Ontology

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 it often said in a Nietzschean context that ontology, 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.

Very good. Bataille might be useful on this point. Any system will produce its own excess; the pent-up energy must be spent. He locates such "spending" in historical phenomena like human sacrifice and seemingly trivial commonplaces like the sexual act. So much energy is squanderd in the sexual act; one must be abundant, overflowing beforehand. Such spending, I think, is the task of the artist: as sublimation. Of course, the obscene underbelly of every sublimation is a repression. And so the question must become: what is it that is being repressed in a spending of excess? Of course, Bataille meant this in the socio-economic sense. How noble an undertaking it would be to explode the barriers to his thought, to develop it on an ontological scale. I like the idea, I wonder how far one might take it.

In any case: I count myself among those Nietzscheans unwilling to give up ontology. You've spoken well on the reasons why.

Quote :

What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic.

Indeed, existence precedes logic, which is an emphatically human, all-too-human affair. To transgress it: ah, fresh air!

. . .it is indeed possible to exist without the leap in question and still retain an act-ual grounding . . . Can there be a boundary, a limit around existence? How, if existence is "all there is"?

What is important to differentiate is that "is is" is not belief in "thing-in-itself", since the is of is, isness as such, need not be thing-ness. You have described this point very well, I think. I would say that chaotic no-thingness is the best rendering of this I have seen. Indeed where you describe this on ILP as "flat time-space" we can conceptualize what is really going on here, and this sits perfectly with on the one hand the notion of isness and on the other hand the understanding that "nothingness", as in "absolute nothing" is a fallacious and nonsensical concept.

All this amounts to the following: we can finally move on from philosophy's misguided attempts to derive the is. We now, thanks to value-ontology, have a logico-conceptual framework with which to understand this situation. We have attained a ground, both a certain truth (somethingness) and a framework that allows us to construct upon this ground, and to construct in such a way that does not contradict, implicitly or otherwise, this grounding itself. We win the ability to move forward, to project FROM a solid point and into the FUTURE. Of course this projecting takes place with respect to valuation/s.

No more need to argue over epistemology vs ontology vs metaphysics vs thing-in-itself vs universality vs first-cause and all that nonsense. Whew, what a relief! Now, to me, the next step might be to attempt a conceptual synthetic analysis of logic and value, one in terms of the other. This would serve to provide a basic structure or dwelling-place that could serve as the foundation - attached solidly to the ground - of what can be built afterward. I think my enumeration on isometry and the soul is a sort of accidental first-step in this direction, the direction of erecting the first solid dwelling-place on being.

A quick question, to get at the heart of this new idea: as I understand it (and I must make explicit that I intend to think this idea properly and vigorously when I am again in possession of free time; I sense the power in it, the newness), value-ontology is a contribution of primordiality to the will to power. That is: it grounds the will to power, which is itself a valuing -- but what/who values? -- in the subject who self-values. Such self-valuation is ubiquitous, to be sure, for it must be -- otherwise whence come the play of forces that comprise our world? The question, then: are all forces grounded in a subject, are all "things" to be understood as subjectivities? Perhaps you (either of you, for I sense that aletheia has quite the grasp on this idea now) might say a few words on this...

without-music wrote:

A quick question, to get at the heart of this new idea: as I understand it (and I must make explicit that I intend to think this idea properly and vigorously when I am again in possession of free time; I sense the power in it, the newness), value-ontology is a contribution of primordiality to the will to power. That is: it grounds the will to power, which is itself a valuing -- but what/who values? -- in the subject who self-values. Such self-valuation is ubiquitous, to be sure, for it must be -- otherwise whence come the play of forces that comprise our world?

