Natural World Ashes

Argument for private property [Aristotle]
" Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business... And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property. These advantages are lost by excessive unification of the state. " [Aristotle, Politics, book II part V]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...#Aristotle
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll...litics.pdf
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
12-29-2012, 03:08 AM  Post: #2
Gobbo  Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
I agree this is profound.

I will have to think on why.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
12-30-2012, 12:27 AM (This post was last modified: 12-30-2012 12:27 AM by Dannerz.)  Post: #3
Dannerz  Offline
Student
Posts: 45
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
In my astral travels I feel I have seen many types of economies and governments.

So from what I've seen, I conclude that everyone at birth should be granted a small portion of free personal property. Then when they are older, they can get the means to being productive. This should be free, because it is the means of productivity, which is what is needed for a strong economy. Some types of things should be allowed to be owned on a large scale by a owner, but other things should not be monopolized or ever owned in a large quantity by an individual owner. Each society should have a sense of love and fairness. It is easier to treat corruption with love than it is to attack it like a disease and use a militant system. The militant system will become corrupt itself, often. Not every race is exceptionally loving, but in place of love, honor is also good. Honor can replace love in the races which cannot feel much love.

It is ok to own large amounts of something which you can use entirely, but it is bad when someone has more than they truly need, or when they own what many need, then use this to the disadvantage of the group.

@ Excessive unification of the state.
I believe we are meant to be city states, and tribes. This is what we are naturally meant to be, and the means to an over unified state and system misses the personalization that society needs.
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-02-2013, 06:25 PM  Post: #4
BigTom  Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
Like so many arguments for private property, this is just a rich guy trying to consolidate his position. Freedom and private property for the view, subsidised by slavery for the rest. That was the world Aristotle lived in and is defending here.

It is an abominable argument, not just untrue but thoroughly deceitful and immoral.
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-04-2013, 04:46 PM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2013 04:48 PM by JSS.)  Post: #5
JSS  Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
(12-30-2012 12:27 AM)Dannerz Wrote:  
I believe we are meant to be city states, and tribes. This is what we are naturally meant to be
I believe that to be a rationally provable fact, not merely a proposition or assumption.
..{{what else to expect from Aristotle}}
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-04-2013, 10:25 PM  Post: #6
Gobbo  Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
I agree we were meant to live in locally sustainable 'tribes'
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-04-2013, 10:26 PM  Post: #7
Gobbo  Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
But then I also embrace globalism.

Not the NWO version, but I want us all to be in an internet cool zone.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-05-2013, 06:41 AM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2013 06:42 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #8
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
Tom, I think that is a deeply shallow judgment of Aristotle. It also seems illogical from a psychological point of view. What reason would the guy have had to operate like that, if he was already rich and powerful in the first place? He was under no threat from poor people trying to take his possessions. Besides, poor people could not read what he had to say.

I don't like movements that make claims to everything on account of a so called common good. I prefer privates who make claims to certain things on account of their own good. A matter of honesty - they don't pretend to speak for me.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-05-2013, 06:44 AM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2013 06:47 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #9
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
Does nature 'mean' for us to be anything other than it has caused us to be? That does not seem true. I will believe that some people mean for us to be tribes, like Dan and James. Maybe I could get behind the idea that many people will be happy like that. I don't think that I would be happy personally, being restricted to a tribe, as I like to travel and live in different worlds.

Also, the atomic bomb has made the idea of autonomous city-states obsolete. We are forced to consider a world order, even if it is a non-singular one, where different superpowers live in strained balance.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-05-2013, 06:46 AM  Post: #10
BigTom  Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
To elaborate on my previous statement: I understand that a lot of the stuff that gets done in the world gets done because of people's desire to improve their lives, often in material ways. But I do not accept the capitalist argument that this is human nature, or that this is all there is to human nature and that this is how all work gets done, how all improvements to life are motivated.

For one thing, it's because I know it isn't true. I know that other things get done for other reasons, that human nature is multiform. I know that I am not solely motivated by that. For another thing, look at Bill Gates and the like - they are clearly motivated by things beyond money, because they have more money than ordinary people could ever dream of, they could accomplish any material improvement in their lives that they might desire, except perhaps immortality (and they are seeing about that, or trying to).

The best property model I know of is the one used in, among other places, the crofting communities of Scotland. There, the best land was privatised, but within quite sane limits so you couldn't just turn up and build a fence around more than a few acres for your private croft. The rest of the land was common, for mutual grazing and gathering and whatever. It's great. I live in Yorkshire, where it is gorgeous but there's a fence or hedge around almost everything. There are a lot of centuries-old public rights of way though, which override the right to private property to a certain extent along specific routes over the fields. But up in much of Scotland there are lots of little individual private houses with a bit of land fenced up around them, and lots of open space populated by random sheep. They sleep on the roads at night because it's warmer so you have to be a bit careful, but if the Occupy movement means anything then I think it means that the notion of common property, or simply land that doesn't belong to anyone, remains an important one.

BigTom  Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
(01-05-2013 06:41 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:  
Tom, I think that is a deeply shallow judgment of Aristotle. It also seems illogical from a psychological point of view. What reason would the guy have had to operate like that, if he was already rich and powerful in the first place? He was under no threat from poor people trying to take his possessions. Besides, poor people could not read what he had to say.

Correct me if I'm wrong but poor Greek people weren't deaf, were they?

His motivation is the same motivation that all aristocracies have for propagating ideas that sustain and enhance their position. Power isn't something you simply cross a threshold of from 'unpowerful' to 'powerful' and then sit there being powerful until you die.

Quote:
I don't like movements that make claims to everything on account of a so called common good. I prefer privates who make claims to certain things on account of their own good. A matter of honesty - they don't pretend to speak for me.

Do you like that air you're breathing? What could be more natural, or more common, than air and water? It's all been in and out of more human beings than either of us could count, not to mention lots of other organisms.

If other people are speaking for you, or pretending to, then talk over them.
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-05-2013, 07:12 AM  Post: #12
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
(01-05-2013 06:52 AM)BigTom Wrote:  
(01-05-2013 06:41 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:  
Tom, I think that is a deeply shallow judgment of Aristotle. It also seems illogical from a psychological point of view. What reason would the guy have had to operate like that, if he was already rich and powerful in the first place? He was under no threat from poor people trying to take his possessions. Besides, poor people could not read what he had to say.

Correct me if I'm wrong but poor Greek people weren't deaf, were they?

He didn't take to the streets with his ideas, like Socrates did. And you had to make a big effort then - as you do now - to be heard by the masses. They do not tend to think very logically either. At least not from what I've seen.

Socrates is a good example of how speaking a philosophical mind to the masses is hardly in the philosophers private interest.

Quote:
His motivation is the same motivation that all aristocracies have for propagating ideas that sustain and enhance their position.

Forgive me if I don't take your word on that. I mean that is a very bold statement with absolutely no sort of backing. You've not shown me to be an expert on Aristotle, let alone on his underlying psychology.

Quote:
Power isn't something you simply cross a threshold of from 'unpowerful' to 'powerful' and then sit there being powerful until you die.

If we are talking about wealth, one either inherits or gains it. If one inherits it, in fact it is very possible that one just 'sits there'. It is often said that philosophy is an aristocratic occupation, as one needs a great deal of leisure to pursue it.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't like movements that make claims to everything on account of a so called common good. I prefer privates who make claims to certain things on account of their own good. A matter of honesty - they don't pretend to speak for me.

Do you like that air you're breathing? What could be more natural, or more common, than air and water? It's all been in and out of more human beings than either of us could count, not to mention lots of other organisms.

Do you lik the body you inhabit? Or would you prefer that people can just take it because the community has decided a greater number of people than your individual self has better used for it dead?
Do you like having a home, a computer, something to store your data on, a girlfriend perhaps who isn't shared by any given member of the tribe?

Quote:
If other people are speaking for you, or pretending to, then talk over them.

Count on it.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-05-2013, 07:28 AM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2013 07:30 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #13
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
In marriage, or partnership, two people decide to be together, to "give themselves to each other". This is done on the basis of privacy, which is the same principle as private property. One can only give if one has something to give. This is what the Aristotle excerpt means to my mind.

The opposite is common sharing of every aspect of life. In a totally 'commonist' society there can be no trust between people, individuals can not set boundaries, can not have their own space, there can not be any depth or meaning to any kind of bond or commitment.

Perhaps for many people such a state seems desirable. For me it would be hell. I would have to kill everyone except the person I'd want to be with.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-05-2013, 09:49 AM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2013 09:50 AM by JSS.)  Post: #14
JSS  Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
Despite the very many things to object to throughout this exchange, I will contain myself to this one simple thought;

"Tribal life" does NOT exclude Global exploration or experiences. It merely limits the permitted influence upon the tribe and its members.
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-05-2013, 10:46 AM  Post: #15
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
Quote:
"Tribal life" does NOT exclude Global exploration or experiences. It merely limits the permitted influence upon the tribe and its members.

I'm 100% on board with that.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-07-2013, 12:58 AM  Post: #16
BigTom  Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
(01-05-2013 07:12 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:  
He didn't take to the streets with his ideas, like Socrates did. And you had to make a big effort then - as you do now - to be heard by the masses. They do not tend to think very logically either. At least not from what I've seen.

Socrates is a good example of how speaking a philosophical mind to the masses is hardly in the philosophers private interest.

Come off it. The point is that one doesn't have to be able to read in order to be influenced by ideas. One philosopher being killed for speaking his mind does nothing to prove that other philosophers could not gain advantages by speaking their minds. You know as well as I do that a huge amount depends on which ideas you espouse, and whether they are conducive to the existing political power structures and dynamics.

Otherwise why would they have gone to such efforts to create celebrity intellectuals like Ray Kurzweil and Richard Dawkins?

Quote:
Quote:
His motivation is the same motivation that all aristocracies have for propagating ideas that sustain and enhance their position.

Forgive me if I don't take your word on that. I mean that is a very bold statement with absolutely no sort of backing. You've not shown me to be an expert on Aristotle, let alone on his underlying psychology.

Fine, to clarify: His motivation for writing the argument being discussed in this thread, not his motivation in its totality which no one can know because we simply don't have the information on which to make such a judgment, is the same motivation that exists in all aristocracies. Private property, free will, the free market - all have been more commonly used throughout history by people who already have wealth, as a means of protecting what they have. More commonly than they have been used as founding ideas for genuine revolutions, rather than factional coup d'etats, at any rate.

The fact that this argument is come from a man whose very name reeks of aristocracy, and who argued that slavery was a natural phenomenon, should tell you something about the limited class of people to whom he is seeking to accord the right of private property.

Quote:
Quote:
Power isn't something you simply cross a threshold of from 'unpowerful' to 'powerful' and then sit there being powerful until you die.

If we are talking about wealth, one either inherits or gains it. If one inherits it, in fact it is very possible that one just 'sits there'. It is often said that philosophy is an aristocratic occupation, as one needs a great deal of leisure to pursue it.

It is often said, but I don't believe it. Academic philosophy, the kind practiced in the period in Ancient Greece that includes Aristotle's life and education, is an aristocratic occupation. But given the time the modern non-aristocrat spends in being schooled and in watching TV, they've had more than enough time to read some books and think about them. It isn't a lack of time or even opportunity (at least for those with the internet) that means they don't do it. Again, you know this as well as I do.

Even those that inherit wealth have to conform to certain standards, otherwise they tend to suffer from accidents while hunting. And I said they don't just get it then have it, without struggle, for the rest of their lives.

Quote:
Do you like that air you're breathing? What could be more natural, or more common, than air and water? It's all been in and out of more human beings than either of us could count, not to mention lots of other organisms.

Do you lik the body you inhabit? Or would you prefer that people can just take it because the community has decided a greater number of people than your individual self has better used for it dead?[/quote]
There are better arguments against the tyranny of them killing me and eating my corpse than that my body is my private property.

Quote:
Do you like having a home, a computer, something to store your data on, a girlfriend perhaps who isn't shared by any given member of the tribe?

I don't own the home where I live. I do own my computer and associated equipment, and yes I do like it, but it's not as though I can live without air and water (things that are inherently shared amongst us and which any attempt to privatise is both horrible and insane) as easily as I can live without my computer. And as above, I certainly don't think that claiming a girlfriend is my private property is anything close to the best argument why she isn't just shared around the tribe. The positive virtues of monogamy, the bond of trust that exists between faithful lovers, is far more important than any notion of ownership when it comes to ladyfolk.

And herein lies my problem with private property as a liberation philosophy, or part of a liberation grand narrative - all too quickly it goes from owning a house that you live in to the exclusion of others (a very good thing) to owning people. Aristotle. The Founding Fathers. Your comment about girlfriends. Can you see why I have such a problem with this idea, when it so readily ends up in an advocation of slavery? Even in the hands of very intelligent people, like you, or Aristotle, or the Founding Fathers. The speed with which you went to the idea of owning another person (completely contrary to the argument you started out making, which I essentially agree with) when provoked should tell you something about the collateral damage of that idea.

I'm right with you that Marxism as a philosophy has been proven to be a failure by the passage of history, but that doesn't mean capitalism, private property and the individual have been proven to have triumphed. All three were critical in bringing the West to the verge of bankruptcy. That in turn has made possible the sort of political dialogue we see in the UK, where the achievements of collectivist movements are under attack in the name of protecting the private property of the few.

If you see nothing wrong in this then it is a point at which we fundamentally differ.

Quote:
Quote:
If other people are speaking for you, or pretending to, then talk over them.

Count on it.

I will.
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-07-2013, 04:27 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2013 04:29 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #17
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
I will go into all of that in a following post but for now: my comment was not about you owning your girlfriend but her owning herself, and thereby her freedom to give herself to you. Not as property, but certainly as a dedication, a commitment. I said:

"In marriage, or partnership, two people decide to be together, to "give themselves to each other". This is done on the basis of privacy, which is the same principle as private property. One can only give if one has something to give. This is what the Aristotle excerpt means to my mind."

I think that you have missed the logic of my argument so far. As valid as your objection to the privatization of naturally common things is (and this does not conflict with Aristotle), you seem to claim that everything should be common, that nothing can be privately owned or determined. At least that is how it appears so far. I disagree with that completely and am wholly with Aristotle when he says:

" Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business... And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property. These advantages are lost by excessive unification of the state. "
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-07-2013, 07:37 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 12:45 PM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #18
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for pivate property [Aristotle]
(01-07-2013 12:58 AM)BigTom Wrote:  
(01-05-2013 07:12 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:  
He didn't take to the streets with his ideas, like Socrates did. And you had to make a big effort then - as you do now - to be heard by the masses. They do not tend to think very logically either. At least not from what I've seen.

Socrates is a good example of how speaking a philosophical mind to the masses is hardly in the philosophers private interest.

Come off it. The point is that one doesn't have to be able to read in order to be influenced by ideas. One philosopher being killed for speaking his mind does nothing to prove that other philosophers could not gain advantages by speaking their minds.

No, but nothing here proves that Aristotle was not just saying what he honestly believed. And since I agree with him and own no slaves and extort no people, since I am not an aristocrat, it is hardly evident that he said what he said for the sake of his aristocracy.

Quote:
You know as well as I do that a huge amount depends on which ideas you espouse, and whether they are conducive to the existing political power structures and dynamics.

Otherwise why would they have gone to such efforts to create celebrity intellectuals like Ray Kurzweil and Richard Dawkins?

By your rationale, I should only be saying things that benefit my position in society. That is not how my mind, how a philosophical mind works. I think in order to clarify. Sure, I consider the consequences sometimes and soften my words now and then. But I do not invent false theories in order to suit my interests. And as I now have shown, I have no reason to assume that Aristotle would do this.

I would actually challenge you to show me how you see it - how goods need to be distributed, by whom, by what standards, etc. I'd ask you to attack (as in analyze) the logic of Aristotles proposition.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
His motivation is the same motivation that all aristocracies have for propagating ideas that sustain and enhance their position.

Forgive me if I don't take your word on that. I mean that is a very bold statement with absolutely no sort of backing. You've not shown me to be an expert on Aristotle, let alone on his underlying psychology.

Fine, to clarify: His motivation for writing the argument being discussed in this thread, not his motivation in its totality which no one can know because we simply don't have the information on which to make such a judgment, is the same motivation that exists in all aristocracies. Private property, free will, the free market - all have been more commonly used throughout history by people who already have wealth, a means of protecting what they have.

Not exclusively in either direction - I know you hate Americans, but still they are a valid example of the counterpart. Note for example that the American entertainment industry was initiated by poor Austrian and Hungarian Jews who had nothing but a few puppets, wigs, glasses and dresses. They embraced capitalism and free will (as in self-determination, not as will as separate from the being) because it allowed them to become prosperous.

Note also that the Communist leaders denounced private property, just so that they could have custody of everything in name of the common good.

You should really attempt to argue for the virtues of the communist kind of ethics and politics you suggest, instead of, or rather next to, stating the vices of ownership.

Quote:
More commonly than they have been used as founding ideas for genuine revolutions, rather than factional coup d'etats, at any rate.

I certainly don't know that that is the case. The right to not be owned, not to be simply part of a common project, but to be a private person, Habeas Corpus - ownership of the self -- you may continue to dismiss or ignore this, but it's central to the idea of private property.

The communist society does not allow for private personhood. Whether it's in the early Israeli kibbutzes, the European social movements, the Maoist state - every society that focusses on the common good rather than the individual good tends to let the "good" fall in favor of the "common". And that is because moral values (good, bad) are set by individuals, by subjects. Sometimes groups of individuals gather and compromise, sometimes they just work with, against and/or around each other. There are many forms of group-dynamic, but there is never a pre-fixed common good.

Quote:
The fact that this argument is come from a man whose very name reeks of aristocracy, and who argued that slavery was a natural phenomenon, should tell you something about the limited class of people to whom he is seeking to accord the right of private property.

Aristotles argument for the naturalness of slavery is complicated. Principally, his point appears to be that some people are born with leader qualities and some are not. That the ones who are not, are bound to serve. But he also says:

" But that those who take the opposite view [that is, who hold the view that slavery is not natural] have in a certain way right on their side, may be easily seen. For the words slavery and slave are used in two senses. There is a slave or slavery by law as well as by nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention-- the law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors. But this right many jurists impeach, as they would an orator who brought forward an unconstitutional measure: they detest the notion that, because one man has the power of doing violence and is superior in brute strength, another shall be his slave and subject. "

I'd think you would agree with him there.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Power isn't something you simply cross a threshold of from 'unpowerful' to 'powerful' and then sit there being powerful until you die.

If we are talking about wealth, one either inherits or gains it. If one inherits it, in fact it is very possible that one just 'sits there'. It is often said that philosophy is an aristocratic occupation, as one needs a great deal of leisure to pursue it.

It is often said, but I don't believe it. Academic philosophy, the kind practiced in the period in Ancient Greece that includes Aristotle's life and education, is an aristocratic occupation. But given the time the modern non-aristocrat spends in being schooled and in watching TV, they've had more than enough time to read some books and think about them. It isn't a lack of time or even opportunity (at least for those with the internet) that means they don't do it. Again, you know this as well as I do.

But that is inverting my premise. I am not saying that all people who have time on their hands are philosophers. I am saying that to be a philosopher, one has to have time on ones hands. This is most certainly true, as thinking things through takes a lot of time.

I am not contesting that a working-class person on welfare can be a philosopher. In fact I know that this can be true. In a sense, a person on welfare is an aristocrat. He has other people working to allow him his leisure.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you like that air you're breathing? What could be more natural, or more common, than air and water? It's all been in and out of more human beings than either of us could count, not to mention lots of other organisms.

Do you lik the body you inhabit? Or would you prefer that people can just take it because the community has decided a greater number of people than your individual self has better used for it dead?

There are better arguments against the tyranny of them killing me and eating my corpse than that my body is my private property.

It seems a pretty good one to me. Habeas Corpus, the beginning of the modern conception of private property. Before that, a person used to belong to the tribe, to the common good.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you like having a home, a computer, something to store your data on, a girlfriend perhaps who isn't shared by any given member of the tribe?

I don't own the home where I live. I do own my computer and associated equipment, and yes I do like it, but it's not as though I can live without air and water (things that are inherently shared amongst us and which any attempt to privatise is both horrible and insane) as easily as I can live without my computer. And as above, I certainly don't think that claiming a girlfriend is my private property is anything close to the best argument why she isn't just shared around the tribe. The positive virtues of monogamy, the bond of trust that exists between faithful lovers, is far more important than any notion of ownership when it comes to ladyfolk.

Again, if your girlfriend did not own herself by law, you could not have such faithful love. She had no power to dedicate herself. The tribe or family would do it for her.

And yes, to privatize air would be insanely horrible. No one in this thread (at least Aristotle nor I) has argued that this should be done. He did not write that everything should be privately owned. The argument is for the merit of the phenomenon of private ownership. And you have not addressed that argument, only attacked the one who makes it.

Quote:
[quote]And herein lies my problem with private property as a liberation philosophy, or part of a liberation grand narrative -

Hola, who said anything about liberation? Aristotle did not, nor did I. The motive for it is motivation.

Quote:
all too quickly it goes from owning a house that you live in to the exclusion of others (a very good thing) to owning people. Aristotle. The Founding Fathers. Your comment about girlfriends. Can you see why I have such a problem with this idea, when it so readily ends up in an advocation of slavery? Even in the hands of very intelligent people, like you, or Aristotle, or the Founding Fathers. The speed with which you went to the idea of owning another person (completely contrary to the argument you started out making, which I essentially agree with) when provoked should tell you something about the collateral damage of that idea.

Yeah I can see how you read that in the first of yesterdays posts. I made a point of clarifying what I meant in the second, and in what I wrote today. I hope it has been thoroughly cleared up by now that the reason I am in favor of private ownership is precisely that persons should, in my eyes, not be owned by the community. I think that every person should have the right to have his own space along with his own stuff, as the natural circumference to his own being. Subservience to the community is ultimately bestial.

Quote:
[quote]I'm right with you that Marxism as a philosophy has been proven to be a failure by the passage of history, but that doesn't mean capitalism, private property and the individual have been proven to have triumphed. All three were critical in bringing the West to the verge of bankruptcy. That in turn has made possible the sort of political dialogue we see in the UK, where the achievements of collectivist movements are under attack in the name of protecting the private property of the few.

If you see nothing wrong in this then it is a point at which we fundamentally differ.

I see no correlation between private property and individualism on the one hand and the bankruptcy of the west. I see the bankruptcy as a cause of owning more than one can afford on a massive scale.

Of course private property should be held to reasonable limits. One should basically not own something without acquiring it via some real-world means. Be it with labor, trade, inheritance, creativity or whatever. What caused the bankruptcy is getting in debts one does not have the means to ever get out of.

Debt, and all ownership that results from it, can with good reason be said to be the antithesis of private ownership. The ownership is not at all private, but owned. Owned ownership - a hidden form of state-ownership.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-07-2013, 10:46 AM  Post: #19
Dannerz  Offline
Student
Posts: 45
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
If people were perfectly moral, one guy owning a ton of stuff wouldn't be a problem, because he would use it to help everyone. I think economic problems derive from moral problems.
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 12:41 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 12:43 PM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #20
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
Tom, I've figured out the point where I begin to disagree with you, or where my position becomes fundamentally alien to the idea of commonizing ownership. It's the point of building, cultivating, creating. I believe that part of a human being is the activity of building, That human life is dwelling while cultivating. Since this cultivating is so directly related to the ontic, existential human activity, so I regard the terrain wherein it occurs, the realm of the individuals cultivation, as a direct part of his 'private ownership', which is only axiomatic under the principle of habeas corpus - to own ones most basic value.

To follow, to own the body might reasonably mean also to own the fundamental requirements for this body to function. By this we mean air, and water - it should reasonably also mean food. But since part of the nature of the body is to cultivate, the acquirement of food may be seen as part of the ontic activity of being human, and thus also belong to this 'property', the self.

Habeas Corpus, as 'you shall have your body', then comes to mean: you shall cultivate your being. From this logic, which I'll admit isn't the most obvious form of thinking - Heidegger would like it - we can see that it would be inconvenient to not be able to have private property. One can not really cultivate much if one does not have decisive power over any goods or resources.

BigTom  Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
(01-07-2013 07:37 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:  
No, but nothing here proves that Aristotle was not just saying what he honestly believed. And since I agree with him and own no slaves and extort no people, since I am not an aristocrat, it is hardly evident that he said what he said for the sake of his aristocracy.

For one, he may have honestly believed it. Plenty of aristocrats do honestly believe things that they believe because it is conducive to their interests. The two are hardly mutually exclusive. For another, in global terms you (and I) are aristocrats. You enjoy a better material quality of life than the vast majority, and I imagine you'll agree our lifestyles are subsidised by the labour of much poorer people. It is no surprise to find that the philosophy of private property is one that is advanced by rich people, that's ultimately what I'm saying here.

Quote:
By your rationale, I should only be saying things that benefit my position in society. That is not how my mind, how a philosophical mind works. I think in order to clarify. Sure, I consider the consequences sometimes and soften my words now and then. But I do not invent false theories in order to suit my interests. And as I now have shown, I have no reason to assume that Aristotle would do this.

I would actually challenge you to show me how you see it - how goods need to be distributed, by whom, by what standards, etc. I'd ask you to attack (as in analyze) the logic of Aristotles proposition.

I don't think Aristotle or you are ONLY capable of saying things that benefit your position. I certainly think in this instance that both of you are arguing the case for a philosophy that if manifested would benefit your positions.

Where goods are in abundant supply I don't have an issue with the free market private property model. It seems to me the best way of ensuring low prices and encouraging innovation in the provision of essentials. Where goods are not in abundant supply I think we simply have to be more rational about it than to continue the globalisation of capitalism as has taken place in recent decades.

Quote:
Not exclusively in either direction - I know you hate Americans, but still they are a valid example of the counterpart. Note for example that the American entertainment industry was initiated by poor Austrian and Hungarian Jews who had nothing but a few puppets, wigs, glasses and dresses. They embraced capitalism and free will (as in self-determination, not as will as separate from the being) because it allowed them to become prosperous.

I'm sure there are billions of other examples. I'm not disputing this.

Quote:
Note also that the Communist leaders denounced private property, just so that they could have custody of everything in name of the common good.

You mean there are people who pretended not to believe in private property so as to claim everything for themselves, just as there are those who pretend to believe in private property so as to claim everything for themselves?

I'm not trying to piss you off but like the kids say: no shit.

Quote:
You should really attempt to argue for the virtues of the communist kind of ethics and politics you suggest, instead of, or rather next to, stating the vices of ownership.

I did point out that without commonly owned property we'd all be dead in seconds. I mean, as far as arguments for there being certain rational limits to the notion of private property and for there being a natural value to the idea of mutually owned or even unowned stuff in the world I think that's quite a good one. I mean, fuck all this whether or not we'd have computers without private property, we'd simply be dead without the common property of air and water.

Quote:
I certainly don't know that that is the case. The right to not be owned, not to be simply part of a common project, but to be a private person, Habeas Corpus - ownership of the self -- you may continue to dismiss or ignore this, but it's central to the idea of private property.

I have read John Locke, I am well aware of the philosophical tradition here.

Quote:
The communist society does not allow for private personhood. Whether it's in the early Israeli kibbutzes, the European social movements, the Maoist state - every society that focusses on the common good rather than the individual good tends to let the "good" fall in favor of the "common". And that is because moral values (good, bad) are set by individuals, by subjects. Sometimes groups of individuals gather and compromise, sometimes they just work with, against and/or around each other. There are many forms of group-dynamic, but there is never a pre-fixed common good.

The communist state doesn't allow for private personhood. Communism can exist beyond the state, and I agree does and necessarily so for us to survive. But you're right, in a state system communism does pretty much always lead to some elevation of some warped notion of 'the common good' above the values of the individual. But likewise, capitalism in a state system ends up privatising things like rainwater. You put either philosophy into a state structure and horrible and incredibly stupid things will happen.

Quote:
Aristotles argument for the naturalness of slavery is complicated. Principally, his point appears to be that some people are born with leader qualities and some are not. That the ones who are not, are bound to serve. But he also says:

" But that those who take the opposite view [that is, who hold the view that slavery is not natural] have in a certain way right on their side, may be easily seen. For the words slavery and slave are used in two senses. There is a slave or slavery by law as well as by nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention-- the law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors. But this right many jurists impeach, as they would an orator who brought forward an unconstitutional measure: they detest the notion that, because one man has the power of doing violence and is superior in brute strength, another shall be his slave and subject. "

I'd think you would agree with him there.

So might gives you the right to steal someone's private property but not to make them your slave? OK, he's compromised a bit on the issue of slavery but he's still ultimately arguing that if you can take someone's else's property then it is morally justified if you do take it.

I stand by my position that this is an abominable argument.

Quote:
Quote:
There are better arguments against the tyranny of them killing me and eating my corpse than that my body is my private property.

Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
The Terribleness of Man
I would like to hear your comments on the following excerpt.

Nietzsche Wrote:
In place of the "natural man" of Rousseau, the nineteenth century has discovered a truer image of "man"--it has had the courage to do so.-- On the whole, the Christian concept "man" has thus been reinstated. What one has not had the courage for is to call this "man in himself" good and to see in him the guarantee of the future. Neither has one dared to grasp that an increase in the terribleness of man is an accompaniment of every increase in culture; in this, one is still subject to the Christian ideal and takes its side against paganism, also against the Renaissance concept of virtù. But the key to culture is not to be found in this way: and in praxis one retains the falsification of history in favor of the "good man" (as if he alone constituted the progress of man) and the socialist ideal (i. e., the residue of Christianity and of Rousseau in the de-Christianized world).

The struggle against the eighteenth century: its supreme overcoming by Goethe and Napoleon. Schopenhauer, too, struggles against it; but he involuntarily steps back into the seventeenth century--he is a modern Pascal, with Pascalian value judgments without Christianity. Schopenhauer was not strong enough for a new Yes.

Napoleon: insight that the higher and the terrible man necessarily belong together. The "man" reinstated; the woman again accorded her due tribute of contempt and fear. "Totality" as health and highest activity; the straight line, the grand style in action rediscovered; the most powerful instinct, that of life itself, the lust to rule, affirmed.
[The Will to Power, aphorism 1017 (Spring-Fall 1887)]
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-24-2013, 07:45 AM (This post was last modified: 01-24-2013 07:47 AM by pezer.)  Post: #2
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Terribleness of Man
The overlords today are nihilist and have learned to nurture the idea of the new yes so as to control it. This is the sea of despair that the little Zarathustras, as you call them, dwell in.

Nietzsche gave us a good weapon for that, too. All that is needed then is to accept the conflictive nature of reality. Once that is done, the warrior can know himself, know his enemy, execute his will (as you call "it"). That is how man may be overcome. The sad reality, however, is that the nihilist lords have become quite effective at preventing effective alliances. In this vapiric mix, the Zarathustras burn brightly, die down, and end up some neatly-allocated where.

The last man is the man who prefers fancies to this undeniable truth, all too happy to follow tracks laid down for them. Are we to continue wandering about in the wilderness, or will we meet together to usurp the usurpers? Rebellion is the only way: and it is not the spirit, fire and conviction of rebellion that I invoke.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-24-2013, 11:28 PM  Post: #3
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: The Terribleness of Man
Apparently this site has forfeited it's possible role as an instrument for rebellion.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-24-2013, 11:44 PM  Post: #4
W.C.  Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: The Terribleness of Man
Is that what you made this for, Fixed Cross?

An instrument for Rebellion against whom or what?
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-25-2013, 11:30 AM (This post was last modified: 01-25-2013 11:31 AM by Gobbo.)  Post: #5
Gobbo  Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: The Terribleness of Man
The site is fine.

FX is just going through one of his episodes.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 03:57 AM (This post was last modified: 01-29-2013 03:59 AM by pezer.)  Post: #6
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Terribleness of Man
"An instrument for Rebellion against whom or what? "

Nobody and nothing of course. You have only yourself to rebel against, W.C..

Tongue
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 05:13 AM  Post: #7
Gobbo  Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: The Terribleness of Man
This site is less about rebellion and more about getting better as people. As humans.

It's about overcoming the personal limitations you have that prevent you from succeeding at personal projects, or likewise from working with others.

The best way I know of to get better at life is to talk about smart things and hang out with noteworthy people. You cannot script this stuff. This is an experiment and we'll just have to wait to see what happens.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 11:48 AM  Post: #8
W.C.  Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: The Terribleness of Man
(01-29-2013 03:57 AM)pezer Wrote:  
"An instrument for Rebellion against whom or what? "

Nobody and nothing of course. You have only yourself to rebel against, W.C..

Why do you say that?
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 03:35 PM  Post: #9
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Terribleness of Man
Rebellion is, for us, a positivistic approach. What I mean by what I wrote before is that you seem to avoid conflict, enmity, manyness, game playing. Do you have no enemies, really? It seems you would have only yourself to clash against in your rebellion.

I agree, it sounds boring.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 09:58 PM (This post was last modified: 01-29-2013 10:24 PM by W.C..)  Post: #10
W.C.  Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: The Terribleness of Man
I will there to be no conflict where I will it, and am able. Crowley's plays just wore off fast; generally too useless for me and my wants personally, but they still at times hold their charm.

That said, my life is filled enough with enmity, game playing, double standards, power plays and the like to take the same to a place where I come to escape it and am actually able to discuss things at times -- usually more thoroughly and insightfully relevant than the day to day games run.

You see, this place and others like it are much the same to in person chat, but dynamics are different. The whole approach is almost all in written form, where parties address one another on a turn basis. Life isn't like that. You will have interruptions, distractions, this that, and you wont have the time to articulate and express everything you so desire as the time is usually rather short and, at least regarding the humanity I have experienced, people are rarely bothered to actually listen or discuss what you have to say.

I understand many would carry on their word wars on forums and the like, but I am too encumbered, I feel too weighed down by my life at present to give much of a damn to that in my 'escapes.'

I will engage the power word reputation whatever games at times, but I generally will to avoid it when escaping, and in as much life as possible, unless I feel I can be taught something of equal value to the bother. It seems counter productive in general, though undoubtedly valuable at times.

I am just getting tired as well, I think. Churchy said something like that once. But I just don't want to waste too much time, pretty much.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'






01-30-2013, 01:08 AM Post: #11
Abstract Offline
"Our work is eternal"
Posts: 2
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 0
RE: The Terribleness of Man
(01-20-2013 02:05 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I would like to hear your comments on the following excerpt.

