The Heroic (grappling with P's conception)

This is a thread for investigating the concepts of the Hero as they appear in Parodites' philosophy. It seems to me to represent a pinnacle or spearhead of human moral thought. Even though "it" (the general notion or pathos of heroism) plays a central role in virtually all of our collective narratives, it is a subject very rarely addressed in philosophy, and never with the consequential acuteness of Parodites' concepts. Perhaps this is simply because it is terrifying, when seen from a nested human perspective; another indication of why the hero is so often sung but never described. The Heroic might perhaps replace The Erotic as the axis of controversy and shame, when humanity is ready to broaden it's horizon.

Politics is always wretched if it is not drive by some form of heroism - heroism is perhaps the only thing far-reaching enough to bind collective human endeavors; to evoke the notion of culture; every culture needs its heroes before it can build  its self-conceptions; The hero also represents always that which is not, that which does not characterize normal human being; perhaps this concept can replace the Nietzschean "Uebermensch", which is a non-dimensional concept, does not as a concept provide a dialectic process; but the Heroic includes the notion of the "interaction of low and high", the great riddle at the center of all morality and politics.

I hope that Parodites and Capable will be interested in giving some substance to this thread. At this point it's just a suggestion.

The heroic is, as I see it, a completed daemonism, finally able to stop vacillating from one partiality to another; experiences impose themselves upon us only partially, we cannot receive them entirely nor can they entirely receive us; the simple "geometric-excessive" principle of this compels value-judgments out of us, implicitly at first as is the case with more simple animals and living beings and finally more active, summative, "intentional" in man, he has his means of parsing the field of his experiences in various terms of standards of measure and value, and out of the longer-term consistencies of those methods eventually learns what it means to feel like an enduring entity, a consistent identity over time and across changing experiences. That learned identity manifests on the one hand as personality, and on the other hand as our ideas and ways of thinking (the "programs" we are running cognitively and that we are capable of running).

That is how the human is setup, daemonically split and self-frenzied, a mystery to himself. This applies to philosophers as well as non-philosophers; but the Heroic mind, mens heroica as I think Parodites would call it, would transcend this setup by finally realizing all of the variances and limits which had formerly determined it: would in this way reconceive itself in terms of only that which it is, thus finally relieving the excesses of imperfect alignments and gaps, being now able to adequately be its experiences. Because nothing or very little would escape it, its mind would be "full" with the world as all the disparities and partial responses in itself found perfection in each other, excess disappears because it can now flow unbroken up through subjectivity and "out the top" of it. The excess under all psyche and instinct finally liberated as one unbroken stream overflowing out of consciousness.

My understanding of it is more like this, from the perspective of personality and pathological faults and limits, how these are merely reflecting the daemonic "sticking points" in men, those clashing moments where the experiential field cannot be further divided-abstracted out of its serial process and consequently must reify itself in some manner of stable, falsifying-simplifying image, whether that image be an idea or a behavioral trait/habit or "instinct". What we call desires and values flow out of these "sticking point" moments as representations of that various structural dynamics of the daemonically-frustrated impossibilities to continue the excessively-fracturing serial-"causal" process.

In terms of politics, then, I can understand politics only as a further reflection of this negativity and 'error' living out of the imperfect daemon. Politics is a field of compromise between variously broken and differently broken subjectivities. Rather than attempt to heal the breaks we instead try to force them outside of ourselves and impose them upon our experiences, upon the world- what this achieves is to falsify much of the experiential realm and also to thereby create structural spaces in which "resolutions" of those now-systemic problems and faults become required in a practical sense. We want, after the anti-philosophical imposition of our subjective limit-points upon the wider field of our experiences and upon others, only to create a world itself capable of arresting the immanent tensions arising from those more essential daemonic conditions, thus too of course such possibilities for practical-arresting mechanisms become mediums through which we may exercise the limited excessive natures we do have in ways conducive to our "living" and to those errors which live out of us, namely we become "ambitious" or "politically-driven" or what Nietzsche called willing to power.

