Continuity manifests as change. Contradictions manifest as divergence in models of reality, as increase in possibilities, as uncertainty. The individual resists this increase in possibilities and strives for a parallel model of reality (not too open/divergent, not too closed/convergent.) This divergence is rhythmic, not flat/static. When the individual reacts to it without rhythm, by overreacting, this leads to models of realities which are too convergent (too closed, too certain.) These models then lead to stronger divergence to which the individual reacts with even stronger convergence . . . and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
Magnus Anderson,
There IS another state, I affirm, which does NOT include ~~ endurance, hoping, clinging or deliberately reinventing yourself…
it’s called amor fati where you EMBRACE WHAT IS and at some point, through no forcing or analyzing or inventing, but just through conscious awareness and flowing like a river ( 
yes, I know I love that term) you come TO BE and to say to yourself I AM…THIS…for the present moment - after all, that’s all we have.
I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer
Something so awesome about the above …perhaps this is what a leaf senses as it detaches from the tree in autumn. O/K of course.
You imply some kind of “immaculate perception” of reality. Reality reveals itself to you as it is, never totally, but ever more, and you adapt your models of it to this ever more complete revelation. I for one have no personal experience of such revelation; if I ever felt that way, that was still my interpretation of experiences and not necessarily the experiences themselves. It is therefore less far-fetched for me to suppose that all other views of the world are also interpretations than to suppose that some or all of them are something else–something of which, if I think it through, I must acknowledge I have no conception whatsoever. As I’ve said in my “Why I’m not a feminist” thread, I think people who claim such revelation are probably madmen or liars or both.
By the way, note that I wrote “less far-fetched”. It’s still somewhat far-fetched for me to suppose that myself and my world are more than a dream whose dreamer is himself part of the dream: solosomniism, as I call it. But that is my most fundamental will: I want to believe–not necessarily in theory, but in practice–in myself and a world I share with other beings: my supreme value, (the preservation of) the struggle called consciousness, demands it; my most terrifying experience (and fear is the feeling of a lack of power) was the feeling of losing my mind–when I had, as a thought experiment, convinced myself of solipsism. Think of it what you will. I contend that there is no revelation, only interpretation, imposition of the will, of one’s values.
I want to elaborate on this. Originally, I had written “solosomniism” instead of “solipsism”. But my “God is mad” experience, as I call it, was in the Spring of 2005, whereas my discovery of Neumann was in the Summer of 2006. It was solipsism, not solosomniism, that terrified me. This is because in solosomniism, other beings are no less real than myself–be it only because I am no more real than they are… In solosomniism, I, the subject, am not all, so the putting forward of objects is possible (compare “The Fundamental Certainty of Being” by Nietzsche; pure flux is indeed an additional way to think of the quite likely abyss at the source of “being(s) rather than nothing”: that is, in addition to the ones I already mentioned above, infinity, nothing, and a circularity–indeed pure flux would be an in-finity, no-thingness, contradiction). This is why Neumann can use the phrases “a dream whose dreamer is himself a dream” and “dreams whose dreamers are themselves dreams” interchangeably; beings “exist” (appear) inasmuch as they dream up themselves, or are dreamt up by anything else or by “nothing”.
[size=95]“‘It’s a dream! I want to keep dreaming it!’” (Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, chapter 1.)[/size]
…for those kinds of reductive experiences,(where the cosmological reduces to the ontological) there is Strindberg’s Madman’s defense, vis. “I dream, therefore exist”.
This may be an example of a kind of morphic relationships which develop within very discordant systems reduced to their minima, for the sake of elegant simplicity.
“Know Thyself” is a physiological, not an intellectual process. The intellectual is merely one of its aspects, the dominance of which, and confusion with, is a sign of self-exaggeration and self-denial. The purpose of “Know Thyself” is to make sure that one’s past is repeated in its totality and not selectively (which is what denial/exaggeration is.)
“Know Thyself” is self-control, or will controlling the body. The purpose of self-control (dynamic self-control, not to be confused with degenerate, desperate, self-referential, masochistic, excessively strict, Socratic, Callicles-hates-it static self-control that nowadays goes by the name “delayed gratification”) is to control the build-up and release of tension, to strive towards simultaneity in tension and release (otherwise known as “passion”), to make sure that no instinct is under-expressed (suppressed) or over-expressed (exaggerated.) Everything else is considered consequential, acquired not through self-exaggeration but through interaction with the world.
An organism: that is a set of energies. These energies can form a divergent system, where they separate from each other, each becoming more and more individual; a convergent system, where they move towards collision, becoming more and more uniform; or a parallel system, where they form a laser-like beam. The goal of self-control is to maintain organism’s energies in a parallel system. The universe acts upon organisms with rhythmic waves, diverging their energies in varying degrees, the rhythm of which is predicted by organisms so that they can tense with appropriate force and maintain their energies in the ideal parallel configuration. Divergence is sensed as release, pleasure, numbness and falling out of consciousness, and it is death. Convergence, on the other hand, is sensed as tension and pain, and it is life.