Nietzsche Wrote:
In place of the "natural man" of Rousseau, the nineteenth century has discovered a truer image of "man"--it has had the courage to do so.-- On the whole, the Christian concept "man" has thus been reinstated. What one has not had the courage for is to call this "man in himself" good and to see in him the guarantee of the future. Neither has one dared to grasp that an increase in the terribleness of man is an accompaniment of every increase in culture; in this, one is still subject to the Christian ideal and takes its side against paganism, also against the Renaissance concept of virtù. But the key to culture is not to be found in this way: and in praxis one retains the falsification of history in favor of the "good man" (as if he alone constituted the progress of man) and the socialist ideal (i. e., the residue of Christianity and of Rousseau in the de-Christianized world).

The struggle against the eighteenth century: its supreme overcoming by Goethe and Napoleon. Schopenhauer, too, struggles against it; but he involuntarily steps back into the seventeenth century--he is a modern Pascal, with Pascalian value judgments without Christianity. Schopenhauer was not strong enough for a new Yes.

Napoleon: insight that the higher and the terrible man necessarily belong together. The "man" reinstated; the woman again accorded her due tribute of contempt and fear. "Totality" as health and highest activity; the straight line, the grand style in action rediscovered; the most powerful instinct, that of life itself, the lust to rule, affirmed.
[The Will to Power, aphorism 1017 (Spring-Fall 1887)]
Could you explain to me what he is saying here?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 06:53 AM Post: #12
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: The Terribleness of Man
Maybe we should just avoid eachother... Your life and outlook sound horrible.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-31-2013, 12:39 AM Post: #13
Abstract Offline
"Our work is eternal"
Posts: 2
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 0
RE: The Terribleness of Man
(01-20-2013 02:05 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I would like to hear your comments on the following excerpt.

Nietzsche Wrote:
In place of the "natural man" of Rousseau, the nineteenth century has discovered a truer image of "man"--it has had the courage to do so.-- On the whole, the Christian concept "man" has thus been reinstated. What one has not had the courage for is to call this "man in himself" good and to see in him the guarantee of the future. Neither has one dared to grasp that an increase in the terribleness of man is an accompaniment of every increase in culture; in this, one is still subject to the Christian ideal and takes its side against paganism, also against the Renaissance concept of virtù. But the key to culture is not to be found in this way: and in praxis one retains the falsification of history in favor of the "good man" (as if he alone constituted the progress of man) and the socialist ideal (i. e., the residue of Christianity and of Rousseau in the de-Christianized world).

The struggle against the eighteenth century: its supreme overcoming by Goethe and Napoleon. Schopenhauer, too, struggles against it; but he involuntarily steps back into the seventeenth century--he is a modern Pascal, with Pascalian value judgments without Christianity. Schopenhauer was not strong enough for a new Yes.

Napoleon: insight that the higher and the terrible man necessarily belong together. The "man" reinstated; the woman again accorded her due tribute of contempt and fear. "Totality" as health and highest activity; the straight line, the grand style in action rediscovered; the most powerful instinct, that of life itself, the lust to rule, affirmed.
[The Will to Power, aphorism 1017 (Spring-Fall 1887)]
hmmm... similar to the out look presented by The Stellar Man... That humanity only worsens or at the least remains the same as it ages only weakening itself as it grows technologies that do its work for it...

but surely there is the development of some out of the whole...

but perhaps it would be better that rather then manipulating our environment we allowed ourselves to adapt to it and evolve. using ourselves rather then allowing ourselves to atrophy by relying on what we make by hand...

Why do we do this but that we seek expansion and thus survival... that Human seeks survival... but then perhaps such sought is out of ignorance not seeing that life can return after death... and that perhaps a life on earth alone for as long as the sun allows would not be so bad... would we really survive as Human in space or still over billions of years change to something else... why not sit still for another billion years or so, that we have, on this earth?

Nonhuman Rights Project
[Image: 06zxYCG.jpg]

Quote:
The Nonhuman Rights Project is the only organization working toward actual LEGAL rights for members of species other than our own. Our mission is to change the common law status of at least some nonhuman animals from mere “things,” which lack the capacity to possess any legal right, to “persons,” who possess such fundamental rights as bodily integrity and bodily liberty, and those other legal rights to which evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience entitle them. Our first cases are being prepared for filing in 2013. Your support of this work is deeply appreciated.

http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-05-2013, 06:10 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2013 06:11 PM by pezer.) Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Nonhuman Rights Project
It would be genius if they created new categories that bridge the gap they mention instead of just calling elephant people.

Like I said, though, the idea of reconsidering the philosophical status of animals is genius. These crazy new populists in south America really do come up with staggeringly beautiful ideas... It's too bad they are mostly cover-ups for mass mediocrity.

Chávez, for example, formulated the idea of adding the political unit of a commune to the existing parishes and such, so that direct democracy over certain aspects of their organization as a political being would be given to the truly disenfranchised. In the end, it turned into a kind of direct Big Brother to The People link for the organization of militias and giving of goods (like fridges). All the functions of the commune are explicitly linked by law to executive power in all aspects. But the idea is fantastic, I hope it survives him; just like this one with Evo.

Indeed, now that we know the true origins of life, is there any excuse for the simplification of its organization in respect to us? We have the information today to start building a fully relativistic understanding of our world, which is the genius insight of value ontology.

I have not read him yet, which is annnoying, but I have heard that Deleuze's approach is largely this one with respect to animals.



Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-09-2013, 01:07 AM Post: #3
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Nonhuman Rights Project
(02-05-2013 06:10 PM)pezer Wrote:
It would be genius if they created new categories that bridge the gap they mention instead of just calling elephant people.
Have to start somewhere.
I get the idea that in the Spanish speaking world, a lot of sensible political initiatives are being taken.

Quote:
Indeed, now that we know the true origins of life, is there any excuse for the simplification of its organization in respect to us? We have the information today to start building a fully relativistic understanding of our world, which is the genius insight of value ontology.
Thank you. I mean it's been a good while since I was reminded of what VO is really about.

short story bits
Bernadette was looking over her shoulder to the man making the noise on the escalator. He looked like a man but he sounded like a woman. His voice... eerie. She looked forward, Bernadette, and saw the train coming. She hurried down the last steps and was at the platofrm well in time.

The train passed all sorts of pasutres, fields, acres full of corn and endless rows of red, yellow and purple tulips. It was late in the summer. The sun set above a horizon muddled by flats and warehouses. The future was not set.

When the train arived Bernadette got up and offered her seat at the window to an old woman. The woman declined, and took a place at the isle. The young boy who had been sitting next to Bernadette now skooped over and smiled. Bernadette smiled also. She liked the young more than the old. Had more with them in common. She didn’t look at the old woman again. She got out and it was still warm.

The village was a few miles away, Bernadette had to take a bus. The driver looked old to the point of death. These sorts of people don’t usually drive public transport. Usuallty drivers are vigorous, life-lusty types. Perverse may be, but not weak. Bernadette felt not good sitting down in the care of this man. This feeble ghost. She arrived safely. She had forgotten here reservations along the way. The dusk had created a beautiful spectacle.



ILP content on the NWO front page?
I was thinking since we do not have the numbers by long shot to get content produced and selected, we could make a thread on ILP where we paste posts that we consider fit to put up. Gobbo would then be able to up there what he thinks is valid. I am comfortable with having Gobbo select what goes up, more so than myself actually. I am in favor of democracy of content and property but I am usually diametrically opposed to the democratic consensus. I allow this because I know consensus shifts with the wind, and used to seeing millions others tred where I had made a path earlier on. This runs from commercials and nike-trends to the iphone to philosophical perspectives.

I have a Neptune-Mars-Mercury-Vesta-Fortune-Pallas-Moon combination on the latitude scale, Gobbo has a Neptune-Mars-Jupiter conjunction on the longitude scale. I am an indirect, subtle agent of vision, he is a direct, Earthly one. It is by my subtle vision that I know to trust Gobbo despite the mistrust that his lack of concern about missing the mark combined with his constant stabbing at dangerous power structures causes in many and what is perhaps just my lower self. The Angel Gobbo exists. We are perhaps all to attempt to be as Angelic as possible. For this site to work. A war in Heaven! Alea Iacta Est!

We must invent a mask for the leadership. We must perhaps also advertise on other forums across the web.

We could set out a task for all moderators and request to members to each post about advertizements of this site and its plan on 30 different locations. It will require registering to many sites. I have created a persona on email for the end of being able to join everything as this persona instead of constantly referring back to my own name, which gives me a sense of solidity that I think reverberates via the value-reality into the intersubjective memetic structure of the internet.

This site has a powerful chart, it involves a hermetic pattern two Mercy-planets (Jupiter, Venus) with two Severity forces (Mars, Saturn) and adds to this mix Pluto, which is directly on Mars.

Well I got derailed there but perhaps it is interesting for some. This site feels like an enormous void, pure desire for content, which I am not even close at being able to produce.

Also, what is stopping the mods from producing content for the main page?
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 07:21 AM Post: #2
Lara Offline
Student
Posts: 1
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 0
RE: ILP content on the NWO front page?
Where do you get your drugs?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 07:36 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: ILP content on the NWO front page?
I think this is your problem:



Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 07:48 AM (This post was last modified: 01-30-2013 08:01 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #4
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: ILP content on the NWO front page?
HAHAHA yes, well more or less. The spirit of gravity is this kitchen block. It resides within all of the onlookers. I did not make a bet with others that I could do this alone. If a couple of these crazies make a few steps and help me carry it, the "spirit of heaviness" would be defeated and we would be FREE! FREE! F - oh wait.

I get my drugs on a street called "The Other Shore".
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 09:33 AM (This post was last modified: 01-30-2013 09:33 AM by Gobbo.) Post: #5
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: ILP content on the NWO front page?
Quote:
his constant stabbing at dangerous power structures

Anyone else catch this?

>>/x/
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 06:13 PM (This post was last modified: 01-30-2013 06:15 PM by Gobbo.) Post: #6
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: ILP content on the NWO front page?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like the forum comes first, and the front page comes second. I'm not that worried about producing content for the front page if we're going to attract mostly forum addicts. Like I want to, but I'm not in a big rush. It will definitely tie the community if we can get going, though. That type of thing is key.

I like the marketing ideas. Go forth and do that. You definitely don't need my permission. I am going to take over the twitter, though, and I'm going to try and get super active with that. Pretending to be a girl is not a bad idea, but I probably won't do that for the twitter.

I like the ILP thing, but it's kind of underhanded to do that kind of advertising. Then again, their admin is never around and I don't care what the mods think.

If we can get, in any way, any person to submit any content for us to put on the front page, then maybe we can worry about how, moving forward, things will be selected.
Quote:
Also, what is stopping the mods from producing content for the main page?

Nothing at all. I think people are probably just busy. I am trying to do all of this, and go to school while working. This will all take some time. As numbers grow, so will the desire to contribute and be seen by those numbers.

This is all a game of human incentives. No one is getting paid, so it's kind of a 'steady as she goes' type thing.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-31-2013, 06:33 AM Post: #7
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: ILP content on the NWO front page?
(01-30-2013 06:06 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I was thinking since we do not have the numbers by long shot to get content produced and selected, we could make a thread on ILP where we paste posts that we consider fit to put up.

Why not? It might work, it might not.

Quote:
The Angel Gobbo exists.

Too right.

Quote:
Alea Iacta Est!

[Image: quizavq2.png]

Quote:
Also, what is stopping the mods from producing content for the main page?

Time, inclination.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-31-2013, 10:21 AM Post: #8
W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: ILP content on the NWO front page?
But why would we limit it to ILP? Posts, blogs, etc from anywhere should be ok, so long as we quote the source, and we can then add our own two cents, if so inclined.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-31-2013, 12:01 PM Post: #9
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: ILP content on the NWO front page?
Yes.

Blow up huge forums like GLP and AJ with our name
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-02-2013, 06:53 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2013 06:53 AM by Gobbo.) Post: #10
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: ILP content on the NWO front page?
I feel like we should debate ILP.

I'm not sure where we would find judges - maybe Satyr or someone - but we should debate them on some sort of perennial conspiracy topic. Or something a bit more refined.

The point is, it would be nice to destroy their false confidence. Me and FX might not see eye to eye on a lot of things, but wanting to break out of this cycle of sameness is needed.

I'm watching him over there right now, and it's the same old thing as it always is. We need to change this.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."

It seems a pretty good one to me. Habeas Corpus, the beginning of the modern conception of private property. Before that, a person used to belong to the tribe, to the common good.

Wasn't that idea, as you are using it, created quite a long time after Aristotle wrote the stuff you've been quoting in this thread?

Quote:
Again, if your girlfriend did not own herself by law, you could not have such faithful love. She had no power to dedicate herself. The tribe or family would do it for her.

I don't think people own themselves. For that, they would have to be self-conscious and have free will. Or to put it another way, the man who believes he owns himself invariably finds he hasn't even marked out the limits of himself correctly. This is even more true of women.

Quote:
And yes, to privatize air would be insanely horrible. No one in this thread (at least Aristotle nor I) has argued that this should be done. He did not write that everything should be privately owned. The argument is for the merit of the phenomenon of private ownership. And you have not addressed that argument, only attacked the one who makes it.

I have addressed it. I pointed out that while SOME things have been achieved through private property, the profit motive, etc. that not all goods things have been achieved that way, and that some bads things have been achieved that way.

Quote:
Quote:
And herein lies my problem with private property as a liberation philosophy, or part of a liberation grand narrative -

Hola, who said anything about liberation? Aristotle did not, nor did I. The motive for it is motivation.

He said:
Quote:
when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business

Are you saying this is not a narrative of liberation? I mean, he doesn't explicitly characterise it but that's very much what I'm reading it as.

Quote:
Yeah I can see how you read that in the first of yesterdays posts. I made a point of clarifying what I meant in the second, and in what I wrote today. I hope it has been thoroughly cleared up by now that the reason I am in favor of private ownership is precisely that persons should, in my eyes, not be owned by the community. I think that every person should have the right to have his own space along with his own stuff, as the natural circumference to his own being. Subservience to the community is ultimately bestial.

And I'm not disagreeing with you there. The value as I see it in the notion of private property is primarily in resistance to the state, or the tribe or whatever. It is to deprive others of rights with regard to your person or home or food. But that's very different to making it the foundation of a positive philosophy, which I maintain always leads to things like privatising water (which has happened and is only a step away from privatising air, which has already been portrayed in a Paul Verhoeven movie as you no doubt remember).

Likewise, I'm not making of mutual property or simply unowned stuff the foundation of a positive philosophy, save to say we'd all be dead without it. It's just a necessity, in certain instances, of our continued existence. That doesn't make it the basis of a justification for the existence of a state, let alone the actions of a state. Some would argue it does but I fervently disagree with them, largely for the reasons you've outlined in this thread.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Quote:
I see no correlation between private property and individualism on the one hand and the bankruptcy of the west. I see the bankruptcy as a cause of owning more than one can afford on a massive scale.

And is that the logical end result of a philosophy that makes of private property a foundational idea?

Quote:
Of course private property should be held to reasonable limits. One should basically not own something without acquiring it via some real-world means. Be it with labor, trade, inheritance, creativity or whatever. What caused the bankruptcy is getting in debts one does not have the means to ever get out of.

Debt, and all ownership that results from it, can with good reason be said to be the antithesis of private ownership. The ownership is not at all private, but owned. Owned ownership - a hidden form of state-ownership.

And yet debt is the primary means of slavery in the modern world.

(01-08-2013 12:41 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Tom, I've figured out the point where I begin to disagree with you, or where my position becomes fundamentally alien to the idea of commonizing ownership. It's the point of building, cultivating, creating. I believe that part of a human being is the activity of building, That human life is dwelling while cultivating. Since this cultivating is so directly related to the ontic, existential human activity, so I regard the terrain wherein it occurs, the realm of the individuals cultivation, as a direct part of his 'private ownership', which is only axiomatic under the principle of habeas corpus - to own ones most basic value.

To follow, to own the body might reasonably mean also to own the fundamental requirements for this body to function. By this we mean air, and water - it should reasonably also mean food. But since part of the nature of the body is to cultivate, the acquirement of food may be seen as part of the ontic activity of being human, and thus also belong to this 'property', the self.

Habeas Corpus, as 'you shall have your body', then comes to mean: you shall cultivate your being. From this logic, which I'll admit isn't the most obvious form of thinking - Heidegger would like it - we can see that it would be inconvenient to not be able to have private property. One can not really cultivate much if one does not have decisive power over any goods or resources.

One can cultivate much. The question is whether one would have the motive to do it in the absence of private benefit. I am arguing that one could have the motive for all sorts of reasons, on the horrible end of the scale you have subservience to the tribe or the state, on the other end you have things like preventing pollution because it's in all our interests to breath nourishing air. After all, the effect of pollution on any given individual is usually negligible, though I'd suggest that in some places it's becoming rather noticeable because of the sheer abundance of pollutants in people's lives. In my favourite place, America, people eat shit, drink shit, breath shit in and out and then wonder why they get sick. I'd argue that if they had a little more respect for the world they were living in, which belongs to nobody, rather than thinking themselves masters of the world then finding out they aren't as they choke to death, then things might be a bit better for them.

But you're right, I hate Americans, so I honestly don't care if they all kill themselves and each other. It's no loss to me, and would resolve a lot of our resource consumption problems rather quickly. That said, there's a big part of me that thinks that is a) inevitable and b) desired by some within the present day aristocracy, so I am wary of not giving a shit about them to such an extent. But not enough that I actually do care if they all kill themselves and each other.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-15-2013, 02:42 AM Post: #22
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
(01-11-2013 08:18 AM)BigTom Wrote:
(01-07-2013 07:37 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
No, but nothing here proves that Aristotle was not just saying what he honestly believed. And since I agree with him and own no slaves and extort no people, since I am not an aristocrat, it is hardly evident that he said what he said for the sake of his aristocracy.

For one, he may have honestly believed it. Plenty of aristocrats do honestly believe things that they believe because it is conducive to their interests. The two are hardly mutually exclusive. For another, in global terms you (and I) are aristocrats. You enjoy a better material quality of life than the vast majority, and I imagine you'll agree our lifestyles are subsidised by the labour of much poorer people. It is no surprise to find that the philosophy of private property is one that is advanced by rich people, that's ultimately what I'm saying here.

And no surprise to find a resentful philosophy coming from those that have little. But I think these are not the points we should be making. I will try to advance and simplify, see where we agree and disagree fundamentally.

Quote:
Quote:
By your rationale, I should only be saying things that benefit my position in society. That is not how my mind, how a philosophical mind works. I think in order to clarify. Sure, I consider the consequences sometimes and soften my words now and then. But I do not invent false theories in order to suit my interests. And as I now have shown, I have no reason to assume that Aristotle would do this.

I would actually challenge you to show me how you see it - how goods need to be distributed, by whom, by what standards, etc. I'd ask you to attack (as in analyze) the logic of Aristotles proposition.

I don't think Aristotle or you are ONLY capable of saying things that benefit your position. I certainly think in this instance that both of you are arguing the case for a philosophy that if manifested would benefit your positions.

Where goods are in abundant supply I don't have an issue with the free market private property model. It seems to me the best way of ensuring low prices and encouraging innovation in the provision of essentials. Where goods are not in abundant supply I think we simply have to be more rational about it than to continue the globalisation of capitalism as has taken place in recent decades.

Agreed.

Quote:
Quote:
Not exclusively in either direction - I know you hate Americans, but still they are a valid example of the counterpart. Note for example that the American entertainment industry was initiated by poor Austrian and Hungarian Jews who had nothing but a few puppets, wigs, glasses and dresses. They embraced capitalism and free will (as in self-determination, not as will as separate from the being) because it allowed them to become prosperous.

I'm sure there are billions of other examples. I'm not disputing this.

Good - because I think the incentive to gain and ascend individually is essential for happiness (though indeed not for staying alive).

Quote:
Quote:
Note also that the Communist leaders denounced private property, just so that they could have custody of everything in name of the common good.

You mean there are people who pretended not to believe in private property so as to claim everything for themselves, just as there are those who pretend to believe in private property so as to claim everything for themselves?

I'm not trying to piss you off but like the kids say: no shit.

Agreed.

Quote:
Quote:
You should really attempt to argue for the virtues of the communist kind of ethics and politics you suggest, instead of, or rather next to, stating the vices of ownership.

I did point out that without commonly owned property we'd all be dead in seconds. I mean, as far as arguments for there being certain rational limits to the notion of private property and for there being a natural value to the idea of mutually owned or even unowned stuff in the world I think that's quite a good one. I mean, fuck all this whether or not we'd have computers without private property, we'd simply be dead without the common property of air and water.

Agreed.

Quote:
Quote:
I certainly don't know that that is the case. The right to not be owned, not to be simply part of a common project, but to be a private person, Habeas Corpus - ownership of the self -- you may continue to dismiss or ignore this, but it's central to the idea of private property.

I have read John Locke, I am well aware of the philosophical tradition here.

Okay.

Quote:
Quote:
The communist society does not allow for private personhood. Whether it's in the early Israeli kibbutzes, the European social movements, the Maoist state - every society that focusses on the common good rather than the individual good tends to let the "good" fall in favor of the "common". And that is because moral values (good, bad) are set by individuals, by subjects. Sometimes groups of individuals gather and compromise, sometimes they just work with, against and/or around each other. There are many forms of group-dynamic, but there is never a pre-fixed common good.

The communist state doesn't allow for private personhood. Communism can exist beyond the state, and I agree does and necessarily so for us to survive. But you're right, in a state system communism does pretty much always lead to some elevation of some warped notion of 'the common good' above the values of the individual. But likewise, capitalism in a state system ends up privatising things like rainwater. You put either philosophy into a state structure and horrible and incredibly stupid things will happen.

Yes, capitalism must be restrained, limits must be set.
For one thing, a corporation can not count as a private person.
Another: I agree that common goods such as water, air and basic provisions for nutrition should not be privatized.

Quote:
Quote:
Aristotles argument for the naturalness of slavery is complicated. Principally, his point appears to be that some people are born with leader qualities and some are not. That the ones who are not, are bound to serve. But he also says:

" But that those who take the opposite view [that is, who hold the view that slavery is not natural] have in a certain way right on their side, may be easily seen. For the words slavery and slave are used in two senses. There is a slave or slavery by law as well as by nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention-- the law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors. But this right many jurists impeach, as they would an orator who brought forward an unconstitutional measure: they detest the notion that, because one man has the power of doing violence and is superior in brute strength, another shall be his slave and subject. "

I'd think you would agree with him there.

So might gives you the right to steal someone's private property but not to make them your slave? OK, he's compromised a bit on the issue of slavery but he's still ultimately arguing that if you can take someone's else's property then it is morally justified if you do take it.

I stand by my position that this is an abominable argument.

I read his argument to mean that it is also possible to object to stealing. He basically puts into question that brute force is an indisputable legal argument, but only makes this questioning fully explicit in the case of slavery - I suppose because this was the topic he was writing about.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There are better arguments against the tyranny of them killing me and eating my corpse than that my body is my private property.

It seems a pretty good one to me. Habeas Corpus, the beginning of the modern conception of private property. Before that, a person used to belong to the tribe, to the common good.

Wasn't that idea, as you are using it, created quite a long time after Aristotle wrote the stuff you've been quoting in this thread?

Yes, that's why I said the modern conception.
I agree that what I said after is not entirely right - a king did not belong to the common good. And we still belong by law to the common good now.

This Habeas Corpus element however does to me substantiate the private ownership case.

Quote:
Quote:
Again, if your girlfriend did not own herself by law, you could not have such faithful love. She had no power to dedicate herself. The tribe or family would do it for her.

I don't think people own themselves. For that, they would have to be self-conscious and have free will. Or to put it another way, the man who believes he owns himself invariably finds he hasn't even marked out the limits of himself correctly. This is even more true of women.

I disagree. I do not think that to have free will is required, first of all because this notion is illogical to begin with. Will free from what? From the self? From the will?

I also do not think that one needs to know every single electron or drive of oneself to be considered self-conscious. though indeed, one must know oneself to as certain extent to be entrusted to oneself. Parodites wrote on this beautifully, I will see if I can find it.

Quote:
Quote:
And yes, to privatize air would be insanely horrible. No one in this thread (at least Aristotle nor I) has argued that this should be done. He did not write that everything should be privately owned. The argument is for the merit of the phenomenon of private ownership. And you have not addressed that argument, only attacked the one who makes it.

I have addressed it. I pointed out that while SOME things have been achieved through private property, the profit motive, etc. that not all goods things have been achieved that way, and that some bads things have been achieved that way.

Agreed.

Quote:
He said:
Quote:
when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business

Are you saying this is not a narrative of liberation? I mean, he doesn't explicitly characterise it but that's very much what I'm reading it as.

I'm am, to me it's about what drives humans to act.

Quote:
Quote:
Yeah I can see how you read that in the first of yesterdays posts. I made a point of clarifying what I meant in the second, and in what I wrote today. I hope it has been thoroughly cleared up by now that the reason I am in favor of private ownership is precisely that persons should, in my eyes, not be owned by the community. I think that every person should have the right to have his own space along with his own stuff, as the natural circumference to his own being. Subservience to the community is ultimately bestial.

And I'm not disagreeing with you there. The value as I see it in the notion of private property is primarily in resistance to the state, or the tribe or whatever. It is to deprive others of rights with regard to your person or home or food. But that's very different to making it the foundation of a positive philosophy, which I maintain always leads to things like privatising water (which has happened and is only a step away from privatising air, which has already been portrayed in a Paul Verhoeven movie as you no doubt remember).

Likewise, I'm not making of mutual property or simply unowned stuff the foundation of a positive philosophy, save to say we'd all be dead without it. It's just a necessity, in certain instances, of our continued existence. That doesn't make it the basis of a justification for the existence of a state, let alone the actions of a state. Some would argue it does but I fervently disagree with them, largely for the reasons you've outlined in this thread.

I hope that clarifies my position.

More or less, I think. I read your position as being that not everything should be privatized. I agree with that. But I agree with Aristotle completely as well, and I do not think his and your position contradict.
One issue with air is that it's naturally freely distributed. Food is not, certainly not cars or computers. Water is, but clean water is not. I am not using that in an argument here, but it should be noted.

Quote:
Quote:
I see no correlation between private property and individualism on the one hand and the bankruptcy of the west. I see the bankruptcy as a cause of owning more than one can afford on a massive scale.

And is that the logical end result of a philosophy that makes of private property a foundational idea?

No, because as I understand private property, corporate-state owned debt is a negation of private property.

Quote:
Quote:
Of course private property should be held to reasonable limits. One should basically not own something without acquiring it via some real-world means. Be it with labor, trade, inheritance, creativity or whatever. What caused the bankruptcy is getting in debts one does not have the means to ever get out of.

Debt, and all ownership that results from it, can with good reason be said to be the antithesis of private ownership. The ownership is not at all private, but owned. Owned ownership - a hidden form of state-ownership.

And yet debt is the primary means of slavery in the modern world.

And yet? This supports my position.

Quote:
(01-08-2013 12:41 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Tom, I've figured out the point where I begin to disagree with you, or where my position becomes fundamentally alien to the idea of commonizing ownership. It's the point of building, cultivating, creating. I believe that part of a human being is the activity of building, That human life is dwelling while cultivating. Since this cultivating is so directly related to the ontic, existential human activity, so I regard the terrain wherein it occurs, the realm of the individuals cultivation, as a direct part of his 'private ownership', which is only axiomatic under the principle of habeas corpus - to own ones most basic value.

To follow, to own the body might reasonably mean also to own the fundamental requirements for this body to function. By this we mean air, and water - it should reasonably also mean food. But since part of the nature of the body is to cultivate, the acquirement of food may be seen as part of the ontic activity of being human, and thus also belong to this 'property', the self.

Habeas Corpus, as 'you shall have your body', then comes to mean: you shall cultivate your being. From this logic, which I'll admit isn't the most obvious form of thinking - Heidegger would like it - we can see that it would be inconvenient to not be able to have private property. One can not really cultivate much if one does not have decisive power over any goods or resources.

One can cultivate much. The question is whether one would have the motive to do it in the absence of private benefit. I am arguing that one could have the motive for all sorts of reasons, on the horrible end of the scale you have subservience to the tribe or the state, on the other end you have things like preventing pollution because it's in all our interests to breath nourishing air. After all, the effect of pollution on any given individual is usually negligible, though I'd suggest that in some places it's becoming rather noticeable because of the sheer abundance of pollutants in people's lives. In my favourite place, America, people eat shit, drink shit, breath shit in and out and then wonder why they get sick. I'd argue that if they had a little more respect for the world they were living in, which belongs to nobody, rather than thinking themselves masters of the world then finding out they aren't as they choke to death, then things might be a bit better for them.

But you're right, I hate Americans, so I honestly don't care if they all kill themselves and each other. It's no loss to me, and would resolve a lot of our resource consumption problems rather quickly. That said, there's a big part of me that thinks that is a) inevitable and b) desired by some within the present day aristocracy, so I am wary of not giving a shit about them to such an extent. But not enough that I actually do care if they all kill themselves and each other.

Pirivate ownership goes hand in hand with individualism. if one is willing to let that idea(l) go, then there is no need for ownership either. One would of course then have to accept that a head(s) of a tribe or corporation owns everything and everyone, and hope that he/she divides things so that there is something for everyone.

I can't see a third alternative, as large numbers of humans do not really tend to (never do) self-organize without appointing leaders, delegating decisions. Do you see a third way? If so, can you explain it in some detail? Order is, after all, what we are seeking.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-15-2013, 10:55 PM (This post was last modified: 01-15-2013 10:55 PM by BigTom.) Post: #23
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
(01-15-2013 02:42 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
(01-11-2013 08:18 AM)BigTom Wrote:
It is no surprise to find that the philosophy of private property is one that is advanced by rich people, that's ultimately what I'm saying here.

And no surprise to find a resentful philosophy coming from those that have little. But I think these are not the points we should be making. I will try to advance and simplify, see where we agree and disagree fundamentally.

Alright.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They embraced capitalism and free will (as in self-determination, not as will as separate from the being) because it allowed them to become prosperous.

I'm sure there are billions of other examples. I'm not disputing this.

Good - because I think the incentive to gain and ascend individually is essential for happiness (though indeed not for staying alive).

Indeed, but to gain what? Private property up to a certain point, I'm not disputing it's nice to have a home and that pretty much all mammals want homes. But to make of private property ones fundamental drive actually tends to make people really unhappy. I'm talking in the real world, all the ordinary people I meet and see - a large proportion of the most acquisitive ones are really unhappy.

Quote:
Quote:
But you're right, in a state system communism does pretty much always lead to some elevation of some warped notion of 'the common good' above the values of the individual. But likewise, capitalism in a state system ends up privatising things like rainwater. You put either philosophy into a state structure and horrible and incredibly stupid things will happen.

Yes, capitalism must be restrained, limits must be set.
For one thing, a corporation can not count as a private person.
Another: I agree that common goods such as water, air and basic provisions for nutrition should not be privatized.

And so, to say that this philosophy of private property (and implicitly individualism as well) is the best means by which man makes progress - whether or not one sees progress as a part of a narrative of liberation - is in the real world only true up to a point. It is not true to the discredit of all that might stand in its way, indeed, to make of it a fundamentalism is just as dangerous as its opposite.

Quote:
Quote:
So might gives you the right to steal someone's private property but not to make them your slave? OK, he's compromised a bit on the issue of slavery but he's still ultimately arguing that if you can take someone's else's property then it is morally justified if you do take it.

I stand by my position that this is an abominable argument.

I read his argument to mean that it is also possible to object to stealing. He basically puts into question that brute force is an indisputable legal argument, but only makes this questioning fully explicit in the case of slavery - I suppose because this was the topic he was writing about.

The notion that the spoils of war belong to the victors, rather than to the people of the country which lost the war who have been living there, with their own private property, for ages, and most of whom probably didn't want the bloody stupid war anyway, seems to me to be a gross and crude violation of the reasons you are giving for the virtues of private property as a real world philosophy. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Quote:
Quote:
Wasn't that idea, as you are using it, created quite a long time after Aristotle wrote the stuff you've been quoting in this thread?

Yes, that's why I said the modern conception.
I agree that what I said after is not entirely right - a king did not belong to the common good. And we still belong by law to the common good now.

This Habeas Corpus element however does to me substantiate the private ownership case.

As I keep saying, as a resistance to tyranny I have no problem with it. Self-ownership rather than belonging to some common institution, I'm all for that. But in the absence of those institutions, because they are never totalitarian in the strict sense, self-ownership poses certain issues, like being able to sell yourself. Not lease yourself out, all work is prostitution to some extent so I'm not making that sort of objection, but the idea that you can be bought and sold, lock stock and barrel. If a person can be owned, even by themselves, then they can sell themselves to someone out of desperation or drunkenness or whatever else. The ease with which slavery has sat with advocates of private property throughout history does illustrate that I'm on to something, I feel.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think people own themselves. For that, they would have to be self-conscious and have free will. Or to put it another way, the man who believes he owns himself invariably finds he hasn't even marked out the limits of himself correctly. This is even more true of women.

I disagree. I do not think that to have free will is required, first of all because this notion is illogical to begin with. Will free from what? From the self? From the will?

From the influence of the will of others, I'd assume, just as self-ownership is first and foremost a resistance to being seized and flung in a hole.

Quote:
I also do not think that one needs to know every single electron or drive of oneself to be considered self-conscious. though indeed, one must know oneself to as certain extent to be entrusted to oneself. Parodites wrote on this beautifully, I will see if I can find it.

I don't mean knowing every last electron, I mean that ultimately one cannot stand outside oneself to know what it is one is claiming ownership of. Rather, there is constant negotiation and struggle for what one naturally feels is rightfully ones own. That's the same with the self as it is with girlfriends or houses or dogs or any such property.

Quote:
He said:
Quote:
when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business

Are you saying this is not a narrative of liberation? I mean, he doesn't explicitly characterise it but that's very much what I'm reading it as.

I'm am, to me it's about what drives humans to act.[/quote]

I don't think he's necessarily claiming that this is what drives people to act - though I interpreted him in that way - as much as he's claiming that it's the most productive arrangement. Regardless, I do contest that it is a drive that fundamentally subsumes others.

Quote:
More or less, I think. I read your position as being that not everything should be privatized. I agree with that. But I agree with Aristotle completely as well, and I do not think his and your position contradict.
One issue with air is that it's naturally freely distributed. Food is not, certainly not cars or computers. Water is, but clean water is not. I am not using that in an argument here, but it should be noted.

And some places just aren't suitable for human habitation, like the Antarctic. Or most deserts. It is truly stupid to think that via economic subsidy (usually just debt taken on by the West and then transferred elsewhere) one can make all parts of the world habitable by whatever size population fertility ratios produce. Communism has a lot to answer for in terms of the population-resource fuck up, just as Capitalism does.

Quote:
No, because as I understand private property, corporate-state owned debt is a negation of private property.

