He's a classic semitic salesman who sees the markets demand for Nietzschean thought, therefore he shapes his product to conform with the market's needs. The product does not have to agree with the markets demands in actuality, but if it tastes right it will sell.
_________________ "I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
At the very end, he remarks that during 1968, police were "colour blind" for negating all differences as negligible. While today, they are accused of being "colour conscious" or simply, 'racist'.
This shows the shift in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the whole VOt. project.
As per modern dialectics, "discrimination" means paying acute attention to every single, minute individual origin in atomic fashion at the expense of the larger view; a subsuming of the general category under the sub-category. Categories are of course dismissed in such inversions. The irony of this is, the same liberal fags. then whine about the "culture of surveillance", out of which emerge, consequently, the hero-worshipping and celebrity cults of "whistle-blowers" and freedom fighters of free information.
The liberal hedonists, typically, want just the good side. Ultra-special individualistic treatment and care and sensitivity and then bitch about surveillance and oppression when information is hoarded to study them for the sensitivity and care they! insisted, retards. Government conspiracies then abound and then informants become heroes.
This kind of split is an example of the same [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that Satyr's talked about, spreading like cancer.
The VOt subjectivist special-treatment in the name of Human Rights and relabelled as "Discrimination" and "value of proper valuing" is the modern Hedonistic dialectical inversion of what Discrimination originally is - in the current context, that Race is a reality. Both over-objective "colour-blindness": colour differences are insignificant, and over-subjective "colour-consciousness": every colour is equally significant,, are either sides of racial erasure and an aspect of the hedonists' nihilistic self-hatred.
People mistake the phenomenon's effect upon them, for the phenomenon itself. This is the same as confusing their subjective interpretation of world, for world, and forget that they are dealing with a representation of world. Objectivity being a qualification of subjectivity, as more detached from emotional, self-interested criteria to gain clarity. It follows that strength is a measure of weakness, gnosis is a measure of ignorance, and objectivity is a measure of subjectivity... To come closer to the receding (inter)activity, to the core also falling away.
When they hear an idea, or see a phenomenon, that fills them with fear, because it threatens their well-being, or their world views and ambitions, they begin to hate it - this is a natural progression from fear towards a state in preparation for a fight, or for flight - it is a heightened state of controlled energy called stress. Nervous system in tension. Instead of understanding that this fear/hate is coming from them, what they do is they project it as the other's intent, as belonging to this other, and then understand the other in that context as hating/fearing. It is the other who is a hater, and afraid, and not they relating, reacting.
This is also true of the positive emotions. When someone, something, makes them feel good, instead of recognizing how this phenomenon is stimulating them, and it is they who is reacting to it with pleasure, what they do is they understand this otherness as pleasure, as good. It is pleasure incarnate, goodness is its innate quality. If they want to retain it as a cosmos, an eternal "truth", they mystify it as God, or value, or consciousness, love, or again pleasure as an ontology. Mystification involves the detachment of the symbol/world from its worldly references - deification, sanctification, demonization, idealization = pure noumenon - an abstraction derived from in ternal combinations of memories, feelings, images, sensation. Now, the cosmic intent is cosmos, or whatever word they've cleansed of its phenomenal meaning. It is not them interpreting reacting but the essence of this phenomenon, this otherness, is what they feel when they interact with it, when they engage with it.
When someone makes them hate then it is they, their nature, and if someone makes them love, it is they, their nature, and if something fills them with awe then this scene, this artistic piece, or whatever it is, has the innateness of awesomeness, and if something is valuable to them, in relation to their ideals, their goals, then it is intrinsically valuable....value detached from world made into a thing, given an ontology, made into a noun, and mystified to become universal, like love, made into God.
Quintessential subjectivity at work. The phenomenon is the interpretation, the reaction, to it. If it is pleasing then pleasure is more than just a reaction, a translation, it is a universal truth, an ontology. Projecting the subjective interpretation, as an objective existence out there. This is how noumenon is confused for phenomenon.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Modern marketing... Personalize the packaging hiding the same treat inside. Make it "special" for each consumer...but sell them exactly the same thing.
Be nice, polite, understanding, flattering, listen and then adjust their opinions to fit into your system. Make them invest, and then you have them on-board. They will then do the work of adjusting their previous opinions to your scheme.
Inter-Subjective assimilation. Instead of a vote, to integrate and tolerate what is contrary, this method seduces, using subtle manipulation. Resistance is not understood. It is futile. Borg psychology is the Hive mind.
The words chosen are meant to be, and stay, ambiguous. Clarity will break the spell. Redefine "clarity" ambiguously, blame it on complexity and depth.
They are detached from reality, are mystified, so they are malleable to any form, any psychology. All humans need to belong to something...something bigger than themselves. Herd psychology, especially the r/selection type, wants to be a part of quantities, popularity, fashion forward trends.
This part of human nature is exploited.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
The Hippo-crit sly has a curious pattern of standardized saying Rosa would eat me for dinner, or Fixed would gorge down Satyr.
Deep hunger there.
When he vomits the shite that he does about Satyr being dull, he only convinces himself duplicitously.
Below is a video of Fixed speaking of cats and the domestication of wild ones and value in the spiritual sense as the materialization of max. potential.
Fixed comments and pretends like he hit on something so new and wondrous, and the Hippo goes along with it, when both these liars know Satyr has practically HO(W)NED this thesis decades ago:
The only difference between Fixed and Satyr on sociological issues being, Satyr draws attention to the domesticating force, and Fixed focusses on the domesticated force.
And that's where logic ends.
Afterwards Fixed goes on to talk of de-coherence as Valuing, etc. His inversion is in the way he phrases it as de-coherence, as in, to him, Order is primary and chaos is valued in terms of order, coherence. We are supposed to understand this is because ontology is concerned with Being and being/selfhood with order and therefore grounds-up means starting from the pov. of order.
Its inevitable from there how the pan-psychic nonsense must follow. Because the cosmos is misconstrued for the universe.
The difference between willing and valuing is, willing speaks of a self-in-founding, a self to be determined, whereas valuing speaks as if a self already prevails - the prevailing as the value. At the human level, this translates like Xt. as every life is holy, valuable,,, whereas N. taught life itself must come to count as holy. VOt does not impose any pressure for selecting vitalities, when the very agon of value-determination is comforted as a given, and the strife merely being able to conataly sustain and revitalize it.
The best thing we can say about VO is that it regurgitated what we've been talking about here, on KT, for the past five years, and they did so by changing the words being used, choosing more seductive terminology, and then declaring themselves the "new thing". No need to acknowledge a source when you declare yourself the inventor and change the symbols to make it plausible.
I have to ask myself, did they never read a single word on this forum, or were they reading with blinkers on? Were the words too harsh for their tastes? Were they too pagan? Did they want more Judeo-Christian/Islamic appeal, to bring in the Marxists and the Humanists...the common retard into the fold, for the coming "revolution"? Did they want to make the words softer, more digestible, easier to consume by the average - more erotic? "You...you...complete me" and the tears gush.
What is "new" here? The words? Bravo for that creative leap!!! Instead of "pattern" or "order" we will avoid the obvious "love" word and go for a word never used in this context before..."value"!!!
I expect a citation when they "make it big". As for popularity...given the quality of their apostles, and the types they attract, and the humility of their messiah, they can have it. Less...is...More Quality over quantity
Next year instead of feminization they will call it "emancipation", giving it that "positive" spin they need to sell it to the masses.
That is the best thing we can say...the worse is that it is Judeo-Christianity masked as Nietzscheanism. Now, they do not hide their Christian leanings. Reinterpreting Nietzsche, makes it Jacobism...Iakobism. Appropriate Christian name - Iacobinity, the next Christianity. Iacob is found inside of you....his "value giving" your "self-valuing". A new apostle Paul wishes to make the dis-ease viral. Is Jacob the new Christ or only the new John the Baptist....drowning concepts in liquid magic and renaming them as his God dictates?
