It's obvious. Particularly when she defends his views, trying to associate them with mine to protect my ego, and when he goes to great lengths to seduce her away from the despicable Satyr, who has brainwashed her with his lies. Although I think he cannot quite figure it out, so he assumes whatever.
It's subtle, but there.
- - -
Quote :
[01:55:35 03/12/14] phoneutria : I think you are upsetting lyssa with your outburst of emotion, dear [01:55:56 03/12/14] @ Satyr : really? [01:58:39 03/12/14] phoneutria : it is most uncalled fore [01:58:41 03/12/14] phoneutria : for
----------------------
You can see how she smoothly adds fuel to the fire first, someone she knows at that point will be ready and all too happy to jump on her bandwagon,,, and then in chat, will also be the one to admonish him as if he's gone out of his way, Correcting him,,, when its she who fanned it in him in the first place...
She can't find self-validation unless she exists as one who Corrects others,,, and she can't Correct someone unless she pushes them off trajectory first... and can then appear as the "sensible one" who advises others of proper measure..
On this basis,, will rest her argument of how, Civilization is great and "there are places where women is superior" and if men don't recognize and listen to women,,, then everything suffers.
Understand the "stupidity" of her convolution.
She argues for female superiority after "correcting", "cooling down" the provocation and the fire she fans...
And I'm the one who's "easily seducible"?? Maybe news to some, but not so. Not by man or woman. She may go unnoticed and get to everyone on this forum and elsewhere, but she'll never get to me... she Knows she can't and that's why tries relentlessly.
Of course, when your own home is in shambles,, you look outward, and "Improving the world" is what you do. If someone wants to jump on her bandwagon and high-five one another in agreement on my motives and relationships, by all means knock yourselves out,,, I have no time for this level of infantilism.
Brazilians and their "novelas"... phoneutria likes to add friction and tries to push things over the edge so things might "go back to normal"( i.e. where things go back to being lukewarm)... She can't handle relationships that are too hot or too cold, where edges become finer at extreme temperatures...So it's all a bit ridiculous that someone like this going to "upset" a much colder relationship... Also, I don't think she believes she was really getting to Satyr but she probably secretly wished she did (i.e. more potential gossip for her to spread if her little timely interjection proves "successful")
_________________ And here we always meet, at the station of our heart / Looking at each other as if we were in a dream /Seeing for the first time different eyes so supreme / That bright flames burst into vision, keeping us apart.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Is it not entertaining to simply watch her spin her webs?
You have to watch where she posts, on ILP, and what she says. She's, always, there, hovering, with a string coming from her but, attaching to one or the other fence rung....ready to fall to the ground or scurry up in any which way.
She wants to prove women are smarter by manipulating men...she finds such pleasure every time she thinks she done it.
The "I don't come here for you" is part of her hunger. Then the "blue collar" comments and the "you are not like Hannibal" chirps. All to get a response...every response a private victory.
She cares not about philosophy because the only world she cares about is the human one...where she thinks of herself as special.
Recall her first entry.... You cannot ignore me...she said...or something like that. You can see it when she taunts: "ignore me" Like a tick who feels powerful when it makes a horse react by whipping its tail.
The home provides few emotional sources for feeding.... She needs to feel the pain in herself, externalized. She wants to see it express itself before her.
Once a male is raped, which would include being mentally fertilized, he wishes to reaffirm his masculinity with gestures of extreme violence towards the weakest of the weak. It is a compensating gesture, meant to absolve him of his earlier weakness in being so penetrated.
He will return to the scene of his shame, to clean away the evidence....which he searches for with his black-light, amongst the sheets.
Value is a process of juxtaposing phenomenon in relation to a goal, an idea(l), a motive guiding it towards a projected desirable outcome. There is no value outside consciousness, and there is no consciousness outside a living organism, making value a relationship of organism to otherness, or organism to world, in reference to a goal that provides the standard of evaluation.
The offering of value as preceding judgment is a Judeo-Christian escape from its own bad consciousness that only serves to outline it more clearly.
The insinuation is that all that exists has the potential of being valuable, for some consciousness, for some, yet to be determined end. It exists and so it has an innate potential just for existing. Only for God is the world a thing, that is valuable in itself because it is the product of His will and His consciousness. If there is no God then phenomena are not valuable in and of themselves. Being a rock is not more valuable than being the wind.
To escape the necessity for a judgmental presence, this newest variant of Nihilism accepts the Judeo-Christian structures and then declares itself free from it to maintain its place within Modernity, or its current manifestation as secular humanism - to remain up-to-date while offering newer, progressive, packaging, for an old nihilistic product.
