Public Information?

James_S_Saint · November 11, 2014, 5:50pm

phyllo:

That’s the one.

That post contains no philosophical or scientific argument. There was no reason to use Jakob’s surname. Your purpose must have been to suggest that you have personal information about him which you are prepared to reveal.In other words, you were trying to intimidate him.

So to answer your question:
James S Saint wrote:
whether linking to an obsessive attacker’s published works is in fact an inappropriate response to an attack, personal or otherwise.
It was an inappropriate response on your part.

If that had been some kind of pristine debate, you might be able to construct an argument concerning my possible intent. But the nonsense, non-philosophy had been going on for pages.

And revealing information that is intended to be used against someone kind of defeats such a purpose. If I wanted to intimidate, why not just whisper it to him?

Another example of the level of debate on that forum and by one of the same crew just now;

HatingMeIsEasier:

Artimas:

…where is yours?

James S Saint:

On many threads throughout this site, but a good place to start before getting into the math (not merely numerology) would be RM: Fundamentals

In other words, James is full of it. This creature has the audacity to use someone’s full name to get inside someone’s head and then give you a link to his world of lies and deceit based entirely on his utterly despicable rate of ignorance * hate. Don’t even listen to this creature until they learn how to be a human being - for now they are the human embodiment of cancer. Never ever give cancer reason to believe it is human enough - you have to redirect the numerical value of this creature before you ever converse with what is momentarily dead. This creature called James is going backwards into their primitive formula that our humanity was built upon, which is why when we lose control over our human experience, we become animals for a short time - there’s this threshold of humanity and insanity that lies right between humanity & animosity. James is a very hostile creature that will do everything in its cancerous power to deflect you, to protect itself - don’t give it blood, is my best advice. Let this cancer die. Never talk to someone who is an embodiment of cancer or you are giving cancer life. Trust me on this, I am || close in reverse-engineering cancer, viruses and hate. They are all infinite and do the exact same things that true cancer, the one that takes people’s lives physiologically, does. James is cancer - stay away from the cancer until it redirects its path back into a finite mathematical design based on the golden ratio, pi, 144, 288, 42, 369 and the Fibonacci Sequence.

Their entire “RM” system has already been debunked 1000 times. They are the equivalent of a mad man who keeps trying to teach people a falsifiable system - why? They are cancer - they don’t “grow” - they instead “in-grow”.

Jakob · November 11, 2014, 6:16pm

Yes, James lies and personal accusations had been going on for that whole thread, not to mention his whole stay on this board. Therefore it was okay for him to reveal my name.

It’s called “boiling frog syndrome.”

Ben has been trolling me for about half a year as well now. He’s not as clever as James, but he’s as persistent.

Indeed, they both seem to be forms of cancer.

James_S_Saint · November 11, 2014, 6:39pm

Once again, and forever, never any evidence, no actual content argument, merely accusations against a “chosen enemy”. For a philosophy site to be nothing but people accusing others is really, really sad/ridiculous - utterly childish.

And the mods are supporting and inspiring it all the way … easy to deduce to be their intent.

Jakob · November 11, 2014, 7:03pm

The mods have probably perceived how faithfully I was dedicated to understanding and supporting you for some years. Many young posters will simply believe your absurdly blatant lies by the principle of “the greater the lie, the more it will be believed”. If one can also be feel righteous anger at a philosopher who poses them challenges, why would they care to remember the post he made less than a day ago.

Jakob:

Wiz - if you don’t get that from what is public record, then there is only one way to find out; engage him and study his RM together with him for as long and intensely as I have. That is roughly 3 and a half years covering in detail the fields of logic, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, politics, economics, law and philosophy.

