Fixed and Value Ontology

FC wrote:

It is the least innocent phenomenon that I know of; the belief that I am innocence is the greatest cruelty ever inflicted on me; I am cruel, and I know it. I know it so I can control it. This is self-valuing.

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

Taking responsibility for who one is and being responsible for who one is are two different things.

All becoming is an innocence.

But those that take responsibility separate out from those who want to transfer responsibility [why Xt. preached free-will: to punish another].

Its why I had already said, responsibility must arise as pride, and not from guilt For another being such and such.
No one is; there is only an IOB.

Taking responsibility, being cause in the matter of one's life is a grace one gives to their self. A matter of pride, indeed. One can be at the cause of creating a new way of being where there is a perceived weakness. Being a victim of a weakness is inauthentic about the self and against self-integrity.

I am not "well studied" on VOt nor ILP in general, so it's likely I missed its finer workings.

Lyssa wrote:

5. One cannot have an ideology that at the same time says:
"everything tries to value to its utmost", and also say,
"nothing should impose its value on another".
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

My instincts on VOt are the same as you've illuminated here. I just did not have the confidence, or verbal acumen, to formulate it as you have.

Lyssa wrote:

The conditions that create pressure are war, danger, naturalness, phenomenal forces, beastly [not degenerate animal] vitalities that make one Want to Breed upwards…

Related to above; I am not particularly adept at expressing it - but I do a lot of my philosophical work in comparison to instinct. Even if I fail at expressing it.

As before, you are right that I am mostly unfamiliar with VOt; and I do tend to take a rationalist reductive approach as it's the framework which most closely resembles my intuitive approach to philosophy, that I'm familiar with. That, or there is a hesitance on my part into 'taking the plunge' into a more refined framework. My response under the Spinoza thread was more of a musing as to the nature behind the thought of VOt than it was a reiteration of what you had posted. Perhaps mistakenly, I try to lump every philosophy I perceive as nihilistic under one banner: nihilism. I use each one I come across as a means to refining my understanding of what underlies the condition so I can continue the very objective which I had informed you of yesterday - the reason I came here.

My response was not a criticism specific to VOt, but to nihilistic thought in general; which I saw VOt as falling under. Your elaboration was appreciated, though. Specifically thought provoking was your elaboration on how we must tell some lies to ourselves in order to advance ourselves. I wrote something on this and then redacted it. If you're interested, you can have a read:

Redacted:

Mr.Monk wrote:

Because existence is experienced through the being of a being, the past is nothing but a reference that does more to limit than to expand the possibilities of the being.

When the being struggles out of the grip of his contextual past, he is left with "nothingness" which is a space in which he can design his own ways of being that work to make way for desired possibilities.

That's my puny understanding of how to use ontology but it somehow fucking works.

The nothingness simply being where one's knowledge ends. This is where he creates. But, to be more exact, this is where he finds his past, or in other words, finds his nature.

To clarify the above: One has explicit consciously known values, and has explicit consciously known information on circumstance. One may find himself in a situation where he has indecision about what action to take for the following reasons: That he has a good idea about the outcomes for various actions, but not a good idea which outcome he values most, or, he has a good idea what outcome he values most, but little idea what action to take to achieve that outcome, or, he has knowledge of neither. With all three options he's conscious of finding himself in action, rather than first finding himself consciously willing an action. In the first, it's because he can't consciously will an action for which he has no conscious preference. In the second, it's because he can't consciously will an action when he has no knowledge which action will produce the results he prefers. In the third, it's because of both obstacles.

In no situation does one not act on the best information available, but when the conscious mind can't see the significance in the distinction, it can't consciously will an action. So then it can only find it's more subtle unconscious values and knowledge, that are more innate in his nature.

Mr.Monk wrote:

Weakness itself is a conversation that substitutes taking on responsibility for one's experience of self.

Mr.Monk wrote:

Taking responsibility, being cause in the matter of one's life is a grace one gives to their self. A matter of pride, indeed. One can be at the cause of creating a new way of being where there is a perceived weakness. Being a victim of a weakness is inauthentic about the self and against self-integrity.

The more fundamental victim mentality is where one doesn't simply address blame directly to a real perceived cause of harm to him, because he has reasonable expectation of such acknowledgement providing a beneficial outcome to himself, but instead is where one blames reality itself for being the cause, as if he were somehow not only largely independent from reality, but having a prior arrangement with it as to how it would treat him.

For example, one breaks an arm from a falling tree branch. The blame is not his alone, the tree's alone or any one thing, but a complex of factors that he can only conceptualize so as to avoid future accidents of that nature. And if, for example, he can possibly get redress from the owner of the tree, and he currently lacks the generosity to not bother trying, then he might openly blame the owner, in other words, claim to be a victim. But, if one breaks his arm in such a manner and takes it like a victim in the more fundamental way, he's impeding his own progress. When one thinks that an event happened due to a fundamental malice in reality, he's failing to see the actual factors that lead to the event, and therefore learning less from the event. Furthermore, he creates spite that is not directed at an actual real source. If he takes responsibility for his own role in the event, in the form of disappointment in oneself, he can possibly creating the impetus for self improvement. But, by not directing the event inwards to the extent that it deserves to be, but still maintains spite, then it will be directly outwards, but obviously in an unfocused manner, being that it's aim is the illusion of reality as a whole, or in Xt. terms, God. Unfocused energies not only do not empower one, they make one easier to take advantage of.

