Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya)

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:19 am; edited 1 time in total

In response to the Kurukshetra thread

In order to address the world of power, we have to do several things.

- Establish our position within it (necessary)
- Establish our position toward it (moral)
- Assess the situation according to the channels of consciousness Saint Francis asked God to open in his mind:
Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

- In response to the first matter, my definitive proposition is a "self-valuing" - a center (of force, "affect")
- In response to the second matter, I "faithfully obey" this value ontology and practice "soul-searching" accordingly.

What this means is that I rely on a receding axiom, an invisible certainty. Not God - an outwardly commanding force - but an inner activity that is identified only as expressing itself in every deliberate act, and which can be deduced to be related to the "feeling" (state of the self-valuing feedback loop, 'form of energy', experience) one has when one is particularly drawn to act deliberately. In other words, the moral position must emerge. It is wholly dependent on context, it givers substance to the "God" to whom the third concern is addressed.

Healthy, or "master" political form can not only emerge from logical deduction, because the object to deduce from is "invisible" - only existent in actuality, not as a cut-our concept. For this reason humans have invented pantheons, myths, legends to ground their causal ancestry so that they themselves were forced to emerge as confronting, resilient and creative.

The goals is, in a poetic phrasing: to reduce chaos to freedom, to "create space". Not to defeat chaos entirely - one must have am adversary to keep fit and in form. Otherwise, we arrive at a lack of purpose, which results in the rebirth of the adversary in an evolved form - an initially, invisible, uncontainable chaos.

As the Devil was defeated over and over, he grew a million times as strong. How simple the original devil must have been.

- Response to the third matter depends on the outcome and does not need be connected with value ontology per se. Here, the study of the necessities within a sea of affect (or: the physics of will to power), become the guiding principle, as it is in both politics and art.

We are now, in the Kurukshetra thread, beginning to penetrate the first matter.

Fixed Cross wrote:: - In response to the first matter, my definitive proposition is a "self-valuing" - a center (of force, "affect")
- In response to the second matter, I "faithfully obey" this value ontology and practice "soul-searching" accordingly.

Just clarifying the intent...
Is that the same as what I refer to as a devotion to "Inclusive Self-harmony"?
The active valuing process functioning properly is the "harmony of the self".
"Inclusive" refers to one's immediate surroundings, that which must be harmonized with the self along with inner concerns; thoughts, feelings, conditions; "perceptions of hopes and threats".

Fixed Cross wrote:: In other words, the moral position must emerge. It is wholly dependent on context, it givers substance to the "God" to whom the third concern is addressed.

The morality is to be deduced from the priority goal?

Fixed Cross wrote:: The goals is, in a poetic phrasing: to reduce chaos to freedom, to "create space". Not to defeat chaos entirely - one must have am adversary to keep fit and in form. Otherwise, we arrive at a lack of purpose, which results in the rebirth of the adversary in an evolved form - an initially, invisible, uncontainable chaos.

To "optimize the momentum of the inclusive self-harmony"?
Momentum requires both solidity and mobility.
The solidity is the immutable devotion, due to indisputable logic, perceived appeal, and social authority.
The mobility is the freedom to speedily adjust the situation of the self toward an idealized perfect harmony.
The fact that the aim is one of perfection, means that it can never be attained and thus offers an eternal pursuit of what we call "living" and thus is the very definition of "Life" itself.

Fixed Cross wrote:: - Response to the third matter depends on the outcome and does not need be connected with value ontology per se. Here, the study of the necessities within a sea of affect (or: the physics of will to power), become the guiding principle, as it is in both politics and art.

The third matter of "assessing the situation"?
To me, that is the "perception of hope and threat" or "valuing" that allows for decisions to be made.
I can't see it not being a fundamental part of value ontology.
Or are you talking about assessing existence as an objective ontology before assessing value? - "Rational Ontology" rather than presumed "Objective Ontology"?

James S Saint wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:: - In response to the first matter, my definitive proposition is a "self-valuing" - a center (of force, "affect")
- In response to the second matter, I "faithfully obey" this value ontology and practice "soul-searching" accordingly.

Just clarifying the intent...
Is that the same as what I refer to as a devotion to "Inclusive Self-harmony"?
The active valuing process functioning properly is the "harmony of the self".
"Inclusive" refers to one's immediate surroundings, that which must be harmonized with the self along with inner concerns; thoughts, feelings, conditions; "perceptions of hopes and threats".

Yes, when applied to humans this would be what it means. Also, one can control ones breathing patterns, breath being part of ones 'environment' - a part of ones physical condition that one actively controls. we can see that meditative practices such as yoga are directly aimed at fortifying ones self-harmony. But so far it has lacked a completely logical, explicit explanation.

Who knows what kind of 'yoga's' may be possible based on a concrete understanding of human self-valuing.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:: In other words, the moral position must emerge. It is wholly dependent on context, it givers substance to the "God" to whom the third concern is addressed.

The morality is to be deduced from the priority goal?

Yes. A morality is always a function of a teleology.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:: The goals is, in a poetic phrasing: to reduce chaos to freedom, to "create space". Not to defeat chaos entirely - one must have am adversary to keep fit and in form. Otherwise, we arrive at a lack of purpose, which results in the rebirth of the adversary in an evolved form - an initially, invisible, uncontainable chaos.

To "optimize the momentum of the inclusive self-harmony"?
Momentum requires both solidity and mobility.
The solidity is the immutable devotion, due to indisputable logic, perceived appeal, and social authority.
The mobility is the freedom to speedily adjust the situation of the self toward an idealized perfect harmony.
The fact that the aim is one of perfection, means that it can never be attained and thus offers an eternal pursuit of what we call "living" and thus is the very definition of "Life" itself.

How can we pursue something we're already doing? When we pursue perfection, we can be said to be living a life of a certain ethical standard.

I am concerned about what I'd see as the compulsion to attain perfection - it seems that a focus on something that can not actually be attained could lead to a permanent discontent and obsessive behavior, as one sometimes sees in people on some 'spiritual path'.

There needs to be space for 'imperfection', which means, unpredictability - as long as this does not form the risk of destroying the essential harmony, and threaten the self-valuing.

A general means to cultivate, sustain and contain this imperfection, which is experience by a relatively inclusive self-harmony as a kind of freedom, is art.

What is your position on art vis a vis self-harmony?

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:: - Response to the third matter depends on the outcome and does not need be connected with value ontology per se. Here, the study of the necessities within a sea of affect (or: the physics of will to power), become the guiding principle, as it is in both politics and art.

The third matter of "assessing the situation"?
To me, that is the "perception of hope and threat" or "valuing" that allows for decisions to be made.
I can't see it not being a fundamental part of value ontology.
Or are you talking about assessing existence as an objective ontology before assessing value? - "Rational Ontology" rather than presumed "Objective Ontology"?

Yes, that is what I meant here.
We do have the possibility of a 'physics' that is not directly anchored in one particular perspective, but this physics needs to be based on, drawn from, the value-ontological implications.

Fixed Cross wrote:

James S Saint wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:: - In response to the first matter, my definitive proposition is a "self-valuing" - a center (of force, "affect")
- In response to the second matter, I "faithfully obey" this value ontology and practice "soul-searching" accordingly.

Just clarifying the intent...
Is that the same as what I refer to as a devotion to "Inclusive Self-harmony"?
The active valuing process functioning properly is the "harmony of the self".
"Inclusive" refers to one's immediate surroundings, that which must be harmonized with the self along with inner concerns; thoughts, feelings, conditions; "perceptions of hopes and threats".

Yes, when applied to humans this would be what it means. Also, one can control ones breathing patterns, breath being part of ones 'environment' - a part of ones physical condition that one actively controls. we can see that meditative practices such as yoga are directly aimed at fortifying ones self-harmony. But so far it has lacked a completely logical, explicit explanation.

I can explain that, but it's not the topic.

Fixed Cross wrote:: A morality is always a function of a teleology.

So morality is deduced by rationality and purpose.
I agree to that.... depending on the purpose of course. Cool

Fixed Cross wrote:: TI am concerned about what I'd see as the compulsion to attain perfection - it seems that a focus on something that can not actually be attained could lead to a permanent discontent and obsessive behavior, as one sometimes sees in people on some 'spiritual path'.

There needs to be space for 'imperfection', which means, unpredictability - as long as this does not form the risk of destroying the essential harmony, and threaten the self-valuing.

A general means to cultivate, sustain and contain this imperfection, which is experience by a relatively inclusive self-harmony as a kind of freedom, is art.

What is your position on art vis a vis self-harmony?

Hmm..
A fear of perfection is self-defeating.
In essence, it is a claim that being almost perfect is more perfect than being perfect, so "I will not try to be perfect and thus be more perfect".

I understand that people have often become obsessively focused on an ideal that disrupted their lives due to their focus upon it. But all that means is that they were not focused upon their actual needs in life, but rather a presumed ideal that wasn't the real ideal. How can being focused and obsessed with actual perfect living be worse than anything less? If your attention to something is not the perfect thing to be attending to, then that isn't the "ideal". And if it IS the ideal thing to be attending to, then how could not attending to it possibly be better?