In nature, divergence is common and convergence is rare. This is why life/pain is valued over death/pleasure. In a very real sense, there is an excess of pleasure/relaxation in nature, forcing organisms to focus on tensing themselves. In such environments, release is given whereas tension is self-inflicted. Release precedes tension.
The transition from natural environments of danger to modern environments of comfort places a specific kind of stress on organisms. Being used to danger, our bodies expect harm. In modern systems, however, they receive comfort. Preparing for danger, our bodies tense but they never receive release. Divergence becomes rare whereas convergence becomes common. Tension is given whereas release is expected to be self-inflicted. Tension now precedes release. Death/pleasure being rare becomes more valuable than life/pain. If the conflict between the past (the expected) and the present (the given) is not sensed, if tension is not immediately released but is left to accumulate, an excess of tension/pain follows. People may yell at you and you may prepare for the fight but nothing will happen except for the increase in stress which is never released. Most will exaggerate by initiating fight which was never provoked, or they will simply deny their instinct. In either case, tension accumulates and one is forced to release it indirectly, through some sort of hedonism (drugs, sports, video games, gambling, work, etc.) Weak-willed people do not detect small changes in their physiology, such as sudden increase or decrease in tension, so they do not release until their tension reaches the limit of tolerance. Only then do they react, and not by trying to sense small changes to which they can react, but by reacting to an excess of tension with an excess of release. This is hedonism. One no longer resolves emotions within emotions, by facing them directly, but from the outside, from behind, from the side. This leads to the emergence of that narcissistic, self-absorbed, megalomaniac, hyper-positive, over-ambitious type who is “full” of himself, his “excess” and his “energies” that cannot help but “overflow”. His lack (of appropriate release) is mistaken for fullness simply because it builds up into unbearable tension that necessitates excessive release (which is then confused for power.) The individual becomes separated from reality, no longer reacting to real chaos, but to self-inflicted chaos that was created to deny real chaos. One no longer converges in response to some real divergence, but simply out of habit. And when trying to release the generated excess of tension, one does not do so properly.
This is a very interesting inquiry into the question of process vs praxis. It is for sure, that process is the alpha, of the whole sequence of the evolutionary project, but process has no knowledge of its goals, inasmuch as a sun flower does not realize why it is turning toward the sun to gain the energies it requires for subsequent growth. the flower, can only apprehend the meaning of knowledge, once it understands what evolutionary goals may be built into its own natural tendency to grow. it is both an intellectual and physiological process, inseparable at the beginning, hence at that stage, the question can not be asked. The question can only be asked retro-actively, once some of the goals have been reached.
This looking back for answers, is fraught with the problem of changing the qualitative aspects of change, and there are only hypotesis as to what the missing evolutionary steps may have been. We look at the ancients, then try to backward think through from modern times, the middle, dark ages, and what these qualities may have been.
Did the physiological conditions effect the intellectual steps our consciousness has taken throughout the millennia? Have the intellectual processes impacted physiology? Again, the answer is yes, therefore theremin not be clear distinctions made between the two processes, even retroactively. proactively, there are only records, the ones which have survived, fragments with which to piece together what the missing parts contained.
that is not to say, that there are no differences, but they are not logically exclusive or inclusive to either dismiss, or to totally identify the shared parts of a unified process. but there are mutually inclusive parts, and
And those are the parts which make possible continua, of a possibility of having been able to process the information. had not such knowledge, of selves become feasible, it may very well would have ended with a mega maniacal self absorption, whose only pre occupation would have been a hedonistic , uncontrolled death-pleasure. But the death is never communal, it is always a singular experience, therefore this pleasure/pain, can never be defined.
it is a hypothetical, because the difference can not be diluted in logical terms. they are not contradictory, yet they are different processes.
Positive conception of contradictions. Contradiction is a lack that has to be filled, a gap that has to be bridged. The universe itself is taken to be rough, non-linear, multiple, infinite, non-sensical, incomplete and contradictory. Any gentleness, linearity, singularity, finiteness, sense, completion and unity is taken to be a product of the will, of the gaps that have been filled (and only apparently so) by the organisms. Lack (chaos) is real, fullness (order) is illusion. This leads to endurance of contradictions, to flow through contradictions. This leads to models of reality that are parallel, not too open and not too closed, and to a sort of life that is not too dangerous and not too comfortable. This leads to a movement towards continual interactivity.
