'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 | 
 

 The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 20 ... 40  Next
AuthorMessage
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:41 pm

Ive kept myself from writing as I am deeply angry about almost all views and have no expectation of change until I make it. This is how I understand my philosophership.

In 2011, before we set out making this forum, I set out a timeline that has been remarkably accurate so far. What I can tell you is that the coming presidential term is not going to provide the opening yet, but the one after that is likely to begin showing true cracks; that is to say, invitations (for new law, for the lawgiver to step in).

Now here are my unfiltered sentiments on the subject of Globalism.

::

We are destroying the Earth. Whatever is growing on the surface is dying under our touch.

Our touch is globalist.

Globalism equals Earth-rape.

The only reason there is globalism is remorseless profiteering. The only reason to deny that humans have their own local natures, values, joys, character's narratives, lives, souls and beings, or to want to replace them with something 'better' in the sense of an invisible horrormachine that steals or turns to shit everything nature had them born into and that they loved, to replace it with plastic morals and plastic food to serve all the so-deprived and depraved equally with the purest synthetic nothingness, is to steal the values on which these values rely. That is globalism; rape-robbery made into a Universal Imperative.

Value Ontology has entities as local, ontically grounded in 2 things; principle of necessity (self-valuing) and its deep derivative, the environment (causation, values)

Self-valuing dies immediately under globalist purview. Only a discrete entity, a soul, who financially owns the Earth could possibly value this in organic terms at this point; and only in the sense that he'd be able to pay for its restoration across some thousands of years. The way in which the Earth is held now by disparate and competing interests none of which is grounded in any sort of reality principle, nor has any incentive to get grounded, is the antithesis of self-valuing; to uphold a collection of disparate tastes and standards as one entity in order to enforce the individuals affirmation of it, is to undo all these individuals.

Globalism is ontically only possible when I or we, that is to say, when Philosophy, firmly rules, and has for a while firmly ruled, the reasons for it. And that means primarily that value has to be understood as a derivative of self-valuing; all else follows from that; and nothing relevant follows from anything else.

 

___________
" 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 : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:09 pm

I am in agreement except for a slight point of difference; I see the cause of the earth-rape as not globalism or globalization but simply the tragedy of the commons on a massive scale: this has happened before, check out the history of Easter Island, it's pretty interesting. They completely wiped out their vegetative environment in order to build those massive statues, in some kind of obsession and ended up collapsing into starvation due to environmental ruin. It's essentially the fact that in a society or situation/world of many different, individual self-valuings there is an inherent lack of values-overlap when it comes to the most abstractly shared, given spaces. Classic example is public grazing land, each farmer values not over-grazing the land for his own cattle due to wanting to preserve the space, but he knows the other farmers feel the same way, therefore he can squeeze out marginal extra value foe himself by secretly over-grazing or only slightly over-grazing; of course every other farmer thinks and does the very same thing, and the plot of land is consumed.

I don't see how self-valuing alone can address this problem. In this sense we must understand a self-valuing as a reflection of its society/history/culture/family. The 'self' of a self-valuing is not irreducibly complex nor is it given, nor is it immutable, nor is it a-historical. I absolutely do not want to undermine the notion of self-valuing but I do want to condition it to the actual, real causes that bring it into being, namely the language, ideas, experiences it is exposed to upon being born and growing into itself. And this gets to my positive vision of a possible globalism that is by, of and for individual human self-valuing while also providing the highest possible social construct at the planetary level capable of preventing tragedy of the commons type problems.

Right now absolutely nothing can prevent tragedy of the commons problems. Current globalism has little to no interest in it, and absent a global capacity to act in concert self-valuings alone are incapable of preventing it either; it is in the nature of a self-valuing to try to squeeze out more marginal value where logically possible, this impulse must be rationally, moderately tempered by what we call society, "global" constructs and systems. To me it's always about a balance between these, balance between individual and social and that balance always striving to become more accurate and ideal over time.

 

___________
"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

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:38 pm

Capable wrote:
I am in agreement except for a slight point of difference; I see the cause of the earth-rape as not globalism or globalization but simply the tragedy of the commons on a massive scale: this has happened before, check out the history of Easter Island, it's pretty interesting. They completely wiped out their vegetative environment in order to build those massive statues, in some kind of obsession and ended up collapsing into starvation due to environmental ruin. It's essentially the fact that in a society or situation/world of many different, individual self-valuings there is an inherent lack of values-overlap when it comes to the most abstractly shared, given spaces. Classic example is public grazing land, each farmer values not over-grazing the land for his own cattle due to wanting to preserve the space, but he knows the other farmers feel the same way, therefore he can squeeze out marginal extra value foe himself by secretly over-grazing or only slightly over-grazing; of course every other farmer thinks and does the very same thing, and the plot of land is consumed.

The reason I attribute earthrape to globalism is that globalism is driven by un-earthy motivations; it being beyond nationalism, which is fundamentally a love of the soil and physical values and qualities, of locality, which is the locus of self-valuing as a principle, it isnt able top be contained by earthly, earthy values. It simply has no impetus to stop destroying the world; it was never founded on, never made contact with earth. It is purely theoretical wealth, money-derivatives, coercion schemes, that drive globalism and anchor it in reality.

This is why I say it must be almost entirely reversed before it can be sanely implemented.

Quote :
I don't see how self-valuing alone can address this problem. In this sense we must understand a self-valuing as a reflection of its society/history/culture/family. The 'self' of a self-valuing is not irreducibly complex nor is it given, nor is it immutable, nor is it a-historical.

I'd note that the principle itself is almost a-historical, that is to say a property of pure synthetic logic (where synthetic logic is still a historicity); but that indeed no manifestation of the principle is separate of its environment; of the substance that it assimilated into its 'self' (a term I dont take too heavily).

The principle helps in as far that no logical approach is possible without it. That it does not by itself unfold as an approach, that is what Ive been discovering the past years; what VO requires is that one becomes radically, 'objectively' subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it.

The perspective of power is the final objectivity. The whole of the world is shape-shifting every electronic instance and in different ways as seen from any perspective, more so as the perspective is more substantial.

Quote :
I absolutely do not want to undermine the notion of self-valuing but I do want to condition it to the actual, real causes that bring it into being, namely the language, ideas, experiences it is exposed to upon being born and growing into itself. And this gets to my positive vision of a possible globalism that is by, of and for individual human self-valuing while also providing the highest possible social construct at the planetary level capable of preventing tragedy of the commons type problems.

This conditioning to the actual is the aim. Has been the aim. As I said above, I have discovered, not without frustration, that the actual can only be conditioned (with philosophical consistency and 'lastability') by example.

We'll actually have to demonstrate that our philosophy is superior. This is the only way to get it implemented into actuality. And that is what Ive been trying to sniff out the past years; the path to take.

After close to a year of conclave with Pezer I am quite close to having discerned where that path starts.

Quote :
Right now absolutely nothing can prevent tragedy of the commons problems. Current globalism has little to no interest in it, and absent a global capacity to act in concert self-valuings alone are incapable of preventing it either; it is in the nature of a self-valuing to try to squeeze out more marginal value where logically possible, this impulse must be rationally, moderately tempered by what we call society, "global" constructs and systems. To me it's always about a balance between these, balance between individual and social and that balance always striving to become more accurate and ideal over time.

I disagree. I think it must be kept in check locally only. For several reasons; one of which is the important factor that at no point in history has globalism leaned to being successful in reducing misery. The main reason though is pure self-valuing logic; I would never take orders from a global state, Id much rather die. That is the glory of humanity; we arent tied to our survival to uphold our values. The idea of fighting to the death against the globalist machine is pure joy. It is fighting for everything I love in a very direct way; I love animals, I love plants, I love molecules, I love humans. All of which grow, orient, live, love and die locally.

 

___________
" 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 : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:47 pm

I see globalization as akin to an impulse to have every organ and body part fulfill the exact same function.

That function could never be a function of the body; globalisms function is never of humans; only of an alien logic come about by flattening thought processes and abusing leverage that seeks to harvest the organs to burn them for some momentary heat.

Humanity's beauty is fully due to its diversity. That is what keeps it vital, what keeps it interacting with itself, what keeps it growing and appreciating.

Our modern cities are dead because they are homogenized in terms of the values they extract, offer and project; they are organized under the presumption that all humans hold similar values, tastes, priorities. This is why people like Sauwelios and Parodites dont leave their houses for years on end; the homogenized world is simply only fit for another, a far less alive species.

 

___________
" 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 : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:04 pm

The bottom line could be approached as follows;

True wholeness, the type that is actually whole-some, existent, requires the highest standards being alive and attainable for all the parts; therefore, it can only be established by the most comprehensive and highest parts; i.e. by the Philosopher, in a specific sense - by the man who leads purely by example, and who is able to lead all aspects of humanity by example. Man, or more likely group of men.  - I don't think women can really lead militarily except as pure scourges, which must preclude US presidency - but this is not an analytic judgment - certainly Im prepared to debate it.... I cant see a woman leading men by example, and it is men who need to be led.

I am convinced we will have to step up, right up to the government, much as philosophers have defined their philosophership in the past; by carrying the actual responsibility overtly. That is my intention and has been my intention since VO came about. Given the clarifying and sanitizing power of merely acknowledging the principle, it would be a crime of negligence not to approach politics with the pure intention of dominating it entirely.

And to this end, it is an invaluable possession, this highly significant difference between our positions.
I know I am eternally and infinitely right about the principles working, and I know that gives me nothing directly about how to proceed, how to act; rather, the understanding of the principle has made the problem infinitely deeper; or it has revealed to me the true depth of the problem of philosophy with respect to humanity.

It is not to be disregarded, the fact that philosophers have occupied humble positions until now. That must and will end. There is no sensible way in which one can expect to be able to do actual honest commanding if it is not openly acknowledged that ones impulses are sublime and superior. No more power behind the throne. The world is our throne. Anything less, we're better off selling groceries.

Our violent temperaments and unbreakable pride are absolutely instrumental to real-world purpose. The bottom line: only the highest valuing can establish a fitting "universal" working-value standard. Anything less is rape.

 

___________
" 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 : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:15 pm

How do you conceive of the ontological difference between local government (including I suppose all the way up to the nation-state) and global government? I feel like I could find may examples where global institutions have done good in the world. I agree that practically speaking much that is deplorable and harmful comes out of global government, but one could say that of any government; in contrast I can't see a necessary "evil" in the notion of government at the planetary level more so than at the continental or regional levels.

In fact I'm tempted to change the terms in the discussion and start referring to the distinction between planetary government and continental or regional government. The US is a continental government; Italy is a regional government; a theoretical global government (something like the UN but with actual legal and enforcement power) would be a planetary government.

You mentioned how globalism is an alien logic trying to make everything so the same, I agree. To me this is what globalism as global capital machine is all about, a pure 'analytic' monstrosity. Wealth as blood, and not the vitalized kind of blood but just the kind that drains our and represents a loss. Blood without a body-- that is modern global capitalism. But again; two points, 1) I could, I feel quite confident, come up with examples where ostensibly global institutions have done good (yes I will actually find evidence backing this up),  and 2) my aim is to advocate a form of planetary government that is made by, for and of human self-valuing at both individual and social levels. To be totally honest, I see absolutely nothing NECESSARILY about global/planetary-wide government that prevents it from potentially being rational, sane, emancipatory, dignified. Remember that I parse "government" as an entity into two categories: the people who work in government, and the institutional incentives and norms (along with strict legalities). A government with the right people working within it can do tremendous good, and a government with the right institutional incentives and norms will attract and reward a certain kind of good, dedicated employee. I see government as just a system for organizing people and ideas, including up to the legal use of force which is absolutely a required construct for a civilization of free self-valuing beings (the paradox is, on the surface, that free beings would require legal structures prohibiting and allowing various things, when in fact this isn't paradoxical at all because without such legal structures we have nothing but anarchy and rule of animal might makes right, mafia rule essentially, in which higher values get buried within lower ones-- think about trolling online; without structures preventing trolling, truly free and valuable conversation can't even get off the ground (e.g. ILP)).

 

___________
"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

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:49 pm

Quote :

How do you conceive of the ontological difference between local government (including I suppose all the way up to the nation-state) and global government? I feel like I could find may examples where global institutions have done good in the world. I agree that practically speaking much that is deplorable and harmful comes out of global government, but one could say that of any government; in contrast I can't see a necessary "evil" in the notion of government at the planetary level more so than at the continental or regional levels.

