A thread on value

I made a post on the other new forum.
http://forum.neosophi.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=328
Its not been approved yet, so to be sure, Ill put it here as well.

Abraham wrote:
What is value?

Whatever you value turns to a value.
Most things you value, you value subconsciously, like air.  Breathing is appropriating the value of air, i.e. valuing that air.

Is currency real?

Real to the end of buying things that are of value.

Is gold, silver or a diamond more valuable then sand?

To whom?

Is value not a human idea? And not a real thing.

Meat is as much a value to a cat as it is to a human. The cat doesn't pretend the value of the meat is an "idea".

Is the sense of value not an indroctenation? An idea put into the human mind?

Some yogis claim they can do without values such as proteins, but they still require the values they take in through breath.
So if you want to believe in yoga and all that, many values are probably not actually necessarily values. But breath will always remain indispensable. Indispensable as in absolutely valuable, an absolute value

Why does currency, gold and so on, fluctuate in value?

They fluctuate in price. You can put different prices on one value. That is why the stock market functions.

Is food not more valuable than a ton of platinum?

Of course it is. But platinum is normally scarcer. The price of scarce things tends to be higher than their value.

Ask yourself. What is the value of anything. Is it a fact? Is it real?

There are a lot of people and animals that I love very dearly. All of them are of infinite value to me. Yes, that is real. Thankfully.

I have posted a note to you in the lounge:

Please see https://pathos-of-distance.forumotion.com/t57-note-to-barracuda

I am still exploring this value thing, perhaps I am about to be educated.

Can I ask you what your basic convictions are?

I mean the touch stone of your philosophic explorations, the criterium that never changes, which allows you to see that other things do change and is the ground to your hope for a successul philosophy forum, and the impulse to communicate this hope to realize it.

What is behind it all as far as you can see?

You can indeed ask me what my basic convictions are.

I believe this is a complicated question for me to fully answer so I will try to make my answer as short as possible - I also think that what you will read here is the first part of the answer and starts with human beings as the basis for my philosophical inquiry.

The standard or criterion by which, anything I judge, or recognize changes surrounding me, is built into me and is difficult to put into words and yet in a word is "peace" with "love" a very close second. But this is not peace and love how we are accustomed to seeing them - I am talking about a calm state and the ability for humans to care about each other instead of just for themselves.

First of all I believe humans are innately social creatures and I take this from the majority of observations that I have made. So I try to base my decision making around a consensus. When I disagree with the consensus I gently work on the rest of my group to hopefully make them see things my way but sometimes I end up seeing things their way. I also believe that humans are a rational creature and emotional states are driven toward this end, and this is perhaps why some of us are dangerous. So therefore consensus, I believe, is a good thing for humans.

When judging me however, one has to be careful not to misinterpret what I am saying because I believe general human nature is currently in a state of disease. Whether good wins the battle against evil is still yet to be seen - humans are happy enough with the idea that good and evil have no respective benchmark and I think this is simply a confusion built in to our philosophies.

I see purpose as something that nature has made obvious to us and we try to fight against that and hence we have invented human nature - I would have personally gone the direction of highlighting what is obvious and began working with that.

Perhaps what is behind all of this is my mistreatment as a youngster.

Thank you for you response.

The standard or criterion by which, anything I judge, or recognize changes surrounding me, is built into me and is difficult to put into words and yet in a word is "peace" with "love" a very close second. But this is not peace and love how we are accustomed to seeing them - I am talking about a calm state and the ability for humans to care about each other instead of just for themselves.

If I may ask further, do you find that you have to fight in order to gain peace, or to defend love?
Because, I do.
I am very peaceful at heart, which is I believe why animals come to me. But to maintain this purity I have to often be very, very harsh indeed to humans, many of whom are complete and utter retards with respect to the Earth they stand on, and the threaten what I love, which is foremost, nature as it was before mankin decided he had to control it.

First of all I believe humans are innately social creatures and I take this from the majority of observations that I have made. So I try to base my decision making around a consensus. When I disagree with the consensus I gently work on the rest of my group to hopefully make them see things my way but sometimes I end up seeing things their way. I also believe that humans are a rational creature and emotional states are driven toward this end, and this is perhaps why some of us are dangerous. So therefore consensus, I believe, is a good thing for humans.

So I take it that you do not agree at all that life, and existence, is Will to Power and nothing besides, am I right?

I personally find that honest and lasting consensus is only possible if all sides have fully expressed the power of their convictions, and taught one another what they can, so that a higher order of truth has emerged.

I think truth is not given, but must be gained in the exchanges of powers and values between perspectives.

When judging me however, one has to be careful not to misinterpret what I am saying because I believe general human nature is currently in a state of disease. Whether good wins the battle against evil is still yet to be seen - humans are happy enough with the idea that good and evil have no respective benchmark and I think this is simply a confusion built in to our philosophies.