We aren't even capable of willing to power, not in any real meaning of that idea, all we can do is seek to discharge this or that partializing-frustrated daemonic series in some semblance of consistent action and psychological orientation, as if to finally justify the errors that live out of us---"politics". Thus I see politics only as a sign of the smallness of the human species; not of its "moral unworthiness" and certainly not of its ugliness, for a lot of beauty and moral truth does find expression through the political, but simply of the fact that we even need politics at all is rooted the more fundamental problem, the philosophical aporia which no philosophy seems interested in dealing with, save for Parodites' philosophy.

And there is also therefore another meaning of heroic, a more properly political one, which I guess most people and most philosophers would be more amenable to: the non-conscious excesses flowing up through daemonically-stunted psyche and the world resulting from the billions of interactions of such psyches, "society", in the sense that these excesses reach beyond themselves and strive to maximize their limit-approach: high ideals and nobler passions, philosophical concepts like justice, aesthetics, eros and agape, and sentiment striving for its manifest realizing via structurally pushing its boundaries by both achieving its own logical center as well as transcending that center, in other words anything that is intrinsically excessively bent. These sort of ideas and passions serve to ground consciousness and achieve greater subjectivity for man, so when these become the heart of a politics we might call that politics more heroic in nature, even if technically-speaking such politics is still only a reflection of the inconsistencies and pathology of a lower daemon.

Common heroism which enlivens man and shines vitality through his subjectivity by virtue of the ways this heroism reconfigures consciousness. But that is something different than the mens heroica, which still has yet to be realized.

Capable wrote:

The heroic is, as I see it, a completed daemonism, finally able to stop vacillating from one partiality to another; experiences impose themselves upon us only partially, we cannot receive them entirely nor can they entirely receive us; the simple "geometric-excessive" principle of this compels value-judgments out of us, implicitly at first as is the case with more simple animals and living beings and finally more active, summative, "intentional" in man, he has his means of parsing the field of his experiences in various terms of standards of measure and value, and out of the longer-term consistencies of those methods eventually learns what it means to feel like an enduring entity, a consistent identity over time and across changing experiences. That learned identity manifests on the one hand as personality, and on the other hand as our ideas and ways of thinking (the "programs" we are running cognitively and that we are capable of running).

Yes. "God", and after than any abstraction of unknown causes, is a way to gain control of this first implicit tendency; to anthropomorphize 'fate' (that which happens to one, that which one becomes) becomes a way to relate to it more directly and, by rituals, by throwing stones at a stick, or by writing downs marks representing tools, entities, events, qualities; in this way man advances science, in the desperate juggling of his capacities with his ignorance and impotence, now and then he hits onto something that works. The search for knowledge is a spasm of an entity in free fall; humans have learned to conceptualize each other, and are thus formally - which is to say 'eternally' attached to each other, and as civilization is formed around the grave, culture  is formed to bridge the abyss, negative idea of death, and to come to objectivity, immortality.
All great culture is morbid.
(Also a warning; in favor of tribal, small scale culture)

Quote :

That is how the human is setup, daemonically split and self-frenzied, a mystery to himself. This applies to philosophers as well as non-philosophers; but the Heroic mind, mens heroica as I think Parodites would call it, would transcend this setup by finally realizing all of the variances and limits which had formerly determined it: would in this way reconceive itself in terms of only that which it is, thus finally relieving the excesses of imperfect alignments and gaps, being now able to adequately be its experiences. Because nothing or very little would escape it, its mind would be "full" with the world as all the disparities and partial responses in itself found perfection in each other, excess disappears because it can now flow unbroken up through subjectivity and "out the top" of it. The excess under all psyche and instinct finally liberated as one unbroken stream overflowing out of consciousness.

That would be very painful, it is at least painful to imagine.

Quote :

My understanding of it is more like this, from the perspective of personality and pathological faults and limits, how these are merely reflecting the daemonic "sticking points" in men, those clashing moments where the experiential field cannot be further divided-abstracted out of its serial process and consequently must reify itself in some manner of stable, falsifying-simplifying image, whether that image be an idea or a behavioral trait/habit or "instinct". What we call desires and values flow out of these "sticking point" moments as representations of that various structural dynamics of the daemonically-frustrated impossibilities to continue the excessively-fracturing serial-"causal" process.

