On the Value of Suffering.

Parodites wrote:

Physis is dyadic in structure

To me at this point this is a mere claim. I'm exploring the idea that my mind, my consciousness, consists of the same stuff of which "matter" consists. My brain is then a quantum computer that renders my whole world. It renders it based on input from the "material" world, which however ultimately also consists of the same stuff.

When I look at an object, it does not, through my eyes, enter my brain; it's only light reflected or emitted by it that enters my eyes. This then triggers my brain to create a rendition of the object within my brain--to render an image of it, as a (quantum) computer. Thus my whole world, including what I perceive of my body, is generated by my brain and exists solely within it. But the object consists of the same stuff as my brain. It therefore also has an inner world or inner worlds--albeit not (as) coherent as my own, perhaps not even including bundles of impressions (to speak with Hume) or complexes of sensations/elements (to speak with Mach)--but still, consisting entirely of impressions or sensations/elements.

The percieved sameness is not an end but a beginning. An end is to call words their own self and keep it there. Words are part of a complex ecosystem, a complex iteration of itself, yes, but what is itself? It is matter. So why do I think can instead of just be rock? Because the complex set up of words alows for negativity, for reversal of values while forming part of values. What isn't possible from here on? This is a beginning for philosophy. The birth of value philosophy derived from value ontology is had when thought recognizes it IS. Then the possibilities are endless but, ironically, in my experience, the path is narrow for philosophy. Because if thought is, its first task is to firmly establish where it is. Not "in the brain," it is the brain, and this is already a leap forward. Negativity, depth, has yet to cut into what it is instead of at thin air.

What is a word? A vocal utterance or a scribble on paper, it has no intrinsic meaning at all, its shape or tone is arbitrary, it could easily have been other than what it is. Each word, each letter, is what it is for no consequence whatsoever except to distinguish it from other utterances or scribbles.

Words are not the concepts to which they point. Language is not about 'words', written or spoken; it is about concepts, meaning. Even we look to the grammar underlying the construction of letters into words, words into sentences, is this language? No, it is simply a material basis for language, a means to the end of allowing tectonically for the birth of conception. But the rules of grammar indicate a different kind of causality than appears in nature or by virtue of natural selection, for in grammar we have the first introduction of logic for its own sake, "either/or, if/then, if p then q" etc. These rules preside in the grammar of languages because they are reflecting logic as such, pure relationality, whereas in nature we have these kinds of relations indicated only negatively, as the conditions for the emergence of natural beings -- each oxygen molecule can only become metabolized by one organism, not two, etc. Such limitations exist as the conditions implicit to the formation of the natural world, and the natural world is only a kind of secondary and negative expression of such things. But those conditions themselves, are finally realized positively in language as the grammar with which words and sentences are formed, and are able thus to produce meaning... Yet compared to that meaning itself, the grammatical rules are too only a kind of secondary and void conditionality.

Think about the whole of nature, outside of man- do you think anywhere in this entire order there exists a single thought? No, there is not even a single one. You can move from plants to insects to fish to whales to birds to rats to lions to baboons, it's all the same.. not even one thought exists, not one "idea", not even just one positivistic reflection of the conditionality of life. It's all "pure negativity", a kind of profuse inter-harmonization of self-unknowing reflexology formed after the fact, ex post facto, by "natural selection" which itself is simply another example of an unconscious self-unknown, a condition that acts only upon things which are not-itself, rather than acting in terms of itself, as itself and upon itself.

The birth of philosophy begins with attaining the threshold understanding of the absolute-categorical divide between man and the rest of the entirety of nature, this understanding was intimated in early Greece and survived somewhat more or less intact through Rome and Christianity, but in our modern era is vanishing, as man seeks now to return back into the world of the pre-human animality and basic "sensory-organic reflexology" which requires no effort, no context, no perspective, no philosophy, no hope, no courage and no depth. One may merely "be what one is" in these modern times, and comport oneself toward any half-formed system of concepts such as in the psychological act of assuming that system one's own particular psychological, pathological, personality-based experiences and iterations are rendered incommunicable the one to the other, wherein the internal variance latent to oneself is silenced, or nearly so. "Matter" is not the truth, nor is "the brain"; obviously you understand that ideas, facts, truth, concepts, these do not exist "in the brain" or "as the brain", the one cannot be equated to the other except as a kind of biconditional inadequacy that is inherently asymmetrical, as I said previously. Brains are simply densities of neurons which themselves are merely measurement-indicators and storage devices for relations. The kinds of relations reflective of "mind" or "consciousness" are qualitatively, absolutely, categorically different from the kind reflective of the bulk of nature, the natural world, or the world of "non-living matter", of physis, which as Parodites points out vis a vis Pierce is merely a kind of direct, flattened plane of correspondence-causality of "this then that" linearity which Kitaro might call mere spatiality dimension with no temporal dimensionality at all. No "depth", no perspective.. no internal reality, no capacity to reflect the truth or the "ontos", as Parodites calls it.

