Fixed and Value Ontology

FC wrote:

Your resentment is sickening, absolute. I had never imagined such lows. Moreno and Lyssa (forget my care, its her, the Bitch) both worms alike.

The oinklet Fixed ejaculating in another one of her periodic PMS hysteria or was it more Purple Haze narcissism cloulding her eyes again?

These days she has become so full of her pusillanimity, and her missionary zeal to kneel so low, has peeled all light away,, in the dark, she cant even make out friend from foe; for some hilarity, see:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nothing gives me more pleasure than having you see me everywhere and in everyone, dumbass! I want you to be just like that… if there's one thing more entertaining than watch you masturbate To your stupidity (VOt), its having you masturbating and drenched IN your own stupidity.

Quote :

Pezer, no more favors to KTS now.

Pezer? He was doing KTS a favor? Arrogant condescension is pretty when there is some, any, substance to it,,, and petty, when someone cant even come to clear the integrity of a false accusation such as your spineless lying that I told Pezer to stop doing philosophy… I can understand Pezer not showing up, because it would mean going against his friend, and having the honesty and decency to tell him what a baseless, lying (s)cumbag he is. I excuse the poor Pezer being put in a tight spot, and for a few morsels of some pompous writings, has to sacrifice honesty and listen to Fixed whining orders of "do this Pezer", "don't do this Pezer"...

FC wrote:

Let them choke and rot.

So says someone who cant come kill in person herself.

FC wrote:

Whatever beauty one may perceive in the half-witch

I would have used "half-wit(ch)" for a better punch…
You'll always be learning your Martial rigour from me. Just like how it was I who made you so courageous and clean enough to speak your mind boldly today, and not be wishy-washy in all that fake, stuffy civility like you used to be before, Prince Vogue-al-frei; and I'll always continue to do so and hound you, the bitch that I am, and that is satisfying enough.
Let all that dis/eased discharge out at me,,, To cleaner and cleaner health!!
The *pinch* of "Birth-pangs" is not easy, sweets.

FC wrote:

in disregarding her banal intellectual imcompetence

Like the pill-logical hypo-Chris(t)y of how Pezer and you Value on My behalf and what I should focus myself on?

How about I Value on Your behalf and tell you to focus on playing the piano? How about I tell you, you'd be doing mankind a favor sticking to that? How about I tell and decide for you where your full potential lies and how the best, efficient self-valuing can be tapped out of you?

If you hypoChri(s)ts can bathe in your f----ing Arrogance and go about telling people where their highest use is and sell such bs debauchery in the name of "Self-Valuing",,, how about I tell you what to do and where to use your fingers and put to good use?

How about that, huh?

Dressing up such a dipshite "ontology" in 'philosophical' jargon that masks one's own Arrogance is neither philosophy, nor an Artist's license to sculpt others. Its pure religious scoundrelism, just because someone happened to be healed under a raving black pastor.
Idiot.

meow kitty wrote:

that dooms her to Satyrs bed

But its you that I get wet for coward-dearest, or atleast Satyr has seen it in his third eye
It all comes down to the length of the white snake ultimately, or in your case, some other color, meow kitty.
If women called you Beast in bed, which I believe they did,, I'll have you know men have called me Holy mother of God! My miracles are quite other-worldly…

Tell me Fixed, what if you were married to a beautiful model, and she wanted to Self-Value as an actress that involved her getting f---ed up her ass by another actor, would Your Self-valuing go with you to the opening night and clap hands for the phenomenal scene of your wife getting f----ed in front of millions and p/raise her artistry and the human-arche powers of how 'high' she could reach?
Just asking…

Maybe you should contemplate on that "perimeter value of truth" of your bs theology instead of uselessly wanking about...

meow wrote:

(Ive told you time and time again not to cultivate high aims for her, she will resist them tooth and claw) it is carried by the deep biological dis-ease that can simply not endure happiness. In a word, Ugliness. Existential stench.

The musk-a-tear of a meow kitty   *scratch*

Alas, my cursed life doomed to forever wander the world, never knowing the Happiness of getting (prog)rammed by Fixed Cross' potent and flashy flash-drive

I coulda been the anoinKted one…

FC wrote:

I knew that when Id open this thread Id see the insight I had before comfirmed: an inescapable insight into the cruelty of what weve been doing, revealing heights to those who are biologically doomed to be excluded from Earthly happiness.

Don't leave me Fixed…….

even if a doomed hag be gagging as a blowfish to full-value in Satyr's bed

Cum back to me superhero, my flying dutchman, my unknown happiness, my ghost protocol...

FC wrote:

This thread will continue, of course. But it must do so blind to the foulness it enslaves wide beyond its actual aims.

The hypo-Chri(s)t speaks.

FC wrote:

Those who are watching silently in honorable appreciation, I will do you the honor now of forever banishing the unworthy from my eyes, and thus their remnants from my words.

The Spectacular Red Dragon…

"The lamb is becoming a lion.
For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" [Hannibal, Season 3]

FC wrote:

A new Clan gathering/Philosophical Politics will follow soon.

That inter-missionary zeal, I tell ya…

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

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

meow wrote:

Does ILP have camels left?

Zoot, possibly Trixie/J-qr, Lys.

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

The only one who's been Humping about is Fixed, and if that doesn't make him the biggest Camel, his wee-O is one gaping gigantic Cameltoe; and now, lets enjoy SloterDijk widen that wee-O pussyhole of a religious stupidity...

Sloterdijk wrote:

"If, in spite of all our reservations, it were permissible to speak of a Jewish campaign, this expression could only refer to what Leo Baeck termed, in Das Wesen des Judentums [The Nature of Judaism] (1905), the ‘struggle for self-preservation’. Certainly, according to Baeck, it is impossible to conceive of Judaism as a whole without the ‘force of instruction and conversion’, but this potential was only able to take effect in an introverted and defensive direction during almost 2,000 years of diaspora. ‘People understood that mere existence can already be a declaration, a sermon to the world … The mere fact that one existed posited some meaning… Self-preservation was experienced as preservation through God.’ One Christian author exaggerated these statements to the most obvious extent by declaring that, for him, the continued existence of Judaism in the world of today constitutes no less than a historical proof of God's existence. Advocates of evolutionist neuro-rhetoric would say that the longevity of Judaism proves the precise vertical duplicability of the memoactive rituals practised among this people. As Judaism invested its religious surpluses of meaning in its self-preservation as a people and a ritual community, its physical existence became charged with metaphysical ideas that amounted to the fulfilment of a mission – one more reason why the physical attack on Judaism can go hand in hand with the desire for its spiritual and moral eradication." [God's Zeal]

be…ing is already a victory is what VOt teaches.

conatal existence is already a victory.

The religion of very zealous jealous Zealots… zzzzz


All that junk inside your trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump,
My hump, my hump, my hump, my lovely little lumps (Check it out)

I drive these brothers crazy,
I do it on the daily…
My hump, my hump, my hump (love),
My humps they got you…

That's how you address him...

Monotheistic Narcissism a.k.a 'Distinctiveness' or 'Value-Plurality' of 'Self-Chosenness' masquerading as N.'s Pathos of Distance:

Sloterdijk wrote:

"Early religious cult systems – whatever else they might be – can be viewed in their primary manner of effect as ethnoplastic systems of rules. By imposing shared narratives, rituals and norms on a collective, they mould the practising collectives into carriers – into the subject-object, philosophically speaking – of those same conceptions and procedures. Thus the phenomenon of religion (in the era before its individualistic differentiation in modernity, at least) seems initially to be tied entirely to the time-honoured functions of group synthesis. The biological reproduction of a ‘culture’ or ethnic collective is necessarily accompanied by the passing on of the group-specific system of symbols and rituals. The fact that these simple observations lead to non-trivial consequences can be clarified by the following reflections. It is no coincidence that ethnologists, anthropologists and theologians have been claiming for some time that no indications have been found anywhere in the world pointing to the existence of completely ‘irreligious peoples’ – and how could they, when the phenomenon of peoples as such is engendered only by the collective-integrative effects of shared rites and histories, conventionally known as ‘religions’. The assumption of a people existing completely without religion would amount to the paradoxical assertion that there can be stabilized collectives which dispense with all connecting media and do not become acquainted with any symbolic bond, shared history or firm normative commitments. This would mean virtually postulating a people devoid of content – and thus more a random crowd than a physically and spiritually self-reproducing unit.

