Cracking the code of free will.

Free will as materialized transcendence of drive-causality within the valencies of self-valuing.


Values occur along valencies, tiers forming rings around the self-valuing core. Each valency might be said to constitute its own sort of self-valuing occurring within the broader total self-valuing, that of which the valencies are valencies. Each valency of a subject has its own logic based on its particular vantage upon reality, its own necessities and relations when it comes to regulating and translating meaningful information about what for it presents as reality, what is "imposed upon" it. These valencies work together in that each must, in being different, still promote the total self-valuing of the whole, meaning that the disruption and dissonance engendered by multi-valenced self-valuing activity must produce more benefit than detriment with respect to the long run of natural selection by whose mandate subjects are allowed to remain continually in existence. For self-conscious subjects such as man, who have escaped the naturally selective mandate of evolution, this benefit vs. detriment relation becomes mirrored in the contents of consciousness itself, reflected as an object of that consciousness in so far as to live has become a more or less "intentional process" for this entity and it must therefore form relations to those objects of its self-consciousness which present themselves as necessary and proper for its own living. The survival mandate does not disappear once the entity escapes evolution, rather the mandate is transferred to a different level, as the entity learns how to become responsible for itself, to cognize itself rather than rely solely on unconscious instinctual autonomic reaction. What this means is that these instinctual reactions are not removed but are resisted in part and a space counter to them opens up, a space in which "something" exists in some opposition to their causal potency.

This "something" is firstly a feeling, a pathos of distance, if you will; the feeling of suppression of the former "automatic" and instinctual causality. The feeling itself is the positive affective expression of a "void", of the absence of certain otherwise motivating and impelling forces within the psychology of consciousness. For example, when I am tempted to eat something but resist, a feeling of resistance is generated. We usually interpret this as a feeling of un-freedom, which is exactly what it is; it is the feeling of one level of causality being resisted thus, with respect to the domain in which this resistance occurs, the content of this domain being elevated above that former type of causality and entering a new type of causality. What is this new type? Basically it is the same as the old type but with one exception: it includes in its causal logical operations the positive absence, now characterized as an object of this particular causal field, of the formerly impelling causal-instinctual forces. Because these have been resisted their "energy", the force that is resisted is blocked, engendering a psychological disturbance. The disturbance is a pooling of pathos that gives the new object of consciousness "substance", a new sort of affective weight, it "feels differently". It stands out from what is around it. This is what, to us humans now, makes us feel like we are losing our freedom, because this object stands out among the other objects of our self-conscious field of object-causality and "makes us aware of it's power" over that causality. But for early man, whose such objects arose more or less alone in a much wider field of total instinctual reactivity, these objects would have felt like positive powers, respites from the instinctual chaos of his psychology, a means by which to come to terms with something and "become free from it", free to "do something different". For early man this experience of cognizing instinctual force was a positive experience of a feeling of power; for us today, entirely used to this feeling, this experience is one of a negative experience of loss of power, a feeling of being compelled to act with respect to one determinant rather than to the whole vague and amorphous, half-cognized field of determination which now constitutes our causality.