So you have described beautifuly what thought is. But you haven't described how it came to be, where it is in relation to what is not it. For romans and more primitively greeks, this was an all out constant war. In our times, it seems not to exist. Does this not indicate a deep comfort? A readyness?

If a word is not what it expresses, what is it that a word expresses? Where does it come from? Where is it now?

Pezer wrote:

So you have described beautifuly what thought is. But you haven't described how it came to be, where it is in relation to what is not it. For romans and more primitively greeks, this was an all out constant war. In our times, it seems not to exist. Does this not indicate a deep comfort? A readyness?

If a word is not what it expresses, what is it that a word expresses? Where does it come from? Where is it now?

Yes, this is pointing to "facts themselves", a state which is not that about which it indicates or means; or the purity and isolate meaning which exists only in the highest triadic spaces, as pure abstraction or logic. Think about the fact of what a "tree" means, conceptually- I don't mean how we delineate the concept itself, but I mean the fact of what a tree is, to you, to anyone, such as it is possible to communicate about trees to each other and not entirely miss what we are each other talking about. To ask "where does this fact exist?" is the wrong question. There is no "where", not in a materialistic, spatio-temporal sense; this reflects a confusion of reality standards, which I had mentioned previously: the common standard of "what is real" is basically, whether it admits it or not, nothing more than whatever is most "physical" (solid-seeming), thus the implicit "where located "in space and time"?" question. We are habitually unable to separate out our physical sensory experience its "solid-ness" aspect from what we consider to be the most irrefutably real. But there is an alternate definition and reality-standard, loosely encapsulated by the idea of interiority: whatever has the most inner reality, the largest scope of inner substance, the most perspective.. the most far-ranging consequences from itself, the most ability to re-interpret that which enters it, in terms of that which it is.. this we might call the most real.

We can dispense with physical-ness as a reality-standard, since whatever is "physical" is simply whatever we cannot pass our hand through, essentially an electron field which the electron fields of our hands resists. We already know that atoms are mostly "empty space", it is a very small step to leave behind any assumption of physicality in our reality-standard. Once we do that we are free to associate new standards, such as the one exampled here of interiority or of "identity" as Parodites notes it: ' That which has (and is) more "identity" is literally more real that that which has and is less identity.' It doesn't matter if we are talking about a tangible object or an idea. Try to remove those distinctions from your mind. Look at everything in terms only of the amount of identity it contains in itself, the quality and quantity of perspectival power.

Quote :

What is it that a word expresses? Where does it comes from? Where is it?

--maybe you can see how these questions are applying that false reality-standard of "physical-ness" to things which are themselves not composed of nor subservient to that standard. As I said earlier, it reflects a confusion of categories. We have not been trained to think this way. But we can learn to. And we must learn it.

Now in the sense of this new standard, we can see that the idea of a chair is literally "more real" than is this chair I happen to be sitting on.

This is an absolutely essential point to grasp, philosophically-speaking.

I agree wholeheartedly. But what does it take to give an idea more power?

We already know, and you described flawlessly,what they are not in broad strokes. This is the achievement of latin philosophy. But then, to the minutest detail, what is it that a word expresses that it is not? I think small, inmediate things are the most fitting, because "tree" already has a lot "is not" regarding that which the word is a reflection of that is too obvious, too obscuring. These are clumsy categories from brave times.

Capable wrote:

What is a word? A vocal utterance or a scribble on paper, it has no intrinsic meaning at all, its shape or tone is arbitrary, it could easily have been other than what it is. Each word, each letter, is what it is for no consequence whatsoever except to distinguish it from other utterances or scribbles.

