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

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.

I will never completely abandon ILP, as it is the cradle of my philosophy. I use this thread as a bridge from here to a more specifically dedicated location. On this site I will restrict my writing to this thread, as I am not interested in departing from the study of value-ontology. I see a lifetime of work before me, and even that can only be a beginning. I am certain that I am in fact the (type of) philosopher of the future, for whom Nietzsche wrote his prelude.

Cezar – It was perfectly clear when I asked my simple and necessary question, that you would not be capable of giving an answer. Even if your intellect would be able to exist coherently for a sustained period, you would not be able to answer without confirming that the substance of my theory is necessary even for your little ‘Nietzschean’ prancings, and it would destroy your pride to admit this.

I have done the work of making this ground conscious, rational.

Perhaps Sauwelios can give the answer to the question I asked of you, and bring all of the ones who resist, persist in resistance to the new and improved, all conservatives, closer to comprehension of why ground-value is necessary for valuing, and why this must necessarily be an activity.

Sauwelios – Obviously language can not exist without relying on grammar. The question is how we approach grammar. Obviously grammar can not exist without vocabulary. I have begun establishing an order of rank within the domain of vocabulary. The term value, in all its permutations, represents the top.

There is no term which does not rely on this ‘faraoan term’ (language is a cosmos, an order of rank a pyramid, a farao a ‘cosmic architect’) for its meaning.

Then the question is how one maintains that.

And what about the possibility of its never having erupted, but always having existed?

So then somethingness is at least as fundamental as nothingness.

And is not a first cause necessarily a self-cause?

The answer is a ‘thing in itself’, which means it comes from nothing, it always was in nothing and it can’t enter the energy, because the law of the conservation of energy does not allow it. - Nothing can come from nothing! So, there is your part of nothing…

Your thievish attempt to “provoke thought” while you self are disabled to think must fail for that reason.

No. Nothingness becomes irrelevant.

I think, and I hope, that FC here is obeying Parmenides (with whose philosophy value-ontology shares much), or at least concurring with him, that nothingness is inaccesible “even to the gods.”

I-rrelevant.

And what is energy?

How?

By it being selected - in first instance, by itself, by its particular activity, namely, selecting.
The tendency to maintain structural integrity is selected (as traits are in evolution).
Selecting means no active ‘picking’ of course - but that all that does not have/fit this tendency dies off.

That is essentially only another way of putting it, as in chaos / no-thingness there is no time.
This mechanism describes a bit more of "the origin of (being and) time " – it makes this into a less nonsensical phrase.

It is at least as fundamental to its own foundation, certainly. I do not make the claim that nothingness must exist – that would be illogical, what would exist? I only aim to describe how somethingness can be understood exist in the context of the the notion of nothingness.

“why being, and not rather nothing?”
because of its possibility through the existence of a standard.
What enables this standard, logically ? This is what I am answering to.

I have rejected the idea that such a fundamental thing can be explained in terms of physics, or in terms of any mere subject of understanding – rather in terms of understanding itself.

In all other cases, were are merely interpreting an interpretation. By positing valuing (which we understrand because we do it, not because we have defined it) as fundamental, we can interpret the interpreting.

Yes. But it is not ‘God’, something alien, prior or superior to what we are as humans. What enables the smallest entity to self-cause (the particular way of its self-causation), can be understood as the same activity that we continue as complex organisms.

The problem is that in all its irrelevance to what exists, as it obviously does not exist itself, the notion of it still needs to be explained (away). We can only do this by approaching the limit of existence, and this must be done by approaching existence, equally, as a notion.

The usefulness of the formulation I’ve found lies in its way of identifying the notion of existence in similar terms as the notions we have of thought, consciousness; – the notions of the means by which we understand being are made equal to the notions of being following from these means.

The metaphysics / physics dichotomy can no longer exist under this terminology, equally the difference between ontology and epistemology is eliminated - so may the immunity of science to philosophy be broken.

A couple of questions, arising from my desperate attempts to make sense of this passage.

