WILL

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Schopenhauer correctly identified it as the very act of living, incorrectly locating it ‘beyond space/time and causality’, using it to substitute for the Abrahamic one-god he had become disillusioned with, but had not overcome the implications. Nietzsche adopted it from Schopenhauer, replacing Will to Life with Will to Power, correcting Schopenhauer’s Buddhist substitutions of Abrahamic nihilism.

‘Will’…every act is its expression - both conscious and unconscious.

‘Choice’ is the formal expression of will, given clear and concise options to select from, whereas most willing occurs without engaging the lucid brain, i.e., ego.

Will and choice are actions.
Actions we can all experience and perceive in others; actions with intent.
Intentional actions are what differentiate life from the nonliving interactions of existential flux.
Non-living unities of energies flow along paths-of-least-resistance - power relationships determining direction.
Life has intent, an objective, and so life can move towards paths-of-more-resistance - the level of resistance it can overcome is determined by the organism’s aggregate energies and how controlled, focused they can become.
Will, therefore, also refers to this focus of an organism’s controlled energies.
Focused energies can overcome greater resistance, determining a will strength, i.e., will-power.

---

‘Power’ does not mean omnipotence but refers to the strength of a particular will - it is a particular will’s qualifier.
Similarly, ‘free’ refers to the will’s power, determining its options, viz., how many options it can access; how many directions it can move towards, how many objectives it can attain.
Omnipotence, obviously, would have infinite options.
Awareness does not mean omniscience, but how many options a will can perceive and evaluate as being accessible, attainable.
Awareness is about knowing and understanding, i.e., judging, evaluating.

Knowledge = data.
Understanding = patterns in the date determining the quality of awareness, and consequently the quality of judgments that will determine choices.

---

Ideals, objectives determine which objectives, which options, will be highly valued, increasing the probability of being chosen.
Life’s primary ideal is life itself - survival. Survival ensures all willing all choosing with continue.
Only one species can place ideals that contradict survival or place survival in a lower position of desirability - adjusting values

All evaluations are triangulations, between a subjective willful actor/agency, an objective ([size=80]attainable or not[/size]) and the distance/effort, movement necessary for subject and objective to synthesize.

The manner used to define objectives determines their attainability and adjusts the effort/work/movement judged to be necessary.
Minds can be indoctrinated within specific definitions of concepts, and the words/symbols representing them.

If we start with the act, the dynamic Interactive phenomenon, then we start with the perceptible.
So, ‘god’ if defined in the Abrahamic way becomes unattainable; a symbol of anti-nature, anti-world, offering comfort and hope; whereas if it is defined in the Indo-Euroepan, Hellenic way, god refers to what is perceptible, attainable. experienced, e.g., laws of nature.

All concepts, all words/symbols referring to concepts can be defined starting with a perceived act or can begin with an unperceived abstraction, found in books, or communicated word of mouth.
The difference is fundamental, separating the Hellenic from the Jewish world-view - one based on sight the other on hearing: masculine/feminine; predator/prey.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

@Boman

…for the Hebrew the most important of his senses for the experience of truth was his hearing (as well as various kinds of feeling), but for the Greek it had to be his sight; or perhaps inversely, because Greeks were organized in a predominately visual way and the Hebrew in a predominately auditory way, each people’s conception of truth was formed in increasingly different ways.