Words are not the concepts to which they point. Language is not about 'words', written or spoken; it is about concepts, meaning. Even we look to the grammar underlying the construction of letters into words, words into sentences, is this language? No, it is simply a material basis for language, a means to the end of allowing tectonically for the birth of conception. But the rules of grammar indicate a different kind of causality than appears in nature or by virtue of natural selection, for in grammar we have the first introduction of logic for its own sake, "either/or, if/then, if p then q" etc. These rules preside in the grammar of languages because they are reflecting logic as such, pure relationality, whereas in nature we have these kinds of relations indicated only negatively, as the conditions for the emergence of natural beings -- each oxygen molecule can only become metabolized by one organism, not two, etc.

Logic as such? Surely not necessarily, but perhaps only human logic as such, or the logic as such of human beings who are not "mentally ill". Nature has to correspond to our mental framework because insofar as it does not we cannot even perceive it or conceive of it.

Quote :

Such limitations exist as the conditions implicit to the formation of the natural world, and the natural world is only a kind of secondary and negative expression of such things. But those conditions themselves, are finally realized positively in language as the grammar with which words and sentences are formed, and are able thus to produce meaning... Yet compared to that meaning itself, the grammatical rules are too only a kind of secondary and void conditionality.

It seems you're saying the same thing twice now. You say those conditions give rise to the natural world and to the world of thought (concepts). But what do we know of the natural world except how we conceive it in thought? Doesn't our whole world exist entirely in thought?

Quote :

Think about the whole of nature, outside of man- do you think anywhere in this entire order there exists a single thought?

I think it might well be, yes. After all, why not?

Quote :

No, there is not even a single one. You can move from plants to insects to fish to whales to birds to rats to lions to baboons, it's all the same.. not even one thought exists, not one "idea", not even just one positivistic reflection of the conditionality of life.

How do you know? And: don't any of these lifeforms have a neocortex?

Quote :

It's all "pure negativity", a kind of profuse inter-harmonization of self-unknowing reflexology formed after the fact, ex post facto, by "natural selection" which itself is simply another example of an unconscious self-unknown, a condition that acts only upon things which are not-itself, rather than acting in terms of itself, as itself and upon itself.

The birth of philosophy begins with attaining the threshold understanding of the absolute-categorical divide between man and the rest of the entirety of nature, this understanding was intimated in early Greece and survived somewhat more or less intact through Rome and Christianity, but in our modern era is vanishing, as man seeks now to return back into the world of the pre-human animality and basic "sensory-organic reflexology" which requires no effort, no context, no perspective, no philosophy, no hope, no courage and no depth.

I think philosophy is obliged to question any such basic premisses. I do think there's a significant difference, but not necessarily between homo sapiens and the rest of nature; I don't think a human being is necessarily a member of homo sapiens nor vice versa.

Quote :

One may merely "be what one is" in these modern times, and comport oneself toward any half-formed system of concepts such as in the psychological act of assuming that system one's own particular psychological, pathological, personality-based experiences and iterations are rendered incommunicable the one to the other, wherein the internal variance latent to oneself is silenced, or nearly so. "Matter" is not the truth, nor is "the brain"; obviously you understand that ideas, facts, truth, concepts, these do not exist "in the brain" or "as the brain", the one cannot be equated to the other except as a kind of biconditional inadequacy that is inherently asymmetrical, as I said previously.

No, this is where I fundamentally disagree. I think ideas, concepts, etc. may well be the brain--that is, not brain "matter" so much as brain activity, the electromagnetic or quantum states or processes that occur in the brain and are a part of it. I'm sketching the case that my world consists of such patterns--that the phenomena I see do not consist of matter but of neurophysical events--that my world is how these events experience themselves.

Quote :

Brains are simply densities of neurons which themselves are merely measurement-indicators and storage devices for relations. The kinds of relations reflective of "mind" or "consciousness" are qualitatively, absolutely, categorically different from the kind reflective of the bulk of nature, the natural world, or the world of "non-living matter", of physis, which as Parodites points out vis a vis Pierce is merely a kind of direct, flattened plane of correspondence-causality of "this then that" linearity which Kitaro might call mere spatiality dimension with no temporal dimensionality at all. No "depth", no perspective.. no internal reality, no capacity to reflect the truth or the "ontos", as Parodites calls it.

Well, I seriously doubt that. It may be true of Newtonian physics, but then there are no Newtonian physics; that's just how quantum physics appears on a large scale. I'm suggesting that wherever there are relatively independent quantum states, there is at least some rudimentary form of consciousness.

