I am the present King of France. This, my powder blue shirt: my regal garment---for I am a modest King, and unconventional. These here, dressed in white robes and gathered about me, are my royal inner court; attentively observing...
---What is a King without his subjects, and his padded sovereign chambers?
The sun's light curves around France, and France around it's rightful monarch. Behold how my world feels, when feeling matters most. My throne and bed, my vested seat of power, replete with leather straps---for I am a King that turns in the night, when the dark leaves me with myself. Perhaps I’ll speak with Joan of Arc, waiting in the cafeteria, and prod him on his hairline fading.
How are things with you, dear subjects?
Am I not the King?
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
This really shouldn't be in the dungeon. Why was it moved here?
Kierkegaard wrote:
One can deceive a person for the truth's sake, and (to recall old Socrates) one can deceive a person into the truth. Indeed it is only by this means, i.e., by deceiving him, that it is possible to bring into the truth one who is in an illusion....Likewise there is a difference between writing on a blank sheet of paper and bringing to light by the application of a caustic fluid a text which is hidden under another text. Assuming then that a person is the victim of an illusion, and that in order to communicate the truth to him the first task, rightly understood, is to remove the illusion - if I do not begin by deceiving him, I must begin with direct communication. But direct communication presupposes that the receiver's ability to receive is undisturbed. But here such is not the case; an illusion stands in the way. That is to say, one must first of all use the caustic fluid. But this caustic means is negativity, and negativity understood in relation to the communication of truth is precisely the same as deception.
...What then does it mean 'to deceive?' It means that one does not begin directly with the matter one wants to communicate, but begins by accepting the other man's illusion as good money.
So, help me talk the King out of his solipsism...
I'll be the King.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37241 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Be yourself. Fabricating the person I'm taking to would be self-defeating.
The present King of France is a something like a solipsist, in a way. ---That is, some aspect of everything that turns with the world turns around him. He is crucially responsible for what the things outside himself actually are. ---Not that they exist, perhaps, but the character they take on. The doctors become servants, the hospital becomes his court, his room becomes his chamber, his bed becomes his throne, etc.
This is a problem. There are many kinds of eyes, and consequently, there are many kinds of truths (paraphrasing Fritz). But that shouldn't mean that whatever you see is just as you see it. The present King of France has magnified the issue overboard. That's the point.
One issue, when faced with someone for whom some aspect of the world does not exist apart from them---is how to talk to them. The present King of France, as far as I can tell, has a perfectly coherent worldview. Things can be explained. That I tell him he is in a hospital, can be explained by him as the Queen's English propaganda. When I show him the hospital, he sees the royal palace. Why not? It should make sense---i.e., it coheres with the rest of his beliefs. But it's also fucked up. It's not reality.
A lesser case is someone who thinks that all value depends on them. Pleasure is pleasure, and whoever has it has it... those are facts... but pleasure is only valuable when they have it. Isn't that solipsism about value? E.g., The tree exists because it's my projection... the valuableness of pleasure only exists because it's mine. Why not leave a wreckage of a world, because when you're gone, it goes with you? Same shit. Fucked up toilet.
The fault that I found with myself is that I'm not exactly sure what to say, faced with a view that makes me want to puke. Makes me heavy. But ironically feel empty also. I suppose I could get nasty, mean, and bitter. But then the King really would think that this was the Queen's English propaganda---I'd help his case. More to the point, it's self-defeating to try to prove that things outside of a person are valuable, by exhibiting every trait that isn't valuable. I mean, valuable not just because you think so, or feel like it---but because it actually is.
Somebody has to prove that you revolve around what's valuable, and NOT that what's valuable revolves around you. Who wants to be Copernicus?
EDIT: And just to pre-empt any misunderstanding. I'm not talking about otherwordly anything. I'm talking about the world. Value in the world.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37241 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Is the King the center of the universe, or is he but a small part of it?
Is the revolution a enclosure, the gravity representing the mind's perceptual-event-horizon, sometimes blinded by the sun, to where the sky is but a reflection of the earth, and at night the heavens open up to a cosmos that seems to be revolving around the observer when this revolution is but a small relationship in a universe that is expanding outwards.
