The idea of heat death negates the idea that all discharge will be re-absorbed

Sophisticated minds display an innate ability to simplify complexity; unsophisticated minds expose their feebleness through their defensive propensity to unnecessarily complicate simplicity.

Con-men, and priests, use unnecessarily convoluted language to manipulate and exploit gullible, needy men.

Love (value, quality) is not love (substance) without demonstration (action/praxis).

Life. Truth. Way… uncountable ways… one true path.

self=other

valuer=valuer

Attraction = love
Repulsion = hate.

Love Ontology
Everything is loving self.

The charlatan is linguistically reinventing what has proven to be effective, among the world’s lost and needy.
He chooses them, based on their reaction to his mystical incantations.

valuer=valuer

self=other

Repeating nonsense does not make it sensible.
Your desire to disappear into other, is clear.
Herd psychology.
Collectivism.

Experienced as an “expansion of identity.”
It’s the same sensation as belonging to a group, a gang, a cult, a tribe.
Empowering.

Only life can evaluate. Only life can appreciate. Only life can judge. Only life can love and hate.
Only life can will. Only life has intentions. Only life has objectives.

Using words to imply what you cannot justify, is disingenuous and may conceal a motive other than clarity.

All discharge will be reabsorbed into a new singularity, beginning the cosmological process.
All is gradually reduced to chaos and from chaos - properly defined as energies lacking order - a new near-absolute singularity emerges, out of random interactions, starting a new Big Bang.

In Hinduism this is part of its cosmic cycles.

Our Big Bang is an ongoing event. The other side of such a near-absolute singularity.
Yin/Yang.
What we experience as linear time is continuous change - increasing chaos, as interactivity - attraction repulsion - reduces ordered energies, i.e., patterned energies, into chaotic energies.

How else can we describe chaos?
Randomness.
Energies lacking order. Non-patterned energies.
Order = consistent, repeating, sequences of interactivity.

Expanding space/time is an expansion of possibilities.
Order = reduction of possibilities, i.e., probability.
When we say ‘probability’ we mean the possibilities are reduced - they become predictable.
When we say chaos we mean the possibilities are unpredictable.

As the cosmos approaches near-absolute chaotic conditions the possibility of a new near-absolute ordered singularity emerging increase.
This near-absoluteness is best represented by the eastern concept of Yin/Yang.

The so called, beginning of our universe is an event bridging two sides of near-absoluteness - two sides of the same coin:
On our side near-absolute order, and on the other near-absolute chaos.
The old is absorbed into the new, beginning a new cycle.
The process is like an explosion, expansion, accelerating as order gradually deteriorates, decreasing resistance to increasing chaos.

We can replace order with probability, because a pattern describes a predictable sequence…or a limitation of possibilities.
So, increasing chaos means multiplying possibilities.


Switching metaphors to temperature…
Near-absolute chaos is a heating up - a state of uniform interactivity.
White noise.
Near-absolute order is a cooling down, as absolute order would end existence by imploding into a singularity.

So, as order is reduced, over space/time, explosive releases of energies decrease and all settles down into a uniform state of randomness.
near-absolute chaos means an approach towards infinite possibilities, and one such possibility is the emergence of near-absolute order.
Absolute order = immutable, complete, indivisible, i.e., singularity.

Black holes are an approach to such a state.

The end would be a beginning, in an enormous cosmic black hole, absorbing the old chaotic universe into a new beginning.

But like an electron, life is unfree to choose what it attracts and is attracted to. It is merely more complex.
The (a) point VO clarifies is that our valuing determines our nature. We cant choose whether our body values arsenic or carbon, but neither, on a more subtle level, can our brain choose if it values sports, or philosophy, or whatever.

No. Value is assigned by the valuer.
The thing that logically comes closest to having intrinsic value is valuing itself, as its existence necessarily means some value is bestowed somewhere.

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”
(Schopenhauer)

Same with valuing.

Appreciation goes to the thing that attracts the most/repels the least. I.e. least net resistance.
But neither least resistance, nor entropy (‘selflightening’) accounts for attractors, opposite electrical values, etc. Whereas these are the foundation of cosmos, order.

You’re calling will value, but will actively applies values in (or out of) alignment with insight (if we have it). That can reshape or reframe our values… and all reframing can lead to new insight (shape character)—which can change the will’s behavior. That’s the difference between us and animals that lack insight. They’re just running a program. We’re also programmers. The only will who never changes is the one who always has perfect insight/character and perfectly framed values…their substance exists (they are such that they exist) (will) their essence (value)—unchanging, even though subsuming all change/demonstration (omnitemporal).

Everything is neutral-good until insight recognizes self=other, or valuer=valuer. Unfortunately, we can use our insight to distort reality out of balance. Fortunately, that is the same power we have to correct distortion back into balance/alignment. Granted, you can (should, according to self=other) only control your own sphere of influence.

But like an electron, life is unfree to choose what it attracts and is attracted to. It is merely more complex.

Life is distinguished by its ability to choose how to attain what it needs, or what to prioritize.
Will is what differentiates the living form the non-living.
Unfortunately, Schopenhauer, and then Nietzsche, made it their metaphysical grounding.

The (a) point VO clarifies is that our valuing determines our nature. We cant choose whether our body values arsenic or carbon, but neither, on a more subtle level, can our brain choose if it values sports, or philosophy, or whatever.

This provides no novel insight, and it does not apply to non-life.
It is about psychology.