It accepts the cruelty of human judgment, which makes some more valuable than others, so as to maintain its illusion of being worldly and life-affirming, but then evades a judgment concerning particular traits, by declaring all that exists has value, or is valuable because it exists, which corresponds to the idea that all deserves because it exists. The concept of "all" is itself a construct, and the hopeful message is based on a possibility, that has no reference to anything other than a projection of what might be, as chaos expands towards infinite possibilities. The appeal to ignorance, and the seductive power of progressive Nihilism - nihilism with a smile. As such the only things that lack value are those that never come to be, since the only things that have no possibility, are those that are not (inter)acting.
The juxtaposition here is between what exists and what does not - the one and the nil.
Value is "immanent" as a potential that will be realized for someone, at some place in space/time. Value is a 'yet to be', or 'what might be' easily converted to 'what ought to be' in line with modernity's worshiping of future as the great emancipator from the determining 'what was', and the apparent 'what is'.
This takes judgment outside the space/time continuum, leaving behind a feeble, weak, judgment that has yet to discover value in all things, because it has yet to find a goal that would give all value. A judgment afraid and ashamed of passing judgment, without the qualifiers "for me", or "in my opinion" reducing it to a perspective that is no more or less than any other. For the Christians this goal, motivating their judgments, is God, that gives all value as that judgment outside space/time, for which the world is His idea(l), and the product of His consciousness, judgment, motive. They simply repeat His word, reflecting upon His judgments.
It is not they who judge, but He - and they follow, and repeat. So don't judge them. They've escaped judgment inside reality by becoming mouthpieces for a judgment "outside" reality.
For such a Being all that exists has value indeed, in equal measure, whereas for the participating consciousness remains the unhappy, sinful, work of evaluating from the "inside", using cruelty and discrimination, which is also preserved as the unfortunate outcome of Godly Willfulness. Human judgment but a feeble, sinful, weak judgment in comparison to the all-encompassing, supremely objective judgment of the Divine for whom the world is all-good. Human judgment as being equally feeble, weak and ignorant, and so, human judgment as being equally valuable, and able to evaluate.
"It is good".
The necessity for a judgmental consciousness to bestow upon ALL existence value, is implied, and never stated - the result of resentiment that wishes to avoid the price of existing while preserving its benefits.
But that only a more clever Nihilistic tactic. The most common, used by the most base and average minds is that of comparing unlike traits as if they were equally valuable. for example, for such despicable creatures a lion's strength is superior to a humans, making it superior to humans, and bacteria has a superior constitution and so it is superior to a human, and an ant can reproduce quicker than a human so it is superior.
Any trait it mustered up to escape what trait separates humans from all these creatures and make him superior. Again, the goal is essential in evaluating what is above and what is below, what is desirable and what is undesirable...and if remaining a dumb animal is your goal then an ox is truly ideal, and superior to a human, and if being happy is the goal then remaining ignorant is superior to being aware, and if pleasure is the goal then being degenerate and base is superior to not being so.
It all depends on the motive, directed by a goal, guided by the projection of a desirable outcome.
Now I am not saying what one ought to value, but I am saying that what one does value determines how one behaves, how one (inter)acts; it determines destiny, and what we commonly refer to as fate. Value does not precede the awareness and the projected idea(l), it follows from it. At the root of value and why evaluating judging emerges as a tool for organic life, is need. In relation to this need, and the degree this need attains, as it ebbs and flows, determines the mind's evaluation of the perceived, and it then guides the projection of a desirable idea(l) goal, a state, a hoped for outcome, an imagined desirable 'yet to be'. To place it before consciousness is to place a consciousness outside space-time, as I've described earlier, and elsewhere.
Judgment is warped, and along with it values, when this 'yet to be" has little to no connection with the past/nature, and no reference to an ongoing, falling away,immediate past, which we call present. The notion of value before judgment or a life to judge, no matter how primitive this choice-making is, is so detached from past/nature and has nil reference to anything apparent as to make ti the product of a feeble mind desperate to escape.
It's no different than those feeble minds that place consciousnesses "outside" the brain, or that place life "outside" the organic body, calling it soul, or spirit. They, too, imply, that consciousness precedes the emergence of a brain to be conscious, and life precedes an organism which lives.
This is not progress...but regress. Like saying that the Creator is not in the transcending Beyond (outside) but in the immanently hidden (inside), both ludicrous nihilistic constructs implying a whole and a Being that only have meaning within an abstracting mind.