It is then easy to see why habits are so hard to change; to change them one would have to undo or at least sufficiently replace the path that led to it, and this path is thus entirely 'illogical', circumstantial, by logics that have long dissipated with their conditions; a habit is a residue of a reaction that might as well never have been, considering it left no other trace than that habit.

Quote :

In terms of politics, then, I can understand politics only as a further reflection of this negativity and 'error' living out of the imperfect daemon. Politics is a field of compromise between variously broken and differently broken subjectivities. Rather than attempt to heal the breaks we instead try to force them outside of ourselves and impose them upon our experiences, upon the world- what this achieves is to falsify much of the experiential realm and also to thereby create structural spaces in which "resolutions" of those now-systemic problems and faults become required in a practical sense. We want, after the anti-philosophical imposition of our subjective limit-points upon the wider field of our experiences and upon others, only to create a world itself capable of arresting the immanent tensions arising from those more essential daemonic conditions, thus too of course such possibilities for practical-arresting mechanisms become mediums through which we may exercise the limited excessive natures we do have in ways conducive to our "living" and to those errors which live out of us, namely we become "ambitious" or "politically-driven" or what Nietzsche called willing to power.

Nietzsche would say that you are merely describing another politics. The will to power is largely unconscious, consciousness is contingent on it, one of N's speculations was that consciousness itself might be nothing more than a byproduct on the way to more efficient willing to power; and there is something to this; perhaps identifying reality is an obstacle to truly experiencing it.

Quote :

We aren't even capable of willing to power, not in any real meaning of that idea, all we can do is seek to discharge this or that partializing-frustrated daemonic series in some semblance of consistent action and psychological orientation, as if to finally justify the errors that live out of us---"politics".

I don't think it's a matter of one or the other; everything is determined by the processes that constitute it, but some words are more accurate than others. Will to power is a relatively accurate term for a process that can clearly not entirely be explicated into words; selfvaluing logic takes the origin and result of that state, which can be put into words, and bends these together so as to represent what is in between them. It is the ourobouros that Nietzsche sought with the ER.

Quote :

Thus I see politics only as a sign of the smallness of the human species; not of its "moral unworthiness" and certainly not of its ugliness, for a lot of beauty and moral truth does find expression through the political, but simply of the fact that we even need politics at all is rooted the more fundamental problem, the philosophical aporia which no philosophy seems interested in dealing with, save for Parodites' philosophy.

Is this question not rather the very essence of political philosophy? Why there need to be politics at all, and why they are justified? It is true that the answers have so far been less than satisfying; "because life is misery" "because humans are brutes" was the usual excuse. Parodites' philosophy can not resolve the brutishness of man - I think at least that nothing can resolve this; this is why the uncomfortable idea of a spiritual elite, and a human hierarchy build around the values of this elite can not (yet?) be banished entirely; and here is where very tenuously a reaching mind can make the leap from Parodites to Sauwelios - certainly not something either of them would advocate - a politics forged around philosophical honesty, which is to say an acceptance of the fact that values are established subconsciously but that this value-positing itself needs to be revered; focal points for consciousness, temples are not where one goes to beg, but where one goes to spend ones excess -spend it on the gods, on the truth, on exaltation above necessity, justify life moment by moment without eye for its goal, which is death; make death seem irrelevant; this is what life is about for the hero. He can only make it seem that way because to him it is irrelevant; to no longer identify with the time bound state of reactions but to the sphere of judgment, which is eternal or fixed; where aesthetics are held as the higher realms of ethics, you are among high culture; but such realms have so far often been extremely 'inhuman'. Feudal Japan, for instance. The question seems to be whether high culture, culture on the edge of the blade (fitting these two partialities within one frame, requiring immense concentration and will to sacrifice) can be also human culture.

I do not so much fear the no, as that I do not feel that the time is ripe for a yes. But on the other hand, the only reason to cultivate anything at all is that time tends to ripen.

