Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
AuthorMessage
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:28 am

Mo wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
There is never a total absence of suffering.

I don't feel a need to pin you down and force you to answer my questions.

Too bad, I might have whispered more deeper into your ear canals what a total misuse of the word total was in your sentence.

Quote :
Nietzsche wrote:
...Pleasure is a kind of pain." [N., WTP, 490, 658]

Some people will get a kind of pleasure (mental) from a kind of pain (physical), or vice versa. It happens with exercise and masochism. But if the thing you are referring to is one and then same, then no, I don't see how the pain in your back is not also a pleasure in your back).

I'm not sure what Nietzsche is referring to. Partly, I don't think he makes it much clearer than that both just have something to do with a discharge of power. ---A bit of a clumsy way of explaining how pleasures, and pains actually feel---phenomenologically.


From the Dionysian perspective, Pleasure is the consciousness of increase in power.

If you can afford not to eat that lettuce or afford not to pin me down and have your way, that kind of Indifference is a power, a degree of independence. This is why I said an increase in power, ironically can make you more indifferent to need. Every increase in power is only attained at the cost of overcoming something else. A resistance overcome. Pain. Suffering...

Chaos and Randomness makes us suffer because of its unpredictability, but if a pattern could be establish and we could take something for granted for a certain time, it releases us from the effort of having to focus there. N. meant pleasure is nothing but repetitive pulses/sequence of pain that lends itself to a "rhythm"...
The underlying condition is always pain, always displeasure.
Pleasure is experiencing it in a rhythm.
The affordability of consciousness no longer needing to concentrate because there is a predictable order, like putting something on automatic pilot, it can divert itself to focus on something else. This indifference of no longer feeling the "need to" is because of an increase in power - which is a rhythmization/stabilization of pain...
Pleasure is the feeling of having overcoming that randomness.

Some quotes;

Quote :
"What is "passive"? - To be hindered from moving forward:
thus an act of resistance and reaction.

What is "active"? - reaching out for power.

"Pleasure" - as a feeling of power '(presupposing displeasure)." [N., WTP, 657]

Quote :
"Man does not seek pleasure and does not avoid displeasure: one will realize which famous prejudice I am contradicting.
Pleasure and displeasure are mere consequences, mere epiphenomena - what man wants, what every smallest part of a living organism wants, is an increase of power. Pleasure or displeasure follow from the striving after that; driven by that will it seeks resistance, it needs something that opposes it- Displeasure, as an obstacle to its will to power, is therefore a normal fact, the normal ingredient of every organic event; man does not avoid it, he is rather in continual need of it; every victory, every feeling of pleasure, every event, presupposes a resistance overcome.
Displeasure thus does not merely not have to result in a diminution of our feeling of power, but in the average case it actually stimulates this feeling of power-the obstacle is the stimulus of this will to power." [N., WTP, 702]

Quote :
"The normal dissatisfaction of our drives, e.g., hunger, the sexual drive, the drive to motion, contains in it absolutely nothing depressing; it works rather as au agitation of the feeling of life, as every rhythm of small, painful stimuli strengthens it, (whatever pessimists may say). This dissatisfaction, instead of making one disgusted with life, is the great stimulus to life. (One could perhaps describe pleasure in general as a rhythm of little unpleasurable stimuli.)" [N., WTP, 697]


Displeasure and suffering is the normal state of life.

Indifference, "I don't Need to" does not imply the absence of suffering, but suffering overcome in its affirmation.



Quote :
Quote :
Question is, do you want your world simplified, or do you want your world enriched?

Enriched. That's why I reject any attempt to siphon manifold experiences down into degrees of just one (like, suffering).

Value judgements are comparisons.

Comparisons are made against a longer lasting order, something more stable against which we can compare.

The most stablest statement we can make of our universe is that it is a chaos, a randomness. It is to meet entropy that consciousness evolved. The very emergence of consciousness is because of the suffering experienced, the lack of discernible patters... and therefore an organ to counter this.
Suffering is the most 'stablest' 'fact' of our reality.

It is only in terms of this reality, grounded in what is 'most' real, our language can make any sense, if it is to remain not just honest, but timeless, persistent.

Chesterton's neat example that a man shot his wife from ten feet away can make us say that was a 'good' shot, but perhaps not a 'good' man...

Its only against something stable, a least moving point, that something can turn around.

There has to be a stable hinge for a near-360 degree perspective; the more stable the hinge, the more you are able to turn around, and therefore more enriched is your experience and diverse is your perspective.


Quote :
Quote :
And might I remind you, there are no Facts, only interpretations of phenomena.

...And that to is an interpretation. And so much the better

Just curious: Isn't it your interpretation that some things are facts? (It certainly was for Nietzsche...)
[/quote]

There are no absolute facts; I only speak in Degrees.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Mo
Lamb
avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 276
Join date : 2013-02-02
Age : 34
Location : Northerly

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:02 pm

Lyssa wrote:
If you can afford not to eat that lettuce or afford not to pin me down and have your way, that kind of Indifference is a power, a degree of independence. This is why I said an increase in power, ironically can make you more indifferent to need. Every increase in power is only attained at the cost of overcoming something else. A resistance overcome. Pain. Suffering...

I think differently about what indifference represents.

A buddhist has as his goal indifference to the world, samsara, suffering, wouldn't you say? Granted, that's an awkward and paradoxical phrasing. When you meditate, you're not supposed to want, even if that want is for your needs/wants to fall away. But, paradox aside, the purpose of meditation is cessation of suffering through mindfulness. You are to escape, or else help other people escape. Having escaped is indifference. Total indifference is a refusal to play--to have escaped the cycle of rebirths---life. The ultimate indifference would be, what, to stop breathing? Is that a power, according to you?

I'm sure you know what Nietzsche says about that kind of indifference, and Buddhism in general. Whatever else he says, he also says it is fundamentally nihilistic, pessimistic, and life-denying. And he's right.

To affirm your life, or say 'yes' to life, is to will that you would have it repeated again, and then again, eternally. --That's fundamentally different than the indifference that would have you not care, one way or another. It's also fundamentally different from the indifference that would have you refuse to play, again.

Nietzsche wrote:
Have you ever said Yes to a single joy? 0 my friends, then you said Yes too to all woe. All things are entangled, ensnared, enamored; if ever you wanted one thing twice, if ever you said, "You please me, happiness! Abide, moment! Then you wanted all back. All anew, all eternally, all entangled, ensnared, enamored---oh, then you loved the world. Eternal ones, love it eternally and evermore; and to woe too, you say: go but return! For all joy wants-eternity

Would you accept that as a description of the experience of beauty? It's starkly different than to say, "Beauty is when you suffer less in degree---nothing essentially different in kind than the numbness experienced by taking a pain-killer". Why would you want to suffer again, and have every succession of dark moments repeated, just because once, for a moment, you suffered slightly less?

