If chaos, then what?

We got to a point on the philosopher's thread on ilp where Sawelios said (paraphrasing) 'nothing, an infinity of turtles upon turtles, whatever.'

Thus justifying magic, that inscrutable point of inception, also known as superstition.

But the what does matter. Whether it's an infinity of turtles upon turtles or nothing or what. If you are not prone to superstition at least, it matters very much.


The what is chaos. The greeks knew it, but let's not attempt to take up the greek conversation. It is chaos, that is obvious.

So the ethics is, um, shit I forgot.

Make the most of it I guess.

Right, ok. If chaos is inscrutable in its totality, yet it answers the question where does everything come from...

Getting closer. Brb.

It occurs to me that vo can be called chaos ontology.
Or chaos architecture.

Simply because its premises preclude perfect top down pattern weaving.

don't mean to interrupt.

You sus interrupt.

*did.

Hold on.

Right. The ethics is.

Chaos precludes the possibility of a unifying principle, a single guide. Since one would preclude the whole rest of chaos. And it is inscrutably inmense.

Vo deals with this lack of unity (on the surface, since it does hold the mechanism of vo itself to be The Answer, the unifying principle from which is the totality of everything). But it doesn't show why. I just have.

The ethics then is to. Goddamnit man. You fucked my whole shit up.

Anyway, the idea of an architecture or ontology of chaos is patently absurd.

Yes yes, difference precedes every order. But.

Actually you just described why VO gives architecture of chaos.

I agree with the general principle, but in general, existence precludes the possibility of a unifying underlying principle. At least, if we assume real existence. If there is a unifying principle, all is a simulation and nothing actually exists, so it can't explain itself so it can't explain its origins so we get the old god back.

Otherwise, unification can only be done through long effort of will, with is born of what you call chaos and I difference, which is born from self-valuing principle.

VO shows why there is lack of unity, because it precludes a priori unity and yet offers the fundamental theorem about being. So being can't be fundamentally a unity.

To always have to disagree to agree...


--
You posit "if chaos" and then draw a valid "then" - but only though VO have I been able to establish that chaos is prior to order.



Tell me, how do you explain order from chaos?
How, if Chaos is the premise, does order follow?

Unification of what?

I don't explain order from chaos. This would imply chaos is distinct and separate from something.

Asking if order can come from chaos is like asking if god can make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it. Just metaphysical games. Semantics only.

"Unification of what?"

Of existence.
What the will to power attempts.
To bring all under one signifier.
What VO basically manages.

"I don't explain order from chaos. This would imply chaos is distinct and separate from something."

No, rather that you don't explain order from chaos implies that chaos is separate from everything.

Chaos means void.
If Void is the basic premise, then how does non-void arise from it?

This is why I don't take Buddhism as an intellectual, but only as a physiological premise.

There is only the relative stillness of the nerves.

"Asking if order can come from chaos is like asking if god can make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it. Just metaphysical games. Semantics only."

Haha, but no. It is rather the question what is meant with the pretty word "chaos".
If not the actual meaning, that is - which is "void".

Noting can come from void, obviously. So if chaos is the basic premise, then the universe contradicts that premise. Thats cool though. But I prefer such artifices of language in French.

Its very tedious to have to repeat all the fucking time.

Self-valuing precedes any relative chaos. Chaos, in the empirical light of existence, is either fabricated, or a term for a local, specific absence of recognizable patterns.

Absolute chaos is in direct contradiction with experience. Absolute self-valuing is the point toward which being is an asymptote.

Games so much annoy me.

Me too. For me, chaos is always a relative measure of some either disorder or unpredictability within an existing system. Order and chaos spin each other into existence and work together, it’s just the logic of things. Value logic precedes all this of course.

Another way chaos can be perceived is from a lack of control, a weak power.
A weak centre of power means a very limited ability to see order around itself.
Everything is like, overwhelming and shit. Oooh, its so chaotic!
Yeah, imagine Napoleon exclaiming that.

Olol, yeah

In his case, the weather finally was cause to chaos. It had rained before the battle of Waterloo, making certain tactics or strategy impossible, ridding Napoleon of his control, his self-valuing of the battle. But this simply meant that chaos disappeared from the other side.

Supposedly his extension of capital credit was also removed at a key moment.

But yes, anyone who sees complexity as “chaos” simply isn’t trying hard enough. So I guess that would make such a person merely... chaotic.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Me too. For me, chaos is always a relative measure of some either disorder or unpredictability within an existing system. Order and chaos spin each other into existence and work together, it’s just the logic of things. Value logic precedes all this of course.

Right, but does this not mean that chaos is a crucial element to order?

I think this is the case.

In the sense that sv-logic is essentially an order, since logic is really an order -
and since it is not top down bot bottom up, in order for this order to exist it must face relative chaos outside of itself, even so as to be able to maintain the order, which after all involves incorporating uncertainties.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Supposedly his extension of capital credit was also removed at a key moment.

Seems to fit the picture. What is certain is that when the battle was lost the first Rothschild quickly sped to London and announced that Nap had won, crashing the London exchange, from what I understand decimating it - so that Rothschild could buy the whole thing. I think this is the cause to the ongoing resentment against Jewish bankers in England.

Anyway maybe it was Rothschild who financed Nap too then? Seems a nifty plot.

Quote :

But yes, anyone who sees complexity as “chaos” simply isn’t trying hard enough. So I guess that would make such a person merely... chaotic.

Certainly the term chaos is just not cutting it, unless P is willing to narrow it down - which would have to be done in terms of the basic logic we already have.

Maybe chaos can mean the absence of pure absence, and nothing more - leaving the question of presence aside.

Yes, or he could use his own logic, that would be cool too.

What P tends to present as chaotic are invariably windows through which more of the majestic order is revealed.
In this sense his "chaos" is akin to the shamanic, magical valuing type of vision -
that which is unhindered by what it sees - that which sees without interpreting.

Relatively, of course - simply letting reality impact layers far beneath the most eager contexts.

That’s why I’ve always thought of Pezer as a tectonic-tactician. I would very much like to see his further elaborations of the sort of logic he sees at work, in chaos or anything else.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Yes, or he could use his own logic, that would be cool too.

He will always use his own structural integrity and build edifices of logic, consequential things. But VO is unassailable, and I don't think P disagrees -


I just realize that if WtP is the Hammer, VO is the Anvil.

The ground that gives the hammer its hammer-ness from which swords emerge.

Challenging WtP-VO -- will to value (double entendre) -- is like words competing with the sentence in which they appear.

Which is what poetry and philosophy both are, that is true.
Not every good line is a sentence.

"go on break it
it aint sacred
its not holy ---"

Thrasymachus wrote:

That’s why I’ve always thought of Pezer as a tectonic-tactician.

Fuck thats an excellent term.
He is certainly good at being that.

Quote :

I would very much like to see his further elaborations of the sort of logic he sees at work, in chaos or anything else.  

I don't mean to impede any of it.
But even less I mean to impede my philosophic self-valuing, which is a devouring monster of energy.
If I am anything it is a problem with which the world will have to come to get to grips. An by the world I might mean what Pezer intends with it - he sets the right goals. So I toss mountains in his way to make a path.

VO is indeed an anvil, as breaking the anvil leads to impotence of the hammer. Because the hammer is power, this can't be done.

Lets say VO is the hammer and anvil, where the hammer had already been developed by Nietzsche. I needed to make something that the hammer occult destroy to explicate precisely the friction of the WtP with itself.