What this process signifies is that causality is being transferred from one valency to another. First there is the valency of integrated instinctual reactivity, "unconscious" activity that is "unplanned" and arises from the bodily nervous system in combination with the mind's sense of itself, as memory, and its sense of its surroundings. This is "material causality", more or less the same sort of causality that non-living matter abides by, except that it includes memory, a component of pattern juxtaposition that is able to contrast a present sensation with similar sensations encountered in the past. This contrast is what constitutes the instinct, cohered over time and by the mandate of natural selection into more rigid "drives". This sort of causal logic constitutes the first plane of consciousness. As this consciousness' memory becomes sensitive enough to store more and more of its own instinctive-drive responsiveness in memory it progressively begins to more and more juxtapose its present conscious states with remembered past conscious states. This new order of contrast signifies the transfer of causality to a higher level, a "meta-causality" that operates based on the logic of this newly-formed self-cognizing instinctuality "organizing" what is prior to it, namely that instinctuality itself in its un-cognized and "natural" form, i.e. as the more or less stabilized and cohered psychological drives. The drives are the basic "psychology" of the organism, but when the organism's memory becomes able to store adequate amount of information about its own conscious states of the past, which means the organizations and patterns of this "psychology" and the certain stimuli to which it was responding in those past moments, this becomes a true psychology in the sense which we think of it: it becomes "active", meaning that the automatism of the drive-psychology of the past is juxtaposed against the drive-psychology of the present, producing another pathos of distance, another feeling of negative suppression. What is actually suppressed? Is it the psychology in the memory or the psychology of the present moment? Surprisingly, it is the psychology of the present moment that is most suppressed here. Why? Because it is the most amenable to change, it is active and fluid in the present moment whereas the image of the psychologies of the past, as contents of memory, are more stable and less able to become fully drawn into the causal flux of the present moment. So the images in memory act to partially resist and "suppress" the psychology that emerges in the present moment. The organism is "changing itself", altering its presently expressed consciousness with respect to those images in its memory, or rather with respect to the contrast engendered when this present psychology and past psychology are juxtaposed against each other. This contrast itself is then the higher order of feeling of distance, another "positive expression of a negative absence" or negative resistance. This feeling is the activity and living of animal consciousness, what forms the basis of an animal's "mind" and self-sense of itself.

The quality of this self-sense is rudimentary because what constitutes it is the causal automatism of the psychology. The past psychology, as image in memory, repressing and conditioning the present psychology consists of repression only based on ease, on how more or less stable or fluid these psychologies are in comparison to each other. Since memory cannot as easily be altered as the active psychology of the present moment, the present gives way to memory based on nothing but the path of least resistance. So the quality of the affective pathos of this sort of consciousness then is constituted as a "flat dimension" of "pure awareness", a basic sense of unqualified distance based solely on its one distinguishing positive quality: difference itself, a differences expressed as a simple quantity of greater or lesser than. An animal's consciousness is like this simple "hard point of awareness", a basically flat dimension of "pure difference". No matter how much more deep or complex the psychologies of animals become, how many more instincts the animal's memory, as images of its past psychological states, is able to store and respond to, this responsiveness remains basically flat, at the level of pure difference; it extends horizontally but not vertically. Instincts supersede upon each other in a "war of the drives" where natural selection dictates the winners, in the end.

So we can see that the material causal field is first "organized" into instinctive drives, and then "repressed" at the behest of an image of these drives themselves, the image formed based on stored information about past drive-states. This repression constitutes the first transcendence of the causal field from one plane to another, producing a second valency of self-valuing atop the first. As this second valency grows to become more complex and memory more able to store greater degrees of information, the animal grows in complexity and power of sensation; the instincts widen and expand, then differentiate, the animal becomes able to specialize its behavior. But none of this elevates the causality here to another order of transcendence yet, until another "hard point of resistance" is able to appear, namely until other formerly positive contents are reconstituted as negative expressions or "suppressed voids" and thus transformed into a new positive object characterized by a novel pathos of distance. I would argue that this is probably occurring in nature all the time within animal life, but this process only produces disregularity in the organism, disruption of its functional instinctuality, so natural selection would select against these animals. This process would only appear here and there, arbitrarily and in small quantities, and could only become organized as this sort of organism and its particular psychological potency were allowed to evolve and stabilize over a long period of time.

With humans, this was able to finally stabilize. Early agriculture, basic language and tool use, these things allowed a home for these sort of object-repressions of instinctual causality to stick around, to not vanish immediately as natural selection removed these now somewhat confused and disregulated instinctual organisms from the gene pool. Ultimately this transformed humanity by allowing human consciousness the ability to engender new degrees of differentiation within its psychology that, over time and as a consequence of written language and story-telling, became rigidified in this consciousness' memory thus forming another order of juxtaposed difference between present conscious states and the stored memories of past conscious states. This new plane of differentiation allowed more orders of psychological object-suppression, and eventually the plane of psychological causality was transferred to another valency entirely, one that was the active repression of the past animal psychology based on the new conscious powers of humanity that allowed it to model, objectify, react to and resist this psychology. This resistance occurred in parts, here and there, and has never been total. Philosophy is the process of trying to totalize this resistance. But ultimately the sheer number of these objects of resistance did grow to produce culture, knowledge, enlightened feeling and morality. This is where man currently stands, with many of these objects of resistance constituting his self-cognizance of the plane of animal psychology of rigidified instinct-drives. The number of these objects a man possesses will determine the degree and particular quality of his "humanity", and as these objects are largely acquired after birth, through learning processes based on one's experiences, cultural history, language, and role models, each person has a different constitution of self-cognition, a different "consciousness".

