact that cells sit up against each other and it turns this fact into something more, into a true mutuality of connection that raises reality higher into a more triadic function wherein a third term sits above the two terms in relation, and the third term becomes the primary ontic, phenomenological object.

When this happens at the internal level of ideas and feelings themselves, what we call a psychology appears.

This is also why people often get stuck in catch 22’s, because they are operating at the level of the two terms in relation and not operating at the triadic level. For example, someone feels like shit or is stressed or angry or upset, so they do something to address that or deal with it, and the feelings dissipate or go away; but now whatever it was they did to make the feelings go away, isn’t needed anymore because those feelings for which it was needed no longer exist. So the act invalidates itself in its own completion. This can also be equally true of acting on positive impulses and needs, for example in fulfilling a desire: when the desire is achieved then the act itself loses its raison d’etre, if the act was not also situated triadically.

However, the higher side of human experience is that we also often end up in more triadic methods, which sit outside of “time” and can address problems and situations without invalidating themselves. This is closely associated to rooting oneself in deeper values, in being rooted in that way. More “shallow” or materialistic people are not rooted in this way and so they cycle between the lower terms in relation without ever getting up to the triadic level. The triadic is stability and “beyond time”, is this a part of truth in a more complete way.

So any problem or situation we might be in that we notice ourselves cycling between one extreme or strong feeling/response and another, we know is a sign that we need to elevate the problem or situation into the third term, into the comprehensive triadic state ‘above’ the conflict. This requires finding that about which both conflicting terms speak or work around or against or within; to find the proper philosophical kernel in each conflicting term and to then find the common ground between those kernels, and then to invert that ground by making it into the primary category so that it becomes a sky over that for which it is ground.

How all this relates to social webs: the social web is similar in logical structure to the triadic, because each person is like a single term in relation to one another, while the connection between them is the triadic in the higher case of approaching something like love or is the cycling bipolar catch 22 in the lower case of being unable to approach something like love.

67

individualized

PostSubject: Inner mental model, and e-motions

We orient ourselves toward our own experiences, in the mind and as memory; this is what we call the mind itself, which is the inner model of the outside world (which includes ourselves in that model as well) that we build over time by having experiences with the world and with ourselves, and these experiences go into memory and inform the creation of the model.

What we call the inner mind’s eye, the ability to visualize things in our thoughts, as well as dreams, is all the inner model. There is basically no difference between dreaming and being awake, except that when you are awake your body’s senses are streaming billions of sensory bits into that model thus sort of over-riding or suppressing it for a large part, maybe around 90% suppression of the inner model. Thus most of what you experience with that model while you are awake is really just the sensory bits from outside, converted into the language of the model itself, while the model itself and its own stored information is suppressed to maybe 10% functioning (which 10% is your inner visualizations, imagination, inner monologue, your thoughts, etc.).

So when you dream, these body senses stop streaming into the model, in which case the model stops being suppressed and takes over consciousness. In other words when dreaming you become conscious of the model itself, only. Specific dreams are probably (based on past work I have done in this area) neurological reconfigurations based on meaning and logic embedded in and as the neurological patterns which patterns correspond to the meaning (facts, reality, significance) of our experiences, in so far as reactivating those same patterns return the original impetus of the experience back to the totality of consciousness, which totality acts like an overall context to recreate the original experience as the model’s operation in the present moment for you to then “become conscious of”, which is exactly what happens.

So the neurological patterns have a dual and opposite structural logic: on the one hand the neurons are trying to maximize their logical complexity to a perfect integration of the data they represent, as their connections to other neurons, so that this information is represented perfectly and without error or vagueness (basically each neurological pattern contains an implicit meta-pattern that imposes itself upon the pattern, which meta-pattern comes from the larger neurological context and represents a more perfect configuration of the neurological pattern on which the meta-pattern imposes itself), while on the other hand the neurological patterns represent complex forms with large energy requirement to maintain, and thus the neurons are also trying to entropically find a lower energy state and thus to dissolve their own patterns.

The interaction of these two competing forces, toward order and toward disorder, in the neurology as the logical pattern-structures between neurons is probably a large part of why the neurology is constantly self-active, trying to find an impossible balance point between these two extremes. The two extremes work on the level of individual neurons, neural patterns, meta-patterns, and probably globally on the entire brain as a whole. So you not only have constant dynamic self-activity of the neurons which are always “moving” (adjusting their patterns with each other according to trying to follow each of those two competing forces, which produces an imperfect sort of ex post facto “balance”) but this is occurring on all levels in the brain, from an individual neuron all the way up to the totality of all neurons as a whole global system. This constant self-activity is why we dream, and what dreams (as well as thoughts, inner visualizations, daydreaming, imagination, etc.) really are. It is why we have both Eros and Thanatos, natural pull toward order/life and natural pull toward disorder/death. Eros or love is the representational experience of order and life, a summation toward the most logically expansive and integrated possible totality of patterns on all levels of the neurology, and your ability to maintain consciousness of that.

Consciousness (what you are aware of, what the inner model is focused on at the present moment) ends up orienting itself to certain aspects of the model at the exclusion of others, because it is not possible to actually focus on and be aware of the whole model itself, because it is way too huge and also is always changing. Not only do you need the best patterns, but you need to be able to orient consciousness on those patterns in ways that do not change or destroy those patterns, and in ways that are able to maintain those patterns over time and maintain your ability to be conscious of them over time. This is not easy, and takes a long time to figure out. But once this is figured out it is what we call emotions. Emotions are like a collapse of the global level “internet” kind of connected web of neurological patterns and meta-patterns, a collapse to a single perspective (consciousness-of) on a certain limited number or area of that total web, limited but sufficient to produce certain overall changes in the body (through forcing inputs back into the brain from the model, and pushing these back out to the body due to how the brain controls the body); these changes in the body are what you feel when you experience an emotion, or more specifically when you experience an emotion you are feeling many body changes at the same time, and these many changes blend and merge together in how you feel them as one thing and largely indistinguishable from each other. This one emergent feeling of how the many individual body change feelings feel, is experienced as a single new feeling and given meaning by your inner model. Most of the meaning it is given comes from the certain areas of the inner model/neurological patterns and meta-patterns that were selected to be the perspective of the present moment of consciousness, which produced the emotion in the first place. The emotion is like a global “e-motion”, motion on the “internet” of your total brain-body relationship.

This is why emotions reflect and represent facts, meaning, the world around us, reality, because in order to produce the emotion at all you had to successfully limit your awareness (perspective, consciousness-of) of the total model to a narrow limited range of that same model but in such a way that is sufficient to draw out certain different connected aspects of the model itself, aspects connected in how they are meaningfully and at the factual level organized together with each other; this produces an idea, but how does the idea go on to organize the body in such complex ways to produce the many different feelings at once that come to constitute the feeling of the one feeling, the emotion, itself? I think this is because the very act of being able to successfully produce an idea like this implies a kind of super-meta-pattern organizing as a very condensed logical collapse of a huge amount of the total neurology such that these secondary connections the brain has to the various organs and body-systems are simply activated as a consequence of being brought together and up into the super-meta-pattern. So basically the “lower” layers of the brain are drawn partially up toward the higher more conscious layers, and begin to trigger feedback to the body where there already exist connections to the body stemming from those areas of the brain that are involved in that total apotheosis. But this only occurs because these areas themselves are already, in an instinctual and evolutional sense, already connected to automatic reflexive reactions to certain stimuli, and the inner model is now, because so highly delimited in this apotheosis, able to actually produce experiences that are sufficiently precise to act as stimuli inputs for these connections between the brain and the body’s organs and systems. So basically for example you are able to think about a predator, and this will partly trigger your fight/flight response in the body, and can produce fear or anxiety (indeed, anxiety that people feel as a “disorder” is basically exactly this, their inner model is always producing experiences of predators/fearful experiences and feeding these as stimuli inputs into that person’s body, causing the body to always be a little bit amped up in flight/flight mode), but this same logic begins to operate on more and more abstract levels the more your inner model is delimited around a logical core of meaning, which meaning successfully represents something about reality itself, something factual and significant.

68

It is possible to say that “a neutrino” is only a theoretical unity interpreted out of a collection of detected properties assumably resultant of disintegration of better understood forms of energy, things that more literally fit the description ‘particle’.

If so, a neutrino, and this goes for more subatomic definitions, is to be understood, if we are aiming for epistemic exactness, a case of transfer of information. I.e., parts of what we may define as a particle – empirical results amounting to almost a particle.

What kind of structural consistency does a neutrino have? It does not respond to electromagnetism, only weak-forces affect it.

It may exist only as our assumption, its structural integrity may be a fiction, an inference made because of the assumption that all change detected must be the effect of particles, which is how we still understand quanta.

It may not be the case that the transferred energy amounting to the detected neutrino is caused to be measured by it being there as such, separate from the measurement. It may be that the qualities that amount to the definition ‘neutrino’ are in part ‘teleported’, by the very expectation of and preparation for the ‘arrival’.

A neutrino may in part be caused ( in terms of space-time consistency ) by the placement of the receptive material, the terms of its being-measured, which accounts for its existence. The neutrino can not positively affect, the conditions for its existence must be created. Part of the work of its being is done for it – this may account for the lack of space-time momentum – it is in part a non-entity, appearing here and there as ‘real’, actively constant particles permit it.

It is clear that what I describe as method to measure / establish is what is always used in physics / chemistry, particle-science. Assumption of what will happen if the calculations are correct, suspension of judgment until the assumption is recognized in what occurs. I would propose that perhaps in the case of / at the level of neutrinos, our methods of establishment what “is” are unsound.

It seems to be a natural assumption that the surplus of gravitation measured/inferred from the movement of certain galaxies, may be the result of wrongfully applying laws that we have establlished to predict the movements occurring in our own “system” - galaxy.

The key to open any kind of space-time power is to include as much contradictory logoi into one logos as your energy can muster. Then consolidate in ritual (instances of exalted, eternal life) and create a symbolic order. Then obey that order.

It is my understanding at least that Dark Matter, the assumption made necessary by the application of Newtonian Law to “The Entire Universe” (the assumption of a universal totality) would be present mainly in a specific form of galaxy, one that is relatively young, and less circular, more elliptic.

I have read this at one point but I can not find it on the internet. The point would be that dark matter, i.e. surplus gravitation, is unequally distributed in proportion with “legal”, expected gravitation.

Relations are a priori dual, triple, => , not merely after the fact of measuring them. The relations we measure in physics and chemistry do not only exist in terms of force.
There is also another aspect, and this is unmeasurable in exact terms, as it involves not just the present state but its entire history and future of affect in every possible universe in which it could exist.

Even the very idea of a particle is cleaved. There are always two ways of contemplating the object. For example:

  • The minimal and maximal requirements for its existence, its ‘essence’, raw (unmeasured) content. ⇔ Its maximal power to affect (a quantity of force).

  • The possible ways in which it can affect and be affected (a number of qualities in various quantities). ⇔ Its measurable effect. (its measurable activity at a given moment).

These cross relate into two four further dualities, of which two are simple and two quite a bit less so. More on these later. In the above, the second part of each pair is expressed in terms of something outside of itself. The first part expresses all that it can possibly be, i.e. all possible contexts for it to exist in. The second is a process of valuing and counter valuing, the second part is translatable in common sensical speak only via such words as (value-) standard and consistency.

In the case of the latter it is very difficult to distinguis action from passive existing. Something “just exists” only to the measure that it is active. Even if this activity may be wholly enforced by the ambient history, it does act itself in a particular way that can only be affected by the ambient indirectly. Thus it is an integer being, essentially independent, yet requiring for this independence something to be independent from.

And such arrays of standards arrange themselves alongside those standards to which they may favorably compare. I.e. each thing seeks (gradually falls into) the context in which the most is required of its essential potential.

In human lore this is called Good versus Evil, but it is the inevitable form of time, the progression of increasing density on the one hand, and slowing relative time on the other.

The end scenario is one of complete stability and zero progression of time. Time would then ‘freeze’, undoubtably for it to burst open in a new Big Bang (or Crash - as in a pulverizing sheet of glass).

Pezer
“Evolutionists” who call for a return to the bestial logic of our tried-and-true evolutionary processes don’t get the point. An evolutionist claims that the bestial logic of our tried and true evolutionary processes are things which have always been and continue to be right at the core of our existence. The evolutionist uses consciousness to fabricate an image of its consciousness which he then recognizes even before the image. Evolutionism is not primitivism because everything is already primitive, evolutionism is a full circle from feeling to knowing to know-feeling and feel-knowing

The importance of the death of God is what? That all we have is this, and ourselves. Our worship of God produced such intricate and sophisticated work, one wonders what similar sentiments could produce when attached to a vision of reality which is corroborated by its very object and which object is very thirsty for power, also better equiped than when this ever was dreamed of.

Fixed Cross
The term “God” remains vague. Who is dead? Is it Zeus? No way, he lives in Jupiter and the thunderstorms that free my heart. Is it Baal? Sure, he could be dead-ish, no one worships him. Is it Yahweh? Well - he’s alive and kicking in the hearts of not only Jews, but all Western occultists. Who is dead is Jesus and his dad. That’s what’s significant – the God of meekness of turning the other cheek, he’s dead. At least - is he? Is not Jesus only a reference to a solstice, and Mary to the constellation Virgo?

In any case, you are right in your conclusions.

“Our worship of God produced such intricate and sophisticated work, one wonders what similar sentiments could produce when attached to a vision of reality which is corroborated by its very object and which object is very thirsty for power, also better equiped than when this ever was dreamed of.”

God allowed man an uncanny thirst for power. Conviction was the means to this will. Our “problem” here is to get motivated to that same level. With value ontology a seed was planted. I felt at that time the power to create new Gods. We had a talk about that, then. The first enthusiasm (-- from en “in” (see en- (2)) + theos “god” --) paid off, and here we are.

“God is dead” is not enough of a statement. God is a … fill in the blanks -
man will always require something higher than his present state to orient on. It can be his future self, it can be a future descendancy (the Uebermensch) but it needs to be something ahead of him. Or am I wrong?

Pezer
The problem with God is precisely those general terms. God can be anything, it is a word that simply conjures the hole in the moment which the company has decided to explore no further. A scientist must chase these holes down, not give them names and worship them. I, as you know, give the exception to Chaos, for reasons that can become clear with some thought.

This other God, this Yehova, God of Abraham, perhaps God of the Egyptians, or some Egyptians, this is the curse behind Iesus and not the other way around. Jesus was a hippy who got taken advantage of by over-zealous rabbies with that good ol’ God in their hearts and revenge in their minds.

Fixed Cross
Pezer wrote:
The problem with God is precisely those general terms. God can be anything, it is a word that simply conjures the hole in the moment which the company has decided to explore no further. A scientist must chase these holes down, not give them names and worship them. I, as you know, give the exception to Chaos, for reasons that can become clear with some thought.

This other God, this Yehova, God of Abraham, perhaps God of the Egyptians, or some Egyptians, this is the curse behind Iesus and not the other way around. Jesus was a hippy who got taken advantage of by over-zealous rabbies with that good ol’ God in their hearts and revenge in their minds.
That’s crazy. In the whole world, there is no group that has resisted the idea of the “Jewish” Son of God with such baffled repulsion as the rabbi’s.
God has no one Son. His son is Beauty itself, the theatre of experience.

The tree of life (the glyph of which YHVH is an outtake and to the front of which ‘Iesu’ (the guy didn’t really exist) was modeled) is the scientific model pur sang. Newton was a kabalist and Einstein definitely read a lot of it.

But also my own thoughts about value-relativity merged after many years of meditation on the sephirotic combinations of the ‘bare (meaningless) logics’ that can reasonably be said to sustain the human mind as representing reality. For example: Force/Form, Possibility/Decision Overflowing/Limiting-standardizing – or Force/Overflowing, Overflowing/Possibility, Form/Limiting-standardizing, Limiting-standardizing/Decision - and then such contrasts as Overflowing/Decision and Possibility/Limiting-standardizing at the midst of which is the theatre of experience, the “Self”, which does not exist except through such relations.

Capable wrote:
None of us can see tomorrow. Our words are still yesterday’s languages. Who has the power to think the pure un-thought, the strangest derivation in the moment? We must learn to follow even the tiniest clues, even the ones that aren’t there yet.
Quote :
Let us learn to speak like the wind. Let us learn to seek like the wind.
I like this.
Frames, running colors, streaks - caves, black bear with a red tongue and white teeth, snarling. A blue sky, a bald predator lurks, vast wings, hanging still. A volcano-top in the distance. Ants, colonies. Zoom in: Marches across the desert. A man with a female crotch and an electrifying voice.

The pyramids - I step on one of them and hurt my foot. My blood gushes down, the red birth of the Nile. The river feeds the barren Earth. A civilization of ants arises. Ant-history lives forth in ant-eternity. Ants call other ants Gods. In the meantime, the Sun slowly sets and I perceive my tent. I had already put it up. I forgot. A rabbits-stew, a wife in grey, a telescope.

Chaos and the wind are friends, we do not essentially disagree.

The Tree of Life is no limiter, it’s to use freely and discard freely, it is a means to escape language and human context without losing control of logic. There are other means - but this one is particularly powerful, and has often been near and sometimes at the very core of western scientific progress.

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

Once again, if we take value ontology to the extreme and set value as prior to any formation of whatever affectance as literally as possible, then causation is free from itself.

Imagine this: is it perhaps possible that our value systems do not only dictate the future we create, but also the past from which we came?

What about this: Next to an origin of man from Ape, there is an origin of man via Atlantis, Lemuria, Hyperboria to beings like Wainamoinen. The history of the organism then depends on the substance which the soul takes on - in terms of which science of the body the subject values itself presently.

I know this is probably not the case. But it is now thinkable and illuminates at least that our memory, individual and collective, is greatly determined by the language we use to propel our essence back through time to arrive at a concept of an originating.

This is entirely hypothetical, as it can not be recreated as an experiment.
And thus, keep in mind that paradox means apparent contradiction.

Say that two photons are rushing toward each other from opposite directions.
And coupled with each photon is a perspective.

With what speed does the perspective of either of the two photons perceive the other photon approaching?

How does that correlate with the fact that, from an observer neutral to both photons (exactly in the middle), the photons are closing the distance between each other at twice the speed of light?

The speed of light encapsulates each reference frame.
It’s like a membrane beyond which nothing within that frame shall pass.

From the reference frame of object A, the closer object B comes to light speed, the closer it comes to absolute gravity. If it would attain this, the two objects would not be able to move away from each other any longer.

Thus the nature of c as a limit holds together everything by gravity. It forces all mass which is of influence to other mass to forever remain of influence to it - it binds together all already-bound reference frames.

It is an ontological veil between this world and something which is only possible in terms that are impossible here. Possibly that is simply “nothing”, but I don’t think that’s the necessary conclusion.

Let’s see - the change elapsing within the photon are infinitely slow compared to the change elapsing in the physical reference frame in which it has its cause and effect.

And 2 times zero is zero, yes, I think that solves it.

69

The concept value within value ontology refers to that which constitutes the momentum of the entity’s self-sustaining through time. Value is incorporated in the particle as force that effectively counters, or harnesses against entropy. A particles self-valuing is the structure-in-time (path, circuitry) of its substance (energy, force, power to effect) in which other substance (energy, force, power to effect) is incorporated as increasing momentum of this structure-in-time. This structure in time is a constant in as far as it apprehends itself in terms of its own momentum, and these terms are its “values”. Its momentum is its “self-valuing”, the standard to its values. It persists in as far as it apprehends itself as necessary to itself, thereby necessary to its values.

As soon as it apprehends values separately from its own necessity to itself (self-valuing), it begins to disintegrate.

Value is directly translated into, or integrated as, momentum of the circular path of power to effect (thereby to empower) itself.

This power to effect and re-cause itself amounts also in power to cause change outside of itself.

Values are dictated by the subject, not the other way around. The highest value is the valuer, per definition. If there is no valuer, there can be no value.

Value ontology is the ontology of the valuer, which is the hub of the universe.

A value can be something that an atom requires to exist. It’s not a product of consciousness. Consciousness is a highly complex form of valuing.

Establishing objective value is the precise opposite of what VO does.

Life is not itself necessarily of value to the one who is living it. That is why people kill themselves. Life is a result of valuing. Life is valuing, and if it values itself, it will keep on living. But it will only value itself because it is a means to attain to certain values. There is no “will to live”: at the basis of life, life is a contingency of the will to attain values.

I realize that this is a deeply radical reversal of perspective.

The last paragraph says that if there is no value, the valuer will come to cease to exist. It say nothing about where there is no valuer.

With the double slit experiment, you always hear: “an electron behaves both like a particle and a wave” or “an electron behaves now like a particle and then as a wave”. That’s misleadingly phrased.

When the electrons are quantized by influencing them from another frame of reference, their pattern of distribution is like that of particles, and if you do not influence them from this other spacetime frame, they distribute according to the logic of wavefunctions.

I think that the coherence of their arrival pattern is guaranteed only if their reference frame is left intact, when all that matters is the coherence between the charge of the source and the charge of the impact.

