What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?

Capable wrote:

Obviously we cannot discount N's contribution to properly naturalizing theory here: much of what people call "evil" is just a "bad" with which they happen to not agree, don't feel comfortable to or do not benefit from personally. But philosophers are in the business of seeking truths, not avoiding them.

We build from N and keep going.

Evilly.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Nietzsche's definition of evil is very simple in fact: that which is too strong.

I cannot accept this definition. It is categorically indistinguishable from a definition of Good. I must push to the content-logic, into the depths.

Beyond good and evil thus means: where the distinction no longer applies.

N was singularly polemical against (modern) Christianity. I read his comments on good and evil as almost entirely in this light.

Yes, we must substantiate it.
Evil is however necessarily a part of that which the good builds.

thinking-building involves evil.  But it must stay clean of its logics, if these rise from a lack.
But perhaps it needs to purify the notion of it so as for it to be proper cement.
The criminal world serves usually as the specie between the layers and instruments of power, as medium, plasma.

It is not necessarily evil, at all though -

evil is however purely a qualification. Is it not?

I see criminality as a working compromise between irreconcilable socio-valuational elements. I know what motivates much crime is simply "lack of self" combined with fear-pressure (peer-pressure), through which a species of compensatory will to power crowns itself.


Everything worthy of the name 'human self-valuing' is already in a certain real sense "beyond good and evil", even Biblical psyches cannot escape that. But this shouldn't be mistaken for thinking that good and evil don't exist or still hold no force and substance-meaning over human self-valuing.

Therefore the obvious consequent insight: much "evil" is not really evil (and much good is not really "good").

Human self-valuing rides the grooves and tectonic molecularity of irreconcilable situation-dynamics; it does this with grace and style, and joy.

Capable wrote:

N was singularly polemical against (modern) Christianity. I read his comments on good and evil as almost entirely in this light.

Yes, he explicates its genesis as the transition from the Hebrew particularist monotheism to the Christian Universalism;
and he 'blames' this on the genius-of-hardness of the Jews and the weakness of the people who became the Church; the eunuchs and such, 'advisors'.

What happened, for those who haven't read N, is that tje Jews, when conquered, simply intellectually decided that they had in fact won, but only in the future. This is precisely what creating a morality is; it is the action that is explained in the OP. So then they waited, and voila, some thousands years later, shakalazam - kerrpow. One jew invents banking, the next one invents the atomic bomb, the nation is restored, all's good in the hood. Morality, It works.
If you know your way around an anvil.

In the meantime, the Christians adopted the Jewish god, had him kill their ... son, king, great person, and insurrect himself in themselves - and then all sorts of manners of consequences came to co exist with one another in the soul, that was then built, out of a pure negativity consumed in itself; the god of the other ruling all through killing his son and this being the eternal good; suchly the Roman and the German and the Slav and Celt and Visigoth souls were stirred into what Parodites makes understood as the soul, as it presently lives - of which Nietzsche is an extreme consequence, but not the greatest consequence; what lies beyond Nietzsche is extra-Christian, but the West is entirely Christian, and thus so is the world. N can only be a small preserve of rare plants, on top of a Christian world; or at the heart of it, as its contradiction perhaps, its magnetizing masculine, as the Earth is thereby feminized and fertilized and finally revered as a mother - what bliss this will be for mankind, to simply know the strength of his ground, and what that means to all notions of love that have existed so far - with science, Man has access to an immense love now - but also to an absolute indifference. What separates them - perhaps evil is this very thin line itself.....

Another important point to examine: a question: Is non-philosophical human self-valuing capable of having upright-accurate intuitions/intimations of "good and evil"? Nietzsche would probably say no. I would say yes. I believe self-valuing as a concept proves the Yes here, by explaining how this is possible (I.e. Traditional pre-VO philosophy does not explain the genesis-cause for philosophy itself). (Although I must excerpt Parodites' philosophy from that critique.)

Capable wrote:

Another important point to examine: a question: Is non-philosophical human self-valuing capable of having upright-accurate intuitions/intimations of "good and evil"? Nietzsche would probably say no. I would say yes. I believe self-valuing as a concept proves the Yes here, by explaining how this is possible (I.e. Traditional pre-VO philosophy does not explain the genesis-cause for philosophy itself). (Although I must excerpt Parodites' philosophy from that critique.)

