ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, WTP)

What challenge? Where? How? What compromise? You see, you pussy like the excitement to talk to me, that is all.

I see nothing but a silent shitting in your panties from both of you.

On the other hand Nietzsche’s creators are creating an empire in the midst of anarchy!

And you are those poor shitty anarchists!

I guess you laugh at your self.

No, I laugh because the only right answer, as everyone who understands evolution knows, is: “All individuals, all types of people, by the very fact that they were born”!

Meh, Cezar has reverted to his non-useful self.

Here’s hoping you go back to Nietzsche, for he makes you interesting!

I dub this thread dead until such time as FC decides to clarify his theory some.

That was desperately, unlimitedly, untimely stupid, congratulations!

And there is no road, no danger of the return to the monkey I suppose.

An answer with such a security!

Indeed, there’s no such thing as “devolution”.

But wasn’t N saying that a cult of Dionysus in the Orient was leading that population to the stage of the tiger?

And alcoholism brings the man back to previous stages of the culture… is there an end to alcohol? What could stop it today? Isn’t Christianity promoting the most liberal life? Will not even Buddhism be felt as “terrorism” by Christianity? Who comes after Iran? China?

And why is black hair a sign of decadence?

And dark skin a sign that “animalism is trying to break through again”?

“and the fact that men give themselves up to blind anger is an indication that their animal nature is still near the surface, and is longing for an opportunity to make its presence felt once more.”

Can you say for sure that the black man is a descendant from the ape or from the brown man?

Why did white Aryans become black? Isn’t that a devolution?

You’re truly a TPN, “Cezar”…

Whatever I am it is not decadent. Junkie-monkey.

My friends, it has been sad to see that aletheia’s words seem to have been entirely disregarded. I have hesitated to respond, as I do not know of the effort of dedicated writing will be made worthwhile by dedicated reading on your side. But on waking up today I found the trust that it will. And I trust that this explanation will for now be sufficient. It goes without saying that I ( and aletheia, and others whom I am fortunate to count among my allies and co-workers ) will continue to build and expand this theory. However it is very time consuming and I have a lot of other work to do, so I will in the future prefer to do it in an environment dedicated strictly to this theory and its ramifications, which also means revaluation of other thought systems in the terms of this one. I will be coming back to this thread in the future, so by all means make your thoughts known and formulate your criticisms (or those of others which you think are unaddressed by any of what I or aletheia have written – we are as ‘interchangeable’ as craftsmen of the same craft ), but for now this is my last entry. Again, I trust that it will have sufficed to clarify these ideas, at the very least as a useful clarification of the conditions of the will to power, at best as a perspective opening up entirely new philosophical vistas.

It is clearly not an absurd question, as N answers it directly – units.

What is a unit? How can it be? I ask these questions as it is clear that in a world-image of flux this is not a given. What is the mechanism whereby a unit may exist in the face of flux? This is what my theory addresses.

Units are not explained by positing / observing them. We can only make a unit logically understandable in terms of its relating to other units.

The “form” or “modus” of this relating is the will to power. But how do we understand the term relating itself? This is the subject of my theory.

What is relating? One value standing in proportion to another. This relating means that they exist in a shared value-system. This is how I use the term value.

By self-valuing I mean: by maintaining ones structural nature positing a value system, in which a relation may take place, in which otherness is to be dominated/subjected to as (in terms of) self. Relating without disintegrating requires firm value-positing. Willing to power demands firmness of self-value.

One either holds oneself as a fixed value, or disintegrates. In the latter case, there can be no willing to power.

I say the contrary - valuing-itself is what makes it a self. Only by consistently positing itself / holding itself as a consistent value – a standard by which it relates to otherness – can it exist as a unit and thereby relate.

Chaos can not relate. Self-valuing emerges not out of nothing, but out of chaos. It is crucial to understand the difference. The former (to speak of nothing as if it is a condition from which anything may arise) is irratonal, the latter is not.

Where I break from Nietzsche is where I say that unit-ness is not given, that only chaos, no-thingness (other than nothing-ness), is given. There is no “chaos of sensations” or “chaos of wills” - these are self-contradicting phrases.

This is where I see the contradiction in Nietzsches thought – on the one hand he states that all is a flux, on the other hand, to explain what this flux is (will to power), he had to posit units. To explain becoming at the root of all being, he has to posit being at the root of becoming.

We may then say that the order is: chaos-beings-flux. Flux is the highest order, for which beings are required.

I am looking into the core of elementary beings/forces/wills. What enables them the persistence of their activity – their being?

The fact that they can relate to whatever they are not, while maintaining a difference from what they are not. The fact that their relating includes them.