The electrons do not need to exist as such, they are only the transference of charge. If man insists on measuring this quantifyingly, the electrons which are actually measured as individual causal agents (detected) do not thereafter alter their quantized state. They have been brought into the context of another reference frame, and can not at the same time disregard this frame.

The pure frame involves only the charge (value) of the electron source, which is a turbulence, and its wavelike (highly interactive) distribution.

Analogical suggestion - value will distribute differently when it is quantized/monetized, then when it is distributed in a direct transaction, where the frame of reference is only the relation between giver and receiver. In this context we might say that “meaning” is left intact. I can imagine that this can be extrapolated to the quantum state, in the sense that, very broadly, “il n’y a pas de hors-texte” applies and the QM “weirdness” can be seen as a hermeneutical incompetence.

I can’t grasp the math, but I grasp the logic of it, which seems implicit in relativity itself. We’ve established that c is the only constant which is present in all measurements. All measurements are based on this constancy.

The electrons are measured (experience to be present, affecting) by being exposed to c as relative to reference frame of the observer. Their behavior is thus bent to the measure of the observer, which is to say that they are, at that moment, electrons. We are necessarily measuring the electrons that apply to c as it is from our frame of reference, which means a distribution that is physically logical. But if this reference frame is not involved, there is no necessity for peak-quantity to appear as a click in a frame of reference, but simply the possibility of light from any frame of reference.

And equally as gravity is curved, the peaking and declining functions on the screen are representations of potentiating optimizations, self-accumulative (content to the second power), climaxing and silencing. The behavior of undetected electricity the behavior of potential itself reacting to itself. As soon as potential becomes manifest, it ceases to exist as part of the field it arose from. Similarly souls are born into matter and die into the Bitter Sea.

It leaves me wondering - what is the contradiction between relativity and QM?

“Nature herself doesn’t know where the electron will go”.

  • the electron as self-valuing will move in accordance to its context (its own valuing; direction-response-continuum), the electron as valued in terms of observer will go in accordance with the observers context.

Prediction without measurement is implicit, prediction with measurement is distribution.

In philosophers terms, will to power.

The photons or electrons (I’ll use photons here) moving through the slits are influenced by whatever material is calibrated to ‘make sense of them’ (hit them to draw specific energy from them) at the slits.

You can’t measure the quanta at the slits without actually having something collide with them. The calibration of that ‘hit’ is set in terms of the experimenters reference frame.

It’s important to note that only if they are successfully manipulated so as to affect the observer at the slits, then they are observed as quanta with sufficient individual momentum to behave as particles.

If the emitted measuring energy is so weak (emitting photons or whatever at too great intervals) as to miss a quantum, then the quantum does not behave accordingly to being influenced as a quantum.

It’s very literal value ontological logic at work.

The how of this is implicit in the a priori definition of the required outcome. So we can pull a philosophers trick and reverse the phrasing of the conclusion of the experiment: The influence is only sufficient to disturb the interference pattern if it manages to quantize the light.

Light appears to not be “made of photons” per se, rather, photons are the minimal form in which light is measured as a unit.

A photon is the epistemic unit of light.

Imafungi wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:

It leaves me wondering - what is the contradiction between relativity and QM?

The contradiction, has to do with gravity, its more of an undiscovered successful bridging of the two then a contradiction because I believe they are both successful in their own arenas, General relativity being a description of the macro phenomenon of gravity down to a certain small point, and QM being the descriptions of the most micro fundamentality of what the universe is made of. The problem, though it is posited Gravitons exist (which would be the particle of the gravity field, as Photons are the particle of the EM field) the problem is they cant experimentally access gravitons though I believe they are trying and have been. Because to discover the details of the particles of matter of nature we smash them together and observe their characteristics in scattering, This is more difficult to do in an effort to search for and grasp gravities physical essence because I think it has something to do with gravities physical essence being space itself, and what happens is we just create mini black holes…But I only know relative generalities about this topic so you would probably be better off asking google.

This sounds plausible - it is like modern science to insist that gravity, which is the very manifestation of coherence and structuring, has itself ‘particles’ separate of the particles that ‘have’, are gravity.

Would Einsteins formula of mass and energy not be made into an irrelevancy by the existence of a particular gravity-carrier?

m = (e/c^2) + ‘gravitons’…

The idea of spooky action at a distance is based on the superstition that matter consists of discrete blocks of some hard substance on a background, or rather plateau of Medium, aethir, god-field. First of all this is rather silly in itself as this Medium begs the same question all over again. On what ground is this Medium predicated? What is the ground to the ground? Infinite regress, as with all sciences proposed finalities.

Second, the substance is EM and gravity. This is what particles are. Their manifestation is the force they represent.The coherence of these particles as force-standards and mediators is their being. What else is there to define, describe or identify them? Nothing.

In a similar vein, such people have asked:
‘What is the essential waterness behind water? Which non- water makes the water so watery?’
It does not occur that ‘things’ as we designate them contain within our notion of their being, their being and thus their nature, which includes their ground.

Science is always looking for groundless grounds that ground all the rest which is taken to be purely contingent and of no existential integrity. Its eazy enough to interpret this yearning; men who live without the faintest clue that they exist by their own nature, unaware that they have a nature, that they are what nature has now become. Men who see themselves as separate of the universe, looking in on it from the outside. With all due respect, autists and idiots.

I’ve often casually proven astrology to be true by predictions of what a chart would look like given some characteristics. I’ve done it in the other thread, conjuring up people I was sure to have oppositions. It’s not up for question for me any more than gravity is - but it sees at first equally inexplicable.

As a general but accurate rule, the only people who do not believe in astrology are those who haven’t seriously looked into it. I’ve seen the transformation in everyone I confronted with his chart. I’ve learned not to do this anymore as it is oppressive; but neither as I think Hume has a point that we don’t know for certain if the sun is going to come up, do I feel there is a point to doubt astrology when the empirical evidence is as overwhelming as it is for the gravitational constant.

All you have to do is measure it, but you do have to do that.

But indeed it is hard to explain this in terms of what we already know - but given that man still knows virtually nothing, it’s not surprising to me that the more we come to know, by the philosophical work of our friends and ourselves, the less strange or unlikely it becomes that we are products of more than just configurations of molecules on Earth, that we actually stand as in the center of a cosmos; that our being is far too subtle to not be influenced by the cosmic majesty of order, which was fleshed out as the argument for possibility itself.

I get it, I feel it even - it is ugly compared to philosophy - it shouldn’t go near it - it feels arbitrary.

But it’s one hard motherfucking fact of life we’re gonna have to get realistic about.

Not that it’s arbitrary, but that it is the opposite. Today, I have gone a long way to explaining it based on Parodites’ conception of the origin of the mind - as the re-anchoring of beings in the world, in coherence, in being, after the instincts had been ‘threshed’ by the self-analyzing being; the ‘empty mind’, or the chaotic firstborn-mind opened itself up to the cosmos as a gaping wound to receive any possible ointment of constancy. And this is still the way that shamans rip open the fabric of causality to the spontaneous dance of the soul under the sky in which the connection between the two is the actual being. This is why the lightning is the symbol of divinity - the coherence of our mind reflects the discharge of cosmic order into the vacuous proto-consciousness represented by the threshing floor, where the wills of the gods bundle to play with man.

I wrote this post an hour or so ago on an empty stomach. I’ve eaten lentil soup with sausage now.

The status of the argument is as follows:

under scrutiny is astrology.

Note: I can’t allow any relation of this field with the term ‘supernatural’ or any other phenomena falling under that term, this is a specific field of inquiry and relates to fields that are vague only in the sense of having a vague understanding of it. It is ruthlessly exact and there is no room for doubt about the consistency of influences.

It is a culturally imposed superstition that leads people to doubt astrology. All serious cultures take it seriously, because you can not tae calculated risks without it and you can not build greatness without a lot of good fortune.
They called the farao’s the cosmic architects. It’s a field of knowledge that leads to long term power. If anything it’s the actual gift of Prometheus; fore-sight. That this is often deadly is the reason astrology is shunned, but for a philosopher this fear is not quite as well founded as it is for people with lesser inclinations to know themselves. In all western wars serious astrologers are consulted, and newspapers print ‘horoscopes’ that prescribe events based on sun signs, which is impossible, it is very clear why astrology is discredited, but it is not clear why it is working so well. Again; my best argument is the one I’ve given today - the moment that being had disconnected the instincts from each other, man stood erect; the moment man stood erect he was crowned by the heavens. As the earthly causal chain was broken, the celestial one was forged. The moment in between is the great possibility that Parodites’ philosophy describes and thereby opens up for ‘use’, and this moment underlies all consciousness. Astrology functions as a particular set of laws on the field of the daemonic formative process, but it is no less adequate to the phenomenology of human fate as physics is to the phenomenology of falling objects. This absurd consistency is why I make such a point of it. It’s not that it’s merely interesting, it’s rather that it is an entire field of exact knowledge that is disregarded with this mere disregarding as grounds for the conclusion that it isn’t proven to work. Yes, it is proven. It’s been proven to work a long, long time ago and never not been proven since. It’s only not been clear at all how it works. But the same goes for gravity, and a lot of things of which we only now that it works. The actual, historical reason man started disbelieving astrology is that he started believing in the Bible which forbids it. I’ sure took Newton a while to get people to believe that such exactitude of prediction could be possible, before he could get them to actually test out his laws. Now the effective terms of astrology are not less exact than the terms of mass, but our words for our own states of being are slightly less exact. Astrologers therefore prefer to work with the astrological names wherever they can. They are by far the most exact terms we have for “human being”.

70

[b]Abstract wrote :
Relative to something anything can be bad, relative to something else that same thing can seem good. Burning coals on the feet is hell compared to soft earth, heaven compared burning of the whole body…(not the best example)

Isn’t everything just relative?[/b]
Relative to what?

Relative to something that is relative to it? If that would be the full definition, it means that all relating things are always equal, simply “relative to relativity”.

This can not be the case. Something is relative to something. Otherwise, the word relative has no meaning.

Nietzsche faced and did not solve the same problem as you are posing. He also believed in the absolutism of relativity, and the absence of “solid value”. Value-ontology posits solid value as the (logical) ground to all relativity.

Quote :
If so then isn’t heaven just a state of mind; considering things with respect to the right things?
Keeping in mind there is worse?
To whom is heaven heaven?
To a consciousness, an “I”, a solid value, which can measure itself differently against a variety of changing conditions, but always only has itself, its particular nervous & endoctrine system to measure.

Quote :
Knowing less is to know the more?

Knowledge is perhaps well defined as the ability to position ones mind in respect to a given problem. The mind is made up of terms, and knowledge consists of terms, but also their connecting structure (the minds ‘skeleton’), hierarchy, logic, which can/must not necessarily be defined in terms, but requires such things as experience and “intuition”, the workings of the “subconscious” to exist.

why something and not rather nothing´ is indeed a result of misplacement of the term ´something´. If being is explained so as to be understood, there is no more question as to why it would exist, instead of nothing. It becomes clear that, versus/on top of nothing, precisely what does exist is what would exist.

The reversed question why there is not rather something than nothing, is essentially the same question/ing, as it departs from an absence, a lack of context for experience. As the vacuum of a beings experience increases, as it is less able to relate to itself, as it loses consciousness, the question of the naturalness and self evidence of its own being becomes more problematic, and with that the given of being becomes rationally unsustainable.

Even in abstract ratio the subject has need of itself, as value primacy, to ground inferences.

Ontology aims at knowledge of what is.
Philosophy inquires after our way of knowing.
How do we know what is?
In what way do we know what is?
A proper epistemology arrives at the best way of knowing (what is).
The quality of this knowing evidently influences the content of the knowledge.
So ontology is subservient to epistemology. What is, is dependent on how we know.
This does not mean that if we know nothing, nothing is - we can not speak of nothing at all.
but it means that if we know something, we know it as something.

We do no longer need to focus on the correctness of our ontology. It is impossible to have an objective view of what is. The question has become one of the quality of knowledge - its value to us. This criterium is in line with what we have come to know about knowledge. A proper epistemology then, causes us to throw out the traditional idea of ontology, as a description of what is, as it is - and moves us to embrace ontology as an extention of epistemology.

The study of what is, is now the study of what we cause there to be, by controlling our gaze.
Secretly enclosed, this has always been the true nature of science. Scientific method is the control of our gaze, to perceive exactly in such a way as produces the type of results we consider proper.

Why do we consider these results proper? It is dependent on the quality that we value most greatly: consistency of results. Results are accepted and rejected based on their consistency in occurring.

Religion is another way of formulaing ontology, another way of prioritizing results. In religion, the exaltedness of the results count greater than the consistency in which they occur. Results, measurements, are classified in terms of how they move the beholder. A question of the nature of the espitemology. One is not necessarily truer than the other - science is the ontology of consistency in human perception. Religion is the ontology of the limit of human projection.

Neither science nor religion operates at the level of epistemology - neither field of thought models its own criteria and includes this model in itself.

Philosophy must know itself. This means: knowing of knowing - a knowing knowing itself - thereby knowing it to be with some precision.
When we know how we know, we know what we are. In this way we are confident that what is, must be. This certainty is our own work. There is no such certainty except in the case of the self-knowing knowing.

We see that ontological certainty is equal to will.

many religions.
A set of tenets is used to establish an order, on top of which is a dominating drive.
The dominating drive is unknown to all followers of the religion except to the one with the thought that created the context.
The vision of God is the powerful realization of the current situation, implicit in which is the vision of the greatest possible influence one can exert in that situation.
The moral nature of the influence is dependent on the materials (people) to be influenced and the character of the visionary.
The former can change over time, the latter can not.
A religion has a definite character - if it is to be successful at all, it will come to many different manifestations.
Once the code of a religion, the thought behind it, has been cracked, the religion loses it’s coercive power.
God is no longer Great.
A greater possibility than the one that was possible from that once primordial perspective, is now imaginable.
Weak souls search for nothingness (superficiality), vital souls for experience, being - new depths.

For truth to be made explicit, there must be a framework, a context for statements to signify. Science is the most reliable framework for explicit truths - because it restricts the substance that can be designated to equalized quantities of mass. Clearly philosophy can not operate within this framework, this procedure is of use but only within a larger framework, wherein the subjective human is included, which means also the use man has for science, essentially, the view of science as a moral perspective. This idea was formulated brilliantly by without-music, in the ILP thread The Ontological Tyranny.

The other ‘end’ of this spectrum is the total abandonment of logical method, the idea that “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life!” and the satisfaction with that, the idea that, as a consequence of the truth of this statement, everything that one asserts with ones being is true.

Another approach yet is “all that matters is the quantum of power that one is, the rest is cowardice” - in other words, the only valid truth is in power, same as “might is right”.

But to me an even less reducible truth appears as the idea that all existence is self-valuing, that these truth-generating self-valuings condition any kind of situational truth such as physical law. The reality of self-valuing is a transcendental truth, something that underlies all instances of procedural truths and conflicts between these.

A difficult question is the one of defining my true values, because it implies an exhaustive certainty pertaining to my self-valuing core. I am not sure that the self-valuing can be exhaustively explicated.

Finally, what is suggested to me by the OP is truth as the absence of bias. But even to move toward an absence of bias is a result of a bias - a bias against bias - the absence of bias is death non-existence, for a self-valuing is a bias. And this is reflected in the etymology:

Quote :
O.E. triewð (W.Saxon), treowð (Mercian) “faithfulness, quality of being true,” from triewe, treowe “faithful” (see true). Meaning “accuracy, correctness” is from 1560s. Unlike lie (v.), there is no primary verb in English or most other IE languages for “speak the truth.” Noun sense of “something that is true” is first recorded mid-14c.
One can only be faithful to something.
So, the question of truth is the question of perspective.
The quest for objective truth ends for me at the observation that all subjects may command a fundamentally different truthfulness, and that objectivity is merely the consensus of these commands. Truth then is a matter of power - something is made to be true, made to be valid, made to apply, by force.

As force accumulates, so does the potential for truth. Truth may be best defined as ‘that which is impossible to negate’, i.e. necessity.
Truth-procedures are subjectively designed channels for necessity.

In this way truth is indeed a ‘way’ and a ‘life’.

a comprehensive definition of power can not equal the scientific definition of potential. I say power is more than that - it is also the noble quality of defining oneself self consciously. Thence: to act consciously. To stand not because of gravity and utility, but in order to stand. Also act, not because it is convenient, but because it is an act. This is the noble way, the divine creative holy grail, this is how myths are born to seduce other, lesser actors of times down the declining line to the idea of nobility - the false dream, the repose of the Last Man. No myth can inspire man to act. Only a deep rage, an intolerance, can make a man separate from his familiar causes, “that which determines him”. The Father. Self-determination presupposes intolerance. New-Age people are the most intolerant of dogmatics. They will have nothing to do with the past, with history, with reason. All of them are resentful, all New Agers I have met, except the astrologers, who are ancients and still wise, fearful of Saturn.

I want to examine the power of value ontology to merge analytical with synthetic-a-priori judgments by the calibration of semantics to grammar.

Please help me clarify and verify the terms.

An analytical statement is tautological, it is so “by definition”.
A synthetic a-priori statement is a definition of a subject that requires concepts which are not required for the term to be defined semantically. It is rather a substantiation of an analytical truth.

Is this true?

Example: “light moves at the speed of light” is analytical (and a priori)
whereas “the speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s in vacuum” is synthetic a priori
and “light can be measured in terms of photons” is also synthetic a priori.

Are these proper examples?

To value empowers.
That which is power is valued.
To value one must self-value.

So we have
self-valuing
valuing
otherness
power

Power is the quantization of otherness.
Selfvaluing is the qualification of 'ness itself.

And thus valuing, as an intermediary, is both quantative and qualitative. It places the quality in context so that it becomes a quantity.

whenever we make a statement a kind of nexus is created where different perspectives can make a claim, all interpreting it in terms of themselves, all thus bending this truth in all sorts of different directions even just for it to apply to anything at all.

Language is thus fundamentally divisive, and unification within language is the near-impossible task of philosophy.

In a purely ontological framework, there isn’t even such a thing as falsity, so neither is there any truth. Truth is only valid in a statement or a thought, it’s a meta-concept.

Self-valuing can not be seen as temporal-causally prior to valuing in terms of self-value, i.e. valuing the world, as the two are seen/understood to occur at the same moment, and the latter is indeed needed to enable the former to be manifest. However, as we must infer from the terms, self-valuing is logical-causally prior to valuing in terms of self-value. We see a difference between the logic of value-causality and the logic of temporal causality.

The problem with applying causality to value is that we are here working with logic that is not adequate to the thing which needs to be explained. The logic of causality is derived from a classifying-observing the physical world in terms of a continuum, and so to be valid always requires a continuum, a chain, in which each cause is also an effect of something else than to which it is the cause.

In the post linked here I have explained self-valuing as the activity of consistency. Consistency does does not itself have a cause, in the sense of transferring energy quantities, that is to say, in the proper sense of causality. As no cause can be inferred from it, there is no manifest ground to it, except “possibility”. I keep arriving at this ultimate ground for being in terms of value ontology – being is because it is not impossible, and its possibility escapes its impossibility because if its particular form/mode, which is consistency, specifically, consistent self-value.

Now, “possibility” flowing out into consistency may be described as “necessity”. Self-valuing is possible, not necessary –- valuing-in-terms-of-self-value is necessary where-ever this possibility is actualized. We see how necessity is subservient to possibility, whereas possibility is subservient to nothing, except to the absence of its negation, impossibility. Impossibility of anything is of course an extremely positive, active classification, entirely dependent on a general possibility of being.

As it requires only possibility and not necessity, self-valuing can be seen as transcendent. It stands “behind” the manifest world, and its logics of causation, quantity, sequence and temporality. If one were to apply such logics to self-valuing, it would appear as “self-caused”, but this goes against the very logic of causation, so it is wisest to simply dismiss the concept of causality if we are describing its ground as a principle.

As a manifest being, however, a self-valuing is indeed caused by that which it values in terms of itself. This is the case when temporality has taken hold, when we speak of growth, of being, matter. Self-valuing “becomes itself” by enabling principle of causation, by which it is then indirectly self-caused as an ongoing process.

As far as I can reason, there is no way to discern, physically or imaginatively, any ‘existent’ (any being, thing, object, subject, entity, etc) that escapes the activity of “self-valuing” as VO puts it forth. A thing, in as far as it exists, must interact with its environment in such a way as to keep existing, which is to say it must keep attaining itself.

The notion of “value” is attached to this seemingly circular reasoning because this is the only way in which such circular reasoning actually applies to reality. It is, as Nietzsche discerned, a beings valuing (which is to say its acting on and thus ‘having’ and specific values) that determine what this being is; what the being of this being entails.

Valuing is not an arbitrary notion, it can not be replaced with another; it is not the case that every circular self-referent definition also refers directly to existence in such a way as to make it understood. It is only through observing our valuing that we can understand what we are, what we do, why we do it and when we’re going to do it, as well as other beings responses to that doing. The term “existing” or “being” is in fact hollow until this insight has been attained - the insight into what it is precisely that beings ‘spend their time doing’; responding to either non- or to other being to the effect of continuing a similar responding; this very particular form of responding is what entails being. Any other type of response would amount in the end of that responding. And we happen to have called this self-perpetuating form of responding valuing.

