Men are will to power, Women are power

Dude I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Hillary represents an inhuman machine of slavery, rape, death and debt. How the fuck could you want that to win?

Even when I despised Trump I never once wanted Hillary to win. I am a human after all.

I'll ease up a bit on the throttle now.

Capable - yes, this makes sense to me, the view of random as order, and the rulebook.
Yet, I take it upon myself to write my own rulebook, precisely because there is no valid one anymore.
Of course any particular standard is technically arbitrary - and thus there is also no philosophical objection.


Sauwelios -
I dont see Clinton as standing for liberalization. She has given no signals of that - her campaign is about heavy government spending on creating more legal restrictions, and about destabilizing Europe to fuck with Russia. She is very hateful of Russia, in what seems to be a banal hysteria.

Trump has always acted as a true New York liberal, sophisticated enough to personally do business with the Chinese. He is surely the most sophisticated and knowledgeable candidate at least since JFK, but I think since FDR.

In further response to your wondering, Capable -
the gender theory is philosophy in that exploded dichotomy, but the theorizing about homosexuality does not fall in the same category at all.
It is merely that now that I acknowledge gender as being absolute, (which is also the very reason why people want sex changes) I can utterly reject what has been shoved down my throat, the ideology of gayness. I respond with the ideology of not-gayness, so as to neutralize my world. I was force-fed all this shit about gay people being better than heterosexual people. At least better than me, because I was not gay, as was actually expected of me. Still faggots expect it of me. Not all gay people are faggots. Just those that expect people to become gay for their pleasure or emotional comfort. It's rape.

Heterosexual sex is "philosophical" because it is reproductive, it is seed and ground.
Homosexual sex is arbitrary, produces only pleasure. That is why so many gays have such utterly rampant sex lives. It is not, to my idea, "philosophical". Socrates as the anti-philosopher fits this picture.

I dont hate gays, but I despise gay politics. I'm fully behind Putins law against gay propaganda. The fact that gay propaganda presents this law as a law against gays points precisely to the necessity of outlawing such propaganda.

Who the hell wants to actively propagate a troublesome sexual orientation? And troublesome it is, Ive not seen exceptions. This is why the better ones become so refined, and the not so great ones so insidiously self-blind or perhaps worse, consciously deviant and devoid of conscience.

I did not intend to draw you into this here, S - rather to discuss it in private- and that was before I went into the politics.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/10/30/giuliani-clinton-operation-beyond-the-law-maybe-its-finally-caught-up-to-them/

It is looking less and less like Clinton is going to win. The evident illegality of her operation isn't going away.
I can see willing a Clinton victory in terms of causing a violent cataclysm, but I think the result would simply be anti-politics and a kind of Terminator landscape. The Middle East is at this point far worse than that Terminator 2 opening, but Drones are the common factor. This all doubled or tripled with Clinton as SS.

I do not consider the function of sex being to make kids. That is the biological function, purely, what sex is for for non-human animals. But for a human, sex is primarily about intimacy. The fact that sex can (but does not always) produce children is a side-effect, for us humans. Most people have sex because of the intimacy, the existential completeness and closeness between two people, the worshipping of beauty and the immersion in desire and pleasure-value, and not just to procreate.

So I have a very hard time looking at sex as if the philosophical significance of it were simply to have kids, and if having kids doesn't happen as a consequence of sex (for whatever reason) then somehow sex is supposed to not be philosophically significant... I cannot agree to that. Pleasure and desire are ends in themselves, and this isn't itself philosophical yet but leads into the territory of the philosophical. Procreation is a biological necessity, and has been hard-wired in connection to pleasure and desire simply because natural selection found this useful to connect them like that. But procreation isn't very philosophically interesting. A person's value, life, contribution, meaning, philosophical quality or whatever you want to call it, has little or nothing to do with if they have kids or not. As far as I know, none of us here has any kids, and yet our contributions and philosophical significance are immense. And if one or more of us were to have kids that would not suddenly make our contributions and philosophical significance jump up, in fact it would probably cut it down by a huge margin.