"Free will" therefore is for man the basic feeling of resistance itself, the pathos of distance between this plane of self-cognizing causality, causal determination that man experiences as emerging from this plane of conscious objects which carry direct meaning for him, and the plane of the animal psychology, namely the causal determination of all that is repressed or excessive and prior-to of this self-cognizing causality. Free will is not some order of absolute freedom or "agency", it is the removal of the causal mandate from one plane and its transference to another, from one logic-functionality and necessity to another, this latter being based on an opposition to the former, opposition characterized first by recognition and then by repression/resistance. Free will is firstly a feeling which man possesses, his basic awareness of the pure difference between the object-contents, the causality, of his self-cognizing consciousness and the contents of his instinctual causality of his psychology; unlike other animals this feeling in man is "dimensionalized" as it is engendered by differentiation based on differences of quality rather than differences of pure quantity, differences in the character of objects of consciousness rather than differences only in temporal distance across memory. This is a difference of character with respect to what becomes possible for consciousness able to self-cognize: it is able to resist fully-formed psychological states based on an "understanding" of these states, an understanding made possible by elevating its causality to a higher level, such as that of human relations to each other, to civilization, to social codes or morals, or to one's own "enlightened ideas", to truth. Thus in man is this feeling made aware of itself, and therefore itself turned into an object within this new meaningful field of self-cognizing consciousness. The belief about free will comes after the feeling of it, and the belief is only its justification, its reflection within the contents of cognition. These beliefs take on a quality of incommunicability and inexpressibility because the feeling itself arises based on an absence, a lack of cognition; while the feeling comes into existence because man has become able to self-cognize, the limits of this self-cognition are the limits of this feeling itself, and define it. However far back these limits extend, as self-cognized understanding and direct responsiveness and awareness of causal chains, determines the scope of the feeling of freedom. Men of genius, artists and philosophers, those who have the greatest self-understanding and the greatest ability to see into their own inner causal workings always possess the greatest feeling of freedom. And like the notion of God, once the feeling of freedom gives rise to a cognitive object meant to represent it, namely gives rise to a belief, an idea, this idea is mistaken for the feeling itself, as per the logic of the transference of the causal mandate itself. The object takes the place of the feeling in self-cognizance; the feeling becomes the passive expression of this transference while the object the active expression of it.

Free = Independent

Will = to direct the organism's aggregate energies (activities) towards a projected object/objective - an object/objective lacking in the organism, otherwise there would be no need driving the movement towards.

To free one's will, is another way of saying to attain godliness.
Power becomes a detachment, an absence of need.
A masculine kind of nihilism.

Need = the sensation of existing in a fluid world. The feeling of temporal attrition on a emergent unity wanting to finalize its completion (attain the singular, the oneness, God).
A singularity, as we know, is a dropping out of existence, and so the same holds true here. the closer to completion, to omnipotence, omniscience we get, the more indifferent, detached, we become.
The master/slave dynamic is resolved in indifference.
This need, reaches the level of pain/suffering, when it is left unsatisfied for long.
It requires constant vigilance, constant attention, awareness, to feed one's self-maintaining requirement.

All excess energies, left over once self-preservation is ensured, is directed towards growth...or creation/procreation...or towards an object/objective.
Here the projection acquires a efficiency role, as the organism prepares for future need, by projecting, in space time the object/objective that may satisfy this need.
Simpler minds live more in the present; in the immediate, and so their projections are shallow and guided by need once it has reached a certain pressing level.

As such, to will ones freedom is another way of wanting to Be god...to be absolutely self-sufficient and detached from all objects/objectives.

