Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Self-Valuing Ethics

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:38 pm

I

I value myself, therefore I am.
I recognize other beings by their self-valuing
I encourage their attempts to do so at my benefit
I will fight their attempts to do so at my cost

This is how I set my values.

(First conclusion: To cause struggle rather than to avoid it, belongs to the first set of axiomatically derived values.)

II

Appreciation is the expression of superior standards
superior standards imply the presence of inferior standards
Man loves to behold the superior
Man loves to be aware of the existence of inferiority

Man loves difference, because he loves the feeling of power it gives him. Even in his conviction that all are equal, a man will seek to be different, to excel, and to come out over those that oppose his views.

Man is ready to accept his own possible inferiority for the existence of the possibility to be superior.
The American Dream reflects this, in the same vein as Roman Citizenship once did. "Accept you're an inferior, and you begin to climb the ladder to membership of the elite." All initiation process begin this way.

III

For all to be equal, there must be absence of hierarchy. This means the absence of lasting progress;

Axiomatic human equality precludes human improvement.

And yet, the American Dream consisted of that very Axiom. The key to this paradox is that the equality only pertained to those men who were given the legal right derived from that Axiom.

IV

As opposed to ontological categorization, Legal Right is the ground of standard-setting Equality; relative equality of a distinct type; e.g. "American", "Freeman", or by divine decree, "Muslim", "Christian".
To give each human the right to (the natural consequences of) his own actions, this is to force each human to exist, in the sense of sentence 1 of this thread. It is to enforce him to be different.

V

The civic right to behave as equals: yes
The civic duty to treat as equals: no
The government right to behave as equals: no
The government duty to treat as equals: yes.

Government under these principles is the axiomatic opposite of citizen. Citizenship under opposing government means self-valuing under an opposing self-renouncing apparatus.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15357
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:46 pm

You value yourself in relation to what standard?

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



PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:36 pm

Satyr wrote:
You value yourself in relation to what standard?

I value myself as a standard to all other values. I value myself according to whatever is on my path. My path is my valuing.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15357
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:37 pm

Therefore you value yourself in relation to the world.

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



PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:38 pm

My valuing is my relating to the world, which is my relating to myself in the world. The ethical question is how I relate to the world, which is the same as how I relate to myself - this relating is also a valuing.


"Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself- he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself "man," that is, the valuator."
(Zarathustra, of the Thousand and One Goals)

Fundamental to mans consistent being-as-himself, is his activity of valuing in terms of himself. By this he assimilates material and grows as himself. How is a consistent valuing possible? The simple answer would be: by being a consistent subject. But this only create a a circular argument, and leaves open the question of how there can be a valuing, a being. How does a subject maintain its perspectival consistency, its structural integrity, whereby it values in terms of itself? To explain this we must posit a self-valuing, which is to say, a holding-oneself-as-value, whereby this “oneself” is nothing else than this consistent holding-as-value, in engaging the outer world. This consistency of a self-holding standard-value, is what amounts to being, the accumulation of more and more material to feed and sustain a structurally consistent growing, “a becoming”.

We are faced with the problem of identifying in technical, specific terms what this self-valuing is.  We may not be able to describe or define it in the terms we are used to, in which we like to acquire knowledge, the terms which are developed to describe the manifest in exact measurements. The collection of these terms and their proper logic, that of mathematics, is what we refer to as exact science.

Observing the manifest world in scientific terms, we use principles such as quantity, causality, energy-tranferring and interacting, motion, temporality. All these are enabled and interconnected by the laws of mathematics, which is the logic of objective equalies. It relies on given and exactly determined values, which can be defined in terms of each other. It is here that the philosophy of value ontology posits a break with the method of science. The philosopher is not satisfied with positing values as if they are unquestionably given, it is his task to investigate why, or more precisely, how they are given. Mathematics can not provide an answer to this, as such would go directly against the axioms of this science, which include always the word “if”. If "A" is given, then A is given as A. It does not posit that A is given - it is as if A can be anything - which is not the case. Possibilities are limited. Deepening of logical power occurs now that we have abstract terms for the possibility of existing.

The aim is to embed language into being, to absolve it of its abstracting, detaching compulsion. The means is to embed being into grammar.