This is certainly where we differ. I see the drive to acquisition and the claim of private property being extended beyond rational limits - or just eradicating any notion of there being rational limits - as being at the heart of the peaking of the infinite growth model. But then, you might not accept that is what we're seeing and that is the physical cause of the timing of the present recession.

Quote:
Quote:
And yet debt is the primary means of slavery in the modern world.

And yet? This supports my position.

Yes, I see that now. I suppose my question is that for those who believe in private property as a fundamental human drive and as the best rational arrangement of access to resources, where do you draw the limits? On what basis, if you don't fundamentally believe in common or unowned property, do you decide how much land someone can just come along and enclose?

As I said before, or elsewhere, I like the crofting model, wherein it was the people already living there who could decide whether or not to allow someone to enclose a nice patch of otherwise common or unowned land to call their own.

Quote:
Pirivate ownership goes hand in hand with individualism. if one is willing to let that idea(l) go, then there is no need for ownership either. One would of course then have to accept that a head(s) of a tribe or corporation owns everything and everyone, and hope that he/she divides things so that there is something for everyone.

I can't see a third alternative, as large numbers of humans do not really tend to (never do) self-organize without appointing leaders, delegating decisions. Do you see a third way? If so, can you explain it in some detail? Order is, after all, what we are seeking.

It's more a question of dynamics than of trying to change human behaviour. Rather than determining leaders we should be determining representatives. Order without a claim to the right of hierarchy. I'm not opposed to hierarchies per se, in a military context we have to have them, but in a political context I'm not convinced we do. Elevation to public office should be exactly that, no more.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-18-2013, 08:25 AM (This post was last modified: 01-18-2013 08:29 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #24
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
I think we have exhausted our artificially highlighted differences. Our perspectives meet in this question:

Quote:
I suppose my question is that for those who believe in private property as a fundamental human drive and as the best rational arrangement of access to resources, where do you draw the limits? On what basis, if you don't fundamentally believe in common or unowned property, do you decide how much land someone can just come along and enclose?

Anyone who does not believe in common or unowned property ( a contradiction of terms of course, but it is clear what you mean ) is a madman. Privatizing air is malign by any standards I care to calculate with.
Anyone who does not believe in private property at all is a communist of the wrong kind, and while not quite as dangerous as the madman he is certainly an adversary to human nature, when we do not mean enslaved and excessively conditioned nature but the nature that thrives and explores itself, 'becomes'.

Further discussion on my side of the story would involve Heideggers "Building, Dwelling, Thinking", a document of philosophy where the ontology of the human being is seen to conceptually blend with what is cultivated to sustain his being and reaches it's most articulated ontic reality in this cultivating. Only in the perfectly ideal and altruistic society would this process of 'becoming being' be sustained by a organically self-organized collective. In all other cases property laws will be required to allow for self-cultivation.

The text can be found here in case you'll get interested in pursuing this side of the story down the line.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-26-2013, 02:43 AM Post: #25
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
If I may interject here briefly, having followed this conversation so far, I believe both positions being espoused here are not fundamentally in conflict. Both seem to posit the human being as not a "free or wholly autonomous agent" as well as a being with essential nature or need to have some control over its living, which both would agree necessitates some/much control over one's surroundings. Both agree to the utility of society as an essential human principle; one enumerates this principle under the language of empowerment of the individual to possess means of his or her own ascension and security, to pursue one's motives and self-actuality, the other under language emphasizing the tendency of social power-structures and institutions toward hyper-acquisition of resources and productive means, often at the expense of the interests of the many, and particularly within what we could consider capitalist organizations of economy, and that of course we must work to achieve progressive liberation from such oppression. I believe that both of these positions are very valid. The common theme seems to be working to enhance human living, which of course must at the same time honestly and bluntly recognize the detrimental and banal aspects of human nature while also trying to rise above these, to aspire to a vision and world where the greater spirit in man exerts more strength and freedom against the lesser.

One of Marx' main points is that capitalism tends naturally to exploitation of the lesser powerful by the greater. Guattari elaborates on this by showing how capitalist functioning gathers and prescribes its own marginal spaces, it "capitalizes" even those revolutionary forces which would seek to indermine it; capitalism produces strong self-sustaining power and thus closes exploitation against possible disruption. I think both of you seem to agree that this exploitation should be avoided. The practical way to avoid it, of course, is not an easy fix, the situation is quite complex and in many ways capitalism or the "free market" philosophy is quite natural to human behavior, drive to possess wealth for oneself, greed, self-interest over considerations of group, environment or future. That it is often normal for humans to act in these ways, particularly the human who has never taken much time to grow in terms of self-knowledge, philosophy or moral sentiment, is perhaps the biggest problem that we face. The tyrannical power-structures in the world are sustained by human ignorance, by minds more animal than strictly speaking human, and of course the same social systems which are sustained by widespread human ignorance also cause the very conditions of ignorance which sustain them.. Capitalism within limits, strong controls on the power of extant wealth to set the agenda of things, but not an abandonment of the basic system of individual rights and protections of property to a certain degree, a degree that does not allow those with a lot to ride over those without, and therefore also many social mechanisms in place to aid possibilities of upward mobility and disincentive worker exploitation and excess poor treatment and conditions, this sort of middle-ground approach, a compromise between the two extreme ideals loosely defined as capitalism and communism, is probably the best we can hope for at this point.

No position is perfect, no principle of human nature here is absolute. Neither society nor the individual is an irreducible ontological or moral category, in thought or in practice. Life involves determining at which points we may find compromise, life itself is such an impulse to "compromise".
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 08:08 AM Post: #26
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
I think my cousin found the solution.
We were talking about a pack of cigarettes when I asked him for one, and he said cigarettes are common property. (Algemeen bezit) I then said yeah but it's your common property.

So - that's basically it, what Aristotle says. In a nutshell (and I am ruining it by simplifying it but alas) there would be no cigarettes in the house at all if it weren't for the one who owns having acquired it for himself. But now that he does have them it is only normal to share it, as well as pleasurable to him to be able to share. To make a gesture, to contribute, to provide value.

Up for discussion is the measure of this pleasure, this altruistic instinct. Greed can be cultivated but not by pure capitalism (one needs lust, decadence of instincts), and so can altruism - but not by communizing everything so that no one has anything to share.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-30-2013, 08:21 PM Post: #27
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-01-2013, 04:22 PM Post: #28
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
It seems to me that altruism is a characteristic more than a prescription. Once certain bonds are made, the human kind, with complex give-gets-and-takes, altruism sometimes springs up as a natural development. It goes according to the diplomatic soul, that I know of, which gives as an honor from knowing the pleasure of receiving. It can be a selective tool to use between friends, enemies, master-slaves, lovers... You name it.

Within a political sphere, it is my belief that all state-based approaches are inherently based on lordship, and thus unacceptable to me unless I am lord, and even then... In any case, it seems to me that altruism is an essential component of any system involving numbers of people with 0's that aren't seeking to obtain a certain high grade of discipline.

Now, to suggest that altruism is the driving force behind any politics... Something stinks here of a cover-up. I have written a nice juicy essay on it, but let's just say we can all agree that benevolence (read: altruism) is a very observable trick of every single autocrat.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-19-2013, 03:32 AM (This post was last modified: 02-19-2013 03:33 AM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #29
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
Do we really "own" anything, including our bodes or minds? It seems to me a correct human economy, founded as is the stated desire here on correct ontology, would have to more precisely articulate what ownership is, what it means, in what contexts it manifests and how and why. It seems more correct to state that we never "own" anything but rather things are distributed, apportioned, given into existence or consumed as part of a process thereby, such process involving a number of participants and conditioning factors. We as "individual" are a site by which things are given to change, move, become (re)constituted or consumed. Where is the rational justification for concluding, based solely on this being-a-site-ness, that things are "owned"? Upon what rests this idea, very strange to me, that we "own ourselves"?

A correct economy and morality must be as firmly grounded in deep, concrete and accurate ontology as possible. To me, a huge problem causal to so much economic and moral problems is how easily we throw around the concept of "right" to "ownership". Things are, they move and change, people are sites at which this often takes place. Can this not be a sufficient ground?

I don't know the answer, that's why I ask. But careless or casual use of the concept of ownership always raises red flags with me, rather so-called individual or communal ownership.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-24-2013, 11:13 PM (This post was last modified: 02-24-2013 11:16 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #30
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
(02-19-2013 03:32 AM)ChainOfBeing Wrote:
Do we really "own" anything, including our bodes or minds? It seems to me a correct human economy, founded as is the stated desire here on correct ontology, would have to more precisely articulate what ownership is, what it means, in what contexts it manifests and how and why. It seems more correct to state that we never "own" anything but rather things are distributed, apportioned, given into existence or consumed as part of a process thereby, such process involving a number of participants and conditioning factors. We as "individual" are a site by which things are given to change, move, become (re)constituted or consumed. Where is the rational justification for concluding, based solely on this being-a-site-ness, that things are "owned"? Upon what rests this idea, very strange to me, that we "own ourselves"?

It is not so much about ontology but about creating a ground for noble action. Consciousness thrives on the sort of "illusions" like knowledge and ownership. Most mental stimulants are objectively ungrounded, but as long as they enhance self-valuing, they support ontological reality even if they do not logically derive from them. Property is a means.

Quote:
A correct economy and morality must be as firmly grounded in deep, concrete and accurate ontology as possible. To me, a huge problem causal to so much economic and moral problems is how easily we throw around the concept of "right" to "ownership". Things are, they move and change, people are sites at which this often takes place. Can this not be a sufficient ground?

I think rather that they should ground ontology. They should serve being, not try to dissect it and objectify it. Ironically, often to formulate reality is to dissect it and thus to undo it. Compare to cutting apart a human body to observe how life works in an attempt to know "what it is". Part of the power of value ontology is that it accepts the 'motivation of being' as the deepest philosophical principle, as the point where ontology becomes an action, an ethics, where man becomes a true agent instead of something subjected to ''his nature''.

Quote:
I don't know the answer, that's why I ask. But careless or casual use of the concept of ownership always raises red flags with me, rather so-called individual or communal ownership.

We must first accept the princiople before we can refine it.

ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
Agreed on all points. But does this then remove any need to further explore the ontic status of ownership or property? I think it may often be the case that supplementing our value-ontological notions, themselves subjectively self-sustaining and ontologically enabling, with greater "objectivity" or ontic grounding will enhance the efficacy and reality of these values. Of course you are right that too much dissection will destroy them. But a more powerful self-valuing is capable of sustaining greater potentially destructive self-analysis, and I see this as one standard of measure of the self-valuing itself, and of its subjectivity and power.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-28-2013, 06:40 AM (This post was last modified: 02-28-2013 06:51 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #32
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Argument for private property [Aristotle]
(02-28-2013 04:16 AM)ChainOfBeing Wrote:
Agreed on all points. But does this then remove any need to further explore the ontic status of ownership or property? I think it may often be the case that supplementing our value-ontological notions, themselves subjectively self-sustaining and ontologically enabling, with greater "objectivity" or ontic grounding will enhance the efficacy and reality of these values. Of course you are right that too much dissection will destroy them. But a more powerful self-valuing is capable of sustaining greater potentially destructive self-analysis, and I see this as one standard of measure of the self-valuing itself, and of its subjectivity and power.

I think that this is a matter of tasks, missions, an area where we must choose our work. I personally feel that I work best, at least for now, as a radical conservative value ontologist - drawing everything into its core. I can not at once do this and also work with objectivity. VO is clearly able to work very well with tectonics, and I have so far also worked well with James S Saint, who is a dedicated 'objectivist' and his RM - but it is of vital importance for me to stay centered in the thought of the irreducible subject. If you have time, perhaps watch the Baudrillard talk Pezer posted. In segment 5 he speaks of the subject and its (lost) symbolic order. I believe that not all is lost. Value Ontology is the rescuing thought, and my own subjective-creative order reflects its veracity to me, as it has constantly proven to be incompatible with the modern order of individuals and their 'orderly' differences.

This might also be why I am so radical in rejecting Islam - the mere fact of radical rejection, of refusal to exist in the same realm, apparently vitalizes the possibility of singularity.[/quote]

Why the word "Good" is blasphemous
Kind, sweet, nice, strong, appropriate, tasty, morally impressive, nutritious, fast, steady, smooth, supple - good for use in task x.

"Good" as judgment is qualitative to a perceived goal.

"Good in-itself" is gibberish and sign to a lost ethics, "you are a good man" - is a wrongful remark, given my someone who can no longer judge from subjectivity, but only from some objectified, petrified, set in stone mould.

Good for me, right here, right now - or then and there. Or: good for you, now, then, here, then -

and sometimes - that is a useful trait.
Strength. Intelligence. Beauty.
But how it is applied?

Can 'good' be applied to 'evil'? What total nonsense.

Good at x for A can be applied to ruin B. Good at y for B can be applied to counter A's x-virtue.

Spinoza: "virtue equals capacity".
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-23-2013, 02:04 AM Post: #2
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Why the word "Good" is blasphemous
(03-09-2013 07:42 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Kind, sweet, nice, strong, appropriate, tasty, morally impressive, nutritious, fast, steady, smooth, supple - good for use in task x.

"Good" as judgment is qualitative to a perceived goal.

"Good in-itself" is gibberish and sign to a lost ethics, "you are a good man" - is a wrongful remark, given my someone who can no longer judge from subjectivity, but only from some objectified, petrified, set in stone mould.

Good for me, right here, right now - or then and there. Or: good for you, now, then, here, then -

and sometimes - that is a useful trait.
Strength. Intelligence. Beauty.
But how it is applied?

Can 'good' be applied to 'evil'? What total nonsense.

Good at x for A can be applied to ruin B. Good at y for B can be applied to counter A's x-virtue.

Spinoza: "virtue equals capacity".

"Good" also functions as a lingustic object, meant to regulate speech. When someone says, "Sure that would be good" or "This is good" regardless of to what they are referring is usually meant merely as an utterance lacking any deeper meaning than to validate the social exchange-value between two or more people. This itself is not problematic however it is symbolic of the problem you identify, which is a big problem indeed.

That the word "good" is used so universally and thus able to lend itself to this regulative linguistic-social role is troubling. Do you think more ancient peoples, or perhaps even going back 100 years, used the word good like we do? I doubt it. We over-use the word to the point where English professors remove points from student papers whenever they use the word, its excessivity renders it largely meaningless... however, the word itself is not meaningless, what is really objectionable (to the professors) is how the student is unwilling to contextualize properly his or her thought, to define the good and why/how it is so. "Good, because..." is the proper formula.

It's almost as if we have lost our ability to generate proper context even for our own desires, and so throw around the generic category term "good" to cover up this loss.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-23-2013, 02:46 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Why the word "Good" is blasphemous
Well, when you start considering that all words belong to a long-standing tyrannical order; flinging shit at it is a good plebian response.

A good philosopher's response (and yes... sadly I think that philosophy, too, is something to be overcome, but am not sure) is Fixed Cross'.

"I feel good." I. Feel. Good. I, Descartes and even God himself behind I. Feel, as the Sith have taught me to accept little by little. Good... All of the previous centuries have had conclusions of where health leads, and I will use the diamond from that coal.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"

Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung
Power has always been separate of imagination - imagination only a key to the ignition of power. But the times have changed, not truth but value stands central - truth is conditional to it - or so we tell ourselves. This decision to decide on value ontology is itself the reversal in the philosophical (which since Nietzsche means physiological) process. If it is not properly subjectifying, it will not work. Ontology must be rooted in value, otherwise it is impotent in the hands of the returning Titan, who distinguishes something from Nothing by time.

Truth is timeless, it is thus dead. Imagination is will. Logic is mediation between the two. Logic shall serve faithfully its own power. But it must be made to be, by subjecting it to will - imagination - "Hope" is what the logician calls it. It's occult name is "Action".


Sap
Dark is where we still dwell, a forest-pool of depth, Diana's realm. Apollo can not yet be born. The full Sun of philosophy can only rise in action, when the hordes have been mobilized.

The Chariot of Light -
I serve at the pleasure of the the red horizon.

Pre-Eminence, morning star.




Will is representation. Wear masks. Seek out contradiction. Provoke. The age of Horus is the age of the Child.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-05-2013, 02:40 PM Post: #2
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Theatre of Truth
Quote:
We all wear masks

Reminds me if that scene from The Mask where he's talking to Ben Stein.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-07-2013, 07:11 AM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2013 07:23 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #3
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Theatre of Truth
Don't recall the scene but that was an entertaining film.
Actually I meant something more like this.



Ah you mean this

Quote:
This is an interesting place.
Looks like fourth- or fifth-century Scandinavian.
Possibly a representation of one of the Norse night gods, maybe Loki.
Loki?
Who is Loki?
The Norse god of mischief.
Supposedly he caused such trouble that Odin banished him from Valhalla forever.
Then he could have banished him into that mask.
I'm talking about mythology, Mr. Ipkiss.
This is a piece of wood.
But your book!
My book is about masks as a metaphor.
A metaphor, not to be taken literally.
You suffer from a mild delusion.
Alright.
I'll prove it to you.

Loki... I actually had that as my ILP name a long time ago. The alias seems to have been deleted.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-07-2013, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2013 09:09 AM by Gobbo.) Post: #4
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: Theatre of Truth
The two scenes are somewhat similar. Carey being in a role that puts on a mask again and again, and 'goes to work.'

I've been told that my voice online is fairly close to mine IRL, but as one of the members of the Pirate Bay says in their documentary AFK, "We use the term AFK because we consider the internet to be part of real life." But yet these people all have their online handles.

I think there is the sense in which having an online persona is becoming just a part of the experience. When you are online you are yourself, but you are also something else.

Quote:
I should warn you that I don't work personally with really sick people.
There are private institutions for those things.

lol
Also, Hey Pachuco! And by that I mean literally the hottest Cameron Diaz has ever, and will ever look.




It's sort of like - what is a viral phenomenon? Or better put, what is the closest approximation to one that you could find in reality? Spontaneous social things such as those don't really occur, and it's likely due to the speed in which information travels outside of the internet.

But even if that is the case, what is does it mean to have something go viral. What is the real mechanism there? The internet is very much a hive mind it seems like in the human one, there are things that can take on a life of their own. If it's happening at the mass level, then you know it's happening in part within. So we come back to this question of what it means to put on the mask, and whether or not it's an integral part of what drives the engine of ingenuity online. If everything was transparent things might not be so full of life.
I think that is why net neutrality means so much to people. They sense this.

This is sort of a flawed example but for example say I'm constantly monitored. I might not go/wouldn't be able to go to 4chan because of pedo stuff (posted presumably by people hiding behind many proxies just like it is now). Even though I don't go to /b/, and instead /g/. At /g/ at least there are people who are on the bleeding heart of technology. Sometimes you can find those diamonds in the rough, and sometimes those diamonds mean the difference between some revolutionary thing. We're on the verge of losing that, and I think even the big companies like google understand this to some degree. They are monitoring everything but they do it in a way where people are comfortable (enough) with how it's handled. It gives the illusion of privacy. Who knows, these constant attacks in the Senate against our rights could just be the smoke screen to make us think we still have some. But, I digress.

The point is, I think that's why places like 4chan and reddit are so popular. Anyone can just instantly start being anything they want to be. This masks topic is actually quite important. I will think on it some more.

Quote:
But what can I do?
Do I go as myself or The Mask?
If I tell you, you promise to leave my office right now?
Go as yourself and as The Mask.
It would be cool to see something proposed that was something along the lines of this:

You get a public profile
You get a private (non)profile

Each industry and interest group works on each, with the awareness that there will be aspects of each group that occupy people's lives. I mean you could argue that is exactly what occurs right now, and I think it is functionally but maybe not consciously. I think some people are trying to exploit the internet, basically, and that's just by not giving anything back to it. Their information for anything; and others aren't aware that they don't need to broadcast so much of, if not their entire lives online for different groups to then exploit with laws that try and make that type of thing mandatory.

What do you guys think? I doubt anyone here thinks that total transparency is what is desired or required, but should total anonymity be looked at in the same way? You know? I don't mind making my choices known, or revealing a part of myself if I feel like it and want to. It's all about communication in some way or another.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-07-2013, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2013 10:29 AM by pezer.) Post: #5
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Theatre of Truth
We all found each other in a website called ilovephilosophy. There were certain pre-suppositions going in. A big one is that your name, your identity, your self, those are things you notice early on are completely unessential and even obtrusive to good philosophy.

It turns out that the site was a horrible sin against philsophy, but what isn't?

These masks, forged in our moments of peak honesty in this endeavor, will serve us well. The only real reason we might have any interest in revealing who we are AFK is for logistics of some operation, or I guess cojones points. Really, though, it's undeniable that there is a strong intention behind the identities we choose for ourselves, perhaps we should listen to our own intentions instead of submitting to what Uncle Tom, of all institutions, would like us to become.
And yeah, that was Cameron Diaz at her very hottest. Damn, she looked fine.

I would say best, but her role in Vanilla Sky was her best.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-08-2013, 08:24 AM Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Theatre of Truth
"What can the army do about simulators? Traditionally it unmasks them and punishes them, according to a clear principle of identification. Today it can discharge a very good simulator as exactly equivalent to a "real" homosexual, a heart patient, or a madman. Even military psychology draws back from Cartesian certainties and hesitates to make the distinction between true and false, between the "produced" and the authentic symptom. "If he is this good at acting crazy, it's because he is." Nor is military psychology mistaken in this regard: in this sense, all crazy people simulate, and this lack of distinction is the worst kind of subversion. It is against this lack of distinction that classical reason armed itself in all its categories. But it is what today again outflanks them, submerging the principle of truth."

[Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation]

[Image: cameron-diaz-the-mask-o.gif] GIFSoup
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-08-2013, 10:06 AM Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Theatre of Truth
I must take it one step further and suggest that the traditions that allowed for the propagation of reason have only shown as inevitably true so far the only thing it really can in and of itself: that it makes sense within itself as concept and process.

We have the technology today to beat cartesianism and the government, to outrun them. Their entire PR strategy right now is to get you to ignore that fact for as long as they can so that they can have time to build something durable and lasting, but mostly durable.

Maybe there is a parallel here between the twilight of Jupiter and the twilight of the age of reason.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-08-2013, 07:31 PM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2013 07:36 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #8
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Theatre of Truth
The age of reason makes way for the age of value.
The castrated Jupiter makes way for the Olympic Jupiter.
Our structures will break away the anti-structures of the reason of castration/abstraction. Our structures are built only with value, never with derivatives.
Our structures will take millennia to overtake the Earth, but from day one they have been a celebration of their victory.

This was the power of every mighty nation when it was increasing, when it was truly powerful - a continuous celebration of its victory, a perpetual establishing of its worth-to-itself. Such is the natural instinct of power - self-valuing => value-bestowing. But this instinct has , seemingly, never been understood, thus never been implemented as a systemic formal cause.

Value ontology is the constitution of the philosophical state, the one Plato could only dream of.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-09-2013, 03:24 AM Unread post Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Theatre of Truth
http://philoctetes.free.fr/parmenidesunicode.htm





RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Ah -
Well -
That could work as well. I would like to do both a film and a book. Fortunately that means that the film doesn't have to be about RM. If indeed there is a term on which Pezer, Gobbo, Tom and I can work.

Just to consider... there's two places to start - a character or an opening to explicating the theory.
A "girl opening a door to reveal a mirror" or a "the world is will to power", an "action equals reaction", "existence equals affectance", an "being is self-valuing/valuing in terms of self", or so forth.

A good philosophical book contains many explicit examples of the proposed theory. Nietzsche excelled in this, it is why he admired Dostoyevski. Psychology is often the creation of examples to suit the theory, but with real ethics, the theory pours out of the healing process. So there would have to be plot-lines alongside with 'geometry', all the forms of logical science. And characters, and dialogue.

Do you think the book should have dialogue?
Since we come from a forum environment, this may not be stupid at all.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 11:25 AM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 12:10 PM by JSS.) Post: #32
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Well, if it isn't about RM, I don't see how you would need me (other than maybe a critic and a psychological/social engineering adviser). Hollywood will not produce anything that doesn't fit their psychological profile sufficiently. And they aren't alone in that regard.

The book should begin with an architecture, not a dialog. A story line is typically made from a sketch, not a finished work.

Most of your time should be spent deciding on the fundamental architecture (always clear the path before you act). That means consider the options for basic scenario. What exactly do you want to convey, and realize that the first effort doesn't have to say everything. One or two basic concepts is fine.

Once that is done, you start filling in the empty pages with characters, adventures, scenes, colors, and dialog.
Actually I thought of a good film for you to preview and rewrite into your own concerns.. Wanted.

Quote:
Wanted is a 2008 German-American action film, very loosely based on the comic book miniseries of the same name by Mark Millar and J. G. Jones. The film is written by Chris Morgan, Michael Brandt, and Derek Haas, directed by Timur Bekmambetov, and stars James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Kretschmann, Common, Terence Stamp, and Konstantin Khabensky. The storyline follows Wesley Gibson (McAvoy), a frustrated Account Manager who discovers that he is the son of a professional assassin and decides to join The Fraternity, a secret guild in which his father worked.

Production began in April 2007, with filming in the Czech Republic later to superimpose the sets on images of Chicago. Wanted was released on June 25, 2008 in the United Kingdom and two days later in the United States, to both critical and commercial success. It was nominated for two Academy Awards: Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing.

What brought it to mind is the fact that the main character found himself as a worthless loser not knowing what his own value is, but then discovered that he could changed that. And he discovered it by a variety of changes in what really counts and what doesn't in his life.
And that film scenario fits well into the VO or PHT concern.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 12:38 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #33
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
The only worth I have lost is time.
What matters in my personal life, livelihood, friendships, health, love life, and ethical ideals is filmmaking.

RM explored from a VO perspective is a subject for a book and documentary, an animation based film to enter the market of this sort of thing, which is highly influential among young people starved for any kind of knowledge they can value. You/we have to find a way to push Jack into heavier computing. I don't know a lot of programmers and animators, Gobbo might.

The point would be to make people value RM as it is. To have them grow toward a rationalmetaphysical life-method - by evoking their highest self in the imagery representing RM.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 01:33 PM by JSS.) Post: #34
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Emmm.. that cartoon film... No!.

The point that I was trying to make was far more live in action scenario where the characters were displaying the concepts due to their situation. And then in the Pulp Fiction type style, perhaps some intellectual speaking the concepts to himself as he scratched his head trying to figure it all out.

A cartoon character giving a lecture, seriously doesn't cut it.
Watch Wanted (for value incentive) and Pulp Fiction (for style concerning multiple facets). Those two represent things that are probably significant to making a good film on these kinds of concepts.

Btw, this is the last remaining pic in the world of the guy you have been talking to (not counting CCTV and security camera footage).
[Image: James.jpg]
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 01:42 PM Post: #35
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Still you haven't answered the question about time. Sometimes, you deflect questions. Lie with Jesus, recently... going in and out of the picture almost unnoticed.

VO explains Jesus' sacrifice. He loved all the world in terms of himself, so if the world would go to shit and he'd live, he'd suffer into death. If he'd die so the world be loved would be saved by that (if only in his own mind, and the minds of his disciples (those who valued him in terms of themselves more than they valued their old lives) then he would suffer less loss of identity, self-valuing, will to power, "perceived hope".

This gives me the answer to the question I asked. RM's subject is not valuing his own momentum of self-harmony as much as he values the expectation he has of the world that he perceives, and values. The calculation is not with himself, but with his role in the world, his making-the-world-his-own, whether that be in thought, in emotions or in actual physical fact. In Jesus case, the emotions spawned the physical fact, and the thought has been wholly empathic. In the case of Buddha, the thought killed the emotional self-valuing and resulted in the physiological resolution of tension into realization of dissolution of one identity to relieve and feed a stronger one. Buddha would have been as happy with one plant following him as with the whole world of men, as his love was for the principle, the fact of peace. Dionysos is the eruption of value itself, and the realization that in fact valuing is ex-terminis, out-of-terms with the self, "hero torn to pieces" - by his maenadic values. The pure difference between the Gods self-valuing and the objects of his bestowing love - what a feast of excess! And as a God, the God is eternal so his suffering is endured and spills meaning as lifeblood to nature in all her forms.

I can explain all irrational human acts in the blink of an eye, without using words like 'illusion' or 'error' or 'foolishness' - my philosophy is rather Buddhist where yours is Jesuit - I love the principle, and every single thing that expresses it, you love the human, mental-grammatical-algebraic principle, and try to save it from itself by explaining it to itself.

Only the beauty of this spectacle compels me to unite with it, not the wish that humanity is saved in this way. I am willing to give you a chance to save the world, though I would always keep a certain distance to entertain the relation with the irrational, the world of ideas greater than man, divine self-valuing.

Not at the cost of death. No, that exact death landed on my lawn in the form of the most admired lyricist (value creator) and I have been set on the path of reason then. Martyrs die for the values that they require for their identity. Identity is entwined with experience like chicken and egg forming consistency, reality, actuality Dasein, building, cultivating, growing sowing reaping enjoying-being. The martyr reaches the end of the cycle by projecting a value he can not attain in the flesh, and sacrificing his life for the conviction of reaching this value. There is the whole of the third Abrahamic religion.

The major religions have been explained now except one. The Jews are explained in by far the most simple way: we matter to us. It is the most human religion left on the planet, as all others have resulted from the Jewish God becoming Universal, Jesus. (mans 'chauvinist' insistence on man-as-he-is as the ultimate value, forgiveness (for not being Jewish - haha! no, but... - red) as the ultimate and primary virtue). It is thus also the most simplistically egoistic religion. I'm saying give these sons of bitches their one fucking temple and this whole charade is over with, in the blink of an eye, or ten years maximum. As long as it takes for Jews to invest generously in Palestine to make them business partners in their own religion, which at that point will have been unwritten.

Now do you see, JSS, Q? Catch you my drift? Can you see why the Zionists can not be beaten except by their own, real, Messianic final resolution?

Only the Jews have a Salvation that does not involve the end of the world. Only they valued at least one type of man, themselves naturally, as worthy of existing in the flesh next to God. They made a small sacrifice - circumcision - to admit to 'reason', a principle of clarity over animal nature. Other than that, no hell that is not also on Earth (and they have known) and no heaven that is not also on Earth (as they have not known). I say give the bloody bastards their very reasonably priced heaven.

No Palestinian needs to die for this to happen. Naturally, the more Palestinians die, the less likely that temple is to come about. It needs to be an effort by progressive muslims and Jews. But an extremely progressive effort, as religion only works if it is extremely restrictive or progressive.

Progression collapses in new worse restriction immediately if purposeful reason is not involved in what sparked the progression. The explosion of progression collapses onto a skeleton of an ideal. The Obelisk, the Pyramid, the early forms on which a renewed politics of life was consolidated. Once the row of columns was placed, we were born. I mean this far advanced, very particular highly refined, almost irrationally lucky beast, which came to understand and create itself by realizing proportion as the ground to "good" - health and beauty, courage and results, pleasure and tragedy, pride and reverence, man and god.

Ma (Jack) can perhaps build the first steps of the universe from the ground up, but he can not build himself. Unless Jack is now full circle in its own recreation in metaspace, with you as its last agent, of course. Top down approach is required to approach the very beginnings of re-creation, to guide them to a purpose. This purpose can not be formulated in the terms it addresses. So it must be 'irrational' - or 'pre-rational' - archaic -- exoterically (visibly), myth precedes logic, even though the logic was always meant to be inferred by the act of preceding it with an ideal.

In terms of "perception of hope and threat" the continuation of the world as he knows it after his death is what matters to man most. Depending on the type of man, he values more the world which he departs or his own imagined continuation (and reunion with lost ones) in a world he imagines, but values no less. Science can not convince him who believes that science proves it is the devil by working in the world of sin and flesh. But his sense of self-worth can convince him of everything.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 02:02 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 02:04 PM by JSS.) Post: #36
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
"Still you haven't answered the question about time. Sometimes, you deflect questions. Lie with Jesus"

What in the Hell are you talking about???
You keep this up and I'm going to have to mark you down as Bipolar.

"Too much smoke, not enough mirror."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 08:14 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 08:16 PM by JSS.) Post: #37
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Another scenario thought to consider involves a magical prediction machine (Jack-son) that some geek has worked out such that he can personally use it concerning other people in his life and does so. The theory can be relayed merely as snippets between he and a friend helping him with it. The adventure would involve the fun but often dangerous antics he causes in other people's lives. When you can predict people, you can cause them to believe almost anything and thus do almost anything you wish for them to do. But being a good god isn't so easy. "From Geek to God".

RM: Equation of Space
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 08:50 PM Post: #38
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
(03-12-2013 10:48 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
(03-12-2013 10:47 AM)JSS Wrote:
Appeal is the aim??

Sex, BoB, Feminism, Adventure, Conflict, Hero, Happy ending.

You should watch Un Prophète. I wonder what you think of the morals.
On a similar note, Breaking Bad doesn't really fit your description either.
Neither does The Sopranos, actually.

Nor most Hollywood movies. These days it's more like dream sequence, violence against women specifically and the public generally, discovery of global/interplanetary conspiracy, cutting out of tracking chip, some more violence against women specifically and the public generally, chase sequence, morally ambiguous ending.

Admittedly, this model may only truly fit the remake of Total Recall and the 4th Bourne film.

'Appeal' is relative to the audience, of course. If you're talking about mass appeal then just film some sexy young people exercising and put a voice over on it telling people what you want them to think. Seems to have worked quite well for a long time. If you're talking about appealing to the sort of person who would actually watch a film with a word like 'Metaphysics' in the title then lots of shapes and patterns morphing into each other on top of a dialogue about the subject matter would be my preferred way of doing it.

Kinda like when you listen to a podcast in windows media player, and you put the background pattern/animation on, but much more specifically designed to give visual shape to the words being said (and vice versa, where possible). There is something hypnotic about geometric motion that hasn't really been exploited in films anywhere near as much as it has in computer games.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-12-2013, 11:40 PM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013 12:00 AM by JSS.) Post: #39
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
I suspect that I am talking major motion picture blockbuster direction (although not expecting it to get there) and you guys are talking about a visual graphics display to upload on youtube.

If you're going to do the graphics, you really need either Jack or I to produce it. Anything else would be misleading. And I don't see it all that interesting to anyone but serious metaphysics geeks, all 25 of them.

But if you are going for a serious audience with public impact in mind, you have to come up with an adventure story line of some kind. I still think the Pulp Fiction style would be best. Surely you can find some friends willing to do a little acting. But whatever you choose, it will be a serious piece of work or it will be shit.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the value of mystery in sustaining attention.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-13-2013, 12:22 AM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013 12:25 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #40
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Hahaha sorry, I meant like with Jesus. Did you completely ignore my post because of that? Shame, but in part my fault.