@Spengler

A herbivore is by its destiny a prey, and it seeks to avoid this destiny by escaping without combat, but beasts of prey must get prey. The one type of life is of its innermost essence defensive, the other offensive, hard, cruel, destructive. The difference appears even in the tactics of movement — on the one hand the habit of retreating, fleetness, cutting of corners, evasion, concealment, and on the other the straight-line motion of the attack, the lion’s spring, the eagle’s swoop. There are dodges and counter-dodges alike in the style of the strong and in that of the weak. Cleverness in the human sense, active cleverness, belongs only to beasts of prey. Herbivores are by comparison stupid, and not merely the ‘innocent’ dove and the elephant, but even the noblest sorts like the bull, the horse, and the deer; only in blind rage or sexual excitement are these capable of fighting; otherwise they will allow themselves to be tamed, and a child can lead them.
Besides these differences in kind of motion, there are others, still more effective, in the organs of sense. For these are accompanied by differences in the manner of sensing, of having, a ‘world’. In itself every being lives in Nature, in an environment, irrespective of whether it notices this environment, or is noticeable in it, or neither. But it is the manner of relation — a manner that is mysterious and inexplicable by any human reasoning — established between animal and environment by touching, ordering, and understanding, which creates out of the total environment a particular perceptual world for each animal. The higher herbivores are ruled by the ear, but above all by scent; the higher carnivores on the other hand rule with the eye. Scent is the characteristically defensive sense. The nose catches the point of origin and the distance of danger and so gives the movement of one’s flight the appropriate direction, away from something.
But the eye of the preying animal gives a target. The very fact that, in the great carnivores as in man, the two eyes can be fixed on one point in the environment enables the animal to bind its prey. In that hostile glare there is already implicit for the victim the doom that it cannot escape, the pounce that is instantly to follow. But this act of fixation by two eyes disposed forward and parallel is equivalent to the birth of the world, in the sense that Man possesses it — that is, as a picture, as a world before the eyes, as a world not merely of lights and colours, but of perspective distance, of space and motions in space, and of objects situated at definite points. This way of seeing which all the higher carnivores possess — in herbivores, e.g. ungulates, the eyes are set sideways, each giving a different and non-perspective impression — implies in itself the notion of commanding. The world-picture is the environment as commanded by the eyes. The eye of the beast of prey determines things according to position and distance. It apprehends the horizon. It measures up in this battlefield the objects and conditions of attack. Sniffing and spying, the way of the hind and the way of the falcon, are related as slavery and dominance. There is an infinite sense of power in this quiet wide angle vision, a feeling of freedom that has its source in superiority, and its foundations in the knowledge of greater strength and consequent certainty of being no one’s prey. The world is the prey, and in the last analysis it is owing to this fact that human culture has come into existence.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Homo sapiens are social species - having evolved cooperative survival and reproductive strategies - therefore the difference between men and their political preferences is psychological, determining the quantity and quality of the group they choose to, they will identify with.
Herd or Pack - a matter of degree of discrimination; the amount of difference one is willing to tolerate and submit to.

Herd psyche’s need quantities to feel safe in, even if they may secretly feel superior or special among them - anarchists, for example, will defend the herd’s beliefs, maintaining their cohesion, because it has adopted parasitism, or scavenging, as its niche survival strategy.
Defending the weak among the herd is a method of ensuring acceptance, and inclusion - trust.
The larger the herd the safer the weak individual feels within it. Reciprocity comforts the individual that in its own time of need the herd will rally to defend it.
Quantities maintains options: not only mating options but survival options.
Freedom = power…and so power through association compensates for individual feebleness.
Intersubjectivity sacrifices independent - freedom of choice, free-will - to gain collective power increasing collectivized options.
Collective Will compensates for a weak-will - synergy.
Where the individual’s will would have minimal options, by surrendering, or sacrificing its independence to a collective - such as god or an idea representing it - an individual multiplies its options through the collective, even if it can only enjoy it partially.
Anarchists, criminals, try to circumvent this collective dissemination of accessible resources by taking more than their due through coercion, bribery, seduction. This is why you will find them to be narcissistic and concealing a sense of superiority over those they pretend to be defending or belong to - should I name ILP members that exhibit these traits? They are usually the most passionate defenders of conventional convictions, though they do not share them, desiring only to exploit them.

The herd’s numbers become mobile boundaries protecting individuals form the uncertain, indifferent, alien world beyond.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Good analysis.

Points of contention that may not satisfy point by point the descriptions forthwith, but Lorokeet, referring to conceptual flow, that the nihilism implies , as the Eastern void, relates this and augments it by the difference presented in the West, as the viewpoints of Berkeley and Hume.

The epistemological-phenomenal flow diverting from the ideal, the ideation of conventional thinking, started with the much earlier subscription of that understanding that represented the Socratic method of trying to wrap the early manifested will, not to power through the later ego-superego construct, and not to exemplify the early paganism as some relateable tie in with the later upcoming unitary ‘synthetically transcended power, but simply find how gnosis, or knowledge that can empower the will to break through conventional thinking, pretty much repeated in later Western philosophy.