The great philosophersof the modern age have attemped such positive statements in various ways, beginning with Descartes, who posited the certainty “I think therefore I am”, or, read properly in context, “I question that anything is, therefore I am”.  Nietzsche and others observed that this “I” who questions is not actually given as an exactly understandable unit. What is this “I” that is, and that questions that anything is, and that posits that he is because he questions that anything is? Descartes accomplished bringing himself the experiential certainty that there is such a thing as himself. He does not bring the certainty that anything else is, in fact he calls this somewhat into question, challenges the other to reveal itself at least to itself; he does not reveal what they are or why they can be said to exist; If the only ground for knowledge of what is is to cognate in the way Descartes was doing, then only thinkers can be known to exist, and only by themselves. Clearly this is not a useful definition of being. It is also not an exact application of logic, as it assumes the “I” both in "I think" and "I exist". The terms “I”, “exist” and “think” are not a mathematical terms: “I exist” can not mathematically be inferred from “I think”.

To draw certainty from Descartes logic, we must look at the meaning of the word “Am” in “I Am”. We must correctly observe the meaning of the verb “to be”.We must logically be satisfied with the given that what we call “being” by definition is in being (exists) - this is the only meaningful and correct way to employ the verb at all. The analytical certainty is “I am, therefore I am”. By this phrase, “I” is defined, namely, as that which, apparently, is said by itself to exist. What have we come to know by this? Nothing.

It is here that philosophy must break from science, from the pretense to be able to define the terms “I” and “exist” and “cognate” in terms of each other by exact inference. We must simply be honest, and admit that all three of these terms are simply understood by us, to mean precisely... what we understand by them! No further explication is necessary, no more exact explication is possible. The terms were called into being to describe exactly what we mean when we use the terms. They hold no deeper meaning than what they were invented to convey.

So to further philosophical understanding, that to which the terms “I” and “think” and “exist” were invented to convey must be explicated in more exacting terms. We can observe that these terms all three of them refer to the very same thing. “I”, “think” and “am” are all words indicating the same. This also includes the things to which other terms refer, such as “eat” or “walk”. As true as “I think, therefore I am” is, is also “I eat, therefore I am”. By disconnecting Descartes logic from his situation in which it emerged, we see that the “I” is posited as a condition of “think”, as much as “think” is a condition of “I”. Therefore, when I posit that “I eat”, I posit an “I” which, by common interpretation of grammar, means that I posit that (an) “I” exist(s).

We see that “I” simply means “existing” and that this existing can be expressed in the endless variety of verbs that may pertain to a posited I. That is all the I is; it allows a verb to make sense, to indicate an activity.

The I is thus always an activity.

In short, we relate activity to values, we act to express and obtain values, and these values allows us to continue acting. The values thus reflect a central value, the acting agent, the "I", who is by all acts bestowing value on himself and so creating his world, which is largely defined by the way he encounters it. If he encounters it consistently, he becomes master over it. If he encounters it according to the ways in which the world engages him, he becomes slave to it. In a normal being, there is a balance. Happiness in mastery increasing, unhappiness is responsiveness increasing. Depression is overloaded responsiveness. The only cure for depression is physical, physiological expression of anger and undergoing the consequences with a measure of of indifferent curiosity toward ones own psychology, so that one can begin discerning ones natural values and reject imposed, unnatural ones.

To exist, one must be able to value consistently, which means that the standard must be consistent. I act so to obtain a value, an object, a thing-and-goal. But if I do not structurally attain my goals, my self-valuing will suffer. So establishing the appropriate values is implicit in existing. Since all that I do is predicated and justified by a specific type of valuing, and since “I” can only be explicated in terms of what I do, the I is nothing besides this establishing-value-to-myself. This is what we seek to maintain or repair - the activity of structurally setting attainable values, the attainment of which will result in a capacity to attain higher values. This is how power increases, by structural value-setting. In man, this needs to be conscious, because those that do this consciously win, defeat others. Man is conscious being so his self-valuing needs to be conscious in order for his integrality, his structural integrity, his 'soul', to survive. His intellect needs consistency.

Ontologically, in all cases the value-establishing to the I leads to a continuation of its capacity to set values for itself, this type of valuing must be understood as a constant, a type of valuing that is itself a consistency, a standard of value -- which means that its consistency must be understood as an activity.

Consistency is the fundamental activity.