The outer planets retrograde back very deep into the havoc they just left behind.

Parodites wrote:

Man's relation to the primal ontos, to the soul of world generation- to ousia or Being itself, whose necessary existence Heidegger took as the basis of Dasein, has yet to be truly determined, for neither the limit of the human subject in isolation or the limiting Form of the ontos itself has yet been determined, and this condition of "to ousia somatos; exhousia to logos" [trans. from a material nothing to a spiritual something] has served for the last four thousand years as the mysteria tremens and infuscated substance within which the project of philosophy, at least in the West, has creatively grounded itself upon the passive infinity of the thoroughgoing mis-relation here described, which Kierkegaard understood as despair; in other words, because man has related himself to the ontos without having first determined a proper limit to the kingdom of his subjectivity, and has approached the higher questions of philosophy without having first understood his own form; without a telos, without an eidos, and without real understanding of either term in the question, so has he related himself to this ontos in a destructive, thoroughly deceptive manner, as if to play the serpent to his own innocence, and, by means of a philosophic gesture that can do nothing else but inflate to cosmic proportions his errors of judgment and the false conditions of his orientation to Being, so has the transcendent horizon of mankind been able to take only the form of the passive infinity of a more or less creative aesthetic, out of which the undetermined remainder of all that lies still un-thought in the depths of man has annunciated itself in various systems of anthropomorphism, throwing itself up from the seas of the unconscious in the name of God, awaiting the day for its due recognition;- of the God whose name we take to represent the essential determination of man's existential burden, an essentia of our nature that is not yet known, but which would give us to understand our proper relationship with the ontos, for the term God would seem to be the only fitting concept by which to evoke this burden, as this word carries within it latently the premise that there is indeed a true relation to be discovered between man and the world, somatos and logos, the subject and Being. We do not yet know who man is, nor what the world is; our transcendent horizon is only the horizon whereby nihilism may be left behind for the hope that there may yet be a man, that there may even be a world and an ontos, though their essence remains undiscovered by us, whose secret were our transcendence, but only the transcendence of the daemon within us, which takes the form of the unconscious remainder that lies within us still preserved after all metaphysico-chemical analyses and atomic reductions have been carried out, as the signature of a distinctively qualitative reality and surplus-meaning to our experience; but we must now admit that the real transcendence would be found in the determination of man's true relation with that ontos, which, comprehended as an existential burden and relation of agape, love, or moral obligation, would provide to us the medium within which to reflect that qualitative remainder and become truly conscious of it- for this relationship would be as beyond our own human selves as it is beyond the ontos and the world- for this relation could point only to the irresolvable third term which abrupts all hopes of dialectical synthesis, which we have before called God; namely the excess or hyperousia in which consciousness may be actively grounded in the infinite burden of bearing this relationship to Being, as the transcendent horizon of what has been called here the eroto-daemonic. Man is not opened up to Being in the Heideggerian sense, for he knows neither his own limit or the limit of Being, and in relating himself to what he calls God he has been unconsciously formulating the excessive meaning-surplus underlying his irreducible experience as the self-limited limit; for, though man is not opened up to Being, he is at least receptive to it, as the masculine harmedon is not opened to but is receptive to the feminine principle, which is to say that the active creative potency of the divine Logos has been inverted within him as a passive infinity, as was possessed by the fallen Satan in the form of the deceiving serpent; the subjectivity of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Nietzsche, simply utilizes Being as the locus of its self-relation, as the medium of its aesthetic self-construction of itself, which sadly necessitates the destructive movement whereby Being is buried in the night of unconscious, and is made to sink down into the core of the remainder like the Gnostic angel falling into matter. The ontos of this world is, rather, that which is left over after man has announced himself, and philosophy is just man's announcing himself. The more firmly this limit or philosophy is drawn around man, the more severely does the boundary of the ontos present itself in the form of a moral compulsion and existential burden to fulfill the arrested impulse at work in the universe and supplant the physical order of the world with the new moral order; the more potently this compulsion and burden wells forth in the heart of the individual, the more conscious he is of the qualitative universe and hyperousia which he constitutes, and the more conscious of this that he is, so the closer does his life approach the transcendent horizon of meaning. In the seventh epistle of Plato, in which he chides those who claim to have written the truth into their books, for the truth cannot be written, but is rather gnoston te kai alethes, this very progression is made known as a progression through the name, account, image, and finally through knowledge, into the inexpressible fifth movement of philosophy. Man is not limited by Being, nor held back by the thing he contemplates, even if it be the image of the starry firmament with all its suns and milkyways, to cite Schopenhauer, and so man provides the limit to things, and was their measure; this is his heroic essence and eroto-daemonism: it is only man that has an essentia or internal reality, a form and limit, for only man can announce himself from out of the supra-abundance and the meaning-excess of the Logos or primordial Word, while Being gains a limit of its own only in relation to that possessed by man, only in relation to the immortal mensurae established in his philosophy, so that it might be said that there were properly no Being of beings, no Being behind beings, which was the lesser understood component of the Platonic philosophy. Man is morally obligated to provide the measure to Being, for without his measure, the universe was left unaccomplished.

