Wreaking crisis.

If Im strict, the correct claim is that consciousness only fully emerges, only pertains to its ground, when it appropriates self-valuing logic.

Before that, it is arbitrary, random, just excess that neither refers to the subject nor to his objects, it simply takes the place of being, as a surrogate thereof, which can only exist amidst more real being, that is to say, non-thinking being, being still engaged in self-valuing proper and that thus generates its environment, rather than that it purely relies on it.

The exception to this rule is indeed Parodites, who has built a loop from consciousness to its own ground, which is the same sort of thing as VO does with being as such -

VO applies to consciousness qua being, Parodites applies to being qua consciousness, they are easy to combine, very useful together.

But without either of these methods, intellectual consciousness is just less than being. Its entire substance is the striving for integrity, pining for it, seeking it in the outside world, or in the emotional fulfillments a life offers. But it is only in consciousness appropriating itself through its valuing, that it becomes a living thing, an entity, a structural integrity, a consistency.

By the way, I still owe Sauwelios an answer on effecitivty, on N's notion that consciousness is possibly a less than effective stage that might be overcome.

S supposed that greatest efficiency refers to lowest resistance. In case of Nietzschean outlook it would always be the opposite, the greatest resistance is required for the greatest efficiency - look at an engine, or a nuclear chain in a star, or the inner resistance of a tree that pushes up the resin, or the skepsis of a philosopher - all WtP strives for resistance so as to manifest itself against it.

Consciousness may just be a relatively quite low form of force-resistance relation.

Of course this is hypothetical, we're working within consciousness - or bordering on it and working with it through osmosis - in any case, the path of the least resitance is usually also least effective, regardless the objectives. After all, resistance builds power, and the world is will to power.

Indeed, we would theoretically need to exhaust everything in order to entirely explain anything, but luckily we can still operate fairly well in the middle spaces between very little and complete articulation.

In terms of VO, to answer the eyes question, I might say:

All beings must value themselves, must hold that which they are as a standard for every interaction and interpretation, in order to continue to exist. Beings need means of interacting and interpreting, therefore; interaction defines the boundaries between one thing and other things, between itself and others, whereas interpretation defines the ways in which interactions are rendered into the values of that which interacts. Having what we call "eyes" is one aspect of the means of interacting, and therefore partakes also of interpretation in so far as if the eyes qua interaction-mechanism were unable to sustain a process of giving to the being itself the means by which to hold itself as the standard for those interactions then the being would not exist. Therefore having two eyes is necessarily defined as an extension of a being's self-valuing in so far as allowing for interactions that are also at the same time capable of sustaining interpretations that are in accordance with said being's own self-valuing.

To that explanation I would then add the more scientific description I wrote previously.

As for "what is light", ha yes this is an excellent question. We should work on defining-explaining light in VO terms. Tiny vibrations of force-energy, little "wavy particles" (self-coherent waves that are so consistent to themselves they act as if they were particles), in so far as when a photon strikes something it either bounces off entirely or is absorbed entirely into that which it impacted. As far as I know with my limited understanding here, photons are absorbed by electrons thus giving more energy to the electron, which may cause it to jump up to a higher valence or eject from its atom entirely; this new free electron is therefore the basic unit of "electricity" and ends up impacting something else, where for in eyesight for example causes cascading changes in molecules one after the other leading ultimately to the firing of nerve cells based on changing the chemical makeup of those cells (imputing or outputting sodium ions from the cell, therefore producing a charge differential across the cell) and leading to an "action potential" (cascading charge-differential from one cell to another, to another, to....). But what happens when this cascade reaches that part of the brain where it becomes "interpreted as information (vision)"? Very tricky stuff here.

Obviously our understanding is very incomplete, both scientifically and philosophically. It could be the case that vision or even light itself is fundamentally different than we think.

I like VO because it gives an infinite framework for organizing all this in a new way, and as I said before in a way that explains more clearly and simply. But now I think we've got far off topic in this thread.

Ill agree to move this to another thread. This one has been highly productive, thanks Sauwelios, for entering.

Ill close this subject here, unless S reopens it in his context, with the notion that to explain light in terms of vo, we have to only work with self-valuing as notion, we can not co opt the terms of physics before we have seen them emerge from vo.

So that is the first step.
Ive made parts of that step in writing but all of it is scattered across forums and emails and private writings.

