What is the Will to Power?

there is no 'will' to power because there is no 'will'. no kantian transcendental 'will', no schopenhauerian 'will'. you have to keep in mind that nietzsche's influence by schopenhauer was what put that concept model into his mind... he was responding specifically to the 'will to life', as schopenhauer called it, and disagreeing with the premise that if there was a will, it would be simply a will to life.

schopenhauer and nietzsche were both considered 'vitalists', but nietzsche wanted to extend the notion of biological power to physis, to mechanical power; the will to life is not explanatory... there must also be a will in the very mechanism of all things before they even become biological. although schopenhauer also called the phenomenal world a 'representation' of the noumenal world of 'will' (which he inherited from kant), he did not claim that the will which represented the world was about 'power'. this was one of nietzsche's breaks with schopenhauer.

nietzsche abhored schopenhauer's pessimism, so he set out to put a different spin on the concept of the transcendental 'will'; suffering and striving are consequences of weakness of will, not of will itself, as schopenhauer had it. life is NOT inherently bad, and the judgement 'bad' reflects only a physiology and/or psychology of the one who makes the judgement. a judgement is a symptom only. schopenhauer was sick, but not a pure pessimist because he played the flute. nietzsche gave him that much credit.

then later nietzsche realizes he's misled everyone by calling it a 'will' to power in a fundamental sense. he explicitly admits that there is no 'will' countless times throughout his work.

why then the doctrine? because he had to explain the direction and process of becoming and change, indicatively. why there is change and becoming. for his purposes he anthropomorphizes becoming and change so that we can think of it as a vitalistic process, a metaphysical process; why do things evolve and change? because they have an inner will, are directed by an inner will, to do so. and what are they willing? not just life, but power.

that was nietzsche's original thesis.

but there is no 'Will' with a capital W. when we talk about 'will' we mean to say that someone or something is acting voluntarily and with purpose. and it makes no difference whether you are a hard-determinist, compatibalist, or indeterminist, for the word to be meaningful in language.

joe is taking a metaphysics-free walk to the store because he's willed it, because he wants to go to the fucking store and buy a pepsi, a snickers bar, and a lottery ticket (i don't know why because joe has a better chance of getting struck by lightening than winning the lottery). joe has the will and he knows the way. nuff said.

wanna know what the WTP is? not a rudimentary force, not the most fundamental fact, .... but this.

there you have it. these arguments at ILP that go back and forth endlessly, splitting hairs and quibbling over the definition of the WTP, are driving me bonkers.

^^^ hold on a fucking minute. tell me they did not just go into the Freebird chorus, by Lynyrd Skynyrd?

omg. poor fritz is rolling over in his grave right now. i don't imagine fritz would like Lynyrd Skynyrd. could you see him jamming out to Sweet Home Alabama or Gimme Three Steps? Maybe Gimme Back My Bullets,but that's it.

what is power? a potential for work or work itself? what would it mean to say a battery has power in it if it isn't discharging itself but sitting on the shelf? we would mean that there is something in the battery which can undergo a physical change, produce energy, and therefore force, and therefore motion.

but how does something 'have' a potential for motion? either it is presently producing motion or not. it cannot 'possess' a possibility like it can possess a physical quality.

so then something 'turns into' energy... rather than providing it? but everything is energy already, so everything is already kinetic power. things don't 'give' energy.

well what does that mean? it means everything is moving, but nothing 'makes' movement, or 'effects' movement in something else... so nothing 'possesses' power. things can't have power... they are power... insofar as they are moving.

so to apply a force through a distance, is work? but again, nothing 'applies' force, nor can it 'have' force.

power is movement? but movement and the body that moves, are two different things.

absolve all these conceptual difficulties and you end up with one final and fundamental quiddity: noise

the universe is a note. rock on, universe.

MS wrote:Will to power comes from nothing; will to power comes from itself...

circulus in probando en sauwelius!

to 'come' means to reach something... in this case, a state of existing. but if something 'comes' to a state of existing, it wasn't already existing, in which case it cannot come from itself, because it doesn't yet exist.

wasn't this circular reasoning already addressed somewhere? you can't just walk right by this fallacy of reasoning as if didn't happen, saully.

Pedro wrote:There is nothing from which will to power comes. It is itself the beginning, where all begins.

infinitus regressus en pedrosus!

what existed before it had its beginning, and from whence did it come? would a will to power that preceded a will to power become an infinite regression?

i swear to zeus i'm not trying to be difficult here. i truly am astonished at these lines of reasoning. and this is basic shit, man. logic 101. know your formal and informal fallacies before all else!