I believe that this piece of text contains the answer to our problem of politics and philosophy; the obligation is nothing besides filling in the space which has been called God. P says that the nature of being-human has not been determined, and he is right; all we have are flawed attempts; humanism being one of the more ambitious ones, but still hopefully flat and lacing human dimensions; what is always lacking is the contradicting nature of morality - the more liberating it is to certain types, the more tyrannical it must be on the whole; we can only appreciate the contradiction when we have moved beyond it when we've seen it emerge from a singular phenomenon. Somehow Parodites navigates both edges of the abyss in parallel; reading it requires holding intact several strains of reason parallel to each other, much like in advanced occult work, save that one also has to keep track of the logics whereby these strands unfold, which is not the case in occultism, where one acts on faith, or the strong intuition of being on the right track; this philosophy of Parodites is indeed strongly exalted, and it can not be overstated that we need it in order to make full use of value ontology.

Where Parodites maps the origins and the present state of the human psyche, a work indeed started by Freud by positing a lot of relevant errors, VO is like Nietzsche's phenomenology strictly technical, void of humanity (only the philosopher is directly infused in it); it also requires no further thought to be validated; it does not require that one engages it with content, it is certainly not human in its application. Precisely in this capacity it is the key to delineate, within the paradigm of excess and daemonic 'transontic' progression of consciousness, the limits of man and world.

These limits, so it now appears, are extremely volatile; in combination with each other they produce the worlds of symbols and all transactions (as I understand it, even DNA is a symbolic system, triggering chemical activity by 'presenting' certain 'recognized' forms to other organic parts); and it is impossible to get solid foot on the ground in in this border zone between man and world which we call humanity in this age of communication (before we called it god and managed to stay within ourselves more, now we truly occupy the space between man and being, and it is thus inevitable that we at one point sacrifice a part of what we now consider ourselves in order to set the limits and become man, and perceive the world; what we sacrifice now will later appear to us as hell, but it appears now to us as out freedom from the past, from the stupidities of religion, from superstition in general. In truth, religion has carried this space in which we are blind for us to stumble on  ourselves when fate wills it; the effort to bring light to this space which we now displace by our insistence on 'being rational' while not knowing what reason is, will gradually make man master of fate - in the same way that fate will finally be able to master man. The greater coherences are only there in potential; because life has formed symmetrically around the fundamental asymmetry of being, he will learn to know his fate by cultivating the asymmetry in himself, and this asymmetry is 'self-valuing'; and this is (I will argue) what Sauwelios indicates with "Injustice".