I agree with Tom, I want the particles to come into being visually, and seeing spacetime curve into substance. This is how RM 'plays' in my mind.

Still, Pulp Fiction is probably the best film I have ever seen, especially in terms of Value Ontology. Tom and I did a lot of thinking about perspective play with film. More VO than RM though.

I am thinking both a visual documentary animation style film and a drama a la pulp fiction. I would like to see both done. But yes, the docu would absolutely require you or Jack.

The fun but short creation of particles and atoms can be merely a scene in the major feature where perhaps the geek is watching Jack do his thing and perhaps asking himself questions that reveal the principles involved. No need to go into technical details that would bore 90% of the viewers. But the graphics will remain with them if done properly. The main film should be something interesting to the public displaying the principles in realistic action and adventure or mystery.

The graphic display of any one principle can be extremely short.

I think that your effort should be trying to relate the fundamental principles of reality to ordinary life issues. But you can't use ordinary life as a main setting because no one wants to watch that. So you use extraordinary events and people, but in situations that really aren't all that different than real life. Along with the graphics, they couldn't really miss the point.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-13-2013, 02:00 AM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013 02:43 AM by JSS.) Post: #42
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Just a few principles to choose from;

A particle is formed by the contention of diverse unyielding devotion.

A nucleus is formed of multiple positive entities each striving for the perfection of their own ideal.

The barrier between the greater positive and the lesser negative is made of the devotion to different ideals each lacking in the other.

Negative cannot persist in the ambiance of quite and calm.

Positive things are obtained and built slowly by giving a great deal and keeping a little.

Negative things stay small and fast because they give all that they get.

Separation is maintained by requiring more than can be given.

All life is the strategic pursuit of Anentropy.

Nothing is possible until something is impossible.

There can be no structure without difference.

Within every order is chaos. Structure is the compendium of the noise.

Every structure survives by devotion to its infinitesimal substructure.

A Positive is merely more than there was before. And a negative, merely less.

Pure devotion to the infinite creates the eternal.

Memory is formed and maintained by the constant exposure to nothing but its content.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats that Strategically Optimize the Momentum of Inclusive Self-Harmony.

Life is formed by redistributing the small negatives and holding onto a small portion of the positives through perception.

The greatest influence is that which builds influence. And the greatest of those is recursive influence.

Awareness is instilled by sensitivities. Perception is instilled by contrasts. Consciousness is instilled by ontologies. Sentience is instilled by verifications.

The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.

Clarity is formed by simplicity in the number of distinctions perceived.

Anentropy is accomplished by absolute devotion to outrunning Entropy through the accumulation of pure devotion in the midst of controversy.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-13-2013, 08:29 AM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013 08:45 AM by JSS.) Post: #43
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
And btw, I still have no idea what Jesus question are were talking about.

And as far as making an animation of a particle forming, all you need to do is make this pic into a 3D animation;

[Image: Fixed+Potentials+to+Particle+Formation.jpg]

There is a hell of a lot more concerning interactions, positive versus negative, sizing and so on.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-13-2013, 09:07 AM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013 09:14 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #44
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Yes, that is what I have in mind. What I would need for that, I'd think, is the formula, giving the rate and proportion/spread of the congestion through time, three dimensionally. Then that would have to be translated to an animation engine somehow. But indeed, this is the thing to show. I disagree that this is worth only a few moments in a fiction film, as it is incredibly fascinating to watch matter come into being, but it if it does serve in a fiction film indeed it needs to have a place. Maybe some kind of technology/intelligence agency (perhaps two competing ones) would be trying to obtain this from the "Geek", and somehow that guy manages to use the very system they try to get their hands on to protect himself, and keep it out of the hands of his adversary.

The Jesus question was: how does RM explain Jesus' sacrifice? How does it fit the definition of "all life is the strategic pursuit of Anentropy"?
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-13-2013, 10:02 PM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013 10:23 PM by JSS.) Post: #45
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
(03-13-2013 09:07 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The Jesus question was: how does RM explain Jesus' sacrifice? How does it fit the definition of "all life is the strategic pursuit of Anentropy"?

Oh, sorry, I thought you had been just running off a bunch of rhetorical questions, not expecting for me to go into the answers on your thread.

But that question involves the "calculus" level of RM (ascension and immortality issues) and I can't get any of these people past merely the arithmetic. You are the only one who has even bothered to actually see the fundamental ontological structure.

But to put it in simple terms, Jesus took the only route available to him in order to preserve what a sentient perceptive-influence would consider as himself. It is much like the cougar that puts herself in danger so as to protect her young. It is a somewhat Nietzschean way of preserving your gene pool. Jesus wasn't concerned with his gene pool, the material body, but rather his "spirit" (his behavior). He arranged that his spirit would live on despite what they were going to do to his body. His understanding of how the universe works led him to believe that the death of his body wasn't the higher issue. But if he could have avoided the whole sacrifice thing, I'm sure he would have.

(03-13-2013 09:07 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Yes, that is what I have in mind. What I would need for that, I'd think, is the formula, giving the rate and proportion/spread of the congestion through time, three dimensionally. Then that would have to be translated to an animation engine somehow. But indeed, this is the thing to show. I disagree that this is worth only a few moments in a fiction film, as it is incredibly fascinating to watch matter come into being, but it if it does serve in a fiction film indeed it needs to have a place. Maybe some kind of technology/intelligence agency (perhaps two competing ones) would be trying to obtain this from the "Geek", and somehow that guy manages to use the very system they try to get their hands on to protect himself, and keep it out of the hands of his adversary.

Umm.. you want to build Jackson?? I don't think you have that kind of money just for a film. And now you are talking about a film basically about the development of Jackson. And it would be similar to Pi and Max.

If you recall, Max couldn't use just an ordinary processor. And neither could I. Let me explain why.

Let's say that you want to emulate (not simulate) merely a volume of 1000 points across, large enough for a few particles to form. That gives you 1 billion points in 3D. But each of those points is going to have an equation in it, so that's a billion equations. But also each of those equations has a billion terms (minimum). And worse, they are simultaneous related, which means that you can't solve any one of them until you solve all of them. Including the work space for your algorithm, you would end up needing at least twice that much memory space.

You can put that into ye-ole standard PC, but the best algorithm will still take days for each solution which would represent merely one tic of the clock. And that clock will have to tic a few 1000 times just to present anything interesting concerning merely a few subatomic particles.

For a film effort, I was thinking more in terms of merely a graphic simulator. Else you would spend the larger portion of your time on Jackson than on the film itself. And frankly, by then probably wouldn't need a film any longer because you have Jackson (worth a hell of a lot more than any film).

But if you used a simulator for story line effect, I like the "uses it to protect himself" from the villains angle. The problem I see with that is where do you go from there? The geek has, in effect, become an actual lord. That leads to a responsibility involving first his own surroundings, but very quickly to the entire world. And thus you have the "Equation of Space Paradox" mentioned earlier. You have a situation wherein there is this geek god figure on the planet of the apes. They want what he has for sake of their own monkey shines. He really isn't interested in being a god, but he can't just hand it over to the apes.

That situation has a play out that works great but I can't see it happening in anything less than a full length film series, not a single story. The Geek uses Jackson to play out many historical and presumptive theories on how the world "should be". Those of course would require a Foundation Trilogy type of scenario wherein eventually he realizes a new way never tried or thought of before. And the true objective of Jack is born.. and merely by the telling of the story.

But that is one hell of a project. And I am no where near as spry as I used to be.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-13-2013, 10:18 PM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013 10:18 PM by JSS.) Post: #46
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Btw, back in the 80's NASA was using 64 parallel processors (Fairchild 64020's) to resolve 200,000 simultaneous equations in approximately 6 weeks.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-14-2013, 02:08 AM Post: #47
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
I'm fucken down for the collective documentary multimedia project.

When I saw Troll Hunter a week or so ago (thanks Tom, whaat a movie), I remember at that point where they were in the forest hunting the hunter, before the troll appears, I was shocked at the beauty and the unbeatable expectation. Like a giddy Blair Witch Project.

The following second I though "fuck, I wish this were leading to some kind of fucked up multimedia analysis of life itself..."

A documentary like that - would be worth making.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-14-2013, 04:11 AM Post: #48
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
If you liked Troll Hunter you might want to give The Last Broadcast a watch, it's a pre-Blair Witch found footage mockumentary made for about $3,000 that is a fucked up multimedia analysis of digital media. Admittedly, it isn't as good as Troll Hunter because Norwegians have a fresh faced innocence about them that North Americans don't have. And there's no trolls in it.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-14-2013, 08:56 AM (This post was last modified: 03-14-2013 09:01 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #49
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
(03-13-2013 10:02 PM)JSS Wrote:
(03-13-2013 09:07 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The Jesus question was: how does RM explain Jesus' sacrifice? How does it fit the definition of "all life is the strategic pursuit of Anentropy"?

Oh, sorry, I thought you had been just running off a bunch of rhetorical questions, not expecting for me to go into the answers on your thread.

But that question involves the "calculus" level of RM (ascension and immortality issues) and I can't get any of these people past merely the arithmetic. You are the only one who has even bothered to actually see the fundamental ontological structure.

Which is weird. It's involved, but intuitive.

Quote:
But to put it in simple terms, Jesus took the only route available to him in order to preserve what a sentient perceptive-influence would consider as himself. It is much like the cougar that puts herself in danger so as to protect her young. It is a somewhat Nietzschean way of preserving your gene pool. Jesus wasn't concerned with his gene pool, the material body, but rather his "spirit" (his behavior). He arranged that his spirit would live on despite what they were going to do to his body. His understanding of how the universe works led him to believe that the death of his body wasn't the higher issue. But if he could have avoided the whole sacrifice thing, I'm sure he would have.

I have no rhetorical questions concerning RM, only curiosity.
Would you say that "spirit", behavior, can be seen as "entity"? Clearly it is close to "identity".

Quote:
(03-13-2013 09:07 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Yes, that is what I have in mind. What I would need for that, I'd think, is the formula, giving the rate and proportion/spread of the congestion through time, three dimensionally. Then that would have to be translated to an animation engine somehow. But indeed, this is the thing to show. I disagree that this is worth only a few moments in a fiction film, as it is incredibly fascinating to watch matter come into being, but it if it does serve in a fiction film indeed it needs to have a place. Maybe some kind of technology/intelligence agency (perhaps two competing ones) would be trying to obtain this from the "Geek", and somehow that guy manages to use the very system they try to get their hands on to protect himself, and keep it out of the hands of his adversary.

Umm.. you want to build Jackson?? I don't think you have that kind of money just for a film. And now you are talking about a film basically about the development of Jackson. And it would be similar to Pi and Max.

If you recall, Max couldn't use just an ordinary processor. And neither could I. Let me explain why.

Let's say that you want to emulate (not simulate) merely a volume of 1000 points across, large enough for a few particles to form. That gives you 1 billion points in 3D. But each of those points is going to have an equation in it, so that's a billion equations. But also each of those equations has a billion terms (minimum). And worse, they are simultaneous related, which means that you can't solve any one of them until you solve all of them. Including the work space for your algorithm, you would end up needing at least twice that much memory space.

You can put that into ye-ole standard PC, but the best algorithm will still take days for each solution which would represent merely one tic of the clock. And that clock will have to tic a few 1000 times just to present anything interesting concerning merely a few subatomic particles.

I see. Then perhaps it has to be simplified, maybe a few of your calculated results (clusters of outcomes, predictive of future outcomes) can be used as the basis for a simplere computation.

Or the whole thing can be just animated from understanding of what happens. I think it's extremely interesting to visualize space-time curvature based on RM. That's something I am sure people will be interested in. I can see it in my mind, and I have a sense of how it should look like in an animation.

Quote:
For a film effort, I was thinking more in terms of merely a graphic simulator. Else you would spend the larger portion of your time on Jackson than on the film itself. And frankly, by then probably wouldn't need a film any longer because you have Jackson (worth a hell of a lot more than any film).

I understand. Graphic simulator is the way to go then. I posted that horrible cartoon not because I want to make anything like it, but because a lot of animation based stuff is quite widely watched. Not as widely as Pulp Fiction though.

Quote:
But if you used a simulator for story line effect, I like the "uses it to protect himself" from the villains angle. The problem I see with that is where do you go from there? The geek has, in effect, become an actual lord. That leads to a responsibility involving first his own surroundings, but very quickly to the entire world. And thus you have the "Equation of Space Paradox" mentioned earlier. You have a situation wherein there is this geek god figure on the planet of the apes. They want what he has for sake of their own monkey shines. He really isn't interested in being a god, but he can't just hand it over to the apes.

It is indeed challenging to put this in a story. Most stories are built around a certain lack - something which needs to be attained (or forever lost) for the film to end. The most easy solution would be for him to use Jack to get the girl he wants. Or for him perhaps to help a friend with that. Perhaps the friends brags about it and that would be how secret services get word of it. It sounds like a cheesy plot but could have a universal low entry appeal.

If you're going for mass appeal, a film like Pi would not cut it. We'd need a film like Back to the Future.

Quote:
That situation has a play out that works great but I can't see it happening in anything less than a full length film series, not a single story. The Geek uses Jackson to play out many historical and presumptive theories on how the world "should be". Those of course would require a Foundation Trilogy type of scenario wherein eventually he realizes a new way never tried or thought of before. And the true objective of Jack is born.. and merely by the telling of the story.

But that is one hell of a project. And I am no where near as spry as I used to be.

It could be extremely entertaining to see a number of situations and different approaches to them, and see them unfold according to RM logic.

We can list a couple of standard, Hollywood cliché situations and a number of "should be" premies that can be applied to them. We would then have to develop the situation as transformed by each moral approach using RM, and finally see it transformed under RM-based morals.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-14-2013, 09:20 AM (This post was last modified: 03-14-2013 09:27 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #50
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
(03-14-2013 02:08 AM)pezer Wrote:
I'm fucken down for the collective documentary multimedia project.

When I saw Troll Hunter a week or so ago (thanks Tom, whaat a movie), I remember at that point where they were in the forest hunting the hunter, before the troll appears, I was shocked at the beauty and the unbeatable expectation. Like a giddy Blair Witch Project.

The following second I though "fuck, I wish this were leading to some kind of fucked up multimedia analysis of life itself..."

A documentary like that - would be worth making.

I agree. If this is a project, we can start with a very simple approach. To just shoot things we value (to appropriate value) in our environment, edit them roughly, render them down and put them in a dropbox, for the next to cut and add to it from his own life. I'm interested in an organic development based purely on what (and where) we are, and these perspectives coming together sequentially. It would be an audiovisual version of the Pentad project. Not necessarily with five people - but logically Tom has to be part of it for it to make sense and with Gobbo added it would surely work.

This would be a VO based film, which would make sense for me to make next to a RM film. VO requires that we very strictly select the highest value we perceive in the edit we receive, 'consume' it, and transform it to an extension of self-valuing. We'd have to avoid thinking "I'm sure this is very important to him, so I'll leave it." But deleting is probably rarely necessary, as it is possible to edit almost everything to become conditional to anything else.


RE: Confession of a value ontologist
The geek would become a Hari Sheldon out of Foundation.

But the vast quantity of information and relevance to be relayed does two things. It causes the whole thing to be extremely long, a Star Wars film series type of thing (where's ole George when you need him). But it also allows to short adventure episodes as long as you start somewhere in the middle where the relevance can be a little more obvious.

But that is why you need to choose which principle to reveal first, so that the entire world of the guys total adventure can be architected. With each episode others both before and after are implied... "stay tuned for the next episode of "As the World Turns.. Out."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-14-2013, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 03-14-2013 09:51 AM by JSS.) Post: #52
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
.
Another film scenario that comes into play with RM is The Thirteenth Floor.

Jackson really should be built entirely as hardware, which is easily done. I could build that computer in The Thirteen Floor for real. And especially if analog hardware, the metaspace within and all of the particles, molecules, and live beings within are literally as real you or I. They will love and hate for all of the same reasons. They will question and presume. They will war and befriend. And without the processor ever telling any of them what to do or when. Their actions would be entirely based upon the foundational principles guiding only the identical bit by bit behavior of every point in the space. The computer wouldn't even know there were any particles within, or anything else within it. Yet they would be just as seriously real as any one of us.

The main character could have quite a number of adventures and revelations within his own created metaspace. One such adventure could be his effort to get one of the meta-characters to understand and create a meta-Jack. That yields the opportunity to present all of the fundamental principles, but a little at a time and starting with more interesting adventures.

Haha.. You could even have the story eventually reveal how it all got started by a bunch of guys meeting on the Internet. Tongue
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-14-2013, 06:16 PM Post: #53
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
(03-14-2013 08:56 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Would you say that "spirit", behavior, can be seen as "entity"? Clearly it is close to "identity".
Sorry, I missed that.
Yes, any identified behavior is a physical entity and at least a concept (ie "angel"). Things are only what they behave like. Behavior is the only physical existence, "affect upon affect".
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-15-2013, 01:53 AM (This post was last modified: 03-15-2013 02:00 AM by pezer.) Post: #54
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Agreed, that sounds like a good structure. I'll be getting proficient at cinelerra until I get that camera. All participants should be making their own arrangements. Maybe those of us that can already edit a little can cover for those that have a clear enough idea of how they want their footage cut.

Thinking about places... Shots... It seems to me that value ontological shots have to be at the same time a reflex thing, not fully conscious, and very deeply thought out, intricate and inter-weaving. Like a dream, to treat the camera as a powerful guest one is not to think too much about, yet one has much to show.

Oddly, I believe that if ChainOfBeing somehow found a visual muse to shoot, he would be able to do it quite fully conscious.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-15-2013, 09:19 AM Post: #55
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
What's why I said I want to begin with something relatively free-minded, I would like for us all to learn something from it, and it would be worth the process if we could use it as an editing tutorial as well. I was thinking we can post each of the versions as we circulate on a youtube channel, to reveal the process. Seems interesting to me. I like it when processes become transparent.
It seems three of us are working on Macs, which is interesting. I might learn something too. I haven't used Cinerella, to be honest it doesn't look like it's very user friendly, maybe I'm wrong. If you're a Mac based filmmaker you should get your hands at one point on FCP. Shouldn't be too hard. It's not hard to learn the basics at all, once you accept that there is a limited number of things to master.

I consider editing to be a form of dialectic valuing. It is very directly the work of the mind with what's available, juxtaposing images, connecting images to create an additional piece of meaning, each cut along the way.

The idea of filming "subconsciously" is not bad, but only on the level of choosing the objects. The camera handling needs to be as physically conscious as possible, that is where worth is created. Blair Witch is filmed to look spontaneous, but that sort of thing just requires even more craft, as you're trying to make it look like you're not trying to get the important things in the frame, but just happen to. True expertise.

I tend using muscular tension to tilt and pan, make it feel like there's force behind it. Good movements never are 'neutral' if you watch Die Hard 3 or 4 you'll see that almost every action shot is a slightly shaky quasi neutral position or a kind of jolt, a "controlled spasm". Americans started doing that like the French had been doing all the time, but with more production value, which makes the spontaneous look extra expensive, decadent.

Action editing is, I find, a matter of looking for points in a shot where the shot changes, and breaking it in the middle of that change. Then inserting another mid-change image, which concentrates for a moment. Always when you cut you cut either out of an action or into an action.

I edit a lot of news now, I work with shots made to look stable and solid, which only allows for smooth sequencing, no jolts. I'm imagining philosophical film to be a mix of Apollo ("Report", narrative representation) and Dionysos (Associative, unpredictable evocation). Form and Force.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-15-2013, 09:49 AM (This post was last modified: 03-15-2013 09:51 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #56
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
Innumerable ways to approach editing, and as it essentially really speaks for itself, this is kind of silly to try to lay down basic principles as if it's teaching, so let me just list the most frequent actions that I perform while working on any kind of edit. So it's just basic "moves", like in a fighting game. I think you'll always need all of these moves, and unless you're working with graphics or processing the image, not much else.

Importing material
archiving it in the program
making in and out points in the master clips
dragging and dropping selected parts of the clips into and throughout the timeline
making cuts into clips on the timeline
making clips on timeline shorter and longer at both ends
Moving the cursor/marker from cut to cut using the keyboard shortcut
pushing forward or backward all video to the right of the cut where the cursor is at
layering video so that when the top layer material ends the lower layer video shows (this gives the intuitive, unpredictability part, not knowing precisely what is revealed)
Adjusting audio levels of the clips
deleting audio from specific clips, lengthening the audio from a suitable clip to play under muted clips
Making audio transitions

Importing music, placing it, leveling it with keyframes
recording voiceovers, either over black and adding them later, or recording them live over playing video

Going over the whole edit for inconsistencies and smoothening things out or toughening them up, seeking extremes that will draw you in, toning down extremes that snap you out.

Playing the whole thing in a stretch for rhythm

Rendering down the video

Not exactly rocket science... once you are able to do all these things without thinking about it, you can technically edit, and you are free to focus on creating.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-15-2013, 12:20 PM Post: #57
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
These famous hacker Koans seem relevant, though a couple may be too technical:

A novice was trying to fix a broken lisp machine by turning the
power off and on. Knight, seeing what the student was doing spoke
sternly- "You can not fix a machine by just power-cycling it with no
understanding of what is going wrong."
Knight turned the machine off and on.
The machine worked.

---------------

One day a student came to Moon and said, "I understand how to make a
better garbage collector. We must keep a reference count of the
pointers to each cons." Moon patiently told the student the following
story-

"One day a student came to Moon and said, "I understand how to
make a better garbage collector...

---------------

In the days when Sussman was a novice Minsky once came to him as he
sat hacking at the PDP-6. "What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe."
"Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play"
Minsky shut his eyes,
"Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher.
"So that the room will be empty."
At that momment, Sussman was enlightened.

---------------

A student, in hopes of understanding the Lambda-nature, came to
Greenblatt. As they spoke a Multics system hacker walked by. "Is it
true", asked the student, "that PL-1 has many of the same data types as
Lisp". Almost before the student had finshed his question, Greenblatt
shouted, "FOO!", and hit the student with a stick.

---------------

A disciple of another sect once came to Drescher as he was eating his
morning meal. "I would like to give you this personality test", said
the outsider,"because I want you to be happy." Drescher took the paper
that was offered him and put it into the toaster- "I wish the toaster to
be happy too".
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-15-2013, 12:37 PM Post: #58
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
The mind is editing, you just need to present as little interference as possible.
Creating space for the weird decisions to become possible, and for the unlikely to become likely.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-15-2013, 12:41 PM (This post was last modified: 03-15-2013 12:41 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #59
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Confession of a value ontologist
(03-15-2013 01:53 AM)pezer Wrote:
Oddly, I believe that if ChainOfBeing somehow found a visual muse to shoot, he would be able to do it quite fully conscious.

He would likely tilt the project to a steeper angle.

Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
Value
Watching a cat wake up to the chord of my phone charger and half asleep reach out to this irresistible value, I knew that my definition of value had been absent because I had not taken it to be movement, but thing-ness. "A value" is something that carries inherent momentum, that fits the momentum of the self-valuing (sustained (id)entity through time- 'behavior').
The value of the movement is in the movement itself, perhaps the value of hunting, of prey, is originally in the movement that it causes in the being, which is itself its behavior, its substance as an entity.

The difference beween the mineral world and the organic is this movement inherent - a rock of quartz is not an entity, it is a concentration of entities (particles) that value each other in their own terms, and cohere. Their valuing sustains an environment, not a development.

Trees exist ontologically between minerals and roving entities, it's form is dependent on its physical origin, its 'mother' is still primary to its ontological definition - wow - sirens, a large fire somewhere close - the tree values the Earth literally as itself, as an animal values his movement as itself, and the root-ground as it's past.

A tree is unconscious but awakes into futurality, "daylight", the existence of a present, as divided by seasons from a past that figures as a future, and an eternal summer full of melancholy as the idea of time, drive away from the past and dive into the future, which now appars to be created in part by the organism, who changes, becomes, 'acts'. The blossoming of a tree and it's production of fruits is the root of acting-as-entity, 'independence'.

What caused the separation of actor from its acting ground (root, mother) is Poseidons indifferent realm, Earths very own primordial soup where heat and electricity pervaded the waters and cosmic mechanisms took hold of the local ingredients and the element carbon became a vehicle for a self-valuing that drifted from accidental nourishment to the next, while speedily the electrical forces found new necessities and attracted through force and time the elements to sustain a greater charge and overpower all other charges.

Ultimately man is drawn to the pattern in which he sees his greatest 'lockdown', the consolidation of the greatest vision of what he is. Always, the opposite is the key to the completed self-valuing. Man with a mind for the world will make his image into something beyond a woman, though this will represent for him the female principle, and evokes the same fluids as those that ventured throughout and emerged from the primordial soup as entities that can only described as 'courageous'. Courage certainly precedes consciousness.

So the conquerer is wise to speak to an Aristotle who can evoke an image of beyond the horizon, but unwise to take any mans word for what he wil find when he gets there. What he gets is implicit in his vitality only, it ultimately defies every physical root and becomes a 'thing to itself' only bound to the fleetingness of the unearthed state, thereby the freedom to forget the direct consequence of being, which results in the experience of the mind. As the fixation tilts to the future, values become properly externalized.

There is no way that man can not cause the immense trouble for himself that he does. Freud saw in America the mistake of roving life itself. His European Jewish root soul could not imagine the freedom from the past (atavisms, Id, the behaviorisms of the gene pool) to lead to anything but pure disaster.

Man always plunges himself into disaster because that is where is primal value is possible - the awakening to movement I saw in this cat who seems now fast asleep, the temptation to act.

Value: 'fitting substance' and 'origin of action'.

We are all one, except we're divided by the thing that makes us one. Morals and consequences depend on whether one has the proclivity to enjoy directly or to cause further enjoyment. Whether ones actions are oriented around the sudden emerging of opportunities or around the cultivation of environments rich with opportunity.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-16-2013, 12:11 PM Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value
Brilliant.

In a cyclical world, to bear fruit is the very starting point of free action. All life is just the action of carefully chosen enzymes being released at carefully timed moments.

Though cicadas are a good example of this, I find them philosophically offensive.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-17-2013, 10:29 AM Post: #3
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value
I don't know what's wrong with me.

My brain just like refuses to do philosophy lately. And I kind of want it to.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-17-2013, 11:58 AM Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value
Read Nietzsche, it helps.

Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
(de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Two years ago I started reading about floride, and how I should be avoiding it. The intensity and amount of information was convincing, although I had no way of understanding the chemistry. One day I noticed an ayurvedic shop near where I lived in Vienna, and it turned out they had this completely different type of toothpaste. I decided to try and and tremendously enjoyed how it felt. I continued using it. However, a few months down the line I began to feel a pain in my jaw, I did not even notice it was my teeth. Until finally, a piece of one of them broke off. It turned out my teeth had seriously deteriorated, and the dentist immediately identified it as caused by a lack of fluoride.

I was used to having very healthy and strong teeth, never any trouble with it even if I did not brush them very regularly. Now suddenly they were like actively breaking down. I reluctantly switched back to fluoride toothpaste and notice that my teeth are getting stronger. However. What to do about this problem, if it is true, that fluoride calcifies the pineal gland? Here's one source: http://decalcifypinealgland.com/

Here's another:



I am hoping JSS wil read this - if he does please ignore the stargate bits, I want to focus on the production of melatonin and serotonin, and how fluoride may be influencing it. Also, how to replace fluoride. I grew up in a time in the early 80's where children were given fluoride pills, so it may be that my body is more used to it and dependent on it than other peoples.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-02-2013, 10:23 AM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2013 10:23 AM by Gobbo.) Post: #2
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
It's like sunscreen: it's fine if you put it on your skin, or teeth in this case. But you wouldn't drink sunscreen.

If you water isn't fluoridated and you just use toothpaste it's not so bad. Not in my opinion anyways. The same thing happened with me. I stopped using fluoride (and eating meat) and I suddenly started to feel a bit more intuitive/psychic (and some things happened to me along that vein that, really, looking back were quite profound) but then I got some cavities. I'm thinking it was more the meat and less the fluoride that made me feel the way that I did. Currently my GF is going vegetarian and I am tempted to join her.

I am feeling particularly good right now with my diet, though. Except for excessive canola oil hummus, I eat pretty good (I think). It's kind of one of those things where having more intuition is always better. You can spot ill-fate before it occurs. I think I probably will switch from meat as soon as I can find the right diet that will work with my finances.

Also if you're a guy don't eat soy, ever. If you really like it and don't think you can follow that advice then let me know and I will start dropping facts. Just don't eat it. I'm too busy right now to explain why other than at one point people didn't even feed it to animals. It was considered toxic waste basically... and then came along

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne_Andreas
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-02-2013, 10:05 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2013 10:11 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #3
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Thanks, very insightful. I still eat a lot of meat and I will probably never entirely go vegetarian (again), but it would be a good idea to cut down on meat drastically, and mostly go for fish.

I'm very interested in the soy thing. It's also interesting because I read it's about the biggest cause of rainforest cutting. I don't eat a lot of it, I mainly use it when I eat sushi, and that's not often. Still, it will be a shame to not be able to use soy when I do. And So what does it do to your body?
And what's the story with the Japanese and soy sauce then?

It is also used a lot in/with Indonesian food, which I like a lot.

I will work on energetically jump-starting my pineal gland with pure intention just like I'm able to do with lower "chakra's". I hadn't done it with the pineal gland because of a kind of reverence, I've been gradually working upwards.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-03-2013, 02:25 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2013 04:35 AM by JSS.) Post: #4
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
It is really hard for me to attempt health advice for someone in another country.

Most people think in terms of;
"Well if I eat more of A, B, and C, and less of X, Y, and Z, then I'll be doing great."
It doesn't work that way. That is merely the bait and hook.

The most significant rule is;
Increase the SNR, Signal to Noise Ratio - more signal, less noise.
The body will need less nutrient if it is given less denutrient.

"If you don't know what is in it, stick neither it in your mouth nor your dick in it."
..old Jewish proverb.

And stay away from both fluoride and dentists.
Use baking soda or baking soda toothpaste.
The three greatest causes of tooth decay are;
1) Dentists
2) Cigarettes (use a pipe and keep it off your teeth)
3) Socialism

The last time I "decalcifide" was by using sodium triphosphate (easily lethal).
Strong apple cider vinegar (sweetened) in daily doses can help.
But there are a hundred things to say about trying to balance your nutrient levels.
There are very many blood flow oriented nutrients; ginseng, cayenne, vinegar, ginger, small amount of aspirin,...
The Thalamic region of your brain and surrounding area control a great deal of your hormone and nervous balance.
It is the center of the cold war against your independence. The Pineal gland is merely one of many victims.

The best general advice is simply intake a great deal of DISTILLED water, exercise a lot, and use a sauna/hot tube/hot bath soak (your IQ will probably raise 10-20 points the first time you do that). Otherwise eat ONLY what you know that your body really needs. Go find out what that is - SIMPLIFY, remove doubt. And if you don't know what is in something or whether you need it, don't eat it or drink it. Let your body concentrate on fixing itself by keeping down the noise (denutrients).

Reduce the noise. Negative things can't survive low affectance.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 12:02 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2013 12:14 AM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Something I forgot to mention concerning this kind of thing...

Your body is an anentropic effort, whether you like it or not. It has always been and will always be trying to maintain itself. It has quite a variety of means of doing that, but it also has quite an adversary. So there is a bit of a trick concerning how to dispel the adversary.

Your body is already built to discern good from bad to the degree that it can. Its adversary is an effort to make it more difficult to make such discernment (obfuscation, noise). So it is a bit pointless to try to measure, analyze and discern every detail involved, especially with so little instrumentation. So instead of trying to figure it out, you let your body figure it out while you give clarity to the obfuscation. That much you can knowingly do.

Simply take yourself through cycles of too much one way and then to much of the other way. Your body will naturally hold onto whatever it considers to be more "positive". That which isn't your body hasn't the bodies resources and coordination with which to compete and thus, even though trying to hold onto its "negative" quality (whatever that might be), it basically gets pummeled against the rocks, then flushed out.

In the case of mineral deposits such as calcium, the issue is mostly (but not entirely) one of Ph balance. So switch every 3 days between high acid foods and high alkaline foods. If you think the calcium level is already too high, adjust the foods closer to low calcium varieties as you cycle. The extra calcium will get leeched out, but if it gets too low, the body will respond in order to hold onto more. But don't expect too much of the body. You can still push it too far, low calcium can cause problems just as high calcium can. So cycle with your instincts alert, but not over responsive.

Just from a quick internet search list;

Quote:
Acidic
Artificial sweeteners, beef, beer, breads, brown sugar, carbonated soft drinks, cereals (refined), chocolate, cigarettes and tobacco, coffee, cream of wheat (unrefined), custard (with white sugar), deer, drugs, fish, flour (white, wheat), fruit juices with sugar, jams, jellies, lamb.

Liquor, maple syrup (processed), molasses (sulphured), pasta (white), pastries and cakes from white flour, pickles (commercial), pork, poultry, seafood, sugar (white), table salt (refined and iodized), tea (black), white bread, white vinegar (processed), whole wheat foods, wine, and yogurt (sweetened).

Alkaline Forming - not necessarily alkaline before digestion

Lemons, watermelon, Cantaloupe, cayenne celery, dates, figs, kelp, limes, mango, melons, papaya, parsley, seaweeds, seedless grapes (sweet), watercress.

Asparagus, fruit juices, grapes (sweet), kiwifruit, passionfruit, pears (sweet), pineapple, raisins, umeboshi plums, and vegetable juices.

Moderately Alkaline

Apples (sweet), alfalfa sprouts, apricots, avocados, bananas (ripe), currants, dates, figs (fresh), garlic, grapefruit, grapes (less sweet), guavas, herbs (leafy green), lettuce (leafy green), nectarine, peaches (sweet), pears (less sweet), peas (fresh, sweet), pumpkin (sweet), sea salt (vegetable).

Apples (sour), beans (fresh, green), beets, bell peppers, broccoli, cabbage, carob, cauliflower, ginger (fresh), grapes (sour), lettuce (pale green), oranges, peaches (less sweet), peas (less sweet), potatoes (with skin), pumpkin (less sweet), raspberries, strawberries, squash, sweet Corn (fresh), turnip, vinegar (apple cider).

Of course if you have serious reactions to any foods, then certainly back off from them, but otherwise, cycle between those basic groups, giving the adversary hell and your body a chance to discern the good from the bad without you having to figure out what really fits you best. Your body will discover the truth for you if you merely listen carefully to it while going through such roller coaster exercises.