* face palm *

N holds that there is no "will", only "will-to-power".

Its a composite term to identify something that the word "will" and "power" by themselves do not.

Philosophy has the gruelling task of making language actually speak.

The notion of the subject is a consequence of will-to-power. But can will to power also be understood in terms of subjects?

N died before he could resolve this.

systems theory (which is what this is) interpreted metaphysically leads to a pantheistic occasionalism. the system becomes an autopoiesis machine of looping power processes, creating and destroying itself, conserving itself (by thermodynamic necessity).

our philosophical problem with the concept of the 'subject' is not due to linguistic problems (well it can be, sometimes), but is a result of the impossibility of two interpreters occupying the same space at the same time; difference is why we have 'subject' as a concept.

the purpose of the concept of the 'subject' is to qualify, certify our individual responsibility toward other parts, other individuals. the responsibility is to engage, create, destroy, assimilate, cooperate; this is the 'game', as nietzsche called it, that the world plays with itself, ad infinitum.

the unresolvable (ethical) problem for us is the reality of destruction and creation existing in unison during this autopoetic process. this, i think, results from our only being able to grasp the notion of the eternal recurrence intuitively (i was trying to explain this to saully on the phone a week ago). i mean by this that we fear death, so we fear destructive violence as well. but, understood properly, there is no 'death', only transformation... or rather, relocation, as i call it. you have to entertain multiverse theory for a moment; if a quantum event is possible, it must happen... somewhere. each reality, on its own arrow of time, produces novelty in its own space, its own locality, but is not unique in a physical sense. every reality and every event is happening elsewhere too, and therefore recurring. but on each arrow of time, quantum indeterminacy creates the possibility of wave/particle collapse to happen slightly differently than how it happened elsewhere... in one of the space/time locations.

so recurrence is both a repetition as well as a new event. a paradox, yes. think of it like this.

you have an infinite field or space. set a time line of events in one direction. at each moment, a branch breaks of in another direction; just now, in some parallel universe, i didn't just type this. i typed something slightly different... and you just paused reading to go to the refrigerator. that reality is now on its own arrow of time, and it too creates branches... and is branching right now as we speak.

to explain this in conventional, geometric terms is nearly impossible. you have to envision a point, then draw a line from that point... and then at each point along that line... start another line in another direction, and so on. in string theory they are thinking that the universe is really a 'brane', consisting of many, folded dimensions. now place your two dimensional point system into the brane; you will eventually cause an intersection of lines on your piece of paper... because you cannot begin a new line branch without crossing another line branch at some point. these intersections are recurrences... or rather, realities that are created by other realities that merge to form a reality that consists of the characteristics of each individual reality that makes it.

in that other location, i'm typing something different right now (but began typing what i began typing up above, if you will), and you're eating a chunk of swiss cheese... but after you began reading what i began typing a moment ago.

anyway, back to the point. our problem is coming to terms with destruction. we can't because we can't 'know' (can't be at every location at the same time, knowing we are at every location)... in each reality, each one of us thinks that's the only one of us... so we don't want to die. that's understandable.

now fortunately, we don't have to purposely destroy anything. what we understand as destruction is not really what it is. when we fight and war and all that shit, it feels great (i love a good fight... i've got alotta irish in me), but what we 'do', what we accomplish as a result, doesn't significantly change the quality of the multiverse or its branes. violence just moves bits of matter around in whatever reality it happens. so, those who believe (in a nietzschean sense) that 'progress' requires destruction- that power must be exercized as force, and therefore in the form of human 'violence'- are confused. no amount of destruction or creation following it can change the fundamental nature of the multiverse; nothing is in jeopardy if something doesn't get destroyed.

we are at a stage... a slightly more evolved monkey stage where we haven't yet evolved cognitively to match the sweeping sociological changes that have overcome us (phoneutria explained this to me in a letter while i was in the joint). that's why we are still violent. we are approaching that new stage very rapidly, though. nietzschean's have to be ready for a revolution in organics, an essential change in the way we understand 'life'. we will, one day, not only acknowledge the eternal recurrence as the new metaphysics, but also abolish violence completely... well human violence... obviously natural disasters will still occur on planets and what-not.

we will become cyber-organic gardeners and custodians... planting life on planets everywhere throughout the multiverse, and taking care of it. and don't worry about space... there's quite enough for all this to happen.