And Hillary Clinton is a piece of shit, can't we all just agree on one basic fact? There are only two reasons someone would like Hillary: either they haven't been paying attention, or they are brainwashed by political correctness (and these two reasons are, more or less, the same reason).

She and what she represents are a part of the history of western civilization, but by no means the most significant or primary part, more like a deranged side-effect. You (Sauwelios) can connect Hillary to that tradition of western civilization and its values and progress over time, but that is basically to nullify that tradition itself for one of its pathological and excessive elements, something that grew up within that civilization and now needs to be cut off, like pruning a tree of its dead branches to keep the rest of the tree alive.

A "will to power" grew up in western civilization, many such wills have grown up within it, but this particular will which Hillary represents is especially insane and anti-philosophical (I absolutely disagree that Socrates was an anti-philosopher, by the way; that statement saying he is, causes me a great deal of... anger, I guess I would call it), and will happily keep destroying the world if we let it. This is another problem with Nietzsche's concept of the will to power, and I an getting tired of explicating it every time the topic comes up, yet for some reason this insight has yet to really sink in: Nietzsche give no formula for distinguishing between wills to power, except to say that the "stronger" will conquers the "weaker" one, which is basically saying nothing than a truism of "whichever will ends up conquering, I am defining as the stronger one". Wow, how fucking profound (not really).

Nietzsche's view of the will to power and its values-architectural constructions is truistic like that, it is a closed loop, begs its own question, tries to define itself by what it supposedly is, a "quantum of power".  Ask Nietzsche what it means to be a strong will to power, his answer is going to be: 'a strong will to power is a will to power that conquers other wills to power, that incorporates them into itself'. Ok, but that is just the definition of "will to power", and not at all a statements about what it means to be a strong will to power, what "will" and "to" and "power" actually mean here, much less what a philosophically valuable will to power might look like. No one has apparently asked the simple question of Nietzsche: when one will to power conquers another will to power, what does this really mean? What does "conquering" actually look like, how does it take place, what is conquered and why; what is the standard for success and failure? Is that standard simply whatever lives and whatever dies? Pretty much, yes, that is what Nietzsche means, and what you mean too, if you look behind the protestations of "increases of power over time" and such nonsensical truisms.

Start asking those fucking questions, already. Jesus fucking christ.

And since Clinton and what she represents is as close to a "pure will to power for its own sake" that I can imagine, I am not surprised when you (Sauwelios) support that, even and perhaps especially with the massively inhuman default of true value/valuing that Clinton et. al. represent.

Ive made a mistake drawing Sauwelios into this, nor was it my intention, I was just, as the OP can quite well tell for itself, rather upset and emotional. I can not realistically expect after 6 years that a shared or similar taste for philosophy between you two will arise.

However, Socrates.

C - you say it angers you to hear me say Socrates is an anti-philosopher. That is interesting to me, passion means there is something to be discussed here.

Ive never liked Soc. Ive read quite a bit of his dialogue, and find that he consistently tricks people into contexts without telling them.
I disagree with most if not all of his conclusions about the Good and the State and the Conscience of man, and the nature of Life, and the fate of death, he nature of the state , of the gods, on happiness, on masculine virtue, - I think he is just a brilliant comedian. I mean that. I dont see him as a philosopher, like I see Thales as one. I do not believe that Socrates has come up with anything at all.

I know I am quite alone in this, even Nietzsche, besides calling Plato a bore and all that, and Socrates as a decadent, also compares himself to Socrates. But Ive honestly only found Socrates to scheme, and there isnt a single thing he concluded that I know of and consider to be profound. In fact I consider his entire style of philosophizing frivolous and vain.

Sauwelios has spoken of Socs great weight in preserving philosophy for philosophers. In my reading, he simply marked the end of Athenian health, and nothing more. Surely a lot of intellectual contraptions were unleashed when that health was shed - but his notions of ethics, responsibility and and happiness do not seem to have produced much of any of those things in the world he left behind.