The point is the transfer of the limit, its relocation from one order to another within the wider psyche of sensate consciousness. Freedom is always a limit, to be free means nothing but to be un-moved by something, by that toward which freedom expresses itself. There is no difference between so-called freedom and determinism.

Of course I am aiming at something more specific with my essay here, a greater articulation. A larger philosophical process and comprehension.

Quote :

We usually interpret this as a feeling of un-freedom, which is exactly what it is; it is the feeling of one level of causality being resisted thus, with respect to the domain in which this resistance occurs, the content of this domain being elevated above that former type of causality and entering a new type of causality. What is this new type? Basically it is the same as the old type but with one exception: it includes in its causal logical operations the positive absence, now characterized as an object of this particular causal field, of the formerly impelling causal-instinctual forces. Because these have been resisted their "energy", the force that is resisted is blocked, engendering a psychological disturbance. The disturbance is a pooling of pathos that gives the new object of consciousness "substance", a new sort of affective weight, it "feels differently". It stands out from what is around it. This is what makes us feel like we are losing our freedom, because this object stands out among the other objects of our self-conscious field of object-causality and "makes us aware of it's power" over that causality. But for early man, whose such objects arose more or less alone in a much wider field of total instinctual reactivity, these objects would have felt like positive powers, respites from the instinctual chaos of his psychology, a means by which to come to terms with something and "become free from it", free to "do something different".

Experience of freedom is the self-encounter of the limit, within the context of broader causal delimitations themselves constituting "freedoms" from the perspective of other various and progressively more removed vantage points. The onto-epistemic nature of freedom is nothing more than contextualized self-responsive delimitation of affective sense; however the experiential-subjective nature of freedom, its "value-ontological nature" goes beyond this, pointing inward toward this affective sense and its many various locations, inertias and powers. Free will is a feeling, meaning it is a method, a mode with which self-capture approaches itself, engages its own limitation of self-referencial objectification. So-called freedom is something that potentiates, and this is really the whole point. Experience of a "free will" is impossible without a language, without a symbolic-symbolizing order, a logos. Even so, before the development of abstract language, the body of substantiating instinctuality-patterning itself functions as a rudimentary plane of freedom for the organism, upon which the organism develops and "is organic".

Quote :

For early man this experience of cognizing instinctual force was a positive experience of a feeling of power; for us today, entirely used to this feeling, the experience is one of a negative experience, a loss of power, a feeling of being compelled to act with respect to one determinant rather than with respect to a wider and more vague, amorphous and half-cognized field of determination as which now constitutes our salient causality.

The experience of freedom has changed over time because that from which this experience emerges and that to which it continuously refers, man, has also changed. This change has been a consequence of the progressive development of the experience of freedom itself, of what man calls a "self".


Note: "absolute self-sufficiency" and "detached from all objects/objectives" constitute transcendental ideas that function daemonically within self-consciousness for the purpose of maintaining a particular kind of experience of freedom, a particular kind of "self-ing" as causal-mimetic self-coherence/s over time.

I agree, in general.

What you call "limit" I call potential.
It reflects the space/time nature of potential,a s a projection.

The Will, being the focus of aggregate energies, tries to focus them, more precisely, so as to gain with synergy and control what it lacks in full.
Like martial arts and the self-disciplined focus of energies.

Will being this attempt to control the totality of energies available so as to multiply them with focus...on a object/objective.

Silenus wrote:

I agree, in general.

What you call "limit" I call potential.
It reflects the space/time nature of potential,a s a projection.

Yes, this is good. It emphasizes the dimensionality of potency, its real existence as a substantial entity like any other.

I use the term limit because I see this as a threshold and point-horizon beyond which things become qualitatively different, possess new properties and conform in part to new logics. The limit is that beyond which the limited cannot fathom without serious appeal to error, usually in the form of collapse to a non-dimensional representation. This allows limits to delimit what falls within, or rather under, their arc. To create a definition, to bring forth into existing. The relationship between that which is inside and outside the limit is very interesting, one of the most misunderstood logical phenomenon, because the nature of this relationship depends heavily upon the natures of the relatants and any constituent context -- all this is occurring within four dimensions, at the very minimum, at all times, so explicitly defining the limit, or even what a limit is, becomes very difficult for anyone who has not thoroughly explored all spaces influenced by the limit, either inside, outside, contextualizing, possibilizing or impossibilizing.