I can not say I have learned nothing from him! But more often than with anyone else who is deeply intelligent, what he taught me is quite opposite to what I finally concluded.
My attitude towards him started changing after I had understood his Stopped Clock Paradox. Or if he claims I have not understood it, after being able to solve it in a way that made sense to me.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=184216

Why did my attitude begin to change then? I was only aware of a vague disappointment at the time. Now I see I had lost the confidence that RM represents power.
I was able to disprove Relativity by arriving at the necessary existence of a neutral reference frame from the premises of RM. Bt it did not feel like a victory. Existence had lost its mystery and all the powers that we have as mankind were invalidated. It did not matter to James that Relativity works; there was an error to it he said, and this is how we solve it;

In the years before I dared to engage, I read all the Sopped CLock Paradox I could find on ILP and the rest of the internet. The oldest one on this board doesn’t come up in a google search, it involves people with actual scientific schooling; people I used to distrust in the time I was friends with James. I now see that I have been duped; so also with the thread about the island and the eyes, where phyllo, Silhouette, FJ and Carleas gave James a run for his money but to no avail. Their arguments weren’t good enough - to my eyes. They were formal arguments; James’ arguments are always practical. I liked that. But there is a strange twilight zone between formality and certainty in which practicality turned out to not be the ultimate answer.

James leads you into the dark and promises you he’ll light a torch at one point. Me he promised that I would be the torch. He had seen my 'cardinal sin; -
But he had missed that I had already set myself alight and was wandering happily around in search of faces to illuminate. He was one of them. He chose to be my teacher - great! Nothing more interesting, at least online, than a man of thought and experience who freely spends his wisdom. So I started to learn.

After a while I began to notice that the main point he’d make about VO is that it is valid in so far as it corresponds to RM, and that it would be earth shattering once it did so completely. But the problem has always been that the assertion of Affectance as a universal nature is equally problematic as the premise of Will to Power as one. The WtP is more accurate, but it is still inadequate in describing actual entities.
This has always been the cause of the war: what is entity? Implied; what are we? Some go so far as to eliminate entity all the way out of the equation. You must follow your instincts on this one.

The point being:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=184216

Now verify:

Verify:

Jakob:

The Artful Pauper:

I felt reading Strauss and others of his school like I was getting philosophical steroids.

Coul you recommend some works? The most relevant book I’ve read is the Closing of the American Mind, which contains much astute insight but overall speaks a moral contradiction; the philosophical ethics eroticized contradicts the authors true moral nature. I prefer the clean cut Sloterdijk so far, who has no moral stance save a sly German naturalness to power-lusting. He brings up a great new meaning of the thymos, the rage principle, he considers to be the monad of existence, where eros is the resulting dyad.
VO: self-valuing is thymos, valuing is eros. The former applies to the singularity, the irreducible, the latter to the cosmos; harmony, will to power, ordering-in-time, fractal-flux. The mapping of reality is impossible. It mirrors itself falsely from the beginning, and keeps mirrorring. Nothing is quite exact, everything is askew. What is because everything is always in motion, and it is in motion because it was askew from the beginning. That is why rage is the only thing that sets things right; it does so from one perspective.
But this Relativity Theory, and we were engaging the social sciences. But this is the beauty to me, the place where they meet. And I believe it’s the only way to understand either is to understand both; Einstein was a very clever psychologist, that is why he managed to stay alive in those days - his real counterpart was Bernays. That is the social scientist of our age, and we are by no means rid of him by recognizing that. I fear or - I think that he will come to rule the next two thousand years. Or his method, the new crucifixion. Now man is crucified for real; we have now let the state of Rome, Spain, Germany, America complicit in our innermost secrets; there is no more devil; hwe is fully exteriorized. Now we will feel what it is like to be a Christ. The world will be forced into war. The elites will crus the populace so hard that it must divide into two qualities, like a piece of burnt wood kicked along the tail splits open in two spinning parts, spin and counter spin; and this will be the birth of the Higher Man, the New Knight.
This has already come to pass, the eleventh of september, the splitting open of consciousness into two parts; self-valuing blindness and self-valuing martyrdom. Man had collectively been forced into primitive religion. Only the philosophers stand out; but even they are marked by their time; their assertion is of crisis, of the absence of power in man; and only the first glimmerings of honesty are crystallizing out of the Abyss - damnation is a blessing in disguise; but the robe of the magician is the leopards hide and the skin of the dragon, the patterns of our fractal. The best itself; this is the monad. In so far as there is a beast behind the web, blood under the skin, this is rageful. But be alarmed, rage is good. Rage contained in the heart is lie a crispy hearth, rage is always only for one thing alone, and that is liberty. Nietzsche called it power but I see liberty; the two can be equals but power can refer to charge, and the will to charge is impossible; liberty signifies release but not dissolution.
Quite starkly a enters vision now; In Nietzsche release is not possible; every overcoming is again an enslavement to a newer greater will. Will to power to will to powee to will - it is cycle of drives without crystalizing. Much that has willed to power now wills to stability and perhaps a slow decline into a more subtle form.
Alright I will grant this is of course of course always reducible to will to power, if one wishes to interpret will to power in such a way - but the will to be more subtle; yes indeed this is also the will to power. But subtlety itself? There is the crux, here Heidegger has begun building the bridge - from two sides, as is natural; thinking, building, dwelling; but dwelling is also a thinking and building is also a dwelling. And mostly thinking is a dwelling, and a building. Is this not most pleasant of being human - being able to build, and cultivate? And second best is burning down, or at least to our fellow humans in time.