There is a tiny point of convergence of our perspectives; it is so small that it is a hellish task to say something that is coherent to all and does justice to all - but the fact is that we are still all here and understand more than we did 4 years ago; I a beginning to discern a theory - or it may be my own reviving courage that I discern, courage which is always the flesh and blood of mind-shaping thought, wherein the self-valuing logical grammar works to keep open the abyss while bridges are being built across it; the mistake is that we want to close the abyss; we want to be one with the world, submerge in being. But we only become the abyss; rather we must think in the same manner as Heidegger perceives the being of the bridge; the bridge cultivates on both sides of the river, it brings together land and land (man and world) by acknowledging their fundamental separation; by this fundamental acknowledgement, man becomes bridge-builder; all he does now is to draw closer to being as himself, for which he needs to be what he can not be under normal circumstances; both intelligent and completely honest. This is why the philosopher needs to be politicized; to politicize honesty. The erotic impulse that ripples outward from such honesty in the world has made revolutions; but it has only rarely produced heroic mindset; for heroism to become a true norm, which would undo very many unnecessary restraints and sicknesses in the world as it shows the transcendent privilege of all true action and compels man to extend himself qua man. From there on philosophy leaves the bearded profiled countenance behind and looks right at man, and becomes a youthful ing or royal couple; it is only philosophy that can make kings, because human worth is a philosophical principle. King-making is the task of philosophy as the Athenians understood it; we have forgotten this but no philosopher has existed who did not feel himself the rightful patriarch of a dynasty; all philosophers therefore have posthumous friends, and only now philosophy seems to have grown so massive that it draws time into itself so as for it to catch up with it. The present was never theoretically possible. It was only possible without thought. But with our methods, the present can be conceived as a real 'place', that is to say we can delineate man in terms of the excessive being of which he partakes, and perhaps teach him to delineate himself; 'building, dwelling, thinking' - as pastoral as this sounds in Heideggers words, it is a very rapturous process; it is after all the self-causing of being - which is fundamentally heroic... this is the point where value ontology is most human; the fully existent human, the human ontic real, is a connective process at the head of which a heroic effort directs that collective; Dionysus as the city-state of Nietzsches ideal - but possibly also a world movement of awakened men who bring forth a future greater, more dynamic, fertile and rich of experience than I think I would dare to imagine, for fear of becoming very sad that I was not born into it; this is my fundamental struggle, I suppose - do I keep this in my heart, or do I transpose it, through this brutally imperfect means of my  writing here, to the outside so that it once may grow into a beating heart of the world? See here the fundamental problem Parodites identifies as also the state of my philosophical identity right now. I am not yet moral; I would only become moral at the suggestion, the evocation, of a true world.

All of this is so petty, I keep gravitating toward either of the inauthentic axes of conception. I fear that my way of addressing the Daemonic is a particular way; perhaps it is the highest or closest to omnipotent particular way but still, it is a lower rung than philosophy; it is magic.

I think that my discovery of a principle of being marks an occult rank 'above the abyss'; I am a furious and daily practicing occultist; it is not something one can be initiated into and then get out of. I initiated myself to save myself from ruin by chaos, it is not a skill therefore which I wish to propagate or even announce. But if I am to be honest I have no choice but to announce that I believe very strongly in the power of symbolism to effect 'absurd' degrees of change. It is because the clergy of science (the antithesis, as I will argue if anyone is interested, to the scientific geniuses) navigate only by the very least responsive of mediums that life has a chance against scientific deterministic politics of ethics; the world itself is far more opportunistic and 'close to itself' than to require such absurd detours in determination; detours that only leave the crudest connections intact.

Once man wakes up to symbolic nature of power, or the power of symbolic minds - one can equate 'symbol' with 'mind' in the highest sense - one never steps into the same mind except holding he same symbol - on that day he will no longer be ruled by any elites but the ones of his own making.

Symbols are approximations of the actual reality of the proto-deamonic excess; they are the foundations on which identities are built; human bureaucracy is quite as self-fertilizing and pervasive as grass, because the ground of being itself is 'formal'; there is no correspondence of force that can cause causation without a symbolic exchange of presence. Men have their handshakes, so do computers programs and so do electronic particles; it is not an actual transaction but the formalization of the possibility of transaction.

For this reason, power always dresses in formality; it can not express itself to power in another way.

As Capable said it is quite of as much consequence how we are being valued; how we are being perceived; symbolic aggression places imprints of the will as beacons on the 'bitter sea', the protodaemonic plasma, the 'climate of being', etc etc; beacons to 'shake hand' - imprint the notion of possibility - on those ships passing by in the dark.