If the time comes when you don't believe you have the problem any more, then taper the cycling and then perhaps stop it entirely. By then, you should have realized what works for you most of the time, but your environment is always changing too, thus those needs might also change. But in generally, your body is made to sway. A totally consistent state of being is not what keeps a body healthy and capable; exercise/sleep, eat/starve, talk/listen, think/flow along. Without a little practice concerning the opposites, your body loses its true life. It becomes your pet and you its blind, deaf, and dumb master.

But Don't forget the DISTILLED water (or get a reverse osmosis and carbon filter) and a LOT of it.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 12:17 AM Post: #6
W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Just a note on distilled water -- Apparently, it shouldn't be a long term thing.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 12:42 AM Post: #7
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
I tried distilled for a week and it seemed to make me feel a bit more clear. I wasn't sure if it was placebo. I'm going to try it again.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 12:50 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2013 01:14 AM by JSS.) Post: #8
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
(03-04-2013 12:17 AM)W.C. Wrote:
Just a note on distilled water -- Apparently, it shouldn't be a long term thing.
I agree with most of what that article says, with one serious caveat;

Years ago, when I was taking people through the "water treatment" (serious water flushing of their system), I also insisted on daily vitamin and mineral tablets for the very reason pointed out in that article.

The problem has arisen that such tablets can no longer be trusted. Thus people have to go back to natural foods for mineral and vitamin content. So the real issue is maintaining enough intake when using distilled water so that there is enough good being replaced as the good and bad are getting flushed.

But that leads you back into having to know which is the good and which is the bad. You will not know that. Regardless of what anyone states as "what is good for all people", there is a high probability that you would have to adjust it, if not reverse it, for you individually.

Thus, I now choose the method of letting the body figure it out by giving it the optimum chance to get rid of almost everything, the distilled water, but then giving it what is discernibly just a little too much of the extremes.

In that way, the body not only gets to refurbish any loses, but also learns to discern for itself, unique for each individual.

So long term distilled water use can still be fine as long as vitamin and mineral replacements are being cycled in. The good thing is that you don't have to depend upon someone's presumption of how much is exactly right when there is no way for them to precisely know concerning your individual body.

On the other hand, as soon as you leave it all up to a public governing source, your body again has to deal with the fact that it is NEVER whatever the average is. So when you stop the distilled water, you are going into an unknown again. You will never know what is really in your tap water and even if you did, you wouldn't know that it is best for you.

So what I am recommending removes the need to trust others by letting your own body figure it out. And to do that, you have to include its ability to be rid of everything that might get in the way (via distilled water) as long as it can quickly replace what turns out to have been too much of the "good".


And btw, this same technique applies to mental and societal concerns. But that is another story.
(03-04-2013 12:42 AM)Gobbo Wrote:
I tried distilled for a week and it seemed to make me feel a bit more clear. I wasn't sure if it was placebo. I'm going to try it again.
Next time, try a strenuous exercise program (enough to make you sweat) and then very dark, quiet sleep along with the distilled water treatment.

You should feel even more.

But realize that you can seldom feel your IQ rising. You can more often notice it lowering. So a good thing to do is have an experimental control of some kind such as a solitaire game that you are practice at and know your typical scores. Such a thing isn't an absolute measure, but it should help reveal your concentration and memory levels a little more than you would normally perceive.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 06:27 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2013 06:28 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #9
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
(03-04-2013 12:02 AM)JSS Wrote:
Something I forgot to mention concerning this kind of thing...

Your body is an anentropic effort, whether you like it or not. It has always been and will always be trying to maintain itself. It has quite a variety of means of doing that, but it also has quite an adversary. So there is a bit of a trick concerning how to dispel the adversary.

Your body is already built to discern good from bad to the degree that it can. Its adversary is an effort to make it more difficult to make such discernment (obfuscation, noise). So it is a bit pointless to try to measure, analyze and discern every detail involved, especially with so little instrumentation. So instead of trying to figure it out, you let your body figure it out while you give clarity to the obfuscation. That much you can knowingly do.

Simply take yourself through cycles of too much one way and then to much of the other way. Your body will naturally hold onto whatever it considers to be more "positive". That which isn't your body hasn't the bodies resources and coordination with which to compete and thus, even though trying to hold onto its "negative" quality (whatever that might be), it basically gets pummeled against the rocks, then flushed out.

In the case of mineral deposits such as calcium, the issue is mostly (but not entirely) one of Ph balance. So switch every 3 days between high acid foods and high alkaline foods. If you think the calcium level is already too high, adjust the foods closer to low calcium varieties as you cycle. The extra calcium will get leeched out, but if it gets too low, the body will respond in order to hold onto more. But don't expect too much of the body. You can still push it too far, low calcium can cause problems just as high calcium can. So cycle with your instincts alert, but not over responsive.

Just from a quick internet search list;

Quote:
Acidic
Artificial sweeteners, beef, beer, breads, brown sugar, carbonated soft drinks, cereals (refined), chocolate, cigarettes and tobacco, coffee, cream of wheat (unrefined), custard (with white sugar), deer, drugs, fish, flour (white, wheat), fruit juices with sugar, jams, jellies, lamb.

Liquor, maple syrup (processed), molasses (sulphured), pasta (white), pastries and cakes from white flour, pickles (commercial), pork, poultry, seafood, sugar (white), table salt (refined and iodized), tea (black), white bread, white vinegar (processed), whole wheat foods, wine, and yogurt (sweetened).

Alkaline Forming - not necessarily alkaline before digestion

Lemons, watermelon, Cantaloupe, cayenne celery, dates, figs, kelp, limes, mango, melons, papaya, parsley, seaweeds, seedless grapes (sweet), watercress.

Asparagus, fruit juices, grapes (sweet), kiwifruit, passionfruit, pears (sweet), pineapple, raisins, umeboshi plums, and vegetable juices.

Moderately Alkaline

Apples (sweet), alfalfa sprouts, apricots, avocados, bananas (ripe), currants, dates, figs (fresh), garlic, grapefruit, grapes (less sweet), guavas, herbs (leafy green), lettuce (leafy green), nectarine, peaches (sweet), pears (less sweet), peas (fresh, sweet), pumpkin (sweet), sea salt (vegetable).

Apples (sour), beans (fresh, green), beets, bell peppers, broccoli, cabbage, carob, cauliflower, ginger (fresh), grapes (sour), lettuce (pale green), oranges, peaches (less sweet), peas (less sweet), potatoes (with skin), pumpkin (less sweet), raspberries, strawberries, squash, sweet Corn (fresh), turnip, vinegar (apple cider).

Of course if you have serious reactions to any foods, then certainly back off from them, but otherwise, cycle between those basic groups, giving the adversary hell and your body a chance to discern the good from the bad without you having to figure out what really fits you best. Your body will discover the truth for you if you merely listen carefully to it while going through such roller coaster exercises.

If the time comes wh[/size]en you don't believe you have the problem any more, then taper the cycling and then perhaps stop it entirely. By then, you should have realized what works for you most of the time, but your environment is always changing too, thus those needs might also change.

Quote:
But in generally, your body is made to sway. A totally consistent state of being is not what keeps a body healthy and capable; exercise/sleep, eat/starve, talk/listen, think/flow along. Without a little practice concerning the opposites, your body loses its true life.

Yes! Genius.

It is very strange that you have those few strategic tendencies that make it easy for people to dismiss your whole wisdom. I suppose it works as a natural veil, making your science esoteric without really witholding it.

Quote:
But Don't forget the DISTILLED water (or get a reverse osmosis and carbon filter) and a LOT of it.

What about mineral water?
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 06:39 AM Post: #10
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Do you see the word "mineral" in "DISTILLED water"?

Calcium is the mineral that you are trying to be rid of.
It gets replaced through leafy veggies and fruits.




JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
(03-04-2013 06:27 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
It is very strange that you have those few strategic tendencies that make it easy for people to dismiss your whole wisdom. I suppose it works as a natural veil, making your science esoteric without really withholding it.

What is a shame is that the entire world is broken, not just the other parts.

Currently there is no major religion or scientism that has it all right ("holy"). And considering how long they have been at it, you have to accept that the issue isn't trivial. What is going to fix it doesn't come over night and the tools used to fix it are not fashioned over night either.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 08:57 AM Post: #12
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
I hate sleep.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 08:58 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2013 09:01 AM by JSS.) Post: #13
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
.
Perhaps I should also mention that when using distilled water, do not leave it exposed to open air. Not only will it absorb some of the things that you are trying to be rid of and lose its ability to absorb, but it also allows for very quick growth of some pretty nasty things that you don't want to drink. Distilled water has a distinct taste that will change once contaminated, so if it doesn't taste as pure as when fresh, it isn't.
(03-04-2013 08:57 AM)Gobbo Wrote:
I hate sleep.

It would be a good practice to learn to change your hatred rather than avoid what you hate when those things are a necessary part of your life.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 11:46 AM Post: #14
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
I don't avoid it. I just find it odd. What's going on in there? Why do we spend a third of our lives in some fucking pseudo coma? No one has ever given me a satisfactory response. It feels like a total waste of time unless you are lucid dreaming, which hardly anyone can do with any degree of regularity.

I would rather be doing other things. I feel like the more I sleep, the less I get done. And I don't move at the fastest pace.
"I said I was going to get to your calls but...look."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 09:53 PM Post: #15
W.C. Away
Calathumpian
Posts: 152
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
The universe gives us hair and nails to remind us how small we are. It gives us bugs like flies and mosquitoes to remind us how big we are.

I enjoy sleep, though at times I wish I had more time to stay up and continue. I suppose its along the lines of hair and nails; contrary to Ghostbusters advice, I am not a God... yet.
— W.C.

'Through the dark decades of your pain, this will seem like a memory of Heaven.'
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 07:29 AM Post: #16
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Quote:
It is really hard for me to attempt health advice for someone in another country.

Most people think in terms of;
"Well if I eat more of A, B, and C, and less of X, Y, and Z, then I'll be doing great."
It doesn't work that way. That is merely the bait and hook.

The most significant rule is;
Increase the SNR, Signal to Noise Ratio - more signal, less noise.
The body will need less nutrient if it is given less denutrient.

"If you don't know what is in it, stick neither it in your mouth nor your dick in it."
..old Jewish proverb.

Many have claimed that the iron in meat is magnetized at death, often to the tune of some slaughterhouse. But anyways that magnetism is what disrupts psychic ability (somewhat).

You might call that part of the meat a denutrient.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 07:30 AM Post: #17
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Seriously - why do we sleep?
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 07:52 AM Post: #18
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Soy, bad or not? If ues, wy?
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 07:52 AM Post: #19
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
It's great... Low energy output, low detectability, calm, cost-effective analysis of the mental record... We shouldn't be up and about where we don't have the competitive advantage. The situation changes much too drastically from day to night for any one set of evolved patterns to work in both. Even cold seasons ellicit this response. Must be quite a thing to hybernate.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 07:53 AM (This post was last modified: 03-23-2013 07:55 AM by pezer.) Post: #20
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
"Fuck this, I'm going to bed."

Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
That was Jesuz the opposite reaction Ihad. I was lik pezzer boy, we ain the sense of you being lunaticrw one. I still have that




Ok


What






Thusly


Y



The topiic,.ot wS soy. I like to ise it, cooking.


Gobbo, found your condemnation
I wish i could post pictures
Wrong ns
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 08:16 AM Post: #22
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Soy creates estrogen in men. It will make you into a woman.

I live in Vancouver and, well, there are a lot of men who eat soy here and they are all very low-testosterone-looking.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 08:19 AM Post: #23
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
http://therisingsteam.com/testosterone-and-dating/
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 08:21 AM Post: #24
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVHwcbaMv7U

2hour 14min mark - just listen to her get into the history of soy.

This is a harvard educated doctor who herself just went through breast cancer.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 11:58 AM Post: #25
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
I just had a pang of LSD nostalgia.

I have to say that I believe that estrogen thing might be a Canadian thing. It's not maybe so much the soy as a tradition of submitting to authority.

It would be fun, though, to watch the result of a chemical analysis of the drug-manipulative effects of a full First World super market diet. In that spirit, I'll lay off with these questions until further information on soy can be obtained.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 12:12 PM Post: #26
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
How could this be a Canadian only thing?
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 12:13 PM Post: #27
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Or was that a joke? Everyone submits to an authority. We're just chill people because we like weed.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-24-2013, 10:02 PM (This post was last modified: 03-24-2013 10:03 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #28
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Very interesting. I asked you about the Japanese - that's explained quite well, I'd say. Many far eastern men do have the androgynous quality, to the point of the Thai, who seem to have all but lost the distinction between man and woman. Thanks, this is a great piece of information.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-25-2013, 02:54 AM Post: #29
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Canada has never really experienced a deep questioning of authority. No ideological or religious wars to speak of, no territorial wars of great magnitude, completely chill attitude towards the natives... Canadians just take authority for granted. If you apply that standard of power for hundreds of years, guys eventually start to forget what testosterone even is.

Not because we are Canadian, and I'm putting myself in at this point, but because history happens. The US was there to take care of real territorial or native threats, no other neighbors to worry about, no real bad experiences with the Crown, no strong ideological contradictions that couldn't be easily maintained... It happens. Maybe it is me who has to learn to stop fussing about power...!

Fact remains, where you see manipulations of nutrition, I see dynamics of authority.

Some Venezuelan natives, too, get to be indistinguishable man from woman sometimes, but the Canadian case isn't genetic like that, I don't think. More hormonal, likely.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-25-2013, 05:26 AM Post: #30
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Don't forget about BPA
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?




pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
Sometimes, I just love my awareness of my own unawareness.

In any case, my mind is already making links between the threat of a derailment of that Canadian system I described and the power of chemical companies to manipulate your hormones. It doesn't, for that reason, discard the possibility of it being a random product of petroleum industrialization.

That's what I like about Power philosophies... they are very trackable. Maybe that is their weakness, too.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-25-2013, 06:53 AM Post: #32
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: (de)Calcification of the Pineal Gland
I think it's both.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?

You may not realize it
we have a truth, a power. Distilled from ILP, international alliance, philosophy, secret service, occultism, science - all we need now to power is art, a form, in which we, each, - fill in verb. Then ten years of development, independent, occasionally together. The mere fact of the thought of a void to fill is power. The void is extreme. There never was such a wide void, not on Earth, not since ape became man.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 07:04 AM Post: #2
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: You may.not realize it
That is a bold statement.

.... I like it.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-23-2013, 08:06 PM Post: #3
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: You may.not realize it
You're right, but at this time of day all that's coming to mind is 'void' jokes.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-25-2013, 08:18 AM Post: #4
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: You may not realize it
The problem is how large the void is, how slowly it has been accumulated without any answer. To fill it now would seem an impossible task.

I don't know how to have hope anymore. I mean, to have hope has basically become to deny the reality of things. So, what does one do with that? We can acclaim what Zizek and Badiou write about having hope for hope's sake, this being the truly "radical" act, but c'mon. We all know that is a bunch of bullshit.

We suffer from a lack of practical, real steps to take at this juncture. This is not a small problem, and we should not underestimate it in favor of good-feeling platitudes or faith-based idealism, however well-intended and "potentially potentiating" it may be.

We have power, but what is that power? Let us define it, first of all. The "enemy" counts on nothing so much as our own unfocused zeal.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-25-2013, 08:20 AM Post: #5
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: You may not realize it
We have a couple of things brewing in this forum. This is no ILP, or even BTL.

Don't hope. Never hope.

Just... Expect the unexpected.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-25-2013, 09:20 AM Post: #6
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: You may not realize it
The power lies in the amorphous. The blob that is the internet.

Say what you want about 'Anonymous,' it is a concept that cannot really be killed, and we are a part of that here even if we in no way align ourselves with the group.

Humans swarm. As long as the internet stays open, we shouldn't need much of a plan other than to just keep operating without one. Expect us. After all, the underlying commonality between everyone here, and a good majority of the people alive, is that they are kind of vaguely opposed to the current power structure.

When forums get big enough they send in their disinfo squads, but those disinfo squads have a tough time on places like 4chan because there is no leader. All they have left to do is just paste disgusting pictures or something along those lines. That is somewhat what I want this place to be like.

All these emergent elements that exist online are the future, and all their planes are based on psychological theory that, while still relevant, was largely formulated last century. Any organization - but especially these huge corporate structures and global conglomerate think tanks - is going to have a hard time keeping up with the speed at which the internet changes and adapts. Kissinger and other people say they are behind something like ten years. The internet is why. I would imagine it's awfully hard to data model something like the effect of the internet before it exists. I know they intended it to be used as an information gathering tool, but I don't think they could have anticipated how it would go. It's almost getting comical now how they keep trying to shut down the net but it prevents them from doing so almost automatically.

No one is in control of this thing. Order from chaos. We use their tactics along with some of our own.

Lights out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0kJLW2EwMg
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 02:26 AM (This post was last modified: 03-26-2013 02:31 AM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #7
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: You may not realize it
How long do you think the internet will remain "open"?

To generate in you a feeling of power, naive belief based on, really... nothing... is perhaps the gravest threat of all. The internet is perhaps the greatest weapon against you, your greatest weakness because it generates in you such immense feelings of power when in fact all you're doing is---sitting in a chair staring at a screen.

So where is your power? I mean, really? I am genuinely curious. Show me. If you cannot, then I offer that you are merely already a powerless and self-deceived pawn, well trained to stare passively into the Tele-screen.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 05:24 AM (This post was last modified: 03-26-2013 05:24 AM by pezer.) Post: #8
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: You may not realize it
We seek to make the terrain so that a philosopher like you can have something to enjoy 100 years from now.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 05:26 AM (This post was last modified: 03-26-2013 05:28 AM by pezer.) Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: You may not realize it
If our first steps are lumbering, it is a measure of our awareness of how delicate is this task. If they seem delusional, it is a measure of what we have chosen, and expect no one to understand who doesn't already.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 05:29 AM Post: #10
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: You may not realize it
Obviously if the internet goes down we're fucked. Read my post again and you tell me if what I read really has to be applied to the internet, on the internet. What I said is that the emergent phenomena we've seen as a result of the internet is our true power.

The revolution has already been formed worldwide. Now that we know how humans can operate, even if they bring it down it won't matter. We've already learned what we have to learn. They meant for it to go down long ago, and despite their best attempts, they cannot seem to get it to go down. The new private internet has been up and ready to go for like 5-years or whatever. They've had like 3 SOPAs. You tell me if you think they have it all under control.

Honestly, I don't think you really read my post. Do you know how many people we've/I've seen with the same attitude like yours where you disavow talking to people online - while talking to people online? What are you doing in the real world? Organizing some militia? lol. Even if the net goes down, the real fight will be online anyway. The reason you struggle to find this 'plan of operation' is because you are even bothering to look in the first place.

You need to fundamentally reconsider a couple thinks I think. No one is going to give you the plan, dude. The plan is to eat healthy, stay alive, and stay connected. The rest is automatic. My suggestion would be to learn about setting up a LAN in your city, or figuring out where and how what invariably will be a local internet can be found and accessed.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?


RE: You may not realize it
Quote:
So where is your power? I mean, really? I am genuinely curious. Show me. If you cannot, then I offer that you are merely already a powerless and self-deceived pawn, well trained to stare passively into the Tele-screen.

For me it's programming. It's awfully hard to control someone with technology if they have a better control on that technology.

They use computers against us, and 'they' don't even understand computers. I am born into it.

I use a special version of chrome with the tracking parts ripped out. I have multiple encrypted emails. I don't need to pay for software. etc. etc. I have tons of PDFs I have acquired from one source or another, and if I want to learn about another subject I can just get more, for free, even if they are restricted. There is very little information I can't find in one way or another if I really put my mind to it. And if I can't, I can usually find someone else who has found what I need.

You may sit and stare at a screen. I sit and stare at another world where the possibilities are endless. That's my power. Maybe yours is throwing axes at trees. We all have our specialties.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 05:46 AM Post: #12
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: You may not realize it
What is your power? Do you have anything to share or are you just some naysayer?
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 09:38 AM Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: You may not realize it
Despite Chain being my philosophical bloodbrother, I side with Pezer and Q here. The internet, and this place as a representation, works, adds to evolution. Imagine, 2 years ago, that this would have worked. I would have been surprised to learn of this situation then. The progress we've made is not very visible to us yet, right now. Evolution is blind.

If you read my post on ILP in the Academy (no real need to, and if, just read the first couple of paragraphs) that I had on the front page here, in the beginning - the Creative Tyranny. I mean what it takes to bind elements together.

As contrary as we are, we - choose to be here. And this place, as Pezer says, is slightly different from the other places. What did not work on BTL (and surely never was even intended with ILP) might and does seem to begin to work here. And even ILP is a great step forward considering the chaos of normal human written interchange.

What's crucial for a structure is that its elements find value in each other. And this can not be faked. It is hard for Q to find value in Chain and vice versa. This value does seem to exist, though, as both are philosophers in the sense of not shunning confrontation, putting up with misunderstanding, challenging, keeping with it.

Something is brewing indeed. And this forum is young. BTL was a successful experiment as far as I'm concerned. From my perspective, this is the next step.

Perhaps we may publish a poem by Abstract on the front page. It's just a suggestion. You may not realize it, but this community is a community, and powerful influences have already been born and bred here. As I said we need art to bind this together. Q had understood this from the outset. I look forward to the moment when the leaders here (and I profoundly respect them and their choices a and the time they need) will choose to begin to publish on the front page.

For a short while, as Q and I fell apart because of the divisive subject of religion and race which I have no desire right now to ever address again, the project seemed to have failed. Thankfully fresh blood was brewing.

I never lost faith in Q or NWO - just in my own value to the projects continuation. Now this faith is returning.

Magic is realer than reason. Magic, of course, being "love under will".
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 09:39 AM Post: #14
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: You may not realize it
One of the things I've learned the more that I learn is that this is still relatively the Wild West in terms of technology. The internet is a wide open place with little restriction. Everything may be monitored but it's just stored somewhere. So what? That only matters if we allow laws to be changed such that just talking normally is illegal.

To be quite frank, I don't even care if I'm recorded when it comes to most things. It's kind of how e-commerce works nowadays. Old people balk at how younger people share so much of themselves online but they don't get it: that is how things will work from now on, and what allows for many of the cool things that people seem to enjoy doing. Not mindless people. Pretty much everyone. Look at Youtube.

Regardless of whether or not there is some power conglomerate that is looking to enslave the earth, people will share their lives. It's in our nature to share, we were just given the medium to do it. People will use computers of some sort because self-awareness is intrinsically linked to technology.

And people will always revolt because no one likes being enslaved -- the question is, with that acknowledged, what happens now? I feel like if you were part of 'that' type of resistance you would be in an IRC chat room scheming on how to bring down the next senator or something with a Guy Fawks mask on. If you were part of it, you would know, and if you want to be there is nothing stopping you. Plus there is nothing mutually exclusive between that, and then also being here.

What attracts people, energy, and ideas these days is the platform not the chant of the army. I think the less 'defined' we are the better. We're working on the platform. I have to learn javscript first.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 09:47 AM Post: #15
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: You may not realize it
The internet was invented by rogue geniuses, individuals, hired by armies. Now the internet exists, and rogue individuals are inhabiting it and shaping it. The military industrial complex is a means. Historic dialectics. Marx meets Nietzsche.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 12:46 PM (This post was last modified: 03-26-2013 12:48 PM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #16
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: You may not realize it
Part of the problem is dependency. Can you build a computer on your own? I mean manufacture the motherboard, the cpu, the hardware yourself? Can you and some friends do it? Can you build an internet at the local level? Sure, your city can set up a LAN, but my point is that we are highly dependent upon the continued functioning of a very high level of technological and affluent society.

Another part of the problem: 99% of people don't use the internet the way we do. They really use it to worsen themselves and their life, and the lives of others around them. The internet feeds gluttony, ignorance, insanity, mass apathy and irresponsible consumerism way, way more than it feeds higher intellectual possibilities such as are represented by NWO or BTL.

So we have two essential problems here, which I would like to be seriously considered by you.

On the issue of dependency, before the internet we used to communicate in person or via letters and books. Now its all going online, where it can be turned off with the flip of a switch. What do you think about that? Giving your power over to the easy with which we surf the internet, when its all dependent upon a whole host of services continuing for your benefit, these services themselves tied into the very systems which we intend to be working to change/undermine/improve?

There are internet kill switches. You probably know that. So if we are getting all paranoid here, what makes you think these will not be used? Hell, what makes you think modern socioeconomics on the global level are going to continue as they are? The West is getting fat off the blood and tears of the rest of the planet, as has been going on since colonial days. Can this really continue forever? I mean, let's ask ourselves the tough questions, is all I am saying.

People used to meet, correspond and plan/acquire power either in person or via letters and books, tangible written correspondence. These were real relations between real people and things. Now, we all meet in a virtual format, which is all well and good in how easy it makes things, how vast the connective possibilities are, but to ignore the extreme dependency built into this system itself is stunning ignorance, or maybe a desire not to see the threats we face.

Granted, if you asked me, "What then is power, I mean how would YOU define it?" I would have to answer, honestly, we have almost no power at all, and I cannot see any scenario where "we" ("the people") might acquire it any time soon. Why is that? Because I am defeatist and nihilistic? No. It is because most of "the people" don't want anything to do with power. And all the political and intellectual channels for legitimate, real power are becoming more and more homogenized to means prescribed by the system itself. Resistance is pushed to the margins even as it becomes more "in your face", more "obvious". Guattari knew this. Just look at OWS, and how that went...... nowhere.

Look, I am not trying to be confrontational here, but I refuse to romanticize the situation of the world and humanity the way I see it too often romanticized, as if we have some privileged power and potential merely because we have been given computer devices. Believe me, I wish it were different. But I don't think it is. I think it is much worse.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 06:43 PM (This post was last modified: 03-26-2013 06:53 PM by pezer.) Post: #17
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: You may not realize it
You underestimate us, all of our purposes are much more specific than this site. This isn't our gun, it's our water. And we want to give people some of our water. ¿Remember Idiocracy? Sometimes, watering life is the most gigantic act of war.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 11:13 PM Post: #18
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: You may not realize it
(03-26-2013 06:43 PM)pezer Wrote:
You underestimate us, all of our purposes are much more specific than this site. This isn't our gun, it's our water. And we want to give people some of our water. ¿Remember Idiocracy? Sometimes, watering life is the most gigantic act of war.

Good to know that your purpose is so specific.

I raise some very specific questions in my previous post here, which would be nice to have addressed, or at least thought of. I think these are essential issues. We cannot fall prey to idealism or romanticism, no matter how "nice" this may be. And of course I cannot know your own specific purposes, as you said, unless you tell me.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 11:16 PM (This post was last modified: 03-26-2013 11:17 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #19
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: You may not realize it
I see something of a contradiction here, a double negative. If there are internet cut-switches, and the internet feeds apathy and irrealism, then so what about... either? It does not matter, can not matter to us. We are to value this thing in our terms, and that is what we are doing. This *is* evolving, testing the outskirts of potential, marginalizing from the mean in order to stand apart, become solid, real.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-27-2013, 12:04 AM Post: #20
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: You may not realize it
(03-26-2013 11:16 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I see something of a contradiction here, a double negative. If there are internet cut-switches, and the internet feeds apathy and irrealism, then so what about... either? It does not matter, can not matter to us. We are to value this thing in our terms, and that is what we are doing. This *is* evolving, testing the outskirts of potential, marginalizing from the mean in order to stand apart, become solid, real.

I agree with this. We have no choice but to value the internet in our own terms. We can neglect that which is not important to us, toward the completion of our ends, this too is necessary of course. But I wish to point out that we are putting our power and capability within a medium that is very new and could radically change at any time. This medium, the internet, there is no way to know if it will survive in more or less its present form for many more generations. The sheer amount of structure and ongoing productivity and economic activity that is needed to sustain the internet is staggering. And additional to this, the freedom of the internet is always under attack, and more and more with smart phones we see our internet signature becoming more central, anonymity being undermined, and attempts to regulate are always on the horizon.

To me, there is a lot of danger is relying so much on the internet as the medium for our power. But of course we should use all means at our disposal, absolutely. If the internet changed or became unfree, we could always continue what we have been doing in other ways, perhaps reverting back to letters or books. This is one reason that a year or so ago I wanted to compile a large list of philosophers and "honest thinkers". It included email addresses only but perhaps could include real addresses too, at some point in the future.

I would like to see an edifice raised, a project willed that takes shape under real power and influence. I agree that the internet represents this potential too, but I worry about idealizing the potential of the internet to the point of forsaking other options. And of course I have difficulty with "groundless hope" or hope that relies on a good degree of denial to constitute and preserve itself, this is something I really struggle with. I realize others do not necessarily struggle with this as much as I do, which is something that I am glad for.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.


RE: You may not realize it
The question is whether or not we rely on the Internet as much as what came before. How many people here know how to make paper?

There is always dependence to a certain extent.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-27-2013, 03:18 AM Post: #22
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: You may not realize it
Or perhaps better put, isn't there always some dependence in one form or another? I mean I would agree that we're more dependent on the net than the paper paradigm, but I wouldn't worry so much about internet kill switches. It still takes someone in the military to throw them. I would imagine they will end up being less effective then thought even if they do go ahead and pull them.

Ultimately we can either use computers or try and do the same thing without them. I put it to you it's more effective to use them.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-27-2013, 04:40 AM Post: #23
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: You may not realize it
To me, really, it seems that, if they activate a killswitch, it will be a sign that we have made great progress.

ChainOfBeing, if you will not join us, join our discussions! Babies all around, but what think you, for example, of architecture? Don't answer that here, find the right place in our forum.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-27-2013, 10:39 AM Post: #24
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: You may not realize it
(03-27-2013 12:04 AM)ChainOfBeing Wrote:
(03-26-2013 11:16 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I see something of a contradiction here, a double negative. If there are internet cut-switches, and the internet feeds apathy and irrealism, then so what about... either? It does not matter, can not matter to us. We are to value this thing in our terms, and that is what we are doing. This *is* evolving, testing the outskirts of potential, marginalizing from the mean in order to stand apart, become solid, real.

I agree with this. We have no choice but to value the internet in our own terms. We can neglect that which is not important to us, toward the completion of our ends, this too is necessary of course. But I wish to point out that we are putting our power and capability within a medium that is very new and could radically change at any time. This medium, the internet, there is no way to know if it will survive in more or less its present form for many more generations. The sheer amount of structure and ongoing productivity and economic activity that is needed to sustain the internet is staggering. And additional to this, the freedom of the internet is always under attack, and more and more with smart phones we see our internet signature becoming more central, anonymity being undermined, and attempts to regulate are always on the horizon.

All true, and I am only now beginning to fully overcome my discomfort with this. I realize, also due to the evolution discussion you guys are having, that the only approach to life and power is based on the acceptance of phases. Passing influences, which have to be turned to advantages. I feel more and more comfortable with the internet and its temporal nature knowing that my influence (some of it) is lasting and benefic. Also, that benefic influence is lasting, and malefic influence is passing. The internet is a means, not more than that. It exists now in this flash of time (may continue for very long, may not) and that makes it even more justified to make use of it. No structure is eternal, only principles of necessities are. I stick close to these principles in my acts, and let visions and structures emerge. Some of these will dissipate and fall, others turn out to grow and evolve beyond what I could foresee. The truer my initial acts was to the necessary principle, the more the resulting vision or structure reverberates with my will. The cosmos makes a lot of sense to me in this way.

Quote:
To me, there is a lot of danger is relying so much on the internet as the medium for our power.

Whatever happens, it did already facilitate the conception of value ontology, and did a bunch of other things for us. Ever since, I was suddenly able to put my trust in it, to 'bluff' with time, to just project a timeline, based on honest estimations, of what can be accomplished if this medium persist, and if I persist using the medium

Neither is a given. But the results so far have been very real to me, and I have no good reason to turn my back on it.

Quote:
But of course we should use all means at our disposal, absolutely. If the internet changed or became unfree, we could always continue what we have been doing in other ways, perhaps reverting back to letters or books. This is one reason that a year or so ago I wanted to compile a large list of philosophers and "honest thinkers". It included email addresses only but perhaps could include real addresses too, at some point in the future.

Good idea. I also often consider printing out valuable texts, or at least storing them on non magnetic media, such as CD's. Anyway, the internet should be treated as a means, but to make this means more effective, we have to work with it creatively and trustingly, mine it, milk it, use to to create realities. It won't be of use when we're too sceptic of its reality - a medium does not itself have to be the most reliable reality to produce real results. Strangely.

Quote:
I would like to see an edifice raised, a project willed that takes shape under real power and influence. I agree that the internet represents this potential too, but I worry about idealizing the potential of the internet to the point of forsaking other options. And of course I have difficulty with "groundless hope" or hope that relies on a good degree of denial to constitute and preserve itself, this is something I really struggle with. I realize others do not necessarily struggle with this as much as I do, which is something that I am glad for.

For myself I can say that I've accepted such a great degree of destruction in my family's history that I'm not worried anymore about hoping idly - All the hopes I project here, to anyone, are in the ful awareness of the continuous entropy and degradation that is always going on. All these hopes are of perfectly real things. I calculate with the possible end of all our structures. I just operate in the now as it exists, in the knowledge that this reverberates in future conditions. It becomes in a sense "a glorious kind of play". And I happen to think that only from such play truly good things emerge. Severity and responsibility are required, but nothing without the 'innocent expanse', what Nietzsche called overflowing, which does not care for the finitude of the results of itself.

The eternal is at work in every creative act.

This internet of ours is a matter of accessing sources and being a source. It is young, extremely so, and it could be that the source will become denser and richer for a good while. It could even be that the internet will not be shut off, that it becomes an integral part of life on Earth. It's interesting to me to surf between the lowest and the highest expectations.

When I create explicitly from self-valuing and not only towards it, the fear of futility dissipates.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 05:29 AM Post: #25
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: You may not realize it
James S Saint Wrote:
jabs Wrote:
James, how come you are not in the history books?
The future of history is online.
I'm online.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:08 AM Post: #26
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: You may not realize it
Fixed Cross, thank you for your comments. I agree with everything you wrote.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
Furnace Language
Let's destroy words.

Their meaning is false
excess seduction

a bitch make it yours
Baal of poetry
unleash opium crack dark glass crystal doors of apperception
life is acid
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 03-30-2013 08:08 AM by pezer.) Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Furnace Language
life is acid

Crack, Pot, Baal, Mal,
We can travel true, false, and almost any which way
and often...


FORGET WHERE WE STARTED

And then we laugh, laaaaugh laugh laugh.

When I come back to, I was already someone else.

EVOLllllluuuuuutt

ttt
tt
t
t

.

Funny Jokes, One Remembers One Never Did

And Execretes Decietful Lust... Or doesn't!

Words.... I wonder.... I wonder when the Power will come that you will be shown Powerless.