But some ancient groves have not burned and stand. There is a very good reason for that. The gods never left the shrubbery; and small they are, gods; they come at night and whisper; but osme gods are large, and they have never even appeared to have vanished.
I find it most useful to talk of gods than of political parties. They are both signifiers for processes and protagonists, but gods are more subtle in type, and they are always represented. The god of wings and word, the goddess of fairness and fortitude, the father of reckless splendor and truth, the wife of jealousy, the surf-born principle of lust, the hoarding king on his throne of time, and the always angry ocean. These are metaphors for things that always play a part in all of our lives. And they are revered; by me, as I am a Hellenist - I revere Zeus because I am awe inspired by the lightning and the sunset and this is the name our people gave to that power, the promise, hope, reason for awesomeness in man.

Did you ever think that perhaps we are all, animals and man and tree alike, so awesome because of the sunrise?
What we value is our self-valuing; we are children of the sun;

it is only in the deepest principle; the possibility of being itself, are we not children blind to our bliss, but true beings, suns -
and this bestowing bliss is not rare, either. Most philosophically inspired people have so become because of having felt the plasmatic nature of happiness, and find only in the limits thew amalgamate of yes and no which becomes “hell yes” - to put it in a phrase -
this ‘will to’ - yes to what indeed?
That is the question of our time;
what can we inflict, without contradicting our instincts and spirit?

Some of Strauss is deeply esoteric, and in honesty I am sometimes by the hermeneutical games but I feel the reward is greater than the effort, and a lot of his teaching is on the surface, even if you have to connect a few dots and discard what is contradicted by the rest. Strauss in a lot of ways continued the work of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Plato, and other philosophers. Part of the underlying purpose of his work is to return to the common sense view of the world and examine its underlying impetus, so in this there is a strong influence of Plato and Heidegger. Politics, for Leo Strauss, is basic because everything we do and strive for becomes integral to the political situation, and the political situation bears on what we strive for.

I find this Straussian vision of Plato most interesting; if I am not mistaken it has led Sauwelios, who is an expert on Strauss, to the belief in four ages, a Homeric, a Platonic, a Machiavellian and a Nietzschean age. Have you heard of this?

In this sense I find his philosophy useful and illuminating because there is no real going at it alone as the solitary and courageous figure. Just like Plato’s figure must redescend into the cave, Zarathustra descends from his back into the world. This is a political act. In some sense, even us discussing here is a political act insofar as we might sway each other or others into actions which affect the political situation. Even if we are driven by the heart, our hearts often long for the society of others.

I’m not sure if it was just God who inspired people to courage, maybe I’m wrong. I think the stakes were different at earlier points in history, now we have the opportunity to remain in our comforts and we are reluctant to lose them. Soon, it seems, even war might be fought from the safe distance controlled by drones, and in a lot of ways it already is. God maybe helped people to feel that if they did lose all they had they would still find more in the afterlife, so there was that extra push. Now it is all about what will happen here, and so the reward has to be worth the potential consequences.

As you notice I find it more convenient now to be poetic than to be political’ I pretend to be prophetic but I present a possibility and use it to say a few words about what I think is worthy of them. But Let us now consider Politics; is the nature of politics not that it is always hidden? Is politics not a euphemism for a kind of phantom-acting? Is this not why war is said to be the continuation of politics by other means – all of it is one thing; maneuvering.