I fear that as long as there is no clarity about the contexts in which we are discussion all these terms, this is not going to develop into the proper context into which we can outline in philological (Nietzschean-epistemic) terms the framework of Negation, which is the essence of thought as categorically not-instinct. As a rough indication of what is addressed by the term transcendent, you won't see an animal killing himself or anyone else for an idea. It is self-valuing what the man does, but the terms have collapsed into a let's say vertical axis where there was first only a horizontal plane, or one might say a fourth dimension was added, or rather a fifth; the idea of time, the form of being that, as we see proven in our age, isn't bound to the laws of time and space. this is at least the hypothesis, and it uses the physiological drives in a proper neurochemists notion of their being and shows how, in the course of terrible cataclysms in the biology of the ape, (potentially due to slackening of the jaw muscle, giving the brain more oxygen, possibly correlating to 'excess')  they come to decohere from their instinctive, earthly ground and function to something 'to themselves', and these are 'thoughts' - drives disconnected by mere 'malfunction' from the organism, but taking place within the organism and cohering in it. This does not mean that there is no coherence between the coherence of the 'rogue', excess drives, (rudimentary thought) and the bodily functions as regulated in the deeper cortexes, but that it is no longer reducible to that kind of function, to those patterns and bio-logics, but that it has become 'metaphysical', as on top of physis.

There are at least four different contexts that are being thrown together:

- Epistemic issues. What can we know. What do we know, how do we know it, how do we know that we know it.
- Ontological issues. That which we are talking about, the objects -- if this is treated right it includes ourselves, as knowers. - This context alone is has proven too complex and shifty to sustain consistently airtight argumentations. Quantum Physics, what is light, what is gravity, etc.
- Coherence issues. How do our argumentations amount in an idea that can be held, and explains things, or simply consistently respond to information from the same basis, so that a coherent field of knowledge can be sustained. This is not itself an epistemic issue: it is here that philosophy begins. Value ontology belongs to this region, it commands here, it coheres everything discussed so far, but it does not explain how every instance coheres with the next one. It does allow understanding of 'instance', which the former two do not. It introduces perspective as the guiding principle rather than as an object of knowledge, a fact.
- Teleological issues. This is the real bitch, and here Parodites is the one cracking the whip. The problem is that we are not supposed to consider telos to be implicit in nature. We are told that only man holds telos, but not nature. And man is - what?
Within the third category, we can explain man in terms of the atom, or the quark, or any particle, hypothetical or empirical, and all these things in terms of man. The result of this is that matter is perceived as asymmetrical, like man, as behaving in terms of valuing, which all philosophers worth their salt have identified as the 'stuff' of what is called perspective in man; be it eros, will to power or local justice, philosophers realize that the fundamental ground to their knowing is their valuing. The thought forming the meaning of the third category is concluded with VO.  What remains is the here and now.

A Heraklean coherence can simply be said to be a self-valuing, as much or little as an iron atom. But this does not tell us what it is, merely that it is. The philosopher investigates his thoughts as they progress, he is not separate from the experiment; the error of qm is thus a priori impossible, as the observer observes only the observer. The body is not an object here, but there is only subjectivity, and within this being-conscious there is the possibility of clarity - and as Pezer says this clarity, which is the end product of so much below it, is the starting point from which definitions are formed. What we have arrived at here is true anchoring of the philosopher as the beginning of all philosophical arguments - we have to admit the bare fact that given that an origin to being is illogical, it is illogical to assume an an origin to anything else as well.
We must start "in the middle", in the most comprehensive state of mind-qua-mind, so that, as mind, it may include everything else [i]in the manner proper to man, namely, with a telos. Telos properly understood, in terms of what it serves,  this Herklean coherence.  And here is how that pays off: an actual beginning. In as far as the theory of the overloading the neocortex is plausible, which I find it to be, we have at least a theory of the origin of thought. Thought inevitably opens up a world beyond time and space. This is the transcendent, the space where man simply cannot be perfectly true to the Earth.
Perhaps Parodites went where Nietzsche could not endure himself;  the very reason of the latters greatness may be that he hated the field that Parodites discloses - the Frontal Lobes versus the Reptile Brain - To connect the two we should probably develop a theory of the pineal gland. But this is value ontology. Pure enzyme, disclosing by reacting with - molecule forming. Origin-ness.