For the same reason, a people in any meaningful sense of the word thus cannot exist without its language – provided one understands language not merely as a vehicle for everyday communication but also, and most importantly, as a medium for imprinting the most culturally important subjects on the consciousness of its speakers. From this perspective, language is primarily the organ of relevance. Humans can only claim to speak a language properly once they can say in it what is vital for life. Naturally, this highest level of relevance always includes local ideas about the collective’s conditions of survival and salvation. Thoughts about this are not exchanged in passing under the palaver tree or the well but are usually etched in the memories of a collective’s members in moments of terrible seriousness, often in emotional stress situations resulting from bloody sacrificial acts. In the history of cultures so far, the establishment of the highest-ranking motifs of relevance has often been connected to procedures enforcing a pedagogy of pain and suffering.

There is no need to expand on why, among the notions significant for salvation and survival that are passed on through language and rites within the internal space of an ethnicity, it is the instructions for preserving differences of status that almost always play an outstanding part. In early folk religions, making leadership positions imposing was one of the sources of the sacred. To ensure hierarchical control over the collective, most early peoples cloaked the chief and leader roles, and later the royal ranks, with an aura of sacred import and bestowed upon them the power to determine the life or death of their own people as well as strangers. One can generally observe that the preferred activity of early religions was concerning themselves with the sacralization of leadership.  In addition, they focused on the symbolic aggrandizement and cultic securing of protective spaces, burial sites and important foodstuffs.

Related thoughts manifest themselves in Johann Gottfried Herder’s suggestive remark that, ‘among the most uncultivated people, the language of religion is ever the most ancient and obscure.’ The increasing opacity of older religious languages is substantially due to the fact that, in the course of the civilization process, some gestures and turns of phrase are forgotten that were previously required in order to commit the collective to its own inner cohesion and ideas of sacred relevance. Such figures are later carried along erratically by the current of sacred traditions as petrified relics of an obsolete selfconstraint. As one can observe from the seventeenth century on in Europe, modernizing cultures subject themselves to an accelerated change in the forms of self-constraint (especially following the replacement of the sacred victim constraint by secular institutes such as the constraints of schooling and taxation), with the inevitable result that participants in modern social games no longer perceive earlier methods of alignment merely as venerable relics, but increasingly as dark embarrassments.

Where there is a people, there is always also the crystallization nucleus of a religion; and where there is religion, the embodiment of the creating divine is implied by a special languagebased ethnic manifestation. Because, from the perspective of this over-eager cultural theology, peoples per se carry divine sparks inside themselves, it is in their nature to speak as theopoetic collectives. In doing so, they manifest themselves at wildly varying degrees of explicitness as local carriers of a potentially generalizable idea of God.

Just how old the beleaguered awareness of the existence of a multiethnic problem really is is demonstrated by, among other things, the myth of the Tower of Babel. The authors of this equally brief and momentous tale (which, according to current research, was inserted into the Book of Genesis [Bereshit] in the Pentateuch in post-exilic times, meaning at the dawn of the sixth century) made it easier for themselves to access the problematic issue by placing the bold assumption of a monolingual humanity at the start. The editors of the tower myth, priests returning to Palestine from Babylon who saw no reason to hide their anti-imperial affect, simply equated monolinguality with unanimity and unanimity with despicable arrogance. From the clerical perspective, arrogance leads directly to self-deification. In the architectural dialect, this results in the decision to erect a tower reaching up to heaven. It is no surprise that this displeases a Jewish God from Sinai, here already dated back to prehistory. In his wrath he shatters the languages of the builders, thus causing them to scatter in all directions – until finally, for better or worse, seventy-two peoples with as many languages and cults settle on the earth, sufficiently far apart and deeply inwardly estranged from one another.10 The nuisance of ethnic plurality is attributed to the preventative punishment of the arrogance that manifests itself in buildings of urbane magnificence. From the era of early empire-formations, if not even earlier, the awareness of the simultaneous existence of many peoples already articulated succinctly in ancient times took on a high degree of religio-political virulence. Indeed, the thinkers among early peoples did not fail to recognize the connection between the existence of ethnic groupings and securing them through religious cults. Nonetheless, the ancient world did not yet have ecumenical forums to discuss the rivalry and coexistence of the gods, let alone any ethnological overviews of converging and diverging variants of cults devoted to higher beings – to say nothing of the touristic and academic neutralization of differences between peoples and myths, which did not spread outwards from Europe until the eighteenth century.

In the era of increasingly nervous encounters between peoples in the second and first millennia BC, there were various attempts to come to terms with the irreducible pluralism of ethnicities and their religioid control systems. At a general level, one can divide these attempts into two opposing blocks of neighbourhood policies. On the one side are syncretistic tendencies whose goal is a liberating amalgamation of foreign worlds of peoples and gods. Unifying tendencies of this kind are typical of political theologies such as those attempted in the integration of several ethnicities into an empire and a corresponding higher-level sacred imperial order. In the process, priests of a local cult are retrained as diplomats who can recognize their own gods under the foreign names they bear in other popular cults. The great innovation of this school of thought lies in the discovery that, with interculturally sustainable gods, the inner and the outer converge: what one had taken for a foreign god is revealed, upon closer inspection, as a different guise of one’s own deity. Peoples and cults approach one another as soon as they understand that they have devoted themselves to the same numinous entity under different names. The ecumenically compatible thought model of the one in the many spread among the educated, and the number one became the keyword in educated synthesis. Thus imperial theology, whether Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hellenistic or Roman, emerged as the field in which the traditional distinction between domestic and foreign policy faded. That translations between the cults were usually supported by the monarchs and priesthoods of trans-ethnic state constructions is a result of their unmistaken interest in synthetic concepts and ecumenical solutions.

A completely different interpretation of the polyethnic and multicultic situation can be observed in the second block. Here the leading actors respond to the perception of polyethnic existence with a resolute hardening and aggrandizement of their own cult traditions. This tendency to withdraw to what is their own culminates in the refusal to let oneself be compared and to participate in translations. Hence the alternative way out of the inevitable ethnic and cultic comparison invites an escape to singularity. Anyone recommending this strategy for self-preservation amid intercultic competition to a people must also offer the prospect of a great contest: because our god is like no other, our people too will be like no other. Whoever commits to the untranslatable god, the most exclusive of divinities, will be rewarded with endless procreative successes and offspring with long memories. Whoever does not join the confessional community may go under amid the multiplicity, leaving neither traces nor memories behind – biblically put, their name will be struck from the Book of Life.

It is surely unnecessary to emphasize that the second of these paths was the option of Israel when it decided against the danger of confusion allegedly posed first by living among the Egyptians, then by the encounters with Near Eastern peoples who followed different cults.11 The often discussed ban on images, which rules out cultic depictions of the Jewish god, initially testifies not so much to the theological depth of a new concept of God as to the ingenious realization that the most reliable way to stay free of the confusing cult competition is the consistent non-depiction of one’s own god. In his nonmanifestation, the leaders of the Jewish people found a remarkable and unique selling point that ensured incomparability through invisibility. Whether this concept was influenced by Egyptian models or not was of no consequence for its success. The resulting theological problem, namely the incompatibility of the image ban with the epiphanic imperative – that is, the obligation of any god with worldly competence to appear – was taken on board by the creators of the Jewish religion.

At this point in our reflections, it requires no great effort to explain why the term ‘monotheism’ does not contribute very much to an understanding of the process: the religious leaders of Israel, from Moses and Joshua to the temple priests of the post-exilic period, were not concerned with theologically charging the numerical word ‘one’ – this would become a concern only much later on for Platonizing speculations about the monad. The covenant (berith) has the form of a non-mixing contract and a nontranslation oath, combined with the highest salvific guarantees. Whoever mixes themselves is eliminated, and whoever translates falls from grace. Thus the ethnogenesis of the Jewish people followed a quite extraordinary autoplastic programme: those belonging to the programme’s people were separated from those who did not belong in a constant process of distinction. The new religion of singularization was anything but a naïve folk cult; it was a considered experiment for an ongoing sorting of members and non-members of the covenant. What that meant in real-life terms is revealed by the warning often heard in the Tanakh, specifically in the prophet Isaiah’s words, that only a few of those involved at the start would be left. Thus early Jewish history is so far unique in telling not of a people with a religion, as is usually the case, but of a religion with a people. Theologians who are aware of this slightly unnerving finding like to describe it with the word ‘chosenness’. By this they mean that it is not enough to have one god or another like all peoples; it is vital to be had by the right god, the unique one." [In the Shadow of Mount Sinai]

Hawkes, David wrote:

In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to take an image for true reality is the most heinous of all sins. In Greek philosophy, it is the most damaging of all epistemological errors.
It is the error of the prisoners in Plato’s cave and of those who substitute material causes for Aristotle’s telos.
It is also the predominant, even the definitive, characteristic of postmodern society.
It is often remarked that our society is dominated by the ‘economy’, and that this ‘economy’ is dominated by money. The most salient characteristic of money is that it does not exist. Or rather, it exists only as a symbol, an idea in people’s minds, as opposed to a physical object that one could see or touch. Money, in short, is an image that has attained the status of reality: it is an idol.
The Hebraic tradition, which along with Hellenic thought is the primal influence on Western philosophy, ascribes false consciousness to a misconstrual of the relation between matter and spirit. In the Hebrew Bible, the Israelites are distinguished from the Gentiles by the prohibition on material representations of their deity. Due to the attraction which sensual things hold for fallen humanity, such representations will inevitably become fetishes; that is, people will forget that they are merely representations, and idolize them, venerating them as though they were incarnations of the divine.