I propose we start this project from the ground up, and to communicate the first onto-epistemic stage (the logic as entity) to the primary dynamic stage which stretches from the paradigm of c and 'radiation' to that of mass, I will be working with this thread as part of my basis.

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170813



self-valuing logic explicating itself as difference (self-valuing ana-logics) - i.e. dynamism, dunamis, physis; the ground to physics.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Socialism is defined as giving capital to people who have not earned it. That "benevolence" had to come from somewhere. Namely, from productive forces and persons and mechanisms that actually create capital (there are three ways this can occur, see my economics writings here); ok I'll outline it: 1) raw resources are taken (e.g. from nature) and converted via production process into something of value to humans, 2) the process by which that takes place is made more efficient, or 3) values already existing are traded to the mutual benefit of all parties involved in the trade --- what I am describing with 1-3 is, obviously, capitalism.

Wealth flows from value outward in benevolent manner, bestowing value upon those whom the original value-holder deems worthy; the most basic example of this is the family. Parents bestow value upon their children, and the "bread winner" bestows value upon all in the family.

The problem with socialism is that the source of the wealth to be distributed is not involved in a values-bestowing act, his wealth is simply taken by taxation and distributed without his consent or concern; this not only destroys the inherent benefit of giving but also destroys the inherent value of receiving. Someone who reserves state handouts is made infinitely poorer in spirit than he was in body. This reveals itself over time. It is also connected to why socialist states fail.

Socialism is a tick on capitalism, because like idiot Sanders admits there is nowhere to get this "free" money from other than... from capitalists. Marx was fundamentally wrong when he thought that economy can dispense with owners. Without owners, capital has no meaning because it had no value-bestowing virtue, no ontic ground. The idea of ownerless capital is akin to the idea of an individual-less person-- a fundamental philosophical contradiction.

In reality it is only capitalism, free enterprise and markets based on competition and rational legal frameworks to ensure a relatively level playing field, that over time raises the standards of living. Sure, the USSR was able to forcibly reorganize their society and economy into a chain of productions capable of moving Russia into competitive edge with the US and in a very short period of time, but the instabilities and irrationalities, the inhuman-ness of it forced it to collapse overnight. One day the USSR was here, the next it simply was not.

The only true meaning of "socialism" is the benevolent value-giving that comes from individuals who freely give their capital out of love, love for the sight of their own values. Economy is primarily local, and even larger super-local systems and flows must be ultimately grounded in locality-units. Socialism as a fundamental economic and policy axis is destined to always fail. Period. It is tantamount to robbery, literally that is what it is, which is not surprising therefore that socialist systems become useful for controlling people by enforcing dependency upon them, removing and discrediting the notion of self-reliance, namely, pride.

First off, you should note that I was not talking of socialism as an alternative to capitalism, but of a combination of socialism and capitalism--the polder model--as an alternative to both. Yes, the money must come from capitalists. However, why do capitalists pay taxes in the first place, even without any form of socialism (e.g., social security, welfare etc.) involved? Taxation is not in principle robbery, for though hardcore capitalists (e.g., libertarians) may want as little state as possible, they still want enough state to replace the "war of all against all" by merely economic competition between "all". Contrast:

"Anocracies are societies where central authority is weak or nonexistent. Kinship bonds extended by personal allegiances to notable leaders are the principal relations. A society may in theory be a state but if the above applies, then Weart classifies it as an anocracy. Examples include tribes, Somalia, and the medieval Italian cities where influential families fought street battles and lived in fortified keeps. Importantly, there is no central authority which can effectively restrain personal violence such as raids which often escalate by involving friends and relatives to vendettas and wars." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_at_War#Definitions)

So democrats are okay with being taxed inasmuch as they believe the state will put that money to worthy ends. Now you say: "Socialism is defined as giving capital to people who have not earned it." And I say, no, they have not earned it, but they may well deserve it--that is, put it to worthy ends. In fact, pure capitalists themselves can never provide worthy ends; consider again that Strauss quote about Rousseau: the "artist" or the philosopher justifies civil society by transcending it.

A couple of corrections. I was delighted by you guys' discussion on self-valuing, by the way--especially by FC's contributions.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Sauwelios wrote:

The will to power for its own sake--which, rightly understood, means for the sake of that will, not of power divorced from will (will is power)--: seeing that as banal is nihilism, despising the will to power (see WP 55).

If will = power then "will to power for the sake of that will" (your definition above) is: will = power for the sake of will = power", or A=A=A=A. That is stupid.