But what would one expect from minds who now dream of a coming European in-line, and surpassing, the ideal American type. No hoards of Mexicans from the south, but Muslims, from Africa, transforming Europe into another multicultural wasteland where the word "culture" has lost all value, like every word that comes out of their, smiling, miserly mouths.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
To make a value judgment one must compare A with B in relation to a standard. The standard is based on a desirable outcome, an idea(l), a goal.
This goal is more or less realistic depending on how many references to the past/nature it has.
A value judgment, for instance, based on a projection which is fantastic, delusional, unrealistic is worthless, because it is nonsensical. The standard is delusional and so all value judgments using it are delusional.
A mind that proposes such a standard exposes itself as delusional, and no judgment it makes should be taken seriously. Here, past judgments are taken as a precedent to determine the quality of judgment of the mind in question. A mind prone to bad choices, or to delusional standards for evaluating reality, are not to be taken seriously.
In the case of VO the writing is on the wall, and I've offered my judgment on what it insinuates and why. Proposing a value before judgment as I said, implies a judgment outside time/space... this is indicated by the "before", that an effect with no cause, which is in this case value. Others have sued love or consciousness, or Being, in exactly the same way. It is a quintessential Judeo-Christian Nihilistic method. It avoids the divine by placing a different word there, declaring ti the starting point of absolute reference. So, there is no judging consciousness outside space/time, but to hide the Judeo-Christian bullshit, they begin with the outcome of such a presumed judging consciousness: the value.
For a God, indeed, all would be valuable, because all would be His Creation and so to His liking. Even here the problem of need, a value judgment depends upon turns this position ridiculous, if such A divine Being is then defined as omnipotent, loving, caring, and outside space/time. All creativity is based on a need. But that's another story.
The need in this project is to equalize all human judgments, turning them into lesser or greater instances of the original absolute value, which is proposed as self-evident. Others claim consciousness is but a reflection, channeling a Divine, universal absolute mind. Same motive, different traits being used - different words detaching from the world; noumenon with no reference to phenomena.
Another popular route this nihilistic degradation of human thinking can take, to preserve egalitarian uniformity, is to mix and compartmentalize. For such retards a cheetah's defining traits - the traits that distinguish it from other species - are to be compared with traits that define another species, without judging which is superior. They know what traits distinguishes a cheetah from another species but cannot then dare to say that this also determines which individual cheetah displays a superior degree of these defining traits....because they've been brainwashed to feel ashamed, and to avoid this so as to not expose how inferior they are in relation to human defining traits.
So, they will confuse the issue by insinuating that because a horse has a bigger penis than a cheetah, on average, that a horse's superiority in penis size makes the cheetah's superiority in speed, let's say, insignificant. This tactic is used, of course, to deal with human issues, dealing with the traits that distinguish humans from other species and, as a result, one particular manifestation of the type homo sapient from another, as superior and/or inferior. They are arguing in bad faith. Not to explore reality but to hide from it, disguising their insecurities as integrity. For instance, that a rabbit is more prolific means that it is superior to a human, making of the traits that define a human no more than a comparable trait to be valued in relation to what idea(l)? The idea(l) of uniformity and leveling. The idea(l) that desperately wishes to hide its own inferiority behind an fake altruism and a pseudo-intellectual integrity.
For these last types, the need to preserve uniformity is really a desperate need to erase the determinism of inheritance - they want continuous second-chances and new-beginnings, where the individual is reborn, over and over again, at will, each time with a tabula rasa, even playing field of unrestricted possibilities. In other words with none of those pesky probabilities, order imposes.
They shamelessly imply that a horse's larger penis makes of man's larger cerebral cortex no more than another trait, where all balances out in the end, and so no superior/inferior judgment can ever be made. Therefore, if the defining traits that differentiate one species from another cannot be used to determine superiority, how can one dare to do so within the species which is supposed to inherit these traits in equal measure, as equally distributed potentials, according to Modern Liberal bullcrap? Not only does it destroy the natural selection part of Evolution theory, it implies that although we can judge one individual dog with another dog to determine which one represents, to a higher degree, the particular traits that distinguishes dogness from catness, we cannot do so with humans, and we can never dare to use human standards to determine which one is superior as a species.
We must agree to disagree, preserving the idea(l) that nobody can judge, except, perhaps God Himself. What's remarkable about this duplicity, is that its very position implies a superior morality, which uses a standard based no an absolute God or some idealized sanctified version of man that has never been born and so remains another nonsensical projection, turning all value judgments derived from it into nonsensical ones.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
1- All value judgments, including those that pretend, to themselves, to do away with judging, are juxtapositions of A-B in relation to a projected idea(l): a goal, an object/objective. This represents the motive. The motive exposes the need, and so exposes the essence of the one projection or the one adopting an other's projection as his own.
