Soot Alors! Playtime with a Philistine

Since the "Sub Specie Cuntamination" doesn't have a personal position or philosophy of his own than clutching on to Spinoza like a good belieber, I thought I wouldn't allocate an Individual thread,, but since, on the other hand, this thread summarizes many of Satyr's positions, it might be worth it.

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

sub specie cuntamination wrote:

Every other word out of your mouth is 'flux', and yet the moment nature demonstrates that very thing through its variation and change, you start bitching about it and call it a malfunction.

What is the function, Greecey?

Satyr wrote:

"Positive is that which requires effort, energy, to come about and to maintain itself.
Negative is that which does not require effort, energy, to come about and to maintain itself.

The Pagan accepts the effort, the costs, his positive contribution, but also the inevitability of the negative.
He remains noble in that he does not hate the negative but recognizes it as necessary to make his positive effort creative, constructive ...with value.
And though the Jew-Christian mocks him and laughs at him and pities him, he fights on.
Emotion is how the nihilists try to seduce and to corrupt.

The future, the inevitable change, is something to be endured, resisted, and accepted as part of the deal.
Change requires no effort...it happens.
What liberals do is destroy all attempts to stop change...they are, in essence, metaphysical conservatives. Like anarchists.

When we connect the concept to the world the essence of a progressive is exposed.

How does one promote change when change is inevitable and happens whether one promotes it or not?

The only change a progressive, liberal, wishes is the one that does away with the established order.
This is why anarchists are products of the political left.
The progress they want is simply a change of order ...a social engineering.
A progressive wishes to return to the status quo of continuous change - he wishes to break any rebellion against it. He dreams of conserving what will inevitably result in uniformity, because his current state is intolerable.

Because anarchy is a branch of the Marxist political form of nihilism, they imagine change as being beneficial to them. They want, for selfish reasons, to destroy the existing order so that in the subsequent chaos a new order will emerge where they are on top.
The hypocrisy of the modern altruist.
The progressive/liberal is the true conservative, conserving change.

To him, the future, whatever it may be, can only be better than what is, and what was.
Not because he has dealt with it, explored it, understood it, come to terms with it, and not because he has come-up with methods to adapt, but because he has selectively rejected it, depending on immediate cosmetic interventions, and a shared lie.
They progress from a previous to a more current application of the same self-evident, utilitarian, idea(l)s.

The word, and the language it is a part of, has become mathematical, it has become a number.
The scripture is no longer in a linguistic form, but in a numerical, more abstracted, form.
The underlying premises are the same: the world is knowable, certainty is possible, all can be reduced to the word, the symbol, the number, there is an end, and a beginning, by implication, and humanity is one and requires saving in unison.

Once the phenomenon is reduced to its lowest common denominator, some particle, cell, and is then abstracted into a number, turned into a code, then all is the same, and all is correctable.
The code, like with the Banking system with resources and how it turned away from the tangible gold standard and adopted the more malleable, ambiguous, fluctuating, dollar standard, transforms the code into potential.
It takes the need, and multiplies it, in time, into a possibility.

With scientific codification of reality nothing which cannot be measured, within a certain parameter, is ever considered.
This offers a convenient excuse to ignore anything human, or about the human condition, which may disrupt social cohesion.
The human is turned into a static number, a code, representing energy, which is active.
It can now be transformed, like a bank transforms resources into monetary units, into anything: any value, any quality.
This is how we get the popularity of perspectivism.
With humans infinite possibilities must be presumed, across the board, which means, in mathematical terms that man is essentially a nil, a clean slate, a phenomenon void of a past, a nature, a determining factor which may inhibit freedom from all behavioural understanding.
This is the "complexity" of man, argument.

However, Strength measures the organisms tolerance of reality, of temporarality, of change - it's ability to resist.

Life is a perpetual self-preservation within temporal attrition, or the constantly self-organizing within entropy.

We might say that preservation, self-maintenance, is a kind of progress, if we include in our thinking that fact that entropy is increasing.
To preserve the same order(ing) when all is tending towards disordering, is a progressive act.

But, what we usually mean by "progress", or growth, or power, is the presence of excess energies, left-over once self-preservation has been assured for a period, and then willfully directed towards an increase or a replication of this ordering: creation, procreation.
(Pro)Creativty is a rebellious act, because it contradicts the flow of time towards increasing randomness, which we call chaos.
During this process of (pro)creativity, mutations occur due to this effect of entropy upon ordering.
The created must always carry a small modification to its method and/or level of ordering.
Therefore man clings to the past, which is a state of more order (nature being the sum of all past nurturing), whereas a female surrenders to the flow of time, (nature as a coming near-absolute chaos where all is possible).

Chaos is the obliteration of patterns (probabilities) and the infinite state of possibilities, where all traits, all identifications, are dissolved in a uniformity of randomness - a state where all and everything is equally possible.
This is usually sold as a comforting escape from the past because what it essentially means is the erasing of all determining, ordering, factors ...while, conveniently preserving consciousness, as the teleos, the carrot at the end of the stick.
Here the natural propensity of females to give themselves to power, to surrender to its seductive force, is used to direct and to control, eliminating all resisting wills, and imposing a common Will.
This is where the paradox begins and the hypocrisy takes over - some have also called it the Jew Paradox because in the west the Jewish ideals is what dominates western pagan cultures.

The paradox (Heisman - 'Suicide Note') is this ploy of selling selflessness, surrender, humility, as a virtue to those who are to be exploited by ones who do not buy what they are selling, but must pretend that they do, so as to make the ruse effective - like in seduction the females must be coerced using exaggeration, hyperbole, promises.

We see the hypocrisy when an authoritarian singularity is proposed by making it appear like freedom, something the Christians perfected, using linguistic methods they learned from the Hellenic Oracles at Delphi: death becomes a towards a more authentic life, surrender and weakness becomes strength, the Dominion of the unquestioned Deity/Ideal (whatever word is used to describe it) becomes a matter of a moral free-choice, Pascals' Wager.

We also see it in the paradox where the category 'human' is a lesser generalization/simplification, than the sub-categories of race and sex.

We see it in a hypocritical assertion of anti-authoritarianism when multiplicity of opinion is founded on some common, unquestioned, ideas such as: equality, justice, love, unity, oneness, humanity, sanctity of life, shared herd moralities, cult of victimization, need/suffering as something added upon existence, not as the very experience of existing, the illusion of multiplicity and/or selfless, the sinfulness of ego and the degradation of the sense of self, the antithesis to the past (nature) offering the immediate, the present, and the projected future (imagination, utopia) as usurping progressiveness, a shared discomfort and hatred of what has been determined (nature) wanting to tear down all ordering which preserves what has been determined in the hope of a "better" coming change - here fantasy must take over where imagination must be detached form the known, the experienced, the natural/real, so as to let the mind go towards that desirable "better" outcome which change will inevitably produce.

The desire to dismiss, forget, denounce, nature (sum of past nurturing), and experiences/knowledge (sum of all past experiences), is governed by a desperation, a nihilistic need to destroy what determines and limits the imagination forcing it towards pragmatic, realistic goals, objects/objectives.
The supra-natural, the paranormal, the fantastic becomes alternatives to this much hated natural world, the aesthetic, the real."

It's remarkable how the same types of retards pop-up every so often, each with their own name, their own agenda, and, unremarkable how my past comments, directed at some other variant of this type of retardation, still apply not requiring any further involvement.

Eventually each declares itself victor, dismisses me, and moves on to pursue self-numbing escapism.

Pseudomius is a wee li'l Liar; he's been on Spinoza and Spinoza only since a decade, and Everyone knows that much!

Look at the spineless wurm trying to squirm its way out now.. HA

Anyone whose calibre is still at the level of a,

pseudomius wrote:

"For the purposes of this post, 'God' will be called the 'Primordial One'. I want to interpret this Primordial One as both Nietzsche and Sauwelios do- an eternal and infinite form or 'being' which has expressed itself through the interactions and activities (or modes) of time, space and energy."

etc.

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

is just laughable, and cannot be taken Sirius...ly...

Good for amateurish skimming through... and out.

A critique of Spinoza? Didn't see any for a decade minus 4. In fact the opp. nonsense:

pseudomius wrote:

"The article works off of a letter written by Spinoza to a colleague. In it, Spinoza explains that we shouldn't think of a man who cannot see as missing a capacity, since man, as a particular mode of being of God, is pure positivity of power and being. That is to say that since God cannot lack a capacity to act, none of its actions are 'incomplete'; we can only say that this particular man who is blind does not possess a particular capacity, but we do not say that he is lacking or missing a positive aspect of the capacity to act. The capacity to act is not a relative gradient of power which is different for different people with different capacities, see. One is not 'less powerful' when they are incapable of emanating a particular, physical capacity to act. This blind man is as complete as the man who can see, and his completeness is expressed in his particular power to act in the ways that he can.

In other words, there is no 'empty space', no weakness, in the body in God- there is no state in which there is incapability once we see that each individual aspect of God's being is as complete and positive as any other aspect in its total activity. Stronger and weaker parts of the body of God are only confused notions we have when we compare capacities of individuals. Again, there is no 'failure', no 'faultiness', no negativity in God. God is pure conatus, the pure capacity to act in its infinite modes of being.

Modes do not lack anything, they are complete in their being, and form a perfect union with all other modes. We no longer should think of individuals as separate modes of being, and contrast capacities, describing some as lacking or missing power.

If you imagine all that exists as working in the form of a machine, each part has its function and should not be compared with other parts of the machine. To use the analogy of a car, we couldn't say that a spark-plug lacks a capacity when it doesn't sense oxygen in the exhaust. The spark-plug's function does not include sensing oxygen, so not doing so is not a lack of capacity. The blind man's function is not to see, so it does not lack a capacity, is not deprived of a capacity, is not missing a capacity to act."

I wonder what is such a God belieber doing with Nietzsche and cuntaminating WTP with Conatus and such wishful thinking...
Sauwie has his own problems, but what happened to one's own brain, one's own thinking faculty no matter how convincing Sauwie came off... ?

Yesterday, he was almost begging for it,, today when his pseudo allure has been given food for thought, he shies away so coyly in all that typical, substanceless, "My time is too good for you", "you are wrong"..."you do not understand", bla...

Whatever.

pseudomius wrote:

When you set out to collect a series of quotes from Greecey's material with which to respond to my own, the reason why you could do this so quickly is because

...is because your "critique" has been offered a hundred before and nothing novel in it to contemplate on it for days...

Quote :

the ambiguity of his text

Do you only throw accusations or do you also have some grit to spare to back it up?

Your accusation is what is ambiguous.

Quote :

but rather that, because you yourself are infected with the same kind of vague confusion Greecey is infected with, his text appears to you to have substance and clarity.

Confusion about what? Be precise, if you can handle it.

Quote :

If you decided to try, you could find as much disagreement in his thoughts as you believe you have found in my own...

I may or may not have, and yet, that takes away nothing from the response given to you. FOCUS. on yours first, if you can with-stand the gaze.
Else, swing in unnecessary directions and move on; who cares.
Its curtains for you pseudo, cuitains...

Quote :

Your relationship to Greecey is more of a kind of philosophical placebo effect than the practice of a genuine understanding of each other.

You displayed no understanding of philosophy; psychology is a far stretch... don't strain yourself.

Quote :

It is less about genuine understanding (which cannot be had over nonsense) and being convinced, and more about choosing to maintain an alliance at any cost.