I never said will = power, I said will is power. "Is" ≠ "=". But yeah, it's a paradox, and in fact I think Nietzsche's philosophy is ultimately mystical, even as I consider the concept "self-valuing" a mystification. I think "self-valuing" is the union of Nietzsche's Dionysus and Ariadne at the most fundamental level. The valuing of that very valuing: does this not mean valuing for its own sake?

Quote :

Quote :

Against democracy and above humanity: that is the Nietzschean outlook.

No. That is merely against a certain very limited understanding of what democracy and humanity mean. Such deliberate constriction of the meanings of such ideas is anti-philosophical in the extreme.

Well, I had just defended what I consider democracy in practice--a regime with democratic elements. So my outlook is not simply against democracy, but also for it in a different sense--even as it's only above the human, all-too-human, whereas its highest concern proper is the human, superhuman.

Fixed Cross wrote:

By the way, I still owe Sauwelios an answer on effecitivty, on N's notion that consciousness is possibly a less than effective stage that might be overcome.

Not less than effective; less than efficient.

Quote :

S supposed that greatest efficiency refers to lowest resistance. In case of Nietzschean outlook it would always be the opposite, the greatest resistance is required for the greatest efficiency - look at an engine, or a nuclear chain in a star, or the inner resistance of a tree that pushes up the resin, or the skepsis of a philosopher - all WtP strives for resistance so as to manifest itself against it.

It seems to me that you again mean effectiveness here--which I did not mean. The most efficient way to do something is by definition the way of least resistance--though note: it must still be a way to do the thing in question! Otherwise, it's indeed ineffective--and effectiveness ultimately trumps efficiency, of course. Absolute efficiency would have no effect at all--would be nothing.

Sauwelios wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

Socialism is defined as giving capital to people who have not earned it. That "benevolence" had to come from somewhere. Namely, from productive forces and persons and mechanisms that actually create capital (there are three ways this can occur, see my economics writings here); ok I'll outline it: 1) raw resources are taken (e.g. from nature) and converted via production process into something of value to humans, 2) the process by which that takes place is made more efficient, or 3) values already existing are traded to the mutual benefit of all parties involved in the trade --- what I am describing with 1-3 is, obviously, capitalism.

Wealth flows from value outward in benevolent manner, bestowing value upon those whom the original value-holder deems worthy; the most basic example of this is the family. Parents bestow value upon their children, and the "bread winner" bestows value upon all in the family.

The problem with socialism is that the source of the wealth to be distributed is not involved in a values-bestowing act, his wealth is simply taken by taxation and distributed without his consent or concern; this not only destroys the inherent benefit of giving but also destroys the inherent value of receiving. Someone who reserves state handouts is made infinitely poorer in spirit than he was in body. This reveals itself over time. It is also connected to why socialist states fail.

Socialism is a tick on capitalism, because like idiot Sanders admits there is nowhere to get this "free" money from other than... from capitalists. Marx was fundamentally wrong when he thought that economy can dispense with owners. Without owners, capital has no meaning because it had no value-bestowing virtue, no ontic ground. The idea of ownerless capital is akin to the idea of an individual-less person-- a fundamental philosophical contradiction.

In reality it is only capitalism, free enterprise and markets based on competition and rational legal frameworks to ensure a relatively level playing field, that over time raises the standards of living. Sure, the USSR was able to forcibly reorganize their society and economy into a chain of productions capable of moving Russia into competitive edge with the US and in a very short period of time, but the instabilities and irrationalities, the inhuman-ness of it forced it to collapse overnight. One day the USSR was here, the next it simply was not.

The only true meaning of "socialism" is the benevolent value-giving that comes from individuals who freely give their capital out of love, love for the sight of their own values. Economy is primarily local, and even larger super-local systems and flows must be ultimately grounded in locality-units. Socialism as a fundamental economic and policy axis is destined to always fail. Period. It is tantamount to robbery, literally that is what it is, which is not surprising therefore that socialist systems become useful for controlling people by enforcing dependency upon them, removing and discrediting the notion of self-reliance, namely, pride.

First off, you should note that I was not talking of socialism as an alternative to capitalism, but of a combination of socialism and capitalism--the polder model--as an alternative to both. Yes, the money must come from capitalists. However, why do capitalists pay taxes in the first place, even without any form of socialism (e.g., social security, welfare etc.) involved?

