'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Defin(it)e philosophy

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3501
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Defin(it)e philosophy   Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:01 pm

Taking things to the next level now:

I think we need to start better differentiating philosophy from "philosophy", the latter being a kind of self-discharging, self-edifying psychological act of seeking this or that particular organization of the contents of our inner experience, such organizations as conform better to some will or passion we happen to be feeling as primary at this one moment or another.. in other words, something to make our psychology easier to ourselves, a utility. Or maybe a kind of personality compensation.

Yes we need those things, but that is really not philosophy.

This is interesting to me: Parodites wrote to the effect that the inner experience of animals is an undifferentiated stream of feelings and sense, a kind of chaos from which no single thing can be isolated, and everything flows into and mingles with everything else, whereas in man we have language, words, forms, which we use to insert degrees of difference into the undifferentiated stream of inner experience which is our own animality (we separate, isolate one thing from another and thus become conscious of the differences or variances between them). He then adds that the pre-human animal state is basically the same thing as a Heraclitean "flux", the idea of reality as chaos, constant change.

If this is true, then we cannot allow our philosophy to devolve into anything like a Heraclitean view or value. Change-chaos is not "the truth", nor is it a ground of reason, nor is it a virtue -- spinning our wheels in "being is becoming, is being, is becoming, is..." just won't work. This kind of view can hide itself as "evolution" or as "will to power", probably as other systems I'm not thinking of right now; however, while these views cannot be considered philosophy they are certainly capable of being psychologically uplifting and thus may inspire our philosophy, which means succeed at liberating something in us that had otherwise existed merely as part of that undivided, undifferentiated experience (which I will add a thought here and refer to that undifferentiated flow of experience as what we humans consider forgetting, our capacity to forget something; the animal remainder in us).  

So I submit that philosophy is the degrees of separation we insert into the consciousness-stream of our own 'undifferentiated experience' which we usually refer to as our psyche or self-experience. Being oriented toward something isn't anything particularly interesting, insects do this, so do plants. Rather than try to pull up animals, plants and insects to our human level I would like to push them down far below us. That may seem unduly cruel, or presumptuous - I think that, if we take time to consider this carefully, however, we will see it is not at all presumptuous or cruel... what could be more benevolent than to set every thing beautifully in its own place, to speak clearly its existence without falsity of self-imposition?

Philosophy as... depth. I've been saying that for a while now, this has concretized into my unyielding position. I respect that it is not the position of others, or of philosophy traditionally. But where I see this kind of "negativity" upheld as a standard of truth-seeking I smile. I see it in Socrates, too in the best parts of Nietzsche. Nonetheless the real philosophical task is to create something, we should be building, "system building" which has gotten an absurd bad rap from many philosophers. Where do we start with such a system attempt? I think we can start with this one insight which is itself so seemingly impossible to form into anything like a system or even a philosophical idea - the insight of a radical, absolute negativity, of truth as depth. This idea alone cannot do much, but when we pair it with the contents of our minds and hearts, there is no end to what we can achieve.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful

#Odinwar
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:58 am

Philosophy has always engaged with common sense. Perhaps this is what scares philosophers about a system: that they might veer away from it.

Socrates called it remembering, but this betrays the fact that something is built around perception. Depth, negativity, this in hand we can proceed to make a system that will maintain structuraly the clarity that usually, until now, has been ephimeral, with the only intent of potentiating the power that the philosopher has in engaging commonsense. The type that is, in fact, separated from mere confusion.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 753
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sat Sep 19, 2015 3:06 pm

"So I submit that philosophy is the degrees of separation we insert into the consciousness-stream of our own 'undifferentiated experience' which we usually refer to as our psyche or self-experience."



Yes, I think that this is one of philosophy's higher realizations, though I use the word "discontiguity" to describe those degrees of separation, and I also utilize the concept of "reifying discontiguous consciousness" to describe philosophizing itself. I write of it in some detail here:


In truth, this "wondrous capacity" owes itself to what I call the double-movement of
consciousness, and is to be understood by the two functions of the philosophic ideas and
categories. The first function of a philosophic idea is to introduce a kind of negative space
to consciousness, an illusionary center upon which the movement of thought can take
shape self-destructively, a space in which the transition from one moment of experience,
one drive, and one sensuous impression to another may be discovered; it is in this
moment that the reflexively coordinated drives operating upon man, organized by nature
over millennium, are decomposed and witnessed to in isolation, it is in this moment that
the drives and senses become isolated moments in consciousness and their contrast,
discontiguity, and variance become perceptible. Once this transition from the one
conscious state to another is discovered, their inequality, their variance and disparity are
re-inscribed in a new idea which serves as the basis for a novel series of polarizations of
the eroto-daemonic energies, just as the concept of a God became the reification of the
variance between bodily instinct and the free will, insofar as it is through God that all
possibilities for expression of that freedom, in good and evil, are derived. The ontological
scaffolding ascends heavenward in this way; this new idea itself, in time, comes to serve
the first function again, being used to discover variance in the moments and transitions of
experience, so that yet more ideas must be produced to re-unite self-consciousness as a
unity and totality. The philosophic ideas in this manner decompose the beast in man, and
in turn re-organize the freed, erotic forces into the deity within man. The "qualitative
irreducibility" of these fundamental philosophic ideas is the basis of their primary and
secondary functions, of the entire ontological scaffolding, and thus this picture of logic I
have described is completely at odds with the coincidientia oppositorum, the union of
opposing ideas by means of synthetic reason, itself the fulcrum on which all dialectics is
based.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4068
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:34 pm

Quote :
Once this transition from the one conscious state to another is discovered, their inequality, their variance and disparity are re-inscribed in a new idea which serves as the basis for a novel series of polarizations of the eroto-daemonic energies, just as the concept of a God became the reification of the variance between bodily instinct and the free will, insofar as it is through God that all possibilities for expression of that freedom, in good and evil, are derived. The ontological scaffolding ascends heavenward in this way; this new idea itself, in time, comes to serve the first function again, being used to discover variance in the moments and transitions of experience, so that yet more ideas must be produced to re-unite self consciousness as a unity and totality. The philosophic ideas in this manner decompose the beast in man, and in turn re-organize the freed, erotic forces into the deity within man.

Ah, this is excellent. It is clinical, we can follow the process step by step. Thereby I can now recognize the grounds and ends (the same thing here) to my "idealization" of (specific) animals.

The ground is two fold.  First, its external ground: the process of dissimilation of the animal makes me extremely aware of the 'fabric' of the animal, I've had it unweave thread by thread in/as my consciousness. Second, its internal, inherent ground: the process of 'vertically' rebuilding the ego on the fluxing ground which is both its dissimulated animality and its experience of itself-as-process (which in some men serves as the potent shamanic 'primordial soup') can only go so far without discovering parallels in the godly world to the animal world;   the vertical and horizontal plane aren't entirely asymmetrical. It is most often the 'wolf' or 'bird' which is recognized in this process as a profound archetype of consciousness; we can now see how an animal can in  fact enact consciousness quite uncannily, or consciousness uncannily reflects specific animal behaviors; this is because the primordial soup, or the center of the Greek theatre as the threshing floor, the inner circle, is not fundamentally different in its behavior than the primordial soup of the earth, from which life was born as divinity is born of the magmaic substance into which the bones of instincts have crumbled; because both processes still take place under the sun.

The sun of Life is 'only' the heat-source, and orientation of motion, the continuity in change providing the climates, but the sun of Mind is the nadir toward which thought is urged, as you say the limit of the being, which man first placed not at the sun but at the edge of the flat earth, reflecting mans still animal kingdom, and only when the animal perspective had dissolved so far as to no longer provide an active center, did man realize the concept 'center', and could he imagine the spherical Earth, and was forced to turn his gaze upward to experience the sensation of conquest. This is where the planets become a source of fixation. Astrology is the original empirical method; at first it was not disentangled from the human will, the progressions on earth were suffered under the light of the progressions in the heavens. As above, so below; the cosmos (the order we perceive) is shaped in the same necessities as the mind and the early earth; the uncanny precision of the plane of the planets, the seamlessly repeating patterns of their respective positions, all of this suggests that the universe as it is now was not effectively/directly formed out of a large explosion and following vortexes and collisions, but out of a gradual coming into existence under the auspices of the selfvaluing principle, in 'star nurseries' as the words of the astronomers. The universe has always been a place of its own birth.