To start with, language. That is perhaps the basic ethical framework the human is provided with. One can not govern people properly if one isn't subtly versed in the best their language has had to offer since its beginnings.

In general, the less local a government is, the less of an idea it could possibly have of what it is supposed to do to benefit its people. The EU has shown that a central government spanning many language groups powerfully and relentlessly acts to eradicate value, integrity. It has been able to reduce 2000 year of culture to nothing in a few decades. It has become a huge haunted house.

Quote :
In fact I'm tempted to change the terms in the discussion and start referring to the distinction between planetary government and continental or regional government. The US is a continental government; Italy is a regional government; a theoretical global government (something like the UN but with actual legal and enforcement power) would be a planetary government.

Clearer terms; still, I don't see a planetary government happening without eradicating most of humanity. Not within 500 years.

The mass pathologies ruling most of mankind are organisms, festering flora, that will have to outlive their time. Until they have withered away, a planetary government would have to pay lipservice to horrific stupidities. So before all of it has left the planet, all organized monotheism, there will only be religional governments that have some real support of the people.

Quote :
You mentioned how globalism is an alien logic trying to make everything so the same, I agree. To me this is what globalism as global capital machine is all about, a pure 'analytic' monstrosity. Wealth as blood, and not the vitalized kind of blood but just the kind that drains our and represents a loss. Blood without a body-- that is modern global capitalism. But again; two points, 1) I could, I feel quite confident, come up with examples where ostensibly global institutions have done good (yes I will actually find evidence backing this up),

It would be good to categorize that, have a list of merits.
I do believe that they can be found.
I think that the determines vastly outweigh them, but that only makes mentioning tem relevant.

Quote :
and 2) my aim is to advocate a form of planetary government that is made by, for and of human self-valuing at both individual and social levels. To be totally honest, I see absolutely nothing NECESSARILY about global/planetary-wide government that prevents it from potentially being rational, sane, emancipatory, dignified. Remember that I parse "government" as an entity into two categories: the people who work in government, and the institutional incentives and norms (along with strict legalities). A government with the right people working within it can do tremendous good,

I only could agree with that on a solid basis if we are talking about philosophers, as the right people. Philosophers and those who understand them and are driven to carry out their ideas with great passion and cool.

I truly do not believe that anyone but a rigorous philosopher could have the faintest notion of what to do with an entire fucking planet.


Quote :
and a government with the right institutional incentives and norms will attract and reward a certain kind of good, dedicated employee. I see government as just a system for organizing people and ideas, including up to the legal use of force which is absolutely a required construct for a civilization of free self-valuing beings (the paradox is, on the surface, that free beings would require legal structures prohibiting and allowing various things, when in fact this isn't paradoxical at all because without such legal structures we have nothing but anarchy and rule of animal might makes right, mafia rule essentially, in which higher values get buried within lower ones-- think about trolling online; without structures preventing trolling, truly free and valuable conversation can't even get off the ground (e.g. ILP)).

We regard animals in a fundamentally different way; I regard birds and mammals as high beings, gods in a sense, much purer than humans generally. This would say a lot about how we regard strictly human institutions; I tend to see them as terrible deviations of nature, torture instruments allowed only by excessive erring. Also I see government mostly as the disease of bureaucracy.

http://sas2.elte.hu/tg/ptorv/Parkinson-s-Law.pdf

Lastly, since indeed self-valuing relies for all its actual substance and forms on the environment, the philosophical empire that I work for must also use environment to substantiate; for this environment I am looking at Rome. I believe Rome must still subject near Asia, and that far-Asia will be very happy to sustain it in that effort.

China will gladly follow the rules of a philosophical Roman centralized philosophical government, since it is impossible for a philosopher not to respect the Chinese as standard-setters; this will become the planetary ethos once it becomes relevant; the world greatest oldest traditions will respectfully dominate a vast, rich tapestry of smaller, but equally vital cultures that are protected by some notions of freedom that will be imposed on the Chinese and others, at all costs -

Nations will eventually modify their laws to philosophical standard, but not to any lesser ones.

I aim straight for the top. There are no stairs; we are the stairs.

 

___________
" 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 : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:01 pm

There are a few fundamental concerns that I can already tell are crucial to global health. The main one is our food. We dont value our food, its substance. We are torturing billions of animals to death at every given moment and we are harvesting all of our forests to feed these tortured animals. That is the system, our ecosystem.

Human perishings and hells arent important at this point. What first needs to be fixed is animal and plant life. After that, long standing human concerns can be re-addressed. If we address humanity before animal and plant life, before bringing back from hell what we are literally made out of, we will not be able to sustain processes of reason among each other.

From this it should become clear how far removed I stand from all philosophy until now; the self-valuing principle allows me to see humans as as disparate as they are in value and valuing ways; it allows me to see that what passes for human these days is far less than most animals and plants, in terms of its value to itself, its joy and justification.

 

___________
" 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
Sauwelios
Saturnian
Saturnian
avatar

Posts : 101
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 38
Location : Amsterdam

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:41 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
I see globalization as akin to an impulse to have every organ and body part fulfill the exact same function.

That function could never be a function of the body; globalisms function is never of humans; only of an alien logic come about by flattening thought processes and abusing leverage that seeks to harvest the organs to burn them for some momentary heat.

Humanity's beauty is fully due to its diversity. That is what keeps it vital, what keeps it interacting with itself, what keeps it growing and appreciating.

Our modern cities are dead because they are homogenized in terms of the values they extract, offer and project; they are organized under the presumption that all humans hold similar values, tastes, priorities. This is why people like Sauwelios and Parodites dont leave their houses for years on end; the homogenized world is simply only fit for another, a far less alive species.

I will respond at this point, for reasons. I must say I agree with Fixed Cross. I can see where Capable is coming from, however. All beings are self-valuings. But only some self-valuings are self-aware as self-valuings. Thus: "what VO requires is that one becomes radically, 'objectively' subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it." This is why I'm taking the course I've taken with my "State of the World Address" and its sequels (my De-Waal posts or impact-driven piles). This post is not one of those, as I need to be high on psychedelics to write them. Anyway, my problem with Capable is that he seems to me to be too idealistic--not necessarily in a philosophical sense, but in the popular sense of the word. I may be able to illustrate this by the fact that, in his "Text analysis: an ideal politics" thread in the Kurukshetra forum, he did not quote all of what I said in the "brief conversation with [me]" he mentioned in that thread; in that conversation, I also wrote:

"[Q]uality should always come before quantity (unless quantity's provisionally coming before quality is a necessary means to quality's ultimately coming before quantity)--as it does in 4 out of the 5 instances in which you mention the two. Better to have a few self-valuings of the supreme quality than many of a lower quality!"

Now it may be my bad that I brought this up as a minor problem I had with his excerpt. It was a minor problem compared to the major one I had with it, but I still think it's a major problem. He seems to aim at the ideal of democracy as the universal aristocracy. But what if this is unrealistic? Then the best democracy is imperfect democracy, with a large minority--the "elites"--being relatively noble and the majority being ignoble. But this best democracy is not the best possible regime (practically, not theoretically possible: thus better regimes have actually existed!), and if a literal aristocrat, a most noble human being, actually becomes actualized in that democracy, he will therefore vindicate the imperfect democracy as well as the ideal of democracy in such a way as to transcend them both! The ideal of democracy as leading to an ochlocracy which may lead to a new Caesarism, and the imperfect democracy as having made possible the very actualization of this philosophical Caesar!

 

___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:46 pm

Ha, thanks for joining us. I will directly go for the pressure point; I will address the issue I have with your post, which appears only at the end; it is however significant because I find what leads up to it very powerful; up to the following I am in agreement;

"[To] vindicate the imperfect democracy as well as the ideal of democracy in such a way as to transcend them both!"

And then it becomes radical. Too direct for my narrative sensibilities; I can simply not imagine what a new Caesarism is like in this age. I can only see Caesar as an ancient Roman, in a world that does only in unchangeable ways apply to our predicament. On the other hand, Caesar is in my soul. I don't know what he is arranging there but I'm sure Rome is preparing new conquest. So essentially my issue is a bequest; rephrase "Caesar".

What I imagine is closer to a Nietzschean artist-tyranny like described in his final notebooks. The man was a political genius the likes of which none will ever need to exist again. If humanity manages to set up his artist-tyranny so as to become the pillars to a Dionysian world, the artist tyrant would then be Apollo. And Apollo would have notions like Capable's; ambitions toward a comprehensive ethical order that guarantees the Greek gift of liberty.

Quote :
The ideal of democracy as leading to an ochlocracy which may lead to a new Caesarism, and the imperfect democracy as having made possible the very actualization of this philosophical Caesar!

If this is the path that appears, and it springs to mind that I am not in Europe right now, and that this accounts for my distance to the virtual inevitability of ochlocracy, then hail fucking Odin. And Caesar. What a bloody mess it will become.

I'm too sentimental to go there in thought, truly. But if it happens it will be clear what to do.

How are things in Europe?

 

___________
" 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 : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:22 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
I see globalization as akin to an impulse to have every organ and body part fulfill the exact same function.

That function could never be a function of the body; globalisms function is never of humans; only of an alien logic come about by flattening thought processes and abusing leverage that seeks to harvest the organs to burn them for some momentary heat.

Humanity's beauty is fully due to its diversity. That is what keeps it vital, what keeps it interacting with itself, what keeps it growing and appreciating.

Our modern cities are dead because they are homogenized in terms of the values they extract, offer and project; they are organized under the presumption that all humans hold similar values, tastes, priorities. This is why people like Sauwelios and Parodites dont leave their houses for years on end; the homogenized world is simply only fit for another, a far less alive species.

I will respond at this point, for reasons. I must say I agree with Fixed Cross. I can see where Capable is coming from, however. All beings are self-valuings. But only some self-valuings are self-aware as self-valuings. Thus: "what VO requires is that one becomes radically, 'objectively' subjective. This is the agent that builds the objective world, that hones it, sculpts it." This is why I'm taking the course I've taken with my "State of the World Address" and its sequels (my De-Waal posts or impact-driven piles). This post is not one of those, as I need to be high on psychedelics to write them. Anyway, my problem with Capable is that he seems to me to be too idealistic--not necessarily in a philosophical sense, but in the popular sense of the word. I may be able to illustrate this by the fact that, in his "Text analysis: an ideal politics" thread in the Kurukshetra forum, he did not quote all of what I said in the "brief conversation with [me]" he mentioned in that thread; in that conversation, I also wrote:

"[Q]uality should always come before quantity (unless quantity's provisionally coming before quality is a necessary means to quality's ultimately coming before quantity)--as it does in 4 out of the 5 instances in which you mention the two. Better to have a few self-valuings of the supreme quality than many of a lower quality!"

Now it may be my bad that I brought this up as a minor problem I had with his excerpt.

Not at all, please bring up every problem you see, minor and major. The reason I truncated your part of the conversation when I re-posted it here was three-fold: 1) It was not a proper response to you anyway, but just me riffing off of some issues that were raised (I should also point out that, as far as I remember, I was the last one to offer a comprehensive reply in our ongoing conversation, unless I am remembering that wrong which is certainly possible), 2) I did not have your explicit permission to repost it, and I am usually conscious of the fact that re-posting someone's private words from a PM conversation could be a violation in their view (I satisfied myself to a point that Kurukshetra is a private forum here, so not publicly visible), and most importantly 3) that I have no value whatsoever for comprehensively for its own sake when it comes to writing and text, I am not scholar, in fact I would say I am an anti-scholar in the sense that I do not literally give one fuck for proper form and structure of citation or for making sure I carefully cover every intricacy of the argument and what was said in its entirety in order that no one could ever accuse me of not paying proper respect; fuck that. All I care about is the truth, so I will cut out what is extraneous and go to the heart of the matter, and post that instead. In this way I tried to address the core of the issue that you brought up. The part that was not posted, as you mentioned, was simply extraneous as it had already been satisfactorily addressed. (In terms of, yes quality is always primary to quantity, but quantity is also necessary, and quantity can also be a means to quality, and it is important not to legislate a qualitative tyranny prescriptively over quantity, especially when it comes to writing for new readers (people not yet well versed in this stuff)).