Precisely. The will to power definition, as much as it aspires to be the universal truth, is still a particular formulation. The formulation is imperfect, as it includes very ambiguous terms, "will" and "power" As Sauwelios has frequently and accurately noted, the will-to-power is not to be confused with merely the combination of these two terms. As Nietzsche writes, "will" as such is meaningless. It only makes sense combined when an object is attached to the term. In "to power", Nietzsche found a universally applicable object to all wills. A small problem is that the word "power" needs to be stretched in its meaning to have this make sense. For instance, how can the experience of love be explained as power? And it must, for men yearn for this. The answer the Nietzschean will give is simple: we interpret this experience as the "feeling of power" You will see that Nietzsche confirms this, and that Nietzscheans build on this confirmation. "Love" has been interpreted in term of "will" "power" - but also "feeling". And indeed that the will to power is described as an affect, including willing, power and the feeling of power, which is willing to more power, which is the basic feeling. Nietzsche has well defined an outward motion. "of what"? Absurd question.

Heidegger continued on this, most notably with his unfolding-mastering. He approached with this the subject-ness of the subjective, reaching for a definition of it as an apparatus of sorts. A technical definition. He reached into myth and complexities of the word "being" and "becoming". He also gave examples of such unfolding, most famously perhaps his description of how culture emerges around the bridge, which is beautiful but in my eyes ultimately a failed attempt (as perhaps also the unfinished work Time and Being which I have not entirely read) to include the subjective into super perspective. A lot of art was needed to make this work. And as dense as his literature is, he is of course a phenomenal writer, as all philosophers are. This is perhaps even a (somewhat postmodern) definition of a philosopher - exceptionally interesting writer.

What Heidegger set out to do was to define the willing-to-power, to turn the noun into a verb. But with this he disrupted the formula, because wil-to-power is neither noun nor verb. It breaches the gap between the two, it explains exactly the relation between subject and object, so that neither are further necessary. It does so only in the terms will and power. The world had hereby been defined in one of its necessities. Heidegger apparently thought that this definition was not sufficient. Because it made of Heraclitean poetic insight a cold hard law. Heidegger sought to envision the inner dynamics of the will to power -- which means the inner dynamics of the world. He did so in many ways, but he was (mostly) describing what happened as seen from the outside.

The inside is rather simple. In the consciousness of both N. and H the importance of grammar was deeply ingrained. H. tried to break it, condemned it, in the end accepted it, Nietzsche mastered it. But what they both did not do was to seek grammar in its origin -- vocabulary.

What is the most important word? Where does grammar take root?
It is in this locus of origin that we find ourselves when we examine the term value.

I have simply drawn the conclusion of bringing willing to power down to valuing -- after all, what is "a quantum of energy" but a "value"? And is this not "all that matters"?

What I am interested in is the consistency of a value. There I approach the subject, and the importance of value theory as a psychological means, in which I have said that it exceed will to power in its usefulness -- in its value, in its empowering quality. Instead of defining the whole thing in terms, as the will to power does, and thereby limits, we break open the term "will" to "self". A violation of Nietzschean law. Thereby do we at once define "power" in a much more detailed way, and far less cold. More is included in the definition. We see that what the will wants is more of itself. And what is this self, that it may be more? Something that can be measured against itself.

There's the logic, I feel as if I approach it from the outside.

Quote :

The question, then: are all forces grounded in a subject, are all "things" to be understood as subjectivities? Perhaps you (either of you, for I sense that aletheia has quite the grasp on this idea now) might say a few words on this...

It is fortunate that you should ask this. Now I have a reason to bring up something that may be quite controversial. I 'v been meaning to bring up something related to the neutrino experiment. It might be, if we work from the theory that being as (such) - beings, entities is self-valuing / valuing in terms of self-value, which must be both logically and scientifically be understood as a mechanism (a form in time), that neutrino's are in fact not engaged in this mechanism. I consider this suggestion legitimate because they are not observed, their existence is derived from assumptions.
They are "compounds" of properties detected after an observed particle, to which such properties were attributed, is been disintegrated.

What is observed to travel faster than light is a set of properties to be registered by a measuring system, involving a type of matter to which such properties apply, whereby they can be measured -- valued in terms of established value.

Value might be faster than light. Value, existing only in terms of (different, differing, measuring against each other in terms of shared properties/valuing systems) self valuing(s).

Quote :

it is indeed possible to exist without the leap in question and still retain an act-ual grounding.

Whatever we experientially question, we can now much easier get to the core of the matter, understand our affects more directly, not through so much filters and layers of imagination. Not that we do not imagine -- imagination becomes free from its protective and hypocritical tasks.