The earth under the sunlight is a solipsistic construct, where man, and the environment that makes him possible, becomes not a world amongst many but THE world itself.
But at night man is left in his solitude, feeling how small he is. Suddenly his sun becomes one star, and he is not the center of reality, but he is but a tiny, infinitesimal particle within it.
Once in a mental hospital in Ypsilanti Michigan they had Three men who each thought they were Jesus, so someone had the efficient idea of putting them all in the same Three person therapy Group. Efficient since the staff need not challenge the identity of the Christs, they will do this for each other. And, perhaps, the ongoing mirroring adds something beyond the more logical challenges the staff might present. It's been over 20 years since I read The Three Christs of Ypsilanti, so my memory is fuzzy, but my sense is that it did not lead to magical breakthroughs, though there were moments when at least a couple of the Christs were somewhat shaken in their faith.
In any case, my approach to a King of France would be to focus on how it is going. Unless the King considers himself imprisoned - which is a pretty bad waste of a delusion - he should be able to make things run fairly well. Of course, English armies may be worming their way in somewhere and causing some distaste, but in day to day matters - bed, peeing, eating, interpersonal interactions, talking to me, the quality of slippers, drafts in the room, views, should all be under Royal Control. Dissatisfactions with specifics quickly resolved by decree and orders to servants and lords alike. If the King is happy, or willing to pretend, this tack is quite fallible, but then the King, ironically, forces himself to be utterly impotent, even in the whatever tiny ways an inmate in the psych ward has Power, if one is willing to refuse help and minor kindnesses to the guy, at least, or delay them. Why aren't the staff, eventually put to Death or at least flogged? Cold coffee, hard pillows, perhaps a roomate who sings English Drinking songs all night. The King can say these are the lullabies of his Queen, and then this fails, but it's a thumbscrew, in any case.
With solipsists - not simply those who lack mirror neurons or are narcissists, but people who assert there is no one else rather than merely boorishly acting and emoting like this - I Think it is best to simply deny they Believe it is true and change the subject. If they insist on bringing it up one can ask 'what are you doing?' and then change the subject again. This might open up a line, given that wanting to convince non-independent parts of his experience or facets of his own mind is an odd way to spend time. But shutting down the outlet, disallows whatever secondary gain - or any gain - the person gets out of the process of announcing it.
Your Highness, even you, in all of your might, must admit that you will one day die. The memory of you will exist in your subjects, and your subjects will tell of you to their children. Their children will remember vague stories of a great King. Their children's children will hear of you as a mere passage.
Great King, in the course of 100 years, it will be as though you have never existed. All that is you will have been buried in time.
Your Highness, as aware of your greatness as you are, and we all are, do you not care to leave a legacy that will carry on beyond yourself?
Your Highness, where did Dr. Nyle fail?
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
A solipsist used to be the word, describing someone who believed the world to revolve around him/herself. That there is no reality outside a solipsist's mind.
The word was also used to describe a person whose thinking revolved around their own needs without the capability to perceive the needs of others around them - mind you, perceiving them, not necessarily acting upon that perception.
The needs of the lion? Are they not the same as the needs of the sheep, asks the solipsist. He can only project his own fears and needs into others. Everybody loves peace and hates war, everything else would be crazy says the solipsist who is in favor of peace.
If 10 solipsists find an agreement on some of their core needs and fears then suddenly they are not solipsists anymore - because... ... the word solipsism is about single individuals... see, there are now ten, nay a hundred, millions who share their common needs and fears. And suddenly they weren't solipsistic anymore because they found an agreement on what the acceptable fears and needs are.
And so the word solipsism is now used within those herds to describe someone who thinks outside the established premises. I mean, the solipsists could also have promoted the word solipsism to gain a positive connotation. But inverting the meaning of the word was more convenient.
It's easier to change the meaning of a word than to change its emotional attributes.
A few things you said prompted me. (That the value of things is granted only by your personally feeling them, but not recognizing that others do as well. That you ultimately care only about yourself, and others only as a means. And that you asked what I saw when I put myself in your head. I saw someone like a King).