Yahweh makes this clear when, in the first two commandments, He makes the abandonment of images a precondition of monotheism:

Exodus 20:3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4. Thou shalt
not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that
is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water
under the earth. 5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity
of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of
them that hate me.

The ferocity of the aniconic commandment is necessary because, due to our faulty understanding of the relation between signs and things, we will inevitably mistake an image of God for God Himself. Representations of the deity are thus incompatible with Judaic monotheism, which asserts that the source of all meaning is an absolute logos which is necessarily incorporeal. It is therefore fundamentally erroneous to worship an image.
But it is also immoral to do so, for two reasons. First of all, an image is a material object, and thus ethically inferior to the ideal dimension of the divine. Second, an image is the product of human labour – it has been ‘graven’, or manufactured. In worshipping an icon, then, we are really
worshipping the objectified manifestation of our own labour.
This aspect of idolatry was particularly stressed under the Babylonian captivity. The book of Isaiah contains lengthy descriptions of the various kinds of labour which go into manufacturing the Babylonian icons, and the fact that they have been produced by human labour is cited as the clearest possible proof of the absurdity of worshipping images:

Isaiah 41:18. To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye
compare unto him? 19. The workman melteth a graven image, and the
goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. 20. He
that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that
will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a
graven image, that shall not be moved.

Isaiah 46:5. To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and
compare me, that we may be like? 6. They lavish gold out of the bag,
and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he maketh it a
god: they fall down, yea, they worship.

What is being criticized here is the attempt to establish an equivalence between the ideal and the material through the use of representation. Such an enterprise succeeds only in fetishizing the products of human labour, bestowing upon them a superstitious power and an illegitimate influence
over human life. In the New Testament, the Hebraic proscription of idols blends with Hellenic idealism, issuing in a generalized mistrust of all earthly perception, which will only be corrected by posthumous heavenly revelation.
Thus Paul, writing to the Corinthians:
‘For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as I am known’ (I Cor. 13:12).

The centuries immediately before and after the birth of Christ witnessed a syncretic union between Greek rationalism and Jewish monotheism, and Christianity is its most momentous progeny. Philo Judaeus was one thinker who consciously tried to unite the Greek and Hebrew traditions. In his view, God could be equated with Plato’s Absolute Idea, and as such He could have no effect on the world that He made possible.
The world, rather, was created and governed by God’s ‘reason’, ‘word’, or logos.
Logos is the term used in the Gospel of John to designate what Christianity metaphorically calls the ‘son’ of God.
The notion that this logos could be incarnated in human form indicates a yearning to escape the false consciousness of the flesh, but the earthly fate of Jesus of Nazareth implied that no such liberation was possible in this world.

---Ideology

Modernity: worship of the icon, the word.
Salvation using logos.
New Messiahs offering words as representations, icons, idols to be worshipped.

Smith, Adam wrote:

The one may be called ‘value in use’; the other, ‘value in exchange’. The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use.
Nothing is more valuable than water: but it will purchase scarce any thing; scarce any thing can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.

(31–2)

Value in utility, and value as symbolic representation - insinuated utility.
Vanity, and man trying to associate with rare material, to symbolize his own uniqueness, becomes fashion fetish.
The symbol has a value in and of itself, by existing, and its rarity raises it in estimation.
Man adorns himself with symbols of the rare, raising his own estimation in the eyes of those who accept the symbolism as a real representation.
Symbol becomes the correcting/healing representation, compensating for the wrongs man endures.
Representation acquires a value in itself: Platonic idealism meets Judeo-Christian nihilism.  
The absence of an absolute is corrected by the representation; absence of quality covered with quantities alluding to value that need not be proven.
Accessibility lends itself to mass salvation - money as paradise lost.
Missing thingness fulfilled with a symbol, a word.
God reborn as idol.

Traherne, Thomas wrote:

 I began to enquire what things were most Common: Air, Light, Heaven and Earth, Water, the Sun, Trees, Men and Women, Cities Temples &c.
These I found Common and Obvious to all: Rubies Perls Diamonds Gold and Silver, these I found scarce, and to the most Denied. Then began I to consider and compare the value of them, which I measured by their Serviceableness, and by the Excellencies which would be found in them, should they be taken away. And in Conclusion I saw clearly, that there was a Real Valuableness in all the Common things; in the Scarce, a feigned.

(I, 142)

 

Pretending value through association is herd psychology entering the age of abstractions, where the noumenon detached from phenomenon, can be freed to take any form.
Past/Nature covered in jewels and garments, adopted identity.

Hawkes, david wrote:

Smith, Adam wrote:

But value is not commonly estimated by labour, because labour is difficult to measure, and commodities are more frequently exchanged for other commodities, especially money, which is therefore most frequently used in estimating value.

(34–5)

The illusion that money literally isvalue thus quickly takes hold among the populace. This is a false, or ideological, consciousness brought about by empiricist habits of thought:

Smith, Adam wrote:

The greater part of the people too understand better what is meant by a quantity of a particular commodity, than by a quantity of labour. The one is a plain palpable object; the other an abstract notion, which, though it can be made sufficiently intelligible, is not altogether so natural and obvious.

(35)

Smith thus sees a systematic disjunction between appearance and reality as an inevitable consequence of a market economy. ‘Labour’, he repeatedly stresses, ‘is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only’ (36–7).
According to this criterion, it would seem that in our society the nominal has replaced the real. This is what postmodernists mean when they claim to be living in a ‘hyper-reality’.

Once the word "value" has been ripped form its association with utility, converted to symbol representing nominal abstractions, the next step of taking it a step further, converting ti to an ontology in itself, is almost inevitable.
The noumenon alludes to the phenomenon, but taken literally it IS the phenomenon, but now malleable, easily manipulated by the human mind, by thinking....altering it noetically, shifting perspectives of it.
The phenomenon itself is not so easily altered, or manipulated.
An activity requiring a commitment, and a cost (labour/work), with uncertain rewards is expected, whereas the representation becomes a matter of attitude and taste.
Money acquires the right to believe in your own fabrications, and only abide by the market system that ensures you this "right".
Money as the perfect representation of value - the idea(l) made tangible.

FC wrote:

This is why Joker pretended to be a girl in the first place. But we are not like mr reasonable: sillicones, even high end, dont please us. There is a minumun natural waist-cheekrate, and the practice of selfvaluing for new students consists of wearing strictly three items of clothing; purple high heeled sandals, a silver chain (to be purchased by them) around the waist, and a plume of fox hair stuck by means of a rubber plug between the buttox. The chain is connected to a large chandelier in our Third Ballroom and their task for the first year is to crawl in circles on hands and knees while making chipmunk noises.

It is very rigorous, Spartan one might say.

As we speak there is a line of applicants in said dressscode, holding their chains in their mouths as prescribed, stretching beyond the horizon. In two hours the doors of the temple will open and todays selection process will begin. But first, breakfast.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think Fixed is going to fall in love and beg for a good flogging from Is_Yde_Opn ; )

Maybe he would beg to do 'her' dirty laundry and wipe 'her' a--- with his tongue, like a nice li'l biaaatch-girl…  One could already hear moaning sounds in the first minute of his recent video…

Like a wounded animal…

maybe from his wee_O being torn Yde_Opn?

hmmm

Hawkes, David wrote:

The synchronic approach reveals that words acquire meaning, not through any intrinsic correspondence with the objects they represent,  but through their place within the linguistic structure.
Saussure thus suggests that representation is autonomous and that, in fact, signs produce the objects they designate. He finds that this ‘arbitrary nature of the sign’ pertains in every society:

Saussure wrote:

any means of expression accepted in a society rests in principle upon a
collective habit, or on convention, which comes to the same thing.
Signs of politeness, for instance, although often endowed with a certain
natural expressiveness (prostrating oneself nine times on the ground is
the way to greet an emperor in China) are none the less fixed by rule. It
is this rule which renders them obligatory, not their intrinsic value.
(ibid.)