2- All projected idea(l)s are not created equal, as each holds in higher regard particular traits, which shape the projected goal. The goal is often a purification and highest imagined degree of these defining traits. So, the higher appreciation of stupidity rather than intelligence, will shape the projected idea(l)s desirable object/objective and, as a consequence, will characterize the individual that aspires to attain it. A higher appreciation of beauty will make a peacock, or many tropical birds, superior to any human. A higher appreciation of escape will make numbness, and all numbing agents, and the minds numbed out of existence, superior to awareness. The need is exposed in the expression of appreciation.
3- Projections of idea(l)s, of object/objectives, are not equally realistic. The degree to which an idea(l) refers to past/nature (with immediate past being what we call the present), determines the degree to which it is realistic; the degree to which it makes sense, is sensible, and attainable, and rational. Projections detached from reality to the degree VO is, and Christianity is, are called delusions. With Christianity the motive is to preserve the mind in a constant state of shame, by offering an unattainable unrealistic idea(l) to aspire towards,so as to make it malleable to any corrective suggestions. With VO the motive is much simpler. It's motive is self-congratulatory, playing with human vanity. It only wants to eradicate the shame aspect of the previous ethical standards it is birthed from (Nihilistic standards) and remains in alignment with. It's another repackaging of the usual modernistic bullshit being used to comfort the masses into a state of arrogant "altruism", with an inflating sense of entitled juvenile impressionability. It eliminates shame by taking it for granted that what is aspired towards is already self-evident, across the board. Therefore, all should be loved, respected, have a right to live, should be appreciated and so on. It makes a mockery of consciousness and of discrimination (judgment) so as to find peace in never being judged, and never having to adhere to any judgment other than one's own. It's an infantile self-referential looping, with a parental figure sheltering it from the severity of its desired detachment. It holds itself accountable to nobody, except self, and so eradicates hierarchies and idea(l)s external to its noetic universe; it is its own ideal. Culture of me (solipsism) - the privilege of being sheltered, and of having detached self from past/nature.
4- Each species, type, is characterized by particular traits, that represents its past/nature, in relation to the path it has taken to increase its survivabiltiy. Each trait must be judged temporally, as in how resistant to Flux, to (inter)activity it is, and how much of the space/time continuum it can endure. In the case of stupidity, being ignorant makes one immune to space/time probabilities, and is often confused for strength, and is sometimes called a different kind of wisdom. Just like ignorance is often confused for courage. A retard, has no existential anxieties to cope with. He is troubled with no probability beyond his short-sighted world-view - encompassed by his shallow perceptual-event-horizon. Indifference is not always confidence, and it can only preserve the organism in a state of bliss for so long - relying on chance rather than insight and personal effort.
In the case of the human species there are a specific number of traits, working in conjunction that distinguish this species from others, in degree, but that also distinguishes one member of the species from the other, again, in degree. These traits are inherited and only expanded through stress...stress being an exposure to reality, not a hiding from it, or a redefining of it, or making one's self numb to it. If a chimp has larger testicles, is inconsequential when the standard of evaluating its value is intelligence, creativity, imagination, wisdom, pattern recognition etc. If some humans choose to use that trait as the standard to evaluate, and to value, self, then this only exposes them as what they truly are, and wish to be judged as, because they feel inadequate in relation to the human traits.
5- Not all judgments are equal. A pattern of behavior, establishing a precedent of effects, determines the quality of the judgment. as such, man takes into account the judgments of another, as he would his past behavior, to evaluate the value of his judgment, or the quality of it, as he would use his past choices to evaluate the reliability of said individual. A pattern, once establishes, is requires a force equal to the aggregate energies that brought it about and that sustain it within the *(inter)activity of existence. Therefore, for an individual, or any pattern, to break from its predictable behavioral patterns, a severe stressor must produce a break in it. The break might shatter ti completely, into randomness, chaos, or it may reduce it to a lower pattern, a reduction in value, or it may solidify it, strengthen it without losing its continuance - its connection to past/nature which would mean a shattering, and without making compromises that contradict its core traits, which would mean a reduction. Without such a stressor, only a sever willful intervention might produce the same effect, but such a will would have to be an other-than, because the will is always in control over a fraction of the organism's aggregate energies (interacting processes).