The King is more general though... and certainly, I have some King in me. I would be a King, if I thought that ‘value’ was some strange property that the periodic table had no room for, nor was found in any list of physical substances. What else would I be doing than projecting it? That’s not how I think of ‘value’, but that doesn’t mean that I have some perfectly clear other conception, that so obviously shines without me, in the dark.
Quote :
Your Highness, as aware of your greatness as you are, and we all are, do you not care to leave a legacy that will carry on beyond yourself?
Sure, I would. But I won't be there to share in my legacy, so my legacy has to be for some reason apart from myself, right? Directed for the good of others, as ends, right? Otherwise, what's the point, (I won't be there)...
In other news, I value myself, but I don't measure that temporally. As if a longer song was a better one.
Quote :
Your Highness, where did Dr. Nyle fail?
Dr. Nyle made the girl miserable. That’s not because he wasn’t good at what he was doing; just the opposite. It was the goal of his project that was destined to fail, from the start. (I thought that his project was to see himself ride into the future, dressed as that poor girl’s homunculus, pulling strings in her brain). Even if he were to be successful, he would have failed. The world would be creepier.
On the other hand, maybe Dr. Nyle was successful. If he will have made that girl into a sociopath, in the future, who has carved out and discarded a set of sensibilities just because they received no response in her jail cell… then maybe he really does control her, into the future. Not much of a legacy though.
To be honest, I do not think I have a good grasp on that movie, and would be more interested to hear what you thought...
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
the valuableness of pleasure only exists because it's mine. Why not leave a wreckage of a world, because when you're gone, it goes with you? Same shit. Fucked up toilet. Somebody has to prove that you revolve around what's valuable, and NOT that what's valuable revolves around you.
'What's valuable' is not a given [if you are careful: WTP, 338], but to stand in your shoes,
A disease cannot be refuted by reasons. It will be ground-hog day for Kierkegaard.
Only a state of greater health.
I would install a super-king to absorb the impact of the king's follies.
A Caesar for every Christ. (And the fact that Caesar had to be murdered, should tell you something...)
Speaking in general, Why bitch, complain, feel helpless? Victim-mentality belongs to slaves.
The master takes charge of the situation. He creates.
He deposes the King without deposing.
As Fritz found out, Xt. destroying life for everybody cannot be "reasoned" with; only countered with greater health. Its only in Rome that Xt. could survive to the extent it did... Its only a Super-King who can render the follies of a lunatic, as a court-jester's art... the master takes the onus on himself to innovate, to find a use for the folly such that it "becomes" 'what's valuable'... Its only an ocean that can carry away the dirt and the filth of this world without getting polluted.
How did Ceasar become criminal? How did Christ become king? [inversion] How did Christ remain king? How did Borgia become super-king? [innovation]
I def. don't mean you or your friend, but for a realtime eaxmple, there's a lunatic in this forum, and I experimented reasoning with it.
In my view, to reason with illness is to disavow your own reason, and that reason is nothing makes a thing cling to its throne more than by shooting it down physically or with reasons. The more you send your force into the dough, the more it hardens, tightens, the more lunatic it becomes. The more pig-headed it behaves.
The 'noble' thing to do is to create a niche for it and what was problem before now gives you entertainment.
To force reasoning or awareness in it, to "help it" is an arrogance of the missionary's zeal, for didn't Blake say to the effect, what is justice to the lion, is tyranny to the ox and vice-versa...
The solipsist lives in his own mind, but when this mind is shared - communal psyche - the illusion of being "open" is propagated uninterrupted. When one shares a lie with those that will not contradict him, within an environment that is contradicted by reality, he is still living in a self-referential reality - Modernity.
Visit a cult. The leader offers solutions to "problems". He offers a way, out of suffering.
The members feel healthy. If you do not share their delusion you are ill. They must heal you of your sickness of not being part of their meme, their cult.
In a madhouse the most sane one will be a standout.