When one takes responsibility in the most empowering way, one is not afraid to admit the role his own weakness had. But, it may seem as if he must deny his weakness and claim that he willed an event that actually went against his values, because otherwise, he would not be taking ownership or possession of the event. But, responsibility needn't be seen in those terms. It's arrogant, or in other words, deceitful to claim to have power over something one doesn't. To take responsibility in the most empowering way is to fully recognize one's role in responding to an event, honestly, with action, not with wishes. If one recognizes that the past is a fullness, meaning it is the very substance of what is present, and therefore could not have been otherwise, one won't waste time wishing it was otherwise, and be mired in disempowering fantasies, but rather one will spend one's time willing, now wishing, the present to be otherwise, within the limits of his strength.

Thanks for that, Stuart.

Quote :

This where he finds his past/nature

The being is being given by nature, yes. The nature arises from the past(genetic+memetic), yes.

But the being experienced in this moment is actually a reaction to the predicted future and this future is predicted based on the decisions made in the past which is giving the nature.

It is projection of the past experiences into the future, yes?

So when there is "nothingness", it is actually 'clearing' the future by removing those decisions kept in there based on the past to open it up to all possibilities that are known to exist as well as those that are yet not discovered but can exist. This also allows for the being to freely deviate from their established nature.

It is the recreation of being from emptiness but the being cannot stay in this emptiness, one cannot cease to exist as long as the self exists. The nature of being is continuous and if nothing is filled in that empty space, the predominant nature re-establishes itself. This is why it becomes important to have completion with the past whether it be related to perceived weaknesses or reality based on incorrect perceptions. For that, it is necessary to distinguish the fake or the inauthentic from the real and to acknowledge it being there. Morality loses significance here and taking responsibility of the being is a grace that the being gives to itself.

Slaughtz wrote:

This is postponing suffering and it can become so large that dealing with it may cause you to destroy yourself (madness). However, you suggested doing it slowly and over time - with what you may be able to handle; I am supposing, though: do you mean regardless of how massive that debt has become?

Satyr wrote:

"Weakness is protected from a world it cannot cope with with lies.
The protection comes at a price…

When does the old Socratic taunt "I know that I know nothing" become an excuse to remain humbly ignorant?

Lies perpetually deferred will come at the cost accumulated equally so.
There is no escape from reality; the further the deferrence, the higher the price.

That said, I am referring to the other side of the coin.
Without deferment, there is a good chance your eggs, i.e. your thoughts may hatch too quickly, without being thought through its whole logic. If one wants their food for thought to be properly cooked, then consciousness needs to be postponed till on has sat in every corner and accumulated raw expriences having suspended judgement. Beyond pleasure/pain, good/evil, cost/benfit.
Nobility is the cold art of arriving at judgements slowly… so one can act surely, spontaneously.
Every perfection comes at consciousness being in-corporated closing the gap between I and I am, self and action. One attains to this self-trust whn one has thought Through things Thoroughly.
A graceful ballet dancer is one who is 'not self-conscious', bcause the incorporated discipline functions instinctively



When Nietzsche called for the 'shut down' of consciousness, he meant two things.

1. Doing away with that consciousness where we have denied its continual growth and have taken it as an absolute unchanging self-identity;

Nietzsche wrote:

"Consciousness is the last and latest development of the organic and hence also what is most unfinished and least powerful. . . . If the conserving association of the instincts were not so very much more powerful, and if it did not serve the whole as a regulator, humanity would have to perish of its misjudgments and its fantasies with open eyes, of its lack of thoroughness and its credulity—in short, of its consciousness; rather, without the former, humanity would have long disappeared! Before a function is fully developed and mature it constitutes a danger for the organism, and it is good if for that time it is heartily tyrannized! Thus consciousness is properly tyrannized—not least by our pride in it! One thinks that it constitutes the kernel of the human being; what is abiding, eternal, ultimate, and most original in it. One takes consciousness for a determinate magnitude! One denies its growth and its intermittences! Takes it for the ‘unity of the organism’!" [KSA 3, 382–83/GS 84–85]

Nietzsche wrote:

"Consciousness-beginning quite externally, as coordination and becoming conscious of "impressions"-at first at the furthest distance from the biological center of the individual; but a processthat deepens and intensifies itself, and continually draws nearer to that center." [WTP, 504]

And,

2. 'Doing away' with consciousness only as its incorporation into us as our unhesitant instinct;

Nietzsche wrote:

"All perfect acts are unconscious and no longer subject to will; consciousness is the expression of an imperfect and often morbid state in a person. Personal perfection as conditioned by will, as consciousness, as reasoning with dialectics, is a caricature, a kind of self-contradiction - A degree of consciousness makes perfection impossible." [WTP, 289]