The will to power is most essentially a description of the point where the dissolved animality requires an image for itself to continue; 'the monster of energy' is the abstraction of the wolf of which the contours haunt the proto-philosopher forward into humanity; it occurs to me then that early Romans were possibly a group of wise men from ancient traditions conspiring to guide some rather innocent tribe of excellent stock on plentiful land to a glorious destiny. Rome was always a city of conspiracies; it seems not unlikely to me that astrologers from Alexandria have had something to do with its organization. The continuity of planetary attributes and festivals is not simply aesthetically expedient, if anything it became more seriously guarded in Rome.  In this sense the Catholic Church is the petrification of this architectural impulse. What I could imagine now is to take over or reanimate that church with proper magic. Of course our astrology is much more philosophical now; with the proper understanding of cosmology we designate it not as the laws of the gods but the reflection into archetypes of our own being-reflection. There happen to be patterns, and as beings risen from the threshing floor we have no choice but to be modest in their light; as we become erect, see limits as the givers of shape, we see that the limit-giving shapes of time have plunged into unfathomable depths to bring out the most gracious possibility as a field from which deamons spawn. Efficiency an intelligence are the derivatives of infinity, and long before man rose out of animal or Earth was formed, there were stalemates of possibility, in the same way as long before an artist produces a masterpiece, there are is a state of irresolvable tension lurking behind all conscious thoughts an feelings; this state becomes gradually more pressing but not more conscious; as indeed truth requires a kairos to emerge. Our universe is thus the produce such a kairos; and that 'Ace of wands', that primordial fortune, reverberates into the fibers of everything that lives, as it is recognizable into the silent music of the spheres, that man has leaned to decipher into the laws of nature, through Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, who were all driven by this vertical momentum and were therefore also master-alchemist, masters of ceremony on the threshing floor, ruthless being, no being between being and the world, man is no longer 'a being' but 'being impersonated'. And this is the only way the drop can ride the ocean and become its justification; an ambitious task since the primordial conditions are already the justification of possibility itself; philosophy as the justification of justification, of justice, of judgment; for this it needs to be merciful, benevolent, and faithfully serving in time; the qualities of Jupiter, represented by the Romans with the imperial purple, the cloth of the pontifex.

Bridge-builder; from necessity to good, from animal, through wolf, to man-proper, student of the philosopher. This man will have to surpass the philosopher in some way; it is our task to create the conditions for this. There must be come a certain naivite, which is the property of exalted souls who have no knowledge of the detours man has made to arrive at reason; who need no lessons in this respect because their logos carries in itself the Saturnine quality of ascetic action, whereas their Jovian 'eternal spring' is not tainted by the decadent tyrants of our own image of Mnemosyne; philosophy as the act of Mercy blocking from view the abyss which was crossed from the archetypical realm to the formative realm, or the realm of specified possibility ('eternity') to the realm of formation (chemistry); it is this the development of taste; it is the chemical process that enjoys itself. Taste is what keeps us afloat in the witches brew, and our tastes are more important to us than our hunger; if we eat shit we are fucked.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 753
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:07 am

Before I post any more, just a quick point that must be kept in mind: the process I describe here obviously involves the complete estrangement of our evolutionary inheritance, the dis-integration of the reflexively coordinated animal mind and the production of our human consciousness out of the discontiguity. Our neocortex (where all the neural correlates of higher philosophical thought lie) receives input from the entire brain, re-integrates it, and feeds its own output back as input to the rest of the brain, actually rewiring the connectome or synapses- which is where our actual mind is, it is far more important than the brain structures themselves. Our amygdyla, limbic system, everything is transformed in this operation and is no longer even analogous to the evolved counterparts in the animals: what we call our very emotions are products of this higher cognitive capacity. We never evolved philosophy, symbolic thought, our emotions, etc. They are products of this differentiation and reification of the unified stream of the animal mind in discontiguous states of consciousness, which at another level I speak of as the polarization of a synthetically irresolvable tension of conceptual oppositions through which man orients himself daemonically to the ideal. I saw another thread talking about the importance of evolution to philosophy: in my view, evolution means nothing, since the only parts of our human behavior that were evolved are a small number of vestigial bodily reflexes. Our entire humanity appeared all at once and fully formed- the emotions, language, symbolic thought, religion, artistic ability, etc, when the neocortex was enlarged enough for this process I describe to spontaneously initiate, and all archaeological evidence suggests that indeed this is true. In one of my books I put it like this:



There are
many today who, in the sciences, prefer to trace human nature back into the ferment of
pre-history and animal life, as though our romantic notions of love are even analogously
related to the curious rituals which serve to trigger sexual reproduction in the animals,
though I find very little about us that owes itself to the evolutionary inheritance of bestial
instinct; the Nature that exists in the animals as a machine, or a structured system- a
causal series with beginning and end, intended to reconstitute beneficial neural activity
reflexively, in the coordination of the fibrous musculature and the affects, exists in man
as a logoicaly enfolded continua, upon which every natural loci of activity, when
absorbed by our more expansive nervous system, expands itself into unforeseen
dimensions, as of the liberated excess and meaning-surplus of the primal annunciation of
the Word, so that human nature emerges in the transition into a new qualitative universe,
in which alone it can be concluded, as it had alone therein been originated. There can be
accomplished no return to nature, for man does not possess a nature; the term "human
nature" is an irony, and is used only to designate a set of shared existential burdens.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 753
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:22 am

Also, the new category of truth as absolute negativity you suggest is to my mind the esoteric and misunderstood foundation of Plato, as I wrote in the pentad:


... the deeper philosophy is the product of this later exclusion of the contents of consciousness from consciousness itself, for it is capable of realizing the temporal universe, not as the falsification of, but rather as an image of or moment within, the eternal, as within a thoroughly acausal association. The truth here becomes, for the deeper philosophy, not the opposing category of falsehood, but the form of that schema whereby thought is brought into proximity with the outer boundary of its own power and its limiting fatum, as the locus of its daemonic dissolution and, within the horizon of the eroto-daemonic, no less its re-solution, whereby man is awakened to the ego in its ideal aspect. Heidegger believed that a grave error was perpetrated at the inception of Western philosophy, which he of course calls onto-theology: he thought Plato confused the Being of beings with beings themselves, which in my view never happened. Plato simply understood that there was no "Being of beings", that there was no Being behind or underneath beings. The "Being" of beings is not a being, and that's why Plato speaks of the absolute as a Form or eidos.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 753
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:29 am

Fixed, you said:


The will to power is most essentially a description of the point where the dissolved animality requires an image for itself to continue


I bring attention to this point in the following:

"The episteme, defined as the pre-imaging of Being within the unworked stone or the blank canvass, upon
which Being in its ontic horizon is disintegrated and afterward re-cohered in erotic fixation as the preimage-made-
reality, the form of the revealed statue, I in other words refer to as the necessary thought-arresting
image, for it limits the unrestricted medium of the stone or paper and defines a boundary within which the
erotic form might take shape and reveal itself, within which the flight of thought might locate a new center
and point of departure in order to solidify in a new direction..."


So the will-to-power in my system is only the principle of one of the four stages of conscious reification-in-discontiguity, namely the epistemic, which I name after the episteme- the concept of this dis-integrated reflexive-animal consciousness requiring an image of itself, the thought-arresting image.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4068
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:53 am

I see - philosophy is a product of the re-arrangement of the organism, and thus something 'to deal with' rather than something we've created.

Given that human consciousness, taking it as a rough terms including philosophy and other human 'parts', came into being in what, with respect to its organic ground, looks like a kind of 'void', it is all the more likely that the very voidness and relative chaos of consciousness draws into itself these more and less subtle influences that do move in orderly fashion, the astronomical patterns. Astrology would then have emerged as the very anchor of humanity in the self-mutilating madness that you have described it to be in the outset of mind.

My fixation on astrology is due to extremely extensive experience with it, gradually amounting in the disturbing certainty that it is an uncannily exact indicator of human natures and events in human lives. Only marginally less exact than the physical sciences; that margin probably owing to the remainder of animal nature, which would by this model, the boundaries or logics of which I do not believe to have transgressed in my earlier post, be not or far less responsive to these vertical stimuli.

I am not comfortable with it, because it is impossible for you to verify this, but still it it is bare necessity that compels me to integrate this celestial set of factors into a phenomenology of mind. Thankfully your model, which is so clinical as to be falsifiable, and can thus be said to be scientific, very much allows for this possibility.

I contend thus that the being (of) turning-human, as it was disconnected from the instinct, let's call them internal patterns, hooked into the external patterns of the heavens.

In the vey same way I became an astrologer; when I lost my mind, that is to say had a psychotic episode, I was forced to grab hold of things that weren't only supposed to be certain, but things that actually enforced themselves as pure regularities. So I learned the laws of magic, which I now understand to be the navigating not only of excess, but also reading and manipulating of the subtle electrical guiders that pervade that excess.

Please don't let this distract from your discourse. This is only my way of learning the weight of such sweeping models: integrating my most problematic empirical data into them. Your model, whether you want this or not, handles these data flawlessly, and supports my belief in astrology by providing a phenomenological nexus where what then became macrocosmos could have hooked into what then became microcosmos.

Partially integrating your later post:
the being-shaping horizon re-cohered in erotic fixation on the cosmos.
As we know an electrograph of the brain very much resembles depth-photographs of the galaxy; the neurons in the human brain seem to interact in patterns analogous to these external absorbing and discharging systems, which happen to effectively form the horizon of our physical being.

the pre-image-made- is then recognized not as an purely blank slate, but as the actual universe; as instinct collapses and being comes to stand before being, truth attacks it and makes it it's home long before any notions of truth begin to emerge.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3501
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:24 pm

I should offer a clarification/correction to the OP, that I said the psychological self-utility isn't really philosophy - actually this isn't true. It's not that possible much to separate one from the other, at best we can understand philosophy as twofold: the higher correlate of the arrangement of ideas and facts themselves, as tectonics, and also as the actual behavior/changes that are constantly being produced in the physiology and biology. The psychologically uplifting part as I called it, is not literally the tectonic work and reality itself but, in another sense, it is: the intuition that somewhat pre-conceptually lives in us and that resists psychic disintegration at the hands of a powerful philosophy also communicates a truth to us, that truth being the impossibility of completely divorcing the one thing from the other, the mind from the body, or truth from lived reality.