...No, some experiences are not adequately described just as a reduction in your degree of pain/suffering. It doesn't do justice to what they are, in the actual world. The deeper flaw with thinking like that is that you are defining the value within the world only in terms of yourself---your needs. That's borderline solipsistic. The world, including the value it contains, beauty as an example, doesn't simply revolve around you. You discover it outside of yourself. (When I say, 'you', I don't mean you personally--I'm not attributing that idea to you. I'm using the Royal 'you', if there's such a thing... whatever, you get it...)

Quote :
Chaos and Randomness makes us suffer because of its unpredictability, but if a pattern could be establish and we could take something for granted for a certain time, it releases us from the effort of having to focus there. N. meant pleasure is nothing but repetitive pulses/sequence of pain that lends itself to a "rhythm"...

I think there is a deep contradiction at the core of your thinking. On the one hand, you want to say that the world is fundamentally chaotic and random. On the other hand, you want to say that the world is fundamentally governed by power-relations---the interplay of strong and weak forces, and their constellations that form objects in the world. ...But, the latter is anything but chaotic and random, isn't it?

To will some stable, orderly, persistent, timeless, static state---those are characteristically Apollonian words, not Dionysian. It strikes me that they betray what is essentially the religious impulse, not even disguised, since all those attributes together are the definition of God, for most people. The Dionysian is anything but indifferent. It's the opposite.

It's to lose yourself, your individuality, in the world. To be taken up by it. Enthralled. When Nietzsche says that he would believe only in a God who could dance, I am sure he's not referring to an ideal that is static, rigid, persistent, timeless, unchanging, etc... like the worst dancer...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15375
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:58 pm

Lost in words.

Balance....Balance....
Scream the Hellenes.

μηδέν άγαν
παν μετρον αριστον


To strive towards what can never, and should, never be attained.
To know it and by knowing it to accept it as necessary.

The comedy/tragedy of life...The source of resentiment....the overman hinted at.
Why woman laughs and is, at the same time, attracted to the male.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:42 pm

Dear girl, would you mind elaborating on:

Lyssa wrote:
Indifference, "I don't Need to" does not imply the absence of suffering, but suffering overcome in its affirmation.

For your loving audience.

And please, I mean nothing but to understand, from your perspective, how a state of "suffering overcome" does not imply the absence of suffering.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:27 pm

I missed several posts lately, I have been stuck on other things. Maybe I'll revisit some.

Lyssa wrote:

fifi wrote:

   Thus you may conclude that the avoidance of suffering is not in the activities, themselves. It is in the presence of intrinsic motivation... in the capacity to act freely.

Again, this is only an aesthetic sensibility; in reality sitting and idling away is not the avoidance of suffering as stagnation is a degree of death, but for some people sleeping away life is enough to avoid suffering. Other terms for sleep - alcohol, Xt., narcotics, etc.

Help me make sense of your words:
If it is enough to avoid suffering, then is it not avoidance of suffering, if suffering is suffered by the self, and the self is not suffering?

Given the capacity to act freely, if one does or not act, in one direction or another, is irrelevant. The fact stands that suffering is not being felt.

I understand that you identify the use of this time/energy for specific purposes as aesthetic sensibility, but that is beside the point... the point being the present lack of suffering.


Quote :

You say suffering is avoided in being 'capable' to act freely; capacity for a will to organize itself, to give itself form, is rooted in suffering again - the need to give form, "intrinsic motivation" is a pressing need - just because it doesn't appear so in the conscious doesn't mean there is no war of the drives in the sub-conscious.
To be able to, or to feel the urge to create a goal for yourself, demands that I rise up to the task, demands that my will be organized, and every organization is a suffering. It takes cost, energy to maintain an order.


Yes, up to the point where one is in the process of obtaining such capacity. In other words, the suffering is felt in the presence of restrains. The need is felt to remove restrains. Effort is placed in actions that will reduce and/or remove restrains. Once the restrains are removed, one is in possession of capacity to act freely. In this moment suffering is absent, and only felt again when that capacity is lost. While that moment lasts, though, one can be "as a child".


There are more parts to this post, but I cannot be as a child right now. Ta ta.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15375
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:53 pm

I need oxygen, but at no time, except when indulging in autoasphyxiation, do I feel like I am suffocating.

Isn't life grand?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
perpetualburn

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 941
Join date : 2013-01-04
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:31 pm

Quote :
Quote :

   You say suffering is avoided in being 'capable' to act freely; capacity for a will to organize itself, to give itself form, is rooted in suffering again - the need to give form, "intrinsic motivation" is a pressing need - just because it doesn't appear so in the conscious doesn't mean there is no war of the drives in the sub-conscious.
   To be able to, or to feel the urge to create a goal for yourself, demands that I rise up to the task, demands that my will be organized, and every organization is a suffering. It takes cost, energy to maintain an order.



Yes, up to the point where one is in the process of obtaining such capacity. In other words, the suffering is felt in the presence of restrains. The need is felt to remove restrains. Effort is placed in actions that will reduce and/or remove restrains. Once the restrains are removed, one is in possession of capacity to act freely. In this moment suffering is absent, and only felt again when that capacity is lost. While that moment lasts, though, one can be "as a child".

The freedom of the moment(the child) is about being able to forget(the "capacity" to forget) and doesn't imply an absence of suffering, but the affirmation of all suffering (and the organizational process, overcoming "restraints"/resistances) that leads to it(the moment) again.

Nietzsche wrote:
However, with the smallest and with the greatest happiness there is always one way in which happiness becomes happiness: through the ability to forget or, to express the matter in a more scholarly fashion, through the capacity, for as long as the happiness lasts, to sense things unhistorically. Anyone who cannot set himself down on the crest of the moment, forgetting everything from the past, who is not capable of standing on a single point, like a goddess of victory, without dizziness and fear, will never know what happiness is, and, even worse, he will never do anything to make other people happy

Nietzsche wrote:
How is freedom measured, in individuals as in nations? By the resistance which has to be overcome, by the effort it costs to stay aloft. One would have to seek the highest type of free man where the greatest resistance is constantly being overcome:

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:27 am

Satyr wrote:
I need oxygen, but at no time, except when indulging in autoasphyxiation, do I feel like I am suffocating.

Isn't life grand?

If every breath came at a high cost, you would be left with little time to play with me. Life is grand indeed.
Back to top Go down
reasonvemotion

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 587
Join date : 2013-01-09
Location : The Female Spirit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:10 am

There is no more lively sensation than that of pain; its impressions are certain and dependable, they never deceive as may those of the pleasure women perpetually feign and almost never experience.
Marquis de Sade
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15375
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:07 am

The sweet pangs of pain.
Makes one feel alive.

For one living in perpetual bliss how quickly he deteriorates to where what once was comfortable now presses upon him like a mass.