Quote :

The Will, being the focus of aggregate energies, tries to focus them, more precisely, so as to gain with synergy and control what it lacks in full.
Like martial arts and the self-disciplined focus of energies.

"Will" then under this usage is the effect of many causal convergences within milieu of singularizing constructions of logical potentiation, serving as structures upon which "a context" is built, a created plane that acts to enforce its law to whatever extent this becomes possible. It creates its own possibility, quite literally, in so far as it exists only because it is possible and because it possibilizes (i.e. it self-values). Materialities of any substance or scope will therefore tend over time to gather and congregate toward new powers, in so far as this conflux takes place within more or less consistent laws and the ability for new powers to exert their effect is immediate or nearly so. Also a more or less anentropic situation is probably necessary as well, which explains why more complex substances require very precise conditions in order to arise, and to continue in their existence, the more complex the substance the greater specificity of its conditioning requirement.

Will to Power emerges here as the necessary structure of things which occur within a universe that provides a stable frame of constant logical reference and enough variability so that new convergences and divergences are possible and able to at least some of the time encounter conditions which serve to potentiate their longevity. Once longevity potentiation occurs, even only slightly, a new plane is formed upon which a new order of tectonic activities begins to develop. If this eruption also happens to encounter its own potentiating conditionality, then the process continues, without end until such conditions are no longer present for any given order. Thus we see the emergence of what is called natural selection, since any planar configuration able to better manipulate its own surrounding potentialities that it may bring forth for itself better conditionalities and the conditioning conditionalities of these conditions, the more likely this configuration is to increase its longevity and therefore possibly serve as that upon which something further may take shape.

Quote :

Will being this attempt to control the totality of energies available so as to multiply them with focus...on a object/objective.

I am less concerned with the object/objective, since this is more of an "excuse" to increase, like a needed but more or less arbitrary or incidental catalyst. The object will move on to over-determine the nature of that which it serves to potentiate in terms of providing the focal ability, but in general entities are so complex and multi-layered that no single object cannot be broken down into many constituent and smaller objects, points along the path of progression from one form to another, from one space-time limit or potential to another. Focusing on the object seems to close off that perspective which is bound to/by that object, in so far as the logic of the "Ouroboros" is severed. In philosophic contemplation this can occur at the level of abstract analysis, and partial machines invested of various short-circuits become introduced and multiply within the larger theoretical frameworks. However, this severing can be and is also "a good thing" much of the time -- in other words, at all times we should have both the completed Ouroboros and its incomplete and mutilated "twin". It is the existence of both which allows for both, and it is the inter-relation and inter-action between these that is able to potentiate and stabilize what we call "life" or "the mind"; the act of inquiry, the expression of interest.

Capable wrote:

Yes, this is good. It emphasizes the dimensionality of potency, its real existence as a substantial entity like any other.

I use the term limit because I see this as a threshold and point-horizon beyond which things become qualitatively different, possess new properties and conform in part to new logics. The limit is that beyond which the limited cannot fathom without serious appeal to error, usually in the form of collapse to a non-dimensional representation. This allows limits to delimit what falls within, or rather under, their arc. To create a definition, to bring forth into existing. The relationship between that which is inside and outside the limit is very interesting, one of the most misunderstood logical phenomenon, because the nature of this relationship depends heavily upon the natures of the relatants and any constituent context -- all this is occurring within four dimensions, at the very minimum, at all times, so explicitly defining the limit, or even what a limit is, becomes very difficult for anyone who has not thoroughly explored all spaces influenced by the limit, either inside, outside, contextualizing, possibilizing or impossibilizing.

What is possible and impossible is this relationship of power, between the Will's aggregate energies, and their focus, and the otherness with which it (inter)acts.
What is possible, or what is the limit of the organism's aggregate energies, at any given time, shifts, ever so slightly.
Both the aggregate energies, the Will's focus and the otherness, sometimes with its own Will, are not static, but always changing.

This does not mean that the shift is so extreme that the impossible, in degree, suddenly becomes possible, but only that possibility increases or decreases, slightly.