This most revered bit of his philosophy is to me the absolute hollowness, as later on Bertrand Russell would exemplify it. Honestly, I can not respect this even from a 13 year old mediocre student.

From Euthydemus

Quote :

   “So what follows from what we’ve said? Isn’t it this, that of the other things none is either good or bad, and that of these two, wisdom is good and ignorance bad?”

   He agreed.

   “Well then let’s have a look at what’s left,” I said. “Since all of us desire to be happy, and since we evidently become so on account of our use—that is our good use—of other things, and since knowledge is what provides this goodness of use and also good fortune, every man must, as seems plausible, prepare himself by every means for this: to be as wise as possible. Right?”

   ‘Yes,” he said.

Is this not the ultimate ruin of substantive thought? Is this not the utter negation of valuing? Is this not the perfect hollowness? Soc. invents right here the horror of the empty-universal, which from here on goes on to signify the value of man to himself - as precisely 0.

Soc here conjures up the idea of "happiness as such" and "use as such". He instrumentalizes the world, and the human, to a hollow end. Consumerism is the direct result actually.

What a god damn moron. Now theres a guy that truly pisses me off.

I see your points about Socrates of course, but where I disagree is that while S tricked people into contexts as you accurately point out this is precisely the birth of philosophy in a Nietzschean sense. The contexts were invisible, even to the pre-Socratics, therefore someone needed to make this fact known somehow. S asked into unstated assumptions and presumptions, which is exactly what honest philosophy always does. As for his ethics of philosophy as care for the soul (for the self, for the being which one is and how and why and what one is, which absolutely cannot be exhaustively explicated or even nearly so, thus S properly doesn't even try) I see it this way too. Philosophy originates in "the soul" (the unfathomable Self, that which one is whatever it might happen to be (usually we have no idea what it is, now luckily we at least know that it is a self-valuing, and I also happen to know something of the nature of its consciousness as I've explained elsewhere)) and it also terminates there.

The Plato/Aristotle split is one thing, but Aristotle is only possible because of Plato, as a kind of fusion-return to pre-Socratic with Plato'a Soctates. I see a very interesting dialectic or daemonic procession here: pre-Socratics allowed for a possibility of a pure questioning and invocation of context-assumptions that were previously unstated, namely Socrates; he is like a null point that emerges as the antithesis ending acts as the Sign of that for which it is antithesis. Then we have Plato's elaborating a new philosophical system and then we have Aristotle making use of that system to recoup some of the original pre-Socratic ground of assumptions to certainties, thus inventing science.

Socrates is noble in my view because he has no ax to grind, because he grinds them all and does so with the express aim of forcing more depth for its own sake upon Athenians. The fact that the Athenians cried and complained and didn't like that Depth isn't Socrates' problem, in fact that is his very point.

Yes it is the birth of consumerism and instrumental reason or could reasonably be argued to be, but those things are truths that must be faced. Why fear (avoid) them forever? I'm not saying you do, I'm saying that Socrates shows ugly truths. We can't fault him for the fact that they are ugly. In fact the quoted text you mentions breaks down on a single unstated assumption of Socrates himself, namely that people want to be happy-- much of the time that is precisely what people do not want.

It can also be interpreted, his comments on use, that he means the simple act of values-interacting and of valuing per se. That the analytic retards like Russell don't think past "use" into value isn't really Socrates' fault, in my opinion anyway. Nietzsche certainly didn't fall into that trap.

I can respect that meta-philosophical, or historical view, and I would think its actually related to Sauwelios' view. But I just can not respect Socrates' method of arguing and disagree that it introduces a depth - as even if it may introduce a new probing, it disregards the depth of ground that brought about the Athenian consistency, it namely disregards particularity.  

And all is revealed here, in that Thales and Parmenides regard being as fundamentally happy, overflowing, positive, and aimless, Socrates regards being as fundamentally lacking, and moving towards a theoretical universal of Fulfillment. He thus represents a thirst, which in turn represents an emptiness, against the fullness of the men of the 6h century BC.