I see it rather as pointing to a need of full particular explication of self-valuing through philosophy and then tier by tier outward through law/art distinction into science and culture - and I see us as having attained such a core of self-valuing proper, that is to say a synthesis of the phenomenon under the cognitive-tectonic Law of self-valuing - the logic qua its legislative potential which must be activated for anything other than aberration to come from any institution.

I believe the law of increase of entropy is logically identical to the law of increase of bureaucracy. They both describe a state where self-valuing is attempted without structural integrity.

Thus all institutions so far have been at best tragic.

Institutions are very weird things.

Precisely.

That is not necessarily bad.

If we form them in terms of weirdness, they just might work.

Vast Ordering
Fractal

Porous Metaphysical Superstructure
Speculative Cosmos
Chaos 2.0

Thinking about it, I don't care much for the word/concept of "moral".

Nietzsche constantly spoke against the morality of his time - what he view as hypocritical Christian morality.

"Beyond good and evil" was a attempt to rise above this corrupt morality.

Perhaps a better concept is "value"? The values of the individual. The will to have the power to live one's life at a higher, and more free, state.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Vast Ordering
Fractal

Porous Metaphysical Superstructure
Speculative Cosmos
Chaos 2.0

I like this. Very relaxing and calming in a mental way.

Institutions strip individuality from people, like stripping flesh from bone. Institutions are probably necessary, but what the fuck are they really?

Institution-ism blurs the line between self-life and work-life. "Work life balance" they call it today, usually with a good dose of cynically irony and the half smile you give to a kid who asks about Santa.

Activity creates what will be used by others to support their own passivity. To exist in the furnace of the threshold actively creating new things is different from existing behind the curve to chew up whatever happens to fall to earth from the active mind. This is why good writers make writing look easy-- because it only looks easy to us, the passive ones before their work. To the writer, his own work never "looks easy".

Institutions attempt to raise passivity to the level of activity. This is "transhumanism" par excellence. It is no surprise or coincidence at all how modern capitalism and business environment wants to become "trans-friendly". "Trans" is the ethos of the Corporation. Discrete individuals are not allowed to exist within it; only images of individuals are tolerated, and only just barely.

Capable wrote:

Activity creates what will be used by others to support their own passivity. To exist in the furnace of the threshold actively creating new things is different from existing behind the curve to chew up whatever happens to fall to earth from the active mind. This is why good writers make writing look easy-- because it only looks easy to us, the passive ones before their work. To the writer, his own work never "looks easy".

Institutions attempt to raise passivity to the level of activity. This is "transhumanism" par excellence. It is no surprise or coincidence at all how modern capitalism and business environment wants to become "trans-friendly". "Trans" is the ethos of the Corporation. Discrete individuals are not allowed to exist within it; only images of individuals are tolerated, and only just barely.

Technically institution-ism is a "mental illness", if you talk to peoole with severe schizo you see they almost always have delusions about the government, "the system", corporations, they can't handle bureaucracy at all because it affects them to the core; and many of them talk with technical jargon and business-speak quite naturally, and in inappropriate times, as a way of compensating for the deep damage that has been done to them by institutional logic.

There is some small recognition of this kind of damage, called "revictimization through system encounter". But this awareness exists mostly to help institution-ism become more friendly-seeming and subtle in its deceptions. I can't see institutions ever truly acknowledging the damage they do to people.

Analytic philosophy is the attempt to institutionalize philosophy, thus academic philosophy naturally becomes highly "analytic". This is its comfort zone. And there is no "morality" anywhere in any of this -- morality is a strictly human, which is to say objective, affair.

Capable wrote:

Institutions attempt to raise passivity to the level of activity. This is "transhumanism" par excellence. It is no surprise or coincidence at all how modern capitalism and business environment wants to become "trans-friendly". "Trans" is the ethos of the Corporation. Discrete individuals are not allowed to exist within it; only images of individuals are tolerated, and only just barely.

Hard reality, what?

Capable wrote:

I can't see institutions ever truly acknowledging the damage they do to people.

Chuang Tzu said that about institutions in China 2400 years ago. Seems that few listened.

Capable wrote:

Institutions strip individuality from people, like stripping flesh from bone. Institutions are probably necessary, but what the fuck are they really?