Until then, I remain,

Your faithful lover.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 08:12 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Furnace Language
Zoper Speaks, Remembering His Peer Abstract.
The Coordinates of Existance

:
I just forgot.
Bloody weed.
Oh yes.
Sorry, I sneezed.
The coordinates of existance:
To exist, we need coordinates.
Because to be is to percieve, and to percieve is to know information.
There-fore, if the information has no coordenates, the perception will hover...
The being might dissipate.

As soon as coordinates are found.
The fog is condensed, being is returned with its pulling vacuums that never are.
Stoping time and space themselves.
Or, rather, pushing against them.
Placing it in shifting equilibriiums of artifice.
Surviving only because the equilibriums jive with whatever it is our coordinates seek...
Or something else, perhaps,
But something.
And we can love and and call it names.
Or revile it;
Keep it in the shittiest of pools.
As long as it has nutrients...
As long as the coordinates work...
As long as they lead to their own prolongment.
Anything can survive.
Without coordinates, one is not surviving, but being kept alive.
Prevented from dying, the Grim Reaper Evolved.
What is the distance between the loss of necessity and the appearance of the Grim Reaper?
I don't know. It must be life.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 08:52 AM Post: #4
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Furnace Language
Burtation
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:01 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 05:01 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #5
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Furnace Language
Warpath
black death
curse purge
crawl deal
fear streak
eat me
rust trust
break oak
gnaw plunge
syringe
dance
dark ark
feud lure
pure
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:04 AM Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Furnace Language
need more pressure to crack them
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 05:09 AM Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Furnace Language
Agnostic
Wavering
Strong

Stable
Unstable
Unstable
Unstable

Unstable
Unstable
Unstable
War

War. The law of war. No law. No wall. No war.

Dead things rising, Risen things dying. The path of the Christ! The path of the Friends and enemies of Christ!

Life as fancy. What a fancy!

Fancy dress, fancy press. Fancy door, fancy poor. Flight of fancy... Fancy that!

Open the doors of perception, and let the shit come flooding in.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 06:08 AM Post: #8
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Furnace Language
still beauty must remain.
life trespasses the void into victimhood.
life is that in the open, in the dark death is cornered Zanzibar.

The castle rose before myne eye and
oh the doors which are spikes no they open
now it reaps.
the turbulence ceases, the silent harvest has begun
for ever less
Beverly Hills
020102010292929292929
zero zero

Gobbo is my hero.
12x
on the techno beat at 1:06:30 of his concertpost. Hosts of wonder path to moonrise in deep harp cursehorns, emerald memory, elephant. (he who steals elephant steals also memory)
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 06:32 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 06:34 AM by pezer.) Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Furnace Language
Zanzibar, it seems, burns brightest in death. Well, surrounded by death. Assailed by it.

The crisp fire burns loudest yet smallest.

a leaf, Wet,
under the dusty
and over the dusty

Frodo lives..!
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"

Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
Ontology and epistemology
Fixed Cross Wrote:
existence
late 14c., "reality," from O.Fr. existence, from M.L. existentia/exsistentia, from existentem/exsistentem (nom. existens/exsistens) "existent," prp. of L. existere/exsistere "stand forth, appear," and, as a secondary meaning, "exist, be;" from ex- "forth" (see ex-) + sistere "cause to stand". (see assist).
- online etymology dictionary

I have heard to has been said that ontology as well as epistemology is metaphysics, and therefore has no place in a Netzschean philosophy (by which is understood a world-affirming one), which must aim at describing particulars and dismiss the notion of universals. It seems to me that this would mean that the will-to-power, as a universal definition of being, must be disregarded by such Nietzscheans, as it is an ontology. But I consider the idea that ontology is the study of universals a mistake. At the root of this mistake is the idea that terms describing many, or even all perceivable particulars, are necessary universals, and thereby metaphysical. This error has to do with the idea of cosmic totality. The universe as a neatly limited collection of things, itself a thing. Whether we understand 'thing' as 'object', 'force', or even 'subject' as Nietzsche does, such a notion is not founded in observation and deduction, i.e. scientific method, but it is nothing but an assumption. The very notion of universals is dependent on the possibility of a definable totality.

The philosophy I am developing departs from the assumption that the universe is a neatly limited quantity, and necessarily a closed system. The law of conservation of energy may not apply to the universe (and there are indications that energy increases). More matter may come into existence. More matter may stand forth, appear. And I think that this is indeed what happens. It is possible that universe (as being) did not come into existence in its entirety, by Gods hand or by the Big Bang (effectively the same idea, a pushing back of the problem of origin behind an impressive display of power) but bit-by-bit, as matter began to stand forth / appear out of chaos, or no-thingness. This chaotic non-existence is thereby taken as the limit to existence -- but, and herein lies the epistemic ground to this new philosophy, this limit is understood as the limit of our mind, and not pertaining to objectivity in any way.

Epistemology and ontology are ultimately the same study. The study of being is the same as the study of knowledge. When we study what exists, we must also study in what way we can know. To not understand this is to believe in the thing-in-itself. Such understanding necessitates either belief in God or the active abandonment of reason. Belief in God being the passive abandonment of reason. What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic. Nature gives us no reason to think that we must conceive of existence in terms of 'yes' and 'no', of 1 and 0, which are mutually exclusive and cannot follow from each other. Such is an artifice that only applies to abstractions, not to life. Philosophy must leave behind this abstraction, and become as life. The strange logics of Heidegger are the beginnings of this process.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-24-2013, 01:55 AM (This post was last modified: 01-24-2013 01:57 AM by JSS.) Post: #2
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ontology and epistemology
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I have heard it has been said that ontology as well as epistemology is metaphysics, and therefore has no place in a Netzschean philosophy (by which is understood a world-affirming one), which must aim at describing particulars and dismiss the notion of universals. It seems to me that this would mean that the will-to-power, as a universal definition of being, must be disregarded by such Nietzscheans, as it is an ontology. But I consider the idea that ontology is the study of universals a mistake.

Definitionally correct.
Ontology has nothing to do with "universals" other than to imply that there might be some.

(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The philosophy I am developing departs from the assumption that the universe is a neatly limited quantity, and necessarily a closed system.

That is logically provable.

(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The law of conservation of energy may not apply to the universe (and there are indications that energy increases). More matter may come into existence. More matter may stand forth, appear. And I think that this is indeed what happens.

Conservation of energy on its most fundamental level, "Affectance", can be taken as an absolute certainty. "Matter" is an entirely different issue and you're are correct in that matter appears and disappears quite frequently.

(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
It is possible that universe (as being) did not come into existence in its entirety, by Gods hand or by the Big Bang (effectively the same idea, a pushing back of the problem of origin behind an impressive display of power) but bit-by-bit, as matter began to stand forth / appear out of chaos, or no-thingness.

There has always been matter, just not always the same amount (except perhaps by average) nor in the same regions.

(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
This chaotic non-existence is thereby taken as the limit to existence -- but, and herein lies the epistemic ground to this new philosophy, this limit is understood as the limit of our mind, and not pertaining to objectivity in any way.

I would like to see that expounded upon.

(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Epistemology and ontology are ultimately the same study. The study of being is the same as the study of knowledge. When we study what exists, we must also study in what way we can know. To not understand this is to believe in the thing-in-itself.

Ontological construction is a choice to make. It has never been an issue of what is or what isn't, but merely what is to be distinguished from what by name or concept.

And you are right, the distinction between epistemology and ontology is trite.

(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Such understanding necessitates either belief in God or the active abandonment of reason. Belief in God being the passive abandonment of reason. What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic. Nature gives us no reason to think that we must conceive of existence in terms of 'yes' and 'no', of 1 and 0, which are mutually exclusive and cannot follow from each other. Such is an artifice that only applies to abstractions, not to life. Philosophy must leave behind this abstraction, and become as life. The strange logics of Heidegger are the beginnings of this process.

"Binary logic" has always been a strawman so as to persuade people against the use of logic and reasoning. Logic has always been trinary;
A) True
B) False
C) Indeterminate / Unknown / Irrationally constructed thought
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-25-2013, 05:32 AM (This post was last modified: 01-25-2013 05:33 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #3
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ontology and epistemology
Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The philosophy I am developing departs from the assumption that the universe is a neatly limited quantity, and necessarily a closed system.

That is logically provable.

How?

Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The law of conservation of energy may not apply to the universe (and there are indications that energy increases). More matter may come into existence. More matter may stand forth, appear. And I think that this is indeed what happens.

Conservation of energy on its most fundamental level, "Affectance", can be taken as an absolute certainty. "Matter" is an entirely different issue and you're are correct in that matter appears and disappears quite frequently.

Excellent.

Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
It is possible that universe (as being) did not come into existence in its entirety, by Gods hand or by the Big Bang (effectively the same idea, a pushing back of the problem of origin behind an impressive display of power) but bit-by-bit, as matter began to stand forth / appear out of chaos, or no-thingness.

There has always been matter, just not always the same amount (except perhaps by average) nor in the same regions.

Are you certain? Why is a state where there is only flux impossible?

Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
This chaotic non-existence is thereby taken as the limit to existence -- but, and herein lies the epistemic ground to this new philosophy, this limit is understood as the limit of our mind, and not pertaining to objectivity in any way.

I would like to see that expounded upon.

"Not pertaining to objectivity in any way" is overstated. It is what passes for objectivity, and thus what we regard as such. The whole point is a reversal of the solipsist stance that the self is the most certainly real - my statement is that of the self we know most definitively the limits of its valuing powers - the power to absorb affect so as to add to its momentum. Of the rest of reality, we can not be certain that it shares these limits.

Our ontology is certainly real in our universe, but by the very nature of its mechanisms (the logic of correspondence), it sets limits to what is real whereas not providing exactitude over what is not besides "that which it is not".

I mean that we use our laws as borders to our land.

Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Epistemology and ontology are ultimately the same study. The study of being is the same as the study of knowledge. When we study what exists, we must also study in what way we can know. To not understand this is to believe in the thing-in-itself.

Ontological construction is a choice to make. It has never been an issue of what is or what isn't, but merely what is to be distinguished from what by name or concept.

EXACTLY. This was the insight that spawned value ontology.

Quote:
And you are right, the distinction between epistemology and ontology is trite.

Voila. I'm glad I posted this.

Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Such understanding necessitates either belief in God or the active abandonment of reason. Belief in God being the passive abandonment of reason. What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic. Nature gives us no reason to think that we must conceive of existence in terms of 'yes' and 'no', of 1 and 0, which are mutually exclusive and cannot follow from each other. Such is an artifice that only applies to abstractions, not to life. Philosophy must leave behind this abstraction, and become as life. The strange logics of Heidegger are the beginnings of this process.

"Binary logic" has always been a strawman so as to persuade people against the use of logic and reasoning. Logic has always been trinary;
A) True
B) False
C) Indeterminate / Unknown / Irrationally constructed thought

Interesting point.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-29-2013, 08:07 AM Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
The world is a chaotic flux of springs whose activity we are part of. It does not matter what words you use. Take acid one day and do your normal day's schedule, go as a listener to a university class. There is no thing in itself indeed.

Your web of concepts is a largely dirty thing that accumulated by happenstance. You accepted this, now casted that, all the while allowing the stupid beast to make most of the discernments. You are right, Fixed Cross: the philosopher isn't good at choosing, he is good at discerning. We might say that his art is discernment, which is the only art that marks humans as mighty. Magic is an understatement, and shackles, says I.



It is possible to become aware of value, and to shift - reevaluate - your webs. All it takes is acknowledgement of what you can tell, yourself. For this, you must know your enemy, too. If not understanding is a limit, then so is your enemy. That is why fighting monsters makes you monstrous, no? You are largely determined by what you fight.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-03-2013, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 04:58 AM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ontology and epistemology
(01-25-2013 05:32 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Quote:
(01-22-2013 12:54 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
The philosophy I am developing departs from the assumption that the universe is a neatly limited quantity, and necessarily a closed system.

That is logically provable.

How?
I meant to say that is logically probable that the universe is NOT a closed system. That conclusion is derived merely from the concept of infinity.

Quote:
There has always been matter, just not always the same amount (except perhaps by average) nor in the same regions.
(01-25-2013 05:32 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Are you certain? Why is a state where there is only flux impossible?

Quote:
Since you have actually already agreed to the concern at hand but merely disallow yourself to see logical proof, let me now show you the point to those last thoughts.

In RM, it is proposed that every point in space cannot be infinitely identical to the points around it and thus affectance waves proceed in all directions. As a consequence of that ontology, it must be true that all points in space must always have waves of affectance passing through them from all directions at once (similar to TEW's elemental wave concern).

As waves cross a point, they add their affects at that point. If the MCR (Maximum Change Rate) has not been challenged, they simply pass through and continue. But since there are literally more than an infinite number of such waves converging upon every point and adding their affects at each point, they cannot always merely pass through.

[Image: MCR+Challenged.jpg]

Given an infA^2 number of waves traveling toward a center point, some rising and some falling, if their average PtA change happens to be less than 1/infA (using the same defined infA as before), they have no reason to not merely pass through the center and continue. But if their average PtA increase or decrease happens to exceed 1/infA , when they meet at the center, the PtA rise time and the PtA value at that center would have to exceed infA.

It is logically impossible for such an infinite rise time to occur as well as such an infinite PtA level to be attained. Thus the waves have no choice but to be delayed until enough time has passed. And for every circle (or sphere in 3D) outside the one shown, there are even more than infA^2 number of points heading toward that same center, requiring that their average be even less. A sphere of merely 1 toe in radius has 4π*infA^2 points on its surface each with PtA waves heading toward the center.

[Image: Number+of+Pnts+on+Sphere.jpg]

That is the beginning of inertia and the formation of a particle. The initial delay spawns more delays surrounding the area that increases the probability that the center will encounter another MCR challenge. Thus the particle, by challenging an impossible task, sustains its continued existence as a particle. It becomes anentropic.

The ontological components proposed by RM and the logic that demands this situation are logically impossible to not exist, merely because an infinite value cannot be attained.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-07-2013, 12:11 AM Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ontology and epistemology
I can see that this is necessarily so, within the framework of RM, that is to say within affectance ontology.

Value Ontology does not hold a definite standard of affectance per se (AO is alike to Nietzsche's will to power, in that it proposes one form of affectance, in that all affects all) and allows theoretically for more types which do not necessarily affect each other.

I assume you object to this.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-07-2013, 04:54 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 05:02 AM by JSS.) Post: #7
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ontology and epistemology
(02-07-2013 12:11 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
allows theoretically for more types which do not necessarily affect each other.

I assume you object to this.

I would object based on the fact that such a realm would defy the meaning of existing (that which has affect). How can you say that something exists if that something has no affect on anything?

You can have a "subontology" wherein objects are defined as collections of undefined sub-objects, such as a mind ontology that (somewhat) ignores the neurology involved. This would constitute a type of cardinality shift wherein one doesn't care about the infinitesimal data bit streams going into the mind, but instead merely refers to the larger picture of sight, sound, touch,... As long as the details don't become relevant such a cardinality shift, even though ignoring some details of reality, can still function and even be "holy" (coherent, consistent, and comprehensive) but it must allow for potential detailed thought later and it must not leave out anything having relevant affect.

"To affect" merely means to cause change. If you have a proposed ontology wherein the existence or non-existence of something doesn't change anything, why have it there at all?

In VO, what would be the range of values if measured? How do you propose to handle infinitesimal values and infinite values? Positive and negative values?
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-07-2013, 09:36 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 09:56 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #8
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ontology and epistemology
Quote:
I would object based on the fact that such a realm would defy the meaning of existing (that which has affect). How can you say that something exists if that something has no affect on anything?
Quote:
"To affect" merely means to cause change. If you have a proposed ontology wherein the existence or non-existence of something doesn't change anything, why have it there at all?

I mean that not all affectance has to affect in the same realm. You separate mind and brain, indeed but these at least correlate to a great extent. Atom and foot is already quite different, and at one point a threshold may be reached (or never a connection made) where one sphere of affectance no longer 'answers to' another, where realms of affectance go by each other separately in different times.

Quote:
You can have a "subontology" wherein objects are defined as collections of undefined sub-objects, such as a mind ontology that (somewhat) ignores the neurology involved. This would constitute a type of cardinality shift wherein one doesn't care about the infinitesimal data bit streams going into the mind, but instead merely refers to the larger picture of sight, sound, touch,... As long as the details don't become relevant such a cardinality shift, even though ignoring some details of reality, can still function and even be "holy" (coherent, consistent, and comprehensive) but it must allow for potential detailed thought later and it must not leave out anything having relevant affect.

Yes, I agree but - this leaves the problem of the frame of reference.
Does our frame of reference, logic (a certain 'density' of mind), include imagination (less exacting, broader and soffer density, with thus different laws, and thus different potencies and possibilities) or is it used alongside of it? I choose the latter, though I am determined to have them at least correlate in some form of harmony. I have ye to set the first true step in the Walz,

Now I am suffering from cognitive dissonance, the music of the rhythm of logic and the melody of play. My "type" is artist - that means, I draw the greatest inner vitality from this type of work, the greatest peace and health.

Art is my natural way of affecting outwards. This scientific philosophy is the rearing of this affecting caught in a dispute as to the purpose. Now I am gradually seeing that the rearing creates the purpose - makes it visible. It allows for other possibilites. Infinity squaring (amounting in high complexity, perspective, reality) demands 'The Chariot' of the Tarot, which is followed by 'The Tamed Lion: Strength'.

Then follows 'The Hermit'. Only after that 'Fortune'. The philosopher is captain at this wheel.

Quote:
In VO, what would be the range of values if measured? How do you propose to handle infinitesimal values and infinite values? Positive and negative values?

If I have to be as concrete as I can be right now, History boy just said something to day that points in the direction.

Historyboy Wrote:
Recently I have read a paragraph from the notebooks I think, where he speaks about the functions of the organs in a hierarchical order, and this order is maintained through virtues, i.e. the functions of the organs are separated by virtues. Maybe this observations are somewhere deeper developed by another author or maybe it's his own work. I don't know yet any of the French psychologists he knew and whom he hold in high esteem.

Anyway, what can be the outcome of such a study of an individual? Another great book that nobody will read? A new philosopher drowned in the sea of decadence?

For me the easiest way out of decadence is to adopt the Greek virtues and then, as a society, not as a blind obedient slave, like in the Happy Isles, to try to develop something higher. I strongly suspect that one of the projects for his masters of Earth was to "learn (all?) morals and philosophies. we don't want to start from the beginning". This morals and philosophies shall be offered to different peoples according to their rank. That is why he spoke about giving the Germans a higher rank. Psychology as the queen of sciences... sounds like mechanics of philosophy.

Value = 1 might be something alike 'full subjective vitality.
This value would change relatively to all other self-valuings, meaning that they to him become smaller. There would be the possibility of a formula describing, in restrained context of social and biological archetypes, the proportion of growth of the self-value to the decrease of the mean value. This would then have to include a complex algorithm describing the health of local other as beneficial to ones own health up to a certain point where it becomes detrimental - and I would not know where to begin defining the real world context for the standard-value except by setting an ideal number or limit to a population.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-07-2013, 04:28 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 04:28 PM by JSS.) Post: #9
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Ontology and epistemology
(02-07-2013 09:36 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Value = 1 might be something alike 'full subjective vitality.
This value would change relatively to all other self-valuings, meaning that they to him become smaller. There would be the possibility of a formula describing, in restrained context of social and biological archetypes, the proportion of growth of the self-value to the decrease of the mean value. This would then have to include a complex algorithm describing the health of local other as beneficial to ones own health up to a certain point where it becomes detrimental - and I would not know where to begin defining the real world context for the standard-value except by setting an ideal number or limit to a population.

Sounds like Anentropics to me. In the end of the explanation, a cardinality shift is declared and the maximum Potential-to-Affect is set = 1. The particle devotes everything it does to maintaining that and disregards all else.

Logic and Art go easily hand in hand when understood (requiring logic to lead the way). In very many situations, the logic involved becomes arbitrary concerning a variety of issues. Two paths lead to the same destination and are not logically distinguishable. At such times, the choices are up for alternate arbitration with regard to other incentives or concerns not normally related and not requiring logical connection to the original priority concern; "This house needs paint (the rational logic). Choose your favorite a color scheme (the artistic freedom and imagination)."
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-14-2013, 02:43 AM Post: #10
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
I was blamed in ILP of transcendentalism and covert priesthood, and it was because of this:

Rationality works. It is a plane, though if you ask ChainOfBeing he would probably answer that it exists as a cover, a second tier description of a reflection of a series of constructions. Philosophers will have a full meal just with that, but I have a point to make. It is that the transcendence of rationality is no longer the realm of qualified priests or metaphyscicians, no longer must we wander about in the dark and wonder: is the mind just a dream of a singularity?

These extra-dimensions that Fixed Cross describes, and learned men like him and others of great rigor, discipline, and art in curiosity can, with time, realize, is today available o anybody with a week to read philsophy and $20 to buy high grade psychedellic drugs.

Psychedellic drugs. Are. The. Closest. Thing. To. A. Religious. Experience. That. Exists. Precisely because epistemology isn't a given: it must be fought for and earned. Sought out and reaped from the very world.





Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ontology and epistemology
(03-14-2013 02:43 AM)pezer Wrote:
I was blamed in ILP of transcendentalism and covert priesthood, and it was because of this:

Rationality works. It is a plane, though if you ask ChainOfBeing he would probably answer that it exists as a cover, a second tier description of a reflection of a series of constructions. Philosophers will have a full meal just with that, but I have a point to make. It is that the transcendence of rationality is no longer the realm of qualified priests or metaphyscicians, no longer must we wander about in the dark and wonder: is the mind just a dream of a singularity?

These extra-dimensions that Fixed Cross describes, and learned men like him and others of great rigor, discipline, and art in curiosity can, with time, realize, is today available o anybody with a week to read philsophy and $20 to buy high grade psychedellic drugs.

Psychedellic drugs. Are. The. Closest. Thing. To. A. Religious. Experience. That. Exists. Precisely because epistemology isn't a given: it must be fought for and earned. Sought out and reaped from the very world.

Where do you think I got my initiation into philosophy? It is only from experience that my rigors have formed, and some of the most significant of experiences were given by psychedelics. It has been a while since I first managed, on behalf of my family, not to crush my skull against the wall to stop the terrifying onslaught of vision into the mechanics of the mind, but I remember these unfolding "forms" like it was yesterday, or just this minute.

But then, years later, I had my first "bona-fide" religious experience with an "angel". This came to me solely through sorrow, the "Trance of Binah" as kabbalist will call it, and it was very different from the psychedelic experience, which is visionary, firelike.

This experience was water-like, emotional. "Normal" religion is, in my experience, emotion. In this emotional body of man, presences can become known which are described in scripture. I met "Magdalene". She taught me the French tongue. Through force and brokenness this was given to me, and from then on I was able to express (and this experience) emotions deeper than I could ever express the way I was born, "meant".

Not to say this was not "enabled" in the first place by psychedelics - just that there are several layers of the religious, of divinity - and I refer to the experience.

But tonight I had a dream, in line with what you have been saying recently, about the town of Carcassonne. I did not dream the whole story, but a shred of it was offered me, leaving me rather unsettled and awake.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 05:17 AM Post: #12
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
I don't think it was coincidence, in the philosophical sense, that I walked the same path as you but facing the other way.

You and I, we're like a Heraclitean dichotomy!

May the world brace itself for our sillyness. It will go deep.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 06:05 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 06:06 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Ontology and epistemology
"The world is deep, and deeper than the day had thought"

The "day" being the singular Apollonium. The day thinks, the world is. Thoughts collide, and become existence, spilling their lifeblood onto the ever thirsty earth.

COME! COME! COME! LET US NOW WANDER! IT IS THE HOUR: LET US WANDER INTO THE NIGHT!

Ye higher men, it is getting on to midnight: then will I say something into your ears, as that old clock-bell saith it into mine ear,--

As mysteriously, as frightfully, and as cordially as that midnight clock- bell speaketh it to me, which hath experienced more than one man:

Which hath already counted the smarting throbbings of your fathers' hearts--ah! ah! how it sigheth! how it laugheth in its dream! the old, deep, deep midnight!

Hush! Hush! Then is there many a thing heard which may not be heard by day; now however, in the cool air, when even all the tumult of your hearts hath become still,--

Now doth it speak, now is it heard, now doth it steal into overwakeful, nocturnal souls: ah! ah! how the midnight sigheth! how it laugheth in its dream!

Hearest thou not how it mysteriously, frightfully, and cordially speaketh unto THEE, the old deep, deep midnight?

O MAN, TAKE HEED!

No day without a ending night. No night without a broken day.
How does the end of the night come? The day comes like a cruel conquerer, indifferent and already victorious, no sign of glory.

In this land there is a watery sun. It does not overwhelm.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 06:15 AM Post: #14
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
It is not overwhelming that the philosopher fears most, but underwhelming.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 06:19 AM Post: #15
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
I don't like getting talked at. Even by powerful midnight spirits.

I am Un-Water, I am that which water hates, and that for which we drink it.

I am minerals left over from the tides, rocks that never moved from them. My ally is air that moves above it all and allows to reconstruct what water may seek to wash away.

I am the water itself.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 06:20 AM Post: #16
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
I am the Gods, and within me, some will die.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 06:21 AM Post: #17
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ontology and epistemology
http://godkillerseries.com/
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"

Mental Health (and an obstruction)
I am here again at the room of my old friends death
He jumped here 15 years ago and I was not here. I smoked hash, with Sauwelios, in the park. We talked about Puin, we said that he was going to be fine if he minded other people a bit more. We meant us. I meant, me. He had been solitary for the recent months. He turned out to be dead. Conveniently, he had chosen for his place to die, the garden in front of my new room. I idealized his death in the absence of real sorrow - I don't know why precisely, but the friendship I had with this cousin (oldest son to my mothers younger sister) has always been extremely strange, outer-worldly, uncomfortable, fated - he sought my company, constantly, to the great irritation of everyone around me as well as my self - in hindsight he was strongly autistic, which his parents, bone fide hippies, interpreted as special. And he was extremely special, a special case, an exception. I guess he could not live with that. But to seek death in the midst of the ones who will suffer most of it - his family, my family - and I was foolish enough to take that moment to begin to take him seriously.

I was at the age where males are recruited into armies and sects, where they are most willing to sacrifice identity for greatness. I was successfully hijacked by an ideology that I helped create, with a martyr at its center. I am the disciple, to a master who has said only "I met the devil, invited him in, offered him a tea." Then the poem goes on to tell how Satan leaves voluntarily, and asks: "how did you think you were going to cast me out?" whereupon Puin responds: "I just did".
Instead of facing the problem, the poem makes an overtly unsustainable leap, whereby 'creative freedom' will have been the argument.
Obviously, the devil had never left.
Don't invite the devil in your life, he will enter the lives of all who love you.

Well then. How to resolve this situation? How to deal with an act of domestic terrorism? To simply interpret it as "he was crazy. The past is the past" will eventually be the only solution. But I am still convinced, my mind is still warped into thinking, that there was a holiness to this kids suicide. His rational mind was extremely powerful. His emotions were deeply troubling. I produced some music for the raps that brought him on the brink of fame - as he was preparing recording songs on five albums of established musicians, he ended the story. Promise, denial of everything that for a while embodied that promise.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 07:59 AM Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
What was the sect?
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-04-2013, 08:17 PM Post: #3
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
Our friendship.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-05-2013, 12:20 AM Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
Aye...
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 04:02 PM Post: #5
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
(03-04-2013 06:13 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Well then. How to resolve this situation? How to deal with an act of domestic terrorism? To simply interpret it as "he was crazy. The past is the past" will eventually be the only solution. But I am still convinced, my mind is still warped into thinking, that there was a holiness to this kids suicide.
I am not sure what is to be resolved. Both interpretations seem resolved. Is it just which one to choose? Are there no nagging emotions, guilt, rage, confusion beyond the choice between models or attitudes?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 09:17 PM (This post was last modified: 03-30-2013 09:19 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
(03-30-2013 04:02 PM)Heathen Wrote:
(03-04-2013 06:13 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Well then. How to resolve this situation? How to deal with an act of domestic terrorism? To simply interpret it as "he was crazy. The past is the past" will eventually be the only solution. But I am still convinced, my mind is still warped into thinking, that there was a holiness to this kids suicide.
I am not sure what is to be resolved. Both interpretations seem resolved. Is it just which one to choose? Are there no nagging emotions, guilt, rage, confusion beyond the choice between models or attitudes?

Yes, a lot of them indeed. Rage, confusion, and perhaps even guilt, though there may be too much confusion to make that out as guilt. Also, fear. Fear of trust. I put a great portion of my trust in the future in this guy at one point, at least, I identified this trust with our friendship and collaborations. When he killed hikmself I was fresh enough to have this make a serious impact on the whole of my concept of trust and hope - Often when I have a hope now, it is accompanied by tremendous fear of killing someone with that hope.

As far as the guilt goes... it's difficult to understand how I am guilty, then again, very easy - I was the one who introduced him to psychoactive drugs. That is, I told him about my use of them. He had always had contempt for that sort of thing, suddenly it appeared to him there was something to respect in it.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 12:08 AM Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
Lol. Man, it's like I'm your friend, but I ran to my family instead of killing myself. And the you version in my life found a monster girlfriend to drown in. Very sweet of him, but he really shouldn't.

I did something Evil to him. I don't know how I'm gonna approach him yet some day, my own confusion.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 07:43 AM (This post was last modified: 03-31-2013 07:44 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #8
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
It sounds like the lesser evil... and not counting only what he did to me. His younger brother and his parents - his dad had already seen his sister and mother suicided - etc. It's the bedroom question that nags it for me, that was right where I slept. On top of that there was the magick, the reason I began to think about the soul as separate from the personality and radically destroyed the personality in favor of what turned out to be a void - fertile but empty of itself. It took Nietzsche to redraw blood and discover a portion of what was real - all through pain of ancestry and pride in presence.

During the course of this I had shifting relations with this dead relative, in which I dreamt sometimes that he was alive, but that ended quickly. Later I dreamt of his old house, from before when he went to live on the top floor of my families house, and making paths and discovering empty rooms. But I was never able to either feel guilt or get angry - all I was was confused and inspired. I made a lot of decisions then that would not have seen sane in normal conditions. Back then the consequences were illuminating. I can no longer thrive on this current of question-motion from past to present. The set time for extra-real advance is right this future.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 08:24 AM Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
We should get cracking on that temple...
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 08:30 AM Post: #10
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
(03-30-2013 09:17 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Yes, a lot of them indeed. Rage, confusion, and perhaps even guilt, though there may be too much confusion to make that out as guilt. Also, fear. Fear of trust. I put a great portion of my trust in the future in this guy at one point, at least, I identified this trust with our friendship and collaborations. When he killed hikmself I was fresh enough to have this make a serious impact on the whole of my concept of trust and hope - Often when I have a hope now, it is accompanied by tremendous fear of killing someone with that hope.
OK, I can relate, both to the feelings and to the really rather odd negative magical thinking that one finds in there around things like this. I had a close family member that was in a lot of pain and it seemed to me had opted not to be alive to avoid the pain. Like, there was something wrong with her, she thought, and so therefore it made sense to be like a walking corpse, hiding, not really living. I challenged this, at a certain age, but before that and after that I could also contribute to it - her misconception of herself. Finally I gave up trying to challenge it, which really fucking hurt. Becasue it meant I pretty much had to grieve her death while she was still walking around. There are still twists and knots and unexpressed emotions around this. And then weird magical thinking that if I love something it will die.

As far as the guilt. It is often easy to deny guilt and then it really fucks you up.






pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
You must hold on first and foremost to clear thinking. It is what is most at risk.

You know, Nietzsche said a philosopher must die many times before becoming a philosopher...
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 10:08 PM Post: #12
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
I've only known people who've made attempts at suicide, or insisted on telling me that they were thinking about it a lot. I've never actually known anyone who killed themselves.

I have to say, madness is one of those things that makes me believe in, if you like, evil spirits or forces, both from my own experience and from seeing it in other people. Believe it or not, I'm quite good at talking people back away from madness, helping them feel normal again, though this does make me something of a lightning rod for crazy people. But seeing them struggle with something that simply makes no sense in this realm, that strikes me as otherworldly, it regularly gives me pause for thought.

Ultimately, there's only ever so much you can do for other people. Retaining your own sanity is the key.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 11:03 PM (This post was last modified: 03-31-2013 11:10 PM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
I was somewhat "over" this suicide of my cousin, and then my girlfriends ex boyfriend killed himsel, the guy she left for me. That didn't really help. I felt very guilty about that one and it literally almost killed me to think I was cause to this, it was extremely difficult to not see myself as the cause, also given the nature of the interactions the three of us had had. It was only because I arrived at value ontology that I turbed that around and got out of that deathtrap. So there's the upside, and at once a testament to the specific value of value ontology. I needed to understand that I was ontologically forced to keep my own perspective and not care, identify too much with those for whom I care, that I would not only die if I did not, but that I would violate a universal law that includes love. That one is really born out of necessity.

Dark magic, entities - I can't escape that notion either. There seem to be a lot of forces and entities that are not grounded in rationally explainaible, Earthly business. I have no particular "talent" (curse) to perceive them but they are still able to haunt me when I am too strongly questioning.

Sticking with the value ontological approach, I think that when there's been made a kind of gap, hiatus in the self indeitifcation, there is space for rampant entities to feed off the nervous system. My quest after the second close suicide was of becoming more of an 'egoist' - or simply an ego, where the quest after the first one was of cultivating that hiatus, void, breach, in terms of opening the 'doors of perception'.

I've seen and understood much more than I would have if no one had killed themselves, that is certain to me. But there's no way of doing justice, of materializing this without something very manifest, something that won't slip through the cracks into oblivion. The idea I have for these temples, I know that would work and be a great capitalist venture as well as a proper monument to the future and challenge to the rotting past. As when I was surging through these dark channels I was under the impression that I was rich, had something that everyone required, was initiated.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 08:10 AM Post: #14
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
(03-31-2013 10:08 PM)BigTom Wrote:
I've only known people who've made attempts at suicide, or insisted on telling me that they were thinking about it a lot. I've never actually known anyone who killed themselves.

I have to say, madness is one of those things that makes me believe in, if you like, evil spirits or forces, both from my own experience and from seeing it in other people.
I definitely think this can be the case. And I find milder versions is people who are getting along fairly well, but are suffering this or that.

I think these 'forces' can literally be what other people dump out of themselves and we take in. And one can end this carrying other people shit, but often it is not so easy.

