The Philosophers

[iambiguous]

@Jakob

It seems like it’s just two different ways of looking at the same thing; no moral limits and Sheer Possibility.
But they’re not, as the negation of something is not its absence. Obviously, for something to be negated it has to be there, at least in spirit.
Sheer Possibility does not amount in the absence of moral limits, indeed moral limits belong to the possibilities offered by Sheer Possibility.

We’ll need a context of course.

[Fixed_Cross]

@Mitra Sauwelios

[…] This “self-valuing logic” is actually an elaboration, and pretty much the perfection, of the non-political dimension of Nietzsche’s teaching (“Zarathustra’s night-wisdom”); it’s also knowns as Value Ontology. It was first conceived by my best friend […]. I think I’ve added to it, though, especially with my conception of what I call “spacelight”. I’ll link you to my forum thread on it, but be warned that it’s marred by abstraction and some parts of it are just plain wrong: pathos-of-distance.forumotion.com/f7-science
Since then, I’ve made quite some progress. For one thing, I wrote this draft:
“[N]ature is ultimately just custom—unless it be nature as a whole, perhaps—the universe and what precedes and succeeds it. I tried to focus my trip on spacelight, on that whole or hole, but ‘Mother Ayahuasca’ bade me leave such mysteries—mysteries, and focus on more ‘concrete’ matters (as she’d been bidding me on weed, but less clearly). This then gave me an overview, not only of dark matter and dark energy (vacuum energy!), but also of modern history. Every wave of progressivism will always have a strong future body of conservatism attached to it. This is the nature of nature, the way space and its losses work. But I’ve started to ramble.
The point is that every realm, every kingdom, has its boundaries and its tolls, but the modern prince Machiavelli has been taking excessive toll for too long now (and ‘Nothing’ is really beyond its [i.e., his kingdom’s] boundaries). Progressivism or, in popular parlance, the ‘Left’ is ultimately as morally bankrupt as the liberal conservatism of the ‘Right’[.]”
That’s where that draft ended, without even the last period. As you can see, I’ve been tending away from First Philosophy [the non-political dimension of philosophy, metaphysics/cosmology] and toward political philosophy. This is my day wisdom. Leo Strauss originally ended his “Restatement on Xenophon’s Hiero” lambasting Heidegger:
“[W]e [Alexandre Kojève and Strauss] both apparently turned away from Being to Tyranny because we have seen that those who lacked the courage to face the issue of Tyranny, who therefore et humiliter serviebant et superbe dominabantur [“themselves obsequiously subservient while arrogantly lording it over others”—Heidegger was a Nazi] were forced to evade the issue of Being as well, precisely because they did nothing but talk of Being.” archive.org/stream/LeoStrauss-R … o_djvu.txt
I must face present day tyranny, but I cannot do it alone—and no, even my best friend won’t do. I need what David Keirsey, in his work on personality types, has called a mindmate. By the way, I personally find much good in Heidegger as well. In fact, it was in great part he who made me see space is mind, and mind is space… Spacemind, then. I only just thought of that now!

pathos-of-distance.forumotion.c … continuing

[Fixed_Cross]

ありがとう

Note that I thought of this post while doing my daily Holosync and vaping weed. The writing was done increasingly less high and more stoned. It may be a case of mihi ipsi scripsi in retrospect: I think it reads like rambling, raving even. Still, the ideas in there are at least more sound than the style may let on. I may clarify/expand on them here in the future.

::

Barl the Bald wrote:
Where there is no spacelight, there are objects–and on the subatomic level within the objects, there is spacelight. And what is not spacelight about the objects is spacelight that has lit, and is therefore neither space nor light, but now spinning/particles. “Inert” light.

Of course, I don’t use the word “object” lightly (no pun intended). An object is supposedly something about which the question “what’s it like to be that thing” is meaningless. I therefore assert we can ultimately make no sense of things like that, since we, ourselves, are things it’s something like to be.

But, one may interrupt, didn’t you basically contrast objects with spacelight? So doesn’t that mean space/light is not a subject in this sense? Well, perhaps! Perhaps spacelight is not a subject–which I understand as a self-valuing, of course.

If I may assert (myself) a bit: spacelight can perhaps be understood as a self-valuing, but space itself (i.e., space as an empty concept separated from time, which latter is also empty if separated from space) is mere valuing, without self-reflection yet.

The last paragraph may be disregarded. I will assert baldly now: spacetime, the universe, the Big Bang, the White Hole, is a Deigning to be valued. It is a taking that’s at the same time a giving, of itself completely. Giving to what, then? Well, to itself, for it’s the taking that is the giving. Same for the taking…

The Big Bang is a movement in all dimensions which is thereby not just one movement but also dual (not to mention triple and more yet), for it’s then a movement in all opposite dimensions. And the two, its simplest self-division, cannot be equal, for then it wouldn’t be two different sides. The ever so slightly hotter parts of the Big Bang became star clusters, the less hot ones the space between them.

