in group preference

I did go through the trouble once here of explaining will to power, but I was mocked and at no moment challenged or engaged.

well i don’t remember the details of that but i remember the instance. in any case it would be good for you to offer your definition of wtp against the one i offered.

like, take any fact you want as an example. the fact of it, the fact itself, is not being willed to power and it isn’t willing to power. wtp is a statement about existence, but existence itself is something different than any statements that can be made of it. at least that’s how i see it.

i think there are separate categories here. i mean separate types of categories. since it’s ultimately absolutely categorical like that and the different categories have their own substance and nature and logic and reason and mode and being, they just can’t be entirely explained in terms of another. but i’m ok with that, i don’t need reality to be ultimately reduced to just one thing. i’m fine without god. and i like how VO explains this too, the lack of any “one god” or “one truth”.

the only “one” anything is just truth as such, but that’s just a statement inclusive of everything that happens to be; it’s just a statement, because in reality there is no threshold or being or plateau or place or logic where everything just merges together like that.

the closest i’ve seen come to that is VO. which is why eventually i want to explore VO as a potential core and even a kind of supercore.

"since it’s ultimately absolutely categorical"

It's ultimately will to power.

"i’m fine without god. and i like how VO explains this too, the lack of any 'one god' or 'one truth'. "

In this sense, VO is just a snapshot of will to power in time, for it is will to power that ultimately gives this.

i don’t see how that is the case. i respect that you see it that way, but so far i have no reason to see it that way. i don’t even know what you actually mean when you say “will to power”.

i would also define wtp in terms of excess spillage and the self-irreconcilability and self-irreducibility of any being to itself, therefore beings are excessive, therefore they have porous limits, and they are also required per VO to set the standards for their own interpretations and to have those standards be centered in and as what they themselves are, in order they may keep existing and growing their power.

Well that's fine. I don't do reruns.

What's important is that I see it.

Though I would like you to see it. But it doesn't all hinge on it.

you don’t have to explain what you mean, obviously. i just don’t really know why you wouldn’t want to at least try.

but yeah in the end who cares, lol. philosophy is dumb. living is what is cool.

I did try.

Why do I want you to see it? Because it is the ultimate potentiator. You would lose absolutely nothing and gain absolutely everything. But that is the case for you as well as for everyone else. Will to power is not supremacist. It is... advancist.

As a concept. As a fact it just is. It is everything and everything is it.

yes i certainly see how wtp can be an ethos like that.

but i can actually explain why wtp exists. i just did with that whole excess thing. so for me; the deeper explanation why something is more interesting than the something itself.because they aren’t exclusive, you can have both. but things without sufficient explanation are therefore lesser by definition than are those same things plus explanation.

that also gets back into what i was saying about how facts are fractal like and meta and have no end. but that’s another thing.

and yeah anyway, i meant it when i said philosophy is dumb and life is cool. life doesn’t really need overly philosophizing. it doesn’t even like it that much. i’m just compelled to do it, the whole truth thing, but i try my best to also just do the living thing when i can.

You seem to consider explication to be at its fullest in a state of peaceful reflection and careful monologue. I only see battle as explication. Of course, one risks losing everything, so I can see why nobody has stepped to yet.

But obviously there is a reason you risk everything.

But I have the feeling that the era of litigating this with philosophers is over. They none of them got it, they none of them even tried. Didn't dare.

So I'm taking it to other spheres. But I think I will continue my appeal to philosophers to the end, 'cause they are my fzzavourite.

wouldn’t it be weird if in the future all philosophers were women and all life-living normal cool people were men. i think is possible, women are sort of driven crazy by reason and logic and if this feminism thing gets going it could convert female soul into a kind of absolute rage of needing to know, a total certainty frenzy because women can’t just accept two competing and conflicting things at once. men can, we do it all the time when we accept women (lol).

i think the best thing about women is their naïveté when it comes to truth and philosophy, they don’t need it because they don’t know it exists. contrast this with men, who know that truth and philosophy exist and have been forced to make some peace with it in the gray areas of life, mostly because we have to deal with women and with reality at the same time.

so eventually maybe men will just chill out and be earthy while women will be tormented by need for certainty and no contradictions. men hold all contradictions in themselves and rarely share these with women, we shelter them from it; but if feminism continues to win this will open up the female soul to truth as philosophical need and there might be no going back. then men will stop being chill because we love our naive women and how they make us live, and we will get even more chill as a way of denying these crazy women any inroads into our earthy home soil souls.

Pezer wrote:

You seem to consider explication to be at its fullest in a state of peaceful reflection and careful monologue. I only see battle as explication. Of course, one risks losing everything, so I can see why nobody has stepped to yet.

But obviously there is a reason you risk everything.

But I have the feeling that the era of litigating this with philosophers is over. They none of them got it, they none of them even tried. Didn't dare.

So I'm taking it to other spheres. But I think I will continue my appeal to philosophers to the end, 'cause they are my fzzavourite.

i consider thinking to be the ultimate battle. but obviously not the only important one.

there really aren’t any philosophers; or if there are then philosophy doesn’t really mean much. i’m pretty sure that all the actual philosophers in the world are members of this website.

Lol.

We'll see about the women folk. They got promise.

But I'm certainly a conservatist here. A radical one. Women should be keepers and transmitters of virtue, while men should be the the exercizing and collection of it.

Like a true conservatist, I consider it is the woman who has the more valuable role here, is the more valuable. Men are soldier ants, women are queen ants.

" i’m pretty sure that all the actual philosophers in the world are members of this website."

Yeah, those are the ones I mean obvsly. Plus of course any potential ones, as I can see the future and litigate with people there.

I wasn't by the way talking about the ultimate battle. Just explication.

i like other forms of explication than just philosophizing litigation. for example i’d much rather spend time shooting the shit and flirting and talking and hanging out and smoking and drinking with a great woman than i would doing philosophy. debate is boring. i used to love debate but then i got too good at it.

the world is a shadow of philosophy, and the world is cool, and if you go too high into philosophy you start living in truth and stop living in the world, because much about the world isn’t that truthful. and there are so many other ways to engage and interact than just abandoning the world.

philosophy is one mode of being, love is another. and the kind of will to power fighting-ness that you hold to and value is yet another. they are all cool. i prefer to cycle through them all.

Not because its fun. Though it is damn fun when done correctly.

Because it matters a lot.

I see philosophy everywhere I go, in everything I do and see. I am like Neo when he awakes fully to the Matrix.

Of course, in the real world, there is no Zion.

"
it is a fact that X. and it is a fact that it is a fact that X. and it is a fact that it is a fact that it is a fact that X.

now start adding in neighboring related and encountering fscts, you get metas. then those metas also go into eternity like the X example above.

so you begin to see the problem."

Hadn't caught this. Pologize, I probably then would have tried. Lessee...

Well see that there is the przzoblem with logic. Left alone is just simply madness. But fill in those blanks and watch it be half useful.

It is a fact that X. And it is a fact that it is a fact that X. Why? Why is the force that pulls them together and stops the silly infinite progression.

In any cas I never said it was a fact that tryth springing from will to power is a fact. That is indeed meta and pretty useless.

I'm juste woke a half hour ago, gimme a sec, I know there be more here.

In our case: it is true that will to power sprung truth. Ok, a fact that it is a fzzact. But why do I point that out? Why is it useful? Because it says something about truth, about fact. Namely, that even in describing itself and its genesis, it is not reduced but only agrandized.