The appreciation an organism has for a particular source of energy, or a particular form of discharging, expunging energies, has to do with multiple factors.
Here a distinction between need/desire must be made, differentiating that which is based on lack and, its byproduct, after multiple successful satisfactions of lack, how to deal with the ensuing excess of energies.
This duality is the nature of life.
Lack, producing excess.

The grounding for both is organ hierarchies - particular to different species and individuals - determining how much and how often an organism needs to replenish a particular nutrient, or form of energy.
Then there’s accessibility and how rare this source is, in its environment.

These factors, and more, determine how pressing the need is, determining what value a conscious mind places on what can satisfy its need, and determining the frequency of its accumulated energy excesses.
This is the only meaning of ‘value.’

No. Value is assigned by the valuer.
The thing that logically comes closest to having intrinsic value is valuing itself, as its existence necessarily means some value is bestowed somewhere.

Then it is about psychology, not metaphysics.

Will willing itself…a nice circular argument.
Life needs closure, I guess. Men need to close the circle of their thoughts.
But, existence is not an enclosure.

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”
(Schopenhauer)

Same with valuing.

You are working from a wrong definition of ‘freedom.’
As did he.
If we apply your method to ‘power’ and define power as omnipotence, then we can say that life is powerless.
If we define knowledge as omniscience, then we can say that all men are equally ignorant.
Platonic ideal, no reality can ever match.
The human skull is the platonic cave. It is where he places his metaphysics, and then demands his physical experiences to fulfill them.

Free-will has nothing to do with a supernatural liberation from causality or from needs, desires. We don’t have to be gods to be free.

Freedom is measurable. It has to do with options.
Instead of Plato’s charioteer, representation of psyche, use a boatman.

Existence is a never ending river, flowing downward towards a sea of chaos…
Reason is the navigator, the boatsman. The boat is his body, a manifestation of his past…and the rudder, his wheel, is the will.
A will cannot stop the river’s flow, cannot reverse it, but he can choose his path, and with each choice determine if the waters become choppy or smooth…

Generations of boys are burdened by Schopenhauer’s choice of the term - Will.
The un-grounded grounding…very platonic.
The un-caused cause.
He took God’s Will, and eliminated the god part.
A Germanic word, expressing a Germanic attitude towards existence… that does not work in Greek, for instance.

Appreciation goes to the thing that attracts the most/repels the least. I.e. least net resistance.
But neither least resistance, nor entropy (‘selflightening’) accounts for attractors, opposite electrical values, etc. Whereas these are the foundation of cosmos, order.

Yes, and this has to do with energy harmonics.
Interacting energies in harmony attract…those whose patterns are more disharmonious, repulse.
No evaluation required.
All about power dynamics and how energies interact, i.e., harmonize.

And this is why chaotic energies always repulse, and can never form perceptible unities, but remain imperceptible…affecting patterned energies inconspicuously.

There are no voids. All existence is energy.
What we perceive as dark and empty is what we cannot process, either because the energies are too complex, too subtle, or they lack order…are chaotic.
Attraction is caused by a reduction of resistance…due to greater harmony.
A unity can create a field of effect - range of effect - if its harmony exceeds the forces of resistance participating in its unity.
Like a planet attract stray meteors…

Similar energy patterns create harmoniums unities, where their field of effect increase.

In the other thread, you said true philosophers value truth over mere survival. Just noting.

I say sphere of influence, you say field of effect. Just noting.

Do you really need an explanation of why an idol was made out of a representative of Jewish sexual minorities? By the way, imposed on goyim, and not on Jews at all? Nailed to the cross with lies. After all, he was executed on the pillory to which he was tied. Do you want to know why and where the cross came from? Do you really demand knowledge?

I want to know.

In magic, there is such a concept as “boomerang” or “backlash.” This means punishment for an action. To avoid it, magicians use trickery— they provoke those who come to them into “desire.” Thus, in this case, the magician fulfills the desire, receives the dividends, and the punishment falls on the unfortunate person who wished for it.

So. The idol was created so that those who believe in it would literally think through their behinds. Primitive magic of domination. The Cross is a bit more complicated, but still quite explainable. The Cross— the intersection of dual (completely opposite) lines on the plane of understanding, at the point of truth. That is, without using the principle of correctness of three measures and three points of understanding. On the plane, it is possible to discover the truth. This is where the myth of the “cross” comes from. People who transgressed morality and all measures of humanity were to be executed by being tied to the shameful posts at the gates. That’s why the criminal was tied to the post so that they wouldn’t run away when the guards were running through the streets to gather the onlookers. Then, with the post, they would tie them to the pillar. It’s quite obvious that “carrying a post” is impossible, and especially not within the power of a single person— the cross. Moreover, there’s no need for a post; it’s always available at the gates. Now, the funny part. To create an idol, it was necessary to nail it to the myth of the Cross with the nails of lies. That is, to hammer it into the correctness of the plane of understanding. Although it is no secret that with nails driven into the palms, it’s impossible to hold the human body. The nails would simply tear the palms apart. Maybe you need to know why and where the love for perversions came from in the unfortunate one?

Yeah I’ve watched those movies. Still don’t get what you are trying to say. You and Meno. Though I at least get what you are saying half of the time. Can’t say the same for the other guy.

Sorry to say but I have to agree with Silenus here. Not politically but scientifically. He seems to have the most reasonable opinion in this thread. An atom does not value anything. An atom is not alive. This is sillyness.

Humans can also choose what they value. It is partly genetic and partly upbringing and also can be modified later on additionally.

Hope I did not offend anybody here.