Quote :

Can there be a boundary, a limit around existence? How, if existence is "all there is"?

This is one of the haunting questions. It has perplexed many minds, and we are getting close to a solution, resolution, dissolution of this question. We "answer" it by demonstrating that it is simply a hesitance to see.

Quote :

Yes. What is important to differentiate is that "is is" is not belief in "thing-in-itself", since the is of is, isness as such, need not be thing-ness. You have described this point very well, I think. I would say that chaotic no-thingness is the best rendering of this I have seen. Indeed where you describe this on ILP as "flat time-space" we can conceptualize what is really going on here, and this sits perfectly with on the one hand the notion of isness and on the other hand the understanding that "nothingness", as in "absolute nothing" is a fallacious and nonsensical concept.

Indeed. It is also possible to imagine how spacetime is curved into "whirpools", as the interference of being occurs.

Quote :

All this amounts to the following: we can finally move on from philosophy's misguided attempts to derive the is. We now, thanks to value-ontology, have a logico-conceptual framework with which to understand this situation. We have attained a ground, both a certain truth (somethingness)

Yes indeed, the thought itself is a something-ness. A being-ness. It seems to itself, like perhaps all real thoughts, be a curving of an existential fabric.

Quote :

and a framework that allows us to construct upon this ground, and to construct in such a way that does not contradict, implicitly or otherwise, this grounding itself. We win the ability to move forward, to project FROM a solid point and into the FUTURE. Of course this projecting takes place with respect to valuation/s.

This future can no longer be an overcoming of specific threats (economic malaise, war, disease, climate change, meteors) but as an overcoming of the state of chaos in which mans political-social-moral mind is being un-made with every new commonly denominating "reality"-spectacle.

Where nature was blissfully unaware of the concept of value, it could not but comply. This blissful ignorance runs all the way through man until he invents a metaphysical form of value. Some will say it is morality, but more probably, money is the key issue. Where nature values otherness in terms of itself, man values himself in terms of money. "Good" may be merely a contingent concept to money-value, it may simply means "wealth-unto-me". Abstract wealth, meaningless, a non-particular, a prospect.

Speculative investment is, in terms of being, the making-present of an unattainable future, making the present unattained by itself. There is no present, only a not attained future image. In this dispair man sinks into his lowest self-mockery, in order to feel in this cruelty anything of affirmation at all.

Quote :

No more need to argue over epistemology vs ontology vs metaphysics vs thing-in-itself vs universality vs first-cause and all that nonsense. Whew, what a relief! Now, to me, the next step might be to attempt a conceptual synthetic analysis of logic and value, one in terms of the other. This would serve to provide a basic structure or dwelling-place that could serve as the foundation - attached solidly to the ground - of what can be built afterward. I think my enumeration on isometry and the soul is a sort of accidental first-step in this direction, the direction of erecting the first solid dwelling-place on being.

This is the truth, this is our task. Building a dwelling by and in thinking.
I will not attempt now to address the idea of valuing-isometries directly (this is a task for which much must be brought into preparation, and here I will refer to without-musics post on excess, which I have yet to address - there I sense a terrain of substantiation) but I will say something on its generalities.

We must build the outline for such a filling-in, which will happen collectively, essentially break the spell which the writer feels trapped by before his first empty page, which has taken hold of intellectual man as deconstructionism. Instead of the horrible question of postmodernism -- the feeling of the killing of God -- we now have the solemn task of acquiring a new symbology. After wading through mud, we may work again on marble. But this marble is of the mind.

This creating-into-time, a symbol should also be understood as a gesture. I propose that we seek for the isolmetries of gestures. I mean this in terms of industrial architecture, economic design, political ethos as well as real life movement, in terms of the forms-in-time, but the terms I have used just now must be deleted and their contents redistributed into a more value-specific periodic table of approaches to being. This may be our elements -- our subjective "constants".

It is beginning to dawn on me that the implementation of this thought means the abolishment of traditional abstractions, forms, or at least that these will become increasingly feeble compared to the experiential forms we now begin to attain to, proper to nature-as-such, in case of the philosopher, a thinking-as-such.