Consider a culture populated by schizophrenics where they say (words) one moment and then act in contradiction to it, the other moment; where they idealize the words themselves, but then act contrary to them, or make excuses about why they failed to remain true to their ideals; where they think they are speaking about the world when all they are ever doing is referring back to the communal schizophrenia they are a part of. Psychology, in this case, would be a dedication to returning all who are not part of this communal schizophrenia back to their "senses" - it would be focused on separating the conscious mind so as to accommodate the disparity between the words and the deeds, or the absence of deeds.
Now consider a culture of narcissists where the "me, me, me" meme, is accompanied with declaration of "selflessness," of appreciation with no motive, of mythological love with no ego, and no strings...facilitated by the previously mentioned schizophrenia. The participants would be exchanging words of comforting, of communal identity, of the romantic, the ideal, the nowhere to be found, and at the same time all of it would be flattering, self-serving, conveniently hopeful, mysteriously uplifting, in an emotional sense. Humanity now made God.
When they discuss about the world, or use the word "world", they almost always mean humanity, with them a part of it. The sun shines on the communal sphere...where gravity keeps them on the surface and their eyes are blinded by the warming brilliance. The sky a blue, reflecting the earth encirclement, with them at the center.
Only at night does light cease to be centered around them....the stars separated by light-years of darkness. Only in the night does their self-centered, egolessness, find an answer: they are not the center of reality, the universe does not care about their plight, the world is not there for their pleasure, beauty is not in their eyes, no eternal life awaits...the world is to be discovered, appreciated accurately, or else the cost is all theirs.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37241 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Some things a king will not do, if he is to remain a King:
---Speak openly and honestly when amongst his minions. ---Show contempt for them. ---Refuse to grant them favor, give them hope, lend credence to their worries.
Between a King and a philosopher-King a gulf. One shuns status thuogh it is thrust upon him, and surrounds him like a cloud. One has the immediate as a forethought, the other as his main objective. One reaches for followers, the other feels contempt for them. One looks inward, via the outward, the other outward, via the inward. One flatters and expects the same in return, so as to avoid insult, the other cares not for either and indulges in both with the same care. One places himself at the center of reality, the world, as the arbitrator of justice, beauty, the other places himself on the periphery, seeking towards the center all of these attributes.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
'What's valuable' is not a given [if you are careful: WTP, 338],
In that passage, I think Nietzsche is referring to a specific kind of morality---and a specific type of goal or destiny. --An otherworldly one. The emphasis in that passage on 'know'---"wanting to know why mankind is here" is a hint... (because, presumably, the type of morality he's talking about thinks that mankind itself needs some otherworldly justification, outside of itself).
That's my interpretation. Feel free to prove it wrong.
Nietzsche is an immoralist---not an amoralist. He has ideas about what's valuable, and hence his own pros and cons, that are directly opposed to the prevailing (Christian) morality---hence, immoralism, and not a complete disavowal of thinking about value, ideals, goals, etc.
Quote :
A disease cannot be refuted by reasons. It will be ground-hog day for Kierkegaard.
Some diseases are overcome by first infecting yourself with them. A flu shot is not a cure, or medicine... it's the virus itself. A small dose. Your body does the rest. Same for ideas. Your mind, like your body, builds a resistance that becomes an immunity.
About the super-King idea, you should read Gay Science 54. (I love that line... "Like a sleepwalker must go on dreaming, lest he fall"). You may find some support for your thought.
That the value of things is granted only by your personally feeling them, but not recognizing that others do as well.
You may remember that I said that the value is of the thing, for the thing contains it. It is plausible that others will see value similarly to me, and it is plausible that they will be pleased by a value as I am. That is irrelevant. Thinking about the other is secondary.
Mo wrote:
The King is more general though... and certainly, I have some King in me. I would be a King, if I thought that ‘value’ was some strange property that the periodic table had no room for, nor was found in any list of physical substances. What else would I be doing than projecting it? That’s not how I think of ‘value’, but that doesn’t mean that I have some perfectly clear other conception, that so obviously shines without me, in the dark.
Did you ever answer me what motivates you? It seems you are unsettled by my motivations, but you, yourself, can't spot what it is that is so wrong about them. You feel that way, but you haven't yet been able to put it into words. I can wait.
