Desperate Degenerates

Whenever you find someone openly expressing a high appreciation of himself - "self valuing" - you can be certain he is compensating for a dep insecurity and sense of worthlessness...useless.
This goes beyond self-live, or self-aceptance. 
There is no balance.

Virtue inflated to conceal a deflating dominating vice.

ILP is full of them.

For creatures like him, its important to understand that thier nature is vengeance. He believes that "existence is evil". This speaks to how deep his inferiority is, and this is why he is so defensive and his ego is so frail. The little autistic rodent, aka. Polishyouth, was exactly like that. Everything is an attack on them, an insult to them, no matter how innocuous it is. They are threteaned by everything and everyone, by life itself. For such a profoundly weak mind, is it any wonder why merely hating another is not enough, but existence itself, that which is void of any motive or malice, must be hated? And why current modernity is obsessed with uprooting all natural hierarchy and any sign of strength or superiority? Venegance is a form of salvation for them.

It's interesting watching how a degenerate hypocrite - chimpanzee - can continuously reel in these simpletons. 
It's been years now, using the same bait and switch routine, the same womanly word-games, the same refusal to bring it down to earth while insisting no making it about gossip - as if philosophy is not about generalizations but is a soap opera discussion about what happened to Jane when she went out with Joe, and how badly Joe treated Jane...
You see it when he is not as distracted as he presently is, and quotes me, only quoting what he prefers and simply refusing the rest as "blah blah..."
Ha!!
The "look what I've reduced him to"
The "Huffing and puffing"...
The "okay lets put it in context"...when he refuses to even start.
The "bring it down from the clouds"...when he refuses to do so. 

The accusation of abstractions because he doesn't understand....'cause he's a simpleton who must be taken seriously.
The objectification of "objectivism". 

He's a cartoon....yet he succeeds in making himself the center of attention.
Like when he ends..
according to my understanding, as if his understanding is worth shit. 

He's like a head clown in a circus show. The clown that goes form performance to performance....intruding with a juggling act to give the other clowns a rest. 

It's fantastic!!
I luv it.

Its only motive is to undermine confidence....which it continuously fail to do, but in tis mind it is succeeding.
Its dedicated the last years of tis life to destroying people's confidence in their own convictions - a sort of retarded gad fly Socrates, only it knows shit so it can't effectively apply the Socratic method.
It just wants to reduce conversations to personal recitations - subjective - to introduce emotion as a criterion of validity. 

Objectivists = generalizers.
Subjectivists = particularisers.

By pulling you into the subjective - down to earth it calls it - its already succeeded. All is subjective. Nothing general can be said...about humans.
For no particular reason...just because. 
Well, unless its something innocuous like "all humans are born and die"...or "all humans usually have four limbs" - baby talk....womanly chit-chat. 

What baffles me is how many continue to engage this dishonest imbecile.

We are truly in a Dark Age.

Satyr wrote:

What baffles me is how many continue to engage this dishonest imbecile.

Birds of a feather. They can't discriminate between worthwhile ideas and moronic ideas. Its all the same to them. They don't value quality. He one of thier village idiots. They use him to ingratiate thier egos. Everything is about thier need for relevance on there. They need to be a part of everything, no matter how degenerate; The custom of thier liberal-relative ethos. He's not disruptive or aggressively insane enough to jar them out of their brain-deadness and get rid of him, like the autistic rodent, so they tolerate him. As long as the dull hum of mediocrity continues they are kept tolerant of anyone. He's more like a retarded gnat that they don't have the will to swat. It just speaks to the quality of filth they don't mind. Like a bad smell. They get used to it. They even embrace him as one of thier own. You can see it in the "chit chat" threads how they play around with him in a friendly manner. He is thier kin, thier brethren, even if he annoys them or if they hate him. They have no respect for each other anyway so it doesn't matter much to them.

In a way he's perfect for ILP.
On the one hand we have Iakov who intentionally obscures and mythologizes and pretends to be saying something profound by using prose, and on the other side we have this chimp who can't comprehend anything abstract so he must reduce it all down to a man-child's intimate conversation about personal matters.
One self-agradizes, claiming to be offering extraordinary powers and profound insights - when he's saying something simplistic couched in superstition - and the other is lying about being interested in philosophy, wanting only to undermine all philosophies so that he can achieve - in his demented idealistic mind -  a world with no conflict, no disagreements, because nobody will actually believe in anything....willing to come to any compromise because there's nothing to die or live for, so there's nothing to fight over. 

The two freaks should debate each other....one is for the other a nemesis, and they don't even see it.
The chimpanzee has a legitimate obfuscating twat, pretending to be saying something novel and profound by using all kinds of linguistic tricks and social platitudes, - mind in the skyhooks - and he can't recognize him because the chimp has objectified all into one category, naming it "objectivists" and is unable to perceive nuances.
For the chimp anything that goes over its head is an "objectivist"....A vast category including charlatans and legitimate thinkers. 

For chimpanzees all humans are making the same sounds. It's all nonsense to them. 
A human reciting Shakespeare and a dumb-ass reading Nostradamus are the same. 
A man reading Plato and a man mumbling incoherently is all the same for these creatures...that's the chimp. 

Bring it all down off the trees...to the ground, where I drop my bananas. Let's get together and groom one another...as I wait for Godot.
Ha!!!

Imbeciles have assumed that Heidegger's thrownness - Dasein = being there - means that man is thrown into existence as a blank slate - tabula rasa - from nowhere and nothingness, by some kind of divinity - god - which they describe in exactly the same ways the Abrahamic one god is defined and described, minus the anthopomophy.

Thrownness itself implies momentum - movement - which means man awakens to existence already characterized by activity - interactivity.
This movement is what energy means - all is energy, i.e., all is dynamic, interactive; all is interpreted by a consciousness in accordance to this interactivity, as appearance, that which is present and appears. Therefore how something looks is not superficial nor arbitrary, it is how a conscious mind translated its dynamic presence. 