We can verify this in terms of the periodic table and at the same time we so verify the logic of this categorization that nature apparently produces on her own accord, by asking what makes for a consistency of an elements. We may consider the most consistent to be those which are least influenced by other elements or energies. The are the 'noble' elements. What make as an element noble is that it does not change internally in reaction to outward stimuli. It holds no potential for internal change, is never inconsistent with itself. It is universe enclosed in itself, all of its values are perfectly attainable, for ever.  Gold is this absolutely active; it holds in its structure the maximum amount activities, its many electron rings are filled, its inner tensions are all in play. Maximization of activity within a given structure amounts to a maximal consistency.

Contemplate the correspondence between consistency, activity, the noble elements, and value.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15357
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:16 pm

In short...we use what we wish to be(come) as our standard for evaluating who and what we are.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15357
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:12 am

The self is a the assertion of presence - as a negation of otherness.
"I am, what I am into." then "I am not other".

In this context agon makes sense, as the struggle of self-assertion within the world.
Not Being but Becoming which begins with the "I" of self-maintenance, which is not passive but aggressive - the "I" or "I am".

Appreciation of self, this self-evaluation, is this self-assertion which has as its standard need.
In its most primitive form the organism is a self-asserting "I" relating to other as need: edible/inedible, threat/non-threat.
The satisfaction of this need become s the measure of its self-assertion.

As the organism evolves, becoming increasingly complex/sophisticated, self-consciousness is the evaluating of consciousness in relation to what is perceived - a detachment where noumenon and phenomenon become the juxtapositions required in all value-judgments.

The juxtaposition takes on the form of past (education/historical narrative second-hand knowledge, experiences as first-hand knowledge), is juxtaposed against the sensually perceived present (immediate past), the ongoing flux perceived as phenomenon (the apparent), experienced as a looking back, and then projected as a hypothetical, theoretical, ideal future.

The past/future are the noetic aspects of human judgment, and the present is the phenomenal aspect.
The degree to which the past is detached from the present determines its idealism.
The degree the future is detached from the present determines its idealism.
The present being the reality of the organism's presence.

Because the human can exist within a deeper time/space environment - not as limited as an animal would be to the immediate or to a very shallow past/future noetic world - it can draw ideals from further back, and project further ahead.
The danger being that by doing so it might become disconnected from what is present before it - particularly when this present is an artifice disconnecting it from an immediate perception, or forcing it to dismiss the apparent on some past/future noetic idealization.

Being encased within a technological/technical cocoon the phenomenon can be discounted, or only appreciated via a noetic ideal past, projected as a noetic ideal future.
All discourse takes on a dialogue between narrations already established - debated over how ideal they are, in relation to the projected ideal future.
A debate over who represents the dead-thinker's ideals - the proxy mind's premises - most accurately; then determining what coming future is the most ideal within those premises.

Value-judgments occur within this oscillating shared paradigm.
A mind appreciating self within the contexts of inherited standards projected as possibilities.

Since all value-judgments are a juxtaposition of I with Other(s), or Other with An-Other, when it is self-valuing it becomes a juxtaposition of the apparent self in relation to the idea(l), or the possible future self, or in relation to the past historical self, which can be extended to include race, nationality, religion, or any historical identifier.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15357
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:28 am

The assertion of self, mentioned before, is not a static event, in space/time. It is an ongoing assertion demanding ongoing expenditure of energies - continuous (inter)activity.
The "inter" indicates a friction of the asserting emergent unity, the Becoming, with the otherness, taking the form of a pushing-away, or pulling-towards - hate/love - rejection/assimilation.
This relating, this (inter)activity is what, on a general basis, adds to the increasing chaos/randomness.
It is experienced - interpreted by an organism - as need.
Need is simply the necessity of self-assertion, and its ceaseless (inter)activity.

The organism, like all that exists, is never static, never absolutely at rest, never Being.
This means it is never complete, never satisfied, never perfect, never an absolute - always a process.

The 'Will' is the focus of the organism upon an object/objective.
It's first role is to direct the organism towards the energies required to continue to assert its presence.
If this is accomplished it can then direct itself to longer-term object/objectives all to enhance and promote its assertiveness.
This is "Will to Power" or "Will to Life" or "Will to God" or any "Will to....".

Will is an indication of need.
I will what I lack in an absolute.
need is the recognition of this imperfection, this absence of a complete absolute.

