Brothers shall strive | and slaughter each other;
Own sisters’ children | shall sin together;
Ill days among men, | many a whoredom:
An axe-age, a sword-age, | shields shall be cloven;
A wind-age, a wolf-age, | ere the world totters.
Capable wrote:
I see the cause of the earth-rape as not globalism or globalization but simply the tragedy of the commons on a massive scale: this has happened before, check out the history of Easter Island, it’s pretty interesting. They completely wiped out their vegetative environment in order to build those massive statues, in some kind of obsession and ended up collapsing into starvation due to environmental ruin. It’s essentially the fact that in a society or situation/world of many different, individual self-valuings there is an inherent lack of values-overlap when it comes to the most abstractly shared, given spaces. Classic example is public grazing land, each farmer values not over-grazing the land for his own cattle due to wanting to preserve the space, but he knows the other farmers feel the same way, therefore he can squeeze out marginal extra value foe himself by secretly over-grazing or only slightly over-grazing; of course every other farmer thinks and does the very same thing, and the plot of land is consumed.
The reason I attribute earthrape to globalism is that globalism is driven by un-earthy motivations; it being beyond nationalism, which is fundamentally a love of the soil and physical values and qualities, of locality, which is the locus of self-valuing as a principle, it isnt able top be contained by earthly, earthy values. It simply has no impetus to stop destroying the world; it was never founded on, never made contact with earth. It is purely theoretical wealth, money-derivatives, coercion schemes, that drive globalism and anchor it in reality.
This is why I say it must be almost entirely reversed before it can be sanely implemented.
Quote :
I don’t see how self-valuing alone can address this problem. In this sense we must understand a self-valuing as a reflection of its society/history/culture/family. The ‘self’ of a self-valuing is not irreducibly complex nor is it given, nor is it immutable, nor is it a-historical.
I’d note that the principle itself is almost a-historical, that is to say a property of pure synthetic logic (where synthetic logic is still a historicity); but that indeed no manifestation of the principle is separate of its environment; of the substance that it assimilated into its ‘self’ (a term I dont take too heavily).
The principle helps in as far that no logical approach is possible without it. That it does not by itself unfold as an approach, that is what Ive been discovering the past years; what VO requires is that one becomes radically, ‘objectively’ subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it.
The perspective of power is the final objectivity. The whole of the world is shape-shifting every electronic instance and in different ways as seen from any perspective, more so as the perspective is more substantial.
Quote :
I absolutely do not want to undermine the notion of self-valuing but I do want to condition it to the actual, real causes that bring it into being, namely the language, ideas, experiences it is exposed to upon being born and growing into itself. And this gets to my positive vision of a possible globalism that is by, of and for individual human self-valuing while also providing the highest possible social construct at the planetary level capable of preventing tragedy of the commons type problems.
This conditioning to the actual is the aim. Has been the aim. As I said above, I have discovered, not without frustration, that the actual can only be conditioned (with philosophical consistency and ‘lastability’) by example.
We’ll actually have to demonstrate that our philosophy is superior. This is the only way to get it implemented into actuality. And that is what Ive been trying to sniff out the past years; the path to take.
After close to a year of conclave with Pezer I am quite close to having discerned where that path starts.
Quote :
Right now absolutely nothing can prevent tragedy of the commons problems. Current globalism has little to no interest in it, and absent a global capacity to act in concert self-valuings alone are incapable of preventing it either; it is in the nature of a self-valuing to try to squeeze out more marginal value where logically possible, this impulse must be rationally, moderately tempered by what we call society, “global” constructs and systems. To me it’s always about a balance between these, balance between individual and social and that balance always striving to become more accurate and ideal over time.
I disagree. I think it must be kept in check locally only. For several reasons; one of which is the important factor that at no point in history has globalism leaned to being successful in reducing misery. The main reason though is pure self-valuing logic; I would never take orders from a global state, Id much rather die. That is the glory of humanity; we arent tied to our survival to uphold our values. The idea of fighting to the death against the globalist machine is pure joy. It is fighting for everything I love in a very direct way; I love animals, I love plants, I love molecules, I love humans. All of which grow, orient, live, love and die locally.
nobody cares about that shit man. we want dwayne and billy-bob. bring back dwayne and billy-bob and put your diary away.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KkMIIFCZv4[/youtube]
Nobody cares what you want, you old retard.
