@ Self-Lightening claims it doesn’t, having lost the debate (as for the first time in his life someone really spent time on his nonsense) tries to avoid having to concede his mistake.
His writing contains contradicting claims;
All is discharge/ing (‘self lightening’) and all discharge will be reabsorbed (which would mean that all is absorption, a more difficult concept to ontologize, as well but never mind)
The universe will ultimately amount in heat death.
Confronted with the fact that these are irreconcilable, he said and ran away.
Id like to confront the fellow with the failure of his thinking again though, seeing as it is a bastardization of my own philosophical model, which in turn is based on Nietzsche’s Will to Power logic.
He don’t care. He just says well that is really also defined in terms of discharging, but doesn’t intend to think about how that would logically work.
It is his identity - his username but deeper - I relate it to his tendency to make claims (discharge) and evade absorbing counter arguments. Thus losing intellectual weight all the time. And indeed, he doesn’t believe in meaning. Yet it is important for him to feel he’s right - to mean something.
I never pushed him to these extremes before - now that I have, Im afraid first rate second rate scholar is too much praise.
I accumulate oxygen every time I breathe in, and I discharge carbon dioxide every time I exhale. My body is constantly filling up with more oxygen atoms (and carbon atoms) which are being used by my body for various biological processes. I need a constant supply of new oxygen atoms, I need to continuously accumulate them inside me, or else I would die within a matter of minutes. Likewise a growing human, children for instance are always accumulating more substances and mass, growing larger until they reach their final size in adulthood. Then analogize this to experiences and the mind, and to understanding, we are constantly accumulating these things and growing in terms of our personality, scope of self, emotional experiences, knowledge, skills… wealth is another good example, a successful person accumulates more of it over time, a stupid or unsuccessful person merely discharges their money until it is gone.
Accumulating values is the basic function of living organisms. It is certainly what healthy, successful humans do. It is also what groups, families, societies, species, life overall is doing or at least is properly oriented toward doing insofar as these things maintain their existence over time.
Kindly reproduce the passage where I say all discharge will be reabsorbed.
The Big Chill as I like to call it, rightly understood, is already happening, just as the Big Bang is still happening. In fact, they can both be said to always have been happening and always continue to happen, as they’re two sides of the same coin. The singularity before the Big Bang is as much an asymptote (a limit) as the singularity after the Big Chill.
Nope! You just claimed that what you claimed before was logical, and I said ‘Nope!’
It’s not a “bastardization” (corruption), as it appears your “selfvaluing” means the direct valuing of that very valuing after all (and is thereby as absurd as it seemed to me from the beginning), whereas my ‘self-valuing’ is indirect, a self-lightening’s lightening itself upon another self-lightening which at the same time, or taking turns, lightens itself upon the former (in short: mutual or reciprocal self-lightening). Or is your pet pupil wrong about VO?
And where, may I ask, is the oxygen coming from? From photosynthetic organisms, which lighten themselves of it, just as the sun lightens itself of its light…
“Kindly reproduce the passage where I say all discharge will be reabsorbed.”
“When power is discharged, of course it doesn’t disappear into nothingness; it is discharged somewhere , which means someplace else is getting charged…”
…
“as it appears your “selfvaluing” means the direct valuing of that very valuing after all”
Er, no. ‘valuing of valuing’ was always your idea. VO refers to valuing in terms of structural integrity, which accounts for structural growth. You never understood that?
But I admit to suggesting to Kropotkin that he value his valuing - I could hardly address him with VO.
Well, I’ll admit I may very well not be able to find a passage where you wrote as much, and am not willing to try, for that matter (it may be somewhere in your many badly written explications on Before The Light—that first one, for example); but you’ve told me many times, in spoken and written conversation, that “selfvaluing” does not mean the valuing of a ‘self’, but of that very valuing itself. ExIstentiAlize recently did say as much here, though:
“Ah yes, the passage of which I just said this …:”
(‘it was old, I was wrong’)
Yet you posted it three hours ago.
And only when called out you renounced it…
" Well, I’ll admit I may very well not be able to find a passage where you wrote as much".
I wrote hundreds of posts on it, interpreted everything in its terms (… hear who has ears) made videos on it… and yes here is the post you refer to…
As you struggled to understand for years, I admit to having tolerated your attempts at simplifying it. [namely, the valuing of other elements in terms of structural integrity implies a valuing of that integrity, which is doing the valuing - but I guess you didn’t get all that] - I was always struggling to express it in full, as the implications of the idea get very complex - as complex as the universe. You’ve always insisted on simplifying to the point of rendering meaningless.