The superfluous makes us forget how delicate the balances are.

Everything is easy, these days...expendable, recyclable, shallow...even our needs.
We've been provided for, for so long, we've lost the connection to the source.
The price can dip when the market is controlled...or it can be artificially raised, to construct a result.

Consider the price for pussy, and how paternalism put a cap on it.
These days how many are priced out of that market, and how much need is now allowed to grow into suffering?

And when children are provided for, only told to do their chores, they turn to make-belief to get that lost feeling of gravitas.
Gyms are full of artificially produced beauty - stress imposed upon self, to emulate what was once natural.
And look at the schools...where beauty is assimilated, imitated, because the suffering that made it possible has turned to addiction - atrophying the brain as would the muscle when it has not suffered.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:33 pm

Mo wrote:
Lyssa wrote:If you can afford not to eat that lettuce or afford not to pin me down and have your way, that kind of Indifference is a power, a degree of independence. This is why I said an increase in power, ironically can make you more indifferent to need. Every increase in power is only attained at the cost of overcoming something else. A resistance overcome. Pain. Suffering...

I think differently about what indifference represents.

A buddhist has as his goal indifference to the world, samsara, suffering, wouldn't you say? Granted, that's an awkward and paradoxical phrasing. When you meditate, you're not supposed to want, even if that want is for your needs/wants to fall away. But, paradox aside, the purpose of meditation is cessation of suffering through mindfulness.

No. Original Buddhism teaches the cessation of the Conditions of suffering, not suffering. Its why Buddha remarks somewhere Samsara and Nibbana are the same [or form and emptiness are the same], meaning this same life which becomes the cause of our Passive identification with it drawing us into its currents and dragging us like a reed in the waters, is also the cause of our maximum state of freedom, that which enables us grow mind-Full of our essentiality, of our active ego.
The awareness of the conditions that make us suffer - which is what meditation is for - is what makes us enlightened about the nature of things as they ARE. A keener perception that life Is suffering.

If the light and heat outside is burning me, and I draw the shades in for cool, does this remove the Fact that the outside is burning?
I can only remove the conditions, I cannot negate suffering.

If I put my car on automatic, I may feel I am free but does the car stop moving?
I have put something else on my behalf to take its place,,, something else sacrifices and expends itself on my behalf.
That is suffering overcome in affirmation.
At bottom, the Yea-sayer negates nothing.

(I have gone into details in the Buddhism thread in the Lyceum; you can look it up, if you're interested.)

Two. Popular Buddhism has become as good as saying Ignorance is Bliss... and that kind of sheltering, solipsistic hibernation into some safe void is not what I mean by indifference and I didn't think I had to say that Indifference as the concealing of one's weakness is not what I meant naturally.
I can pretend to be Cool and Indifferent and enter shark-infested waters, when my ignorance blankets me thick and I can call this my power, my confidence.


Mo wrote:
I'm sure you know what Nietzsche says about that kind of indifference, and Buddhism in general. Whatever else he says, he also says it is fundamentally nihilistic, pessimistic, and life-denying. And he's right.

Then you haven't read him attentively. He distinguishes two kinds of Buddhisms - an active one as an Aryan discipline , and a popular religious one of passive decadence.

He specifically remarks its only natural that the Aryans never knew of any slave religion, and Buddhism although pessimistic, is Still a product of Master Values, in the decline phase. Like I said he distinguishes romantic pessimism [wagner and schopenhauer's conflation of buddhism and Xt.], and a pessimism from strength [his own ER was styled as the title "European Buddhism"].

Real Indifference is being even indifferent to one's indifference. (This is what happiness/joy is as opposed to pleasure.)


Quote :
To affirm your life, or say 'yes' to life, is to will that you would have it repeated again, and then again, eternally. --That's fundamentally different than the indifference that would have you not care, one way or another. It's also fundamentally different from the indifference that would have you refuse to play, again.

Yes; that's why I mentioned in another post,,, there's an indifference that conceals strength, and there's an indifference that conceals weakness.

True indifference is self-mastery,,, and not acting cool from ignorance, not the fake confidence one wears from periods of sheltering. It can fool a lot of people, but not for long.
The body always betrays, the mind always preserves.
Actions eventually betray our essence no matter how much mental dialectics we use to trick ourselves.


Mo wrote:


Nietzsche wrote:Have you ever said Yes to a single joy? 0 my friends, then you said Yes too to all woe. All things are entangled, ensnared, enamored; if ever you wanted one thing twice, if ever you said, "You please me, happiness! Abide, moment! Then you wanted all back. All anew, all eternally, all entangled, ensnared, enamored---oh, then you loved the world. Eternal ones, love it eternally and evermore; and to woe too, you say: go but return! For all joy wants-eternity

Would you accept that as a description of the experience of beauty? It's starkly different than to say, "Beauty is when you suffer less in degree---nothing essentially different in kind than the numbness experienced by taking a pain-killer". Why would you want to suffer again, and have every succession of dark moments repeated, just because once, for a moment, you suffered slightly less?

...No, some experiences are not adequately described just as a reduction in your degree of pain/suffering. It doesn't do justice to what they are, in the actual world. The deeper flaw with thinking like that is that you are defining the value within the world only in terms of yourself---your needs. That's borderline solipsistic. The world, including the value it contains, beauty as an example, doesn't simply revolve around you. You discover it outside of yourself. (When I say, 'you', I don't mean you personally--I'm not attributing that idea to you. I'm using the Royal 'you', if there's such a thing... whatever, you get it...)


You present only half his thought behind that quote; I present the rest:

Quote :
"Life itself, its eternal fruitfulness and recurrence, creates torment, destruction, the will to annihilation.
In the other case, suffering-the "Crucified as the innocent one"-counts as an objection to this life, as a formula for its condemnation.- One will see that the problem is that of the meaning of suffering: whether a Christian meaning or a tragic meaning. In the former case, it is supposed to be the path to a holy existence; in the latter case, being is counted as holy enough to justify even a monstrous amount of suffering." [N., WTP, 1052]

Quote :
"...a Dionysian affirmation of the world as it is, without subtraction, exception, or selection-it wants the eternal circulation: -the same things, the same logic and illogic of entanglements. The highest state a philosopher can attain: to stand in a Dionysian relationship to existence-my formula for this is arnor fali."
It is part of this state to perceive not merely the necessity of those sides of existence hitherto denied, but their desirability; and not their desirability merely in relation to the sides hitherto affirmed (perhaps as their complement or precondition), but for their own sake, as the more powerful, more fruitful, truer sides of existence, in which its will finds clearer expression." [N., WTP, 1041]

Quote :
"In the same way, pleasure counts as being more primeval than pain: pain only as conditioned, as a consequence of the will to pleasure (of the will to become, grow, shape, i.e., to create: in creation, however, destruction is included). A highest state of affirmation of existence is conceived from which the highest degree of pain cannot be excluded: the tragic-Dionysian state." [N., WTP, 853]

Meaning, life is the will to grow, expand, flourish, assert, its the will to power... and every increase in power experienced as pleasure,,, this joy is more primeval than pain, only because the highest state of affirmation, the highest state of pleasure does Not exclude pain, suffering Is the reality of this world. That's even why the Dionysian is called the "Tragic" state. Highest affirmative state, highest joy is what does not occlude pain and suffering.