We pay taxes because that is the only way we have found so far to fund the massive and costly task of administering a society. It is basically a "remainder" within society, the fact that a society's own administration does not on the whole produce (create) any capital-value. There is this idea that certain social functions must be tax-funded because they do not lend themselves to being profitable; I somewhat agree with this, but I think the number of such functions is very small, and in fact it would be possible to restructure how some of those functions are administered in order to have them funded directly (by those who directly benefit from them) rather than indirectly (by those who do not directly benefit from them).

An easy example is the military. We benefit from the fact that our nations have militaries, and also police forces. Because we benefit from their work, should they be sending us a bill? Maybe they should. But practically speaking this is what taxes achieve, they allow us to indirectly fund the military and police (and legal, and fire/rescue, etc.) for the indirect (or structural, implicit) benefit we receive from them. And it gets even more complicated, because it makes sense to not hold certain social functions or jobs up to a standard of capital-producing, since the benefit of those functions and jobs is structural-implicit; their very existence, utilized and non-utilized, allows for other processes to exist that are themselves capital-producing. It would be irrational to have a society with no fire/rescue jobs, for example, and given the relatively very low cost of maintaining fire/rescue and using it, it seems to make sense to fund it via indirect method (taxes) rather than send someone a bill for services, since the infrequent use would amount to a relatively large bill to cover cost of services whereas spreading out that cost amongst millions of people basically negates it.

The problem isn't taxation per se, but rather the fact that taxation can and does get out of hand, quite simply because it this spread-out funding mechanism lends itself to people playing psychological games like "we can expand the tax base by .25% in this area of the economy and no one will really notice, it is such a small number, yet this will generate 5 million dollars for this parks project (or whatever else) annually!" Basically we cognitively discount the costs:benefits ratio of adding new taxes upon existing taxes. And there is the related problem that bureaucracy naturally grows over time and, once expanded, is almost impossible to curtail again.

Socialism is basically the social political system that has taken these problems to the nth degree, and attempted to justify themselves primarily through tax fiat. This turns an otherwise mundane and largely benign mechanism (minimal necessary taxation) into something fundamentally harmful, unsustainable and thus irrational. And it has many other negative consequences as I also mentioned, including de-moralizing people by fostering their dependency on government handouts rather than having a society and economy that is naturally structured in such a way that individuals are incentivized to be self-reliant.

Quote :

Taxation is not in principle robbery, for though hardcore capitalists (e.g., libertarians) may want as little state as possible, they still want enough state to replace the "war of all against all" by merely economic competition between "all".

Right, but this observation of yours does not demonstrate that taxation is not in principle robbery, it only demonstrates that some degree of taxation is acceptable to most people, or perhaps getting to the point I was just making above that some degree of taxation is necessary.

But the home-owner who consents to having his house robbed is still being robbed. Robbery is defined as taking by force something which belongs to someone else, and which that person would not have otherwise given to the would-be robber; or, we could define robbery as taking something without paying commensurate value for it. Under the first definition taxation is crude robbery, under the second definition taxation is sophisticated robbery (in so far as it can be argued that the average tax-payer does not receive benefits back to himself commensurate with the amounts of taxes he is paying, which is quite an arguable point). And remember that I already accept and affirm that some minimal base of taxation is needed to fund certain social administrative functions which otherwise would not be easily or rationally fundable by typical capitalist mechanism, and which provide implicit-indirect benefit that potentiates capitalist activity in society anyway. I am not talking about those taxes when I talk about socialism.

So yes, we could say there exists a thin sub-layer at the bottom of the tax structure of a socialist (or any other) society such that this layer is technically not taxation in so far as we stipulate that the taxes from that layer are being used to fund services that are immediately and immanently necessary to maintain even the bare possibility of continuing human life within that society, such as perhaps for example military, legal/courts, police and fire/rescue could be contenders for occupied this 'thin sub-layer'. But we could also argue that in fact some or most (or all?) of such functions are actually fostering dependency and are not really justified anyway (I wouldn't make that argument but I would be interested in exploring it); for example, maybe the fact that we have fire and rescue at beck and call prevents the natural formation of a market for fire-prevention and fire-suppression systems as well as home medical monitoring and healthcare devices. I'm not really making that argument, but you can see that someone might make it, and there might be an aspect of truth to it.