The comparison with Buddhist philosophy, as to the reason why it was adopted by Schopenhauer and Nietzhe is significant, for primarily the point of view to the limits of reason, and how the ontological and moralistic streams of consciousness can be traced back to that very premodal source of power. That idea became represented progressively, in the west, and nihilized its self but differently from that in the East, where the void was not an inversion, but a state of being. I believe.

My contention is not to critique in what you present as a very clear and concise description of this thema, but only recollect data points, to advance to coincidental conscious segments, which have become not actually split from the process of held together streams of pre(per)caption, and unwillingly progrestinated to the time we currently exist in, and at an ever increasing rate of futility.

That said, the resultant process produces copies, not visually represented, but through the most basic mode that nature can produce, that is logic and math. The underpinnings of copying-representing is not phenominally prior, they are not even prior in that sense, they are sequenced through levels of significance, and as significance can be differentiated not by any other mode, then what is signified as being useful , appropriate structurally, time withstanding.

How naturalism breaks into these current patterns, is exemplar to zen images formed when a pebble falls into water. It creates outgoing and inbounding cross chanelled figures.

Modern Eastern and Western thiught do not merely collide, they form new channels of interference, interfacing and they are manifested as a priori forms of entanglement that were always transcendental objects of becoming, through thousands of years of dynasties, come and go, and inseparable way before the Silk Road became an actual route of commerce.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Good analysis.

Points of contention that may not satisfy point by point the descriptions forthwith, but Lorokeet, referring to conceptual flow, that the nihilism implies , as the Eastern void, relates this and augments it by the difference presented in the West, as the viewpoints of Berkeley and Hume.

The epistemological-phenomenal flow diverting from the ideal, the ideation of conventional thinking, started with the much earlier subscription of that understanding that represented the Socratic method of trying to wrap the early manifested will, not to power through the later ego-superego construct, and not to exemplify the early paganism as some relateable tie in with the later upcoming unitary ‘synthetically transcended power, but simply find how gnosis, or knowledge that can empower the will to break through conventional thinking, pretty much repeated in later Western philosophy.

The comparison with Buddhist philosophy, as to the reason why it was adopted by Schopenhauer and Nietzhe is significant, for primarily the point of view to the limits of reason, and how the ontological and moralistic streams of consciousness can be traced back to that very premodal source of power. That idea became represented progressively, in the west, and nihilized its self but differently from that in the East, where the void was not an inversion, but a state of being. I believe.

My contention is not to critique in what you present as a very clear and concise description of this thema, but only recollect data points, to advance to coincidental conscious segments, which have become not actually split from the process of held together streams of pre(per)caption, and unwillingly progrestinated to the time we currently exist in, and at an ever increasing rate of futility.

That said, the resultant process produces copies, not visually represented, but through the most basic mode that nature can produce, that is logic and math. The underpinnings of copying-representing is not phenominally prior, they are not even prior in that sense, they are sequenced through levels of significance, and as significance can be differentiated not by any other mode, then what is signified as being useful , appropriate structurally, time withstanding.

How naturalism breaks into these current patterns, is exemplar to zen images formed when a pebble falls into water. It creates outgoing and inbounding cross chanelled figures.

Modern Eastern and Western thiught do not merely collide, they form new channels of interference, interfacing and they are manifested as a priori forms of entanglement that were always transcendental objects of becoming, through thousands of years of dynasties, come and go, and inseparable way before the Silk Road became an actual route of commerce.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Sorry for double post

[Ecmandu]

You folks are confused.