Mo wrote:
Quote :Chaos and Randomness makes us suffer because of its unpredictability, but if a pattern could be establish and we could take something for granted for a certain time, it releases us from the effort of having to focus there. N. meant pleasure is nothing but repetitive pulses/sequence of pain that lends itself to a "rhythm"...

I think there is a deep contradiction at the core of your thinking. On the one hand, you want to say that the world is fundamentally chaotic and random. On the other hand, you want to say that the world is fundamentally governed by power-relations---the interplay of strong and weak forces, and their constellations that form objects in the world. ...But, the latter is anything but chaotic and random, isn't it?

You disappoint yourself bitterly.

The key-word being interplay...

There is always a play, a coming together and coming apart of strong and weak forces... how they combine is unpredictable. There is a randomness to the "how"... its chaotic, its entropic because we are not aware of any laws that govern the how...


Mo wrote:
To will some stable, orderly, persistent, timeless, static state---those are characteristically Apollonian words, not Dionysian. It strikes me that they betray what is essentially the religious impulse, not even disguised, since all those attributes together are the definition of God, for most people.


Quote :
"To impose upon becoming the character of being - that is the supreme will to power.
That everything recurs" is the closest approximation of a world of becoming to a world of being: - high point of the meditation." [N., WTP, 617]

Quote :
"Man is now strong enough to be ashamed of any faith in God: he may again play the advocatus diaboli. If he in praxi advocates the preservation of virtue, he does it for reasons that recognize in virtue a subtlety, a cunning, a form of lust for gain and power. This pessimism of strength also ends in a theodicy, i.e., in an absolute affirmation of the world-but for the very reasons that formerly led one to deny it-and in this fashion to a conception of this world as the actually-achieved highest possible ideal." [N., WTP, 1019]

Quote :
"Religions, as consolations and relaxations, dangerous: man believes he has a right to take his ease.
In Plato's Theages it is written: "Each one of us would like to be master over all men, if possible, and best of all God." This attitude must exist again." [N., WTP, 958]


I didn't think I had to explain so much; but consider it a birthday present given with a lot of Pleasure.


Mo wrote:
The Dionysian is anything but indifferent. It's the opposite.

It's to lose yourself, your individuality, in the world. To be taken up by it. Enthralled. When Nietzsche says that he would believe only in a God who could dance, I am sure he's not referring to an ideal that is static, rigid, persistent, timeless, unchanging, etc... like the worst dancer...

There are many levels of the Dionysian... as in BOT, he speaks of that kind of Dionysian too which "collapsed" into a "witch's brew of cruelty", an orgiastic waste of violence.

N.'s Dionysian is the Apollo-affirmative-Dionysian. BOT makes that clear.

In numerous places in TSZ, he coins "hard but supple".... and such phrases to imply... DEGREE of apollonian rigidity to maintain self-integrity and DEGREE of dionysian fluidity to experiment, re-create/recreate the self.

This is called Balance.

This is called Flexibility.

This is called Golden Measure.

Apollo-affirmative-Dionysian Indifference:

Quote :
""True heroism consists, in Not fighting under the banner of sacrifice, devotion, disinterestedness, but in Not fighting at all - "This is what I am; this is what I want: - you can go to hell! - ...The extreme calm... (more strictly: the retardation of the feelings of time and space) likes to be reflected in a vision of the calmest gestures and types of soul. The classical style is essentially a representation of this calm, simplification, abbreviation, concentration - the highest feeling of power is concentrated in the classical type. To react slowly; a great consciousness; no feeling of struggle." [N., WTP, 349, 799]


There is an Indifference of the Weak, that behaves in the manner of "This is what I am, you can go to hell, I could care less"... from an insecurity to open itself to comparisons, from a cowardice to reveal itself,

and there is an Indifference of Strength, that is from a great consciousness and its simplification into such unmistakable clarity that "I AM" is enough reply... it resists reacting...

False pride of spoilt cases who "cling" to their "independent spirit" has a false humility for its basis; "I don't have to compare myself to anybody, I am unique", and this 'indifference' is why I'm charming, appealing, so cool and seductive, is the heights of impotence.

Only a mind sensitive to nuances can differentiate this.
Buddhist meditation was meant to increase the state of this alertness, mind-Full-ness for perceiving such nuances.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:36 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Dear girl, would you mind elaborating on:

Lyssa wrote:
Indifference, "I don't Need to" does not imply the absence of suffering, but suffering overcome in its affirmation.

For your loving audience.

And please, I mean nothing but to understand, from your perspective, how a state of "suffering overcome" does not imply the absence of suffering.




My Precious one,  said,


phoneutria wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
Why do creatures like these incapable of objective detachment pose to do philosophy

Simple, what I am not involved with, I don't care about.


Precious,

My time is precious to play around with someone who just doesn't give any about phil...


Give me a good reason why I should play with you, when here you are pretending to care about what you are not involved with...

Bugs should just remain invisible...   the way they were meant to be....   out of sight, out of mind.


Don't mistake me pls., its not that I don't want to play, I just don't know too many games that don't involve a vacuum cleaner or any modest apparatus modelled for suction of some sort...  what will happen to my precious, then,...

just remain invisible, you cute thing you...

The jungle has all kinds of creatures, and I for one, like you as you are. no sarcasm meant.

<3

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Mo
Lamb
avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 276
Join date : 2013-02-02
Age : 34
Location : Northerly

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:44 am

Lyssa wrote:
You disappoint yourself bitterly.

The key-word being interplay...

There is always a play, a coming together and coming apart of strong and weak forces... how they combine is unpredictable. There is a randomness to the "how"... its chaotic, its entropic because we are not aware of any laws that govern the how...

I'll repeat this, since I'm not indifferent to you...

If the world is governed by power-relations at its core---(the interplay of strong and weak forces)---then it is not random and chaotic. In BGE 22, Nietzsche recognizes that a world that is will to power would be just as "calculable" and "necessary" as a world where actual laws of nature obtained. A world governed by power-relations, at its core, would be just as deterministic as if nature conformed to laws of physics. ---Just as necessary and non-random as how magnets act when you know their polarization.

Here's a way out (for you) from the apparent contradiction. You could either say that will to power really only applies at some level, say, organic life, and isn't an ontology. Or, you could say that will to power is an ontology, but the random and chaotic nature of reality is a perspective taken by creatures who can't fully understand it. Either of those, I think, would resolve the contradiction.

