'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 | 
 

 On the Value of Suffering.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 8:50 pm

Yes, love of words, I like this. If you own up to it completely, then you will see what Nietzsche reallty meant, and why Sawelios is willing to leap into mind-itself fully on his word. Because he took the leap: well if words are it, then everything ever imaginable is word, and word is everything imaginable. Write carefully! World-create lovingly, with all of your highest stuff! If a word says material, it is a word saying this. Can you see? The eternal return? The will to power that is not will or power? Yes, words are negativity itself, and the responsability of this makes more than one philosopher crack... But not Friedrick Wilhelm Nietzsche! Nojoda! He is my light, because he was the greatest craftsman of words I know.

 

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

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:19 pm

When you have loved him as much as I have, if you have invested in words as much, you will understand what I mean by "valuing", why I favor this word so much as to make it the center of the world.

I hope you will learn come to see the proper, bloody sense of this choice of words, Nietzsche's choice of words. It is the annihilation of reference and the birth of "tragedy" - in any case the things that are born from the spirit of music.

Sauwelios, as do I, holds value ontology to be an improvement, a making-deeper of the WtP ontology. My philosophy is Nietzschean, but Nietzscheanism aims to overcome itself into the superman.

The superman, as Sauwelios holds, is the philosopher as his mind spans the world in the affirmative sense. But the Eternal Recurrence requires a totality, and totality isn't real. The fiction breaks his literary style, which is tentative, tactile, sublime in its earthiness, its wood.

It is clear that Nietzsche holds rank, but it is only a tribute to his dynamite that someone dares to say that he feels constrained by him. Is it not evident that there is a side of philosophy that Nietzsche does not address?

I am beginning to believe that the central hiatus of Nietzsche's philosophy is defined by himself under the the name of Ariadne, the bride to that which he understood and incorporated, the world as will to power.

"And "no-thing" besides!"

Fuxtaposition.

 

___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:43 pm

No-thing besides, to keep us honest, to remind us that overcoming is an action and not an act.

In all reverence to your majesty, the superman is not the philosopher. This aspiration is

below

the philosopher.

He does love the philosopher, though, that superman, that love incarnate. He doesn't hold the capacity of distinction necessary to be philosopher. He cannot lie to himself to that extent... A reaper, rather than a sower or caretaker of wisdom. A philosopher is, of course, all three.

 

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

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:50 pm

The essential mistake is to place woman below man.
Whereas in practice it is the case, the thesis completely destroys the value of woman.
To put it harshly, if she can not be adored, she is worthless.

To begin with the premise of a servile, submissive woman is to misunderstand what masculine heroism aims for; it aims only to find something to which it may dedicate its strength.

Nietzsche could not have survived the admittance of the sanity destroying Aphrodite into his world. But philosophical religion needs Venus, woman of stature and demonic, deadly power.

Shakti is the divinity of the hindu's, the name means power.
In as far as god man and god woman are married, they are in a violent dance. Humans can not endure this dance for very long. But our culture is forced to absorb and excrete this reality nonetheless. Religion may only serve to find a channel for this, it has no other purpose but to adorn that which is adored with the crown of Rome.

 

___________
" 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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:56 pm

Pezer wrote:
No-thing besides, to keep us honest, to remind us that overcoming is an action and not an act.

In all reverence to your majesty, the superman is not the philosopher. This aspiration is

below

the philosopher.

He does love the philosopher, though, that superman, that love incarnate. He doesn't hold the capacity of distinction necessary to be philosopher. He cannot lie to himself to that extent... A reaper, rather than a sower or caretaker of wisdom. A philosopher is, of course, all three.

It used to be below me, until I understood the suffering of that would-be superman that I held in higher, more visceral regard, health. It is quite simple: the superman would envy the philosopher if he weren't one himself. All power seeks knowledge. Odin is the basic model of the Superman the mortal but recurring god who seeks (loves) wisdom. N wasn't the first German to hold the humility to the Earth of the Gods in high regard. A theory of Fire and Ice, greatness of the imperfect. Primordial coherence, absolute bitterness to host the fairest of loves.

