So, what was Nietszche’s thunderstorm[s] based on and what was it which brought about his Will to Power philosophy? What did they derive from?
Nietzsche is what happens when you introduce a schopenhauerean to spinoza.
For all;
The valuing potential is the thing that establishes the being.
It is the only thing carrying the logic that can sustain permanence and relations, dead or alive. A particle must ‘selfvalue’ to not dissolve instantly.
Rather than what Zoot says, it would be Leibniz monalogy infused with Nietzschean phenomenology : to arrive at ab ‘actualist model’ to coin a phrase.
It is rather a minimizing than a +1.
It does away with the notion of existence as ‘just given’ and leaves only that which could theoretically stand out against non existence, and on the other end shows what for us as humans is our real activity, our own intological consistency.
Basically I first had to go through a process of many years of unlearning to think that our word ‘being’ actually means anything. It does not inficate what happens in my perceptions at all, nkr has any scientist been able to makexthe remotest semblance of sense of its nature and origins.
I think thats something most here still have to realize. In physics, being is precisely not ‘given’.
“What would it mean if it was pointung to something actually semantically (not to mention logically) identifiable?” I asked. I found virtually the whole of semantic hierarchies has to be overthrown for that.
Note again that vo or selfvaluing logic uses the term valuing, the verb, the appropriating activity, and has it ontically collapses into ‘selfvaluing’ as feedback looping conditions result in permanance, matter, spacetime, Relativity.
At most we can say that being is not not-existing, which if we think of not-existing (or dying) as something that needs to be resisted (this is a correct way of looking at it) then this basic definition of being as (not not-existing) already necessarily includes any kind of active resistance to not-existing. Hence, self-valuing.
Wittgenstein’s questioning of the unquestioned assumptions we make unknowing use of in language reminds me of how you are questioning the unquestioned assumption that being is something given. It makes neither of you radical doubters or cynics, in fact it makes you possible to go deeper than other have gone because in terms of structure the questions are more intense. An intense question cannot be judged by the answers we may come up with in response to the question, or even by the fact that we have or do not have answers to it. This is Wittgenstein’s #1 point and he is right about this.
so i sort of got it right ay? nay?
should i do a head stand anyway, just in case?
jakob, does vo account for anti-matter?
particles with negative… valuing… potential?
Now that’s an interesting take, but I’d think N’s denial of the soul atomism and monadology (he explicitly says this) places his concept of power more along the lines of an spinozean immanence of effects; that which has an effect (or affection, for spinoza) is what we understand as a force of power…although, and this is of critical importance, our understanding of this is always inadequate. That is to say that what we perceive as power is not power itself, but power’s effect on the body, of which we have only partial or confused ideas of.
A monadology is really only a kind of atomistic materialism that places powers in ‘centers’ or units. For Spinz, power isn’t a ‘thing’, but an increase in the capacity to act. Take a fundamental particle (now that you and P are on particles). The particle isn’t a center of power, but has a degree of power according to its conatus or it’s vital force to resist the modifications that result from its interactions with other particles.
But at the same time, the particle is also a single unit in a larger body of effects, so its capacity to act then changes from self preservation to a participation in being a part of a larger body. This transformation is what we observe as ‘change’ or ‘becoming’, but there is no fundamental change in the body as a whole (see Parmenides’ logic and N’s ER). A ‘body’ (our universe) can be understood as an assembly of effects, each individual part involved in both resisting modification and causing modification.
Shit, it’s raining…gotta roll my windows up.
isn’t vo seen this way sorta lil bit like james’ ao?
like infinitesimal unmeasurable affectances condensing into one another to form measurable units
so, like infinitesimal selfvaluing potentials condensing and increasing their hold on themselves, bringing themselves to a measurable selfvaluing unit
and i guess whatever has no selfvaluing property never comes into existence
eh?
…
head stand
Accumulation and maintenance are not the only forms of self-valuing; destruction, pushing away, negative energy, etc are self-valuing; excluding certain forms from one’s telos. Discrimination is a valuing.
JSS,
All is force upon force.
There is a plethora of self-valuing systems all acting upon each other, superior one’s appropriating inferior ones.
The droplet is not destroyed; it actually expanded itself by becoming subsumed within a larger system.
“I and my Father are one.”
(John 10:30)
Even if some things morbidly seek out their own oblivion, that doesn’t refute VO. From honest observation of the natural world and cosmos, the majority of things do not act in such a way.