Philosophy in terms of the higher tectonics, of the Idea, wants to disintegrate and read-write over what for that philosophy is like a bodily correlate of activity and organic substances, while that body wants to resist that kind of disintegrating of its primary forms and components. A compromise is entailed, that we call "human nature", a vague range in which people fall somewhere as a little similar and a little dissimilar to each other.

Let's think about a disembodied mind or an AI: what does this mind consist of? It has nothing to reorganize as a body, it does not act or behave in terms of organic response. At best it had an analogous neural system of computing that it is always changing. The mind itself reflects this "always changing", both the lower and higher ranges are in movement and reposition, the partial and inexhaustible, irreconcilable relations between lower and higher here are what form the daemonic. So an AI mind would very much exist in a narrower range of mental reality because to express itself only means to reconfigure its neural-computing systems, which unless we posit the creation of a robot similarly complex and historically-evolutionarily deep as the human body-brain-society, would be much simpler and more limited than even the possibilities open to an average non-philosophical person.

This is a huge problem: the more philosophy edifies itself the deeper must its hooks sink into the body. This affects everything, from our personality to our emotions to our social interactions, to our physical health, to our values and perceptions, every aspect of our living is influenced by this war. After all what being could hate itself enough to actually... philosophize?

Yet philosophy is necessary, we can abandon it but it cannot abandon us. We can sink into a more common earth but that commonness and earth are still expressions of the philosophical, as is the case for every man. So I mean to say that my initial point of inserting a radical break between philosophy and "philosophy" as I put it, is a bit naive or simplistic. There is no absolute rupture, as if the one could somehow rid itself of the other.. even in dreaming the conscious experience is about the body, and of the body, for this all lives in the brain as memory and system patterning, to imagine a purely dreaming, disbodied mind means nothing in terms of supposedly divorcing absolutely ideality from 'reality'. The point is the constant struggle and self-valuing interplay between the various "spheres" of our "identity" as Parodites notes it. It's quite cool (ha) that this is our unrecoverable setup, that we are this kind of being. The greatest-possible philosophical aspiration actually limits itself.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful

#Odinwar
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4068
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:51 pm

The consequences as I can oversee anything here of this 'bending' of your theory to my self-valuing, as pertaining to the nature of consciousness as the daemonic philosopher exemplifies it, that is to say the consequences of the imposition of what must be superstitious and/or arbitrary material on the immaculate conquest of the pure intellect as I feel justified to suspect now are as follows: the astrologer navigates the daemonic processes unwittingly of their nature; he knows that an opposition is a Devilish aspect, but he has called it evil, detrimental. It is an aspect dominant in the chats of artists and people of untamable passions. What I am seeing then is that the nature of the daemonic process is reflected in the way the that the astronomical bodies influence us - the astrological world is the first empirical setting after the daemonic process had manifested itself by the negative laws bringing about its activity and reaching - astrology is the speculative ethics par excellence - and it has been in production for over ten thousand years, in perhaps as many natures or more - the Chinese focus largely on a specific set of distant stars, from which they say their best energy is drawn, these constellations figure into western astrology as well but stand separately of the Zodiac, the 12 fold division of which does however reflect the way the Chinese interpret the 60 year moon cycle - the explication of the influences is done using hard angles an oppositions, where a life is the explication and the life without hard angles the unexamined life.

What is truly maddening is the combination of compelling soft angles with disrupting hard angles working together in a triangle; this leaves the being into a habitual frustration. Politicians never or very rarely have oppositions, because they can not afford such pure explication of being - they almost always have 90 degree angles, which are tensions resolved outward. Actors and famous performers have a plethora of harmonic angles an conjunctions grounded by one or two hard ones.

Kant has Saturn opposite Mars and Sun opposite Uranus. He would have gone mad if he hadn't philosophized.

Nietzsche ha Jupiter conjunct Uranus opposite Mars conjunct Mercury.

Kierkegaard has Moon Jupiter opposite Mars Saturn.

Note these are the first three I try.

Dante

Honest to god, didn't know it, turns out: Moon opposite Jupiter-Saturn-Mercury and Sun.

The Moon represents the emotional, feminine; Kierkegaard shares it with Dante. In Kant and Nietzsche only the masculine forces are involved.


edit -

Forgot why I started this post, which is to point out that if the influences of celestial bodies can be understood in philosophical terms, the philosopher who is familiar with these terms has become immensely powerful in terms of astrological influence. The opposition is in general a means to transcend the nature of divided influences and to 'become what one is' in a truly experiential, time-creating sense - the fluid aspect is to go with time, to be embedded in it, and the square, the hard angle is to push life forward as it pushes against you, it is the aspect of violence.