Our causal relation with the imaginatively posited symbol remains intact as the symbol does its work in the daemonosphere. It is usual that magicians do not know how to harvest their fish, the consequences of an act of magic, and thus there are also a lot of unharvested treasures hanging around for beginners to experience their luck; but that it is incontestably real, this is only an empirical matter and not ever a philosophical one; philosophy rather discloses that the possibility of science does not prevent the possibility of magic; the two oprate by different standards of correspondence.

The 'analog' grammar of value is prior to the 'digital' law of correspondence;
the necessity of standard requires that two corresponding things correspond equally to a (possibly hypothetical) third; therefore (eternally multiple frames) correspondence only deals in aspects, not in entities.

Some material on the question of the heroic daemonism:




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.

...

While animals certainly have feelings, they are parts of the causal-reflexive series organized by nature and evolution in order to reconstitute a particular sequence of neural events that had been proven beneficial to the organism; in the state of discontiguity, in which this causal stream of affects has been dis-integrated by introducing symbolic reasoning into conscious life, man utilizes a negative-conceptual space formed out of the asymmetries of psychic variances in which to reify the object of consciousness- the real as ideal, immortal, Ego. Humans possess the real ego only because it functions as a necessary center for this disintegrated psychic interior, in the manner of a libidinal threshold: experiences that cross this threshold get truncated and pushed into the unconscious, so that all experience can be re-interpreted by the conscious mind in terms of a semiotic relationship to the real-ego or immediate sense of self, a representation of the feeling of organo-affective unity holding the individual back from dissolution and death. There are then in humans two modes of emotion which are different from animal-feeling, namely negative and positive emotions related to this libidinal threshold, and discontinguous states of consciousness which are far more comprehensive than simpler emotions like anger or lust, more like peak experiences, in which philosophic and creative revelation takes place and the real is reified as ideal ego, and in which the daemonic is given an eroto-daemonic horizon.

...

The first generation of philosophers realized the primordial state of discontiguity in which the two divergent universes available for the purpose of reifying consciousness of the real, one of substance or Being and the other of Power or energeia, crossed one another at some intellectual infinitesimal, like two lines through a point on the number line, if only for a moment and after having passed through eternity; the Ideal self was found, in that undefinable locus, to be neither the nous or possession of Being nor the Body, that is, the possession of extraneous forces of nature; this self-contracted image of the real, that is, this negative-conceptual space, [truth as a category of pure negativity] provided the philosophical medium in which to construct a new center of thought or episteme within which to mask the unformulable Ideal and around which cognition could gravitate towards a new tonal center and re-absorb its own contents within a higher-transitional phase of differentiations. Philosophy involves as one of its fundamental operations the establishing and the enlargement of this negative-conceptual space or discontiguity which Voegelin referred to as the principium non-identitatis or principle of non-identity, and which I have before called the illusory center of thought- a necessarily nonphilosophical or rather prephilosophical act, while on the other hand the act of philosophy's fulfillment, as lies within the heart of its own activity and life, is found in the hypostasis of the immanent as transcendent horizon; that is, the saturation of this negative-conceptual space with its own concept; the determining of truth as the category of pure negativity. Spinoza, Nietzsche, Heraclitus, and many others, have accomplished the first pre-philosophical inaugural task. The tragic-daemonism of man and conceptual opposition of, for example, life and death, gives way to the opposition of soul and body, then will and determinism, etc. all the way up through the ladder of ascending discontinguities, the ideal ego recognizing itself as neither of the two terms in any series and always located in the excess or daemonic remainder of the immanent ground of differentiation, whereby this ideal serves as the basis upon which the immanent is hypostasized as transcendent horizon, until the ladder culminates in the recognition of Truth as the category of pure negativity, for neither term in any of the series of differentiations will ever be adequate to the remainder: once this culmination is attained, philosophy will fulfill itself in heroic-daemonism as a pure, limitless creative energy, in which the center of thought is exploded outside of its own boundary.