The idea(l) is another word for this projected, into the future, object/objective.The movement towards it is the "agion" part - the striving, struggle, increasing attrition upon the organism's established order, increasing its energy requirements - thusly increasing its potential needs - and so its propensity to experience suffering/pain, but also pleasure due to the temporary and partial negation of these needs.

A more sophisticated mind, being able to draw from a deeper past and project further ahead into the probable future, exposes itself to more sources of suffering - it suffers more profoundly than a simpler animal does, only existing within a shallow perceptual-event-horizon with its simpler more immediate needs.
As such it is also capable of more profound experiences of pleasure, as a profound suffering based on a deeper/broader temporal horizon, would also make its alleviation, temporary and partial as it might be, more profound than any a simpler creature could experience.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15357
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:43 am

The assertion of self is the assertion of a more profound sense of self.
No longer based on a shallow perceptual-event-horizon, not extending much further than the present/presence, or the more immediate past, but now extending further back, to establish and root self, and as a result, being able to project further into the future a more complex/sophisticated idea(l) self.

The danger increases when this idealization of past, supported by an artificial present, results in a detached, from reality, projection of a future idea(l).

Nihilism is an example of an idea(l) which rejects the phenomenon, if it contradicts the idealized past/future.
Detachment from the past means a detachment from nature - Detachment from the immediate past, the present, is a detachment from reality.
From this detachment from what is, essentially a shallow and/or deeper knowledge/experience of past/nature, any projections of a coming, future will be idealized in delusional, unrealistic ways.

The individual will now appreciate an artificial self - a detached from past/nature - in relation to a detached from reality future, idea(l) self.
It self-valuing will be delusional and unrealistic.
Such a mind can only survive within controlled, manmade, artificial environments, which protect it from this erroneous evaluation/estimation of self - its value of self will be overestimated or underestimated, selectively as it relates to its adopted narrative of the past (expreinces now contained within artificial environments necessitating pretenses, and knowledge educated into it as the shared narrative).

Only within these human environments are pretenses possible as long-term personae, because within natural environments they would shatter when they (inter)acted with a reality that is indifferent to human noetic devices.

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

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15357
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:51 am

From the previous we can now see how and why value-judgments can be warped and socially/culturally directed, and how a population can be manipulated using delusional idea(l)s.

The symptoms of hyperbole are evident in Modern environments.
Individuals overestimate themselves, and sometimes, underestimate themselves, in accordance to value-judgments established on warped projections of past/future.
Most, finding ti difficult to reconcile the contradictory data settle for the easier method of remaining in the immediate present, cynical (antipathetic) to all past and future projections - only caring about their immediate needs and gratifying them.
A reversion to an animal state, to remain comfortably numb.

_________________
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: Self-Valuing Ethics Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:15 pm

VOt wrote:
And now as for moral philosophy. Before you can take that down to earth, it must be firmly rooted in heaven, so to say, and every step of the stairway down must also be solidly built. I think value ontology apprehends, if not objective values, then at least rational values: the rationality of self-valuing, both in the sense of the valuing of valuing and of the valuing of a self, a self-identical "A". But if all that exists are valuings, as value ontology posits, then all that exists is good, valuable--as Heraclitus affirms when he says that, to the god, all is beautiful and good and just. How could we ever bring this down to earth, where mere men all consider some things unjust and some just?

Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.
Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.
Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as its disvaluation would disvalue itself, too.
Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.
Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

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


If that sounds familiar, its because, even the SEP does the gross equivocation of Spinoza's 'sub species aeternitas' with Heraclitus:

Stanford Encylop. of Phil. wrote:
"To God all things are fair, good and just, but men suppose some things are unjust, some just” (B102). Heraclitus does not attempt to provide a detailed theodicy, but seeks to view all things sub specie aeternitatis, in which conflict (including presumably human conflict) keeps the world going."

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


Providing rationalizations by simply changing Spinoza to Heraclitus does not change the underlying aesthetic, which is anti-Nietzschean. And I say that, because after all it was Nietzsche himself who critiqued Xt. in the WTP, to the effect, only from an infinite height of the Xt. God, all things could become equal or rendered so. In his observation in my signature, it is rather the Aeschyllian Prometheus from bottoms<>up who tragically affirms the dual nature of all things - that a Zeus is equally justified in his justice and equally justified in his injustice - and not, from the point of view of some God above. It is man judging the gods such, and not God judging man and the world such.

