Value Epistemology.

[To admins and mods: Feel free to move this thread to a different forum.]

What, in terms of the self-valuing logic, is knowledge? (I have my thoughts, but want to allow others to answer this question with a "blank slate", so to say. If you still want a template of sorts, try answering the question in such a way:

"Knowledge is [try using concepts like "value" and "(self-)valuing" here].")

Good question.

I contemplated it a bit,
best I can do so far is, knowledge is a vector.

It's a bit convoluted, this definition.

First of all I recognized that knowledge, once held, can't fail to animate. Whether acted on deliberately nor not a piece of knowledge can't be said to exist if it isn't of influence. So a piece of knowledge held by a selfvaluing is a will to power inside that selfvaluing. The knowledge 'tries' to value the possessor in its own terms; it 'tries', 'does its best', 'works to its capacity' to inform the decision making of its host. And if successful, it absorbs more knowledge of its type into the host-mind.

In spiritual (Geistliche) men there is often a piece of knowledge that accounts for the larger part of their self-valuing, they can literally live for a piece of knowledge, to sustain it, to nurture it, and to make it more powerful. A poet rather is someone who shuns exact knowledge, and lives for his creation of ideas. An idea is not the same as a piece of knowledge, it's rather a 'space' or 'field' or construct for whose structural integrity knowledge is used and in which following knowledge can be be assimilated. An idea is thus an even more powerful self-valuing inside the mind - in fact, almost all of us would be ruled in our behavior by ideas. We can say that we are ideas, - if we are fortunate. (Ein Zeichen sind wir - ohne bezeichnung" - paraphrasing Hoelderlin )

An idea would be a whoie three or four dimensional object, whereas a piece of knowledge is just in two dimensions - a vector, it pushes in a direction. To a value-field, naturally, it animals the selfvaluing towards a certain type of valuefield, which he can then plow and harvest through his fallible means, which almost never coincide with what a piece of knowledge requires to fully.... botvieren.... test it, falsify it, verify it, drive it to a consequence that measures its worth.

Interesting reply. I'm reminded of the concept of "memes". And I see how, to give a simple example, the knowledge that cats tend to have four legs is only a piece of the idea what a cat tends to be like (the mental image "cat", to use the etymological sense of the word "idea").

What makes your reply so interesting is also what leaves my question half unanswered, though. For it's all about "knowledge, once held". But what about before it is held? How does a piece of knowledge get held by a self-valuing? How does a cat, for instance, become an idea?

The way a selfvauing recognizes an entity or a type or a thing, i.e. another selfvalung, is purely by its beauty.
We only recognize and remember a cat because of how its selfvaluing, i.e. its actions, resound with our own already active values.

And that is thus also a statement that what we know of a cat, is only what we value of it.

Only that which is valued can be understood. And understanding is at the basis of an idea.

So essentially, we do not know "that cat" - we know our impression, and our continued impression.

But what the cat "is to itself" we shall never know. Nor if there is such a thing, or if it only appears to us.

Knowledge within VO is only ever of principle. And lo - whatever we think we know that is not principle, such as 'a cat has 4 legs' never amounts to 'catness'. I say thus that any true idea (and weve come to discuss the idea here, as cat is an idea and not just knowledge) eludes factual knowledge of attributes. It communicates itself directly to the selfvaluing. As a whole. But: as a whole impression. Not as a whole 'truth' or 'phenomenon'.

We can see, as I suppose you want some proof, that the opposite side of the coin is true: we never recognize the value , and thus also not the selfvaluing, and thus not the being, of that which we do not value.


As you can see this utterly shatters all knowledge theories that existed before VO.

So essentially knowledge is an extension of our valuing. Al knowledge is composed of valuing, of recognition of patterns that are also operative in us, as us, manifesting as our experience.

Sometimes we are forced to work with a piece of information that does not resonate with us, not only can we not understand or integrate it, it challenges what we do know. Cognitive dissonance is the result.

We see this clearly with Clinton supporters - they 'know', i.e. recognize in themselves, that the woman is such and such, and as more information comes in on how she actually has behaved, they literally go mad. Their knowledge of their values as they were apparent in Clinton is destroyed, and so are they destroyed. Their knowledge possesses them, and when it is defeated, they are defeated.

A gut-driven, panicky resistance to facts and logic, to consequence is the result, a spasmodic remnant of existence is in fact all that is left of them.