How did Aristotle develop science, in actual functioning terms? I would attribute far more of it to Pythagoras, and people like Archimedes.

To my mind Soc was the first Analytic philosopher, the first one who refused to use his senses, who actively tried to work them out of the equation of valuing. I see this as the beginning of an unparalleled catastrophe of the soul.

I always see a pure joyfulness from Socrates. I think it was just his fate to be the anti-system builder par excellence. Nietzsche revived that tradition in the 19th century, thankfully. We absolutely need such people, but I agree with you that the primary task of philosophy is to build. With Aristotle I meant his detailed examinations of for example animals and nature, his applying firm rational objective standards to empirical inquiry, and the fact that he pushes into to many different areas. I always read Aristotle as someone who took philosophical method from the "pure thought" of someone like Plato and applied it with critical objectivity to the natural world. Aristotle values the natural world intrinsically and as a philosopher values his ideas and truths, to me that is science. But yeah you're right that others like Pythagoras contributed a lot too, before Aristotle... I just see a kind of critical objectivity and "anti-pure thought/anti-idealism" in Aristotle, that seems lacking in other philosophers who came before him and also studied nature. Mathematics for example isn't really science, it's much closer to pure thought/ideality than to empiricism.

In the way you see Socrates as the first analytic, I understand your distaste for him. I just don't see him like that. Maybe I need to go back and re-read him, it has been a while.

I have the distinct idea that what Aristotle developed is precisely what science is not.
He was no empiricist, but an a-priori-ist.

From Soc via Plato to Aristotle, I see no substance being inserted - only an expansion of the hollow assumption - what later, in the Aristotelean muslims, was developed as the concept "0".

Okay, so Soc. is responsible for the western notion of "0". That makes sense. It is also respectable as an accomplishment.

Capable wrote:

I always see a pure joyfulness from Socrates. I think it was just his fate to be the anti-system builder par excellence. Nietzsche revived that tradition in the 19th century, thankfully. We absolutely need such people, but I agree with you that the primary task of philosophy is to build. With Aristotle I meant his detailed examinations of for example animals and nature, his applying firm rational objective standards to empirical inquiry, and the fact that he pushes into to many different areas. I always read Aristotle as someone who took philosophical method from the "pure thought" of someone like Plato and applied it with critical objectivity to the natural world. Aristotle values the natural world intrinsically and as a philosopher values his ideas and truths, to me that is science. But yeah you're right that others like Pythagoras contributed a lot too, before Aristotle... I just see a kind of critical objectivity and "anti-pure thought/anti-idealism" in Aristotle, that seems lacking in other philosophers who came before him and also studied nature. Mathematics for example isn't really science, it's much closer to pure thought/ideality than to empiricism.

Well thats the thing. Socrates is incredibly joyful. And I like him a lot as a figure, I laugh when I read his dialogues - but all I conclude from the way he comes and goes is: 'this guy is such a dirty rat, lol, what an arrogant sack of shit...'

but heres the thing. The people he brings to their knees, these are all inferiors to him. They are already separate of the original philosophical impulse that was not Ahtenian but Ionian, western Turkey - Thales, Anaximander, Parmenides. These were knowers of the ontic.


POEM OF PARMENIDES
English translation : John Burnet (1892)

Parmenides wrote:

I

The steeds that bear me carried me as far as ever my heart
Desired, since they brought me and set me on the renowned
Way of the goddess, who with her own hands conducts the man
who knows through all things. On what way was I borne

5 along; for on it did the wise steeds carry me, drawing my car,
and maidens showed the way. And the axle, glowing in the socket -
for it was urged round by the whirling wheels at each
end - gave forth a sound as of a pipe, when the daughters of the
Sun, hasting to convey me into the light, threw back their veils