Nietzsche wrote:

"Principal error of psychologists: they regard the indistinct idea as a lower kind of idea than the distinct: but that which removes itself from our consciousness and for that reason becomes obscure can on that account be perfectly clear in itself. Becoming obscure is a matter of perspective of consciousness." [WTP, 528]

Nietzsche wrote:

"In the Greek philosophers I see a decline of the instincts: otherwise they could not have blundered so far as to posit the conscious state as more valuable. Intensity of consciousness stands in inverse ratio to ease and speed of cerebral transmission.
We must in fact seek perfect life where it has become least conscious (i.e., least aware of its logic, its reasons, its means and intentions, its utility). ...The stored-up integrity and shrewdness of generations which are never conscious of their principles and are even a little afraid of principles." [WTP, 439]

Nietzsche wrote:

"The great man... is unhesitating." [WTP, 962]

Nietzsche wrote:

"Mastery. - One has attained to mastery when one neither goes wrong nor hesitates in the performance." [Daybreak, 537]

Nietzsche wrote:

"The whole surface of consciousness - conscious­ness is a surface - has to be kept free from all of the great imperatives. Be careful even of great words, great attitudes . . . . I have no memory of ever having made an effort-you will not detect any trace of struggle in my life, I am the opposite of a heroic nature. To "will" anything, to "strive" after anything, to have a "goal," a "wish" in mind­ I have never experienced this. Right now I am still looking out over my future-an immense future!-as if it were a calm sea: there is not a ripple of longing. I do not have the slightest wish for anything to be different from how it is; I do not want to become anything other than what I am. But this is how my life has always been.

To react slowly; a great consciousness; no feeling of struggle."

Andre Gide wrote:

"Know thyself! A maxim as pernicious as it is ugly. Whoever observes himself arrests his own development. A caterpillar who wanted to know itself well would never become a butterfly."

According to the decadent's definition of the Dionysian, the 'spontaneous' would be the hedonistic letting-go of the self. And such self-abandonment is not what it means to be free or unrepressed in one's 'essence'.

According to the master's definition of the Dionysian, the 'spontaneous' is an unhesitancy from greater and greater consciousness that has become in-corporated as one's body, one's body of know-ledge that dialectics becomes unncessary. Self-possession is moving together as one 'essential' continuous self.

Mr.Monk wrote:

Taking responsibility, being cause in the matter of one's life is a grace one gives to their self. A matter of pride, indeed. One can be at the cause of creating a new way of being where there is a perceived weakness. Being a victim of a weakness is inauthentic about the self and against self-integrity.

Original Buddhism offers the clearest ontology by far.

Mindfullness goes a long way in shaping environments and what shapes us in turn.

Responsibility in an 8-fold way.


p.s. what's the need of such a huge signature display? Are you calling attention to say something important?
(curious, not a critique)

Edit: After writing this, I realized that my explanation of freedom through nothingness might have been inaccurate or made too quickly, without enough thought. But, I never really quite understood what to make of that concept, and so I thought I may as well keep my response up, rather than later attempting a revision that may not be any better, just in case you still can make use of it.

Mr.Monk wrote:

Thanks for that, Stuart.

You're welcome.

Quote :

Quote :

This where he finds his past/nature

The being is being given by nature, yes. The nature arises from the past(genetic+memetic), yes.

But the being experienced in this moment is actually a reaction to the predicted future and this future is predicted based on the decisions made in the past which is giving the nature.

It is projection of the past experiences into the future, yes?

I think you're right.

Quote :

So when there is "nothingness", it is actually 'clearing' the future by removing those decisions kept in there based on the past to open it up to all possibilities that are known to exist as well as those that are yet not discovered but can exist.

It's only the perception of such an event. Which is not to diminish the importance of understanding that perception. If one fails to understand that where his conscious knowledge ends, so to does his conscious will, then he's open to suggestion from others with their own agendas, or to simply being erratic in his decision making.

Quote :

This also allows for the being to freely deviate from their established nature.

Freedom only exists in context, meaning a freedom from something. You haven't established any specifics, so you're implication seems to be free from everything.

Quote :

It is the recreation of being from emptiness but the being cannot stay in this emptiness, one cannot cease to exist as long as the self exists. The nature of being is continuous and if nothing is filled in that empty space, the predominant nature re-establishes itself.

Something can't come from nothing. Also, I realize now, that by nothingness you don't mean the lack of conscious knowledge to create conscious action thereby necessitating unconscious action. You seem to mean conscious action, and be alluding to the concept of free will.

My understanding of the concept of freedom through nothingness is that the perceptions of others have no hold on one including the perception of the fictional God, who supposedly has a preference towards one's actions, but not the will to be clear on that preference. So while still being susceptible to the actions and words of others, one still must act based on his own perception. It's freedom of perception, which is a concept that has no meaning outside of the context of people who clearly don't realize what may seem such an obvious thing to others.

