Politics, philosophy in VO+Daemon

Denial of the "value of objective truth" may lead to what is called democracy and away from totalitarianism (traditionally conceived) but only if one ignores how truth produces itself even by feigning its other and opposite, or impossibilizing, conditions. Truth is condition, however man approaches what he considers to be truth will be by virtue of a truth, perhaps not the one he imagines it to be, as therefore there is a kind or circularity going on that spins down into unconsciousness and error, it being the task of an upright mind and conscience to reconcile the wide arcs of such a circling; we might call the beginning and ending points, relatively, of such a circle-procession as "subject and object". This is similar to how we think of democracy, as the self-limitation of power or as the fact that that which executes force under the name of law must also be bound by that same law; to act according to a truth, some justice or merely just a "condition" one must also be de facto bound up within that same schema through which force possibly manifests. Humans ultimately decided to erect a social structure to represent this obscure fact, that structure being democracy and law.

Politics that gains authority by submitting to the same authority it invokes, at least in principle since of course no single politicians chooses to obey such constraints, but finds himself forced to conform at least to a public image of obedience in that respect. What this "democracy" and legal legitimacy of force has done is to reconstruct the individual conditions of truth on the scale of a whole society. Nietzsche may have decried objective truth for the same reasoning, a kind of self-validation of his own circularity that sought to bring together beginnings and endings, to find something beyond the subject-object divide, but Nietzsche was clever enough to see that that 'something' couldn't be any kind of simple or "authoritarian" (unarguable) truth, so he rejected Platonism and fundamentally misunderstood Christianity as a result, as Parodites has pointed out. But Nietzsche's task to go beyond simple totalitarian methods is a good one, we might say he didn't do a very good job of it, since on the one hand we have Heidegger answering Nietzsche with the whole hermeneutics orgy and on the other hand we have Nazism making use of Nietzsche's ideas quite effectively (not without irony having gripped Heidegger quite strongly too). This whole impulse against "indecency" and to return to a state of uprightness, essentially formed this line of thinking under how Nietzsche applies the idea of decadence explains why these kinds of radically anti-democratic movements find a philosophical heart in the kind of cloaked objectivity-rejection of Nietzsche (but one that only rejects certain (past, historical) forms of objective truth). In the void comes Heidegger and then all the species is positivism we are familiar with today. Well-- fuck positivism and technological rationality, postmodern democratic humanism as so much secular Christianity, the passive root of consciousness living out itself against the very reality that funds and finds it. Science is good when it doesn't operate philosophically at all, either for or against truth; when it doesn't even occur to men of science to ask for ethical justification. But the problem doesn't stop there, that ethos grows and cannot avoid becoming a cultural morality well aligned to late psychological capitalism, and well positioned to misunderstand Nietzsche in their own favor, as Hitler and Heidegger did. As one social philosopher, I can't remember who, pointed out that the Holocaust wasn't any kind of extreme or exception of the logic of modernity, but an example of its repressed truth.

Nietzsche didn't reject the idea of objectivity, he only rejected one part of that circling-unconsciousness as reproduces certain kinds of objectivities according to given arrays of conditions, human conditions and social conditions. Nietzsche wanted to go deeper into the how and why, but no one had really gone that deep before, so he has to take the point of reference for everything - Plato and his Ideas - and move away from there. He lacked a theory of mind, of consciousness, and of reality. Now we have all of these, thanks to Daemonic philosophy, Value Ontology, and Tectonics. So we can observe the faults in how the systems work and know exactly where former movements went off the rails, but like Nietzsche we are still proposing systems and theories that no one else can understand or make use of. Truth being negativity, only a later growth-development of a "natural positivity" can re-center the world on a somewhat new philosophical axis.

We should be careful not to do with democracy what Nietzsche did with objective truth, or what Heidegger wanted to do, this whole war against decadence rings hollow when it originates from our own tragedies and the world-rejection of truth, when it produces conditions antithetical to itself. We can embrace anti-democracy movements and become idiots, or we can look to see what exists in "democracy" that can be reformed into a basis for formulating appeals to our truth, new ways of approaching the circular-consciousness of ideation; philosophy ends up destroying itself, by short circuiting that circular process, when it embraces an inner fascism and thus capitulates to a mere psychologism, abandoning our openness in truth. Opposed to older ideas of objectivity-truth and the conditions thereof, which Nietzsche was confronted with, we now have Parodites whole Daemonic consciousness and philosophy of excess, we have truth itself as negativity and philosophy as depth, tectonic bridges across infinities and the destruction of scientific reductivist positivism, and we have self-valuing. By making adequate the real conditions of philosophy to our philosophical projects we have freed thought from a hopeless dualism of either rejecting truth or plunging headlong into truth without any restraint or standards of measure. But all this represents a radical new moment in the history of the world, and no one else knows of it yet. Deleuze represented a similar kind of total break and newness for philosophy, but he was accepted mostly only in the ways he re-thought existing ideas and standards. Similarly I plan to continue working through established contemporary philosophy and social-political thinking in order to re-frame these in light of the new philosophy; but too we need to keep system-building by linking these critical insights to larger ideational structures and subjecting our higher philosophies to truth. We need "theory" and we need "application". It's a lot of hard work and is going to require us to do a lot of writing essays, books, commentaries, or making films as I know FC and Pezer are interested in.

Let's not give up, let's do the hard work and change this world. It's wide open to our exploration, the bounds of this new philosophy, and we have learned now that it is wide and deep enough to encompass all of our respective ways of thinking and of approaching philosophy. It's possible for us all to work together because this "New World" is so totally open and wild, unexplored-- our new spirit-cry of philosophy, hic sunt dracones.