The more a person is secure of what is always the case (WtP, Selfvaluing) the more types of knowledge he can integrate.

Yes, brilliantly said. In Parodites' language: not every man is able to sustain the same number of daemonic polarities and types, nor the same intensity of these.

"Philosophy" is just the direct working upon one's subjectivity such as to center and ground one's various daemonic oppositions, and expand those oppositions until "thesis" states result, a more or less stable personality or mental characteristic. Then a new polarity is allowed to appear from within the newly-expanded subjectivity structure, for it has reified itself to a new scope and degree of reality.

Also adding to your insight here, basically in agreement with it, is Parodites' statement that knowledge is structure.

Right - and communication is the comparison of structures.

Also in DNA and its coupling, it's like a comparison, a weighing of form, a match-making.

Understanding is a forgery. Knowledge is forged steel, made of 'raw atoms' of factual occurrences, whereas an idea is a forged edifice in which a man/mind can live, dwell, think.

The uncertainty principle is the formal acknowledgement that knowledge is always partial. So is Relativity, by the way - in a more explicit way, saying even that the measure of knowledge is partial.

Both are acknowledgements of the reality behind reality, namely self-valuing qua difference, i.e. will to power.

Knowledge is partial to itself.
We might say self-valuing logic is knowledge to itself.

It is partial to the context in which it is grasped as meaningful.

A Venetian of the 13tth century might have great value for the knowledge 'the pigeon walks at noon on the ides' -
indicating a time and place of meet - whereas this might seem like a poem to a zen - affiliate.

" "A"="A" " requires a a lot of brackground information to be interpreted as knowledge.

"Adri Van Tiggelen did not score last week" is an absurdist poem, which could be interpreted as pertinent knowledge by someone who doesn't have the knowledge that Van Tiggelen is long retired, and hardly ever scored.

Just some random examples of how knowledge needs to refer to something that refers back to it, for it to exist to a self-valuing. It needs to self-value to be valued.

Fixed Cross wrote:

The way a selfvauing recognizes an entity or a type or a thing, i.e. another selfvalung, is purely by its beauty.
We only recognize and remember a cat because of how its selfvaluing, i.e. its actions, resound with our own already active values.

And that is thus also a statement that what we know of a cat, is only what we value of it.

Only that which is valued can be understood. And understanding is at the basis of an idea.

So essentially, we do not know "that cat" - we know our impression, and our continued impression.

But what the cat "is to itself" we shall never know. Nor if there is such a thing, or if it only appears to us.

Knowledge within VO is only ever of principle. And lo - whatever we think we know that is not principle, such as 'a cat has 4 legs' never amounts to 'catness'. I say thus that any true idea (and weve come to discuss the idea here, as cat is an idea and not just knowledge) eludes factual knowledge of attributes. It communicates itself directly to the selfvaluing. As a whole. But: as a whole impression. Not as a whole 'truth' or 'phenomenon'.

We can see, as I suppose you want some proof, that the opposite side of the coin is true: we never recognize the value , and thus also not the selfvaluing, and thus not the being, of that which we do not value.


As you can see this utterly shatters all knowledge theories that existed before VO.

I take it an ugly cat--for example one of those hairless ones--is then a cat that we don't understand; what we consider "ugly" about it is what we don't understand, what we don't want to understand, what we can't value about it.

In any case, I'm no longer interested in "knowledge", namely in the narrow sense of "pieces of knowledge". I understand that my idea of a cat is more than--and possibly even different, in part, from--the sum of all my pieces of knowledge of it.

I am then interested in how, in terms of the self-valuing logic, the idea is related to the reality. You already say that we can never know if there is such a thing as the cat "to itself", which I suppose refers to VO as a kind of poly-solipsism.

However, poly-solipsism is by definition not simply solipsism. So VO must posit that there is a the-cat-to-itself (or something to-itself that co-constitutes and/or includes the cat).

Its beauty for us is its projectability of our own self-valuing.

What then about saber-toothed cats? We can only value them as living and breathing beings, as self-valuings. But they're all long dead. Can we then value them as mere memes? Those may be self-valuings, but not saber-toothed cats...

Philosophy seeks to re arrange the entirety of knowing. It wishes for knowing to also know itself. I have forged such a ring. It is both reference and object of reference.

