'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
Posts : 7307
ᚠ : 8696
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
|Subject: The Ideal Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:28 pm|| |
What would an ideal society look like? I will only introduce the question in this OP, and not yet aim for an answer. Instead, I will present some ways of thinking about it. Let's say that a certain type of ideal, a chemical ideal, is gold. The atoms rings are filled, it is 'fulfilled' - the protonic mass has valued it's environment in complete accordance with it's structural capacities, and these capacities are suited precisely to what is possible in this atomic universe. I would imagine that an individual can be like the element of gold, where another is the element of iron. What is the use, and to whom is it of use, if the gold an the iron 'form a substance together'?
I would go so far as to say this: the only situation wherein this is justified, is if the entire periodic table is present, so that a greater reality then just to gold is formed. The gold may still perceive only itself (it's low capacity for reaction, it's 'nobility'), but the other elements are able to merge and react and mutate and become and eventually 'experience' - life. Now say that within life, there is an equally selective, self-contained element like gold. As well as a scale, from which this purity of self-valuing 'waters down' and the affect-change grows. Since value ontology and RM and scientific logics are reversed, I would think that gold came into being at the very end of the atomic formation process of the universe. In gold originates "supreme value" - the standard value from which all other value is derived.
Value ontology could not exist without the full formation of the universe. It could not have existed a-priori, where RM and science attempt to establish themselves. No, value ontology is grounded in the most exhaustive "given" - the fully formed now. It stands at the end of history, at the point where history ceases to be understood as a process leading up to the present, and is seen as the present itself. All that was every true origin is still active. I realize this because I have ceased to see a cause and an effect - I see a self-causing effect, which has, on top of itself, a surplus effect, which is the world. But the strange thing is that it gives (bestows) the world by taking it into itself. As it takes, it gives coherence, which is existence.
The origin of this mechanism I can only locate in my mind, not in the world. I can concur that the place where this happens in physical terms is a sea of potential to cause change. But what is this original 'caused change' but the transformation of nothing to something? In other words, the question really is not: what causes change in absence of something, but: to what kind of thing is nothingness changed?
Value ontology chooses it's point of reference not in the past, it is not historical. "Cause and effect" is treated as side-effect - we focus on the thing that is always the effect and always the cause of change, and which remains in the midst of it a pure essence: the 'blind subject' - that which 'cannot help but be itself' - that which thrives in a sea of potential to affect. That whereby affect causes change, the cause to the potential-to-change.
I repeat: - the cause of the potential is the manifestation of the potency into that from which it is conceptually derived. The cause of the potency for a phenomenon is the nature of the phenomenon.
After God was pronounced dead, there as a period of cynicism. It was thought that because there is no God dictating morality, the universe is immoral. Ethics had not bee understood as implicit in the nature of nature itself - until Spinoza at least - Gods his death meant that we had been lost to our automatisms of self-causation, our instinctually derived 'idea', a rudiment of what we may call a thought, that our ethics were justified. We have to relocate our instincts in their ethical ground - but since our human instincts have been disrupted by curbing and overstimulation, we have to move directly to the forces of which the instincts are constituted, and rebuild our instincts. For this purpose I introduce the phrase raw self-valuing - and to identify this, I ask you to bring to mind your most ethically ideal future and consequently evoke your own most feared inner drive. Keep them both in mind and see how the latter becomes the former.
Posts : 7
ᚠ : 7
Join date : 2012-07-21
Age : 57
Location : Candyland
|Subject: Re: The Ideal Wed May 15, 2013 11:45 am|| |
Once you start contemplating an ideal society you are implying an organization which imposes a restriction upon its membership.
Simpler creatures can more easily be shaped to fit into ideal systems, because they sense of independence, their identity, separate from otherness, is less developed.
To organize humans one would have to simplify them...dumb them down...make them less conscious and more dependent.
So less independent.
The most stable human social systems were the ones based on a share identity and a shared need - a shared object/objective or Ideal.
This requires a homogenous grouping. Timocracy was the best example, before Democracy fucked it all up.
This shared identity cannot be the product of simplificaiton, or diminishment of consciuosness, because then you are back tot eh production of automatons, who function in specialized roles and act in accordance with a shared lowest common denominator. In modernity this lowest shared identifier is the sexual category of species: HUMANITY.
Posts : 2191
ᚠ : 2592
Join date : 2011-11-15
Location : deep caverns in caves
|Subject: Re: The Ideal Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:15 am|| |
You are looking down, which is most Nietzschean, but if you look up, at nothing, you will be blinded, forced to look down, settling on forward. There, you can find ethics, like a mirror, the heavyness that produced the greatness within ideal society, the raw magnanimity of uberself which begets the ethics that, curbed and overstimulated, become Gods, compulsive-obsessions, un-satisfiable super-egos, the under-egos of the creations of strong-as-fuck men's drives.
This is the beauty of anarchism, that it disallows strong men to beget weak ones. A restriction, strong, with the aim of pressurized evolution, which is actual creation. Not creating, really, but cooking. The cooked, cooked itself from the ingredients so close to out of reach, all else but reaching must be dropped out of focus and consciousness, leaving no space for a cook to matter.
Posts : 7307
ᚠ : 8696
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux
|Subject: Re: The Ideal Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:18 pm|| |
- Pezer wrote:
- This is the beauty of anarchism, that it disallows strong men to beget weak ones.
That is well said. A better argument could hardly exist for any system (if we can use that word here) - except those cases that allow with exceptional success rate for strong men to beget strong men.
- Silenus wrote:
- The most stable human social systems were the ones based on a share identity and a shared need - a shared object/objective or Ideal.
With one exception - those systems that consisted of an exceptionally vital and "fit" species of man. Greece and Rome will remain our Masters in terms of signifying power because they exceeded in 'juice' the mere requirements for survival to a far greater degree than we do. I mean of course as a collective, as a system, 'averagely'.
This is how they conquered - their aim was not survival, but overflowing. In fact any aim was secondary to the deep relishing of life in itself, the type that only rare circumstances permit. "The tragic" is the enjoyment of that which would kill a lesser man. And according to some schools, "philosophy" is that very same quality, but in the ways of science instead of (mere) art.
|Subject: Re: The Ideal || |