This is the notion that, even when I am addressing it myself, proves very elusive; it is not that from now on every dead entity has to be reinterpreted in terms of what we understand as valuing (e.g. choosing, selecting, and doing so consciously) but that from now on every human action has to be reinterpreted in terms of the same kind of necessities that drive ‘dead being’’ i.e. unalterable behaviors.

Value Ontology does away with the idea that humans can be changed, that there’s anything we can do about what we are, or that we can look at our motivations and interpret our actions as if from a higher vantage point than from our self-willing - there is nothing more ‘objective’ than this willing to power, and our consciousness is merely a by-product of it, and so are our definitions, and so is our very capacity to define.

The very notion of a definition requires a self-valuing standard; thus, in as far as a definition can be truthful to what it is, beside to what it represents (and thus represent cleanly), it must to begin with include its own capacity as a self-valuing.

Further, every definition posits an ‘unchangeable’ - this is the whole reason why (the lie) “A” = “A” can be stated at all; a definition is supposed to represent an unalterable thing - but we know there isn’t actually a completely similar “A” to any “A”, be it a symbol (each equal symbol exists in a different context, if ever so slightly, and is thus a different object with a different ‘meaning’ (effect)) or a physical entity; the only unalterable thing about such things is that they self-value. As soon as they stop doing that, their being is altered to become either non-being or a very different entity. Say, for example, that a written “A” exists in a world where man works with different alphabet, or with no symbols at all. In this case, the self-valuing “A” does not exist, the “A” does not exist, what exists is a few diagonal lines that no one man will discern in the same way as the next man. The “A” only comes back into existence as “A” when a man discerns it as such. It is thus unchangeable only in as far as it is involved in certain interactions. The same goes for man, or any kind of living species. Whatever can be fixed by a definition, relies on an often unfathomably complex context, within which there is not one single constant except this necessary form of relationship between things, which is called self-valuing.

In mathematics and formal logic, such a context spreads out in ‘instantly into eternity’; that is to say, as long as one thing is completely valid (positively existent), everything must valid (positively existent). But in life, and in the physical world in general, such contexts spread out gradually in time; each instance of self-valuing is phenomenologically different from the next; no single “implication” (effect) can be reproduced in another instant. From this we can gather that formal logic and mathematics aren’t actually referring to the physical world; “A” is never actually “A”; a symmetrical equation like this always refers to an artificial world, one that exists out of time; and yet even here time operates on it as man works the equation, and bends it in such a way that variables are included, and the first “A” becomes, by conditioners, distinguishable from the other “A”, and a picture of reality begins to shine through. The most basic example: Action = - (Reaction).

A mathematics of being would depart from the notion that in as far as there are abstract notions applicable together in a system, they must on some level be fundamentally equal to each other, since they are representing things that can be computed with one another; and in as far as there are notions that represent reality, they can never ben fully abstract, and never be perfectly represented, and never quite fit in the same system as which supports fully explication of another notion.

Reality is asymmetrical, must fundamentally appear to us as such - or rather, every instance of reality that can be discerned, which is to say, any situation with different entities relating to each other, must appear to us as asymmetrical. Will to Power is the primordial way of designating this asymmetry, it its referral to rank and difference.

The ultimate question about metaphysics is what we can say. The veracity of any metaphysics relies on its own notion of truth. Is value ontology true or not? That depends whether or not truth is connected to reality; whether or not, in short, we assume that reality can be truthfully expressed at all.

71

The fire flux.
But this is philosophy.

By my beard, and his, this teaching to be deeper than one had thought, is this not philosophy?

Truth is at once simple and infinitely complex; entities tend to integrate only that to which they feel akin. Most people confronted with delicate philosophical reasoning across several pages will be repelled, unable to integrate, digest. The silly ones among them will project their failure on the writer, and assume that, because they could not appreciate, the text is simply ‘too complex’.

Another matter is elegance. Some philosophers were able to convey complex idea in rather simple terms. Problem with that is that their ideas were usually misunderstood - simplified by simpler minds.

Personal: a problem is that in my own mind, VO is a logic that is beyond simple; it is entirely obvious. It is in fact so clearly the case that it applies everywhere that, to put it into words, is already making it far more complicated than it is. And yet, the implications of its application are so vastly complex that the brain starts producing neural connections at the mere anticipation of working it through.

Simplicity for the sake of a pleasant read or an easy ‘ah yes true!’ is an epicurean taste, unrelated to intellectual conscience.

Something just dawned on me.
Selfvaluing-pure is the unfulfilled potential to value. *
As soon as valuing is attached to a specific value, the purity is no more.
Thus, there are no pure organic self-valuings. An atom is, as far as I can tell, a pure-selfvaluing, as it requires, once it has come into being, no external circumstance. Please correct me if I’m wrong, in that case a pure-selfvaluing might only be pre-existent, a hiatus in the world, a space of pure chaos, from which an autonomous possibility emerges, that can sink its hooks of potentiating into this or that selfvaluing beyond the chaos.

Philosophic skepsis in combination with creative powers is, that I understand, how a human can relate to self-valuing pure, to lack of attachment, to the full potential to value without any outstanding investments.

Fools try through askesis to also do away with the physical valuing, but they would have to do with air pressure and gravity and heat, and yet it does work to exalt ones self experience momentarily, if one abstains from certain values considered more or less essential, such as in a fast - or in the extreme some asphyxiatic methods - and yet all of this is ultimately nonsense, as it is a arched, not a reified state of detachement.

Philosophic skepsis is a a reified lack of need for definitive truths. It opens up the self-valuing to the thing called sometimes mind, sometimes, freedom, sometimes even god, but the thing in any case from which effortless power, vision and joy issues, waters that touch but never attack to the worlds already-existing values. And wherever valuing has run scarce in the world, the mere potentiating gaze of the self-valuing acts like water on dry clay.

A table has very little potential to reach such a state, as it exists by virtue of being attached to this value of it, the person who wants to have a table.

This allows us to distinguish active from passive self-valuing by means of principle -
we can trace what remains of the being if it has withdrawn all of its investments.
Organic life is always part of an ecosystem. This system regulates the integrities with respect to each other in time, life.
Abstract thought can attain to a sphere analogous to pure integrity.

The perfect mathematics only relates to itself.
The perfect logic relates everything to itself, and allows for no investments in anything that eludes it.

The faith in gods of fate such as Zeus or “God” is the manipulation of thehuman mind in adequate terms of the possibility principle.
Now the uncertainty principle refers only to the possibility of not-nothing that will never be completely filled in, for it to not negate itself.
It is toward this principle that all consciousness is directed. The skygods represent this upward gaze into uncertainty as a positive, as a drive.

So the name and word of god is a vessel for an orientation on an uncertain future which by that name is pre emotively turned into a victory. In turn, the human is oriented on such victory and senses at once the overwhelming power of being aware of the game of odds, and the law of the supremacy of consistency.

In this day and age gods arent needed for many people oriented on what once god allowed. But for others, they still represent the powervacumm behind the uncertainty principle/ratio.

God faked his own death more than once. Same with Wall Street.

Some beliefs are built on grammar, the idea that there is a subject and an object and a verb, an activity that should stand separate of these and that yet binds them, etc -
these are relatively deep yet still naive beliefs.

And some beliefs are entirely built of trigger words.
this is the system of any excited, disenfranchised mass.

Trump is one of the few rare folks out there to ever pull this shit who hard just to distract from it, so we can get back to deeper beliefs, built on greatness rather than on triggeredness. You have to use the word, it is fundamentally a tool, and its materials to work on are man, and the art you’re creating out of it is what is pitifully called a congregation. A movement.

VO has been pure because it doesn’t do this. Its not an easy term to get used to at all, it rearranges your whole mind, it reinforces the whole structure of meaning giving, it annihilates the difference between subject, verb and object. The belief is now restricted to a grammar that disrupts all previous grammar. It is a fundamentally iconoclastic belief, it can’t destroy itself because it is already made of the same stuff of what nihilism is made of. It is nihilism rearranged, so that it turns out as earth. The pieces in their place, we see that relativity of values is not a top down condemnation of value but a grond to generate whatever already is of value - such as the sense that there is something of value - from what is irrevocably here, now.

De-facto-ism.
Thats where you don’t need words in the first place.
seeing what speaks for itself first without the use of any word.

Of course, if you’re in a busy city this can get pretty depressing. Among talking people you need to be talking or you’ll be violated and disrupting.
A city is “all talk”.
City talk radio, almost a tautology. And in this snow of noise, a new ground to silence and abstinence from belief is born - the jazz like talk that passes the time, in which a pure stoic soul takes hold that believes nothing, and firmly. Such a man can discover a universe of feels in any given thing, that is the advantage. A truly firm nihilist can always be moved by seeing that someone put in a little extra effort. And this is what nature made of, extra effort - and so the nihilist becomes a philosopher, by seeing that to be nihilistic may be true, but apparently just not good enough. This is when envy comes to the aid of wisdom. All sins have their place.

72

I see the Absolute as a result, as an apex.
Not as a ground or origin to being, or to beings nature, or it its laws, but as the inevitable climaxing of being in relation with itself.
Not an instant of climax not any discharge, no sexual references intended - I mean simply a finality, a modus in which the process of locally based Being (as self-valuing) finds a definite consequence.

Therefore the Absolute is a kind of symmetry, or a harmony, something we primitively ay understand as “abstraction”, if we do not see how it has come into being.

Yet when it occurs, such “abstraction” is a real form of existence and it can be referred to as a temple of origins, like Plato and the Hermeticists have done.

The cabalistic Tree of Life shows us how out of the local self sourcing point (Kether - "Hadit, with Crowley) and the consequences of its self-valuing nature, which include contradictions, a systemic absolute can be conceived.

Maybe Ill add to this later.

There is a need to replace the term value ontology. The emphasis needs to be on the instrument of valuing, the ontological core, the self-valuing. The valuer, the valuing (as in the being), and on the fact that a specific logic is required to ontologize with these terms.

Something can be said for Valuer Logic - The logic based on the principle of a valuer, analogous to the physics based on the principle of a quantum (of valuing).

A quantum of valuing is a valuer. The logic describing the interconnectivity of valuers reflects the physics of quanta. The logical operations reflect the causality of relativity - i.e. nonlinear space time curvature rather than chains of action and reaction.

VL does not concern itself with the moments in which collisions become formal causes, but rather with the structural property of an environment to attract causes and effects of such and such nature.

“Fundamental Matter”, the affectance sea, Higgs field, is contextualized into the logical discourse as a valency-net, a web of relations which exist only in terms generated by its users - and is only conceptualizable as a derivative of a primordial activity, “relating”, which ultimately implies a inequality.

The primary inequality is between being and not-being.
The secondary inequality is between being-this and that-being.

The formula for every relating must consist of three elements. A relator, a related and a relation.

The primary relates to the secondary in terms that will reflect not-being in a certain way: not being-this, not that-being, etc.
A relation is thus a location for values. Values exist as relations, and determine beings to one another. Values are “contextual appearances”- contrasted with “beings”, whose natures are undisclosed except through time, recognizable as “behavior”.

Someones structural behavior is his soul, his appearance to himself and others is his personality. The appearance creates the context for the soul, but is not the only decisive factor.

The decisive factor is read a posteriori, in an abstraction of the overall behavior. “The will”. The soul is the body of the will, and the body is the body of the soul. The will operates through drawing a certain behavior out of a given body.

It’s mechanisms are in part simply consequences of its place in the Whole (everything that directly and indirectly affects him) and in part the type of operations that makes the whole possible - valuing-interpreting, being-subject, resisting.

Change is the effect of resistance as matter is the effect of the speed of light.

This made me think of a way to describe “ascending to ones higher self” less arcanely -
to reflect ones overall-behavior in ones present actions.

I do not mean “sitting on the couch and watching tv all day” but rather “enacting such and such a contrast/conflict”. For overall, most lives are marked by a certain irredeemable difference between value and necessity. To embrace this difference seems ironic, as it seems like it relativizes the valuing and surrenders to necessity. But that is a formula for death. And indeed, the search for a higher self often leads to death of the soul - to lethargy.

Another way to embrace the difference is to use it to eternalize ones valuing of the lacked thing - to create an ‘ode’ to that which is not - in order that it exists in the mind of the world.

Ascesis, along with sadomasochism, is another way to ‘own the difference between what one wants and what one can have’.

The most worthy way of embracing the difference is the pure, emotionless reflection on it, resulting in what can be called “military planning”. I find that the highest form of praise to life is a systematic construction of means of dominion.

Life itself, that which is praised, flows gratefully into such vessels.

No, I will stick to value ontology. I’ve come to love the word.

I use the term value because I want to employ our most direct intuitions about the world, to work in unision with the powerful framework of established knowledge which the scientists have gathered.

Language guides us, its possibilities are a vast sea of potential, and we steer our course through it. But no none has ever mapped this full sea of language.
In this ocean is one island. A place where the ocean knows itself by seeing that which is different from it – something enclosed in the ocean, but not moving with its tides.
More than half dead, beaten by vast currents of overpowering value-systems colliding in “me”, I stranded on this island and from that day on, the oceans could be navigated, charted, mastered.

The human mind is such an ocean – always in turmoil and never an equal thought process. Colliding streams of consciousness, waves of emotion, never an anchor.
Always things are registered and always a reaction forms. The only constant seems change.

But change from what? Is there a standard? Is there a measure of things? And who measures it – who senses it and responds to it accordingly? What is this core of the surf, the depths, the storm and the silent seas? Always a “yes this” and a “not that”. An appraiser.

“Judgment” – always the “correct measure”. But what is this correctness but historical precedent? It is a selection. Nature selects herself for herself, and she is doing so right now in your thoughts. What is the value of this? Does it attract or repel? This question is answered instantly by an atomic core. It can take years in a human mind. But the question is equal: in this encounter, how do I maximize my harmonic momentum?

The idea would be that, in order to liberate the world from paralysis and shameful, useless obstacles, we all privately have to melt them down burn them up, heat up our soul without any other aim than to melt the old valuing sediments, fossils, patterns, into freshly erupting volcanic activity. This itself would naturally regenerate the human cosmos, we would not even have to worry about establishing a value system that is ethically viable - we would be able to count on such systems coming into place as the released radiation, raw valuing-of-the-moments-beauty, converts to mass again and crystallizes into freshly resounding harmonics, arches of meaning that connect the humans in the here, now by extrapolating their self-valuing through science into something that is at this point beyond imagining.

This Frozen-ness is still Egyptian. Pyramids, eternal corpses, steel masks, geometric tombs, obelisks - solidified death-worship.

Those 30.000.000 Egyptians in movement would only need to understand that, when their movement is experienced for what it is, rather than as a means to an unclear end of moral freedom, the revolution will be a historical fact.

Human conscience needs to be converted into dance.

Indeed, the core of the self-valuing entity can only be described, objectified, as a machine. It does what it does because of an inevitability that we may deduce from being, our own being and whatever this implies… We may deduce it from what we know, the full extent and depth of it. We can not indicate anything that exists without seeing how it must hold itself as a standard with the aid of what we perceive as some mysterious force or quality. Gravity, strong force, the facts of nature we can not penetrate into by isolating the things they pertain to from us, these are expressions of what we can understand when we take ourselves as a model for such machinery.

This is where the distinction between subject and machine dissolves. A subject is a machine. We are conscious, yes – Parodites is making vast strides in describing what this particular form of self-valuing/machinery is, how it stands apart, what it produces, what we may attain with it, and what we may/can/must value in it., as ourselves. I have identified the other way end of the scale – but the mechanism, the machine is still the same. We perish if we do not function as such a machine. Therefore, as vast and interesting and even crucial to know in order to aim for our ends the difference between the subject and the atomic machine is, they are still. under the definition of value ontology, identical at their basic machinery.

So, in line with what Capable says, We must affirm a more object-based descriptiveness within value ontology, and refer to what now stands in Production under “naive valuation” – the concept of valency. This derivative of the concept “(to) value” stands precisely between the valuing “subject” (self-valuing/self-sustaining standard) and that what it values, “the world”, the other, the object. It is in this medium of the universe, the true “ether”, entirely a matter of possibility and correspondence, where “all is properties and situations”, that we may identify the machine-like infrastructure, the circuitry of the machine.

We can not penetrate deeper into the core of self-valuing than by knowing comprehensively our own self-valuing. This is the phenomenal/phenomenological task before us, and this is the perspective that I hold in regard to a new ethics. Very elementarily, we take our organism as the axiom from which to penetrate into the logic of the atom. In this, the subjective, including what we refer to as consciousness, stands logically prior to the things from which it is seen/interpreted to emerge/be constructed. So the study of phenomenology and ontology now must be a study of psychology, but not the categorizing kind, rather a new direction (of which the 21st century has seen preludes) – something we may call experientology. The categorizing not of “effect” of “substances” but of modes of being, as recognized and categorized by beings as resulting from a certain “brew of passions” which is enabled by a certain valency-structure. This is and has always been the study of economics and politics, the true social sciences, working mass-psychology. We have just found its proper terminology, the scientific language for the subjective – the means to objectify subjects into machines without devaluating them.

There remains the fundamental difference between a machinic object (a car, etc) and a machinic subject (a self-valuing). We may however understand now why we create machines around us, and why they so easily fit our valuing system. Our cosmos is host to and product of a machinal structure. At the core of all machinery is (identified from a human perspective) this machinal inevitability that is also at the ground of evolution - a mechanism that only in retrospect appears as logic. From its own perspective this mechanism can not be exhaustively conceptualized, but we must, as Capable notes leave room for the undefined of the machine, that makes it so distant from an automobile which only functions by knowing exactly what it does – the quality of the machine that makes it not a tool, but a tool-wielding, interpreting all machines as its own functions. We can only approach and delineate this. What we can define is that which approaches and delineates it – valency.

In order to articulate the categorical science of valencies, our area for objectification, it is useful and necessary to understand the subject and its non-conscious counterparts in terms of the machinal. But at the same time we have an overlap, a twilight zone between the visible / technical and that ‘je ne sais quoi’, the area where valency becomes value, where our approach is suddenly reversed mid-course without changing direction of its course inward – the realest and most bewildering revaluation of values – the moment where the machinal, first approached as the most precise, as we touch on its core appears entirely imprecise. This is the moment where “the severest self-legislation” is required, which means not only to set laws for oneself, but to set oneself as a law. Science has not been supported by ego’s strong enough to attempt this - it has so far been the domain of the Camelof Zarathustra’s metamorphoses of the spirit.

With the introduction of value ontology into science, there is an “I will” required. Science must deliberately impose itself on its subject matter, in order that its subject matter does not impose itself any further on him. The “I am” of science is still very far away, we stand at the beginning of penetrating into the machinal, the “machinery of the universe”, by introducing ourself into its vital functions.

For this to become viable, tenable, this “self” has to be elaborated and even ‘celebrated’ like never before. The perspective, for every ontic machine is a perspective, every perspective is a machine, must be the new ‘atom’ of a new science. This will require an entirely new scientific caste – to which end we can only begin to inspire new students, seedling-thinkers. To this end the language of the machinal could be employed effectively – to draw out, “lure” rigorous, scientific minds into a realm of self-knowing by allowing the notion of self-valuing to express itself in the language of the machinal. We should appeal to the hardest, toughest and proudest with our project, for it carries the potency to bend the strongest steel, to shape everything around its dynamic core.

To make circles out of straight lines. value ontology does for logic what the notion that the Earth is spherical did for mans awareness of himself in relation to the cosmos. It places the limits of the subject (of logic) within itself, and describes the mechanism/cosmos wherein it exists in terms of the consequences of this centering. So as “gravity” first became the core from which effective physics emerged, so “valuing” becomes the core from which an effective thinking can emerge.

In Kung Fu, or Aikido, or other ancient ‘dances of life and death’, the sole aim is to solidify ones body, physiology and mind so as to be able to produce the perfect spontaneous response to any given situation. Perfect in terms of what?

Exactly. That is the question.
The East Asians have arrived at a bottom line standard here which can be pointed out with words like aesthetics, cleanliness, purity. But we western philosophers are moving beyond this as we speak. A comprehensive answer to the bequest for a standard, life will provide to us individually, as we walk across the threshold of an age of greater humanity… guided no longer by the sky or the earth, but by philosophy, by an awakening to ‘raw valuing’, which, by the way, is experienced as a burning heart when it commences to take hold of a heart that has been placed by its owner on the altar of some deity or void.

Awakening hurts, and making judgments that result in further pain is required… only to those to whom the pain of tedium and nausea of the indirectly-valuing humanity has grown intolerable, the pain of standing utterly alone in the universe as a potential center (the solipsist makes an empty claim) is also a pleasure, a nektar.

As a clarification: the first reflection entering my mind the moment after I had slipped into an understanding of valuing as the primordial, was “but this means all miracles I witnessed, all magic I partook in, all Gods and all of Gods aspects Ive encountered, are real.”

I had seen innumerable “impossible” things happen during over a decade of immersion in magic, but, as I am at heart a logician, lived in a state of constant suspension of belief in what Id witnessed and done, because I couldn’t explain it, nor did I aim to; I never figured there was an explanation, until I stumbled upon it, or culminated into it.