Your reply to Humanize doesn’t address his post. You keep simply ignoring the phenomenon of structural growth. “Yeah but this also happens. So I can ignore the phenomenon you point out, even though what I point out literally relies on it.”
In thinking it through more, I found an exception. (And what’s that saying about the exception again?) But yeah, it doesn’t surprise me that you’d feel being wrong once invalidates you. You have of course never been wrong. Well, except for that thing about Putin. Oh, and that other thing.
“Renounced” it? I’d already amended it in that post I linked to in that post I linked to…
That’s not a denial!
Yeah yeah, and this ground value is itself the selfvaluing (“by and as”!)… Or why don’t you quote the rest of it, too?
I forgot to say I did not write ‘someplace else’ for nothing, even back then. I deliberately did not write ‘something else’. Self-lightening in space-light was the original idea.
Yes, Ive described in part a mechanism whereby things evolve from particle to life, etc. Apparently this evokes resistance in you, Satyr, etc. But you have no challenge for it.
You of course ignore my challenge, for the what - twentieth time ?
Your model suggests that the fact that a tree gives out oxygen explains that a man absorbs it. You pretend to be ignorant of the complex mechanism whereby absorption happens - which is on the part of the human. Not of the tree.
So, no, self lightening does not account for selfheavying.
Reread that last, emphasized part. No really. Read it. Think about it.
I was wrong about investing in a politician, yes -
I wasn’t wrong about preferring Trump over Hillary btw - and what of Putin? That I thought he was replaced by a lookalike? That certainly hasn’t been disproven… but yes Ive been wrong about things, of course.
I was not wrong in philosophical ideas, my philosophic thinking has been consistent and led to VO, and Ive never needed to amend it.
So the guy was right… Oh my. Your “selfvaluing” is a mechanism that sets itself as a value. The selecting (“valuing”) requires that mechanism as a ground value, and that mechanism is itself selectively selective (‘evaluatively evaluative’)… Circular reasoning, absurdity—we’re back in 2011!
Yes, a complex mechanism—or organism—of self-lightenings.
“Selfheavying” is a terrible word. Let’s call it ‘self-ladening’. Self-ladening is what previously I called ‘self-valuing’ (with a hyphen, so it’s not “selfvaluing” or “self valuing” or however you wish to write it). There’s only an indirect self-ladening. Without stuff that lightens itself on you, and you lightening yourself on that stuff (exercising forces on it, for example, in order to lade it upon you or into you), there can be no self-ladening.
You don’t seem to know what circular reasoning is. Ive described a logical circuitry, which is apparently a bit bewildering to you. I might have invented it.
Yes, the definition of 2011 stands, and functions.
“Yes, a complex mechanism—or organism—of self-lightenings.”
The stupidity of this… you really fall for this? Fuck man you are really an intellectual dwarf. Please explain how selflightening accounts for absorbtion. But you wont, as you cant, as it doesnt. And you dont care.
Anyway, you dont give a crap. Spasm-ontology it is for you. Ok brudda if it makes you feel good.
I reread an old thread you made - I think you actually believe that by lowering the standards N expressed that you can turn yourself into a Superman. That sort of thing is what political philosophy means to you - arranging quotes, falsely paraphrasing, to convince yourself of your Supermanhood.
I tried to ignore that stuff back then… that was another mistake I make. Infinitely worse than praising Trump.
Ah, it’s not reasoning, it’s logic; and it’s not a circle, it’s a circuit… Yes, a circuit of self-lightening: that’s what self-valuing is!
Well, do you mean absorption in the strict chemical sense, or more generally? I suppose the latter. And in fact, I think it can at most be applied to quantum mechanics, not to classical mechanics. In classical mechanics, all bodies are (mechanisms—including organisms—of) particles. There’s no absorption there. And with quantum mechanics, we go beyond particles, into the realm of waves (and not waves of particles, e.g. water molecules…). If there can be said to be particles here, it’s particles that have uncollapsed into waves, i.e. former particles. And the interaction of waves is not a matter of absorption either, but of interference.
Are you guys talking about the entire universe? How can there be absorption if there is no discharge because you’re talking about the entire universe? What would it discharge…to? From where would it absorb?
So… If you’re not talking about the entire universe, but something else, please define that. Are we talking about whole personhood?
and ran away.