To be factual, Kahn's commentary on the particular fragment D.102 calls its authenticity in question in the first place;

Kahn wrote:
"LXVIII (D. 102) Scholia to Iliad: [Heraclitus says that for god all things are fair and good and just, but men have taken some things as unjust, others as just.]

As Bywater recognized, and Wilamowitz and others have pointed out since, the wording here is that of some anonymous Homeric commentator, perhaps a Stoic, and we cannot know how well it reflects what Heraclitus said. The second clause can be seen as an extension of the thought of LXVII to the moral distinctions between just and unjust, right and wrong. Heraclitus cannot have meant, as the scholiast's wording might suggest, that the distinction is man-made in the sense of being arbitrary or groundless. This is excluded by the doctrine of XXX (D. 114) that human laws and moral codes (nomoi) are the expression of cosmic order. The authentically Heraclitean thought (known from LXIX, and imperfectly expressed in the present text) is that men cannot define justice except by specifying its violation: the city determines what is just by making laws that prohibit and punish actions recognized as unjust. The conceptual point is a general one. As Socrates (or Plato) said, the knowledge of opposites is one and the same. But justice is a peculiarly 'negative virtue' in that instances of injustice are more striking.

Less clear is the statement that such moral distinctions are cancelled or non-existent from the divine point of view. It is difficult to extract from this a thought that is uncontaminated by Platonic or Stoic conceptions of providence and universal harmony. But we do know that Heraclitus conceived of a hidden fitting-together of opposites in which conflict and justice would coincide (LXXVIII— LXXXII). It is only in this perspective that he could have asserted that 'for god all things are fair and good and just'.

Notice that there is still some meaning attached to the term 'unjust' at the level of cosmic order, although here the term has no true application. The violation of justice in this sense would have to be, per impossibile, the violation of the world order, as in the contrary- to-fact hypothesis of the sun diverging from his ordained path. Even for a god this would not be just and fair and good!" [Heraclitus Fragments, LXVIII]


N. himself did not spare Heraclitus in the TOI, stating,

Nietzsche wrote:
"With the highest respect, I except the name of Heraclitus. When the rest of the philosophic folk rejected the testimony of the senses because they showed multiplicity and change, he rejected their testimony because they showed things as if they had permanence and unity. Heraclitus too did the senses an injustice. They lie neither in the way the Eleatics believed, nor as he believed -- they do not lie at all. What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. "Reason" is the cause of our falsification of the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction. The "apparent" world is the only one: the "true" world is merely added by a lie." [TOI, Reason, 2]


Playing word-games and imagining a "whole" and a "sky-hook" top<>bottom approach is a Lie, an artifice and a poetic means to knowledge and dominance, whether the immanence is one of Being [Spinoza] or of Becoming [Heraclitus].

VOt as "the absolutisation of relativism, but not without the admission, nay the insistence, that it, too, is at bottom a value and not necessarily a fact" ---   is a hedonistic project insofar it is merely the application of Spinoza's Conatus to the perpetual maintenance of tension for its own sake, or what we here call infamously, simply "agreeing to disagree" ad. inf.

Conatus applied not to individual bodies, but the Vectors of Tension Between/Amongst individual bodies, is the shimmering effect I spoke of in the pagan thread - play for its own sake and as its own goal.
Lets not forget, N.'s ER [the thirst of the 'ring' to complete itself as its own joy] was meant as a MEANS and a PRELUDE for overcoming ressentiment and positing grand goals. It was not an indulgence to take comfort in - why and where N. differs from the Pomos.
The same critique N. applied against self-preservation/conatus of individual entities also applies to the Pathos of Tension. The voluptuous afirmation does not seek to preserve tension, diversity for its own sake, justified from a false top<>down view of all is valuable as if the world were a conscious organism with a goal, and that is a key difference. The rank order:

Diversity does not prefigure tension. [Spinoza's theopanist 'all is sacred and divine'...]
But Tension catalyzes diversity. [Heraclitus' 'war is the father of all things', 'war steers all'…]

This means, the aesthetic rank is tension and war and violence and the joy in destruction that originarily opens pathos of gulfs and births diversity, and not the conatal maintenance of diversity that produces tension as a by-effect.

The former is what is called Agon, and not the latter - the latter is reactivity. Although in the horizontal view, the two loop as a cycle feeding off and against and over each other, in the vertical view, it is Mars rising.
(Agon, from agein "to lead", to struggle for victory.)