Got any spirit?
The kind that can think on its own... without clutching to spinozas, zappas, sauwies, etc.

Quote :

Fortunately for you two, there can be no disagreement because the text is so utterly confused it cannot be either right or wrong in the first place. The mountain of confusion and nonsense becomes so large, you no longer realize you are standing on it. This is the saving grace of your relationship.

Till next Sunday? Ahhhhh... Men!

Lyssa wrote:

pseudomius wrote:

"The article works off of a letter written by Spinoza to a colleague. In it, Spinoza explains that we shouldn't think of a man who cannot see as missing a capacity, since man, as a particular mode of being of God, is pure positivity of power and being. That is to say that since God cannot lack a capacity to act, none of its actions are 'incomplete'; we can only say that this particular man who is blind does not possess a particular capacity, but we do not say that he is lacking or missing a positive aspect of the capacity to act. The capacity to act is not a relative gradient of power which is different for different people with different capacities, see. One is not 'less powerful' when they are incapable of emanating a particular, physical capacity to act. This blind man is as complete as the man who can see, and his completeness is expressed in his particular power to act in the ways that he can.

In other words, there is no 'empty space', no weakness, in the body in God- there is no state in which there is incapability once we see that each individual aspect of God's being is as complete and positive as any other aspect in its total activity. Stronger and weaker parts of the body of God are only confused notions we have when we compare capacities of individuals. Again, there is no 'failure', no 'faultiness', no negativity in God. God is pure conatus, the pure capacity to act in its infinite modes of being.

Modes do not lack anything, they are complete in their being, and form a perfect union with all other modes. We no longer should think of individuals as separate modes of being, and contrast capacities, describing some as lacking or missing power.

If you imagine all that exists as working in the form of a machine, each part has its function and should not be compared with other parts of the machine. To use the analogy of a car, we couldn't say that a spark-plug lacks a capacity when it doesn't sense oxygen in the exhaust. The spark-plug's function does not include sensing oxygen, so not doing so is not a lack of capacity. The blind man's function is not to see, so it does not lack a capacity, is not deprived of a capacity, is not missing a capacity to act."

In the above nonsense, one can see hedonism at work - "Pure positivity", Pure Perfection divested of anything negative that is affirmed-Away as just "another mode".

But this kind of hedonistic relativism is not Nietzschean Perspectivism;

Satyr wrote:

"Cut from the same cloth, the Nihilists believe in a singularity appearing as multiplicity, and they produce a multiplicity of ideals all founded on their shared presumption of an underlying, or beyond, absolute.

For them, it isn't that the human mind reduces the multiplicity into singularities, but that a singularity manifests as multiplicity as a cover, an illusion.
The inversion is clear.
One begins with a noetic projection, and then justifies the contradictory, to it, experience with the phenomenal world, after-the-fact.
The world is problematic because it challenges the artifices, the abstractions, and their literal application.

The word is not adapting to the world, but the world must adapt to the word - thou shalt...
Perspectivism...not as an acknowledgment of human limitations, but as a tactic to evade and to escape, and to remain faithful to the desirable absolute idea(l).

It's easy to submit to this mode of thinking.

First, because it is intuitive, and adheres to the natural way the mind reduces the fluctuating into static forms to make them intimate, and comprehensible.
A less sophisticated mind finds it easier to accept its methodology as an absolute.
Four-dimensional space/time is another example of this.

Second, because the noumenon is malleable, under the will's control.
The illusion of free-will as an absolute, and not a dynamic process.

Third, because even when it is admitted that the noetic is not absolutely under the will's control, it is nevertheless intimate, rational, and so it offers the idea that the uncertainty is really hiding a reason.
Better to believe in an evil with reason than to believe that bad things happen for no reason which the human mind can relate to.

Fourth, because it need not refer to anything outside itself.
It can remain self-referential, and so it is no longer a tool for meeting challenges, and therefore not a source of stress.
The perspective can be tailor made to meet the needs, requirements, of each and every psychological type, each and every organic hierarchy.
Here, politeness, civility, is supposed to protect each perspective from its own inferiority.

Fifth, because it deals with superior-inferior by making all perspectives equally valid, and equally invalid, protecting the mind from the realization that it is born out of inferior genetic stock.
A determination which is inescapable because the immutable past cannot be intervened upon, except by dismissing it, or by reinterpreting it without referring to the outcome, the apparent.
The war against appearances, or judgment using sensuality, is part of this struggle to dismiss the past as not-applicable."

pseudomius wrote:

I have a very unpredictable work schedual...  Some days I'll work ten hours, others, two. Sometimes I won't work for a week. The weather decides a lot of this.

But rest assured I will never shy away. I thrive off this shit, miss Lys. Just have patience.

I can accomodate that for a good afterthought...

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

"There is no God,

Call it God or One substance of pure perfection or unmoved mover or primal one or whatever word, that still makes you a belieber.

pseudomius wrote:

and the Spinozean concept of conatus is quite compatible with Nietzsche's emphasis of the discharge and expansion of power.

If it were so, N. himself wouldn't have bothered to distance himself from the conatus Specifically, unless of course you want to pretend you know N. better than he knew himself.

Spinoza: "Deus sive Natura [God or Nature]."

Nietzsche: "Chaos sive Natura [Chaos or Nature]". [KSA 9]

If you relativize the critical difference in this starting premise, then you can conflate the two of them together, but that would be a dishonesty;

Nietzsche wrote:

"But the old habit of thinking about all events in terms of goals, and about the world in terms of a guiding, creating God, is so powerful that the thinker is hard-pressed not to think of the goallessness of the world as, again, an intention. This idea—the idea that the world is intentionally evading a goal and even has the means expressly to prevent itself from being drawn into a cyclical course—is what occurs to all those who would like to impose upon the world the faculty for eternal novelty, that is, impose upon a finite, determinate force of unchanging magnitude like “the world” the miraculous capacity to refashion its shapes and states infinitely.
They would like the world, if no longer God, to be capable of divine creative force, an infinite force of transformation; they would like the world to prevent itself at will from falling back into one of its earlier shapes, to possess not only the intention but also the means of guarding itself from all repetition. The world is, thus, to control every one of its movements at every moment so as to avoid goals, final states, repetitions—and whatever else the consequences of such an unforgivably crazy way of thinking and wishing may be. This is still the old religious way of thinking and wishing, a kind of longing to believe that in some way or other the world does, after all, resemble the beloved old, infinite, boundlessly creative God—that in some way or other “the old God still lives”—that longing of Spinoza’s expressed in the words “deus sive natura” (he even felt “natura sive deus”)." [KSA 11]

Nietzsche wrote:

"“Return to nature” 1. Its stages: its background Christian credulity (in some ways
already Spinoza’s “deus sive natura”!)

[. . .]

Spinozism extremely influential:

1. the attempt to acquiesce in the world as it is
2. happiness and knowledge naively posited in a relation of dependence (express a will to optimism which betrays the deeply suffering man—)
3. the attempt to rid oneself of the moral order of the world, so as to have “God” remain, a world that holds its ground in the face of reason . . .

“When man no longer considers himself evil, he ceases to be so—” Good and evil are only interpretations, by no means facts or in-themselves. One can track down origin of this kind of interpretation; one can try in this way to slowly liberate oneself from the deep-rooted compulsion to interpret morally." [KSA 12]

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

But to anthropomorphize the idea of power

Your presumption; he doesn't.

Nietzsche wrote:

"THERE IS NO WILL, and consequently neither a strong nor a weak will. The multitude and disgregation of impulses and the lack of any systematic order among them result in a "weak will"; their coordination under a single predominant impulse results in a "strong will": in the first case it is the oscillation and the lack of gravity; in the latter, the precision and clarity of the direction." [WTP, 46]

Nietzsche wrote:

"Let us beware! —Let us beware of thinking that the world is a living being. Where should it expand? On what should it feed? How could it grow and multiply? We have some notion of the nature of the organic; and we should not reinterpret the exceedingly derivative, late, rare, accidental, that we perceive only on the crust of the earth and make of it something essential, universal, and eternal, which is what those people do who call the universe an organism. This nauseates me.
Let us even beware of believing that the universe is a machine: it is certainly not constructed for one purpose, and calling it a "machine" does it far too much honor.
Let us beware of positing generally and everywhere anything as elegant as the cyclical movements of our neighboring stars; even a glance into the Milky Way raises doubts whether there are not far coarser and more contradictory movements there, as well as stars with eternally linear paths, etc. The astral order in which we live is an exception; this order and the relative duration that depends on it have again made possible an exception of exceptions: the formation of the organic. The total character of the world, however, is in all eternity chaos—in the sense not of a lack of necessity but a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms.
Judged from the point of view of our reason, unsuccessful attempts are by all odds the rule, the exceptions are not the secret aim, and the whole musical box repeats eternally its tune which may never be called a melody—and ultimately even the phrase "unsuccessful attempt" is too anthropomorphic and reproachful.
But how could we reproach or praise the universe? Let us beware of attributing to it heartlessness and unreason or their opposites: it is neither perfect nor beautiful, nor noble, nor does it wish to become any of these things; it does not by any means strive to imitate man. None of our aesthetic and moral judgments apply to it. Nor does it have any instinct for self-preservation or any other instinct; and it does not observe any laws either.
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. Let us beware of saying death is opposed to life. The living is merely a type of what is dead, and a very rare type.—Let us beware of thinking that the world eternally creates new things. There are no eternally enduring substances: matter is as much of an error as the God of the Eleatics. But when shall we ever be done with our caution and care? When will all these shadows of God cease to darken our minds? When will we complete our de-deification of nature? When may we begin to naturalize humanity in terms of a pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature?" [Joyful Wisdom, 109]

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

in calling it only a desire to increase itself, is where Nietzsche goes wrong. 'Power' is not intentional...

He doesn't; you should pay more attention.
See WTP, 1067.
Trying to discredit someone after inserting your own strawman is easy, but in vain.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

To discharge, expand and increase, power must be in the form of an awareness of both accumulative potential and design-

There is no design;

Nietzsche wrote:

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 no 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]

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

In man, the conatus is driving to first sustain itself (expressed in the biological will-to-survive). Only then can it discharge and increase itself. Without this direction man cannot be called 'creative', because creation and destruction is incommensurable without intentionality... something only the intelligent being can possess. In short, Nietzschean WTP doesn't do anything without Spinozean conatus, and is unrecognizable as an organizing force of effects.

It depends on what is truth for you.
To the Dionysian, the Apollonian temporal individuation is illusion, a semblance of unity. See BOT, 1 for example.
To the Apollonian, truth is what endures, the enduring self.

From the pov. of self, life is need, self-preservation. Life is a towards self-cohesion, towards-being. Growth is because of a need to fill what is lacking. It is a degree of resisting entropy, contradictions. Clarity and severity gives it power. How much can you do without?...

From the pov. of life as a whole, life is an excess drive, a towards-becoming. Growth is because of aggressive capacity to max. self-differentiation. It is a degree of enduring entropy, contradictions. Multifariousness and balance gives it power. How much can you take within?...

Disorder occurs effortlessly.
But it takes as much effort to keep out entropy as much effort to sustain it in.

From the Apollonian view of towards-Being, you are able to expend, because you have preserved.
From the Dionysian view of towards-Becoming, you are able to preserve, because you have expended.

N.'s position was an Apollo-sublimated-Dionysian path.

All that said, N.'s critique of the conatus is not just to do with self-preservation, but the underlying J.-Xt. Hedonistic morality in all god-believers of whatever stripe, including Spinoza; that being - hatred of reality as it is.