Negative conception of contradictions. Contradiction means incompatibility between two pieces of puzzle, so one of them has to be eradicated. This means denial. Contradiction not endured but fought. Lack not fulfilled but denied. The universe expected to be gentle, linear, singular, finite, sensical, complete and ordered. Chaos assumed to be an error, an exception, an evil, that has to be slapped with a hand out of existence. “The universe is fooling us!” “It’s just a prank!” Lack is falsified and then fulfilled, in reality deepened. Any incompleteness is despised because it reminds us of the depth of our own which we actively deny. “Do not remind us of who we are!” This leads to models of reality that are too closed/convergent (science) or too open/divergent (pseudo-science.) Scientists and pseudo-scientists aware of each other’s flaws but not of their own. Life either too comfortable or too dangerous. No longer interacting, but acting or reacting.
Reduction of interactivity to activity, a hatred of chaos. Models formed, tested, adapted in advance, through special activity, with or without rigour. In practice applied ready-made, without any will to adapt. Nietzsche calls it “will to system”. Scientists an example. Models adapted during “scientific activities”. Scientific observation. Scientific experiments. Both asymmetric. In practice applied with zero adaptation – the goal of science, in fact. If requiring adaptation, termed “incorrect”. The quest for “truth”, for absolute. Absolute not to be understood absolutely. Any movement away from the parallel model is to be considered a movement toward absolute.
Totally agreeable in a world of redundancy. but not so, in one of entropy. Why? because chaos becomes unmanageable, and we become like the Dutch boy, who has not enough fingers to plug all the newly emerging holes. it is as if, space time itself was thinning out, revealing these ever forming holes.
But, the good thing is, that thinning out, is also a process, a cosmic process, since we are about mid way between the Big Bang and the projected death of the Son. So no worries, the limit is not near, not by a long shot.
Resignation is a relative term, relative to the activity one resigns from. If one resigns from something harmful, we’re speaking of positive resignation; if one resigns from something beneficial, and thus, to something harmful, then we’re speaking of negative resignation. Positive resignation may be my #1, which is to say, endurance of crippled state with the hope of reinvention. Negative resignation, on the other hand, may be my #2, clinging to one’s older self, or my #3, reinventing oneself without paying the full price (if one is forcing oneself into resignation, like Buddhists do.)
You may be speaking of what Nietzsche calls “Russian fatalism”. He calls it “fatalism” but it is no fatalism at all. “Russian fatalism” is a resignation from one’s desire to deny one’s past, and so, it is a resignation to one’s past. A resignation from ressentiment, so to speak, and a resignation to “amor fati”. This is my #1.
The problem is that people generally assume tabula rasa and free-will. They assume that what they are and what they become is what they freely choose on their own. This is Christian megalomania, nihilistic hatred of chaos and addiction to control and order. Control-freaks, we call them.
People do not choose who they are and what they become in the way people generally think they do. What one is is already determined by one’s past which manifests itself in the present through reactions (instincts/habits/desires/etc.) What one will become, on the other hand, is determined by the interaction of the past with the the present. This interaction is moderated by self-control. Self-control makes sure that one does not disconnect from one’s past but builds on top of it bit by bit, towards completion (unity of one’s instincts.) The direction of this movement is determined both by the past AND by the present but NOT by the individual’s “free will”. Free will DISCONNECTS from one’s past, so it is HARMFUL.
Anyways, the reason I mention all of this is to make the following point clear: when one resigns as one does in “Russian fatalism” one does not stop changing. The body continues changing, towards completion, which in the case of our tiny little scenario means towards reinvention. The body appears to be inactive, but in reality, what the body is doing is harnessing one’s genetic heritage to deal with its broken state.
Two conceptions of will: one that resists change and one that creates change.
The former is dynamic, the latter is static. The former is Hellenic, the latter is Christian. The former works with instincts, the latter denies/exaggerates instincts.
Take any random act you can think of. Say jumping from a second floor. With enough willpower, it is possible for a human to do this with no other reason than because I randomly said so. However, this would not only harm him physically, but also mentally, because it would end up disconnecting him from his instincts. He would have to introduce an artificial need in his head, a need which he does not possess, which means a need with zero fuel, and since being a zero-fuel need he would have to fuel it, which is to say, exaggerate it, using his willpower alone (and not the power of other instincts.) This then creates a mental mess, an anarchy of the instincts where instincts are diverging from each other, tearing the psyche apart. This is masochism (Christian nihilism.)
Hedonism is kinda like that expect that instead of foreign needs one exaggerates (or intensifies) one’s own needs. The exaggeration is fueled and maintained by the existing state of the anarchy in the mind. One showers oneself with buckets of pleasure in order to cool down the fire one cannot tolerate . . .
“Russian fatalism” is the surrender to this fire, which is the past that has become too problematic in its total repetition (in its “eternal returning”.) Much easier to repeat it selectively, denying the parts which hurt the individual, and not only hurt, but also risk death . . .
Magnus, please tell us where, if anywhere, you think you have addressed this:
(Source: http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2534094#p2534094)
I like the “us” part.