Institution-ism blurs the line between self-life and work-life. "Work life balance" they call it today, usually with a good dose of cynically irony and the half smile you give to a kid who asks about Santa.

Yes - it is halfheartedness. The first nominal institutions were always populated by eunuchs, it seems. I think a bureaucrat is somehow the equivalent of a eunuch.


However, we can build a non bureaucratic institution- a first perhaps - taking VO as the institutional center-self-valuing and valuing designated parts of our work purely in terms of it,  as we've been doing quite consciously up here of course, why we made things like the Pentad and the Tower, which emptiness is testament to its functioning, just as the Pentads sporadic action clearly pushes philosophy forth seismically.  VO is capable of being an institution (it even brings about institutions entirely dedicated to discrediting it, thereby building interest in it) that serves only to create space for a philosopher to do his own bidding. So that a man like Parodites can be supported by an institution, which means that he commands that institutions standards - as with VO It is simply the highest standard that brings all others under it. It is thus not an empty placeholder but a container of an asymptotically approached absolute; the value of value, the standard of standard - these work 'magically' - that is to say as fully potentiating every intent that is addressed at it qua its logic, that is to say, properly. VO commands "standard-as-such"...

shit.


Thats hard.


And that is why I can safely let a Parodites roam the skies above me as I chop the wood for a fire, just as I can let you be a thundercloudscape as I put together an engine, or I can follow Pezers field-directions, or dance with the ultimate discord that Sauwelios creates in peoples hearts, hahaha -- that guy. He will always remain unfathomable.  He truly lives with the goddesses. This is why he is so utterly undriven to be assertive; is existence itself is an assertion against all things that are around him. Generally it is accepted as a very mild, elevating, soothing, cultivating presence - no one who is in a room with Sauwelios can not like him - and he can not not suffer anyone - but online it is the opposite. He suffers no one, and no one is allowed truly close. Except I, since I have conquered with VO - but it was only when I had accidentally managed to cause him to stray onto his own path into it that I truly believed VO could rule. S understands N as Nietzsche understood himself, I think. I think also this is why he takes all these vast circular roads around the hot core - compare it to Eris' orbit. The aim is to be both the Sun and the most distant satellite. In astrology, Pluto is assigned to subterranean power ('control', 'minerals', 'sex in art', etc), Eris isnt assigned to much yet beyond being given that name - not unfittingly, as as she entered Aries, long before she was discovered, the age of global wars began - she is not far from entering Taurus now, and I am certain that this will be the time that the Earth will come to fall into actual possession of discrete groups, whoever are the most capable two and a half (meta-)parties, Rulerships, Ideologies, Values by then. (I think this number is the lock - two on equal terms qua quantum of power in their own right, and a third that is needed by both to take from the other what they need. This 'half' is the resolution of the idea of the zero, and it is thus also clear which party is gong to represent this middle; this is perhaps the same as this 'evil' or 'courage' of the consolidated distance from the absolute; the absolute freedom of Arabs as traders, the engine to their religious might, their sheer manners, standards of transaction, the awareness that wealth is in transaction) But possession is a concept that only the Chinese and the English seem to understand effectively in global terms. Why Hong Kong was the ennobling center of cold war economy.  In Europe, it is the Austrians and Northern Italians. Switzerland and Germany their antipodes. Switzerland understands possession entirely locally, is the most genius selfvaluing on the planet, the oldest nation of the west and also the only one unconquered. It is host to Nestle and Cern, secret banking, (naturally they just moved to a deeper layer of secrecy when they 'gave up the secrets'- pruned the tree of wealth to grow much taller) and if there s any nation that knows it will keep forever conquering it is the Swiss. Ive been held by them for some hours on my way through, the way they carry their automatic weapons in their basically lederhosen-uniforms is just too comfortable. They also have the highest heroin addiction rate.  You are either filthy rich powerborker or absolutely off the grid. Switzerland is slowly assimilating Europe to itself and using Germany as the plasma. And thats perfectly natural, because it is the center of the continent and they have bloody well earned it with their war record, and back this up with inventions like the Swiss army knife, perhaps the singular Object of this world, precisely in its phallic multifariousness () and sheer applicability. Man is a tool to create tools, said Bergson I believe, or a tool to create tools to create tools... not that I agree, but the Swiss know how to work this definition. I do not admire them. They have no culture and a filthy dialect in all their 4 languages. I admire the Austrians, who are the cultural center of the continent, and somehow merge into the Swiss in the Alps after Innsbruck... I once drove to Italy over Innsbruck and had a steak with berries and whipped cream on a mountainside terrace, and felt for the first time that I had found 'the good place' - not as in great exaltation, but as in utterly unto-itself. Happening to be quite high up and amidst brook-veined forest. Then I passed down into Italy!!!