None of this is to say that it has only occurred in/as humans, this metamorphosis of nature to metaphysis. What is crucial rather is that we are talking about a fundamentally different phenomenon from instinct. It is not senseless to compare its eruption to the taking-hold of plant on Earth. Moving life emerged before plant life, so as a metaphor that might work. The process of producing seeds, dying and then having children is ore related to thought than to ape.

Philosophy is often carried by the drive to justify some form of solipsism - the philosophy that truly does justify it does so by drawing the world into it - the objective world does not exist, the outside world reflects the will-image of the philosopher. This does seem like madness, and like the result of survival-drives collapsing into a vortex of 'to-itself-ness' -
Shamanism is a way to bring a coherence from deep in the genetic layers of being up to consciousness and make it more natural, resilient to nature, 'quiet'. Philosophy is here a way to cohere the forces of the vortex (the drives are become forces to themselves, not  elements anymore) in some way or another with a great stable Idea. But as of late philosophy transformed into the abandoning of the Idea in favor of the Philosopher.

Who must after al come to guide the world with all of its petty upheavals that are absolutely irreducible to problem-solving. The philosopher ruler must allow all conflicts that are entertained by both parties. There will be plenty of fighting-space for all war-love to live well. Others are to be left alone - there will be plenty of serenity-space for the peace-love to live well as well.

Such a world will be like a bird with two wings one blue and one red, a purple bird or dragonfly or butterfly that just before was a leaden cocoon of sorrowful self-consequence.

Quote :

this Herklean coherence.  And here is how that pays off: an actual beginning.

An actual beginning - of something - namely of the Heraklean work.
And such a beginning necessarily has an end, the apotheosis of transcendent coherence.

Twelve is an attractive number to divine such coherence, because it divides up into many other coherences. The question is to what extent it is a violation of philosophy to make use of numerical principles.

Pythagoras was absolutely detested by Heraclitus, and the former is rather praxis than logos, but a very deep and logical praxis. The Pythagorean view of the Heraklean coherence is numerical and archetypical (also astrological), the Heraclitean view is rather unified, tragic, cathartic, Dionysian. I am sort of walking a line between these paths, trying to bring them together but always failing as long as there is no sacrifice.

I like this ordering. It is offensive on so many levels and yet so irresistible that it can only be the work of an accomplished shaman.

This is the map.

A philosopher king is dangerous. A philosopher king is king in a philosophical way, one unfathomable to homo sapiens sapiens as opposed to homo amor sapiens. This is as unexplored as the telos of philosophy. To catch it in the middle and give it gravity via necessity of will, to value value for fuck's sake, this is the way forward.

To value the pineal gland or anything like it, I hold, is to leap forward from the epistemic void at hand. I think this is was Sawelios has been hinting to in his posts responding to this thread. The question is: where do we start defining? Descartes must seem coarse to us here.

I was going to say Parodites was wise to stay on topic, to not try to divulge the whole of the context of being versus being-philosopher in a reply to a specific question. But you picked up on what I meant, that this is a point of departure for action, if ever there was one.

Two excerpts from Parodites' writing, I thought these would be helpful here and he gave me permission to post them,


"The modern view, which has succeeded in inflating the misunderstanding of the affective surplus, along with a misunderstanding of man's relationship to the natural endowment of his drives and instincts, into a very well organized affront upon the shared dignity of our humanity, must be called into the light. The common view of the human being at this point in our history is the following: man is nothing more than a kind of programmable automaton, nothing more than a puppet mindlessly pulled this way and that upon the strings of the presiding cultural mandate, blind in all cases to the puppeteer, for this is no puppeteer, and the strings are all there is or could be- a being hopelessly compelled, namely by those systems of class struggle and of social hierarchization which it has unconsciously internalized, by the external polis which it has mirrored and integrated into the very structure of its own psyche and libidinal-motive complex, toward the madness of embracing the source of its very oppression and suffering as the object of a long cherished reverence; a being with nothing of the power by which it might exercise the slightest modicum of control over its own destiny, and whose ultimate fate it is to repeat, in quite a Sisyphean fashion, the sins of its father and of its father's father; a being for whom there is not nor can ever be a genuine morality to stir the heart, for whom there is no ideal toward which to strive, no philosophy in which to discover a greater meaning and order of things, and no purpose about which to struggle, suffer, rejoice, live, or die, for existence stands in their mind as a reality logically situated prior to any essence, the love and ideal toward which we might strive being such things as could never precede and thereby serve as a basis for our actions- for that existence which, antedating them, they can never return into through the katabasis of a daemonic descent into the first inwardness and the ground of Being- a love and a striving that must always venture hopelessly outward, stretching themselves thin and evaporating into the night of oblivion, into non-entity, into the nothingness of a universe lacking any center. For those who hold to these views of mere psychology, sociology, and critical theory, there is no tenable species of individualism, for there is no individual; the individual is but an unthinking, unconscious concatenation of social forces and evolutionary missteps, an unreflected internalizaton of the structure of the class-struggle, a compendium of propaganda and self-deceits, with nothing of a soul, nothing of a self, nothing of a personhood. No argument needs to be made against the kind of nonsense which these people have developed in their pseudo-academic stupor; one only needs to cast his gaze inward and draw upon the self-evidence of the immediate phenomenon of self-consciousness to refute it, namely the phenomena I call the daemonic- at least to refute it for one's self. Perhaps this view of human nature is quite accurate, if only with regard to those who promulgate it. "