So at best here we can certainly conclude that some taxation is necessary, and that most people accept all taxation (whether necessary or not) (in part because they are required to pay it by legal mandate), but that the fact that most people accept taxation does not refute the fact that taking money by force through the tax system or any other system amounts to robbery.

Another point: let's say you are at work and your home catches fire or some other emergency occurs, and a benevolent neighbor rushes over and puts out the fire or takes care of the emergency for you, and now when you return home your neighbor has hung a bill on your door, because it turns out the neighbor had to use several hours of his day and some of his own personal resources to deal with your emergency; you did not contract for him to provide this service, you did not agree to pay for it, but he did it voluntarily and is now billing you for it. Do you have to pay? Of course not. You can choose to pay, but you are not required to pay. Now, imagine that instead the neighbor tells you "if you do not pay me, I happen to know that the legal system will come after you in court, garnish your wages, seize your assets, ruin your credit, hound you with mail and phone calls, and perhaps even throw you into jail" --- that is tantamount to the situation with most taxation. I did not choose or agree to fund or accept the vast majority of services and functions that my taxes pay for, yet I am told that I am required to pay for them; this is irrational even if I am getting benefit from some of these services and functions, but it is certainly far more irrational if I am getting very little or no benefit from them, which is the case with a large number of the taxes that will exist in any socialist (massive-tax) system.

Quote :

Contrast:

"Anocracies are societies where central authority is weak or nonexistent. Kinship bonds extended by personal allegiances to notable leaders are the principal relations. A society may in theory be a state but if the above applies, then Weart classifies it as an anocracy. Examples include tribes, Somalia, and the medieval Italian cities where influential families fought street battles and lived in fortified keeps. Importantly, there is no central authority which can effectively restrain personal violence such as raids which often escalate by involving friends and relatives to vendettas and wars." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_at_War#Definitions)

So democrats are okay with being taxed inasmuch as they believe the state will put that money to worthy ends.

Eh, I wouldn't generalize like that. If you gave democratic citizens a choice, and said "You can either have back 50% of the taxes on your income that you paid this year, or you can keep funding the worthy services and programs we provide for" I am sure many people would take back their money and allow those "worthy ends" to decline (but then the "worthy ends" of the individual himself would be increased!). Indeed this is basically the argument for why the state needs to force people to pay taxes, because people would mostly choose not to do so if they had the option. But by making that argument you are effectively admitting that the tax system, whether good and justified or not, can only survive by forcible taking money from people who would otherwise not pay it. For a free "democratic" society this represents a fundamental contradiction, even if, again, it is to a certain degree (which socialism takes way to far) a necessary one.

A contradiction doesn't imply a lack of necessity. There is a very common logical flaw, even among philosophers, where they assume that if something is a contradiction (such as I noted above with how a free democractic society is required to take tax funds at the barrel of a gun) then it should not exist or must have no logical or ontological necessity behind it... not so. A contradiction can also necessarily be the case, and often is.

Quote :

Now you say: "Socialism is defined as giving capital to people who have not earned it." And I say, no, they have not earned it, but they may well deserve it--that is, put it to worthy ends. In fact, pure capitalists themselves can never provide worthy ends; consider again that Strauss quote about Rousseau: the "artist" or the philosopher justifies civil society by transcending it.

Yes it is possible that if someone gives you $500 you will put it to "worthy ends", whatever that means (whatever you happen to think it means, and whether or not what you think it means actually has some connection to what we might call a more objective standard of what 'worthy ends' constitutes), and it is possible you will put it to unworthy ends. It is also possible you will just spend it on necessities or save it, or blow it at the casino, or expand your collection of Harry Potter collectibles (which to you, of course, certainly constitutes a worthy end!) or whatever else; my point is that however you are spending the money, that isnt relevant to the point I was making here. Yes some people will spend tax money in a better or worse manner than others, absolutely this is the case, but how do you parse that out (assuming of course that the distinction is indeed as important and categorical as you seem to think it is)? How do  you ensure that massive tax funds are being put to worthy ends? I would imagine if you could look inside the tax system you would see a lot of stuff being funded that you deem unworthy, or at least unworthy of your money, or at least less worthy than the ends to which you could have put your own money.

And you also havent addressed the point I made about systems based on massive taxation, like socialism, foster dependency and lack of self-reliance. How do you weigh this against the people (artists, philosophers etc.) who will actually use taxation for good ends and who will not become so dependent and lose themselves to welfare? I would think that for every unit of tax money used to prop up the massive welfare state, far more dependency is overall created than is independency. This is certainly something I have seen first hand that happens in the US as a direct consequence of tax-funded social systems.