When value is ripped from the object as it relates to an intent, it acquires a habitual value, similar to the word/symbol money.
It is that money, the currency/nomisma has been habitually accepted as valuable that it retains its value.
A collective, silent, agreement - trust.

Volosinov wrote:

The idea of the conventionality, the arbitrariness, of language is  a typical one for rationalism as a whole. . . . What interests the mathematically minded rationalists is not the relationship of the sign to the actual reality it reflects or to the individual who is its originator, but the relationship of sign to sign within a closed system already accepted and authorized. In other words, they are interested only in the inner logic of the system of signs itself, taken, as in algebra, completely independently of the meanings that give signs their content.
(2)
---Ideology

Logic becomes a measure of how the self-referential system abides by its original presuppositions, taken as self-evident.
The symbol, one{1} negated by the symbol nil{0}, is the first abstraction in the binary system, corresponding to the neurological on/off process.
It becomes part of a self-referential code/language, remaining loyal to its first resumptions - later, it become a replacement of the phenomenon with value in itself, an ontology of its own: ONE as GOD...God as ONE...
and if one symbol can be so powerfully seductive then why not other words/symbols: LOVE/GOD...VALUE as ONTOLOGY as GOD.
Value-selfing, or Value as Creator.
First came the word, and God with a million names - any word can be made God...with the only criterion that it seduce, can be popular...and so only "positive" words find success and become religion...but first you must become a cult.
A cult needs an IDOL...and if not Jesus, then why not Nietzsche the Idol-breaker?
Irony of ironies.
Ollie as Saul.
JJ as Jesus...JJJ.
Pezer one of the apostles.  

Is there not a numerologically, neurotically, obsessed douche-bag, claiming to have the solution to everything, part of the clan of hooded "philosophers"?
Not much distance between declaring the symbol of a number, and its combination, as more than representational, but as possession an intrinsic value, to that of claiming a word, any word, as having instinctive value.
Same psychosis at work.
In a desperate attempt to find power in some hidden secret, out there, the mind grasps upon its own fabrications, looking for pattern in how these relate to each other, rather than patterns and how those relate, outside the mind.
The numerologist is obsessed with its closed system of numerical symbols, and the cAnus obsessed with relationships and how subjectivity relate to each other - both excluding the world, and how the symbols refer to it.
A Messiah appears to gather them all, and direct them - a shaman teacher...with a "positive" word as his banner.
"Good tidings, brothers and ...brothers"...no converted sisters yet, the power of the word untested still - women do not commit so easily: they are more skeptical and paranoid, more cynically pragmatic.
Power is promised, value, great things, and the boys come running from far and wide...hoping this will lead to their own ascent; hoping they can belong to a strong pride/tribe/pack/clique, that will dominate all others.    

To synthesize Nietzsche and the Jew God, almost Hellenized with Jesus, the word "power" has to be converted to another, more Christian word....
No "love" would be too obvious...something fresh and new...."value" let's say.
The verb-noun of defeat/victory, good/bad, superior/inferiority.
Let's declare it existing, having an ontology of its own, and not as metaphorical, symbolizing existence.  

Hawkes, David wrote:

‘Primitive’ societies, in other words, have not succumbed to the fatal divorce of subject and object which constitutes the central problem for Western philosophy. Of course, for Hegel and Marx this split is itself illusory, and testifies to a mode of fetishism which is no less superstitious than the animistic world-view.
While capitalism objectifies the subject, animism subjectifies the object. The result is a strange convergence between ostensibly distinct modes of thought, so that animistic beliefs can be used to make sense of the ideological effects produced by market capitalism.

---Ideology

Returning to animism deals with capitalism's objectification of the subjective.
Nihilists on the level of cAnus annul it all, attempting a marriage between Judeo-Christian morality and Marxist materialism.

To clean this cultural garbage, pilnig up until we lose sight of the origin of words and what they referred to, we must go back to the beginning and re-connect each word, separately, before we combine them into complex structures, to the real.
Detach the noumenon from its Modern reference point to other noumena, and complex unities of abstractions with no reference to anything outside the brain, and then re-attach the noumenon/abstraction to the phenomenon.

What will remain as pure abstraction, idea, can now find reference to that which has been connected - returned back to its original function, returning to its original value.
If we do not do this, then charlatans like JJ will continue to seduce weak, naive, minds, like Pezer, and Ollie, exploiting an innate need, represented as power, or love, or value.

Hawkes, David wrote:

There is really nothing new in this mode of ideological indoctrination:
Marx discusses a similar use of representation in The Eighteenth Brumaire, as we saw in Chapter 4. However, it may well be that the development  of technology, the extent of mass communications, and the increased research into marketing and advertising techniques, have established this mythical use of representation on a firmer basis today than ever before.

Representation becomes indistinguishable from reality to the degree that the commodity form obscures the true nature of things. One way of defining ‘the postmodern condition’ is as the state of mind which results from the final triumph of the commodity, the ultimate victory of exchange-value, and thus the elevation of representation over reality.

---Ideology

This last quote exposes JJ and his clan of dimwit hoodie philosophers, exchanging D&D fantasy role-playing messages, the best.

Through an intended series of fixed arithmetic operations equating selectively randomized variables of measurement I was able to approximately calculate the exact same time of a different time zone.

Hrodeberto wrote:

Through an intended series of fixed arithmetic operations equating selectively randomized variables of measurement I was able to approximately calculate the exact same time of a different time zone.

Well then, there's your "value".

The last two posts were brilliant. Berto's completely unrelated random comment out of nowhere about calcating time zones, then satyr's snapping disgruntfully "well then there's your value".

That is how it's done, folks. Forum satire at its best. This is the future of forum philosophy.

Hrodeberto's avatar. Superb.

I saw numerology and got all excitirical, Zooty Cooty. I was all: "mathematical."

Greece, and what is happening there, at this very minute, is the prefect example of how Marxist liars, hypocrites, and charlatans, like JJ, exploit naive Nihilists, who after decades of lying and thieving, now think they are entitled, convinced that their idiocy deserves special consideration.
Voting in liars, for 30 years, and living the "good life" on borrowed money, they now project the blame on those THEY voted in, because they told them what they wanted to hear, and allowed them to continue living off debt...because, in their minds, everyone except them, are idiots.
See...this is choseness.
Whomever told them the truth, over those 30 years, they ridiculed, and did not vote into office.
Those who told them what they wanted to hear, became their heroes.

Know what JJ said about SYRIZA when it was first elected?
That it would sweep in a new wind.
That these crypto-Marxists, not unlike his crypto-Judaism, would bring in a revival in Europe.
This is the kind of idiot we are dealing with.

A half-wit, who in his forties, makes vids of his martial arts, striking at air, and exhaling with violence...like the words he uses...all hot air.
Who does he attract?
Naive, effete, desperate, men-children, looking for a father figure, power, masculinity, a lost heritage.
Who does he fuck?
Do the...math.

I urge you to watch all his "philosophy" vids.
It's a class on neurosis, and the effects of Modernity; of Nihilism using words, void of content, full of promises, emotion, passion - subjectivity grasping on symbols/words, to find salvation.
Feeling pride in humility, power in submission.
How many "new" ways will they devise to harmonize Hellenism, as the height of paganism, with Judaism, through Christian/Islam?

They've made Nietzsche into their idol of decay, like they once made Jesus the symbol of the reverse of what he preached.

He sent Pezer, thinking Igor was easy, like one would a dog, to seduce Lyssa away from the undeserving one, and then called him back, like a pet,, when Pezer was getting his arse kicked, and JJ feared he would lose him to another master.
How many errors in judgment can you make before you begin questioning the value of your thinking?
How many defeats can you redefine as victories?
How much stupidity can you convince others was your genius?

Fixed - my slave4ever&ever wrote:

Specially for the slow Lizzie: a horse has 4 legs, not everything with 4 legs is a horse.

It is simply true that latent homosexuals are terrified of drugs. Not everyone who is terrified of drugs is a latent homosexual.
Still, being terrified of drugs, weed in particular, or adamantly against them, is to me a sure sign of a psyche that is terrified of itself.

Take me as a shaman. Avoid me.

-

Hmmmm... Lyzzie... I don't see any logic there.

-

Lyssa, I forgot I flushed you.
My only possible response to you at this point is sharing stomach acids, but even these are too good for you. I've never seen such pure resentment, truly.

It was an interesting biological experiment. Philosophy is after all a matter of biology.  

Our correspondence is closed.