 

___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:03 pm

But is this not a shameful admittance of weakness? Must the hero then not only find a way to impress a woman, but to sustain this impression? To change himself into a being that can rest in the middle of battle, or dance? To find, like a baby, comforting rest in rythm?

Aphrodite asks too much, Ariadne asks only complete coherence. Is it any surprise that it is Hephaesteon that weds Afrodite? And that she cheats on him constantly? I hear with ares, though she is probably happy to have a place to withdraw from his wrath when he is tired. Ariadne requires no slapping. Coherence will do.

I agree, superman would starve to death today. Not so the philosopher. See, the philosopher, and nietzsche knew this, can tolerate weakness, whereas the superman cannot.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:12 pm

The superman needs wisdom, not love of wisdom. He loves it like he loves the rest of his domain. The philosopher needs to love wisdom; no love can compare to this love for him.

 

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

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:14 pm

A spinstress. But then I prefer Athena.

The essence of Nietzsche is that Zarathustra came down the mountain.

His earthly wisdom is magnificent an unsurpassed.
In the end it is not his earthly wisdom but his mountain-homesickness that pushes him to eternalize that which he has seen. But if he wanted the eternity of a totality, he should have stayed on the mountain.

But he even says so himself: "suffering does not add up". A greater number of suffering people does not increase the degree of suffering in the world. Only a deeper suffering, which is isolation. Hence, compassion: it minimizes ones own suffering to identify as much as possible with the suffering of others.

My point being, if suffering does not add up then there can not be a totality.
In essence, the affirmation of the Eternal Recurrence was an affront to all the subtle animals that figure into Nietzsche's wisdom. Reading it in German made me even Nauseous, even. I sensed, or so I felt, how he was straining himself. So unnecessary.

 

___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:19 pm

Would you call Napoleon a philosopher? He tried his hand at it and got a good opinion from I think it was voltair or some Encyclopedian we all know, but he didn't have the patience, the tolerance for it. He needed power, strength, now, he used wisdom as something to weild and to love the love of.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:25 pm

He comes down from the mountain indeed, but he does so not because he loves the people, or totality, but because he sees an inherent totality in his wisdom, a species-available joy. Then he realizes people are quite sick. But he didn't set out to find other mountain descenders; he hoped perhaps to meet a superman down there to tell his crazy shit to.

Eternal recurrence is the philosopher's way to understand that what happened, happened, despite all his wisdom. No amount of glorious understanding can substitute the age of America's Funniest Home Videos. The superman would never accept that, that is why we love him, but we can't be him because we must accept it in order to treat it.

 

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

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:36 pm

Pezer wrote:
The superman needs wisdom, not love of wisdom. He loves it like he loves the rest of his domain. The philosopher needs to love wisdom; no love can compare to this love for him.

I realized only recently, and this is not a cop out because it does not annihilate the earthly satisfactions, that love of wisdom is wisdom itself. Pure fertility.
Earth, fertile thought, this is where we live. There is no jungle besides the way you breathe in it.

Eyes of fire, the Cobra crowning the Devouring Lion, the face of death is the body of life.

And yet, can absolutely see your point. It is a point of youth, and valid therein.  The rajasic leads up the the sattvic, and is thus sacred to it. This is 'the  problem' - about the greatest luxury a man can ever have.

Quote :
Would you call Napoleon a philosopher? He tried his hand at it and got a good opinion from I think it was voltair or some Encyclopedian we all know, but he didn't have the patience, the tolerance for it. He needed power, strength, now, he used wisdom as something to weild and to love the love of.

If he had not thrown all his strength on conquering Russia, he might, by some stroke of luck, have become a philosopher in the sense of the man who has conquered enough as to for a center to himself. Napoleon was a god, and he was as brilliant and wise as a philosopher can possibly be, but his drives to subject Russia were stronger.

Russia defeats all wisdom. This is the enigma in a secret in a mystery that forms her own.

