Yes, ‘delusion’ the way you used it implies objective truth-value.
" I was responding to Gilfthus, so try telling her that…"
Nevertheless it challenges your logic.
“I was talking about philosophy, of course.”
You don’t find Greek philosophy to be powerful action? How then did it shape the millennia that came after?
“And which of Buddhism’s two truths are you talking about?..”
‘The world’ exists only in the first of these. The truth your model claims to pertain to; phenomena. But it doesn’t work. That it doesn’t work doesn’t mean it pertains to the second. It may pertain to a desire for the appropriation of the second, I can see that.
We may value the second truth over the first one, of course. We may value a lack of attachment and the clarity that comes with it. But that doesn’t rid us of the truth of valuing, or the valuing of truth.
Well, so much for “the universe has been shaped in the exact opposite direction. - from proto matter to hydrogen atoms to stars to planets to life - ever increasing complexity.”
As you once pointed out to me, gold comes from stars whereas diamonds ‘merely’ come from planets.
I obviously did not say gold has a greater integrity, complexity or value than say, the heart-mind of a poetic or philosophic genius. I just showed you the greatest nonliving structural integrity to definitively disprove your idea. Gold does not selflighten. It just values all as below itself.
“All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.”
As all matter is selfvaluing interactions. Look at quarks, the gluon-dynamic. There is no discharge without valuing.
In the end, qua gold and corresponding consciousness, the final reality, the end product of WtP/VO, is the bestowing virtue.
Well, if you want to go about it that way… Does ‘delusion’, the way I’ve used the word, objectively imply objective truth-value? And is not objective existence (the binary value 1 as opposed to the 0 of objective non-existence) an objective value? I could go on and on.
By its fundamental flaw, i.e. something necessarily lacking from it…
As I wrote in my Esoteric Buddhism thread, 'the “pure negativity” of emptiness itself arises dependently from the interdependently arising “false and illusory subjective minds and their cognitive objects”: ‘tis these subjects which are empty, of independent and non-arisen (and thereby non-dissolving) existence.’
Now to be sure, self-lightening is a dissolving and thereby non-dissolving: the non-dissolving of dissolving, self-lightening’s lightening itself ever more but never completely. And the self-lightening that is the universe or the whole, being still a Big Bang and already a Big Chill (and both always and forevermore), is indeed non-arisen, and even “independent” insofar as something can be independent without being independent from other things. That is my model, and yes, it’s only a model.
I don’t subscribe to the 1 as opposed to the 0. At best as opposed to the -1. Ultimate reality per zen, which I subscribe to, is being nor nonbeing. Not one or the other. The terms are both inaccurate.
And yes, you objectively uttered a judgment, that was my point. No need to get convoluted about it.
Then I guess that same lack pertains to Buddhism, and anything which is valued over time. Anyway your claim about me being modern was thus a random insult.
So it would then be a property/result of consciousness. I don’t disagree, but Im sure I see consciousness differently than you do.
I disagree, I see the void as primordial, that from which valuing arises spontaneously and to which it may return as a result of completion, self perfection. I now realize this corresponds to a Kabbalistic doctrine but it arises from my own thought and meditation, as partly described. As mentioned I don’t believe in singularity or Big Bang as source. And I don’t see dissolution as the means to re-enter the void. Rather, the acquisition of perfect energetic integrity and balance, which requires among other things a great build-up and a concerted concentration.
You mean “evaluating”, as I’ve just pointed out. Valuing is nothing else than discharging. But I suppose you and I most fundamentally disagree on what is more fundamental. You say:
“[L]ightning is discharge toward an electrical value (i.e. a valuing). Nuclear fusion discharges energy because selfvaluing integrities get broken [by pressure of gravity, which is attraction, valuing]. Sexual discharge happens toward an arousing (valued) object. Etc etc.”
I say the electrical value is a consequence of the discharge that is lightning, whereas you say that the discharge is aimed at the value. Cause and effect: I say it’s an effect, you say it’s the final cause. Common sense, which Aristotle systematized…
I understand gravity as the other side of the coin of which the one side is radiation: ‘The Will is the Radiance of the Mind.’ Now as I wrote elsewhere on this site:
‘Love, eros, attraction to what appears higher creates a distance between the lover and his environment, making him appear higher to it and thereby willing power over it, exerting attraction on it; love and will are simply the attractive and the repellent force, respectively: […] Nietzsche of course chose to focus on will, not love, but he originally called the will to power not will to power, but Habsucht, literally “having-sickness, addiction to having”, which he identified as the essence of masculine love.’
The will, then, is indeed a consequence of love or desire (erōs!)… Yet subsequently, I arrived at a will that was prior to even the highest love:
This, however, suggests that the love that’s in Malkuth/the Neophyte (supposing that this is the lowest sphere) is a love that does not result in exerting a will… And indeed, as I wrote in that same thread:
‘The reality of existence is “love” (eros! ), not will; but the abyss of love, of lack, must produce the delusion of substance, of Being, out of itself’.