It repeats the integration of Judaism and Hellenism, through Nietzsche, assimilating this "icon" of paganism in a new age of Modernity. Was not Plato combined with Judaism, to give birth to Christianity?
Maybe they can remake the french Revolution, and establish Iacobinism as the new Communism.
The need underlying it all, is hard to ignore. More than just a need to know, to understand, it is a need to be seen, to become popular, to be marketable to the many...to be cool. I wonder if Hellenism's melancholy, before death, their reaction tot eh negative, converted to creativity, troubles the "happy" ones; the overflowing with joy, cult.
How pathetic...
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
When Nietzsche called for the 'shut down' of consciousness, he meant for one part, doing away with that consciousness where we have denied its continual growth and have taken it as an absolute unchanging self-identity;
Nietzsche wrote:
"Consciousness is the last and latest development of the organic and hence also what is most unfinished and least powerful. . . . If the conserving association of the instincts were not so very much more powerful, and if it did not serve the whole as a regulator, humanity would have to perish of its misjudgments and its fantasies with open eyes, of its lack of thoroughness and its credulity—in short, of its consciousness; rather, without the former, humanity would have long disappeared! Before a function is fully developed and mature it constitutes a danger for the organism, and it is good if for that time it is heartily tyrannized! Thus consciousness is properly tyrannized—not least by our pride in it! One thinks that it constitutes the kernel of the human being; what is abiding, eternal, ultimate, and most original in it. One takes consciousness for a determinate magnitude! One denies its growth and its intermittences! Takes it for the ‘unity of the organism’!" [KSA 3, 382–83/GS 84–85]
Nietzsche wrote:
"Consciousness-beginning quite externally, as coordination and becoming conscious of "impressions"-at first at the furthest distance from the biological center of the individual; but a processthat deepens and intensifies itself, and continually draws nearer to that center." [WTP, 504]
Nietzsche on Consciousness:
Quote :
"Nothing is more erroneous than to make of psychical and physical phenomena the two faces, the two revelations of one and the same substanoe. Nothing is explained thereby: the concept "substance" is perfectly useless as an explanation. Consciousness in a subsidiary role, almost indifferent, superfluous, perhaps destined to vanish and give way to a perfect automatism- When we observe ouly the inner phenomena we may be compared with the deaf-and-dumb, who divine through movements of the lips the words they do not hear. From the phenomena of the inner sense we conclude the existence of invisible and other phenomena that we would apprehend if our means of observation were adequate and that one calls the nerve current. We" lack any sensitive organs for this inner world, so we sense a thousandfold complexity as a unity; so we introduce causation where any reason for motion and change remains invisible to us -the sequence of thoughts and feelings is only their becoming- visible in consciousness. That this sequence has anything to do with a causal chain is completely unbelievable: consciousness has never furnished us with an example of cause and effect." [WTP, 523]
Quote :
"The role of "consciousness."- It is essential that one should not make a mistake over the role of "consciousness": it is our relation with the "outer world" that evolved it. On the other hand, the direction or protection and care in respect of the co-ordination of the bodily functions does not enter our consciousness; any more than spiritual accumulation: that a higher court rules over these things cannot be doubted-a kind of directing committee on which the various chief desires make their votes and power felt. "Pleasure," "displeasure" are hints from this sphere; also the act of will; also ideas. In summa: That which becomes conscious is involved in causal relations which are entirely withheld from us-the sequence of thoughts, feelings, ideas in consciousness does not signify that this sequence is a causal sequence; but apparently it is so, to the highest degree. Upon this appearance we have founded our whole idea of spirit, reason, logic, etc. ( - none of these exist: they are fictitious syntheses and unities), and projected these into things and behind things! Usually, one takes consciousness itself as the general sensorium and supreme court; nonetheless, it is only a means of communication: it is evolved through social intercourse and with a view to the interests of social intercourse- "Intercourse" here understood to include the influences of the outer world and the reactions they compel on our side; also our effect upon the outer world. It is not the directing agent, but an organ of the directing agent." [WTP, 524]
Consciousness is only a later phenomenon as a result of competing drives, driving towards self-efficiency, and evolving at the rim, gradually moving into the biological 'center'.
"Objectivity" is the degree of "subjective intensification" and an index of sensory strength - the "sharpness" of senses, that it is able to withstand observations despite the pleasure/pain principle, the more it approaches towards this center. That you are able to with/stand and see everything for what it is… sensory data sharpened, pixel by pixel. This is the path of Maximum resistance, as the body is not counted as an impediment and is not denied, and neither is it deified. Nietzsche's position stands between Schopenhauerian nihilistic detachment of the body, and Spinoza's nihilistic deification of the body.
It is going to the core of your origins... back into the vortex of time, of the whole inorganic past. Since consciousness is the border between the self and the world, like a shock cushion aborbing impacts, as a regulator, its function is to prevent itself becoming aware and too quickly of the decisive drives that it protects, the self from knowing. Like an anesthetic is meant to wear off only after the injection, consciousness evolved as a blind-spot meant to anesthetize awareness till its incorporation/injection into the body as instinct, as spontaneity. The 'unconscious' perfection and ease or effortless-effort of the ballet dancer.
An early self-awareness may be like a meal not cooked properly enough, we look at ourselves too soon before decisive factors have had a chance to firm or (in-)form the self better, and one left too blind for too long, too late may mean death as existence depends on discrimination.
Knowing when to go against the regulating current - consciousness trying to cut into itself [increasing self-knowledge that comes at the cost of madness, suicide, etc.] and when to keep it blind [belief in conscious values as our self-identity] is part of knowing thyself, called wisdom, and increases with it. The battle between knowledge [self-cruelty] and wisdom [halcyon self-joy] towards increasing incorporation of nature, 'becoming god' is an infinite regress;
Satyr wrote:
"Self, is like a whirlpool in a river; a tornado. It comes about from the (inter)actions of water/air streams, it holds true, for a while, and it then returns to the flow.
It has no center, because its edges are fluctuating, and as one moves away from the edges, one tumbles into a void, disappearing into the deep (past).
Consciousness is this edge, this fluctuating rim, (inter)acting with the river's flows. Self-Consciousness is this approach towards the middle which falls away. Know Thyself is diving into the vortex."
Which is why any end to that regress is a nihilism, and impossible, as self and world [different rates of becoming we refer to as flow and flux] are in dynamic inter-relation.
Forces are Active. Selection, rejection, domination, co/operation, submission, shape-forming hierarchies or lack - strong or weak organizations, constitute the structuring of our consciousness, that is always evolving, and not a static.
In one of the clearest and coherent passages Fixed has ever written, he speaks of Objectivity as:
FC wrote:
"Objectivity is an accomplishment - a form of focus. It is never a given standard from which the world is poured into 'the honest observer' who has 'cleaned his temple to receive' --- unless we regard this cleaning the temple as a preparing the temple, in which case, it is exactly that -- if the mind is prepared for a certain type of truth-value, it is likely to be flooded by it. So my perimeter of truth value is simply my self-valuing -- I can only decide if something is positively true or not if I relate to it strongly. This is 'unfortunately' the truth of my truthfulness - the most truthful thing I can do is accept and affirm this.And if I do, I already know that whatever it is that is perceived to be true is so in correspondence with my overall value-grid, with my world-model, which I accept to have 'created' by being an entity with a consciousness of itself as standing within a greater half-known. I understand that this entity has to be, in the final instance, the criterium. This is my ultimate 'faith' (GS) - it is the least intrusive and selective faith that I can muster - the faith in my own positive existence as standard. If I lose this faith, I lose sight of my own role in my judgments, and the question of knowledge becomes an arbitrary broken thing on the side of the road."
"Relating to something strongly" ought to be an [in-tense, i.e. fully present] engagement, and confrontation with it "boiling down" to the animating center where whether it would spell life or death is something to be determined, and not prejudicially taken as the starting premise. This is what an intense confrontation means.