But this is too cynical because there are of course aims, and statements, and perhaps principle and philosophy and expression of what one has learned about oneself and wants to change in the world is the beginning of politics. But what it comes down, to, always - the method; but precisely that which remains consistent in von Clausewitz is what lives both in politics and in war; and I say it is maneuvering. It is willing to power in a certain compliance with the laws in the world. Fidel Castro is a politician. He says one thing and does another; but in a way that they do not bite. This is what seems to be the art, what really drives men who become politicians.
And might we not say with a pun “there are no politics, only politicians”? Hm. That is very questionable.

What I am trying to raise as a point is that Strauss is playing that maneuvering game. He is dangerous. He leans here and there, and leaves what those who have ears to these same eavesdroppers; those energetic opportunists that know how to make a word into a profile.

I am wondering here, Nietzsche sought to impart a noble courage, but has anyone ever followed through with it for the sake of something like glory alone? I know that the Nazis were inspired by other philosophy than Nietzsche’s and in some ways opposed his teachings, but I think they came closest to a large scale historical act inspired by Nietzsche. (I do not admire the nazis) But even the ones who read his philosophy and were originally inspired by it, I wonder if they themselves fought in the war, or if they merely had soldiers do it? And I know they did not merely inspire the populace with talk about courage, Goebbels was even inspired by Bernays and used his techniques among others to activate the instinctual drives of the people, so it wasn’t really about accomplishing noble deeds for those fighting, at least not in the conscious and willed sense that Nietzsche would have had in mind.

“All things are born of war”.
But of what is war born?
Of things that are born of war.

I mean this; world-peace is never in sight and never a goal of a single person. The only thing in this world that can ever be attained is the goals of single minds.
The magnetism of the thymotic minds singularity breaks into the pure realm of possibility and invents truth; this power attracts mates and students. It is not a ‘good will’ - it is the will to truth that inspires. Or rather the truth itself. And ‘good will’ is not the truth.

Perhaps the closest that have come to setting out to accomplish monumental deeds are venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. I don’t think they intend to build a “great society” in any sense except that it is great for keeping themselves in power and rolling in cash. Who knows, do you think that is the extent of human nature?

I understand reluctance to undertake acts on a large scale, humanity has learned a lot of hard lessons in the past century, but as I see it everything is taking place on the political realm.

The thing with politics is that playing it and identifying it are two perfectly separate issues. Sometimes we express our play, but that is only when we have already won.

Does anyone still not see that James is lying?

James_S_Saint · November 11, 2014, 7:17pm

Haha. … well, okay. I’ll give you that you also merely preach when not accusing or patting one of your team on the back.

Either way

This is your answer to everything;

…but not on a PHILOSOPHY SITE.

iambiguous · November 11, 2014, 7:32pm

Wouldn’t it be fantastic – extraordinary even – if one of them actually turned out to be right!

Kriswest · November 11, 2014, 8:17pm

James_S_Saint · November 11, 2014, 8:22pm

Senseless arguments continue as long as moderators don’t actually moderate to actual open rules.

This has been becoming an anti-philosophy site for several years.
Purposely?

phyllo · November 11, 2014, 10:41pm

You are part of the senseless argument. You make it continue.

Why are you here?

iambiguous · November 11, 2014, 11:50pm

James,

Maybe it is time for you to leave HERE and go out and stake your claim THERE. I mean, can it really be any worse?

James_S_Saint · November 12, 2014, 1:10am

And now, so are/do you. That is how easy it gets going. The question is, who starts merely attacking someone instead of defending or questioning a hypothesis? Once someone is attacked, it either merely stops totally or drifts into ad homs.

I could ask the same of you (or Bigus).
The question isn’t why am I here. The question is why is this site here? If it presumes no purpose, then it collects nothing but the most childish, ranting, faggoting social scourge. Having a purpose means having a direction for moderating decisions. When decisions aren’t made, it means there is no purpose, no direction, no “soul”. Why call it “Philosophy” at all?