Nothingness is not where one appears to have some freedom from his nature through consciously choosing his actions. When one is conscious of making a decision, he's conscious of the reasons for the decision. Nothingness is where one finds oneself acting, and then may consciously choose to make sense of the actions, to create a narrative retrospectively. Granted all one's actions, in the end, are something one finds oneself making, because a decision to act, is always at least slightly distanced from the action. But, the key is to understand that nothingness is not anything conscious, it's one's unconscious nature; being unconscious seeming to be absolutely spontaneous, or actually being something from nothing - at least until later when one reflects on the action.

Quote :

This is why it becomes important to have completion with the past whether it be related to perceived weaknesses or reality based on incorrect perceptions.

I don't understand what you mean by completion.

Quote :

For that, it is necessary to distinguish the fake or the inauthentic from the real and to acknowledge it being there.

I understand the contrast of fake and real. Real being the more accurate knowledge. I don't understand how make relates to the term inauthentic in this context. Yes, technically the term fake and inauthentic are synonymous, but my understanding is inauthentic alludes acting on the ideas of others for no other reason than a misunderstanding of one's own primacy of his own perceptions. In other words, acting against one's own nature/being.

Quote :

Morality loses significance here and taking responsibility of the being is a grace that the being gives to itself.

I agree that morality is only a small factor, such as in the decision to seek redress for a broken arm. And one takes a more fundamental responsibility, even if not bothering to state it out loud, so as to better empower himself. I don't understand what you mean by giving oneself a grace.

Lyssa wrote:

Every perfection comes at consciousness being in-corporated closing the gap between I and I am, self and action. One attains to this self-trust whn one has thought Through things Thoroughly.
A graceful ballet dancer is one who is 'not self-conscious', bcause the incorporated discipline functions instinctively

Lyssa wrote:

According to the decadent's definition of the Dionysian, the 'spontaneous' would be the hedonistic letting-go of the self. And such self-abandonment is not what it means to be free or unrepressed in one's 'essence'.

According to the master's definition of the Dionysian, the 'spontaneous' is an unhesitancy from greater and greater consciousness that has become in-corporated as one's body, one's body of know-ledge that dialectics becomes unncessary. Self-possession is moving together as one 'essential' continuous self.

Quote :

Self knowledge is not found by explanations and descriptions, nor by the instructions of others. At all times, everything is known only by direct experience. Whatever is experienced and known here in this world, all that is the self, consciousness devoid of the duality of the experiencing and the experience. It is the self alone that exists everywhere at all times, but because of its extreme subtlety, it is not experienced.

Consciousness is a property of the senses and reality's interaction. Consciousness is a process and does not exist on its own or as an entity.

When I meditate, the focus on sensations is narrowed down at first. It begins from the triangular part of the nose. Focus is concentrated on a small area and then this focus moves around on each part of the body. As time progresses, the focus expands while retaining the same intensity of concentration. You are in the moment as you are present to each and every constituent of the moment. You feel each sensation that arises in the body. This is experience of existence. It leads to an inquiry in the mind. Where exactly is the entity that one calls "I". Each and every sensation is subtle and has the property of arising and passing. Consciousness works here. It holds on to certain sensations, like it holds on to the nature, the boundary of the body.

Consciousness is not soul. It is not a mind inside the mind. It is what gives the experience of the experienced to the experienced.

What God can one talk about when there's no soul? What is exactly the difference between alive and dead? What is talking if not waves of sound firing up neurological patterns? Anything ever experienced is only experienced when there's interaction between the senses and the sensed.

What self can one better when there's no self? What values can one hold on to when values are mental constructs, a certain structure in the brain, an organizing, a pattern?

The 'mister' in the 'monk' is the self coming into existence as a process, a will if you will, a direction. An organizing. It has no essence except its own knowing of itself. Its humbleness lies in its impermanence. Its nature of being recreated infinitely in each moment along with the universe.




@Stuart I am yet to contextualize what you have said about creating something from nothingness and I will respond once I compare and contrast our views. We're mostly on the same thought track but I am wording it weirdly, not a well versed person.

{}

Mr. Monk wrote:

Self knowledge is not found by explanations and descriptions, nor by the instructions of others. At all times, everything is known only by direct experience. Whatever is experienced and known here in this world, all that is the self, consciousness devoid of the duality of the experiencing and the experience. It is the self alone that exists everywhere at all times, but because of its extreme subtlety, it is not experienced.

Consciousness evolved to differentiate patterns for flourishing. Patterning is an abstracting process arising from comparative segregation of one against another, distinguishing differential rates of becoming - a more obvious flow against a chaotic flux. Without distinguishable patterns, one would be dead.
Intelligibility requires contrasts provided by sense-inputs, ruptures, a tearing apart and then putting together, elastic models that arent too static or too shaky.