I suppose one might resolve astrology into philosophy - but only if one is born to be a philosopher!


 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:04 pm

Right. That's why evolution does matter, because it explains how something as different from its seeming origins as philosophy, astrology and the animal flux (I'm in love with that term) are united in time. Philosophy is not a rejection of instinct, a thing-from-another-world, I think we all see this now. But, precicely for that reason, it is to rarify and understand itself to the point of a distance that allows it a place in evolution along-side humans, fuck it, animals.

The thing that came from itself and conquered.

This as a stance against any philosophical impulse to greater-than-life, which is nothing, so nihilism, so less than useless.

Also, as an apretiation of the power of depth and necessity of negativity.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3501
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sun Sep 20, 2015 2:42 pm

Parodites wrote:
Before I post any more, just a quick point that must be kept in mind: the process I describe here obviously involves the complete estrangement of our evolutionary inheritance, the dis-integration of the reflexively coordinated animal mind and the production of our human consciousness out of the discontiguity. Our neocortex (where all the neural correlates of higher philosophical thought lie) receives input from the entire brain, re-integrates it, and feeds its own output back as input to the rest of the brain, actually rewiring the connectome or synapses- which is where our actual mind is, it is far more important than the brain structures themselves. Our amygdyla, limbic system, everything is transformed in this operation and is no longer even analogous to the evolved counterparts in the animals: what we call our very emotions are products of this higher cognitive capacity. We never evolved philosophy, symbolic thought, our emotions, etc. They are products of this differentiation and reification of the unified stream of the animal mind in discontiguous states of consciousness, which at another level I speak of as the polarization of a synthetically irresolvable tension of conceptual oppositions through which man orients himself daemonically to the ideal. I saw another thread talking about the importance of evolution to philosophy: in my view, evolution means nothing, since the only parts of our human behavior that were evolved are a small number of vestigial bodily reflexes. Our entire humanity appeared all at once and fully formed- the emotions, language, symbolic thought, religion, artistic ability, etc, when the neocortex was enlarged enough for this process I describe to spontaneously initiate, and all archaeological evidence suggests that indeed this is true. In one of my books I put it like this:



There are
many today who, in the sciences, prefer to trace human nature back into the ferment of
pre-history and animal life, as though our romantic notions of love are even analogously
related to the curious rituals which serve to trigger sexual reproduction in the animals,
though I find very little about us that owes itself to the evolutionary inheritance of bestial
instinct; the Nature that exists in the animals as a machine, or a structured system- a
causal series with beginning and end, intended to reconstitute beneficial neural activity
reflexively, in the coordination of the fibrous musculature and the affects, exists in man
as a logoicaly enfolded continua, upon which every natural loci of activity, when
absorbed by our more expansive nervous system, expands itself into unforeseen
dimensions, as of the liberated excess and meaning-surplus of the primal annunciation of
the Word, so that human nature emerges in the transition into a new qualitative universe,
in which alone it can be concluded, as it had alone therein been originated. There can be
accomplished no return to nature, for man does not possess a nature; the term "human
nature" is an irony, and is used only to designate a set of shared existential burdens.


This is why truth must be seen by philosophy as depth, as negativity. Anything less merely re-enfolds the old errors back into the present attempt. Until a properly negative philosophy is obtained we probably can't say much at all about anything, this happens to be the unfortunate state of most of traditional philosophy- they lack a conceptual universe such as your philosophy gives, each philosophy before has simply shown one side of error, an individual side conforming to that state of lack which is that philosopher and his life, who conceived that philosophy.

Transcendental entities function triadically and sitting within the world-daemon, this is why I'm not able to every orient myself toward one such transcendent idea/experience or another; ultimately they all fall away as some manner of semioticly-enfolded world-man relational genesis and return, out of which some series of excess and system emerges. As soon as I align myself "with" such an emergence I lose my vantage upon it and everything else, I cease being a philosopher and become a constituent of other things.

Man is like a little nest of self-looping formulas shoved somewhere in the larger world-daemon, each one loops a little differently. The "Being of being" would simply be the causal-impelling rationale and active, continuing genesis for such formulas; God is a certain sign in the larger system, by which certain properties unfold out of those formula who have that sign existing in their mechanics. Like what I was saying about emotions, huge differences live out of us that we perceive as more or less "the same", we confuse one thing with another, so as becomes possible the topoi to speak backward about man and point us toward the depths, toward truth.