6- Easiest way to control a judgment is to inculcate it early on, with a standard of evaluating and judging...which would include the judging without judgment; the deferment of judgment to another, to text, to an external consciousness, will, which will direct judgments and so determine behavior. If such an imposition does not occur early enough, before the brain matures, then a severe stressor may be applied to break the mind, so as to then reorganize it in accordance with the standards needed. Because some standards are based on an idea(l) that is unreal, fantastic, supernatural, the standard fails to overcome the established evaluating standards inherited genetically, unless sever self-repression and neurosis, is not forced upon the individual. The easiest way to manipulate judgment is to go along with the individual's inherited pattern go behavior, manipulating it with slight modifications, but never openly contradicting its established pattern. As such, VO appeals to those who are already guided by a deep need to escape reality, and to be judged in accordance with its unforgiving indifference, in the same way Judeo-Christianity and its brain-child, Marxism and secular humanism, seduces minds who already find existence deplorable and are desperate for a way out of its premises.
In Judeo-Christianity the standard is God's word, which reduces all to the status of sinners - equality in negation of self, and the unattainable idea(l) of self, which is God. In Marxism and secular humanism, race, sex, are erased, to be replaced with the standard of productivity, and the idea(l) of humanity. Past/Nature is erased to make this happen. A comforting idea to those that desperately want o escape themselves, or the sum of their (inter)actions.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Having established that value is a judgment based on the juxtaposition of phenomena, in relation to a goal, and so a product of a living organism whose primary goal (a goal that need not be conceptualized) is self-preservation we can now proceed to the understanding of what we mean by more/less valuable, or superior/inferior.
We must connect these words with time and space.
Space = the possible, within which a consciousness perceives patterns it interprets as different kinds of matter/energy. Time = the measure of change, or of the Flux, this juxtaposition exposes the conscious mind to.
As such, value is now connected to the essence of existence, which is (inter)activity, and which is experienced by a living organism as Flux - space/time being the more sophisticated experience of this Flux. Need being the sensation of Flux, and space, in the primitive experience, an evaluation of effort required to satisfy this need. We've already noted that time is the experience of change (Flux), dependent no the particular organism's metabolic rates - systolic/diastolic cellular rhythms. But for a basic organism the conception of time is not necessary. It only acts on need, dealing with space as the attaining of satisfaction for this motivating need.
Our conception of what is superior, in value, must take this into account. Therefore, for a living organism the value of a phenomenon begins with the evaluation of its utility in relation to its primary need, which is self-maintenance (survival). The phenomenon's value is based on this evaluation (judgment) of how much it potentially satisfies the organism's primary need.
Value is equal to the amount of temporal attrition it corrects, and the amount of energies to be expended in collecting and processing it - its potential net-gain in energies. From there the secondary consideration that may multiply value is in evaluating how much potential, spatial effect, a phenomenon promises. How much expansion in space it produces, once the primary need is satisfied. This judgment is only possible for more sophisticated organisms, where "sophisticated" already implies superiority, in that it incorporates more possibilities (spatial factors; possibilities) into its judgments. Ergo, by successfully evaluating possibilities, the organism exposes its superiority, and this superiority manifests in a broader spatial effect. This will also increase its temporality, its longevity, because evaluation of possibilities means a preparation in relation to possible change. To be spatially aware is to be aware of more possibilities, evaluated in degree as probability, which can then provide the organism with the potential to prepare and to focus energies to endure.
If we compare a human with an ant, we must give the human the advantage, the superior value, because although less prolific and durable, he more than makes up for his temporal weakness with his spatial effect. Quantity vs Quality An ant exists within a shallow perceptual-event-horizon, when compared to that of a human's. Therefore, although there are organism's which are bigger, stronger, more durable to a human the fact that a human exists in a world where spatial possibilities are vastly more expansive than those of other creatures gives him the advantage. It is why despite his feeble frame and lack of speed and strength in relation to other creatures humans dominate, and can only be called superior to all other creatures. This is the profound effect intelligence has, and why a human defines himself as the creature that out-thinks all other creatures - the human mind being its defining trait.
We can now give the word "value" a reference point, rather than continue using it, as cowards and imbeciles do, as an ambiguity that can mean anything for any one, at any time. Superior/Inferior are variations of this value based on time/space effects.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
When we speak of human we speak of his defining characteristic which is not speed, nor size, nor constitution, but mind - intelligence being a word that incorporates the different processes and traits involved and which I've described elsewhere.