Heidegger wrote:
"Struggle [Kampf] allows what is essential to come into opposition by setting itself apart from itself [auseinandertreten], thus letting position and stance and rank first come into relation in what is present. In such setting itself apart, clefts, intervals, expanses, and jointures open themselves up. In con-frontation [Auseinandersetzung] there emerges a world. (Confrontation neither divides nor eve destroys unity. It forms this; it is a gathering logos. Polemos and logos are the same)." [Introduction to Metaphysics, 62]
Objectivity is the most intense self-confrontation. A subjective intensification means, increasing daimonic self-splinterings, each passionately engaged in the question, "how much truth can you dare?"
It is not the taking of "my own "positive existence" as standard, but the voluptuosity and the unhedonistic sensual barometer I can afford, to maintain these mirror shards cutting into each other.
Objectivity: To see something from the "fervent" agon-y of my very existence. To perceive the world as it strikes in my core, in my guts.
Although VOt does NOT intend to be solipsistically narcissistic, it is what it Amounts to Anyways! To say, "I take my own "positive existence" as standard", gives the right to any retard to to blissfully take his existing as a positive. And to then relate to the world "strongly" from this self-satisfied premise and calling that objectivity, is a gross error. It eliminates all agon, all selection. Positivity for its own sake. All existence is holy is what Spinozaism is, in essence, even if these VOts argue 'we dont believe in any abs. god like spinoza', etc. Word games.
Now what Value-Ontotheists mean by self-valuing, is basically inviolability or intact-ness.
To go with the discussed example on ILP, when you break the rock into smaller pieces, the small pieces still are rock-stuff, they dont become milk or apples or whatever else. They have their integrity, their design, their rock-ness; and the moment the rock ceases to be that pattern, transformed into some other congruence, it has lost its integrity, or self-valuing, overpowered by the self-valuing of a more dominant intactness. Like in the human plane, capitalists have dominated 'weakling' consumers because the latter have stopped self-valuing.
Based on "I Am", be-ing (be as verb, existing) taken Apriori as valuable, they make a case for a pan-psychic 'prehensive' world. [Whitehead or Spinoza's proto-consciousness, but not human cognitive consciousness].
But as N. argued, life is not spinoza's conatal self-preservation, but self-expansion, domination, growth involving self-destruction and transformation, of which preservation is only an epiphenomenon - the fuel-stop, before the F1 speeds on to a more and more efficient lap, to use a rough example.
Taking life - be-ingness (which is an exception in the universe that as a rule is chaos,) for rule is a clear inversion of reality, and becomes a religion, an onto-Theism.
Why?
Because in their admitted self-circularity, taking Being ALREADY as a value, defeats the very question of existence. Life - to be and become, IS the very experiment, IS the very asking of,
"Why is there something, rather than nothing?", or,
That is what the WTP is. The decisiveness of selection.
To posit be-ing as ALREADY valuable, as holy, is preaching a sooth-saying religion, an onto-theism, not an ontology. It blunts the selective pressure.
Coming back to the question of prehensive universe, and inviolability as a self-"valuing", Fixed writes:
FC wrote:
"The point is that there is always a victor among the drives. The victor is not permanent and certainly not a-priori in the Kantian sense. But it is rather a logical causal proposition. If there is no victor, then there is no hierarchy, then there is no form, then there is no being." [ib.]
But because of relative persistence, Anything could be said to be a victor at some point; any arrangement could be a victory in itself simply for prevailing and this says nothing.
As pointed out before, not every ordering is a 'positive' order. If bacteria have persisted more than others, does it mean their self-valuing is the highest? and tied to what ideal? - persisting for persisting's sake?!
In any case, note that N. remarked:
Nietzsche wrote:
"The total character of the world, however, is in all eternity chaos - in the sense not of a lack of necessity but a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms." [JW, 109]
Nietzsche wrote:
"The whole history of a ‘thing’, an organ, a tradition can to this extent be a continuous chain of signs, continually revealing new interpretations and adaptations, the causes of which need not be connected even amongst themselves, but rather sometimes just follow and replace one another at random... The form is fluid, the ‘meaning’ [Sinn] even more so." [JW, 2.12]
In other words, although under necessary conditions being met, we may get the same logical outcome, the same rock-ness, the same hydrogen-ness, it only proves in Our logical abstraction, one thing cannot be something else also. The relative persistence only proves the presence of a necessity, not of valuing or an intelligent order or prehensive agency.
Our consciousness [our power to logically abstract] itself is the very result and "necessary" outcome of diverse drives tending towards efficiency, domination. To retropolate this backwards into the inorganic world making a case for pan-psychism is to blunt the agon-y of life and living. Which is what the function of a religion is, in the face of an increasing entropy. Odering only emerges with resistance.
Now that Fixed has admitted his Value-ontoTheism is a Xt. by any other means - something Satyr and I have been consistently saying since a year and more back,,, there is really nothing more to be said. Atleast he's made it clear, its no Nietzschean project, but away from it.
FC wrote:
"Christianity stands between the absolute surrender that forms the group soul, traditionally indicated by the moon and the sign Cancer, and the impulse of affirmation of a certain particular spirit, which takes hold of the imperfection of the human and hones it cruelly. The Christian is far crueler to himself than the muslim - therefore he preserves more, builds more. He is more Nietzschean, even though Nietzsche did not think so - cutting into life, spirit, this is what nature did to itself on the myth of Jesus. That it was all done in bad taste is - well, a matter of taste on which I agree with him - what N's true objection was. But that it is more interesting than Islam is unquestionably true. Interest takes hold on value and determines a mans brain chemistry.
The Christ is a model for the self-suffering brain, the mind that only knows yet that it has wounded itself for a reason called love. He thought love meant something else. Now I a trying to push the concept back out of that receded paradigm into the fabric of living tissue; for that love has to be made unconscious, where the Christian ideal was to make it conscious. I thus assume that it has already been made perfectly conscious. West-man spent enough time on developing inner and transcendent love, but simply will not wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater by following Nietzsche all the way; - for that 19th century man of refined tastes it was a matter of life and death - no, of far more of course - that the bad taste of believing in the impossible would be destroyed.
But gods never stay dead for long, and the Ragnarok of Nietzsche's thoughts corresponded to an Earthly battlefield like no other before it, reminiscent of the fields of Kurukshetra at least. What comes beyond? Only us; we are what Arjuna fought for.
It does not matter whose name he takes, as N. pointed out, a religion like Xt. which is a disease cannot be combatted rationally. But only by means of greater health.
Lets also recall N. saying, its not a great cause that hallows a war,,,, but it is a good war, that consecrates a cause as holy.
Yes, capitalism threatens the very existence of a human be-ing, and value-armouring maybe fine in its motive to check this, but as long as it isn't fought Intensely to the core where it can't see its own logical end - emerging as one more religious commodity, one more stoic technology perpetuating the very capitalism, and is fought only Densely, simply accruing more and more layers of values to just conataly sustain itself, it is not a Grear war.
"Sheltering" man in more and more dense armours, and calling ossification - prevailing as a victory… how can that be any method or solution?!
N. remarked how many gods are still possible, as a tribute to the artistic, Inventive spirit of the joyful Scientist.
About man creating a god.
Not man already assuming he is victorious god, sustaining the world.
Dionysos vs. the Crucified…
"Is Dionysos still understood?" [N.]
Let me also add here something about Satyr and Fixed.
Satyr's outward focus is on the domesticating world, and Fixed's inward focus is on the domesticated world.
Satyr wants man to shed and spill it all, in combatting the ills of modernity; Fixed wants man to strengthen and pull himself together going to his core values.
Satyr offers pride to whoever can attain to it, Fixed offers hope for all.
With Sloterdijk's co-(i)mmunism, that line of division between discipline and disciple, asceticism and religion is collapsed.