By the term "direct experience", I only understand it as the "mind that stops nowhere". No "clinging" to concepts, a passive identification.
This does not mean concepts aren't necessary. Abstractions are necessary to the extent, the body needs regulators like acids that break things down in order to digest and in-corporate properly. The more strong the body/senses, it needs lesser dams, lesser abstractions to moderate the flow of the sensual current to be properly in-corporated into spontaneous/sure instincts - which is what abstractions do in the healthy sense. Like dams built on water, regulating the flow and producing current.

Not sure if you are a neutral monist or a 'Sunyavada', in any case, I suggest you read Heesterman's 'Broken world of sacrifice' before you form any conclusions on this matter. If you are interested, I can share some excerpts from the book.

Also, Satyr has provided and clarified every term in his definitions; you can look it up in the sticky:

Satyr wrote:

"Abstraction

1- Mental simplification, generalization.
A mental model constructed by using sensual data gathered through the sense organs (externally), or through the organism's nervous system (internally).

2- The cutting away of dimensions so as to process and store a phenomenon interacted with by using a mediating medium, such as light, air, electromagnetism.

3- Ordering of a disordering world.
The brain cuts away segments of the perceived so as to construct static models in a fluid environment."

-

Mr.Monk wrote:

Consciousness is a property of the senses and reality's interaction. Consciousness is a process and does not exist on its own or as an entity.

When I meditate, the focus on sensations is narrowed down at first. It begins from the triangular part of the nose. Focus is concentrated on a small area and then this focus moves around on each part of the body. As time progresses, the focus expands while retaining the same intensity of concentration. You are in the moment as you are present to each and every constituent of the moment. You feel each sensation that arises in the body. This is experience of existence. It leads to an inquiry in the mind. Where exactly is the entity that one calls "I". Each and every sensation is subtle and has the property of arising and passing. Consciousness works here. It holds on to certain sensations, like it holds on to the nature, the boundary of the body.

The 'mister' in the 'monk' is the self coming into existence as a process, a will if you will, a direction. An organizing. It has no essence except its own knowing of itself. Its humbleness lies in its impermanence. Its nature of being recreated infinitely in each moment along with the universe.

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


-

Mr.Monk wrote:

Consciousness is not soul. It is not a mind inside the mind. It is what gives the experience of the experienced to the experienced.

Yes, awareness is not soul; consciousness is sensual knowledge.
Soul is the wisdom born of all awareness acquired by the spirit. The quality of the spirit reflects the quality of the soul.
The self is the sagacious body:

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

[From a Dionysian pov., in the triadic sense for me, it is,

Spirit - will
Self - body
Soul - mind]

Satyr:

Satyr wrote:

"Self-consciousness emerges, first, as a consciousness of otherness, recognizing. The mind perceives another consciousness perceiving it, and establishes the preliminary step towards the “I.”
This dependence of the self upon the other for the validation of Self progresses until it attains a more discriminating level. It still finds recognition of self through otherness, but becomes increasingly dissatisfied by the recognition and validation of otherness which is beneath it in awareness.
In the Hegelian Master/Slave dynamic, the master wishes to be validated by masters, like him, and cannot find much gratification in the validation of those he thoroughly dominates.
The otherness reflects us with its perceptions.
We first get a glimpse of our own uniqueness, our distinction, through the perceptions of the other.
We begin to cognize self in the other’s (re)actions.
This is why the other becomes indispensable to our later validations. We wish to be perceived in a certain way so as to embody the perception we are trying to establish.
Self-Consciousness, as the sophistication of consciousness, is a turning inward, towards the internal processes, when the external has been effectively dealt with to the point where an excess of consciousness remains.
Self-Consciousness discovers self as it would an alien otherness in the outer world. This first discovery creates this dichotomy of psychological fragmentation that results in the Bicameral Mind and to the concept of spirits, and gods.
Know Thyself is this exploration of self – it is an overabundance of self- consciousness seeking intimacy with itself, but because self-consciousness is always a part of consciousness turned inward, and because all is dynamic, this intimacy is always incomplete.
Man studies his own behavior, within particular circumstances, to discover who he is, and why.
Man is his own mystery, and through self, as a part of existence reflecting itself, the world remains mystifying."

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

Satyr wrote:

"Self

The sum of all past nurturings.


***


Soul

1- Identifying core principles, and patterns, pertaining to the organism’s spirit: sum of all past. [Spirit]

2- Soul is a term used to refer to the desirable elements in an organism’s past (spirit) – these need not be known or understood but appreciated vaguely, as the necessary patterns of the organism’s spirit.

3- The desired parts of past, wanting to be preserved indefinitely, gives the meaning of the word “soul” a timeless dimension.


***


Spirit


1- The sum of all past, relating to a living organism is what the word “spirit” usually implies.

2- Pertaining to the study of this past, identifying and orienting the organism within world, and the appreciation of all that preceded which makes the organism possible becomes spirituality: worship of this past in an anthropomorphic, or other symbolic, metaphorical form.

3- Because an organism is an aggregate of patterns in conjunction, spirit refers to only patterns manifesting as presence. The past is present in spirit.