Quote :
It was a minor problem compared to the major one I had with it, but I still think it's a major problem. He seems to aim at the ideal of democracy as the universal aristocracy. But what if this is unrealistic? Then the best democracy is imperfect democracy, with a large minority--the "elites"--being relatively noble and the majority being ignoble. But this best democracy is not the best possible regime (practically, not theoretically possible: thus better regimes have actually existed!), and if a literal aristocrat, a most noble human being, actually becomes actualized in that democracy, he will therefore vindicate the imperfect democracy as well as the ideal of democracy in such a way as to transcend them both! The ideal of democracy as leading to an ochlocracy which may lead to a new Caesarism, and the imperfect democracy as having made possible the very actualization of this philosophical Caesar!

I would not characterize my political position as one defending democracy as universal aristocracy, nor am I particularly hung-up on democracy itself; FC will recall some text I've written to the effect of exposing democracy as little more than the attempt to enslave nobility and leadership to the 'ignoble masses', and this view is quite accurate in its own way. Democracy only still exists because most people do not want to be bothered with being invested in the administrative requirements of society or life, therefore they outsource those requirements to "experts" and "politicians", and I also wrote which FC may recall, that where a true democracy has existed there was no need to call it by the name "democracy" because such a truly democratic organization of people simply acted to instantiate its commonly-hend value, acted without needing to talk about it; any true democracy is one that would probably never bear the name "democracy".

But I am not bemoaning this "(named) democratic outsourcing" I mentioned; the positive effect of this outsourcing is two-fold as in 1) most people get to be free from wasting their time having to have endless community meeting to address issues of local government, as Zizek pointed out that he doesn't want to constantly have to go to meetings about how to regulate water in his local area and other such mundane concerns that can much better be addressed by a more distant bureaucratic system (his point that he wants to be "pleasantly alienated" from all these mundane concerns and realities, which I agree most people want that kind of alienation, us here included (philosophy itself demands this kind of alienation from the mundane)), and 2) outsourcing to politicians and experts achieves the effect of pushing problems up toward greater scope and significance of social application, namely out of the merely local and toward the global.

I want more global work, more global action and thought and valuing; I do not idealize or romanticize the notion of localism. Localism is fine in so far as it is necessary and inescapable, which in some ways it certainly is, however it is not the highest or final value here. My value is more like the federalist system of government applied to the planetary level: I want what the US has in terms of local, regional, state and federal spheres of overlapping government but I want to extend it a step further:

1) local (city)
2) regional (county, district)
3) state
4) nation-state
5) planetary

Each of those above spheres of government should have its own functioning governing bodies and systems, its own structure. I want a super-federalist system that peaks at the planetary level, something like the UN but with real power.

Of course FC's point is very valid, that the larger one moves up in governance the more distant and dis-overlapped it becomes with language, culture and values. The EU's problems for example, seems irreducibly in so far as EU member states have such vastly different languages, cultures and values.

But this inner tension is only something potentially productive in my view, a true daemonism. We should not aim for the ideal of removing or reducing that tension, we should wish to harness and use it. This diversity and difference is humanity's strength, we should not want to flatten it away. But neither should we be scared to approach it as difference qua difference, as the irreducible remainder in the equations of large-scale governance.

A truly planetary federalist system of government would not bemoan these irreducible differences, it would find ways to turn them into strengths. For one thing, the highest peak level of government (the truly planetary level as peak) would be the exception and in most cases subservient to more local factors, in order to provide stability to the larger system. In fact we could simply re-define the value of the planetary-level to not only include the obvious values such as being able to sanely address environmental, energy, human rights etc. issues, but also the simple value of providing a minimally common frame of reference in which the real differences between people and locales achieves an abstract, possibly higher synthetic value, a kind of "future shadow of cooperation".

Individual people within the same culture, region, or nation-state already have that shadow of cooperation, it is simply their commonality of culture, region or nation-state that binds them together in this indirect-abstract manner; at the individual level we have this commonality, an invisible brotherhood of human binding-ness that can act to partially reconcile and justify even the most severe individual differences in values. Likewise I think a new shadow of cooperation is materializing, the notion that we are all members of the human race. Whether or not we like this notion, whether or not we are prepared to admit certain lowly forms of humanity into it, is all beside the point; it is happening, this abstract ideal of coming-together at the species level, and I would argue in the philosophical sense it is absolutely necessary for any sentient self-conscious species to achieve this kind of species-wide recognition. Humanity has already achieved it at the regional, cultural and national levels; why not at the planetary-species level too? It is necessary that we do so, so I am not interested in trying to justify IF we should be doing it, but rather in HOW to do it.

I reject the assumption that a large number of people must be necessarily excluded from "the good society", from justified participation and value in and by government. The fact that in reality many people are excluded and seem to have little value to themselves is only a contingent and not a necessary fact; it is contingent upon humanity still being in the dark ages where our social systems and governments literally create these "miserables" of the human race. We are literally creating low-quality people with near-zero value to themselves or others. Why are we doing this? Because our systems of government and society are still so antiquated and dark-ages-inspired. For myself, I personally value and think from the position of the future looking at all this present world as a distant past; we can do better, we must do better. We must instantiate sociopolitical systems that at least strongly incentivize people to be better versions of themselves and provide the means for higher values-realizations, so in this way no one would be left behind to low-quality near-zero value except by their own choice, which would mean the impossibility for human systems to ever approach perfection and the severe law of diminishing returns that applies as we push these systems closer and closer to the ideal of perfection. Not absolutely of course, but practically speaking I think "everyone" can and ought to achieve freedom from low-quality near-zero valuation and self-valuing. Compared to FC and maybe the others here it seems that I see a much higher value and priority on how society creates the possibilities and landscapes in which individual self-valuings realize themselves and self-value, how individuals become what they are. I reject the implicit view that society and government are somehow inadequate, inept or superfluous to the processes of individual self-valuing realization. I think that all of us here are always-already benefitted highly from how our respective societies and governmental systems have laid down landscapes of possibilities for the kind of high quality self-valuing that we represent. We may be prone to not seeing this because it acts as a given and invisible background, but to me that is even more reason to prioritize it at the level of our philosophical analysis.


FC, I agree with your comments about the importance of food and how right now we are torturing animals and destroying plant life in irrational manner. But I do not come down on the side of vegetarianism or veganism, I think human beings should self-value whatever they want in terms of eating or not eating animals. But yes there need to be some very clear and enforced standards when animals are consumed.

I find your view interesting, the way you see some animals as higher than humans. I can agree to a limited extent in certain cases, I have a deep respect for and fascination with animals. But in general I always see human being as the highest instance we know of of life, of consciousness, and of being. The very things that make humans deplorable and detestable to us are indeed signs of this elevated position of humanity over the other animals -- humans are capable of being irrational, immoral and of low-quality or contradictory/dishonest self-valuing yet this is only possible because human being is already above the pre-human animal level where such things aren't even possibilities. And the elevation of humanity over the other animals/plants is not a license to just "do whatever we want" to them but is a deep responsibility that we view the earth and all life within it as our own personal and sacred charge. We are not "above" something in order that we should de-value it, quite the opposite: we should be the ones recognizing, creating, instantiating and securing the value of these things which we are "above", including animal and plant life. Of course "above" here is an imprecise term, it would be more accurate to just talk about the progression of subjectivity-consciousness and philosophical Being and where on that ladder or continuum human vs. other animal life rests. As Nietzsche said that man is more ape even than ape, this too I agree with; we do not leave behind what we have surpassed, we work it within ourselves and re-incorporated it in new and interesting (sometimes fatal) ways.

 

___________
"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

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:30 am

Alls I can say is, I don't know about all 'at.

I follow fertility gods, those do little in terms of helping one to understand all-laws.

Imposition. I've come to understand that my central puzzlement at the world at large is how much it seems to like it.

 

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

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:59 pm

I'll make some isolated comments on different points raised.


Animal cruelty / Vegetarianism; I will always eat meat, but I want animals to have lives before they are butchered. That will not only be better for them and the planets overall well being, but the meat will be better, more wholesome. We eat all sorts of hell.


Imposition: Life is will to power, one either imposes, or is imposed upon. Mostly, both. But it is a scale; obviously I don't need to explain this. What might warrant explanation is peoples desire to be imposed on; if one doesn't have the stones, to impose is terrifying, and then the only option left is to be imposed on. There is no such thing as passive freedom. Freedom is essentially existence at its most real, active, violent and caring.

The impositions I would allow for, the type of world-government, or planetary government, which sounds scarier and realer and more beautiful, is an imposition of an abstract order, in one sense like the US constitution could be interpreted to aspire to, by Libertarian romantics; a guarantee of freedom for the individual, absolute violence sanctioned against the abuse of children (though how to define that is a tricky matter) and more things of such ilk; basically a government that protects from tyranny, so in many ways, from itself.

No single human ruler could be allowed here, nor any particular group, except if it is our own, or affiliated. That is the strange situation we find ourselves in; philosophy can no longer be impartial and on the sidelines. The correctness of a planetary governmental system relies entirely on the quality of its design, and it must hermetically philosophical. No other intelligentsia at this point even wants such power; it is up to us to cohere with the Chinese, the Indians, the powers that will determine Eurasia for the next thousand years, etc - and there is no question that the Chinese will appreciate these impositions, as it is a logic that prescribes purely sustainable growth. Global economic cohesion and sanity would draw a lot from history. VO and all out philosophy allows for this, unlike modernity; history. The world as it returns to health will draw heavily from its past, its body. We will see confirmations and explications and expansions of puir philosophies when they make contact with the ancient Chinese and Tibetan sciences of the organism.

South America will not be imposed on. These people have found a way to impose on each other personally, directly, through perfecting the viscerality of culture. South America is the jewel of the world, or the wet pussy, however you want it... of course the continent falls within the envisioned planetary order, but rather than using it as a canvas, we use it as a model, for deriving local governments.

To derive local governing principle, this relies entirely on funk, to bring back Pezers term for the earth-element.

Like QM and Relativity are disparate logics because they describe micro and macro, which can not be integrated without a meta-logic (such as VO) so planetary government and actual governance are disparate working logics; the former relies on principle, the latter on smell, touch, looks in peoples eyes; the moment. This, to cultivate form the present, rather than from an eternal principle, is what must be the actualization of the eternal judgment... and I now propose formally that South America be the locus of ongoing designing work on local governing and.

As Pezer proposed earlier this year; an institutional front is required, but one that is structured only by principle, by an agreed upon philosophical code of necessity; a government without 'mass', in a sense; a government guided and calibrated by the Library.

 

___________
" 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: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:28 pm

I'll be goddamned if it ain't so.

The other piece is of course the US. They are still in a position to impose, and none but US thinkers can pentrate it.

In the Venezuelan national anthem (beautiful bastards) there is a line: America whole exists as a nation.

Still the beat to our funk, so to say.

 

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

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:44 pm

Some of what follows was intended for Capable, but I've cut it up and generalized it.

Indeed as Fixed said, Trump's election will not bring the change that is required, but will open the political process to that change, which is necessary. We have an opportunity in the US to do this in a very civilized manner, through an election- as opposed to armed rebellion.

I do not see the possibility of a world-culture being brought into existence or have a desire that a species wide system of values be instituted either organically or by some kind of directed intention. Besides, it is impossible to create the kind of globalist institutions that could combat things like climate change without diminishing the power of the masses, the public, the individuals. Globalism is by its very nature a concentration of political force in the hands of the few. Death is preferable. Power doesn't come out of a void somewhere. In order for these elites to have more power, I have to give them some of mine; we have to give some more of our power, our rights, our individuality, our emancipatory potential, some more of our father's and forefather's blood, to them. Not only am I not interested in empowering these soul-less agencies on the flimsy misplaced hope that they'll combat the threat of a warming planet on our behalf as opposed to just stuff their fat fucking pockets, I want them to be completely disbanded and virtually all political power returned to where it belongs, the hands of the people.

You, I, a lot of other people have surpassed culture and could orchestrate a fair global system on a philosophic rulership, yes. But the difference I think in our perspectives is that I recognize that this overcoming of culture and national boundaries will never occur on the level of the species: because of that, any global system will inevitably concentrate power in the hands of a very small elite political class and take power and freedom away from individuals. When a person who has not overcome their culture through universal ethics and philosophy has their culture taken away by the impositions of an elite class, by politicians and immigrants, they simply become alienated and disaffected and it creates social chaos that can become civil unrest and real violence.