N. said, light and flame is all I hope to become. What is thymotic and light, ascends up…
knowledge is a heavy serpent that sinks to earth it hides in cold caves, because knowledge is so burning, awareness is pain…. whereas, when the warriors rage and spill it all, the body cools.
all knowledge must burn like fire and become light thats why the best warrior goes to valhalla the eagle flies away with the snake [its not the snake that pulls the eagle down, if one looks for an immortal death…]
Fixed's contemporary motives are valid, except his methods and larger goals are crooked.
The VOts seem to think Satyr is a Saturnine figure full of negativity, constantly complaining. But when Satyr says, "look at all this; this is all it is…", it is rather, the tone of a Jupiter in all its severe lightning (p)rod: "look at all this; this is all it is(!)…".
´To say, "I take my own "positive existence" as standard", gives the right to any retard to to blissfully take his existing as a positive.´
A soul not ready for any retard to do this is not strong for it. Neh?
The questions posed by value logic is not whether hydrogen this or that. Hydrogen itself is put into querstion: does hydrogen value? What values? What is of value? That everything has value is a function of the fact that every body will have an answer to this. Is it true that this forum asks for honest being so it can face its consequences? Can this forum not face the consequences of it? The dungeon mechanism is not natural, not how distaste is manifested anywhere where value is to be found.
Does a retard not value? Why such fear? Fear of retards sounds... lowly. It may be the very lowlyness that has spawned the decadence of today, the severity of christianity: thou SHALT be godly, by God!
And also, Nietzsche was maybe the first phiolosopher, and at least in a very long time, to be of value not only by what he said, but what he did not say, and how he said, and why, and w.... long list of et ceteras. But I give already too much... Nietzsche can be valued by who it can be valued.
I would like a response to my point about hydrogen. Is this not supersticion of language? Why should we excpect that we already know the words for what is valuable to a higher spirit, or indeed any simply unconfused spirit? At least a scientific spirit and certainly a consciously valuing spirit?
"We must not shun those who seek to die, but help them!" (Deep paraphrase). Why not help retards be retards? And any valuing be as it values? Certainly, a higher value would be needed to aplacate it. Which such value does this forum propose? Lol, anyway, just wanted to make the point about loving difference whereever it may be found. I am great, because others are not.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Your language betrays you...nevertheless.... Values are meaningless outside living bodies, outside life and motives; wilful movement towards. Value, as your Messiah taught you, is what we've been calling pattern, ordering here, for years, minus the Judeo-Christian concepts. Over five years, and he awakened to it how long ago? I wrote [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]10 years ago. But, enough about how great and wonderful I am...let us proceed, because none of this is new. I, unlike your guru, never claimed it was new, or revolutionary. Maybe it was a mistake if I wanted to exploit naivete and immaturity, like your guru does. But that's not what I am about. I describe, not prescribe. I say "Loook!" not "Follow". KT is no cult, nor does it aspire to become one. I, am but a conduit to something ancient. This goes back to Heraclitus, and the pre-Socratics, and to India. I did not invent this, and neither did Nietzsche.
A pattern can only be what it is, a pattern. Pattern, as a word, does not imply anything but a repetitive, consistent, continuity. That is what order means. If space is possibility, then any pattern is a restriction, a limitation, to it - a probability. It is fascistic, authoritarian when understood using human modern political terms.
Value, on the other hand, implies much more, even if unintentionally. It is the wrong word, placed in a wrong place in a sentence, to use, when describing existence. Just as "self" is the wrong word to use when describing an emergent unity, a congruence of patterns. Self is meaningless outside life....and anyone who uses it to describe inanimate patterns is hiding a motive. The "wrongness" must make you wonder as to the intent. You must, at least, feel, that the words "value" and "self" are not applicable, as your guru, your Messiah, applies them. They are meaningless outside life. Not the concepts they are attempting to represent but the words themselves. Life is not existence, it is a part of existence. Christians wrongly used "love" and "consciousness" to achieve their ends, and their ends were not clarity, or philosophy; they were interested in manipulation, and control, comforting, lies, and mass appeal.
The pattern, or congruence of patterns(s), the organism/organizing, is not inherently anything. It is not positive/negative, good/bad, one/nil. It is so, in relation to, an otherness, both living and non-living. How valuable it is, is determined by motive, its movement towards an intended goal, an objective, or, in more sophisticated forms, an idea(l).
The "retard" is not shunned, or demeaned, because (s)he is what it is, and cannot be anything other than that, it is demeaned in relation to its intended goal, which if it is grand, superior, exposes it as lacking; it is judged in relation to the observer's, the judge's, own objectives. The weakling is not abused, degraded because it is what it is, it is only degraded, abused, when it presents itself as strength, as genius. The idea(l) is what is used to measure it. If it accepts intelligence as its idea(l) then it must be challenged, tested, according to that. If it does not, then nobody will bother with it, and all must allow it to be what it is, and what it wishes to become. But, how does a "retard" translate to a rock, a cloud, a pebble, a piece of plastic? It does not strive to become, it is what it is - it is pattern (inter)acting with other patterns in the only way it can, because (inter)action is it existing. Would a human judge a grain of salt by his standards when the salt is not striving towards them, or anything? No!!! Would he consider this grain equal to itself as similarly striving? No! Salt neither is self, not is conscious of what it is, nor cares if it is absorbed, or destroyed, or diluted, or consumed - it just is salt, as pattern; as pattern man names salt. It is man recognizing a pattern, becoming aware of a pattern, not the salt which is becoming aware of what it is, wanting to remain as it is.
Would we blame the pig for being the congruence of patterns we call "pig", according to our idea(l)s? No!!! A pig can only ever be a pig. A retard could only be a retard. If a pig declared itself "god" then we would have an issue with this pig, because then the idea(l), namely "God", would be above us both, and so the standard would be common, shared. Our sense of self-worth, our self-valuing, would be in competition, in relation to this word, representing a shared idea(l), a common goal, objective. If a pig is "happy" being a pig, then there is no conflict. If a rock is unaware of what it is, because it is not "self" then we do not blame rock, we do not compete with rock, we do not even pay attention to rock, unless we NEED to. If you think Nietzsche was the "first philosopher", or the most important one, then you are truly deluded. Personality worship is not uncommon among those who are lost, particularly young males. Sauwellios has been looking for a replacement father figure all his life. From Nietzsche to Strauss and now, downgrading, to Jacob?!!!; to the more immediate, and therefore, personal, Jacob the Messiah of possitivity, in other words "value"? Just an example we can both relate to.
Again....Jacob took our pattern/ordering, which is not, by any means original, and converted it to "value", then he gave it an ontology, like Christians gave the word "love" and "consciousness" an existence outside living organisms. He took "congruence", and "emergent unity" and renamed it "self", to approach Judeo-Christianity, hoping to make his "new philosophy" viral. Both words can be easily defined using more natural, and less "romantic" methods. Then, he used the term as a replacement for Spinoza's "substance" coupled with Plato's "ideal". He's a regurgitartor, a charlatan, a seller, a usurer. The fact that he declared himself, in public, Nietzsche's "rightful heir" and has claimed that he deserves "supermodels" as mates, has been attracted to males and perhaps fornicated with them, and that he could defeat, in a fight, most MMA fighters, should tell you something.
Nothing original about what he is saying. He is masking his motive in mystical lingo, giving it a positive, flattering twist, packaged and delivered personally to each convert, and then, only making it verifiable esoterically, where each individual can add to it his/her own needs, and where no external standard can be used, must, at least, make you think.
1. I read one of your recent satyrisms on patterns. It coincides well with an aspect of self-valuing logic, at least as Jacob sees it.
2. Self valuing logic easily sees more valuable tools in the human's arsenal than ideas. A challenge: can you think of any that aren't deserving of your disdain?
3. Rock of salt already includes an antropomorphism, so to say, it is a term that defines a human value. Whether or not a rock of salt is a self valuing apart from human is an interesting thought, but one which requires a depth that even the whole of modern languages may not be able to explore.