If I was to tell you that there is a place in a certain town on the shore of Rio de Janeiro, where the sunlight shines through the cracks in the rocks onto the crystalline blue water, creating a refraction effect of such beauty that you would feel as though you're in the presence of a god, would you feel happy and satisfied in simply knowing that such a place exists? If yes, what is it that is making you happy/satisfied? Is it the image of it in your head, which you have created, to mentally transport yourself onto that place... your highness? What value is there on a thing that you have never experienced, and never will?
Mo wrote:
Quote :
Your Highness, as aware of your greatness as you are, and we all are, do you not care to leave a legacy that will carry on beyond yourself?
Sure, I would. But I won't be there to share in my legacy, so my legacy has to be for some reason apart from myself, right? Directed for the good of others, as ends, right? Otherwise, what's the point, (I won't be there)...
In other news, I value myself, but I don't measure that temporally. As if a longer song was a better one.
The most beautiful song ever played, but that was never recorded, and will never repeat again, unless it is taught. Do you value the song? The song is all you really value, your highness
Mo wrote:
Quote :
Your Highness, where did Dr. Nyle fail?
Dr. Nyle made the girl miserable. That’s not because he wasn’t good at what he was doing; just the opposite. It was the goal of his project that was destined to fail, from the start. (I thought that his project was to see himself ride into the future, dressed as that poor girl’s homunculus, pulling strings in her brain). Even if he were to be successful, he would have failed. The world would be creepier.
On the other hand, maybe Dr. Nyle was successful. If he will have made that girl into a sociopath, in the future, who has carved out and discarded a set of sensibilities just because they received no response in her jail cell… then maybe he really does control her, into the future. Not much of a legacy though.
To be honest, I do not think I have a good grasp on that movie, and would be more interested to hear what you thought...
My speculations... He was deeply vested in her as the carrier of his legacy. However, she did not care to play that role. Whether he intended or not to do so, he treated her as a disposable vessel. He held her captive, but he did not captivate her.
I am very interested in your criticism.
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
You may remember that I said that the value is of the thing, for the thing contains it.
Why else would Dr. Nyle treat her as a disposable container?
Quote :
Did you ever answer me what motivates you?
Yes, I gave you a list of 5 or 6 things. What you’ve said makes one of them impossible. If you can spot which it is, you’ll get a prize.
Quote :
It seems you are unsettled by my motivations, but you, yourself, can't spot what it is that is so wrong about them. You feel that way, but you haven't yet been able to put it into words. I can wait.
Surely, there are different sides and aspects to Kingship. Did you gather the sense in which I thought you were the King? ---It’s different than the King I see in myself.
Partly, you are a solipsist about the valuableness of things that you don’t directly feel. Just as if someone said that the world did not exist, when it was not sustained by their visual spectrum. The flip side of this is that you’re likely also to doubt the dis-valuableness of the things you don’t directly experience, but may cause.
And partly, it’s how you see what people are. But I can’t talk the King into thinking that I’m not English, when I say so. Whether or not I have my own lordship and domain, and am just another kind of King... in any case, I'd rather not be part of yours.
Quote :
What value is there on a thing that you have never experienced, and never will?
If you could press a button, just before you died, that would give you intense pleasure for your last moment (and no bad thoughts)... but would leave the world into a wreckage, and every person suffering for the rest of their lives... Would you press the button? Why or why not?
(Remember, you have never experienced 5 minutes afterwards, and onwards, and you never will.)
Quote :
The most beautiful song ever played, but that was never recorded, and will never repeat again, unless it is taught. Do you value the song? The song is all you really value, your highness
I’ll record myself, don’t you worry on behalf of others. I'm sure you're not. But I won’t superimpose myself over that of others... because when it happens with music, it makes noise.
Last edited by Mo on Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
'What's valuable' is not a given [if you are careful: WTP, 338],
In that passage, I think Nietzsche is referring to a specific kind of morality-
Yes. Given your statement about this worldly-values and how someone can reduce the world to garbage because when he goes, it goes away with him, I had assumed you were talking of today, current values.
Quote :
Feel free to prove it wrong.