The ugliness of a cat is a reflection of what could be beautiful. It is a reflection of beauty, it jars with what is present in the mind as the idea it wishes to hold, it values enough to be conscious of it voluntarily - it does not elude it, it is not chaotic. But still it would be harder to reproduce it.
As I see it, every idea is a beauty. I am with Plato on that. But I disagree that there is such a thing as the idea separate of the entity.
So the entity the cat is only existent to us as the idea, which can expand by our sensory experience of it, but the cat, idea and whatever it is to itself, also indeed must be selfvaluing. I assume the cat exists to itself, but how can I know? Solipsism is merely an exacerbated skepticism, a mistaken form of the certainty that one can not know what is outside ones knowing, which everyone experiences as limited... except the one trapped in a psychotic state!

Value Ontology is and has been from the beginning understood as an epistemology that is equally an ontology.
I discussed this first here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I wrote:

When we study what exists, we must also study in what way we can know.

You ask how knowledge relates to reality - but I do not know what reality is except a piece of knowledge, that differs for each of us, and is thus not really a valid term, and it is exactly reality that we are defining in better ways with terms like will to power or Dasein or eros self-valuing - what is real to us? I say, that which is of value - and thus also immediately what is of anti-value.

Knowledge does not necessarily relate to reality in as far as being certain to be verified. That is the nature of knowledge, it is usually quite fragile. I am wagering my idea of selfvaluing is less fragile than most constructs of knowledge, as the knowledge is held together, held into being, in the very same manner as the known thing - by selfvaluing. And yet, as we see with "Adam" or "Alexander" or "Persepolis" - what is knowledge?

that is why we have myth - we know primarily ourselves - so to first expand on that, is a good way of securing more relatable knowing down the line.

How does one come to know?
Only through philosophy - and where it concerns facts, true hermetic logical relations, then I will have to say, only through VO. that is why I developed it - I could find no way of securing that I truly know something. Coinciding with Nietzsche's concept, this question led to the idea of supplanting the supremacy of facts to the supremacy of one mere fact: self-valuing logic is at the ground of all things which can be said to exist.

In this underscored phrase has been implicit from the beginning that VO is both epistemological and ontological in meaning.

Fixed Cross wrote:

the entity the cat is only existent to us as the idea, which can expand by our sensory experience of it, but the cat, idea and whatever it is to itself, also indeed must be selfvaluing. I assume the cat exists to itself, but how can I know? Solipsism is merely an exacerbated skepticism, a mistaken form of the certainty that one can not know what is outside ones knowing, which everyone experiences as limited... except the one trapped in a psychotic state!

But this implies a couple of big assumptions. Is not the distinction between sensory experience on the one hand, and the idea unexpanded by it on the other, itself also just an idea? And likewise, the distinction between being trapped in a psychotic state and experiencing the said (mistaken form of) certainty as limited? (After all, a psychotic believes he knows things really outside his knowing.)

Quote :

You ask how knowledge relates to reality - but I do not know what reality is except a piece of knowledge, that differs for each of us, and is thus not really a valid term, and it is exactly reality that we are defining in better ways with terms like will to power or Dasein or eros self-valuing

I get the impression that this means it's not so much the case that I'm a self-valuing, as that "my" Weltbild consists of a whole bunch of self-valuings--the idea of "me", the idea of "my cat", etc. etc. Then again, the phrase "each of us" implies that the idea "my cat", or at least "my girlfriend", "my friends","my colleagues" etc. have an idea of "me", of "themselves", that's different from "mine". So then there is a reality which is greater than my knowledge alone.

Quote :

I am wagering my idea of selfvaluing is less fragile than most constructs of knowledge, as the knowledge is held together, held into being, in the very same manner as the known thing - by selfvaluing.

But this precisely is my question: what's the relation, in terms of the self-valuing logic, between the knowledge and the known thing? What does the self-valuing whose knowledge it is do with regard to the thing from the time it's unknown till the time it's known?

Sauwelios wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

the entity the cat is only existent to us as the idea, which can expand by our sensory experience of it, but the cat, idea and whatever it is to itself, also indeed must be selfvaluing. I assume the cat exists to itself, but how can I know? Solipsism is merely an exacerbated skepticism, a mistaken form of the certainty that one can not know what is outside ones knowing, which everyone experiences as limited... except the one trapped in a psychotic state!

But this implies a couple of big assumptions. Is not the distinction between sensory experience on the one hand, and the idea unexpanded by it on the other, itself also just an idea?

I can't make sense of what you're asking.
Why "just" an idea? What else is WtP but "just an idea"?
Do you mean that to introduce an idea in a discourse is an assumption?