'Self-preservation' in the mouths of Spinoza and his J.-Xt. hedonistic ilk is a covert word for aversion to change, the reality of life as flux - which is experienced as a suffering and objection.
Result? Spinoza simply calls change - modifications of the same.

There is a nihilism that stems when words are fluid and a certain kind of man then begins to desire a "world that never changes"...   a world where that "first moment" and its experience will never get eroded and washed away... and he wishes he could hold on to it forever...

And there is a nihilism that stems when words are solid and immediacy with the moment is lost, experiences become objectified and one is no longer able to do justice to that "first moment" which is irreproduceable again -

Nietzsche and Zerzan respectively:

Nietzsche wrote:

"Man seeks "the truth":a world that is not... deceptive, does not change, a true world-a world in which one does not suffer;
contradiction, deception, change--causes of suffering!

Contempt, hatred for all that perishes, changes, varies whence comes this valuation of that which remains constant? ...the desire for a world of the constant.

Happiness can be guaranteed only by being; change and happiness exclude one another. The highest desire therefore contemplates unity with what has being.

The real primum mobile is disbelief in becoming, mistrust of becoming, the low valuation of all that becomes-

What kind of man reflects in this way? An unproductive, suffering kind, a kind weary of life. If we imagine the opposite kind of man, he would not need to believe in what has being; more, he would despise it as dead, tedious, indifferent- to what extent one can endure to live in a meaningless world because one organizes a small portion of it oneself?" [WTP, 585]

vs.

Zerzan wrote:

"Language refutes every appeal to immediacy by dishonoring the unique and immobilizing the mobile.

Language is the reification of communication... reification is a sclerosis...

Language itself corrupts..." [Running on Emptiness]

In the first case, he feels the continual transference in the metaphorical activity Erodes away vitality, like the waves carrying over each other one after the other like a metaphor erode the rocks in their momentum of contact with it... and he wishes the waves would stop.

In the second case, he feels the continual transference in the metaphorical activity Encrusts vitality, like the waves carrying over each other one after the other like a metaphor sediment and deposit mud that slowly turn into rocks... and he wishes the waves would stop.

In either case is a man who is exhausted with the world of becoming, with reality as it is.


Its typical of the J.Xt. hedonists to call the most life-affirmative -[reality as it is - flux] stance to be 'wrong' or in 'error'. I would be surprised if they didn't.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

I believe you have a lot of baggage with the term 'God' in it, so when you approach Spinoza (if you can concentrate long enough to follow his geometric form), you believe Spinoza is talking about the God in your baggage. Naturally, you dismiss what you perceive to be just another Scholastic theory of God. Then, you skip through my essay like a school girl performing for her classmates, waving a quote around 'look, look, I told you!' for your entourage to see.

Recognize the challenge that you put your own self upto. You will have my attention to more than just skim through those amateur essays one writes to comfort themselves at night feeling they have lived the examined life and the budding-philosopher-who-no-one-understands, etc. - you know the drill and all that jazz, when your cosplay is over and you take off your make-up and Really have a critique of Spinoza to offer as You claimed, bud...wiser.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Next time, pick something from the middle to quote. That way it will at least look like you've read it.

I will admit to nothing. Your vanity, fangirl, can take a hike for the time-being, and check on if and how much I have read you, later.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

And if you'll just calm down for a moment,

and if you, you'll have seen that Satyr is no jew-hating anti-semite; fortunately for you, things are not that simple, and you might learn a thing or two from him.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

you might remember I really have nobody to discuss anything with at SSA...

come over; you know you want to from the deepest core of your being,,, because what is life if you haven't tested yourself amidst the best...

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

which has become more of a blog than a community forum, unfortunately. So, if I did produce a critique of Spinoza it wouldn't be because anybody asked or could profit from it.

As long as philosophy is an enterprise catering to witnesses, SSC will be a platform for the Partially examined life. In peace, the warlike man attacks and exploits himself.
In your case, since you claimed to be a musician first and philosophy as a hobby, you're excused. I wont lay any heavy demands on you.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

If I were ever moved to do so, I would, but neither would a forum filled with members necessarily move me, either. It is a matter of the thought crossing my mind, or not."

You wont find me asking for anything you didnt claim yourself; I don't give or ask for free tuitions. Whimsy is flimsy. Discipline is taking one's own self to task for the claims they make, else it all remains a bunch of entertaining rhetoric and any Tom and Dick can do that. Which one are you?

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

You'd think by now after spending almost three years arguing with Greecey before you showed up, I'd be out of grit. Nay, I am not, and if I ever stopped, it would be out of boredom, not from a loss of vitality.

My antiquity is of no concern; I do not matter. My critique does. But I will cut you some slack, out of sheer whimsy and let you know, your and Satyr's forever-running acerbic debate on Spinoza, etc. on ILO was the "first" one that I happened to read... to the delicious end. I thoroughly enjoyed how Satyr hammered down and desecrated every one of your nihilistic cuntamination. I'm sure you would agree with me, he's fantastic, no? I wasn't exhausted either.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

You show up six years later and then demand from me what I have already done extensively.If I could give you the database for ILO, you'd be busy for months

Link me to your critique.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

and I wouldn't hear one peep out of you.

Life is an obsession, I rarely suffer from boredom.
Your present obfuscations do not go unnoticed.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

You're a litttle late on the scene, miss Lys.

The question is, 'a little late'... for what?

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Now you do show a particular interest in that bit about negation and 'missing capacities' I touched on in reference to the excellent article written by Dunamis. We can discuss that if you like.

aw shucks, I had to get a license permit and all... and here I was, already underway...

I'd excerpted a whole essay of Dunamis' on Sloterdijk here two years back; he understands Achilles and Thymotics, but beyond that, his other entries are so-so.
We can discuss Satyr whenever you think you can live on that Vesuvius.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

I have lived on the edge of Vesuvius all my life, and have never run from the gaping jaws of experience, even when I was nearly swallowed whole!

Vesuvius? You show no spirit for taking sides against yourself, and I don't blame you.. as I wouldn't any belieber who beliebed in self-preservation and all that jeebuzz. He simply 'couldn't'; he would perish from the logic of his being that demands such faith for his sanity.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

You have no idea who you are talking to, sweetheart. What you call a 'wicked game' is a walk through the park for me.

I think I do. Its at WTP, 941.

"Thus men also plunge into wild nature, not to find themselves but to lose and forget themselves in it. "To be outside oneself' as the desire of all the weak and the self-discontented."

Decadent delights that faint-hearted amateurs indulge in for a thrill is not the 'wicked-game' of the Icy hyperboreans and their schadenfroh that N. meant in that quote. Maybe in another 6 years, who knows? You might understand the homeless and the koboldish laughter from the gaping jaws of a voluptuous spirit.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Excellent! You noticed my affinity for the genius of Frank Zappa.

I wouldn't exactly call altar-devotion and infatuation affinity; I would call it a schoolgirl's crush.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

I think I've found the perfect one for you, Lys. I hereby christen you with the name Suzy Creamcheese.

The Who? - Run Run Run


__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

One does not take solace in the fact that there are no accidents or ontological absences in nature (which is all positivity of being really means).

Since when did affirming reality, chaos as norm and life as an exception amount to Solace? Which moment was that?
See 'Pessimism of Strength', WTP, 1019.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Rather, it is through this understanding that we do away with responsibility... not so that we can feel better about how we have failed and make excuses for not wanting to try anymore (this is the misunderstanding Greecey loves to exploit)... but so we can rid ourselves of the ressentiment of others through our knowledge that they are no accident, no mistake.

Did you confuse a No-doing from a Yea-saying with ressentiment? And further, you even attribute that to Satyr? You need to focus more. Here, let me enlarge it for you:

Satyr wrote:

"In the noble character, the other, whether foe or friend, is nothing more than the sum of its past and so it can never be other than what it is.
One does not hate a storm nor the flu...one endures it and one comes up with tactics to avoid becoming dominated and infected by it....but more than this one pays homage to it because it forces one to grow and then remain strong and vigilant and it defines self as that which is other than this confronting otherness.
If we consider Judeo-Christianity as a memetic virus, infecting the body of Indo-European cultures, then to hate the virus is to hate what helps us remain strong.
The noble warrior does not hate his enemy, he honors him, because the enemy identifies him and his own.
No emotion enters his fight. he is pure reason. not erotic madness, but rational agape.
One does not hate the flu, or the disease, one is grateful to it.
Life precedes consciousness.
Life is a self-maintaining, self-organizing, process: self-ordering.
Consciousness evolves to aid in this ordering.
It begins as outwardly focused, proving that the senses evolve to perceive and to discriminate otherness.
This makes liberal tactics of making discrimination a sickness, or something shameful, a blatant attempt to blind the brain, and to reduce the effectiveness of its reason for evolving.
Ergo, the discriminating consciousness of divergence, is to be damned and repressed, called the "master of illusions".
It must be mocked and dismissed as ill, as fear, as hate... in other words it is the scapegoat for the expulsion of personal anxieties in relation to existence."

Cf. that with WTP, 765.

To discriminate and call a spade a spade is not ressentiment... Grow up!

Affirming the necessity of what disgusts and nauseates one need not demand that one affirm what disgusts and nauseates one. Do you get the nuance? :

Nietzsche wrote:

"Viewed from a height, both are necessary; their antagonism is also necessary-and nothing shonld be banished more thoronghly than the "desirability" that some third thing might evolve out of the two ("virtne" as hermaphroditism). That is as little "desirable" as the approximation and reconciliation of the sexes. To evolve further that which is typical, to make the gulf wider and wider..." [WTP, 886]

Discrimination is ever Widening of the gulf, so that distinct Types - what is Typical can emerge - true diversity flourishes; this Pathos of Distance is not hatred or ressentiment, but self-reverence.

__________________________________________

psuedomius wrote:

A Nihilist, in the passive form, is someone who radically repudiates all values- he is not someone who rests unconsciously on a consolation that 'everything is perfect' (for Spinoza this does not indicate a lack of striving for more power), and uses this to excuse himself from accountability. I mean he might try, sure, but he won't succeed.

The passive nihilist is passive only in the sense he wills Nothingness, but he still wills.
Spinoza is a hedonistic nihilist in so far as change and flux of life is an objection to him, and he needs something non-moving, a Being, a substance, a god, a whatever singularity:

Nietzsche wrote:

"We stand differently to “certainty.” Because man has been raised by fear for the
longest time, and all bearable existence began with the “feeling of safety,” this persists in the thinkers. But as soon as the outer “dangerousness” of existence recedes, a desire for insecurity, limitlessness of the horizon emerges. The luck of the great discoverers in striving for certainty could now turn into the luck of substantiating uncertainty and hazard everywhere. Equally the fearfulness of the earlier existence is the reason why the philosophers emphasize the preservation (of the ego or the species) and make it to a principle: while we are in reality continuously playing a lottery against the principle. Here is where all of Spinoza’s maxims belong: that is, the basis for English Utilitarianism." [KSA 11]

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

As I have said elsewhere, freewill/determinism has no practical relevance in praxis, because the world is not a competition between individuals who are responsible for what they do.

Every individual is an expression of his quanta of power.