What I realized instantly as well is that the explication of my logic is no less than the explication of the world including a sufficient definition of God. So I figured this task is not entirely my own. It now turns out that we are both creatures defined only in terms of Philosophy, a dragon of which we are organs. You may be its wings, spreading and its mind, I may be its stomach and its eyes. Its heart is being itself.

Being is not sufficient to itself without philosophy - these are the terms human existence imposes on itself and thereby on the whole of existence.

Ive built it from the “ground” - the abyss, the lack of hitherto discovered ground - in constant battle with error of man through forums and the combative nature of the Will to Power - what kept me able to ground myself without a ground is simply my immense activity, the fire in my nature, which has always been relentless and the cause of much unrest in my environment - why Ive been forced to live with marihuana, as mankind outside of philosophy does not provide the density of being required to conduct my currents. I always burned through everything and everyone and, because I suffer of some of the suffering I cause, Ive been glad to lead an outwardly passive life, made out of the deepest, happiest contemplation and raw, paganly violent outburst of physical emotion.

You seem to have excavated it from above, all alone, in the company of the whole host of past philosophers and with the blessing of El Shaddai.

In between us is Capable, who is also an organ of this beast.
Even if by ourselves we are worlds sufficient to themselves - CONQUEST requires more than one philosopher, simply because Being is Plenty, and not of one set of terms.
Philosophy can conquer only where more than one are involved. That is why Plato is different from Socrates and yet of the same body of thought, as is Aristotle.
The irreconcilable natures of men - the irreconcilable nature of natures is nature.

We do not need each other. There is no need involved in philosophy, only riches. It is rather that the great Dragonhead of beings unfolding lies to hoard it all together, so as to impress itself on itself and find justification (pride, vanity even) to walk through the door without a frame, the threshold to the unsupported, where ones own footsteps form the ground to ones presence -

Philosophy in Time, a march, echoing forward as the structure of the future. All temples are build as representations of time, in a specific ordering. Philosophy must become the altar of the religion of Earth, on which sacrifices of possibilities are made to make the way free for necessity; unfolding, Aletheia, as it ever was.

The empty God is an idea - already a phenomenon - derived of the experience of a being. There can exist no true thought of a thing that is not manifest.

For a human to imagine knowledge of the sinless, ie the positive value, as something that does not communicate itself is a sin - an error, a mirage. True humility before that which can not be aprehended means to accept ignorance of it. To act on and devise morality based on that which one claims has no bearing on existence is a contradiction.

Thus, and as is indeed the case in the world, the effort of returning the light to God as the devout ones you speak of attempt in their prayerforms is the denial of truth, of God, and leads indeed to a quick decay of the being, which is a gift, even if it can be turned into a prison, and should not be returned.

In short, the existence of the unknowable can not be known -

Such a returning of the light is a practice born of pain and sorrow and fear - and the resulting feeling of goodness lasts as long as a drug high does and has the same addictive effect. Eventually the potency of the method runs out and both Earth and God are lost. Hatred and selfloathing remains. The undead.

In truth man is given only the labour of love - this is what DAATH reveals as the equivalence of knowledge and will, the knowledge which hovers above the abyss.

Daath is not itself the abyss but rather the one way of not falling into it. The precarious selfmade bridge as which true entity is born, connecting phenomenon with eternal truth.

Christ could be an image of the “Gott ohne Wirkung” - defying process as such and thus becoming a concentrated void and center. Erasing conditioning, cleansing.

Creation and Christ are thus somewhat antithetical - Christ as an answer to and partial rebuke of the methods of creation.

Thus ultimately there is, in as far as roots and ground are concerned, only the truth that things are rooted in themselves. Be it an Aeon, a culture, a man, a flower or even a crumpled beer can, all things gave their final origin (I just made up that term because it is required) in themselves.

There is nothing behind words - there is ultimately only the ink, to paraphrase the Dogen.

God is this being-rooted.

DAATH is the recognition of this nature-of-all-possible-things as being rooted in themselves - this unity of will and knowledge is --consciousness as rooted in itself–; i.e. proper consciousness.

Why are things rooted in themselves?
Because it is only due to their existence that they exist.
Causes may be attributed after the revelation of their existence. But without their existence they do not have causes. That is a purer truth than the statement that without their causes they wouldn’t exist – because the only certainty is that they exist. The causality statement is speculative, imprecise, not merely because causes are infinitely reducible to other and ever less certain causes. God as first cause is therefore the epitome of dissolution of knowledge. No God thus created the world. God is the way a world is rooted in itself. And thus there isn’t one God but as many as there are world’s.

The earlier statement is simply self-evident.

And so God is, in as far as he is known, self-evident and not a matter of speculation and neither of deduction.

The root of knowledge is the root of being, and we arrive at this as we depart from it, in the purity of action.

What is a pure act? An act which is rooted in itself.

Music.

The removing of marble from marble has no bearing on nothingness - it is simply all marble, some of which is selected and the rest discarded. There is no paradox in that.

The idea that a God beyond knowledge can be known is not a paradox but simply an error. You have many ways of referring to this error as it has heen made by various sects but with all due respect, none of this constitutes an argument.

The fact that space is required for an object to move, that the world is not of infinite density but varies in density does not imply or even suggest nothingness.

As for relative and human terms: we are both human and our perspective is relative. We can not move beyond this. That these gnostics imagined they could means only that their pride exceeded their wisdom.

I ask: how did they imagine they could know beyond their own existence? Knowing I won’t get an answer from them , my own is that they wished for this world to mean nothing because of their personal qualms with it. That is all the logic I can discern in the whole demiurg-theory. And logic is what I am interested in, I am not able to take things on faith.

How do you see value ontology producing the idea that consciousness is rooted in itself? I have meant to present these as separate (though compatible) ideas of which VO is far more recent. It is true that the attainment of consciousness as rooted in itself (nirvana) has enabled me to move past the being /non being distinction and perceive the nature of pure possibility in my own human, relative capacity for valuing.

There is only the relative, this fact is the absolute. The awakening to this fact is accompanied by overwhelming love. Because love is the hardest case of relativity - love is absolute.

Pi is the discrepancy between the circle and the straight angle.
It simply signifies difference.

Of course the fact that the world appears, from our limited perspective, as changing, doesn’t in any way suggest it is inferior to something else. If we assume a perfect all-being then change is our way of perceiving something the scope of which exceeds our own being. And here we agree : the way the world must appear to us is as a riddle. Time is one of the keys to this riddle. But it is useless without the key that is love; involvement.

Hence, the mysteries of the crucifixion. There is no standing aside from existence, especially not for God.

Time and love can suffice for us to apprehend the absolute, that which does not change. As when the part becomes whole to itself (through loves labour (time; Kronos)), it apprehends that all that is whole is absolute, it apprehends the ground of manifestation. It is easy to jump to the conclusion of God from there, but that is, as far as philosophy (as the antipode of faith) can determine, a name for ones own awe and gratitude; Ones valuing – of ones own completed labour of love.

Therefore God abandoned Jesus as he abandons every other saint and sinner when they cease their labour and thrust themselves beyond their own love. (“Let this cup pass me by”)

Water on stone.

Then there’s also God but that doesn’t mean anything.
Not to me, not to God himself.

Water on stone. Understand this and become aware of the blasphemy that the idea of a “demiurg” represents.

Ive instinctively loathed the term since I read of it in Nag Hammadi scrolls, and now I know why.
Those who cant see their own perfection and emptiness in the path of a mountain creek have invented it.
I know from your music and other traits that you are not such a person.

Drifting at sea staring upward
salt carries me lightly
I know why they denounce this world

the world is indifferent
except to indifference
in hate or in love
no-mind, pure touch
of fist on air, of palm on the water-surface
dragonfly catch a touch of musk

to speak “All” is the greatest imaginable abyss beween speaking and truth.

The act of speaking is so particular, the sound of a spoken word by a specific voice must be among the most particular occurrences in the universe, and for it to address a perfect universal is so deeply troubling that beings, gods and the like, come rushing into existence to fill the void that was drawn into being by the most sweeping misunderstanding nature ever had of itself.

“All” is not.

“All” is ever hidden.

The challenge was to go beyond the lineair casually of time, to behind time space as an object embedded in a higher dimensionality, “the eternal”, the logic of value of which numerical calculations are like the breath pervading time space based consciousness.

So where numbers take flight, as they do in a certain genius, they represent the instructions of the eternal into the linear.

The eternal is not what is addressed here as God or end-attractor but rather the environment in which this attractor is built, the element from which it emerges as the father of consciousness.

Consciousness is valuing-abstracted, i.e. suspended. An idea of an idea of a value or a valuing, and this idea holds a radically, paradigmatically different causality than whatever bid interaction it was abstracted from. As a suspended valuing it already pertains to eternity, as what is suspended in time to become object of consciousness has no natural end, no end-consequence written in its own code (and no longer a meaningful beginning) and can be seen as a result of osmosis of the eternal necessity of being as valuing (giving value, being gives itself to itself, giving is willing) through the membrane into hard 4d physics. This osmosis is probably just thought.

for elements to fuse completely they always have to work beyond universal protocols, as universal protocols are always restricted by laws of averages. Magic begins with concentrations of strength and resource far beyond average - one already needs have purified, perfected the elements in order to engage them in magic. So the whole mysterious nature of magic is not a vagueness on its part but rather on the part of he non-magician who works with averages and slews and arrays and mindlessly gathered sets, whereas he magician accounts for every piece and bit in his equation (love is the law) so as to properly impregnate the elements with each other.

And thus, the only possible enduring manifestation of being is magical - simply because magical outcomes trump other outcomes by all positive standards of justification - most notably, use of resource; magic uses all resources to their utmost potential, causing the most ferocious reactions, and intensity of result, which follows.

Hence all animals and plants are magical species, as is the fully unfolded human being. But to be a magical human being is such a powerful experience that, set against a world of withering and collapsing pseudo-beings, it is simply terrifying.

I made a fire in the rain.

Magic is nothing less or more than the complete fusion of the elements
efficiency and untold vigilance to produce abandon beyond random

Thus magic has a high risk factor. For every set of perfectly honed mechanisms there are many applications.

In general Id define magic in terms of powers of perception.
magic is activity which is more concentrated than the mind of the average beholder.

Essentially the Nietzschean task is the only one which matters in philosophy - t doesn’t mater whether we resolve intellectual problems as long as they don’t cause a mastery over our Earthly being, which, make no mistakes, means mastering the Earth.

The idea that mastery can exist in blissful isolation from the Earth and from organic being is the demiurgic error itself. The idea of the demure as a creator of a false world stands at the apparent heart of the mistaken realm of thought which seeks to explain away reality in favour of a delightful logical conundrum. VO obliterates all such logical conundrums and all delight in the endless paradoxes which Reason has hitherto thrown at any zealous suitor. VO is bold, brash, remorseless, and very proud of itself as firstborn philosophy of the Earth, fulfillment of Nietzsche’s desires, which are the desires of mankind, amounting to the will to come out from under the cover of darkness. Man, unit VO, has been living like trolls in the dark. Now, with VO, the apocalypse has broken out and thats just … what I said it would be in 2011… and it will come to an end when I have said it will come to an end and Im not gonna repeat that again. People who are serous will have etched this date in their minds and are preparing for it. People who aren’t serous are going to be pieces of dust in the wind.

Why can no philosophy confront VO? It is like this, as Capable indicates: VO is the father who is the future. Whatever is born from VO is born from the future. VO is not something made in the past agains which you can rebel. It is the logic that de-trivializes your own existence, forges an eternity out of your efforts. It thus confronts man with the question: do you prefer to be trivial? Or do you want to actually exist? And this, friends, is what causes he greatest upheaval and hatred and deliberate misunderstanding – many men find that deep down they prefer perhaps not to exist. And that is what divides, as long produced and discussed, our human species into two different types, this is the selecting mechanism Nietzsche was after, what he saw in the Eternal Recurrence.

Enlightenment, liberation, salvation, all this is found in the recognition of the longing as itself a positive substance. It is here that God becomes accessible to consciousness and happiness becomes a basic condition. Naturally this happiness is as thorny as it is fragrant, as it doesn’t do away with the agon. It merely recognizes it as the elixir of immortality.

There is no contradiction.
“Nothing” is a contradiction.
“Contradiction” is a contradiction.

Contradiction is contradiction.
Nothing is nothing.
Nothing “is” in contradiction.

This is actually how I arrived at VO: the fact that two quanta of will to power cant contradict each other while still trying to overpower each other. They are the same, yet they have apparently opposite aims.
Except they don’t, because the real aim is in existence itself, which is in juxtaposition, rather than in contradiction, to other beings.

Juxtaposed by means of value, which is necessity, translating in scarcity - the thing to warrant compulsion, which is propulsion, i.e. energy, being.

Dialectic is false in all cases because there never are only two elements in the equation, nor are elements functionally described in terms of their antipode, much less in terms of that which contradicts them. Thats why Hegel is a convulsing pit of hell, or a furnace as you have called him, saying you tossed him in it.

What we get from his logic is pulsating orders of symmetry, fractals, music, crystallizing matter.
Life erupts in order to expand the parameters in which asymmetry can take place, so that great orders of symmetry become possible.

Symmetry is of course tension, tension of existence with all the things that would be possible if this existence didn’t take place.
What exists is the tip of the iceberg of possibility, underneath it, tension exists in decreasing symmetry down to nothing, which is the only thing which contradicts itself, which is asymmetrical to symmetry.

Value increases when its presence decreases.

73

“This claim is false.”

Why is that possible?

The answer is remarkably simple: Because language did not originate in logic, but in differentiation.
Logic therefore can not be perfected in the form of language. It can only pertain to language perfectly.
It has proven to be a matter of locating the term that denotes the meaning of language itself. The case was so extraordinarily fortunate that this same term also refers to the basic primordial instinct-to-be, which now is understood inclusively as the inherent mechanism of self-valuing and the outwardly projected valuing in terms of this inherently perpetuating self-value.

Even now after clarity’s dawn it is only a relation to language that the “path” or truth" is found - the most pertinent value in each instance of conceptualization. Language is much of man but it is not all - but it has guided man since instinct had become madness and madness eventually mind [the birth of mind - the most terrible path nature could possibly have taken] became reason, and reason habit and custom and a path out of hell.

And here we are at the exit of this - cave soiled by million gods - there is light beyond these walls - the paintings are our memory - primordial past. The times when “Our truth” was possible, the place where the writing was on the wall, and not up in the air in song and ‘self-valuing geometry’ and different from every perspective as a clous of summerbirds as heat collects in the air and the pregnant darkness sets in.

The question on my mind is: is the cloud a self-valuing? No - there is only one self-valuing int he cycle of charge and discharge - that is the principle of lightning itself. This keeps itself in motion by being the cataclysm of two forces it values in terms of it’s self-valuing. But this principle re-incarnates from place to place in the same context and is ‘embodied’ by nature, and ‘brought to life’ with a consequence that cracks open “reality” for a moment and makes one aware of the central mechanism - the circuit of energy collection and discharge. This is “looped” in a lifeform, feeding back on itself. A combustion engine, even a wheel, certainly fire, is repreoduction a a part of the self-valuing circuit. All great inventions, from television to tea-making to proton colliders, all tap into the ‘genius of the cyclus’, which is “being”.

To become a whole cyclus - or better, for each day, or each moon, or year to become a complete cyclus of self-valuing - of arrival fulfillment commencement of ‘greater things’ which is always the impetus - the mirroring back of oneself as ‘potentially greater’ is essential to the expansion of matter into its various forms. Valuing in terms of self-valuing circuitry is ‘the illusion whereby power is attained’. The power attained by it is expelled into force in all ‘natural phenomena’ - technology taps into that root, but brings forth different things because it has, instead of the air, sunlight, water and soil of the earth, the mind of man as its ground, and this mind is also the ‘air’ in which it grows, and from man the budding idea receives attention like a creature receives sunlight, and in the end it must be seen to be believed - except to this flower itself and that which brought it forth - a flower is the consequence - what kind cause can we see to a flower, beyond, at the end of, it’s chain of evolution from the first atoms?

It is believed that the first signs and sounds of language originated as religious practices.

But this is natural, and unavoidable, because the power of speech introduces the very thing that we now know as God. With language, man distances himself from himself into a separate entity, which can be inherited by people he will never have physical ties to. And this is what God is; that possibility of being by not actually being, namely by, instead of in a particular way and place, being everywhere and in every way, always. At least that is how Spinoza finally approached God as a concept within that language-magic that had evolved finally to catch up with the system of hallucinations its imperfection (namely its non locality, which prevents it from Being, to speak Heidegger, prevents it from emerging and unfolding in time) had produced in time on the soft bed of the human brain.

In 70-90 percent of cases a politician will speak as unnaturally to the full truth as possible before an unwitting audience - and an audience to a politician is almost by definition unwitting -, merely as a basis technique to give the opponent a maximum of trouble in setting things straight, before a counter statement can be made.

74

Parodites
Tower
Tower
Parodites

Posts : 790
Join date : 2011-12-11

Penseroso. Empty
PostSubject: Penseroso. Penseroso. Icon_minitimeSat Aug 11, 2012 2:59 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
PENSEROSO,
A Poetic Interlude.

Time, everywhere by grim oblivion
encircled, as when in the ring of flames
the scorpion does plunge into its breast
the fearsome barb: so Time does swallow up
its very potency,
and quaff the dusty glass of life;-
that from whose bitter pharmacy
we had so long abstained to seek
alleviance for all our ills in Death.
Befouled with earth’s o’er-childed mass,
Time’s the rat that nips at the heel of man
which Death drives out, when it does purge
the overrun sullage of generation
from which it feeds- and gives us peace.
Speak of the dead’s justice, or their virtue,
for the living but drain their cup of life,
insensate, till the dregs consume;
their philosophy unmade in heaven,
their deepest moral but mere confession.
Immortal longings ingress upon the mortal heart,
to comprehension’s failure; till life’s ailing flood
bank at heaven’s shores. Save for life and death,
all can be forgiven. The soul still further mounts,
it’s but for this that life benignant proves,-
that all life’s seeming seems to fly as we do seek
its current prodding ceaseless, thus to smooth
the pebble-soul of love and loss in quiet deep.
The fevered heart does anguished keep,
when pleasure’s secret lies still undiscovered,
thus yearning immortal does itself beseech
the ever-pregnant thought of the eternal;
thus strange presage our soul makes ere we do sleep
with device of symbol, thus to announce,
amidst our youth, high case of love and crime-
and war, which age but does allegorize.
It is but in the muddied spring of death
that all the world’s show is cast upon,
like trembling stars in the pale waters
whose light wavers with the dithering wind;
the whole plethory of man is list upon,
his passions vincible, and kingdom’s pomp,
his love, all the glory of his raving tribe,
and bend all the more, the more gently urged
with the quiet thoughts of death.

Thus the beasts plod on, who upon their course
find neither love nor hope, and no remorse,
while man, in all-comprehending avarice complains
that fearsome war did not secure his name,
nor brazen monument did mark his progeny.
Alas, though full of grief, man’s like that bird,
vitiated, and who, with broken wing,
calls out, and the more beautifully does sing,
for how solemn the work of life to us appears,
and all the world seems a living prayer,
hieratic chorus of immortal powers;
the stars, which in their lonely splendor hang,
over heraldic seas, which aver their light;
their light to baptize for our human eyes,
which cannot long bear to stare into the night.
So though of death I grieve, yet it is to death
I bend accordance; thus my part I play
in this life’s supplication to unknown Gods;
and am Man, in whose soul the tired breath
of gathered creation thereby allays
of thought wandering, which onward plods
into the dim clime of high philosophy;
till’ love and pain, hope, and ambition’s lost,
amidst the wreck of time and sense,
for changed, they are what they were not.
For when man’s balmed heart has quieted
the fire in which our passions had been tempered,
so love’s tired pleasure love then steals away;
our love the thought of love therein divests
of the desire which this thought confounds,
while in our hope desire does recess;
and hope, most roving, like pain itself renounces. 1
Like the wintered grace of the arresting seas
all that’s fair grows pale before it disappears
and empties into its native waters.

As life is death’s greatest consolation,
so too is death life’s most perfect solace;
for with the earth, thy sacrificial fire,
equally is prepared the first-born of man,
the high cast of the world’s infancy;
the melancholy ocean, whose intimation
of mute age, and endless time do pierce
the brooding soul; statesmen just and mighty,
young beauty, with all her fledgling virtue;
the ruined column of the stony earth,
whose prized mountains crumble, the golden sun
and his companion stars, grown pale with time;
kings, princes, learned men and benefactor- all
without distinction perish thus to feed
that all-embracing fire, nor with pride
the nobler lot to shame the commoner,
but with the only justice known in heaven
or on earth, to bend and pass, that others 2
in their stead may do the same.
Till in the strange accent of recorded time
our favorite phantom cleaves the rounded way 3
to dusty death, into the long twilight 4
the murmuring steep of years rolls onward,
into that plaintive vale the living sweep
o’er like shadows. Till light dispel us;
the living, but the first born of the dead,
of clodden field, immense of empyrean,
and puissant sun. Thus we live;
the bitter will mock, while the somber weep,
while bud of Sephalica, or aliment
make of Lotus flower, the soft-hearted
shall glory in the temple of the flesh.
In what eloquence of natural beauty
we might list to the wind our own heart’s compact
as children of the earth, 'longside those butterflies,
song-spun into leaves of gold and silver,
the whispered angels upon threads of dawn-
and that, until resolved to earth again,
we gently perish.