They've assume that something comes form nothing, as if there is nothing is nothingness - derivative of Abrahamism creation myths.
From nothingness something suddenly emerges....but they cannot define nor point to an example. because the absurdity  is implied by the very question - who created existence? from where does existence come? - as if it existence never was. 
The question contains the absurdity they then demand answered. The medium is the message.
In this case the medium - semiotics, language - and tis binary method - rooted in neurological switching - carries the absurdity of absolute states of one-ness and nil-ness - on/off - existence/non-existence.
The mind needs an opposite even if it is nowhere in evidence, and is itself a contradiction - how can non-existence have existed?
Here the mind must change the abstraction: not existence/non-existence, not 1/0, but order/chaos - both of which exist but differ in that the former refers to patterned energies and the latter to energies lacking pattern.
The Greeks claimed the world emerged not form nothingness but from chaos, the void...void of what/
void of order, void of patterned energies, a state which an ordering organ, like the human brain, can only conceptualize as darkness, emptiness...which is not empty - existence means dynamic interactivity, which is present even in chaos.

Their simpletons minds think in either/or absolutes.
1/0.
But simpletons cannot think in degrees - with nuance,. they can only think in absolutes, ergo will is either absolutely free or absolutely unfree.

Then they point to sentences like this:
"There are absolutely no absolutes", or "Truth is there is no truth", when the absurdity has already been assumed, requiring an equal and opposite absurdity to negate it, or to reject it.
It's like when Christians demand that atheists prove god's non-existence. They demand that the absurdity existing only in their minds as an abstraction, be proven to not-exist with another abstraction. 
You cannot prove a negative, ergo you cannot negate an absolute negative other than with an absolute positive.
Both absolute versions - negative/positive - if taken literally, and not representationally, negate existence as it is experienced.

What do these positive/negative absolute abstractions refer to, if not to existence?
To the mind's abstractions, that can only exist as vague, obscure, simplified/generalized abstractions in the brain - can only exist as ideas/ideals in symbolic form - linguistic.

The mind can create concepts that do not exist outside it.
Using words, referring to vague abstractions, the mind can attempt to usurp what it experiences through the senses.
These abstractions exist as neurological matrices but refer to nothing beyond the mind....so if they are transmitted - shared  and believed in collectively they use each other as validation.
This is why nihilism needs followers; needs collectives; needs to proselytize and to coerce and to seduce and to bribe minds to adopt its abstractions.

half-breed wannabe Jew\" wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:

I struggle to identify the intent of my being between my higher self and my lower self. My higher self is patient, creative, joyful, generous, and protective. My lower self is brash, harsh in judgements, so unforgiving, and easily annoyed or put out.

What is the intent of your being?

I streamline things to make them more efficient or useable.
I inspire children to use their imaginations whenever I’m around them.
I enjoy playing in its many forms.

What do you aspire to? What is your best learned lesson?

I aspire to be...more.
best learned lesson: Stop jumping to conclusions

I spent many years thinking about it in this way -
but my patience, what I thought was my higher self, led to being actually physically abused by a family member (not a parent) and to a lot of other very flagrant abuses. I was recovering, or trying to recover, o the trauma of the extremely weird and offensive death of my best friend pretty much next to my bed, which is still with me. I got into yoga as a result of that trauma and this yoga doctrine with its motto 'what I give to others I dont give away' has made ten years of my life into a rape-fest. Pretty much everyone was making use of me, I was running here and there to serve people I thought loved me, thinking I was doing my higher will.

When I discovered value ontology, I made the first steps of being freed of that. But, as people have noticed here, Im still very much battling with this trauma. I at least now have enough self-respect to, when someone is taking everything from me without respecting me, I get angry and make it known that it is not appreciated. But it doesnt really alter peoples behavior, I still struggle with the fact that I spent nearly ten years dedicated almost entirely to the benefit of a group of friends who ended up treating me like trash and shitting on the projects we did together like they are jokes. Its pretty fucking horrible and obviously I spend a lot of time in sorrow over that; the same thing occurred with he death of my friend, I had just spent two years working for him at his music and then he kills himself right where we made all that music. The memory of his rotting corpse is now with me recently, it had been put to be shown for a week, I stupidly decided to go see it the last day. Long blue nails, long grey hair, he was 19....

all that is part of just giving, being patient, accepting.

In the end I just have no idea. My higher self must be able to protect me from humiliations by people I am dedicated to, or it is just a martyr like a christ in real life, meaning that there is no redemption of the sacrifice.

See?
I said that the choice of "value", in his nonsense Value Ontology, was not accidental.
He feels unappreciated. Not valued by others.
He is obsessed with the idea of making himself valued by all - even if it is after death. 
He covets Nietzsche's effect on young male minds.
The young male component is not accidental, either. He wants to protect his past self - represented by young males - in the present, to find redemption - to find closure.
When a theory - a philosophy - has no references in reality, i.e., world outside the mind - then it must have references inside the mind; what lacks exoteric/external validation must seek esoteric/internal validation.
People expose themselves through their choices....and their choice of words indicate motive, especially when the words are used not to refer to an attainable objective or object in the world.

Two types of art - art and fArt; two types of philosophy - philosophy and politics or mysticism.
Art that desires to represent reality as closely as possible, and philosophy that wants to represent the artist's reaction to reality.
The first necessitates talent, i.e., attention to detail, to symmetries and proportionalities; the second requires narcissism, marketing skills, and arrogance, i.e., a conviction that one's reactions deserve to be acknowledged and appreciated.