Quote :

He comes down from the mountain indeed, but he does so not because he loves the people, or totality, but because he sees an inherent totality in his wisdom, a species-available joy. Then he realizes people are quite sick. But he didn't set out to find other mountain descenders; he hoped perhaps to meet a superman down there to tell his crazy shit to.

I don't think so. I see it rather as the exploration of the incompleteness of man qua being, as pure negation, which in the end negates itself by positing a pure eternal absolute. But it truly does negate itself there.

Quote :
No amount of glorious understanding can substitute the age of America's Funniest Home Videos. The superman would never accept that, that is why we love him, but we can't be him because we must accept it in order to treat it.

Hah, if there ever was an age for Superman, it was the fucking 80's. Come on!!

 

___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:39 pm

Allow me to attempt to summarize my point, as we have veered quite far in our brave wandering: philosophy cannot bullshit itself, specially about where it is. Nietzsche showed most of all how little philosophy has accomplished, how much blind grasping was involved before his dynamite. We bow in reverence to those efforts, but must stand back up and get to what philosophy has not been able to get to. Cauze were bad like that, Zoroaster style. We fundamentally agree on where it needs to go, but you say "aphrodite maybe,"I say "thats for the violent blind," you say "athena," i say " the philosopher goddes! As dionisus is the philosopher god!" Good for us. But let's stay on the straight and narrow, it's gonna get really dark really fast soon (if we're brave enough).

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:42 pm

I would guess the relationship between those Indian gods you mentioned would be of the younger venerating the truth inevitablle of the older and the older the desirability inevitable of the joy of the younger. This way, they can both work for the future young to enjoy and future old to be pleased in hard truth.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:45 pm

A little revenge. Some chaos. Dancing star.

 

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

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:58 pm

The thing Im trying to say is that the two wisdoms co exists.
Youth thinks youth perishes in age. It can, often does. But only because youth thinks so.


 

___________
" 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
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:00 am

Pezer wrote:
Fright? He shed it out of voluptuous loneliness. A challenge to resound into the ages. Still I read just a title of his books and my whole chakra lines up into bliss. "Beyond Good and Evil." Beyond fucking good and evil! "Human, All Too Human!" The balls! The creativity! The originality! Mein got, we can't even touch him yet, though thankfully Sawelios still thinks w/he can.

On everything else, I agree. Not out of fright, out of pride. "Hide? These motherfuckers couldn't touch me if I sawed my legs off! Here, see me naked and trembling! It wil be a hundred years before men can dream of understanding my vulnerability!"




I agree about Nietzsche and his writing style; I certainly know I'll never be as good a writer as him. The sheer force of personality and depth he writes from is intense, like s second truth over the contents he writes about. I bet reading him in German is fantastic.

"Twilight of the Idols", that is probably my favorite title of his. Beyond Good and Evil of course is like a kick to the gut, while Human All Too Human is the laughing tears of a forsaken mad genius. Just to come up with these titles is, as you indicate, a supreme indication of philosophical depth and beauty.

Back to the topic,


Sauwelios wrote:
Capable wrote:
What is a word? A vocal utterance or a scribble on paper, it has no intrinsic meaning at all, its shape or tone is arbitrary, it could easily have been other than what it is. Each word, each letter, is what it is for no consequence whatsoever except to distinguish it from other utterances or scribbles.

Words are not the concepts to which they point. Language is not about 'words', written or spoken; it is about concepts, meaning. Even we look to the grammar underlying the construction of letters into words, words into sentences, is this language? No, it is simply a material basis for language, a means to the end of allowing tectonically for the birth of conception. But the rules of grammar indicate a different kind of causality than appears in nature or by virtue of natural selection, for in grammar we have the first introduction of logic for its own sake, "either/or, if/then, if p then q" etc. These rules preside in the grammar of languages because they are reflecting logic as such, pure relationality, whereas in nature we have these kinds of relations indicated only negatively, as the conditions for the emergence of natural beings -- each oxygen molecule can only become metabolized by one organism, not two, etc.

Logic as such? Surely not necessarily, but perhaps only human logic as such, or the logic as such of human beings who are not "mentally ill". Nature has to correspond to our mental framework because insofar as it does not we cannot even perceive it or conceive of it.