Capable wrote:

"Will" then under this usage is the effect of many causal convergences within milieu of singularizing constructions of logical potentiation, serving as structures upon which "a context" is built, a created plane that acts to enforce its law to whatever extent this becomes possible. It creates its own possibility, quite literally, in so far as it exists only because it is possible and because it possibilizes (i.e. it self-values).

The Will's possibility, as that brain agency which focuses the available organic energies, increases as chaos increases.
For this reason I claim that life is only possible, or becomes increasingly possible, in states where the randomness, which is described by the term "chaos", begins to exceed the order, which pre-existed in an near-absolute state.

Life could only be the consciousness of increasing need/suffering, which is how it experiences existing, because life becomes more possible as chaos increases, making life a (re)action to entropy - an ordering in relation to disordering. ergo life is forever a resistance to dying, or it is the state of consistent dying.

I use the same argument to defend my positions on the emergence of the near-absolute order, which we call ?Big Bang or beginning.
As randomness increases, possibility expands - space being possibility - which slowly results in a uniformity of what is possible, or an absence of patterns making what is possible uniform...therefore the emergence of a near-absolute, near-complete singularity, becomes increasingly inevitable as one approaches the infinity, and equality, of possibility.

Liberalism and its dogma of equality is related to this desire to make everything equally possible - it is a nihilistic position, often masking as positivity.

Capable wrote:

Materialities of any substance or scope will therefore tend over time to gather and congregate toward new powers, in so far as this conflux takes place within more or less consistent laws and the ability for new powers to exert their effect is immediate or nearly so. Also a more or less anentropic situation is probably necessary as well, which explains why more complex substances require very precise conditions in order to arise, and to continue in their existence, the more complex the substance the greater specificity of its conditioning requirement.

Yes, and this is why as chaos increases the emergence of order, or lie as an ordering, becomes less and less likely.
Matter , being a pattern, also decreases in possibility, leaving behind a uniformity of (inter)activity, which is random as complexity has now become an almost total chaos.

The difference between complexity of order and complexity which is nonsensical because it is random, is what I am talking about.
The simpler mind cannot find nor process patterns of order which exceeds its limit but chaos is the state of an absence of patterns.
The two should not be confused...no more than we should confuse courage founded no ignorance and courage founded on gnosis.
A fool is often too obtuse to be concerned.

Capable wrote:

Will to Power emerges here as the necessary structure of things which occur within a universe that provides a stable frame of constant logical reference and enough variability so that new convergences and divergences are possible and able to at least some of the time encounter conditions which serve to potentiate their longevity.

Will to, is the important part here...for me.
Power is a term trying to define the absent absolute...or the projected object/objective.

But power is but a more modern word, replacing Heraclitus' Fire.
Both allude to a substance, a fabric, but using a metaphor which describes activity and not a thing.

We also notice in Will to Power, which is absent from the Fire symbolism a nihilistic desire to find finality: omnipotence.
A counter-existence tendency, which, if taken literally, points to a dropping out of existence and the experiencing of existing as need/suffering.

Capable wrote:

I am less concerned with the object/objective, since this is more of an "excuse" to increase, like a needed but more or less arbitrary or incidental catalyst. The object will move on to over-determine the nature of that which it serves to potentiate in terms of providing the focal ability, but in general entities are so complex and multi-layered that no single object cannot be broken down into many constituent and smaller objects, points along the path of progression from one form to another, from one space-time limit or potential to another. Focusing on the object seems to close off that perspective which is bound to/by that object, in so far as the logic of the "Ouroboros" is severed. In philosophic contemplation this can occur at the level of abstract analysis, and partial machines invested of various short-circuits become introduced and multiply within the larger theoretical frameworks. However, this severing can be and is also "a good thing" much of the time -- in other words, at all times we should have both the completed Ouroboros and its incomplete and mutilated "twin". It is the existence of both which allows for both, and it is the inter-relation and inter-action between these that is able to potentiate and stabilize what we call "life" or "the mind"; the act of inquiry, the expression of interest.