Like I told him:
He is neither Jew nor gentile, using the traditional form of inheriting identity - he is literally a kind of anti-chrsit, because Jesus was presumably born of a Jew mother and a Roman father, so he could claim to be a bridge between two incompatible world-views; two antithetical tribal - racial, cultural - traditions.
Jesus attempted this feat as a miracle worker - through obscurantism - where divergence is concealed by shadows. 
His motive is also driven to synthesize what is antithetical, just as Jesus did, so that he can find internal completion. His "failosophy" is a crude attempt to synthesize the incompatible - integrate Nietzsche and Abrahamism through linguistic obscurantism; a Christianity 2.0, i.e., updated and upgraded for the next centuries.
There is nothing novel in the idea that life is attracted to elements - energies - that maintain and sustain it within fluctuating existence, and that grow its field of effect, i.e., its power. But he doesn't want to stop there...he wants to imply what he cannot justify - magical powers available to any young male who accepts him as master - as mentor and guru - adopting his linguistic nonsense. He wants to be appreciated by himself in present - by seducing/bribing representations of his youthful, naïve past.  

Disappointment is the only possible outcome.
Disappointment always projected upon others as a vice, or a flaw. 
He is never wrong - even his admitted fault is one of virtue, youthful innocence - generosity, openness, love.
He was too good for his own good, he tells himself. He was too innocent, too kind, too accepting. Even his self-critique is self-angradizing.
Defensiveness.
He can never abide by the urging to Know Thyself.
He will never know himself, not his real self. He will only know his ideal self; his imagined self.
Narcissism.
The trigger of his past failures is not recognized, so he will never correct the cause for his disappointments.

They prefer to focus on language because what their use of words refers to is not to be revealed.
It is not of this world.
It only exists in the mind - world of abstractions.
Their purpose is to manipulable human frailties; human vanity and vice.

Knowing is not understanding.
Data does not indicate intelligence.

Understanding can use any language, any terminology necessary to reveal what is present and obvious.

The miser uses language to conceal, and to imply what it cannot prove nor justify.
Like one who claims to speak ancient-Greek to conceal intent and weakness.

Doesn't matter what language you speak if your reference is reality, and your intent is to reveal what is present to all.

Probabilities do not register in the minds of simpletons.
All is a guess, because all is incomplete all is fluid...all is uncertain.

Even the terminology is taken as proof of parity: incomplete,, fluid, uncertain, ergo equally so.
There is no superior/inferior there are only certainties and uncertainties - knowing and not knowing.
Complete, full, or incomplete, empty.  
One or nil.

To wit....if you are not omnipotent - now that the one-god is gone - then you must be just as impotent as everyone else, and if you ain't omniscient, then you must be equally ignorant as  everyone else.
Power of nil.
If you ain't perfect, then you must be just as imperfect as everyone else.
If you ain't flawless then you must be as flawed as everyone else.
No gradations, only either/or.
1/0
Either All or Nothing.

The nihilist is mature, he is worldly, he knows there's no such thing as perfect....so he feels comforted that no matter how obtuse he may be, the other ain't perfect....so he must be no better than he is. 

A comforting thought, this nil is.
The certainty of another's uncertainty; the knowledge of another's incomplete and imperfect knowledge.
When faith in the one is lost, then faith in the nil is better still - it never disappoints.

The other head clown on ILP has telegraphed who and what he is.
On his own sig he tells everyone who he is, projecting it as an accusation against others.
He was, is and to the day he dies will remain...

John Fowles wrote:

 .... a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. 

And he's gone from detesting unbelievers - sinners - when he was a devout Abrahamic, to detesting capitalists, when he was a Marxist, and now he detests "objectivists", as a still loyal to the same convictions - same abstractions - postmodern. 
These named and identified others are the ones who are blamed for his failure to change the world in accordance with his subjective ideals. 
It can't be that his ideals were wrong, so it must be someone fault.
His impotence to change the world for the "better" is unloaded upon them; named infidels, capitalists and now, having matured, objectivists.
But who are these individuals who he blames for his impotence to change the world - though he's desperately still trying to before Godot shows up?
Let's introduce the absence of free-will into this mental mess, shall we?
If all is absolutely determined - not by god but by the universe - then who are these objectivists who he accuses, and why are they to blame for his impotence? Is it not al determined? Why are they guilty when this simpleton is innocent? 
This is where we get into this "fractured and fragmented" schizophrenia bit; unable to accept responsibility for his own failures and unable to let go of victimhood, he finds a scapegoat in a "skyhook". 
He must remain a victim of a superior power, but in a no free-will world, who will be accused for his impotence; upon who will he unload the shame of his failures?
This is the conundrum that splinters this freak, unable to reconcile the two aspects of his psychosis: innocent victim.

In effect the universe is to blame for the world's evil, through these sinners; for the worlds injustices and exploitation, these capitalists are to be held accountable; and, now, for the world's conflicting judgments, these vile, authoritarian, objectivists.
In a no god world, with no free-will, he's found his scapegoat - an abstraction - determinism - an skyhook to hang his sacrifice.
God does not determine it all, but something vague, mysterious, cosmic....out there is determining it all; something hiding behind every choice They are to be blamed for every poor judgment he's made over a lifetime of naïve poor judgments; judgements created out of nowhere and nothing; blamed for every conflicting opinion, every disagreement, every physical or verbal fight - for every war ever waged.
A shadow....a ghost.,...named "objectivism".
The evil, satanic, capitalist has found something even more menacing to deny this warrior of goodness his world of peace and harmony, where no conflicts, no suffering, no injustice, is ever experienced.