Nietzsche is an immoralist---not an amoralist.
We think the same if by amoral you mean he was no pomo advocating no moralities should exist at all.
Quote :
Quote :
A disease cannot be refuted by reasons. It will be ground-hog day for Kierkegaard.
Some diseases are overcome by first infecting yourself with them. A flu shot is not a cure, or medicine... it's the virus itself. A small dose. Your body does the rest. Same for ideas. Your mind, like your body, builds a resistance that becomes an immunity.
Quote :
"Ennoblement through degeneration. History teaches us that that part of a people maintains itself best whose members generally share a vital public spirit, due to the similarity of their long-standing, incontrovertible principles, that is, of their common faith. In their case, good, sound custom strengthens them; they are taught to subordinate the individual, and their character is given solidity, at first innately and later through education. The danger in these strong communities, founded on similar, steadfast individual members, is an increasing, inherited stupidity, which follows all stability like a shadow. In such communities, spiritual progress depends on those individuals who are less bound, much less certain, and morally weaker; they are men who try new things, and many different things. Because of their weakness, countless such men are destroyed without having much visible effect; but in general, especially if they have descendants, they loosen things up, and, from time to time, deliver a wound to the stable element of a community. Precisely at this wounded, weakened place, the common body is inoculated, so to speak, with something new; however, the community's overall strength, has to be great enough to take this new thing into its bloodstream and assimilate it. Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it." [N., HATH, 224]
This only works, if the overall strength is great enough, and ties in again with my idea of the super-king.
Its only an ocean that can afford to inject itself with the dirt and filth of this earth.
Else, what you are suggesting would be like what Satyr and I discussed here somewhere about the movie World War Z and how injecting yourself with illness is marketed as the "cure" to keep off "zombies"...
Satyr wrote:
" Mindless, consumerism - the brainless appetites of materialism and hedonism unleashed in a population, turned into a thoughtless, instinctive, herd. We see the symptoms in the U.S. where this infection has been the most successful, having nothing to slow its spread down - like culture, a shared heritage, family.
To fight the disease of materialism and hedonism, we have popular zombie films suggesting one must make one's self ill. It is sickness that can preserve the individual from illness and all-consuming parasitism.
The individual is either a mindless eating, instinctive, machine, rotting because time is degenerating it, or it surrenders to the collective, finding identity in the mass, sacrificing self, to a greater Self which never grows old and never, presumably, rots. But the zombies can recognize their own kind, and so when infected the one who just committed suicide, is recognized by the mindless flesh-eaters as one of their own: fellow Nihilists.
The internal, civil war, continues. The dualistic lines make sure no alternative enters the fight. One is either a mindless mass of need, obsessed with satisfaction, or one kills oneself, and becomes part of an Ideal Self, Humanity, where one's mindlessness will at least never die.
We continue to see the Cold War dynamics still in play - this internal war over hearts and minds where both sides are offering a different variant of the same nihilism."
Quote :
About the super-King idea, you should read Gay Science 54. (I love that line... "Like a sleepwalker must go on dreaming, lest he fall"). You may find some support for your thought.
You may remember that I said that the value is of the thing, for the thing contains it.
Why else would Dr. Nyle treat her as a disposable container?
The problem is that he cannot extract the value from her. The value is an attribute of her. Without her, there is no value. By placing all of his care on the value, and not on her, he lost her, and thus he lost the value.
There is something you said in the chat, and that you seemed to be unsure of. If I may ask, I would like you to think about that, and then share with me:
Mo wrote:
[00:23:18 05/04/14] Mo : To care about what someone can do for you, is not the same as caring about them.
[00:23:47 05/04/14] Mo : Or maybe it is.
Moreover, what is "to care about someone"?
When you do something to please someone, is it really them you are pleasing?
Mo wrote:
Quote :
Did you ever answer me what motivates you?
Yes, I gave you a list of 5 or 6 things. What you’ve said makes one of them impossible. If you can spot which it is, you’ll get a prize.
I only remember a couple. I apologize. My memory is not what it used to be. However, I am not satisfied with a list of values. Why these values, and not other ones?