We must be examples, we philosophers -- no more Nietzsche, Schopenhauer or Kant, not only our ideas, our lives must be exemplary. Not in the least to ourselves. We are the idea.

One of the concepts this theory makes more plausible is that one can acquire power sooner by making power possible for others, than by taking it away from them. Taking away power - from another but on ones own terms - is revealed as extremely risky, if not tragically doomed. The only lasting power to be sure is to give. Caesar knew this well, when he gave Rome to Europe - he forgot it, when he tried to take Rome for himself.

without-music wrote:

Very good. Bataille might be useful on this point. Any system will produce its own excess; the pent-up energy must be spent. He locates such "spending" in historical phenomena like human sacrifice and seemingly trivial commonplaces like the sexual act. So much energy is squanderd in the sexual act; one must be abundant, overflowing beforehand. Such spending, I think, is the task of the artist: as sublimation. Of course, the obscene underbelly of every sublimation is a repression. And so the question must become: what is it that is being repressed in a spending of excess? Of course, Bataille meant this in the socio-economic sense. How noble an undertaking it would be to explode the barriers to his thought, to develop it on an ontological scale. I like the idea, I wonder how far one might take it.

We might either say that we'd develop such thought on an ontological scale, or that we bring this new notion of ontology that we have "down" to such an explicitly experiential level. It is in any case a promising prospect. I am not yet very familiar with this direction of thinking, somehow the phrase "jouissance" so often used by Lacan comes to my mind in this context, I do not know how accurate this is. So far I would interpret /frame this subject as "the identity of experience". I sense that it will be a very lengthy and meaty study.

Quote :

Existence precedes logic, which is an emphatically human, all-too-human affair. To transgress it: ah, fresh air!

Yes -- to be more precise: experience precedes logic. You have touched here on a very interesting domain. Perhaps you might recommend some specific literature?

Quote :

Yes -- to be more precise: experience precedes logic. You have touched here on a very interesting domain. Perhaps you might recommend some specific literature?

Much to be found in Nietzsche, surely, but as always: the project remains unfinished, not totally fleshed out. Of course, Nietzsche was writing to set forth a task that might be taken up by the "philosophers of the day after tomorrow." I know Deleuze has something to say on the topic, but I haven't yet read enough of him. This is an interest of mine, this "irrationalism" or a-rationalism, that I hope to be able to pursue more faithfully one day soon. I will be sure to post here when I get a chance to delve more deeply into this domain.

- After dwelling for some weeks on this question you ask - what is being repressed in the spending of excess? I started to see how a subject rejects most of his potential experience, and that this spending may be seen as the act of rejecting. It makes sense, human sacrifice - to project the excess of pathos on another being, outside, a representative of the excess.

What is being repressed? Perhaps no thing per se - man may feel oppressed when his nervous system and moral mind are being put under high pressure.

Where man evolves in the direction Parodites and I have discussed, toward different passions (not deeper and wider as I first said, but more precise, more deliberate, more 'evil' - but therein potentially far better, more wholesome than any of the 'good' we have known so far), it is conceivable that there is less and less excess, that man becomes capable of dealing with more and more of what he is, incorporating the energy he is structurally part of in terms of himself -- because we have expanded on these terms. That is at least the aim.

Taking a wild guess: perhaps one type of surplus affect arises in man as the intellectual/moral organism becomes capable of identifying with more than the animal/sensory organism can identify with. It values in terms of itself now too much - its own scope of being, as it conceives of it, is maddening - in response the organism seeks to become blunt, indifferent. To not care - to not value. Too much 'brotherly love' - this may be the disease against which the numbing and dumbing down of mankind is a remedy.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Taking a wild guess: perhaps one type of surplus affect arises in man as the intellectual/moral organism becomes capable of identifying with more than the animal/sensory organism can identify with. It values in terms of itself now too much - its own scope of being, as it conceives of it, is maddening - in response the organism seeks to become blunt, indifferent. To not care - to not value. Too much 'brotherly love' - this may be the disease against which the numbing and dumbing down of mankind is a remedy.