All is subjective; all is a social construct....but in a no free-will universe what does that even mean? - as he often turns to the "audience" and asks, as if they were on his side. He always looks to the audience - also abstracted and made into a skyhook, blah, blah, blah....waiting for him to ask them for support.
The simpleton doesn't know, that's why he wants help squaring this sacred, absolute, perfect, circle; he is asking for help to synthesize his compartmentalized psyche, without compromising his core beliefs: e.g., all are equal, all are victims of their stubbornness, all are equally weak and ignorant - all are the same in the divine nil.
Skepticism is faith in the nil.
Abrahamic humility is replaced by postmodern skepticism, arbitrarily and hypocritically applied, of course... just as Abrahamic humility. 
A ruse....a concealment for an underlying arrogance, in the case of Abrahamism, and in this case a cover for certainty - arbitrarily applied Selective skepticism concealing certainty that this is the only way to save mankind and change the world for the better.
The method is classic Abrahamism.
Undermining. Manipulating words. Destroying self-confidence, reducing trust in ones own senses, until the individual - in theory - is prepared to receive holy communion to be saved, finally willing to make the necessary compromises to a collective - humanity = god, remember.
The collective is god.
Jews taught them this trick when they hid Jewishness in Semitism - worshiping themselves as an idealized abstraction, named god - as if criticizing and exposing Judaism, as what it is, is automatically antisemitism.
That would mean that criticizing Christianity is anti-Hellenic, or anti-Italic/Roman....or anti-Germanic.
I presume that criticizing communism makes you an anti-Ruse, or anti-Han....a bigot, racist.
But it doesn't follow its own logic.....ya see?
Do you see the word games being played?
Well this same word-game is applied through postmodernism....straight from the Frankfurt School of Kabbalistic semi(o)tics.
And this freak is a postmodern crypto-Communist and recovering Abrahamic.
You can draw a line connecting all three phases of his own admitted development - maturation, he calls it.
The same abstractions which he accuses others of, are the connectors between a lifetime of wrong judgments and poor choices. 
At this point he will not let go of these core beliefs - these skyhooks - from where he's hung a lifetime of choices.
Godot is too near for that, even if he had the integrity to admit his mistakes. He doesn't....never had integrity, because if he did he would have doubted his own core beliefs a long, long, time ago - so much for skepticism.
skepticism is only to deny another's opinions, without having to justify it; and skepticism is to seed doubt in others, forcing them to question their own beliefs, but not his own. He only doubts himself if all will doubt themselves, equally, and all can then be willing to come to mutually beneficial compromises, as if all beliefs are, like his own, founded on equally doubtful perspectives. 
Perspectivism pushed to its absurd limit.

If all cannot be absolutely correct, then all must be absolutely incorrect. Not just incorrect, but absolutely so. 
Only through the absolute - one or nil - can the world be healed from tis fragmented and fractures existence; only though the absolute one-god, or the absolute nil, can parity finally become real, and change a world of conflicting goods.
A death wish.

Lambo doesn't understand what "Objective" means or 'Objectivism' is.

He doesn't have the IQ for it. He knows this intuitively, but can't admit it to himself, because it would be a complete humiliation and loss of Pride/Ego. Instead he is drawn obsessively to you, and other "Objectivists", because he is a follower who seeks-out leadership, or an inferior who seeks-out a superior. Humans have an innate need for Leadership. I link this to Aryanism/Aristocracy/Nobility. People seek-out higher authorities, intelligence, willpower, capability, etc. This is especially true in Philosophy, perhaps more so than any other art or specialization.


This is common on ILP, which is a platform for inferior philosophies and practices.

It took me a long time to understand and accept the Need of an inferior for a superior, or a follower for a leader. What they want most, is to stroke what little Ego they have, to show you 'appreciate' them, even though they have little or nothing of value to offer, or worse, a net-negative. Promethean/Brian does this well, placating and stroking the egos of those he looks down on, which is a charismatic and charlatan trait.

If ILP had common sense, or the desperate degenerates, then they could easily link 'Science' with objectivity.

In this case, an "Objective" is merely one of many types of Measures of reality. Like a yard stick, or a metre. Like a scale. Objectives are only "relative" to other Objectives. The other logical fallacy they use, commonly, pretty much always, is to presuppose "One Universal Standard" or that there is Only One Objective. This is false, clearly, and it's common sense. They don't, and perhaps cannot, understand this.



To understand reality, to comprehend an 'Object' necessarily means and implies using many Measures, representing many Dimensions.

To claim or premise "One Absolute Reality" would be the same as only using length as a measurement. You can only measure how long an object is. You cannot/should not measure depth, height. You cannot/should not measure weight. You should not measure pressure, stability, density, etc.

These are simplistic minds, unable to recognize complexity or a universe that is literally beyond them.


This creates an innate inferiority complex, within intelligence, and then exposes itself most readily in terms of Wisdom (versus Ignorance) and Reason (versus Emotional feelings).

Essentially, these minds lack Dimension.

They can only use one tool, without recognizing they need a whole tool box, to build.

Chimpanzee says he wants to "bring it down to earth" - code for let's gossip like women about how "Jane" fucked "Joe" and got pregnant, and didn't want to keep the baby, because Jane is a slut...yadda, yadda yadda....but then you give the monkey a scenario and he refuses to go there; then you ask the primate to give you an example of what it means by "down to earth" and he gives you the spiel---" I was born form the belly of a two bit stupid slut....yadda yadda...

The chimpanzee just want to be respected...and if you give it any attention it I gratified. The shit about "note to others' screams for attention and when he slip in the "Dasein as I mis-construe it" what it is implying is that we ought to discuss nonsense according to how we understood ideas, equating the imbeciles - which he represents - with the non-imbeciles. 

If I wanted to discuss Marxism according to how a moron from Maryland understands it I would be a masochist.
If all ideas had no external standard, not even an objective way to determine who is talking about reality and who is simply mentally masturbating then philosophy would be politics, or occultism...
It would be about who could come up with the biggest lie to seduce the largest amount of morons...
That's not philosophy. 
It's useless.
A waste of time.
Any discussion with this chimp is useless.
It feels like it is making a difference when you respond to its faeces flinging. 
This is the only way it can validate the shit it has stored in its decaying skull.
It has replaced objectivity with popularity.
The masculine with the feminine.
It has no clue what anyone one says about anything - and if it finds someone who can discuss it in a sufficiently simplistic level, it tries to real him into the mental cesspool its drowning in....as it wats for death to come knocking. 
It wants to pull you into the shit it is drowning in.

It has no clue so it must believe that all are equally clueless as it is.  

Whether you engage it or not, it will spin it into a victory...and it calls itself "mature"...as if it has outgrown the "children" it mocks, as if it has anything to be proud about.

Wasting your time on this thing is your choice...I'm just saying that it's a waste of time.
It's a hypocrite, of the worse kind.
It lies to itself, and then declares truth a lie....to conceal itself.