Lyssa wrote:
No. Original Buddhism teaches the cessation of the Conditions of suffering, not suffering.


Is there a difference? If Buddhism teaches cessation of desire, and desire is the condition of suffering, then Buddhism teaches the cessation of suffering.

If a person were to cultivate indifference within, they would live in such a way that they didn't really care whether they lived again. They'd be indifferent. ---And that is directly opposed to the core of anything Nietzsche ever said. I can't think of anything more sickly nihilistic and deprecating to life than to simply not care. At least someone who houses their source of value in an otherworld cares about something.

Quote :
Then you haven't read him attentively. He distinguishes two kinds of Buddhisms - an active one as an Aryan discipline , and a popular religious one of passive decadence.

I've read him attentively, but there are other reasons why I might be wrong about something. Maybe it will please you to hear that I think you know more about Nietzsche and Buddhism than me. Frankly, I only see one kind of indifference---and it's a flaw, not a strength. It's an unwillingness to play, to take part, an unwillingness to be hurt, and so on. When I am indifferent to something, hopefully it is only because I care about something else, more.

Quote :
I didn't think I had to explain so much; but consider it a birthday present given with a lot of Pleasure.

Hmm, how should I put this....

The impulse to a timeless, persistent, static state---as an ideal for concepts or actions---is a religious impulse, the mark of otherworldly thinking, because those are qualities that define that. Yes, Nietzsche calls it the "most supreme will to power" in WTP 617, and he also calls it the "most spiritual will to power" in BGE 9. But it shouldn't surprise anyone that otherworldly thinking is also a product of will to power.

You might be re-gifting to me something that Nietzsche didn't want, or didn't mean. (It's tough to say that without sounding ungrateful). But his notebooks were just that...notebooks. They're the place where he entertains ideas he might not have endorsed, and often rejects, in what he actually designated for publication. Their use, if you are a student, should be to flesh out what he means by ideas he actually did publish---not to construct positions with no reference to what he actually did endorse, (by publishing it).

The closest passage to WTP 617 that I am aware of in what Nietzsche actually published is BGE 9. I recognize it though, so it's possible he did include it somewhere in a published work. But the context of BGE 9 is fairly different.

Nietzsche wrote:
…what formerly happened with the Stoics still happens today, too, as soon as any philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise. Philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power, to the ‘creation of the world,’ to the causa prima”.

They’re really different.



Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:56 am

Lyssa wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Dear girl, would you mind elaborating on:

Lyssa wrote:
Indifference, "I don't Need to" does not imply the absence of suffering, but suffering overcome in its affirmation.

For your loving audience.

And please, I mean nothing but to understand, from your perspective, how a state of "suffering overcome" does not imply the absence of suffering.




My Precious one,  said,


phoneutria wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
Why do creatures like these incapable of objective detachment pose to do philosophy

Simple, what I am not involved with, I don't care about.


Precious,

My time is precious to play around with someone who just doesn't give any about phil...


Give me a good reason why I should play with you, when here you are pretending to care about what you are not involved with...

Do notice that I (apparently) am incapable of objective detachment from the subject.
That must mean I care.

*smooch*
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:56 pm

Mo wrote:
I'll repeat this, since I'm not indifferent to you...

I can appreciate how you want to like yourself.

Quote :
If the world is governed by power-relations at its core---(the interplay of strong and weak forces)---then it is not random and chaotic. In BGE 22, Nietzsche recognizes that a world that is will to power would be just as "calculable" and "necessary" as a world where actual laws of nature obtained. A world governed by power-relations, at its core, would be just as deterministic as if nature conformed to laws of physics. ---Just as necessary and non-random as how magnets act when you know their polarization.


BGE 22 states:

Quote :
"...but he might, nevertheless, end by asserting the same about this world as you do, namely, that it has a "necessary'' and "calculable" course, not because laws obtain in it, but because they are absolutely lacking, and every power draws its ultimate consequences at every moment."

How Anyone! can misconstrue that as him saying there is no randomness can only leave me bemused... but, lets go through the motions.

1. Notice the inverted commas on "necessary" and "calculable" - that should be a warning not to take it literally.

2. If that's not clear or convincing enough, the foll. selections should leave one with no mistaking of what he meant by "calculable"; make sure not to ignore where he places the inverted commas in these remarks too...
a.
"Let us beware of saying there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands, nobody who obeys, nobody who trespasses. Once you know that there are no purposes, you also know that there is no accident; for it is only beside a world of purposes that the word "accident" has meaning." [JW, 109]

b.
"One should not understand this compulsion to construct concepts, species, forms, purposes, laws ("a world of identical cases") as if they enabled us to fix the real world; but as a compulsion to arrange a world for ourselves in which our existence is made possible: -we thereby create a world which is calculable, simplified, comprehensible, etc., for us. The
world seems logical to us because we have made it logical. [WTP, 521]

c.
"Necessity is not a fact but an interpretation." [WTP, 552]

d.
"The calculability of an event does not reside in the fact that a rule is adhered to, or that a necessity is obeyed, or that a law of causality has been projected by us into every event: it resides in the recurrence of "identical cases"." [WTP, 551]

e.
"Against determinism and teleology.- From the fact that something ensues regularly and ensues calculably, it does not follow that it ensues necessarily. That a quantum of force determines and conducts itself in every particular case in one way and manner does not make it into an "unfree will." "Mechanical necessity" is not a fact: it is we who first interpreted it into events. We have interpreted the forrnulatable character of everits as the consequence of a necessity that rules over events. But from the fact that I do a certain thing, it by rio means follows that I am compelled to do it. Compulsion in things certainly cannot be demonstrated: the rule proves only that one and the same event is not another event as well." [WTP, 552]

f.
"Life is founded upon the premise of a belief in enduring and regularly recurring things; the more powerful life is, the wider must be the knowable world to which we, as it were, attribute being. Logicizing, rationalizing, systematizing as expedients of life." [WTP, 552]

g.
"All events, all motion, all becoming, as a determination of degrees and relations of force, as a struggle-" [WTP, 552]

h.
"Against apparent "necessity":
-this is only an expression for the fact that a force is not also something else.
Against apparent "purposiveness":
-the latter only an expression for an order of spheres of power and their interplay." [WTP, 552]

i.
"Appearance" itself belongs to reality: it is a form of its being;
i.e., in a world where there is no being, a certain calculable world of identical cases must first be created through appearance: a tempo at which observation and comparison are possible, etc. Appearance is an arranged and simplified world, at which our practical instincts have been at work; it is perfectly true for us; that is to say, we live, we are able to live in it: proof of its truth for us." [WTP, 568]

j.
"Judgment- this is the belief: "This and that are so." Thus there is in every judgment the avowal of having encountered an "identical case": it therefore presupposes comparison with the aid of memory. The judgment does not produce the appearance of an identical case. Rather it believes it perceives one: it works under the presupposition that identical cases exist." [WTP, 532]

k.
"Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking and inferences, this condition must first be treated fictitously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed. From which it follows that a drive rules here that is capable of employing both means, firstly falsification, then the implementation of its own point of view.
...The inventive force that invented categories labored in the service of our needs, namely of our need for security, for quick understanding on the basis of signs and sounds, for means of abbreviation..." [WTP, 512, 513]