-

Li'l Erik thought some random girl was me because her name was spelt Lisa. He so wanted her to be me, he decided I was. Looks like Fixed almost begs and insists that I officially announce him my next slave boy. So be it, if that's how hard you want it, benighted knight…

Maybe from now on whoever critiques or even just questions Fixed - my slave4ever&ever on his opinions using dots and dashes will be Lyssa, because that is his self-valuing in.. sanity.
Or maybe from now on, Fixed can continue being an escapist, dismissing anybody, simply claiming them to be Lyssa.

Personally, I couldn't care to denounce this slave's entertainment and his circuss act of how well he can "see through the veil", but just so someone else's discussions and interactions on that asylum ILP aren't thwarted, for the record, I am Not "Is_Yde_opN".

As for my being poor and wretched and other accu..zzzzz..ations, that's how Xts. denounced the non-believers of their faith...
Their Value-Xt. !

That's right. VXt.

Value-Xtians like Fixed and his ilk speak of Satyr and I being dirt, filth, exploding toilets, but these are your typical Flies_Yde_opN.

lol

Flies in the market-place…

Nietzsche wrote:

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

"Where solitude endeth, there beginneth the market-place; and where the market-place beginneth, there beginneth also the noise of the great actors, and the buzzing of the poison-flies.

In the world even the best things are worthless without those who represent them: those representers, the people call great men.
Little, do the people understand what is great—that is to say, the creating agency. But they have a taste for all representers and actors of great things.

Around the devisers of new values revolveth the world:—invisibly it revolveth. But around the actors revolve the people and the glory: such is the course of things.
Spirit, hath the actor, but little conscience of the spirit. He believeth always in that wherewith he maketh believe most strongly—in himself!

Tomorrow he hath a new belief, and the day after, one still newer. Sharp perceptions hath he, like the people, and changeable humours.
To upset—that meaneth with him to prove. To drive mad—that meaneth with him to convince. And blood is counted by him as the best of all arguments.
A truth which only glideth into fine ears, he calleth falsehood and trumpery. Verily, he believeth only in gods that make a great noise in the world!
Full of clattering buffoons is the market-place,—and the people glory in their great men! These are for them the masters of the hour." [TSZ, Flies]

VXts., the masters and the alpha-philosophers of the hour…




Fixed, you lost respect for me?!  
I was not the one with blushing with shame and cowardice unable to answer which drug-thug enlarged consciousness for all humanity…and then disguise my inability to not answer with further obfuscations through every other topic, false smearings and dumb ass charades, all except the most pertinent: The Missing Ontology, the missing unicorn Fixed…

Pezer can continue waiting for verbs, when to Act honourably against your false lie easily falls on his deaf ear and passes him by and he can also continue doing more imp. things like model around and showcase closed-eyes trance-poses to drums as if he attained nirvana…,,, but you Fixed, tell me what you know of Honour among Thieves?
Bribing me with religious solutions, a Faith, a theology, a sweet Shorbot like some Mullah!! in stead of something truly worthy of this crisis and this pressure, is as decrepit as sticking a chewing gum to close a hole, a wee-O !
Its too dishonourable even for a thief like you…
You might as well tell me Allahu Akbar and to value Xt. That's how backwards you are.

But wait…, you just did, no?!

Crown yourself alpha, dress up retards in false dignity clothes, play Rogers and Roger that.. and bandits, make movies, let BTL productions present Jack and Ass, sell books, sell soft drinks, spread V.-Xt, be a good missionary, tell people how they should be and behave for their own benefit and covertly dub "I value for you" as "self-valuing", spin more lies with spinoza, do whatever, I dont care…,, just reserve enough to know those who want more than easy consolations that hurt their pride are indeed poor, and very much like their poverty. Alas, all you see is glitter.

Stay decrepit Hag...gard.

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

Fixed cant decide if blacks raise the value of Xt. [via cRap music] more, or Xt. raises the value of blacks [via healing rapturous pastors]…  ha….

He is utterly lost, but he will find his way through self-christening, I mean christ-valuing, I mean self-valuing…


The dizziness that urban shamanism induces is quite exemplary.

Raising one's self-value can take the route of finding those who you consider beneath you, but will not admit it not even to yourself, and then flatter them, raising their esteem in those who are listening, and in yourself, so as to raise self indirectly.
A similar practice is applied when flattering our friends, who like us.
By flattering them we indirectly affirm their judgment of us.

On a side matter...I never thought you would dare use that avatar again.

Some news for Fixed:

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

Lyssa wrote:

Some news for Fixed:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ha!!!
That's so.....sad, that's what it is, tragic.
Such a valuable artist, a fine Negro intellect, falling on hard times?
I will send the amount I place on his overall value.....which is.....ummmm let's see, times 2, carry the 4, divide by 3.....there it is 0.
The satanic place-holder for the self-evident, self-valuing...one.

We are all fractions of this oneness.

You have to read every singe tweet [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], esp. the fur part, ha

you get the idea why its him and not somebody else, so perfect for VXt.

It's amazing how culture, the meme, works its way to the surface... like a latent gene, triggered by some environmental condition.
This is a typical American psychosis, spreading across the globe of “culture of no culture”. Negroes, being the most base, child-like, variant are the ones who display it openly, innocently.
It consists of self-aggrandizement, trash-talk, declarative statements, proclamations of victory, of enduring, of surviving.
The only thing Negroes can produce, these days, are me-me, bling-bling, and crying out "we shall overcome" lamentations; trinkets and flashy clothing, cars, impressive vocabulary and unique vernacular, delivered in the right tone of voice, overcompensating for a clear and distinct absence of substance, of quality, and qualities.
The absence of past, of inheritance, cleansed, and baptized, in the melting-pot of American-style "individualism"; the abolition of naturally based identities, "liberates" the mind to seek self in the immediate, the shallow, the animalistic, the primal, the consumer world of fashion trends.
Males from other races are seduced by this victim-based salve pride – defeat converted to a de facto victory.
Everything is inverted, words have definitions and no meaning – they can be placed in any order, as long as they remain aesthetically pleasing, experienced emotionally, stay true to the beat, of the heart.
Feeling good, being made to feel good, is the only goal, it is being good – everything and everyone judged by this standard.

Negroes are so proud that American "culture" is dominated by their erotic jungle-beats, their word-associations, and sampling, recycled, repackaged libidinal ecstasies raising the body’s temperature to a fever pitch.
The ladies love them for it.
Now white men with no fathers, no family, no children, no solid sense of self, having faced some kind of traumatic personal experience, having tasted the harshness of existence on their own, are falling into the same patterns.
American “exceptionalism” harmonizing with Jewish "choseness" – a feeling of destiny, fate determined by some mysterious secret, tapped into and funnelled as personal expression, a revelry chanted in church with spasmodic rhythms – as if it were all predestined, written in some cosmic ledger with magical lettering; something extraordinary is occurring and the individual is the personification of the divine – through him god speaks, he is channeling power.
Don't they always thank Jesus from the podium of their communal acknowledgements?
Proud to be god’s minion, to be blessed with magnitude, to belong to the “higher” and remain humbly-arrogant in its embrace.

Those who "talk to the dead" and re-experience past lives, cannot help but be descendants of kings, great men and women in past lives, because they are less than adequate in the present one.
The needy-one must find in himself importance, and if he cannot he will fabricate it, using words – cRap is a construction of image with no reasoning, no justification... pure subjective revelation:
“I am what I declare myself to be, I am what I think of myself as being. I am my own master. I am God!” Delivered with an anger that dares you to respond.
So says the slave to himself, while his inner voice is muted.
A king of kings, representing his own aristocracy; he is the exceptional all is measured by. Each man and woman a world of its own – subjectivity being the personal relationship with the absolute, where no evidence is needed – only a testament of faith.
All rightful heirs of largeness, all children of immensity, because their true origins are lost in time, or too small, too tiny to be heard in the noise, too embarrassing to impress the masses in these days of hyper-reality.

The only way to make it "big" in this world is to think big, or go home.
Be as impressive, as gigantic, as over-the-top awesome as possible; be marketable, useful to as many as possible, because identity is now a human reflection, where world means world of man, and reality means society, and philosophy means politics, and value means utility.
Convince others and you are that which they believe you to be – the cosmos is fooled, death is escaped.
All ambitions go through mass appeal – peddling yourself to as many potential shoppers as possible, for as high a price as possible; a game of erotic display and feminine seduction – the whore must be purchased at the going price of a lady.
The secret of success is to expand your market base.
Appearance is superficial, irrelevant, it's all about the look.
Make them look, twice, one to notice and the second to appreciate.