It's sad when an old fart believes, after a lifetime of bad judgements, that philosophy is a popularity contest and truth is a consequence of an agreement.

Satyr wrote:

It's sad when an old fart believes, after a lifetime of bad judgements, that philosophy is a popularity contest and truth is a consequence of an agreement.

He's beginning to sound like the Rodent. The same indirect pleas for acceptance of him into our forum, the desperation to be taken seriously, the overt self-flattery, the pretentious 'noble' act of intellectual honesty. Birds of a feather.

A messiah needs to be a miracle worker, and needs an evil entity.
Self valuing cured me of ennui and depression. Hallelujah!!! I'm saved..... 
Laughter does that. It can cure anything.
See, now it isn't only life, its "existence"....clearly.
All existence - stones, clouds, metals...all value; clearly, they judge and appreciate.
They have a magnetic, electric, charge, that can be given a value - an atomic number - clearly.
Not energy....value...we need to imply a motive, and deny it, if need be, claiming to be too sophisticated to be understood...unless the other values us, appreciates us, buys into our crap....in which case "he gets it".
Then we flatter him and fawn over him, and show our appreciation with gifts... like a school boy. 

Christianity had their version of this "ontology" and they could have called it self-loving - Love Ontology. The universe is god, god is love, man is made in god's image, god loves man and all creation, ergo the universe is self-loving - universal narcissism.
Stones hold themselves together with loving embraces. The atom is a manifestation of self-loving. Metals refuse to be fragmented resisting all attempts to pull their love apart. 
Love Ontology.
Man seeks love...sees love everywhere. He feels it in his soul, because he is part of existence. He is a love-child...a child of love.

I called it LOL....Love Ontology Love.
Love loving....love.

Conversely...its antithesis.
A bad world to make men feel bad.
Hate Ontology
HO.
'Cause love needs an equal and opposite reaction.
Countering the attractive force of Love Hate repulses. Erotic Tension. A lyre held in tension, making beautiful songs.
Explosive.
How else could we have gotten the creative event of a Big Bang if there wasn't a bit of hate in the Yin/Yang of Luv?
Not so good to seduce women, or men-children or imbeciles....so let's stick with more positive words, and use them inappropriately, and mysteriously....esoterically.
Let's take something even less appropriate. Hunger.
Hunger Ontology.
The universe hungers for its final, complete, satiation - ouroboros; it craves itself into existence; it consumes itself and is consumed by itself - cannibalism. Existence is, like life, cannibalistic.
Existence is created by appetite. 
I guess we can call it AO.
Not touchy feely, or inspiring, enough?
 
What about Eros Ontology....taking off from the ancient myth that proposes the allegorical imagery of the god Eros - promoted to a primordial deity - striking the cauldron of the abyss to create existence? Striking imagery.
That's a good one...it may heal depression. uncertainty, insanity, lust.....headaches...toothaches, hemorrhoids...
Nothing like a good whack to make you forget your problems. 
Speaking of which, Eros replaced the divinity Ananke....necessity.
So why not Necessity Ontology, or Need Ontology.
Creation needs itself into existence.
Too negative, I suppose....too needy.
But hear me out.
Man needs attention; man needs love, food, water....man needs to be appreciated and loved and included. Man needs power - he wills it because he needs it - cause/effect
Man is a manifestation of existence; he feels need, he is need...in god's image. Need is. 
Now we must seduce as many imbeciles as we can find and I'll become a member of philosophy's pantheon.
Need Ontology.
Causality is necessity; necessity is causality. Man feels the abyss in his own being  as a void, an emptiness he wants to fill, to satisfy.
Man needs needing - it gives him purpose.
No need, no action....need motivates.
If you need nothing, you are nothing. 
NO...Need Ontology.
Need of Power
Need for Life.

So much need in the world.

But wait...there's something missing in the above.
How can we connect it with Nietzsche, to harvest that demographic of postmodern lost men-children, feeling hopeless and helpless, craving sex and power?
We can't neglect a tried and tested recipe to achieve fame and fortune, can we?
At our peril. 
So, how about PO.
Power Ontology.

Energy is power, power is energy.
Power wills more power.
Will to Power.
Power to Will. 
Power Ontology.
Existence is Power and nothing besides.
I empower power. 

We'll have to write some nonsensical prose implying fantastic things, triggering the imaginations of naïve desperate minds, and then we type it up, spell check it and send it to the publisher.
We wont even have to say we are the "rightful heirs of Nietzsche", it will be implied.

the chimpanzee was here for months...spewing the same crap.
Every time you cornered him he went into his defensive spiel.
It took me a few weeks to realize his motive. 
An old farts final gift to itself, a gift of retribution.  

A method it learned at the feet of his mentor Jesus?, no Paul, Saul, and his second mentor, Mortdecai?, no Karl Marx.
Both gifted under-miners; miners of the udner-world, the subterranean, the occult world of words....miners boring into the spirit - boring a tunnel out of boredom.
But this primate is not as gifted so it imitates, like a child imitates its parent. 
It was taught when it was young the superficial technique of undermining, but instead of digging a tunnel out of existence it dig itself into a hole; a comfortable hole, like a womb, it has grown fond of.
A hole it wants to fill with others, before it disappears into its dark void. 
So, , like one of those spiders, it pulls threads from tis anus and weaves a concealing cover, and then waits for a bug to pass by and fall into its trap.  

But this spider is a imbecile, and tis trap is not deep enough, not esoteric enough to capture prey....so they climb out and he is left crying after them...come back!!!, come back I mean well!
Some, being simple themselves, do return, and the process repeats and the bug scurries away....but most refuse to go back, and the spider is left hungry for fulfillment, for victims.
But when they realize its motive and technique most deny it the pleasure of falling into the hole, grappling with its spindly, weak limbs, evading tis toothless bite... 
But it never succeeds, so it dreams of success, and has convinced itself that there is no deference between reality and dreams...in fact dreams are better....as is subjectivity. In dreams it never fails, it never grow hungy...it is always satisfied....it always succeeds. In its spindly mind all is subjective....there is no failure....there is only success, because the term can be defined in any way, or it can be maintain undefined so that it can mean anything at any time.
It resents having to explain itself....define its terminologies...prove itself, since all is subjective, and in its subjective universe it tricks its prey, and pulls them into its abysmal depths where it satisfies itself with their destruction. It loves the darkness of the nil, where everything is unclear, and dreams fill it with brilliance. 
It's kind of sad.