We can now speak of superior human, in the same way we can speak of a superior dog breed by evaluating the particular traits defining this species, outside the human intervention of dog breeding, but in relation to the species before man domesticated it, and its survival methods. In dog shows an individual dog is evaluated on how well it represents the breed's idea(l), by judging the particular traits which define the particular breed. In this case in relation to the breeder's intent. In nature there is no "intent" as in the example of the dog breeds, and so we must use survival as the motive that makes all other intentions possible. It is implied in the dog breeder's intent when he intentionally breeds particular traits into a dog breed to enhance his own well-being.
In nature the primary intent, that makes all intentions possible, is self-maintenance. It is these survival methods that evolved particular traits, to facilitate the particular niche and survival strategies of this type of organism.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
My best friend says that the concept where value precedes judgment should be reworked.
Self-valuing should really be value-selfing.
And so VALUE manifests as self, and the ONE expresses itself in multiplicity. This would include inanimate matter, such as stones and clouds. They exist because they value self...or they self because they value. This kind of comedy you can't just make-up, it is based on reality; the reality of the desperate human mind.
As part of a long tradition of bullishit word applications, the change in terms is very important here.
If Will precedes consciousness, and Being precedes existence, and Love precedes living, and Consciousness precedes an organic life, then why not make value preceded judgment....and then, perhaps we can repackage the same crap and say that light precedes energy, digestion precedes stomach, and farting precedes consuming food.
How desperate to save God by cherry-picking the parts we athropomorphosized when we were still Judeo-Christians, detaching those particular expressions of being alive from the infantile concept of a Being outside space/time, and then inverting their application to pretend we've done something amazing.
Have you seen the blank stares of the believers? The more you confront them with their own bullshit the more certain they are, the more happy they are, the more vindicated they feel. Have you listened to their drone? Their humility is a cover for the deepest compensating, undeserved, arrogance man can imagine. They humbly admit that they deserve eternal life. They skeptically present the solution to the biggest problems plaguing mankind. With a soft, loving, smile, sell you death, and call it life eternal, or sell you stupidity and call it genius beyond comprehension - then they refer and defer interpreting each quote as if it were supporting their delusions. Will they not look you in the eyes and tell you, without a hint of doubt, that they can heal cancer, or that they've come across the most profound knowledge?
But such is the ways of man, and when decline begins, and the coming Dark Age is inevitable, such dis-eases are to be expected.
The patterns continue. Not only from the same groups, but from the same types of psychologies, do we expect such convictions.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The Semite regurgitates what has been already consumed, and taken over by vanity and his clan's self-aggrandizing identification with the victim he offers a soothing broth for all to find comfort in, and he calls it his own recipe.
Christians turned self-loving to love-selfing, hiding the arrogance and narcissism in the reversal, and claiming selfless humility.
Of course I call it self-ordering, incorporating the random, the chaos, into the process of Becoming. No absolute order.... No absolute self... All is towards... Life is not existence. Life is a part of existence.
When talking about philosophy it is best you start with existence before you explore what life is within existence, otherwise you are indulging in politics, psychology, sociology, and feeding a hungry soul with easy words, confusing humanity for reality. If the interest is being popular, liked, finding validation in others, then stay on course and confuse Being with Existing. Words must be used to distinguish, to differentiate, not to conflate.
A rock exists, but it is no being.
Life is Becoming....as it strives to Be...and this to be is diverse because it is a projection of an object/objective the Mind constructs from experience and so is a product of simplification/generalization, and so forever ambiguous. The object/objective, in its basic, primal, form is no more than an orientation tool to focus the organism's aggregate energies, its Will.
A rock strives not, it exists as a congruence of energies, sometimes of multiple patterns, with no goal, no motive, no value, no destination. A rock is not a unity. The observes turns it into a unity, by simplifying/generalizing it in relation to the background, in relation to a pile of rocks, or a mountain. The rock is not holding itself together, in a loving embrace of value-selfing.....of love-selfing.....it is simply a congruence of flows that are (inter)acting, pushing and pulling - patterns each with its own rate of fluidity, and with the (inter)action friction.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
@1:29-1:55: "The breaking apart of an atom, an entity shows how much value-integrity was there."
This is a quantitative hedonistic outlook again and a value-relativism. If it takes more to break apart a united mob than it would a single talented individual, this says nothing at all about the value-integrity of a mob, just because it costs more expending. Again, if what resists is what's rare, then nothing resists more than stupidity; and we might as well celebrate the stupid as rare, and that is exactly what the world is doing.
The tightest and most ordered Apollonian structure is not one that clings-to-self with the least-gaps coalesced and meshed together through the lowest common denominator as one 'unbreakable' hive-mind, but the most ordered Apollonian structure is a con-solidation with the elastic vitality to recuperate again and again between states of solid and fluidity, that can Afford to have ever widening gaps...