We say the course of this world is "calculable" in the sense:

"If the world had a goal, it must have been reached. If there were for it some unintended final state, this also must have been reached. If it were in any way capable of a pausing and becoming fixed, of "being," if in the whole course of its becoming it possessed even for a moment this capability of "being," then all becoming would long since have come to an end, along with all thinking, all "spirit." The fact of "spirit" as a form of becoming proves that the world has no goal, no final state, and is incapable of being." [WTP, 1062]

Like I said, that the world is an inter-play of strong and weak forces does not negate the fact the world is at its core randomness, chaos, entropy...; displeasure is the norm amidst the innate urge of life being self-joy.

Are you familiar with Pinker's Angels? He presents a study of how a set of constellations proved to have lesser randomness than the patterns of a glow-worm... its a reminder of how much chaos we live in...


Mo wrote:

Here's a way out (for you) from the apparent contradiction. You could either say that will to power really only applies at some level, say, organic life, and isn't an ontology. Or, you could say that will to power is an ontology, but the random and chaotic nature of reality is a perspective taken by creatures who can't fully understand it. Either of those, I think, would resolve the contradiction.

I need do neither.

The 'contradiction' arises because of a. you have not absorbed his thoughts wholesomely, and b. you lack a sensibility (not capacity necessarily) for nuance, taking things under inverted commas literally...

Do you believe the world has a telos?
And its only because we as creatures who can't Fully understand the chaotic nature of reality perceive it so,,,,, meaning, you believe there is a Grand Law to this universe that the human consciousness is unable to infer/recognize? And because we can't, no conclusion can/should be made on the nature of the universe?



Mo wrote:
Lyssa wrote:No. Original Buddhism teaches the cessation of the Conditions of suffering, not suffering.

Is there a difference? If Buddhism teaches cessation of desire, and desire is the condition of suffering, then Buddhism teaches the cessation of suffering.

It teaches the cessation of desire in passive identification, else Buddha's last remark "strive on diligently" - the 'Desire' for enlightenment would still count as suffering.
This is not a language ploy but a corruption by popular buddhism.

If a girl derives her identity from buying clothes, jewels, etc. - such a passive identification, such a desire in "samsara" can only bring suffering. Buddhism teaches the cessation of desire in such passivity.
What real Buddhism was about, I have presented in the Lyceum.

Since there is no final state, there is always going to be need, a lack, a suffering. No "concept" like Buddhism or Xt. or whatever philosophy can negate this near-absolute Fact of our reality.


Mo wrote:
If a person were to cultivate indifference within, they would live in such a way that they didn't really care whether they lived again. They'd be indifferent. ---And that is directly opposed to the core of anything Nietzsche ever said. I can't think of anything more sickly nihilistic and deprecating to life than to simply not care. At least someone who houses their source of value in an otherworld cares about something.

I agree, and that is why I presented quotes on what N. meant by "indifference" from a strength, from an excess, from a self-abundance, and two kinds of pessimisms.

Language works in degrees; for you to say that only one meaning can be meant by one word is ironically You being reductive of experiencing this world; your sensibility is rigid.

There are many kinds of indifferences, many degrees of it.



Mo wrote:

Quote :Then you haven't read him attentively. He distinguishes two kinds of Buddhisms - an active one as an Aryan discipline , and a popular religious one of passive decadence.
I've read him attentively, but there are other reasons why I might be wrong about something.

Maybe it will please you to hear that I think you know more about Nietzsche and Buddhism than me.

No, it doesn't please me; I do not have that kind of mentality.
It is even foreign to my spirituality.
To derive delight by scoring one over someone at a disadvantage than me is non-sense to me; I, atleast can derive no pride from it.
(In general, this doesn't "immediately" mean one is compassionate with the herd and wont dominate it or shy away from inflicting suffering on it, maybe pleasure, but one simply derives no joy, nor pride in doing so.)
I can derive pleasure from running faster than a cripple, but I can derive no joy from it; the kind of joy I would derive running faster than a cheetah...
Maximal self-growth and therefore joy, can only come at actively seeking and facing the maximal resistance, not a poor one.



Mo wrote:
[Frankly, I only see one kind of indifference---and it's a flaw, not a strength. It's an unwillingness to play, to take part, an unwillingness to be hurt, and so on. When I am indifferent to something, hopefully it is only because I care about something else, more.

See what I mean, its you who is reductive.

To say indifference is a flaw - in that once and for all way is a demo of your absolutist thinking.

No, there are broadly two kinds of indifferences, one from strength and one from weakness,,,, like there are only two kinds of forces at the bottom of the world - strong and weak...
But the combinations of these in different degrees give us our diversity.

Example.
Milk, buttermilk, butter, ghee, cream, cheese, curd are different Degrees of the same, and to say they all have their basis in the cow is not reduce them to Just a cow, is it??
It is to experience the cow in different ways without negating the fact of their cowness.

To say there is only one dairy and that is really only milk that the cow gives... is You being reductive.

Likewise, we experience displeasure, chaos in different ways, without negating the fact, at bottom, the world is chaos.


Mo wrote:
Hmm, how should I put this....

The impulse to a timeless, persistent, static state---as an ideal for concepts or actions---is a religious impulse, the mark of otherworldly thinking, because those are qualities that define that. Yes, Nietzsche calls it the "most supreme will to power" in WTP 617, and he also calls it the "most spiritual will to power" in BGE 9. But it shouldn't surprise anyone that otherworldly thinking is also a product of will to power.

And didn't I already give a quote on "willing" and "willing in a certain direction" ?

If you see no qualitative difference in a this-world affirming pagan self-deification, and a Xt. affirming a reality-denying other-worldly god because you have collapsed any Degree of the meaning of the word "religion", then that is surely a sign of weakness.


Your equi-valence "Religion = Other-worldly thinking" speaks much of your a-historical mind.
There have been periods in history when the 'religious impulse' did Not connote any other-worldliness, till the J.-Xt. iconoclasm took over and 'God' could Only mean the other-worldly YHVH, every other "God"- a "false" god...

Its why N. calls his project the "Re"-naturalization of pagan values... as they have existed in history.