Yeah, one of the real problems for philosophy is language itself: for me to communicate these things to you or anyone else I need to use words to do so, which can make it seem as if all that is intended to be communicated about were on the same plane or a level field of meaning or reality; when in fact that need not be the case at all.

When I spoke of logic as such I mean the deepest most universal objectivity-plane which applies to everything in our universe. Any mentally ill or otherwise deviations which APPEAR to violate those universal logic would simply express that logic through their respective breakdowns and confusions. And really I don't even mean any kind of imagined "universal logic" but the construct of logic as such, what logic itself means- regularity, order, coherence, objectivity. But again it's quite hard to discuss since the ideas must already be present to all minds in discussion, because to be quite frank about it the limits of language as I mentioned above make it nearly impossible to break through the minds of others who don't yet see these things. In any case I've stopped trying to do so.


Quote :
Quote :
Such limitations exist as the conditions implicit to the formation of the natural world, and the natural world is only a kind of secondary and negative expression of such things. But those conditions themselves, are finally realized positively in language as the grammar with which words and sentences are formed, and are able thus to produce meaning... Yet compared to that meaning itself, the grammatical rules are too only a kind of secondary and void conditionality.

It seems you're saying the same thing twice now. You say those conditions give rise to the natural world and to the world of thought (concepts). But what do we know of the natural world except how we conceive it in thought? Doesn't our whole world exist entirely in thought?

No, our whole thought exists entirely in the world, if we want to phrase it like that.

Solipsism is a gross lie and entirely incorrect view, because every human mind is a partial representation of larger mind-processes and world-conditions that have led to the formation of that one mind and its particular character, scope, values. All subjective knowledge bleeds out the objective through itself, it cannot help doing so even if people often miss that.


Quote :
Quote :
Think about the whole of nature, outside of man- do you think anywhere in this entire order there exists a single thought?

I think it might well be, yes. After all, why not?

Because I've defined what a thought means as a solely human event, understood as something made possible only by virtue of a pre-existing linguistic system (symbolic-logical abstraction) having embedded itself in and through a body of sense-impression immediacy and non-language. A "thought" means a certain kind of inner experience and self-perspective the being or ontological character of which is to hold in itself an image that gives something about reality, a truth, either positively-directly or negatively-indirectly. A thought has philosophical substance, otherwise it is nothing but an arbitrary conjunction of sense-impressions coming from the body organs and happening to meet in the animal flux-stream of our of which no one thing can be isolated or abstracted as would allow it to become properly an object of consideration and concern. It is impossible to understand anything without thinking, "thought" is simply the form of understanding as such, even when humans engage other kinds of understanding like intuition or emotion or mystical consciousness these things are only possible to give knowledge (an accurate portrayal of the reality toward which they are oriented) because a prior thought/language structure exists to become partially distorted and thus pressed into a more automatic-impulsive and "free" format. It's the same reason why a goat can never think about the food or the predator or the weather conditions it is reacting to-- it simply reacts, as reflex and based on a genetic predispositional and evolutionarily-tuned (meaning after the fact, as in non-teleological) nervous system able to detect stimuli within certain vaguely defined ranges and trigger a resulting output behavior. That's literally all it means to be an animal, except for their feelings which we humans also share; feelings that in themselves contain the buried seeds of what eventually sprouted in man as sentience, understanding, conscious self-valuing, and what we maybe call telos. But that's another topic, one I am currently working on.

If you have an alternate definition of what thought means, by all means offer it, so you could thereby make your case that thoughts could exist in non-human nature. I welcome this, because I would love to pit the definition of thought that I offer here against your understanding of what thought means. Those kind of wars don't happen nearly enough in philosophy, not even here at BTL.


Quote :
Quote :
No, there is not even a single one. You can move from plants to insects to fish to whales to birds to rats to lions to baboons, it's all the same.. not even one thought exists, not one "idea", not even just one positivistic reflection of the conditionality of life.