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Rather, it is a competition between those who control and those who are controlled. While a punisher believes he is justified in punishing (or criticizing, in your case) because the punished had freewill, this was never really a question; there is no freewill, so there can be no blame. You criticize what cannot be otherwise. But one is held accountable because one must be, in a game where those who control punish for the sake of maintaining their power. It is by making spectators believe the one punished deserved it, that those in power remain in power. It is the grand illusion by which civilization operates. Feeling irresponsible and believing one is not responsible do nothing to change the fact of accountability. A Nihilist's refusal of this fact is neither here nor there.

Why are you preaching to the choir?

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

1. There are no accidents in nature.

There is no telos, and an active nihilist experiences in that his greatest freedom and liberation as an artist who creates his own order;

Nietzsche wrote:

"Man seeks "the truth": a world that is not self-contradictory, not deceptive, does not change, a true world-a world in which one does not suffer; contradiction, deception, change--causes of suffering!

Contempt, hatred for all that perishes, changes, varieswhence comes this valuation of that which remains constant? Obviously, the will to truth is here merely the desire for a world of the constant.

Happiness can be guaranteed only by being; change and happiness exclude one another. The highest desire therefore contemplates unity with what has being. This is the formula for: the road to the highest happiness.

The real primum mobile is disbelief in becoming, mistrust of becoming, the low valuation of all that becomes-

What kind of man reflects in this way? An unproductive, suffering kind, a kind weary of life. If we imagine the opposite kind of man, he would not need to believe in what has being; more, he would despise it as dead, tedious, indifferent- to what extent one can endure to live in a meaningless world because one organizes a small portion of it oneself." [WTP, 585]

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Spinoza was anything but a gluttonous aesthete motivated only by physical pleasure. Understanding, for Spinoza, is more important than anything else. The guy was as ascetic as the fucking Buddha, Suzy. I think he needed to get out of the house more, but that's just my opinion.

Your ADD is not my problem, pseudo.

Regarding Hedonism, there is a difference between going through life via pain and pleasure as premise, and Voluptuousness where pleasure is felt as the effect, as the consciousness of increased power,, strength as pleasure in the proof of strength [WTP 695, 800, 1023] and the ability of great willing.

Nietzsche wrote:

"For millennia, pleasure and the avoidance of displeasure have been flatly asserted as the motives for every action. Upon reflection, however, we should concede that everything would have taken the same course, according to exactly the same sequence of causes and effects, if these states "pleasure and displeasure" had been absent, and that one is simply deceiving oneself if one thinks they cause anything at all: they are epiphenomena with a quite difffferent object than to evoke reactions; they are themselves effects within the instituted process of reaction." [WTP, 478]

Nietzsche wrote:

"The "conscious world" cannot serve as a starting point for values: need for an "objective" positing of values. In relation to the vastness and multiplicity of collaboration and mutual opposition encountered in the life of every organism, the conscious world of feelings, intentions, and valuations is a small section. We have no right whatever to posit this piece of consciousness as the aim and wherefore of this total phenomenon of life: becoming conscious is obviously only one more means toward the unfolding and extension of the power of life. Therefore it is a piece of naivete to posit pleasure or spirituality or morality or any other particular of the sphere of consciousness as the highest value -and perhaps even to justify "the world" by means of this.
This is my basic objection to all philosophic-moralistic cosmoand theodicies, to all wheretores and highest values in philosophy and theology hitherto. One kind of means has been misunderstood as an end; conversely, life and the enhancement of its power has been debased to a means." [WTP, 707]

Nietzsche wrote:

"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..." [WTP, 702]

vs.

Nietzsche wrote:

"...that not "increase in consciousness" is the aim, but enhancement of power-and in this enhancement the utility of consciousness is included; the same applies to pleasure and displeasure; that one does not take the means as the supreme measure of value (therefore not states of consciousness, such as pleasure and pain, if becoming conscious itself is only a means-)..." [WTP, 711]

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

To summarize: knowing that there are no accidents in nature, and that by perfection we mean only 'no mistakes', is not an excuse to stop valuing or accepting that we will be held accountable for our actions. A Nihilist that is not aware of this does not get to avoid his accountability, but he may deny values until his heart's content if it suits him. This is only an indication of his confusion... since he still continues to act as if some things are more important to him than others.

Bollocks.

Nietzsche wrote:

"Is the pagan cult not a form of thanksgiving and affirmation of life? Must its highest representative not be an apology for and deification of life? The type of a well-constituted and ecstatically OVERFLOWING spirit! The type of a spirit that takes into itself and redeems the contradictions and questionable aspects of existence!
It is here I set the Dionysus of the Greeks: the religious affirmation of life, LIFE WHOLE AND NOT DENIED OR IN PART; (typical - that the sexual act arouses profundity, mystery, reverence).
Dionysus versus the "Crucified": there you have the anti-thesis. It is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom - it is a difference in the meaning of it. 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. The god on the cross is a curse on life, a signpost to seek redemption from life; Dionysus cut to pieces is a promise of life: it will be eternally reborn and return again from destruction." [WTP, 1052]

'Perfection' is not about avoiding mistakes, it is even the will-to-error and contradictions, the terrible and the affirmation of both the heights as well as the darkest abysses of existence. "How much truth can you endure?" as the Dionysian standard.
Perfection is about incorporating maximum contradictions but Balancing them and possessing the widest perspectives in control, on/off as one sees fit.

Nietzsche wrote:

"A philosopher should seek knowledge by resolving “to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently ... so that one knows how to employ a variety  of perspectives ... in the service of knowledge.  ... The more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our “concept” of the thing, our “objectivity” be.” [GM]

Nietzsche wrote:

"The ability to have the pros and cons in one's power and to switch them on and off, so as to get to know how to utilise, for the advancement of knowledge, the difference in the Perspective ..." [GM, 3.12]

Nietzsche wrote:

"The highest man would have the greatest multiplicity of drives, in the relatively greatest strength that can be endured. Indeed, where the plant "man" shows himself strongest one finds instincts that conflict powerfully (e.g., in Shakespeare), but are controlled. [WTP, 966]

Nietzsche wrote:

"The wisest man would be the one richest in contradictions."[WTP, 259]

Nietzsche wrote:

"It is only a question of strength: to have all the morbid traits of the century, but to balance them through a superabundant, recuperative strength. The strong man." [WTP, 1014]

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

In fact, Nihilism isn't really a legitimate philosophy because of its operating contradictions. It is more of a confused kind of attitude.

That's the first critique of Spinoza. Excellent. Bravo!

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

I wonder why you and Greecey spend so much time attacking a house of cards.

Read my lips.

A.....D......D.  Damn it!

__________________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

My how you do go on.

Only checking if there's anything worth salvaging in you, or if you are one dead end. That's when I begin to really go on. I love opening dead ends.

later,,,when you promise some substance, like your master herr Spinz.
I'm busy.

Blunder 1.

pseudomius wrote:

""The fact that intelligence has evolved in the universe proves that the universe must be a thing which, at some point, becomes a rational process. Since intelligent creatures are the product of the laws of nature, the laws of nature must be intelligible- the universe now not only exists, but knows it exists. If no intelligence developed in the universe, the universe would remain an undifferentiated being, a gratuitous space of matter without direction and creative potential. It would simply be, and the only becoming it would be capable of would be quantitative reformation. Things would just move around and would assemble in no way that resulted in intelligence. If, on the other hand, nothing material developed in the universe, and existence was only a 'thought' of God (think Berkeley's radical empiricism), sensory experience would not be possible and nothing would become or have being. Remember the whole reason for the existence of the universe is the over-fullness of the Primordial One which, in the form of mind is awareness of this condition, and in the form of body is a disintegration and reintegration of individual parts.
The anthropomorphic interpretation of this process must give to the universe the qualities and characteristics of the intelligent life it has produced. The universe is not just a meaningless existence of things, but a system that changes according to a scheme, according to the teleological intentions of intelligent life, which are expressions of a vitality- the will to power. The universe has a form and content that directly reflects the modes (mind and body) of that intelligent life."

Blunder 2.

pseudomius wrote:

""In it, Spinoza explains that we shouldn't think of a man who cannot see as missing a capacity, since man, as a particular mode of being of God, is pure positivity of power and being. That is to say that since God cannot lack a capacity to act, none of its actions are 'incomplete'; we can only say that this particular man who is blind does not possess a particular capacity, but we do not say that he is lacking or missing a positive aspect of the capacity to act. The capacity to act is not a relative gradient of power which is different for different people with different capacities, see. One is not 'less powerful' when they are incapable of emanating a particular, physical capacity to act. This blind man is as complete as the man who can see, and his completeness is expressed in his particular power to act in the ways that he can."

So the sequence goes: because intelligence evolved in the universe, the universe is intelligent and because the universe is intelligent, there can be no error, no accident and because there is no accident, there is only pure positivity.

Can you believe this level of cuntamination?

This kind of retardation and stupidity is what continues to rule effete minds...

Blunder 3.

pseudomius wrote:

"And neither is Becomming a termination or anihilation of Being, but only a modification of it.
...The Primordial One watches the two brothers Apollo and Dionysus quarreling, as if looking at itself in a mirror. The cyclic process of fragmentation and resolution (the fight) is eternal and repetitious, and takes the form of a single, dynamic will to power...

So to summarize what has been suggested so far: a God/Primordial One exists."

And the liar calls himself not a belieber, xaxa

The retention of Being at any cost, that Need reveals deep-seated nihilism, which this philistine wants to "make compatible" with N., where N. makes it very clear:

Nietzsche wrote:

"I seek a conception of the world that takes this fact into account. Becoming must be explained without recourse to final intentions; becoming must appear justified at every moment (or incapable of being evaluated; which amounts to the same thing).

"Necessity" not in the shape of an overreaching, dominating total force, or that of a prime mover; even less as a necessary condition for something valuable. To this end, it is necessary to deny a total consciousness of becoming, a "God."

Fortunately such a summarizing power is missing (—a suffering and all-seeing God, a "total sensorium" and "cosmic spirit" would be the greatest objection to being). More strictly one must admit nothing that has being—because then becoming would lose its value and actually appear meaningless and superfluous.

Becoming is of equivalent value every moment; the sum of its values always remains the same; in other words, it has no value at all, for anything against which to measure it and in relation to which the word "value" could have any meaning, is lacking. The total value of the world cannot be evaluated." [WTP, 708]

Did someone use the word charlatan?

I'm too confused to have noticed.

pseudomius wrote:

I saw a stone skipping across the water, and then it suddenly disappeared.

Focus on the ripples in the water Forrest, not the stones.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

I don't feel like you were digging in like I wanted,

"First principles."

Its not about what you or I want,
If you screw up at the basics; then its not philosophy that we'd be doing. I would call it tinkering.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

I will also try to avoid a battle of Nietzsche quotes- they can become quite circular since for almost everything Nietzsche ever said in one book, there is another book in which he says the opposite.

What did you expect when you try to debate the views of a thinker? Yes, you quote his views as they are. And not pass off your conjectures as his views.
I have no problem with you avoiding it, if you insist on being a hypocrite. On the one hand you could be painting a pic. of a cold world and what matters are relations,, yet on the other, you throw accusations without backing up anything. Now, if we are to be that care-less,, then I might as well throw around whatever accusation I want. I'll say just for the heck of it, how ambiguous you are, how insincere you are, etc. and never offer proof.

You jump to N.'s 'contradictions' when you are yet to offer any proof on Satyr's 'ambiguity' and 'imprecisions'...

So you tell me, are you care-full or care-less?

Are you a lover, a Philo-soph, or a playa, a hypocrite?