A human, who desires to commit suicide, initially was of the opposite mind-set; certain subsequent circumstances brought about a morbid mentality, an inversion/degeneration of self-valuing.
But self-valuing is primary, and even in the case of the suicidal human, there are innumerable other self-valuing entities which make up that person and they can have competing drives.
Exactly. Nice way of phrasing it. Except the Bible does not apply; there is no Father. No whole. That would be impossible to assemble in coherent terms. There is no “universal love”. There is a love of Pan instead. Not everyone is permitted to this love, so it is not a universal thing.
To draw it more into the cosmological sphere; dark matter and dark energy are forms of self-valuing that do not register in the terms we have set for ‘being’. These terms have proven to be horribly insufficient, since by far most of what is estimated to exist does not comply with them. Physics, since the 20th century, is become a bunch of superficial quackery, really - it has no logic at its root.
In particle- and astrophysical sphere;
When an animal is making an effort to stay together, stay itself in the face of lets say general odds, we say it values its existence. We do not need it to speak to us the words ‘I value existing’. It is demonstrating what we mean by that word in very acute terms.
This is what an atom does. It uses literally all the force it had available to it to resist being broken up. So complete is its self exertion to this end that we can not even distinguish its being from that exertion.
Being is this the effort to stay in being. It requires selection of ‘affectance’ (thus affectance is no first term of logic but a derivative) to the (evolutionary, non-teleological) end or rather selecting result of self-selection. Physical being is force and the primal force is the nuclear, ‘monadological’ force.
However as complex as the interactions may become, all stable beings behave still precisely in the same essential way. We humans call this activity our values, tastes and instincts depending on the level we discuss. We discuss all levels at once, as they obey the same logic and are only fully understandable in a full explication of all the terms, which includes conflicts of terms as positive elements.
So selfvaluing is the way in which potential existence responds to the impossibility of non existence. Maximally, self-sufficiently.
From thereon you can see, if all beings flux and all being is selfvaluing, that being is vortexing around self-valuing, and even time may be oriented on a self-valuing process; it may be that certain events in our lives, even ones that have not occurred yet, serve as the self-valuing terms in which our life is basically constructed from the ground of experience up to the summit of self-hood; It may even go so far as that there is a literal pull from the future (a kind of selfvalue-attractor that projects values to grow toward, often in the form of enemies to engage), because the permutations of possibility are part of our ontological makeup as entities; our deepest known values may reflect a future state that ‘wants to happen’. Organic things are always bound to something; religions mimic this by trying to make the mind existential by placing it in time with respect to an inevitability; re-ligion, re-bind; to tie to an end, to make being bound-to, the totem as a future, I suppose; demanding sacrifice to hallow the dance of the present around it; the present as the circumference of the future…
Atomic nuclear force can thus be seen as a collapsed futurality of a tendency; a selfvaluing tendency that selvalues in such massively other-inclusive terms, that its potential to continue doing what it does is in no proportion to the force it exerts in any moment in time. This gets me a bit closer to explicating precisely why e=mc^2; because “e” represents as a force quantum all the future resistance implied by the atomic-being-amidst-atomic-beings of “m”. So “c^2” as an axial explication of the maximum rate of propagation of force must represent the limit of duration within the frame of that which is presently existing, which would be tied up into instantaneousness (‘logic in itself’, the self-referent ontos, future and past collapsed into potential and its ever current, ever shifting face) by spin, sub-physical value-coherence of electrophysical fields. Of course the potential keeps updating as it gives off resistance to its environment precisely enough for it to be fed what it needs. Compare how in the value exchange between humans and trees, waste is turned to nutrients.
Wonderful. So then what is the most important one… the one that makes it all happen. That organization which allows an intelligence to emerge and make this very observation itself. We can’t know if what you say is true if we do not exist to think about it, and if we wanted to think about it we would want to make sure we could exist to do so. This is an antropic topic but a bit myopic… so far. So I will give you all a hint. Behind every great philosopher there is an economist.
If you can’t design a life form that can sustain itself at least 800,000 years, you’re an amateur. What the fuck does this have to do with anything? How did I get here from Erik’s post?
Because a digression into a language game is unavoidable it is okay to use the word ‘whole’, Friedrich and Cross, and have in your mind a model of black space with little points of light spread through it when you think the word ‘whole’ in this context.