How do you know? And: don't any of these lifeforms have a neocortex?

I know based on how I just laid out what it means to think. As for the neocortex thing I see Parodites already addressed this -- essentially human brains have a far more developed structure wherein consciousness becomes able to self-respond and self-map to whole new degrees able to actually deeply feedback-loop new "artificial" circuits upon the already existing neurological structures that we've inherited from natural selection. Or I could say that I know because I've thought extensively through these issues and philosophically exploded the concepts to the point where I need only to turn my gaze inward upon my own process, or secondarily to perceive other people and make inferences about what's going on in their own minds, as process and law, for me to understand this. But to my credit I am making an attempt nonetheless to address and explain these things to you in a language we can hopefully both utilize in adequate philosophical fashion.

Maybe a better if more cynical response of mine could have been, "How do you know I'm wrong?" You seem to think that I am wrong here, so there must be a reason why you believe or intimate this.


Quote :
Quote :
It's all "pure negativity", a kind of profuse inter-harmonization of self-unknowing reflexology formed after the fact, ex post facto, by "natural selection" which itself is simply another example of an unconscious self-unknown, a condition that acts only upon things which are not-itself, rather than acting in terms of itself, as itself and upon itself.

The birth of philosophy begins with attaining the threshold understanding of the absolute-categorical divide between man and the rest of the entirety of nature, this understanding was intimated in early Greece and survived somewhat more or less intact through Rome and Christianity, but in our modern era is vanishing, as man seeks now to return back into the world of the pre-human animality and basic "sensory-organic reflexology" which requires no effort, no context, no perspective, no philosophy, no hope, no courage and no depth.

I think philosophy is obliged to question any such basic premisses. I do think there's a significant difference, but not necessarily between homo sapiens and the rest of nature; I don't think a human being is necessarily a member of homo sapiens nor vice versa.

Yes we are obligated to question these basic premises I've laid out here. So question them. Don't just tell me "I think that might not be quite correct" and leave it at that. Seriously, tear my ideas apart with all your strength and philosophical power, be merciless and leave no stone unturned. I want that level of critique, absolutely I need it. If you think I'm wrong then explain why and offer your own perspective on things. You won't be attacked here, like at ILP; only ideas are attacked at BTL, and without regard to whoever may happen to have said them. This is philosophical integrity.


Quote :
Quote :
One may merely "be what one is" in these modern times, and comport oneself toward any half-formed system of concepts such as in the psychological act of assuming that system one's own particular psychological, pathological, personality-based experiences and iterations are rendered incommunicable the one to the other, wherein the internal variance latent to oneself is silenced, or nearly so. "Matter" is not the truth, nor is "the brain"; obviously you understand that ideas, facts, truth, concepts, these do not exist "in the brain" or "as the brain", the one cannot be equated to the other except as a kind of biconditional inadequacy that is inherently asymmetrical, as I said previously.

No, this is where I fundamentally disagree. I think ideas, concepts, etc. may well be the brain--that is, not brain "matter" so much as brain activity, the electromagnetic or quantum states or processes that occur in the brain and are a part of it. I'm sketching the case that my world consists of such patterns--that the phenomena I see do not consist of matter but of neurophysical events--that my world is how these events experience themselves.

Yes, but your view here does not do away with objective reality at all, it simply makes that objectivity recede behind a cloak of images the brain creates to make sense of that reality. And those brain-made constructs are not reducible to the brain alone, the brain and those constructs or "false images" are connected within the same reality and tectonically-speaking the interpretations of your brain are no less real than are the things that are being interpreted; in fact I argue your brain-made interpretations are "more real" than whatever is out there more "by itself" that is giving cause for your brain to be creating your subjective experience and ideas.

And it should also be pointed out that facts are not mind-dependent, if every human on earth died tomorrow it would still be a fact that Mars has two moons, even if not a single sentience or mind exists anywhere in all of reality to know that fact. It is still a fact, facts do not depend on being known to exist as facts. This is getting at that whole Third Universe that Parodites was mentioning.