The "ideal" or "perfect" is merely the star with which to guide. It is not the goal to obtain. The goal is to get as close to the ideal as current circumstances allow. For example;

I had a house years ago wherein specific people were allowed to live. The idea in the house was that of a "Heavenly Haven". The house needed cleaning, as any house would from time to time, but I didn't care for fixed rules such as, "John must take out the trash every Sunday by 6 PM", "Susy must vacuum the carpet on Tuesdays", and such. So instead, I merely cleaned the house to a standard that I deemed the "ideal" and took pictures of each room. I posted those pictures and let everyone know that the pictures represent what I preferred. I had to say no more. When anyone saw that something wasn't the "ideal" and they had the time to correct it, they did. If one didn't correct it, another eventually would. There was no obsession involved nor "commandments from above" nor arguing over who was to do what and when. They merely needed to know where "ideal" was.

As far as "art", I have to say that I am not certain that I understand that word or concept in the same manner as you. Probably the very first accreditation that I ever got as a child was that of being an artist. But I'm not sure you mean the same as what that meant. When I was young, charcoal and pencil were my fingers. Just about the only surviving picture over the years that I drew was from sometime in the late 60's;

........................ Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya) SHELLY

Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya) SHELLY

But I suspect that you define "art" in a different manner. I'm not really sure.

Fixed Cross wrote:: We do have the possibility of a 'physics' that is not directly anchored in one particular perspective, but this physics needs to be based on, drawn from, the value-ontological implications.

I'm not certain what that meant either.
I don't think there is any problem between RM's version of physics and that of VO. Precision would be my only concern.

James S Saint wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:: A morality is always a function of a teleology.

So morality is deduced by rationality and purpose.
I agree to that.... depending on the purpose of course. Cool

Depending on the purpose is the value of the morality - but morality is always the result of a goal -
So it's one thing to agree that morality is always dictated by a goal, another to agree to a certain goals, and yet another to agree to a morality as deriving from that goal.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:: TI am concerned about what I'd see as the compulsion to attain perfection - it seems that a focus on something that can not actually be attained could lead to a permanent discontent and obsessive behavior, as one sometimes sees in people on some 'spiritual path'.

There needs to be space for 'imperfection', which means, unpredictability - as long as this does not form the risk of destroying the essential harmony, and threaten the self-valuing.

A general means to cultivate, sustain and contain this imperfection, which is experience by a relatively inclusive self-harmony as a kind of freedom, is art.

What is your position on art vis a vis self-harmony?

Hmm..
A fear of perfection is self-defeating.
In essence, it is a claim that being almost perfect is more perfect than being perfect, so "I will not try to be perfect and thus be more perfect".

I think you're stretching what I said - I certainly do not mean a fear of perfection. Just that imperfection can sometime serve a higher goal.
Consider for example the concept, as often employed by Nietzsche of overfullness, a state wherein one is too perfect for oneself to bear, and has to "go down" to become less perfect, by sacrificing ones perfection in service of the increase of others.

This is essentially the whole point of Zarathustra, the reason he departs from his mountaintop (a simile for perfection).

In the end, Zarathustra strives, at the end of his down-going, to an even greater perfection than what he had when he left the mountain - his spirit weds eternity - but in my personal reading, Nietzsche goes too far here. He desires a perfection, a union, that is, as you've put it, impossible, and therefore violates his rational mind.

The passage of the seven seals of Zarathustra is deeply disturbing to me precisely because it attains to a vision of perfection.

http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/60

Quote :: I understand that people have often become obsessively focused on an ideal that disrupted their lives due to their focus upon it. But all that means is that they were not focused upon their actual needs in life, but rather a presumed ideal that wasn't the real ideal. How can being focused and obsessed with actual perfect living be worse than anything less? If your attention to something is not the perfect thing to be attending to, then that isn't the "ideal". And if it IS the ideal thing to be attending to, then how could not attending to it possibly be better?

As much as I can theoretically interject here, in actuality (the context we are in) I agree that such a focus is indeed 'the ideal' - given that with 'perfection' we now mean perfect 'self-valuing'.
How then do we go about explicating the requirements of self-valuing?
And in this sense I think that the yoga bit is a part of the topic. Not that I would insist going into it, though I'm curious about your explanation. If at one point you'd want to post your technical explanation, the place for that would be in Chirons Cave.

For me personally this sort of thing is very significant to the topic, but I appreciate that it is not the immediate concern.

Quote :: The "ideal" or "perfect" is merely the star with which to guide. It is not the goal to obtain. The goal is to get as close to the ideal as current circumstances allow. For example;

I had a house years ago wherein specific people were allowed to live. The idea in the house was that of a "Heavenly Haven". The house needed cleaning, as any house would from time to time, but I didn't care for fixed rules such as, "John must take out the trash every Sunday by 6 PM", "Susy must vacuum the carpet on Tuesdays", and such. So instead, I merely cleaned the house to a standard that I deemed the "ideal" and took pictures of each room. I posted those pictures and let everyone know that the pictures represent what I preferred. I had to say no more. When anyone saw that something wasn't the "ideal" and they had the time to correct it, they did. If one didn't correct it, another eventually would. There was no obsession involved nor "commandments from above" nor arguing over who was to do what and when. They merely needed to know where "ideal" was.

That makes sense as an approach.

Quote :: As far as "art", I have to say that I am not certain that I understand that word or concept in the same manner as you. Probably the very first accreditation that I ever got as a child was that of being an artist. But I'm not sure you mean the same as what that meant. When I was young, charcoal and pencil were my fingers. Just about the only surviving picture over the years that I drew was from sometime in the late 60's;

........................

But I suspect that you define "art" in a different manner. I'm not really sure.

The difference is between Apollonian (representative) and Dionysian (transformative) art.
Consider the break Picasso made at one point, when he could no longer satisfy his passion with representing form, and had to insert his own psyche into the form, disrupt it's 'perfection' with the beginning of what he can only have sensed as a 'higher order' - something that can only be 'evoked' (like the star) and not represented (like a portrait of a person, or a representation of a particular situation).

One form of art represents an ideal already-attained (and returned to whenever focused on), the other does not so much represent the goal in form as in the form of a stimulus to mobilize the energies to attain to an ideal that has not been attained in form. The artist there moves the mind-aspect of form to the mind-aspect of force.

Not many artists are able to harness this, even though almost all postmodern artists thinks that they do simply by disregarding the discipline of form. In order to mobilize the force aspect, the form aspect has to be mastered.

Was there a particular reason for you to stop drawing?

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:: We do have the possibility of a 'physics' that is not directly anchored in one particular perspective, but this physics needs to be based on, drawn from, the value-ontological implications.

I'm not certain what that meant either.
I don't think there is any problem between RM's version of physics and that of VO. Precision would be my only concern.

I don't see any problem there either. The only problem for now is the continuation of the collective project. Likely I will start a new thread with different structural requirements. It's not easy to arrive at the appropriate form.

Fixed Cross wrote:: I certainly do not mean a fear of perfection. Just that imperfection can sometime serve a higher goal.
Consider for example the concept, as often employed by Nietzsche of overfullness, a state wherein one is too perfect for oneself to bear, and has to "go down" to become less perfect, by sacrificing ones perfection in service of the increase of others.

This is essentially the whole point of Zarathustra, the reason he departs from his mountaintop (a simile for perfection).

In the end, Zarathustra strives, at the end of his down-going, to an even greater perfection than what he had when he left the mountain - his spirit weds eternity - but in my personal reading, Nietzsche goes too far here. He desires a perfection, a union, that is, as you've put it, impossible, and therefore violates his rational mind.

This is reminding me of the arguments often made that one should not aspire to Heaven because he would be bored. Well, guess what, if you are bored, you ARE NOT IN HEAVEN!!

I think all of this can be clarified by an understanding of what "the ideal" is vs "an ideal".
An ideal is a state wherein there is the least objection or problem concerning the issue at hand.

I too found myself in a state wherein I had no need for the strivings of Man... except for one.
It would have been easy enough for me to merely ignore the noise and be at peace, but for what purpose?
What is the purpose in choosing one path over another?
Which path is more "ideal" is the question being asked.
Sitting on a mountain in total tranquility accomplishes what goal?

The mountain isn't "the ideal", it is merely "an ideal". Achieving "an ideal" might serve the purpose of later accomplishing "the ideal". But don't conflate or confuse the two.

Fixed Cross wrote:: How then do we go about explicating the requirements of self-valuing?

Rationality begins by clarifying the purpose. What purpose is self-valuing to serve?

Fixed Cross wrote:: Not that I would insist going into it, though I'm curious about your explanation. If at one point you'd want to post your technical explanation, the place for that would be in Chirons Cave.

For me personally this sort of thing is very significant to the topic, but I appreciate that it is not the immediate concern.

That one is an issue of establishing, or re-establishing harmony between the cognitive mind and the subconscious ebb and turmoil. The breath, "ha" is a joining point wherein each has some control. Cognitive management of an autonomic process unites the spirit/efforts of each rather than maintaining ignorant, stumbling independence. Through practice, pathways within the mind/brain are reinforced so as to keep each more aware of the concerns of the other and less inconsiderate. The eventual total union of the two is "the ideal" harmony that most adequately maintains the body, mind, and spirit. It is one of the "levels of Heaven" - the "harmony of the self".

Fixed Cross wrote:: The difference is between Apollonian (representative) and Dionysian (transformative) art.
Consider the break Picasso made at one point, when he could no longer satisfy his passion with representing form, and had to insert his own psyche into the form, disrupt it's 'perfection' with the beginning of what he can only have sensed as a 'higher order' - something that can only be 'evoked' (like the star) and not represented (like a portrait of a person, or a representation of a particular situation).

One form of art represents an ideal already-attained (and returned to whenever focused on), the other does not so much represent the goal in form as in the form of a stimulus to mobilize the energies to attain to an ideal that has not been attained in form. The artist there moves the mind-aspect of form to the mind-aspect of force.

Not many artists are able to harness this, even though almost all postmodern artists thinks that they do simply by disregarding the discipline of form. In order to mobilize the force aspect, the form aspect has to be mastered.

I think that you are merely referencing the distinction between representative artistry and "impressionistic" artistry.

Artistry is the skill of utilizing any tools available to bring lingering form to fleeting thought. It doesn't matter what the thought is. What is considered "exceptional art" (not counting propaganda) is an accomplishment of conveying any particularly difficult notion in a form that yields unquestionable understanding of the intent, void of confusions or distractions.

Fixed Cross wrote:: Was there a particular reason for you to stop drawing?

Just the need to come down off the mountain and get my hands dirty. Cool

"Bigger fish to fry."

"The Ideal" for a living entity is an accomplishing, not an accomplishment.

One does not bake the perfect cake and then say, "okay, I can die now." Emm..

If this group is established into MY standards, it will be an accomplishment OF an accomplishing that has no end point.

James S Saint wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:: I certainly do not mean a fear of perfection. Just that imperfection can sometime serve a higher goal.
Consider for example the concept, as often employed by Nietzsche of overfullness, a state wherein one is too perfect for oneself to bear, and has to "go down" to become less perfect, by sacrificing ones perfection in service of the increase of others.

This is essentially the whole point of Zarathustra, the reason he departs from his mountaintop (a simile for perfection).

In the end, Zarathustra strives, at the end of his down-going, to an even greater perfection than what he had when he left the mountain - his spirit weds eternity - but in my personal reading, Nietzsche goes too far here. He desires a perfection, a union, that is, as you've put it, impossible, and therefore violates his rational mind.

This is reminding me of the arguments often made that one should not aspire to Heaven because he would be bored. Well, guess what, if you are bored, you ARE NOT IN HEAVEN!!

Of course not, I do not speak of boredom, but of overfullness.

Quote :: I think all of this can be clarified by an understanding of what "the ideal" is vs "an ideal".
An ideal is a state wherein there is the least objection or problem concerning the issue at hand.

But how does one determine which issue is "at hand"? This is in general kind of a problem - even the idea that there is necessarily an issue is not beyond doubt.

Quote :

Quote :: I too found myself in a state wherein I had no need for the strivings of Man... except for one.
It would have been easy enough for me to merely ignore the noise and be at peace, but for what purpose?
What is the purpose in choosing one path over another?

Which path is more "ideal" is the question being asked.
Sitting on a mountain in total tranquility accomplishes what goal?

Who says that there is a goal that needs to be accomplished?
I share with you that I like to set goals, but the ideal of, for example, the Buddha, seems to have been a goal-less state, which he supposedly attained. So why are we different from the Buddha?

Quote :: The mountain isn't "the ideal", it is merely "an ideal". Achieving "an ideal" might serve the purpose of later accomplishing "the ideal". But don't conflate or confuse the two.

In order to be clear then I would need to understand what you mean with "the ideal" much better.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:: How then do we go about explicating the requirements of self-valuing?

Rationality begins by clarifying the purpose. What purpose is self-valuing to serve?

In the first place, to be aware of nature, ones own nature but also the nature of others, as self-valuing, is already a being honest, as well as a being clear. This is already a great state for me to have attained, and indeed it raises the question "what now?" but this question is not necessarily implicit in the realization itself.

The difference between honesty and morality - we strive, clearly, for a morality rooted in honesty. But part of the process at this point is also still to consolidate that honesty: "what is value ontology?" Because until recently, I had the idea it wasn't clear to many people.
It seems that both you and Amasopher seem indeed as capable of understanding it as I figured you would have to be - I don't know what changed precisely, because I've not been saying different things than a year ago, that I'm aware of.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:: Not that I would insist going into it, though I'm curious about your explanation. If at one point you'd want to post your technical explanation, the place for that would be in Chirons Cave.

For me personally this sort of thing is very significant to the topic, but I appreciate that it is not the immediate concern.

That one is an issue of establishing, or re-establishing harmony between the cognitive mind and the subconscious ebb and turmoil. The breath, "ha" is a joining point wherein each has some control. Cognitive management of an autonomic process unites the spirit/efforts of each rather than maintaining ignorant, stumbling independence. Through practice, pathways within the mind/brain are reinforced so as to keep each more aware of the concerns of the other and less inconsiderate. The eventual total union of the two is "the ideal" harmony that most adequately maintains the body, mind, and spirit. It is one of the "levels of Heaven" - the "harmony of the self".

Yes, I 've much experience with this. But indeed, this creates a 'mountain' as well - a state wherein one is so differently charged than the world around one that there is an irresistible drive to expend oneself, ones bliss, to set in motion causal chains in the world.

What is mysterious still is how deep this conscious effort can penetrate into the subconscious, how much of the body's functions it can tap into, - the whole realm of awareness that pertains directly to energy and no longer to language.

It seems that the conscious reasoning mind is really a very thin shell around a substance that can for a large part be experienced consciously.

Danger in this is losing the idea that the reasoning mind is a standard (for action) at all. The great trap. Because the reasoning mind must remain connected to the body's natural teleology to prevent a split in the identity, where the rational mind gets a 'will' really a chain of whims) of its own separately of real interests of it's 'host', the body, which is, as an active structure (teleological in the sense of being (active verb) to the aim of continuation of self-valuing), a mind of itself.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:: The difference is between Apollonian (representative) and Dionysian (transformative) art.
Consider the break Picasso made at one point, when he could no longer satisfy his passion with representing form, and had to insert his own psyche into the form, disrupt it's 'perfection' with the beginning of what he can only have sensed as a 'higher order' - something that can only be 'evoked' (like the star) and not represented (like a portrait of a person, or a representation of a particular situation).

One form of art represents an ideal already-attained (and returned to whenever focused on), the other does not so much represent the goal in form as in the form of a stimulus to mobilize the energies to attain to an ideal that has not been attained in form. The artist there moves the mind-aspect of form to the mind-aspect of force.

Not many artists are able to harness this, even though almost all postmodern artists thinks that they do simply by disregarding the discipline of form. In order to mobilize the force aspect, the form aspect has to be mastered.

I think that you are merely referencing the distinction between representative artistry and "impressionistic" artistry.

No, I don't think that is correct. Picassos art is not impressionistic, but very methodical, excessively logical, reliant on heavy conceptual abstracting of structure. Equally, tragic theatre in the Greek sense is not different form representative art in that it is impressionistic, but in that it is designed to have a certain impact on the audience - to put it very basically, its aim is to deliver a psycho-emotional experience that both binds the audience (the "tribe") and allows it the frame of emotional reference to deal with reality as a vulnerable human people in the face of harsh nature.

Quote :: Artistry is the skill of utilizing any tools available to bring lingering form to fleeting thought. It doesn't matter what the thought is. What is considered "exceptional art" (not counting propaganda) is an accomplishment of conveying any particularly difficult notion in a form that yields unquestionable understanding of the intent, void of confusions or distractions.

That is a definition of much good art, but not of what I'd call Dionysian art.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:: Was there a particular reason for you to stop drawing?

Just the need to come down off the mountain and get my hands dirty. Cool

"Bigger fish to fry."

I'm interested in what you went on doing but probably this may not be the place...

Quote :: "The Ideal" for a living entity is an accomplishing, not an accomplishment.

Very good, yes.

Quote :: One does not bake the perfect cake and then say, "okay, I can die now." Emm..

If this group is established into MY standards, it will be an accomplishment OF an accomplishing that has no end point.

I think this is the same as what I once meant with "Hijacking the universe". And indeed I have already reached the final 'end point' by resolving the philosophical questions I had. The quest now is to make this resolution reverberate in the world, and reverberation has no projected end point.

But.... where does this reverberation take hold? It's a bit of a Baron von Münchhausen problem. This 'impossible goal' that you say we need to set in order to enable our moving toward a possible goal is hard to set knowing that it is impossible.

.
I understood the fundamental idea of value-ontology from the moment I saw the term. As I have said many times, it is similar to if not identical to my own PHT. The ONLY question I have ever been trying to get an answer to is;
Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya) Where+is+Your+House

Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya) Where+is+Your+House

I suggest that you do not assume that the objects floating in the noise of your dreams will properly fit into the structure of the house built upon the corner stone of Value-Ontology. Start with only what you can confirm to be indisputable. Build from there, verifying each step, and the end result will have no alternative but to be as indisputable as the cornerstone.

Do you not see that I am trying to find out what you mean precisely by "house"?

It is you who has convinced me that there needs to be something like a "house". The thought never entered my mind before you insisted that something was still missing and needed to be built.

I have known since day one that all sorts of things can be built with value ontology, but I got intrigued by the notion that some buildings flow forth from it by some necessity equal to the necessity of the logic.

I have made it a priority since then to understand precisely what you mean, and also to this end wanted to engage you in this sort of project. If my questions here may seem irrelevant you you, that is problematic, as you were the one suggesting a question and answer approach.

I'll forget art and yoga as subjects, I am restating the relevant questions again, as they pertain to things not yet made logically incontrovertible.