But then I ask you to think of the nature of the word and what it has meant in any other use; you cannot get away from conceiving of that word without having a picture of one of its uses in your mind. And yet everyone of its uses is insufficent to define what is meant when a philosopher tries to express the idea of ‘anything and everything that exists’.
You are thinking whole pieces of pie, a whole lotta love, the whole thing went south, and so on. When a philosopher uses the word he should mean something else. He should mean the totality of all space, object, motion and process.
Yes, Jakob the Fixed Cross, there is indeed a whole, and we are that which stands beneath. Now don’t get all religious on me because that’s not what is meant here. I mean there is a necessity to what exists, and it exists eternally, and it can never not exist, and so long as it exists, it will always do the same thing it had once done, eventually.
The metaphor of the ouroboros is sufficient, and yet I had once heard that it never gets its tail. To that the obvious answer is, you can’t live twice at the same time. Duh.
Zoot - beginnings and ends are part of existence. It can not have begun. It can only have a root, which we have to describe in terms of logic, or poetry, or sex, or murder, or kingdom - truth.
Other terms yet; manifestation is kind of an excess required to keep potential stable so as not to negate itself, the excess of the logic caused by potential-as-such, which is given in turn finally by the self-evident truth ‘nothing does not exist’.
There is a Greek philosopher before Socrates who said this in elegant terms about the good. By his proof that everything is good, he proved also that existence must exist.
Perhaps this is the simplest way of explaining what philosophy is; the pain caused by the inability of language - or rather grammar - to address necessity; by this inability it turns man into a questioning. I defy this questioning by an assertion, namely of anger - when someone explicitly separates his or anyones valuing from the moral ground. I can not talk to certain people for that reason; some thinkers make it a point to demonstrate themselves as separate from equations - but rather than thinkers these are errers, errorrings, ‘existential errors’ in their own terms; but in self valuing logics terms, they are simple beings embedded in a context that provies food for error and no resistance to its particular kind. Mercy, which has a limit called severity, or Caesar, who has a limit called Caesar.
That was a very good way to put it. I once had the idea that something along the lines of Plato’s theory of recollection working with N’s ER, and that language is where we ‘reappear’ at each repetition. Through attrition the recollection of understanding this process is forced into language… we are the language… our knowledge of the body is not had without it. A Spinozean attribute dualism would fit nicely here; mind and body as causally separated but part of the same substance, and a dash of ‘there is nothing outside of the text- Derrida’ would work well with this crack theory I never developed. But the pain… the pain is the birthing of the language-less knowledge of the ER trying to be made clear through the language.
How does one get out of the trap of only being able to think, and therefore know, with language. Rhetorical question. Nobody can answer that so I won’t put you on the spot.
Gobbo from ILO once posted a link to some freaky shit one time about only language existing as a kind of cosmic code making machine or some such thing. Forget what the hell it was but when I read it I was momentarily bamboozled. That was years ago though. My pre knowledge-of-the-language-game days.
Gobbo was into some deep ‘truthing’, he made sense at least 1/3 of the time and that was scary enough.
In a sense the directs way of the kind to address it’s ‘actual’ situation, whatever that means; it includes the whole futurity, that’s what it means.
On he condition of accepting that ‘code’ is what it is only to a ‘code-reader’, it might very well be the final product of cosmogenetic reverse engineering. But I would venture that any such thug as a primordial code is simile to a primordial soup; all kins of incomplete signs, shards that by themselves do not ‘mean’ any ‘thing’ and vanish or change as the gaze changes. Like the fluids on the eye. But represent the possibility of representation, the stuff of suggestion, which is closely related to tendency, which I think is the final notion of physics; I thin that the Higgs Boson is merely a tendency of the other sub-particles to cohere under such and such circumstances. Like Nietzsche’s higher man; you can’t put him together directly, you have to create circumstances where it would make sense for him to appear.
Anyway that repetition is central to my philosophy as well - the ER in the sense of a pattern, a meaning appropriating text as meaning like a ‘snowball’ in Bergson’s sense. So it’s not the repetition of the same, but of a little bit more every time. This is why I want to … ‘cause’ festivals, naturally emergent ones like Heideggerian epochs of truth (every festival aspires to be that), and why I find it brilliant that the orbit of the planet Jupiter gives us a point of conjunction with the Sun every 13 months, when we’re on the same axis. Well two points as Lyssa notes. The idea is to cause events that get more involved every ‘year’, which has it run in 12 years through all the months, cover a year^2 as it were, it’s cool that Jupiter offers that. Old Gobbo… he’d dig it.