Nietzsche wrote:
"Great health - a health that one not only has but constantly acquires and must acquire, because one again and again relinquishes it, must relinquish it!" [JW, Colli M, ed. KSA 2]
Nietzsche wrote:
"Against the value of that which remains eternally the same (vide Spinoza's naivete; Descartes' also), the values of the briefest and most transient, the seductive flash of gold on the belly of the serpent vita -" [WTP, 577]
Integrity is not a question of eternity, but even of the briefest immortality. Not self-preservation.
It's almost as if the atom loves itself, Love-Ontology. Love keeps it together, and the power of this self-love, because emotion precedes self, is its essence.
Oh, and experience precedes the experiencing mind. No experience, no existence...based on my experience.
I don't understand his focus on values. I don't understand the emphasis.
We value that which allows us to survive. We value parts of ourselves which allow us to survive. I value my brain because it gives me long-term survival advantage. I do not value it simply because it is me.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
I value myself, I really do. I just have to tell the world how much I value myself. I just have to repeat it over and over again. It's always on my mind because I am my mind, or was it that I am my mind because it's always on my mind? I am, because I think, because I value. Everything IS, because it thinks, because it values. First was the value, and it spoke and then everything came into existence, and then it was written down, so that people hear the eternal value's voice, so that they learn about their value.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
He's found a new word to replace Will, or substance, or the Christian one Love. According to the Semite the universe in a perpetual state of masturbation, of self-appreciation.
According to Satyr...Value is the product of judgment, in relation to a goal, an object/objective. It has no meaning outside of this judgment and projection. Even this Semite's positions are based on him projecting: first a whole, as a preliminary given one, and then a force, he calls value, in relation to his own projected object/objective which is a unified theory, and a source of ego gratification. He wants to give (inter)action a universal meaning, and dismiss chaos as a disturbing illusion. A psychological motive.
You could simply say value = energy, as in (inter)activity, but he wants to retain that Judeo-Christian appeal to emotion, and the faith that all has a purpose, is based on some universal order - God given a new name. Value implies an emotional component...referring to the Christian equivalent which is love. All that exists has its roots in an evaluation.
Nature's Laws are God's Commandments...not human laws based on observation within a particular time-frame where patterns were perceived and called laws.
But nothing has any value, in and of itself. There is no teleos, no absolute, no singularity, no whole. Phenomena, have value in relation to a desired outcome for an imperfect, mortal, incomplete becoming. Value is founded on lack, as in the absence of absolutes, or the absence of a ONE, and the need this is interpreted as in a conscious organism. Value is, for the Semite, the eternal one self-gratifying Himself, self-appreciating Himself. Value is, for the Semite, that inferior/superior (inter)acting where a choice is made with an implied, but never stated, object/objective. The choice of words is wrong. He had to find a word not used before to make it seem like he was inventing something new. Will, was taken, Substance, also, and Love he had to stay away from because his psychology would be transparent.
As Lyssa said on ILP he should call his "thinking" Value-Selfing.
Interactivity has no purpose, no motive, no value in and of itself. For a conscious organism it does, because a conscious organism has needs, and in relation to these needs, and to a projected desirable outcome all otherness, all phenomenon, are evaluated...first step is binary= 1/0 Good/Bad Friend/Foe
From this the philosophies of dualism come. And nihilism also.
Order/disorder have no value in and of themselves. For an ordering organism they do.
Subject is placed at the center, and then projected as preceding everything - God as absolute subject. Universal consciousness, a judgment preceding the emergence of brains, making it seem as if all is a part of some divine plan, some universal brain. Brain being an ordering tool.
A rock made up of different minerals is not valuing itself together, it is in the midst of an (inter)action based on the patterns each mineral is (the pattern IS the mineral), and observed in a moment in space/time by a consciousness. The strength of the pattern is in relation to the observing consciousness and it represents the discrepancy in degree of change between them, and level of order symmetry.
Man cannot pull metal apart because the metal is a pattern (inter)acting at a much slower rate than does man, and metal is a mineral with a homogeneous pattern. The more heterogeneous it is the more fragile it is, depending on what other patterns are participating in the abstraction man perceives as a piece of mineral. Purifying metal makes it stronger, because it eliminates most elements that are not in harmony with its pattern. Man is more fragile than metal because he is a unity combining different elements and holding them together by an act of conscious will, and these patterns (elements) change at a faster rate than metal does.
I don't understand his focus on values. I don't understand the emphasis.