It’s indicative of who you are, and what your purpose is.
The slave without a master is lost.
The woman needs a man to direct.
The beleeeber needs a God to back him up.
Nietzsche my ass.
Except maybe the one most needed, need in it’s self and for its’s self, the need to need, the need to be. That is an absolute where from no contest can be derived. What is a need in it’s purest expression, it is an excercise of the will to want some thing, rather then not. To be, or not to be that is the question.
When the non contradictory nature of Being and Nothingness is realized, then finally needs can finally be put to rest, without resorting to denial and agressive procurement of wants. The overcoming of it is not a want, it is a need grounded in the very highest ontology of Being.
http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2534094#p2534094
I had no idea what “immaculate perception” is, so I had to do a little Google search to inform myself.
Based on my tiny little research, “immaculate perception” is what I call selfless, or reactive, perception, the inverse of what I accuse you to be doing. It is a reduction of interactivity to reactivity. Other-valuing, to stick with your (or Fixed’s, or whoever’s) terminology. This is what scientists do during their scientific activities (e.g. scientific observation and scientific experiments.) They passively collect data which they then organize into scientific models which they then apply to non-scientific activities ready-made, without any desire to adapt, which is what selfish, or active, perception is. It is a reduction of interactivity to activity. Self-valuing, to stick with your terms.
Beyond active and reactive there is interactive, where chaos is not denied but accepted. Activity denies the other, reactivity denies the self. Interactivity, on the other hand, denies none and accepts both.
Our maps of reality are always static. This does not mean that reality itself is static, or that we should assume that reality is static even though it may be dynamic outside of our senses. This is because our senses do in fact perceive the fact that reality is dynamic (through change in the perceived), it’s just that our logic and our maps are easy to stay behind our senses. Our maps may not be able to represent the dynamic without resorting to the static, but the fact that they have to continually change/adapt means that reality is indeed dynamic.
I have noticed that whenever you try to understand the concept of flux you try to force some sort of logic onto it in order to make it complete which it isn’t and can never be – the concept of flux is incomplete, it is open and not closed. When you try to force some sort of logic onto it you end up denying it. You end up prematurely completing your models of reality (which is completeness only in appearance, in reality it’s just deeper incompleteness.) This is order-addiction, or pleasure-addiction, or hedonism, or instant gratification, or whatever other way it is possible to call it. It is the inability to endure incompleteness/pain/uncertainty, inability to delay completion/gratification/certainty. I already spoke of this in my post on contradictions.
So you’ve been accusing me of things while not even understanding what I’ve been saying?
I’m glad you’re able to fit it into your model. It’s what I’ve been accusing you of doing. But you also apply your model to things you admit you don’t even understand. You force what you believe has been revealed to you onto what is still obscure to you.
Value Metaphysics does not deny the other, it just postulates that the other, seen from the inside, is not an other but a self…
That is already interpretation, though not an interpretation I disagree with.
By “you”, do you here mean people in general or myself in particular? I would agree with the former, in fact I would add that there is no way to understand the concept of flux without forcing some sort of non-flux onto it. This idea, again, you can find in the Nietzsche note I linked to.
Yes, it seems you consider it a sign of strength to just float on empty words like “chaos”, “lack”, and “incompleteness”. One of Satyr’s favourites is “entropy”.
Where did you get that? That I do not understand you?
Moreover, I hope you understand that interaction requires an equal degree of uncertainty. It is 100% certain understanding that puts an end to interaction, precisely what you’re demanding from me.
I attack, you defend, if you prove me wrong, I correct myself. You demand from me to be passive, to not attack until I no longer have any reason to attack.
By “you” I mean you. You are using your own limits and projecting them onto reality. If you cannot sense it, as far as you are concerned, it is not real.
Your own limits are your own limits and not the limits of reality. Of course, in order to make sense of reality, you must work within your limits, meaning, you must make the best possible model of reality you can, no matter how wrong it may be in relation to that of someone else.
But! – and this is a big but – people can fail to utilize all of their senses and make the best possible model they can. These are the nihilists who deny their senses, which is to say, who utilize them selectively, because the totality of their senses produces an incomplete picture (felt as confusion and uncertainty.)
Our senses, it must be noted, do not necessarily produce complete, cohesive pictures of reality. They take snapshots of reality from various angles and these may or may not align with each other. When they do not, we speak of incomplete models of reality.
Those unable to endure this incompleteness will seek to dismiss some of the senses such that one can obtain some sort of completeness. This is nihilism. You do this, for example, when you try to force the limits of logic, the necessity to make things static, onto reality itself.
Order/completion addicts, people so addicted to order/completion/comfort that any bit of chaos is automatically assumed to be negative. In logic, this manifests as projection. The logical chaos is sensed as confusion and the one who created it is automatically assumed to be confused. As if confusion is something bad . . .