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

In Spinoza, a philosopher becomes a physicist. To believe in the God put forth by Spinoza is to believe in time, space, and the things in space. There is nothing in Spinoza that demands faith. It is all quite clear and simple. To say God exists is the same as saying the universe exists.

That's a conflation. The universe is not a Being, a Unity, a Singularity and to equivocate the universe with god is an intellectual travesty.
Faith is the nihilistic demand that one believe the universe has an inbuilt telos, a perfection.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

What Spinoza essentially did was strip the definition and idea of God of all its theological color and history. He took the universe back from Aquinas, Anslem, Leibniz, Descartes, and the rest of the Scholastic crew- men who were suffering from that Feuerbachian 'anthropomorphic projection of human nature' onto a cosmic Freudian paternal father figure. If you don't notice this critical difference, you'll naturally interpret the God of Spinoza in a classical way... which is what you are doing.

Pretentious.

I'll requote what "I" quoted to you, that you are posing as though to explain back to me:

Nietzsche wrote:

""“Return to nature” 1. Its stages: its background Christian credulity (in some ways already Spinoza’s “deus sive natura”!)

[. . .]

Spinozism extremely influential:

3. the attempt to rid oneself of the moral order of the world, so as to have “God” remain, a world that holds its ground in the face of reason . . ."

Yes, Spinoza cleared the way of the Xt. god that was outside nature, creation only to reimport it into it. If you haven't already, you should ask Sauwie to point you out to references by Leo Strauss on what Spinoza did, and how he was a continuation of the very J.-Xt he supposedly destroyed. Spinoza was J.-Xt.'s logical conclusion, not its antithesis. The whole of Leibniz too was a reaction to this 'supposed abolishment' of god, immanent vs. the transcendent that Whitehead bridges with his pan-psychic/pan-experiential process theology.

Now a dishonest person, a belieber, or an imbecile might like to pretend that just because labels change, metaphysical grounds have changed, but a lover wouldn't fool himself or others.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Nietzsche's criticism of Spinoza is only evidence of his own intellectual immaturity. Nietzsche was torn between his indebtedness to Spinoza and his instinct to attack anyone who muttered the word 'God', but Nietzsche's entire philosophy was already operating within a framework set up by Spinoza two hundred years prior. Nothing of Nietzsche's epistemology, metaphysics (or meta-metaphysics- the psychology underlining man's metaphysical instinct... a nail Nietzsche hit the head of) ontology or ethics is foreign to Spinoza.

You speak that way because the past is negligible to a nihilist like you. But to a life-affirmer, there is nothing original per se.

Satyr wrote:

"Creativity is a recombination of what is already in existence (the past) in different ways, accentuating not uniformity but divergence."

N. never hid his indebtedness to so many thinkers upto the pre-Socratics and not just Spinoza, and so that says nothing really. In his words, he also said this;

Nietzsche wrote:

"Commanders and legislators: they say, “thus it shall be!” They first determine the Whither and For What of man, and in so doing have at their disposal the preliminary labor of all philosophical laborers, all who have overcome the past. With a creative hand they reach for the future, and all that is and has been becomes a means for them, and instrument, a hammer. Their “knowing” is creating, their creating is a legislation, their will to truth is — will to power." [WTP]

Its about overcoming and exploiting to one's purpose, and not carrying anyone around like a dead weight. And again, colluding Emotions with philosophy maybe your style and degree of limitation, but it was not his.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

The only difference between the two is that what evoked a kind of existential rage in Nietzsche which would last his entire life, merely put a gentle smile on Spinoza's face. As a friend once said 'there is a cold wind that blows through Spinoza', and it is this cold wind that Nietzsche could not endure, would not endure. And so to replace the old corpse of God that Spinoza had destroyed, he invented the Ubermensch. Spinoza gently smiles at this, too.

See what I mean...  this is typical cuntamination and unphilosophical emotive thinking.
Discrimination automatically implies the other does it because of fear, hatred, ressentiment, etc.

Lets be clear on two things.

1. The Overman as man tending to a god-like perfection is not something to be 'endured' like a shameful weakness, like a poor substitute of a pre-existing perfect god. There was never any god.

2. Don't forget, its N. who declared god dead, not spinoza, and N. also added, 'how many gods are still possible'... as powerful overflow of the human spirit. The absence of god was a relief and a celebration, not an anxiety,, but you bet, the J.-Xt. nihilistic believers would project their own anxiety in interpreting him that way.

Such lengths believers go to, to save their precious Spinoza, to the extent they Need to taint the other.
If you can't climb up, pull the other down. ez pz.
I take note of your abjection for the first time; interesting.

______________________________________
 

pseudomius wrote:

And what is the world? A monster of energy and power, and you too are this power, and nothing besides, right? Spinoza had already said this centuries ago.

And prior to him, Heraclitus did. But to be exact, its not what Spinoza said; he said you are a modality or a modification of God - which is what he meant by "world".

Its the weak and the slavish mind, the typically hedonistic that want to abolish suffering, change, flux, and posit this unmoved-mover at the beginning pervading,,, but what has reality to do with such human weakness and their shameful and cowardly falsifications?

0.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

It would be unfair to Nietzsche to contrast him against Spinoza. It would be like comparing a tiny planet to an entire galaxy. But there is one thing that nobody can take from Nietzsche, and that is the hermeneutic power of his piercing insight into the psychology of man. Nobody before, nor since, will do this better than Fritz. Indeed, Fritz was a heavy artillerist, alright... but Spinoza was a neutron bomb.

ssshhh

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

There is design only insofar as intelligent human beings act intentionally. Design is intent, and the only thing we know that has it is man.

What a cowardly way of saying humans are modal intentions acting out a primordial design; you fool nobody.

Again,

Nietzsche wrote:

""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 no 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]

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]

______________________________________


[quote"pseudomius"]Truth is a propositional function. The world is not true, only statements about it can be true. Do statements about the world mirror the world? Some say no... they just reflect their own logical consistency or inconsistency. Getting past this problem of correspondence, we become pragmatists; truth is not 'discovered', or 'found'... it is created and used through the intentional appropriation of the world. We can't speak much about how this works lest we fall off Wittgenstein's ladder. We simply call it a 'way of life' (Dasein if you prefer), acknowledge the horizons of our language, and pass the rest by in silence.[/quote]

What is truth depends on your position on Objectivity - whether you assess it as a man of knowledge, or as an artist;

Nietzsche wrote:

"
"It is a measure of the degree of strength of will to what extent one can do without meaning in things, to what extent one can endure to live in a meaningless world because one organizes a small portion of it oneself.
The philosophical objective outlook can therefore be a sign that will and strength are small. For strength organizes what is close and closest; "men of knowledge," who desire only to ascertain what is, are those who cannot fix anything as it ought to be.

Artists, an intermediary species: they at least fix an image of that which ought to be; they are productive, to the extent that they actually alter and transform; unlike men of knowledge, who leave everything as it is."

Satyr wrote:

"Objectivity is a motive - a willful movement towards.
It consists in the effort to place the standard for evaluating self and reality outside the human mind.

Subjectivity is easy; it is primal, and natural - it is demanding in that it needs to be protected for it to remain viable, or demanding in that it needs to perceive as objectively as possible, breaking free from its subjective comfort.
The object/objective is what makes the demand, and the subjective mind feels it as need/suffering, and fear/anxiety.
Subjectivity, the self, the noumenon, is what is confronted by objectivity, by the objective, by phenomenon (the apparent) which is unknown and forever unknowable, in a complete, perfect, sense.
The object/objective is what the subject moves towards, never able to complete the approach, but only cover a distance towards it.
The distance is this disconnection between the ideal and the real; it is the human condition, the solitude of conscious existence; it is existential angst produced by the friction this movement produces.
Self-consciousness also experiences this detached distance from its own consciousness.
Few have the broadness of mind to find self-control and balance, in the infinite possibilities their perceptions expose them to.
The many narrow of mind must be given an external and immediate source of anxiety to keep them in check - and so for the few fear is something that is earth-bound and that can be dealt with, whereas for the others it is forever unsurpassable."

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

There is no 'self'. You know better, quit frontin'. The lightening doesn't strike. The lightening and the striking are the same deed, two ways of talking about an event. A predicate and subject used for the sake of taking possession of the world- 'I' do this, 'it' did this, etc. This distinction expresses the parallelism of Spinozean mind and extension, though the process is monistic.

What is the Apollonian if not the consideration of boundaries and borders??

There is no static unit, no 'absolute self', but to relapse into an immediate either/or to say there is no self at all, is a symptom of absolutist thinking, typical of a puny little god believer.

The self is a self-organizing, a being-in-becoming. There is no difference between acting and existing as there is no inert state to separate the two concepts

Satyr wrote:

"The static is a human limitation, more so it is a method for distinguishing and conceptualizing the particular rate of activity from the dynamic background
Distinguishing, or making something into a unity and bringing it into the forefront of consciousness, demands a cutting away of all extraneous (inter)actions and it demands, more so, the shrinking of dimensions by placing them within boundaries
These conceptual boundaries, necessary as they might be, constitute the outer limits of human awareness."
The self is the totality of ongoing and past (inter)actions.
The sum of all processes involved in animated matter, or an emergent unity which acquires the potential for self-maintenance and focus of aggregate
energies (internal inter-activities) – WILL.

The separation of subject from object, is never complete, of course, otherwise a god would be born in the ensuing absolute state of Being.
The skin remains porous, and (inter)activity causes friction between the emergent unity, organism, and the world, via some phenomenon.
This friction is what the mind interprets as need/suffering, indicating a loss of energies that require replenishing, a separation breaking down, that requires healing.
Need directs the organism towards an object/objective, promising, according to its evaluations, energies, a potential for healing, for growth...power.
This promise is always uncertain, making judgment, and its quality, crucial in determining success.

This separation manifesting as the division of noumenon and phenomenon, that is then interpreted into dualism and binary logic, is the division of subjective interpretation and objective world...both being dynamic phenomenon participating within the same world.  
Biologically speaking the division point is the neurological network...that may then evolve a central processing hub, the brain.  
Here, the primal separation integrates internal stimuli (organ hierarchies interacting) and external stimuli (external hierarchies interacting) into a combination we call sensations, in their most primitive form, and emotions when they develop into more complex sophisticated forms.

An organism, of course, is not a absolute singularity, but an aggregate of processes trying to maintain itself, and so it is the balance of order/chaos as long as it can resist the increasing entropy.

An alteration in pattern releases energies as the friction of (inter)acting transforms the rate of flow, the patterns dynamic, to a quicker form, the transformation from slow, mass, to more fluid mass, changing its pattern and contributing to the increasing cosmic entropy.
(Inter)activity produces entropy, which then increases (inter)activity, until entropy increases exponentially.

We can think of order, a slower rate of Flux, as resisting entropy...and so as order decreases resistance to chaos decreases.

Man must understand by making the alien intimate, and so he ascribes to this process a will, a consciousness, calling it everything from God to self-valuing, to a number one.
This is an attempt to reduce the uncertainty, and complexity of (inter)activity, increasing in space/time, into a singular thing, a single pattern, a single concept, represented by a single word, symbolizing a single concept (abstraction).
This is part of how consciousness orders the world so as to direct itself within it.
It takes what it knows and understands, and projects it into the unknown, otherness - anthropomorphizing.

Man's own methods of simplifying/generalizing are projected as cosmic truths.Taken literally they turn to a faith, a religion founded on absolutes and the comforting sensation of understanding, of turning the uncertain, threatening, into a predictable known."