It is but our thoughts, that are the ages
of our life, by which we do measure out
passion horary, till action’s stifled
that no moment but could be filled by it,
and the brim of life spills to indiscretion.
Life’s but a nascent sun, that illumines 5
the shadowed dream; and this light we share,
the world, and but all we know of it,
till we pall of knowing. Then thy image
is undone, in the first morning of the world,
left nothing of its memory to the blear seas
as yawn wearily over their wasted kingdoms,
nor any of the houses, and darkness
only is the universe. 6
The margin of thy subtle frame is lost;
by a flower’s root thy cast is broken,
and by a drop of rain thy human pride
discovered. Survey the earth, thy great tomb:
this dust in which you shall be laid
which itself once lived and breathed;
or suffered, rejoiced, and prayed,
yet no more weeps, or laughs, or bleeds.
So form but with thy human speech-
mere hissing sputum in thy chest,
a word to cast upon the coruscant sea;
search thy soul’s deepest ecstasy,
and from thy mortal conceit thus confess,
to name all this choiring beauty
of the world- death. 7 For
all thy world is but a drop of rain,-
the moon-gilded tear of the yet un-dawned,
whose yearning were poised upon a flower;
though who could endure but that single tear,
if not to fall yielding upon the heart,
in what peerless bower of solitary witness?
Its beauty is its descent, and of the world
we do read the weight of things: all beauty
that cannot be endured kindly spares us
of the grief we feel, when we do know it,
and the sorrow- though to be spared
that drop of rain were unkindly.

  1. An adaptation of Propertius.
  2. “Favorite phantom” , Bryant, Thanatopsis.
  3. Emerson.
  4. Dusty Death, phrase in Macbeth.
  5. Browne: We live by an invisible sun within us.
  6. Byron: “… And darkness was the universe.”
  7. Pointed allusion to Yeats:
    Crying amid the glittering sea,
    Naming it with the ecstatic breath,
    Because it had such dignity,
    By the sweet name of Death.

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.

75

This is quite an interesting combination fo images.
Seeing as how churches normally have roofs, might be said to protect the meek from the Eagle, the predatory forces.
Nietzsche spoke in contempt of the fact that churches have roofs - how can a temple to the divine shield the worshipper from the sky? He spoke fondly of overgrown ruins of churches, or just buildings, I can’t remember, as proper temples.

" 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 Online
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    Arcturus Descending

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

Sensational Surrational Mutter Empty
PostSubject: Re: Sensational Surrational Mutter Sensational Surrational Mutter Icon_minitimeFri Aug 31, 2012 3:02 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
This is quite an interesting combination fo images.
Seeing as how churches normally have roofs, might be said to protect the meek from the Eagle, the predatory forces.
Nietzsche spoke in contempt of the fact that churches have roofs - how can a temple to the divine shield the worshipper from the sky? He spoke fondly of overgrown ruins of churches, or just buildings, I can’t remember, as proper temples.
The church which I now attend has no roof.
But there was a time when I did attend a church which had one. One way to look at it is to realize that the roof might ‘contain’ or ‘retain’ that which is sacred; it would also help to drown out noise from the outside.
For myself, I don’t actually see ‘predatory’ depicted here. I see an Eagle who might be said to be ‘protecting’ what is left of the church. I see a look of determination on the Eagle’s face.
It’s actually an amazing picture to me - I love Scott Mutter’s perceptions.

The picture is called A More Perfect World. I don’t see any danger to one’s imagination in revealing what he had in mind with it. His words:

This picture is my most baroque, in the way it fills the frame with imagery and in its nonlinear thrust. I see its pull as a desire for the spirit to wrench itself free from matter…"

So, the Eagle represents the Spirit soaring and as you can see and I’m sure know, the Spirit is greater and larger than anything it is capable of soaring above…and it IS capable of soaring above anything and setting itself free.

I can’t be sure but there appears to be a stream running through the fissure created. The more I look at it, the picture actually gives me the chills - it is just so much larger-than-life in a way.

I once stood ‘inside’ of a church which had become simply a ruin in Costa Rica and it was one of the most poignant and ethereal experiences I’ve ever had. I didn’t want to leave the place for some reason.

I don’t necessarily see church goers or believers as the "meek’ though many may be. As with everything else, it is an ‘individual’ thing. We all have our own form of “religion” which we rely on for support and for the need to worship.

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

Sensational Surrational Mutter Empty
PostSubject: Re: Sensational Surrational Mutter Sensational Surrational Mutter Icon_minitimeSun Sep 16, 2012 11:25 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
VaerosTanarg wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
This is quite an interesting combination fo images.
Seeing as how churches normally have roofs, might be said to protect the meek from the Eagle, the predatory forces.
Nietzsche spoke in contempt of the fact that churches have roofs - how can a temple to the divine shield the worshipper from the sky? He spoke fondly of overgrown ruins of churches, or just buildings, I can’t remember, as proper temples.
The church which I now attend has no roof.
Interesting. What does it look like?

Quote :
But there was a time when I did attend a church which had one. One way to look at it is to realize that the roof might ‘contain’ or ‘retain’ that which is sacred; it would also help to drown out noise from the outside.
For myself, I don’t actually see ‘predatory’ depicted here. I see an Eagle who might be said to be ‘protecting’ what is left of the church. I see a look of determination on the Eagle’s face.
It’s actually an amazing picture to me - I love Scott Mutter’s perceptions.
I can see the quality but it’s not a church I would walk into.

Quote :
The picture is called A More Perfect World. I don’t see any danger to one’s imagination in revealing what he had in mind with it. His words:

This picture is my most baroque, in the way it fills the frame with imagery and in its nonlinear thrust. I see its pull as a desire for the spirit to wrench itself free from matter…"

So, the Eagle represents the Spirit soaring and as you can see and I’m sure know, the Spirit is greater and larger than anything it is capable of soaring above…and it IS capable of soaring above anything and setting itself free.
If by spirit you mean what I mean with self-valuing, then I see. But I am not sure this is what you mean precisely.
Spirit differentiates. It is densest in minerals, finds a balance in the animal in light atoms, fluids and gasses, which form the basis for the scattered and differentiated electrical field that a human being is, which produces a gradually self-harmonizing rabble of forces as complex as unpredictable. What is in the end always the result is genius, the means by which a person, incomplete by nature, completes itself in some way in accordance (harmony, ‘soundness’) with an environment it has found for itself.

Quote :
I can’t be sure but there appears to be a stream running through the fissure created. The more I look at it, the picture actually gives me the chills - it is just so much larger-than-life in a way.

I once stood ‘inside’ of a church which had become simply a ruin in Costa Rica and it was one of the most poignant and ethereal experiences I’ve ever had. I didn’t want to leave the place for some reason.
Very nice. You share this sentiment with Nietzsche, apparently. Even though it’s often unpleasant for honest to God good people to agree with Nietzsche, he is often very accurate when it comes to what we refer to as sacred.
In essence he is a philosopher of Birth. This is of course a feminine matter in the phenomenological sense, but as Bill Clinton referenced: all politicians want to tell you they were born in the log cabin they built themselves.
Philosophers are ‘spiritual politicians’ - they realize that to truly build the cabin, one has to build the whole cosmos.

I once read a book that described Jesus as the last Pharao. An interesting point was that the word translated as ‘carpenter’ can also mean ‘architect’ - and Pharao’s were known as cosmic architects.

A philosopher is either a Pharao or a failure.

Quote :
I don’t necessarily see church goers or believers as the "meek’ though many may be. As with everything else, it is an ‘individual’ thing. We all have our own form of “religion” which we rely on for support and for the need to worship.
It is true that there have been ferocious people who have subjected their will to prophets.

" 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 Online
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    Arcturus Descending

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

Sensational Surrational Mutter Empty
PostSubject: Re: Sensational Surrational Mutter Sensational Surrational Mutter Icon_minitimeMon Sep 17, 2012 3:44 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
Fixed Cross

The church which I now attend has no roof.

Interesting. What does it look like?
It looks like many things, depending on the time of day. But it IS the most beautiful church…

Quote :
For myself, I don’t actually see ‘predatory’ depicted here. I see an Eagle who might be said to be ‘protecting’ what is left of the church. I see a look of determination on the Eagle’s face.
It’s actually an amazing picture to me - I love Scott Mutter’s perceptions.

I can see the quality but it’s not a church I would walk into.
If you can see the quality, why would you not venture there? You’ve got to be kidding. You would not walk into this amazing place that looks like no other church you’ve ever been in before? Where is your curiosity, where is your sense of adventure? Can you even imagine what you might find in these ruins? Is it the Eagle which you are afraid of? Can you even begin to imagine trying to communicate with him to let you into his domain?

Quote :
If by spirit you mean what I mean with self-valuing, then I see. But I am not sure this is what you mean precisely.
I’m not so sure what you mean by self-valuing. Spirit is sort of a happening, it is just something which rises up in you. In my sense of self-valuing, in part anyway, spirit is that which flows through us and brings on meaning. In that is self-valuing. Aside from that, self-valuing is a particular action taken in a particular moment where we come to an awareness of ourselves, to free ourselves from those shackles which keep us down and do us harm.

Quote :
What is in the end always the result is genius, the means by which a person, incomplete by nature, completes itself in some way in accordance (harmony, ‘soundness’) with an environment it has found for itself.
What you wrote above sounds more like “adaptation” to me but I may be misunderstanding you here.
Genuis to me is something which someone, not many, is born with. It’s kind of a fire within which burns, which has no other choice but “to be” and it brings forth something which has never been before, something original and something far beyond that which has been seen. Genius does not replicate nor does it adapt except as it sees fit, but not according to anyone else.

Quote :
You share this sentiment with Nietzsche, apparently. Even though it’s often unpleasant for honest to God good people to agree with Nietzsche, he is often very accurate when it comes to what we refer to as sacred.
I’ll have to dive into Nietzsche’s kind of sacredness and see if I really agree with him.

Quote :
Philosophers are ‘spiritual politicians’ - they realize that to truly build the cabin, one has to build the whole cosmos.
Or at the very least, to know where the best place is in it (the cosmos) to begin their building.

Quote :
I once read a book that described Jesus as the last Pharao. An interesting point was that the word translated as ‘carpenter’ can also mean ‘architect’ - and Pharao’s were known as cosmic architects.
I can see how a carpenter would be an architect. Christ supposedly was a carpenter but his material was of a spiritual essence.

Quote :
A philosopher is either a Pharao or a failure.
That’s the way You view it.

Quote :
I don’t necessarily see church goers or believers as the “meek’ though many may be. As with everything else, it is an ‘individual’ thing. We all have our own form of “religion” which we rely on for support and for the need to worship.
It is true that there have been ferocious people who have subjected their will to prophets.
[/quote]
I wasn’t speaking of “religion” in that sense. I doubt that Nietzsche would either, at least in the much broader sense.
My “religion” doesn’t rely on the prophets.
I somehow do not equate 'ferocious” with sublimating one’s will to another.

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

Sensational Surrational Mutter Empty
PostSubject: Re: Sensational Surrational Mutter Sensational Surrational Mutter Icon_minitimeFri Sep 21, 2012 12:10 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
VaerosTanarg wrote:
Quote :
Fixed Cross

The church which I now attend has no roof.

Interesting. What does it look like?
It looks like many things, depending on the time of day. But it IS the most beautiful church…
Feel welcome to post a picture.

Quote :
Quote :
For myself, I don’t actually see ‘predatory’ depicted here. I see an Eagle who might be said to be ‘protecting’ what is left of the church. I see a look of determination on the Eagle’s face.
It’s actually an amazing picture to me - I love Scott Mutter’s perceptions.

I can see the quality but it’s not a church I would walk into.
If you can see the quality, why would you not venture there? You’ve got to be kidding. You would not walk into this amazing place that looks like no other church you’ve ever been in before? Where is your curiosity, where is your sense of adventure? Can you even imagine what you might find in these ruins? Is it the Eagle which you are afraid of? Can you even begin to imagine trying to communicate with him to let you into his domain?
Who said anything about fear?

Quote :
Quote :
If by spirit you mean what I mean with self-valuing, then I see. But I am not sure this is what you mean precisely.
I’m not so sure what you mean by self-valuing. Spirit is sort of a happening, it is just something which rises up in you. In my sense of self-valuing, in part anyway, spirit is that which flows through us and brings on meaning. In that is self-valuing. Aside from that, self-valuing is a particular action taken in a particular moment where we come to an awareness of ourselves, to free ourselves from those shackles which keep us down and do us harm.
Yes, except it would not exist if it wasn’t for its ‘vehicle’.
It is us communicating in terms of self-valuing. Spirit is perhaps simply value.

Quote :
Quote :
What is in the end always the result is genius, the means by which a person, incomplete by nature, completes itself in some way in accordance (harmony, ‘soundness’) with an environment it has found for itself.
What you wrote above sounds more like “adaptation” to me but I may be misunderstanding you here.
Genuis to me is something which someone, not many, is born with. It’s kind of a fire within which burns, which has no other choice but “to be” and it brings forth something which has never been before, something original and something far beyond that which has been seen. Genius does not replicate nor does it adapt except as it sees fit, but not according to anyone else.
Yes, and all life that makes a mark for itself, carves out a space to exist, does this by genius.
The absence of genius is far more common, but only genius survives the test of time.
Of course in many of mans stupidities must be understood as genius in terms of effective regulation of impulses, at least if one is to contend with them.

Quote :
Quote :
You share this sentiment with Nietzsche, apparently. Even though it’s often unpleasant for honest to God good people to agree with Nietzsche, he is often very accurate when it comes to what we refer to as sacred.
I’ll have to dive into Nietzsche’s kind of sacredness and see if I really agree with him.
Spontaneously I would recommend the chapter On The Blissful Isles, from Zarathustra.

Quote :
Quote :
Philosophers are ‘spiritual politicians’ - they realize that to truly build the cabin, one has to build the whole cosmos.
Or at the very least, to know where the best place is in it (the cosmos) to begin their building.
You assume an objective cosmos - but yes, that is a way of saying it.

Quote :
Quote :
I once read a book that described Jesus as the last Pharao. An interesting point was that the word translated as ‘carpenter’ can also mean ‘architect’ - and Pharao’s were known as cosmic architects.
I can see how a carpenter would be an architect. Christ supposedly was a carpenter but his material was of a spiritual essence.
Hence , ‘Building thought to disclose the future’. Philosophy needs to have consistency to be a dwelling for the spirit.

Quote :
Quote :
A philosopher is either a Pharao or a failure.
That’s the way You view it.
What, according you your view, is philosophy besides the architecture of the human cosmos? Kosmos, I should add, is Greek for order. Philosophy, as far as I’m concerned, is the work of devising benefic ordering methods for the unrestrainable phenomenon of humanity.

Quote :
Quote :
Quote :
I don’t necessarily see church goers or believers as the "meek’ though many may be. As with everything else, it is an ‘individual’ thing. We all have our own form of “religion” which we rely on for support and for the need to worship.
It is true that there have been ferocious people who have subjected their will to prophets.
I wasn’t speaking of “religion” in that sense. I doubt that Nietzsche would either, at least in the much broader sense.
My “religion” doesn’t rely on the prophets.
I am glad to hear it.

Quote :
I somehow do not equate 'ferocious" with sublimating one’s will to another.
Me neither. But a lot of ferocious hunting and killing goes on in the name of some president or prophet.

" 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 Online
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    Arcturus Descending

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

Sensational Surrational Mutter Empty
PostSubject: Re: Sensational Surrational Mutter Sensational Surrational Mutter Icon_minitimeSat Sep 22, 2012 7:13 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
It looks like many things, depending on the time of day. But it IS the most beautiful church…

Feel welcome to post a picture.
There are many. Which time of day speaks to you?

Quote :
Who said anything about fear?
Then why would you choose NOT to walk into this church or ruins of Mutter. I can readily understand why some would not want to and it would be out of some kind of a fear. I don’t know how anyone could possibly feel there is nothing worthy of value in there. Just think of the philosophizing albeit self-philosophizing one could do there. Just about anything could be looked at as a self-reflection, no?

Quote :
If by spirit you mean what I mean with self-valuing, then I see. But I am not sure this is what you mean precisely.
Perhaps your kind of ‘spirit’ with regard to self-valuing is a coming of consciousness and self-awareness.

Quote :
I’m not so sure what you mean by self-valuing. Spirit is sort of a happening, it is just something which rises up in you. In my sense of self-valuing, in part anyway, spirit is that which flows through us and brings on meaning. In that is self-valuing. Aside from that, self-valuing is a particular action taken in a particular moment where we come to an awareness of ourselves, to free ourselves from those shackles which keep us down and do us harm.

Yes, except it would not exist if it wasn’t for its ‘vehicle’.
The vehicle being the organism which you are? We can’t actually know that though, can we? I’m just saying…

Quote :
It is us communicating in terms of self-valuing. Spirit is perhaps simply value.
I don’t know about that. I think that spirit can give way to value - spirit is what “gives birth” to value by means of its (spirit’s) own essence interfacing with self-interpretation. Value becomes the child given birth to. Perhaps we are saying the same thing though.

Quote :
Yes, and all life that makes a mark for itself, carves out a space to exist, does this by genius.
I still do not know if I necessarily agree with this. I think in terms of my having done this - along with so so so many others, but I would still not call myself genius though there are those rare moments when perhaps I sense it in myself. Rolling Eyes “Reality” or illusion? scratch
What you expressed above and what I think of genius is kind of the difference between what is mundane and what is sublime.

Quote :
The absence of genius is far more common, but only genius survives the test of time.
Agreed as to the first part but not as to the second. What is not of genius also survives by way of our mediocre way of seeing and desiring things. But still…it takes all kinds to perpetuate the world.

Quote :
Of course in many of mans stupidities must be understood as genius in terms of effective regulation of impulses, at least if one is to contend with them.
So you would also include genius as part of that? I’m not so sure that genius would be able to regulate itself as such. Is a burning bush or even better, a supernova, able to regulate its impulses or what is natural to it? True, genius does require discipline but at the same time it must at times defy regulating impulses. Isn’t true and original creativity spontaneous and at times explosive in nature? As organisms, we are pretty much a replicating bunch.

Quote :
Spontaneously I would recommend the chapter On The Blissful Isles, from Zarathustra.
Thank you for sending me to that Blissful Isles. I’ve been to many of them and I will maybe be getting back to you on that.

Quote :
You assume an objective cosmos - but yes, that is a way of saying it.
I actually do not like to assume and try not to assume anything. But that too is a learning experience when we are able to see the errors of our ways. Assuming is for asses. I have no idea how objective the cosmos is…Can we consider it as objective UNLESS there is for us…a first cause and depending on what that first cause had in mind or …even didn’t? Would the fact that the cosmos is and continues to be a process, and perhaps a random one at times despite its orderly design, make it objective? Insofar as WE are a micro cosmos, the cosmos is indeed a very subjective place…but at the same time, it groans also to be objective.

Quote :
Hence , ‘Building thought to disclose the future’. Philosophy needs to have consistency to be a dwelling for the spirit.
I’ve just posted something elsewhere by Montaigne which is actually quite beautiful to me. He says that “to philosophize is to learn the art of dying”. Although I do sort of understand what you are trying to say, I think, IF what you are saying is that philosophy does need ‘logical thought’… I also think philosophy needs its great inconsistencies…well, perhaps doesn’t need them - they are just a part of philosophy being that we are only human and subject to error. Life is inconsistencies, don’t you think? And we do not philosophize or go in search of truth and/or find it by smoothly sailing on the ocean of life. We find it by diving into those waters and allowing ourselves or at least risking the dying in ourselves (spiritually and intellectually). If philosophy isn’t freely flowing or keeping a number of balls in the air at the same time and looking at them, well, then, it becomes boring, don’t you think?

Quote :
Philosophy, as far as I’m concerned, is the work of devising benefic ordering methods for the unrestrainable phenomenon of humanity.
Well, I also like that definition. I like that phrase - “unrestrainable phenomenon of humanity”.
As long as it doesn’t put shackles on humanity…wouldn’t you say that there is a kind of beauty in disorder. Though I realize there is beauty in order …ah, but to balance that.

Quote :
My “religion” doesn’t rely on the prophets.

I am glad to hear it.
What I rely on is what I see and sense. Perhaps the prophet within.

Quote :
I somehow do not equate 'ferocious" with sublimating one’s will to another.
Me neither. But a lot of ferocious hunting and killing goes on in the name of some president or prophet.
Yes, the herd will always have its way.