Yes, I have suspected this played a role in Ancient Greek sexuality. Man imbues his most powerful desires and passions with intellectual and artistic meanings, to the point that exercising these things (like the sexual drive) no longer fully empties them of their vital force, and an inarticulate melancholy is left over as it were: the melancholy of the artist and the philosopher, or what we sometimes refer to as genius.

Fixed Cross wrote:

- After dwelling for some weeks on this question you ask - what is being repressed in the spending of excess? I started to see how a subject rejects most of his potential experience, and that this spending may be seen as the act of rejecting. It makes sense, human sacrifice - to project the excess of pathos on another being, outside, a representative of the excess.

What is being repressed? Perhaps no thing per se - man may feel oppressed when his nervous system and moral mind are being put under high pressure.

Where man evolves in the direction Parodites and I have discussed, toward different passions (not deeper and wider as I first said, but more precise, more deliberate, more 'evil' - but therein potentially far better, more wholesome than any of the 'good' we have known so far), it is conceivable that there is less and less excess, that man becomes capable of dealing with more and more of what he is, incorporating the energy he is structurally part of in terms of himself -- because we have expanded on these terms. That is at least the aim.

Yes this must be true. Self-valuing organisms that are not highly self-differenced will not have well-defined channels through which "excess" (left-over potential for energy that is unable to become exhausted in a finite physiological or psychological operation) may flow. Thus extreme acts and movements are required, e.g. human sacrifice, sexual rituals, murderous lust and vengeance, war, religious self-denial and asceticism. What then is philosophy, is art and politics (in the traditional, Greek sense of the polis and demos) other than a new form of apportioning this excessiveness? Yet a form that also includes its own methodology within itself, is more recursive and direct, active, and thus powerful and exhaustive?

Strictly speaking every entity will both have a measure of its ability to concretize-exhaust within a finite operation a certain quantity of energetic potential, as well as a measure of total energetic potentiality within given circumstances and conditions; the latter will always necessarily be greater than the former, as the reverse is not the case and perfect equality among these two measurements seems unlikely, if not outright impossible. Measurement in the former case constitutes organic behavior, action (including feelings-impulses), measurement in the latter case constitutes a passive "reflection of the entity itself" as a whole, its sense of itself as a "collection of impulsivity", as energy; the total or sum amount of force it is able to summon and give rise to at any given time (amd this will change from moment to moment). The relation of these two forms of measurement to each other constitutes "reason", as logic and its derivative, language; relations between the actual-emergent effects-acts of the body-mind and the abstract ideas, values, perceptions and "inner world" of this body-mind (including therefore the memories of past experiences and the imagined-juxtaposed ideas of possible anticipated experiences) constitutes its "consciousness", and it makes perfect sense that here a certain "identity" and self-hood would cohere.

As you say, there is less (chaotic, unmanaged) excess as the organism develops itself more accutely and precisely. This is because more and more excessiveness is utilized by the entity, incorporated by its structurality rather than merely being discharged. This is the growth of its consciousness, and where this is unable to take place within the entity's body and mind it will be realized externally, as in the old forms of crude and brutal excessive discharge but in more refined, narrow and careful modes, as works of art and literature, as philosophies, and as enlightened sentiments and ideals.

Quote :

Taking a wild guess: perhaps one type of surplus affect arises in man as the intellectual/moral organism becomes capable of identifying with more than the animal/sensory organism can identify with. It values in terms of itself now too much - its own scope of being, as it conceives of it, is maddening - in response the organism seeks to become blunt, indifferent. To not care - to not value. Too much 'brotherly love' - this may be the disease against which the numbing and dumbing down of mankind is a remedy.

Yes, this would seem to be a form of compensatory valuation-negation or transfer of valuing-capacity from one orbit to another, to a new sphere where energy flows differently, where time operates differently, and where excess becomes less intense and more manageable. Yet since this is being done unconsciously, the methods used here are merely absorbed by the given culture-society in which a person finds himself, rather than self-made and self-realized. Thus this in fact turns people more and more into passive reflections of dominant social norms and modes, reducing the distance between their own self-valuing and those of others without actually deriving any benefit or additional "power" from this reduction. The reduction in distance here is the result merely of a passive "deflating" rather than an active movement. The consequences of this are not hard to imagine, indeed we see them all around us.