. . .

"The contiguity of man's linguistic structures depends on the discontinguity or separation of his sensory-organic universe, as words indicate the re-construction of casual sequences of affect within the medium of time and our higher ideational cognition, a partitioning of the affects within an imaginary sequence of identifications, inter-relations, causations, and effects, which our words are intended to reconstruct by means of logically associated nerve impulses within temporal succession; the continuity of our conscious existence is the continuity of this imagined movement within the affects of something we call a drive, as is enacted by consciousness through words in the form of a causal chain- and I stress the word enacted, as it is precisely an act, a gesture, an imagination. This causal chain cannot reify the whole store of the affects, which exceed its capacity or potential state of excitement in what we call pain, a derangement which threatens the stabilization attained by the immediate or real ego, an ego which is simply the most comprehensive such causal sequence we have yet imagined, in whose temporal succession there is organized all other casual series or drives. The Eternal Return is the strongest crystalization of this real ego, its amnesiac salvation from recognition of the ontos. The mind requires the dynamic of the real-ideal, of immanence and transcendence, the daemonic- a dynamic that goes beyond what the previous model of causality can do, in order to reify the disintegrated sensory-organic world in toto as the new, spiritual body of Novalis. The ontos, Being seen from without as under the aspect of eternity and within which there is no causality but only an absolute, acausal inter-correlation of contents, represents the Parmenidean fulfillment of Being, the mystical Pleroma, the Being of beings of Heidegger, etc, from which the thousand worlds fall like drops of water into the sea of time. Each universe is simply one inter-relation causally unfolded from the ontos into the false reality of our particular spacetime and the externalized projected schemata of our purely evolutionary neuro-organic system; these universes can be quite different from one another and have different laws and constants by which they are ruled. All of science in the modern era, in our higher mathematics and in quantum theory, is just about imagining these different theoretical universes on paper at a whim and, through trial and error, hopefully coming across one such paper universe whose properties to some extent line up with our own universe, so that it can be used as a predictive-experimental model to help us design better microwave ovens. There is no greater truth to it, and there isn't even a lesser truth as used to be supposed in science. The world-ontos is simply a higher phase of the internal ontos of the affects, as we educe one out of the infinitude of inter-relations within it and casually unfold it into a temporal reality as ego, as the real ego. Mere psychology has the same relation to this internal ontos as natural science does to the world-ontos, and the real ego is so much of a predictive model. Philosophic symbols, on the other hand, do not inter-relate the temporal sequences within the real as dialectical logic (and science) does, they daemonically orient the ego between the real and ideal, with a view to eternity and the ontos or Permenidean fulfillment of being, or the the Pleroma of the mystics. Philosophy is not simply a more comprehensive science, it is a completely different, as well as a higher, project of human knowledge. The philosophic-linguistic symbols introduce a basis for acausal association of these affective sequences, that is, the point of origin for the development of such discontiguous states of consciousness and the anti- nature of the spiritual body, the ideal-ego; as in Schelling, they are self-interpretive in that they symbolize the very psychodynamic forces which gave rise to them."

Thank you. With every new glance this philosophy provides more ways to draw the world into it.

For my own sake, I must now reiterate the categories of cognitive approach as I encounter them.