Mo wrote:
Quote :
It seems you are unsettled by my motivations, but you, yourself, can't spot what it is that is so wrong about them. You feel that way, but you haven't yet been able to put it into words. I can wait.
Surely, there are different sides and aspects to Kingship. Did you gather the sense in which I thought you were the King? ---It’s different than the King I see in myself.
Partly, you are a solipsist about the valuableness of things that you don’t directly feel. Just as if someone said that the world did not exist, when it was not sustained by their visual spectrum. The flip side of this is that you’re likely also to doubt the dis-valuableness of the things you don’t directly experience, but may cause.
And partly, it’s how you see what people are. But I can’t talk the King into thinking that I’m not English, when I say so. Whether or not I have my own lordship and domain, and am just another kind of King... in any case, I'd rather not be part of yours.
That may not be the right word. I am aware of other people's pleasures and pains. They are just secondary to mine. If you enjoy the company of someone, you will do what will please them so that they will not deprive you of their company. If I invite a vegetarian over, I cook vegetables. I would rather eat steak, but I compromise for the greater pleasure of someone's presence. There are two ways of looking at it, one that I am concerned about doing things in a specific way that will please my guest, the other that I am manipulating my guest into spending time with me.
Two ways of saying the same thing, one that is flattering and one that isn't: You please me. I use you for pleasure.
You started this conversation with a purpose to counter a view that "makes you puke". However, you are instead impulsively repelling it. I have interest in what you can say about this. Please do try and put it to words.
Mo wrote:
Quote :
What value is there on a thing that you have never experienced, and never will?
If you could press a button, just before you died, that would give you intense pleasure for your last moment (and no bad thoughts)... but would leave the world into a wreckage, and every person suffering for the rest of their lives... Would you press the button? Why or why not?
(Remember, you have never experienced 5 minutes afterwards, and onwards, and you never will.)
I would not because of my legacy.
Mo wrote:
Quote :
The most beautiful song ever played, but that was never recorded, and will never repeat again, unless it is taught. Do you value the song? The song is all you really value, your highness
I’ll record myself, don’t you worry on behalf of others. I'm sure you're not. But I won’t superimpose myself over that of others... because when it happens with music, it makes noise.
No such implication was made. A beautiful song stands out by its own merit.
Mo Lamb
Gender : Posts : 276 Join date : 2013-02-02 Age : 41 Location : Northerly
The problem is that he cannot extract the value from her. The value is an attribute of her. Without her, there is no value. By placing all of his care on the value, and not on her, he lost her, and thus he lost the value.
She is the value, wouldn't you say? --Like lightening is the flash. If a person is actually valuable, it is because of what they are, and not what they have. You know what beauty as an end means, so you know what I mean.
Quote :
There is something you said in the chat, and that you seemed to be unsure of. If I may ask, I would like you to think about that, and then share with me:
Quote :
[00:23:18 05/04/14] Mo : To care about what someone can do for you, is not the same as caring about them.
[00:23:47 05/04/14] Mo : Or maybe it is.
Moreover, what is "to care about someone"?
When you do something to please someone, is it really them you are pleasing?
I'd rather hear your answers. But somehow I must not have asked you first...
Intellectually, you can always apply a self-interested motive to someone who acts, but that does not mean that self-interest was actually their motive. Sometimes, you cook vegetables to keep your guest. Other times you keep your guest to cook vegetables for them. Potentially, these are not the same.
They might be the same if you think that to care about someone is to identify with them. Such that, to say you are acting for yourself would be the equivalent of acting for another, in just another way of speaking.
You-would-know-who wrote:
I care about myself because "myself" is a name for the things I have at heart." (section 8
.
I think that it is important to know how to live as a man with no name, and be sharp with a weapon. But if someone sees themselves as just a hunter, or the hunted, and plays on that metaphor too completely, then they risk confusing their heart with their stomach. And as you said, some things are not done simply pursuant to need and lack and hunger. --Like you know what.
Quote :
I would not because of my legacy.
Is the value of "your legacy" (which you have never, and never will experience it in the future) a projection?