It must be the confusion Nietzsche produced in men-children with his transvaluation of values, but degenerates of all stripes are obsessed with the cocnept...in a post-Abrahamic god era.
I mean that's what we call nihilism.
Words have lost their meaning leaving men-children in a confused state of existential limbo, some declaring themselves god, creators of values, and others, unable to make sense of what "values" mean or how to determine them declare them null and void.
When the meaning of words comes from text, when the text is debunked or contradicted there's no way to establish what words mean or what their original utility was, before the people of the book, by the book, for the book "revolutionized law" with Mosaic tablet found in the desert.
 
"Value" is a simple word - even a simpleton can understand it if he pulls his head from his own or another's arse, takes a long deep breathe, and calms down....
The only meaning of the term "value" is in relation to an objective.
So, we have the thinking subject, the objective, in the world - not in his own head - and the distance toward it, necessitating effort, work, movement.
None of this is cultural or arbitrary....if you are honest and have an IQ over 90.
So, once more...we have the subject (subjective evaluator, a.k.a., thinker, judger...etc.), we have an objective (ideal, goal, destination etc.) and we have effort (distance, work, movement etc.)
This creates a noetic triangle, with the subject at the first point, the peak of the triangles, no matter how you rotate it.
I'm not telling you what your objective ought to be or how to evaluate the distance, effort, required to reach it...let's take baby steps for the simpletons who are reading this. 
The rest go back to what you were doing.
 
This noetic triangulation is how values are evaluated.
Even if our objective is to measure energy - give it a symbolic value - it requires triangulation: a conscious mind - subject - with an objective....a destination, a need, a desire....a want...whatever you want to call it expressing a lack, i.e., hunger, desire, ignorance, weakness, powerlessness etc.
Even measurements require a subject, a measuring standard, or tool, and an object to be measured - again...triangulation. 
Nietzsche's Will to Power is a triangulation : Will (subject) to (movement, effort) Power (objective, goal, ideal)
Children and men-children, this is how to evaluate value.
So, values are conflicting, of course they are. They cannot be un-conflicitng values, because this implies an absolute, a universal goal, objective, ideal, and there are no absolutes - no indivisible, immutable, singularities.
We are in a no absolute, fluctuating and interactive cosmos...so to desire for such conflicts to cease is to desire to die - eternal peace of the clueless mind.

Why are values always uncertain and conflicting, other than due to the quality of the subject's evaluations and the attainability of the objective?
We let these two factors to the side, so that men-children will not become confused nor insulted by the implications. We may pick them up and explain them later. For now let us focus on the third and most obvious reason why values are uncertain and conflicting? 
We mentioned it when we defined existence....as dynamic, and fluctuating.
The cosmos is not static...that would make it non-existent; it is dynamic, interactive, and fluctuating. These three words describe the same state of existence. Therefore, the subject, the objective, and the distance toward it are not static, but changing....which requires constant reaffirmation and reassessment - re-evaluation - of our evaluations, adjusting their value accordingly.
Like I mentioned to you men-children, this is but the primary reason values are fluctuating, not static, and forever conflicting - disagreeing, competing..... The other two are the quality of the evaluating subject and the attainability of the objective, viz., the evaluation of the objective relative to the subjective.
Now, we've heard about this triangulation in the form of "family values" or "cultural values" or "personal values"...and in all three of these concepts triangulation is involved. Sometimes given to us by an authority which we adopt, like good little boys and girls, as our own guiding principles. 
Cultures have objectives, often called ideals, often sold as socioeconomic goals determining our ambitions. 
Families have objectives, as well - in the case of "family values" it is based on traditional reproductive objectives.
Religions also have objectives, even if sometimes unattainable, such as Abrahamic objectives, in which case they are used to control individuals via shame and self-abnegation, because the unattainable always produces failure, which leads to feelings of shame, or guilt....embarrassment, a sense of unworthiness etc. 

Let's encapsulate for the boys and girls having difficulty with these simple yet strange concepts.
Value(s) only have meaning in relation to objectives. There are no universal values existing in some ethereal realm, nor are there any intrinsic values.
All values and value-judgments require an objective, a subject who judges, and approximates, evaluates the effort required to attain it.
There are competing values because people have different objectives, and different evaluations of their attainability. 
Oftentimes, simpletons overestimate, but they may, at times, underestimate, not only their objectives, or the effort required to attain them, but also themselves.
So, children, there are three factors in evaluating value, and so there are three sources of conflict, and three possible sources of error, i.e., of underestimating - most often the effort - and/or of overestimating the objective - because the objective is often idealized and imagined as more than it is - and finally of oneself - which can be a consequence of arrogance, narcissism or egotism, overcompensating for a deeper self-doubt.

Bullet form for the retarded:
*There are no values independent from consciousness, or organisms with objectives, i.e., intentions, motives, goals, destinations etc.
*There are no values without an objective, so there can be no universal values.
*Not all values are equal and the same.
*Not all values are attainable, viz., can be realized.
*Not all evaluations are equal in quality - they are vlaue-judgments, i.e., estimations, approximations, as accurate as the quality of mind that produced them. 

Another factor.
The objective is what identifies the subject that tries to approach, attain it, since it gives purpose and meaning to the subject's interactivities, i.e., its motives define it.
Existence is what happens on the way towards the objective...whether it be Will to Life, Will to Power, Will to Pleasure, Will to Nothingness, Will to Pizza, Will to Death...whatever the objective might be for the subjective.  