4- Referring to psychology, as organ hierarchy, the word is synonymous with personae. [personality]

5- Breathing in & out, the systolic/diastolic phases of organic life, and congruities of patterns united into oneness in the organic brain.

6- Man projects himself in all things order(ing), to feel a connection with it, to make this alien other, this lifeless pattern, comprehensible, by using himself as the standard, and so man breathed into all nature his own essence, and eventually constructed God, as the idealized form of man."


***

Personality

1- The sum total of organ hierarchies manifesting in an attitude towards otherness. Internal organ (inter)actions, their balances and dynamics produce a personæ, a personality, a particular psychology.

2- Private-self revealing itself in part.

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

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

Mr.Monk wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

what's the need of such a huge signature display? Are you calling attention to say something important?
(curious, not a critique)

Actually, I am [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on GTAF and some months ago, another member there called [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (a.k.a. Rusty Balls) shared some interesting content which I reverse-googled to find the "Satyr in Short" thread.

In later conversations and on various occasions, he implied he was Satyr and his profile matched with KT's Satyr. Later, he sent me some 'lectures' and links to books and videos and I joined this site on his suggestion after reading some threads.

After joining KT, I had been contacting Satyr thinking he was Rusty Balls but yesterday it got cleared that Rusty Balls was most probably impersonating Satyr and plagiarizing stuff. Yet, I am glad I got diverted to this site.

I'll have to register on that forum to see the links you posted, which I have no time for.
Since he directed you here, looks like his intent was to promote the forum.
No matter.

Thanks for sharing how you came abt. here though.

Quote :

Please don't mind it.

I asked because it reminded me of a troll who was a member here before, but apparently you are not him.

So whatever works to 'know thyself'.

Lyssa wrote:

I suggest you read Heesterman's 'Broken world of sacrifice' before you form any conclusions on this matter. If you are interested, I can share some excerpts from the book.

Yes, please.

Fixed wrote:

I dont want to slander you, but I have a vague feeling you've been reading either Satyrs or Lyssa's post on VO.
They are enslaved to it, resent this, and do everything in their power (and it is all they now do in their life) to make people like you approach it in their stunted ways.

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

Next we'll be hearing about how surgeons operating on diseases are "enslaved" to bacteria and worms…
How the existence of physicians and philosophers Tackling stupidity and hypocrisy in the world are "resentful", because there's nothing Greater than valuing, and hard-logically, anyone who critiques it, can only be resentful of course…

Even this is a piece of hypocrisy - the very fact that valuing affirmers who speak of consistencies, should find people who Value Everything and Anything happening in the world as a whole on a consistent pace as "obsessed resenters" is sadly a back-firing and betrays the ill-logic of their process.

Worm, before you call me stunted, admit to Anders, how you ran away - as usual, from all the conflicting problems that was unearthed in VO…

Stunted is what I would call someone supporting statements like:

Sauwie wrote:

"I feel that I justify the whole state of the world and all of history."

for purely Sentimental reasons of friendship…

Otherwise, you would have to explain what you are doing encouraging mental illness like statement above..

Shall we all just say, "I justify the whole state of the world and all of history" and become believers? WHERE is this justification?

Did you not preach about taking Responsibility….?

Really WORM??  This is the brilliance you support?
If so, I certainly agree your IQ is "off the charts"…


And here's your other one:

Quote :

"Most racist people just have a lack of information about the race they despise (for example blaming "blacks" for higher rates of crime and drug use in inner cities and black communities without understanding how "white" society created and perpetuates unequal conditions and disparities such as poverty, stigma, low education access and the war on crime, all of which works to create the higher levels of crime and drug use)…

Since racism (and other biases such as homophobia and misogyny) is fundamentally negative it requires a stimulating animus from outside itself in order to become active; this animus is usually fear, anxiety or anger.

The racist self-identifies with his own race to achieve positive self-worth and a sense of moral righteousness, namely an existential certainty. Now the construct is complete: the racist loves himself (and those of his own race) and hates others (of the hated racial group/s). Strong recurring emotions will still be needed to keep this construct functioning."

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

The bi-gotry of the half-Capable will on the one hand endorse self-valuings, while at the same time beg us to accept thuggery and misery of the human spirit as fact, in the face of any adverse circumstance.
As if, nobility wasn't birthed in the face of the worst disadvantage, in the tightest corners...

One rather teach that adverse circumstance brings out the worst, rather than teach, adverse circumstance brings the worst out! The selective force.
Adverse circumstance is to be blamed for black crime, rather than judge blacks as what they are in the face of adversity. What is left of any 'self-valuing' thence?

One is supposed to be guilty for their "self-valuings", the distance with which one rises, one distinguishes, one masters when it comes to whites…, and one is supposed to be excused for their "self-valuings" when it comes to blacks, in the face of competitive 'Diversity' which VOts love so much...

It all comes down to money, and economy to explain the human spirit, apparently.


You support this double-standard, Dearest?

What's left of your VOt when your buddies are preaching against adversity rather than raising oneself to the task?!
How self-defeating…, I laugh.