Willing is not an explanation of valuing, whereas valuing does explain how will is possible.
This is because value is a term bridging the gap between physics and metaphysics. Consider this for a moment. What does value mean? It conveys both the principles of information (which borders on the metaphysical (in the sense of beyond-physical)) and worth (which is physicality as subjectivity). My theory, when understood, makes metaphysics as separate from physics impossible, and logically grounds physicality in subjectivity.

A final example - the proposed apple. The apple values whatever is in the sap or light it receives in terms of itself. It does not value it in terms of a pear or cat. It will incorporate everything it can incorporate in accordance with its self-valuing, and reject everything it can not. It interprets in terms of itself, which means that it uses itself as the standard-value to all valuation/interpreting/overpowering. This consistent using-what-one-is as a standard to expand on, is what I mean by self-valuing.

Consistency is defined as activity. In this way, the revaluation of the static Platonic values is completed.

Yes, one wills because one values.

Therefore, one values before one wills.

Will is direct proof, Evidence, of Value.

People do the things they do, if any reason at all, because they have underlying, and often indescribable, values.

Value or rather a standard of valuation being the condition/s of willing, yes.

I see Fixed Cross has explained this idea beautifully and concisely, more so than I have been able to do thus far. To will is to will in terms of something. Willing to power requires the principle offered by value-ontology.

So one does all this by maintaining one’s structural nature? That’s what you’re saying here, in any case.

Then what “values itself” before it is a self?..

Which originally meant “void”, and as a synonym for which you’ve used the word “no-thingness”. So what you’re saying is that self-valuing emerges out of a “void” in which no things, no selves, exist. This means it cannot be self-valuing in the reflexive sense, but is a valuing of something by nothing…

But in order to circumvene such irrationality, one usually says “nothingness” or something like that. And indeed, you said “no-thingness”. Pure flux amounts to nothing.

Unless “chaos” is used simply as an antonym of “order”. In Nietzsche’s “chaos of sensations”, there are already “things”, though not objects but subjects; there is no more primordial condition than the chaos of subjects, and it is not prior, but only deeper—more real—than all apparent orders of objects.

Indeed. And it’s impossible to not do so and still make logical sense. We cannot get rid of “grammar”, and Nietzsche accepted that:

We cease to think when we refuse to do so under the constraint of language; we barely reach the doubt that sees this limitation as a limitation.
Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off.” (WP 522.)

Uuuuu… Interesting to posit this as definitive answer to Plato’s error of perfect ideas, or souls.

This whole theory reminds me of systems thinking, as described in the movie Mindwalk.

No; “encroaching units” is not an answer to the question “who wants power?”, but to the question “what is the will to power?”. Said encroaching units are quanta of power-will.

(Reminds me on the team FC Lumpen-proletarian Nietzschean)

Good, concise criticism.

Indeed. Its particular structural nature, its structural integrity.

Nothing. There is no “before”. There is no causality at the root of this, but the self-valuing, which is the structural integrity, the consistency of form in time – I understand all this to be a random accident.

Strange, indeed, to imagine an accident erupting from no-thingness. As I said, the only ground for this is the lack of its impossibility.

No, of nothingness by something, thereby making out of the nothingness more somethingness. I see no causality, no temporality at the ground of the first (self-)valuing, only as a result of it.

Here we differ in our definitions of “flux”. I use it as “stream”. A stream necessitates content, mass or energy.
Chaos is not energy, as it can not account for any relating, movement, tension, difference.

Chaos → being → flux.
And of coure flux can amount in greater being. So the cycle continues: Chaos → being → flux → being → flux → being → flux →

Yes. I depart from the view that this is the primordial condition.

And so do I! My theory is the result of being economic with language, of using grammar in an effective way.
Its function lies in the specific and exceptional usefulness of the term value.

This word, the seamless dynamic between its noun- and verb-form, is remarkable. Its meaning is crucial to seemingly everything that we can describe and define. So fundamental is it that from its meaning I found I can construct an explanation of the term ‘subject’, where before I had to see this word as an irreducible.

I hope that I have made another small step to clarification. I realize very well where the difficulty of this theory lies – in the positing of the arising of a self-valuing, a structural integrity, out of no-thingness. It is only using the term valuing and in using it specifically in the way that I do, that I can conceive of the answer to “why something, and not rather nothing?” in a rational manner.

I want to make this understandable even to the most unyielding sceptic.

Cezar - please define in logically sufficient terms “a determiner of values”.

I thought you were leaving.

I have no interest for an exchange with the deifiers of nothingness.

I am satisfied to know you two are ready to sell Nietzsche for Nothing and maybe even die for it.

Everything else is superfluous.