/ontological
/epistemological (epistemic is ontic but transcenent, the moving outward, epistemological is transcendental reflection of the ontic including the epistemic, being outward)
/coherence-related (wtp, vo, wtp, the unison of the ontic and the epistemic)
/orientation-related (philosophy, Plato's 'school of Eros', Nietzsche's revaluation of values, Parodites organization of the mental affects within their own nature, also the great philosophies from the East, Indian cosmology, the teaching of the dharma, which is a theory of transcendental coherence reflected in drawing the ontic out of itself more completely. Also, Laurence Lamperts vision of the political Nietzsche is an example of this categority, even though it doesn't concern itself with creation, it transforms mans approach to Nietzsche so as to orient it in the world, and it uses a philological heart to cohere, which gives it a claim to lordship over the epistemological category, which through the coherence category will cause it to reflect directly on the ontic real. That is politics: the discerning, 'owning' (in pezers sense of freedom) and appropriation of resources. It depends on the human how much the discerning and the appropriating overlap. The philosophers attempt is to hold the each on one hand discern the appropriating and appropriate the discerning and so on, like a DNA strand. When philosophy is more than an attempt, we find instead of two sides a heart, which is only able to express itself in the precise context where it finds itself, so that he is absorbed into the world of beauty, conquering ethics, "eternity" - and shines as a beacon, an ode to the future. "Under this sign you shall conquer" - now it's a matter of getting boots on the ground. Let it rain, I say, and we need an anthem. Is there a possible sequence of chords //& un-chords that could represent the daemonic as such in terms of a global audience?

I will get back in this thread in a day, after I visit the doctor. For now, just a quick message:


"How do you know? And: don't any of these lifeforms have a neocortex?"


Only mammals have a neocortex, and humans have one disproportionately large, we crossed a threshold with it and gained the ability to consciously re-program ourselves. My directed, intentional thoughts, over time, re-wire the synaptic map that connects organs of the brain to others, so that I can change the function even of my most primitive brain organs like the amygdala, and, with orientation to the third universe, I can gain access to an order of thoughts which cannot be reduced to the atomic interactions out of which my physical brain arises. Can you explain what the Mona Lisa is by describing the chemical properties and proportions of the dyes on its canvass? Philosophers have tried for eons to reduce qualia to quanta and the most recent attempt by the Will to Power is nothing different in that sense.

Comparing our brain to a quantum computer is not very fruitful because that kind of computer is not qualitatively different from the one I am using now, it's just faster. There is nothing a quantum computer can computer that this PC I am using now cannot- it would just take the later hundreds of thousands of times longer. But about quantum physics, pair production and super-symmetry would indicate that all discrete quanta- all particles, are produced in negating pairs, and the basic formula of quanta is dyadic- nature is organized in self-negating pairs of elementary particles, and the multiverse itself is arranged in self-negating irresolvable oppositions, like the two universes- this one, in which I am holding a cigarette in my left hand, and the other, in which I am holding it in my right hand. Adding all of these universes together produces nothing, zero. Being itself is the primordial self-negating ontos beneath apparent physis.

As for what you said about matter Pezer and thought having its ground there, my main thesis is that Being itself is self-negating; outside of the transcendent horizon of human consciousness it does not exist- outside of it, nothing exists. It can only be formulated as pure negation. Outside of us it's a meaningless sequence of dyads with an energy content of zero and nothing has ever happened cosmically: philosophically, it's an interminable profusion of self-nihilating conceptual oppositions, where one term in the binary relation is always grounded in a deeper conceptual sphere or immanent plane within our consciousness and possesses an excess- a logical datum that remains unincorporated in any plane of immanence, that is reified and becomes the basis for the next opposition, which we again consciously reify by integrating with the symbolic order.

Capable wrote:

No argument needs to be made against the kind of nonsense which these people have developed in their pseudo-academic stupor; one only needs to cast his gaze inward and draw upon the self-evidence of the immediate phenomenon of self-consciousness to refute it, namely the phenomena I call the daemonic- at least to refute it for one's self. Perhaps this view of human nature is quite accurate, if only with regard to those who promulgate it. "

I don't know what Parodites means by "the daemonic". Googling his name in combination with that phrase has not helped. It might be helpful to know why he calls it that.

I also wonder what difference, if any, it makes for my OP if Parodites' psychology is more accurate than Nietzsche's.

The meaning of the daemonic can be gathered from my general postings on this form. And yes Sau, it was not my intention to derail your thread, but I'm attracted to questions of suffering. The artistic redemption of the world which motivated Nietzsche just seems to me unfulfilling, a kind of regression into the Greek mind.