Surely, my thinking consists of ideas. Selfvaluing logic is an idea, so is logic. So is "the mind" and so is "I" and "you", and "idea" and "assumption".

Quote :

And likewise, the distinction between being trapped in a psychotic state and experiencing the said (mistaken form of) certainty as limited? (After all, a psychotic believes he knows things really outside his knowing.)

I didn't speak of a mistaken form.

But yes, all these things you speak of, these are ideas. Literally all you'll ever speak of are ideas.
Likewise, VO does not communicate itself in writing without words and ideas. "Value" is an idea. Ive radically expanded that idea, but it is still an idea.

Quote :

Quote :

You ask how knowledge relates to reality - but I do not know what reality is except a piece of knowledge, that differs for each of us, and is thus not really a valid term, and it is exactly reality that we are defining in better ways with terms like will to power or Dasein or eros self-valuing

I get the impression that this means it's not so much the case that I'm a self-valuing, as that "my" Weltbild consists of a whole bunch of self-valuings--the idea of "me", the idea of "my cat", etc. etc.

How can your Weltbilt consist of selfvalungs if you are not also a selfvaluing?
Are you not part of your Weltbilt?

Quote :

Then again, the phrase "each of us" implies that the idea "my cat", or at least "my girlfriend", "my friends","my colleagues" etc. have an idea of "me", of "themselves", that's different from "mine". So then there is a reality which is greater than my knowledge alone.

Or so you assume. In any case that reality will never reach you. All you can know is what your selfvaluing is capable of valuing of what they (appearances) tell you (what reaches you).

We both assume there is such a thing as "you". This is a basic cognitive selfvaluing, this assumption. But what is this "you"? Ive defined it as a valuing and value-integrating process, that keeps referring to itself so as to 'refer itself into existence' again and again.

Is this "real"? It is verifiably always the case. But can reality really  be verified? That is, I think, the underlying question. Is not verification a a forgery? It is in any case an interpretation.

So the question you may be seeking to ask is: to what extent do we manipulate reality into something else by interpreting it through the lens of VO?
My answer is: to a large extent.
And it is this manipulating that is itself the reality VO refers to!
Its circularity in referring to itself as referring to itself, this is part of its ouroborean power.

To even define one word in terms of other words at sall is a massive assumption. It assumes that language in general can pertain to reality, to begin with. But VO is prudent enough that it includes the uncertainty and imperfection of languages power to refer to reality into its notion.

Quote :

Quote :

I am wagering my idea of selfvaluing is less fragile than most constructs of knowledge, as the knowledge is held together, held into being, in the very same manner as the known thing - by selfvaluing.

But this precisely is my question: what's the relation, in terms of the self-valuing logic, between the knowledge and the known thing? What does the self-valuing whose knowledge it is do with regard to the thing from the time it's unknown till the time it's known?

It runs into it.

If there is no value relation, it does not run into it, and the thing does not become known.
Like for example Capable ran into the meaning of what I said here head on, whereas you pass partially through it. Likewise when you met your girl, you saw all sorts of value in her that you also see in yourself. You "already knew her"... before you met her. You correspond.  So with you and Zarathustra.

Likewise, we can not come to know what we do not, in seed form at least, already know.

And what is this prior knowledge? It is our selfvaluing, or recognition of value, a recognition of which we consist.
I.e.: there is no existence prior to knowledge - that we can know of.

VO is at base an ethics, a prudence: it doesnt allow for assumptions besides the assumption of a self, an "I", a perspective - and it clarifies that this perspective is actively upheld, even if it has no choice about it - that it is a necessary artifice -
and that "reality" is nothing but the derivative of such artifice - singular or plural - that very distinction is artifice, as there really is only one discrete thing: selfvaluing will to power: principle. And that one thing implies and thereby includes plurality without separating it from its singularity.


To drive it further a bit, in anticipation of further questioning:
That singularity refers to possibility, which is the basis of necessity.
I.e.: What is possible if everything is possible? Only one thing: the strongest, the best.

In this sense "the good" and "strength" and "existence" are synonyms.

In this way I am defeating the superstition of language: by showing that all truly positive designators refer to the same thing. There is no actual difference between "strength" and "beauty" or "consistency" - these are different ways in which we look at that which exist beyond reasonable doubt, be it as a function of us, or having us as a function of it, or both...