What you are free to do is meaningless. What you are free from is the only thing that matters. That we are free to numb ourselves with Netflix and iphones and whatever flavor of ice cream we want is irrelevant. We are free from- very little. As far as global institutions doing good in the world, for every "good" they have wrought, I could point to ten negatives. We could fight climate change- if you actually think it's that big of a threat, if we allowed private industries to simply drive themselves with competition and invent better solar technologies.

I agree with Fixed about globalism's failure, but I depart insofar as I lack any desire to create a metalogic with which to organize a global scale system on a philosophic rather than merely political basis. I do not desire either the present globalist system, a super-federalist system like Capable's, or a globalist state founded on philosophic rulership. My intention is to restore for civilization the dynamic and destructive surplus-energetics that has been lost in the 20th and 21st century and to instantiate the wheel of the next kharmic aeon, maybe we can even crucify the political elites and use them as spokes for it. That a philosopher condescends to rule is already an aberration to me. Philosophers exist between the human world and the world of the Gods, we shepherd the daemon of man between the worlds, we maintain the balance of the creative and the destructive potential of each kharmic aeon. We witness to man, how it can be used, and broken.


If being branded a racist because you hang a flag in your yard or something is "Nietzschean playfulness," then fuck it. Perhaps Capable is simply not aware of the extent to which modern Leftist deconstructionism has reached in its diffusion and destruction of culture or what exactly I mean when I use the term. A lot of what I have said in even these messages would immediately get me kicked out of most academia for "thought-crime and hate-facts." I'd get kicked out even for mentioning the fact that South African had 2 million white slaves in the 15th century. But, as I said here:

No poetry is as eloquent as time, which numbers the dead in as indifferent a silence as the
wind numbers the fallen leaves, for, as Santyana says in his discourse on madness in the
Dialogues in Limbo, no truth is eloquent save for truth unspoken. And yet what
eloquence there is in those names of our fallen kingdoms- what poetry in the lofty
syllables of Elam, Babylon, or Nineveh, as are dutifully recorded by our histories, the
winsome compact of whose beautiful name will never again be as pretty as it was when
the truth of their era remained unspoken, for, with Valery in the Crisis of Mind, even the
kingdoms now know that they are mortal.

Perhaps we should not have spoken so much- for, to the poets, bestowing a name on something is the highest honor it can possibly be paid, and, in honoring our own history, with all the deeds of our fathers, perhaps we have finally been crushed under the weight of their sins, their misdeeds. Valery was writing about what has taken place; the diffusion of our cultural inheritance into the hands of larger and larger institutions and groups, which nullifies the emancipatory potential for transformation, for the liberation of the daemon to a new era. Such emancipation depends on the concentration of cultural wealth in the hands of the few. The few: the philosophers, those who understand philosophy as it was understood by Plato's republic, as the capacity to utilize power, power being knowledge and culture.

[ This coming phenomenon, moreover, may be connected with another to be found in every nation: I mean the diffusion of culture, and its acquisition by ever larger categories of individuals.

An attempt to predict the consequences of such diffusion, or to find whether it will or not inevitably bring on decadence, would be a delightfully complicated problem in intellectual physics.
-- Crisis of Mind, Valery. ]

Well we no longer have to predict the consequences, the decadence is abundantly clear. Not just the decadence of culture: the annihilation, the political suicide, of culture. But Valery makes another inquiry at the end of this essay:

[But can the European Mind -- or at least its most precious content -- be totally diffused? Must such phenomena as democracy, the exploitation of the globe, and the general spread of technology, all of which presage a deminutio capitis for Europe...must these be taken as absolute decisions of fate? Or have we some freedom against this threatening conspiracy of things?]

The ancients thought about time as I do, and with that, the ebb and flow of civilizations.

Knowledge is power. But philosophy is not knowledge. Philosophy is knowing what to do with knowledge... what to do with power. That's the basis of Plato's marvelous Republic. Agnosis- that is, knowledge, along with all our ideas and history- our cultures, amount simply to the karmic aeon, to the collective soul of a people. Each generation is born into a cycle of karma, that karma being an inherited accumulation of past history and ideas and debts and causes and effects in arrangements of power. Dharma is gnosis, as opposed to agnosis; it is the understanding of how to manipulate the karma in order to free yourself from its repetitive cycle; how to re-organize it in order to eventually generate a new aeon, a new karma. The circles of time I was talking about are this karma, and the goal of philosophy is to escape the karmic aeon of your generation, in daemonic ascent continually liberating power to power's other side, namely love; this liberating capacity is virtu, the strength of love; to escape one cycle of karma into a new one, continually re-ifying life in higher and higher forms, higher karmic aeons. This is the building I am talking about. I am intent on dissolving and shattering the current karmic aeon, utilizing philosophy to rearrange the social power structure- (memetic warfare like the gnostics repurposing the Abrahamic god or like I am repurposing sanskrit philosophy right now or like how N. repurposed Zoroaster) and liberating power to the purpose of forging the next, higher cycle of karma, the next karmic aeon in which to entrap the next generation of souls upon the wheel of life and death, upon samsara, a Sanskrit meme Nietzsche took and re-branded as the recurrence of the same. This is why what I am speaking of is not just a game for the sake of power. This kharmic aeon has become too heavy, too saturated with past guilt, too polluted with past assemblages of power, too paralyzed by the weight of its history- the weight of this karma is too great for anyone to ascend into gnosis and become philosophers- save for the few, the bodhisattvas who saw through its illusion and could have absorbed our consciousness in the paradaiscal godhead but decided to stay behind in the corrupted world of matter and power in order to guide the next generation into a new cycle of time and karma, a higher and freer one. So like all the aeons before it, this current circle must be closed, so that the next kharmic aeon can begin, which will only happen when the latent power in this one is liberated, when its tension is reified, so that life can once again be reinscribed in a higher cycle.

Agnostic philosophy works within the kharmic aeon; gnostic philosophy simply closes it and siphons power from it to forge the next kharmic aeon. Mastering both as I have done is necessary; you must start in the current karma to work with its power structure and see through to the next karma.

The cyclic view of time is correct due to the fact that at the highest abstraction dialectical synthesis ceases to function and no Hegelian absolute exists in which a linear time could unfold toward geist; the arrangement of power and wills cannot go anywhere, it can just re-organize into different kharmic aeons, each one forming a cycle in which a power structure repeats itself in accordance to its daemonic intensification. The daemon of man oscillates, ascends and descends in it, until one masters its dharma with philosophy, (rather then devotes one's self to it in amor fati like Nietzsche's ubermensh) and reifies the cycle in a higher level cycle, freeing the daemon to explore a new aeon. These cycles are ultimately grounded on the larger cycle of the universe, samsara, which the perfect dharma provides an escape from. The cycles, these kharmic aeons, form a spiral; they get tighter and tighter as the daemon, as life, ascends into continually higher forms. In the last universe, perhaps we were still using vacuum tubes at this time.

There is no global state at the end of this, that is utopian and Marxist in nature, a product of the linear view of time and a kind of unconscious desire for an end of history. The nation-state will continue to exist, as well as true diversity, namely independent cultures in different nations, not multicultures. Every attempt to fulfill the Utopian vision has produced death, and so Trump is needed to discontinue these globalist policies. The linear view of time only appeared with the Abrahamic religion, every other culture and mythos and philosophy understood time as a circle not a line going in a specific direction. The fact that technology builds on itself and "progresses" is meaningless as Heidegger pointed out, because technology is only one form of human techne or knowledge, one that like the others freezes the image of Being in stasis. Heidegger tried to destruct those forms of techne- technology, metaphysics, and religion, but that is useless; Being is truly disclosed in the progressively heightening aeons, in which power is recycled and purified throughout time.


Rather or not the total decay of culture into the globalist multicultural utopia is an inevitability of fate- and culture is the formula of the great kharmic aeons, the wheels upon which the daemon makes its ascent into higher and higher dharma and forms of life; rather or not this destruction can at least be undone, that has not been answered yet. But it soon will, for the sins and deeds of the past aside, the left-right paradigm will no longer even exist soon, when the circle of this age is closed in about 50 days and a fate determined, either to continue this path, or to transition. The fascination with globalism, Utopianism, feminism, and Marxism, with the consequent deconstruction of historical forms, the reality of sexual differentiation, and the relativization of moral ideals; the demonization of our forbears as mindless racists and misogynists, all which was carried out at the end of the last generation, has left this generation divorced from its own karma, from its very ancestry, and without any power to forge a new age for themselves, which had been accomplished by every generation precedent to this one. The circle of time has been flattened out and undone, stretched into a line pointing toward the Messianic fulfillment of history which will never come- a lie easily fed to the masses under the guise of benefiting the emerging and beneficent global state, a new international solidarity, the metapolitics of free love.

The Greeks didn't need to set down and discuss what being a Greek was. The Greek ethos emerged from their daemon, their oral traditions, taking on the granite of speech in the voice of Homer. Likewise, this is all beyond the sphere of debate. This is occurring, this determination, over which course to take.

With the transition beyond the left-right paradigm, so comes also a transition beyond the socialist-capitalist paradigm.

The model of capitalism is a direct mirror of Freudian psychology. In Freud, you have a natural drive, it gets repressed by the super-ego, and then sublimated by the ego to create a surplus-drive which cannot be contained by the strictures of the ID, so that we create art and civilization to utilize it, just as in capitalism surplus wealth gets reinvested to perpetuate itself. It explains things from the inward to the outward. Capital and surplus value is literally just the economic analogue of libidinal sublimation. The stages of capitalism I pointed out some time ago are relevant in this comparison.

Communism's explanation begins in alienation as a consequence of material conditions, which limit man to certain patterns of life. It assumes each man contains the whole of the species-essence, ie. we can all magically be philosophers, mathematicians, farmers, etc. all at the same time due to the perfect equality of human nature, so that the structural limitations of social existence impose definite occupations on us that limit our phenomenal reality in an unnatural way. I don't feel I need to remark on how this is stupid. The underlying equivalence of individual and species-essence is why you will see the word cultural Marxist applied to social justice warrior types.

National socialism is not inherently worse than the other two. It borrows some insight from communism and gives the government the ability to divert capital resources to what it sees fit, particular technological sectors or entire industries, but it takes insight from capitalism and allows the market and competition to coordinate that capital at the level of individual businesses. It has the foresight of a top down vision imposed by the few heads of government as well as some of the hindsight of nature, ie. forces of competition in the market. However, this makes national socialism incredibly statist, which is no good if you wish to separate culture and government like I do. The national socialist government has direct control over the culture because it can divert capital to industries it values and take it away from those it does not, and they easily foisted a hyper racial supremacist pseudo-mystical vision on their populace.

" Dialectical
materialism (communism and Marxism) cannot produce the episteme necessary for
effective revolutionary consciousness and the mobilization of knowledge in the form of
empowered political action, that is, the component of energeia or energizing tension,
while the negative-reflective consciousness of tragic subjectivity- the spirit of poetry, art,
and even religion itself in the view of Holderlin, Kierkegaard, and Schelling, (despite
their numerous theoretical differences) cannot produce the component of entellecheia,
identity, and affirmative content... "

The Nazis and Heidegger (and Russia) sought the later, [everyone is always surprised by Heid. endorsement of the Nazis] thinking they could salvage from the decaying dreams of Europe a new racial identity from behind the history of the Aryan people which was hijacked first by the Asiatics in Greece then corrupted and twisted even more by the Jews in the Roman era, and inaugurate a new political regime as a dispensation from Ousia itself to dasein, which would assume the form of a pure Aryan reborn, freed from the distorted history imposed on it by the other races of the earth. Obviously the communists and socialists and now our Leftists seek the former. Neither will win against the spiritually emaciated and philosophically brain dead spirit of liberal American-European secularism, which has no positive meaning, which has no future vision for humanity, nothing with which to establish a human identity in our postmodern techno-apocalypse. Its destruction will come from within, not from without. And as it falls so will the globalist paradigm, which has been the only thing holding us back from nuclear war, a shadow that still looms as much as it did during the cold war.

Capitalism succeeded out of these three for a reason. It is not the most effective- none of the three are very effective, as they all reflect inaccurate understandings of human psychology. The reason it succeeded is because it naturally aligns itself with the Leftist secular humanism, and allows a complex to form between corporate power, democratic processes, the media, science, and military (via globalism) whereas this is difficult if not impossible with the other two alternatives. This complex is very powerful, physically speaking, if spiritually emaciated and lacking any vision for humanity or affirmative content, lacking ethos. It was inevitable that capitalism would win by allowing this complex of social forces to form.



The left, with the star of its fate firmly poised on the lofty horizon of post-wiggerdom neo-hipster Marxist transgenderism, can destroy the idea of sex differences, the idea of the nation-state and culture, etc. and that's not perceived as destructive- it's fine and progressive, but destroying the globalist neo-con neo-liberal plutocracy along with the welfare state which it champions as its social mask and foists over the bemused gormless faces of the public with the assistance of the corporate media shills to convince people it's good, along with all these federal and internationalist institutions with their over-extended spheres of power, etc.- destroying that is anarchic, chaotic, nihilistic. This system is diffusing culture as I said in the last message- while doing the opposite with power, concentrating it in a steadily narrowing group of elites in control of the whole institutionalized bureaucracy now blanketing the earth. Culture diffuses; power concentrates- is the result of these policies. The people are then both being robbed of their identities and cultural inheritances, and of their power. Being robbed of their power alone is something that the masses can recover from, it's happened all throughout our history, culminating in the collapse and rebirth of nations. But with the diffusion of culture accomplished by the left, well, perhaps there will no longer be a rebirth. Whenever a people were subjugated too greedily under the foot of a tyrant, they could always turn back and draw on the wealth of their collective soul to discover the emancipatory potential of their kharmic aeon.

 

___________
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
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:26 pm

Really quick to a central issue of the idea of globalism, before I take more time to process these posts and respond more completely: as far as I can see there are only two logical differences between a continental and a planetary government: 1) the fact that a continent has a zone outside of itself whereas a planet does not; or, a planet's logical outside is just empty space, a moon, and eventually some other planets and moons but that's a long ways off still in the future. And 2) the differences between the peoples, cultures, histories, values-forms that obtain within a continental scope are less severe than are the likewise types of differences obtaining within a planetary scope. In plain terms, there's a lot more variety and difference of stuff if you make a group out of "everyone" than if you make a group out of "everyone on a given continent".

These two points are the only real factors I can see that would guide a different outcome and logical construction when it comes to comparing a federalist-rational sustem of government at the continental vs. planetary level. If, for example, we imagine the US system loosely adapted to the entire planet and every current nation-state becomes a state within the larger Union, other than the practical problems of increasing the number of states from 50 to around 200 and obviously increasing the number of people in the states, there are those two primary logical problems of difference to contend with: (corresponding to the above), 1) the global government has nowhere outside itself to which one might escape (in contrast, if you live in the US you can always denounce your citizenship and move to another country if you want to), and 2) there would be a lot more different feelings and ideas competing for political shared space, most likely making it even harder to find compromises on practical issues such as fiscal policy and taxes, individual rights, punishment and retributive justice, allowable norms vs illegal prohibitions (such ax for easy example slaughtering animals and letting their blood wash out into the street, which is probably violating some kind of health law in most US states but obviously some people around the world wouldn't want such a law), and all the rest kinds of issues that always come up.

I think these two logical problems are serious, but I don't think they are fatal. I think it is possible to find work-arounds to where a planetary quasi-federalist representational system of governance could still work; most likely this will involve a divestment of most powers at the planetary level and the reservation of most powers to state levels (in this case, to the world's nation-states). My idea of planetary government doesn't involve the dissolution of nation-states anymore than the idea of American federal governance involves the dissolution of the now 50 states in the US. The higher most summative peak of governance should derive its structure and power from less summative categories, in every case descending down the ladder of scope toward greater real-world ("earthy") complexity and vitality, as FC was saying. The highest level of planetary government would be tightly restricted on what it can and cannot do, just as in the US the people are still always most affected by the policies coming out of their state and local governments rather than those coming out of Washington DC.

So basically my idea doesn't involve the forced homogenization of cultural differences, or even languages; my idea of planetary governance would accomplish two essential tasks: it would provide an only abstract higher plane of categorical sameness and possible reconciliations across all people everywhere, and it would allow a mechanism for addressing the most serious and life threatening, self-value threatening problems that affect humanity as a whole. Everything else would remain basically the same with only very limited marginal homogenizations occurring only within the most far-removed and most agreed-upon rational delimitations, with everything else (the bulk of human life and political-administrative issues) being such powers as are reserved to the states, as it says in the US constitution for example.

And quickly touching on the first of the two problems, I consider this one to be the most serious one, since the ability to leave one's nation-state jurisdiction is an important check on abuses of nation-state power just as I think it is an important individual right. However, it should be possible to address this if we combine the fact of stark limitation of peak-global governing powers to only those most absolutely pressing and critical with the fact of some "outside zones" where it is still possible to escape global-state jurisdiction, such as perhaps space colonies or some manner of free zones that could be set up. Maybe a certain number of regions around the world could be designated as exempt from global government power, and people would be free to renounce citizenship and move to those places if  they want. I don't know, it's definitely a serious problem. But we could also look at the aspect that perhaps this "outside zone" is either unnecessary or could be effectively maintained at the level of migrating from one nation-state to another just as how in the US we are free to migrate to other states within the US and thereby find those states with which we most agree on issues of practical governing policies (taxes, etc.) In short I don't think that many people in the US are lining up to leave the US for another country, but definitely people often move from one state to another and this capacity could be replicated at the nation-state level within a larger planetary federalist system.

Ok now that I've laid out the only meaningful differences between a federal government system at the continental vs. global levels, and provided a very brief initial outline for how those differences as problems could be addressed, I'll spend some time taking in the many other points raised over the last five or so posts before this one, and have more to say later. In the meantime I want to know if anyone here sees any other serious logical problematic differences between government at the continental level vs. at the planetary level, other than the two logical problematic differences I've just identified above. Such differences must be exhaustively identified before we can begin to make claims such as saying that government on the planetary level is impossible, requires the massive forfeiture of individual rights significantly more so than in the current US model of government, etc.

Note that if such logical differences (either the two Ive just mentioned, or any others you might find) prove to be insurmountable problems then I will reject the possibility of a sane, rational planetary government and turn to a new paradigm instead, one that doesn't involve any kind of "globalism" at all; however, if the logical differences are not found to be fatally problematic then we must rationally accept that planetary government is acceptable to the exact same degree that continental government is acceptable.

 

___________
"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

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:14 pm

"I agree with Fixed about globalism's failure, but I depart insofar as I lack any desire to create a metalogic with which to organize a global scale system on a philosophic rather than merely political basis. I do not desire either the present globalist system, a super-federalist system like Capable's, or a globalist state founded on philosophic rulership. My intention is to restore for civilization the dynamic and destructive surplus-energetics that has been lost in the 20th and 21st century and to instantiate the wheel of the next kharmic aeon, maybe we can even crucify the political elites and use them as spokes for it. That a philosopher condescends to rule is already an aberration to me. Philosophers exist between the human world and the world of the Gods, we shepherd the daemon of man between the worlds, we maintain the balance of the creative and the destructive potential of each kharmic aeon. We witness to man, how it can be used, and broken."

It is more because the logic, with VO, has become available, that I see no other possibility than that it will be implemented, by someone, eventually; the collapse of this age, might very well be allowed, in a Schellingian/Heideggerian way of emerging from a chaos of drives, by providing a code for the disintegration of the purely political, extortionist system of superstitious fear used as leverage.

I think that the aeon will die spasmodically, pure muscle reflexes clinging on, because the instinct for universalization of economy and politics is the depth of a few billion souls, all willing toward an impossible, but nonetheless forging some possibility of something else, - thinner, a rulership more like mountain air; a pure principle that guides, to which people across the world of some intellectual weight can all subscribe, because its rule is precisely not to infringe on the Earthly.

This is, I believe, the anarchist ideal, and it is also the only possible global legislative ethics. That means not to say global legislation. I do not believe in that, except for a non nuclear proliferation pact. I be,ieve that mankind can add a principle to his environment, to insert it into his world at the side of air and water, to allow him to breathe morally, politically, looking-into-the-future; this is what the New Aeon will require, for it to be born from the increasing chaos; perspective.

This open space, removal of the choking bag from the head of humanity, the introduction of philosophies of our spirit, is what becomes the philosophers home; freedom in the world begins with creating freedom for the philosopher.

Liberating Prometheus, Chirons death, symbolizing the philosophers departure from his dank cave into the exalted firmament.

Naturally the dank cave isnt actually given up. It's just that the sky is also our birthright.

Or, essentially, the world best freedom begins with, is anchored, rooted in, the world being regarded as a playground for philosophers. That, at least, is the proper aesthetics to uphold in order to drive for the right changes.

I see all great politics as the explication of standards, ruling by example. What the Brits did in India, and how India responded, gives a good idea of what is possible for a rising culture aiming to imprint it on the fertile ground of a decaying old one.

And it is my increasingly solid belief that we, being with such a significant group of philosophers, a kind of grouping that hasn't ever occurred except at the roots and in the crowns of empires, actually do represent the weight of an entire rising culture. The flimsiness of what is left of the old cultural structure actually will allow for us to  - well.

Im not talking about taking over shit physically or organizationally, but intellectually. The west is ruled by think-tanks. These think tanks are occupied by proud men and women. That's all we need to know, really, if we'd consider stepping forward and getting things rolling our way. I ve entirely surrendered to astrology for giving me the timing. Right now, we;'re in the 10 day window of the Jupiter-Sun conjunction that, last year, was the frame of the Pantad, and threads about politics, that lead to my voyage west.

Jupiter rules philosophy, not in a symbolic way, but in a physiological way. When he comes conjunct the Sun, philosophy becomes viable in the daylight.

The year of Jupiter has 13 months. We are in the end of the 13th month of the first year.

 

___________
" 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 : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:28 pm

Im not asking anyone to believe in Jupiter, but I am asking all 4 of you to respect the calendar as a means, to a cycle; respect the cycle as the ultimate form of power and value. The Aeon of Jupiter. I am the Pontifex. Ive seen myself as a high priest of Jupiter - a holy Fool an Magus going for the World Entire on a whim of Olympian laughter - since in a vision I saw the world collapse in 1998; where I differ with Parodites is that I have seen the world as already leveled to the ground for a good time; I am perhaps even more cynical, and equally a romantic, thus my scheming is deeply ironic, and in accordance to how he describes magic, I both firmly believe it is real and fully know it isnt and needs first to be made real by 'some dark magic' - which is Will, or self-valuing pure; the cohering of the most self-valuable materials.

The world is in flames, flames turn to dragons, dragons turn to flames.

 

___________
" 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 : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:03 pm

At this point I think the only thing we can do is make our own values statements, and leave it at that. It appears no real compromise is possible, our respective positions are simply too far apart. I think this is the danger of philosophy moving toward politics: the political is a dimension that forces philosophy to attempt to posit itself “in reality” and in the practical sense, which is often enough not only an invalidation of philosophy as such by returning the premises of such a philosophy to pre-philosophical status, but even more so is something for which philosophy is woefully unprepared. Just because we might have been philosophizing on the mountain tops for a decade or more doesn’t necessarily mean one bit of worth when it comes to trying to translate and apply that philosophy to “the real world”, at the sociopolitical level.

It would take another decades-long deep work to create a philosophical politics on par with our philosophies. By no means is a justified, truthful, sane or good politics ensured by any height of standard or achievement at the purely philosophical level. We should let this fact humble us; that is the first step at least in starting on that long path toward real progress in the philosophical-political, progress in something that really doesn’t even exist yet. To the extent that philosophy is a rarity, a philosophical-politics is far more rare; a philosophical-politics would only be possible after the successful development of a philosophy and after many more years of hard work attempting to translate philosophy to the political, ‘real world’ substances which, again, are almost always pre-philosophical in nature and so cannot help but seriously offend our true philosophical taste and noble pathos of distance.


. . .

World-culture is already coming into existence, under the mandate of US-driven (western) global capitalism. Whether or not we want a world-culture seems irrelevant at this point, as one has been developing for a while now and seems poised to keep developing. What are the old religions, ideologies, political powers compared to the youth of every country on earth watching and uploading videos to Youtube on a daily basis? As Sloterdijk said, there is a sphere of globalism in which some are included and outside of which most are excluded, yet those on the outside are always trying to get inside. Equally we have Reich noting that people desire their own repression, desire some form of “fascism” and I think Zizek perfected this insight by realizing that what we desire isn’t fascism so much as a kind of pleasant alienation from the mundane: we do not want to be heavily involved in administrative decisions and requirements of society, no one wants to go to community committee meetings every week to determine how best to regulate water usage in one’s area, etc.; philosophy itself is freedom from the mundane, and self-valuing subjectivity is always already philosophical at heart.

There is no reason that planetary government would demand absolute forfeiture of individual rights, in fact as Guattari and I am sure many others have noted it is only by granting individual rights that modern globalized political structures are able to maintain their power. Democracy isn’t about individual rights, democracy is about using the pretense of such rights to establish a sociopolitical structure that can endure over time. From the perspective of society (of every society that has existed so far) individual rights are just the price paid by that society for its long-term stability, just like how voting isn’t about political participation at all and is simply about 1) giving the people an excuse to delude themselves into believing they are politically viable, and 2) creating the false impression of legitimacy by consent of the governed. Now, I want to eventually reverse these trends within the sociopolitical, but we should be absolutely clear as to the real justifications so far of these systems. Likewise, we must be absolutely clear that there is no such thing as absolute individual rights, nor “natural rights”; rights are something human beings create and enforce within a social order, not something inherent to nature, given by some god or universal decree. Individual rights are a pact of compromise between individuals and the social structures in which individuals come up and develop/individualize. There is always this element of middle-ground compromise involved, there is never going to be absolute individual rights, the very idea of that is a contradiction in terms because it supposes the non-existence of the sociopolitical dimension, yet it is the sociopolitical dimension that grants the ontological possibility of individual rights in the first place. Otherwise we simply have mafia rule of gangs and the rich oligarchies using pure force of muscle and fear/violence to get what they want, which is a situation akin to internet trolling whereby the higher values are impossible to appear due to the ubiquitousness of unchallengeable lower values.

It has taken humanity thousands of years to get to this point it is at right now, and I am not about to embrace the idea of throwing all that away and burning it upon a pyre just because we see some problems with global capitalism, or just because the idea of rebellious anarchy feels good at the personal pathological level of one’s narcissism and feelings of disaffection. Nor am I going to capitulate to hyperbolic statements that continuously skew the reality of the situations, onto-psychological dynamics and real-world consequences and values that truly underlie issues of the sociopolitical in the world today, such as the constant hyperbole of Trump and those like him. The reason they speak like this is because they need to talk down to people in order to win their support, their statements resonate somewhere at the 4th grade level; and when you talk down to someone, you actually start to create that exact same low standard in them. This isn’t complicated nor is it rocket science. All politicians do this dumbing-down, but Trump really takes the cake on this.

Quote :
The cyclic view of time is correct due to the fact that at the highest abstraction dialectical synthesis ceases to function and no Hegelian absolute exists in which a linear time could unfold toward geist; the arrangement of power and wills cannot go anywhere, it can just re-organize into different kharmic aeons, each one forming a cycle in which a power structure repeats itself in accordance to its daemonic intensification. The daemon of man oscillates, ascends and descends in it, until one masters its dharma with philosophy, (rather then devotes one's self to it in amor fati like Nietzsche's ubermensh) and reifies the cycle in a higher level cycle, freeing the daemon to explore a new aeon. These cycles are ultimately grounded on the larger cycle of the universe, samsara, which the perfect dharma provides an escape from. The cycles, these kharmic aeons, form a spiral; they get tighter and tighter as the daemon, as life, ascends into continually higher forms. In the last universe, perhaps we were still using vacuum tubes at this time.

I am going to need some examples from history to really get an idea of this. Are you talking about the Egyptians and their pyramids, or what? I am not sure. I already highly dislike this Eastern Buddhistic terminology, which makes it hard enough for me to go along with this analysis, but the idea of a purely cyclical history seems false to me. If we look at the last 2500 years of history we can see a definite gradual progression over time, granted it has its fits and starts and there are small cycles here and there where old forms are recouped more recently and altered somewhat to fit present circumstances, but the general trend is one of linear progress. I honestly have no idea what you mean when you talk about "the arrangement of power and wills cannot go anywhere, it can just re-organize into different kharmic aeons, each one forming a cycle in which a power structure repeats itself in accordance to its daemonic intensification"... in fact, the power structures we see today are quite different from those of the past, the forms and contents are different even if not absolutely so, and even as power 'cycles' back and forth there is definite, real world progress being made atop that cycling. We can now edit out own genes, land on the moon, map distant solar systems, communicate instantly from one corner of the globe to the other, and more importantly philosophical ideas have permeated the unconscious strata of human being, such as with the example of all this Nietzschean postmodernity deconstruction stuff, but also at the level of more directly informing a kind of innate, intimate artistic being-valuing of the individual human that is sometimes (mis)translated as apathy toward all that has a low quality. The average person today has a higher standard for themselves, even ideology while it continues to spread is losing its grip, hence the relative collapse of religious and traditionally political ideological power to the newer ideological power of the global capitalistic.

What we do with freedom is not meaningless. What we do with freedom is a sign of our values and self-valuing, and the positivity of freedom is equally a cornerstone of the subjectivity-consciousness as is the negativity of freedom. I wrote about this in my recent book, I can paraphrase somewhat here: the positivity of freedom is the feeling of free will that we all experience, yet the content of that feeling is a pure negativity. We cannot have one without the other, there is no negative pure content of freedom without the forms of positivity that instantiate and replicate it in real time and space, likewise there is no positivity of freedom without the receded content of the pure negative actual reality of this freedom. Every void-negative content actualizes in realtime and realspace to construct positivities, the world itself is such a field of positivities. It makes as little sense to embrace the world-positivity without the negativity content underlying it as it does to embrace the negativity-content without embracing the world-positivity in which the negative lives and by which it gains its negativity at all.

As for the karmic aeon and the anarchic collapse, I have no idea what this really means. Can you give an example of this happening in history? As for a collapse and return to anarchic relations, how do you think that will go in the modern age of drones, nuclear and biological weapons, and stealth bombers? How can anyone realistically think anything productive could come out of a total global collapse and return to anarchy relations? When ancient Greece collapsed it was absorbed into Rome, when Rome collapse it was absorbed into Medieval Europe, and when the great old kingdoms of Europe collapsed these were absorbed into modern democratic classically liberal civilizations… throughout this entire project we have a progressive climb of humanity up the scale of civilization, toward more truth, more subjectivity-consciousness, more developed knowledge in science and technology, more universalization and objectifying of human being out into the world. Yet Greece, Rome, European monarchies did not have nuclear weapons at their disposal; the situation today is fundamentally different, even if we were to see those historical collapses as some kind of resetting of the karmic aeon, because the stakes are so much higher now, they are truly global in nature. There is no longer a possibility of rebellion of the people against society as such, against the government, because society-government as simply too much power now. Look at the Arab Spring states, these rebellions only further deepened state power and further invalidated the authority of the people over their own societies.

This conservative, anarchic idea that the people will rise up in mass rebellion and “take back their country” is so fucking stupid it would make me laugh if it were not also so pathetically tragic. No amount of rednecks with guns is going to overthrow the modern military; the government has drones, surveillance, access to trillions of dollars of capital, not to mention nuclear and biological weapons and who knows how many psychological weapons and secret technologies we don’t even know about. If this reactive conservative anarchic strain really succeeds, through Trump or someone else, of pushing things to the brink all that will take place is that the government will crack down so hard that individual rights, freedom, and the people’s involvement in their own political process and futurity vanishes overnight. Trump is probably the secret wet dream of the global fascists, of those who want to instantiate a 1984 world, because no one can light that fuse and give that justification for total takeover of the people as someone like Trump can. Trump feeds the lies and bad thinking reactionism that leads otherwise intelligent people to somehow think they can gather their friends and march on Washington….. no, it doesn’t work like that anymore.

The ONLY way to change the future and affect sociopolitical realities now is to actually participate in the political process, through think tanks like FC noted, through writing books and speaking and making videos that are shared with thousands of people; we must engage the political structures and not sit around in our fantasy land that these structures will somehow collapse and instantiate a Pure Anarchy of Absolute Freedom and Individual Rights. Trumpism is utopian thinking in the extreme, whereas the Left-liberalism paradigm is at least somewhere in the middle-ground between reality and insane global capitalism trying to etch out a middle space where humanity can actually exert real control over its future. But for some reason the pathology is very strong that rejects any kind of compromise and seeks only the black and white extremes, a fallacy of excluded middle… whereby it is either “anarchy or death”. I cannot accept such thinking.

And again, all this postmodern deconstruction stuff is just the inheritance of Nietzsche’s effect on humanity. It isn’t a serious threat, it could never build anything lasting or significant nor could it ever have a true effect on human being itself; it’s like kids playing with their toys, only as Nietzsche showed us, we are our own “toys”, and most people lacking philosophy and a proper Mind will simply play toy games with themselves on the emotional, physical and social levels rather than at the intellectual and mental level as we all do here. But regardless of all that, none of that has any bearing upon actual truths or human being itself, it is just a side-effect of the world as now thoroughly Nietzschean. Postmodern deconstruction and global capitalism are thoroughly Nietzschean inheritances, ones befitting pre-philosophical humanity. In any case the philosophical, higher standards will always be the exception and never the rule; I too have no desire at all to “rule”, nor do I have any delusions that philosophers could somehow become Kings in Plato’s idea, nor that the masses of people will somehow someday become philosophical. The only thing that can happen is that the average person becomes unconsciously more aligned to a gradually higher standard of truth and power, of will to power, and that is precisely what we are seeing with all this postmodernism, deconstruction, critical theory, feminist studies, gender identity stuff today. If we allow ourselves a mental-emotional collapse into pure reactivity of looking at all this from the lens of “Decadence! Ah!” then we are simply cutting ourselves out of the processes whereby reality actually becomes aligned over time to truths, just like Trump and the nationalists are driven by their own reactive anxiety to cut themselves and their countries out of the power-games of influence that in reality actually shape the world and the future of humanity. Anarchy represents a deflation of one’s “will” to seriously engage the actual reality of the world, in favor of a kind of self-satisfying fantasy paradigm that in fact serves the purpose of preventing oneself from ever needing to seriously engage reality at all. I have no desire for such things, but neither do I have much desire to get highly involved in engaging the realities of the world either; so my position is one of a more or less neutral observer standing on the side and watching things, with an eye for the highest truths. I am not going to collapse myself into anarchic deflation and utopian fantasy just because, as I freely admit, I have little desire to actually engage myself and my energy and time seriously in the practical affairs of changing things in the real world; my ideas come from the place where, were I to actually have that will, that energy and time, I would hold already the most accurate, truthful and highest value ideas as possible. That way I can at least right now provide this higher standard and context for others who might feel driven to get down to earth and really do something in the world. But in any case, philosophy catalogues truths and truth’s effects on human being, before any kind of “real work” can begin.


. . .

Again to my points about planetary governance, I want a minimal standard here, not any kind of global fascist behemoth to which everyone must sacrifice everything. I don’t believe in stupid utopian fantasies, and my idea of planetary government is neither utopian nor fantastical…. it is simply a logical extension of the political constructs that have been developed already over so many hundreds of years, to their logical next-step of global context. But again this is a minimal kind of globalism, just as the design of the US political system gives a minimal kind of power to the federal level and reserves other powers for the states and the people. That model obviously cannot just be adapted to the entire planet, but some kind of global construct is going to form whether we like it or not, so we might as well roll up our sleeves and start getting our hands dirty a little bit with trying to work out the details and realistic scenarios of what is going to happen and how best we want to envision and steer that toward our own values and ideal ends.

The kind of stark, raw anarchic drive I see today, the deep cynicism and skepticism is, from my perspective, deeply utopian and impotent. My position is not utopian at all, it is just my best attempt to apply philosophy to the practical real-world of the human sociopolitical in light of a naturalistic analysis of what I see going on in that world and with little regard for "what I want to happen". I have my own desires, as you can see in how I form the idea of a possible minimal planetary government as well as the kinds of values I want humanity to aspire to in the future (space exploration, clean energy, environmental cleanup, human rights, an end to mass mobilized warfare, an end to religion, etc.), but those values that I hold do not over-determine my theoretical approach to how I look at what is really happening in the world. Globalism is here and it isn't going anywhere; if Trump or anyone else succeeds at collapsing the present global order they will likewise only succeed in doubling-down the sheer absolute control of, violence toward, and loss of true political power to shape its future, of humanity. There is no going back, no re-writing history; we must make do with what we have, and engage reality as it is and armed with our high philosophy. Anything less is infinitely beneath us.

Global capitalism is just a nascent stage of a planetary-wide sociopolitics. The United Nations is another nascent stage. In fact, global capitalism today is playing the role of content to the pure form that the UN represents; we should try to reconcile this form and content to each other, to naturalize them and thus understand what is going on at the truthful level, as Nietzsche’s brand of naturalistic philosophizing would have it (philosophy as non-pathological, non-“moral” and simply truthful and honest at all costs… non-teleological). Any standard less than this I have no interest in.

Edit: apologies for any offense that I have given. These are simply my most truthful views and ideas, not any attempt to offend anyone. But I refuse to not completely speak my mind simply for the sake of sparing someone from the impact of my statements, at least when it comes to fellow philosophers (as FC noted about the idea of philosophical friendship, we must be able to call each other out as much as possible and laugh at each other's, and our own, weaknesses. True friendship is infinitely beyond the level of "hurt feelings" (not that I am assuming anyone's feelings are being hurt in the process of these discussions, but again I felt inclined to point out the obvious here that no such offense is intended or should even be valued by us at all)). Let's keep pushing these ideas absolutely and as far as we possibly can, with the only thing we care about being the discovery of truth. Truly Building Thought to Disclose the Future. And if in the process of this we come up against irreconcilable divides in our respective ideas, so be it; that is a small price to pay for being able to participate in this high level of conversation and friendship. We can even laugh at our differences, as we ought to be able to equally laugh at ourselves. In any case I am fully prepared to admit that any of my ideas here is wrong, provided that this is demonstrated. "Men seek agreement, the philosophers seek disagreement" as I wrote, or another that applies to the philosophers the most, "Disagreement is context."

 

___________
"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

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus


Last edited by Capable on Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:54 pm

New analysis:

Trump's concerns and their legitimacy:

1) Terrorism. He wants to ban all Muslims from entering and track those already here. Is his fear of terrorism legitimate? Yes. Is his response to this fear a rational, useful response? No. Problem 1: not all Muslims are Middle Eastern. Plenty are African, African American, Asian, or white. This is why the Left claims there is no such thing as "Islamic terrorism" because the terrorist groups and sympathies out there are not inherently Islamic, rather this terrorism has sprung up within only certain isolated sub-groups within Islam and is quite regional in nature. Banning and tracking people based on their religious affiliation is like banning and tracking all Irish people because of the IRA, or all Christians everywhere because of some extreme anti-abortion groups that threaten murder and commit violence against abortion doctors and workers. Or use whatever example you want, the point is that terrorism is not inherently tied to Islam as such; Trump needs a better way of addressing it, and I agree it needs to be addressed. Problem 2: the terrorism that does exist within regional and ideological sub-groups of Islam must be addressed in significant measure by other Muslims within those sub-groups as well as to some degree by all Muslims. Here Trump's proposal has a positive and negative aspect: the positive is that by alienating all Muslims without regard to who they actually are and what they actually think, Trump would put more pressure on all Muslims to step up and address terrorism within these sub-groups more directly, because the rest of the non-terrorist Muslims do not want to be lumped into that group and seen as terrorists; the negative is that you also risk alienating and removing the very people who are most effective at preventing terrorist sympathies from developing in Muslim youth, namely the Muslim community at large most of whom are just regular religious people who want to live their lives in peace and do not hold extremist views, but of course could potentially turn to extremist views at some point (as could just about anyone, under the right conditions). This brings us to problem 3: the ban and tracking of all Muslims is going to create more hatred, confusion, alienation and disaffection among Muslims everywhere and especially in Muslim youth, in other words the same emotions and economic circumstances that are breeding grounds for developing terrorist sympathies; Trump's plan will most certainly increase the number of terrorists and potential terrorists out there, just as US bombing and drone campaigns right now are increasing the number of terrorists and potential terrorists (lowering the threshold for what it takes to push someone over the edge from poverty/hate/pain/anxiety/disaffection/confusion and into full blown terrorism).

Trump's concern for terrorism is legitimate, but is approach to solving the problem is akin to killing a fly with a sledgehammer. Or rather, trying to kill dozens of flies like that, it isn't effective and actually is going to make the problem worse (a sledgehammer won't make the flies breed faster, but a Trump USA policy toward Islam will certainly make terrorist sentiment breed faster). So what is the best approach?

One critical fact has been overlooked in the terrorism debate everywhere: the fact that it will always be possible for one person to injure or kill another person. We cannot treat terrorism as an issue similar to open war with another nation-state; there are no parallels, and Trump treating it like that is making things far, far worse. The unstated assumption behind his approach is that we could theoretically create a situation in which certain people aren't able to injure or hurt othets, but that is not possible (his position is similar in this way to the naive liberal position that we can stop terrorism and violence by banning weapons). One person will always be able to hurt another, and no amount of walls or immigration limits will stop the spread of ideas; Trump's philosophy here logically culminates in near-total control over the Internet and all means of communication in an effort to stop even the ideas of Islam and extreme Islam from entering the US. Think about it: if you believe that banning all Muslims from coming to the US is the way to address terrorism then you're going to be forced to also ban the entry of ideas and communications into the US, and you'll need an apparatus for doing so as well as for tracking and removing such communications and speech within the US already. This is only one clear example of how Trump and his followers are proto-fascists. So how has terrorism gotten to be the way it is today, if it had always been the case that one person could always hurt or kill another?

Modern terrorism is a version of political guerrilla warfare. It appears in Islam because Islam can provide the needed psychological component to actualize this particularly virulent form of guerrilla warfare: an ideology capable of removing the natural self-valuing of a person. Terrorists are willing to die and even want to die; this is the true logical heart of terrorism. The real basis of modern terrorism is this fact of not caring if one dies or not, and Islam is just a means to achieving that pure ideology, and also Islam is selected for this psychological type because of those regional conflicts alluded to above. Western treatment of the Middle East since WWII has caused the conditions for terrorism to ferment, and now the ideological "wanting to die" perversion of self-valuing that Islam provides for was the match that finally set it off.

Now this modern terrorism is out there, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back. This kind of virulent guerrilla warfare is always going to be a potential problem. So you address the real roots of the problem as follows: not by naively treating it as if we are in a state of traditional war with another nation-state as Trump proposes, but actually addressing the real root cases of terrorism: 1) poverty, disaffection, violence and trauma, fear and alienation that people and especially young people experience, and 2) addressing the lack of desire to live and the desire to die. It's very hard to defeat a guerrilla army, especially one that can cross any border just by the spread of ideas and information; terrorism could easily be used to justify the loss of privacy and freedom of speech and thought across the entire western world, and indeed that is the final rationale of the kind of approach Trump is taking.

Terrorism is a means to meaning and self-value for those who think they have no other possible means to those. The delusion of life after death and martyrdom provide the oil in the gears of pain, disaffection, lack of economic opportunities, alienation etc. to potentiate the formation of a psyche bent toward terrorism as a method of subjective realization, just as Schopenhauer notes that sometimes suicide is a way of preserving oneself. This is the real, deeper philosophical meaning of terrorism today; and all this is something that Trump not only does not at all grasp but is in fact pathologically incapable of grasping.

 

___________
"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

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:07 am

C  - no hurt feelings, the opposite how could we consequentially discuss the lives of 7 billion without arguing to the depth of our convictions? Surely anything we may end up producing as guidance for the species will take years of heated disagreements in our forges to take any kind of recognizable shape.

As I see it we do not fundamentally disagree, you and I, on the envisioned outcome, at least not on the envisioned best possible outcome. But we have vastly different work to do toward that outcome, and that work is what, really, we are discussing, shaping the outline of in our souls.

I differ with Parodites in that I think the worst has already come; the world is already in ashes, rubble, chaos, Europe is already leveled, in terms of what it once was there is little left, and we are bracing ourselves for a big fight against monotheism again. I'll go back to Europe to fight that fight. I need to protect my family, clean and simple.

The problem with Islam is not terrorism. Terrorism isnt even Islamic, usually, it's 90 percent false flag, I think we all know this. The problem is far worse. Its education. It's soul-rape. It's reading 3 year olds from the koran. All of that is sub-human, 'even' sub-animal - it is basically a kind of excess of pure disagreement with self-valuing, a thing possible only in the human memetic realm; humans as functions of a moral and intellectual no to existence. Of course they kill each other all the time,. and of course they try to kill others, and of course they die young and withered, of course all no longer young men are deeply sad to the point of rot, of course their cities dont sell any books and of course women stuff poisonous plants in their vagina when they have had sex. Of course it must all die. And of course we must weather that storm of death. And of course many future ones born of muslim parents will join us in weathering that storm. But we must see that this storm is as short as possible, and we must not try to postpone it.

There is no philosophical excuse in excusing monotheistic world-religion. At least no more than there is for napalming cities. We must be honest; would we want our children to grow up afraid of an irrational, jealous and badly writing god, i.e. his ignorant piece of shit parents and priest? If not, then any excuse of Islam is inexcusable, anti-philosophical.

Philosophy requires a host of enemies and adversaries. It makes no sense to attack racists in ones own country and not attack Islam. It makes no sense to expect sanity of politicians before we actually tell them what to do. It truly doesn't. This is what philosophy is, has always been - the voice in the ear of power.  This forum has caught the attention of several agencies, Im pretty sure, having studied the ip addresses of guests and lurkers the past years. It would actually be very odd if it hadn't; given the level of internet surveillance - about as much processing power is used to trace content as to produce it, and the very real logics we work with as pioneers - it is nigh impossible that the US government does not take an interest in this world of scrambling for shreds of the ever coveted power-logic. This is how the US works, why it is the moist powerful nation. It tries to use everything that has a slight potential of becoming useful. Take remote cognition, all that, the CIA took the father of my best friends mate, who was a sufi-guru, in from Switzerland and employed him during the 80's for telepathic services to the army. Im not saying it worked, though it very well might have, but Im saying they tried, and not superficially.

I do not think they would think they can afford not to test our thoughts to all sorts of algorithms that they have going. Of We are one of the few places online that actually produces long term strategic value. Internet surveillance never was for tracing terrorists, obviously - believing in the terrorism narrative is like believing in Santa, its a pleasant belief and therefore justified, but it is one sided, Santa doesnt believe in himself - it has always been to steal thoughts. And Ive always been writing with this in mind. Our governments treasure us, you can be assured of that. We are resource of the highest value, and because of the internet they dont have to employ us.

Consider the real value of absolute online surveillance. Is it not harvest?

 

___________
" 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 : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:21 am

Once more, all I write is in the suspension of disbelief; paradoxically this is a requirement of truthfulness. I can not verify that we are being watched, but I need only to make the following two observations: Our work is objectively powerful, and the US government dominates by implementing objectively powerful theory. It is the only nation that works purely in this sense, the sense of opportunism; the very soul of the US is the desire to take in the best minds of the world.

My philosophical model has emerged in Austria from German philosophy, and yet, it will come to the benefit of the Anglosaxon world. Because the USA is the greatest valuer on the planet. It knows what value is. The future is entirely American. But that means that any world government will be resisted by its own very roots, by criminal families discussing the merits of this and that apple pie in dusty yards - crime is actually the final protection against government.

I prefer mafia rule to NATO rule - NATO is mafia with nukes and 'legal' police forces. Enlightened governments usually rule through controlling crime organizations, not by dismantling them. Same internationally. You cant dismantle ill-will, or egoism, or thrill seeking, or anger, or jealousy, or sheer possibility, or the human spirit. Crime is a fact of life, and its not the worst fact; government-sanctioned mass murder is far worse. And that is what globalism means as long as it isn't understood as enlightened value-distribution.

 

___________
" 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 : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:34 am

Parodites brought up an excellent idea regarding all this: the idea that human society is a reflection of nature, in my interpretation he means that human society and social forces and constructs are basically nothing more than the same kind of social dynamics we see in the animal world. If this point is correct then much of the liberal-postmodern critique of social construction of identities, implicit institutional bias and repression, would fall apart. That critique rests in large part on the idea that human societies codify psychological, economic, interpersonal norms and expectations and enforce these upon individuals over time, but if society is instead just a mirror of the natural animal dynamics then there would be no way for society to provide this function (except of course to the extent that social identities and institutional repressions were in fact reflection of nature, which would mean that if Parodites is correct there would be no basis for working to change those identities or reduce those repressions since after all they are "innate"); he added that identity-based differences such as gender and race differences are innate differences and he implied these could be reduced (in total or in part, I'm not sure the extent he meant exactly) to genetic factors.

Obviously to any of you who know my ideas by now, I do not accept that gender and racial differences are entirely the result of innate factors such as genetics, but I also accept Parodites' idea of the status of the human social world as a mirror of animal nature... I accept it but not yet convinced to accept this ideas as the sole explanation for the social. For one thing, the way I understand our human emotions is that these express a condensation of meaning over time with relevance to sociodynamics: 1) the feeling itself, the affective experience rooted in either pleasure or pain is physiological and involves destabilizing the "affective background state" of the proprioceptive self-experience in such a way that some awareness rises over the background, thus making itself known to us (if you imagine the background affective state as the sum result of hundreds of individual feelings of body changes such as feeling the heartbeat, blood flow patterns in various parts of the body, muscle contractions or relaxations, glands excreting hormones, that sort of thing, then when a certain configuration of these individual feelings-changes succeeds in rising above the background to which it also contributes we feel that configuration in a unique way, the self becomes aware of it as distinct); 2) over time and given the regularity of certain kinds of experiences people have given their social dynamics and social-cultural structures and systems, certain of such configurations of stand-out feelings-changes will reoccur many times given those regularities in the kinds of experiences we have; 3) the "emotion" is the fact that the feelings-changes reoccurring configurations in the individual act as a bridge between the final self-affective conscious experience that we feel and the deeper historical reasons for why that particular configuration has reoccurred over time. What this means is that the reoccurring feeling-change configuration of stand-out proprioceptive awareness comes to embody and represent the meaning or reason for its own having recurred, and the final awareness and subjective quality of the feeling in self-consciousness innately and inherently reflects-represents this meaning and reason although in a non-cognitive manner, in the manner that a feeling-state itself has come to act as a stable sign for a certain range of meaningful facts and aspects about the history of our human lives. This "being a sign" aspect is what transforms the configuration of the feelings-changes into a true emotion.

This is one reason why I think the social must be more than just the reflection of the animal-natural, because human beings automatically imbue the social with meaning in so far as we draw the actual causes and reasons for why certain social dynamic regularities reoccur up and into our cultural and individual experiences of what various feelings mean, wedding concepts with affects in the development of our emotions. For example, human beings still tend toward monogamous relationships and there are many reasons for this (increase chances of healthy survival of the offspring, stability and predictability in the interpersonal supports and pleasurable experiences we can predict for ourselves, reduction in the energy cost of interpersonal interactions) and those reasons in total and at the unconscious level actually comprise the meaning and content of the emotions in question which emotion acts as the sign of the reoccurring feelings-changing configurations of the physiological body, and those reoccurring feelings-changes are the affective qualitative subjective feelin of the emotion itself, although all collapsed together into a single feeling rather than as all of the individual feelings of the many body changes themselves that are so grouped into the reoccurring feeling-changing state.

All of this means, to me, that the social is more than just a reflection of nature, that for humans the social has been transformed into something more than just that reflection; the social is still this reflection as Parodites said, and indeed many of our social dynamics and norms do reflect the same kind of natural instinctive responses that can be found elsewhere in the animal world (play-fighting, displays of dominance and territorialism, submission gestures such as in primates we show the palms of our hands as a submission gesture (humans do this and other primates also do this), averting or making eye contact), all of these sort of social dynamics are animal-instinctive in nature. We humans even reconstruct these social dynamics in our languages, as language has many words or sounds or linguistic forms that serve the role of recreating those same animal-instinctive dynamics. But the social also deepens past this natural sphere, in part because of how we have emotions as I just mentioned and therefore the social sphere begins to represent and comprise meanings in was beyond what it can do in other animal species, but also I think because we humans do indeed use the social sphere to instantiate certain contingent or arbitrary norms and expectations, predictive forms, from one generation to the next. It is just inevitable that this would happen; humans are always reprogramming the social in part to cause the social to absorb as reflect-concentrate certain expectations and norms, certain patterns of information and prediction power, and this reprogramming is a kind of secondary war of forces of meaning within and upon the social.

I think this impressing of new meaning upon the social is another aspect where we cannot say that the social is ONLY the reflection of nature; humans go much further than other animals and we actually use the social as a field or substance on which to impress our other meanings, I would say religion and politics are clear examples of this. But in general I agree with Parodites that the social is to a large extent the reflection of nature; but in addition to this the social can be involved in contributing to or inhibiting certain "social constructions of identities" although never absolutely, because the left-postmodern paradigm is incorrect to assume that no hard innate differences exist. There are hard innate differences between men and women, also probably between one race and another, it would be absurd to claim no such differences exist between races; but I would be careful not to use this fact to claim there are significant meaningful differences between either men or women, unless we define a standard of measure such as "become a philosopher": in that case it is clear that women innately have less of the enjoyment of conditions favorable to becoming a philosopher than do men, but that does not mean that women are intellectually or subjectively incapable of becoming philosophers. I think women could become philosophers as much as can men, intellectually and subjectively speaking, but it's just that women don't really want to do that, they are not driven by their desires and pleasures toward those conditions that are favorable to philosophy. The issue of race and philosophy, however, is less clear since western philosophy is part of the European ("white") tradition and it naturally takes outside cultures longer and more work in general to penetrate into that tradition when they are not a part of it; in other words there is a natural a contingent pressure in the social that acts to keep westerners philosophy within the western world and regardless whether or not other cultures or races could in fact success equally in that philosophy as do westerners ("white") people. But even if we assume there are significant genetic innate differences in other races that make it less likely for them to seek and enjoy the conditions favorable to philosophy (such as I agree with Parodites that this is the case with women in general) that will always admit of individual exceptions, and again this is just one standard of measure we have chosen by which to determine if there are significant meaningful innate differences across genders or races. Regardless of the answer to that question for any given standard of measure, it is still the case that to some degree the social does indeed act to construct certain possibilities and predictive expectations upon certain identities, in part with reference to any innate differences that exist but also in part with reference to the secondary reprogramming of the social, but as to whether any actual person conforms to those identity-construct pressures will be more of a matter of individual lives and experiences. Of course another problem for the theory of innate racial differences is that most people today are hybrids of different races, that we can go back so many generations and find one great-great-grandparent or whatever that came from another culture or race, and even if we cannot do that there is no "white race" but just the many different European cultures and races which are somewhat genetically distinct from each other. So Europe itself as tradition of western philosophy demonstrates how it is possible for many different races to contribute into the same activity such as philosophy in this case. Although it's also interesting that certain European races contribute more and in somewhat predictable ways to philosophy (the Germans, French and English all have a generally different approach to philosophy, for example). How much of that is "only cultural" versus generic and innate? Since the cultural comes from the innate and since the innate is refocused and concentrated in certain of its aspects by the cultural, there is probably no way to know for certain. In fact it might make the most sense to view the innate-generic and the cultural as a single substance with multiple parts, rather than as two fundamentally distinct substances.

 

___________
"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

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:00 am

I tend to a similar view as Parodites, because to me there arent any analytic differences between beings, as long as they are self-valuings (of course there are heavy and crucial synthetic differences); their structure, their working, the way they integrate parts into their own wholeness, is identical in any living being. A culture, a people, is obviously a living being. Such a being responds instinctively for 99 percent, and there is a small degree which can be said to respond consciously - parliament, referendums, or very talented statesmen, etc. But in general, my issue with global government is that it would by definition be a beast.

Obviosuly, there is no neutrality in the world. Self-valuing precludes it. So any construct, however balanced its parts against each other may appear to be at one point, will be a monster. It must be. It would be an entity so large that it scopes the globe, and thus it would incorporate all human malice.

This is absolute; One can not organize humans without accumulating their malice. Hence, why states are always at war with  some other state, in some form.

At no juncture could be logically expect any lessening of malice, of subjectivity, of self-interest, of 'wisdom' let's say, by the means of combining more people under less heads.


The Social: all animals are social, they all live in organized groups, and all mammals have complex emotions. If you interact for some hours with a dolphin or a cat, or with a wolf, or with a horse, you will see that they have emoptions quite comparable to the sort of emotions 99 percent of humans have - the only difference is that the do no think (equally like humans, generally) and thus have none of ther deeply complex emotions that form an artists soul, which is a soul that, through art, is implanted in most humans, on top of their proper, animal emotions.

Most mammals are monogamous. All nature has organized functionally, this is what self-valuing is  - all behaviors are 'instinctive' - no matter of their are atomic or human or divine or plant - even computers behave in the same way, when they are well integrated in a workflow and network. Humans are computers environments; they self-value in terms of us. But they are entities.

What we know, Anglosaxons and affiliated culture, is that we like individual freedom, and are willing to play a big price for this. What Arabs want is clearly something somewhat reversed; they always go for group-identity at the cost of individual liberties. Fine - let them. If there are exceptions, theyll come to the west. But if the west invites all of thje non-exceptions, the west is going to have to fight for its life, its values, its instincts, its freedom - and change, expel or kill the newcomers. Since our values preclude killing them inside of our borders at least, and our governments force us to take them in, we can only change them, or accept that they change us. Hence, we have war to look froward to, and this is only to blame on the ones who thought it was wise to invite these people without setting some standards for them, so that they can adapt to the part of life they now have come to serve under, which is freedom.

This is what we, the west, should say, regardless of anything we do overseas; Freedom is our religion, and if your religion is okay with that, then ours is okay with you. If your religion denies freedom, you need to get the fuck in a boat and drown at sea.

Literally, all that exists, is standards.

If we sacrifice our standards for the comfort of others, we are nothing but death waiting to happen.


 

___________
" 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 : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:20 am

Im going to introduce a big and clunky psychological concept into this discussion. Whether a man identifies more with his mother or with his father, in terms of worldly outlook. It just struck me that this must be fundamental. The mother represents the home, the father the outside world. So a maternally oriented outlook might produce more of a conservative patriotic mindset, whereas a paternally oriented one would produce an progressive, idealistic one. I wonder if this is the case - I know it's true in my case, that when I consider my mother, I know Ill destroy billions of lives in a second to keep her safe, so thats conservative. If I think of my father, I dont think of protecting him, but I think of designing, of a cool mind that can insert magic where it wants, and has no fear of losing its base.

Im bringing this in because we need to cover a lot of bases first - most importantly of all things political and organizational - what drives the human to his extremes?

Reasonability, normal ness, humaneness, common sense, all that is wiped away in an instant when passion rears its head. Passion shapes the world, and it is only passion that I seek to direct. Therefore I dont believe insetting rules or cognitive standards before redirecting passions. On ILP that is all Im doing now. To rout passions away from oblivion, relativism, nihilism, moralism, into the will to penetrate into the heart. Thought follows from this passion. Some people have that passion latent in them. These people, those are my people. I do not care about any of the rest. This month Ive emotionally cut off much of my family, cousins, all that, because they have shown that they're opting for standing by.  Fuck everyone who opts for that.

I now only care for people who actively cultivate their passions in a philosophical way. These are my 'race' - these are the ones I fight for, and with these, we will create the capital of a new order, a structure of worldly ethics of which we now only know that it at its centers is a library.

This is how I see the mothers and the fathers boys come together. Local, truly pleasant centers of culture that radiate outward in ideas. But no fucking institutional enforcers of any sort, in my world. Just real humans.

Any time a state grants a man the right to decide for another man, it creates two vampires. It breaks two beings.




Once more, consider that Im writing this in an associative way; the coming Jupiter year will be a year of debating and finding common ground; the previous year was one of creating foundations. 13 months from now, in the next year, which is of Scorpio, our work will begin to turn to political power. By that time, many organizations will be have their hands stretched out, as the only surfacing part of a drowning body - as has been the case in all greay political crises, philosophers will be the last resort for the wicked in power - because all others are too afraid to look them in the eyes.

At that moment, the tide, which has stationed the past year, will begin to turn. When we look the politicians in the eyes with a judgment so vastly differing from what they feared, our standards will begin  to take over the global standard of power-thought.



All paradigmatic battles come down to a staredown. And all staredowns come down to what is behind the eyes. No man in this word has more fire behind the eyes than the people right here.

This is what standard-setting is in the final human instance; demonstrating ones fire.

A nod to Heraclitus, who understood this so well.

 

___________
" 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
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law   

Back to top Go down
 
The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 40Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 20 ... 40  Next

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