- What determines the definition of "the issue at hand"?
- What determines, philosophically, that there is a goal that needs to be accomplished?
- How do we set a goal knowing that it is impossible to attain?

and, also:

- Please tell more about the idea of "the ideal" - I assume this is what you meant when you spoke of the eternal Waltz. An unstoppable momentum of self-harmony. Question: How is this different from the "overflowing" I spoke of? Note again that overflowing has nothing to do with boredom, only with having too much to give to keep it to oneself (see Amasophers post in the Nietzsche forum).

In the Kriya thread toward clear purpose, we are going to proceed precisely as you have suggested that we do - analyze every single statement for its logical necessity. To this end we must obey its structural order. But since this is going to move slowly, and in the meantime we can resolve other issues that have not come to pass there yet, so that when they do, if they do, they will have been clarified and properly formulated already.

Fixed Cross wrote:: Do you not see that I am trying to find out what you mean precisely by "house"?

It is you who has convinced me that there needs to be something like a "house". The thought never entered my mind before you insisted that something was still missing and needed to be built.

I have known since day one that all sorts of things can be built with value ontology, but I got intrigued by the notion that some buildings flow forth from it by some necessity equal to the necessity of the logic.

I have made it a priority since then to understand precisely what you mean, and also to this end wanted to engage you in this sort of project. If my questions here may seem irrelevant you you, that is problematic, as you were the one suggesting a question and answer approach.

Haha... sorry.
I didn't mean to infect you with an unscratchable itch.
I was merely trying to bring focus upon the next step that you would have to encounter.
But what I am also trying to do is NOT inadvertently infect you with my particular mindset.
That is why I keep asking rather than merely telling you "how it is" or "how it has to be".
An example of that is your "VO" compared to my "PHT". They are the same, but not because I told you of PHT, but rather because you had a question in your own life and fell across the notion of VO and it seemed to answer your inner question.

A "house" is what one builds so as to help protect and maintain the life within. VO is one important foundational aspect of such a house (to protect and maintain your life and endeavors).

In comparison, this is the "House of Rational Metaphysics";
Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya) House+of+RM

Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya) House+of+RM

That "house" happens to constitute an understanding (an ontology) of all possible behavior in all existence. In that pic, my PHT substitutes for your VO. I distinguish between mental, medical, and material behavior merely for sake of my own little mind. That distinction is not required for a house to be complete. It is merely my convenience and forms a totally complete ontology of all things (a "Grand Original Description", G.O.D.). Any one corner of the house can be liberally used to explain the others, just as you can use VO to explain inanimate behavior. But any number of "cornerstones" could be used as long as the final picture is comprehensive and coherent ("holy").

The aim of such ontologies or houses is to give assistance in making decisions. Using VO, how does one decide on a means to put food on your table? How does one decide what medicine is good or bad for his body or that of others? How does one decide what materials are best for each kind of physical endeavor that he might choose to engage?

The details of those things are not required from merely the cornerstone concepts. But those concepts must be able to lead to the precise details without having to add independent concepts or thoughts. All Kabballistic designs attempt such comprehensive coherence (that is actually what "kabbalah" means). The purpose for the RM house is to allow for the decisions involved in establishing and maintaining "Inclusive self-harmony". Momentum happens to be an issue that prior such ontologies didn't respect sufficiently (such as Christianity). Momentum appears from the Material cornerstone as the concept that determines the victor in all possible encounters.

In the case of the group, such a house must exist else the group (as well as any individual) would be either dissolved or converted by the outside environment/forces. Entropy would win because there is no "inertia", no building or house to protect the integrity of the whole.

Fixed Cross wrote:: - What determines the definition of "the issue at hand"?

You do.
Rationally, you would choose that issue based upon the next rational step in constructing your house at this point. In the long run, there will be only one issue... maintaining it.

Fixed Cross wrote:: - What determines, philosophically, that there is a goal that needs to be accomplished?

Philosophically, you are born with a need already attempting to determine your rationality and your next step. That need is philosophically derived from a defensive behavior attempting eternal inclusive self-harmony (it is trying to joyfully survive).

Fixed Cross wrote:: - How do we set a goal knowing that it is impossible to attain?

Pretty simple, "We want to be as accurate as we possibly can be considering the situation we are in, thus our "Aim" (not actually the goal) is "perfect accuracy". It is like using the North star as a guide toward the North. You don't expect to get to the actual star, you expect to get closer to North. It's just common sense.

In the case of your house, or your group (one being a manifestation of the other), your aim should be a "perfect union" that will withstand any possible entropy. That would mean that it would have to compensate for all possible objections and balance all pressures within critical limits. It does NOT mean that there is no freedom of any kind, no room to move. That would be one of those "ideals" that wasn't truly so ideal. It isn't "the ideal" if it doesn't balance all needs and all objections at the moment of their actual appearance (take care to not assume and compensate automatically a problem that can't actually exist for a while - don't respond to an adversary that isn't present). But that is the "Aim" or "Target's bullseye", the actual "goal" is merely to get as close as you can at the time (and as quickly or efficiently as you can).

Nietzsche seemed to believe that any "ideal" is necessarily misplaced. He didn't seem to believe in any possibility of a truly and totally balanced inertial life. He focused on the problems, not realizing any solution other than to disregard all prior ideals and just "do you thing", "will to power", but power to accomplish what exactly? - (just guessing from what I hear people say about him). But, I'm not going to argue for or against him.

Fixed Cross wrote:: Question: How is this different from the "overflowing" I spoke of? Note again that overflowing has nothing to do with boredom, only with having too much to give to keep it to oneself (see Amasophers post in the Nietzsche forum).

My point was that if there is objection, such as boredom or "overflow", then obviously the proclaimed ideal wasn't The Ideal which is void of such objections. It is "The Ideal" merely because there is no rational objection to its proposal or implementation. Of course anyone can irrationally object to anything.

Fixed Cross wrote:: In the Kriya thread toward clear purpose, we are going to proceed precisely as you have suggested that we do - analyze every single statement for its logical necessity. To this end we must obey its structural order. But since this is going to move slowly, and in the meantime we can resolve other issues that have not come to pass there yet, so that when they do, if they do, they will have been clarified and properly formulated already.

Start a list of "items that we all agree on" and keep confirming that list to be still agreed to and relevant to the purpose of the group. Get that "purpose" agreed to, documented, and often re-examined for coherence with your real life (the purpose you were supposed to be serving before you ever thought to have a group).

Now I know what the significance of the tip of the pyramid is - it is not just another cornerstone. It has the all seeing eye. And this eye sees beyond the pyramid. This is what I don't perceive so far in your ontology. This is also the element that makes value ontology so difficult to capture in a structure of teleological meaning, of interest. How do we include the one who has the interest in a definition of the interest or a strategy to attain it? Is the eye defined by it's interest, or the interest by the eye? Hence: self-valuing / value as a polarity, instead of self-harmony / entropy.

I quite simply agree with all statements of RM that you have ever made, within the context it is designed to designate; the physical universe. I agree with this based on the goal you have described (inclusive self-harmony, increase of its momentum and inertia, the eternal Walz) and the logic that derives from this in the scientific paradigm that you master. So it is no small thing that you see value ontology ads correct. I would not require any other verification if I required any to begin with. But, even though that's technically an "And", RM does not cover all value ontology's bases. It does not cover the element of "Valor", of exaltation. This is why I keep coming back to that eternal Walz. I believe that you understand it, but even you understand this particular thing only in human terms. The exaltation itself is not clarified enough by the term "harmony". "Harmony" is too objective, it does not describe the self to itself. "Value" on the other hand, designates precisely what the subject is naturally focussed on, (his values) and "self-value" designates the nature of his focus (his self). This allows the theory to work intuitively in every situation.

The playing field that this creates is among other things "psychic". One can explain many things without resorting to physical causality. One can take many "shortcuts" and arrive at correct definitions. These shortcuts exist through the "ether" of language and culture. Art can take the form of the medium itself, but it must also be the dynamite to remove obstacles in this medium.

I am, as humbly as I can, pointing to the possibility that the reason RM hasn't taken hold of the world yet is that it needs a fifth element, a quintessence. "Magic" is a requirement for rulership and it is not implicit in logic, except very far down the line of the implications. Philosophy is language, which is extremely far down that line, much too far to be built up as physics from RM alone. Value ontology "roots" not in the fact of physical existence, as RM does, but in the fact of the existence of language. We cover different ground faithful to the same basic truths. Between RM and value ontology there is the possibility of a path, which means, a chemistry. What we are looking for is the setup for the reaction. Your "preparate" can only "value" the elements it requires to react with mine - but for my preparate to exist, it may require, and it does, also elements that yours does not perceive as valuable. We can easily see how this would work through value ontology's definition (why it is an ontology): being is self-valuing and valuing in terms of continually established self-value. The chemistry of a group depends on the type of "terms", valencies that we make possible. Chemistry - change - that which benefits from change; exchange.

By making central to all arguments the central operative term of language itself, value ontology is directly applicable to any system of semantics. We can use this quality to determine the field of the greatest potency for value-explication. What we seek is the strongest chemistry. You propose physical - physiology - psychology. I sense the greatest potential for chemistry in the explication of self-valuing logic along the middle path; which I understand as, indeed, the chemistry of the being. The "Theory of Everything" emitting from value ontology would then be based on the conception of substance-reaction, force as cause to and result of the recreation of form out of form. We wil keep to the duality that the human has evolved to perceive, but we will pace it in its most potent context. Chemistry had already "won my heart" a year ago, but the affect was rekindled recently. At that point you happened to write something in chemical terms, about the key element that made the cooling fluid into an impenetrable substance. I knew then that what I am able to articulate now is the necessary path, but toward an impossible goal and optimum momentum of self-harmonizing value-creating.