Suffice it to say, things that stand opposed arent isolated from each other. Their very difference from each other is an unbreakable bond. That bond is expressed through my logic as value.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Sauwelios wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

the entity the cat is only existent to us as the idea, which can expand by our sensory experience of it, but the cat, idea and whatever it is to itself, also indeed must be selfvaluing. I assume the cat exists to itself, but how can I know? Solipsism is merely an exacerbated skepticism, a mistaken form of the certainty that one can not know what is outside ones knowing, which everyone experiences as limited... except the one trapped in a psychotic state!

But this implies a couple of big assumptions. Is not the distinction between sensory experience on the one hand, and the idea unexpanded by it on the other, itself also just an idea?

I can't make sense of what you're asking.
Why "just" an idea? What else is WtP but "just an idea"?
Do you mean that to introduce an idea in a discourse is an assumption?

Surely, my thinking consists of ideas. Selfvaluing logic is an idea, so is logic. So is "the mind" and so is "I" and "you", and "idea" and "assumption".

Right, but you said the idea of the cat could expand by sensory experience of the cat, which means sensory experience is different from ideation. Solipsism is basically the idea that there's only one's own ideation, that one's "sensory experience" is just a mistaken form of ideation. If this idea is true, the solipsist is not "trapped in a psychotic state" but to the contrary, free from the illusion that there be anything outside one's knowing.

Quote :

Quote :

And likewise, the distinction between being trapped in a psychotic state and experiencing the said (mistaken form of) certainty as limited? (After all, a psychotic believes he knows things really outside his knowing.)

I didn't speak of a mistaken form.

Then I take it you meant "limiting" instead of "limited". I thought that was the case, but as I couldn't be sure, I added that parenthesis out of respect (benefit of the doubt).

Quote :

But yes, all these things you speak of, these are ideas. Literally all you'll ever speak of are ideas.
Likewise, VO does not communicate itself in writing without words and ideas. "Value" is an idea. Ive radically expanded that idea, but it is still an idea.

Of course, and I'm not criticizing this at all. All I'm doing is setting up my actual question, which depends on a distinction you, too, seem to make (see below).

Quote :

Quote :

Quote :

You ask how knowledge relates to reality - but I do not know what reality is except a piece of knowledge, that differs for each of us, and is thus not really a valid term, and it is exactly reality that we are defining in better ways with terms like will to power or Dasein or eros self-valuing

I get the impression that this means it's not so much the case that I'm a self-valuing, as that "my" Weltbild consists of a whole bunch of self-valuings--the idea of "me", the idea of "my cat", etc. etc.

How can your Weltbilt consist of selfvalungs if you are not also a selfvaluing?
Are you not part of your Weltbilt?

Right, hence the "not so much", as opposed to "not (at all)". The crucial distinction is whether those other self-valuings that are part of my Weltbild also have a "to-themselves", an idea of "me" of themselves--in other words, Weltbilds of "their own":

Quote :

Quote :

Then again, the phrase "each of us" implies that the idea "my cat", or at least "my girlfriend", "my friends","my colleagues" etc. have an idea of "me", of "themselves", that's different from "mine". So then there is a reality which is greater than my knowledge alone.

Or so you assume. In any case that reality will never reach you. All you can know is what your selfvaluing is capable of valuing of what they (appearances) tell you (what reaches you).

Exactly my point: it's an assumption (hence the "then"). But I think it's a crucial assumption if we are to speak of "knowledge", or of "sensory experience" and the like:

Quote :

We both assume there is such a thing as "you". This is a basic cognitive selfvaluing, this assumption. But what is this "you"? Ive defined it as a valuing and value-integrating process, that keeps referring to itself so as to 'refer itself into existence' again and again.

Is this "real"? It is verifiably always the case. But can reality really  be verified? That is, I think, the underlying question. Is not verification a a forgery? It is in any case an interpretation.

So the question you may be seeking to ask is: to what extent do we manipulate reality into something else by interpreting it through the lens of VO?
My answer is: to a large extent.
And it is this manipulating that is itself the reality VO refers to!
Its circularity in referring to itself as referring to itself, this is part of its ouroborean power.

To even define one word in terms of other words at sall is a massive assumption. It assumes that language in general can pertain to reality, to begin with. But VO is prudent enough that it includes the uncertainty and imperfection of languages power to refer to reality into its notion.

Quote :

Quote :

I am wagering my idea of selfvaluing is less fragile than most constructs of knowledge, as the knowledge is held together, held into being, in the very same manner as the known thing - by selfvaluing.