the earth? well, in a thousand years it will be little more than a construction material depot. in fact, it might even be owned by home depot... or maybe pepsi will own it. well, whatever. the point is, the people who remain on the earth will be either workers or supervisors. indeed, the meek shall inherit the earth, and they shall lives their lives producing materials needed for mass scaled space exploration projects all over the fuckin' place.

i'm rambling again. pardon me. sooooo, nietzsche's WTP doctrine was essential for the beginnings of our evolution. it was a doctrine that made sense because we were at a stage where we couldn't yet expand on it correctly- work out the kinks and the conflicts in it both conceptually and politically- and then move on. granted, it will always be the quintessential philosophy that got us going... that put gas in the tank so we could make some miles. today, however, new theories in cosmology and physics are leading the way to new frontiers and possibilities. and i think fritz would be proud of us.

we couldn't have done it without fritz... can't do it without fritz. we can't make this leap into the future until we realize and accept that the old gods are dead, and that we have killed them.

now, we must become gods to take their place and their responsibility.

if you do not understand any of this, it's not your fault. i was born posthumously.

*drops mic*

*audience roars with applause*

*people rush at zoot for an autograph*

*zoot doesn't have a pen*

*some hot chick says 'i have a pen... will you sign my breasts?*

*zoot says 'i don't see why not'*

etc., etc.

Zoot Allures wrote:

MS wrote:Will to power comes from nothing; will to power comes from itself...

circulus in probando en sauwelius!

to 'come' means to reach something... in this case, a state of existing. but if something 'comes' to a state of existing, it wasn't already existing, in which case it cannot come from itself, because it doesn't yet exist.

wasn't this circular reasoning already addressed somewhere? you can't just walk right by this fallacy of reasoning as if didn't happen, saully.

And saying it (or something) has always existed is not a fallacy of reasoning?

Pedro wrote:There is nothing from which will to power comes. It is itself the beginning, where all begins.

infinitus regressus en pedrosus!

what existed before it had its beginning, and from whence did it come? would a will to power that preceded a will to power become an infinite regression?

i swear to zeus i'm not trying to be difficult here. i truly am astonished at these lines of reasoning. and this is basic shit, man. logic 101. know your formal and informal fallacies before all else!

* face palm *

"Thinking begins only when we have come to know that reason, glorified for centuries, is the most stiff-necked adversary of thought." (Heidegger, "The Word of Nietzsche: 'God is Dead'".)

Lol. Be careful of showing Pezer for a Heideggerian.

But yeah.
Zoot, you're confused.

Logically, a thing can be prior to something else without being prior to it in time.

You conflate metaphysics and physics.



If Time is a function of will to power, Zoot, which is obviously required for the WtP to make any sense whatsoever which it does, how do you imagine something preceded the will to power?

Baracuda wrote:Logically, a thing can be prior to something else without being prior to it in time.

example, please.

*taps fingers on desk*

i'm pretty sure any kind of sequencing takes place through a duration. things can simultaneously come into existence together, in which case one doesn't precede the other, or, one exists before the other comes into existence. is there a third alternative here?

i'm not even sure what you're responding to, anyway. was it my question to pedro?

if you'll look again, you'll see i was questioning pedro's use of the word 'beginning', if he is inferring that WTP began. i don't believe there are any beginnings... or ends, for that matter.

MS wrote:And saying it (or something) has always existed is not a fallacy of reasoning?

if you want to be perfectly clear, any talk about such things as 'will to power' at all is riddled with problems. but we're doing metaphysics here so we're playing the part.

what i was pointing out is that you said WTP comes from itself. i'm not wondering whether or not WTP exists, but how it can 'come from itself'. you could say 'WTP is itself', obviously, which is a tautology, or that it comes from something else. but if it doesn't, and if it's already there, then it can't 'come' from itself. you feel me? it's the use of the word 'come' here that is peculiar.

MS wrote:reason, glorified for centuries, is the most stiff-necked adversary of thought.

i don't gotta stiff-neck, saully. i gotta stiff upper lip.

Zoot Allures wrote:

Baracuda wrote:Logically, a thing can be prior to something else without being prior to it in time.

example, please.

*taps fingers on desk*

i'm pretty sure any kind of sequencing takes place through a duration. things can simultaneously come into existence together, in which case one doesn't precede the other, or, one exists before the other comes into existence. is there a third alternative here?