4. I already forgot the fourth.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
1. I read one of your recent satyrisms on patterns. It coincides well with an aspect of self-valuing logic, at least as Jacob sees it.
And? I just explained to you how he took KT philosophy, which is based on something older than him and I and you, and gave it a Judeo-Christian appeal - wanting to make it viral, popular, attractive to all.do you not smell Christianity in your cult's den? Be honest with yourself.
pezer wrote:
2. Self valuing logic easily sees more valuable tools in the human's arsenal than ideas. A challenge: can you think of any that aren't deserving of your disdain?
You seem to be overly concerned with not being excluded, or the weak not being abused, which explains why his more all-inclusive interpretations of the old, would appeal to you...but whatever... My "disdain" is not for the weak, the feeble, the dumb, the christian...but only if they come here, before me, pretending to be more than what they are; wanting to be evaluated by a superior standard. Again...I do not hate a dog, for being a dog, but if it comes to me pretending to be a god, then I will beat the shit out of it. If a cow is content being a cow, then let it be just that... I am exploring what is to be a cow, and what it is to be human, and which one is best.
My "disdain" is towards fakes, hypocrites, pretentious fools, which is what modernity promotes. Nihilism with its inversions is the height of human duplicity. The one who pretends to be the 'heir of Nietzsche' who declares his concepts "revolutions"; who displays himself daily; who once claimed to deserve a supermodel as a mate, and attracts naive desperate boys to him, yes, THAT deserves my disdain, and much more. Not what he is, but what he pretends to be.
pezer wrote:
3. Rock of salt already includes an antropomorphism, so to say, it is a term that defines a human value. Whether or not a rock of salt is a self valuing apart from human is an interesting thought, but one which requires a depth that even the whole of modern languages may not be able to explore.
Language is inadequate...as is all art, to represent reality. In my thinking world is counter-intuitive, simply because world is disordering, tending towards randomness (chaos), and the mind is (re)acting, intuiting, ordering. So, how well can the symbol, the noumenon, represent the phenomenon? It can only approximate. Even math is an approximation, not an absolute.
All elements, are only patterns man appreciates, recognizes, as they "un"cover themselves before him. He does not invent them, he interprets them, and then evaluates them in relation to his needs, and his projected (idea(l)s, his objectives. Value follows consciousness, if used properly, if used like your guru does, then it has already been done - nothing new. I, for one, have done so for ten + years now, using different words - for me more precise, appropriate, less religious words. He says "value" I say "pattern' or "order(ing)". He says "self" and I say "unity", or "congruence of patterns". He obfuscates, trying to appear deep and complex, I simplify to clarify. He wants to become something new; I say I am but a continuance of something old and forgotten; he flatters and pretends all deserve respect, I do not; he wants to convert, I want to awaken; he wants to turn the eye inward, I say "look outward, before you look inward"; he makes grand promises, I simply describe offering nothing more; he detaches words from reality, I (re)attach them from where nihilists have pulled them off.
Test it...what does "self" mean to you. What does "value" mean to you? Connect the word to your experiences.
If you can use "value" as your guru does, then why not "love", or "orgasm"...what limit do you place on word usage? What meaning does "self" have outside life? Why use THAT word instead of another word? Effect? A stone is a "self"? A particle values an other particle? Being marble is a universal standard; being granite is a value, a self? Using those words, instead of others, exposes the one using them. I use "order" and "pattern" to imply the lest possible cultural baggage. I use " emergent unity", or "congruence", relating both to matter/energy as that...as pattern(s) in harmony, in momentary convergence. Is there a place for numerical values, for measurements, for subjective evaluations, for cultural influences, for emotional prejudices in philosophy? If so, then in relation to what are we to understand these concepts?
If "value" has a mystical, ambiguous, emotional, reference, using anthropomorphic metaphors to describe an appearance, then why not use "love"? is a stone, appearing as a unity, its different elements converging, a self, or do we, as humans observing it, make it so in our brains? Does an electron desire to belong to a relationship with a proton, or is this a way of projecting human experiences upon what is alien to it?
My usage of "pattern" can incorporate both organic and inorganic convergence, without using the easy emotionally intimate appeal of words like "self" and "value".
pezer wrote:
4. I already forgot the fourth.
Next time.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
To give you an idea how far back I've been saying this, and the kinds of people your guru attracts, his motives....years ago, when I was on ILO, when I was fleshing out this perspective the Ziit would belittle it, wanting a "thing", or for me to explain how there was change without a thing, or 'what was changing?' When I would explain to him that the pattern is what is called change, and no thing needs to be changing because patter IS change and it IS existence he would ridicule.
Now your new Jesus changes the words I used, making them more positive, more christian more anthropomoprhic and the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] gushes, like a schoolgirl, influenced by a deep loneliness, and the cal of "friendship". Now he admires Sauwelios and Jacob for, at least, trying to create a "complete philosophy", which is to be admired in a world that cares not, like him....and here, on KT, he sees nothing. He skims. He ridicules. He casts cynical aspersions.
Your "Jesus" does not take the whip to those who convert his temple into a market place, to drive them away, he gathers them into his fold, embraces them, fakes respect for them, befriends them. He is a manipulator, and words are his trinkets. He IS one of the vendors outside the temple. Just to give you an idea how vanity, and duplicity become attractive. V stands for vanity. Vanity Ontology. The words chosen indicate the intent of the one using them. Not only the meaning they convey but the sub-text.
Birds of a feather. Your cult is now reintroducing Christianity into the mix. Nietzsche is bait. Nietzsche placed in the service of crypto-Christianity.
Well, maybe zoot had a point. That there is no thing in itself doesn't mean there is no thing, neh? Objects are easy enough, though I agree with Lyssa's appreciation of objectivitY. Salt is salt, I can tyaste it. A pattern of what is a good question.
I originally veered sharply away from Value Ontology because I dislike reductionist thought. It took time to see that it wasn't reductionist at all. But a lot of thinkers want that: the world reduced to a pattern (already a thing) or a substance or a value... Valueing already incorporates more than one thing in any given existence. It begs the question each time, and believes instinct before idea.
Because, as Lyssa also said, consciousness is a very new, awekward thing, compared to most other instinctual constructs.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Pattern does not describe a thing, it describes a behavior - a rate with a consistent, repetitive consistence, my mind interprets (ergo interaction and interpretation) as thing. The conscious mind is evaluating the pattern as a rate of dynamism, of change, of flux...it is reducing it to particle, to type of matter/energy.
No "self" required to explain (inter)activity of patterns. Self emerges from this.
Imagine pattern as a lego block. The nobs of each, and how they are configured, are what distinguished the pattern. How these blocks interlock is not self it is the only way this particular pattern can interact with that particular pattern. The nobs fitting into the holes, is how they harmonize, how they become part of a congruence...never absolutely so. Then add a third piece, and the stability increases. But this does not discount the endless lego blocks that could not and cannot fit harmoniously, and are constantly (inter)acting with this congruity. We can't call this congruity a self, without sounding Christian...ridiculous. Each tool has its utility. Each word has its place. My method connects words to world - noumena, which the word represents, to phenomena, the apparent. I do not play with words trying to have fun, or to produce an emotional reaction, or to be popular.
There is no thing which has a pattern, the pattern IS the existing. There is no thing holding onto its self, its essence, the pattern IS what this essence manifests as - it appears because it is pattern that has possibilities (spatial dimensions) and having possibilities it (inter)acts with other patterns with possibilities - probabilities to be precise because ordering is a reduction of possibility. This (inter)activity is interpreted by a consciousness as stress, as friction, as agon - ανάγκη need. Need/suffering is the ordering organism experiencing existence - sensing Flux, sensing the (inter)activity. This depletes its aggregate energies, its collective force (becoming), and it interprets this as need.
The organism is, in effect, reacting to increasing entropy, which is a product of (inter)activity. The tragedy/comedy of existence - where resentment enters the scene. It is constantly annulling change, resisting it....this for all those liberals out there. Life must refuse change to persist. But change happens whether we like it or not, as a byproduct of existing. We need not will change...only will the limitation of change, its effect upon our ordering- which is another way of describing the reduction of possibility and increase of probability. We can say the the chaotic subjective usage of language, application of words, contributes to intellectual chaos. It slowly degrades words, making them meaningless. To use words precisely, is ordering. No randomly but with a standard outside human desires, preferences, tastes - outside subjective standards.
I do this by connecting the words I use to a behavior, an (inter)activity, an appearance, outside my head...one all can experience. For instance when I use "love" I do not mystify it like Christians and Nihilists in general do. I connect the word to a behavior, and then analyze why and how this behavior comes about. I do the same with all words - consciousness, value, self...etc.
If I do not do so I open Aiolos bag and release the winds of chaos. Then any word can be used in any way at any time...subjectivity in its apex is confusion, chaos. All ordering is private, dependent on self, on ego, when it is ordering/patterns that makes self/ego probable.
Activity is not a characteristic of existence, it IS existence. We are not a some-thing that acts, we ARE action. A tree does not have possess patterns it IS those patterns in congruence.
Nothing happens to me, I happen. I appear. I am the sum of all previous (inter)actions. Nature is the manifestation of all past nurturing, all past (inter)activities. I am not that which has a past, I AM this past appearing.
I agree with everything you said. Except for this: in fact, your self was required to explain patterns.
This is a good phenomenological lay out. Phenomenology to what? What cares about this lay out? I like it. Why do I like it? There seems to be a question begged of these patterns... Why do they come about? Simply chaos? Ah! But chaos is infinity itself, so this answers very little (important, but little).
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Chaos is not infinity because it is never finalized. If it were to become, to be, absolute randomness then yes that would be an END....infinity, the other pole of an END as absolute order, as a singularity, a one.
Without the emergence of the self, as a congruence of harmonized patterns, perceiving, evaluating, judging, awareness is not present. Consciousness is discrimination, it is judging. It is not what judges...it IS the act of judging.
If by "little" you mean incomplete, or nothing you can use, then yes. I am not here to tell you what to do in this reality. I describe it, using a poor tool language - I do not prescribe anything. I describe. I am not complaining, I am exposing. If what I expose hurts you, makes you sad, then this is not my problem, nor my intent.
The "to what?" is for you to decide. You are the actor, choosing, evaluating and living with the consequences of your actions, choices, behavior.
And, of course it is incomplete, because there is no absolute. It is an approximation...more or less accurate. since all is in flux, consciousness is a constant struggle to maintain accuracy....it is constantly evaluating, judging, juxtaposing, comparing....selecting.
A rock particle does none of that. It is pattern (inter)acting as only that pattern can...it IS the pattern. Congruence, which your cult calls "self" is only a harmonization of patterns... The strength of the harmony, is the power of the congruence....demanding a stronger force to break it apart. Path-of-least-resistance...is what determine's the congruity's direction. Only a willful organism can direct toward a path-of-more-resistance, and this only to gain an advantage over another organism, or simply to grow, if it is self-conscious, to challenge itself.
Why do you like it? Order. An organism, an ordering, finds order attractive - the more closer to the absolute this order comes, the more attractive, seductive, beautiful it is. It is BECAUSE randomness (chaos) is increasing that we "value" ordering. Only for an organism does order have value. Outside of this the universe does not care. A rock has no choice, no awareness, no preference.
Your cult invented nothing...it is only trying to Christianize Nietzsche and through him Hellenism, and Paganism in general. Baptizing the stillborn and pretending it lives, it is because you gave it a new name. You are updating Christianity trying to integrate Nietzsche AND Paganism into it. Crypto-Christians.
´To say, "I take my own "positive existence" as standard", gives the right to any retard to to blissfully take his existing as a positive.´
A soul not ready for any retard to do this is not strong for it. Neh?
We must not shun those who seek to die, but help them!" (Deep paraphrase). Why not help retards be retards? And any valuing be as it values? Certainly, a higher value would be needed to aplacate it. Which such value does this forum propose? Lol, anyway, just wanted to make the point about loving difference whereever it may be found. I am great, because others are not.
Firstly, if religion exists to do that, then your question is really asking the question, why do philosophy at all? What's the point of philosophy and how is it different from a religious need if all is already assured of its holiness? Doesn't the 8-fold path of Buddhism [right view, right thinking, etc.] accomplish the mind-full self-valuing through sheer discipline more effectively and honestly than any ontology so far, in that, it never had to lie that the self was any kind of unity…? The difference between the Jupiter in Sagg. and that in Pisces, is one between religious philosophy and philosophical religion. Philosophy is about evaluating values and ranks with the aim of evolutionary goal-settings, the creation of law and standards and the production of Types that breach them through conservation. Exceptions thriving on the rule. From the standpoint of philosophy then, the aim will be to widen the distance between the philosophical need [distinction] and a religion one [unifying, collapsing].
2. (1) There is a difference between the natural self-preservatory instinct of something, even the most base parasite and mindless creature, and (2) a moral philosophy giving such a one the Right to do so [VOt], as opposed to (3) an amoral philosophy creating the conditions where such a one may test and Find his right to do so [WTP]. If value-differentiations are to even be perceptible to be valued for their diversity, you need the most neutral and undifferentiated background, which is what the WTP is. It is only in the neutrality of a power background, only in the precedence of power, that we attain a diversity of values, of self-valuings each acc. to its own internal constitution. Its only in the background of power, everything Will and can be Made to genuinely self-value. Its only because the will to power is undifferentiated, power tends to differentiate itself into a self-valuing, creating that gulf between those who (self-)value in terms of power as a blind force, as mere survivalism and those who do so in terms of power becoming so conscious of itself, that it disempowers itself over the concern with everything else but simply being oneself - i.e. max. self-integrity/integration. (Or as Evola put it, "the desire for power eludes real power.") The "groundlessness" of the innocence of becoming alone assures and grounds the ground of the most affirmative Being as it compels us to take both the greatness and the terribleness together, both the blind nature of where the WTP could lead, as well as the apollonian dream of max/ 'eternity' that can be attained.
If Heidegger feared the technological nihilism ensuing from the blind WTP [Dionysian nihilism of postmodernity], the hedonistic placement of value before power and VOt of max. self-security creates the opposite kind of nihilism [Apollonian nihilism of modernity]:
Nietzsche wrote:
"Supposing all danger, the cause of fear, could be abolished, this morality would therewith also be abolished: it would no longer be necessary, it would no longer regard itself as necessary! ‑ He who examines the conscience of the present‑day European will have to extract from a thousand moral recesses and hiding‑places always the, same imperative, the imperative of herd timidity: `we wish that there will one day no longer be anything to fear!' One day everywhere in Europe the will and way to that day is now called `progress'." [BGE, 201]
He means the progress of that herd-imperative of abs. self-security would make its own self redundant, and thus be the abolishment of all diversity.
The placement of value before power, a ground in the face of groundlessness at the ontological level, makes it a religion, an ontotheism, not a philosophy or an ontology.
3. My take on the model of the world is Nietzschean, in as much it is the apollo-affirmative Dionysian view of excess. This means, I regard the very idea along with N., that Spinoza's conatus/self-preservation as basis, starting from the un-natural premise of substituting "Nature=God" [opposed to natural "Nature=Chaos"], is not only false, but also the most hedonistic rendering of man and world. Even if VOt claims to believe in no absolute God, as long as it, (1) retains the conatal self-preservation as the highest positive within a Leibnizian model, and, (2) substitutues Heraclitus instead of Spinoza to wishfully argue for a Theopanism ['all is holy' - God-liness], (3) Leibnizes Spinoza to retain individual monads as God(s) nothing has really changed in such clever word-games.
Nietzsche wrote:
"It can be shown most clearly that every living thing does everything it can not to preserve itself but to become more-" [WTP, 688]
Nietzsche wrote:
"Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength—life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results . In short, here as everywhere else, let us beware of superfluous teleological principles!—one of which is the instinct of self-preservation." [BGE 13; cf. Z: 2 "On Self-Overcoming"; WTP 650]
Nietzsche wrote:
"The wish to preserve oneself is the symptom of a condition of distress, of a limitation of the really fundamental instinct of life which aims at the expansion of power and, wishing for that, frequently risks and even sacrifices self-preservation. Our modern natural sciences have become so thoroughly entangled in this dogma (most recently and worst of all Darwinism with its incomprehensibly one-sided doctrine of the "struggle for existence"). But in nature it is not conditions of distress that are dominant, but overflow and squandering, even to the point of absurdity. The struggle for existence is only an exception, a temporary restriction of the life-will. The great and small struggle always revolves around superiority, around growth and expansion, around power—in accordance with the will to power which is the will of life." [JW, 349; cf. TL 2; Z: 2 "On Self-Overcoming"; BGE 262; GM II:11; TOI "Skirmishes" 14, 44]
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]
ER [eternal recurrence] was meant to be a European equivalent to Buddhism, a 'nothingness' in the sense of a 'ground(less) 0', where everything would be forced to expose itself exactly for what it is - the herd as herd and master as master. The neutral 'ground' that could allow the most closest approximation of Being and Becoming, and thus act as a selective and purifying principle. VOt preposits everything as already holy, be-ing as already a valuable standard, and thus forms a self-circularity, instead of creating the selecting conditions for the emergence of those heroes and masters who would elevate themselves and life along with them, to close the circuit between be-ing and becoming. VOt blunts this selective pressure. It takes Away the momentuous pressure of one to become - that is to say, come to be-ing a self-rolling wheel, by already positing every entity as a self-rolling wheel. You understand?
VOt is basically handing a silver spoon to any retard narcissist. Even though it doesn't intend to, this is what it amounts to logically anyways. A scaffold in an architecture is a guiding model (and not a ground) which one removes after the construction of a building.. one does not take it as a ground in real. One clings to the railings of a staircase only to the extent, one learns and Must learn to do without it. Self-clinging is not self-affirmation. A self-circular loop like VOt is not a self-rolling wheel, if you ever understood Zarathustra's teachings at all.
4. As I have already said here, diversity is a result of agon, of tension, of the instinct for the pathos of distance that self-differentiates itself more and more discriminately… diversity occurs as a result and as an external reflection of the internal tension. The goal of evolutionary philosophy therefore is not in affirming the diversity per se, but affirming the origin-ary Agon [agon that gives birth to origins, new nodes of tensions] and the Agon-y of existence in all its variegated differences. The conserving tendency of religion is at Square with the differential tendency of philosophy,,, where once in a while the accumulated pressure generated by this square, *because* there was a square, is so tremendous, you have the excess of a Caesar transcending that square into a full conjunction in his very personhood. A new Type of be-ing. To take away that square by equating or forming sextiles and such between religion and philosophy, it deselects diversities.
5. The "I Am" denotes a never-ending being-in-becoming, and a consciousness of power attained to maintain a semblance of unity. "I Am" is not a unity. To simply take this as a "positive" starting point eliminates the nuance of whether that 'unity' is one from the exhaustion of simply maintaining that semblance, or it is from the 'exhaustion' of overcoming and self-destruction of old forms towards increasing incorporation of that semblance into active instincts. VOt makes the pathos of such aesthetic differentials between strong and weak, master and herd, simple and simpleton, blonds and retards impossible, when it conveniently and comfortably takes All be-ing as positive in itself. No, not all order is a positive ordering from the pov. of ideals. To preach so, is Kabala by another means,, not philosophy.
6. Objectivity as subjective-intensification is a Degree of the strength of the senses that can discriminate judgements, call everything for what it is Beyond the effects of pain/pleasure such judgements would bring upon it. It is an index of one's sensual or empirical integrity without denying [Schop.] or deifying [Spinoza] the body. 'How much truth can you endure?' is a question of one's spirit(ual)/ed WTP, where the body is not some gross impediment, but a sharp instrument of pure acute awareness. This is the opposite of any pan-psychism or Plotinian prehensive intelligent-design, etc. where, it is not subject-dependency as mentioned, but a Subject-ionism - subject taken as its own weight of self-evident truth, instead of questioning, 'how much truth?' to make emerge a subject… Subjective onus in the inorganic world or Subjectionism is the closure of philosophy, not its disclosure. Persistence in the inorganic world only proves necessity, not order. Only active forces - verb, not intelligent agency - noun. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
7. Perspectivism is an employment of various vantages to acknowledge one's Limitations of knowledge. It is not a deployment of a ploy to escape one's own station in life - which is totally self-defeating in the affirmation of an affirmative philosophy. VOt being defined as the "absolutization of relativism" and leaving victory, power, success as one who persists the most or endures the most - i.e., if Density alone decides objective superiority, then any mass hive-mind, any plastic, any bacteria able to persist the longest would be more valuable life-form than the human… which is fine, but then VOt cannot claim to be arche of the human, only of dense humanity. It becomes a Hedonistic Metaphysics: Peformance Ontology - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], not a VO.
The questions posed by value logic is not whether hydrogen this or that. Hydrogen itself is put into querstion: does hydrogen value? What values?
Nice try. No. You are repeating to me what I've critiqued about VOt First!
See FC's definition there of taking be-ing as a positive standard, or his eg. of the rock on ILP. That Hydrogen persists as Hydrogen, and rock as rock no matter if it is broken up into smaller pieces - its rock-ness is inviolable as its self-valuing is what VO is about. [Not the cognitive consciousness, but prehensive agency].
That is the starting point. Self-valuing is then defined by them as the ability to maintain [coherence] or not maintain [decoherence] its integrity, its inviolability.
The very word Self in self-valuing is taken apriori positive!
The Ideal as an Inventor or Artist's Means has become Ends in VOt, a solipsistic loop, the 'support' has become 'purport':
Nietzsche wrote:
""Truth" is therefore not something there, that might be found or discovered-but something that must be created and that gives a name to a process, or rather to a will to overcome that has in itself no end-introducing truth, as a processus in infinitum, an active determIning-not a becoming- conscious of something that is in itself firm and determined. It is a word for the "will to power." Life is founded upon the premise of a belief in enduring and regularly recurring things; the more powerful life is, the wider must be the knowable world to which we, as it were, attribute being. Logicizing, rationalizing, systematizing as expedients of life. Man projects his drive to truth, his "goal" in a certain sense, outside himself as a world that has being, as a metaphysical world, as a "thing-in-itself," as a world already in existence. His needs as creator invent the world upon which he works, anticipate it; this anticipation (this "belief" in truth) is his support." [WTP, 552]
What is of value? That everything has value is a function of the fact that every body will have an answer to this.
Rather the other way, if all is equally valuable, then what is of value?
Or as Satyr has said, if a slut's love belongs to all, then what is love?
Life IS discrimination, the absence of which would be death, since harmless and harmful would lose all significance.
Since VOt abhors anything Objective above it… as if anything above is immediately repression and oppression like a typical victim mode of Freudian thinking,,, then there's nothing left to decide. Arbitrary Platonisms and Kabala of eternal ideals like mercy, grace, goodness, etc. as some ruling objectivity is still only a human, all too human interpretation and reigious need and prescription, and that too, what is good for one, is poison for another. Its not a philosophy - which is a highly Political activity, in the Grand sense.
Is it true that this forum asks for honest being so it can face its consequences? Can this forum not face the consequences of it? The dungeon mechanism is not natural, not how distaste is manifested anywhere where value is to be found.
Does a retard not value? Why such fear? Fear of retards sounds... lowly. It may be the very lowlyness that has spawned the decadence of today, the severity of christianity: thou SHALT be godly, by God!
And also, Nietzsche was maybe the first phiolosopher, and at least in a very long time, to be of value not only by what he said, but what he did not say, and how he said, and why, and w.... long list of et ceteras. But I give already too much... Nietzsche can be valued by who it can be valued.
If all opinions were equally respected [which is a Xt. idea - from the 'height' of God, all have equality, whereas to N., from the height of an eagle, the necessity of all inequalities could be affirmed], then you would have a dead forum like ILP.
What is postmodernity, but the chaos and confusion of rapid information flow, where you cannot separate good and bad or see the whole logic of one chain to the end because everything has Potential to be valuable at some point or the other. Even garbage has its use. Accumulation for its own sake, diversity for its own sake only self-destructs in its own meaninglessness. We eat to live quickly short-circuits to we live to eat. The more the deviancy, the ec-centricty is a losing of orbital orientation, dis-orientation. Creativity is control and organizational genius over this chaos.
Everything needs a hierarchy and rank. The pole here is reference to reality around which things more or less co-ordinate.
ILP practises censorship and deletion and perma-ban of sane members while keeping criminals on board,,, KT only places ranks on Trolls like cAnus and those who cannot be trusted with the truths of existence. Not all can take it. In their hands, great words become vulgarized, and why philosophy is inevitably a closed activity in these 'culture of victims' time, where anything can be a trigger and anyone can lose it at anything and justify it with anything. Its the time of 'anything goes',… so, one needs to be care-full. And ranking Is affirmative, not negating.
In any case, Sauwie claimed the dungeon was his idea that KT took. Ask him.
As if even the Greeks did not value Hades and the under-world.
I would like a response to my point about hydrogen. Is this not supersticion of language? Why should we excpect that we already know the words for what is valuable to a higher spirit
That's My critique!! You should be asking them this...
I have even said in this very thread,
Lyssa wrote:
"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."
It is because the world is essentially meaningless, all inter-action is meaningless [necessity too is just an interpretation], N. goes on to say,
"Valuing is Creating."
*Because* the world is essentially meaningless.
To suffuse the world already with meaning is a Religious drive, not a philosophical one.
If THAT is your critique, then know it has no contradiction with self valuing or valuing logic. Perhaps you are reading things into it... In any case, maybe your defiance fits with the Satyrian pattern idealism, where if it looks like a chicken...
Where I see the actual conflict here, (agon? lol, don't be offended, I like to try things out) is in the fact that we claim more than one center values, and only each value can know its own self valuing, so we are actually much further from a central God than you.
Otherwise, I found your analyses to be very satisfactory and enjoyable, and truthful.
I do not defend ILP. The forum where I post is highly moderating, and we discriminate with much sharper discernment than either KT or ILP. I'm just sayin', this whole dungeon thing... It's very buffalo whatshisname from Silence of the Lambs.
"It puts the lotion on its skin!!"
I don't see the discrimination there.
Anyway, I did enjoy your analysis a lot. I don't mean this as a bullying tactic of getting you to humble yourself but, on the contrary, a discriminating tactic to let you know what I value most of you that you know I would you be MORE arrogant. It is then entirely up to your discrimination. I am judging carefully.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Dear friend...if you've found value in Jacobanism, do not let us sway you away from your calling. If you have grabbed onto the caricature of Hannibal Lecter, to belittle and dismiss, because it fills you with terror, please, go to the warm embrace and politeness of your Messiah. Watch a Disney film. The apostles, of old, also felt the pull of love and kindness in their harsh everyday life, in their loneliness and desperation, in their lostness - so strong they left their families to find "better".
If it looks like a chicken, it is a duck. In this sense, Jacob, looks like a messiah, acts like a messiah, and talks like a messiah, but, how can he be one, when he feels so differently inside?
Like a stone holding itself together, self-valuing, hold onto that feeling. The stone looks lifeless, looks cold, but it is valuing its own value, and holding itself together...and in this, how warm and intimate, and so like you it feels.
I, also, enjoyed your very precise and perspicuous analysis. No time wasted.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Sat Nov 14, 2015 12:34 am; edited 1 time in total
I already know you'll be back, lurking, reading, silent. The pattern which is you, has a need I can smell, otherwise it would not have given in to such a ridiculous, and old, practice. You feel special there. Who can match that? What real world can be better?
Fear pushes away - comfort draws in.
I already know something was lacking, missing, in you...something related to the word value. It's what hooked you. It's what keeps you hooked.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Every life form has values, when it has needs. It has an objective, a goal, a motive, and what satiates needs is what it values in relation to this objective.
The Nihilist has fabricated, exo-pragmatic, delusional needs. It is a mind so detached from reality, its values are, like its objectives, exo-natural, but it calls them supernatural to flatter itself. It calls them esoteric to hide their exo-pragmatic essence.
There are values based in reality, objective, and values based on disconnecting from reality, like with Judeo-Chritians, and Marxists values - fantastic ones. Their "self-valuing" is fantastic, fantasy, and they can take any form, precisely BECAUSE there is no external standard, they accept, to disturb them.
The idea(l) that even a stone's stoniness is it self-valuing, is one such delusion.
We can all understand what a pattern is, but when you use "value" or "love" out of context, placing it outside the living organism, then one must feel its truth....or feel "stupid" when he or she does not understand how the word is used in that context. The motive of the presenter (seller, messiah) must then be evaluated. He must imply a deeper meaning a secret, something profound and what only a few can appreciate. The promise is always one of power, or pleasure, or salvation, but there is always a reward for "getting it", because doing so requires a suspension of reason and a surrender to sensation (sensational), to emotion (positive).
One of the tennets of self valuing logic theory is what we are calling automorphism. In you, this is virtuously exemplifyied: you have decided, as you have stated, on an ordering of your objects, in Lyssa's sense of objectivism. Of course, as Lyssa says, these objects are second to the subject, they determine him in the sense that it is its own audacity, its own "how much truth" that produces them. So these objects are the you that is at the time of your valuing of them. Now, as you made this petrifying action, this renouncement of fluidity that in healthy terms allows for a renovation of identity of the world, objects, you only value the world, objects, in this your own form of petrifyied ideas. This is automorphism, and the stasis of your objectifying process allows one to view its action more clearly: first there is the Marxist flattening, the petrifyied Nietzschean idea of weakness and disease, then there is anything that is encountered. For, how can a man encounter but in terms of these objects he produces? Your guiding object, your highest value, is not these objects themselves but the pattern of adapting them to each person you meet. Thus, if they already meet your schema of strength, which, as you have said, is one of idealism first, you "automorph" into them. This is why outsiders percieve posters here as your slaves, they are, in this sense, you.
In this sense, I admire your grasp of self valuing logic, how you automorph into it. It is why I have expressed admiration of your order: it manages to incorporate a lot. Indeed, even this is how powerful Nietzsche is, that his values can vastly empower a man not set upon the course of philosophical discipline. Ergo Satyr, Hitler, and the incredible squashing of all serious below-Nietzscheanism in the current order. All this, of course, was forseen by him.
Satyr: bringing the raw power of Nietzsche's wake into the internet forum patterns!
All this said, I wish I could hear the bottom of your suggested deep analysis of my psyche. But I know it doesn't exist. You only see patterns, labyrinths, no way in or out! You are hiding, as Baudrillard said, that you are hiding nothing.
What is interesting, the reason I came back to post tonight, is that Lyssa has an understanding of Nietzsche far beyond yours, her posts are diametrically opposed to you. She tolerates this, uses this, thrives on this because she is a woman and thus has a more direct appreciation of power, usefulness, where a man, who needs to be more discriminating, would be disgusted. The answer to the riddle in Lyssa's posts regarding why Fixed won't touch you with a ten foot pole? Me, I'm more pragmatic. I, being a man, still see value in you.