But this precisely is my question: what's the relation, in terms of the self-valuing logic, between the knowledge and the known thing? What does the self-valuing whose knowledge it is do with regard to the thing from the time it's unknown till the time it's known?

It runs into it.

If there is no value relation, it does not run into it, and the thing does not become known.
Like for example Capable ran into the meaning of what I said here head on, whereas you pass partially through it. Likewise when you met your girl, you saw all sorts of value in her that you also see in yourself. You "already knew her"... before you met her. You correspond.  So with you and Zarathustra.

Likewise, we can not come to know what we do not, in seed form at least, already know.

I'm reminded of this quote:

"One can only see what one observes, and one observes only things which are already in the mind.
—Alphonse Bertillon" (as quoted in Red Dragon, the prequel to The Silence of the Lambs)

Also of Socrates as "midwife".

Quote :

And what is this prior knowledge? It is our selfvaluing, or recognition of value, a recognition of which we consist.
I.e.: there is no existence prior to knowledge - that we can know of.

VO is at base an ethics, a prudence: it doesnt allow for assumptions besides the assumption of a self, an "I", a perspective - and it clarifies that this perspective is actively upheld, even if it has no choice about it - that it is a necessary artifice -
and that "reality" is nothing but the derivative of such artifice - singular or plural - that very distinction is artifice, as there really is only one discrete thing: selfvaluing will to power: principle. And that one thing implies and thereby includes plurality without separating it from its singularity.


To drive it further a bit, in anticipation of further questioning:
That singularity refers to possibility, which is the basis of necessity.
I.e.: What is possible if everything is possible? Only one thing: the strongest, the best.

In this sense "the good" and "strength" and "existence" are synonyms.

In this way I am defeating the superstition of language: by showing that all truly positive designators refer to the same thing. There is no actual difference between "strength" and "beauty" or "consistency" - these are different ways in which we look at that which exist beyond reasonable doubt, be it as a function of us, or having us as a function of it, or both...

Suffice it to say, things that stand opposed arent isolated from each other. Their very difference from each other is an unbreakable bond. That bond is expressed through my logic as value.

Right. And yet there either is only a single self-valuing* (which then wrongly assumes other self-valuings than its idea of "me" within its Weltbild to also have "to-itselfs") or multiple self-valuings (which then rightly assume the aforesaid).

In terms of will to power, I think it's as follows: either there's a single will to power--*I now realize the term "self-valuing" does not suffice at the asterisk above--or rather a single Weltbild which is then the Bild of** a will which wills itself into existence as one will among many others; or there are indeed many wills, each of which has its own Weltbild (which is then truly the image of a world, and not a mere image as a world, a world which is no more than an image, a hallucination). In the latter case, viewing the world as will to power and nothing besides then means willing the world to be will to power and nothing besides--in my case, my willing all phenomena within my worldview--my cat, my girlfriend, my friends, etc.; but also my keyboard, my screen, etc. etc.--to be wills to power and nothing besides.

--**Not "of" in the possessive sense.--

This thread is about putting this in terms of the self-valuing logic. Now I may lift the veil off my real angle by saying the following. Just as I value my cat as being more than merely a part of my Weltbild--namely as having a "to-himself" of his own--, so if I should want a child, or a second cat, I'd value it as being more than a phantasy of what could be in the future; I'd want my phantasy to become reality--indeed this is what "wanting something" means. If I really want Trump to win the elections of 2020, I value that victory as more than an uplifting thought I may entertain; I value it as actually occurring, albeit only in the future and not in the present--whereas my cat's being a selfvaluing-to-itself is something I value as actually occuring in the present as well as in the near future and near past. Now let's leap like tigers to my example of the sabre-toothed cats:

I wrote:

We can only value them as living and breathing beings, as self-valuings. But they're all long dead. Can we then value them as mere memes? Those may be self-valuings, but not saber-toothed cats [i.e., no "selfvaluings-to-themselves"]...

Quickly: there are multiple instances of self-valuing, and these are self-valuings.
But there is only one principle of self-valuing, and that is operative in and throughout all.

Identically, there are multiple instances of Will to Power, and these are willings-to-power.
But there is only one principle of Will to Power, and that is operative throughout all.