This production of telea-eidea (end-forms or goal-ideas), however, is itself an instance of self-lightening!:
“The sleeper’s enchantment through Dionysian music now begins to emit sparks of imagery”. (The Birth of Tragedy, chapter 5.)
You don’t need God just fractal referred to astrology. I was dealing with iambiguous’ emblematic dishonesty and ignorance.
If you’ve read anything Ive said regarding VO, you’d realize I see valuing as the ground to all matter, and personal consciousness as a far advanced aggregate of it.
Consider the electrical values of electron and protons. We call them values, they attract each other due to these values. This literally means that they value each other.
Consider the automatic, instinctive valuing of oxygen and nutrients on which our being depends. These valuings don’t depend on our consciousness. They still exist when we are in coma.
Valuing, thus, doesn’t follow, but precedes and permeates human consciousness. Though the development of consciousness will here and there alter the path of valuing, exalt or debase it, often complicate it.
What are you even on about? The electrical charge in the clouds needs its opposite to discharge into and neutralize itself. Thats not my common sense, but elementary physics, fact.
And you ignored the other examples.
For the rest, I think what you describe is not love, but lust and wanting. I can accept that you don’t acknowledge the difference. But love as I understand it is not merely a desire to possess but to make-great, nurture, fulfill. Bring up to ones own level. Even just to admire, take joy in beauty without needing it. The bestowing virtue. E.g. a Buddha. Love is definitely not just aimed at what is higher. I would often intensely love a blade of grass or a few grains of sand. But then in a different way, I would also love Rome, and the temple to Zeus in Athens, which I experienced at least in part as higher than myself. That is, I saw the height of valuing that went into that temple as supreme, by earthly standards. I didn’t desire to possess either though, knowing that is impossible. I wrote a Dutch poem about Rome once ending with “My blood wants to stick to her”. I would’ve gladly died for Rome and risked my life for her twice.
I suspect you don’t know such valuing.
I.e. valuation is required to discharge. Sometimes they need to be created, but they are always required. No discharge without valuation.
A. Essence (value) precedes existence (action) and being.
B. Essence (value) precedes existence (action) as being.
C. There is no existence (action) without essence (value), no essence (value) without existence (action); there is no being without both existence (action), and essence (value), and no essence (value) without both being and existence (action).
Keep in mind:
essence is why (predicate) value
existence/action is how (verb) valuing
being is what (noun) - value-er
You are trying to value VO in your own terms, which is logical. I have to bend and become less clear to myself to accommodate you. My terms are the best. For me.
First of all, essence is existence. What, it doesn’t exist?
How do you account for the fact that we don’t always act in accordance with our value(s)? The way you are putting things, we can’t help but act in accordance with our value(s). If that were the case, we would never experience any sort of dissonance whatsoever.
Simple: contradicting values. Different valuings in the same body. The human is a polis of wills, as I think Nietzsche said. Virtue is a matter of forging the optimal hierarchy. Optimal to what end? The opposite of slavery, to begin with.
Ah, I see; so you didn’t mean “non-existence”, but something like "anti-existence.
Well yes, since ultimate reality is just reality, there’s no eternal identity nor an eternal lack of identity (except for the whole), but an eternity of transient identities (i.e., now some are nonexistent and now others are nonexistent).
I was the first to objectively utter a judgment, so now I’m the one who still believes in objective value judgments? Or didn’t you mean to suggest that you yourself were beyond that?..
No. You put strong effects before truth, like modern philosophy. I put truth before strong effects, like classical philosophy. And yes, the same thing pertains to modern philosophy (not the same lack, but that it has a fundamental flaw).
To your credit, or debit, though, I do think you believe that what produces a strong effect is true and what is true produces a strong effect…
No, you unbelievably persistent liar (but then what else could you do by now), Ive consistently shown the truthfulness of VO here. And it was born purely out of an absolute will to and need of truth.
While you were arranging your simplified models I was in the pure agon of philosophic labor for thirteen years.
Ive also repeatedly shown the untruthfulness of your model. And Ive shown your philosophic efforts to be escapism. Well, you have, I clarified. And you’ve admitted to their vanity.
You want the effect, the distinction. That is the very reason for your being you’ve given. What now has been exposed as your blatant, willful lying is all about the satisfaction of your pride. I wanted to share, and liberate. (I laughed in pure joy for a week after I had my insight, woke up laughing. Not that it didn’t make me proud, but that certainly wasn’t the goal.)
But sure, keep going. Keep distorting, blocking out, ignoring, and fidgeting.
That is sound advice. Given that we choose that one thing wisely.
I know by ‘other’ you mean to the extent that that other also holds self=other. But that is limiting the possibilities.
You mean Christ - but the most caring, most generous people Ive known were Communists, and atheists. They did not need Jesus for what you might call a self=other morality, it came forth from the fullness of their being.
"Jesus said: “I am not your teacher. For you have drunk, you have become intoxicated at the bubbling spring that I have measured out.”
(gospel of Thomas)
Ecmandu actually has a point saying that those who are kind without religious impetus are the best. In this kind of terms.