[/quote]
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 08:12 AM Post: #15
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
(03-31-2013 11:03 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Sticking with the value ontological approach, I think that when there's been made a kind of gap, hiatus in the self indeitifcation, there is space for rampant entities to feed off the nervous system.
Nicely worded. I often say 'hole' and this sounded very familiar.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 08:15 AM Post: #16
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
Interesting...
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 08:15 AM Post: #17
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
:O
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-01-2013, 08:16 AM Post: #18
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
Fuck, I love magicians.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 06:36 AM Post: #19
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
(04-01-2013 08:16 AM)pezer Wrote:
Fuck, I love magicians.

In this country there's a long-running connection between magicians and the security services.

Which makes me think Derren Brown is a spook.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 10:10 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 10:10 AM by Q.) Post: #20
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Mental Health (and an obstruction)
For me it was when he was allowed to traumatize people horrifically on television. That is usually a sign that you are backed. When you can traumatize people horrifically on television.

Although, not always.

Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
Here's to Abstract
I was very sad to have learned of Abstracts passing. I don't know if you all knew him, or if those that did, know of his death, I just learned about it two days ago. It did not come as a surprise to me, it was hanging in the air like inevitable doom. He was "too good for this world" as they sometimes say. In his case I think this really applies. He was a truly sweet, bright and honest young man, and in a better world he might have been happy. I think that we should find some value in the idea that he valued us, that he trusted us, online thinkers, more than he trusted his own environment. We should take that seriously, as I've been fucking saying. This is not a joke. The world is turning to hell, and we're all that's left, for each other.

Abstract was at the beginning of my realization that there might be a future after all, that the internet, it's realm of free exchange of thought, is a real place. I had been dwelling here for a decade, but it never dawned on me that this may be the true reality, the true future of "good" (to avoid being blasphemous, I specify good-to-me) that has a chance of procreating, spawning a new reality. Where else than on the internet would I have met an Abstract, or for that matter, any of you who read this? The honesty that is possible here, we should value this even more than we do now.

During the last year I lost some of the connection I had with Abstract, and I am very happy to learn, on ILP and from private mails, that others have stayed in intensive contact with him. He was not alone. But he was mentally ill as one could say, "psychic" as I would say - his mind was extremely receptive, far, far beyond what is comfortable. This is of course what made him so extremely keen, quick, clever, understanding, but also what made him confused in what must have been a relatively very cruel and dull "real"-world.

He is one of us, as far as I'm concerned, at the center of what I love about this place, the online philosophy-campfire, and I really mean it when I say that all of us can and must learn from him the virtues of understanding and good will, tolerance, patience, lack of judgmentally. This goes for me not in the last place, of course.

Well, here's to you Abstract - your given name was Robin, but I will remember you by your self-chosen one. I love you dude, if that's the proper term - I certainly will never forget.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 09:06 AM Post: #2
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Here's to Abstract
Quote:
We should value this even more than we do now.

I agree.

I didn't really know him, but this is a sad story. Mental illness is the worst thing.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-26-2013, 10:11 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Here's to Abstract
A brother has fallen.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-27-2013, 02:05 AM Post: #4
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: Here's to Abstract
I never knew him that well, but he seemed very smart and very kind, two things that don't make for easy living in this world but make for a wonderful person.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-27-2013, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 03-27-2013 12:32 PM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #5
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Here's to Abstract
Abstract, I miss you. A hell of a lot more than I would have thought, I think.

As the saying goes, this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you. Be in peace, my friend.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:02 AM Post: #6
Blurry Offline
Wannabe Intellectual
Posts: 85
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 2
RE: Here's to Abstract
I realize I'm late to the party train on this one, and...

Well, I didn't know Abstract well, in fact I didn't really know him at all, but I've been very saddened by this whole ordeal.

I'm sorry, to those of you who did know him, and considered him a friend.
"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!"

-Dr. Seuss
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-04-2013, 02:00 PM Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Here's to Abstract
Abstract had a vision... A vision beyond just knowing what's wrong. He understood what's right, and that killed him.

Blessed be the wrong, blessed be the evil and dark and subtly unattainable.

Blessed be the unlcear, the squinting eyes of fate.

Blessed is my fate, it is unclear.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2013 10:21 AM by Heathen.) Post: #8
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Here's to Abstract
I liked Abstract, he was kind and smart and willing to play and explore ideas. A lot of people say they have an open mind. He never said this, I don't think, but it seemed like he actually had one. That he could really consider an idea he disagreed with. And not with any particular naivte. It shocked me that he died. In his last thread over there in ILP I took a pretty strong ante-psychiatric line, though I did keep asking Abstract to explain more what went on when they locked him in. That more never came. I'll miss him.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 10:40 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2013 10:42 AM by pezer.) Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Here's to Abstract
Pain is a destroyer of perception and will to live. We must be careful when we tease it out of people, if we want it to grow something in them or provoke some evolution instead of destroy them.

Sometimes, though, perhaps destruction is simply unavoidable.

This is why psychologists are required to get a doctorate in Canada before they can practice.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"

BAAAAAAAAAAAAABY lon
From the moment I got back in the streets after meeting a girlfriend from far back in youth, it was dark and I was on my bike. I was drunk and she had not been pleased with the amount of weed I mixed with the tobacco in my evening smoke. The night was warm, this summer I remember quite lively in a few flushed instants of expectation.

It must have been at 15 minutes in, as I crossed the Berlage, that I noticed I was talking in a strange tongue, and yes it was the tounge of Babel, now Ural then Semite then Mongol... and as I coursed through the continents the power peaked and suddenly I was proclaiming Turanian syllables like beads in word-chains climaxing in thunder from my chest.

Several thousands of days I uttered such strings, and now finally I saw their meaning in the eyes of a cat - (which is an anagram of act) - I have learned much by the tools of forgotten shadows and lights.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-08-2013, 06:30 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2013 06:31 AM by Q.) Post: #2
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: BAAAAAAAAAAAAABY lon
Nice.

After looming fairly seriously at the Stoned Ape theory I have been giving more and more thought to (I forget the word) "auto talking", and how that could relate to genetic memory.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-08-2013, 08:33 AM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: BAAAAAAAAAAAAABY lon
Genetic memory is key.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-09-2013, 10:58 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 06:16 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #4
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: BAAAAAAAAAAAAABY lon
[edit] yes.

Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
Esoteric Astrology
This thread be dedicated to Esoteric Astrology.
In this field I have relied on the works of Alice Bailey, Who based here writing on the foundations laid out by Helena Blavatsky and the third, most mysterious figure - "The Tibetan". But only when I read "Tapestry of the Gods" by a theosophist that I was able to meditate.

It is only fitting that I spend a great deal of space bringing up citations from this book, which can be found online and will be linked at each citation or set of citations.

In fact, I may not be able to do much more than point you to this supremely effective way of psychologizing, so that you may mediate yourself more proficiently.
IP Address: Logged

Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Spam Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-13-2013, 01:41 PM Post: #2 |
Moreno Offline
Student
Posts: 2
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 0
RE: Esoteric Astrology
So, what's the difference between esoteric Astrology and other kinds?
IP Address: Logged

Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Spam Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-14-2013, 01:53 AM (This post was last modified: 03-14-2013 01:55 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #3 |
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Esoteric Astrology
It takes on a different 'language', as it introduces the concept of "rays". It is very much the sort of thing that allows for mockery, and very opaque in that respect. I mean really, who is going to take seriously a system of psychology based on cosmic rays ? It sounds straight out of a very bad science fiction movie. And as if normal astrology wasn't ridiculous enough...

Anyway, I do believe in it, as always only after exhaustive experiment. But I am very embarrassed telling people about it.

But who cares, we're on NWO. Here's how the Rays are identified, in the most frequently used terms.

Ray 1: Will and Power
Ra2 2: Love and Wisdom
Ray 3: Active Mind
Ray 4: Harmony through Opposites
Ray 5: Concrete Science
Ray 6: Abstract Idealism
Ray 7: Ceremonial Magic.

As this becomes the primary logos, the Sun, moon and planets, as well as the stars and signs are brought under it, interpreted in terms of these rays. Jupiter and Sun, for example, seem to belong to Ray 2. Saturn is ray 3. Moon and Mercury ray 4. But this is not going to be of any use to anyone who isn't already deep into astrology. What might be interesting though is to read about the psychology attributed to the rays, without any astrological context. In fact one needs not be aware (or believe) that this has anything to do with anything outside of the body, as you can treat it as a typology, much like Myers Briggs and such things. In my experience it is more effective and accurate.

If you want to find out your "ray type", dig into these books.

http://makara.us/04mdr/01writing/01tg/tapestry1.pdf
http://makara.us/04mdr/01writing/02tg/tapestry2.pdf
IP Address: Logged

Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Spam Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-07-2013, 02:40 PM Post: #4 |
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Esoteric Astrology
Hi, thanks for the links. I might actually read them - since I have some interest in integral psychology also - but it is much easier for me to learn from a concrete example. Could you link to either your own chart or a famous person's chart and explain what insights the rays give you that would not come out in some other version of astrology.
IP Address: Logged

Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Spam Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-10-2013, 07:49 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 07:51 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #5 |
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Esoteric Astrology
It's quite an ambiguous undertaking seeing that there isn't any rosetta stone for this. I've never done this before with anyone besides myself. I only found out real data through very extensive experimentation with my approach to others. I found out which ray leads me quickest to my goals.

I recommend reading through this.

Tell me if this makes sense. It was only through experimenting with the rays that I began to realize the hierarchy of planetary influences in my chart - which planets are the most 'noble' in terms of what I want to accomplish and am able to be. EA makes it slightly easier to 'zero in' on influences.

But I am truly a novice at this - I began my experiments two years ago. I also don't know how you are used to working - perhaps you can propose a chart to examine.
IP Address: Logged

A thread where I will post my running thoughts on astrology, along with ongoing explanation of and reflection on what the hell astrology is anyway. First a couple of basics - there is a lot of ground to cover to make it understandable in the first place.

This is a natal chart.



The colored symbols on the outside of the wheel, from the top clockwise, are:

Jupiter (at '2 o clock')
Mars
Neptune
Pluto
Venus
Sun
Mercury
Moon
Saturn
Uranus

AC stands for Ascendant, meaning rising sign - the horizon at time of birth.

Analyzing a chart can start in different ways. Usually one looks at the sign and house occupied by the sun. In this case, the Sun is in Aries, and the second house. In fact the time of birth of this person is in question, but it does not matter for I am just using it as an example of how to read a chart.

The Houses are sections of the sky which is divided in 12 parts analogous to the signs. During a day, as the Earth rotates around its axis, all the asteroids, planets, stars and signs 'travel' through the 12 houses. A house thus represents a window of two hours. The houses stand for roughly the same as the signs they correspond with.

house 1: I
house 2: values
house 3: communication
house 4: home
house 5: creativity
house 6: service
house 7: others
house 8: "sex and death other peoples money"
house 9: travel, religion, philosophy, law
house 10: ambition, standing
house 11: friends, groups, allies
house 12: self-undoing, faith, surrender

The Sun of the persons natal chart occupies Aries in the second house. The Sun, representing much the life-force, is in the "I will" sign of Aries, in the house of values. It suggests a strong willed person who is not about to give up on his (it is a man) values.

Close to the Sun is Mercury (as always, obviously from a geocentric perspective Mercury can not be very far from the Sun). Mercury stands for communications, intellect ('rules' the third house and the corresponding sign of Gemini). It is on the threshold ("cusp") of the first and second house. the person expresses and thinks in terms of both self and values. One could speculate the value of the self would be much present in this persons communications (And no, this is not my own natal chart, by the way - just a hero of mine.)

The planets, a term that in this contexts rather annoyingly includes the Sun and moon. Obviously the categorizations are never complete, as this is not an 'exact' science but a living body of very ancient and continuously growing empirical data, on the basis of which virtually the entire collection of known myths and mysticisms is built.

Sun: Life-force, 'naive' drive, power, identity.
Moon: Sentiment, Mother, body, feeling, belonging, safety.
Mercury: Intellect, expression.
Venus: Attraction, Earthly values, affection, money.
Mars: Force, determination, strength, passion.
Jupiter: Expansiveness, nobility, generosity, luck, philosophy, law.
Saturn: Restriction, responsibility, severity, realism.
Uranus: Sudden force, technology, intuition, individualism, freedom.
Neptune: Poetry, mysticism, intoxication.
Pluto: Power, chance, death and resurrection, invisible influence.


The Aspects - this is what you see represented as the colored lines in between certain planets. These represent the angles to which the planets stand from a geocentric perspective - the angles at which they operated on us at the time we emerged from our mother and became our own little electromagnetic system. In the chart above we see red lines, blue lines, green lines and a light blue line. Red lines stand for hard aspects - angles of 90 and 180 degrees. These aspects represent 'challenges' - things that do not go smoothly, need work, cause trouble. The blue lines stand for harmonic aspects - angles of 60 and 120 degrees. These aspects represent 'ease' - things with which we are 'blessed', powers we have that tend to go unnoticed by us, taken for granted, but which attract others to us. One could call them talents, but that gets confusing, as a talent may come in the guise of a challenge. Also there are many other aspects - in fact of course every angle is a "harmony". But I will now stick to the main, most clearly effective ones.

In general we can see that there is a certain logic in the organization of a circle divided in 12 parts, and the prominence of the factors 2, 3, 4 and 6. The factors 2 and 4 form hard angles and the 3 and 6 factors soft ones. There are other ways in which the factors 3 and 4 play a part, more on that later. First a list of the main aspects.

180 degrees: opposition. The planets are working against each other, causing conflict, doubt and error in the areas they represent.
120 degrees: trine. The planets are working with each other, mutually feeding each others strength, causing power and luck in the areas they represent.
90 degrees: square. The planets are at odds: cutting into each others realm of influence, causing a permanent state of conflict, from which a great deal of awareness and steering force is necessitated and thus, over time, created.
60 degrees: sextile. The planets are at ease, operating alongside each other harmoniously, and allowing for fluid combination of the areas represented by them.
0 degrees: conjunction. The influences of the planets are merged.

There is a main special case, the 72 degree aspect, the factor 5. This is called the quintile. It is prominent in many charts of exceptionally talented and/or lucky people. It is called a 'magical' aspect.

All aspects are calculated with a certain margin. The more fundamental an aspect is, the greater the margin. A conjunction is calculated with a margin of up to 10 degrees, a trine usually 5, up to 8 when it involves major 'planets' such as the Sun, a sextile 3 to 5, a quintile around 2.

Personally I find the opposition to be the most interesting aspect. It represents the greatest challenge, and some oppositions are an almost fail-proof recipe for disaster. However, there is hardly any interesting artist who does not have one or more oppositions in his chart. We know that art is born of conflict, and this is reinforced by looking at astrological chart. The person to whom the chart above belongs has an incredibly difficult opposition - Moon opposed Pluto and Neptune.

I have seen Moon-Pluto oppositions, and they aren't pretty. Invariably they belong to people who cause suffering (mothers fucking up their children) or are made to suffer. Moon-Neptune oppositions are much more innocent, but still wildly difficult to deal with - they relate to drug abuse, telepathy, lack of personal borders, etc. The combination of Pluto and Neptune opposed by the moon suggests a conflict and awareness of virtually limitless proportions. Of course, Neptune and Pluto were conjunct for a very long time, and every month people were born with the moon opposing this conjunction. This person happened to amount to a great deal, but there are millions who 'suffered the same fate' to an extent - I'd expect a lot of people to have gone insane under that aspect. But I am wandering. Hell, this is a wander-thread anyhow. I will wander a bit further even and post a description of oppositions I wrote some time ago. Some insight can be gained from these about the nature of the signs, which I will describe later.


Oppositions:

Since oppositions form an axis, from one sign to the opposite (in most cases), it seems to me that, next to producing a tension or perhaps rather 'debility' between those planets that are opposed, they allow for the possibility of the subject experiencing that axis as a whole. The whole deal, with all of it's contradictions.

A significant planetary Aries-Libra opposition would mean that one is initially completely bewildered as to how to address oneself and the world, and eventually learns to know the 'inner mechanics' of the I versus Them/Y'all axis, and become something of an expert on psycho-social matters, at least with the energy brought about by the combination of the relevant planets.

A Taurus-Scorpio opposition would mean that one is bewildered about ones own physical values and the "value exchange" that is death, sex and the economic-world. One would have a lot of fears and anxieties about values, until one learns to come to a generalized understanding of value, to find ones proper perspective in the matter by a greater overview.

A Gemini-Sagittarius opposition would mean that there is bewilderment in terms of ones personal expression and intelligence versus the established intelligentia (law, religion, philosophy) and that one is unable to find and settle on a "my truth" because personal truth is so deeply incompatible with established truth. In the end one would learn the mechanics of truth-establishment - one would become a philosopher, and transcend ones personal perspective, and be able to produce great clarity applicable by many.

A Cancer-Capricorn opposition would mean a bewilderment in terms of ones home and ones place in the world - unable to feel at home and to choose a career - bringing home matters to work, work to home, in excessive or inappropriate ways; the resolution might be something from a professional patriot (for example a politician or a nationalistic artist), to someone whose work relates to homes, or works at home... not so sure about this one, cancer/4th house is kind of a mystery to me.

Leo-Aquarius opposition would mean a bewilderment about self-expression and group-interest, feeling drawn to "mean something to a group" and yet insisting on doing everything ones own way, and this could be resolved in attaining a position of responsibility whereby ones ego is fed by the respect one gets from the group.

Virgo-Pisces opposition would mean... tough one... I have these signs intercepted... still on the quest to determine their meaning in my own terms. I guess, it would be a bewilderment in terms of the physical and the 'spiritual' inability to "choose a conviction", and when resolved, would result in the ability to transcend the spirit/matter duality, and fulfill ones spiritual role on earth with very real results.

These are all gross generalizations, I am trying to convey the general idea. Oppositions certainly produce an extended, 'self-transcendent' consciousness -- they are much underrated -- it is an aspect that, due to the vast terrain it forces the native to deal with (an entire axis, a whole duality, 'world'), produces a strong creative will. If you'll look at charts of strong, transformative artists, you'll very often, I'd say almost invariably find oppositions.


It's for a good part a process of testing established theory empirically. Much of what I wrote here is fairly well established (within astrology, of course - within science there is zero acceptance of the idea that it even could be valid, but since I am working empirically, I am indifferent to such dogma) but it has all passed through the filter of my own experimenting and verifying. I have been occupied with astrology very intensively for the past seven or eight years, and have, in recent years as I grew confident that it's really quite possible to gain real and useful insight in this way, done a good number of readings of peoples charts, which are without exception received as accurate, usually very accurate.

The part that makes me a good astrologer is however not simply reiterating existing theory, it is a capacity for 'live' combination and examination of elements in meditation. Since these influences do in fact work (of course I am not expecting you or anyone to take my word on it, this thread is just meant to provide information about what astrology is) it is possible for me to experience them at any given moment. The nature of my mind is such that I can hold two influences in my concentration and examine them in relation to each other with great accuracy.

There is certainly some 'beef' that I have with some existing theory, but mainly that goes for interpretations on newly found objects such as the asteroid Chiron. I have come up with a quite different interpretation than what the community has so far been able to produce, and this interpretation has been well received. I was able to look at it from a perspective that no one had thought of. Of course, as astrology is an empirical discipline (and not an abstract one) it takes numerous decades, the work of many astrologers for an influence to be understood to a good degree.

But let's for a moment address, or acknowledge the question that is no doubt on your and most peoples mind: how can astrology work? This question has not left my mind since I began to notice that it does work. I have at last, upon learning that we have EM fields within every brain cell, accepted that there must be some influence radiating from cosmic objects, that to deny that would be to deny the laws of physics, of causality. But this is not entirely satisfactory, given for example the enormous astrological influence of Pluto, which is a very small object very far from Earth.

Only recently I figured out how Pluto can have such influence. It may have to do with the irregularity of its orbit compared to that of the other planets. Where the 'ordinary' planets are very neatly organized around the sun in 'matching' orbits, symmetrical to each other, Pluto's orbit slightly destabilizes this whole system, as it has a more elliptical path. So my interpretation now is that Pluto doesn't so much work on the individual himself directly as on the state of the entire solar system, and indirectly on the individual. This would very much correspond to the theory that has been established on Pluto's influence - Pluto is seen as a 'subversive' influence, something beneath the surface, underlying other influences. Of course Pluto isn't the only object to which this would apply.

Since very recently I have been looking at the recently discovered Eris, or UB313, slightly larger than Pluto (causing Pluto to be degraded by astronomers to asteroid or dwarf-planet) which has an even more deviating orbit.

So once again - the size of Pluto and Eris do not suggest that they could be of great influence, but what apparently (and not illogically) matters is their behavior in relation to the other objects, to the system as a whole.

Then, next to the rather simple reliance on EM and gravity to explain the influences, there is another form of interpretation, which Aletheia/Capable from BTL has developed, to do with the different layers of causality, 'projection' of one layer unto the other, etc. This is far too involved and complicated for me to be able to explicate right here and now, but I should mention it to give an idea of what I am working with to explain what astrologers have been observing since the beginning of human culture.




Recently I was struck again by an interesting phenomenon that I've seen occur. It's not accepted theory as far as I've read, but it's undeniably real to me in some cases. What is the case? Look at the above chart. Moon in Sagittarius opposes Neptune in Gemini, by around 2 degrees. Well within the limit for an opposition, which might be set at 10, like a conjunction or 5-8, like a square. In any case it's tight. What happens is that the native strongly fits the usual description of a moon in Gemini placement, as well as a Neptune in Sagittarius one. Sometimes this appearance is even stronger than the characteristics corresponding to the 'real' placement. The relevance to the native of characterizations of the planet all across the Zodiac does however remains contained to the realm within the aspects of the planet in question. In other words, it does not point to there not being any real rules after all, to astrology being pure projection, which is what I still consider in all moments when I am forced to deviate from common theory. There is an actual exchange going on along the axis of influence between two planets.

The explanation is not very difficult to divine, I fear. Any aspect opens up the person to a duality. When it is a duality that is pertinent to the main energy currents of the individual life, the two forces dance around each other long deep and intimately and get familiar among each others contexts. A multi-aspected planet would be 'all over the place'.






Transits are the stuff of ongoing predictive astrology. It is what is used by governments and corporations to set dates for the launch of projects, be they wars, laws, products, liquidations or whatever. We speak of a transit when a planet moves across a significant point of a natal chart - the name natal chart here is a bit misleading as nations have such charts, as do websites like this, as does anything that 'comes into being' at a given time. The natal chart of the US is, if I am not mistaken, drawn by the moment of the signing of the declaration of independence. When Gobbo have me the date and time for the launch of this site, I was struck with how the chart corresponds precisely to what it has turned out to be so far, as well as some other correspondences. When Microsoft launches a new Windows OS or Apple a new Iphone, you can be sure the timing is carefully calculated using astrology. There's just too much to lose by not using this means, and nothing to lose by using it. As Churchill said: "If Hitler is using it, so am I". Churchill who has one of the most phenomenal natal charts I have ever seen, by the way.

I will give an example of a transit. Currently, this is the situation from the perspective of New York.



If you look at the sign that is marked in blue and looks like this "II", the sign of Gemini, you'll see that at 12 degrees, there is a grey symbol of a moon with a cross underneath. This is the symbol for Lilith, the Dark moon, which represents the mirror point of the Earth in the elliptical orbit of the moon around the Earth. It's a 'planet' (in fact a mathematical point in space) that is of a great significance that is very complicated to explain, but this is not the point right now. I just want to explain what a transit is, which is in fact very simple. Look at the chart at the top of the thread: at 11 degrees Gemini you'll find Pluto. This means that Lilith has just transited the Pluto of the person to which this chart belongs. Let's call this person "Ted". We say that "Lilith is transiting Ted's Pluto".

What happens during a transit is that the energy of the transiting planet activates the energy of the natal planet (Ted's natal Pluto) as it is ingrained in the chart. In fact a Lilith/Dark Moon - Pluto transit is a very heavy thing, as both of the two planets related heavily to what Jung calls "The Shadow" - "taboo" issues such as raw sexual magnetism and obsession. This would be an intense time for Ted, in which he would be forced to deal with issues that he would normally repress.

Naturally, transits are continuously occurring in every natal chart. Even if ones planets are concentrated in one sign, which is extremely rare and the case for no one alive now, the moon would transit this cluster every month. Moon transits are very quickly over, but they are by no means mild or insignificant. A friend of mine recently told me of a very powerful sexual experience, so I was curious about the transits occurring then. As it happened the moon, together with the ascendant, was transiting his Pluto/ascendant conjunction. Moon-Pluto accounts for a lot of deeply sexual psychology, the ascendant is a point of personal focus. The moments focus that night coincided with the natal focus, and this all coincided with a moon transit across natal Pluto.

A birthday is simply the Sun transiting the natal Sun. Slower moving planets, such as Saturn, which takes about 30 years to pass through the entire Zodiac, form transits that last longer. Saturn transiting a planet brings out the heavier necessities related to that planet, and it can bring things like financial breakthroughs or ruin as well as finding ones calling or deep crises. Saturn transiting natal Saturn is called the Saturn Return. Actually that terms is used to indicate the period from when Saturn enters the sign in which the natal Saturn is placed, until its exit. This period is set around ones 29/30/31st year. Most people will experience a deep transformation and focus or shift of purpose during this time. It is the first of a couple of deep 'crisis' moments caused by the slower moving planets. The next one, occurring around the 42nd birthday, is the Uranus Opposition, in which Uranus opposes the natal Uranus. This is the moment of midlife crisis, when one truly is forced to let go (Uranus: revolution, crisis, shock, renewal) of all old and artificial comforts and truly become self-created individual. The phrase "Life begins at 40" relates to this Uranus transit.

If you find yourself in an inexplicable crisis, a period of intense stress or oppression for which no clear reason can be found, you can be quite sure that one of the heavier planets is transiting a sensitive point in your chart.




To facilitate the analyses which anyone may want to undertake based on this information, I can offer two things - a personal reading, for which you can PM me and which I may or may not want to do depending on the urgency of the situation (I'm always glad to help out someone in need, but the work of interpreting is involved so I have to be convinced that there is a real improvement to make), and more easily, two web addresses using which you can gather the relevant information yourself.

Here is a page showing the current state of affairs over NY, this can be reconfigured to apply to any city in the world. Be sure to click on "next" twice so that the relevant city will show above the displayed chart.
Here is a link to a page where you can generate your natal chart.

These two generators are all you need to find out the current transits applying to any chart.

Odysseus ist allmählich zum schlauen Sclaven geworden (in der Komödie).

Odysseus is gradually to clever slave become (in the comedy)

Aeschylus hat den freien Faltenwurf des Gemüths aufgebracht.

Aeschylus has the free drapery of the mood angered.

Trivialität des Prozesses: außerordentlich naiver Stand des Socrates, des fanatischen Dialektikers.

Triviality of the process: extraordinarily naive position of Socrates, the fanatical Dialectics.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
04-14-2013, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 04-14-2013 10:00 AM by JSS.)  Post: #2
JSS  Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: German
American English

WTF!!
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
04-19-2013, 07:31 PM  Post: #3
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: German
Mais la, c'est tres beau. Deja, je peus m'imaginer un peu l'esprit Alemagne, pas si loin de l'esprit Spagniol traditionaliste. Comme tu disais, plus Latin que les langues Romantiques!

O como se dice en criollo, más papista que el papa.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"





Welcome back, Fixed Cross. You last visited: Yesterday, 09:40 AM (User CP — Log Out)
Open Buddy List New Posts | Today's Posts | View Unread Posts | Private Messages (Unread 0, Total 143)

/ Academic / Law / Case in Favor of Caste system

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next »
Post Reply   Thread Rating:
1 2 3 4 5
Threaded Mode | Linear Mode
Case in Favor of Caste system
03-28-2013, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 03-28-2013 10:22 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #1
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
Case in Favor of Caste system
There are two types, at least, of human affiliation. Intellectual ("spiritual") and physical (instinctual).

These realities operate throughout each other, but nevertheless, they are marked in individuals. Some individuals are simply not able to think, to 'entertain' themselves by thought. These people are a lower caste. It is not useful to deny this. Reality is regulated by man in the measure in which he admits to himself that it exists. This is easier when it comes to "objective" phenomena, things that go for all species and minerals alike, than diversity-based realities, such as "love" - the specification of will, the fabric, the manner in which it is of value.

Castes are touchstones for value, and self-value. A lower case derives its self-value from revenge, instinct, direct gratification.
A higher caste creates its self-valuing consciously, by every act it tries to increase its standard.

It is not necessary to distinguish into 4 castes. We can simply observe two, to begin with.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-28-2013, 11:39 AM  Post: #2
Q  Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
This is just classes.

Caste implies reincarnation.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-28-2013, 12:39 PM  Post: #3
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
Hmm... Two is an ok number. It's the loneliest number since the number one, and perhaps that makes it good for sowing.

In the Sawelios sense, maybe, there is a reencarnative value to this ordering.

Class implies economy, a truly specific order of vlauation (a rapist one, as Nietzsche might have called it). My distaste for Marx...

Yet I can accept the step, if Nietzsche as the Hammer, Marx as the Shoe. I honestly haven't even read much Marx. Some stuff about fetishism I really liked, but seemed oh so cold. Maybe the Earth we step on is still Hot, much too hot for comfort in barefootedness.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-28-2013, 01:01 PM  Post: #4
Q  Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
You can sum up Marx in Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-29-2013, 11:21 PM  Post: #5
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
Quote:
Class implies economy, a truly specific order of vlauation (a rapist one, as Nietzsche might have called it). My distaste for Marx...

No, class only implies standard.
Value-sociology... organize in terms of values, real ones, held ones, proper ones, existential ones. Not Marxist ones, metaphysical, moral, universal distinctions.

We communicate values. Classes are aggregates of communicating networks. They are not strictly isolated, but they are fundamentally differing.

This new soup, the egalitarian humanist world is only now becoming evident to me as a new lower class, to a new pyramid. From this great mass of people refusing to "admit color" (I dont know how to translate this poker term) eventually something must break out, upward, to form a second class, a higher one, that refuses to deal in terms of what is understood by all. A new standard, unattainable by the lower class. From our modern-primordial soup, this subdomain "land" must arise. We can't and won't all forever be swimming, with Luca Brasi, etc.

Quote:
Yet I can accept the step, if Nietzsche as the Hammer, Marx as the Shoe. I honestly haven't even read much Marx. Some stuff about fetishism I really liked, but seemed oh so cold. Maybe the Earth we step on is still Hot, much too hot for comfort in barefootedness.

Me neither. I prefer Hegel when it comes to dialectics. But I respect Marx as an extension of Hegel. And I can only read Hegel in terms of VO and WtP.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 03-30-2013 10:03 AM by Heathen.)  Post: #6
Heathen  Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
(03-28-2013 10:21 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:  
Some individuals are simply not able to think, to 'entertain' themselves by thought. These people are a lower caste
I dunno what is meant by thought here, but people who entertain themselves with thoughts seems to include a lot of mental noise wankery focused people also. And then there are those who would never open certain kinds of philosophy etc. works, but who can more directly get stuff, and don't really get into wordy wordy mind stuff. Which is not to say they are not thinking, but it's not the first way I would try to describe them. And these are definitely not lower caste. Though, certainly, over history and through many lives they sure have been treated as lower caste.

Quote:
A lower case derives its self-value from revenge, instinct, direct gratification.
A higher caste creates its self-valuing consciously, by every act it tries to increase its standard.
OK, getting a better sense here. The artistic type can definitely be included here, though why limit the way one self-defines. Why can't one have both and be better for it, rather than cutting off from one facet of being human to be 'higher'.

It's like some age old competition between chakras if you'll pardon my sanskrit, the upper ones saying only they are good.

Heart attack.
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 12:31 PM  Post: #7
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
I think the very name Natural World Order indicates that our message is a different one.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 01:36 PM  Post: #8
Q  Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
I imagine most secret societies started this way.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 01:44 PM  Post: #9
Heathen  Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
(03-30-2013 12:31 PM)pezer Wrote:  
I think the very name Natural World Order indicates that our message is a different one.
OK. I didn't know that everyone had the same system of thought here.
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 05:39 PM  Post: #10
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
You move in leaps... You risk running around the world without stepping more than a few times.

Odysseus ist allmählich zum schlauen Sclaven geworden (in der Komödie).

Odysseus is gradually to clever slave become (in the comedy)

Aeschylus hat den freien Faltenwurf des Gemüths aufgebracht.

Aeschylus has the free drapery of the mood angered.

Trivialität des Prozesses: außerordentlich naiver Stand des Socrates, des fanatischen Dialektikers.

Triviality of the process: extraordinarily naive position of Socrates, the fanatical Dialectics.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-14-2013, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 04-14-2013 10:00 AM by JSS.) Post: #2
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: German
American English

WTF!!
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-19-2013, 07:31 PM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: German
Mais la, c'est tres beau. Deja, je peus m'imaginer un peu l'esprit Alemagne, pas si loin de l'esprit Spagniol traditionaliste. Comme tu disais, plus Latin que les langues Romantiques!

O como se dice en criollo, más papista que el papa.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"





Welcome back, Fixed Cross. You last visited: Yesterday, 09:40 AM (User CP — Log Out)
Open Buddy List New Posts | Today's Posts | View Unread Posts | Private Messages (Unread 0, Total 143)

/ Academic / Law / Case in Favor of Caste system

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next »
Post Reply Thread Rating:
1 2 3 4 5
Threaded Mode | Linear Mode
Case in Favor of Caste system
03-28-2013, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 03-28-2013 10:22 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #1
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
Case in Favor of Caste system
There are two types, at least, of human affiliation. Intellectual ("spiritual") and physical (instinctual).

These realities operate throughout each other, but nevertheless, they are marked in individuals. Some individuals are simply not able to think, to 'entertain' themselves by thought. These people are a lower caste. It is not useful to deny this. Reality is regulated by man in the measure in which he admits to himself that it exists. This is easier when it comes to "objective" phenomena, things that go for all species and minerals alike, than diversity-based realities, such as "love" - the specification of will, the fabric, the manner in which it is of value.

Castes are touchstones for value, and self-value. A lower case derives its self-value from revenge, instinct, direct gratification.
A higher caste creates its self-valuing consciously, by every act it tries to increase its standard.

It is not necessary to distinguish into 4 castes. We can simply observe two, to begin with.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-28-2013, 11:39 AM Post: #2
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
This is just classes.

Caste implies reincarnation.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-28-2013, 12:39 PM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
Hmm... Two is an ok number. It's the loneliest number since the number one, and perhaps that makes it good for sowing.

In the Sawelios sense, maybe, there is a reencarnative value to this ordering.

Class implies economy, a truly specific order of vlauation (a rapist one, as Nietzsche might have called it). My distaste for Marx...