I agree here
I think personally that humanity cannot come to peace as long as it doesn't recognize other mammals to begin with as sentient and even very conscious creatures. Ive lived closer to the world of animal souls than human society all my life, it is much richer and saner

I eat meat, as so many animals do. But I limit this to three types of animals, species I was raised on, and I've come to accept as my prey animals. I do find that I should be the one to raise and kill them in the end.

And I find that ideally the killing must overseen by some sort of shaman.
Without such changes I don't see any hope. And perhaps this is the reason Isla is growing so powerful, that it has regard for the fact that animal slaughter is a very ominous thing before which one better evoke the favour of ones highest consciousness to justify it.

I see purpose as something that nature has made obvious to us and we try to fight against that and hence we have invented human nature - I would have personally gone the direction of highlighting what is obvious and began working with that.

Perhaps what is behind all of this is my mistreatment as a youngster.

I wish you good fortune in this undertaking. My advice is to remain as consistent as possible and to always keep an eye on the weakest of your premises. There is always imperfection, otherwise there would be only death.

If I may ask further, do you find that you have to fight in order to gain peace, or to defend love?
Because, I do.
I am very peaceful at heart, which is I believe why animals come to me. But to maintain this purity I have to often be very, very harsh indeed to humans, many of whom are complete and utter retards with respect to the Earth they stand on, and the threaten what I love, which is foremost, nature as it was before mankind decided he had to control it.

I do not have much fight left in me - I have always been a very passive person - occasionally I blow up a little. Right now, I reside by myself; as you can imagine it is easy for me to find peace this way - my only social outlet is the internet and these forums.

I too have an immense love for nature especially the way it was before mankind felt the need to control it.

So I take it that you do not agree at all that life, and existence, is Will to Power and nothing besides, am I right?

I personally find that honest and lasting consensus is only possible if all sides have fully expressed the power of their convictions, and taught one another what they can, so that a higher order of truth has emerged.

I think truth is not given, but must be gained in the exchanges of powers and values between perspectives.

I do not know what the will to power is, I am aware by observation that you are likely referring to Nietzsche. I like your ideas on consensus. I think you could perhaps teach me a little about gaining truth. On ILP I have the following quote in my signature:

It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
(Anomaly654 - 2017)

I wish you good fortune in this undertaking. My advice is to remain as consistent as possible and to always keep an eye on the weakest of your premises. There is always imperfection, otherwise there would be only death.

I wish you good fortune. I am not sure what the weakest of my premises are.

encode_decode wrote:
I do not have much fight left in me - I have always been a very passive person - occasionally I blow up a little. Right now, I reside by myself; as you can imagine it is easy for me to find peace this way - my only social outlet is the internet and these forums.

I too have an immense love for nature especially the way it was before mankind felt the need to control it.

With a lot of effort I manage to keep contact with the "real world" as well, even though it is very from from real at this point. It is supremely difficult, and has been for decades, to find a society of people that aren't pathologically evil when it comes down to it.

I believe we are living in a time once anticipated as the Apocalypse. Literally that means just revelation, unveiling. I believe we have the questionable "privilege" of seeing what man is really made of when he doesn't heed his natural heart; dust. Only the maximal exertion of his spirit can retrieve his heart.

I do not know what the will to power is, I am aware by observation that you are likely referring to Nietzsche. I like your ideas on consensus. I think you could perhaps teach me a little about gaining truth. On ILP I have the following quote in my signature:

It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
(Anomaly654 - 2017)

Ah yes. Good quote. As soon as one wise or good human discloses som truth, there are a thousand wicked ones that find every way of per-verting this truth to their own benefit.

Against these usurpers and demons, we use reassert truth again and again, ever in newly hewn forms, every in new beauties. Such is life.

The only certain redemption is in the fact that we are no demons. We don't have to suffer that abysmal fate. We just have to constantly do battle with them.

Within this first redemption, many others are to be found.
the privilege of not being a demon is infinitely great.

I am excited at the prospect of being able to teach you something about gaining truth.
This is such an open minded suggestion of yours that I am hesitant to be too forceful. Id really like to actually bring something across that Ive gained.

It may seem a side-step, but given your love of nature and your own patient nature, do you know anything about the Runes?

I wish you good fortune. I am not sure what the weakest of my premises are.

Thank you.

I think it is impossible to truly know ones weakest premises, at least to the effect that when one catches oneself relying on a weak thought, it tends to cease being a premise. Ive been trying to discern where I rely on false thoughts forever - and yet errors do remain, no matter how deep I dig, how much truth I gain.

Sometimes I think that without weak premises, it would be impossible for a man to endure his fellow humans. This is a scary thought.