My point being: our 'selves' arent any more real than our other great concepts - and even, we might not even have selves if we do not have great concepts! Many people dont even exist except in terms of other peoples values. Sure, they breathe, but as a function of a consciousness that uses them. They are, as humans, broken self-valuings, 'non entities', 'goo'.
I mean this all very literally, and it is how I explain fascism, mob-ism.

there is self-valuing involved, but none of these entities could exist with the values they are holding now if they were thrown back on their own human resources. So through false values, and this still constitutes knowledge, people can be led to 'spiritual death' - to enslavement of their energies to a mind that is not their own - and thus, to a loss of mind, of human identity - of beauty; zombification by false values - vectors that do not come back with riches, but dont come back, only deplete.

Self-valuing is operative in us, and biologically it is easy enough to see that there are discrete selfvaluings, if we disregard all the environmental requirements and the way sof procreation. But psychologically, it is not so easy to see discrete entities; as already the comparison of pone psyche to the next blends these psyches in a new psychic ideation. And beyond this, from the idea of the brain to the idea of the psyche into the idea of the idea, such as the "I" - the self-valuings become increasingly blended. For example, we can't communicate "I" except through a verb, a particular instances that connects us to the outside time and space and separates us from the infinitely flexible variable "I".

"I" is an idea inside biological entities. It is learned at a certain age, and then begins to influence the biology.
"Self-valuing" is also an idea... a more evolved idea, and it is acquired at an even later age, and begins to influence the biology...


This was one item I wished to address immediately as it requires only the distinction principle <> object.

In one of my earlier VO essay like posts Ive written of selfvaluing ultimately as tendency. En entity is only coherent with itself throughout time and space as a kind of 'trending' - but a great current of power can radically alter it, and make it unrecognizable in its behavior. It still selfvalues, but it has nonetheless become a different entity. It is still 'a' selfvaluing - but we are all pliable mass in that sense - depending on the values we are being exposed to - or deprived of.

And from that rather terrifying insight follows the command to build a forest, and from that a climate of philosophers.
We must become the environment. That is proper self-valuing; to be that of which that which sustains you is dependent.

But to this end, we need the Golden Nature; a synthetic proof, a rule by example.

And it can not be we who lead, as others can not attain such standards as we live by, but we must allow the right people to become the right sort of examples.

Pezer and I have spoken of this as a government of muses - to govern the mind by setting certain standards, consistencies, beauties - where the manifest nature of overflowing being-becoming overrules the terms we use to describe and compare it to itself - as value ontology is knowledge that absorbs its builder and lives him in its terms - I have been usurped by my philosophy and my politics is my consistency. Since I am political in line with victory at this time, the dragon like nature of love commands me to go forward and push for this government of muses, the idea at least of installing new examples out of humans, like once fair maidens were placed in towers for knights to come into being to sing to them, and grow the peacocks feathers of France, and the culture which Marx finally subverted into homogeneity of spirit and the night of romance -  
I finally know  - and now that I know, I see. And now that I see, I feel, and as I feel, I begin to act. And my actions are now my knowing, and my knowing is fertile.

The question I asked myself is: in what way is knowledge power?
Not: what knowledge is most powerful, but how knowing configures into power.
So epistemology is made subservient to the already present knowledge of power - this is only appropriate.
Value is the consequence.

Knowledge of data and of the processes of cause and effect is a potential power.

Sure.

How to use those potential powers? That is where our values enter the picture.

Yes.
It runs deep.
Values determine the architecture of our efforts, which are sustained by our power.
As war victims and such know, along with many other persons, knowledge all too often is very far from a source of power.
In fact, Im sure absolute knowledge would render one paralyzed.

Fixed Cross wrote:

In fact, Im sure absolute knowledge would render one paralyzed.

Well said. In Taoism it is said that the human brain is limited and knowledge is unlimited. Frot the limited to chase after the unlimited brings exhaustion.

Sisyphus wrote:

In Taoism it is said that the human brain is limited and knowledge is unlimited

Also well said. A very important observation, in terms of (value) epistemology.

Knowledge is infinite - so what kind of knowledge do you choose?
And how to know what to know?

Fixed Cross wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:

In Taoism it is said that the human brain is limited and knowledge is unlimited

Also well said. A very important observation, in terms of (value) epistemology.

Knowledge is infinite - so what kind of knowledge do you choose?
And how to know what to know?

Exactly. There are choices. Top priority, I would think, would be knowledge that assists us in living a better life, both physically and mentally.

Next I think would be stuff that we find entertaining. (Can't be serious all the time.)