It seems to have been the case that the intellect began to deteriorate quite as soon as lower classes were offered university educations. Ever since the second half of the last century, academia have been fruitless, there has almost been no scientific development, other than ideological theories about what should be.

Look for example, Sauwelios, at our own experiences with University - and at the people that have followed a full curriculum. There isn't a thinking one among them.

This to address the notion that Socialist provisions of education for the masses would be justified by allowing for the occasional merit.

I doubt that this is really the case.

I rather suspect that because the status of University has been reduced to nothing, basically, that its merit has also been reduced to nothing, and the merit of its students thus also.

I believe in scholarships for exceptional students, and universities donated to a city by the wealthy - the system that worked for aristocracies, and which, during centuries, produced science.

Now that everyone is being allowed into university, it is logical that universities start to offer lesser value, accommodate to lesser minds. It has become an open marketplace for the herd. "What would you like to consider yourself knowledgeable about?" "My sexual identity and why it entitles me to feel good abut myself" - this is a present day university-level type of discourse.

For some 70 years, exact science has stood still. This corresponds to the period of Socialized "higher" education.

Look at our college educated friends. Their education has made them weaker, dumber, more credulous, obedient and arbitrary. None of them ever came close to smelling any kind of power in University - because it isn't there - not in science, knowledge - only in campus politics, socialite-world, networking.

The socialized masses do not want education, they wants to be popular and well liked. This is why under socialist ideology, identity- and gender-studies have become the prominent science.

Glad to read you enjoyed the vo-developments!

Quote :

It seems to me that you again mean effectiveness here--which I did not mean. The most efficient way to do something is by definition the way of least resistance--though note: it must still be a way to do the thing in question! Otherwise, it's indeed ineffective--and effectiveness ultimately trumps efficiency, of course. Absolute efficiency would have no effect at all--would be nothing.

I don't think so. It depends on what you're aiming for. If the aim is increase of will to power, then one must seek higher, rather than lower resistance.

The most efficient way to become a skilled warrior is the path of the greater resistance.
I wouldn't say the greatest - that would be the path to death. The samurai walks a path just below fatal resistance, the most efficient way to self-valuing under the code of honor, which prescribes a certain very direct experience of power.

Will to power may have to eliminate consciousness because it is too vulnerable, too little equipped to resist, in order to increase its efficiency.
Im certainly not saying this is the case - I only give my interpretation of that note. (I'll have to grant, by the way, that your interpretation does not contradict what Nietzsche says. It may be that he meant what you're saying, but I prefer my take, as it points to an ascending process - 'muscle building'.)

But let's explore that.

It can be viable to conceive of consciousness as a form of resistance to self-valuing, which ups the standard for it.
An exacerbating factor to the fact that power and self-valuing is given to existence, but that existence is not just a given to anything and anyone, but represents the end of a selection process.

The human world of mass culture looks to me like a re introduction of the pool of possibilities below the threshold of selection.
most of it exists only as meme, as idea, and would fall away as soon as a more physical reality sets in. Transgenderism is
the perfect symptom, as of course a man who cuts off his wiener and shoots up with estrogen is not going to be having babies, either as man or woman. He's written himself out of the equation.


So it is all memetic, people have memetic identities, not actual ontic ones - they do not exist as organisms, only as ideas. And from this soup of ideas that humanity is now brewing of itself, new real types are emerging. We are these types.

Absolutely yes. N says pretty much the same thing about consciousness being something that will be left behind. But I find that an unfortunately quite postmodern (trans-) way of thinking; to me it appears to be more rooted in a desire to escape oneself.

Indeed the coming hive mind/AI/trans-death represents the task of leaving consciousness behind, and what would 'a self' look life without consciousness? This would be nothing more interesting than machine become animal. It is ultimately convergent with the insectile anti-philosophical way of valuing/thinking that the "elites" operate by.

One must deal with oneself, not escape oneself--- this is consciousness.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :

It seems to me that you again mean effectiveness here--which I did not mean. The most efficient way to do something is by definition the way of least resistance--though note: it must still be a way to do the thing in question! Otherwise, it's indeed ineffective--and effectiveness ultimately trumps efficiency, of course. Absolute efficiency would have no effect at all--would be nothing.