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

Sensational Surrational Mutter Empty
PostSubject: Re: Sensational Surrational Mutter Sensational Surrational Mutter Icon_minitimeSat Oct 13, 2012 11:20 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
VaerosTanarg wrote:
Quote :
It looks like many things, depending on the time of day. But it IS the most beautiful church…

Feel welcome to post a picture.
There are many. Which time of day speaks to you?
High noon, magic hour - whichever is the most dramatic.

Quote :
Quote :
Who said anything about fear?
Then why would you choose NOT to walk into this church or ruins of Mutter. I can readily understand why some would not want to and it would be out of some kind of a fear. I don’t know how anyone could possibly feel there is nothing worthy of value in there. Just think of the philosophizing albeit self-philosophizing one could do there. Just about anything could be looked at as a self-reflection, no?
I can’t put my finger on it, it’s a question of architectural taste. Let everyone choose, preferably build, his own temple.

Quote :
Quote :
If by spirit you mean what I mean with self-valuing, then I see. But I am not sure this is what you mean precisely.
Perhaps your kind of ‘spirit’ with regard to self-valuing is a coming of consciousness and self-awareness.
Spirit originally means breath, which is the humans most basic activity.
James recently equated spirit with activity itself. What do you think about that? It does not have to be an activity bound to an individual - one can also find oneself in the collective spirit of revolution, for example.

Quote :
I’m not so sure what you mean by self-valuing. Spirit is sort of a happening, it is just something which rises up in you.
Indeed then an activity. Albeit one not (necessarily) deliberately caused by the conscious mind.

Quote :
In my sense of self-valuing, in part anyway, spirit is that which flows through us and brings on meaning. In that is self-valuing. Aside from that, self-valuing is a particular action taken in a particular moment where we come to an awareness of ourselves, to free ourselves from those shackles which keep us down and do us harm.
This is actually close enough in subjective phenomenological, psychological terms. Note that this act is performed constantly on a multitude of levels by every surviving particle and being, else they are subsumed and/or dissolved in other entities or chaos.

Quote :
Quote :
Yes, except it would not exist if it wasn’t for its ‘vehicle’.
The vehicle being the organism which you are? We can’t actually know that though, can we? I’m just saying…
We can look at our actions and compare them to the behavior of inanimate particles, and we can become certain of a few things.

Quote :
Quote :
It is us communicating in terms of self-valuing. Spirit is perhaps simply value.
I don’t know about that. I think that spirit can give way to value - spirit is what “gives birth” to value by means of its (spirit’s) own essence interfacing with self-interpretation. Value becomes the child given birth to. Perhaps we are saying the same thing though.
Then spirit is perhaps valuing, giving value.

Quote :
Quote :
Yes, and all life that makes a mark for itself, carves out a space to exist, does this by genius.
I still do not know if I necessarily agree with this. I think in terms of my having done this - along with so so so many others, but I would still not call myself genius though there are those rare moments when perhaps I sense it in myself. Rolling Eyes “Reality” or illusion? scratch
What you expressed above and what I think of genius is kind of the difference between what is mundane and what is sublime.
I think that existence is genius (and sublime) to begin with. Whenever a human invents or sees or does something that is yet another step deeper into existence, this is what I call genius. “Every genius is born in a prison” - which means that every act of genius opens a world.

I don’t think Parodites would agree with me though. He writes well on genius and takes a more delicate approach, where genius is more of a rare instance.

Quote :
Quote :
The absence of genius is far more common, but only genius survives the test of time.
Agreed as to the first part but not as to the second. What is not of genius also survives by way of our mediocre way of seeing and desiring things. But still…it takes all kinds to perpetuate the world.
Actually I agree with that. But only that non-genius survives which benefits in some way from pre-existing works of genius.

Quote :
Quote :
Of course in many of mans stupidities must be understood as genius in terms of effective regulation of impulses, at least if one is to contend with them.
So you would also include genius as part of that? I’m not so sure that genius would be able to regulate itself as such. Is a burning bush or even better, a supernova, able to regulate its impulses or what is natural to it? True, genius does require discipline but at the same time it must at times defy regulating impulses. Isn’t true and original creativity spontaneous and at times explosive in nature? As organisms, we are pretty much a replicating bunch.
Yes, but the very first act of genetic replication was surely the greatest instance of genius since the coming into existence of entities at all. The hypothesizing of DNA by man was genius of a high order as well -
not all genius is the artistic, “Dionysian” type.

Quote :
Quote :
Spontaneously I would recommend the chapter On The Blissful Isles, from Zarathustra.
Thank you for sending me to that Blissful Isles. I’ve been to many of them and I will maybe be getting back to you on that.
Is there any Island in particular that has your special preference?

Quote :
Quote :
You assume an objective cosmos - but yes, that is a way of saying it.
I actually do not like to assume and try not to assume anything. But that too is a learning experience when we are able to see the errors of our ways. Assuming is for asses. I have no idea how objective the cosmos is…Can we consider it as objective UNLESS there is for us…a first cause and depending on what that first cause had in mind or …even didn’t? Would the fact that the cosmos is and continues to be a process, and perhaps a random one at times despite its orderly design, make it objective? Insofar as WE are a micro cosmos, the cosmos is indeed a very subjective place…but at the same time, it groans also to be objective.
Indeed - I think that there is a ‘first cause’ in all of us, constantly. There is also the interconnected actions of these first causings. This can be said to be objective, behave in accordance with verifiable rules of prediction, ‘natural law’. But it all depends on the individual ‘efforts to exist’, which we may call our spirit.
On a basis of yoga this effort is drawn out from the depth of our spinal chord into consciousness as ‘kundalini’… no doubt you’re familiar.

Quote :
Quote :
Hence , ‘Building thought to disclose the future’. Philosophy needs to have consistency to be a dwelling for the spirit.
I’ve just posted something elsewhere by Montaigne which is actually quite beautiful to me. He says that “to philosophize is to learn the art of dying”. Although I do sort of understand what you are trying to say, I think, IF what you are saying is that philosophy does need ‘logical thought’… I also think philosophy needs its great inconsistencies…well, perhaps doesn’t need them - they are just a part of philosophy being that we are only human and subject to error.
What you are talking about is what I would register as art.
Philosophy has contained many errors and inconsistencies but the work of the philosopher is to eliminate these and arrive, with the use of both logic and creative imagination, at cultivating truths.
Take Jesus, for example. That was what I would call a philosopher, he understood a certain consistency in human nature, and found a means to address this systematically, and as a result of people internalizing this addressing, a cultural movement arose, if now a whole world. Of course Jesus truth was not ‘objective’, and it defeated certain truths that had made the Greeks and Romans great. Yet it synthesized with the fruits of these truths, because philosophy is nothing if not fertile ground for thought and evolution.

That is what we are producing here, beginning to produce since last year - a fertile ground for man to grow, mature, become greater-to-himself, to more life and less chaos.

Quote :
Life is inconsistencies, don’t you think? And we do not philosophize or go in search of truth and/or find it by smoothly sailing on the ocean of life. We find it by diving into those waters and allowing ourselves or at least risking the dying in ourselves (spiritually and intellectually). If philosophy isn’t freely flowing or keeping a number of balls in the air at the same time and looking at them, well, then, it becomes boring, don’t you think?
Do you mean that philosophy should allow you to think whatever comes into your mind? No, I think consistency builds substance, and substance is life itself - how can that be boring?

But philosophy is forced to keep many things in the air as long as it has not developed the understanding yet to address those things that do exist but do not fall under existing logic. I am not dogmatic, but once I discover that something is really true, I don’t find that boring at all, it is rather “thrilling” to the very core.

Quote :
Quote :
Philosophy, as far as I’m concerned, is the work of devising benefic ordering methods for the unrestrainable phenomenon of humanity.
Well, I also like that definition. I like that phrase - “unrestrainable phenomenon of humanity”.
As long as it doesn’t put shackles on humanity…wouldn’t you say that there is a kind of beauty in disorder. Though I realize there is beauty in order …ah, but to balance that.
Of course. Man and art can not be restrained - all true-to-life logic and structure in the end serves to make the dance more powerful, regardless whether this is the intention of the order-bringer or not.

Parodites talks about excess - the substance of being that refuses to be categorized, designated and ‘ordered’ - every concept will produce an excess to that concept, forcing philosophy to expand beyond its concepts and integrate more and more, creating ever more excess - at one point this excess must simply be accepted in gratitude - but not before the order has been arranged in such a way as to be able to feel grateful for experiences at all - that is to say, before ones consciousness has been ‘enlightened’ into a certain order.

It takes a strong inner order to allow for many disorderly activities and not perish. The human body is of course a great order to begin with - but any of its definition leaves an incredible excess, surplus-being - consciousness simply produces excess. It is important to note what one does want to include in the known, in the definition - so that the excess (that which defies ,terra incognita, the lure/threat of the unknown) can be enjoyed instead of suffered.

Quote :
Quote :
My “religion” doesn’t rely on the prophets.

I am glad to hear it.
What I rely on is what I see and sense. Perhaps the prophet within.
“Alas, there are so many things between heaven and earth of which only the poets have dreamed. And especially above the heavens: for all gods are poets’ parables, poets’ prevarications.” (Zarathustra)

Quote :
Quote :
I somehow do not equate 'ferocious" with sublimating one’s will to another.
Me neither. But a lot of ferocious hunting and killing goes on in the name of some president or prophet.
Yes, the herd will always have its way.
Ah but the herd has no way of itself - that would make it a ‘pack’.

" 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 Online
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    Arcturus Descending

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

Sensational Surrational Mutter Empty
PostSubject: Re: Sensational Surrational Mutter Sensational Surrational Mutter Icon_minitimeFri Oct 19, 2012 3:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross…

I will have to beg your kind indulgence with this but I will have it for you shortly. I haven’t forgotten about it.

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

Sensational Surrational Mutter Empty
PostSubject: Re: Sensational Surrational Mutter Sensational Surrational Mutter Icon_minitimeFri Oct 19, 2012 9:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Don’t feel pressured please, I don’t like the element of haste. Sometimes it is necessary, but not here.
Speed is not a concern here, only content, and depth.

Besides it would be unreasonable of me to take as much time as I do and then expect you to hurry.

" 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 Online
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    Arcturus Descending

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

Sensational Surrational Mutter Empty
PostSubject: Re: Sensational Surrational Mutter Sensational Surrational Mutter Icon_minitimeSat Nov 17, 2012 4:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
High noon, magic hour - whichever is the most dramatic.

Are you saying that “high noon” is your magic hour or that any hour can be?
I think that in “reality” any hour may be magical depending on how that wonderful brain chemistry interacts with what we see/when we see it. But for me, mostly it is at twilight time/dusk. But then, to say even THAT, might rob us of a magic moment which we didn’t expect to flow into - because of our biases.

Quote :
I can’t put my finger on it, it’s a question of architectural taste. Let everyone choose, preferably build, his own temple.

Okay, I understand that…aesthetics. And the most wonderful temples do not have to be built- they rise up from within us and wrap themselves around and above us.
Perhaps if I was to build a temple it would look like the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. I was there visiting one evening and I was so taken in by the ambience of that building. Of coure, perhaps the reflecting pool overlooking it might have had something to do with it — ah, water, water, water — but I don’t think so. That building is so airy and ethereal - just something about it that spoke of sacredness and freedom and openness to me. And of course, there was the twilight in the moment.

Sensational Surrational Mutter Still_14
Still Presence

Sensational Surrational Mutter Surren11
Surrender

Sensational Surrational Mutter My_tem11
My temple within[img]

Each of these images when gazed upon may become a temple which flows into and rises up within us. They become a part of our internal lanscape. What need do we have for a temple or for a church. We become the temple to our Selves…lovingly surrounded by these Presences.

They may also BECOME the sacred physical temples in a sense, wherein our Beings go to find the true Self and to become inter-connected with the whole of the universe when contemplated.

Quote :
Spirit originally means breath, which is the humans most basic activity.
James recently equated spirit with activity itself. What do you think about that? It does not have to be an activity bound to an individual - one can also find oneself in the collective spirit of revolution, for example.

I think that spirit influences activity, causes it, activity “flows” through spirit - gives rise to it lol - I agree with James. Spirit in that sense can also be what gives rise to the mob…spirit is infectious and in that may give rise to revolutions…a sense of solidarity.

Quote :
I’m not so sure what you mean by self-valuing. Spirit is sort of a happening, it is just something which rises up in you.
Indeed then an activity. Albeit one not (necessarily) deliberately caused by the conscious mind

I certainly agree with that. Very often it is brought about by an [un]conscious mind. Spirit can be reined in or it can be allowed to run freely and destructively. It can influence for good or chaos…notwithstanding that chaos may eventually lead to creativity and new life.

I don’t so much though equate spirit as “simply” being “activity” but what rather what brings forth activity. For example, Sibelius’ beautiful musical piece called “Finlandia” which was written when Finland was struggling to obtain their independence against Czar Nicholas II’s policies. Sibelius wrote it to stir patriotism within Finland. And it’s spirit or essence did just that. Music is a wonderful example of Spirit’s urgings to influence thought and deed.

Quote :
We can look at our actions and compare them to the behavior of inanimate particles, and we can become certain of a few things.

In that we are capable of being as unpredictable as they can be? Are particles aware of themselves in the same way in which we are - or are not? What things may be become certain of?

Quote :
It is us communicating in terms of self-valuing. Spirit is perhaps simply value.

Hmmm…I’m not quite sure how to respond to this. I suppose it would depend on what “direction” spirit decided to flow into? Did that make sense? is anything of value before it causes movement?

Quote :
I think that existence is genius (and sublime) to begin with. Whenever a human invents or sees or does something that is yet another step deeper into existence, this is what I call genius.

I do agree with you that existence may ALSO be sublime and amazing in terms of evolution and I do agree with your definition of genius…at least insofar as something completely new or different.

"
Quote :
Every genius is born in a prison" - which means that every act of genius opens a world.

But why call it a “prison”? Maybe it is that genius is truly free and opens the doors to us?
But at the same time, I intuit that i understand what you mean. A genuis must be quite confined and disciplined and sacrifice so much - sometimes everything - for the sake of what it is to be born. And then it is free to burst forth out of itself. But I have a feeling that that would also depend on the nature of the individual. I’m not so sure that every genius would be made from fire - some might be made from cold hard steel. If that made sense to you.

Quote :
I don’t think Parodites would agree with me though. He writes well on genius and takes a more delicate approach, where genius is more of a rare instance.

I suppose that I would probably MORE agree with Parodites - otherwise a genius could be just about anyone at a particular moment. I think that geniuses ARE more rare.

Quote :
Agreed as to the first part but not as to the second. What is not of genius also survives by way of our mediocre way of seeing and desiring things. But still…it takes all kinds to perpetuate the world.

Actually I agree with that. But only that non-genius survives which benefits in some way from pre-existing works of genius.

You’ll have to give me an example of what you mean by “pre-existing works of genius”. Humanity is not capable of surviving except through genius? I’m not saying you’re wrong - I just don’t know if I go along with this. For instance, would you consider Thomas Edison to have been a genius? Would we have/could we have survived without his “genius” his inventions?

Aside from that, could you please elaborate what you mean by “only non-genius survives…”

Quote :
Spontaneously I would recommend the chapter On The Blissful Isles, from Zarathustra.

Thank you for sending me to that Blissful Isles. I’ve been to many of them and I will maybe be getting back to you on that.

Is there any Island in particular that has your special preference
?

I was actually speaking in the figurative sense there. But to answer your question, Fixed Cross, my favorite island is called the Solitude of Self - especially when I am completely surrounded by water. I become so deeply-connected - a mysteriously, floating island, a sunken one – where darkness and light equally share moving space and stars are seen dancing on the surface of my fluid moments. Just call me Atlantis.

As for Zarathustra, it is beautiful. Freddie was such an awesome philosopher, poet, psychologist - love his writings. When you read him, you sometimes find a home you never knew you had or you forgot you had. He’s a beacon when you’ve come lost within the wild ocean of life.

“Away with you, you blissful hour. With you there came to me an involuntary bliss. I stand here ready for my deepest pain – you came at the wrong time.”

Sometimes we just cannot contain ourselves, can we? Something that we have seen simply wraps itself around us - qualia - and those brain chemicals take hold and we have no choice but to rise up - spirit takes hold. As in Scott Mutter’s surrational piece above (let’s not forget that lol). Some things simply grab at our heartstrings and we hear the music reverberating within and we rise up.

But alas we must at times forego our bliss for the sake of truth and personal evolution - we must run from bliss, quickly – to struggle and to grow. We must wrap ourselves around those 'abysmal thoughts" which Nietzache spoke of.

“When shall I find strength to hear you burrowing and no longer tremble?”

Quote :
Indeed - I think that there is a ‘first cause’ in all of us, constantly. There is also the interconnected actions of these first causings. This can be said to be objective, behave in accordance with verifiable rules of prediction, ‘natural law’. But it all depends on the individual ‘efforts to exist’, which we may call our spirit.

On a basis of yoga this effort is drawn out from the depth of our spinal chord into consciousness as ‘kundalini’… no doubt you’re familiar.

I don’t know if I would call it a first cause constantly. I look at us in terms of an ongoing process. All actions ARE interconnected - they flow from one to the other. I suppose it just depends on one’s perspective. One can see things in terms of a first cause which then becomes an “ad continuum” (if that made sense) or one can see things as interruptions…cause and effect…cause and effect. But when you really “look back” well, I can at least “see” how everything rides on the back of everything else.

Quote :
I’ve just posted something elsewhere by Montaigne which is actually quite beautiful to me. He says that “to philosophize is to learn the art of dying”. Although I do sort of understand what you are trying to say, I think, IF what you are saying is that philosophy does need ‘logical thought’… I also think philosophy needs its great inconsistencies…well, perhaps doesn’t need them - they are just a part of philosophy being that we are only human and subject to error.

What you are talking about is what I would register as art.
Just to be clear here, you ARE speaking of ART which encompasses all of LIFE, right? You don’t simply mean the art which is hanging in museums and in poetry books and works of fictions…etcetera? That would be the narrower perspective of it and not what he was talking about. But then, you are the true philosopher here, not myself.

Philosophy ought to also be practical - a tool or containing in part the tools with which we sculpt our lives - our lives being works of art.

Quote :
Philosophy has contained many errors and inconsistencies but the work of the philosopher is to eliminate these and arrive, with the use of both logic and creative imagination, at cultivating truths.

True. And perhaps this is also what Montaigne meant. In order to do the above, do we not have to die to self, to sacrifice our false selves, our egos, to detach from them, in order to discover the truth? Do you realize just how difficult a thing that can be, especially when our so- called philosophical “beliefs” or leanings have become so engrained within us? Well, of course, you do.

Quote :
Take Jesus, for example. That was what I would call a philosopher

I also kind of always felt that he was a philosopher too - he always seemed to guide his life through wisdom and truth. He said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (right order?) According to the books, he traveled to China and India to pursue eastern philosophy, before his public mission.

Quote :
he understood a certain consistency in human nature, and found a means to address this systematically, and as a result of people internalizing this addressing, a cultural movement arose, if now a whole world.

That would have also made him a psychologist. According to your above words though, Hitler or Stalin might also have been philosophers but they were despots! But i wasn’t calling Christ a despot.
Of course, there is still also the quesiton of his existence and divinity.

Quote :
Of course Jesus truth was not ‘objective’, and it defeated certain truths that had made the Greeks and Romans great. Yet it synthesized with the fruits of these truths, because philosophy is nothing if not fertile ground for thought and evolution

We can’t any more know that Christ’s truth was not “objective” as we can know that any philosophers’ truth is objective. But let’s forget about that. What truths of the greeks and romans are you referring to which Christ demolished?

Quote :
That is what we are producing here, beginning to produce since last year - a fertile ground for man to grow, mature, become greater-to-himself, to more life and less chaos.
I understand this. Wouldn’t you say that this is the practical side to philosophy?
But doesn’t philosophy or the seeking after truth and wisdom at times bring more chaos into our lives? I’m just saying.

Quote :
Life is inconsistencies, don’t you think? And we do not philosophize or go in search of truth and/or find it by smoothly sailing on the ocean of life. We find it by diving into those waters and allowing ourselves or at least risking the dying in ourselves (spiritually and intellectually). If philosophy isn’t freely flowing or keeping a number of balls in the air at the same time and looking at them, well, then, it becomes boring, don’t you think?

Do you mean that philosophy should allow you to think whatever comes into your mind? No, I think consistency builds substance, and substance is life itself - how can that be boring
?

I think that whatever will come into our minds will come, irregardless of what philosophy “allows”. But maybe I’m wrong here. Maybe a really disciplined and learned mind would not take in just anything randomly. But let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater, at least not at first. Don’t you think that it is sometimes those 'uninvited" thoughts that can make a difference in finding truth?

But aside from that, I do think that discipline and mindfulness and remaining focused on the real issues is important. I don’t think that that is boring. But holding to a certain idea or so-called “objective” truth - which may only be based in sentiment and opinion, may be boring…it isn’t allowed to die a natural death to make way for the new.

Quote :
But philosophy is forced to keep many things in the air as long as it has not developed the understanding yet to address those things that do exist but do not fall under existing logic.

True, and even that itself is quite fascinating, don’t you think? So very many things waiting in the wings of the Universe to become known and revealed and explained.