But thanks for adding to the sob story.
Anyway the videos are available on the account.
Yeah thanks for the response old man.
Good things happened.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXA_X7g9-3I[/youtube]
All of this helped me drop out of the shit giving business.
Its gonna be a fun ride, these coming years.
Andronicus of Rhodes was the eleventh scholarch of the peripatetic school. He taught in Rome around the time of Gaius Julius Caesars birth, and though it is not clear what he was teaching, we know he was teaching it to Boethus of Sidon so it must have concerned the nature of the soul and Aristotelean categories, and indeed Andronicus is most famous for producing the first more or less reliable edition of the Aristotle’s works. This text was however not considered exactly authoritative, and a lot of speculation has been going on about who edited what and Aristotle’s texts remained fluid up to the end of the second century of the common era.
That ol’ billy-bob. He’s quite the gunslinger iddin’t he?
Oh you don’t know the halfs of it.
Back to reality
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhpxlKWvsMY[/youtube]
“[ I derive more pleasure from growing a patch of leeks than I do from buying a sports car. Many other people will think this is rube-ish, or simplistic. That’s okay, or whatever happens happens. If the atomic war, or Kali Yuga, or whatever happens, or doomsday, or any of these other things come while I’m alive, or whatever happens happens, I can still do what I want to do, unfettered. I’ll be able to do it even more, because all of my neighbors will probably be killed over from radiation poisoning or something. I’ll have their land, too; I’ll just grow leeks everywhere. You’re fucked. What does that say about your hobby? You’re gonna be miserable. You’re gonna come, you’re gonna want leeks because now you’re starving. I’m not gonna give you any fuckin’ leeks. I’m gonna give you a baseball bat in the back of the head, then you’ll keel over, and then I’ll eat you too.] TRANSCRIPTED [I derive more leeks from leeking a patch of leeks than I do from buying a leekcar. Many other people will think this is leek-ish, or leeksistic. That’s okay, or whatever happens happens. If the leekwar, or Kali Leeka, or whatever happens, or leeksday, or any of these other things come while I’m alive, or whatever happens happens, I can still do what I want to do, unfettered. I’ll be able to leek it even more, because all of my neighbors will probably be leeked over from leek poisoning or something. I’ll have their leeks, too; I’ll just grow leeks everywhere. You’re leeked. What does that say about your leeks? You’re gonna be miserable. You’re gonna come, you’re gonna want leeks because now you’re starving. I’m not gonna give you any fuckin’ leeks. I’m gonna give you a leekbat to the back of the leeks, then you’ll leek over, and then I’ll eat you too.] LEEKS-IFIED”
alright just checking…
[size=85]SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Title: The Presence of Sulphur in the Sun
Authors: Moore, C. E. & Babcock, H. D.
Journal: Astrophysical Journal, vol. 79, p.492
Bibliographic Code: 1934ApJ…79…492M[/size]
Alright reposting this
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rp-g014xqM[/youtube]
I was glad to receive a comment to this which confirms what I felt when I recently dug up this video. This is one of my least diluted self-reflections.
"There are several levels of paradox. The shallowest level, aleph-one, exists where words contradict themselves. One meaning is juxtaposed with a contradictory one. Such paradoxes can be articulated, such as in “This sentence is lying.” The deepest level, aleph-null, exists where language contradicts itself. Here the possibility of meaning itself is cast into doubt. (This very formulation assumes that which it denies, for to speak of doubt is to assume that there is certainty.) Such paradoxes cannot be articulated, for a successful articulation would require the destruction of meaning itself. Derrida cannot of course articulate a paradox of type aleph-null, so he does the next best thing: he writes under erasure. To write under erasure is to write a word and cross it out, but to let both the word and the deletion stand.
Derrida borrows this practice from its originator Heidegger, who critiques the word “Being” because simply to say the word presupposes that anything can be. This is precisely the pressuposition Heidegger wishes to examine, but it is very difficult to question the possibility of being in a language which exists because it assumes the possibility. Heidegger therefore writes the word as [.]. This allows him to point, metaphorically, to the fact that he cannot help but use the word in the very process of questioning its meaning.