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Couple things. Life isn't 'need'. A need is an idea, and the thing which feels it needs (the intentional human being) would be no less what he is if he never got what he thought he needed.

Spoken like a true slavish mind.

To the free-thinker, there is no absolute. There is no God of whatever stripe. Therefore, Need is the sensation of existing;

Satyr wrote:

"Need is the Organic sensation of Flux; the absent absolute perceived as a constant longing. Need, and its extreme suffering, is the perception of a disparity between an ordering mind and a disordering, fragmenting, universe.
The absence of order, symmetry, completeness outside the human mind constitutes the absence, the conscious mind perceives as need.
It is the interpretation of lack; the absence of an absolute state sensed as an internal want or desire. Since the organism, life, is a manifestation of (inter)activity, the sensation of lack by the organism is a reflection of lack being an intrinsic aspect of existence."

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

There is no ontological difference between a dead man and a live man. In the former an energy form is dispersed and rearranged, the latter, temporarily arranged and configured a specific way. The substance underlying these arrangements doesn't 'need' anything to exist.

There is NO "Substance" underlying any Thing, to be accurate.

Thanks for exhibiting what quality of Objectivity you adopt. To stand back far enough such that life and death appear the same is the dis/ease of a nihilistic mind, that your mental cuntamination only keeps revealing more and more:

Satyr wrote:

"What does nihilism annul if not dimensions, temporal horizons?
Consciousness is this cutting away, discriminating, part of the fluidity of time/space, to make it perceptible and comprehensible.
But where an honest mind seeks to use these simplified/generalized parts of existence to extrapolate more, the nihilist uses it to diminish, to reduce.

The cowardly, simple mind stays with the simplification/generalization, takes the abstraction literally rather than symbolically, and remains fixed on its static, absolute, ambiguity.
For the modern nihilist the goal is to cut away time/space so that only what he likes remains. He deconstructs up to the point where he finds what he likes, and there he stops. He does not follow-through with his own methodology, but he applies a different standard to justify his choice.

The Hedonism of the Nihilist resides in his using "preference" and the "desirable" / "pleasure" as his guideline.
When he forgets the past, he does not do so completely. He selectively chooses what to ignore and what to memorize, what to keep in his memory.

Ultimately, what finding the lowest-common-denominator means for the Nihilist is finding the simplification/generalization, in the infinite regress he chose as his practice, to settle for, and to surrender to, meaning that he chooses the lowest point in his own identifications where he feels the most inclusive, as belonging to the largest, familiar grouping; he settles for the sameness which offers him the most comfort and possibility, and then he calls it ―selfless and ―egoless.

The average, common, modern, nihilist thinks that accepting life within the cocoon, within the temporal-box, is evidence that he is not a nihilist.
He thinks that the lie, the artificiality, the sheltered, temporally detached condition He considered fabulous, is proof that he, in fact, does not hate life, nor existence, not himself, and so that he is not a nihilist.

He, like a child, thinks that because he likes fairy-tales, when mommy or daddy reads them to him, that he is that charming prince or beautiful princess, and that he is ready for the real world.
The average, common, modern, nihilist, thinks that his make-believe world is the real world, and that humoring other storylines, because he feels safe that they will never be applied and he will never have to face their reality, makes him open- minded and democratic.

He thinks that he is intellectual, and he possesses integrity, because he can discuss any subject, through the appropriate middle-men, and the right authority figures, within the correct circumstances, knowing that no matter what none of it will ever touch him.

In theory he can consider any proposition, because he can remain aloof to it sheltered from all consequences.

A nihilist coward is open to anything, up until it begins touching him personally. Then emotion takes over.

A nihilist comes trying to hide his inner hate for life and for self, by wearing smiling, friendly, masks, asking you to take appearances for granted while dismissing them in every other case.
A nihilist comes with an ideal, bearing the destruction of all ideals. His ideal is no ideals, because there, in the void he wishes to create, his own self-hatred becomes lost in the uniformity.

One can measure nihilism by how disconnected from reality the mind wishes to become – not as a resistance wanting to preserve itself through seeing, which is an affirmation of life, but as a denial of its relevance and as a willful ignorance of it...a self-induced blindness, that frees the mind from the sensations that disturb its unhindered imagination. What glorious worlds a mind can construct, when it is so unburdened by anything real, and how liberating it must feel to not have to deal with anything that taints his dreams or that places limits and costs upon his actions.

How do we crave for our own demise?
In our desperation for Being we sacrifice this incessant Becoming forgetting that outside its premises, we and everything we know is nonsense.

Self-annihilation seduces, like a troubadour does a maid, with soft sounds and melodies that drown out our mind‘s warnings and absorbs our thoughts, so that the entire experience is one of great relief.

Most nihilists enter as messiahs, as harbingers of good tidings, with happy faces and tender hands, strumming on old strings and massaging ancient wounds, when their message includes the necessity of obliterating, denying, and replacing the world as it is.

Underneath the pretense, they offer a void, as a product of their resentment... because an unsubstantiated hope and an unattainable dream are as good as nothing. What does it matter if this emptiness promises to be a paradise or, at least, a return to a ―source‖ where we can finally lose ourselves in oblivion... and the world that birthed our ―intolerable‖ self-consciousness?

The world is so contrary to their preferences that it cannot even support their imaginings for long – not even an escape into madness or total self-absorbed delusion is sufficient to make them immune to a universe that cares not about their desires.
They will declare that change is an illusion, when all around them the world churns with endless vicissitude, or talk about beginnings and ends, when they have no awareness of any such thing; they will present the absolute as that which has yet to be discovered or as that which can only be accepted if one simply opens one‘s eyes or heart to its warming promise and immediately gratifying bounties. In addition to all of this, the most fantastic and detached-from-reality utopias offer another advantage: they naturally attract to them weakness and the myriads of disenfranchised, seeking relief. They seduce the wanton mind by telling it exactly what it wishes to be true. They market themselves by the brilliance of their ease. After all, it is far more easier to change your own perspective than it is to change the world, and it is far more easier to convince others that something is true, than it is to actually make it so.

These, most despicable of all types of nihilists, rejoice in their ability to bring the world down with a happy thought, a flippant evasive joke and a hopeful message; the world destroyed by its own impending disappointments. They are ―liberated‖ from their own inadequacies, in relation to the present environmental conditions, by turning them into communal virtues, and they are excused from their own past failures in judgments, from their own naiveté, by presenting them as projections of nobility.

Do not all nihilists not desire an end to their uncertainty, a final destination to make themselves meaningful, a guiding principle, a resolution whether in total annulment or total unity?"

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

There is no such thing as entropy... only rearrangement. So, what doesn't cease to exist needs nothing to continue to exist.

No, you mega dumb duck,

Entropy is the norm, of which life is a special case, an exception.
Life is an Ordering that emerges in reaction to Entropy, and since every ordering costs, life is rooted in in need, pain, suffering.
The closer you go towards absolute order, without attaining it, life becomes unnecessary.
The closer you go towards the absolute random, chaos, life becomes improbable.

Rearrangements presuppose an enduring substance; there is no such, for if there were, the universe as we know it wouldnt exist, fool! Concentrate Forrest;

Nietzsche wrote:

"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.
The old habit, however, of associating a goal with every event and a guiding, creative God with the world, is so powerful that it requires an effort for a thinker not to fall into thinking of the very aimlessness of the world as intended." [WTP, 1062]

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

]And necessarily so. You will arrive at all kinds of logical problems if you attempt to explain that something can begin existing and causally interact with another substance that existed prior to its arrival. What is 'change' is only modification. See Spinoza's opening axioms in The Ethics.

Need/suffering I am - life feeling the unity of living in this shared need/suffering.

Life is NOT an Order, but an ORDERING... ourboros never managing to catch its tail.

No beginning, No end.

I have already covered this in detail on ILP in the Performance Ontology thread; the shift from a process ontology to a process theology is a nihilistic abstraction driven by the hedonism of feeble minds and weak-wills. Abstracting a process as god is void of any thinking integrity, but like I said, I wont make any heavy demands on you.

Satyr wrote:

"Heraclitean Fire

Whether we use the fire or the metaphor with the river, and not stepping into it twice, the artistic concept, the metaphor, and its literal understanding, by simpler minds, is the same.

The "fire" is an artistic representation of dynamism, meant to convey the idea that all is in flux.
But look at how the mental methods taken literally result in a conundrum.
The observer abstracts the fire, as it were, to then discover it as a thing, a phenomenon...in the same way the mind projects itself "outside" time/space to call the cosmos a "universe" or a "whole", essentially contradicting the metaphor's intent.
The observer is trapped inside this fire, this fluctuating universe, and must exit it noetically, to then construct the simplification/generalization typical of all abstractions.
It then takes this abstraction literally as a thing, a one, singular, a whole.

A slight of mind trick - magic.

So, now the whole contradicts the parts, or the parts contradict the whole - the other paradox.
Imperfect parts cannot constitute a perfect whole.
The absence of a singularity within the cosmos cannot be contradicted by literally understanding the cosmos as the only absolute.

One could baptise imperfection into perfection, to avoid the conundrum but the concept implied remains in contradiction.
The Flux, void of 'things', literally understood, is contradicted by a static universe, turned into a 'thing' literally understood.
Multiplicity is contradicted by the oneness...just as the Christian "good, benevolent, loving God" is contradicted by nature, resulting in the theological paradox of an absolutely good God creating evil which contradicts this presumed essence of goodness.

In the case of the Heraclitean flame, the observer turns the fluctuating dynamism of the artistic device, into a thing, a static abstraction, as if he were "outside" looking at it from a detached distance.
He then replaces "God" with "prime mover" where "prime" replaces the symbol "one", or "absolute" or "thing", or "singularity".
A simple alteration of linguistic, artistic form, to express the same projected absolute which in all cases has no reference to anything real, and must be constructed by exiting reality (time/space) as if the mind were Being, and not Becoming - the arrogance of the Abrahamic and then the Alexandrian mindset....which constitutes an expression of the same Nihilistic spirit expressing itself using different linguistic symbols - a linguistic form adjusted to current conditions - modernized."

The shift from Process Ontology to Process Theology:

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

______________________________________

psueodmius wrote:

This is a bit vague. I could as easily argue that a Nihilist who believes in the eternal necessity of all that exists would desire that this condition finally change- Sisyphus wants nothing more than for his condition to change. Deny change? Push a rock up a hill for eternity and then call a Nihilist someone who doesn't want change.

Affirmation of chaos is not submission or resignation to it.

Man does not eliminate nature or the feminine within, nor does he submit to it; he dominates and regulates it.

Masculine and Feminine Nihilism:

Satyr wrote:

"Feminine Nihilism:

The most popular form of nihilism is the feminine form.
This form of self-denouncing world-denying self-hatred proposes surrender to the Fluidity of nature... towards the absolute void; its ideal state is an immersion in emptiness; to be lost in a no-thing.
Because entropy increases naturally, with no effort required, this form of surrender is feminine because the female psyche always gives into the most powerful entity
Furthermore, given that females are a personification of nature the affinity of woman to increasing entropy is part of her psychology.
This is why any indication of order, the absolute form being God (absolute masculinity) is irresistible to her.