Animality is essentially a forgetting, the fact that we can even forget something is merely the fact that the animal lives in us or, more accurately, that we live out of it. Only through the deepest self-hatred might something truly like "self-love" ever appear.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful

#Odinwar
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4068
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:12 pm

Quote :
Transcendental entities function triadically and sitting within the world-daemon, this is why I'm not able to every orient myself toward one such transcendent idea/experience or another; ultimately they all fall away as some manner of semioticly-enfolded world-man relational genesis and return, out of which some series of excess and system emerges. As soon as I align myself "with" such an emergence I lose my vantage upon it and everything else, I cease being a philosopher and become a constituent of other things.

Indeed, philosophy has been the only means that could create order and identity in the chaos of such transcendental emergences. I respect very much your ascesis here.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 753
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:16 am

A little more on this subject taken from a message to Capable:



Yes the erotic fixation belongs to the domain of the real ego, and in fact is in one sense the mask of the real ego- of the real ego which represents psychologically the feeling of organic unity, fortifying conscious bodily existence against dissolution into the primal forces of nature that gave rise to it- that is, fortifying itself against death. The erotic fixation is also spoken of as the thought-arresting image and the episteme, for which I named the epistemic topos: in the other thread I mentioned that when the reflexive-affective unity of animal consciousness began disintegrating due to human symbolic reasoning, * it requires an image of itself in which to stabilize itself, and this image is the immediate or real ego: the real ego becomes the new center of the whole causal formation of the various chains of neural impulses: all nerve impulses are reorganized so as to reconstitute the feeling of the real ego, of organic unity, where in the animal's stream of consciousness the affects self-organize causally on the basis of individual interactions between this nerve and that nerve- if one nerve activates another and this leads to beneficial behavior, the later becomes dis-inhibited or more reactive, and with more activations a causal sequence will solidify as part of the brain's physical architecture- in humans the causal chain must lead back to reconstituting or strengthening the new center, the real ego, or it simply becomes part of the unconscious and does not dis-inhibit new nerve tissues. There is a deep connection in this between eros and thanatos: the erotic pathos, the sexual experience and related phenomenon, intimate something of the flesh's self-destructive longing for the flesh, the flesh's self-cannibalism. In normal, healthy sexuality Eros is strong enough to maintain the sense of organic unity: in pathological sex, it is not. The ideal ego reifies self-consciousness in discontinguous states- variances and fissures introduced into the organo-affective unity of the real and its causally formulated universe- this is the physiological-scientific theory: at a higher level of abstraction these discontiguous states become the conceptual oppositions of the daemonic, and that is the transcendental psychology theory, at a still higher one they become the topoi of self, etc. and that is the cultural-historical theory, for it develops into the comparative religion I have been talking about culminating in Christianity, etc. All of my philosophy is however seemingly separate, talking about one thing at different levels of abstraction. Passages about the erotic fixation:

Philosophy is about employing the symbols to realize progressively greater states of discontiguity (which the real ego interprets as pain and emotional disturbance, for it threatens the organic unity with dissolution), in order to reify more and more completely the real ego as ideal, as the ideal represents deeper stages in the enfoldment of topoi, and more expansive levels of consciousness, deeper inwardness. Each of the religions have realized such discontiguous states and realized new stages of subjective existence, the last one attained by Christianity. Human emotion is tied to them, and each new degree of inwardness brings with it a different range of new affective potential or emotionality.

*
The philosophic-linguistic symbols (triadic)
introduce a basis for acausal association of these affective sequences, that is, the point of
origin for the development of such discontiguous states of consciousness and the antinature
of the spiritual body, the ideal-ego; as in Schelling, they are self-interpretive in that
they symbolize the very psychodynamic forces which gave rise to them.