A philosopher uses language to advance his own goals, his own visions, as a tool that serves him, not the other way.
He does not take for granted the value "religion = other world thinking"; he re-evaluates how we think, because he realizes -

"It is the powerful who made the names of things into law, and among the powerful it is the greatest artists in abstraction who created the categories.
A morality, a mode of living tried and proved by long experience and testing, at length enters consciousness as a law, as dominating- And therewith the entire group of related values and states enters into it: it becomes venerable, unassailable, holy, true..." [WTP, 513, 514]

A philosopher tries/should try to expand the horizon of our consciousness... "how many moralities are still possible?"... he evaluates the language we think in, and does not "resign" himself to the lang. that has become law. He begins from scratch questioning everything.
To not do so is for the philosopher to be stuck in a moralism, a slave to conventions. This is not the same as postmodern relativism which claims All values are just as good as everything and anything else.
To evaluate values as rank-expressions and determing worth anew, is not the same as rendering all values relative to each other as more or less the same worth.

N. was no pomo, although he was claimed by the pomos.

My frame is not, "if lang. has to have any meaning....... that is how lang. works",,,,, but "if life has to have any meaning...... that is how philosophy works".


Mo wrote:
You might be re-gifting to me something that Nietzsche didn't want, or didn't mean. (It's tough to say that without sounding ungrateful). But his notebooks were just that...notebooks. They're the place where he entertains ideas he might not have endorsed, and often rejects, in what he actually designated for publication. Their use, if you are a student, should be to flesh out what he means by ideas he actually did publish---not to construct positions with no reference to what he actually did endorse, (by publishing it).

Till date, I have not countered any serious contradiction bet. his notes and his published writings and this has been the case since 1900+.
For the real attentive and intellectually honest reader, there can not only be no mistaking him, but his writings resist any mis-Taking him also.
The liberals and the anti-semites try as they may to use him to suit their needs, which he fully well knew and so even taunted them to do so with his playful lang., because he knew, the heart of his matter lacked no clarity.
Your gift has not been compromised, and therefore hopefully not the pleasure either.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:58 pm

phoneutria wrote:


phoneutria wrote:


Lyssa wrote:
Why do creatures like these incapable of objective detachment pose to do philosophy

Simple, what I am not involved with, I don't care about.


Lyssa wrote:
Precious,

My time is precious to play around with someone who just doesn't give any about phil...


Give me a good reason why I should play with you, when here you are pretending to care about what you are not involved with...

Do notice that I (apparently) am incapable of objective detachment from the subject.
That must mean I care.

*smooch*


Now where did I deny that?
Precious, I can't play with you *because you are SO caring, and because you know I know you care, you took it as a compliment too.

Lyssa wrote:
Typically female to take everything so personally, so emotionally.

phoneutria wrote:
I'll take it as a compliment.


*paddling your pink canoe*

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:27 pm

Well, I can't make ya.
I'll leave you alone to objectively worship phil, whilst he is in bed with me.
Ta ta.
Back to top Go down
Mo
Lamb
avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 276
Join date : 2013-02-02
Age : 34
Location : Northerly

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:41 pm

Lyssa wrote:
I can appreciate how you want to like yourself.

What? Explain what you mean, please...

Lyssa wrote:
How Anyone! can misconstrue that as him saying there is no randomness can only leave me bemused... but, lets go through the motions.

He says it very clearly. None of the quotes you made even seem the slightest bit relevant. Of course 'necessity' is an interpretation. ('Will to power' and 'nature' are also in scare quotes... so what?). Were you trying to claim that you've described a noumenal realm when you said reality is random and chaotic? Do I even need to tell you what Nietzsche's response to your purported extra-perspectival truth would be?

Nietzsche wrote:
But as said above, that is interpretation (referring to physical laws of nature), not text; and somebody might come along who, with opposite intentions and modes of interpretation, could read out of the same 'nature,' and with regard to the same phenomena, rather the tyrannically inconsiderate and relentless enforcement of claims of power---an interpreter who would picture the unexceptional and unconditional aspects of all 'will to power' (as Nietzsche does)...he might, nevertheless, end by asserting the same about this world as you do, namely, that it has a 'necessary' and 'calculable course, not because laws obtain in it, but because they are absolutely lacking"

It's right there.

Quote :
For the real attentive and intellectually honest reader, there can not only be no mistaking him, but his writings resist any mis-Taking him also.

So, according to you I must be un-attentive or else intellectually dishonest. You will have no trouble not responding to me again, then...

Quote :
I can derive pleasure from running faster than a cripple, but I can derive no joy from it; the kind of joy I would derive running faster than a cheetah...

What?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:50 pm

Mo wrote:
Lyssa wrote:How Anyone! can misconstrue that as him saying there is no randomness can only leave me bemused... but, lets go through the motions.

He says it very clearly. None of the quotes you made even seem the slightest bit relevant. Of course 'necessity' is an interpretation. ('Will to power' and 'nature' are also in scare quotes... so what?). Were you trying to claim that you've described a noumenal realm when you said reality is random and chaotic? Do I even need to tell you what Nietzsche's response to your purported extra-perspectival truth would be?

No, I think it was very clear that is def. not even close to what I was claiming.

You said: "If the world is governed by power-relations at its core---(the interplay of strong and weak forces)---then it is not random and chaotic." and you gave the BGE 22 quote.

I said: By "Calculability" he simply meant what is calculable is that the world does not arrive at any final state and therefore We can posit a governing necessity by which we only real mean, "that a force is not also something else". This doesn't mean the world is Not random.

The unanswered question:

"Do you believe the world has a telos?
And is it only because we as creatures who can't Fully understand the chaotic nature of reality perceive it so?,,,,, meaning, you believe there is a Grand Law to this universe that the human consciousness is unable to infer/recognize? And because we can't, no conclusion can/should be made on the nature of the universe?"


Mo wrote:
Quote :For the real attentive and intellectually honest reader, there can not only be no mistaking him, but his writings resist any mis-Taking him also.

So, according to you I must be un-attentive or else intellectually dishonest. You will have no trouble not responding to me again, then...

No trouble.

This one is to set the pic. straight from my end as how it stands.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:05 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Well, I can't make ya.
I'll leave you alone to objectively worship phil, whilst he is in bed with me.
Ta ta.

fifi wrote:
the embodiment, or physicalization of desire is the last stage of seduction.
it is a weak link, an appeal to impulse.

in order to fully seduce, one must offer a possibility of an engagement that goes beyond the physical.


Ta.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:07 pm

Mo wrote:
[00:10:16 02/04/14] Mo : It's ironic, that those tirading against relativism and nihilism and sheltering the weak.... are the nihilists, relativists, and are sheltering people who can't think for themselves


Now who would that be?


Quote :
[00:10:24 02/04/14] Mo : by insisting that they play the game of follow the leader

[00:10:32 02/04/14] Mo : Or else.


Now where did that happen here?