  1. Does the word “by” in the first sentence mean the same thing in all cases? Or does it mean “by means of” in the last case?
  2. Does the word “selecting” in the last sentence refer only to the being-selected from the first two sentences, or also to the selecting from the first sentence?

But we’re talking about what, according to you, erupted from chaos/no-thingness…

Actually, it must mean “by means of” in the first case, because of the word “it[s]”.

I don’t know FC… I mean I really dig this explanation, but I don’t think that nothing lies at the limits of existence as understood by understanding conciousness and thought. Beyond that, there is, as opposed to is not.

Otherwise solipcism, which is as fallacious a concept as the omnipotent, creator god, and for perhaps for the same reason.

How does [being] maintain its structural integrity?

I understand the difficulty. It is confusing as we now move beyond what I have proposed as logically fundamental, i.e. the fundamental term of language. I think that pezemeregild is has reason, and the confusion arises by positing an originating out of nothingness.

The best I can explain it is that there no difference between the fundamental thing, its activity, and the object of this activity. Whether I make of it a subject, object of a subject or verb objectifying the subject to itself, it describes the same.

I mean that it is being selected (survives as form) by its selecting (continuing, ‘building’ on what survives).
This may seem like reverse logic, but I think that this actually does describe being as becoming, also life as evolution.

Yes, this presents logical difficulties (I must note that to relate being to nothingness is unnecessary for my theory to pertain to being) but sill I want to pursue it to see where it leads. Let me phrase it in a couple of ways. What has erupted is time. Since there is logically nothing before time (nothing is what is before time), this eruption is the first existing thing, and I think it is fair to say that it is the only thing, that it persists. There is only an erupting. The eruption is time and being itself.

Self-valuing must then be seen as being the root/seed of this erupting, and valuing in terms of self-value as it’s ‘body’, its growth / becoming / substantiating. The self-valuing is it’s not-nothingness, the ‘mechanism’ whereby it is rooted in its existence. The thereby enabled valuing-acquiring, the will to power, is what grows from this root.

This much I’m cool with. But you are right that I am having a lot of trouble with the “something out of nothing.”

If you told me that the “nothing” doesn’t really matter much anyway, I would be cool there too.

Fair enough. I am pursuing this to test/establish the limits of logic, with its division into yes and no, as it pertains to being. To formulate the yes in such a way that the no is demonstrated, not just calculated, to be excluded.

I suppose different minds have different approaches to the question “why being and not rather nothing?” Some minds will think it nonsensical to even propose nothing. Others will ponder a lifetime over the horrible absurdity.

The concept ‘objectively not existing’ is a strange one.

Indeed!

I think we see eye to eye, or at least, within a reasonable logical gap, we have agreed to disagree (on this issue, which I still think has no great import on your overall theory)

If you will read back the discussion, you will see that it is what his “overall theory” rests on…

I don’t think you get the theory enough (by your own admission) to really say much about it. Saying that it computes and explains away nothingness is hardly resting the theory on it. Unless I am very wrong.

Let me try to rephrase it:

“A being maintains its particular structural nature by being selected. In the first place, it is selected by itself, or rather, by its particular activity, which is the selecting of other beings.”

But if the particular activity of beings is the selecting of other beings, then “selecting” does mean an active picking.

And if we relate this back to what you said before, we get this:

“A being posits a value system, in which a relation may take place, in which otherness is to be dominated/subjected to as (in terms of) self. This positing of a value system it does by maintaining its particular structural nature. And this in turn it does by being selected. In the first place, it is selected by itself, or rather, by its particular activity, which is the selecting of other beings.”

It strongly appears that the domination of/subjection to otherness is the selection of other beings. This would make your “explanation” wholly circular. And indeed, after the first sentence of the last paraphrase, you originally said:

“Relating without disintegrating requires firm value-positing. Willing to power demands firmness of self-value.”

So value-positing requires not disintegrating (“maintaining its structural nature”), and not disintegrating requires value-positing!

So Being is Erupting, i.e., a Breaking-forth, but not a Breaking-forth from anything, but a Breaking-forth that has not begun and will not end—i.e., that has no root or fruit.