Masculine Nihilism:

The masculine form of nihilism is that of God i.e. absolute order: omnipotence/omniscience.
Here nature is not surrendered to but totally denied, rejected...destroyed.
This type tries to release himself form the constraints of nature and this insufferable tendency towards disordering (mortality).
It manifests as a misogynistic self-hatred, given that the feminine is also part of all biologically masculine emergent unities.
The projected goal here (object/objective) is absolute order...or a singular state of inertia: absolute mass.. .the occupation of all possibilities (space) simultaneously (omnipresence) – the end of time (timelessness).
Of course this totalitarian state necessitates the elimination of all other masculine energies: ergo states impose feminization as a matter of survival and internal stability.
This is a tendency towards the absolute which can never be defined since it is absent... therefore it is always a some-thing.
The "some" aspect of the concept is where the masculine competition takes place: ideologies, ideas, memes, genes etc.
To the no-thing it presents a hope: a some-thing, where thingness is presupposed as either being already existent and awaiting discovery (feminine) or as being under construction (becoming) and so yet to be determined and defined... being created (masculine).
These are two forms of human dissatisfaction.
They are produced by binary logic (dualism) and manifest into two specialized forms of reproduction.
Reproduction is a kind of answer to mortality...ergo the act of procreation is linked to creativity and it represents the masculine aspect of human nature, in both females and males."

______________________________________

psuedomius wrote:

Or in the least, let him believe he is teaching me something. This keeps him busy, and when he's busy, he's learning. That's what I want.

From the looks of it, he taught you real good. Good enough to have you desire you could be a satyr, because there is only One. As a man who already worships Spinz and Zaps, admitting to one more, would be a hat trick and a little unconvincing next time you tell someone you are no believer. I'll keep your secret; 'cross my heart and swear to die.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Now this is the Lys I used to love. I once beckoned to her from my castle fortress...

Luv, wine goes with a cheesecake; it doesn't fetch you one ; )
It happens, don't worry.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

But alas, dearest Suzy Creamcheese, I cannot participate at a commercial networking site online that permits minors. Your forum permits minors so I can't join. It would be my luck to piss somebody off and have the law called on me for revenge. There are snitches everywhere, you know.

Well, if you can't come, then come undone. Your lack of nudity is disturbing. Hypocrites bore me.

Tell me, dear, have you got all the pop cultural references you need, to think you will sound cool and clever, but when it comes down to it you are pathetic, to someone who can think outside these premsies?

Tell me, dear, are you a modernist parasite bullshitting with words and no profound convictions of your own?

Are you a wee li'l scaveneger, vermin, who belittles predators because you can't hunt?

Are you a douche who calls others frauds and charlatans before you had any inkling of their positions to begin with?

Does race matter? Gay rights? pedophilia? Are mutations all modifications, mere rearrangements of the same fate?

Tell me luvly, what do you live for? What is man? Do you deserve to experience genuine reactions, emotions, when you are a lying philistine? What do you think you honestly deserve?

______________________________________

Quote :

not a musician (or are you),

I have learnt, but I am not one. I'm an (he)artist, not an artist.

______________________________________

Quote :

I won't lay any heavy demands on you, either. One has to have an instrumental understanding of how the logos works before one can compose properly. The universe is a symphony, something philosophers don't always understand.
So, I will be bothering you more about how you live than how you argue,...

If truth is whatever works, then someone believing in santa for their emotional benefit, like you in your god, would mean permitting santa as real. That's why we have a term called Discipline.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

and I will be planting seeds in your mind which will grow over time.

Still carrying Satyr's seeds? Its cute how you are always working for him, you go fangirl!

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Most of my time with Greecey was spent setting logical traps for him in matters of epistemology and metaphysics, which he never tired of stepping into. After a few months I determined he was incapable of being taken seriously (other than as a serious wreck), and any future relationship I had to him on the boards was for the purposes of entertainment.

That's funny, because I recall him devastating your positions line by line, word for word, without even an enthusiasm; it just came to him naturally... but you were funny too,, I wouldn't want to take that away from you...the way you would hold yourself together in your disorientation and regurgitate back to another, landing them a blow exactly what you had just learned from Satyr... i could hear an echo.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Is he fantastic? Yes, in the same way a disaster is fantastic.

Yea... and how you would take god's name even then in the face of a disaster coming at you and go dunamis, dunamis, dunamis...  
Do you still have that rosary?

I bet. You are a very senti type.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

I wonder what 'taking sides against yourself' amounts to in your case. We could switch shoes some time, if you like. That would be a nice experiment. We could place a bet to see who would break first, yeah?

You always wanted to fill Satyr's shoes though. Can we try that maybe...? How about you entertain Satyr's positions and defend it against yourself or some Tom or Dick, whichever one you arent...?
Can I trust you to take it in the right spirit if I told you to break a leg?!

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Still more come online to live an alternate life where they can transform themselves into a hero or a martyr or a daemon... whatever suits their fantasy to escape their real lives.

Or a reformed suddenly profound bud-wiser trying to be a satyr...

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Me, I cannot feel on earth otherwise than as a wanderer. I have been living out of a backpack since I was eighteen... and wouldn't have it any other way. Some talk the talk, others walk the walk. Some talk the talk and watch others walk the walk. Some walk the walk and watch others talk the talk. Finally, some walk the walk while watching others talk the walk.

Wanderer? Marie von franz called such a one Puer Aeternus, I think.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Yes! Those noble blonde beasts of prey! The plundering, illiterate savages from the north who spent more time beating each other senseless than actually making any progress.

Immediate cost/benefit is why Spinoza appeals to you.

Satyr wrote:

"Immediate gratification is the very heart of hedonism. It is the coy soul wanting to enjoy satisfaction without paying any price for it. When it is convinced that it must pay a price, it only does so when it is convinced that no other has paid a lesser one; and so it is the nihilistic spirit trying to haggle its way out of the cost of existence.

Hedonist – The captive who attempts to escape through surrender to what he has abstracted as reality within the ends/premise of what is pleasure and the good to him.

Pleasure is a momentary experience of excess.
In that moment of release from need, from the sensation of lack, the mind feels liberated from its role and from the experience of existing. For a short time it experiences an excess of energies as the ones dedicated to the satisfaction of the particular one, have reached an end, a culmination, and what remains, fills it with a sense of profound empowerment.

From this short burst all metaphors and projections of excess, and of perfection, and of the positive absolute derive their inspiration.

The environment has now been dominated by manmade artifices and reality is excluded or selectively allowed entry.
It is fenced away; distanced.
This is when the mind becomes self-absorbed, overconfident, fearless, careless, falsely arrogant and disrespectful, convinced that its world is the only world or, at least, as probable a world as any other; it begins gaining an untested sense of self- esteem and a false sense of empowerment, eventually resulting in a total disconnection from reality.
In fact disconnecting from the world is its ideal state - its progress towards enlightenment.

The mind has now been encased in its own conceptions, placed in a safe-box, and given that it is sheltered against anything that might correct its delusions, it becomes lost in itself: arrogant and demanding... increasingly self-absorbed and self-referential.

Its maturity is retarded as it does not have to mature at all.
We see the effects of this in domestication.
This is a self-love based on delusion and an absence of self-consciousness or the humbling effects of reality.
Narcissism in its many forms is the outcome.

The individual begins living in his own world, or one given to him, and since it is a pleasant world, full of more positive-to-it messages and flattering context.

Hedonism becomes his ideal... his only way of measuring value and of evaluating quality.
He will defend the other's right to exist in his, or her, own little world, if it does not disturb his own.
The mind is now conveniently convinced that reality is a matter of personal taste or a human construct that can be altered with mere thoughts and casual gestures, or with further detachments.

Hedonism is the quintessential modern inclination, though it might be hidden behind high-minded concepts of asceticism and esoteric pursuits. It is now referred to as the ―pursuit of happiness‖ and it is described as a ―God given right‖ if not a humanitarian staple.

When the real world disturbs your plans, dive deeper into fantasy, lose yourself in pleasure calling it the "Good", "Path of Virtue", or the "Higher Truth", "Self-Excellence", etc. – pleasure is the premise and pleasure the only reward.

Said Schopenhauer,

"Happiness consists in frequent repetition of pleasure."

He is able to do so because there is a system in place – a system that benefits from this complacent detachment – a system which protects him from his own stupidity and naiveté and delusion. But No amount of sheltering can fully protect the individual from a world that is indifferent to its hopes and assessments."

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Fortunately for them, the real estate was already set up across Eurasia, so they could just move in after slaughtering the people... then five hundred years later claim they invented it all. Now that is what I call nobility. Me, I'd keep them as soldiers, and they wouldn't be allowed to think.

Innocence of Becoming, no?

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Unless you were talking about Nietzsche's love for Wagner, of course.

Just say dont hurt me and I wont.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

You and your buddy Greecey seem to think that everyone who believes in a perfect natural order and an eternal, fundamental substance underlying all that exists is an expression of some kind of nihilistic weakness and fear.

Purrrfect, yes.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

For me, this knowledge is an inert fact, void of any psychological undertones. But your double-projection is revealing, as Greecey might say. [ wink ]

Dude deed<>doer dodo dum dum dum.... flash and lightning, etc.

Atleast you finally revealed what a believer you are; see that wasn't so hard was it. And there you were thinking extracting it from you was going to be harsh and painful like pulling out a tooth. Smooth as knife into a soft yellow butter, and I'm pleased that you've made it look so voluntary.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Oh, and there is no such thing as chaos. To call a closed system an approach to an increasing state of disorder is only to admit an inability to predict any of its future states. This is not the same as saying there will be no order in the causality of future states. See the difference?

Satyr wrote:

"1- Other terms used to describe Chaos: randomness, disorder, inconsistency, unpredictability.
Part of the binary code, if taken literally.

2- As a projection of an absent absolute chaos refers to an ambiguous state of total randomness.
As a metaphor, an artistic tool, it refers to what either does not exhibit perceptible patterns, or within which no patterns can be recognized.

3- An increasing randomness or complexity, which reduces patterns (order), or within which the brain cannot find nor process patterns.
Human frailty needs to believe that even in seemingly chaotic circumstances some underlying pattern, (meaning, purpose, reason) is present.

4- An increasing, inflation, of possibility, accompanied by a proportional decreasing, deflation, of probabilities."

Probability is a reduction of possibilities. This means, Life is an Order-ING, not an Order, get it?
It is a towards-becoming, never being.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Maybe you ought to leave Nietzsche's narratives on chaos where they belong... in the poetry section.

Its ok; we wont discuss whatever disturbs your faith and need to believe. You can remain comfortably sheltered. Never ever venture out of that comfort zone.

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

The eternal nature of essence is a null point... change is part of the package, and Spinoza readily understands this. Upon realizing that 'God' or Nature, or whatever you want to call the necessary existence of things, is just that... a useless fact... then you would understand it would no longer be an expression of a nihilistic longing for absolution, because this fact provides no absolution. It simply is the case. Nothing more and nothing less. You aren't projecting on Spinoza now too, are you? Jesus, Suzy. You're gonna take some work.

Make yourself known when you have a real critique to offer of your master herr spinz. I dont feel the inclination to be humouring you till then.

Quid pro quo.



______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

ILO is history, gone, kaput.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaa, I thought so, Chicken. How convenient.

Specimens like him... all talk and no walk leave me unimpressed... dime a dozen...

______________________________________

pseudomius wrote:

Over 90% of what you see is in a quote box.

If I could get just one paragraph of Suzy's own words, I'd be happy. Pulling Nietzsche quotes from a cataloged collection of quotes-by-subject in a file document on one's hard-drive does not impress me or inspire me to debate.