10 from off their faces and left the abode of Night.
There are the gates of the ways of Night and Day, fitted
above with a lintel and below with a threshold of stone. They
themselves, high in the air, are closed by mighty doors, and
Avenging Justice keeps the keys that open them. Her did

15 the maidens entreat with gentle words and skilfully persuade
to unfasten without demur the bolted bars from the gates.
Then, when the doors were thrown back,
they disclosed a widepening, when their brazen
hinges swung backwards in the

20 sockets fastened with rivets and nails. Straight through them,
on the broad way, did the maidens guide the horses and the car,
and the goddess greeted me kindly, and took my right hand
in hers, and spake to me these words: -
Welcome, noble youth, that comest to my abode on the car

25 that bears thee tended by immortal charioteers ! It is no ill
chance, but justice and right that has sent thee forth to travel
on this way. Far, indeed, does it lie from the beaten track of
men ! Meet it is that thou shouldst learn all things, as well
the unshaken heart of persuasive truth, as the opinions of

30 mortals in which is no true belief at all. Yet none the less
shalt thou learn of these things also, since thou must judge
approvedly of the things that seem to men as thou goest
through all things in thy journey."

II

Come now, I will tell thee - and do thou hearken to my
saying and carry it away - the only two ways of search that
can be thought of. The first, namely, that It is, and that it is
impossible for anything not to be, is the way of. conviction,

5 for truth is its companion.. The other, namely, that It is not,
and that something must needs not be, - that, I tell thee, is a
wholly untrustworthy path. For you cannot know what is
not - that is impossible - nor utter it;

III

For it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be.

IV





V





VI

It needs must be that what can be thought and spoken of is;
for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for, what is
nothing to be. This is what I bid thee ponder. I hold thee
back from this first way of inquiry, and from this other also,

5 upon which mortals knowing naught wander in two minds; for
hesitation guides the wandering thought in their breasts, so that
they are borne along stupefied like men deaf and blind.
Undiscerning crowds, in whose eyes the same thing and not the
same is and is not, and all things travel in opposite directions !

VII

For this shall never be proved, that the things that are not
are; and do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry.
Nor let habit force thee to cast a wandering eye upon this
devious track, or to turn thither thy resounding ear or thy

5 tongue; but do thou judge the subtle refutation of their
discourse uttered by me.

VIII

One path only is left for us to
speak of, namely, that It is. In it are very many tokens that
what is, is uncreated and indestructible, alone, complete,
immovable and without end. Nor was it ever, nor will it be; for

5 now it is, all at once, a continuous one. For what kind of origin
for it. will you look for ? In what way and from what source
could it have drawn its increase ? I shall not let thee say nor
think that it came from what is not; for it can neither be
thought nor uttered that what is not is. And, if it came from

10 nothing, what need could have made it arise later rather than
sooner ? Therefore must it either be altogether or be not at
all. Nor will the force of truth suffer aught to arise besides
itself from that which in any way is. Wherefore, Justice does
not loose her fetters and let anything come into being or pass

15 away, but holds it fast.
" Is it or is it not ? " Surely it is adjudged, as it needs must
be, that we are to set aside the one way as unthinkable and
nameless (for it is no true way), and that the other path is real
and true. How, then, can what is be going to be in the

20 future ? Or how could it come into being ? If it came into
being, it is not; nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus is
becoming extinguished and passing away not to be heard of.
Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more
of it in one place than in another, to hinder it from holding
together, nor less of it, but everything is full of what is.

25 Wherefore all holds together; for what is; is in contact with what is.
Moreover, it is immovable in the bonds of mighty chains, without
beginning and without end; since coming into being
and passing away have been driven afar, and true belief has cast them away.
It is the same, and it rests in the self-same place, abiding in itself.