Honesty to power.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Will cannot be located outside space/time, independent from causality, but placed within space/time as the very causal interactivity of energetic attraction/repulsion. What I will is what I am attracted to and that which I wish to attract. There is no void, all is energy, and therefore attraction/repulsion is unabated but is consistent.
Schopenhauer’s will & representation corresponds to the two sources of repulsion/attraction, body (will) and mind (representation), the former guided by evolutionary memories and the latter from experiential memories. Attraction/Repulsion shifting in accordance to which source rises and which subsides, presenting multiple attractive and repulsive options.
The term ‘will’ can be used to refer to both but it is usually used to refer to unconscious, genetic attraction, whereas when referring to experiential attractions the term ‘choice’ is used. [size=70][ MANifesto: Nature – Free-Will – Choice][/size]

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

@Spengler

Since when has this type of the inventive carnivore existed? Or, since this amounts to the same thing, since when have there been men? What is man? And how did he come to be man?
The answer is — through the development of the hand. Here is a weapon unparalleled in the world of free-moving life. Compare with it the paw, the beak, the horns, teeth, and tail-ns of other creatures. To begin with, the sense of touch is concentrated in it to such a degree that it can almost be called the organ of touch, in the sense that the eye is the organ of vision, and the ear of hearing. It distinguishes not only hot and cold, solid and liquid, hard and soft, but, above all, weight, form, and position of resistances, and so on — in short, things in space.
But, over and above this function, the activity of living is gathered into it so completely that the whole bearing and allure of the body has — simultaneously — taken shape in accordance with it. There is nothing in the whole world that can be compared to this member, equally capable of touch and action. To the eye of the beast of prey which commands the world ‘theoretically’ is added the hand of Man which commands it practically…

---

This is what constitutes his liberation from the compulsion of the genus, a phenomenon unique in the history of all life on this planet. With this, Man comes into being. He has made his active life to a large extent free of the conditions of his body. The genus-instinct still perseveres in full strength, but the individual’s thoughts and thoughtful activities have detached themselves from its bonds. This freedom consists in freedom of choice. Everyone makes his own weapon, according to his own skill and his own reasoning. The many discoveries of failed and discarded pieces still testify to the effort of this initial ‘thinking doing’.

---

Under the tremendous impression of this free and conscious individual act, which thus emerges from the uniformity of the impulsive and collective activity of the genus, the genuine human soul now develops into a very solitary being ([size=80]even as compared with those of the other beasts of prey[/size]) with the proud and pensive look of one knowing his own destiny, with an unrestrained sense of power in the fist habituated to deeds, a foe to everyone, killing, hating, resolved to conquer or die. This soul is profounder and more passionate than that of any animal whatsoever. It stands in irreconcilable opposition to the whole world, from which its own creativeness has separated it. It is the soul of a rebel.

---

This soul strides forward in an ever-increasing alienation from all Nature. The weapons of the beasts of prey are natural, but the armed fist of Man with its artificially made, thought-out, and selected weapon is not. Here begins ‘Art’ as a counter-concept to ‘Nature’. Every technical process of Man is an art and is always so described — so, for instance, the arts of archery and horsemanship; the art of war; the arts of building and government; of sacrificing and prophesying; of painting and versification; of scientific experiment. Every work of Man is artificial and unnatural, from the lighting of a fire to the achievements that are specifically designated as ‘artistic’ in the high cultures. The privilege of creation has been wrested from Nature. ‘Free will’ itself is an act of rebellion and nothing less.
Creative Man has stepped outside the bounds of Nature, and with every fresh creation he departs further and further from her, becoming more and more her enemy.

[size=80] Man and Technics - A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life[/size]

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Spengler is dated, before the definitive ‘proof’ which is contentious to this time, between the genetic changes could have had a comparable influence with cognitive apprehension , evolving in synch could be established certainly.

Yes there is a general consensus, however the holders on are quite worried that such general agreement can’t hold together for fear of no demonstrateable cohesion’s within all segments of global society. Ergo the burning need for simulating conversation about stimulated artificial modes of apprehending that general consensus, until then, every one’s idea is based on guesswork, your guess is as good as mine.(almost mistakenly said ‘mime’

But my tongue , ouch

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Yes, without “certainty” - the absolute - you will remain steadfast in your delusions about a creator god.
Power of nil is strong in you.
Nil equates it all…makes it all uniformly possible.
Nil = chaos.
Don’t you go using your brain to evaluate probabilities, ya hear…you stay locked in your faith and trust what was told to you…using your feelings and feel the pleasure of the divine truth.

The absent absolute is so seductive to you fucks.
If absolute certainty is not offered then you can continue believing in your delusions…like iamasoemthingorother.