Fixed wrote:

Now youre hooked on my threads like Lyssa was

Never seen a prey feel so proud of being the target of a sharp-shooter… hilarious

love. 15. 30. 40. game. set. match. submission. Lyssa.  Can you remember that, kitten?

Dearest wrote:

And they are a bit similar to Lys, unthat they think I am a lretty who has no real substance

Nothing better than words to put in my mouth? how very sad… ;p
If anything, I never said you were substance-less dearest; rather, you are too substance-fuooll...

And they called him Mr.Co-Cain, Mr.citizen Cain
although, you act more like a Heroin

Fixed wrote:

I consider SMs posts to be very intrusive, misguided, banal and they cause me nausea. I wish for her to stop addressing me as if she is a standard of whats decent or wholesome. Same with Lys and Satyr.

Its good to see the lessons I gave you are showing results. Nice and receptive. Good girl Fixed. Like when I educated your attempted intrusion with the piano example, on how duplicitous it is to value on behalf For another, in the deceptive pretext of raising another to 'their' self-value…

Now you know better, than to go around telling people who to f--- and where to be and a, b, see?

Now if Fixed wants to give my education to him, to others as if it were his own, I have no issues with credits. You can have it all.

Fixed wrote:

Lyssa came from a broken home, a dominant, theatrical father who never made the slightest bit of sense to her, but who thrilled her.

She was intimate with her mother, girls amongst each other. She has sisters, no brothers.

Lots of business with animals and significant objects. No significant lovers - her older sister showed her how horrible that game is. What pieces of shit men are, except daddy.
Now she found a way to reconcile daddy and shit-men. To have the upper hand over her sisters, all is fair.

Thats a funny way of asking me to do your reading…

Your birth time is between 10am to 12 pm. hmm.

Quote :

It will be no religion, as it it is cruel, it takes away all certainty. This is why Constant hates it, I assume - it is certainly what Lyssa cant except. The human entity is a condition of consistent valuing over a long period of time which develops in the way we understand as Evolution.

Your cock-tale, your narrative, your intoxication. Suit yourself, like you did when you were "certain" that Is_Yde_OpN was I…  
Your sagi sags, sauerkraut.. keep it taut!

One more time. You have no way of showing how an entity has been consistently "valuing" itself without already presuming a priori in a self-referential loop, that to simply be is already a value. In which case, there is nothing to determine something has indeed evolved when the presumption has already been put in place that be…ing is already valuable…   See?  This is what makes it so religious. The Certainty YOU import and Fix into place a priori, Fixed.

That kind of certainty is the religious impulse that says "all is Already valuable", "all is Already precious"…
The universe is indifferent. The cosmos is man-made. N. modelled his ER as a western form of Buddhism, seeing in it, the max. ontology one could say to describe the world.
I do not hold subjectivity as a false path and neither did N.; but it is the 'concept' of the Self which makes the subjective process a possibly narcissistic or solipsistic one. Atomizing the self as a self-preserving closed system in terms of conatal coherence, is inevitably going to lead to a narcissistic and hedonistic world view. It is not the subjective route, but the conception of self that is at fault here.

V-Xt. deflates any selective pressure by making any be…ing valuable. By this piece of Plotinian religiosity, any creep just by maintaining self-coherency becomes a victor.

How can such all-levelling be any Niezschean project? Spinoza is a dead-end and a failed solution; dont look back. Long back farther.


Andddd, shouldn't you be looking into how you got owned by some Hallelulah pastor before making videos declaring who you own? Just saying...

Was going to post this....but I was perma-banned...

Oh well...

Quote :

How to reinvent Judeo-Christian/Islamic Nihilism, and resell it to a Modern, cynical infantile crowd = preaching to the choir, already primed after centuries of the same imagery, and linguistic detachments.

1- Take a word, a positive one, like "love", or "pleasure", or "value".
Mystify it by keeping it vague, and outside space/time - detached.
Love = creation....value-selfing, love-selfing, self-loving.
The word, referring to a sensation, is placed before creation, outside space/time ([size=85]from it space-time emerges[/size]) - before self, when you would normally place it after, as expression of organism - self/ego.

Love as creating force.
Love-Selfing, self-loving = christian ontology
Pleasure as defining word.
Self-pleasing, pleasuring-self... masturbation.

Consider the words - value - positive, it can be mystified, or simply mean "type" which exposes its simplicity - ον...Greek for Being...λογος - logos = word, to speak, reason.
Value as the being of word.
The word, as symbol, detached from world as process, has being as language. Word exists in language.
But it can now be returned to its utility as representation, and then back to word symbol referring to itself.
Sometimes referring to patterns, the apparent ([size=85]exoteric[/size]), then back to referring to self ([size=85]esoteric[/size]) - it is everything and nothing.
Self determines it.
Perspectivism - a new way of defending the prominence of subjectivity.

God as the singular expressed in multiplicity - all is one, one is all.
In all god, in all value.
God ontology - Being Being in/through word/language.
God of many names....pleasure, love, kindness, value.
Secularization means abandoning the restrictive word "God" - Modernizing Nihilism, for a new, more cynical, generation.
All have value, meaning do, in them. God/Value/love, expressed through them - using words/language.
Subjectivity as God.

2- Accept a secularized understanding, Nihilism minus the anthropomorphous image, the God.
Now get rid of "sin", the challenge, anything that excludes, caused pain, anxiety....the last excluding concept.
All are saved, all have value, all are loved, in and of themselves.
Each within his own perspective. Each in self, with self...no external standard to live-up to, like a connection to phenomena, to world.
No proof, just declaring authority - I am...valuable, I am loved, I am God.
The "positive" word preferential, stirring emotion, connected to esoteric needs, reasons, reasoning.

3- Confuse/Convolute the word, so that it can mean anything to anyone, or anything at any time.
It is rational, empirical, and mystical, spiritual; it is all and nothing.
If you "get it", your "heart open" then you understand - let Jesus into your heart and then the Christian bullshyte will make sense.
If you do not, you will be accused of not "getting it".
For Christians any critique is based on not understanding Scripture, on not letting God into your heart - it is complex for an infidel, and very easy for a true-believer.
It is a feeling, a sensation - uncanny genius.
For Muslims only the believer has a soul, a heart, value.
For the Jew only their clan has been chosen.

4- Be universal, all-inclusive, no single understanding, if it is accepting, is wrong... all are right, in their own way - self-valuing.
If you can survive, you are valuable....ergo a pedophile is self-valuing when his pedophilia survives.
A Down Syndrom child, if it survives, is valuable.
Bacteria surviving a nuclear war are more valuable than humans who will not.
Therefore, less sophistication is a value, if you market it, if you manage to sell it to others - infectiousness.
Viral tenacity is valuable, therefore popularity is a measure of value.
Christians point to their own dogma's popularity as proof that it is "true".

5- Not defining the word conventionally means it is malleable.
Disconnecting the symbolism from the noetic connections to phenomena, eludes detection.
The symbol, triggering esoteric forces, feelings memories, sensations, desires, is enough.
To connect it to a noumenon, that then refers to a phenomenon, would limit its appeal, its force, its magic.
You can use it to describe crypto-Christianity, and then use it to describe process ontology.
The word is magical, it can mean anything, as the meaning is dependent on the self...self-valuing.
It can mean dynamic energy, pattern, Will, it can mean love, pleasure, God... creativity is an expression of self-valuing.
All definitions acceptable if they begin with accepting value as the starting premise.
First there was the word and the word was... love?
No, God?
No... now it is "value".
Plausible deniability ensured... when value-selfing becomes embarrassing, deny it...when coming across another superior perspective, appropriate it, and claim that is what VO is: Christianize Nietzsche, Jewify Paganism, because it is whatever the self values, and what gives value to the self.

No word has meaning in and of itself.
It refers to something outside the mind, where it it exists as a neurological pattern.
It may refer to a book of myths expressing a memetic ideal, a book of definitions to maintain limits that make communication possible; it may symbolize a noumenon/abstraction, which may refer to an external phenomenon, the apparent/present, or to a phenomenon such as a feeling/emotion, an internal sensation, which, in turn, is the product of an external phenomenon; it may symbolize a noumenon/abstraction which in turn refers to a noumenon/abstraction in another mnid, or in a text, or some other art form.

In the case of the word/symbol/metaphor "value", it has no innate value, ironically, but refers to a value in relation to a goal, an objective, an idea(l) - it indicates motive: movement towards, an ambition.
the word value has no meaning outside of this relationship.