Or: toward the absolutization of the bestowing virtue.

Fixed Cross wrote:: Now I know what the significance of the tip of the pyramid is - it is not just another cornerstone. It has the all seeing eye. And this eye sees beyond the pyramid. This is what I don't perceive so far in your ontology.

An "all seeing eye" is a bit misleading. For one, there is no "beyond the pyramid".
The "RM" is placed on the top merely because it is the controlling principle for the formation of the corner stones and all within the ontology. I first had the RM on the bottom as a "root", but we were discussing a "house". Throughout ancient texts, that same kind of issue comes up. "God" is both the "Highest Authority" (the controlling principle) as well as the "Most Fundamental Principle" (the root cause).

As the controlling principle, RM requires of its house that everything within conform to the following concerns;
1) Consistent
2) Comprehensive
3) Relevant

With that in mind, the 3 realms are formed.
There is the "physical/material realm" or what we call "the physical universe" or "physics". That realm has the additional restriction that the ontological entities are formed from the two fundamental notions of "PtA" (Potential-to-Affect) and the temporal changing of PtA, "Affectance". Together in the material corner they are referred to as "CPA". "So sayeth the Lord RM. So shall it be done." (sortta speak)

Fixed Cross wrote:: But, even though that's technically an "And", RM does not cover all value ontology's bases. It does not cover the element of "Valor", of exaltation.

Oh but it certainly does. But that issue arises from the cornerstone, PHT, "Perception of Hope and Threat".

Fixed Cross wrote:: "Harmony" is too objective, it does not describe the self to itself.

That is true. That word is not intended to define the self, but to give guidance as to what is to be achieved, maintained, and protected. It is the aim, not the self that is trying to obtain it. But any "self" is inherently an inertial harmony of one type of another. But protecting that self as a harmonious entity is its "job" - "self-maintenance/protection".

Fixed Cross wrote:: "Value" on the other hand, designates precisely what the subject is naturally focused on, (his values) and "self-value" designates the nature of his focus (his self). This allows the theory to work intuitively in every situation.

Again, as does the Perception of Hope and Threat.
It is by PHT (far more descript than "Value") that actual value measurements can be made. How do you know what "should have" positive or negative value? You can figure it out by comparing your measure of potential hope versus potential threat, "cost / benefit ratio".... but toward an inclusive self-harmony goal.

Fixed Cross wrote:: The playing field that this creates is among other things "psychic". One can explain many things without resorting to physical causality. One can take many "shortcuts" and arrive at correct definitions. These shortcuts exist through the "ether" of language and culture. Art can take the form of the medium itself, but it must also be the dynamite to remove obstacles in this medium.

All "psychic" concerns are in the realm of PHT along with many of its dependencies. Both communication and economics are shared concerns between CPA and PHT. All social activity is described as a shared concern of all the realms (most people ignore the medical concerns - to their demise).

Fixed Cross wrote:: Chemistry - change - that which benefits from change; exchange.

That is actually covered by the PBI cornerstone, "Particulate Bonding Interaction" ("Valence" - the metaphysics of object/particle/molecular interactions).

I suspect that RM is far larger than you have surmised because I am usually only talking about the physics aspect. But every form of "magical musing" that you could ever derive already has an assigned seat within RM. There is no "outside" to RM.

But we are not competing. We are trying to ensure compatibility.

Fixed Cross wrote:: By making central to all arguments the central operative term of language itself, value ontology is directly applicable to any system of semantics. We can use this quality to determine the field of the greatest potency for value-explication. What we seek is the strongest chemistry. You propose physical - physiology - psychology. I sense the greatest potential for chemistry in the explication of self-valuing logic along the middle path; which I understand as, indeed, the chemistry of the being. The "Theory of Everything" emitting from value ontology would then be based on the conception of substance-reaction, force as cause to and result of the recreation of form out of form. We wil keep to the duality that the human has evolved to perceive, but we will pace it in its most potent context. Chemistry had already "won my heart" a year ago, but the affect was rekindled recently. At that point you happened to write something in chemical terms, about the key element that made the cooling fluid into an impenetrable substance. I knew then that what I am able to articulate now is the necessary path, but toward an impossible goal and optimum momentum of self-harmonizing value-creating.

Or: toward the absolutization of the bestowing virtue.

I don't have an issue with any of that.. well except that you get it done asap. Cool

Actually comparing the ontologies is more fun. Suspect

Another relevant example of the aim toward a goal that cannot be achieved, is the issue of wording.

No matter what wording one derives during any age, those same words can easily connotate the wrong thing and even the opposite thing later. An example was my word choice of "Harmony". I was trying to discuss this at ILP some time ago. You kept mentioning the concern of "Self". Shortly I realized that I could more precisely express my original intention with the term, "Self-Harmony". So I updated, not the original intent, but the words being used to express it. Later still, I realized that "Self-Harmony" connotated a little too much of the same concern that I have for "Value-Ontology". It connotates, implies, a focus entirely upon oneself, "selfishness". And that was not my intent either. So I updated again to the term, "Inclusive Self-Harmony". And even though that term is seldom immediately understood, it is seldom immediately misunderstood, giving time for explanation.

Ten years from now, those words, that term, might mean something totally wrong compared to my intent. Thus there is a constant need to review the words and terms being used to the public. Imagine the difference in the entire world if the Bible had come with a lexicon appended. The entire Protestant world would probably have never been inspired, because a great deal of that inspiration came through the means of misunderstandings (sometimes intentional) that led to misbehavior of both the Church officials as well as many adherents. Quantum Mechanics is a field wherein words are often intentionally redefined so as to give the appearance that the original intent was sound even after having been proven to be unsound.

The point is that the aim is to properly represent a concept, but that requires continual and probably endless updating of the terminology. Dated lexicons help, but there will always be a need to update the definition descriptions without changing the actual original intent.

Merely due to this thread, I am now considering a relevant change in the terminology involved of that "House of RM" pic. That is one of the things that I enjoy about talking to you. You inspire me to be more precise and directly up to date with my wording and concerns. Cool

This is an attempt to directly connect RM with VO using your idea of a house. I write this introduction in retrospect. I have used a particular approach and taken it to its limits as I can see them in one sitting. I have not managed to make it fully logical, as value ontology itself does necessarily divide into three different terrains, and I do not understand enough of physics to fully understand CPA (short for?) in terms of value ontology.

Anyway, here it is.

CPA / PBI / PHT

translates to value ontology as:

PHT => PBI => CPA

The causality runs in a reverse direction to the one physics would demand.

Value ontology begins with the capacity to perceive hopes and threats; to designate value in terms of self-valuing.

This capacity results in the permanence of entities. All entities must have this capacity - if they perceive their threats as hopes, they dissolve - they are not entities. Hence, whatever the mechanism is whereby they maintain themselves, it is the same as what we, as humans, are must acutely aware of and concerned with: accurate perception of value in accordance with ones structural integrity - the standard for this value - the self-value, which is constantly being affirmed by whatever actions of the being result in its perpetuation.

As soon as we logically have the basic activity of an entity, we can understand the nature of it's interactions with other entities. This is done in terms of overlapping valuing - valence. Particles bond when they are conditions to each other - this means, when they value each other in terms of their own self-valuing. This has the consequence of forcing a self-valuing to value on a particular way, meaning that it 'distracts' from it's essential, 'transcendental capacity' which is only the logical requirement for its existence, and may never be perfectly actual, but toward which it's essence (logically necessary content) constantly 'pushes'. Nature finds her ways and as form increases, form builds on form and masses self-valuings are made subservient to greater self-valuings, while adequately able to perform some of their immanent self-valuing necessity/potential, so as to not be compelled to leave the structure. This is all analogous to PBI, and still 'inward', in terms at least of the (self-value) logic. It relates to the creation of greater wholes in terms of the requirements of the parts. It relates to every force of attraction.

CPA finally touches the 'outer world' - where wholes stand in separate relation to each other, and 'act', regardless of any sort of purpose they might be said to have - their actions entirely determined by the fact that there is a world to affect, and to be affected by. Here the simple fact of a lack of an existential limit enforces particular form and place in time to the principle of self-valuing.

CPA as the 'will to power' in it's most 'crude' form, the form to which people object - 'violence', 'collisions', etc. In general, I think PBI can be related to 'positive value in terms of self-value' (Hopes) and means to acquire this value (open-ness, potential to react and assimilate), and CPA of 'negative values in terms of self-value' (Threats) and means to keep out this value (form, repulsion of that which can not be assimilated without losing form).

Fixed Cross wrote:: This is an attempt to directly connect RM with VO using your idea of a house. I write this introduction in retrospect. I have used a particular approach and taken it to its limits as I can see them in one sitting. I have not managed to make it fully logical, as value ontology itself does necessarily divide into three different terrains, and I do not understand enough of physics to fully understand CPA (short for?) in terms of value ontology.

Short for "Changing Potential-to-Affect", or the "Changing of the Potential-to-Affect", also known as "Affectance".

Fixed Cross wrote:: CPA / PBI / PHT

translates to value ontology as:

PHT => PBI => CPA

The causality runs in a reverse direction to the one physics would demand.