Shite, this isn't even the half of it…


Yes, I am obsessed with life, with this and that, and VO, just as any other...

I am obsessed with it all…

and I take responsibility to address Irresponsible comments from this to that...

how responsible are you, dearest?

Sauwie wrote:

Nietzsche wrote:

"If the innermost essence of Being [Sein] is will to power, if pleasure is every increase of power, displeasure every feeling of not being able to resist or dominate: may we not then posit pleasure and displeasure as cardinal facts? Is will possible without these two oscillations of Yes and No? But _who_ feels pleasure?... But _who_ wants power?... Absurd question: if the essence itself is power-will and consequently feelings of pleasure and displeasure. Nonetheless: opposites, obstacles are needed, therefore, relatively, _encroaching units_... Locally---
if A has an effect on B, then A is first locally separate from B" (Nietzsche, Nachlass Spring 1888 14 [80], entire.)

If one conceives these encroaching units as power-Willings, as distinct from power-willings, that does not explain how they are even _relative_ units. The old (soul-)atom is let go of in making that distinction (the unit is no longer thought of as a power-willing _thing_), but thereby the who or what, the essence, is absolutely lost. In order to rescue Nietzsche's _relatively_ encroaching units from being reduced to nothing… Fixed Cross has complemented Nietzsche by thinking through power-Willings as self-Valuings.

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

Sauwie is blatantly lying here.

He knows damn well, there is no need for any "complementing" by Fixed Cross or whoever, when N. fills the gap himself by introducing the word pathos, that he clearly says is not valuing; cf. WTP, 635, already quoted in this thread.

Why am I not surprised?
Liars congregate...patterns in congruity.
They attract each other, because a shared need, manifesting differently, binds them.

Speaking of Sanitization and under-ground sewers,

Rome had gladiatorial games, where the unter-animality of the slaves had to overcome all their Bull in the underground belly of the earth, the appetitive part. Even sanitizing had its element of warrior logic, where the fittest slave could add, and only then, could add, to Rome's eternity.

Not perma-banning away, but the exact contrary of a tightly closed space confrontation.

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

The above thread only demonstrates what we have pointed about VOt all along.

That it is a piece of hedonism, that can sustain itself only in Tyranny and Absolutism/Totalitarianism of banishing diversity, while it claims to be pro-diversity of all values that further agon, and slogans it lacks the Heart to affirm - like "War is the father of all things", etc.

Christ-Valuing or Value-"Oncology" or Value-OntoTheism is a Xt. epicureanism, possible only in a self-limiting, pressure-deselecting, life-annulling square peg where victory is first guaranteed and bought, and then the trumpets for war blown.

Its a kindergarten for the weak and those with special (dis)abilities.

A recent comment I made simplified the concept of positive nihilism and negative nihilism the same way. Positive nihilism is the destruction of hierarchy by totalitarianism, negative nihilism is the sowing of chaos.

Most human male positive nihilisms involve some form of peace, or anti-aggression principle, because it seduces the feminine aspect of humanity. Things like the N.A.P. become their own sort of violent straight jacket, as we see with SJWs that redefine violence to be "micro-aggressions". Those most tolerant end up being the most weighed down and chained.

Slaughtz wrote:

A recent comment I made simplified the concept of positive nihilism and negative nihilism the same way. Positive nihilism is the destruction of hierarchy by totalitarianism, negative nihilism is the sowing of chaos.

Most human male positive nihilisms involve some form of peace, or anti-aggression principle, because it seduces the feminine aspect of humanity. Things like the N.A.P. become their own sort of violent straight jacket, as we see with SJWs that redefine violence to be "micro-aggressions". Those most tolerant end up being the most weighed down and chained.

De Benoist's essay on Liberalism speaks of tha; you should def. read it.

Fixed wrote:

The cancers, I.e. cancerform-Lyssa and cancerform-Stayr, find that life is just a joke. I have no doubt that they will finds their deaths the same way.

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

However it is that I may die, Fixed, is not going to change some historical facts.


And I love the massive inversion btw.

Because, in fact, its Not I or US, that thinks life is a joke, or The Holocaust is a joke, but its your kind who Made an Industry of it that made of it a joke, something mundane….

I repeat again; Deaths have happened throughout history and so many wars,, but when one is singled out so Disproportionately with a conscious agenda, then History itself balances that disproportion by pointing out facts outside the box. To "bring it back into reasonable context" is not equal to thinking "life is a joke" , AS IF, ANYONE has a special status on suffering. They dont.
As If, putting "The" holocaust in context, is conveniently and automatically tantamount to belittling the Whole of Life itself!
What megalomania... 

If someone did claim a special status on suffering as their religious basis, as their promised deliverance, its not necessary the entire world must yield to the religious fancies of another. We call this Diversity.

If Ranking superior and inferior objectively between those who exploited an Industry off their own suffering, and those, like Japan, for instance, that suffered a whole nuclear disaster that has left horrible chemical mutations upto this generation, and yet, a whole culture of Discipline, even though it was pressured to dwindle into pacifist feminization,,, and thus IT IS POSSIBLE TO RANK OBJECTIVELY between peoples' attitudes in the face of life and death that distinguish them vertically - that is most assuredly not taking "life as a joke"… in fact the very opposite.