I gave my definition of the word "meaning" - the meaning of meaning.
The cosmos is full of meaning, if we define the terms by bringing them down to earth; just as there is free-will if we begin by defining the terms down to earth.

But lets make it so that even women and emasculated men-children can grasp what I am saying. 
Let's simplify, as much as we can.
Abortion, rape, murder, sex, ...whatever the act might be is not intrinsically good or bad, good or evil, but it is so in relation to an objective.
The objective proffers value to an action, expressed as choice, founded on a value-judgement.
The subject's objective will determine the value of the movement towards it - the effort to attain it.
The goal must be placed within a real world, otherwise the objective is imaginary, theoretical, and forever unattainable - it is idealistic, abstract, existing only in the mind of the subject - naïve.
When this occurs the objective is nihilistic, since it negates itself by occupying the same point in the triangulation....with no distance
A solipsistic looping back upon oneself. 
Its self-referential solipsism may be concealed by externalizing it in books, in the written form, or in the minds of icons, idols - still as abstraction.
But now the triangulation is between a subject, another subject, and the effort required to attain the subject's conception of the ideal - which he may use to exploit and manipulable the other.
This is the power they covet. We find this in the Abrahamic religions and their priestly class. 
When the objective is unattainable - defined out of existence - or abstract - existing only in theory as an idea/ideal, then it can be used to control and exploit subjects who can never attain what only exists in the mind.


***edited out typos and bad grammar***

Self-Deception:

One of the biggest problems with these Nihilists is that they have objectives that they attempt to hide and obfuscate from others and from themselves.  When they are young, they are indoctrinated.  Sometimes these nefarious objectives are self-spawned, but usually they are imbued from (Abrahamic) Authorities while children.  They are taught, and teach themselves, to deceive themselves.

Thus they project their Objective against the world and other people.  Other people whom resonate, repeating the indoctrination, they recognize as "one of their own", a fellow Nihilist.  The people who do not resonate, who do not buy into their petulant bullshit or indoctrination, they might accuse an "Objectivist".  This Nihilist does not realize his/her own Objectives, denying them and deflecting.  They are confused as to the 'source' of such objectives, because usually the source is him/herself.



As with lower IQ and lower intelligent people, or even those who are above-average, they cannot break these chains so-to-speak.  They cannot pinpoint their own 'ownership' of the Nihilistic objective, which is self-annulment.  It's like a poison or cancer in the soul, self-crippling and handicapping.  It's a spiritual shackle.  At a certain point in life, they are emasculated, humiliated, and subjugated completely.  They give over to their Captors without abandon.  This is the insidious nature of Abrahamism.  At that point, their "Objectives" are hidden, from themselves, and they believe that nobody else can see them or what they do.

If and when exposed, they deny it, and are internally confused and conflicted.  You can then explain to them in as childish and infantile terms and logic as possible ... but that's never good enough.  Because the subjugation already happened, perhaps when they were 15, or 13, or 10, or 7 years old.  So what their mind does, is ignores the mental dissonance through brute force.  The Nihilistic mind is eventually forced to retreat, to flee away and forget anybody who represents such arguments and explanations.

Obviously, this creates obsession and resentiment, the "desperate degenerate".  They then accuse the one defusing the antagonism as the Antagonist.  It's then your fault for their own failings.  Their objectives are then projected against you.



This is where the "Objectivist" accusation comes from, a self-projection with no self-consciousness nor awareness.

It is a function of higher intelligence in humanity, above above-average, to realize and then accept with courage, the source of Objectives from individuals and wider humanity.  Sometimes these Objectives are nefarious, cruel, evil, animalistic, banal, carnal, lowly, immoral, etc.  Thus most of humanity try to hide these 'daemons' within.  When confronted with somebody exposing them, when confronted with any modicrum of truth, honesty, philosophy, they rebel at the notion and thought.

Like touching a searing hot iron, recoiling in pain.


They will never willingly "own up" to their Objectives or Objectivism.  That would compromise their indoctrination, which usually represents a whole lifetime of "values"/transvaluation/etc.  It would destroy their worldviews, most or everything what they know or meant to be true or good.  This is why Philosophy is for the very few who have been capable throughout human history.  Few are capable, even fewer of those, are ever willing, to confront not what it means in others, but what it means in themselves.

This is also why Nihilists cannot differentiate or separated Subject-Objective, Subject from the Object, or vice-versa.  Essentially the Nihilist is reduced to an Object, according to his/her (Abrahamic) Dogma.

I'm certain that Eastern religions/philosophies use the same mental and spiritual coercion, since these methods are so effective and 'universal' in their results.  These are the methods by which millions and billions of human lives are controlled, and often times wasted.

There is no "will" independent from mind...
If there is no free-will there is no will at all.
I mean we can use "will" allegorically, metaphorically, mystically, in prose, to paint heroic mythological imagery, but will only refers to life and its focus on an objective.
Will is life directing its aggregate energies towards a goal, and is a meaningless poetic vehicle outside this context.
Existence has no will, no more than it has an intent, a motive, a goal, a telos.
Life only wills and it wills what it lacks, or what it wants to preserve and accumulate.

Similarly, there is no "value" outside living brains with motives and goals, and needs.
Value expresses the will's power in relation to its objective, and is meaningless in any other context....even in prose and poetry, wishing to create a feeling, to imply what cannot be proven, to romanticize and give hope, to empower and motivate, to manipulate emotionally and exploit psychologically.
Value has meaning only in reference to an objective.
Therefore rarity increases value; need multiplies it. It is relative to the power of the individual.
For a billionaire respect is of minimal value, because all give it to him or pay the price; for a poor smuck, it has more value.
For a full bellied man food is of minimal value; for a starving man it is of immeasurable value.
To a charmer getting laid is of minimal value; to an incel it has immeasurable value. 
What is the root of value?
Need/Desire.
What is need/desire - well I gave my definitions elsewhere - but in brief need is the experience of existing - interacting - and desire is the sensation of an accumulation of excess energies due to a successful satisfaction of needs.
Underlying that is lack...the absence of absolutes; the chaos before Nyx, before the Titans, before Gaia and Ouranos... allegorically speaking.
It is chaos, from here order emerges and returns.