Value ontology begins with the capacity to perceive hopes and threats; to designate value in terms of self-valuing.

Actually that is a very good analysis. And from that perhaps you can more clearly see my concern.

RM:
The "Changing Potential-to-Affect" creates "Particles that have a Bonding Interaction" that create thinking organisms with a "Perception of Hope and Threat".

But look what happens when you reverse that;

VO:
The "Perception of Hope and Threat" creates "Particles that have a Bonding Interaction" that create the "Changing Potential-to-Affect".
How was the potential to affect anything created without any potential to affect already there?

The ID (Intelligent Design) enthusiasts would love it in terms of VO. But in the USA, if you even mention ID in a classroom, you are very likely to get fired from being a teacher.

VO is suggesting that the universe springs forth from intelligence/consciousness - "Creationism".

There is a significant difference between perceiving something and being affected by something.

Fixed Cross wrote:: This capacity results in the permanence of entities. All entities must have this capacity - if they perceive their threats as hopes, they dissolve - they are not entities. Hence, whatever the mechanism is whereby they maintain themselves, it is the same as what we, as humans, are must acutely aware of and concerned with: accurate perception of value in accordance with ones structural integrity - the standard for this value - the self-value, which is constantly being affirmed by whatever actions of the being result in its perpetuation.

Yes, I understood that.

Fixed Cross wrote:: As soon as we logically have the basic activity of an entity, we can understand the nature of it's interactions with other entities.

But to do that precisely, one must understand the nature of the most fundamental activity (such as a Changing Potential-to-Affect Wink

) within each entity so as to fully understand the cause of its behavior. Why does an electron attract to a proton? Is it because it values itself? If it actually met that proton, it would disintegrate.

In fact, Value-Ontology shines brightest when seeing why it is that electrons actually don't fall into protons. It really is because they insist on being a negative electron (self-valuing), and if they get any closer to the positive proton, they will no longer be negative. Additional electrons insist on remaining individuals and thus cannot get any closer to others else be absorbed into them (also self-valuing).

But that "Valuing" trick that they do is because of the rules governing the Changing of Potential-to-Affect. It is actually an impedance matching issue. To get closer to the proton, the electron must change its negative potential to a positive potential too quickly. Speed makes all of the difference.

It is the same reason that Judists don't often become actual Christians and vsvrsa ("Jesus in the Temple" - too much change too quickly, neither willing to convert - "self-valuing"). But it is also called "obstinace". Cool

But then why is it attracted to its potential annihilation to begin with? It is because it is "trying" to be different than it is.

Obstinacy is a good thing at the right time, but a very bad thing at the wrong time. It is all in the timing.

Quote :: But look what happens when you reverse that;

VO:
The "Perception of Hope and Threat" creates "Particles that have a Bonding Interaction" that create the "Changing Potential-to-Affect".
How was the potential to affect anything created without any potential to affect already there?

But when you remove the word "creates", which I'd did not place there, that problem goes away. It's about the sequence of observation. For, how can we observe the potential to affect? Only because it it's actual consequences, which are translated most smoothly in terms of self-valuing.

The "causal order" of value ontology is not a physical order in time, it is not a sequence of cause and effect in physical terms, but it is the order in which the mind is able to appropriate the events. Potential to effect must physically be prior to any affect, but there can only be a material universe to observe this in, when the principle of self-valuing is active. Potential to affect is, in exaggeratedly abstracted terms, the "absence of impossibility of being from the perspective of non-being".

Quote :: The ID (Intelligent Design) enthusiasts would love it in terms of VO. But in the USA, if you even mention ID in a classroom, you are very likely to get fired from being a teacher.

VO is suggesting that the universe springs forth from intelligence/consciousness - "Creationism".

It does evoke this suggestion when the term "valuing" is taken out of context. As I explained in the other Kriya thread, valuing as is meant, has nothing to do with consciousness per se - not until consciousness arises in life. I wondered if this had been properly confirmed; Consciousness is a form of self-valuing, not the other way around.

Quote :: There is a significant difference between perceiving something and being affected by something.

Yes, but perception emerges by evolution, namely, the evolution of those things that 'behave' unconsciously, by their structural nature, so as to select the things that present 'hope' for them, and reject those that are 'threats' to them. Like evolution, theory the logic is established after the fact. I would not recommend teaching this in classrooms, given how difficult it is to even communicate it clearly to advanced thinkers. It will be very hard to keep children from thinking that valuing needs to be a conscious thing.

The theory obviously has grave consequences for what we have given the name consciousness: it is a far more automatic process than most realize. The only way to become "free" in ones mind is to completely understand the limits of the mind, which is what value ontology facilitates. Value ontology makes it clear that no entity will ever voluntarily, thus consciously, effectively, appropriate anything that it can not value in terms of it's self-valuing - that it can not perceive as a "hope".

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:: As soon as we logically have the basic activity of an entity, we can understand the nature of it's interactions with other entities.

But to do that precisely, one must understand the nature of the most fundamental activity (such as a Changing Potential-to-Affect Wink

) within each entity so as to fully understand the cause of its behavior. Why does an electron attract to a proton? Is it because it values itself? If it actually met that proton, it would disintegrate.

In fact, Value-Ontology shines brightest when seeing why it is that electrons actually don't fall into protons. It really is because they insist on being a negative electron (self-valuing), and if they get any closer to the positive proton, they will no longer be negative. Additional electrons insist on remaining individuals and thus cannot get any closer to others else be absorbed into them (also self-valuing).

Yes, this is indeed where our theories are most completely compatible so far.

Quote :: But that "Valuing" trick that they do is because of the rules governing the Changing of Potential-to-Affect. It is actually an impedance matching issue. To get closer to the proton, the electron must change its negative potential to a positive potential too quickly. Speed makes all of the difference.

It will be very useful to translate this "impedance matching" issue to human context, in clean psychological terms.

Quote :: It is the same reason that Judists don't often become actual Christians and vsvrsa ("Jesus in the Temple" - too much change too quickly, neither willing to convert - "self-valuing"). But it is also called "obstinace".

When a slave refuses to obey his owner this is also called "obstinance" - indeed to strong of a self-valuing to be consumed by a new structure, whereby ones own structural integrity is threatened. In some cases it may be a question of "hopes misrepresented as threats". In some cases it may actually be threats that think of themselves as hopes. In any case there is never any hope that beings will allow themselves be converted into a new form of self-valuing just because the outside world, wisely or not, thinks they should. There must be either the direct possibility to self-value with greater power, or a force compelling them to 'break' and be assimilated.

So the question of any philosophy and mans position in respect to it is very much a matter of "Perception of Hopes and Threats" - all depends on how it is presented, the value that is immediately apparent about it. So, for example, whenever the issue of religious conversion is raised to someone who only has bad experiences with this sort of thing, this destroys "hopes" and creates a "threat" - in his perception. Nothing that can be done about that, no matter how irrational it may be from another perspective, which has different experiences and informations.

Quote :: But then why is it attracted to its potential annihilation to begin with? It is because it is "trying" to be different than it is.

Obstinacy is a good thing at the right time, but a very bad thing at the wrong time. It is all in the timing.

Yes, that is so from a RM perspective, and 'objectively' true. From a VO perspective, we can see that, badly or well timed, any decision depends on its valence-compatibility.

Hence my interest in chemistry. It is more in depth concerning the actual concerns involved for the subject, treated as subject.
In general CPA is correct, but does not "need" value ontology. And value ontology only needs it when it wants to explain the occurrences of particle forming in detail. But that is not why it was created - it's use is in the prediction of behavior of already-formed-entities. PBI and PHT are greater concerns to VO. PHT is already resolve in the very ontology, that leaves PBI.

Within VO, where would "Affectance" and "Potential-to-Affect" fit?

Good question, yes. Actually, it is impossible in VO for something to be affected if it is not 'something'. And 'something' is already a self-valuing.

In other words, for there to be potential to affect, there must be a limit to the smallness of the size of an affectance- bit.
RM's premises (declarative statements) seems to rely on such minimum quantities - otherwise there could not be potential to affect.

Fixed Cross wrote:: Good question, yes. Actually, it is impossible in VO for something to be affected if it is not 'something'. And 'something' is already a self-valuing.

In other words, for there to be potential to affect, there must be a limit to the smallness of the size of an affectance- bit.
RM's premises (declarative statements) seems to rely on such minimum quantities - otherwise there could not be potential to affect.

I am not trying to argue RM, but then I don't want RM misunderstood either.
RM depends on the infinitesimal differences in PtA, "the impossibility of infinite homogeneity". Not "bits".

But at that level, the reverse of self-valuing is taking place. Every infinitesimal point throughout the universe is giving itself up to its surroundings. Radiating waves of affectance are a consequence of such chaotic abandonment. But as waves radiate, they disperse. They do not maintain themselves and do not reject any influence upon them. They form an ocean from which material items can emerge. If you are going to have self-valuing fish, you have to have a sea within which they can exist. That "sea" is giving itself up such as to maintain the fish.

Physics particles are in that same situation. The particle could be said to be self-valuing in that is maintains itself. But it can only do that because the surrounding affectance in NOT maintaining itself.

Thus you have the classic distinction between matter and energy. The matter self-values. That is literally what "matter" means - something resistant to change. The energy does not except as an entire universal whole. The tiny portions of energy do not maintain themselves nor resist influence upon them. They are constantly giving themselves up to the universe.