Yes, Being is self negating... But how? Will we be content to negate away? There are possible threads of all kinds possible from that question, from deeply religious to mystical to academic-scientific. But the philosophial thread, the highest negating form... How does it negate? Why negate this and not that aspect of being? What should philosophy nagate and why?

Nagating negation, so that we wind up looking at eternity, THIS sounds unsatisfactory to me. Nietzsche was digging for a way. He didn't cop out for some eternity, he produced a concept that constantly negates the negation of negativity: will to power: the eternal negating.

Quote :

Nagating negation, so that we wind up looking at eternity, THIS sounds unsatisfactory to me. Nietzsche was digging for a way. He didn't cop out for some eternity, he produced a concept that constantly negates the negation of negativity: will to power: the eternal negating.

But in a sense this is copping out. I agree with Parodites interpretation of the ER.
The eternity that exists daemonically, that is as a grand-polarity, is not something impotent before the world or separate of it. It is, of course, a will to power, but a specific form, too proud to go by that name, which Nietzsche himself called an insipid metaphor.

It is not for nothing a Heraklean coherence, rather than a Pythagorean one.

It's not a copping out as much as a canceling out. Nietzsche's treatment for eternalism, the virus in absolutism, what Parodites perhaps sees as a fruitless return to the Greek.

It's not a return per se, it's a picking up. A treatment. "Now that you have willed beyond your means, and seen the means lacking... what will you do with what you willed?"

Film seems like one excelent response to me. So does Capable's project of building a system. In fact, I think the latter is the higher path from which creek film will drink. As for Sawelios' project: coherence, the same picking up. And, to be absolutist, Parodites has given an excelent grounds from which to negate. As for me, I would remind us all of that which the philosopher loves to ignore, but which makes our path the absolute highest possible: mortality, and the funk that goes along with it.

I maintain that consciousness is pride, and that philosophy is the highest kind of pride - perhaps the only human consciousness that is higher than animal consciousness, rather than simply more complex; this is one truth Nietzsche was driven by, that man is weaker than animal.
Perhaps, he shed his hide out of fright.

There are three ways form an to go about it; 1, by cultivating the external world, by building, sowing, ruling and ordering, 2, by cultivating the body, by fighting and love making, etc and 3, by cultivating the mind. Nietzsche cleaned the mind, but cultivated, with his philosophy, mainly the first two. He cleaned the house and called out through time for friends to come join him. I am sure he would have appreciated the artificial dualism as he may have called it, for the means to power it provides. Art, as in the lie, is the negation. Art attains truth through the lie. Philosophy is the most sublime lie. Ultimately it is the lie that makes itself true by conquering the means for it, the means being man, who by being employed transcends into the superman.

Fright? He shed it out of voluptuous loneliness. A challenge to resound into the ages. Still I read just a title of his books and my whole chakra lines up into bliss. "Beyond Good and Evil." Beyond fucking good and evil! "Human, All Too Human!" The balls! The creativity! The originality! Mein got, we can't even touch him yet, though thankfully Sawelios still thinks w/he can.

On everything else, I agree. Not out of fright, out of pride. "Hide? These motherfuckers couldn't touch me if I sawed my legs off! Here, see me naked and trembling! It wil be a hundred years before men can dream of understanding my vulnerability!"

Look at it this way: here is a philosophy that acknowledges that the consequences of actions are never predictable, thus that the mind is unreal vs its ideal. "Power" is never attained permanently, except in love, basically - love being the fabric of coherence and sacrifice as negation, building a dwelling for the heart of being to endure itself with mercy. Within this mercy there is the possibility of philosophy-as-such, in which forgive me, we are all part taking here, because even from the first leisurely turn of a page that followed a frown or a smile, any goal has become background to the love between the philosopher and his words. To admit this is hard, but Nietzsche's background admits it for him. It is words we love, this is our Earth, and this goes for peasant and philosopher; tell a peasant he is king, and he will be a peasant-king for the rest of his life.

The only way to will to power directly is to cohere. Eros is the medium in general, within thought, eros takes on the shape of the self-negating strains of transcendent progression, 'dance'. A flock of birds is negating, 'thinking on its feet' - the instincts are there but broken, interrupted, in regular intervals. In a floc of bird we see the forms of the first harmonious thoughts. Such negational patterns are reproduced, every season, like thoughts in their contexts. The world thinks, but its beings are thought by it. Man is life beginning to think Earth.