Replace object/objective with idea/ideal.
This projection is not meant to be reached, but only to direct, and to inspire.
In the end the tragedy/comedy of life becomes its fight against what cannot and should not be defeated.
An eternal struggle towards, resulting in hierarchies and cyclical ebb and flows.

The object/objective, being a human projection of mental abstractions, should not be taken literally but figuratively...like the concept of god(s), or any ideal.

Entities become complex because they are governed by chaos.
an ordered mind is a mind which makes of itself and everything it touches, predictable.
Order is the absence or exclusion of choices, options, possibilities, a singularity, if it were possible, would be characterized by one-dimensionality.
Therefore the incompleteness of existence, that which is lacking, that which is absent to complete the absolute, is the other, or the second dimension, leading to added possibilities.

Self-control is an imposition of a restriction to personal options.
It is the Will imposing a direction, and not tolerating divergence. It is a focus.

The antagonism between consciousnesses and unconscious (inter)activity, should be kept in mind, when talking about the human condition and free-will, or a will wanting o free itself from the very conditions that make it necessary.

This is why I've become aware of two kinds of Nihilism: the feminine and the masculine....or the negative and authentic nihilism and the positive and hypocritical kind.

Apollo becomes a joke, when one considers the impossibility of his symbolism.
Dionysus laughs, like women laugh at men who play at being brave and warriors and gods.

Femininity surrenders to power, and there is no force greater than increasing chaos.
No masculine counter-force can match it for long. All a man can do is become noble, a dancing star, for a while, making females blush and swoon at his sight.

The pure nihilists admit their distaste for living and its meaninglessness.
They cannot find purpose and the idea that it is they that must create it makes them feel insecure, as they do not much value themselves.
The hypocritical nihilists hide their distaste of existence, with feel-good, ends, and final goals, promising an escape into a better existence: one void of the sensation of existing.

The male dreams of an end as God: absolute order, One, singularity.
The female psyche as an end in total emptiness, total uniform, randomness - nil.

Both are part of the same life-denying coin and so they have an attraction for each other.


The actual rejection of both these master/slave counterparts, is indifference.
Not denial, not dreaming of an end, but a joyous acceptance of the process, never wanting it to stop.
Like a child...playing a game that makes you laugh and cry; not trying to find a way to end the game, but only to increase one's level of endurance.

This is where asceticism takes on a different purpose.
Asceticism as Athleticism...ΑΣΚΗΣΗΣ.

To avoid Bonini's Paradox , a man, masculine energy, simplifies, orders.
A mind is an ordering tool, resisting, reacting to the temporal flow towards increasing entropy/chaos/randomness. Consciousness is, fundamentally, a masculine process.
To know is to overcome....to understand is to overpower, through reduction.

Instead of hiding his confusion in semantics and linguistic complexities, a male reduces the observed down to its basic elements and describes them by finding a common pattern which incorporates all which is observed - or as much of it as possible - within its concepts.

Το λακωνίζειν εστί φιλοσοφείν...
Plato admired the Spartans for being able to encompass their entire way of thinking in a few words, or, more accurately, to live their philosophy rather than speak of it.
This masculine triteness, was often mistaken for simplicity, when it was the equal to the endless jibber-jabbering of the Athenians, and, as it later was proven, it was its superior in a pragmatic sense.

We, definitely live in a feminized, more Athenian world....although even Athens was far more Doric that we are today.
Athens had not experienced the degradation of Judeo-Christian disease...and was only experiencing its decline in the form of Democratic all-inclusion.
The Acropolis itself attests to that leaning, with its Doric columns and austere style.

Schopenhauer, Arthur wrote:

The works of really capable minds differ from the rest in their character of decisiveness and definiteness, together with the distinctness and clearness springing there from, since they at all times clearly and definitely knew what they wanted to express; it may have been in prose, verse, or tones. The rest lack this decisiveness and clearness; and in this respect they can be at once recognized.
The characteristic sign of all first-rate minds is the directness of all their judgments and opinions. All that they express and assert is the result of their own original thinking and everywhere proclaims itself as such even by the style of delivery....Therefore every genuine and original thinker is to this extent like a monarch; he is immediate and perceives no one who is his superior. Like the decrees of a monarch, his judgments spring from his own supreme power and come directly from himself.