So the question I was asking is where within VO would that scenario fit? Most of the universe is made of "things" that only exist for an infinitesimal length of time because they were never self-valuing and had no resistance to entropy of their form. They were never really what we would call a "thing" except as a universe whole. It is a small formless portion of a totally pure ever changing, ever yielding substance. Actual things such as particles can only emerge do to such constant and chaotic giving up influence, not taking such as to maintain anything. Affectance is "bitless", void of individuality within. It merely varies in degree of pure changing potential. There is no "self" within to be self-valuing.

My point is that RM allows for such an ocean of chaotic spreading of influence, "Affectance" wherein there are no self-valuing particles or bits. Affectance represents a totally pure substance, not made up from anything else. So for there to be compatibility as an ontology, there needs to be somewhere within VO that such an entity can fit.

Without that, VO will suffer the same problems and need of superstitions as quantum mechanics has. You would have to make it into another religion in order for it to survive because it would not be sufficiently logically supported.

James S Saint wrote:: Btw, RM operates on a level so precise as to make any comparison between RM and QM like trying to compare an F18 to a dirigible. QM must keep adding hot air into their theory in order to keep it afloat amongst the clouds of confusion. RM has one firmly defined concept ("Affectance") from which all else is unavoidable logical consequence.

Creating another religion is a little different than merely creating influence.

Btw, I have updated my pictorial of the "House of RM";

Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya) House+of+RM+4

Attaining a position in respect to the future (Kriya) House+of+RM+4

I condensed "Hope and Threat" into "Value", merely to reduce the number of words involved.
But more significantly, I have chosen to separate societal concerns from the normal mix because it is too much hassle to be thinking in terms of particles and mental effects in order to understand laws, religions, beliefs, ontological notions, and so on. So I have chosen "SSD" to represent that area of concern.

I see VO as easily being able to be used to explain
) PIV, except for the Information constructs.
) SSD, except for the structural designs.
) RMA, except for the algorithms.
) CPA, except for the affectance.

But these are issues of Ontology, not of social philosophy.

Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

James S Saint wrote:: There is no "self" within to be self-valuing.

The question remains then how something can be affected that is not a thing.
How does potential to affect exist, when there is initially nothing to affect - nothing to resist change?

Quote :: My point is that RM allows for such an ocean of chaotic spreading of influence, "Affectance" wherein there are no self-valuing particles or bits. Affectance represents a totally pure substance, not made up from anything else. So for there to be compatibility as an ontology, there needs to be somewhere within VO that such an entity can fit.

My logical explanation of the existence of affectance is very simple: If we begin with nothing then nothing includes nothing, also not the impossibility of something. Or, differently, there must be something, because nothing does not have the potential to enforce itself. This may be said to be the same reasoning as amounting to 'impossibility of absolute homogeneity'

The first thing we can speak of at all, logically, is something that 'accumulates affect into itself' - and this has to be a 'self-valuing', otherwise it would disperse, and nothingness (with only the potential of somethingnes) would prevail.

Quote :: Without that, VO will suffer the same problems and need of superstitions as quantum mechanics has. You would have to make it into another religion in order for it to survive because it would not be sufficiently logically supported.

Btw, RM operates on a level so precise as to make any comparison between RM and QM like trying to compare an F18 to a dirigible. QM must keep adding hot air into their theory in order to keep it afloat amongst the clouds of confusion. RM has one firmly defined concept ("Affectance") from which all else is unavoidable logical consequence.

To me, the term Quantum Mechanics has been degraded to mean only "the study of the fact that we're not looking at out observations in the right way". That may be ignorant of me.

Quote :: Creating another religion is a little different than merely creating influence.

Speaking of creating a religion -
religious have symbols, on which they rely to convey the message -
to address people "in terms of their self-valuing".
Do you have thoughts on how to do this?

Quote :: Btw, I have updated my pictorial of the "House of RM";

I condensed "Hope and Threat" into "Value", merely to reduce the number of words involved.
But more significantly, I have chosen to separate societal concerns from the normal mix because it is too much hassle to be thinking in terms of particles and mental effects in order to understand laws, religions, beliefs, ontological notions, and so on. So I have chosen "SSD" to represent that area of concern.

SSD and RMA are, as you mention below, also matters of self-value. But even the resistance in CPA that creates the initial 'clogging' of affectance that eventually becomes a particle, must be due to something other than infinitesimalness and lack of resistance.

Potential to affect implies self-valuing, thing-ness What else can be affected? And how can there be potential to affect without something to be affected?

Quote :: I see VO as easily being able to be used to explain
) PIV, except for the Information constructs.
) SSD, except for the structural designs.
) RMA, except for the algorithms.
) CPA, except for the affectance.

But these are issues of Ontology, not of social philosophy.

I would say that they are issues of science, not of ontology. But I think that means in my terms what you just said in yours. The only thing that strikes me as purely ontological is the impossibility of absolute homogeneity and the positing of affectance. Value ontology is not (only) a social philosophy but an epistemological method that allows everything to be explained in the same terms, thus fit in one single ontology. That is why it is called an ontology - because all data obtained from it are consistent in the terms they require. But please let's not bicker over the word ontology. A good argument can be made that science is ontology, certainly that RM is ontology.

Value ontology is not a technical explanation of how things are put together - just what they are put together as, if they exist. Again, that is why I am so interested in your knowledge about the physiological, chemistry. It's a field I know far too little about and it seems supremely relevant. You'll notice the similar latin root of "valence" and "value". Incidentally, "valor" also relates to that. And that is a term that relates strongly to what is required to start a religion. No religion is based solely on logic - it must evoke courage and will.

You spoke earlier of the sort of agent that brings a cooling fluid to a solid mass. This is the sort of agent that is needed to form a social unity. In sociological terms, this means, a symbol. A symbol to which everyone can relate and by which all are driven to "give their best" - to be of value (in their minds) to an ideal (unattainable) but in reality, to a 'being that resists chaos' (attainable). We are faced with the daunting task of creating such symbolism, such an agent.

Why Valor? Reassembling the legion

Fixed Cross wrote:

James S Saint wrote:: There is no "self" within to be self-valuing.

The question remains then how something can be affected that is not a thing.
How does potential to affect exist, when there is initially nothing to affect - nothing to resist change?

Well that gets into the very teaching of RM.
It is impossible for an infinite number of points to be infinitely identical in their potential to have affect (or in any other regard for that matter).

Then because they are not identical, they exercise their potential and actually cause affect (change). But I am talking about literally infinitely small points, not self-sustaining, protective entities. Each infinitesimal point give up its potential as it give potential to its surroundings.

Fixed Cross wrote:: My logical explanation of the existence of affectance is very simple: If we begin with nothing then nothing includes nothing, also not the impossibility of something. Or, differently, there must be something, because nothing does not have the potential to enforce itself. This may be said to be the same reasoning as amounting to 'impossibility of absolute homogeneity'

That is true, but even beyond that is the fact that the very concept of "absolute nothingness" is an irrational concept similar to a square circle. What people imagine is a large space of blackness. But that wouldn't actually be true absolute nothingness because it has volume. If you accept volume, then you have an infinite number of points that could potential affect each other merely by not being identical. That is what causes even the notion of an infinite void (or any size) of homogeneous nothingness an impossibility. The universe cannot begin with absolute nothingness, nor with a vast expanse of nothingness. The ocean of motion must have always existed and must always exist.

Fixed Cross wrote:: The first thing we can speak of at all, logically, is something that 'accumulates affect into itself' - and this has to be a 'self-valuing', otherwise it would disperse, and nothingness (with only the potential of somethingness) would prevail.

I disagree. We can talk of the infinite number of points that are all dispersing their potential, changing and affecting each other. And it is from that, that a "thing" forms that tends to maintain is form, self-values - the fundamental "particle".

Fixed Cross wrote:: Speaking of creating a religion -
religious have symbols, on which they rely to convey the message -
to address people "in terms of their self-valuing".
Do you have thoughts on how to do this?

Sure, but later.

Fixed Cross wrote:: But even the resistance in CPA that creates the initial 'clogging' of affectance that eventually becomes a particle, must be due to something other than infinitesimalness and lack of resistance.

Again, this gets back into teaching RM. The clogging effect (great term for it, btw) happens due to the logical impossibility of infinite speed, or instantaneousness. It is due to a logical impossible situation, not due to anything attempting to preserve itself.

Fixed Cross wrote:: Potential to affect implies self-valuing, thing-ness What else can be affected?

The potential to affect itself. You might have a potential, which is not considered a "thing". That potential can change. That changing of potential is actually all the universe is made from.

Fixed Cross wrote:: And how can there be potential to affect without something to be affected?

The differences in the potential (a potential is a situation, not a "thing") is what creates the affecting that we then identify as "existence". We are only observing the changing of potential to change. That is all that the physical universe really is. No "thing" else exists that isn't made purely of that same "substance" of changing potential of the potential to change. That is the fundamental foundation upon which the entire universe is formed.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :: I see VO as easily being able to be used to explain
) PIV, except for the Information constructs.
) SSD, except for the structural designs.
) RMA, except for the algorithms.
) CPA, except for the affectance.

But these are issues of Ontology, not of social philosophy.

I would say that they are issues of science, not of ontology.

No. Science is about verification, not observation. Observation (or "demonstration") is merely the means by which to verify what can be observed. Only the after effects of affectance can be observed ("One can only witness the footprints of God").

Fixed Cross wrote:: Value ontology is not (only) a social philosophy but an epistemological method that allows everything to be explained in the same terms, thus fit in one single ontology.