Parodites wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

Taking a wild guess: perhaps one type of surplus affect arises in man as the intellectual/moral organism becomes capable of identifying with more than the animal/sensory organism can identify with. It values in terms of itself now too much - its own scope of being, as it conceives of it, is maddening - in response the organism seeks to become blunt, indifferent. To not care - to not value. Too much 'brotherly love' - this may be the disease against which the numbing and dumbing down of mankind is a remedy.

Yes, I have suspected this played a role in Ancient Greek sexuality. Man imbues his most powerful desires and passions with intellectual and artistic meanings, to the point that exercising these things (like the sexual drive) no longer fully empties them of their vital force, and an inarticulate melancholy is left over as it were: the melancholy of the artist and the philosopher, or what we sometimes refer to as genius.

This makes sense. This melancholy as you call it then represents a second-order vitality which feeds the drives of genius, of artistic and philosophic production. Men who grow continue to replace one psychological or physiological expression for another, more refined one, while men who stagnate and do not grow continue to repeat the same time-worn methods leading only to continued discharge of left-over excess, that is essentially chaotic and waste. Men who grow self-direct their excessive quality into creative and productive avenues, as this befits their more differenced and active, aware nature (art, and philosophy), while men who do not grow merely repeat the same unconsciously-acquired methods whenever they feel themselves "frenzied" by this "surplus" (their inability to understand how they are feeling-reacting-acting), e.g. as self-destructive and childish emotional outbursts, hatreds and bigotries, physical violence and aggression, or projected inwardly in terms of psychological complexes, paranoias, delusions, religion and all ideological, small thinking.

Self-valuing precludes against any possibility of not self-valuing; it reflects the complete naturalizing idea, what WtP ought to have been. In short, it is not possible to go "deeper" (more toward the basic fundament) than self-valuing. Every new movement is necessarily one of either upward or outward-lateral growth. "God" has been found out and revealed to be a stage along the line of development in thought/consciousness toward this most basic fundament. Like any basic idea, any idea used as and assumed to be a given self-valuing gives cause to re-interpret everything in terms of its being secondary, derivative with respect to the fundamental ground.

WtP ontology is inferior to VO because WtP is not fundamental enough, not even "ontological" yet- WtP is a psychological-physical principle but says nothing about what is below-primary to its action, let alone about the kinds of powers or reasons why different powers "will" one thing and not another. WtP masks the human conscious dimension through a reductive metaphysic aimed at undermining all previous metaphysical postulates, and in this sense is useful but cannot truly free the human being into its own nature.

Self-valuing in contrast is the one idea that, like the assumed idea of god, unites the physical, psychological and "metaphysical" into one space, is a hard kernel that turned this way or that way reflects differently of reality. It is the one truly ontologically-possibilizing idea.

"Consciousness" always stems from lower-order organizings of multiple centers of self-valuings. Functionally speaking consciousness is the actual operations of any system said to be self-bound and self-referential to some degree, however that tends to obscure the more essential reality of consciousness: it is nothing more than the "greatest inner perspective" of such a system. Consciousness is what self-valuing "feels like" to itself, what it is able to feel like to itself given what it is and what its experiences are. A proper ontology must account for all of this.

Capable wrote:

Self-valuing precludes against any possibility of not self-valuing; it reflects the complete naturalizing idea, what WtP ought to have been. In short, it is not possible to go "deeper" (more toward the basic fundament) than self-valuing. Every new movement is necessarily one of either upward or outward-lateral growth. "God" has been found out and revealed to be a stage along the line of development in thought/consciousness toward this most basic fundament. Like any basic idea, any idea used as and assumed to be a given self-valuing gives cause to re-interpret everything in terms of its being secondary, derivative with respect to the fundamental ground.