You can always recognize a pretentious mind, acquiring his insights through second-hand authorities, by the fabricated complexities he uses in his expressions.
A man who is a creator of his own opinions, simplifies them...reduces them to their basic elements, and can explain them to anyone, using no specialized terminologies.
He has reduced his world-view to a few basic patterns. They may or may not be able to encompass the entirety of what is observed, but then nothing can, as a fluid reality can never be described using static symbols, such as words and numbers.
The talent of the thinker also includes his artistry...his rhetorical abilities.

He is not motivated by a desire to appear more than he is and so he describes in simple ways what is too intricate to describe at all.
Like a painter can give the impression of movement, suing a canvas and paints, reducing a intricate process down to a few patterns, which he can then reproduce.

Yes, but not only consciousness is such an ordering-tendency, rather all things express this. Structure itself is a tendency toward order, the more limited anentropic emerging from the greater entropic. As water always flows downhill, as energy always takes the path of least resistance we can see how the mere occurrence of differences of scale create qualities of potency, "situations" that act to organize themselves around that which is near to them within an optimal range, not too close and not too far away (i.e. what we refer to as valencies of self-valuing).

What we call consciousness is not unique, but exists in every thing. This is the truth behind mystic pronouncements and spiritualist sloppy thinking. This truth is felt by them because feeling itself, at lower levels of sensation, are also more summational and "complete"; then the mystic articulates this feeling in his inadequate and absurd language of metaphysical nonsense terms.

Our philosophies here are the attempt to move philosophy into the domain of the scientific, and to move science into philosophy again. A few basic principles can suffice to work up the grand picture, or that from which more simplified truths follow, such as phenomena like Bonini's paradox. Man grasps many particulars, and a few more general abstractions with which to unite them. Philosophy is the task of capturing everything within the particular and the general, the term and the concept, the image and the idea, toward the end of producing not truth (truth is an after-effect) but rather of producing life, real fucking living. Not this poor, artificial and lumbering semblance of life that we see everywhere around us.

Words are harsh, necessarily so. They are unable, without the physical, chemical altering of the wording functions, to express that which is not conquering, that which is conquered and covered in such an aloof way as to not be able to be called quite re-conquering or in-conquering.

Negativity is percieved, qutie rightly, as lazyness. It is the worded reflection of this loungy activity.

It is sad, though, and felt as a void-in-need-of-fill, that words, which are such an outer-valency tier of communication, cannot cover the lozange of life. This is the genious of the niggro, who mixes the words with grunts and unclear noises to express this saddly unexpressable.

I have been told that Kierkegaard spoke of a leveling process, one that is said to be equivalent to nihilism, and that he was said to promote as a kind of necessary stepping stone in human progression.

Yes, language must be destroyed with gentleness.

On limit, limitation -- What if we establish theoretically a limit between on the one hand what we refer to as Chaos, and the other, as Order.
This limit could be defined/perceived only in terms of the entities comprehension of Order, thus in terms of the structure it is able to see reflected in itself, in some faculty, property or attribute, in it's experience of the continuing world, in it's 'life'.

Could it be that within the subspecies of humanity, the limit to order, where order becomes chaos, is itself a species - the artist ?
The artist as the threshold, or rather the dweller on the threshold which is his creating - I am just coining some thoughts here inspired by the notion that a limit is a 'margin call' - a region in the spectrum of succes/fail rate of a particular formula, where 'difference can be made' - where the difference between order (being/identity/entity) and chaos (becoming/changing/dying) is indeterminate - with the exception of being determinable by that very subtle crafting attribute of nature, the self-identifying half-chaos, the wounded centaur, the 'drummer' to uncertainty, luring time from chaos.

Free will then is where there is neither certainty nor uncertainty - the domain of the 'fated', the tragic-ecstatic artist, the one who is sucked into the vortex of his power to un-be and birth himself as increase to the world. His identity is only increase - the bestowing virtue is the consummation of chaos and order into a "higher", a glimpse of the vast bounty of he who knows himself as he is born.

Perpetual birth - Tumbling into a deeper 'wounded order' storming around an intensifying chaotic eye.