Speed. It's speed that's defined us. We can see the old logics racing along side their impossibleizing earthly political counterparts, we've been driven near madness by the seeming inoriginality of the logics in their simultaniety... But speed is what these logics derive on, how they have survived their cowardly cooriginals. By appropriating them, and then being so light, being appropriated!

Speed. It's in the mind. It claims, with no discrimination as speed is its own discrimination. If we become slow, only our having experienced the speed can give us bearings among cowards. Or we can ignore it! Certainly, having seen the fastest yet, nothing can ever be the same. Whether I influence the world into a New World or not, I will have been among the blesed few who saw the fore front, and the infinity beyond, and am bound beyond honor or any slow human concept to attempt the hardest and the freeest: I am become vanguard, shaper of world.

Aye, Capable.

Capable wrote:

Similarly I plan to continue working through established contemporary philosophy and social-political thinking in order to re-frame these in light of the new philosophy; but too we need to keep system-building by linking these critical insights to larger ideational structures and subjecting our higher philosophies to truth. We need "theory" and we need "application". It's a lot of hard work and is going to require us to do a lot of writing essays, books, commentaries, or making films as I know FC and Pezer are interested in.

Indeed, we need vital theory if we are to act with ground. As you say, man renews himself every day, hour, minute, and by the endless actions within the shadowy world half-truths he runs the risk of corrupting. If Pezer and go into the field, we do so armed to the teeth with theory, and the latest of it should not be made known. What you wrote about the genders, for example, should not, in my opinion, be made public before it bears clean fruits through honest actions.

It's a little discussed idea among philosophers, who should be the beneficiary of ideas. With self-valuing we see that the philosopher has no choice but to choose his own type.

Quote :

Let's not give up, let's do the hard work and change this world. It's wide open to our exploration, the bounds of this new philosophy, and we have learned now that it is wide and deep enough to encompass all of our respective ways of thinking and of approaching philosophy. It's possible for us all to work together because this "New World" is so totally open and wild, unexplored-- our new spirit-cry of philosophy, hic sunt dracones.

Okay, that's brilliant.

I can't produce much more right now than absolute affirmation of this sign and strategy.

There is a common problem today, involving politics, it is the conflict between two ideas or assumptions: that truth does not exist and any attempt to claim a stable or objective truth is necessarily false, dominating, harmful; and that truth exists only as one's own sphere of idea-stimulus pertaining to one's self-valuing and to one's least questioned categories of thinking. Ideology falls most commonly on the latter of these two, but postmodernist ideology falls on the former or at least originates there, in a kind of radically skeptical self-criticism and lack of self that masks as a critique of others and everyone else. "You don't really know anything" is a cry by these types that we see often enough online, of course it really means "I don't really know anything".

Another problem is that these two bad assumptions and their contradiction is bridged only by these types I just mentioned, and only by that type becoming, not more grounded and reasonable, but more unstable and insane as to actually propose its own criticism as a stable ground. This might be an example of how self-valuing can persist in a distorted state and eventually when its relations don't bear any connection to reality or health the self-valuing simply tries to establish its own unhealthy and insanity as if these were the reality beyond itself. A school of thought arises here, a new totalitarianism (by that I mean an anti-philosophy) that posits a void response as a positivity by only recognizing other likewise void responses as legitimate, and allowing only consequences stemming from such voids to be legitimate factors in politics. Since these types can't stop using language they simply gut it of meaning anything except to indicate for or against the presence and primacy of these voids, all language thereby becomes "political", "thought-crime" and "double-think" to the extent we assume these people are even thinking at all when they are utilizing language.

Ideology of the latter type as mentioned above, those who hold to a clear one-sides truth and naive objectivity of value, must make use of ideological thinking of obvious reasons, but this other void type actually takes ideology to a whole new level by making ideology itself ideological: that within ideology which had at least indicated some reality-encounter albeit a very narrow one, now becomes inverted as well and only indicates the false reality-void by invoking degrees of representation of the positivity or lack of positivity of the voids and their "self-valuing" processes. This is usually done by pointing to consequences of those processes, acknowledging them just enough to establish the void-process as de facto legitimate but certainly not enough to destabilize the void itself, thus maintaining the inverted status... Ideology made implicit, unable to be spoken directly, reversing the typical ideological falsity-narrowing effect not toward reality but towards the void-unreality.

This problem I mention above is really nothing more than a rejection of the notion of objectivity. Because one maybe cannot define what objectivity is, or name an objective truth to which they are willing to commit or argue for, this leads people, politicians and philosophers to attack the whole concept of objectivity. That is a mistake, because it comes from a more fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of objectivity. As far as I've seen only Parodites' philosophy lays out a legitimate conception of objectivity, because only his philosophy has gone deep enough and been ruthlessly self-critical and thus consistent enough to become able to formulate such an idea unproblematically.

Now the task we have is to help work out this real possibility of the adequate conceptualizing of objectivity into philosophy and through modern writings/examples in philosophy and politics. Only this would free philosophy (and by extension, eventually, society as well) from its dangerously ignorant and defeatist postmodernism, all the emptiness and vain nihilism that comes with such petty psychologies. Another problem is that these petty psychologies happen to work quite well with the ethos of the contemporary world that has grown up so much as a result of the proliferation of these psychological-philosophical ("existential") types across Europe and the US. So the difficulty is to break that cycle somehow; first I think we need to harden ourselves in truth and make ourselves adequate to philosophy, then our respective projects be these books or films or something else might stand a chance of acting like circuit-breakers in larger networks and systems. Maybe that's too idealistic, to think we can actually change things, but even if it is we might as well try for it, since hey what the hell else are we going to do while we happen to be walking around on this floating rock in space?