Gravity is not explained with certaity…shall we find something pleasing, and flattering, and comforting to explain it.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Totally agree without reserve, if it was my singular apprehension that bothers me, but.

Such singular view is rapidly approaching a transcental category that would merely an example of a singular bias, held to a maximally high standard, very close to the fear of leaping into unknown territory, if and only if, again

Was unworried about that tiny sliver of a part of me that tends to be held much more grossly as a major, albeit significant unrealized unknown part of most of global populations.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

And one may ask themselves what live has to do with that?

Everything

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

There are no certainties…as I’ve stated…no absolutes. Only probabilities - superior/inferior.
Does this mean every moron can believe in anything?
Well, yes…because he’s protected from his own stupidity by the system…
Ergo I = Us is so important, you see?
How else can I feel safe in my own private universe?

Ecmandu style?
Stanta Clause might be a real hyperdimensional being…
Nobody can know for “CERTAIN” right fuckturds?

What is crucial here is ‘love’ and collectivity.
I means we need collectivity…so that I can remain as out of touch as I possibly can.

We cannot refuse to come to our aid, now can we?
You live in your private hyperdimensional universe and I’ll live in my futuristic utopian universe, and we’ll come to each other’s aid, because we are one and the same.
Why?
It’s in a book…written down, printed and everything…and it feels good, and we know pleasure is better than reasoning.
We don’t reason, we feeel the truth.

[Ecmandu]

Reasoning.

What do you know of reason?

Behind your computer there.

Hiding from the world.

What have you contributed to life being an evolutionist that can’t imagine a world without rape homicide and torment and torture?

There are no two utopias alike.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

In fact there are only imaginable utopias as well as images of hells. They tend to beg the question, wherein merely short gutted signs remain to access the absolute conditional transcendent neural object that proceeds all the way from Kant to positivistic Wittgenstein watching the film fliw, any gulf that does not burn in the archaic projector, as the flow bounces back to a single image in a single framed still of referent.

[Ecmandu]

I’ve been to hell meno.

Don’t give me a lecture about its imagination.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

I’ve been there as well, I dared cross the River Styx and entered where the sign said ‘Beware all those who enter here…’, so did our Lord and Savior, but we cannot see, therefore we can’t believe , plus no man can rightly judge another,at leas since juries passed judgement

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

@Doolittle

What are the three ways of human coercion?
1-Force, 2-Bribery, and 3-Ostracizing, corresponding to the three institutions of state, law and religion.

According to Doolittle the sequence in which each developed within a culture determined their cultural force, and importance – the proceeding dependent on the preceding; the last being the weakest of the three in any given sequence.
Law developed first among Europeans due to the harsh conditions that necessitating rules regulating reciprocity, and this shaped their cultures and the civilizations they birthed.

Almost social species individual will is always confronted by a collective will, necessitating the sacrifice of individuality to collectives so as to gain survival probability - reproduction, i.e., sex being an extension of survival necessitated by individual biological limits.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

@Heisman

The secularizational link between modern physical law and modern political law is the idea that no man is above it. The assumption of the universality of God lent credence to the assumption of universal law; a single God of a single physical reality underwriting a single law which no human is superior to. At first glance, this perspective would seem to corroborate the conventional notion of God as ‘absolute’ and the notion of an ‘absolute’ God would appear to contrast most strikingly with the notion of evolution.
Conceiving humans as of absolute value in the image of God, or with inalienable right to life, translates, in Darwinian terms, into treating biology as a constant that does not change. Biological evolution by natural selection works on precisely the opposite premise: inequality in the form of genetic variation between individuals is what makes evolution possible when some variations die or reproduce less than others. However, if biology is treated as a constant or a factor that can be minimized or ignored simultaneous with a modern Newtonian emphasis on the larger physical reality and its economic-technological development, then biological evolution is minimized while economic-technological evolution is maximized. While the pagan values that the Nazi revived maximized biological evolution, Judeo-Christian values are effectively closing the door to biological evolution by valuing every life (in theory) and thus civilizing natural selection to a halt.

Conversion of genetically based natural selection to memetically based social selection. [size=70][ MANifesto: Nihilism][/size]