But is truth always logical? Doesn’t it sometimes defy reason?
How does one come to define morality and ethics? Through logic? Isn’t philosophy at times about the beating heart rather than the throbbing brain?

Quote :
I am not dogmatic, but once I discover that something is really true, I don’t find that boring at all, it is rather “thrilling” to the very core.

Yes, truth can be thrilling and exhilarating but how do you know for sure that something is really “true” or “truth” and not just something which you want to be true? Of course, that is where the discipline of philosophy takes over. I may be wrong here. I’m wrong about a great many things. in fact, I think I sometimes thrive on that because it becomes such an eye opener.

Quote :
Of course. Man and art can not be restrained - all true-to-life logic and structure in the end serves to make the dance more powerful, regardless whether this is the intention of the order-bringer or not.

Is it logic that cannot hold back the deluge or is it Man’s passion for expression, creativity and truth? Perhaps logic simply balances and directs it after a time.

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
Abstract
Oracle
Oracle
Abstract

Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-11-15
Age : 32
Location : The Moon

Sensational Surrational Mutter Empty
PostSubject: Re: Sensational Surrational Mutter Sensational Surrational Mutter Icon_minitimeMon Nov 19, 2012 2:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked.

OR as some say, we are God trying to figure itself out.

76

Pezer
builder
builder

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

The Fourth Dimension is Time Empty
PostSubject: The Fourth Dimension is Time The Fourth Dimension is Time Icon_minitimeSun Sep 15, 2013 10:04 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pretty scenic arrangements in cinematic work usually commit the crime of using two dimensions, color on the level of XX century painting. Some masters, a proto one being Da Vinci, went as far as three with shadows and doors. In fact, many of the seemingly two dimensional forms of the XX included a third in the form of what cinema now is beginning to discover as the fourth.

The fourth dimension is emotions.

You’re welcome, spirit wonderers.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

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

Acting and the Daemonic Empty
PostSubject: Acting and the Daemonic Acting and the Daemonic Icon_minitimeSun Jan 19, 2014 1:46 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It occurs to me that the art of acting in theatre/film has a strong relationship to the type of philosophizing that becomes possible when the contingent nature of the egoic psyche has been divined, and when a speculative ethics becomes the only option to arrive at - or rather to aim at, direct oneself towards, even believe in experiential truth. Truth has then taken on a new meaning, not so much deeper maybe as simply less to do with history as to present.

" 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 Online
    Imafungi
    bowstring
    bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

Acting and the Daemonic Empty
PostSubject: Re: Acting and the Daemonic Acting and the Daemonic Icon_minitimeWed Jan 22, 2014 3:12 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
This is a very thought provoking thought. I understand what you mean, it reminds me of a kind of disillusion of ego that can occur when one is having fun or absolutely focused on ones work. But mainly what I thought of is the idea of being an actor for ones entire life, never being a concrete self, but perpetually acting. Taking on different roles in different circumstances, who was it that said life is but a stage. I know I am probably missing your point but I did grasp what you meant when I read it, I swear.

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

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

rebel with out a body Empty
PostSubject: rebel with out a body rebel with out a body Icon_minitimeThu May 22, 2014 10:50 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A great work of art was made once by a man who could not conceive of human worth. He only saw the freedom of spirit and the human as an attempt to constrain this spirits freedom, and he spent his life kicking and screaming against his captivity in human form. His intellect did not agree; period. He was my best friend. He was my ‘best’ friend -=> the friend to whom I was the best thing in his life - for a period of time when the two of us rebelled against life together.

Now he is rebelling beyond death.

Pezer
builder
builder

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

horn Empty
PostSubject: horn horn Icon_minitimeWed Sep 16, 2015 12:27 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Truth!
Oh truthy, truthy, truth!
How I love you, truth!
Truthy truth!
I think I love you too much, truthy truth!

TAKE YOUR GODDAMN PANTIES OFF

But, truth!
Truthy truth!
Your twat is pixelated?

wtf?

I should have let you marinated,
Truthy truth.

How

Can

I

Be

Worthy

Of

A

Woman

?

(Shhhh, not politics. Be a gentleman, wisdom wielder!)

The violence, the fear and the guilt
the value of the blood that’s been spilt.
Who can best guess it? The one who has merit
facing the Zenith, innit? Shit, the princess.
I woke her, my moker is dull but far from silent,
Thor thought by himself, remorseful.
the previous day he had eaten beans. like a man.
it was all his fault.

the violence, the fear an the guild feuds, the gills he was growing and the guilders Guillaume owe him since he guiled him into Gilberts mansnatch.
Shit, he thought, in the tram. But the opportunity passed.
I said ‘god damn these’ an got headache, now in the quit of waning.
Come one. the more I speak the more important it becomes.

so there you have it, roving cowboys.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UiSMyyj-Ac[/youtube]

Peace, love and happiness.

77

Artists and philosophers View previous topic View next topic Go down
Author Message
Pezer
builder
builder

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

Artists and philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Artists and philosophers Artists and philosophers Icon_minitimeMon Sep 16, 2013 4:17 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The artist says “I cannot do anything but create art. I am good at nothing else.”

The philosopher says “I cannot do anything but-” and then he laughs!
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

Artists and philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: Artists and philosophers Artists and philosophers Icon_minitimeWed Sep 18, 2013 3:42 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Pezer wrote:
The artist says “I cannot do anything but create art. I am good at nothing else.”

The philosopher says “I cannot do anything but-” and then he laughs!

Do you feel/think that the artist, in “reality”, thinks this way ~~ that ALL art is to the artist - is simply splashing paint on canvas and words on paper?

Are you forgetting the fact that, within the artist, is the philosopher?
That is NOT to say that within the philosopher there is NO artist.

Art ~~ real Art ~~ is divine creative energy taking form and shape - what more is there?

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
Pezer
builder
builder

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

Artists and philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: Artists and philosophers Artists and philosophers Icon_minitimeWed Sep 18, 2013 5:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I am not forgetting any of that.
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

Artists and philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: Artists and philosophers Artists and philosophers Icon_minitimeWed Sep 18, 2013 5:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I thought this description was spot on. But quite obviously it is only recognizable to that one who has defined himself in this way - by not being able to utter anymore words because of the sudden explosive expansion in his mind, when he approaches the point of com-prehending what it is that he does.

An artists work is relatively simple. I am an artist, at least a pretty decent one as recognized by my peers, and I know the kind of consciousness that goes into it. A philosopher works with very different laws. He works with the same means - life - but without the liberty the artist has to permit himself. The philosopher knows this liberty to distract from his true freedom, which is the heights, the mountaintop and the cool air, the absence of people who desire for what he does and any sort of distractions, alone with the truth.

When the philosopher is face to face with the truth he has produced, he is baffled, he can’t believe it, that he exists, that this actually happened. There is nothing in the world that prepares the philosopher for himself.

" 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 Online
    Arcturus Descending
    arrow
    arrow
    Arcturus Descending

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

Artists and philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: Artists and philosophers Artists and philosophers Icon_minitimeSat Sep 21, 2013 7:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross

Quote :
I thought this description was spot on.
Why is that? You do not think that perhaps it is kind of a one-sided thought, a bias?

Are you saying that the artist is not capable of saying: “I cannot do anything but-” and then laugh about it because he realizes the full extent of what that means?

Is the true artist any less a seeker after truth than is the philosopher? The artist tries to show truth and beauty and Life as it is, and to use his art, energy, passion, soul as a vehicle into the discovery of those ideals through his painting, through his creative energy and the agony that can go into it.

Is the true artist any less aware than is the philosopher that art is his very raison de etre and the only thing worth following, just about the only thing worth living and breathing for?
Is not the true artist, as an individual, as humbled by that realization as is the philosopher?

Quote :
But quite obviously it is only recognizable to that one who has defined himself in this way - by not being able to utter anymore words because of the sudden explosive expansion in his mind, when he approaches the point of com-prehending what it is that he does.
I have found that many have used that term “obvious” when in effect something was not quite that obvious. As you say - defined himself in this way. What does “that” sound like to you?
Is the philosopher one who sees ONLY himself as a seeker of the truth?

Quote :
An artists work is relatively simple. I am an artist, at least a pretty decent one as recognized by my peers, and I know the kind of consciousness that goes into it.
Degas said that “painting is easy when you don’t know how, but very difficult when you do”.
I’m sure that as a philosopher seeking after truth that you understand that insight and concept.
What kind of an effect does your art bring forth? Does it bring on “consciousness”?
Is consciousness such an easy thing to draw out of people or to inspire?

Quote :
A philosopher works with very different laws. He works with the same means - life - but without the liberty the artist has to permit himself. The philosopher knows this liberty to distract from his true freedom, which is the heights, the mountaintop and the cool air, .
You don’t think that any real artist is disciplined? Perhaps that so-called liberty which you see in the artist is a kind of courage under fire, where he sets out in abandon to find the truth within and without and to set it before the world?
Sometimes that which appears to be more free and less structured is more difficult…sometimes free verse is more difficult than rhyming.

Quote :
the absence of people who desire for what he does and any sort of distractions, alone with the truth

So, philosophers are the only kind who experience this? I intruit that you are a true philosopher ~~in my book, I understand this, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to raise yourself above those, who in truth, may be of the same mind and soul as you. Perhaps both the philosopher and the artist seek the holy grail.

Quote :
When the philosopher is face to face with the truth he has produced, he is baffled, he can’t believe it, that he exists, that this actually happened. .
And what about the artist’s production? He may be somewhat baffled too - in that he finds it incredible that something such as that which he has produced has come from his self.
Is a Van Gogh more incredible than a Nietzsche?

Sometimes even I will write a poem and I get that same realization. Is it ego or is it humility?lol
Quote :

There is nothing in the world that prepares the philosopher for himself
Laughing Well, there may be but I won’t name it.

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

Artists and philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: Artists and philosophers Artists and philosophers Icon_minitimeSat Sep 21, 2013 7:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Quote :
There is nothing in the world that prepares the philosopher for himself
That may be true but at the same time you might also say that about any human being, especially any individual who is seeking more consciousness and self-awareness.

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

Artists and philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: Artists and philosophers Artists and philosophers Icon_minitimeSat Sep 21, 2013 1:14 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Fixed Cross

Quote :
I thought this description was spot on.
Why is that? You do not think that perhaps it is kind of a one-sided thought, a bias?
It is a perspective, certainly. One that immediately resounded in my mind.
I was aware, writing the reply, that I did not do justice to the insight. Often, an aphorism expresses something more clearly than ten pages of reflection on it.

Quote :
Are you saying that the artist is not capable of saying: “I cannot do anything but-” and then laugh about it because he realizes the full extent of what that means?
The laugh expresses the impossibility of categorizing the very act of reasoning. Explaining art does not involve this contradiction, as art is not ultimately rational, but visceral. The art itself is the laugh, you could say. If it is very good.

Quote :
Is the true artist any less a seeker after truth than is the philosopher?
The philosopher is not a seeker after truth, but after wisdom. Art is indeed seeking after truth, but very rarely has it anything to do with wisdom. If it does, it is often very predictable folk-morality.

Quote :
The artist tries to show truth and beauty and Life as it is, and to use his art, energy, passion, soul as a vehicle into the discovery of those ideals through his painting, through his creative energy and the agony that can go into it.

Is the true artist any less aware than is the philosopher that art is his very raison de etre and the only thing worth following, just about the only thing worth living and breathing for?
No, and that awareness is precisely how Pezer described the artist.

Quote :
Is not the true artist, as an individual, as humbled by that realization as is the philosopher?
The philosopher can not be humble, that would be a genocidal act of hypocrisy. He has to take responsibility for his creation. You are correct that the artist precisely does not do this - this is his freedom. An artist gets good when he can submit himself to his power.

Quote :
Quote :
An artists work is relatively simple. I am an artist, at least a pretty decent one as recognized by my peers, and I know the kind of consciousness that goes into it.
Degas said that “painting is easy when you don’t know how, but very difficult when you do”.
I’m sure that as a philosopher seeking after truth that you understand that insight and concept.
I know it as an artist. I was very good when I started, the difficulty came a couple of years after. Philosophy does not grow in this way. In general, a philosopher is a philosopher much earlier on than the average artist in very early childhood. And it’s not about being good at things - it’s about being compelled to ask the most problematic questions.

I find that the questions asked in art are almost never really interesting. What’s interesting is the way they are answered.

Quote :
What kind of an effect does your art bring forth? Does it bring on “consciousness”?
So they say.

Some people listen to my music on their way to a gruesome working day, some people cry when they watch my short film things - but all this is unintended on my part. I just express what I feel. Philosophy is really a very different endeavor. It’s not ruled by emotion, it’s precisely what stands unmoved in the vast vortex of emotion that marks my life. It’s really a strange phenomenon, and from what I’ve seen and lived amongst, rare.

Quote :
Is consciousness such an easy thing to draw out of people or to inspire?
Whenever I work on art, “easy” is nowhere to be felt. Art requires total commitment, and it’s frightening because there’s no falling back on anything.

Quote :
Quote :
A philosopher works with very different laws. He works with the same means - life - but without the liberty the artist has to permit himself. The philosopher knows this liberty to distract from his true freedom, which is the heights, the mountaintop and the cool air, .
You don’t think that any real artist is disciplined? Perhaps that so-called liberty which you see in the artist is a kind of courage under fire, where he sets out in abandon to find the truth within and without and to set it before the world?
It is. I’m not denying that. But truth as a domain is much freeer than wisdom. Wisdom prescribes, and an attitude passing for wisdom can thus be genocidally insane. Art can not have this effect, as truth does not prescribe, it just describes.

Quote :
Sometimes that which appears to be more free and less structured is more difficult…sometimes free verse is more difficult than rhyming.
I have no illusions about art being easy. I made quite a few good things, but I am still at the base-camp, and trembling before the ascent.

Quote :
Quote :
the absence of people who desire for what he does and any sort of distractions, alone with the truth
So, philosophers are the only kind who experience this? I intruit that you are a true philosopher ~~in my book, I understand this, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to raise yourself above those, who in truth, may be of the same mind and soul as you. Perhaps both the philosopher and the artist seek the holy grail.
Artists seek the holy grail, but the philosopher actually stumbles on it and then has to deal with that, seeing how the grail is quite a cruel machine. Philosophy’s wisdom has much to do in how much truth is good to be conscious of. Nietzsche’s entire work is about finding an attitude vis a vis the truth that is much harder than what our present human art can justify.

Art rises and falls with philosophy. See for verification of this the rise and fall of roman art from the time of the Republic to the time of Constantine.

Quote :
Quote :
When the philosopher is face to face with the truth he has produced, he is baffled, he can’t believe it, that he exists, that this actually happened. .
And what about the artist’s production? He may be somewhat baffled too - in that he finds it incredible that something such as that which he has produced has come from his self.
Yes, the artist has this sentiment as well. I knew as I wrote this that this did not do justice to the aphorism. As I said, it’s difficult to make any clearer than it already is.

Quote :
Is a Van Gogh more incredible than a Nietzsche?
Van Gogh did not stand at the basis of two world wars and an age of superhuman dominion machines. Art can not do this kind of thing. You can only compare Nietzsche to someone like Jesus. Someone who transforms the way the human species walks its evolutionary path.

Art is reflection and, if fortune strikes, justification of such transformations.

Quote :
Sometimes even I will write a poem and I get that same realization. Is it ego or is it humility?lol
I hope it’s a form of joy. The ego-humility dichotomy is unhealthy. To be restricted to an ego is itself a very humbling fact.

" 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 Online
    Imafungi
    bowstring
    bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

Artists and philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: Artists and philosophers Artists and philosophers Icon_minitimeWed Jan 22, 2014 3:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Art is more entertainment that can with the subjective interpretation and reaction in the body and mind of the observer, leave any number and scale of unpredictable impacts on the observer.

Philosophy is thought. The thought of all things possible and not.
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

Artists and philosophers Empty
PostSubject: Re: Artists and philosophers Artists and philosophers Icon_minitimeMon Sep 14, 2015 2:52 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Zarathustra has left the mountain!

78

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVOd4tcvis[/youtube]

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2013 11:18 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Man has become a tool to make his own tools.

" 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 Online
    Pezer
    builder
    builder

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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeSat Aug 17, 2013 9:34 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
God didn’t exist, then he died and left us with the realm he could never fully conquer.
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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeWed Aug 21, 2013 8:22 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Belief would appear to be the most quintessential means to our own survival; what a pity that it is grounded in much that eventually, and thankfully so, becomes simply dust in the winds of our minds and of time.

AD

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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeWed Aug 21, 2013 9:23 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Are We the Music Before it takes hold and gives rise to ecstacy or do We Become the Music through its beautiful, thrilling and transformative powers into ecstacy?

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
Pezer
builder
builder

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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeFri Aug 23, 2013 9:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Human in Three Movements: We get inspired and chase some dragon of our making, some subconscious gesture reminds us of our animality which makes us recoil in horror, our dragon-chasing pride looks at the animal and says: yes, you will do!
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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeMon Aug 26, 2013 2:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Worm in the Apple of Friendship: Deception! How many bites must be taken before it is revealed and rears its slimy head?
One bite? Two bites? Take care - it waits quietly and longingly - to feed upon its host!

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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeMon Aug 26, 2013 3:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The Warrior and the Dragon ~~ Counterparts of Blood Thirst! When the One has become sacrificed to the Face-Off, the Other drinks of its fill and Roars, thus honoring the One. Thereby, through a fiery alchemical intermingling of life and death, the Other takes on the burden of transformation, forever carrying with him he who shall never be defeated.
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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeMon Aug 26, 2013 3:08 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
It’s not the environment that is creepy, the platform, it’s having no control over it. It isn’t about what you have at stake in it in the sense that if you perceive it, it is already at stake.
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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeWed Aug 28, 2013 2:39 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Amor Fati: Let us not cry over spilled milk! Let us revel in the patterns of its mess! Let us dance, rapturously, around them ~~ our only cry being: Locutus Vitae ~~ Hæc Esto.

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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeMon Dec 30, 2013 5:21 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The right practice of eating may lend itself to the right practice of thinking. If we chew our food well, carefully and with mindfulness, we may learn to chew our ideas and thoughts in the same way - before digesting them.

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
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeWed Jan 22, 2014 3:15 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Man has always been a tool. Just as the tools man first created were simple and could only accomplish so much, now man and his tools are more complex and can accomplish more. Destruction and construction.
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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeWed Jan 22, 2014 4:43 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I think it was Bergson who described man as the maker of tools to make tools to make tools, etc.

I do think that men are often almost sufficiently defined as tools to produce tools. But a tool is ultimately and ontologically speaking not an entity, as it exists only at the pleasure of another entity. Ultimately, there must be the one who wields the tool - and he does not necessarily have to be a tool - he can also be a true character, a self-valuing, an actual entity.

Strictly speaking, the concepts “tool” and “entity” can not apply to the same object in the same context. A tool is always a function of an entity, as it is a function of a purpose, and a purpose does not exist outside of a particular entity holding it.

" 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 Online
    Imafungi
    bowstring
    bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeWed Jan 22, 2014 7:17 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
I think it was Bergson who described man as the maker of tools to make tools to make tools, etc.

I do think that men are often almost sufficiently defined as tools to produce tools. But a tool is ultimately and ontologically speaking not an entity, as it exists only at the pleasure of another entity. Ultimately, there must be the one who wields the tool - and he does not necessarily have to be a tool - he can also be a true character, a self-valuing, an actual entity.

Strictly speaking, the concepts “tool” and “entity” can not apply to the same object in the same context. A tool is always a function of an entity, as it is a function of a purpose, and a purpose does not exist outside of a particular entity holding it.

Hm, I see what you mean, though I would suggest man is his own tool. You use yourself like a tool, an instrument. Consciousness existed in simpler creatures, the only way the consciousness could get more and achieve more and be more was through its physicality. The experiencer is intimately related, is intimately them self and body, the there seems to be such a chasm of difference between the subtle realm of mind and the physical bodies relation with the environment, that it is as if our minds, me, I the one that is controlling my fingers right now, uses these fingers as a tool to accomplish my wants. That is only the sense I meant it as. The body is a machine, quite the bizarre and impressive mechanical marvelory.
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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeWed Jan 22, 2014 10:30 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The body can be seen as a machine built to attain its own values. But it can also be used to attain another body’s values. That is the difference between being a tool and being an entity.

A wage-slave is not functioning as a proper entity, he is a semi/quasi-entity. So is the religiously brainwashed puppet.

That said, most people are incomplete in this sense. Language really makes it difficult for people to discern their true values, language virtually consists of pre-set values. That is why I altered language, shaped it around the only concept that matters. VO is among other things technique to distinguish your ow source code from the code you were born into.

There are relatively few humans that are perfect self-valuings, that are perfectly aware of their values and perfectly capable of attaining them on a consistent basis. Humans are easily enslaved, convinced to work for objectives that seem as if they would sustain the self-valuing but in the end end up only utilizing this self-valuings excess energy wihthout feeding it, thereby eroding it and leaving it incomplete by the roadside.

People who do work they dislike doing for money are to a certain extent slaves, literally selling themselves at the cost of themselves. People who work because they value doing this work (enjoy the activity) they do and what comes from it (think of it as valuable) are free.