Accessibility, rarity, fragility, need/desire, effort...all determine value.
Power is also a determining factor. 
What value would life have to an immortal being? 
Negligible. 

Each culture - meme - has its own ideals, and therefore its own values.
Each culture wants to overcome man in its own way.
There is not one version of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Each meme, every culture has its own ideal man, just as every culture produces different kinds of civilizations.
There isn't any universal - no absolutes. There are only variations.
Each culture idealizes a particular kind of man, and cultivates him as much as it can, but no ideal is ever attained completely. The ideal only motivates, inspires, guides those who use it as their standard for evaluating themselves.  
All judgements, all choices, all actions, are compared to this ideal - attainable or not.

The Kosmos is full of meaning if meaning is brought down to the experienced.
All meaning ...means, is relationships, between phenomena; a cognitive map referring to a geography. The elevations, distances between point on the map is what meaning means - matrices of meaning.
But people mean something else when they say "meaning". They mean "purpose", intent.
They seek purpose outside of themselves - they want to be given purpose, told about it. they beg to be mastered and enslaved. 

There is no such purpose....in life purpose is simply propagation and self-maitnetiance - survival and reproduction...growth, power...dominance.
Purpose is the goal I spoke of, the objective. You either adopt it from another or you create it for yourself.
Given that man is a social organism he prefers collective objectives.

So, what's the difference between herd psychology and pack mentality?
Quantity and Quality.
The larger the quantity, the lower the quality.

If anyone is interested in witnessing how a desperate degenerate, committed to Marxism, understands language, then read Kropotkin's latest contributions on the ILP cesspool.
"1+1=2" is "meaningless"...maybe capitalistic power imposing upon the proletariats innocence.
This imbecile does not understand what language is....nor why it evolved and what is its utility.

Satyr wrote:

If anyone is interested in witnessing how a desperate degenerate, committed to Marxism, understands language, then read Kropotkin's latest contributions on the ILP cesspool.
"1+1=2" is "meaningless"...maybe capitalistic power imposing upon the proletariats innocence.
This imbecile does not understand what language is....nor why it evolved and what is its utility.

I remember he was the one who actually uttered this:

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

as someone who has read Iambiguous with interest over the years, I for one have found
him to be far brighter then most here, including you.... his word are over your head.....
way over your head......his message quite clear and loud.... and plain and
intelligent.. his message is of the scalpel, not your method of the hammer....
and that is why he confuses you... it is a bit too subtle for you........

The obtuse appreciate obtuseness.
It's value ontology.
They value what they are - value valuing value.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I've posted a vid Kvasir found....and perfectly describes the chimpanzee on ILP and the postmodern condition, in general. 
It is titled: The Nihilism of Waiting for Godot, accurately describing the participants as "clowns".
In 15 minutes it encapsulates the many clowns in the ILP circus.

Here is the full play....


As you watch it place iambiguous in the place of the two main characters, the clowns. 
The guy with the white long hair and the hat is Iakob, complete with prose and mythological referents...spouting gibberish as if it were profound wisdom.
The chimpanzee believes all are like Iakob, because he is too obtuse to distringuish...to discriminate.
He has lost trust in his own judgment, and rightly so, because a lifetime of bad judgments can do that....
His solution? All ought to be made like him - all must lose confidence in their own senses, their own minds...they must stop trusting all.
They call this skepticism. Doubt all, for all is equally gibberish. The incomprehensible is automatically meaningless. 
This pathetic creature cannot distinguish gibberish from incomprehensible, just as a chimpanzee cannot distinguish Shakespeare from incoherent mumbling. 
It all becomes part of the nothing. Uniform nothingness.  
The only certainty...death. The certainty that all is nonsense and it isn't his stupidity which is at fault.
The ramblings of madmen and the insights of wise men, are all one and the same.  It escapes responsibility, you see.
It is not the problem...the problem is others.

Satyr wrote:

Here is the full play....

As you watch it place iambiguous in the place of the two main characters, the clowns.
The guy with the white long hair and the hat is Iakob, complete with prose and mythological referents...spouting gibberish as if it were profound wisdom.
The chimpanzee believes all are like Iakob, because he is too obtuse to distringuish...to discriminate.
He has lost trust in his own judgment, and rightly so, because a lifetime of bad judgments can do that....
His solution? All ought to be made like him - all must lose confidence in their own senses, their own minds...they must stop trusting all.
They call this skepticism. Doubt all, for all is equally gibberish. The incomprehensible is automatically meaningless.
This pathetic creature cannot distinguish gibberish from incomprehensible, just as a chimpanzee cannot distinguish Shakespeare from incoherent mumbling.
It all becomes part of the nothing. Uniform nothingness.
The only certainty...death. The certainty that all is nonsense and it isn't his stupidity which is at fault.
The ramblings of madmen and the insights of wise men, are all one and the same. It escapes responsibility, you see.
It is not the problem...the problem is others.

Yes, he is a real life example of a mind taking this idea to its logical conclusion. It's why he repeats those rehearsed script lines of his over and over again. Like a child, he cannot understand metaphor or language, and so he takes it literally, encasing himself in a cocoon of psychological dysphoria, that he escapes from by turning everything else into an absurdity of language, because language cannot refer to anything absolute and an absolute is what he needs. He comforts himself by laughing everything off or mocking everything, because, truth is there is no truth. He's obsessed with this play, as he is with any other idea, for all the wrong reasons. Taking it literally, because it validated his retardation and gave him a sense of value of himself that he then cultivated into an identity. He desperately references it over and over, like he does Heidegger's "Dasein", proving he has no understanding of it, but, like a primitive animal, he senses something attractive in it that speaks to his degeneracy, his idiocy, that perhaps others can understand for him, all he has to do is keep living the same way, and something  or someone will come along and make everything perfect for him someday.