30 And thus it remaineth constant in its place; for hard necessity
keeps it in the bonds of the limit that holds it fast on every side.
Wherefore it is not permitted to what is to be infinite; for it is in need of nothing ; while, if it were infinite, it would stand in need of everything. It is the
same thing that can be thought and for the sake of which the thought exists ;

35 for you cannot find thought without something that is, to which it is
betrothed. And there is not, and never shall be, any time other, than that which
is present, since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable.
Wherefore all these things are but the names which mortals
have given, believing them, to be true –

40 coming into being and passing away, being and not being,
change of place and alteration of bright colour.
Where, then, it has its farthest boundary, it is complete on
every side, equally poised from the centre in every direction,
like the mass of a rounded sphere; for it cannot be greater or

45 smaller in one place than in another. For there is nothing
which is not that could keep it from reaching out equally, nor
is it possible that there should be more of what is in this place
and less in that, since it is all inviolable. For, since it is equal
in all directions, it is equally confined within limits.

50 Here shall I close my trustworthy speech and thought about the truth.
Henceforward learn the opinions of mortals,
giving ear to the deceptive ordering of my words.
Mortals have settled in their minds to speak of two forms, one of which
they should have left out, and that is where they go astray from the truth.

55 They have assigned an opposite
substance to each, and marks distinct from one another. To the
one they allot the fire of heaven, light, thin, in every direction
the same as itself, but not the same as the other. The other is
opposite to it, dark night, a compact and heavy body. Of these

60 I tell thee the whole arrangement as it seems to men,
in order that no mortal may surpass thee in knowledge.

IX

Now that all things have been named light and night; and the things
which belong to the power of each have been assigned to these
things and to those, everything is full at once of light and dark night,
both equal, since neither has aught to do with the other.

X

And thou shalt know the origin of all the things on high,
and all the signs in the sky, and the resplendent works of the
glowing sun’s clear torch, and whence they arose. And thou
shalt learn likewise of the wandering deeds of the round-faced

5 moon, and of her origin. Thou shalt know, too, the heavens
that surround us, whence they arose, and how Necessity took
them and bound them to keep the limits of the stars . . .

XI

How the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the sky that is
common to all, and the Milky Way, and the outermost Olympos,
and the burning might of the stars
arose.

XII

The narrower circles are filled with unmixed fire, and those
surrounding them with night, and in the midst of these rushes
their portion of fire. In the midst of these circles is the divinity that directs
the course of all things; for she rules over all painful birth and all begetting,

5 driving the female to the embrace of the male, and the male to that of the female.

XIII

First of all the gods she contrived Eros.

XIV

Shining by night with borrowed light, wandering round the earth.

XV

Always straining her eyes to the beams of the sun.

XVa



XVI






XVII

On the right boys; on the left girls.

XVIII








XIX

Thus, according to men’s opinions, did things comp into
being, and thus they are now. In time (they think) they will
grow up and pass away. To each of these things men have
assigned a fixed name.

It is clear to me that I need to go back and re-read some Plato and Aristotle to have more to add here. It's been years since I seriously read either of them. I suppose now with the philosophical heights I've found since then I will come to some different insights.

"For it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be."




This is an immensity deeper than anything Soc. or Aristotle understood, though Plato was possessed of the idea as he was possessed of all the great logicians. I think now he possibly made Soc. up entirely.

It is also the statement that drove Wittgenstein into thinking that this means that there is such a thing as The World as an a priori logically or nominally or analytically coherent system of sorts consisting of discrete things that can /be thought /be - but that is nonsensical. Parmenides is uttering of self-valuing. He is saying that all of which we can say that it exists, is what we can say exists. He is is just saying that "being" is a thought, and at the same time thought is a form of being. He is saying the two words don't ultimately mean a different thing than the relation between them.

/edit
Hegel suggestion deleted
(I should stop prescribing)


Socrates will always keep merit as the genius who invented universal individualism. He is therefore responsible for all the worst shit, haha.

Before him, only true ontic individuals were individuals. After him every idiot wanted to be god. Jesus was the direct result, as this bullshit Testaments were written in Hellenic Greek as a cultural product of the lower classes of the Alexandrine world, which happened to include the Hewbrew tribes who produced such genius as no other and inevitably inspired some mysticism with their notions.