Capable wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

Vast Ordering
Fractal

Porous Metaphysical Superstructure
Speculative Cosmos
Chaos 2.0

I like this. Very relaxing and calming in a mental way.

I tended to slip into mushroom trips using that record.

This one is deadly clean, different trip altogether. I remember having it on a discman in a trip once (I had decided to be a french king on a walk), in a sandbox I ruined the discman, for which Sauwelios kept ridiculing me, but of which I was simply proud as I had experienced it as the perfect place for an object to come to its end - after having fulfilled the ultimate function to guide me in a trip. I've still never heard anyone to match the sheer saturation of their sound-objects. They were rumored to have been synthesizing their sounds on opium.

Sisyphus wrote:

Thinking about it, I don't care much for the word/concept of "moral".

Nietzsche constantly spoke against the morality of his time - what he view as hypocritical Christian morality.

"Beyond good and evil" was a attempt to rise above this corrupt morality.

Perhaps a better concept is "value"?  The values of the individual.  The will to have the power to live one's life at a higher, and more free, state.  

I do find that Parodites and Capable are on to vital fleshed out notions of morality beyond what N took on himself -- we must accept that N perished even of how much he took on, his plan was never for himself to carry the entirety of his philosophy; he spent himself fully so as to become a seed. And from this seed I have grown my notion. And Ive upheld the Nietzschean notion and arrived at value ontology through that, so I wont be the one to object to your statement here certainly as coming from a Taoist I suspect a simply truthfulness behind it. Nietzsche once called Buddhism a hygiene. I do experience zen as a mental hygiene. All things are rooted in themselves, and thoughts are things. I do not create thoughts. Well Ive created one thought, value ontology, out of the void.





Morality is not created for the individual - its like is a revenge by the individual on the world that did not give him what he asked, and at best it is a decision to make what the world did not provide. Or at worst.

A healthy morality is is a standard to be attained to, rather than to be upheld. That is to say that is functions as an ideal, a form of heroism. And not as a scare of hell and a degenerating influence on the hearts of children.

Capable wrote:

Capable wrote:

Activity creates what will be used by others to support their own passivity. To exist in the furnace of the threshold actively creating new things is different from existing behind the curve to chew up whatever happens to fall to earth from the active mind. This is why good writers make writing look easy-- because it only looks easy to us, the passive ones before their work. To the writer, his own work never "looks easy".

Institutions attempt to raise passivity to the level of activity. This is "transhumanism" par excellence. It is no surprise or coincidence at all how modern capitalism and business environment wants to become "trans-friendly". "Trans" is the ethos of the Corporation. Discrete individuals are not allowed to exist within it; only images of individuals are tolerated, and only just barely.

Technically institution-ism is a "mental illness", if you talk to peoole with severe schizo you see they almost always have delusions about the government, "the system", corporations, they can't handle bureaucracy at all because it affects them to the core; and many of them talk with technical jargon and business-speak quite naturally, and in inappropriate times, as a way of compensating for the deep damage that has been done to them by institutional logic.

This is categorically true to my experience of such people, as well as of my own brushes with that anti-suchness.

Quote :

There is some small recognition of this kind of damage, called "revictimization through system encounter". But this awareness exists mostly to help institution-ism become more friendly-seeming and subtle in its deceptions. I can't see institutions ever truly acknowledging the damage they do to people.

Analytic philosophy is the attempt to institutionalize philosophy, thus academic philosophy naturally becomes highly "analytic". This is its comfort zone. And there is no "morality" anywhere in any of this -- morality is a strictly human, which is to say objective, affair.

Comfort-zone philosophy, armchair philosophy, institutionalism, bureaucracy, brain damage, lobotomy, Bertrand Russell, etc.
Yes, thank fully brewing up the antidote is such a god damned pleasure.