Quote :
Quote :
Brains are simply densities of neurons which themselves are merely measurement-indicators and storage devices for relations. The kinds of relations reflective of "mind" or "consciousness" are qualitatively, absolutely, categorically different from the kind reflective of the bulk of nature, the natural world, or the world of "non-living matter", of physis, which as Parodites points out vis a vis Pierce is merely a kind of direct, flattened plane of correspondence-causality of "this then that" linearity which Kitaro might call mere spatiality dimension with no temporal dimensionality at all. No "depth", no perspective.. no internal reality, no capacity to reflect the truth or the "ontos", as Parodites calls it.

Well, I seriously doubt that. It may be true of Newtonian physics, but then there are no Newtonian physics; that's just how quantum physics appears on a large scale. I'm suggesting that wherever there are relatively independent quantum states, there is at least some rudimentary form of consciousness.

Yes that is a nice Value Ontological conclusion and I'm not disagreeing with it. But I am saying that the kind of "consciousness" of a rock or an electron is categorically different from the kind of consciousness exampled in humans. While there are more than one way we could understand that difference and certainly not all of those ways are significant as to be categorical, one way is: man's encounter with the "Third Universe" of meaning, a symbolic capacity for objectivity able to represent reality and facts directly and in terms of their own nature and by process of a negating "anti-synthesis" series of inwardly-generated images that nonetheless gain their meaning from the reality beyond that inner consciousness and beyond that organism itself.

Nature reacts, based on causal reflex and probability systems immensely complex but ultimately rooted in automatic collapse of the threshold of action to a time-independent kind of quantification whereby things are "stacked up" in a spatial-geometric sense and a result obtains out of that... non-teleologically, as it were. But the way a human mind works contains logics and processes totally different and opposite that, based in the kind of relationships possible between what Parodites called the real and the ideal egos- what we "do" and what we are, respectively.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:00 am

Philosophy has to aim at bridging the gap between real and ideal ego and Parodites has lay the ground for it in the sense of negatively identifying the process. Truthfully, I dont't see much disagreement here, and Sawelios is only being careful in the making of his system in doubting it. We all see: a ground, an inedequacy, and an approach that solidifies. My greatest grief with humans has been the carelessness in working with that process, as if the ground will work out the inadequcy by its own logics. The logics of ground are monstruous in themselves, if all humans died the fact of Mars' moons would be absolutely primal. There is as much a movement of adequation in wordship as there is recognition. Whereas this carelessness drew me inwards and led me to beautiful places, I find that the debt philosophy has with it, as Sawelios has been sketching, is to force the instinct for adequacy on men, and consequently and more beautifully, though more terrifyingly, helplessly, on women. Words are not only facts but relations between facts, the pre-pythagorean instinct. It doesn't happen by itself, though also not independently, but as a calm war.

 

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

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:30 pm

Yes these are all relatively basic insights, the real work begins elsewhere.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Wed Oct 07, 2015 1:31 pm

I think we are in the unique position, as philosophers of the future, to cause a different type of work to be born into the world. Our Pentadic structure here was perfectly described by Parodites in terms of the fraternal but irreconcilable immanent spaces. Sincerely hope we can, slowly but steadily, continue to work with this formation, in and outside of the wheel, to shape this functional heart to the world-philosophical efforts, for which precisely such greatly removed entry points and different methods of arriving at certainty are required. "There are no philosophies, only philosophers" - yes, but there is still philosophy.



 

___________
" 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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:08 pm

Why are all films warzones?
Because technology has allowed art to be truthful.