Yes and now that I am thinking of it, I see philosophy (the real philosophers) break down into two camps (not the false camps of continental vs. analytic, since of course only the "continental" are truly philosophers): there is the one side of pure critique and depth for its own sake without attempt to build or assert certainties, without attempt to posit ground; and then there is the other side of system-building, positing grounds and employing certainties for construction purposes. On that first side we have Socrates, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, on the other side we have Kant, Hegel and Heidegger, for examples.

Parmenides is indeed profound. I remember being elevated into a strange place subjectively speaking, once when reading him, in my early philosophy years. Similar to what used to happen when I would read Tao Te Ching. I don't get into these sort of texts anymore, I guess I have other things to work on, or I have lost patience or perspective for them, but they certainly have their place.

In terms of those two camps of philosophy, I consider myself as striding both camps equally. To my knowledge only myself and Parodites really do that. Nietzsche sort of does, but he should have built more. He focused on building a small set of key concepts, and that was about it. He certainly never took it to a level of building systems or worlds. But most philosophers definitively fall into either camp, and I think the rules and expectations are very different for a philosopher depending on which camp one is in. For instance, Wittgenstein as builder-philosopher is pure shit, but as depth-inciter and questioner-philosopher he has much to offer (often in spite of himself, of course).

Edit: No, I absolutely do want to bring them to Hegel, and him to them.

Yes, but with VO I have transcended the distinction entirely.

In my case, every single thought for its own sake or depth for its own sake, which is how I have come into being indeed, is now systemic. But the system is my own creation, and (thus) unfathomable to me - this was the abyss I crossed, first in 2010 through near death to VO, then in 2013 through near death back to the World of Things, which from then on I have been animated from within, from a 'thing beneath things' - my self-valuing as a philosopher taken as the all-applying absolute.

As soon as my self-valuing as a philosopher clicked into place, which was by the gift of a dwelling to a fellow philosopher, a mechanism was triggered into my greater self-valuing, at the end of which I was financially free. It was a nuclear fission that I caused in order to atomize myself, withdraw from the bigger atom.

VO is system building proof that logic only exists as lubricant. It is a clean-ness of valuing from the very peak of human valuing - I stood at the peak we call philosophy-pure and was able to turn 360 degrees  (abandon my perspective) and visualize a firmament on that height and then retain my perspective and go down the mountain. But it had grown very dark below... before the light... then I replied to your Kant post, and a torch was lit.

So the order is first I understood, the thought clicked into place, then while in infinite bliss of certainty of being I was in the dark as to the entire content of it, except my lover and this forum and the friendships on it. As I ended the relatrionship in confusion, BTL was all that was left of the valuing that had substance as pertaining to a possible synthetic fresh start - an ontic coup d'etat. Finally, it worked. With all the work all of us produced, something of a new Plateau came into being on which I could conceive an entirely philosophical Being. In that process I began to focus my actions more in these terms and this has paid off into what logically had to follow; a purified self-valuing, more power to know myself, which is the purest power. Consider that weakness is how we usually learn about ourselves, and what this means about how power takes shape when it is purified...

to begin small to grow very great;
Spontaneous Canadian wisdom, or the way of the seed

To begin very small again also allowed me to re-learn the acquaintance with my friends and family --- of many of them I found that they have structurally betrayed my trust in them. I think this was a large part of the scourging desert that I went through trying for a synthesis of my approach to the world with this newly born logic. I've had to disavow quite a bunch of them, because I could simply not reconcile how they'd made it clear to regard me with what I can understand a rational or dignified self-valuing to conceive of at the same time as interacting pleasantly with me. That to me is betrayal of an ontic order, and the loathing I feel for them is part of a coin of absolute bliss. Fuck Buddhism, fuck hate, only disengaging traitors works for me. Separation is the first step of the implementation of the revaluation of all values.  As for system building, a corner stone is to identify what you wish to keep out. So these things have been happening at once; financial security and an expulsion of the unworthy. Valuing my valuing as reality itself is all it took.