The problem is that he cannot extract the value from her. The value is an attribute of her. Without her, there is no value. By placing all of his care on the value, and not on her, he lost her, and thus he lost the value.
She is the value, wouldn't you say? --Like lightening is the flash. If a person is actually valuable, it is because of what they are, and not what they have. You know what beauty as an end means, so you know what I mean.
You've seen this criticized by the old man many times, but you have not seen it from my perspective, so I will give you a quick insight into this spider's modus operandi....
I often direct conversations in a certain direction so that I will hear the other say something. Once what I want said is said, I, having satisfied my interest, quit the conversation with a little jest and a flip of the hair as they say, and return to my mind. This is because my participation in conversation is typically aimed at my own interest, and not at providing proof of concepts to others. Aloof, he calls me.
This is where I would quit the conversation.
Having, for some reason, found myself to be unable to maintain my aloofness toward you, I will speak to you about this privately, as I do not care to have a public conversation about my interests.
Mo wrote:
Quote :
There is something you said in the chat, and that you seemed to be unsure of. If I may ask, I would like you to think about that, and then share with me:
Quote :
[00:23:18 05/04/14] Mo : To care about what someone can do for you, is not the same as caring about them.
[00:23:47 05/04/14] Mo : Or maybe it is.
Moreover, what is "to care about someone"?
When you do something to please someone, is it really them you are pleasing?
I'd rather hear your answers. But somehow I must not have asked you first...
Intellectually, you can always apply a self-interested motive to someone who acts, but that does not mean that self-interest was actually their motive. Sometimes, you cook vegetables to keep your guest. Other times you keep your guest to cook vegetables for them. Potentially, these are not the same.
They might be the same if you think that to care about someone is to identify with them. Such that, to say you are acting for yourself would be the equivalent of acting for another, in just another way of speaking.
You-would-know-who wrote:
I care about myself because "myself" is a name for the things I have at heart." (section 8
.
This is, in my opinion, perfectly put. I think that your nearly emotive reaction was due to my use of words. However, there is no better way to understand this relationship, as you not have forced yourself to "be the king" otherwise.
Quote :
I think that it is important to know how to live as a man with no name, and be sharp with a weapon. But if someone sees themselves as just a hunter, or the hunted, and plays on that metaphor too completely, then they risk confusing their heart with their stomach. And as you said, some things are not done simply pursuant to need and lack and hunger. --Like you know what.
At the risk of overplaying the hunter metaphor, one may also trap a bird, only to hear it sing... before letting it go.
Mo wrote:
Quote :
I would not because of my legacy.
Is the value of "your legacy" (which you have never, and never will experience it in the future) a projection?
I guess I will add this to the conversation of value, and speak about this in private as well.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
She is the value, wouldn't you say? --Like lightening is the flash. If a person is actually valuable, it is because of what they are, and not what they have. You know what beauty as an end means, so you know what I mean.
Nietzsche wrote:
"As if "Values were inherent in things and all one had to do was grasp them!"" [WTP, 422]
Some things a king will not do, if he is to remain a King:
---Speak openly and honestly when amongst his minions.
That's exactly how a French Poodle, with a fancy haircut and dressed in shiny clothes, would need to act, as he is not there to empower his people.
How about a king who says: "No, my dear son, you're not the one who will inherit the crown. Let the Nobles decide who they want to be their king."
1572
@3:58 min
BTW, talking about value and being wealthy, the 2% which N.Davies mentioned is not true. It sounds a little bit like a pro-EU propaganda. At least 8% of the entire population were Nobles, in some places even up to 37%.
One of the main reasons why they were so wealthy was the location. At the time, Poland was like a massive tollbooth on the way from Paris to Moscow.
Then they came up with the concept of noble money - Złoty = Golden
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] To these days people use the same name in shops, even banks, but what we use now to pay many Poles describe as confetti; they even make those papers in different colours.
The rule is simple: if a Nobleman pays for your service or buys anything from you, he will never, ever give you paper money. He'll always give you something (for instance gold or silver) what you can take anywhere in the world and exchange for what you need or want.
No need for a bunch of men hiding in a box called a Bank... and their numbers and paper...
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
