Wreaking crisis.

I mean to do Sauwelios the respect he deserves as my adversary, my "Satan".

This does not apply to the man behind the name. My rage is strictly at this mask, and I have learned to love this rage even like a forest can love rain. A means to grow further to the light, dig deeper into the Earth... to become truer to it.

Poseidon, heaving bodies of water. The need for anchor and a strong ship becomes more evident.
Philosophy is not unlike boat-building. To prepare ones vessel counting with all possible adversity.

And is Nietzsche himself not a great Satan?

Self-valuing logic can be seen as the obverse of the will to power.
Why not - the great ally.

Lastly for now, these intimacies are required to get to the bottom of what this is.

Psychology is divided into sectors. These arent necessarily discrete, but they have phenomena as result, they exist.
In as far as there aren't any philosophies, just philosophers, it is given that S is at the historical root of my formal philosophizing, he presented the challenge that became the thought that swayed him finally somewhat to my course, so in this Jupiter year where power has become explicit, I wish to address precisely the value conflict that was so valuable to me that it engendered an interest in the discipline. Abysmal depth had presented itself. Depth itself is a form of adversity - or perhaps we should invent a term for this - orthogonal adversity.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Sauwelios wrote:

I agree with Fixed Cross about the middle and lower classes only insofar as class is determined solely by capital. Thus a friend of mine once argued that, whereas the US has only one standard, the NL has two: intellect as well as capital; thus it is as much socialist as capitalist. One can choose to live in relatively great poverty here without being despised as trailer trash or the like. (I myself probably live below the poverty line at the moment, yet I wouldn't consider myself lower class.)

Do you mean that the intellect belongs to socialism?

What I mean is that socialism can allow people to not possess or acquire much material wealth yet still be able to afford leisure and idleness.

"The type of man foreshadowed by Rousseau, which justifies civil society by transcending it, is no longer the philosopher but what later came to be called the 'artist.' His claim to privileged treatment is based on his sensitivity rather than on his wisdom, on his goodness or compassion rather than on his virtue." (Strauss, Natural Right and History, "The Crisis of Modern Natural Right".)

Quote :

I think that since Socialism is fundamentally illogical, as it does not count with WtP or valuing, that it is ultimately hostile to the intellect.

That goes for Utilitarianism as well,* and I think for the Democratic movement--i.e., Modernity--as a whole. My position is one seen from which all modern politics is relatively quite leftist. Socialism is in some way closer to my position than, say, Classical Liberalism, and the tension between the two is superior to both.

* "For a better understanding of 'our virtue' it is helpful to contrast it with the most powerful antagonist, the morality preached up by the English utilitarians which accepts indeed egoism as the basis of morality but contends that egoism rightly understood leads to the espousal of the general welfare. That utilitarianism is disgusting, boring and naive. While it recognizes the fundamental character of egoism, it does not realize the fact that egoism is will to power and hence includes cruelty which, as cruelty directed toward oneself, is effective in intellectual probity, in 'the intellectual conscience.'" (Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil".)

Quote :

I any case I do not think poverty exists in the Netherlands. Debt-slavery, yes - most university graduates are owned by banks, but the state takes care that such people have to eat and dont experience the danger of death by hunger and weather.

It depends on what you call poverty. I said "relatively great poverty" because I was aware of this.

Quote :

It seems like you consider the main disadvantage of poverty that one is despised for it, rather than the practical condition of having trouble supporting ones life. The two are both factors, of course, both pertaining to selfvaluing. Especially if one despises oneself for being poor.

Exactly. If you despise yourself for being poor, you cannot really go about it reasonably, efficiently. Your status will negatively impact your class.

Quote :

Quote :

I do not (yet) share your admiration for Trump. However, I may hail him even though I do not consider him a superior leader: namely, as a leader who can make things worse. I think the Lampert quote above expresses the crux of Nietzschean political--if not religious--philosophy: yes, leaders will always need some kind of public support, and this is why superior leaders require sufficiently critical circumstances.

Am I correct in reading that your standard-value here is the leader, rather than the nation and people he leads?

Yes, though with the emphasis on "rather than", as distinct from "instead of". My standard-value is the leader type, which may be quite pervasive in a nation or people; it need by no means be limited to "the leader" (which singular already suggests a rule of one).

Quote :

In which way does this leader relate to what he leads? Does he simply use the populace and nation to satisfy his own WtP?

He does, yes:

"Prior to the victory of the democratic movement to which, as Nietzsche understands it, also the anarchists and socialists belong, moralities other and higher than the herd morality were at least known. He mentions with high praise Napoleon and, above all, Alcibiades and Caesar. He could not have shown his freedom from the herd morality more tellingly than by mentioning in one breath Caesar and Alcibiades. Caesar could be said to have performed a great, historic function for Rome and to have dedicated himself to that function--to have been, as it were, a functionary of Roman history, but for Alcibiades Athens was no more than the pedestal, exchangeable if need be with Sparta or Persia, for his own glory or greatness." (ibid.)

Note, though:

"The leaders who can counteract the degradation of man which has led to the autonomy of the herd, can however not be merely men born to rule like Napoleon, Alcibiades and Caesar. They must be philosophers, new philosophers, a new kind of philosophers and commanders, the philosophers of the future. Mere Caesars, however great, will not suffice[.]" (ibid.)

Quote :

In my eyes Trump is here to lead the American people back to wealth and prosperity, and he is doing that with verve.

Well, we will have to see. In any case:

Quote :

But as great forces are hell bent on bringing him down, it is likely that the country is still going to experience major upheavals and maybe civil war.

Yes, so even if he would lead the American people back to wealth and prosperity, he may still make things worse for them indirectly, by what he effects or catalyses in his enemies.

Quote :

Would this be desirable to you, to the end of allowing what youd see as a greater leader to arise?

Yes, but when I wrote "Übertrump", I wasn't necessarily thinking of a single leader at all (see above), just as the phrase "der Übermensch" need by no means refer to a single man, but may well refer to "man", to a new "man", a new--or at least higher--species of man. (I only just thought of this analogy, though, and I don't necessarily mean "species" in the strict, biological taxonomical sense!)

"What I mean is that socialism can allow people to not possess or acquire much material wealth yet still be able to afford leisure and idleness."

No, not at all. There are several things wrong with this statement.

Socialism is defined as giving capital to people who have not earned it. That "benevolence" had to come from somewhere. Namely, from productive forces and persons and mechanisms that actually create capital (there are three ways this can occur, see my economics writings here); ok I'll outline it: 1) raw resources are taken (e.g. from nature) and converted via production process into something of value to humans, 2) the process by which that takes place is made more efficient, or 3) values already existing are traded to the mutual benefit of all parties involved in the trade --- what I am describing with 1-3 is, obviously, capitalism.

Wealth flows from value outward in benevolent manner, bestowing value upon those whom the original value-holder deems worthy; the most basic example of this is the family. Parents bestow value upon their children, and the "bread winner" bestows value upon all in the family.

The problem with socialism is that the source of the wealth to be distributed is not involved in a values-bestowing act, his wealth is simply taken by taxation and distributed without his consent or concern; this not only destroys the inherent benefit of giving but also destroys the inherent value of receiving. Someone who reserves state handouts is made infinitely poorer in spirit than he was in body. This reveals itself over time. It is also connected to why socialist states fail.

Socialism is a tick on capitalism, because like idiot Sanders admits there is nowhere to get this "free" money from other than... from capitalists. Marx was fundamentally wrong when he thought that economy can dispense with owners. Without owners, capital has no meaning because it had no value-bestowing virtue, no ontic ground. The idea of ownerless capital is akin to the idea of an individual-less person-- a fundamental philosophical contradiction.

In reality it is only capitalism, free enterprise and markets based on competition and rational legal frameworks to ensure a relatively level playing field, that over time raises the standards of living. Sure, the USSR was able to forcibly reorganize their society and economy into a chain of productions capable of moving Russia into competitive edge with the US and in a very short period of time, but the instabilities and irrationalities, the inhuman-ness of it forced it to collapse overnight. One day the USSR was here, the next it simply was not.

The only true meaning of "socialism" is the benevolent value-giving that comes from individuals who freely give their capital out of love, love for the sight of their own values. Economy is primarily local, and even larger super-local systems and flows must be ultimately grounded in locality-units. Socialism as a fundamental economic and policy axis is destined to always fail. Period. It is tantamount to robbery, literally that is what it is, which is not surprising therefore that socialist systems become useful for controlling people by enforcing dependency upon them, removing and discrediting the notion of self-reliance, namely, pride.

Quote :

"The leaders who can counteract the degradation of man which has led to the autonomy of the herd, can however not be merely men born to rule like Napoleon, Alcibiades and Caesar. They must be philosophers, new philosophers, a new kind of philosophers and commanders, the philosophers of the future. Mere Caesars, however great, will not suffice[.]" (ibid.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_IXzU-lnLU

I think I'll watch that video of Kuzu tomorrow at work.

::

Fixed Cross wrote:

I would note that, even where this observation is taken at face value, which I don't tend to do when someone does not speak from direct experience, since the 1920's the contempt for enjoyment in the US has disappeared.

This man was instrumental in turning the US, in his own words, from a Need- to a Desire-culture.



More:
https://vimeo.com/95699538
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf

But I would also contend that the vast frontier never allowed for the narrow-chested Lutheran attitude that Nietzsche attributes to the American psyche.

I don't know if that's what he attributes to it. In any case, I have direct experience of basically the same experience as Nietzsche describes there: not direct experience of the US in real life, to be sure, but ample experience of recordings from it and of its influence on Europe. I don't think the shift from a Need- to a Desire-culture (and by the way, did Americans before that even need all that gold?) has made it better. More below.

::

Thrasymachus wrote:

Desire is higher up in the value-hierarchy than is need, I would say.

This is true precisely because desire is more conditional, ephemeral, transitory, fleeting, "metaphysical" than is need.

Desire, when compared to need, is more of an idea. And obviously, more of an ideal also.

Yes: desire is higher, but need is deeper. Desire is rather a luxury, something one can concern oneself with once one's needs are met.

Quote :

The danger is when desires are allowed to subvert needs; that is tantamount to destroying the foundation for the sake of the house, in the end you lose both. And not all needs are very obvious at all.

Good and profound point. Thus like Nietzsche describes in Ecce Homo, I in my early twenties (depression/"anticyclone") was basically forced by my condition to focus on my basic needs--for the very first time, really. But I connect this in great part to having grown up in an Americanised, Desire-culture (though of course America was first Europeanised, long before the converse happened, so I don't trace the root of the problem to America; that is much older).

::

Fixed Cross wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

Desire is higher up in the value-hierarchy than is need, I would say.

Yes, I realized here first that Bernays did us a favor.

As I said, I don't think it's a favour in that a Desire-culture is better than a Need-culture; at best, it's easier to resist because desires are more superficial than needs. Post-Bernays American(ised) "culture" is no less ignoble than what Nietzsche describes in GS 329. This applies so well even to people who have good jobs and go out, go on trips and travel all the time (I'm thinking of one Americanised person in particular):

"And you, too, for whom life is furious work and unrest--are you not very weary of life? Are you not very ripe for the preaching of death? All of you to whom furious work is dear, and whatever is fast, new, and strange--you find it hard to bear yourselves; your industry is escape and the will to forget yourselves. If you believed more in life you would fling yourselves less to the moment. But you do not have contents enough in yourselves for waiting--and not even for idleness." (Zarathustra, "On the Preachers of Death", Kaufmann trans.)

Thrasymachus wrote:

My issues with it are similar to what Fixed just wrote; wtp based in what? Is the UberTrump some kind of God, Overman totally justified without any regard to the society and people whom he leads? Of course not.

Overman interpreted as the value of leadership for its own sake is no different from the impulse to power for its own sake, namely just more banality. Anti-philosophy of a tyrant. Democracy is not perfect, but it wins--- why? Because humanity itself is the highest concern proper for truth, for the philosopher.

Well, this reminds me of the fact that I suspect you're still a nihilist in my book:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2577409#p2577409

The will to power for its own sake--which, rightly understood, means for the sake of that will, not of power divorced from will (will is power)--: seeing that as banal is nihilism, despising the will to power (see WP 55).

Democracy does not win; at most, a regime that calls itself democratic wins. (I'm not talking about anything like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" here!) Thus I have defended democracy in practice, as distinct from doctrinal democracy (the universal aristocracy), with its bureaucracy and elites and all, just as the interbellar Dutch Nietzschean Menno ter Braak did in the '30s. That "democracy" is perhaps best represented in our time by Hillary Clinton...

Against democracy and above humanity: that is the Nietzschean outlook.

Sauwelios wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

My issues with it are similar to what Fixed just wrote; wtp based in what? Is the UberTrump some kind of God, Overman totally justified without any regard to the society and people whom he leads? Of course not.

Overman interpreted as the value of leadership for its own sake is no different from the impulse to power for its own sake, namely just more banality. Anti-philosophy of a tyrant. Democracy is not perfect, but it wins--- why? Because humanity itself is the highest concern proper for truth, for the philosopher.

Well, this reminds me of the fact that I suspect you're still a nihilist in my book:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2577409#p2577409

Quote :

the notion that there be an emergence that signifies a clean break with that from which human consciousness emerges. If, unlike Jakob, they do not view it as an elaboration of the will to power but look down on the latter, as they seem to do, that too is nihilism: like a Heaven or True World between which and "this world" there is a clean break--a deliverance from the "crudeness" and "filth" of the latter.

I nor Parodites as far as I know have ever advocated a clean break from that from which human consciousness emerges; you and I simply have a different understanding of what constitutes human consciousness and from where it comes and why/how. The fact that human consciousness indeed emerges and in a precise way and for precise reasons is not a mark against either that consciousness nor that from which it emerges, nor is this at all to say that there is a clean break-- the break is far from clean, it bleeds into everything, and the concept of daemonic polarity is referring here to how both the "animal animal" and the "animal human" form a duality that is irreducible to either of those terms alone. There are simply things that human-animals can do, embody, and represent that animal-animals cannot do, do not embody and do not represent. There are real differences, yet that is not to say there is an absolute separation. Rather there is a categorical newness and a whole host of partial separations and partial reconciliations.

But what I do reject is the attempt to form a universal category under which everything fits neatly into a common definition as standard of measure, namely "quantities of power-will". That is a useful way of forming a standard of measure, a empirical approach basically, but little more.

There is both a categorical disparity and a categorical parity, at the same time, between animal and human, or between human consciousness and that from which it has come. And this "at the same time" cannot be further reduced as if to collapse the daemonic duality of that "parity and disparity" under a single universal category. Not even self-valuing can do that, much less the will to power. This is simply the case because you cannot actually explain this parity/disparity and the fact of it solely in the standard-measure idea of quantities of power-will, or will-power; the standard-measure of self-valuing gets much closer because it doesn't immediately involve a quantitative reduction (analytic collapse), and rather describes a quality and system, a 'geometry. Yet even with using self-valuing, if you want to actually explain logically what consciousness is and how/why it came to be you're going to need to use terms and ideas beyond just "self-valuing". That holds even more so for "will to power".

I do not look down on the world, nor on the past, nor on instinct, nor on the notion of the will to power. One of my central aphorisms is that a thing is not to be found wanting or belied merely because it has reasons for existing; consequently the reverse is also the case, and a cause/reason for something else is not to be found wanting or belied merely because it is the cause/reason for something else. This is a very important point to grasp if you want to begin to understand what I mean by "tectonics".

Parodites has, by leaps and bounds, the best explanation and description of what is human consciousness, from where does it come and how/why.

By the way, a good example of what I said about collapsing the daemonic polarity falsely can be seen in that GS 329 you mention: Nietzsche sets up his own polarity between work and leisure/idleness, and then he assigns work the inferior status and idleness the superior status. What this fails to capture is that not all work is the same, and not all idleness is the same, and saying that work < idleness actually means something only with respect to those more specific understandings of a work and a leisure in particular. You cannot simply generalize a hierarchy here.

I notice that Nietzsche does this a lot. He adopts a simplistic definition for something, like work or leisure, like strength or weakness, like power or will, like overman and "the masses", and then he sets those in hierarchy with one above the other. It's simply not an accurate, complete way to understand what he is trying to understand, although of course Nietzsche almost always has a good point when he does it.

Quote :

The will to power for its own sake--which, rightly understood, means for the sake of that will, not of power divorced from will (will is power)--: seeing that as banal is nihilism, despising the will to power (see WP 55).

If will = power then "will to power for the sake of that will" (your definition above) is: will = power for the sake of will = power", or A=A=A=A. That is stupid.

Quote :

Democracy does not win; at most, a regime that calls itself democratic wins. (I'm not talking about anything like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" here!) Thus I have defended democracy in practice, as distinct from doctrinal democracy (the universal aristocracy), with its bureaucracy and elites and all, just as the interbellar Dutch Nietzschean Menno ter Braak did in the '30s. That "democracy" is perhaps best represented in our time by Hillary Clinton...

Clinton is an elitist globalist neoliberal, she does not represent anything close to democracy. I already explained in my last post to you here why democracy wins, I would like you to take a stab at refuting or at least addressing that.

Quote :

Against democracy and above humanity: that is the Nietzschean outlook.

No. That is merely against a certain very limited understanding of what democracy and humanity mean. Such deliberate constriction of the meanings of such ideas is anti-philosophical in the extreme.

In other words democracy is not simply "the dumb masses want to rule in their stupidity". Yes that is an aspect of democracy, but if you understand what democracy is solely in terms of that then you are ignoring whole other swaths of meaning and reality. Much like how the master/slave (dialectic which Nietzsche 'borrowed' from Hegel) also reduces vast aspects of reality, larger and deeper truths, to a simplistic and artificially reduced meaning.

Yes what Nietzsche says is almost always true; but he rarely strives to say the whole truth about anything of which he speaks. He finds an interesting point, plants his flag there, and then self-values solely in terms of that one point. Nietzsche is an excellent starting point for philosophy; he was never meant to be its end. This is why people like Alex Kierkegaard ("orgy of the will") are so tragic, they have mistaken Nietzsche's particular (in many cases very good) philosophy for philosophy itself, thus they stagnate and can go no further. Nietzscheanism as end-point of philosophy is no different from religion.

One truth does not equal all truths. Not in general and not in the case of any specific entity, being, or idea.

Self valuing definitely can do that, it is what it does in fact. It is a pure principle rather than a pure phenomenon, thus it includes all phenomena even in their parity and disparity in itself, and requires disparity of category for there to he beings at all.

This is unfolding of the WtP logic, so I might say that due to this penetrating method, this disparity and parity can be seen as implicit in the WtP as well.

Only partial and incomplete, all too human logics are able to differentiate in terms of man/not man, and insert man/not man as a fundamentally meaningful threshold.

Per selfvaluing logic, that is merely due to the nature of that particular selfvaluing, which just so happens to identify itself with the category "human" prior to the category "selfvaluing", or for example, "philosophy".

In the other case, where selfvaluing is the cognitive and categorical as well as the operational logical axiom, "human" has very little meaning, as from one human to the other we see fundamental differences in self-valuing integrity. Such as the either present or lacking capacity for philosophy, which is a definitive species-marker.

That is true, but I could make a list of all things that humans can do, significant things such as cry over emotions, form sentences with symbolic abstract language, map the surfaces of Pluto, understand photosynthesis, sacrifice oneself for an idea, or philosophize, for example, that no other known being (self-valuing) can do. And iam not merely including arbitrary things on that list, like "kangaroos can carry their young in a pouch" or "camels can store water in their humps", that sort of thing is not categorically significant.

Even the mere fact that humans can understand these sort of differences are either categorically significant or not, demonstrates that we are different. No other self-valuing knows it is a self-valuing, no other self-valuing has the fact of its being a self and a valuing integrated into its very self-valuing. To me this is a very crucial point.

Until VO can explain this point in terms of self-valuing logic only, I can't conclude that self-valuing as a concept is 'universal' in the way that Nietzscheans think the will to power is universal (they cannot use the idea of the will to power to explain it either). But I do want to move VO in the direction of being able to explain it. I'm just saying it isn't there yet.

Selfvaluing as universal is indeed contradicted by selfvaluing as categorically human.

It is not at all an attribute of "Humanity". That is a grave insult to it. It is MY attribute, and it belongs only to its own logic, which derives of and reflects MY purity, integrity.

Fuck the idea that "Humanity" has any claim to it. It does not even allow for that category.

It is contra all that VO is to attribute VO to pre existing categories.

This fundamental logic of being could only be formulated by someone whose consciousness stands free from typically human forms of it.

I do not know who invented the idea that animals arent conscious. It is as absurd as the idea a man with a beard created the world.

In my experience many animals are more conscious and emote more pofoundly than many humans.
It is this experience that allowed for VO.
And it is this that explains why so few humans can access it.
It can be fully manifested as theory only in the mind that accept its own singular integrity and sheds all beliefs in groups of selfvaluings it would fundamentally belong to.

If the principle isnt taken as a principle but an attribute, it will lead to error.

One fundamental necessity following from VO is that no selfvaluing can understand another type of integrity, except as its outward strength. From this it follows that no humanoid could jusge whether a rodent has an inner world or nlt.

The terms.by whoch a humanoid could test this do not demonstrably suffice in rodent generated contexts.

The idea we can judge and project possibities from other species perspectives, including other humanoid species, directly contradicts sv logic.

Only the philosopher has been identified as a species in terms of VO yet. And of course of that category, a subset has ranked itself as primacy. I am that subset.

Allow me a quick clarification while it's in my mind:

Nietzsche came up with a great idea, the will to power. This idea has vast explanatory power. You came up with the even greater idea of self-valuing, which has even more explanatory power.

Nietzsche tried to claim that "all beings are wills to power", and this is (almost) true. You claim that "all beings are self-valuings", which is true.

But just because we can say that all beings are self-valuing doesn't mean that the idea of self-valuing is necessarily able to explain any actual being in an exhaustive sense. There are infinite actual and possible beings of infinite types that fall under the set "all beings [are self-valuings]", but self-valuing itself is one logic. One logic, by itself, cannot explain everything. But it can be applied to have significant explanatory power to anything. This is the important but subtle distinction I am trying to make.

It's the same thing with N: he thought that "all beings are wills to power" necessarily implied that "will(ing) to power can explain all that a being, any being, is". That is, however, not the case.

The logical set "all X's are A's" doesn't mean that "A" is necessarily an exhaustive explanatory power for what X is, any X at all much less all X's. Yes we can say that all X's are A's, so that whatever A means therefore every X also means that. But again that A is one fact, one logic, and it would be a mistake to reduce X to A merely because every X is an A. At least that is how it seems to me.


Ok I'll read your post now, I had to get that out for clarification.

Quick reply: if I didnt manage to explain all species in my mind using only VO, it would have bored me and left me uninterested.

Of course VO explains! From the very ground up. It means a lot of induction, and that is way to much work to do on paper and the formal terms havent been fully constructed and not at all standardized to each other. But in my mind it builds the world efficiently like clockwork.

I want to eliminate any possible ideas that sv logic is an abstraction that requires variables to amount to content. All that is needed is to follow the logic, and one arrives from nothing at hydrogen to minerals and moves to life and consciousness and then at tools and mankind effortlessly.

I agree that the progression from subatomic minutia to atoms to molecules to life to consciousness to philosophy is perfectly understandable rationally. Self-valuing helps make this climb easy to discern.

But let me demonstrate what I mean when I said that self-valuing as an idea cannot explain everything (and it doesn't need to; it isn't somehow deficient for not being able to),

1) why is the sky blue? Because of self-valuing.
2) why do we have two eyes? Because of self-valuing.
3) why do rodents exist? Because of self-valuing.
4) why is 2+2=4? Because of self-valuing.
5) why does sugar taste good? Because of self-valuing.
5') why does sugar not taste good to some people? Because of self-valuing.
6) how does a car work? Because of self-valuing.
7) what is photosynthesis? It is self-valuing.
how is truth comprehensible? Because of self-valuing.
9) why is Carbon necessary for human life? Because of self-valuing.
10) why does the color green look like it does to us? Because of self-valuing.
11) why does paper feel rough? Because of self-valuing.
12) what are the contents of a martini? Self-valuing.

I'm really not trying to be facetious or weird here, I'm trying to make a point that even the very best explanatory idea is far from absolute, even the most universally applicable attribute or logic is far from sufficient to explain what something is and why/how it is.

In the sense of every 1-12 above, it is actually true that "because of self-valuing", but that only means something in a broader context of knowledge, experiences and reasoning. I can no more accept N's "the world is a will to power and nothing besides" than I can accept "the world is a self-valuing and nothing besides", even though the second statement makes more sense than the former.

Anyway I assume you don't agree with me here. I wonder where Sauwelios comes down on this issue. I would also be interested to hear what Parodites thinks of all this.

In other words, there is a sense in which "why do we have two eyes? Because of self-valuing" is true, but there is also a sense in which we need to know a lot more than just this in order to actually understand why we have two eyes.

Haha, no, that is not VO. You would have to apply the selfvaluing logic to arrive at these answers.
it's truly a lot of work. You start with the notion of nothing, which negates itself. From there, VO is arrived at. From there, selfvaluing logic interacts with itself so as to produce, step by step, the worlds phenomena.

Ive done this in my mind, and Ive offered numerous glimpses of that process since 2011, but apparently, very far from enough to make myself clear.

Lastly for here now, as where Im misunderstood, I should leave: on H, I wrote a post on symmetries. It received your praise, Capable, and I reposted it here - that post contained the basic module for deriving time-space ("objectivity", thus also Relativity) from self-valuing as a principle.

It is a long, royal process, one needs to engage all the valuing faculties of the heart and mind, in order to be pure of logic - after all, the full self-valuing apparatus has to be engaged to grasp selfvaluing logic.

If you are an artist and a math genius, only full immersion in both can grant you access to the complete principle that drives you, and from there on, you can see that principle in its true universal working, how it arrived at you from nothing.

In other words, no one can understand the world, thus VO, passively. We are acting beings, being is acting, and only the fullest engagement of valuing can ever counts as philosophical contemplation. All the powers need to be engaged to work with VO, literally all the powers the philosopher possesses need to be engaged and experienced, then the principle comes to light in its analytic form. From there on, the world can be understood.

Yeah, "lastly"


We could also say that math explains nothing:

"Why is e the same as m.c-square?" "Because of mathematics", or "because of "A"="A"-logic."

That is not actually how Einstein arrived at it, or how it works, or what it is.

I'm not saying that process isn't the case, it certainly is and can be understood fairly easily actually. I've found that this is the case with the best ideas. When I first met Parodites and we conversed he explained consciousness to me in a very easy and clear way, whereas no one and no philosopher had ever been able to do that before. These sort of clear and 'simple' ideas are the basis of correct understanding.

To continue my example with why we have two eyes, imagine someone asked you this; how would you respond? I would first explain about vision and light, photons and refraction, electromagnetic waves, and then I would explain how the lens in the eye focuses incoming light onto the cells of the retina, rods and cones, and explain how photon stimulation produces cascading molecular changes that displace chemical energy in a nervous chain into the brain, where that is interpreted as information and vision. I would also explain why we have two rather than one eye (for depth perspective via triangulation) and why we have two rather than three eyes (efficiency of natural selection), and I would explain how DNA and random mutation works with environmental selection and competition for finite resources to over time produce organisms and their attributes. I would also explain the obvious utility of vision for navigating an environment.

I would have to start significantly closer to "nothing" than that.

Vision and light could not be understood without self-valuing logic - what is light, what is vision, how do we claim they are different?

"Light" is entirely meaningless, philosophically/logically speaking, if we do not relate it to "vision".
A photon is not "light" if it doesn't fall on a retina.
Yet, what is it?
Self-valuing code.

I would have to explain from the ground up how light comes out of nothingness so as to relate it integrally to gravity, which I can do, but which I haven't done yet - why would I? Why give this away for free for some Korean genius to pick it up and use it for his benefit?

Ill sit on it until I know who to give it to.
I aint repeating Einsteins mistakes.

Essentially VO goes so much deeper than science, because it questions literally all the terms and grammars and logics we use to construe scientific claims and arguments.

No phenomenon of physics ghas meaning by itself. they all need to be explained in terms of selfvaluing logic before they can be used to explain anything else.

So far, science only describes. It explains nothing.
Thats for a good part due to that it pretends to be a value-neutral approach, where of course it is anything but. It doesnt recognize its own axioms as true - it rejects them in fact. After all its axioms represent a rigorous yet blind selection of 'qualified phenomena' - based only on what it itself can co-opt; science is thus essentially a study of itself, not of the world. It gives us a model of the world through a particular lens, one might say it gives us the world as a compulsive-neurotic framework.

A supra-scientific, philosophic explanation of physics involves re appropriating the uncertainlty principle as the possibility-principle.
I can go on for centuries here - endless things to say, all is beautiful through a VO lens, all becomes elegant, logical, complete. But only when VO is applied as will to power, as selfvaluing: that is to say, without a trace of so called neutrality - without blinding oneself to oneself - with a proper axiom of being underlying the phenomenon of being at the juncture of being and reason, and that juncture is the new logic.

One can simply not appropriate VO from basic logic of equal identity- after all VO directly negates that logic.
Thus we can only appropriate science, and logic, into VO - thereby stretching their axioms and opening them up where their limits are solipsisms, which many of them are.

At this point, we should only apply VO to address the fundamental unknowns of science. After all science explains zero things if its own basic values aren't explained.

Such as: what/why is gravity
what/why is light
Why do they relate
what/why is the uncertainty principle

We can explain this using selfvaluing logic. Its a hell of a job to write that out but its good practice to do it mentally.
These beginnings follow directly from the observation that all that can be said to exist must be following the logic of selfvaluing.

Before this has been accomplished, science can not explain a single phenomenon beyond a superficial indication of how it is seen to work in terms of other things which supposedly erxist but have only been superficially indicated.

Science works with one layer. It hasnt learned what context is, that context exists. It knows no overlap, it does not integrate different logics, it is entirely blind and simplistic. What it builds, thus, is utterly puny by comparison of what the rest of nature is able to bring forth.

Impressive enough as a phenomenon, as a system of theory science is just a bunch of crap.