Heidegger’s use of the technique suggests that Being does exist and can somehow be apprehended through philosophy (the same hope articulated by Plato and, for that matter, by Hilbert, Norris and Whitehead.) Derrida assumes no such thing. He goes Heidegger one better, so to speak, by arguing that all language is written “under erasure.” Language exists only because there is a paradox at the very place where language comes into being. In other words, there is an aleph-null paradox at the origin of language.
I suggest that the lethal text articulates an aleph-null paradox. Naturally, this text can only be written in a language which does not have the limitations of human language. Lethal texts have to be written in a transcendental language. Such languages cannot be translated into human ones, and those who read them cannot possibly convey what they have learned. Gayatri Spivak suggests that Heidegger “makes it clear that Being cannot be contained by, is always prior to, indeed transcends signification. It is therefore a situation where the signified commands, and yet is free of, all signifiers–a recognizably theological situation” (xvi). It is also a recognizably Platonic situation. To escape from the cave into the light is a metaphor for escaping into a world not bound by human language.
Macroscope suggests that its destroyer signal is simply a text which teaches its readers how to read the transcendental language in which it itself is written. It is a primer in transcendental language. Therefore, it is not what it says that is devastating, but rather how it says it. Its mere existence critiques human language and make the paradoxes that underlie it unbearable.
It is important that the destroyer signal is simply a text about itself, in such a way that to read it is to instantly experience what it describes. In describing transcendental language, it carries its readers into a transcendental realm. It is a text in which the USE-MENTION distinction, normally tanglable and tangled, becomes irrelevant. To mention it is to use it. The nam-shub described in Mesopotamian myth, and excavated in Snow Crash, is self-reflexive in exactly this way. It is a story about the destruction of language, which, when heard, destroys the language of its hearers." - Web
lol. wittgenstein’s ‘whereof we cannot speak, therefore we must be silent’ remark has a mystical feel that has unfortunately encouraged philosophers to plunge even further into nonsense with the hope that they might be able to capture the inexpressible by language. but today analytical and linguistic philosophers have provided sufficient explanation for how all this takes place… especially in/with philosophical language. for example you could use Reddy’s concept of the ‘conduit metaphor’ to describe a yuge range of mechanisms in grammar and syntax (as metalanguage structures) responsible for allowing apparant ‘sense’ to emerge from philosophical language. heidegger and plato are perfect examples of what can happen because of this. certain kinds of inexpressible senses push and shove against each other trying to simultaneously break the rules of grammar and reveal sense beyond it, while also employing those very rules through their existence. but this is no paradox. it only seems so. if the limits of your world are the limits of your language, you’d not be able to get beyond your language to discover where it stops and becomes incapable of mirroring facts about the world. rather, you create immense confusions and nonsensical expressions from within your language through this pushing and shoving… through forced intersections where language games meet and seem to work formally together because of family resemblences between the words they use. the resulting ‘mystical feeling’ the philosopher gets is caused by an antagonism created between the metalinguistic structures that govern sensible speech and the newly generated (non)senses that originate though the use of the conduit metaphors (for instance). one side of the philosopher says ‘i don’t know wtf i just said, it doesn’t make any sense’, while the the other side says ‘but wait a minute… my statement conforms to the rules of grammar, so i can totally say that.’
the mystical is the very edge of sense, you might say. and the esoteric is a deliberate crossing over that edge in a kind of flight of fancy (sending language on vacation). certainly no deductive truths can be established esoterically, and inductive reasonings drawn from inferences are merely supported by more of the same (supporting arguments). being that philosophy - with the exception of the analytical disciplines - is a specialized kind of this esoteric language, it does no real work. what separates it from poetry is that it’s use of conduit metaphors isn’t as explicit, so it appears to walk like a formal language. in the end all it is is a negligent freeplay taking place inside the limits of language but pressing against the edges of its rules in an effort to get beyond them. basically a luxury for poets who have no real work to do. i was like this in my twenties and early thirties, so i know. and let me tell you, my recovery was a long and arduous.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tBqKX1vZfM[/youtube]
A small metaphor would have to suffice to explain our… misunderstanding.
For you, the language is the ocean and meaning the beach, for me the meaning is the ocean and language the beach.
“for me the meaning is the ocean and language the beach.”
Correct, and although I’ve been offering for years, you still won’t lemme take you to the beach so you can see what that language is really like.
Wait wait wait.
Did you just say “correct”?