I don't think so. It depends on what you're aiming for. If the aim is increase of will to power, then one must seek higher, rather than lower resistance.

The most efficient way to become a skilled warrior is the path of the greater resistance.
I wouldn't say the greatest - that would be the path to death. The samurai walks a path just below fatal resistance, the most efficient way to self-valuing under the code of honor, which prescribes a certain very direct experience of power.

Will to power may have to eliminate consciousness because it is too vulnerable, too little equipped to resist, in order to increase its efficiency.
Im certainly not saying this is the case - I only give my interpretation of that note. (I'll have to grant, by the way, that your interpretation does not contradict what Nietzsche says. It may be that he meant what you're saying, but I prefer my take, as it points to an ascending process - 'muscle building'.)

I think this is a kind of "meta-paradox". Let me explain. Suppose you seek a resistance. Now suppose there are two roads to it: one straight, level, and open, and another, also straight and level, but there's an obstacle in it. Should you go straight for the resistance you seek by the first road, or should you embrace the obstacle on the second as itself a resistance? But what if there are, again, two roads to that obstacle? I think you get the point.

I'm eating as I type this. But if my eating wasn't such an efficient process as to be quite autonomous, instinctive, unthinking; if I had to be on high alert for it, so as not to spill my food, choke on it, etc.: then I wouldn't be able to focus on this higher, less needful but more desirable task of formulating my opinion.

You do have a point, though. If, in evolving my digestive system, say, my ancestors had always taken the path of least resistance, then as soon as an unforeseen obstacle arose, the foundation of their higher functions would have shaken, even collapsed--and those higher functions with it! But to the contrary, such lower functions tend to be very resilient and resourceful. This may be because, in the conscious phase, a lot of experimenting, seeking out resistances, goes on in them. In fact, needs must at some stage have been desires, because there wasn't yet anything that "needed" their satisfaction. We need food, not because without it our digestive system would die, but because our higher functions which depend on it would die! The highest function at any one point, however, is not yet a "function" of something else, something higher, but consists in experimenting, the pleasure of grappling with resistances--the consciousness of power!

If resistance is the aim, then the will will take any extra obstacles it can get. I recognize this attitude and tendency from my training courses, where I go outside and look for any thing that can make my path more difficult, yet not impossible.

The digestive tract is a good example of how resistance results in power. The food is resisted by acids and many difficult pathways, and so it becomes power to the organism.

Obviously, resistance is always reciprocal. A resistance is a matter of two forces interacting. A fight is a case of resistance, and of WtP. The outcome of the fight is determined by who has/is the greater resistance, and the match-up is arranged based on a comparatively great resistance in both fighters.

The winner will normally have increased his resistance by defeating his opponent - he has learned, become more experienced, and built strength and endurance. Given, of course, that he isn't already aging fast.

"" In fact, needs must at some stage have been desires, because there wasn't yet anything that "needed" their satisfaction. ""

Absolutely. This is one of my core insights. Need can never have been anythings origin, it arises only as a property of a beings desire to continue its devouring of (resisting/being resisted by) existence.

Yes, I'd say the fabric of the cosmos and the essential behavior of the will to pwer is to seek out resistance, and to become the process of resisting. Life, and atomic being too, is nothing much besides this - with the occasional interval of releasing resistance, like orgasm, but which biologically serves to build yet a new growing resistance - a pregnancy, a birth (extreme resistance) and a new life. Growth, with all the growing pain.

Death is the ultimate relinquishing of resistance, but life often will put up a great resistance before it.

In order to resist, one must be able to connect, to make contact, thus value the to be resisted selfvaluings.

The resistance itself can be seen as the willing to power that decides who/what ultimately resisted whom/what with the most success, who/what appropriates whom/what.

Resistance is 'will'.

I'd agree.
At the very least there is no will without it.

excerpt:

"I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage."


- Nietzsche, The Will to Power, book 2, note 362 (1888)
complete note:


"I see a fundamentally different valuation cutting across all the moral
idiosyncrasies: I know nothing of such an absurd distinction between
"genius" and the moral and immoral world of the will. The moral man is a
lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed--he is a type
in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy, a good copy at
best--the measure of his value lies outside him. I assess a man by the
quantum of power and abundance of his will: not by its enfeeblement and
extinction; I regard a philosophy which teaches denial of the will as a
teaching of defamation and slander-- I assess the power of a will by how
much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its
advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence
a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and
painful than hitherto-- "


"but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and
painful than hitherto-- "

- i.e. that it will represent an even greater resistance.