Can you back up these accusations?

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:12 pm

Those matters should not interest you. They are a distraction to your objectivity.
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:14 pm

You are not detached enough to make that statement, Precious.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Mo
Lamb
avatar

Gender : Male Aries Posts : 276
Join date : 2013-02-02
Age : 34
Location : Northerly

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:47 pm

Lyssa wrote:
I said: By "Calculability" he simply meant what is calculable is that the world does not arrive at any final state and therefore We can posit a governing necessity by which we only real mean, "that a force is not also something else". This doesn't mean the world is Not random.

In BGE 22, the context is that Nietzsche is considering the interpretation of the world by which phenomena conform to physical laws. He clearly states that the same necessity could obtain if phenomena simply conformed to the relentless enforcement of claims of power, without immutable laws of physics. Things don't just happen randomly, for Nietzsche, at any level. ---That conforming and necessity and calculability is directly opposed what you said about phenomena being random and chaotic---at any level. Nothing you have said sheds any other light on that, even slightly.

In at least one place, WP 552 (I think), Nietzsche separates necessity from calculability, and says that the latter need not entail the former. That's fine. But calculability still directly conflicts with the idea that phenomena are random and chaotic.

To say that the world is random and chaotic, and also that the world at the same level is will to power... would strike me as a flat out contradiction.

Quote :
And is it only because we as creatures who can't Fully understand the chaotic nature of reality perceive it so?,,,,, meaning, you believe there is a Grand Law to this universe that the human consciousness is unable to infer/recognize?

Did I say I believed in a Grand Law of the universe? Did anything I say, anywhere, even suggest it? I'm not even sure what you're asking. Are you asking me if I believe in the laws of physics? Or are you asking me if I believe in a creator of the universe who put laws on stone tablets? Or something else?

Quote :
The unanswered question:

"Do you believe the world has a telos?

I don't believe in a transcendent meaning or purpose behind the world. But that doesn't prevent me from thinking that, with reference to people, there are worldly purposes that can be based on and grounded in a relation between the kind of creature that you are, and the world as it is. I would say that some things (or actions or values) are good for you, regardless of what you think, just because of the kind of creature that you are and the world as it is.

On top of that, I think that some things (i.e., values) are worth pursuing for no other justification than just what they actually are. They are their own justification. You can investigate them, to understand them better, and dig into them, and so on---but when you justify them as valuable, you don't make reference beyond just what they are, in their relation to you and the world. These are called "ends"----only because you do not pursue these values as a means to something further. There is no infinite regress. If you have no ends, you are a nihilist. (I posted a lengthy post about what my ends were, awhile ago. Somebody deleted it. Can it be retrieved, if you have administrator privileges? I want that one post.)

Side point about Nietzsche: One of Nietzsche's (worldly) ends is probably the Ubermensch. He said that the Ubermensch was the meaning/purpose of the earth. If the reason why you should be a bridge to the Ubermensch does not make reference to anything other than just what the Ubermensch actually is, then that's a good example. He is his own justification.

It looks in some places like Nietzsche flat out rejects teleological thinking. Certainly, he rejects a type of it. But when he says that the world is will to power, and that will to power is the final fact to which you descend.... don't you think he is making 'power' a worldly telos (i.e., in the sense of a goal)? A telos is an end purpose. What is the Ubermensch, when he says that the Ubermensch is the meaning of the earth? ---A telos?


EDIT: Instead of saying that I don't believe in a transcendent meaning or purpose behind the world... it would probably be more accurate to say that I don't care, one way or another. Whether or not god exists, I certainly don't care, and it has no bearing on how I act and what I value.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Cold is the absence of heat.
Thus there is no such thing as cold, only degrees of warmness.
Degrees of molecular excitability.

However...
Is pleasure the absence of cortisol, such that there is no pleasure, but only degrees of suffering?

Or is pleasure the presence of endorphin?
Wink
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:07 pm

Please understand those as metaphors.
Back to top Go down
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2129
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:32 pm

Quote :
Cold is the absence of heat.

What is cold and what is warm? Those words originally developed to describe a sensation. Those sensations which are colder than a certain temperature (lower but close to our body temperature) and those sensations which are warmer, higher in temperature than said certain temperature.

We also use it to make comparisons. This is colder or this is warmer than the other thing and vice versa.

In thermodynamics the theory says that the macroscopic temperature of a substance is depending on the kinetic energy of its microscopic components, the movement speed of molecules in a fluid or atoms swinging in a grid within a solid state object, depending on the substance.

If one mixes two substances with different temperatures then the warmer one gets colder and the colder one gets warmer, they approach an equilibrium. The natural process of increasing entropy, it requires no effort, no work in physic terms.

To heat something requires work, energy.
To cool something also requires work, energy.
And work can only be performed by increasing the entropy of the overall system (universe).

Cold is the absence of heat - is a play of words.

It's about the potential for energy dissipation.
If I have a gallon of hot water and a gallon of cold water then there is energy stored which can be dissipated. If I have two gallons of mixed temperature water then the energy has already been dissipated - no net flux of energy which can drive something, anything.

Like the sun and its continuous energy dissipation, its flux of energy which makes life possible.
Life requires flux, stillness is death.

Whether a dead universe (which has reached equilibrium, no flux) has a temperature of 200 Kelvin or 2 million Kelvin doesn't matter - no flux, no differences = dead.

The word-play is in the term heat. Heat is here not in terms of temperature of an object but as in increasing the temperature of said object by performing work.
As in - to heat something.
Or simply put - Warmth is the absence of cooling is just as valid and meaningful as 'Cold is the absence of heat-(ing)'

And this is about the metaphor as well, not just about thermodynamics.
It's about what happens effortlessly and on the other hand, that which requires a towards. And organisms have grown towards higher order which is made possible by the flux which in turn is made possible by increasing the overall entropy of everything, on average.

*I use flux here in terms of energy flow, not in the form of the possibility for change which is the requirement for life as well but also that which opens the gates for the ever increase of entropy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:36 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This any good Mo?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:02 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Cold is the absence of heat.
Thus there is no such thing as cold, only degrees of warmness.
Degrees of molecular excitability.

However...
Is pleasure the absence of cortisol, such that there is no pleasure, but only degrees of suffering?

Or is pleasure the presence of endorphin?
Wink


The endorphin is basically an Inhibitor.

It boosts by inhibiting other hormones/hormone-levels.

This too is a metaphor. ; )

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics

Back to top Go down
 
Chatbox Trivialities - Race, Evolution and Aesthetics
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 7 of 7Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 Similar topics
-
» Orbital Evolution of a Saturn-Jupiter configuration within a disk
» Tidal evolution of habitable planets
» Anybody into Rupaul Drag Race?
» A Cosmetic Dentist in New York talks about the Evolution of Dentistry
» Boat Race 2012

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: