Summary of value ontology

Thus magic has a high risk factor. For every set of perfectly honed mechanisms there are many applications.

In general Id define magic in terms of powers of perception.
magic is activity which is more concentrated than the mind of the average beholder.

Essentially the Nietzschean task is the only one which matters in philosophy - t doesn't mater whether we resolve intellectual problems as long as they don't cause a mastery over our Earthly being, which, make no mistakes, means mastering the Earth.

The idea that mastery can exist in blissful isolation from the Earth and from organic being is the demiurgic error itself. The idea of the demure as a creator of a false world stands at the apparent heart of the mistaken realm of thought which seeks to explain away reality in favour of a delightful logical conundrum. VO obliterates all such logical conundrums and all delight in the endless paradoxes which Reason has hitherto thrown at any zealous suitor. VO is bold, brash, remorseless, and very proud of itself as firstborn philosophy of the Earth, fulfillment of Nietzsche's desires, which are the desires of mankind, amounting to the will to come out from under the cover of darkness. Man, unit VO, has been living like trolls in the dark. Now, with VO, the apocalypse has broken out and thats just ... what I said it would be in 2011... and it will come to an end when I have said it will come to an end and Im not gonna repeat that again. People who are serous will have etched this date in their minds and are preparing for it. People who aren't serous are going to be pieces of dust in the wind.

Why can no philosophy confront VO? It is like this, as Capable indicates: VO is the father who is the future. Whatever is born from VO is born from the future. VO is not something made in the past agains which you can rebel. It is the logic that de-trivializes your own existence, forges an eternity out of your efforts. It thus confronts man with the question: do you prefer to be trivial? Or do you want to actually exist? And this, friends, is what causes he greatest upheaval and hatred and deliberate misunderstanding -- many men find that deep down they prefer perhaps not to exist. And that is what divides, as long produced and discussed, our human species into two different types, this is the selecting mechanism Nietzsche was after, what he saw in the Eternal Recurrence.

I don't resist heresies, here as much as anywhere else; the point of confrontation between me and the line of Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and VO, (a point of confrontation can also become a point of integration and genesis, in fact the logic of my own epistemic model rejects reconciliation of opposites, instead maintaining the unique voices or identities of both entities, me and VO in this case, instead of synthesizing them to approximate an Absolute: hence my multi-vocal truth, as opposed to univocal dialectical truth. Ironically, the identity of the Hegelian dialectic that I reject is itself maintained as a syntheme in the progression of the four epistemes. That is in fact the power of my philosophy. It can absorb anything- without losing its identity. I envision my point of conflict with VO and the rest of the world to be viable for creation and not merely conflict.) rests on the concept of metaphysical negativity and absence. That concept is also tied to my vision of the mythos and demiurge; I will attempt to address all this in the space allowed by one post. 

You are confusing several versions of the Demiurge. The "falseness" of the Reality he created is understood in vastly different ways, depending on which Gnostic school is in question: I specify my own understanding of his creation by referring to Hermaedion. (The Demiurge is a very high level archetype, in terms of its abstraction, and contains several other archetypes that must be understood, in order to understand what it- is: the Fool, the Promethean figure, the Fire of Knowledge, the Chained and Punished Titan, the Prison or Rock/Chain/Vulture, the Thief, the Lover, the Liar, the Artist-Philosopher, the Errant Creator, both the Tinkerer Daedalus and Icarus, etc: all of these figures are inhered by it and contained within it. The epistemic model at the heart of my own philosophy is concerned with iterating these archetypes at different levels of abstraction (that is, different epistemes) so that the latent "story" that they tell between one another- the Myth, can become visible.) The distinction between the silent Phanes as the empty center of the Godhead, [an emptiness that is expanded in the mythic archetypes into the BYTHYS: the Bythys is related to the preservation of the metaphysical negativity in my system, that Hegel's system- and all based on it, including Nietzsche and VO, fear and try to subsume and cover up: this desire to dispense with the metaphysical Negativity and Absence- THE LOSS OF BEING- Heidegger calls, ANGST, which he believes, by orienting Dasein intrinsically toward Death, is an insurmountable obstacle posed by ontos against human ethos. This is the first point of division between me and them: my philosophy can preserve and bear the Negative, the metaphysical absence represented by the Phanic-echo of the Godhead's missing center.] and a fallen trickster or rebel-Satanic figure, a Demiurge, as responsible for creating the mortal world; is necessary. It is necessary, in accordance with my anti-Hegelianism and revival of hard-dualism. (Gnostics believe the Demiurge is a destructive Being who only desired to fashion a prison- Flesh, in which to trap and hoard away the ennoea or divine-radiance. I, Hermaedion: takes the Demiurge as a Promethean figure, who fashioned our world in order to teach a kind of anti-wisdom. The mortal world shows us how, through suffering: not to reach divinity. Learning how to, is then a step away.) I based the epistemic model, as opposed to the dialectic, on a vision of the mythos as proceeding through the iteration of a common pattern, forming archetypes like the King, Thief, Lover, etc. instead of Hegel's model of the mythos as proceeding through the reconciliation of opposing forces in the "consciousness of freedom" faced with the Absolute. As to anti-Hegelianism, the true meaning of the Demiurge and the necessity of comprehending mortality and physical existence as a kind of riddle-prison, the archetypes, etc. I will provide several texts. This may be a lot of reading, but there exists no simple way to say any of this:

I refer to that Negativity more generally in Erotoime no. 13, from YS, as the ineffable:

This is the old "mystic-struggle of Jacob's heart"; the saint, having glimpsed
angels in drops of rain, in the head of the pin, as the saying goes- having glimpsed them
everywhere he lays his eyes, has no motivation to move from one place to another,
surrendered to the frozen libidinal economy in which the secret automaton which the
death-drive actually is, unseen in its subtle though insomniacal work against us, leads us
from the bitter ecstasy of organic passion, by its circuitous routes through all the
numbered folds and contours of psyche, by the regressive call of the inorganic- to death.
For thereafter, we torture ourselves to remember it, to remember this wound, and come to
know that the demons only burn us with flames- but the angels speak to us in flames,
open our eyes with flames, and hold the shape of things with flames- and it is they who
actually destroy. For what of it, in our paralyzed and mystic heart? We discover that the
exactitude of words is exact only insofar as it is measured against the inexact, the effable
only effable in its measure taken against the ineffable- and that what is most exact, what
is most effable, and what is purest and most flame-like in obtaining the kingdom of our
perceptions- it is only that, which cannot be expressed, with these angels against which
we contend and dash our hearts,- this pure exactitude, a total identification embracing all
the universe, for which nothing at all can possibly pose itself in counter-measure, or, as
that element of in-articulation, the perplexed nebula of meaning and necessary poetic
ambiguity against which this effability could take its measure of the ineffable and achieve
signification.

From another Erotoime in the same collection, it is again brought up, though in terms of ennui:

A sea and a sky stare at each other in every human soul; two abysses like Pessoa says; two
abysses that lead nowhere, that lead only to one color in Kierkegaard's phrase. The seas
were given the abyss to hold the image of the stars, and man too, was given an abyss, and
man too was meant only to hold- images. Thankless of the poets, I know only the one
experience, which is the end of all experience- which is simply, longing; which is pothos
without object, singing to us from the other side of oblivion in this, the broken measure of
perfection's heart and conculcated angels. "Our dreams prove nothing, perhaps- nothing,
except that we are not dreams. For no dream satisfies us, and no man ever fell in love
with a dream. " This single color,- this alone, which is left to us in the long accounting
which is our life, that is,- ennui, because it intuits a fact of the world, an image of the
Being which constitutes it, and a genuine state of the soul, untangles the knot of Dichtung
and Wahrheit, [Poetry and Truth. Jung: there can be no Dichtung without Wahrheit, but
there is Wahreit without Dichtung.] and possesses the mysterious quality in that our
attempts to flee, divert ourselves therefrom, or curtail its advance only further exaggerate
its effects, while on the other hand, listing our heart upon the wind and conceding to it in
mutare figuram vertat Amore tenue flatus [Georgius Cichinus, Carmina. Pan deus, ardori
nec superesse modum: si placet hanc, superi, — dixit — mutare figura, In tenues flatus
me quoque vertat Amor.] proves useful in the improvement of its depressive aspect, and
perhaps solely worthy of appointment to the soul's physic. If there is a greater balm or
medicine for the affliction of boredom, I have not discovered it, nor have I heard of any
others who had, and each of us were a privatus laboratorio domestici Vulcanum in that
regard, [Rehefeldius, Trophaeum Hermetico-Hippocraticum.] and a long experiment to its
solution. The world itself possesses this quality, or as the Persians would say- only further
intoxicating the one who would abstain from the charm of passion, inasmuch as the will
to abstain is a passion; or, with Bruyère- le sage quelquefois évite le monde, de peur
d’être ennuyé.


The dialectic absorbs and reduces knowledge univocally, whereas my multi-vocal epistemic model "creates" new knowledge continuously through that process of iteration, in nearly an opposite fashion or anti-dialectic. I am the argument, for I have physically enacted that iterative process inside my own brain. I wrote 80 volumes of music, each 500 pages long, (the epistemic model can be applied to anything- any form of "data", music included) and 10 volumes of philosophy: in the last five years. In total, I do not know how much. I possess superhuman creative resources, inexhaustibly energized by the very methodology I write of. Enlightenment? Other minds end; mine doesn't. I don't much mind what people call it. I prefer to think of it as a darker form of GNOSIS, to use Gnostic terminology anti-Gnostically. (In accordance to my anti-dialectic.) It is also why I "disappear" for months at a time. It's because I have entered a transcendental state of reflection and new "data" is streaming into my brain ex-nihilo that I am writing down. Like I said in PM: Going to get back on the forum soon. I had a two month long just, meditative state. Became completely disassociated. No contact with a human either physically, via phone or computer; nothing. Forgot the sound of my own voice, so the inner monologue you have as a part of your normal consciousness sort of disappeared, which is a good sign of; deepening. But I'm coming out of it.

I could stay in that state and continually deepen until I left this world behind entirely, and transcended it completely. But I still have work to do here, people I must communicate with, books to write and finally complete and get out there. I am saving that final, complete release and transcendence for my death-bed. If I ever become fatally ill, I will voluntarily die before the disease can kill me, so that I have time to prepare and enter that state immediately prior to death.

In short, this is Hermaedion's GNOSIS:

The Demiurge created the finite, suffering filled, physical reality as a kind of riddle, philosophic test, and anti-wisdom: he did this so as to teach the beings that would come to live in it how to see through the BYTHYS, to grasp the emptiness or Phanic-echo at the center of the Godhead; the Godhead or "pleroma" within which the Aeons unfold in their perfect eternities, in accordance to the Godhead's inescapable design, as set out for them in the supernal sphere-music before the fall of the Creation into physis. We physical beings, (us, ie. humans, as we were simply glimmerings of the radiant ennoea unfolding within the pleroma alongside the aeons- before our physical incarnation, as blind to the protophany, the metaphysical negativity and absence, or emptiness of the center, as the Aeons were) by grasping that emptiness or metaphysical absence of the Phanic-echo that the Aeons (Angels, Gods, etc) cannot understand, can transcend the Godhead's design in a way that they cannot, with mortals being thereby elevated to the status of the Godhead itself, at which point access is gained to the infinite creative resources out of which it pours its aeons and eternities. We can in effect, re-write a new design of our own and become unbounded by the Godhead's design. This ability to re-write it, is "magick", for which many systems already developed like Kabbalah, Gematria, Tarot or synchromysticism can be adapted. Re-writing the design can be done at a very small level, [CRASHING THIS PLANE, to be humorous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW0otG1buB8 ] changing or effecting something very small, or on more massive scales, [ELECTING TRUMP, to be again, humorous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5_3AB9Ub0c ] depending on the proficiency of the practitioner. 

To bring all this together, the texts I mentioned:
--
From Liber Endumiaskia:

It must be noted that, for Basilideans and Valentians, our Earth is only another scaffold in the innumerable syzygies,- though a failed
one; one that must only succeed in producing its own pairing like all the others in order to be restored, that is, in order to find
salvation from the painful delusions of selfhood, desire, and love inspired by the demoniac Sophos and Yaldabaoth, by which man is
naturally deceived into the temptations of the prison of mortality,- that mortality whose duplicity, contradiction and agonism he
embodies most, of all the animals. It is simply another element of the pleroma. This is inferred, of course, from the mythos
surrounding Sophia and her having refused, out of pride and self-love,to liberate and contribute her measure of divinity to the
unfolding of the Godhead, thus bringing about the material world which has no syzygieic pairing in the supernal realm and therefor
offers the perfect means of further entrapping the ennoea. This is a false enlightenment, accordinly championed by those Gnostics
who wish to return, beyond what they take as an illusory and mere phenomenal subjectivity, their own inner light or measure of the
ennoea to the Phanic residuum,- to the silent perfection of the Godhead's original pleroma, as conceived prior to the destabiilization
Sophia introduced and YLDBTH took advantage of in order to create the mortal prison of the earth as a further means of entrapping
the holy radiance on Sophia's behalf, etc. The Hermaedean view takes YLDBTH as having practiced the "divine infidelity" that
humanity imitates, that is, a kind of holy selfishness necessary for superlimating the undifferentiated psychosomatic potentia prior to
the sublimation of any one differentiated libidinal cathexis,- for it was necessary to deface and bring the created world a degree lower
(the antidrome) in the stages of ontogenesis than that resonant to the higher divinity, in order to make it possible to transcend that
divinity, given the fact that Ouranos and Pandemos cannot be dialectically reconciled, instead producing through their ascription, or
logical inherence of the ontos, an endless series of ectypes within athesis, as opposed to a univocal reduction of the Absolute within
synthesis.

The Ouranic entities are, beginning in Phanes himself, perfectly stabilized and eternal identities, born of the perfection of the
Godhead, that is, of the purity of the ennoea itself; motionless, uncreated and uncreating aeonic hypostases of the Monon organized
within the Godhead: they are, to speak more poetically, the voids between the spokes of the wheel, while Pandemaic entities, though
unstable and potentially destructive, are capable of transformation, (and even death, though the death of a god is a rare occurrence) of
changing and serving the archonic principalities in the governing, informing, and direction of material reality and its evolution within
Time, and in this way, functioning as the erected spokes sustaining and energizing the continuous motion in which material reality is
alone constituted. However, there is an Ouranic being that represents the identity of change itself, which Hermaedion invokes by the
word-mandala BYTHYS, just as there is a Pandemaic entity that embodies the pure energetic potential of the idea of the unchanging,
of stability and form, in this way rendering the dialectical system of Hegel inutile, for, concerning "those datums within the
oppositorum which function as one another's thesis or "necessary Being," to use the Aristotelian term ...":

" Here, however, Being and Non-Being contain within themselves an element
of their corollary, not an internal instability: the inherent Being of Non-Being and the
inherent Non-Being of Being are expanded into four voices instead of one, and these
voices form the circular tetrapole ... "
-- Monon and Mone, Retrospective.

==============

From: Monon and Mone:

The naive formulation of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis can lead to a deceptive
simplification of what, in Hegel's own writing, takes on more articulate shape and
philosophic cogency as the existential torment of the "consciousness of freedom",- a
consciousness which, in its unfolding, Hegel takes as the underlying Blochian humanum
or substantia of world-history,- by the material instability in which man, as subjectivity, is
"thrown" with all the rest of his tribe, and, as an embodiment of both that consciousness
and the resultant agon of its self-conflict ascending within Geist toward self-knowledge
as the Absolute, stakes his "home-building", to appropriate a few Heideggerian
anachronisms. In the Hegelian system, Being, because it is forced to appear necessarily
through the horizon of Time, (which Heidegger expands into the horizon of Dasein in ekstatic
temporality, as constitutive of man's phenomenological grounding in subjectivity)
carries latently within its own concept or Idea (in the technical sense) a logical instability,
that is, an imperfection, which the dialectic extracts and exteriorizes as an antithesis
(Non-Being) to be later re-integrated with the original thesis of Being in the movement of
Geist toward the Absolute, producing through synthesis a "new" concept that is more
stable than either Being or Non-Being, with the first synthesis given in the concept of
Becoming. Here, however, Being and Non-Being contain within themselves an element
of their corollary, not an internal instability: the inherent Being of Non-Being and the
inherent Non-Being of Being are expanded into four voices instead of one, and these
voices form the circular tetrapole, like that arrived at by the Schellingian analysis of
Freedom and System, to recall the Hegelian emphasis on the consciousness of freedom as
the fundamental Idea of History.

The Hegelian relationship between Being and Nothingness is, for Heidegger, culminated
in the Thomist metaphysics of the relation of finite human subjectivity to the infinite
God,- a relationship which, for Heidegger, is ontotheologically reduced merely to the
tension within an identity that is imbued by the intrinsic historicity imposed by the
horizon of Being (Dasein) under and against which it stakes its smeaning as a finite and
limited consciousness, for which the struggle of freedom is a struggle for transcendence,-
a struggle which swallows up any account of Being. This lead Balthasar to focusing on
the bifurcation of Truth that emerges when following through the Heideggarian schema:
with the account of Being lost to Dasein, the struggle for transcendence becomes split
into an existential or "ontic" truth, that is, the truth of experience, the subject, and the
external world in which the subject is shaped, on the one hand, and an essential or
ontological truth on the other, with the later modus constituted by the attempt to think
back existence to essence and so reverse the distortion of Being caused by historical
embodiment, in search for what Balthasar calls authenticity. Balthasar advances his
essential critique, namely that Heidegger configures the later modality of truth, that is, the
ontological, as chief, consequently subordinating all of our actual existence to the
philosophic Angst in which Dasein imposes its horizon of Being and orients the subject
toward Death. For Balthasar, it is not possible to develop a genuine ethos under such
philosophical restrictions. We must take these conclusions as only another example of the
limitations of the Hegelian system, or the canon of Western metaphysics more generally,
which Hegel epitomized.

As opposed to the univocal reductionism of dialectical philosophy, (which extracts a
skeletonized universe from mere atomic knowledge so that, on its basis, Being might be
reconstructed and stabilized against the inherent negativity of its imperfect horizon, ie.
Time, within the singular voice of the dialectic's Absolute, that is- Thought) my own
methodology functions by potentiating some measure of knowledge obtained externally
as athesis,- (prior to the ascription of the Negative in the thesis of Being) that is, a basic
germ of revealed insight affirmed in the MONON,- (an affirmation invoked by the term
heuresis, when given in relation to Parmenides) and that for whose practicable
assumption every individual is tasked with the same trial of a kind of Aristocracy of Spirit
and higher agon,- the Doric trace, as constituted (before any codification of the monastic
schools, any tablature of Virtue and Vice, or the ascetic praxis of isolation, celibacy,
fasting and like matters of spiritual dietetics) by the work of intuiting from the outer
Cosmos and the self-deconstructing autogenetic Ground at the Schellingian Un-Intuitable
or mythopoietic Origin of Thought (the infinite semiosis of the generative moment of
speech itself", to cite Namegiving) a generalized Logos,- a guiding pattern in whose
image the inner-cosmos might be reorganized as MONE, such that, in accordance with
the multivocity implied by the four voices granted by the truth-model of the epistemes,
this original measure of knowledge might be multiplied in successive ectypes, and these
additive divergences, as ectypes, in turn "taught to philosophize", (Gnosis: "as philosophy
spurs all things to independent action- as philosophy induces all things to philosophize
...") accumulated exponentially,- like the rose petals sprinkled along the triumphs of the
Romans, (which Mallarme uses to symbolize his own method of shattering the Signifier
into innumerable poetic eclat suitable for encapsulating and containing the image of
Beauty by "l' echo parles mystique soirs", [Mallarme, Herodiade.] that is, as an operative
closure of the Signifed,- in vitam subito damnare sepulcro; ignoti cupiens peregrinaque
litora, visens sed brevis hic furor est studia in contraria vulgus mortalia devotumque.) [A
longing blindly shorn against the tomb, a wave cast wandering for the shore: hos piget
insanis corpusque animumque periclis objicere, & vitam subito damnare sepulcro. Ille
solum populare vago fastidit amore, ignoti cupiens, peregrinaque litora visens. Jacobus
Masenius, in: Heroica Poesi Tractarus; Sarcotis Carmina Panegyris, P. 87.] and therein
multiplied again, to re-proliferate in still more distant conformations of the Platonic
eidesis (Refer to YS for my writing on eidesis in the context of the Socratic Epistles and
the Empedoclean pathos of Truth as philosophic-agon.) of the Imaginal and the aisthetic
(aesthetic) unity of Intelligences, (Socratic Intelligbles) and so on, ad infinitum. The
cumulative model of truth and the exponential multiplication of knowledge from athesis
which it both necessitates and requires,- that is, the true import of the Platonic corpus for
modernity, offers the only real alternative to the Hegelian system and its various Neo-
Marxist inversions utilized by the critical-theorists in their spiteful "deconstruction" of
Western culture.

The co-limitation and simultaneity of "transcendental autonomy and interdependency"
educes the interminable duality for whose formalization the human self has been granted
no power,- as Job found when confronted by the God of the whirlwind; and for whose
challenge, no hope of surmounting,- least of all by the attempted coincidence of
opposites, for here, the cognitive integument of the Negative cannot be pushed through by
the thetic ascription of Being, or the moment of synthesis achieved, given the fact that a
failed dialectical syntheme, which Robert Cohn calls tetrapolarity, (as included in his
analysis of Mallarme's conceptualization of radical contingency in the Un Coup de Des)
emerges from those datums within the oppositorum which function as one another's thesis
or "necessary Being," to use the Aristotelian term, thereby eventuating from the dialectic
an irresolvable vicious circle.

To recall Heidegger, the same "thetic doubling" (The interdependency of immanence and
transcendence in the work of Schelling and Eriugena offer a comprehensive analysis of
the thetic double, otherwise formulated as philosophic duplicity.) can be applied to his
conceptual opposition between the Thomistic finitude of human subjectivity and the
infinite God. This reality is a nefarious one for the conventional metaphysic of univocity,
for it has no means of parsing it, though it is here taken as the very generative element of
reflective-consciousness, insofar as an alternative schema can be developed with which to
parse the tetrapolarity (This term, to speak most generally, refers to the "four poles" or
voices in which the abrupted synthesis proves itself incapable of reasserting the thesis: in
Schelling's scheme, a similar difficulty amounts to the reification of the negative in terms
of a corporeal spirituality and spiritual corporeality, as opposed to the identifiable
Hegelian negation of the negation, which enables the conversion of corporeality into
spirit and vice versa.) which can appear to dialectical reason only as an insurmountable
logical circularity, [Mallarme's poetic realization of this failure of dialectical metaphysics
takes the following form: the voluntary act of suicide, which is a cognitive datum, has the
corollary of death, which is the physical datum or "quantifiable" transformation of the
qualitative or self-consciousness; yet Death is simultaneously a non-physical or
qualitative datum, (An assertion given equally in the Wittgensteinian recognition of the
limits of logical positivism and that, just as the limit of our vision has no equivalent
percept and is not itself a datum of our vision, Death "is not an event in life"; that is, just
as our field of vision does not simply turn black at the maximal extension of our optic
nerve's capabilities, or in that way include its own terminus ad quem, so too, does self-
consciousness proceed eternally in its own being, which from our vantage can never
incorporate the fact of its own inexistence.) for Death represents simply the limited
horizon of possibility of self-consciousness, so that the fulfillment of the act of suicide
paradoxically re-asserts the consciousness it was intended to destroy, which thereafter
appears once more to complete and re-initiate the tetrapolar circuit for whose escape
Mallarme could turn only to the throw of his magical dice at a game of Chance.] into the
four additive voices of the epistemes, by which this logical circle is overcome and the
four voices become amenable to aesthetic externalization, formalization, and
organization- as knowledge. Since the datums of the oppositorum cannot be synthetically
reconciled when they are doubled as thesis and the Negative is preserved, the epistemes
function as a kind of parallax which finally assumes for a point of departure one of the
two as athesis and in this way, abnegates the double by producing a third vantage point,
the "dyad through the triad",- a parallaxsis; an ectype on whose basis reflection can
begin the accumulation of new information and reintegrate the tetrapole through a linear
ascent and hierarchicalization of the Ontos instead of a circular, impotent, and infertile
Schelerian Geist severed from Being by the ontological mode in which all ontic reality is
uselessly absorbed and the Negative poses an insurmountable challenge for which even
the cynicism of Heidegger's subordination of ethos to Angst seems a cheerful affair.
Knowledge is of course not something that is "created" in this way in traditional
philosophy, or arrived at through aesthetical exteriorization, however, for the
methodology given here- it is. This is the heart of the episteme as a model of Truth. The
assertion of a quality that cannot be transformed into a quantity or a negativity that cannot
be converted into positive knowledge, (ie. consciousness, in both cases) is also a matter
quite alien to the canon, for dialectical philosophy assumes for the triumph over all of
Nature, the "law of transformation", (ie. of quality into quantity, consciousness into ousia
and material existence, nothingness into Being, thesis into antithesis, etc. and vice versa)
to paraphrase Engels in the Dialectics of Nature.

For Mallarme, the roll of the dice took the place of the parallax and succeeded in
consolidating the effusive though disturbed resources of his mystico-poetic vision of the
world. In terms of the mythopoeic archetypes, we can take for an example of this same
duplicity at work, on a more cosmic scale, the Liar (As given in the figure of the Gnostic
demiurge YLDBTH, who deceives, tempts, and cultivates- flesh, or Satan for that matter,
to draw from more orthodox stock.) and the Thief-Betrayer, (Any of the many
Promethean figures, or Sophia for that matter, who "steals" and hoards the divine ennoea
within herself.) for, although they function as opposites at the level of the ens or
existentia, either one can be ascripted by thesis and framed, at the level of the essentia, as
the ontogenetic priority and logical antecedent, so that a third vantage or parallax must
emerge in order to differentiate them,- (this emergence is what the "creation of
knowledge" signifies) in this case the Lover. (For YLDBTH offers the fruit of the
forbidden tree and all the trial of the flesh,- the Luciferian deceit at the Garden, in order to
make transcendence possible for mankind, just as the Sophianic or Promethean figure
may be conceived as having stolen the fire from the eighth invisible heaven or Olympus,
respectively, only out of love for, and the desire to ennoble,- us.) The Lover contains
within itself, as an abstracted pattern and archetype, both the Liar and the Thief as lower-
order patterns inhered by the deeper structure in which the archetypal progression is itself
conducted, but is not rendered unstable due to any "tension within its Identity", to use
Heidegger's language, or on account of the intrinsic imperfection of its conceptual
formulation given the finite scope in which it necessarily takes shape, as Being, within
the "nothingness of Geist", which is Time, (to use Hegelian language: which is Time and,
even more, the endless struggle of spirit for freedom in the mire of phusis and materia)
awaiting the redemption of the Absolute. The Lover must then be taken as possessing also
some third element integral to the question of Identity, that is, a component unique to it,
on whose basis the "non-knowledge" (ala. Bataille.) or circular logos, torn irresolvably
between the Thief and Liar, can be overcome, and the two archetypes thereby
differentiated, de-bifurcated, and reorganized as knowledge, with the Lover thereby
serving as the third voice or episteme, and the differentiation itself poised as the fourth
voice, ie. the transcendent episteme. Traditional philosophy subordinates one member in
the initial oppositorum to another (The ontic to the ontological, for Heidegger.) so that the
movement of Geist can initiate the reconciliation of opposites in the effort to arrive at an
all-embracing univocity, (for whose formulation this subordination to the dominant Idea
is the fundamental logical operation) that is, an ontological framework that accounts for
all of Being, for Being itself,- for the ontic, ie. that reduces all quality to quantity, all
consciousness to the limited horizon imposed by Dasein, all Negativity to Positive
knowledge, all theos to ontos, all agnosis to gnosis, and all tension to Identity. The
epistemes, however, function in nearly an opposite way,- continuously engendering new
knowledge through the parallax, similar to the manner in which the mythos continuously
extracts novel images out of the Voegelian Depth- out of the depths of a logos which,
without the mythic instantiation of Truth, cannot escape its own circular motive. The
Bythos is of course the essential parallax in Hermaedion's Gnostic metaphysic, which
enables the differentiation of Being (Ouranos) without subsuming Negativity (Pandemos)
to Positive Identity. This four-fold progression through the episteme is a pattern that
governs the outer universe as much as the inner, and philosophy must integrate this
pattern and use it as the guiding schema of reflection, aligning multiple parallaxes so as to
iterate the four progressions repeatedly, ascending further and further, and in so doing,
"creating" more and more- knowledge. Zeus, the King archetype, rules the fire that
Prometheus stole, so that the pattern of the Liar-Thief-Lover, iterated at a higher level of
abstraction, reveals the Thief as transformed into the Rebel or Chaotic archetype, among
which mythic entities like Marduk, Tiamat or the Biblical Leviathan are included, just as
Phanes rules the eighth heaven which Sophia longs for and against whose boundary she
eventually broached empire. Zeus punishes Prometheus, and, if we align these two
progressions, we see that the King takes the role of the Liar, the Thief takes the role of the
Rebel, (The most pointed figure in which the Rebel archetype voices itself is the Christian
Satan.) and the Lover takes the form of the Punished, the chained and imprisoned
Prometheus.

* First iteration:
Liar-- Thief/Betrayer-- Lover


Second iteration:
King -- Luciferian or Rebelling Deity-- The Punished, Imprisoned, and Chained God.


Such iterations and reversals I speak of, in other contexts, as the "epistasis".

Good to see you back.
Let me address your post in segments.

Parodites wrote:

I don't resist heresies, here as much as anywhere else; the point of confrontation between me and the line of Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and VO, (a point of confrontation can also become a point of integration and genesis, in fact the logic of my own epistemic model rejects reconciliation of opposites, instead maintaining the unique voices or identities of both entities, me and VO in this case, instead of synthesizing them to approximate an Absolute: hence my multi-vocal truth, as opposed to univocal dialectical truth. Ironically, the identity of the Hegelian dialectic that I reject is itself maintained as a syntheme in the progression of the four epistemes. That is in fact the power of my philosophy. It can absorb anything- without losing its identity. I envision my point of conflict with VO and the rest of the world to be viable for creation and not merely conflict.) rests on the concept of metaphysical negativity and absence. That concept is also tied to my vision of the mythos and demiurge; I will attempt to address all this in the space allowed by one post. 

Yes, this is also in line with VO: no opposition is barren.
VO doesn't work with thesis-antithesis-synthesis though.

Quote :

You are confusing several versions of the Demiurge. The "falseness" of the Reality he created is understood in vastly different ways, depending on which Gnostic school is in question:

First of all I would like to say that in my view nothin which exist can be false, as I do not see a different between truth and existence.

Quote :

I specify my own understanding of his creation by referring to Hermaedion. (The Demiurge is a very high level archetype, in terms of its abstraction, and contains several other archetypes that must be understood, in order to understand what it- is: the Fool, the Promethean figure, the Fire of Knowledge, the Chained and Punished Titan, the Prison or Rock/Chain/Vulture, the Thief, the Lover, the Liar, the Artist-Philosopher, the Errant Creator, both the Tinkerer Daedalus and Icarus, etc: all of these figures are inhered by it and contained within it. The epistemic model at the heart of my own philosophy is concerned with iterating these archetypes at different levels of abstraction (that is, different epistemes) so that the latent "story" that they tell between one another- the Myth, can become visible.) The distinction between the silent Phanes as the empty center of the Godhead, [an emptiness that is expanded in the mythic archetypes into the BYTHYS: the Bythys is related to the preservation of the metaphysical negativity in my system, that Hegel's system- and all based on it, including Nietzsche and VO, fear and try to subsume and cover up:

Lol are you calling me a Hegelian?
No, VO has nothing to do with Hegel, his method is incompatible with VO.
His method presupposes a context and the existence of "master" and "servant" dynamic in an absolute sense.
This leads to an increasingly narrow chemistry of concepts and results in an apparent concentration, which is really a reduction of value.

VO starts out in the void, so inside of the Godhead, beyond mortality, and through it nothing is specified except through direct identification. There is only one not-false abstraction, which is the self-valuing logic; all other attempts at abstraction have a presupposed content, which precludes them from being truly abstract.

Quote :

this desire to dispense with the metaphysical Negativity and Absence- THE LOSS OF BEING- Heidegger calls, ANGST, which he believes, by orienting Dasein intrinsically toward Death, is an insurmountable obstacle posed by ontos against human ethos

Quote :

.

This is merely one of Heideggers early phrasings of the problems he identified in the minds of other philosophers. He moved on to identify this Angst as the question "why being and not rather nothing?" which I have answered.

Quote :

This is the first point of division between me and them: my philosophy can preserve and bear the Negative, the metaphysical absence represented by the Phanic-echo of the Godhead's missing center.]

No philosophy which can not bear it would truly be a philosophy.
My philosophy is grounded in the godheads missing centre, except that I don't require a Godhead to identify the absence of its centre.
I just use the triad of logic, the absence of presumption, and the recognition of my own being in the equation (valuing, WtP - those things which do not occur in Hegel, on which all empirical observations are built).

Quote :

and a fallen trickster or rebel-Satanic figure, a Demiurge, as responsible for creating the mortal world; is necessary. It is necessary, in accordance with my anti-Hegelianism and revival of hard-dualism. (Gnostics believe the Demiurge is a destructive Being who only desired to fashion a prison- Flesh, in which to trap and hoard away the ennoea or divine-radiance. I, Hermaedion: takes the Demiurge as a Promethean figure, who fashioned our world in order to teach a kind of anti-wisdom. The mortal world shows us how, through suffering: not to reach divinity.

In m view, divinity is merely the consequence of self-valuing logic driven to its extreme - in the same way as Gold is in physical terms.
Gold is the end of the chain of all possible physical reactions. So Divinity is the end of the chain of all possible sentient reactions.

Quote :

Learning how to, is then a step away.) I based the epistemic model, as opposed to the dialectic, on a vision of the mythos as proceeding through the iteration of a common pattern, forming archetypes like the King, Thief, Lover, etc. instead of Hegel's model of the mythos as proceeding through the reconciliation of opposing forces in the "consciousness of freedom" faced with the Absolute.

Yes, this is the mistake Hegel made at the outset; he presumed that the Absolute is an a priori condition in which the other conditions are reflected. But in terms of self-valuing logic, the absolute is a consequence, just like Gold is. In physical terms, Gold is actually an absolute.

Quote :

A sea and a sky stare at each other in every human soul; two abysses like Pessoa says; two
abysses that lead nowhere, that lead only to one color in Kierkegaard's phrase. The seas
were given the abyss to hold the image of the stars, and man too, was given an abyss, and
man too was meant only to hold- images. Thankless of the poets, I know only the one
experience, which is the end of all experience- which is simply, longing;

I.e. valuing.

And ultimately, when the object of the longing is seen as transient and subservient to the activity of longing, longing is seen as the primordial substance of the self. Through a series of humbling abstractions from there on we see that the self behaves in this sense no different than an atom, which thus also is a perpetual, unresolved longing (valuing) - of a type which is never fulfilled yet also never presented with a refutation of the value of what it longs after.

Enlightenment, liberation, salvation, all this is found in the recognition of the longing as itself a positive substance. It is here that God becomes accessible to consciousness and happiness becomes a basic condition. Naturally this happiness is as thorny as it is fragrant, as it doesn't do away with the agon. It merely recognizes it as the elixir of immortality.

Note, P, that VO doesn't offer an antithesis.

There is only self-valuing, and its antitheticality is impossible.

So there is no dialectic. There is only the unfolding relation of the principle to itself in the form of qualities, grades, intertwined interests, common projects, hostilities which serve only to heat up production in both camps - there is never resolution of self-valuing with its opposite, as there is no opposite.

Time itself is encapsulated in this logic, it is seen as still, as a form which ranges from dense with parallel identities (hydrogen, Malkuth of Assiah) two dense with differences (Chaos, fire and fermentation) back to to dense with parallel identities (Gold, Kether of Assiah, Malkuth of Yetzirah) and so on to Kether of Atziluth.

"(Gold, Kether of Assiah, Malkuth of Yetzirah)"

Or that would be Tipharet of Yezirah (the anointed king of the formative world) and Malkuth of Briah (the ground to eternal archetypes).

There is no contradiction.
"Nothing" is a contradiction.
"Contradiction" is a contradiction.

Contradiction is contradiction.
Nothing is nothing.
Nothing "is" in contradiction.

This is actually how I arrived at VO: the fact that two quanta of will to power cant contradict each other while still trying to overpower each other. They are the same, yet they have apparently opposite aims.
Except they don't, because the real aim is in existence itself, which is in juxtaposition, rather than in contradiction, to other beings.

Juxtaposed by means of value, which is necessity, translating in scarcity - the thing to warrant compulsion, which is propulsion, i.e. energy, being.

Dialectic is false in all cases because there never are only two elements in the equation, nor are elements functionally described in terms of their antipode, much less in terms of that which contradicts them. Thats why Hegel is a convulsing pit of hell, or a furnace as you have called him, saying you tossed him in it.

What we get from his logic is pulsating orders of symmetry, fractals, music, crystallizing matter.
Life erupts in order to expand the parameters in which asymmetry can take place, so that great orders of symmetry become possible.

Symmetry is of course tension, tension of existence with all the things that would be possible if this existence didn't take place.
What exists is the tip of the iceberg of possibility, underneath it, tension exists in decreasing symmetry down to nothing, which is the only thing which contradicts itself, which is asymmetrical to symmetry.

I sincerely apologize for my recent absentia, but truly, it was inescapable, for me. I will address your reply, offer a few more excerpts, the six-dimensional universe and the Babel Tower, etc. and then I have a lot of great kabbalah I've been cooking up the last few days. 

"are you calling me a Hegelian"


No, not at all; as I wouldn't call Nietzsche or Heidegger Hegelians either. However: the Logic of dialectical philosophy, which was merely culminated in Hegel out of a pre-existing tradition that stretches all the way back to the first students of Plato and grounds essentially the entire history of Western thought, (a history I've had to reconstruct from the ground up after rejecting its basic premises) is self-terminating at its conclusion, and so both of them, N. and H., embody the self-annihilation of the actual system of the dialectic out of which they were developed, so that a new ontology of active and reactive force (conceived in incipient form by Spinoza much earlier) takes its place, that is,- an ontology of quanta. Two quanta cannot dialecticaly synthesize to achieve univocity and therefor a more stable concept: for they are already univocal. They are quanta of power, versus other quantas of power. Power is power, and differs quantitatively as opposed to qualitatively, so that the process of appropriation and territorialization occurs, for it is not possible to synthesize them, with VO standing as the true realization and perfection of that logic, which governs the function and logic of what I call the Ontos, the Ontic-episteme. So we have here a situation similar to the one in physics; I recognize the truth of your  philosophy, yet I also recognize the inescapable truth of mine- and these two inescapable truths contradict, seemingly, just as quantum mechanics and relativity theory are both true but, as yet, incompatible.

This is why I view both of them (N and Heid) as, like Hegel,- univocal. The World is Will to Power and nothing besides, I mean; that is pretty much the definition of univocal; one voice, one modality; one truth; one ... Thus, the metaphysical absence is not addressed, in almost mathematical concision: a univocal philosophy, for which, as you say, "nothing that can exist can be false", or as Parmenides would say, "nothing that can be thought can be nonexistent; all that can be thought, IS", cannot address the Negative. You stated that you could not imagine this idea of "falsity", but: when I use that word I am talking about the Negative itself, metaphysical absence, etc. The formulation of this Negative is difficult and requires a lot of work to make it intuitable to people, because I am talking about how things that don't exist are actually influencing things that do, but here are a few less technical notes on it, from Monon and Mone:

[ For Hegel, ever scornful of the achievements of philosophy, we are constantly pulled down "by the intrinsic Nothingness of Being," that is, the circular movement within Geist toward a Utopia and Idea-of-Freedom that is impossible to historically and materially realize, and a Heaven that is therefor representative of the emptiness of human history. In modernity, we have the analytic philosophy, which assumes that metaphysics can be banished from all discourse simply by reducing all discussion to an atomistic deconstruction of the constituent elements of English sentences, or more often- French ones; and then of course, the postmodern philosophies, which I have already addressed at length in terms of the inverted corruptions of the Hegelian system. All three of these traditions apply logic that operates at one level of abstraction to data belonging to the logical space of another level of abstraction within the multivocal division of the four epistemes, in this way confusing and entangling the epistemes, or moreover, deconstructing (destrukting) them, so as to assert their atavistic, culturally regressive, patriarchal or racist underpinning in historical-materialist critique, namely as a kind of scattering of tongues before the Babel-tower, * on whatever conscious level of the analyst. True philosophy, as I have written of with regard to the role of the ectype, is a creative endeavor,- never a destructive one. It does not reduce the multiple to the One, as MONON, but expands the One into the multiple, as MONE. 

* The Tower of Babel is an excellent symbolic representation of the sophic endeavor, however it is also more than symbol, as are all symbols. If Time itself has more than the two dimensions we admit as hardly inconspicuous feats of deductive reasoning, due to our having experienced them every day, ie. backward and forward, but in addition to these regular contours, and that transparent medium through which, to some extent, we are able to see,- that is, to learn from our past, predict our future, (be it thirty seconds from now or thirty years) and react to our environment effectively enough to keep ourselves alive, is imbued by a transcendental supergradient with "heights and depths" as well, or possesses, in other words, a tertiary "vertical" dimension,- the y-axis complementary to its x-axis, much like that asserted by the Greeks in the concept of a kairos, and that in which a kind of Hierarchy of Being ascends toward the beatific vision of the Good by means of a qualitative extension of ousia within temporality, (as opposed to the purely quantitative chronos with which kairos was compared in the Greek imagination, ie. backward-forward) while moving downward through the ontic hier-arche, the slope of created-being removes us more and more from the Transcendental-idea toward a kind of Hell, a pure-negativity, a reality and an "under-reality" qualitatively distinguished from the maxima of potential Good, (which the saint would call Heaven, the Gnostic pleroma, and the enlightened, Nirvana) by virtue of a certain minima of possibility available to consciousness, that is,- available to that for which the Good is in fact a quality, (something experienced) and a diminishing of Being's horizon of meaning, then, not only would the ontic or consciousness be integral to the ontological structure and metaphysical constitution of perceived reality, (in opposition to the Heideggarian reduction of the ontic to the ontological) but events and entities within this third dimension would be able to interact, attract, repel, organize, and influence each other, etc. along their own axis, in such a way that, for we who live only through the dimension running forward and backward in time, interactions of this kind would appear to occur a-causally, "magically",- synchromystically. Yet, as I already hinted at by mentioning the Greek conception of time, such an idea has long been entertained, and concluded,- if by words unfamiliar to the modern era. It is within this alternate dimension of Time that the eschaton draws Being unto itself, not as a mere end-point toward one or another degree on a line running through the horizontal plane, but as a kind of field of gravitation within the three-dimensional temporal universe around which events fall into complex "orbits" or "synchrony"; it is within this alternate time, in other words, that such patterns of acausal or "magickal" interaction take shape, appearing throughout our bi-polar or geometrically flattened history on the earth as mythic archetypes and apparent synchronicities, connecting vast groups of people across equally vast periods of time, as is the case with the myth of the Flood appearing in the account of the Sumerians, Greeks, Jews, etc. It is within this qualitative temporality that our own Will functions as a free agent, with respect to the other two temporal dimensions. Thus we have Hamann's insight along a similar vein: "To the spirit of prophesy ... belongs everything that is absent, the past and the future. Philosophic genius expresses its power in that, by means of abstraction, it renders the present absent and the absent present, thereby unclothing real objects in order to reveal naked conceptions, or conversely, enclothing merely conceivable imaginings in the subtle vestiture of Becoming, phenomena, and apparition. Poetic genius expresses its power in that, by means of fiction, it transfigures the absent past and future, arriving at a present Representation ..." to which I would add: a present Representation which embraces them both as a living-image, and that in which our dead, disparate, and unintended material history is reconstituted as myth, as the Life of the Mind, as the animate and, above all other attributions- the meaningful confrontation of Being and Becoming, and myth in turn as history.


In other words, the cosmological Singularity itself can be taken as existing within this superalternate, third temporal-qualitative dimension, (thus we have 3 spatial dimensions and 3 temporal dimensions, to give a six-dimensional universe embracing both the quantitative and qualitative extensions of Being, ie. the ontic) namely as the highest reality, or the reality "closest" to the Good. Azriel of Gerona's Neo-Platonic exegesis of the Talmudical zemannim or 'time without time,' or the orders of the sidrei-bereshit, that is, the beginning without beginning, communicate the same idea of an essence of temporality placed outside of the existent bi-dimensional reality of experienced time in the stages of ontogenesis, (in "the morning that was morning, and evening", to recall more of the Zohar's idiomatic poetic language) or a kind of metaschema of time, to recall Kant's conceptualization of temporality as a transcendental mental schema.


There is of course a false tower to consider, as the symbol of Babel has two faces, as again do all symbols. It can represent, as we have discussed, the Tower of Philosophic Endeavor, or it can represent the Babel of Matter attempting to circumscribe the possibilities of Geist, that is, the finite attempting to take the measure of the infinite, the Individual attempting to judge the All. Modern science, following the example of analytic philosophy, which had already been intimated during the Enlightenment, as well as the rigorous development of the axiomatic frameworks in pure mathematics, begins its quest with the apparent multiplicity of existence, in order to extract from this multiplicity a skeletonized reconstruction of the universe within the ideatum of dianoesis, that is, the positive knowledge integral to the achievement of theoria on the part of discursive reasoning, in this way, progressively realizing more and more comprehensive categorizations (or theoria) of material, organisms, etc. and eventually even subatomic particles, whose existence does not even reveal itself without the necessary inventory of tools with which to probe the geometries of high-energy particle collisions in ten, twelve, or twenty four higher spatial-dimensions, etc.-  and all of this to finally arrive at the vision of the singularity,- the One revealed through the torn veil of the phenomenal and merely apparent reality of the Many. The driving point held to in my work, is that the ontic is irreducible to the ontological, and that, no matter how well honed or advanced man's ability to categorize and find patterns in disparate materials becomes, no matter how powerful his cyclotrons and super-computers are, the necessary movement through the epistemes cannot be achieved without Mind, nor the Un-Intuitable origin of things discovered by anything other than Mind, [the paradox is that the Ontic is grounded on an ineffable, that is, irreducible singularity, which requires the intuition of some being that can only be called a "consciousness"; thus the ineffable ground of Being implies its own source in that mind for which this ineffability is experienced within the qualitative dimension of the res-ontas] for there exists irreparable discontinua and separation (the division implied by the different qualitative dimensions of the οντα, as I elaborated on with regard to temporality) in the ontogenetic hierarch in which Being, that is, the Ontic, (which I invoke by the word MONON) finally includes consciousness itself as constitutive of its reality, (which I refer to as MONE) so that the question of the higher mysterium,- the Beginning, the One, ie. the Singularity, cannot be grounded in anything outside the abstraction of the transcendental ego and the lived subject, and is therefor amenable only to Philosophy, for it requires an obverse movement from the One toward the Multiple, (multi-vocally) which, as methexis, or an expansive act by the Mind,- and one equally creative and participatory in its very own creation, there might bear fulfilled, the dawn of Psychelia and the spiritual sun upon matter,- the I-N-R-I of ensophic brilliancy and redeeming fire, and that upon the wings of a still farther rising Eros from out of the Depth of Psyche and those cupidities of the unregenerate man, to cite Swedeneberg's Coelestia,- toward the EIDEIA;- IN DEI N-V-T-V. ]



Heidegger's Angst, in relation to the question as to why Being is at all which you mentioned, rather than Nonbeing, is still just a symptom of his need to subsume and subordinate one of the two to the other, one voice to the other, and philosophize univocally. That is not a question in my philosophy.

I wanted to add a small addendum to my last post:

[ The bifurcation of the ontic and ontological, and the need to subsume one to the other,
which informs the radicalization of the Heideggarian critique, is dissolved when the
metaphysical Negative is preserved epistemically, so that the assertion of the ONTIC
which, through Heidegger's conceptualization of philosophic Angst, (which is responsible
for the intrinsic orientation of man's Being as subjectivity toward Death) is absorbed by
the ONTOLOGICAL and de-strukted along with any metaphysic or account of Being, (ie.
any account of the Ontic, that is, man's being; man's consciousness and qualitative
universe) as a viable ontogenetic category (ie. the Being of man's qualitative universe,
interiority and experience, or consciousness in face of any subsumption to the ontological
and quantitative reduction to the univocal) is possible. This is what the episteme I named
the Ontos signifies: the preservation of the Ontic, that is, man's Being, in face of the
Ontological, through which Angst subsumes all account of Being and orients Dasein
toward Death in Heidegger's ultimate cynicism, by whose conformation the Hegelian
struggle of the consciousness of Freedom in the inherent "nothingness of Being", (in
Hegel's words) or material reality is terminated. ]

...


[ The real heart of this assertion regarding the Ontos is to be found in the following considerations. The Hegelian system, which had supplanted all of its fledgling alternatives at the close of the German-dominated era of philosophy, had blurred the rich body of literature and theory concerning the concepts of Ontic-Fundamentality and Ontologicasl-Instrumentality, of the unity of the Socratic Intelligibles and the relationship this unity has with what Plato calls aisthesis or metaphysical Grounding in Form, the scheme of ontogenesis (ontogenesis, which is further developed into the sub- and supergradients of the epistemes transposed in ascending and descending levels of abstraction, was replaced by the logoic inscription of Being within the circular movement of Geist in its reconstruction of Being within the skeletonized, static and evaporated universe of the Parmenidean heuriesis) in toto or the role of the metaphysical priority, dependency, interdepenency, and autonomy in its extrapolation; of the ontological reductions of this Grounding to Form and to Essence, and the instrumental grounding of causality (an ontological domain) in the fundamental unity of essences, etc . (an ontic domain) The Aristotelian metaphysics presented in the Categories details a central thesis, namely that two beings alike in Nature (or sharing in the same Grund, to use the language of late German-Romantic-Idealism; the Unity of the given beings in Aisthesis, etc.) do not reify any difference at the level of fundamentality (the Ontic) and instrumentality. (Techne, poiesis, the horizon of Being as Ontos or guiding-image.) However, philosophical difference, while not being dialectically reified as ens in the Aristotelian scheme, can still exist at the level of essentia, so that the dependency of two beings united in essence, that is, at the level of the Ontic, is not a necessary precondition for their dependencies at the level of the ontological, thereby establishing an incipient formulation of the episteme for which the reconciliation of opposites is insufficient, insofar as the items under examination may present as autonomous in fundamentality, or as independent thetic ascriptions of the Grund in aeisthesis. In short: Grounding, (the Grund) the Intelligbles, the Unity of Forms, and the Ens, while all equivocated in the Grund of Being, that is, the Ontic, are nonetheless irreducible to one another's respective level of abstraction in the scalar model of ontogenesis (which is asserted in opposition to the dialectical theoria of the Absolute) and, by way of a difference that evades all reification, (the great mysterium of the Loss-of-Being) and which owes itself purely to the ontological and not the ontic, that is- to the fact that the "account of Being" cannot be circumscribed, absorbed, and subsumed by the ekstastic horizon of Dasein as Heidegger proposes, which in Aristotelian terms would frame the ontological dependency of two beings as necessary given their equivocation of their Ground, demands the multivocal solution of the episteme, for which four irreducible formulations of the essentia of Being are granted to the metaphysical inventory. To help this admittedly dense bit of philosophy find more human word, I prefer the example of a piece of artwork we all know, namely the Mona Lisa. If one was asked to "explain it", he could assert the "necessary being" of this piece, in Aristotelian terms, as its essentia, which in this case would simply mean that some human being had to gather the dyes, the brushes, the canvas, and physically brought forth the paining. Yet one could go further, and perform chemical analysis on the dyes themselves, gather ever bit of data he could about the piece, and present this as its essentia as well. We all know that such formulations of the essentia of this work of art are somehow, insufficient explanations,- even if we were to go in the opposite direction and begin psychologizing those conscious affects accordingly energized by its Benjaminian aura and the various personal impressions we might have taken away by admiring it,- and we intuit here the idea of transcenental autonomy, dependent ens or the ontic, ontological interdependency, and finally, transcendental dependency, these being nebulous and incipient premonitions of the episteme in Aristotelian philosophy. The point is that such formulations of the essence of the being in question, ie. the Mona Lisa, namely as a series inter-depenent ontological conceptualizations which are irreducible to one another but united in their reduction to dependent datums on the Grund, are not adequate for the reduction of that Grund, (the ontic reality, upon which the ens or existence of the Being is dependent) the Grund of this being,, to Essence,- a Grund which constitutes therefor a transcendental autonomy, and one accordingly in-dependent in terms of its metaphysical priority in ontogenesis. The concept of the MONON refers, at the most general level, to this independent auton, and the MONE refers to that irreducible ontic basis upon which the ens is dependent, with the Platonic eidesis finally signifying the philosophy for which the following has been truly assimilated- that (1) the Unity of Essences is reducible to the Grund, but such essences are irreducible to one another, as elaborated from the Aristotelian homonomy and more intimately characterized in the example of the Mona Lisa, and (2) the Unity of the Ground is irreducible to the Essences and therefor transcendentally autonomous, though such Essences are reducible to the Ground and therefor ontologically dependent, such that ontogenesis, as a multivocal solution to the question of philosophy's Ground, ie. as the systematic prioritization of such series of interdependent data in iterative levels of abstraction through the progression of the four epistemes, takes the place, as a theoretical model and practical tool for the more granular and detailed problems of metaphysics, of the Heideggarian "account of Being" swallowed up by the Will-to-Power and Angst. In other words: two beings can share the same essentia, but differ in their grounding, and two beings can be equa-vocally grounded, though possess different essentia, thus establishing the basis of the multivocal episteme and the "radical contingency"of Being, to use Mallarme's expression, which demands that "the cognitive integument of the Negative cannot be pushed through by the thetic ascription of Being, or the moment of synthesis achieved, given the fact that a failed dialectical syntheme, which Robert Cohn calls tetrapolarity, emerges from" this radical contingency of Being" in which, to arrive at the unity of Grund and Essence, the four knots of its ineffable tetrad must be untangled from "those datums within the oppositorum which function as one another's thesis or necessary Being, to use the Aristotelian term, thereby eventuating from the dialectic an irresolvable vicious circle" that certainly offers us no means of political realization of the Idea, which of course Hegel knew by positioning the Utopia as the conclusion of Being's own struggle with its existential freedom, demanding, insofar as Being is itself the freedom for which it longs, the evacuation of its essential unity, which we directly feel, at least in the United States, in the fragmentation of the demos into party-politics which was originally constructed on the basis of dialectical reconciliation as a constructive force in history, which sadly cannot create anything. Unfortunately, in our world, that which does not create- destroys; that which does not construct- deconstructs, and is deconstructed. From this, we can propose a rather concise model of the "tetra-polar a-synthemata", with the four voices of the ens (in their pre-epistemic formulation) laid out by number, and the four voices of the essentia noted by letter:

(1) Form: Aristotelian Fundamentality.

(a) [Unity of "Intelligbles", ie. the Socratic basis of the Forms elaborated on by both Plato and Aristotle.
The Ontos or Image-of-Being. essentia-prima.]

(2) Matter: Ousia. Aristotelian Instrumentality, poietic potentiality, etc. The Ontos or Image-of-Being is projected as Being itself through the techne, with man eventually hypostasizing his own Becoming as Techne, and his Techne (A note on the use of techne here: the techne is developed through the subsumption and appropriation of affects to one another in the play of energetic quanta initiated internally, by which a Will-to-Power emerges as a cohesive integration of the total affective territory successfully harmonized in the project of some conscious will, and is capable of imposing the arrangement of quanta which has stabilized and constituted it precisely as techne on the world outside, so as to reproduce itself and claim more territory) as his Being, thereby sundering his Promethean bond to the natural order through the terrible-angel of the Recurrence. As I have noted before, Nietzschean and Heideggarian philosophy are still quite useful in their application to the ontic-episteme. 

(b) [Unity of the Ground: essentia-minor. 
The immanent episteme. Platonic aisthesis. Uniting beings in accordance to their grounding was first attempted by Thales, when he proposed water as the univocity, to which all other substance was reducible. In truth, this process does allow man to discover and actuate the latent poietic potentiality of matter, leading to the eventual scientific and technological revolutions.]

(3) Form-Matter: entelecheia.

(c) [The Ontic: the Monon. Unity of Essences, difference in Grund. The Transcenent Episteme. The All-Being without the inclusion of the observant self-consciousness, ie. the consuming Aetna-Flames of the Empedoclean "pathos of Truth", or the frozen heuresis of Parmenides' triumphant universe: essentia-tertia.]

(4) Matter-Form: energeia.

(d) [The Ontological. The Mone or remainder, ie. self-consciousness without the All-Being. Externalization of Being. Platonic eidesis: the Mone serves as the point of departure for philosophy, by which one recirculates through the four epistemes with the new datum recovered by the mone. Quartum-essentia.]
]

As a side note, here's some great kabbalah I've collected from my sources, with my own material thrown in as well, (for which I employed a variety of techniques; notarikon, your standard gematria, permutation, substitution, etc.) concerning the sigil I often employ; NVTV. Its surface-level reading signifies the commandment given to man to go forth and multiply, but at a deeper level, following Dee, Ficino, Mirandola, etc. it symbolizes the creative energy out of which God created us, that is, Adam: what the kabbalists call Adam-Kadmon, the undifferentiated zohar or supernal radiance self-generated by man within Malkut and liberated, through the paths of the Sephirot, to rejoin the Creator in the great process of divine restitution following the Fall of Man at the Garden. In Dei imago, that is, our having been created in the image of God, indicates, following this interpretation, that we are animated and exercise in our own creative life the very potency that God used to breathe life into and create us:

Taken from my Liber Endumiaskia. I put the Front-Piece up on the following link if you want to take a look, I encoded a vast amount of lore and riddles in it, some of which I reveal in the annotations for it; the bulk of which I leave for the pleasure of seekers.

https://liberendumiaskia.blogspot.com/p/studiis-adolescentia-recreantur-alitur.html

Up top is YLDBTH in his lion form, holding a few tools, and then the color picture on the side is just an amazing little synchronicity I found. The NEWMAN is emerging from this giant brain representing the collective striving of humanity, reaching up toward the demiurgic YLDBTH in his half-lion half-dragon form, who has behind him the whispering BYTHYS, and above him, several dying planets and stars representing the eighth heaven of Sophia. The sub-title of this work is stated on the front piece, The Three Veils of Paradise. In this book, I'm formalizing all my super-gnostic theology in the figure of the fictional Hermaedion, and secondarily, writing out the system(s) of kabbalah and exegesis I use, for which the three Veils are important. I describe them here:

[ Paroketh is a protective veil set up between the supernal triad rooted on Keter and the lower two triads in the Tree of Life, serving as
both a veil of illusions and the d’ahtay, that is, an isolated womb in which we are prepared as ennoeaic beings for our next
incarnation, which takes place at a higher level of abstraction in ontogenesis, ie. samsara and the karmic aeon. Queseth, or the
rainbow, (alchemically correspondent with the peacock-phoenix symbols) is a veil that separates the middle triad from the lower, and it
receives a soul once it is passed back down the hierarchy of Being from the successfully permeated Paroketh to be reincarnated in
Malkut, now with the channeled blessing of Tiferet or Beauty conveyed as well (in the sekhel nitzchi of enduring-consciousness)
through the sephirot in the establishment of the holy Sanctum (the context of the word Paroketh; temple) on the earthly Kingdom, (The literal meaning of Malkut.) with the re-emergence of the individual in a higher configuration of the partzufim, of the macroprosopus reflected in the organization of the microprosopus and the two triads accordingly synchronized in their respective operations. The
profane veil encloses the lower triad entirely, so that the divine radiance, generated by moral good on the part of human beings, can
move upward toward God in the process of Restitution and the Repairing of the Vessels, as understood in Lurianic kabbalah, through
which the sin of Adam is atoned for in divine reconciliation, but the divine radiance, generated by God, cannot move directly
downward into Malkut, which occurs only through the improper configuration of the sephirot and "sin", as a hoarding and burial of
God's light within matter. This is why Malkut is universally depicted as the one sefira whose light does not flow from God directly,
but is instead generated within itself. Of course the pure immanence of the Sephirotic model is not held to here, and these three veils
must be understood as functioning at a lower level of abstraction that the samsara from which the soul either escapes rebirth or
heroically descends back into matter like the burning Gnostic angel, as a mens-heroic and embodiment of soprasannso, or the higher-
love of the enlightened. ]

Now the kabbalaistic text I wanted to share:

†† Of the inscribed, 'NVTV':

This item requires no small bit of kabbalistic exegesis.

The two Vs in the linguistic sigil form the elemental cross, ie. the alchemical quaternity, through whose mastery the working of the Stone is conducted. However, the V also denotes the 22nd and final path on the Sephirotic tree, with N representing the 14th path connecting Binah and Chokmah and T representing the 20th path connecting Chesed and Tipheret, which corresponds to the Hermit in the Arcana or Mercury in the planetary systems of magic, or more generally, the establishment of Beauty like that of the Garden itself, from which the sigil NVTV is derived and which humanity is tasked with creatively imitating, for the 20th path is concerned with harmonizing the solar and lunar forces through the mercurial element, which corresponds to the psychogenetic process of differentiation, while the 14th, connecting Binah and Chokmah and representing Venus in planetary magic, represents the beautification of Malkuth achieved through the permeation of the Veil of Paroket (in alchemy, this refers to the peacock or rainbow) with the radiant Beauty of Tiferet channeled mercifully and with compassion (mercy and compassion are the Hasidic, emotional attributions of Chesed) into a fallen and tribulation filled material reality, which in alchemical terms would correspond to the fire of the phoenix consolidating the multiplicity of the Tiferetic rainbow in preparation for the birth of New-Man.

The summative gematria value of the entire sigil, the letters NVTV, is 78. This means "the power of man". Again, NVTV DEI is God's commandment to multiply, given to man, and secondarily, when applied to God himself, denotes his supernal creative genius, therefor symbolically directing (for Ficino and Mirandola) man to perfect his own creative endeavor, further symbolized by the Stone.

The gematria of the number 78, is to be found in the 14th century Maimonidean Kabbalist, Albutaini, here summarized for sake of simplicity from "The Philosophic-Mystical and Hasidic Tradition", Vol 2.

" Albutaini begins with the word ha-hoxmah, meaning "the wisdom." Then he "separates" ha-hoxmah into XH HMH (read as: koah ha-mah "the power of the what"). The reference is probably to the Zoharic sefira Hokmah, also called mah ("what-ness). [I would add a further referenced to the Edenic ellipsis, as well as the Holderlinian ellipsis of Nature.] ... Albutaini now converts XH HMH into its gematria: 20+8+5+40+5=78. He substitutes 'DM (read as: Adam) = 45 for MH (read: mah, "what") and arrives at XH H DM (read as: koah ha-adam, "the power of man"). The process is now complete: HHXMH ("the wisdom") by separating yields XH HMH ("the power of what-ness," [Being] the sefira Hokmah); this term, by gematric summing and substitution, yields XH H DM ("the power of Adam" or "of man"). This technique is eloquent and the sequence of ideas suggestive. (This third ((MKH H D)) term is derived from the second by permutation. Its suggestive meaning is "from the power of the vapor of Creation" ((Genesis 2:6.)) Note how, in one line, Albutaini has "leaped" from technique to technique. This ((VHYH)) is one term with three words. They mean: "He will be; He is; He was." Together, they have the gematria of 78 and hence, continue the gematria set in the preceding line. This term, too, ((MGLH)) has a gematria of 78. It means "he who reveals." 

Thus we have extracted the following path through the Sephirot: Binah-Chokmah-Chesed-Tifereth. (Another noteworthy synchromystic correspondence can be found in the Sekhel Nitzchi, or 16th path, hidden in the middle of this sequence in the extension of Chokmah to Chesed. This path, in the Sefer Yetzirah, symbolizes the Garden of Eden (from which the NVTV-injunction is derived) as the enduring-consciousness of the saint's delight (Eden) in the Glory of Heaven. Furthermore, the letters of the three distinct paths utilized in this derivation (Binah to Chokmah, Chockmah to Chesed, Chesed to Tifereth: daleth, gimel, yod.) spell the Hebrew word דגי or dagah, which means: to multiply in progeny, grow, become numerous. This again gives us a powerful corresponded drawing back on the original formulation of the NVTV as an injunction to go forth and multiply, taken from Genesis. Of the word dagah in particular, we have the passage Genesis 48:16: "The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; let my name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."

To further elaborate on the significance of the NVTV-injunction:

Paroketh is a protective veil set up between the supernal triad rooted on Keter and the lower two triads in the Tree of Life, serving as both a veil of illusions and the d’ahtay, that is, an isolated womb in which we are prepared as ennoeaic beings for our next incarnation, which takes place at a higher level of abstraction in ontogenesis, ie. samsara and the karmic aeon. Queseth, or the rainbow, (chemically correspondent with the peacock-phoenix symbols) is a veil that separates the middle triad from the lower, and it receives a soul once it is passed back down the hierarchy of Being from the successfully permeated Paroketh to be reincarnated in Malkut, now with the channeled blessing of Tiferet or Beauty conveyed as well (in the sekhel nitzchi of enduring-consciousness) through the sephirot in the establishment of the holy Sanctum (the literal meaning of Paroketh; temple) on the earthly Kingdom, (The literal meaning of Malkut.) with the re-emergence of the individual in a higher configuration of the partzufim, of the macroposcopus reflected in the organization of the microposcopos and the two triads accordingly synchronized in their respective operations. The profane veil encloses the lower triad entirely, so that the divine radiance, generated by moral good on the part of human beings, can move upward toward God in the process of Restitution and the Repairing of the Vessels, as understood in Lurianic kabbalah, through which the sin of Adam is atoned for in divine reconciliation, but the divine radiance, generated by God, cannot move directly downward into Malkut, which occurs only through the improper configuration of the sephirot and "sin", as a hoarding and burial of God's light within matter. This is why Malkut is universally depicted as the one sefira whose light does not flow from God directly, but is instead generated within itself. Of course the pure immanence of the Sephirotic model is not held to here, and these three veils must be understood as functioning at a lower level of abstraction that the samsara from which the soul either escapes rebirth or heroically descends back into matter like the burning Gnostic angel, as a mens-heroic and embodiment of soprasannso, or the higher-love of the enlightened.

Bereshit is kabbalistically analyzed to yield an association with reshit and therefor, (c)Hokmah, the sefira of Wisdom, while bara is taken as signifying the concealed mystery of emanation, that is, the creative power and (mytho)poietic energeia for which man is named a dei imago, or an image of God, inasmuch as he, too, is animated by the same emanating creative power. This is the essence of the NVTV-injunction: man is an image of God, (not due to the kind of anthropomorphism that the medieval faithful feared as marked heresy, but whose postulation any learned student of the religion understood was certainly not intended) due to the fact that the mysterious creative force or 'Zohar' underlying his own creation by God with the Adamic seed is the same force by which he enacts his own creativity on Earth as an impassioned and morally awakened agent in service of the divine's will, in a Judaic conformation of the Pseudo-Dionysian relationship between the pagan Eros and Christian Agape in the "bara" or generation, (through their intra-penetration constitutive of the mysterious receptivity of the lepsis and the opening of Creation to the activity of the divine methexis) of the endless polysemonymics of the infinite Names of God as the infinite names of human Love, reverberated in the distant theoacousmate (echo of God's word in the word of man) of the divine Word, and all of this in the abyssal reflection of God's abyssal ground in dei imago, that man, awaiting the tears of Diana in groundless subjectivity, should keep a monstrous knowledge, shown thereupon the quivering spring Amphitrean,- the spring of man's longing and bewildered agony, in corpora pondere timoris spiritu libidinem, corpora in libidine vescendum corporis. 

The plan of the infinite recursive tzimtzum (generalized into the four recursive worlds of  the ABiYA or combined form of Atziluth, Beriah, Yetzirah, and Assiah.) of the spiritual self-contractions of the immanent Kabbalistic God, dissipatively reverberated into the imprint-echo of the precosmic void left behind in preparation for the creation of the material universe, ie. what is called Malkut in the immanent Kabbalistic model of the Sephirot, is further paired in Lurianic Kabbalah to the scheme of dynamic potentialities in the internal unfolding of Adam-Kadmon as a pure light, that is, without contraction  and integration within the vessels, for which the older kabbalah, ie. the Zoharic tradition of the AbiYA, posits a purely transcendental "fifth" World as representative of Adam-Kadmon. Thus, the internal transformations of Akudim, Nekudim, and Berudim, model the Toku and Tohun of the sephirotic vessels in the contraction, stabilization, and radiance of the divine light through the infinite veil of tzzimzum unfolded through the four levels of existential development: Atziluth, Beriah, Yetzirah, and Assiah. To go back to the construction of Binah-Chokmah-Chesed-Tifereth, extracted kabbalistically from the divine injunction of NVTV: this construction is one of the known Partzufim, namely: Tabur. Tabur, the "navel", serves as the border that separates the desires of Azilut, the highest emanation, from the material world or Malkut, communicating its radiance to Parsa through the separation that differentiates the Vessels of Bestowal and Reception for Tiferet. The new Partzuf constructed in this fashion, composed of Rosh and Guf, is divided further into Keter, Hokmah, and Bina: both the father and mother, again associating NVTV to hermetic alchemy and the conciliation of sexual energies, the Garden and the Fall, etc.

Of related note, we have the INRI-transformation. The total gematria of INRI is 50, corresponding to Nun or the 24th path on the 32 numerations of the Tree of Life, which is associated with elemental fire. INRI is determined in Dee's work to be associated with purification through fire, alternatively representing the mother-Goddess or ISIS-PAN-TERRA of Nature. Expanded sequentially, INR, gives us path 9, 4, and 18, or the Foundation, the Chariot, and the Empress. This further asserts the conquest of Nature in her feminine aspect, the daemoniac fire necessary for the pan-terra or the nigredo state of the alchemist. The letter Nun evolved from a pictogram representing a serpent, the nuchash, which calls to mind more scenes from the Garden, the Fall, and the Sin of Knowledge, though more alchemically, the uroboros. Nun is the first letter of the Hebrew word for emptiness, the abstraction correspondent with the hidden Sephira Daat or Knowledge. (The summative gematria of 50, the value of Binah or Undestanding, mitigates the destructive influence of the pure Daat or emptiness of dead Knowledge.) More importantly, Nun is embedded within the NVTV injunction, ie. as NVN, which warns that Death surrounds the endeavor of Gnostic illumination just as Death surrounds the borders of the Garden.

Combining the two, we derive a sequence for which each letter signifies one of the four classical elements:
NVTVINRI, NVTINRI, NVTIR;

Finally, by permutation, the word: NVTRI. 
Both sigils are encoded and intra-related in the greater subtext of the work within the citation given in the Front-Piece: ET QUODAM TEMPORE IN AQUA SUPRA VIRTUTEM IGNIS, EXARDESCEBAT UNIQUE UT INIQUAE TERRAE. [Cornelli Lapide, Comentarii in Librum Sapientiae, caput xvi. :Ignis ardens in grandine, et fluvia coruscans ...  (repete cum Dionysi.) omnium nutrici gratiuam tuae.] 

In full:
ET QUODAM TEMPORE IN AQUA SUPRA VIRTUTEM IGNIS, EXARDESCEBAT UNIQUE UT INIQUAE TERRAE .... 

PRO QUIBUS ANGELORUM ESCA NUTRI VISTI POPULUM TUUM ET PARATUM PANEM DE COELO PRASESTITISTI TERRIS SINE LABORE, [the bread prepared without earthly labor]
OMNE DELECTAMENTUM IN SE HABENTEM ET OMNIS SAPORIS SUAVITATEM.

The "bread" here has obvious connections to Isis-Pan-Terra by way of association to the Greek equivalent, ie. Ceres, the mirror-magician and high priestess of Nature.

As to the two Hebrew words affixed to the second partition of the front-piece: 

The interpretation here rests on a play on the words ashir and oshir, meaning riches and happiness: "He that rejoices in his own portion is rich, (ashir) and he is happy (oshir) who eats from the labor of his own hands, lest one is sickened with too great a share of honey." The sense of the Talmudical aphorism is that it is very difficult to enjoy to excess, at least to the extent of making ourselves "sick", (ie. moral corruption) when we are enjoying the labor of our own hands, for ben Zoma provides further insight in his reflection on the fact that Adam had to grow, tend, process his own wheat, etc. in order to finally have a piece of bread, whereas he need only walk a few paces and purchase bread that has already been made for him. Of consonant expression, we have the Ecclesiast: 

[ By our portended years, colorless the almond tree blossoms with the first hairs of wisdom; and with age, the caper-berry, too, withers; and the grasshopper drags itself along, and desire fails, while heavily the evening-birds are yet borne; vainly, the heart of men stirreth not, and the threads of silver are broken, and even with the breaking of gilded bowls, none but the ground are contented in their share.
- My own translation of Ecclesiastes. ]

In many ways I can answer you by this explanation of why the term value isn't like any other thing like power, being, physis, ontos, god, matter, but why it is occult in that it calculates negative existence;

Value increases when its presence decreases.

You see it forms a tralectic with itself; it causes being on the side of it. It is the flame to the carbon and the oxygen of being. And thats even literal.

Values are required to make gateways in strongholds. Strength can not communicate to strength except though values, which, when they don't act as passions (positive drives, direction, will, subjective) act as negative existences (limits, circumference, solidity, objective) Every quantum of mater is such a stronghold, but this story of Pompey and his elephants encountering the Pomerium is a good example of how it works out on a historic level.
https://youtu.be/s9qlNBBoFG4?t=357

There is no actual reason behind it - such "arbitrary" law is the reason that there is anything at all. The contract of working within limits, this very hard for humans to agree to as a principle, yet the bounty it results in is coveted by all.

Fixed Cross wrote:

This is actually how I arrived at VO: the fact that two quanta of will to power cant contradict each other while still trying to overpower each other. They are the same, yet they have apparently opposite aims.
Except they don't, because the real aim is in existence itself, which is in juxtaposition, rather than in contradiction, to other beings.

Juxtaposed by means of value, which is necessity, translating in scarcity - the thing to warrant compulsion, which is propulsion, i.e. energy, being.

Dialectic is false in all cases because there never are only two elements in the equation, nor are elements functionally described in terms of their antipode, much less in terms of that which contradicts them. Thats why Hegel is a convulsing pit of hell, or a furnace as you have called him, saying you tossed him in it.

Yes.

P: “things that don’t exist are influencing things that do.”

Yes absolutely. And the “don’t exist” is itself a kind of existence posited as purely logical-factual framework metaphysicality that ‘exists’ (I shouldn’t put any quotes around it because these things DO exist, but still) by virtue of things that ‘actually exist’, as Fixed was saying how divinity builds up from existing value-things which aim to perfect themselves which is what self-value means. The whole radiating-declining downward toward non-existence (pure contradiction as such, I like this formulation Fixed made) thing is an entropic remainder within the opposing perfecting-working movement of self-value. I think this is why leftism and all it’s forms and derivations in any subject matter whatsoever is simply expressing an entropic excess unable to presently be incorporated into existing System. This all now ties into my own philosophy of Ascendence, of course.

Metaphysical Negativity is shaded or graduated declensions of existing matter-relations, like shadows of reality. But reality is damn subtle and will see it’s own shadows, try to value these to derive more knowledge, power, scope, consequence; from this effort comes just one thing: will. Will is the actualization of value-efforts made in the shadowy spaces cast by one’s own existence, in also what is known sometimes and in a somewhat more banal sense as “time”.

Physics would unify all this easily if physics didn’t suck. But Ascension will take care of that, just give it a little more time for a thousand Einsteins to cross-reference Nietzsche and Heidegger and drop their resulting work at the feet of some historical Genius who will recreate humanity from the ground fucking up. We are on our way.

If there is an absolute Negativity in any sense it is death, but that isn’t even absolute it’s simply a simulated ending in which certain metaphysical vectors and their convergences into forms have abrupted in such a way that shadow takes over and reality subsides to that locale; subsides to be shadow-ified back into purely potential materials for the possibility of being mined as such by still existing beings. But to simply posit death as absolute end or absolute Negativity would also be to posit life in the same way, to degrade and decry consciousness as such ie a very Hegelian perspective. And thus not interesting nor relevant except to... already dying beings. To “Hegelians”.

Is good to remember that even dying beings need philosophies. They make their own philosophies in order to try and self-value, which always ends up in their own dying-ness because that’s what philosophy does, it reflects back what is already there. Truth is existence and one’s own existence is one’s own truth. So people will find at the culmination of their own philosophical efforts exactly what they already always were.

And if they possess enough will-space within themselves, enough hardness and softness alike, they will utilize this knowledge to try and break the bonds of their own metaphysical borders. To recast themselves into something new, something that goes beyond the scope of their limits. That’s really not easy at all; it’s much easier to think we’ve done it than it is to really do it. But just the attempt is worthy of godly recognition. Failure is not failure, failure is will’s insufficiency to its own massive knowing. But even will as such poses a harsh barrier and limit, one that knowledge isn’t yet very good at seeing around. In the end, even philosophy is inadequate to philosophy.

And that inadequacy is a mathematical thing, an ingrained calculus of being. Now if we want to start looking for metaphysical negativities, this would be an excellent place to start.

Quote :

And if they possess enough will-space within themselves, enough hardness and softness alike, they will utilize this knowledge to try and break the bonds of their own metaphysical borders. To recast themselves into something new, something that goes beyond the scope of their limits. That’s really not easy at all; it’s much easier to think we’ve done it than it is to really do it. But just the attempt is worthy of godly recognition.

And I daresay to have done it is even harder.

As a circuitry rather than as a "drive", we can understand the "self-valuing" both as a quantum of will to power, and as a primordial manifestation of intelligence.

We have (had) no serious definitions of intelligence, because intelligence can only be defined in terms of ones ability to perform certain tasks, so it is always a function of a specific telos.

VO breaks this barrier, we can now define intelligence.

Intelligence is the recurring tendency to not be a stupid douchebag.

Which is to say, the recurring tendency to tend to keep existing.

VO

V O:

2215

55

25

55

25

55

.
.
.

"There are no such things as "mind," reason, thought, consciousness, soul, will, or truth: they all belong to fiction, and can serve no purpose. It is not a question of "subject and object," but of a particular species of animal which can prosper only by means of a certain exactness, or, better still, regularity in recording its perceptions (in order that experience may be capitalised)....

Knowledge works as an instrument of power. It is therefore obvious that it increases with each advance of power....

The purpose of knowledge: in this case, as in the case of "good" or "beautiful," the concept must be regarded strictly and narrowly from an anthropocentric and biological standpoint. In order that a particular species may maintain and increase its power, its conception of reality must contain enough which is calculable and constant to allow of its formulating a scheme of conduct. The utility of preservation—and not some abstract or theoretical need to eschew deception—stands as the motive force behind the development of the organs of knowledge; ... they evolve in such a way that their observations may suffice for our preservation. In other words, the measure of the desire for knowledge depends upon the extent to which the Will to Power grows in a certain species: a species gets a grasp of a given amount of reality, in order to master it, in order to enlist that amount in its service."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 480


let this serve as the contextual framework and conceptual structure for the "circuitry" mentioned in the OP.

Yeah, so as a way of going deeper into clarification I had to reformulate the name again, "value ontology" is a very random and inaccurate term, and I was gladly keeping it while the concept was under development in the Erf, VO is the embryonic name. The name of its birth I suppose is not self-valuing logic or Logick, though thats a cool title and evocative in terms of its relation to Magick as a feat-performing means, but it is not explanatory beyond that connotation. What is really going on is that I took the integrity-factor from the conception "value" and placed it in the conception "valuing".
In order to justify this as an Integer, it had to refer to a "successful valuing" in terms of "structural integrity", which made it a process-bound unit, a process as a unit, a completed process, or rather, a process which is caught in repeating phases of a categorically similar kind. I placed Time into the Thing-in-Itself, thereby encompassing eternity and delimiting the smallest proportion of something vs nothing.

So rather than value-integrity I use valuing-integrity as the axiomatic substance of a logical OS. Note that this undoes the power of units to exist on purely hypothetical grounds. Since they cant be completely isolated units, not when the permutations start.

A self-valuing as Ive been calling it is a valuing-integrity in existence, a vector in timespace or in an electrical or magnetic field or in a mind, or wherever, in the sea with the fishes and sea-horses, in weird contexts it works as well as in mathematics. But whatever and wherever it is, its own existence implies with certainty the existence of another discernible such substance. If it is to be explicated, it needs to be recognized in a version of itself that is not itself, so there is an immediate symmetry, of whatever proportion, implied as to the whereabouts of this entity in terms of our mental capacities. It already suggests more or less where you would find it by what it is. In the presence of things somehow alike or contrary; be it first in purely abstract terms of 2 "self-valuings" or 3, or 5 or 360, and in dimensions and contexts galore, then, in terms of humans, or expensive items, or pieces of trash, - things alike tend to gather, due to their properties, in similar places on the whole, and where they are not, they form a change in the context and an enrichment of the tapestry, and things will start to form that are somehow the like of this extracontextual entity, and soon enough the difference will itself have become an entity that is alike to both thing. This brings me back to the refutation of Aristoteles law of identity as "a"="a" - phrasing it, with Parodites, "a"><"a", meaning as much as "the difference of "a" to nothing is equal to the difference of "a" to nothing."
But they cant be directly compared. Not without breaking either ones structural integrity -this is the philosophical explanation of the uncertainty principle.
And basically means as much as that one cant known entirely an entity except by being it - and not even then, as youd have to know the entity of your ground as well as yourself. The only way to do this is knowing absolutely nothing about oneself at all. The Path of the Fool, leading from the fountainhead to the fountains flow.