But wait, this means the hotter parts became the light sources while the less hot ones became the light–namely, the space, the spacelight. However that may be, let’s look at a single lightsource, or the White Hole as a whole, or any such Deigning. So long as it’s not impeded by something else, it radiates outward in all directions. This occurs in waves–one may think of when one drops a stone in water and looks at it from straight above (this makes it two-dimensional, for now). What I’m saying is that quantum entanglement means that two opposite wave/particles of that wave, or two opposite “cones” within that wave (and one completely round wave can be thought of as one or multiple wave-cones whose angle is 360 degrees (or more))–that two opposite wave-cones are to be thought of as a single round wave: when one of the cones is impeded by something–say, a stone breaking the water surface–, this “something” causes a return wave which affects the whole original wave, but in the opposite direction of that wave-cone.

Now the Deigning I spoke of is an allowing for this to happen. It is a condescending from–what, nothingness? to have one’s valuing, the valuing that one is, be valued by another valuing and thereby only be able to be(come) a self-valuing. It is a dishonoring of oneself, from the self-sufficiency of nothingness (…)–it is a loving. In loving however one honours and dishonors oneself and the other(s) at the same time. (I write “dishonor” the American way so as to honour Dishonored 2, and the series as a whole!) One honours the other with one’s stooping, one’s kneeling. Love is simply when this is intended/hoped to be, or when it actually is, mutual. I call this Honour of Love.

Fixed Cross has said–and I quote or paraphrase from heart only–that he’s never distinguished between mind (geest) and heart. I would now like to say: Yes, and this means heart-mind and mind-heart are one. VO is indeed the teaching that does not take itself, or its student/teacher, out of the equation. As such, it’s a revelation.

[polishyouthgotipbann (polishyouthgotipbanned)]

Spook, get back to the thread and show me historical evidence for your smears, you goofy guru twat.

[Fixed_Cross]

@polishyouthgotipbanned

Spook, get back to the thread and show me historical evidence for your smears, you goofy guru twat.

Um what?

Oh you mean your religion.

The fact that youre actually hurt and troubled proves its a false religion.

[Fixed_Cross]

" There can be no covenants between men and lions, wolves and lambs can never be of one mind, but hate each other out and out an through. "

• Achilles

[polishyouthgotipbann (polishyouthgotipbanned)]

Are you the predator or the prey? Who do you identify with? I identify as a homosexual ant with wings and act accordingly… TA-TA

[promethean75]

That’s an illogical impossibility. Only female ants have wings, and in order for winged female ants to exist, they must mate with the opposite sex. Ergo; winged ants can’t be homos.

There is one exception: a winged female ant chooses to become homosexual at some point in her life for whatever reason. Maybe personal problems or lack of success socializing with males.

[Fixed_Cross]

Well spoken, mr scientist.
Also Id like to add, from a new age hippy grass smoking libertine perspective that,
In humans the homosexual tendency often arises when Moon aspects Uranus.

We we can be pretty sure your moon doesnt aspect your uranus. Nor mr Reasonable’s.

alright lets have it

[perpetualburn]

.

[Fixed_Cross]

@perpetualburn

.

What is “it”…?

You mean this The Philosophers thing?

[perpetualburn]

@Fixed Cross

@perpetualburn

.

What is “it”…?

You mean this The Philosophers thing?

No, just a play on the “How it started/How it’s going” meme… “it” would just be life in general for more philosophical types (thus Valhalla Rising )… I’m sure that even a young, precocious Nietzsche couldn’t foresee how serious the play would get when he was a child.

[Fixed_Cross]

I agree extremely.

[Fixed_Cross]

soundcloud.com/taurusvision/my-posse
soundcloud.com/taurusvision/insane

[Fixed_Cross]

A bit of a stream of consciousness after smoking a joint. Interesting thoughts about the differences between Deities that hold similar positions in different pantheons, on the relation of jokes to the occult, and more.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmAG1IUEWk[/youtube]

[Fixed_Cross]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWB4pdjNoFA[/youtube]

[encode_decode]

@Fixed Cross

A bit of a stream of consciousness after smoking a joint. Interesting thoughts about the differences between Deities that hold similar positions in different pantheons, on the relation of jokes to the occult, and more.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHmAG1IUEWk[/youtube]

Enjoyed watching this - love the laughing at the end.

You had me laughing.

[Fixed_Cross]

You are amazing for watching that whole video +10000 FCcoins.

[origami]

What is the kit of the endeavour, the cause or the individual?

The previous age held the cause. Of course, many individuals profited, but from the cause.

Eventually, the individual became the cause.

What this did, in effect, is create the conditions for the individual.

Much destruction was required. Much that was precious and we would have wanted to keep was destroyed.

And now we have no assurances.

But the age is ours.

And we never asked God for a victory.

We only asked him for a sword.

Catch ya later gangsta, good luck in your endeavours.

[Fixed_Cross]

Random;

voca.ro/1iLKnrkkcyU7
vocaroo.com/12SeN1X1uhy4
youtu.be/agUCnSzrDhg
youtu.be/o7b6VEZZfQA
youtu.be/GSIBW81ueFM
youtu.be/3cwAAL-9KDA