We value that which allows us to survive. We value parts of ourselves which allow us to survive. I value my brain because it gives me long-term survival advantage. I do not value it simply because it is me.
And survive why?
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
I don't understand his focus on values. I don't understand the emphasis.
We value that which allows us to survive. We value parts of ourselves which allow us to survive. I value my brain because it gives me long-term survival advantage. I do not value it simply because it is me.
Its not how he means.
He means to say the self Is the valuing. A self emerges as a result of a multiplicity of drives' "for-and-against" with other entities. These "values" of for-and-againt competing/cooperating with other entities integrate into a unit, a congruence, a sense of self. Value-integrity. It therefore should properly be called value-selfing, and not self-valuing - The self as an emergence of a series of "for-and-against".
But since there is no God, no absolute, no telos, from which vantage, this "for-and-against" could have any meaning or value whatsoever,,, it is inappropriate to call it a "value" when you are presenting an ontology. He is subjectivizing the process backwards where it can only lead to an ontoTheism.
That apart, in the human world, by "self-valuing", he means the same as what Sartre said or what real Buddhism strived to teach on being "mind-full". People value things "unconsciously". When you are involved in any purchase, any activity, any task unconsciously, you are being-valued through the other's valuation. This is a diminishing of self-freedom.
Making conscious choices and acting consciously is determining things on one's terms than being determined:
FC wrote:
"Indeed, a human can exist as self-valuings without being organically effectively self-valuing; their organisms 'leak', become more and more a function of their environment. The more "Care" a state extends, the more it takes over the transcendent principle which regenerates the immanent self-valuing, the more the entity is forced to identify with the state to understand itself as existing."
Error occurs when you take this concept of self-valuing from the human world [where a free man puts no one above him; he is the determiner, not the determined] to the real world [where a free man binds himself to the iron laws of nature and does not change nature].
Satyr wrote:
"What must be defined here is nature, versus human environments.
One must adapt to nature, or die. Nature is dynamic.
Man imposes an order forcing other men to adapt.
Different adaptive strategies and motives. One is an admission of humility before what makes him possible - no resentiment - the other is an admission of weakness in relation to other men; a humility before men."
Further, as Sartre himself realized, such "self-valuing" inevitably Has to lead to a secular humanism, when you assume every ordering is a positive progress:
Sartre wrote:
"We will freedom for freedom’s sake, in and through particular circumstances. And in thus willing freedom, we discover that it depends entirely upon the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends upon our own. Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim." [Existentialism is a Humanism]
Or that values are static rather than dynamic. Is that what you want to say? That he's trying to reduce the process of valuation to a static set of values he can cling onto? And that even when he makes his values more dynamic that they still remain static for not being totally and consistently dynamic (but selectively dynamic.)
Unable to endure the uncertainty produced by the totality of senses, he reduces the totality to a selection which is certain and comfortable by denying those senses, the so-called "evil" senses, that make him uncertain and uncomfortable. In his case, the selection he attaches to is "self" and the selection he detaches from, he denies, is "the other".
This is how I understand nihilism, consequently, how I understand his behavior.
Poor understanding of the concept of independence. Understood not psychologically but socially.
Dependence means clinginess. Clinging onto your own self is dependence as well.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
I don't understand his focus on values. I don't understand the emphasis.
We value that which allows us to survive. We value parts of ourselves which allow us to survive. I value my brain because it gives me long-term survival advantage. I do not value it simply because it is me.
And survive why?
To eternally taste your infinitely tasty pussy, that's why.
Because life > death.
Death is easy (well, not always, certainly not among moderns, which is why they are desperately trying to destroy themselves through nihilism) whereas life requires effort.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Or that values are static rather than dynamic. Is that what you want to say? That he's trying to reduce the process of valuation to a static set of values he can cling onto?
No. He is keeping the Nietzschean template, but calling it self-valuing, when he should be calling it value-selfing. Because self is an emergent ordering from drives selecting on the 'value'-basis of 'for and against' with other drives:
Nietzsche wrote:
"No things remain but only dynamic quanta, in a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their "effect" upon the same. The will to power not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos-the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge...
This necessary perspectivism by virtue of which every center of force-and not only man--construes all the rest of the world from its own view- point, i.e., measures, feels, forms, according to its own force- it is being specific, definitely acting and reacting thus and thus, as may be the case. Perspectivism is only a complex form of specificity.
My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (-its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on-" [WTP, 635-38]
Except, there is no god, no abs. against which these for-and-against orderings have any value whatsoever.
And so it would be wrong ontologically to even call it a value-selfing.