Own up to your ignorance, your cowardice, and moral tactics you use at anyone Affirming Standards in life, to shame them. Its that simple.

FC wrote:

"production of international racial unions"

With the error corrected:

"production of international family-unions"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Fixed is so pathetic, he will erase and hermaneutralize all phil. texts and records, just so he can have the pitiful warmth from the flattery of some meek Xt. like Capable self-hating his own heritage, and so must be pacified, racial identities are superficial.

How badly do you want it?

This kind of love?

And for this price?

Good for you.

FC wrote:

Its only asset was Clinton/Bush. Indeed it wont last longer, this is happening. Fracking, a friendly Russia, and all sort of new technologies have already assured energy independence.

But now that the fearful prospect of nuclear war has been lifted, I will simply proceed to write down inevitable consequences of religious politics, as all you have to do is read the books to trace where they've been walking and heading. Religion rules world politics, Ideology does at least and I dont really recognize the difference. Its the blindness people take on the be able to self-value in the chaos of flux that only a mineral/plant/animal, god or philosopher can survive by himself.

The religions have been the real human flesh of splitting from self-valuing in history of the incomplete daemonic mind. The Overman would technically be the resolution of Judaism into a Hellenic freedom. The Greeks were free of privilege, the Jews were bound by privilege - the Jews do the bitter work of preparing the world for a greek standard.

We cant overstate the importance of reality. Jesus was a Jew born in a Greek world.
The metaphor of him being a son of Zeus is apt, even striking. For a change, Zeus fucked a Jewess.
Hera was really quite pissed this time.

Hera, that is the queen of the free world - an beautiful angry wife. But that is an attainment that the subconscious of Humanity is about to recognize as an arrow and aim, as the instincts of division, which secure freedom from responsibility/self-valuing/consistency, to ontic goldstandard, as the greatest high tide of religion now begins to wane, its waters turn back towards their source, the bitter sea of faith, the strong heart.

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

FC wrote:

The Torah is the axis of world politics. Its fulfillment, the rebuilding of the temple, will be the creation of world peace.
I assure you.
All that needs to be done is a formalization of the Mosque as integral to the Temple. Its already architectonically arranged.

But I appreciate I am a total renegade in this, plus with Jewish heritage/Messiah complex ("All jewish boys have a messiah complex" - Ischa Meijer)

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

Nevermind jews taking on the mantle of representing the greek standard,,, how do you do that when you have no concept of Standards, let alone to speak of THE greek standard…

And then to speak of GREEK…

Fixed's christ-valuing in other words says, Wank Thyself!!
That's His standard.

When you can't RANK,

Fixed's standard is,

Wank!

Better than looking just

Blank…

Put anything there when christ-valuing is the policy...

What does it matter in the absence of standards.

To hazard,

The (theo-)logic of 'self'-valuing is such that, had Trump lost, this same Fixed, would have immediately christ-valued his way into praising Hillary for dignifying Blacks, and the Black Church, her pro-LGBT, mexican drug-cartels, and black cRap music and the ghettoing of culture. His only reason to support Trump was the alliance with Russia [his ancestral ties] and its Xt. Orth. against islam.
Because everyone knows the 'anti-capitalism' of the left is just an eye-wash, in name only, and who cares of the anti-white/male rhetoric, when her drive for Spinozaic co-operative Humanity would have then appeared attractive.

When the reasonable standard is only a conatal preservation, to be able to digest anything, everything as valuable is a self-immaterial nihilism.

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

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


As to that bigot half-Capable,

Quote :

Truth is that by which beings survive

--- puts him in the same skyhooks category of the Xt. of IAmbiguous...

Does "Truth" hang there like some platonic ideal? The Truth?

No, because to a half-wit like Wyld,

Quote :

More truth happens to allow better survivalism, all other things being equal...

the bolded constant is just a convenient assumption that need refer to nothing in reality...
And these are the dim-wits claiming VOt is all about acknowledging inequalities and special snowflake quotient...

Whatever.

Is this the mule thread of Fixed Cross' VO?

You folks protest an awful lot. I wear crazy well and its rabid even by crazy standards.

Value first, logic second. It's a streamlined approach to reducing the malfunctioning scientific process, infusing it with value placed directly to the needs of progress that take humanity into account first and foremost, not the industry of science (science proper), not the military, and definitely not extravagant consumerism. I don't understand everything about it, it's still a work in progress, but all this fuss here seems excessive.

No protest....

We discover and expose liars, hypocrites, cowards, and all manifestations of Nihilistic decay.

He's just one of many. A tenacious strand of the virus.
A bug would feel flattered by the attentions of an entomologists.

The usage of words, out of contexts, or taken literally and then metaphorically, is part of the virus' methodology, its manner of infecting weak, needy minds.

Remaining blind or silent to it would be a mistake.