" 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 Online
    Imafungi
    bowstring
    bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeWed Jan 22, 2014 11:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The body can be seen as a machine built to attain its own values. But it can also be used to attain another body’s values. That is the difference between being a tool and being an entity.

A wage-slave is not functioning as a proper entity, he is a semi/quasi-entity. So is the religiously brainwashed puppet.

That said, most people are incomplete in this sense. Language really makes it difficult for people to discern their true values, language virtually consists of pre-set values. That is why I altered language, shaped it around the only concept that matters. VO is among other things technique to distinguish your ow source code from the code you were born into.

There are relatively few humans that are perfect self-valuings, that are perfectly aware of their values and perfectly capable of attaining them on a consistent basis. Humans are easily enslaved, convinced to work for objectives that seem as if they would sustain the self-valuing but in the end end up only utilizing this self-valuings excess energy wihthout feeding it, thereby eroding it and leaving it incomplete by the roadside.

People who do work they dislike doing for money are to a certain extent slaves, literally selling themselves at the cost of themselves. People who work because they value doing this work (enjoy the activity) they do and what comes from it (think of it as valuable) are free.

Im sure it can be argued many a wage slave may value their existence of believe themselves to have a greater quality of life, then that of a none enslaved free homeless man. The wage slave may accept his dull duties in exchange for a comfortable quality of life and that may be worthy and of value to them, just as a cat may see a value in being a slave to the home, or a work horse not minded doing work because it knows it will get food and shelter and cleaned. Everyone cant be an artist, the jobs wage slaves do are necessary to the functioning of society…at least until they are automated.
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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeWed Jan 22, 2014 12:49 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The burden of proof is on you here, I think. If you can get a couple of wage slaves to testify that they would not prefer to get more money for their time, we can consider it. But it seems very unlikely.

A wage slave is someone whose efforts are valued at the minimal cost. His efforts are what he is. He might be quite happy if he thinks what he is doing is useful. He would be happier if he is appreciated for it, and even more if he is rewarded for it.

As soon as reward takes precedence over work, man has sacrificed part of his entity for another part of it. Outsourcing oneself to random purposes is drawing back from existence, allowing the body to become separate of the mind. Health is conditioned by the directness/indirectness of the relation between effort and values.

" 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 Online
    Imafungi
    bowstring
    bowstring

Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeWed Jan 22, 2014 6:39 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Fixed Cross wrote:
The burden of proof is on you here, I think. If you can get a couple of wage slaves to testify that they would not prefer to get more money for their time, we can consider it. But it seems very unlikely.

A wage slave is someone whose efforts are valued at the minimal cost. His efforts are what he is. He might be quite happy if he thinks what he is doing is useful. He would be happier if he is appreciated for it, and even more if he is rewarded for it.

As soon as reward takes precedence over work, man has sacrificed part of his entity for another part of it. Outsourcing oneself to random purposes is drawing back from existence, allowing the body to become separate of the mind. Health is conditioned by the directness/indirectness of the relation between effort and values.

Who wouldnt want to get more money for their time? Everything is done for reward in someway or another. Life is the reward for living.
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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeThu Jan 23, 2014 7:06 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In the spirit of this thread on aphorisms, here is one of mine:

‘The common root of all sorrow may perhaps be traced to this: that while life is spent in the service of death, death is spent in the service of nothing.’

“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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeSat Feb 01, 2014 6:38 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
When one is down in the dumps, one must look around to see what may be salvaged ~ perhaps a set of wings. Claim them as your own, then take flight ~ upward and onward!

AD

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

Last edited by Arcturus Descending on Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:41 am; edited 1 time in total
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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeSat Feb 01, 2014 6:41 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of what use is a church steeple, if not to remind us to transcend ourselves. Mira!

AD

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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeSat Oct 11, 2014 8:32 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
The quickest road back into life is through throwing ourselves into the jowls of self-death itself. Like going through a terrible wormhole and coming out into the qualia of a meaningful existence.

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
Pezer
builder
builder

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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeSat Sep 26, 2015 4:45 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Philosophy needs to learn how to walk. Greatness has yet to value health over history…
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

Aphorisms Empty
PostSubject: Re: Aphorisms Aphorisms Icon_minitimeFri Oct 02, 2015 4:09 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
A lesson for those braver than their own good in an age where good is limiting:

If you want to liberate yourself, betray yourself.

79

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

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

scribbles and syllables Empty
PostSubject: scribbles and syllables scribbles and syllables Icon_minitimeThu Oct 20, 2016 10:00 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
stacks of paper in my pocket nice and crispy
finger on the trigger kinda itchy
girls on my trail acting bitchy
chrome on my ride super kitchy
take it through the mud, rip it up, how lets see
how much all this shine still stand for itself
Im not a brand on your shelf Im liquor itself
drink to near death wake up in vigorous health
I piss on visions of Self, intrinsically position my valuing
to building itself, feeling this world, bringing girls
to the top, whirling dervish, twerk it work my plumbing
fat sack blast something seventh coming
get that ass throbbing like a goblin
as shes gobbling on the Ouroboros
Wars in the core of the forest
Thor come down Teutonic on the flock

" 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 Online
    individualized
    Tower
    Tower
    individualized

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

scribbles and syllables Empty
PostSubject: Re: scribbles and syllables scribbles and syllables Icon_minitimeThu Oct 20, 2016 10:16 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Philosopher awesomer bolder than bold
Colder than cold stereotypical stereophonic
Hydroponic yeah I’m on it
Supersonic jump on it why not
Hot and I told ya I sold ya soldier
I slipped the streams and flipped the folds
I catch truths like others catch colds
I burst beams like they ain’t got seams
I run trains on dreams and train dreams
Like fucking dragons
Scream to the sky high and hi hello why not
The universe is in me
Buy and bye so long and why not
See ya there or maybe not
I’ll be a pharaoh to tear up your scarecrow
Bow down while I break the blue outta the sky
I forced a court order on boredom
While you kissed the gist goodbye.

“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

scribbles and syllables Empty
PostSubject: Re: scribbles and syllables scribbles and syllables Icon_minitimeSat Oct 29, 2016 5:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Scribbles and scrabbles you say
Etchings of mind each day
Appear on a solitude walk
Memories dauntingly balk
An effort to call all to mind
A frustrating attempt to bind
pearls of loose verses
become benign curses
Having it any other way
would surely usurp the day
dazzling gems strung together
like so many birds of a feather
purpose and meaning abound
the poet’s creation is found
deep within his flowing blood
hot with passion like a flood
Words like stardust permeate
the world itself and re-create
Transformations then abide
Hidden spirits rise and sigh
Loosened by their bindings
Their very Selves their findings
Etchings and hatchlings dancing freely
minute beacons shining gleely
Words become the only places
where the Sacred interfaces
with human divinity abounded
and the human spirit astounded.

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

scribbles and syllables Empty
PostSubject: Re: scribbles and syllables scribbles and syllables Icon_minitimeSat Oct 29, 2016 8:46 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Rhyming in a company of poets
I travel the globe as so it goeth
It’s all road, stretching onward
gone with the wind, now dont blow it
Odin shows in Autumn leaves
and dropping seeds on rich soil
birthing trees, Im at ease with the
changes ripping up the artificial peace
Yeah Im here in the chambers
of kings and queens, no remainders
of guilty sins or broken dreams
there’s no saints here, just gains
in the game of treasure
as wage slaves go insane under pressure
we wage war with perspective like Escher

Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

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

Art apart Empty
PostSubject: Art apart Art apart Icon_minitimeWed Sep 16, 2015 10:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
In klare taal spreek ik, daar waar ik voort ga. In heimelen gneek ik, waar ik de poort voor sta. Ik spreek:

Halleluja! Who goeth there?
And the man, who just passed with his green rain cap against the mushy trees sapping in the wind in his face, he passed and did not reply.

So it went, four winters long.

Then a bridge was being built nearby and some traffic came along, and a man from Frankia set up a deep fried snack food bar and from then I had something to eat now and then. I came into existence.

There is a breach in the mind that artists ride.

How come it is only artists who ride it?

Think again - con artists are artists too. They are perhaps the most conscious of the crack. Art is the same vein as high collarbone crime.

Truth passes for fiction, thus any fiction passes for truth as long as it contradicts truth; so the narrative unfolds. We learn of deeper and deeper truths and we integrate them as we remember a dream. Vaguely we are aware of a will in the distant corner of the tv. But we think only in factoids so it remains elusive, like a star on a cloudy night.

Lord of the mighty one, flank me as I enter the temple across the hanging bridge and make the bridge as I go though he air. My mind exists and sometimes I exist. I walk along my work and notice the smell of the air, salty. I remember now, I am a bird. But I continue the lie as I hook the bridge onto the castle’s iron rings and knock on the door.

Dee-wanna-wanga

Here the post suddenly ends.

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

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

The profound beauty of poetry Empty
PostSubject: The profound beauty of poetry The profound beauty of poetry Icon_minitimeFri Apr 14, 2017 4:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Hurt Hawks

I

The broken pillar of the wing jags from the clotted shoulder,
The wing trails like a banner in defeat,

No more to use the sky forever but live with famine
And pain a few days: cat nor coyote
Will shorten the week of waiting for death, there is game without talons.

He stands under the oak-bush and waits
The lame feet of salvation; at night he remembers freedom
And flies in a dream, the dawns ruin it.

He is strong and pain is worse to the strong, incapacity is worse.
The curs of the day come and torment him
At distance, no one but death the redeemer will humble that head,

The intrepid readiness, the terrible eyes.
The wild God of the world is sometimes merciful to those
That ask mercy, not often to the arrogant.

You do not know him, you communal people, or you have forgotten him;
Intemperate and savage, the hawk remembers him;
Beautiful and wild, the hawks, and men that are dying, remember him.

II

I’d sooner, except the penalties, kill a man than a hawk;
but the great redtail
Had nothing left but unable misery
From the bone too shattered for mending, the wing that trailed under his talons when he moved.

We had fed him six weeks, I gave him freedom,
He wandered over the foreland hill and returned in the evening, asking for death,
Not like a beggar, still eyed with the old
Implacable arrogance.

I gave him the lead gift in the twilight.
What fell was relaxed, Owl-downy, soft feminine feathers; but what
Soared: the fierce rush: the night-herons by the flooded river cried fear at its rising
Before it was quite unsheathed from reality.

–Robinson Jeffers

poemhunter.com/poem/hurt-hawks/

“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

The profound beauty of poetry Empty
PostSubject: Re: The profound beauty of poetry The profound beauty of poetry Icon_minitimeFri Apr 14, 2017 4:37 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
For My Daughter on Her Twenty-First Birthday

When they laid you in the crook
of my arms like a bouquet and I looked
into your eyes, dark bits of evening sky,
I thought, of course this is you,
like a person who has never seen the sea
can recognize it instantly.

They pulled you from me like a cork
and all the love flowed out. I adored you
with the squandering passion of spring
that shoots green from every pore.

You dug me out like a well. You lit
the deadwood of my heart. You pinned me
to the earth with the points of stars.

I was sure that kind of love would be
enough. I thought I was your mother.
How could I have known that over and over
you would crack the sky like lightning,
illuminating all my fears, my weaknesses, my sins.

Massive the burden this flesh
must learn to bear, like mules of love.

–Ellen Bass

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

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

Kek-Tonic Empty
PostSubject: Kek-Tonic Kek-Tonic Icon_minitimeThu Oct 12, 2017 9:32 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Yeah, fuck it. I’ll make my own value, so let’s push back against this tyranny 1984 we live in. Use our value as spears, words as swords.

Music to redefine the future.

The old gods are sick and weak. Trump showed us this. Now it is up to us.

80

individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

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

2040 election - a dystopia Empty
PostSubject: 2040 election - a dystopia 2040 election - a dystopia Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 4:11 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
By the time the American people were voting for their president in the 2040 election, voting in a conventional sense had already disappeared. No longer were there voting booths or polling stations or election officials; no more were electronic voting machines used than paper ballots, the total count of both being zero; all was done via each person’s Viewer, the smart screens embedded in their eyes.

Each person responded to the prompt that appeared on their home display, able to ‘nudge’ it with a gently applied thought as it sat there blinking in their visual field. The world around them dimmed to 50% and in its place appeared short video segments of each presidential candidate; to nudge one of the videos opened up a drop-down list of his, her, or their (openly trans-gender, as well as trans-racial and trans-species, persons now being quite common in politics, especially considering that the last president was trans-gender and trans-racial) positions on the various issues. All in video format unless closed-captioning was requested, in which case the video was replaced with an archaic-looking block of text. Since most people could absorb information far more easily by watching videos than by reading, the closed-captioning option was rarely used.

A timer hung suspended from the right visual corner of each person’s Viewer. It showed a countdown to when voting would close. Voting had been open for 11 months now, and still had another 8 more months to go. A 19-month voting window had been standardized into law for all 44 states and for all federal and state elections, based on recommendations from experts in psychology, disability access and human rights codes.

Once a person (not only a citizen, for now any inhabitant of the United States of America was legally allowed to vote in any and all elections, thanks to the Fairness and Dignity in Elections Bill of 2029 that had passed unanimously in both houses of Congress and then been ceremoniously signed by the President just hours later) cast his, her or their vote, via triple-nudge with i-verify retina confirmation, they had 90 days to change their mind and vote differently. After all, new holosuite experiences were coming out all the time, and anyone might live a different experience in some possible future scenario under one of the presidential candidates that, being so realistic and convincing, might cause them to wish to change their mind. Although to be fair, the 90 day limit on changing one’s vote did had over four dozen exemption clauses in the law, for such people whose severe ailments, including Alzheimer’s, Schizophrenia, Stress, Post-stress, Pre-stress, Anxiety, or the almost universally diagnosed Emotional Disturbance Disorder, impacted their ability to competently and reliably choose a candidate to vote for if subjected to the impositions of strenuous time constraints. In fact it was all but inevitable that next year, the new updated version of the Human Rights Code would simply mandate that all votes may be changed at any time up to the close of the voting period, and with certain exceptions for a period of time after voting had ended.

One did not weigh issues or have very strong opinions on the issues of the political races. One simply accessed his, her or their own Happiness 4-Quotient Bank and ran the government-sanctioned meta-analysis app to cross-reference one’s levels of Happiness, Pleasure, Relaxation, and Stimulation with those life experiences that were impacted directly or indirectly by decisions coming from the presidential level, giving weight to each reference-point based on the degree to which that particular issue impacted one’s own life. The final result was a statistical correlation of each issue to one’s own H4Q profile, and this was then compared to the specific issues advocated by each candidate for president in order to determine to what degree those issues matched up with one’s own H4Q issue-dominant Positivity Rating attractors. The result was a simple percentage. Most people chose to vote for the candidate who scored the highest percentage on their own personal meta-analysis.

Of course the candidate who led the greatest theorized future increase in H4Q for the greatest number of people, was legally required to be president; it was all right there in the Bill of Rights, having finally been imported over from the Declaration of Independence by Supreme Court mandate, “The right to Life, Liberty and Happiness.” The phrase “the pursuit of happiness” had of course been stricken when the statement was imported into the Bill of Rights, being an entirely ableist, ageist concept and thus illegal. However, it was not always so clear-cut who would become president even on any given moment of totalized aggregate H4Q measure for the entire nation, in part because of the (admittedly minimal) difficulties of controlling for future variables such as individual people changing their minds, but primarily due to the fact that election anxiety increased in the populace as the election drew closer and closer, and this increase tended to distort H4Q measurements enough to cause the predictability of the eventual winner of the election to be in some doubt. The people voted in the electoral college system, of course, but their representatives who cast the actual ballots for president were legally required to vote for that person for whom it could be predicted with scientific accuracy would ensure the greatest future increase in H4Q for the greatest number of people. If there was too much uncertainty in these predictions, as indicated by a large enough skew between the peoples’ actual vote and the legally-mandated option for the election representatives to vote for, post-election voting was implemented to correct this skew.

All in all, most people were happy. It did not matter so much who the president was, to most people anyway, but they knew they were required to invest time and effort into the election season. If asked by their psychiatrist, employer, government health bureau officer, or social worker they may be required to confirm an understanding of the important issues, and be able to state where their own H4Q measures are in relation to those issues and to the candidates supporting various positions on them. In addition there was the certain bombardment of constant advertising, necessary for economic and data-collection reasons of course, but despite how the election season allowed for greater max doses of anti-anxiety, anti-depression, anti-emotional disregulation, anti-stress, anti-post-stress, anti-pre-stress, anti-cognitive overload, ant-discrimination and anti-emotional poverty medications, it was still a somewhat difficult time for most people. And there was always the further reason that if one did not react within a range of predictable responses to the election cycle, if one remained more or less equally happy or unaffected, or if one did not pay attention to the crucial issues at stake – and certainly if one failed to run the all-important meta-analysis on his own H4Q! – then severe social censure would follow, up to and including termination from one’s employment, with ‘creating a hostile work environment’ being the most commonly cited reason for this. And most people did not want to go back to the Universal Right to Work Board; not because it was an unpleasant experience or because their current job was most likely better than any future job they might be assigned, but simply because it took a fair amount of time to go through the URWB processes and screenings, and that time could, obviously, be better spent managing one’s own H4Q.

“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

2040 election - a dystopia Empty
PostSubject: Re: 2040 election - a dystopia 2040 election - a dystopia Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 9:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
As usual your fiction is very good. It made me laugh a few times, especially the pre-stress ailment is hilarious, but more than funny it is just good predictive science fiction. It has the air of a good novel.

" 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 Online
    individualized
    Tower
    Tower
    individualized

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

2040 election - a dystopia Empty
PostSubject: Re: 2040 election - a dystopia 2040 election - a dystopia Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 9:51 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Thanks. I would plan to expand it into a proper story, but I don’t have the motivation really. Writing these sort of things leaves me tense, like a rubber band is stretched tight inside of my torso, and also somewhat drained.

“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

2040 election - a dystopia Empty
PostSubject: Re: 2040 election - a dystopia 2040 election - a dystopia Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 10:40 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Ouch.

But of course a novel of this would take years and use up all energy, I can see that.

" 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 Online
    individualized
    Tower
    Tower
    individualized

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

2040 election - a dystopia Empty
PostSubject: Re: 2040 election - a dystopia 2040 election - a dystopia Icon_minitimeSun Apr 08, 2018 11:43 pm Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
From Wikipedia, entry on Anxiety and Pre-Stress:

Last updated 2/6/36

According to the DSM 9, Anxiety Disorder is different from Pre-Stress Disorder in so far as with anxiety a person has already acquired past experiences that now negatively impact his/her/their/its anticipating having similar experiences in the future, whereas with pre-stress he/she/they/it simply anticipate negative impacts without having had any such acquired past experiences at all in his/her/theirs/its life, and/or he/she/they/it state that such negatives impacts are the case for himself/herself//themself/itself.[1]

Controversy

Some non-reputable (see common interdisciplinary term of use, [Link: ‘Non-Reputable Practice’][2]) psychologists and unlicensed persons outside of the psychological and psychiatric fields have inquired as to how it might be possible to develop a ‘disorder’ around anticipating negative impacts for things about which one has had no experience at all, and how valid may be the claims to such by the individual in question.[3] These inquiries have been thoroughly dismissed in the relevant scientific literature, for example by pointing out that according to the Human Rights Code it is a gross violation of basic human dignity to question the validity of another person’s firmly held convictions.[4]

Furthermore, experts have pointed out that it may constitute a violation of the respective statutes within the Code to suggest that another person does not in fact firmly hold such convictions as he/she/they/it claim to hold.[5] Reputable psychologists and medical professionals, following both moral and legal guidelines, avoid such dangerous questions as “how it might be possible to anticipate something about which one has no experience at all” or “how valid may be the claims to such by the individual in question”, due to the power-differentials of structural oppression implicit in the asking of the question (see moral and legal guidelines for reputable practice in the medical professions, [Link: Multi-Cross-Hyper-Phasic Intersectionality Sciences][6]).

It has existed as canonical law within the psychological, psychiatric, and medical fields for over a decade [7] that a person’s subjective claims should not be exposed to difficult or demeaning interrogations, with difficult or demanding being defined entirely and only by the person (or persons, in the cases of multi-identity individuals, see [Link: Multi-Identity Individuality][8]) himself/himselves/herself/herselves/theyself/themselves/itself/itselves, due to the emotional discomfort and identity damage this will cause.[9]

Important notice to users, 16/7/36: Wikipedia has recently been informed by representatives of the US Tribunal on Human Rights Abuses and Immoral Practices that this present Wikipedia entry may constitute illegal speech due to violations of federal law, including 1) propagating misinformation (Federal Oversight Committee on Truth in News and Media, report 2B-47c-2032, sub paragraph 59 [10]), 2) causing discrimination or normalizing discriminatory practices [11], and 3) knowingly or unknowingly causing or leading to be caused emotional harm and/or identity harm.[12] Deletion of this present entry and all associated materials is immanent pending resolution of a frivolous legal complaint lodged by one user who has been publicly identified as a non-reputable psychologist working outside of the field of proper psychological practice.[13]