Perhaps we can review the idea of God from this perspective, because the idea is still troublesome, or not so much the idea itself as the emotional implications of it that have procreated and infiltrated every human thought about morality. The main problem was always the prescriptive nature of being, which it clearly has, and clearly relating to what man, each for himself, knows as 'good', as well as many other qualities, 'sacrifice' being an often occurring one -- it was always known, intuited, by wise humans that ontology must touch on ethics to reach a profound judgment of what is - ethics being the kernel of conscious being, the form of being that can investigate itself -- a judgment of being must always include the ethical principle in itself. But this was misunderstood to mean that it should command such a judgment - that the notion of being should pertain to the question of ethics in unifying way. Rather, the very first ethical principle that follows from this ontology is friction.

We see this in every practical consequence of attempts at unifying ethics; the result is always the exaltation of one element alone -- friction, strife, breaking down enemies, being at war, standing for something - thus also against something. Ideologically, we find an understanding of this element (rather than enactment, which is pervasive throughout existence) in capitalism alone.

Our ontology can very well be interpreted as a justification of capitalism. Not at all however, of representative democracy. In fact it clarifies perfectly how such a system necessarily corrupts -- in essence, the attainment of self-values is entrusted to other self-valuings. Ultimately all parliament, all law-shaping organs, will become obsolete. A perfectly regulated capitalism including the inalienable right to self-determination.

Crime law to meet ontological consistency; whoever infringes on a fundamental/sustenance level on another's capacity to self-value forfeits protection of the law. The law will only respect those who respect it. Thus, if a person is found guilty of intentionally inflicting irreparable damage (criteria to be fleshed out), it will be legal to harm him. The revenge impulse can not be controlled and fully justified by the state; It must be treated as part of the human excess that falls outside of the law. Once someone violates self-valuing law, he ceases to be valued as a self-valuing. He can thus also not obtain contracts.

In this way a great network of outcasts will be created, which will have laws of its own, harsher laws, and which will remain under supervision as far as possible and desirable, primarily with the intent of studying that which comes out on top, and to learn from the methods employed. Criminals as resource - subject to the grinding wheels of pre-civilized self-valuing. Prisons already work in the same way, but we commit the first rate fallacy of setting these trained beasts of prey free - a structural law as long as long as we subject radical agents of death and entropy to the same standard of expected 'betterment' as small time crooks. An order like this can not be ruled by anyone besides the exceptionally deceitful and fundamentally lawless - it can never be 'human', can never reflect or 'run on' ethics.

Quote :

WtP ontology is inferior to VO because WtP is not fundamental enough, not even "ontological" yet- WtP is a psychological-physical principle but says nothing about what is below-primary to its action, let alone about the kinds of powers or reasons why different powers "will" one thing and not another. WtP masks the human conscious dimension through a reductive metaphysic aimed at undermining all previous metaphysical postulates, and in this sense is useful but cannot truly free the human being into its own nature.

Yes, WtP sets no criteria. Power can mean anything. Hence the term 'slave morality' to carpet cover everything that does not let itself be measured in terms of physical domination.

Quote :

Self-valuing in contrast is the one idea that, like the assumed idea of god, unites the physical, psychological and "metaphysical" into one space, is a hard kernel that turned this way or that way reflects differently of reality. It is the one truly ontologically-possibilizing idea.

"Consciousness" always stems from lower-order organizings of multiple centers of self-valuings. Functionally speaking consciousness is the actual operations of any system said to be self-bound and self-referential to some degree, however that tends to obscure the more essential reality of consciousness: it is nothing more than the "greatest inner perspective" of such a system. Consciousness is what self-valuing "feels like" to itself, what it is able to feel like to itself given what it is and what its experiences are. A proper ontology must account for all of this.

Properly considered, the above gives rise to an awareness of the enormous discomfort produced by the illusion of 'free will', which is identical to the idea that consciously valuing is choosing what one values.

As any human instinctively knows, values are only the very utmost necessity. But the intellect had never known a spinal chord, had never known the vigorous self-reliance of instinct. All ideas that described being accurately were sets of poetic references; hitherto poetry served as the bridge between the intellect and the instincts. Allegory as justification of law, both in morality and in physics. In this light we can appreciate the type of human that this ontology selects.