That is what I keep asking of, but not getting a response that resolves the issue.
VO seems to require the existence of self-protecting things.
The problem is that energy, radiant waves, "forces", and certainly chaotic behaviors, are not doing the self-protecting thing. In a sense, you are offering explanation of Order, but not Chaos. The universe has both. Affectance implies very random affects, not orderly self-valuing intentions. Such an order rises from the affectance chaos to become something that self-protects/values.

Fixed Cross wrote:: Value ontology is not a technical explanation of how things are put together - just what they are put together as, if they exist.

Yes, RM is more about WHY they exist in the first place more than WHAT exists. Once you understand the "why"s, the "what"s become indisputable.

Fixed Cross wrote:: Again, that is why I am so interested in your knowledge about the physiological, chemistry. It's a field I know far too little about and it seems supremely relevant. You'll notice the similar latin root of "valence" and "value". Incidentally, "valor" also relates to that. And that is a term that relates strongly to what is required to start a religion. No religion is based solely on logic - it must evoke courage and will.

I agree with that. But a religion must also have an immutable logical foundation if it is to survive today's insidious means of corruption, and destruction. They have never been able to achieve it in the past. That is why it has to be far more precise that ever before.

Fixed Cross wrote:: You spoke earlier of the sort of agent that brings a cooling fluid to a solid mass. This is the sort of agent that is needed to form a social unity.

Yes. And that was once called, "Ahdam".
Your group, if designed properly, will do that very thing. That is why I stated that you merely need to focus on perfecting your own group, not the world. The world will immediately and automatically get "fixed" if you merely do your task exactly right. The real key to political power is starting something that can't be stopped because of its automatic reaction, even if you wanted to (but make sure that you never will want to).

Fixed Cross wrote:: In sociological terms, this means, a symbol. A symbol to which everyone can relate and by which all are driven to "give their best" - to be of value (in their minds) to an ideal (unattainable) but in reality, to a 'being that resists chaos' (attainable). We are faced with the daunting task of creating such symbolism, such an agent.

It means a "model", a "demonstration", something with which they can "see the light".
Merely symbol in the normal sense, is little more than a reminder that might convey a little more meaning than someone already had. But they won't truly believe it until they see the real thing.

Be the real thing. The real "symbol"; the actual Model, Manifestation of the present reality (btw, the name "Israel" means exactly that, but this time, do it right.. if you are going to do it at all).

To leave all the confusion behind us, I am going ahead and posit a set of statements for you all to kill or make stronger trying.

- Something must exist because "nothing" excludes the active impossibility of something.

- Self-valuing is not merely descriptive of entities that can be rationally declared to exist, but it is also implied by the nature of that all that can be observed and declared to exist, including 'force' or affectance - potential to change.

- The smallest self-valuing is able only to value in terms of itself negatively. It's "valuing" is a deflection of which it is not.

- As two different self-valuings deflect nothingness, two things are created:
• Space, (the mutually deflected, mutual nothingess, rudimentary 'value')
• affectance - deflecting of positive not-selves.

For James specifically:

- Affectance is self-valuing-interaction.

- A self-valuing is even in 'a grain of noise' - as soon as noise starts to affect other noise, there is differentiation, and this implies 'thingness' something is differentiated from something.

- The fact of difference precludes absolute dissolution.

Back to the main set:

-In the case of affectance, self-valuings value each other negatively in terms of their structural nature as deflectors, but they do behave similarly, and are thus perform similar actions. All deflect both nothingness, and each other.

- What comes to exist like this is any geometrical form. The simplest form to imagine is the circle: all self-valuings deflect each other "to the side", while simultaneously deflecting nothingess inward and outward. "Affectance fields" are circular, with the force distributed in the 'border'. Inward it is 'weak'.

- Such organizations of nothingness-deflectings may emerge so as the come into contact with each other. Due to the quantity of affect of such organizations, the greater things that come into each others proximity are, the more different they are from each other, and stronger they are deflected. But in some cases, the deflected negative existence of a 'sphere of affect' is so great that smaller spheres are drawn to deflect it as well, and 'join the circle', the affect-field. In that case, the affect field, a 'form', grows and is able to absorb even greater 'others'.

- The deflection of nothingness is the first priority. In the image of the deflection imprinted on itself, the self-valuing recognizes itself. This creates the terms of it's self-valuing' - it's standard of value.

- Such a standard can be recognized by other entities, and deflected (negatively valued) as well.

- Two co-deflecting self-valuings "come to terms", they positively value each other in terms of their own self-valuing (their deflecting nothingess), but as negative. They repel each other while positively 'recognizing' the object of negative valuation.

- This is why when we value in terms of our self-valuing; when we value, we 'push' - the greater the 'fight', the greater the resistance to nothingness. We seek to overpower, but first and foremost we seek to engage, that whichever 'speaks to us', is also inevitably that which has the power to absorb us.

- Survival as a form depends on capacity to translate that which is appropriated in the circle of affect in terms of the pre-existing form. "Selective forms" remain, other forms are respectively dissolved or transformed into selective forms. Sometimes selective forms are overpowered by far greater, but far less selective forms.

- The more selective a form is in what it can 'use' in terms of deflecting nothingness, the more capable it is to resist change.

- The more selective a form is, the more specific it's terms by which it values, and the more specific it's self-valuing.

- Man is a supremely selective form. The more selective man is, the more we can speak of a 'self'.

- Becoming conscious of being as self-valuing means: establishing a finalized Being. It means to have defeated the chance of being transformed by the very nature of being (deflecting non-being) itself - "imprinting being on becoming".

There are much more consequences to draw here but I can now just manage a few observations on morality and custom:

- From this perspective, morality is no longer a matter of adopting custom to ensure survival but risking unseen compromise of structural integrity, but of either inventing means to expand ones realm of influence (to attempt to transform the world according to ones self-value, to be able to value it more), or, where conditions allow it, simply maintaining oneself.

- Buddha realized the first nature of being - deflecting non being - nirvana as "being nor non-being", means "affect nor non being". It is however, being in the sense of deflection ("transcendental clarity"). It does not however contain the power to defend itself or resist the force of other structures from incorporating it. Kung fu has arisen to remain transcendently self-valuing and resist that which is to be valued as negative. Yoga is the simple resisting of resistance - dissolving the circle of affect (society, the roles one has to play to 'defend the family/country' etc) in order to 'face the void alone'. But it is still relatively affective, since the human body doesn't dissolve as long as all of it's atoms and subatomic instances affect independently 'attain nirvana'.

- "Spiritualized "martial" art but also dance is therefore more 'peaceful' toward the fact of existence, and more effective in maintaining structural integrity from which to deflect the void.

- All temples and religious orders represent spiritualized martial art, selectively organized deflection of the void.

This sounds like the hollow leg of Abram.

So you want to say that no matter what we are talking about from anything to everything to nothing, it is always self-valuing, protecting itself, and doing nothing else.

A straight line is protecting itself from being anything else. It is not a mind or a person that is defending it. It is the line itself "self-valuing", deflecting away from itself that which is not itself, pure ego. Geometry is so very egotistical that it has never failed to be what it is. So very good at it that in fact, it responds instantaneously, not allowing even the smallest instant when it has deviated from being what it is.

I think that you might have a hard time selling that one.

"Egotism is God."
But then if Nietzsche thought that, why did he proclaim that God is dead?
I would think he would be proclaiming that he found the true God.

This is only in response to your last reply. It surprises me that, at the very first moment where I thought I had in part been "subjected" by your form of altruism, you perceive a hollow leg. But I hope that perhaps you have not yet read very carefully beyond the first couple of statements, which are indeed the most 'forced'. The last post was a strange way for me to argue - I used value ontology to deal with the concept of nothingness, which isn't really necessary for value ontology.

The strange result is a seemingly very accurate description of societal organization, man-to-man relations, armies, religious symbolic structure/symbolisms - the function of "Christ on the Cross" (a collectively deflected image of anti-self-value), and as such, how to design "nothing" it so for men to gather around it and form a greater "something". But this confirms the power of value ontology or should I say value logic - where it is applied, clarity arises. You have read it wrong, entirely missed the content even, if you see this as an affirmation of egotism. It shows the use of 'working together' in deflecting chaos. But it also shows that to value another, one must in part (for the part that is not directly deflecting nothingness, being) resist that other.

Lasting bonds are made by "sharing a goal". The goal is always to exert the positive terms of ones existence. Under this "banner", entities "respect" each others "integrity" precisely by not becoming equal to them. Respect is affect. One does not fight an enemy one does not respect (in terms of power to cause change) and one does not love a friend with whom one can not "fight" - make explicit differences to affirm the self. Aesthetics is the form in which differences are made into respect/affect - it ranges from geometry to dance and from logic to scientific warfare, such as between the USSR and the USA. Or, between Reason (balance, soft-egotism) and "Lilith", pure anti-void behavior, which relates stronger to the void than reason as it constantly fights it, does not rely on "others" - the fact of existence.

Others are objectivity. "Ego" is being.
Ego + Others = "objective being" - Force, or will to power.

The universe can only exist because of "severalness". But severalness can only exist because of unique-ness.
This is the moral duality of life - this is why some are born "egoist" and some "altruist". Together the form "human values".

» what is the future
» Addiction & counter-position of values
» The future of concepts
» Future man/consciousness, technology...
» The Future in terms of the Past.