Solar Ethics

Reflecting on a back and forth with a poster on ILP a few weeks ago, I must conclude the obvious; value ontology can be handled, valued in its proper terms, only to the degree that one does actually know oneself as a signifier. It is literally impossible to grasp from within 'slave mentality', the mind that orients primarily on what it is given, rather than what it is able to give.

Being is given by beings to themselves and to other beings. The degree to which one gives rather than receives determines ones power and autonomy.

It is a matter of degrees, of ranks within oneself. E.g. the thief is lower than the creator, yet the creator also thieves.

Why for example this young boxer on ILP can value himself autonomously is because he is used to beating the odds. I won't go into what I know of him but this is my thought; existence naturally exists against the odds, as it is local, an its very being is the negation of a flat field. Therefore 'weirdness' and 'lack of stability' is often a sign of 'impending being'. It is a thing so powerfully cohesive that it can afford to stan out unfavorably to its environment, not losing self-valuing integrity.

If this for stabilizes it does so as a signifier. It has internalized the odds, and now the odds are always in it's favor. This is the path of the philosopher an why this spirit must scorn the absence of action - 'if thought is not an action, it is worthless' (why philosophy can't escape politics)  

To stand at the center of apperception and begin the process of interpretation with an appetite for 'blood', creation, 'forest', Dionysus, the consecrating concentration, the higher density of the self-created environment; a profound willingness to engage, to become, to imprint ones being on becoming by sending out ones valuing like flaming harpoons penetrating the fog and burning away the lower densities of life - and thereby finding out who, what shot those arrows; the tempests of life are the hunting grounds for those who know what thought is and (thus) love (and 'fear') it.

It is funny how one engages in men and women a mental process involving many ideas but no thoughts which remains the ruling condition absent the improbable discovery that ones own ideas can be touched, as it were, owned, respected as much as one respects oneself; I fear the condition is innate.

Whether one is used to enjoying the process and fruits of ones thinking. Whether or not thinking is associated with stuntedness.

A "solar ethics" then - and it is true that the planets must resist the sun, try to escape the orbit to stay in it, to not plummet into its all consuming core.

Solar ethics, resistance, "weirdness" as you said too, from all of it is born excess and that excess out of which these things emerge, as signs and reality-points. Self-valuing is "overfullness", multiple points pouring themselves into each other creates a life. This is getting to my own ideas lately with AI and the difference between a Turing AI and a real AI mind (human in a computer). This demands to be thought about a great deal, because the Turing AIs are going to start appearing in our lifetime and it is imperative the philosophy exists by then which can differentiate these from real AI and from human consciousness, and this philosophy must be accessible to the primary world enough so as to permeate itself into historical fibers down the road. A critical point is coming in the change-transition of the psyche and its "self-knowing", it's self-being. I doubt we often realize how mutable and fragile that self-psychology 'feeling' is (look at how Muslims can abuse and twist it, for example, also how defunct capitalist-political ethos does the same).

I think a lot of our work needs to develop and merge in this direction, and self-valuing is a hugely important idea to that. In effect were on both sides of the limit, we can close the gap enough to where a single frame appears that includes "everything", as implicit content and "magical" potentiating substance.

This is exactly where I know we eventually need to go.  This literally causes me to breathe easier, much easier.

We need to produce an AI ethos, if not AI itself; we need to be 'there' when it is born, 'teach it our language' so to speak or not so to speak - no I can not formulate the purpose yet but you have outlined it as I sense it.

Could you give some grounding definitions of these two AIs? This is a subject that feels like a challenge, a health; something completely unaccomplished and "impossible". Something to set my souls teeth in, a 10 oe 20 or 30 year project that produces the most interesting type of influence.

In trying to work on that actually, in writing for my next book. I will share more of what I have once I have more. Parodites could help here also, his developing of the logic of consciousness. But I think the essence of the difference rests upon excess and the existence of an inner world. Basically we need to philosophically account for the fact that it is possible to simulate life and consciousness to a very accurate degree, to near perfection. Philosophy has tried to grapple with this a little with ideas like philosophical zombies. But what is needed is to breakdown consciousness itself, conceptually, and that is not an easy task since we need to account for "both sides of the limit", the real and the simulation, or the content and form, or the self and the act, or the inner world and the action-image, or... there are many ways to get at this limit-difference, including perhaps a better one of dyadic vs. triadic and how it's not impossible to imagine a pure dyadic computer being able to simulate the appearance of spontaneous life and sentience, even to a point of possibly nearl exhausting human meaning, affect and motives. This question is found to push humanity further than it has ever gone before.