Yet I can accept the step, if Nietzsche as the Hammer, Marx as the Shoe. I honestly haven't even read much Marx. Some stuff about fetishism I really liked, but seemed oh so cold. Maybe the Earth we step on is still Hot, much too hot for comfort in barefootedness.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-28-2013, 01:01 PM Post: #4
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
You can sum up Marx in Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-29-2013, 11:21 PM Post: #5
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
Quote:
Class implies economy, a truly specific order of vlauation (a rapist one, as Nietzsche might have called it). My distaste for Marx...

No, class only implies standard.
Value-sociology... organize in terms of values, real ones, held ones, proper ones, existential ones. Not Marxist ones, metaphysical, moral, universal distinctions.

We communicate values. Classes are aggregates of communicating networks. They are not strictly isolated, but they are fundamentally differing.

This new soup, the egalitarian humanist world is only now becoming evident to me as a new lower class, to a new pyramid. From this great mass of people refusing to "admit color" (I dont know how to translate this poker term) eventually something must break out, upward, to form a second class, a higher one, that refuses to deal in terms of what is understood by all. A new standard, unattainable by the lower class. From our modern-primordial soup, this subdomain "land" must arise. We can't and won't all forever be swimming, with Luca Brasi, etc.

Quote:
Yet I can accept the step, if Nietzsche as the Hammer, Marx as the Shoe. I honestly haven't even read much Marx. Some stuff about fetishism I really liked, but seemed oh so cold. Maybe the Earth we step on is still Hot, much too hot for comfort in barefootedness.

Me neither. I prefer Hegel when it comes to dialectics. But I respect Marx as an extension of Hegel. And I can only read Hegel in terms of VO and WtP.
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 03-30-2013 10:03 AM by Heathen.) Post: #6
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
(03-28-2013 10:21 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Some individuals are simply not able to think, to 'entertain' themselves by thought. These people are a lower caste
I dunno what is meant by thought here, but people who entertain themselves with thoughts seems to include a lot of mental noise wankery focused people also. And then there are those who would never open certain kinds of philosophy etc. works, but who can more directly get stuff, and don't really get into wordy wordy mind stuff. Which is not to say they are not thinking, but it's not the first way I would try to describe them. And these are definitely not lower caste. Though, certainly, over history and through many lives they sure have been treated as lower caste.

Quote:
A lower case derives its self-value from revenge, instinct, direct gratification.
A higher caste creates its self-valuing consciously, by every act it tries to increase its standard.
OK, getting a better sense here. The artistic type can definitely be included here, though why limit the way one self-defines. Why can't one have both and be better for it, rather than cutting off from one facet of being human to be 'higher'.

It's like some age old competition between chakras if you'll pardon my sanskrit, the upper ones saying only they are good.

Heart attack.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 12:31 PM Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
I think the very name Natural World Order indicates that our message is a different one.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 01:36 PM Post: #8
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
I imagine most secret societies started this way.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 01:44 PM Post: #9
Heathen Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
(03-30-2013 12:31 PM)pezer Wrote:
I think the very name Natural World Order indicates that our message is a different one.
OK. I didn't know that everyone had the same system of thought here.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
03-30-2013, 05:39 PM Post: #10
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
You move in leaps... You risk running around the world without stepping more than a few times.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator

« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next »

Post Reply

[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Signature
Disable Smilies


View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this thread
Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: Fixed Cross*


Contact Us | Natural World Order | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2013 MyBB Group.

RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
(03-30-2013 09:59 AM)Heathen Wrote:  
Quote:
A lower case derives its self-value from revenge, instinct, direct gratification.
A higher caste creates its self-valuing consciously, by every act it tries to increase its standard.
OK, getting a better sense here. The artistic type can definitely be included here, though why limit the way one self-defines. Why can't one have both and be better for it, rather than cutting off from one facet of being human to be 'higher'.

It's like some age old competition between chakras if you'll pardon my sanskrit, the upper ones saying only they are good.

Heart attack.

No one says anything about the lower ones being "not good" - they're just low. The lower chakra's aren't as high as the higher chakra's. Still they are equally required, they need to do the physical work, be the instincts.

Our modern problem then would seem to be the elevation of the lower chakra's to the realm of the higher ones, and since that is really impossible as there simply isn't the capacity for creative thought in the gut, the debasing of the higher ones into the realm of the lower ones.

Right now, everything is measured in terms of the lower chakra's / castes. And there it comes again - relativism, is the moral thoughtmodel that justifies/enables this.

The beauty of the chakra system is that it has an ascending order. All is required, and sure, all stand relative to each other, but that does not mean that there isn't a hierarchy. The relativity is due to the hierarchical ordering. If there weren't that difference, there would be no relation. Most western spiritualism focuses now on the re integration of the lower instincts into the moral mind. That is all good and well and required when one has repressed them, but in order to integrate them, they have to be refined. They have to be "translated" into the higher mind.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 12:12 AM  Post: #12
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
Hell, the higher mind itself needs to prepare itself.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 08:55 AM  Post: #13
Heathen  Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
(03-30-2013 09:29 PM)Fixed Cross Wrote:  
Our modern problem then would seem to be the elevation of the lower chakra's to the realm of the higher ones, and since that is really impossible as there simply isn't the capacity for creative thought in the gut, the debasing of the higher ones into the realm of the lower ones.
I do see that pattern in many subcultures, absolutely. Though after a few thousand years of saying the lower chakras were evil - via judgments of bodies passion anger emotions in general, sex, intensity, desire.....-there was bound to be an overbalancing. And yet still these judgments are out there also. There is a neo-freedom. A consumerist, passive wanking the lower chakras in privacy or in mobs. Fashionable lower chakra expression.

Try actually expressing the lower chakras in an individual way, with lower chakra insights into what is actually going on, and you will see how strong the judgments about the lower chakras still are out there, even in the groups that seem to worship them.

Then you have all the ratinalist, academic, philosophical, science groupie utter hatred of the lower chakras except for their own righteous wrath at the 'irrational' people they do not quite understand but something sets off their rage and urge to smite like some old pagan diety.

To me I see upper chakra thoughts masquerading as freed up lower chakras. It's mostly ideas of freedom, ideas of 'release' and cooltoexpress.

Then the mass of the power structure is very cool, upper chakra, really rather quite BLUE pulling the strings, stimulating and distracting and working the fundamentalists up into frenzies also. It is a BLUE society conquering the West and everyting will be the WEST soon enough in any way that matters.


Quote:
Right now, everything is measured in terms of the lower chakra's / castes. And there it comes again - relativism, is the moral thoughtmodel that justifies/enables this.
Relativism is an upper chakra creation. Not that you are saying it isn't.

Quote:
The beauty of the chakra system is that it has an ascending order. All is required, and sure, all stand relative to each other, but that does not mean that there isn't a hierarchy. The relativity is due to the hierarchical ordering. If there weren't that difference, there would be no relation. Most western spiritualism focuses now on the re integration of the lower instincts into the moral mind. That is all good and well and required when one has repressed them, but in order to integrate them, they have to be refined. They have to be "translated" into the higher mind.
I would say quite the opposite. The mind needs to [gently at first] release its grip on everything. Blue control and habitual insight, seeing what it believes and punishing what it thinks it does not like before it understands it. After thousands of years of being raped in the dark by priests and nobles and soldiers, and then in the light being told they were the root of evil and creators of darkness
the lower chakras don't need to be refined, they need to be rescued and given some water, a sandwich and time to breathe and relax. And because this entails the mind actually releasing, for a time - though the mind thinks it will be forever - the mind thinks it will go insane, become a mass murderer, never have that precious handle it thinks it has on reality.
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 08:58 AM  Post: #14
Heathen  Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
(03-30-2013 05:39 PM)pezer Wrote:  
You move in leaps... You risk running around the world without stepping more than a few times.
There are always risks. Don't know if you meant 'one' or me in particular. I see a lot of leaping here, even in assessment.
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 11:04 AM  Post: #15
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
Just that to say that the name Natural World Order says something new about power structures is saying something. It's almost a raw element, not reducible, certainly, to adherence and non-adherence.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 11:15 AM  Post: #16
Heathen  Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
(03-31-2013 11:04 AM)pezer Wrote:  
Just that to say that the name Natural World Order says something new about power structures is saying something. It's almost a raw element, not reducible, certainly, to adherence and non-adherence.
Sure, but we have seen new power structures, even ones based on some good knowledge about what was problematic in the older ones, do some fairly anti-life stuff. So just because the forum is populated by people that feel some alignment with a very abstract ideal does not mean there are no seeds of problems in their conceptions.
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
03-31-2013, 11:28 AM  Post: #17
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
I feel no responsibility for the actions of those I don't feel I can challenge to a duel to the death.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
04-12-2013, 09:21 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 09:25 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #18
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
(03-31-2013 08:55 AM)Heathen Wrote:  
I do see that pattern in many subcultures, absolutely. Though after a few thousand years of saying the lower chakras were evil - via judgments of bodies passion anger emotions in general, sex, intensity, desire.....-there was bound to be an overbalancing. And yet still these judgments are out there also. There is a neo-freedom. A consumerist, passive wanking the lower chakras in privacy or in mobs. Fashionable lower chakra expression.

It's coming, but slowly. The instincts are always going to rule but they will only do so within the law if the law is great enough, vast enough in spirit.

For this, the instincts have to teach.
For this, they have to speak the language of the mind.
Adepthood means to trust the instincts as logos, knowing that they are not------- without the trumst. Much like love, but with the true elevation of latent genetic potential into actual 'will',- consciousness, 'power' - self-valuing - meaning-vortexing.

Quote:
Try actually expressing the lower chakras in an individual way, with lower chakra insights into what is actually going on, and you will see how strong the judgments about the lower chakras still are out there, even in the groups that seem to worship them.

Have you experienced stronger encounters with intolerance of your nature within or without yourself?

Quote:
Then you have all the ratinalist, academic, philosophical, science groupie utter hatred of the lower chakras except for their own righteous wrath at the 'irrational' people they do not quite understand but something sets off their rage and urge to smite like some old pagan diety.

In all people the lower chakra's rule, except in those who have mastered them. Those who deny them the rule is lawless - outside and without the law given by the higher chakra's. Unseen by the subject. He is a slave and needs hypocrisy and it's nephew - cruel and degenerating humor - to take control of his mind when he is doing what he does.

Quote:
To me I see upper chakra thoughts masquerading as freed up lower chakras. It's mostly ideas of freedom, ideas of 'release' and cooltoexpress.

Anyone who can manage to integrate the first chakra's in any way that is legitimate to him by the release of force into meaning, is due respect from me. It proves a deliberate effort to advance in gratitude of a challenge.

Then the path only begins.
All adepts are noble in their courage and 'sacrifice'.
They only know the law of bounty.

Quote:
Then the mass of the power structure is very cool, upper chakra, really rather quite BLUE pulling the strings, stimulating and distracting and working the fundamentalists up into frenzies also. It is a BLUE society conquering the West and everyting will be the WEST soon enough in any way that matters.

Nothing is set in stone. Especially not power.

Quote:
Quote:
Right now, everything is measured in terms of the lower chakra's / castes. And there it comes again - relativism, is the moral thoughtmodel that justifies/enables this.
Relativism is an upper chakra creation. Not that you are saying it isn't.

As a doctrine, yes, indeed all doctrines are.
But I give some credit to the idea that it is also out of a lack of upper chakra truth - a river run dry so to speak - and a last plan of saving what was still left, but would soon die if circumstances would continue to be demanding.
It's our Socrates - the ugly truths (all is equal in de end once you reduce it to the common denominator) - are to be preferred over the hard truths (difference, rank, 'oppression').

So yes - the hard truths are lower chakra. "Earth" - it demands a sacrifice of some 'self evident truths' to be true to it.

Quote:
The mind needs to [gently at first] release its grip on everything. Blue control and habitual insight, seeing what it believes and punishing what it thinks it does not like before it understands it. After thousands of years of being raped in the dark by priests and nobles and soldiers, and then in the light being told they were the root of evil and creators of darkness
the lower chakras don't need to be refined, they need to be rescued and given some water, a sandwich and time to breathe and relax. And because this entails the mind actually releasing, for a time - though the mind thinks it will be forever - the mind thinks it will go insane, become a mass murderer, never have that precious handle it thinks it has on reality.

No, the mind is also just an instincts. It simply needs to shed errors, and learn to see itself as the layer of self-valuing (Value Ontology does help here, precisely here, where 'matter as conscious' becomes the jynx factor) that is equal in mechanism to the atomic dynamisms of his reality - there is no essential difference between how the lower and the higher work. The higher can simply not live without the lower, but is far from evolved enough to truly compete with the lower. All its forms of dominance are only interpretation - a haphazard attempt to grasp what is going on in order to deal with the much larger problem: the infant "mind".

In so far as philosophy offers a post-Christian response to its mother-phenomenon, only few things have impressed me. One of those things is Parodites' "Daemonic" consciousness.

Parodites Wrote:
For the Greeks, the self or "the soul," and all that belongs to it, including freedom, happiness, power, consists in the temporary, that is, daemonic stabilization of the mortal and divine aspects of the self achieved through artist creation and philosophic reflection: under the banner of the Judaica and of the Christians it consisted in the disavowal of the mortal aspect of the self, a capacity founded on the reinterpreted excess as an abyssal lack, the nothingness before God, a God in whose image this nothingness was satiated. The Cartesian cogito, as the vacant substratum underlying consciousness, is a modern expression of this inner lack, a Christianization of philosophy. To really understand the extent to which philosophy has been Christianized it is perhaps necessary to unite my drive-psychology and conception of the daemonic. To take what I have already said about the historical development of the self, one must admit that the "Parnasus Ad Gradum" which leads from the primitive self to the Greek self, psuche pasa, as that immortal soul which could not bear the wastes of eternity without the sensuality and beauty of a physical incarnation, which it must after all take with it into the world beyond, to the political self of Aristotle, to that self of the Augustianian confessions, is both a long and a frightening one. Originating as a way in which to correct the disintegration of man's originary nature, something that can apprehend the variances in drive and emotion, between internal states, that can comprehend them and itself as something enduring throughout them had to be produced. Two inner states were reified in an abstraction in which their discontiguity, their variance, their difference, could be comprehended. This is the beginning of the spiritualization of man and world, and the development of the "self." Those abstractions in which man grasped the transformations and difference between his emotional states, granted him more and more consciousness of his "selfhood." Self-consciousness here is seen, not as a thin growth upon the deeper subconscious, but as an instrument that is submerged in the subconscious for the purpose of its subordination and organization. Contrast is the basis of our consciousness. There is no consciousness without the separation of mental phenomena and sense impression into opposition, oppositions which must be reified in some abstraction that makes us conscious of the variance between two inner states, a condition which, grasped psycho-existentially, I call the daemonic. The derivation of self-consciousness would have been psychologically painful at first because all the drives responsible for the survival of man, as the most fundamental and apparent, had to serve as the first to be placed in opposition to one another. Death rituals that celebrated life, mass suicides, cannibalism, death orgies, pain festivals. All of this was necessary. It formed the first social connections beyond hunter-gathers, ie. religious connections, as well as helped develop self-consciousness. The failed abstractions, the values that proved suicidal or ended up leading to death, obviously we don't know of. The failed cultures to which they belonged never lived long enough to write their own history books. But there is an extensive history which we have no knowledge of which details such failed cultures, the forgotten madness of our species, and much self-imposed torture. Only the "sanest" values and value-creators survived, all the history and culture we know is of them. The values and moral philosophies of this survivor culture are no more credible though, they just didn't end up killing us. Well, they didn't end up killing all of us. One only needs to think of human sacrifice, self-torture, cannibalism, death worship, all common in the earliest human societies. Why is this destructive "disorganizing force," the reifying abstractions belonging to the "daemonic," preservative of the human species, when in fact it arose to correct the disorganization of man's drives effected by his enhanced reasoning capacity? It is a greater impetus to life, it is "stronger" than the half-slumbering active consciousness achieved by re-harmonizing the drives through "thinking." It provides a greater way of cohering a social order. When man made the switch from small hunter-gatherer tribes to larger communities, it found its best soil. To speak archetypally, we have one group that grasps contrary emotional states in an abstraction, through discontinguous states of consciousness, so that the intellect operates separately from the emotional organism, the egoic consciousness wholly circumscribed by the intellectualization and narcotized as it were. Everything is morally good which provides this respite, anything that reawakens emotional and sensual life (which must be highly painful, granted the contrary passions) is bad, like sexual desire. Another group, who achieve mental integration, are not hurt by the same things that awaken for the former the drives, because their drives do not exist in such destructive configurations. But these two classes of people do not war, they integrate, socially, over time. Those who emerged from the passions and the drives without any injury, as the drive for sex, become early priests, the administrators of the Gods, and teach others how to tolerate these drives through things like sex rituals, as was practiced at the temples of Athena. The reification of the variances between inner states in abstractions (the daemonic) and the active integration of compatible drives by means of the coordination of these abstractions, (dialectically, meontologically, poetically, or ultimately empirically and transcendentally, to use my terminology) that is, "thought," as two tendencies or psychological strategies, noia and dianoia to distinguish with the Greeks, operate together, producing the model of the modern human being, in whom was portended their dissolution into the Greek and Christian man, in whom was portended the dissolution of the integrity of transcendental and empirical modes of reasoning. Nihilism was the devaluation of one mode of reasoning by the other, while the seemingly irreparable division of the two doesn't yet have a name. Philosophy continues to exist only because the germ of its destruction is radiated immanently from within itself. - P
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
04-12-2013, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 01:43 PM by Heathen.)  Post: #19
Heathen  Offline
Probationer
Posts: 64
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
(04-12-2013 09:21 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:  
Have you experienced stronger encounters with intolerance of your nature within or without yourself?
Much less of both, since I know how to navigate the outer much better and when to express myself to 'them' and when not to. But the two are intimately tied to each other.



Quote:
In all people the lower chakra's rule, except in those who have mastered them.
Not at all. They are primarily run on ideologies, which I like clots in the upper chakras that think they are so smart and in the know. Even the hedonsims out their are run by thought programs in Blue (throat) or religious programming (Purple). Most of those who 'satify' themselves, have concepts of this from fixed ideas in those colors and then guilt and shame also coming downstream from the upper chakras. WE have thousands of years of upper chakra domination. Domination based on perverse versions of those chakras, but they have always been in the power positions in civilization, and even in more pagan/indigenous societies, though less so.
Quote:
Nothing is set in stone. Especially not power.
I agree, just noticing the way things have been.

Quote:
No, the mind is also just an instincts.[quote]I would call it habits, but that's not too far off.


I'll have to mull over the parodites...

A short response....
Quote:
"For it is only criminals who presume to damage other people nowadays without the aid of philosophy."
Robert Musil,
The Man Without Qualities
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
04-14-2013, 02:46 AM (This post was last modified: 04-14-2013 02:51 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #20
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
" I'll have to mull over the parodites... "
His mind is like a Heathen God. Dense clouds of dark meaning, culminating in instants of enlightenment. Of course this second relies on the conducting power of the reader, who must be ground to his own illumination.

Somewhere on BTL there is a post about the emerging the reason as a cataclysmic event annihilating all previous relations between the drives. It revolutionized my conception of the evolution from instinct to mind. I have been trying to locate it but wasn't successful. But the idea can be found throughout his texts.



Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Case in Favor of Caste system
These separations, Fixed Cross, are likely to be a product of the artificiality of thought itself, or rather the historical expression of the artificiality of thought itself.

We make up because we make up, and the makers up end up on the beautiful minds of such as Heathen, pinning them down and stapling them to the proper historical power developments.
Science is found in the question

unmaksed??????/
https://www.facebook.com/yeold.gobbo?fref=ts
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-06-2013, 03:24 PM Post: #2
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: unmaksed??????/
Lol...no.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-06-2013, 03:29 PM Post: #3
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: unmaksed??????/
lol






Good sites
Einstein said always hide your sources... but I figure among friends we may skip that rule. Perhaps a big mistake. Anyway - the reason to start this thread was something I found yesterday. I'm not going to make explicit why this site is already invaluable to me but, I recommend a calculated guess.

http://biznik.com/





What is ethical about this ape?




pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Ethical Ape
He sticks to bananas, tried and true. I guess, then, I'm agreeing with Kierkegaard: repetition.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
05-25-2013, 01:39 AM (This post was last modified: 05-25-2013 01:40 AM by ChainOfBeing.) Post: #3
ChainOfBeing Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Ethical Ape
He is ethical in the sense that he possesses something with which to suspend and pass judgment upon/elevate himself above what was formerly the merely lesser animal nature of immediately satisfied drive-causality.

What is ethical is so with respect to "past", to that for which the ethical itself acts as an over-growth and extra-dimensionalized law. This is precisely why the ethical, contrary to its condition, must always aim at "the future", at that which it is not (yet).
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

I started writing a screenplay, just to be writing, practice. Since I'm not a native english speaker I will need help with the dialogue. I'd be interested to learn where you /any of you natives find the speech unnatural, and how you'd say it instead. Feel free to tear it to shreds. I must learn.

I'm pretty good at writing dialogue in Dutch, but no one is ever going to watch a Dutch movie. This is my predicament.

Code:

              INT. OFFICE HALLWAY - DAY

               A cleaning cart rolls through shiny corridors at a quick
               pace. Suddenly it takes a turn and enters a doorway, and
               another. Then it arrives at a closed door. A hand goes to the
               knob and pulls it down. The doors open. Two startled faces
               look towards the camera, one blond, in his late 30's, MIKE,
               and another brown haired, over 60 years old, PETROWSKI, who
               is of Russian descent but has been living in the US for
               decades.  

                                   PETROWSKI
                         Hey! What the hell man?

               We now see the person who was pushing the cart. It is a man
               of Semite origin: MOSHE.

                                   MOSHE
                             (very quickly)
                         I am sorry sirs I must clean.
                         Please, step aside for moment. I
                         need to get under desk. No
                         inconvenience for you at all, I
                         make very very quick. Please sir, I
                         must make.

               Petrowski looks at Mike, bewildered.

                                   MIKE
                         You gotta admire a sense of duty.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         Is this some kind of joke?

              Looks around the room.

                                   PETROWSKI (CONT'D)
                         Why am I here?

              Mike laughs thinly and waves to Moshe.

                                  MIKE
                        It's okay boss. We'll be done here
                         in a minute and you can get under
                         the desk.

                                  MOSHE
                         Yes but boss...

                                   MIKE
                         Who's the boss, Moshe!

                                   MOSHE
                         I am boss, sir!

                                   MIKE
                         That's right. Here's a working man
                         for you Petrowski. Here's what it's
                         all about.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         What's what about?

                                  MIKE
                         America. Freedom of choice. Working
                         hard. Making a difference.

              Petrowski is taken aback. Moshe begins to move back to the
               door.

                                  PETROWSKI
                         I respect that, Mike. That's why I
                         come to you with this info...

                                   MIKE
                             (interrupting)
                         Yes indeed, damn fine coffee. I
                         will tell the wife to think about
                         it. She's awful set in her ways
                         however so...

               The door shuts.

                                   MIKE (CONT'D)
                         Slick, Petrowski. Do they teach you
                         that in Russia?

                                  PETROWSKI
                         What?

                                   MIKE
                         Talking to the cleaners about state
                         business.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         What? You were talking to him about
                         the constitution for Christssakes!

               Mike sighs. He gets up and fetches a thermos of coffee.

                                  MIKE
                         We've got a long way to go.
                         Ideology, Petrowski, is what you
                         put into a mans head. Information
                         is what you try to keep out of his
                         head.

              Petrowski is getting angry.

                                  PETROWSKI
                         Okay Mike. You got it all figured
                         out. In the meantime we're being
                         spied.

                                   MIKE
                         Don't get paranoid on me Petrowski.
                         Tell me the beginning. How old were
                         you when this happened?

              But Petrowski isn't finished yet, he feels humiliated.

                                   PETROWSKI
                             (pointing to the door)
                         Are these actually soundproof?

                                   MIKE
                         Don't worry.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         Okay, Mike. I'm, not worried. Some
                         Arab guy is able to just walk in
                         here with his cart which for all I
                         know carries a camera or a bomb and
                         nothing stands in his way.

                                  MIKE
                         You're not a target. You're not a
                         priority. That's why we're in this
                         room. It's not secure.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         I'm not what? I come to you with
                         information on...

               Looks around him suspiciously

                                   PETROWSKI (CONT'D)
                         I come to you with information and
                         I'm not a priority? For what should
                         I be a target?

                                   MIKE
                         You're not.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         Yeah I got that. But for what am I
                         not a target?

                                   MIKE
                         Can we get back to the information?

                                   PETROWSKI
                         Why? It's not a priority is it?

                                   MIKE
                         It's pertinent.

               Petrowski stares at Mike blankly. He suddenly laughs.

                                  PETROWSKI
                         Yeah Mike. Okay Mike. Let's get
                         back to the info. I'm not worried.

                                  MIKE
                         Okay then. How old were you when
                         this happened?

                                   PETROWSKI
                         I was four.

                                   MIKE
                         So this was...

                                   PETROWSKI
                         Nineteen fifty two.

                                   MIKE
                         So now you're here, sixty years
                         later, about to retire. And you
                         come to me with a story.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         It's a true story.

                                   MIKE
                         It's a strange story. But then
                         again, you are Russian. It'd be
                         strange if it wasn't... strange.

               Petrowski grimaces.

                                  PETROWSKI
                             (sarcastic)
                         How well you know us.

                                   MIKE
                         So you were having breakfast with
                         the family, and a general came to
                         take your dad away.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         Yes.

                                   MIKE
                         And your father didn't come back
                         for a year and a half.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         That's right. And when he did he
                         was deformed. I mean mentally. They
                         had been screwing with his head.

                                   MIKE
                         But he was able to pass on this
                        information to you.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         Eventually. Years later.

                                   MIKE
                         Why?

                                   PETROWSKI
                         Why what?

                                   MIKE
                         Why did he come forward?

                                   PETROWSKI
                         I guess he'd been afraid.

                                   MIKE
                         I don't know Petrowski. It's a
                         strange story.

               Petrowski opens the door again and looks outside. The hallway
               is empty. He closes it again. He turns to Mike.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         I didn't tell you the whole story.

                                   MIKE
                             (ironically)
                         You didn't?

               Petrowski slowly sits down

                                   PETROWSKI
                         The general who came to our house,
                         well that was not actually a
                         general.

                                  MIKE
                             (irritated)
                         Right.

               He looks at his watch.

                                   PETROWSKI
                         He did however have a large
                         mustache.

                                   MIKE
                         Facial hair, huh? In Russia of all
                         places. Impressive.

               Petrowski looks at Mike, penetratingly, waiting.

                                  MIKE (CONT'D)
                         Your story is finished? This is it?
                         A man with a mustache came to take
                         your dad away to fry his brain?

               Petrowski shakes his head, almost without moving it. He keeps
               staring at Mike intently. Mikes face suddenly shows an
               expression.

                                  MIKE (CONT'D)
                         A man with a mustache, huh.

RE: Help me fix this dialogue
I thought it flowed fairly well. The Russian jokes didn't work. Also, the intro was the hardest part to get. Once the guy with the food left, it was easier.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I'm full up?
Send this user an email  Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-13-2013, 03:22 PM  Post: #3
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
Does it make you want to read on?
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-13-2013, 09:09 PM  Post: #4
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
I can imagine some of the dialogue having more properly English rythms, but it's nothing that couldn't be worked out easily on set with the actors.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-13-2013, 09:12 PM  Post: #5
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
Goddamn, man, I like this shit.
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-14-2013, 01:46 AM  Post: #6
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
Really? Awesome.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-14-2013, 08:29 AM (This post was last modified: 05-14-2013 08:30 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #7
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
Please point me to some stuff that isn't flowing Anglosaxonically.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-14-2013, 10:54 AM  Post: #8
ChainOfBeing  Offline
Probationer
Posts: 178
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 4
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
I want to read more. Please post.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-18-2013, 08:37 AM (This post was last modified: 05-19-2013 11:08 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #9
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
Yeah that wasn't very opaque. It's kind of a lapse-problem that I keep having.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-20-2013, 09:01 AM  Post: #10
JSS  Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Help me fix this dialogue

JSS wrote:

Excellent realism.

The only tiny thing with the wording that disrupted my flow was Mike speaking in this manner;
"She's awful set in her ways
                        however so..."

Mike, being a "Mike", would more realistically speak thusly;
"She's awfully set in her ways
                        however so...

..unless he is supposed to be a hick.

But actually a great start.

My dad has this friend he called 'Jack'...."

..could be interesting.. Wink
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-26-2013, 02:38 AM (This post was last modified: 05-26-2013 02:41 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #14
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
That's a very good idea actually, very funny and 'narratable'. Jack would need a Russian name... Boris?
I would need some specifics of how a Jack could be built (or conceived) with the materials (or knowledge) available in the early computer-age, right after Von Neumann and Turing... in any case preferably before '53... is this possible at all?
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-26-2013, 05:52 AM (This post was last modified: 05-26-2013 06:22 AM by JSS.)  Post: #15
JSS  Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
(05-26-2013 02:38 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:  
That's a very good idea actually, very funny and 'narratable'. Jack would need a Russian name... Boris?
I would need some specifics of how a Jack could be built (or conceived) with the materials (or knowledge) available in the early computer-age, right after Von Neumann and Turing... in any case preferably before '53... is this possible at all?

Actually "Micheal" would be very fitting, pronounced "Mic-ah-eel". Realize that his dad's friend was an unusual character, not a native to the culture.

And that question leads to some very deep and interesting things. Jack could actually have been produced thousands of years ago, merely using people rather than a computer. And in fact, such an effort is what created all of the religions and political governing types.

The only relevant things that have changed in computers since '53 are;
1) size
2) memory
3) complexity
4) energy
5) expense

Each of those must be either compensated for or hidden for sake of the story line.

Size; perhaps a large basement.
Complexity; isn't an issue. His dad was a very complex person.
Energy; he had batteries that he recharged with lightening rods and wind generators.
Expense; perhaps he inherited money from a Czar remote relative.
Memory; this is the interesting part...

The only real difference between the digital world and the analog world involves memory. A digit is a quantized, anentropic bit of information. The universe is actually analog, not digital. But Man needs things to be quantized or objectized so as to be able to mentally work with them.

My theory back in the 70's was that the future of computers is actually analog but Man has to go through a long digital phase in order to figure out what he wanted to do with the analog universe. Analog computation is much faster and more precise. But information storage and handling in the analog world is seriously tough. You are living through a temporary technological phase that leads to RM. Classic physicists were on the right track, merely overcome by practical issues which led to digitizing, sizing, and financial issues which led to commercialism of technology. And eventually leads to the replacement of the homosapian and all of his cultures... his dad's dilemma (you really should watch the Terminator series and realize that it is more real than you think.. in motion pictures, "traveling into/out of the future" merely means "looking into the future and/or projecting backwards from the futures perspective").

Analog information is easily corrupted and nearly impossible to preserve except as either quantized bits, binary, "memory cells", or dynamic sequences, "bubble memory". A motion picture film is a combination of both of those, a sequence of quantized frames.

Jack is actually using the digital world to recreate an analog world, which makes it very slow. That first pic that I showed a few days ago was formed by displaying 3,000,000 objects. That is one reason that typical animators couldn't handle it. But in doing that, Jack had to tell each object when to add what value to which other object and in what proportion. In the analog world, such addition is very difficult to prevent from happening automatically and instantly.

So in a sense, some aspects would have been easier in '53 than now. And when a particle formed, it would be a physically real particle, not merely a metaparticle formed of digitized and summed values (although both are actually real). And then as such, its anentropic nature would also be automatic, thus not needing artificial memory nor the time it takes to analyze the thousands of objects within it that make it up. The problem would be storing the information and communicating the images without recreating it from scratch.

Back in the '53 era, to see electric fields, one would use a electroscopes and cathode ray tubes rather than a flatscreen. Seeing the effects is paramount to the project. I suspect that he would gain an interest in the motion picture industry simply for that purpose.

And realize that Jack doesn't use conventional computer methods... except when having to deal with conventional computers. Wink
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-26-2013, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 05-26-2013 07:22 AM by JSS.)  Post: #16
JSS  Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
Or if you really want to tap into the new age culture;
Petrowski thought that when his dad was talking about Michael being an alien from a different time, he thought that he was talking about a space alien. He later discovered (perhaps later revealed in the story) that he was merely referring to someone alien to humanity coming from a future perspective/paradigm/dimension... and the "he" wasn't exactly a "he" in the conventional sense.

And the magic involved would be that, although totally naive to the world of Man, if given the exactly properly reported situation, whatever Michael images coming from that situation is always exactly accurate down to the most minute detail... hence the "importance of the information" involved.
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-26-2013, 07:38 AM  Post: #17
pezer  Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
I will be back to give you some ruthless tips, I havent had the chance to sit down and concentrate on art. Hopefully I'll run into weed soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jytxkJUM_7U
Science is found in the question "how do you know?"
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-29-2013, 09:01 AM (This post was last modified: 05-29-2013 09:03 AM by Fixed Cross.)  Post: #18
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
James, excellent input. Mikhail is actually not that un-Russian - Mikhail Gorbatchev.... It's a good name, the angelic association. I like the sound of it.

It would be very interesting to use some of the results you've had with Jack, maybe have these be the documents Petrowski has in his briefcase... Photogenetic images of whatever electrical process he had going. Then the mission could be to reconstruct these images with the information Petrowski can remember. It may be good to have Petrowski be quite simple, remembering things his dad taught him, but not in the right way, and a staff of the agency to try to decipher what was actually going on.

Perhaps Chruchev, who exposed the reality of Stalin, also put a stop to the program because it was 'too natural - to beast-like' or something. Considering here of course the 'taste' of a totalitarian organization - for them reality represents a beast. In this sense Jack, Mikhail, could be the object of desire for the audience. They want to 'learn what Michael is'.
Send this user a private message  Visit this user's website  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Edit this post  Delete this post  Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-29-2013, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 05-29-2013 10:23 AM by JSS.)  Post: #19
JSS  Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
Mikhail was an expert at behavioral science and all affects upon affects.
Once asked, Mikhail imagined the incontrovertible soon dissolution of the USSR.
..the rise of a global empire..
..and its inevitable fall..


And in order to work out the details, he had to get more information concerning the present condition. In that process, he had to explain a little of why he wanted to know. The word got to the State that he was spreading rumors of the USSR having a weakness... naughty, naughty heretic prophet.
Send this user a private message  Find all posts by this user  Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply  Quote this post  Report this post to a moderator
05-31-2013, 08:56 AM  Post: #20
Fixed Cross  Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
Excellent.


Q  Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Help me fix this dialogue
This would be cool f you reversed the dynamic at the end.

So Peteowski actually 'interviewing' the other dude by acting kind of cliche, but then he reveals later on that he is looking for a quality investigator.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping





http://filmschoolthrucommentaries.wordpress.com/

Lol I need a cap that big
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?