And further:

"44 (Spring-Summer 1888)

Most general types of decadence:

1. Believing one chooses remedies, one chooses in fact that which
hastens exhaustion; Christianity is an example (to name the greatest
example of such an aberration of the instincts); "progress" is another
instance . -

2. One loses one's power of resistance against stimuli--and comes to be
at the mercy of accidents: one coarsens and enlarges one's experiences
tremendously--"depersonalization, " disintegration of the will; example:
one whole type of morality, the altruistic one which talks much of
pity--and is distinguished by the weakness of the personality, so that
it is sounded, too, and like an overstimulated string vibrates
continually--an extreme irritability . -

3. One confuses cause and effect: one fails to understand decadence as a
physiological condition and mistakes its conseguences for the real cause
of the indisposition; example: all of religious morality.

4. One longs for a condition in which one no longer suffers: life is
actually experienced as the ground of ills; one esteems unconscious
states, without feeling, (sleep, fainting) as incomparably more valuable
than conscious ones; from this a method."





"47 (March-June 1888)

What is inherited is not the sickness but sickliness: the lack of
strength to resist the danger of infections, etc., the broken
resistance; morally speaking, resignation and meekness in face of the
enemy."

Very nice.

Fixed Cross wrote:

If resistance is the aim,

This is what I meant by "meta-paradox". Everything you go on to write from here may be true at some level, even the fundamental level. If resistance is the aim, then obviously the path to it can't be the path of least resistance (unless there's only one path). But when you have an appetite, do you go out and get food that almost makes you puke, that you're barely able to keep down? Surely not. So while what you say may be true for desires, for what is not (yet) a function of something else, it's surely not true for needs. Thus Nietzsche liked his intestins to be "industrious, but distant" (Ecce Homo, if I'm not mistaken). We typically don't want to be really conscious of our lower functions: consider the well-known factoid that when you really focus on how you walk, down to the actual movements of the different parts of your legs and feet, you tend to walk awkwardly and may even fall. I hope this suffices to prove I do have a point here.

I agree, fast food is a good example. Eating low quality food is a form of low resistance. Drinking Coca Cola is perhaps the lowest form of resistance I can think of.

The value of any 'resistance' (will) is connected to the value to be gained by that particular act of resistance, and to how fundamentally that which is resisted reverberates to your own particular self-valuing.

Sauwelios wrote:

Fixed Cross wrote:

If resistance is the aim,

This is what I meant by "meta-paradox". Everything you go on to write from here may be true at some level, even the fundamental level. If resistance is the aim, then obviously the path to it can't be the path of least resistance (unless there's only one path). But when you have an appetite, do you go out and get food that almost makes you puke, that you're barely able to keep down? Surely not. So while what you say may be true for desires, for what is not (yet) a function of something else, it's surely not true for needs. Thus Nietzsche liked his intestins to be "industrious, but distant" (Ecce Homo, if I'm not mistaken). We typically don't want to be really conscious of our lower functions: consider the well-known factoid that when you really focus on how you walk, down to the actual movements of the different parts of your legs and feet, you tend to walk awkwardly and may even fall. I hope this suffices to prove I do have a point here.

Yes, but not pertaining to N's note. Because that was about existence in general, thus about WtP 'as such' - and this would be seeking for an increase in resistance.

As for food - I most prefer to eat raw steaks, which give my stomach strong but wholesome resistance.

We might attempt a categorization of good (will-strengthening) and bad (will-weakening) resistance types.

I agree, steak should be seared for 1 minute on each side only, then eaten.

Thrasymachus wrote:

I agree, steak should be seared for 1 minute on each side only, then eaten.

Nice.

Two types of resistance: that which compels overcoming (like a good steak) and that which compels revolt (like a big mac).

FC, I trust you meant "rare", not "raw"... I agree with what T says about it, though--also when applied to tuna steak.

T, I think fast food would make me puke sooner than a healthy meal--consider FC's remark about the Big Mac--, but I get your point: fast carbs are easier to digest than slow carbs, and are a more efficient source of energy, provided that your body can immediately convert it into activity (otherwise, it's stored as fat, which is slower than slow carbs).

FC, I think that, with that note, we're back full circle to my OP. We must make "contemporary Europe" "more evil and painful"!