The "absolutization of relativism" [VOt] is the most anti-Nietzschean, nihilistic collapse of the Valuing of Rank values from an objective point of view. [that statement is no abs. fact, only my power of interpretation, etc. etc. all taken into account].

What is being absolutized then, really is the hedonistic ethic, and the opposite of their (cl)aim - Valuing of valuing is Redundant, when it is pre-posited "all is valuable"…

All is valuable is a moral philosophy.
All is will-to-power is an amoral philosophy.

N. characterized life as "spirit building slowly under the most unfavourable conditions" [WTP].
His philosophy was supposed to be selective by who is drawn to such a teaching and imposing the pressure upon those who couldn't handle it as the license to perish, but now VOt in absolutizing 'all is valuable' deselects the selecting pressure, and the tension of the 'existential burden' of e-valuating worth and self-worth.
Excess/Hunger was his criterion of e-valuating the gulf between types.
In the blunting of the selecting pressure, if not its elimination, the guaging of the value {of the value {of the value {of the… of valuing of valuing by its erotic power [being is valuing<>valuing is being] only indexes a density, not an Intensity.

Atavistic [lit. retrograde] memories are densities [con-densations] - at its ideal best, shamans, spontaneities, signs - mark;
Apotheosic [lit. upgrade] piquancy is an intensity [con-secrations] - genii, will-full (premeditated, in-tend), designs - mark out.

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

_________________
[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 Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:04 am; 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: Self-Valuing Ethics Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:31 pm

Fixed is miffed because I did not play Simon says with him.
He put me on statue, and I moved…

Can I have the grapes of wrath already..


There are only multipodes striving for power. All vantages are relative and an ever-shifting dynamism. Every centering competes and co/operates for domination with all other centerings to advance itself.

Yet, the minute, the WTP is replaced with Value, one can no longer say this.

Because consciousness was only a probable outcome of any number of possibilities, one cannot retropolate this backwards into saying, everything is at bottom subjectivity. "Life is only a special case."
Not every possibility can be said to be valuable.

At bottom, all we can say is there is a creative clash - chance, of luck.
Active forces shaping, organizing itself into increasing efficiency.
This inter<>activity - selecting, rejecting, resisting, co/operating, growing, diminishing adapting is not a valuing since being [relative persistence] is merely a by-effect of the larger entropic excess willing to become more and more. Being is an epiphenomenon of growth, expansion, becoming, wtp.
Value does not precede power, but power differentiates itself into a value via its pathos of becoming.

Since life is a special case, and we have no other concept of Being as from the pov. of living [WTP, 582], a good ontology would try to ground being-qua-becoming, and not being-qua-being.

Whitehead himself did not hide calling his prehensive/concrescent process theology, a Christology…
Pan-psychism is not a part of N.'s philosophy:

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

I say VOt retards selecting, because it already pre-posits the world as holy, as valuable (even if not equally so), etc.; whereas the tragic man of N. was to affirm his way in to seeing the world as holy enough to justify all his suffering.

VOt wrote:
Value ontology is "not value your being, but be your valuing."

If a retard's vitality commands or proscribes that goodness, truth, honesty, etc. are contrary to his self-preservation and even threaten it, there is nothing to say his "being his valuing" has any objective value tied to evolutionary goals.

This relativism is a blunting of the selection principle.

_________________
[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
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15357
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Self-Valuing Ethics Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:43 pm

Orgasm Ontology...OO....Oooooohhhhh...
Orgasms orgasming.
Self-Orgasms = masturbating.
Orgasm-selfing...sex, procreation...God.

Universe, a vast orgy.

_________________
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: Self-Valuing Ethics Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:24 pm

The retard Brian writes, that disvaluation of VO is yet and still only another valuing and thus the axiom remains.

But in Fixed, one finds its own counter:

FC wrote:
"Scientific method requires that one places oneself out of the equation for the moment. That requires self-awareness, awareness of what one is."

E-valuation [know thyself] precedes Valuation.

_________________
[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: Self-Valuing Ethics

Back to top Go down
 
Self-Valuing Ethics
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Self-Valuing Ethics
» Leaving Hasidic Judaism - from PBS Religion and Ethics Newsweekly
» Ethics and the Eternal
» The Religious Origins Of Morality And Ethics
» PLEASE HELP.Is there any change in ATLP, Prof prog old syllabus?

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