If, on the other hand, the word "value" is used as a metaphor, a substitute for some other word, such as "god", "love", "substance", "type", "pattern", then it is representational, twice removed from the represented.
It transfers the representation to itself.
If it is then taken literally, then it is either confusing, or purposefully manipulating, using this transference.

On-Line Etymology wrote:

val·ue
Origin

Middle English: from Old French, feminine past participle of valoir ‘be worth,’ from Latin valere .

The dictionary provides limits, or the starting connection. Any metaphorical usage ought to maintain this starting contact with the original relationship of word with phenomenon, because if it does not then it risks confusing the issue either purposefully, or accidentally.
To "value" is a relationship of observer, observed, in relation to objective - triangulation.
This indicates intent, without ensuring it.
An organism evaluates other-ness in relation to its primary intent of self-preservation, or its secondary intent of self-replication - this evaluation may be intuitive, programmed genetically, and need not be lucid: it values other, estimating its "worth", in relation to its needs, its desires.
In more complex/sophisticated organisms this evaluation is in relation to the organism's projected idea(l)s that may contradict self-preservation, and self-replication, but nevertheless intend some sort of identification with the outcome, the objective.
In this case the organism identifies, self, with this intended goal.

If the word "value" is used in lieu of another, more appropriate term, as a metaphor, to indicate a vibration, energy, pattern, a substance, a God, then it is misused and ought not to be taken literally, but metaphorically.

On-Line Etymology wrote:

judge
Origin

Middle English: from Old French juge (noun), juger (verb), from Latin judex, judic-, from jus ‘law’ + dicere ‘to say.’

To speak of a law, a pattern, to evaluate, other, or idea(l)s: noumena.
One evaluates, ascribes value, by juxtaposing - self with other, other with other, self and/or other with intent/objective/ideal.

How does one evaluate?
Using outcome. Not theory, not intent, but outcome - this is the most obvious way and so the best way.
If this way is impossible, or the mind wishes to avoid the risks, then the secondary, less certain, method is to compare the potential objective (outcome) with alternate penitential outcomes - intended/possible benefit, versus possible costs.
To be more precise, and objective, eliminating corrupting factors ,such as emotions, prejudices, and so on, one can use precedent; judging/'evaluating cost/benefits to other, when the intent is the same.
If this is impossible, or if an additional supportive justification is required, then the third options is to evaluate the noumenon/abstraction's connections to the world, the phenomenal (inter)activity, the presence (objective): quantity of reference pints, meaning quality of judgment/evaluation: perspective, subjectivity.

Again, theoretical, is inferior to pragmatic application, and outcome, consequences of cost/benefit to the judging/evaluating, organism.
A further factor is sheltering...the protective, intervening force of parent, other, institution, mitigating between outcome and cost/benefit to organism.
Here the motive of the intervening factor should be evaluated/judged, so as to determine the extent and direction of its intervening effect upon the organism.
As an example I offer domestication as the consequence of such an intervention, where the motive is the human need for a productive and malleable organism.

Other examples include, feminization, institutionalization, socialization, education, training, Americanization, Nihilism, Marxism, Abrahamism....politics in general.

What is fundamental to life, and for this reason the central topic of philosophy, is not these words games, or strategies to disseminate excess equally, but when it comes to real costs/befits, when austerity forces severity, and cynicism no longer applies, then things becomes a matter of life and death. Then children debating how to equalize resource dissemination, has the gravitas of sacrifice, and risk.
Then morons like the turd calling itself Jacob, no longer sell.
There is no debate, no word-games, to romantic idealism, no spiritual lingo, to create a trend, and help imbeciles deal with a life they've shown no proof that they deserve.

All this is a product of excess. Resource abundance, where generosity is another word, and so is value, and love.
It's why characters like Jesus and Socrates have such an impact amongst the well-fed, protected, reassured, spoiled, pampered masses of idiots.
All words are theoretical. There is no real-life understanding attached to them.
It's all about impressing your fellow human, and getting laid...not life and death.
It's all political, fantasy, how does one seduce, make an impact, raise one's social status.

The cost to lying is minimal----reputation at most.
What's there to debate with such creatures?

They exist in a world detached from reality - a human, man-made world, where cost/benefit means sexual gratification, karma, fame and fortune, appreciation, access to resources, including females.
There is a difference in contexts.
The word "philosophy" changes meaning.

Because, in theory, all is worth contemplating, since it has no cost.
all can be humored, all can be give then "benefit of the doubt"...all is plausible, in mind protected from consequences, - where cost is insignificant - all is possible,, and so why not choose according to taste, pleasure potential, self-flattering value possibility?
Then, it's all a game, a matter of coming up with the moist fun, entertaining, all-inclusive, scenario.

Why would you choose otherwise, if you were not "evil" and "sick"; someone who just hated mass participation, happiness, humanity?
Why not choose according to whim, creativity, how pleasing the game is?
There's no long term cost...it's all fun and games...how to make all happy; how you can be the most popular.

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

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

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

What is sad is to wake up to the realization that the idea you use to declare yourself a "genius", a "teacher" is no more than a new way of saying what has been already said by another.
When you become aware of this, you try to reinvent it as something mystical, give it meanings you cannot defend, imply something you then must back down from, so as to not look foolish or insane.
It's the problem of writing out a check your ass can't clover.
The number might be impressive, may be written out to shock, to impress, but in the end it accomplishes the opposite when it is time to pay the piper.

And this is why giving him a few parting kicks in the butt, is so fun.
Sure, the man-child will recuperate, and his little friends will raise him up on their shoulders and cheer, and all of it will be infantile and adorable, but all children';s games also have a sense of sadness, nostalgia, about them, and also of danger, when you realize the toys they are using are loaded, and someone might get hurt when one of the plastic bullets finds an eye.

So, here's a raised glass of appreciation to a man-child unintentionally funny.
God bless you boy.
All towns need a fool.

VO's "ontology" is simple - it has been done.
The buffoon takes what has already been stated and then changes the words, declaring himself a "rightful heir", and a "teacher".
Then he injects mysticism, to hide the plagiarism - New Age bullshyte, a selective mix of Judeo-Christian/Islamic positive nihilism.
A hypocrite, a liar...another wannabe Messiah appealing to the lost men-children, and brain-dead imbeciles that are found in abundance in our Modern world.

When the ontology is exposed as plagiarism he runs into the vagueness of his spiritualism, and when the spiritualism is exposed as pure Judeo-Christian/Islamic positive Nihilism, adopting different language/metaphors, he flees back to the ontology.... and back and forth...always misunderstood, always accusing the other, for his weakness.

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

Clarifying VOt for Slaughtz who I think has misunderstood it, or atleast my critique of it.

My critique of VOt does Not stem from a Rationalist's view-point, which takes survivalism as prime base and then considers common sense in the reductive frame of black/white scenarios as criterion of health. The Dionysian aesthetic is not concerned with such.


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


To Freud and Nietzsche, consciousness is only a thin film that emerges as a result of the war of drives going on in the unconscious. Consciousness develops as a by-product rising to get a better perspective of the phenomenal world in order to organize the chaotic drives at bottom into a 'self', a 'unity'.

This is similar to the picture of the Nordo-Germanic tree of life, where you have the realm of all the subterranean forces at the bottom, the human world in the middle, and the divine realm of fatal forces on top:

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

As much as there are entropic forces, there is also a resistive impulse of galactic forces which exceptionally stabilized into life-sustaining atmospheric gases and the sun and the moon and oceans and metals with magnetic fields and so forth..., finally foaming into blood and organs and organ-memories, etc.
Reality is a becoming [flux] with temporal rates of persistence [flow] according to the quantum of force it is.

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

Just as there is an ultra-violet and infra-red range of radiations falling above and below the range of our spectrum of perception that we adapted to,, there are both sub-terranean and super-phenomenal forces - which makes up phenomena. Not just the terrestrial human range, but forces operating at other ranges, which pressure us to ex-press them out as patterns, as a presence.

Consciousness is a discriminate reaction to these pressures and is a product of it.
It is the first 'fabrication'.
The man who climbs away from all the clamor of battle to a tower has a better perspective and ad-vantage.
There is a point during the tumult of forces, where part of the forces thus separate out like a thin fabric or film of tranquility oblivious to all the clamor below in order to secure clear vantage points.

Forces of attraction and repulsion dissolving alliances and forming alliances in multiple 'directions', compromising, dominating, subordinating, - playing out a whole matrix of (dis)arrangements and configurations to gradually integrate into a sense-consciousness receiving and providing signals from the phenomenal world… and thus with increasing efficiency to A self-integrity, a core-self.