 

___________
" 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
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:17 am

There are many creative and original people in the history of man and, while Nietzsche's prose in Gay Science and BgE is good, he is not my favorite writer- nor the philosopher most important to me- Plato is; Plato's point, that there is no Being behind beings, is after all just now beginning to be understood. I think many come to philosophy by reading Nietzsche first these days, while he was one of those I read last in my education; he doesn't seem to me to be any closer to answering the Sphinx than any other philosopher was, and none of them ever helped me in pursuing the goal I sought myself. Beyond Good and Evil doesn't seem very brave to me if we're regressing from morality into Proto-Greek aesthetic redemption in the world of forms- skimming the Apollonian surface like the flying fish in Nietzsche's words, or to pursue the vanity of self-mastery when it is mastery only of the pitiable, simian real-ego. As I have said, I don't read the WtP as a negation of anything, I read the WtP only as a semiotic thesis- the drives self-organize on the basis of a measure of internal quanta or force, whereby they subjugate and are enslaved by one another, a psychology purely of the real ego, while the eternal return is a kind of world-differentiating principle that expands that semiogensis to a cosmological level, as only joy returns- joy being a recognition of the totality and therefor true, while all partial recognition of the totality, as falsity, fails to return; Nietzsche's role was, to me, to re-inject the Real (and his personal ambition, to reduce to the real) into the conversation of philosophy. Kierkegaard was trying to re-inject the topic of the Ideal. To formulate their mode of inter-relation is the goal I set for myself and it is the goal of philosophy, for philosophy is that inter-relation: all philosophers up until this point, either in the vein of Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, have had philosophical goals that were not actually philosophical- one's goal in philosophy becomes philosophy itself insofar as the aforementioned is realized.

 

___________
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: On the Value of Suffering.   Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:01 am

That's fair enough, I actually agree. Surely, though, there is up in the air still how to direct that inter-relatio, and surely philosophy isn't the only act doing it, and further still surely that interelation involves more creativity than is usually admitted. This is a scary responsibility, or at least few own it. Any?

 

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

Posts : 3186
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:25 am

The way I see it, there are three options: we can strengthen the real (dasein), strengthen the ideal (existentia), or we can strengthen the inter-relation between (philosophy proper). This relates to value and suffering: we suffer in one area by producing defenses in another, we value ourselves along the lines of our real or ideal selves only by giving definition to the other. We can see this in how many people set to work strengthening themselves in the real, as living and being-there, within a world-oriented process or another, and thereby over time their ideality becomes more defined and fixed; even if still unconscious to itself (not a philosophy) this ideality nonetheless becomes cohered and coherent as a stable living principle, one that is "lived" by that person themselves, as what they are. The opposite we have people like mystics and monks who cultivate ideal strength but end up covering definition in their real dimension in order to facilitate that ideal expansion, their being-there becomes narrower and harder in order to expand an ideal-daemonic life. Adventurers or priests, respectively.

Philosophy is really the combination of these two, we adventure into our meditativeness and we meditate into our adventurousness. So we get the benefit of suffering both directions, whereas others suffer only in one direction.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:41 am

Pezer wrote:
That's fair enough, I actually agree. Surely, though, there is up in the air still how to direct that inter-relatio, and surely philosophy isn't the only act doing it, and further still surely that interelation involves more creativity than is usually admitted. This is a scary responsibility, or at least few own it. Any?


Our lives as human beings are an unconscious orienting and inter-relating of the real and ideal, the finite and infinite, time and eternity, but philosophy is simply the conscious act of doing so; philosophy is life truly lived- conscious life.

If by creativity you mean writing well and with profundity then yes, as one's thoughts are only as good as is one's command of language.

 

___________
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
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:46 am

Pezer wrote:
So you have described beautifuly what thought is. But you haven't described how it came to be, where it is in relation to what is not it. For romans and more primitively greeks, this was an all out constant war. In our times, it seems not to exist. Does this not indicate a deep comfort? A readyness?

If a word is not what it expresses, what is it that a word expresses? Where does it come from? Where is it now?

No, a word is NOT what it expresses, but the word points to what the mind reasons or the emotions feel or sensate.
It comes from what is conjured up or constructed from the mind or emotions, it comes from memory, it comes from the interfacing between the outerworld and the brain.

It's like one link in a chain which added to other links makes the chain of thought or expression.

Where is it now? That's a good question. Where do thoughts go? Where do emotions go? The word perhaps become transformed and then dissipate.
One might say that they linger in memory, become a part of a whole.

 

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: On the Value of Suffering.   

Back to top Go down
 
On the Value of Suffering.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

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