I'd rather you be happy, sad, this, that, anything, but chicken. I'm impressed by people who want it hard and difficult to slug through the labyrinths... a cleansing vortex and when they finally arrive, they are just like how I want them.... pure corei corei corei

laters coward.

A boy named pSeu wrote:

So there is no center or priority for this arrangement of drives and powers because there is no design. Order, but no design (many equate the two mistakenly).

No. OrderING, not order. Life, self is a constant organizing process... ourboros never managing to catch its tail.

No beginning, No end.

There are also decentralized organizations; we call them the slavish type. They are Deleuze's "bodies without organs" - assemblies, not a polis.

pSeu wrote:

A 'value' is a concept an intelligent animal with self-awareness, memory and language is capable of having. His value will be whatever he believes he should do in order to get something done for some reason. Really quite simple. If there is something useful for getting X done for reason Y, it is considered valuable.

If the value of the most self-aware animal is pleasure, this says nothing about value as such, but the standard, or the stand-point of value.
To value only what benefits me in full awareness is still at the level of an animal.

Quote :

A valuable idea is, unfortunately, a loop of beliefs; one big set of little, arbitrary trivial beliefs about what man should be and do, are guided by another separate big belief (that tyranny of the conscience), an idea, that provides the why as well as the justification for the use (or establishment) of the set of little beliefs... by believing itself to be good and worthwhile.

It is unfortunate only if value is justified by quantity - "max. good", by force - "might is right", than quality.

pSeu wrote:

Ideology is simply planning. And there is no restrictions on what can be planned except the laws of physics. All is permissible, as it were, and when an assembly of drives and powers unite and form the temporary organization we call 'man', a ruling drive, that which is the awareness of power and that false sense of freewill that comes with it in the conscious being, tyrannizes all the others.

And when the same tyranny is upon onself, it is also called discipline and self-mastery.
There is no such thing as unfreewill either, else you are back to the paradigm of 'intelligent design'.

Quote :

So in the smallest sense man is a temporary kind of Aristolean fifth formal cause, if you will. He superimposes teleology upon nature and himself and then... vanishes.

So cynical...

But *because*,

"The total value of the world cannot be evaluated; consequently philosophical pessimism belongs among comical things." [N., WTP, 708]

Gameboy wrote:

Semantics. You wouldn't be able to conceive of the concept of 'ordering' in the first place without there being something about this activity which distinguishes it from observable randomness.

... and things do not have to be 'patterned' to be ordered. It is the very contiguity of events that prove there is order, not necessarily the patterns we recognize. The ratios and proportions of things relating to one another is another matter altogether; it is the very relating itself that produces order.

That's it. That's what I was doing. Playing chic-and egg games with you and what came first...

No. It is not relating that produces order, as everything in the world is interconnected and relates with everything else inevitably. It is the coherence of relations we perceive, the orderIng that produces order.

pSeu wrote:

Remember: our ouroboros has been running in the same circle for eternity. Catching or not catching its tail is an irrelevant point added to a more important metaphor; the possibility of recurrence and the order by which it happens.

'Necessary logic' in a recurrence is still our interpretation and so the more discriminating mind
will seek wider and wider orderIng, than the order. This is what genius is - the fore-sight to the grand logic. Not only perceive what-is, but what-is-to-come.

pSeu wrote:

I'm not sure if disinterested aesthetic appreciation is even possible. I think what we perceive as artistically pleasing is as much an expression of our power and capacity as it is the actual state of the thing we perceive.

Even in artistic contemplation we are engaged in asserting some mastery over something as we interpret it.

Yes. Except, the self in the self-interestedness is not the atomic stirnerite self, but self as the sum of all past that is life. And therefore, the most disinterested artist is also the severely honest scientist:

Nietzsche wrote:

"We, however, want to become who we are - human beings who are new, unique, incomparable, who give themselves laws, who create themselves! To that end we must become the best students and discoverers of everything lawful and necessary in the world: we must become physicists in order to be creators in this sense - while hitherto all valuations and ideals have been built on ignorance of physics or in contradiction to it. So, long live physics! And even more long live what compels us to it - our honesty!" [JW, 335]

The Noble's value-creating-under-the-law is Imaginative, not Fantastical, else anyone can interpret in self-interested pleasure and end up with hedonistically depraved art and nihilistic aesthetic judgements.

Satyr wrote:

"Consciousness as a process demanding time to gather, process, interpret, the apparent is always a step-behind, it is always dealing with what was, and never with what is, or what will be.
imagination being an advantage because it projects, in time/space, using precedent, the past, what was, so as to preempt 'what is' (present, presence), and prepare for 'what will be' (future) - this is its genetic advantage, because it results in efficiency and the force of focus, where an organism with a lower aggregate energy can overpower an organism with a higher aggregate energy.
This is the supremacy of intelligence, and imagination. not fantasy, but imagination.

This lag in perception, compensated as was noted, by the mind's potential to project, is why the subjective is always at a distance form the real, or the ongoing (inter)activity - and experienced as a falling away, which cannot be symbolized as an absolute - infinite regress.
This ability of the mind to project can result in exaggeration, hyperbole, the supernatural, and then the anti-natural, the contradictory, the nihilistic.

Imagination: the sampling of precedent, or perceived patterns and the evaluation of their potentials.
Imagination is the mind engaging reality, and using it to gain an advantage in the 'yet to be', and/or the unknown, and 'yet to be known'.

Fantasy: imagination in varying degrees of disconnect from reality, from world.
Given that for the Modern freedom is this disconnect and some order must be enforced so that the freedom to disconnect from the phenomenon noetically does not interfere with the freedom to do the same of the other, fantasy is supervised, and controlled in how it is expressed. If it remains private it does not interfere with the others fantasies, but when it is externalized it might, particularly since the fantasy has been released from all real limitations and can manifest as anything.
Political correctness imposes a rule over how far the fantasy can go, if it is expressed, shared, externalized.

The word is diminished in its potential usage with this restriction, and so fantasies are also limited in this way.
Certain words are lost from the toy box, while others are redefined to eliminate all sharp edges, making them safe to play with for boys and girls.

In this way has the term "human" been blunted, its small part taken off so that no little child swallows them and chokes, its sharp edges shaved off.
Same goes for words like "love", and "consciousness".

The potential redefining of words to adhere to the nihilistic paradigm is endless, when only the Dictionary definition is the limiting text, the Biblical rule restricting how the words are toyed with - not reality but text.
And so Nihilism is defined as the absence of man-made concepts, such as morality, universality, meaning, purpose, and so on.
The proposition that the world is void of these human constructs that only exist as human artifices, tools, and/or toys, is described as the nil making the reverse the positive, with the value of one.
What is positive is what contains manmade concepts as preexisting the emergence of human minds.
It is the quintessential reversal of meanings, and the indulgence in pure fantasy; an immersion in noumenon where time/space, the apparent, has no hold and so exerts no pressure, no stress."

pSeu wrote:

It might be said that those who can see the most terrible things as a kind of beauty have the strongest constitution;

No, the strongest who see the terrible for what it is and desire it as it is Make things beautiful.

pSeu wrote:

to see something as ugly means one cannot find the appropriate place for it (everything is useful somehow)

That nihilistic Spinozaism again.

This way anybody could say the weak are just waiting to be discovered as strong in some place and there is no such thing as weaklings.
The ugly is just waiting to be put into a context where it looks beautiful and there is no such thing as ugliness.

and so on, and all judgements can be suspended in relativism.

There is no all-perfection, no god. And not every ordering results in a positive order.

Perspectivism is about increasing discrimination, not subtracting or relativistically collapsing it. Beauty as power is not about doing away with contradictions, but increasing the capacity to sustain more and more conflicting complexities. A poem is powerful and beautiful in proportion to the extent and depth the metaphors in it can reach and approximate the total character of life, the sphere of influence. Likeiwse the artist.

Xt. for example, has its usefulness in taming the uncivilized by intoxicating and inducing sleep in them, does not mean Xt. essentially is not ugly or nihilistic.

Affirmation of the ugly is not to turn the no into a yes per se,,,, but to be able to say no from such a strength that one suffers it as if it were child's play.

It is not to do away with suffering and reproach, but to discipline oneself for a greater distress:

Nietzsche wrote:

"When hypocrisy takes every step to claim the word ‘truth’ for its optic, genuine truthfulness will necessarily be found under the worst names. At this point and nowhere else, you need to make an effort to understand what Zarathustra wants: the type of person he conceives of is the type that conceives reality as it is: his type has the strength to do this –, it is not alienated, removed from reality, it is reality itself, it contains in itself everything terrible and questionable about reality, this is the only way someone can achieve greatness..." [EH IV: 5]

Nietzsche wrote:

"To what extent can truth stand to be incorporated? – that is the question; that is the experiment." [JW, 110]

Affirmation: enduring the painful sight of ugliness.
Glorification: deceiving oneself into thinking ugliness is beauty in order to endure its sight.

Affirmation does not make what is ugly beautiful, it makes the activity itself beautiful. The activity is beautiful does not mean the object of activity is beautiful as well. I like interacting with stupid people does not mean I like stupid people. I like lifting weights does not mean I like weights.

We enjoy the sight of ugliness not because it is a hidden sight of beauty, but because it challenges our tolerance.

Glorification is cheating.

bump

I think the course of a life can be sued to determine its quality.
not in relation to what the observer wants, needs, desires, but what the actor claims to want/desire/need.
It's life circumstances relative to these wants/desires/needs may reveal a mind that cannot objectively identify the source of its mistakes - errors in judgment - always blaming others, while claiming there is no -free-will, fabricating a double defensive wall to protects its ego.
Such minds, having lost all trust in themselves - projected as a loss of respect for all authority that doesn't feed into tis defensive mechanisms - may exhibit a pronounced submissiveness to any authority that bolsters its defences, protecting its vulnerable ego from what threatens it.
Usually the automorphism of Abrahamic is replaced by the faceless abstractive authority of an idea/ideal....a concept, e.g., order, universe, Deus, one, nil etc.

No opinion produced by such a mind is to be trusted because ti is entirely self-serving, self-comfrting and subjective.
Its errors are transmitted, in ideological form, to become your errors, facilitating its defensive desire to immerse itself in uniformity while declaring itself a free-spirit.
Again, what 'free' - or rebellious - even means in this context, only they can attempt to make sense of.
They rebel against authority while being enslaved by determinism?
Theya re 'free' from being 'free-willed'? Are they proud of being 'chosen' to know they are impotent minions of divine power?

Any imbecile can imagine away anything he dislikes...or that contradicts his world-views...his subjective obsessions with a particular world-view.
Unable to be objective, he/she/it remains trapped, in a hole of her own making.
Anyone with half a brain - can read patterns and with personal experience know if Lyssa was real or not.
One, specifically, trying to get-laid, found a different outlet for his ungratified libidinal energies...someone less stringent and softer, less resistant to his victim ploys and...other charms....
The rest, as they say, is history.

Now, if simpletons want to remain in their subjective hole, living in their won reality....I will not bother them....knowing that reality will take care of things.
Right is Might...it doesn't need to be imposed, nor acknowledged.
There's always a reckoning....and then those subjective minds will undoubtedly cry for justice and collective help, claiming the 'right' to feel safe, and that as humans they deserve to be given aid...like Mary Land with her endless abortions.
A 'right' to never grow up; a 'right' to never suffer the consequences of their naive subjectivity...A right to never doubt their judgement that Satyr could never have found any woman to agree with him.....never....ever...
In fact multiple times....all of which I fucked-up...for various reasons...
No excuses.