The clamor of the war of the drives, of which we know nothing of, and can only intuit when consciousness begins to increasingly reflect upon itself - self-consciousness, is why geniuses eventually go mad, when the threshold of their 'fabrication' comes undone, tears apart, and why consciousness must sometimes be kept from knowing itself too soon and too quickly. To carry on temporarily bypassing this consciousness, suspending judgement is what we mean by self-trust.
We let in on our 'secrets' not all at once and not altogether. In other words, a certain amount of self-deceit is necessary as we 'fumble' our way in the dark, and once we find a 'clearing', a 'path', we will to develop courage to make-do without these self-deceits,, like ascending or descending a flight of stairs without the 'support' of the railings.
We attain to a higher self(-integrity).

But as we saw in my recent post on BIID,
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Body-Integrity-Identity-Disorder, cases where the body and consciousness is unable to cohere into a self-conscious unity, tells us there is a war going on at bottom, and no necessity that this war would always result in a stable form.

Mutations and disintegrations are the norm. Efficient stabilities are the exception.
Disorder is norm, and order is rare.

In that sense, wherever an order reigns, we may say Apollo has gotten the upper hand.

And this is where VOt goes wrong.

They consider be-ing a 'victory', a 'valuable'. And using this as starting-point, as 'ground' they then develop backwards. Order is a positive, the first prime, self-clenched, whose self-valuing is measured by the degree of force it takes entropy to dismantle or dis-integrate this cohesion.
They conclude from here, that value is ontological ground of all existence, right up to the inorganic universe. A pan-psychic universe.
From which follows the whole hedonistic ethics of Plotinian Spinoza/Leibniz.

The temporal stability - the sense of a 'self' is a triumph and therefore a primal 'design'. Any deviation from this "original structural integrity" leads to pain and disharmony, an undoing of coherence.
The picture that evolves is an entity continually maintaining itself [conatus/self-preservation], and slowly building into a density, a duration, a persistence.
This 'wall' as armour against entropy.

After I pointed out the pure performative hedonism in that model, they improved their position to a more Nietzschean one, where an entity to gain efficiency cannot but confront higher and higher entropic reality, as a result of which, its "original structure" may even be undone, it may experience death, and whether it rises to re-stabilize into a more efficient/elastic configuration or collapse and dissolve away altogether is matter of self-selection, or 'self-valuing' - "how much lust do you have for life to self-organize into a more efficient structure?"
Psyching up to adaptation: to what extent can you set terms and prevail in this world - the self as a creative force, is a degree of lust for life, self-love.
Our conscious values are products of our excess, in the sense of this lust to confront entropy at its max. excessive swell - higher and higher reality.
"How much truth can you dare?..."

It sounds right, and it is, except when you note how Nietzsche is adjusted under the Plotinian premise of first taking order as valuable, as a positive. nature=god.

This way, when an entity does 'die' and re-stabilize into a higher form, they can say, the new form is an avatar of the "original structural integrity", much like in a fractal. Where a small design at a lower level accumulates other factors in interaction and coheres as a variation built upon that design, in the higher plane. So what may 'appear' random may very well be a design in a 'continuous chain of being':

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


From there, its just one step to making a case for a self-valuing universe.


What's wrong in this picture is many things.

1. One cannot declare order as a valuable or a positive at the ontological level, because, since there is only becoming, no value to anything can be fixed - such an absolute vantage is lacking.
But because they acknowledge there are no absolutes, they resort to taking all being as valuable. But then as all being is valuable, it makes the concept of value itself redundant.


2. They can only make the above assumption at the religious level, where the founding of a kosmos [not universe] rests on the demarcation of life as sacred and disorder as profane.
At the ontological level [and ontology means the study of existence, the 'ground' of being in Relation to Reality which is pure becoming], such an assumption wont hold, since nature is truly indifferent to life or death.
It cares not who or what survives.


3. Within the religious sense, still it is wrong, because not every order is automatically positive, automatically a victory.
Many a creature can survive and continues to survive with deceit or sheltering or other means - such coherence is not automatically a victory; if it is, and everything is already valuable just for existing, then any idiot and his perspective stands to a valuable, making the concept of value and selection, a non-sense.


4. It is argued by them that an ontology only explains the state of be-ing and does not dictate what is or is not noble.

Yet, the state of be-ing itself would disintegrate if did not posit for itself obstacles against which it can resist to grow, overcome, flourish.
It is the creative force itself that draws For itself the highest norms.
The more self-selected an entity, the more it as-pires for the highest Norms for Its resistance.
Else any creature can utilize any quality of obstacle to raise itself.
Rather the highest be-ing corresponds to the highest selecting standards it is capable of, as resistance to select itself.
A higher be-ing not just values to Its utmost, but it values to The utmost, The highest standard attained so far.
The quality of ideals protracted into the future, is based on how much of the highest standard it can incorporate.
A Leibnizian ontology that leaves everything to its own state of being is actually promoting an anarchy, and deselecting pressure, cooling down the conditions for agonistic affirmation. Its why I have said VOt in short as the "absolutization of relativism" is a dysgenics. Which brings us to the last point, in this context anyway;


5. One cannot have an ideology that at the same time says:

"everything tries to value to its utmost", and also say,

"nothing should impose its value on another".

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

An entity that tries to value to its utmost, Will have to impose its value on another, appropriating it to its terms.

At the political level, affirming orthodox judaism, while opposing zionism translates either to a poor intelligence or a hypocrisy.

In other words VOt promotes false hybrids, inducing conflicting loyalties and schizoid affirmations. How is it a zig-zag of Zeus' lightning that is the affirmation through-beyond the good and the bad, which in VOt amounts to avowing judaism but disavowing zionism, as if, they do not have a continuity… and judaism is only example.

It could be any other; for instance, their support for Blues/Tarantino's America, and their opposition to US export-democracy, as if there was no continuous logic between the two.

Or again, when they praise the self-valuing of an entrepreneur's creative enterprise, while condemning vampire-capitalism that turns people into sitting ducks, as if the two do not share a continuity when played out to its logical end.

You see?

Its because of selecting certain parts from here and certain parts from there, just as Xt. did, there is a schizoidness to VOt, which can compel one to agreeing while self-contradicting at the same instance.

When they state they cannot understand why "we hate them", when what they want and fight for is a world, where man values himself and is not rendered an impotent consumer, its because they do not care to see it is their ideal of a world, where all the things that promote the Sartrean freedom of self as continuous project is on one side, and all that oppresses and automatically evil is opposed on the other side. Even though Sartre speaks of consciousness preceeding values in a rationalist fashion, while VOt is about values preceeding consciousness, its still the same project of self-creation dependent on human coming together.

When the standard criterion is creative forces on one side and non-creative forces on the other side, it matters little "who" or "what" comes together from their "creativity"…
Its like saying, it matters not what dish one creates as long as the ingredients each one brings, is washed and from their own homes..?!.. as if, that is any guarantee of excellence…
Its the total self-valuing of the human potential unleashing its power, safely sheltered under "unjudgeable".  It is a highly unphilosophical stance, since the philosopher is the type of the max. judge.

This is opposite to Nietzsche who envisioned each coming from an undifferentiated neutral ground of power and differentiating themselves to the max. value, each showing itself, exposed to judgement, for what they are.

VOt makes valuing, flow into a collective-power, and what that humanity can achieve.

WTP makes power open up into stark values, exposing the entire phenomenal history of what an individual as type and summation of history can amount to as a standard-setter… like an atlas carrying the whole of humanity on his shoulders, opening gulfs between him and the past, without disconnecting. He opens a new direction and therefore a new dimension to life.

No healthy creature likes to live under the dictate of someone else, and would like to create the sun of their values to stand under.

Sure. But this cannot be given as law in the form of a "Man exists only as value. Therefore, the valuing of valuing itself is the highest value."

This is a false Ontology, but works as a religion.
It is false because it is false to already assume be-ing as a valuable and then explain being as a valuing activity. Its nothing but a circular loop.

At bottom all is abyss, and there is no ground. Yes, we need to put something there.
A healthy deceit. The self raising itself by its self.
What we can put there is only conditions, create pressures that make man Want to value himself, and those that don't, are selected out.
Lust, intelligence from the heart, is an elevating force to those who have strong senses, and it gives them eyes, clarity, a panoramic view and values born of godly height,, and in those who are the disinherited, the weak, the poor, passion is a devastating force, crushing them as fodder for some higher type.

By already assuming being as a valuable, VOt diminishes pressure.
The conditions that create pressure are war, danger, naturalness, phenomenal forces, beastly [not degenerate animal] vitalities that make one Want to Breed upwards…
This is self-selection.

Unable to dwell on this more.
Bigger fish to fry.