Philosophy implies a reasoning behind a thought that can be supported with other reasonings. “I wanna Believe” is not a reason. “Your an idiot!!” is not a reason. “That guy is the Devil. Never listen to anything he says!!” is not a reason. “Oh!! I am OFFENDED!!” is not a reason. Yet those are about the most common responses given … because that is what is accepted, un-moderated.

fuse · November 12, 2014, 2:45am

At every turn, one always has the option of coming to sense and seeking mutual understanding. If you cannot will that end at this point in time, my recommendation is to stop talking and campaigning against each other until you can. Nothing can be gained except a political (PR) kind of victory and easy friends.

Wizard · November 12, 2014, 5:01am

Accidentally, it is the moral paradigm to hold back the heavy hand against the weak minded.

A fool is allowed to be a fool, and to believe in falsity in lies. The best you can do is to keep pushing truth, and repeating it.

Jakob · November 12, 2014, 1:51pm

How I wish for you Wizard to go deep deep deep into the saints holy theory of affectance which equals existence, for years and years until its genius begins to dawn on you!! That would make me tremendously happy. Same for all who question my intentions.

Please just be honest and DO IT.

Perhaps there are some thirteen year olds here that ive addressed as adults. Of course the stopped clock thread isnt for children.

Go at it! Love James!! Also: do please deeply scorn me and value ontology. It is time for the camps to assemble abd the lines to be drawn.

Since Saint is here on this site the decay he speaks of has been perceivable. He has by far the most posts of anyone and all are made in this period of decay. It proves he is a good man, and honest to the bone. Trust him. TRUST JAMES S SAINT. Revile value ontology. Please do. It is not for you. It is bad for you. Yours is RM.

It is yours to engage. Stop being an absolute coward; wizard mithus and all those who cuddle up to James without looking him in the eye.

Only_Humean · November 12, 2014, 4:12pm

JSS - what was your reason behind using Jakob’s surname, given that he’s never used it here, nor that anyone else has used it, and given the tone of your post?

Ben_JS · November 12, 2014, 6:45pm

Humean, keep Jakob in check - he’s acting crazy.

Wizard · November 12, 2014, 7:01pm

No offense, but I trust James. Jakob you haven’t really presented your objection very clearly here.

And why is this a public dispute rather than a private one? Jakob are you being dramatic?

Mithus · November 12, 2014, 7:15pm

Jakob,
you can call me as many names as you like. You can’t provoke me, because I perceive you as an unstable person who has obviously a problem with himself. That’s not my business.

I don’t need to defend James by attacking your VO. That is currently your method, not mine (and also not James’, btw.).
All what counts for me is that you didn’t show the slightest evidence for your claims and insults. And nothing of that what you showed explains your rage. You turned a personal issue into a public issue, now you play the role of the victim. And you can be sure of the gleefully support of all those brave people, who always wanted to attack James but didn’t dare to do it by themselves. Well done, you work for the media, right?

And Jakob, I’d rather have a ‘small mind’ which is reasonably straight than having a big brain whose parts don’t seem to cooperate at times.

Mithus · November 12, 2014, 7:25pm

[size=150]CARLEAS!!![/size]
I never asked a mod to put the words CRACK DEALER under my username!!!
Who else has the ability to change my profile here ???
I want to have this cancelled immediately.

iambiguous · November 12, 2014, 7:49pm

Actually, if you want to attack James, all you need do is to ask him to explain how RM/AO has any substantive/substantial relevance to human interactions out in the world that we live in.

In particular when they come into conflict.

Instead, as with almost all objectivists, James has concocted this elaborate analysis of “reality” wherein the “truth” of it revolves almost entirely around you agreeing with the assumptions and the premises that he constructs the analysis out of.

In other words, it all begins and ends with the definitions that he gives to the words he uses in the argument itself.

In fact, one can ask Jakob the same question regarding VO. After all, on this site alone we have come across dozens and dozens of folks who all claim that there is in fact an objective reality; and then they proceed to tell us what it is.

And yet if there is indeed an objective reality only one of them can be right. If, in fact, any of them are.

Which is why I always make the distinction between those things that we can demonstrate to others as transcending any particular individual’s point of view…and those things that are instead rooted subjectively [or intersubjectively] in a particular historical, cultural and experiential vantage point.

People believe all sorts of hopelessly conflicting and contradictory things “in their head”. But then what are they able to show us that might compel all rational human beings to accept it in their own heads too?

If you wish to understand more fully the objectivist mind set, I always suggest that folks start here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296