----
The excessive power latent in this tension of confused, agonistic divine and mortal
potencies within human nature, to borrow Schelling's language, expresses itself
daemonically, as an orientation between the two realities of the immanent self-nihilation
of nature's phenomenal apparition and that of the transcendent absolute of Being, but
human nature is not confined to the middle-world of the daemon, which is to say, human
nature is not strictly interpretable on the basis of its immediate orientation to the ideal or
eidos toward which it is existentially grounded and philosophically bent, sinking as it
does, in its tragic dimension, into the immanent domain of the destructive forces
themselves; forces which have given the body both its genesis and decay, whose power is
Death, and less often rising into the eroto-heroicism of creative ascent, an ascent which
always preserves the liminal boundary between the soul's unrealized depths and the
absolute of Being, an absolute which in mythology is precomprehended as God and into
which man kenotically empties and stabilizes the excessive and latent tensions of the
daemon-- the preservation of such a reflective boundary, as would prevent us from
returning to Kantian submission before the noumena, the Schellingian hypostasis of the
human will as the primal God-will, Hegelian identification of the first and last,
Nietzschean return to immanence etc. is necessary to, above all, avoid the vengeance of
nature specified by Holderlin, where he says: "The sages, however, who differentiate only
with the spirit and hasten quickly back into pure Being and fall into an even greater
indifference because they believe to have differentiated, and because they take the non-opposition
they have returned to for an eternal one, have deceived their nature with the
lowest degree or reality, and nature must take revenge." The non-opposition here
indicated, as was confused with the eternal opposition, with the primal duality, is in fact
the reflective boundary, as between the unconscious depth of the Soul and the absolute of
Being, and is in philosophy taken as the original dualism or differentiation upon which all
others are falsely based. The internal tension and opposition between potencies, as
between freedom and necessity, mortal and divine, characterize the purely daemonic
reality of human nature; it is when this relation is psychodynamically stabilized that the
self-contraction of the real- that is, the episteme or erotic form, allows the inequality of
the original internal agony, of the excess of the unincorporated potency, to place itself
into a secondary opposition with an external power, and this later, external opposition
characterizes the true seat of philosophic differentiation, for it is the differentiation of the
erotic form, the locus of the libidinal-motive complex, from the actual form of Beauty
itself, as is discussed by Plato- the differentiation of the episteme from the transcendental
aniontos. [aniontes: Greek for ascending reason, as through the lower to the higher
Forms.] Only through the later, true differentiation, as serves for the basic fulcrum of the
movement of philosophy, does one attain to an understanding of the ideal ego, whose
unconscious depth is permeated with the ground of discontiguous transcendental
reflection, as opposed to the real ego of human psychology, of Nietzsche and Freud,
whose unconscious depth is populated merely by the causal mechanisms and dynamics of
a libidinal-motive complex and the residuum of nature's reflexive affect-contiguity.



One of the central points in my philosophy of consciousness is that the apparent stream of consciousness is only the residuum of reflex-affect carried through the domain of the real ego struggling with death and dissolution, and that fully human consciousness is the product of something almost opposite to a stream, namely discontinguous states of acausal abruption within the order of affects, whereby linguistic-abstract symbols, which stand outside of temporal relations, are utilized to reify the real ego, that is, the feeling of affective unity, as ideal, cohered in the transcendent horizon of meaning. Because of this, consciousness is impenetrable to the two main philosophical methodologies: Hegelian dialectics and phenomenology, for the former relies on synthesis, and the later on the analysis of a causal sequence of events or stream of consciousness- Nietzsche's principle of Will to Power, whereby all drives are made to interact with one another purely on the basis of which has a greater internal quanta of force, organizing thereby into causal associations of subjugation and enslavement, is a fundamental phenomenological model. In my philosophy of mind, when we hear a sound, the mind is actually experiencing a discontiguous state formed from the juxtaposition of the lowest and highest tones, in which it reifies the primitive, immediate, bodily experience of temporal succession throughout the whole development of the particular sound, rather it is a piano chord, a ringing bell, or a siren: to the animal, every seemingly individual sound is an un-composed sequence of neural events, and has the impression of a multitude of different, unconnected sounds, that is, a true stream of consciousness. There is therefor a pre-existing structure, a continua of affects or a field, upon which sense experiences are organized in the human mind into periodic intensifications of a basic, liminal affective unity which serves as a kind of threshold of potentiation, namely the real ego- that is, a field upon which the undifferentiated conscious stream is separated out into variances of height and depth, low and high levels of excitement, lower and higher tones: the goal of philosophy is to reify this real ego in more comprehensive states of discontiguity, thereby enlarging the scope of possible intensification around which affects are organized, for as long as we are operating on the basis of the real ego, only a tiny sliver of consciousness can serve as the libidinal threshold or limit to the potentiation and intensification or separation of experience into height and depth- any intensity that crosses that boundary is pushed into the unconscious and cannot play a role in the reification of the primitive conscious stream into a more human and awakened, transcendent consciousness.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:31 am

The existence of different languages is proof of a communal dimension of this process: the more powerful internal tensions that cohere to the more powerful external tensions govern the development of the mediation that is the substance of erotic conciousness as sharing of a struggle which, in order to be shared, is removed from the struggle as a metaphor.

Different pools of struggle in these erotic dimensions arrange conciousness around different sets of potentiating metaphors, a difference that is tectonig: gradual through violent negation that is an absorption through the gravity of the concentration that becomes the "real." "Real" because, by the necessity begat it, it is unstoppable, it does not settle into real until, yes, the act of philosophy can settle enough that unsettlement is settled as a metaphore. Philosophy's duty is to provide these metaphores all the depth it can gather from its own encounters with every dimensions that has affected human. This explosion is as potentiating to the communal as it is to the individual, by virtue of its settling into the ancient hierarchy of metaphor and its processes.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Defin(it)e philosophy   

Back to top Go down
 
Defin(it)e philosophy
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Ethics-
Jump to: