vacuum of power

Everywhere today, Baudrillard's question "why is there nothing instead of something?" (there is a contradiction here with an earlier post of mine, I stick to this version) leads us to one of the major tools of statist opression.

In fact, the answer is "because The System makes it easier and more profitable to leave it empty."


It isn't that there aren't enough potential rebels on the globe, it is that the rebels are isolated and fooled into the choice of "our way or the nihil way."

The nihil way, or nihilism, is not active nothing, a stupid and absurd concept, but inaction. You refrain from something.

Many take a third way: stupid rebellion.

For those seeking the almost infinite range of other ways, there are instances of resistance: social demands. Social demands amount to the sustenance of nihilism, of not making something where something can be made, by simple repetition. Instead of free-form singing, philosophizing or experimenting, they repeat mantras. When we fail to join this stupid meditation, we are not only rejected but acted against, and our efforts become the efforts of a criminal fringe that will soon be wiped out, or whose emotional ties to the world will be attacked until the will to do is gone.

Like a cult.

I don't care about political issues or causes, I am not motivated by rebellion. Societies rise and fall. I am more interested in the long-term. Ideas, truth, development, philosophy, these things motivate me, not "social causes" or "the System".

In terms of value-ontology: what value do those things have?

At best we could speak about the value of these things to specific valuing beings, you or I, or humanity generally, or to the future of humanity. From my perspective these things have some value but not enough to motivate my concern or lasting interest. My ability to value has surpassed needing to fixate on such things for long. But that does not mean they do not have some value to me, or I to they.

"Ideas," "truth," "development" and "philosophy" can only make sense within the context of systems that include the milieu of the authors.

Pezer wrote:

"Ideas," "truth," "development" and "philosophy" can only make sense within the context of systems that include the milieu of the authors.

No.

I encompass this milieu and appropriate it to myself. My own purview expands to include these others, the "authors" of these "ideas" which only means: those other minds in which these ideas might be said to cohere or coalesce to some degree. Even the "great minds" are usually only vehicles for these ideas' realization rather than the other way around.

Real thought is direct, active, creative. It is expansive, it does not seek merely to identify some modicum of itself in the ideas which are given to it, as is the mode of thinking of most people, but rather conditions these ideas by itself, it actively synthesizes and reformulates knowledge, it is always "open". Thus the necessity of futurity, that "least unjustified metaphysic", to the actually thinking mind.

You are potentially the author of every idea you have ever had and could ever conceivable have. Whether this potential expresses or stagnates, lives or dies, this is what separates the real philosopher, the man otuside of time, the truly living human being, from all he rest, including often enough "the philosophers". What has been called philosophy has been more often than not only automatic reformulation of the psychological 'self' under the direction of given "ideas" and based on their intra-historical logic and momentary social expediency and necessity.

We are trying to elevate thinking and along with it philosophy to a different and higher standard. That is the entire point.

All of those things considered, the milieu is still essential to the forming and survival of any idea/thought/feeling.

Or do you claim purely original thought?

Pezer wrote:

All of those things considered, the milieu is still essential to the forming and survival of any idea/thought/feeling.

Or do you claim purely original thought?

That is precisely the point of value ontology. To root logic in the subject, so that thought can be properly original, emergent.
It will take on the fabric of the environment ( language, references ) but its content will be original to the organism, as it contains necessarily a telos, is not a general proposition.

We no longer observe the phenomenology of society, we grasp it and are now in the process of orienting ourself as thinkers within this grasping. Metaphorically, we have established the north Star, and are deliberating with lowered sails, determining our particular course in respect to this certainty. In part still processing the possibility of directing thought at all. The beauty and problem is that we are now at open sea, not seeing any continents, and will have to choose blindly in the knowledge that whatever we will see will be ours.

Correct me if I'm wrong, are you rooting the direction of the entire theory on the phenomenology of society?

Because, no cynicism intended, that sounds like "the system."

Pezer wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, are you rooting the direction of the entire theory on the phenomenology of society?

What?
No.

That would obviously be impossible, given that value ontology observes the inner mechanism of any given structure, and not the phenomenological behavior.

Society is subject to/by the principle of value ontology. Its phenomenology is not necessarily interesting, but can be understood very well as we understand the implications of the principle.