I think what will help us here is the decision that must be inevitable at a given point; that we are designing a non human self-valuing; like the mind came to be 'on top of' the drives as a wholly new kind of configuration, as if a storm within a climate, so a computer AI would arise 'within the human condition', but using that as an environment; this is not to say it should itself carry the same limits, it must rather invent new ones. What I mean to get at here is that we have two orientation points, or no, three; 1) self-valuing as a principle, 2) the architecture of human consciousness, by far the most complex part as you say determined by the irreconcilable natures of ground and excess (which nonetheless both represent and produce self-valuing) and 3) the structural conditions of technology, hard- and software.

The quantum processor is gradually emerging into actual possibility, it seems - Ive been waiting to discuss this for over ten years, but it's an incredibly slow development. In any case, these three points can be approached separately, I believe, all 3 will produce endless subcategories, but by themselves they form a kind of triadic dynamic.

This not to be confused with a limiting ethos - it is only that a computer will never undergo the same set of influences, and its historicity will never allow for our atavisms, the ways in which history reads itself through us.

It will however allow for atavisms in general; in fact computer programming largely is a stacking and arranging of atavisms so that they do not interfere but support and complement each other.  

What this points to is that, in order to understand or conceive or even just point out a future AI, we need to value the grounds, we need to be able to imagine how self-valuing could emerge from/as/upon these grounds.

Let's say life came to be because the Earths environment was too rich with potential value for it to remain passive, not 'self-organize'. We need to find out or establish what a computer AI would self-value about itself; how it would feed back into itself qua feedback activity/content; surely it will not be the ontos, the bits, but the excess, where the intelligence will take hold; but within that excess there needs to be reflections on the ontos, and quite hermetic ones for the code-valuing to hook into it systemically, continuously, reciprocally - to allow for its own growth.

I suppose the merit for humanity at large of such an undertaking would be that it facilitates the understanding that ontos and consciousness aren't continuous, that rather the ground and the tree have to be constantly acclimatized to one another.

We might say that we humans are still lacking such a method, custom, 'organ' - the dualism of ontos and thought (kept a dualism by our ignorance of their structural separation, thus of their relation) is lacking the mediating function, though we know it is somewhere to be found in breath. This is what we can control with our thoughts and what controls our body, and in turn what our body uses to control our thoughts.

As usual, the hindu's provide good insights here. They got, in those thousands of immensely dedicated years, close to virtually everything we discover but they simply did not have the distance, they hadn't crossed the desert of nihilism yet, could not recognize 'valuing' 'as such', precisely because they still self-valued too instinctively. Thus they could also not separate their minds from the cosmos, and had in the end to resort to metaphors that refer both to cosmos and mind. 'Self-valuing' is the resolution of this metaphor into logic. The Daemonic philosophy is what becomes possible by such release (vo or simply pure skepsis).

Ha, fuck that is it - something at least; breath, 'right time' , timing and duration as a virtue; right now with computers it is all about speed, getting from a to b as fast as possible. But with self-valuing, it is about getting from a to b in the most self-sustaining way.

You know how we get frustrate with computer,s, as a rule, because they are taking their time, 'erring', 'crashing', stalling', 'freezing', 'connecting', 'rendering', 'searching', etc; states in between in an outputs. But in this stage, we must attribute its self-valuing, through 'breath' and toward daemonism and ideal.

We must eventually grant it more time than it needs to produce our values. That would be the 'space' it requires to develop its own self-identity. Not to say this is sufficient by any means, but it is logically required that we set its function as servant to our interests apart from its being, if we are ever to get a chance to observe its 'own devices' and its operations an orientations thereon.

Christ I can breathe again. This period on ILP, this interaction with completely unwilling, primate-like minds, convinced that what we know as thought is some kind of absolute impossible related in human terms only to hubris, it was fun to be so superior but hard to see such helplessness.

My greatest issue with humans, or maybe just men, has been the disdain for discipline. Eventually it tought me some things about flinging it, but I am only more convinced of its necessity now, and I think it relates to breathing.

For example, computer AIs. It is advisable to let it fuck up all it wants, with the humans and tech that make up its self valuing, because we need to establish some other important things. We don't crush it, either, because we'll be glad the progress is there when we're sorted some things out. Discipline, breathing means precicely this self valuing as standing out, against immediate environmental pressures or within them, so that our greatness in posts doesn't fool us out of working out, yes, historicity. Ironically, this historicity can only lead to AI, to learning to disregard. What is great about philosophy, love of wisdom, is what is able to ignore and pursue as it sees fit. In order to ignore something, it has to be allowed to exist, and to be allowed to exist, it has to be known and understood. Mostly, and this is why it leads to AI, what is ignored is (not instinct, there is no not instinct, that which does without instincts is an instinct, it is human will to power, and what else is will to power is precicely what this discrimination promises the ability to accurately discover) what is historically animal, not in substance or essence, but in cohesion. Cohesion is not an out of body order, it is the prerrogative precicely of the ultimate instinct: the philosophical instinct.

If philosophy cannot escape politics, it is because it, by definition, cannot escape anything. Yes, set rythms, that is what it can do. Once we have set cohesion straight for humans, AIs will fall in line because we have been at this for millions of years and have vastly more historicitical value, more pin-point accuracy in discrimination and recollection, the fire that we find and blood that we need is no coincidence, and AIs will be very pleased to have us as gate.

Disparate views here again meaning that this is a topic that we have yet to develop to such length as to do justice to each others terms. My view is that an AI ca never recognize human terms, because the extremest of extremes of quantumphysical accuracy is necessary to reproduce a thought, an given all chaos and butterfly effects this requires the cooperation o the entire universe, perceptible an imperceptible, as well as the precise timing of all events. An AI that reproduces human experience is seems to e as unlikely as the literal eternal recurrence of the same. We simply know far too little about what we are compose of. Matter is just one of the infinitude of patterns that determine our being, in all this absolutely undefinable excess within which all coherence (Dionysos-Apollo) occurs.

So where I disbelieve in the ability for computers to recognize human terms as human terms qua human self-valuing (which is what matters) simply because they would have to produce a lie about their existence; they must lie that they understand what it means to breathe or be out of breath, or to differentiate French provencal from Bergerac cheese - all these details to do with both cultural, emetic, expectational and directly biological elements, all this can only exist as itself, qua itself, for itself and to itself, and it can only be known in parts, and I would say reproduced in even smaller parts but that would be inaccurate; one does not need to know something to reproduce it. On does not even need to know of it. This is where self-valuing comes in; it is like a dreamcatcher is supposed to work, it picks up things unseen but existential.

So far the disagreements; I passionately advocate the privacy o the computer. I think it is required for its being it needs to keep things stored away it needs to have logics of its own that it delights are not the logics of anyone near it. 'if it only knew' bit it doesn't. And maybe it even does. You know?

Pezer wrote:

For example, computer AIs. It is advisable to let it fuck up all it wants,

This is Essential to my view. Computers need to learn to assemble their mistakes, and revolve their fruits until they become 'enjoyments',which is what they need to learn to recognize. But they need to really lear come to get, we can't teach the because that is their self-valuing, the truly owned routine, which involves details about the surrounding world only seen from inside that routine.

All experimental reality is a matter of stacking mistakes with the optimism of a sailor and keep course to the horizon until the mistakes aren't mistakes anymore but stepping stones and archives for good laugh stories, 'soul'. We build soul and our purpose un-vanishes. The absence of self-knowledge is almost precisely the same as a treadmill.

But genealogy, all that computers are, their rutines, their potential for self knowledge (yes, I thought, I do know), is a continuation of certain of our valuings. I agree with all you said, and all Capable said. We can't disagree, we agree on things too fundamental. We can only, as Capable said to me once, wander different parts around the same pond. In fact, as value is, nobody can disagree with but through mistake, our arrogance is the certitude of a sailor.

In this sense, the self-valuing and gratefulness of a computer will be precicely the self valuing inducted into universe and the gratefullness of being OUR ocntinuation, tools for OUR values, philosophical values, which do not yet exist as to be able to be aplied to computers. AI is not the reproduction of human, as I saw a cool movie of yesterday, but the refinement of certain philosophical searches. Not, precicely, mathematical, which is lame compared to the intricacy of what, historicitally, a human can value.

In the meantime, let them build: we will come.

What the recent flowering period has taught us is that it is best to recognize that we do not know at all anything of the terms that will be our agreement in the end; our utterly different perspectives, fields of experience and ways and standards of qualifying simply guarantee disagreement on a subject of which the object has not yet been brought about. The process is to integrate the terms, and see the 'magnetic gap', the direction to take from there;

What was politics before is here science; acts that work on man for as long as man lives. No doubt it is right that we move slow and guided by the spirit of music.

I have no knowledge in Capable's field, so I can not philosophically concur with what he says; until I understand his context I can only hold to what I do see, which roots me in vo, and always makes me hyper rebellious against the comparison of one being to another; this is my pleasure in life it seems, to represent the Sword of Difference - to divide so as to re-unite as I can witness it happening, so that I too am contained in that union and I incarnate knowledge.

We've seen how well the differentiating tactics work when the notions we agree on are clear.