Logically, being precedes time.
But in time, nothing can come before time, and being seems to require time.

Those are the two paradigms to separate.
Make the argument in both paradigms. See if they match up.

Barracuda wrote:Logically, being precedes time.

i think we're on the same page here, but let me make sure we are for the right reason. before a thing can change, it must exist. and to change, time is required. and no time can exist without there being change (of something). therefore, time cannot 'happen' without something existing, and something must exist before time happens.

looks right, but is it?

how soon after a thing exists does it begin to change? the moment it comes into being or the moment after?

ah, were at an impasse now. what if being and time exist together, eternally? not one without the other, or before the other. we've determined that something must first exist before it can change, and yet we've realized that there is no moment that an existing thing isn't changing.

Barracuda wrote:But in time, nothing can come before time

but time doesn't exist unless there is movement, and movement can't exist unless there are bodies in a space.

look at the clock on the wall. that clock isn't telling you the time... there is no time. all you see is moving hands... and you infer time by noting the motion of the hands. you create increments and give them names like '6:07'... that's all. time does exist, but only because there is change... and change only exists because there are things. ergo, time cannot exist without moving things.

but earlier you said:

Barracuda wrote:Logically, a thing can be prior to something else without being prior to it in time.

this matter is a little different when concerning two things. it's not the same thing as a being and whether or not it can exist before time. you're saying one thing can be before another thing without this placement occurring in time. i can't imagine how.

i know you're lurking, B.

you lying so low in the weeds... bet you gonna ambush me. you'd have me down, down, down to my knees.... wouldn't you, Barracuda?

...

true story: when i got out of prison in 2014, i met two female cybots, lyssa and phoneutria, at two philosophy forums, and was immediately entranced by them both (my sirens and muses). i then created a fantasy where in another space/time, lyssa was nancy wilson, phoneutria was ann wilson, saully was lead electric guitarist, jakob rhythm electric guitarist, satyr the bassist (listen to that bass gallop starting at 3:17), and i was the drummer minus the big hair. it was totally awesome.

*sigh*

p.s. the video is out of sync with the audio, but that's the only live performance of the song that's decent.

Zoot Allures wrote:

Barracuda wrote:Logically, being precedes time.

i think we're on the same page here, but let me make sure we are for the right reason. before a thing can change, it must exist. and to change, time is required. and no time can exist without there being change (of something). therefore, time cannot 'happen' without something existing, and something must exist before time happens.

looks right, but is it?

how soon after a thing exists does it begin to change? the moment it comes into being or the moment after?

As soon as there is change, there is potentially discernible being, time.
But what I the ground of time?

Our terms are different, Devils, details. Yous ask about origins, I ask about ground.
What is the ground of being?
I say it is the lack of power of nothingness, vacuum, to enforce itself. But, because language can't ever escape being, this lack of power is itself also a being.

ah, were at an impasse now. what if being and time exist together, eternally? not one without the other, or before the other. we've determined that something must first exist before it can change, and yet we've realized that there is no moment that an existing thing isn't changing.

Any discrete thing is a bundle of change with respect to a stable paradigm.
If you have time, I deal with this sort of thing extensively in this video. I discovered yesterday that it is really pretty damn good. My Kabbalah videos are no doubt among my more the sensible youtube creations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCKK5hlXTrc

B -- But in time, nothing can come before time

Z --but time doesn't exist unless there is movement, and movement can't exist unless there are bodies in a space.

look at the clock on the wall. that clock isn't telling you the time... there is no time. all you see is moving hands... and you infer time by noting the motion of the hands. you create increments and give them names like '6:07'... that's all. time does exist, but only because there is change... and change only exists because there are things. ergo, time cannot exist without moving things.

but earlier you said:

B -- Logically, a thing can be prior to something else without being prior to it in time.

Z -- this matter is a little different when concerning two things. it's not the same thing as a being and whether or not it can exist before time. you're saying one thing can be before another thing without this placement occurring in time. i can't imagine how.  

For example, the concept "0", which is a thing, exists a priori to the calculations that make use of it, and yet it may be that in time, these calculations start with say, 4, 7 and 11, and only end up at 0 at the end. 0 did never exist as a manifestation until it was created as a concept. Arabs did that, as far as Ive read. No negligible feat.

Its kind of hard to explain because in order to sensibly compute epistemology with ontology, we need to be able to talk about concepts as things, and about things as concepts, not just things as things and concepts as concepts. These 4 notions are all part of any given Being. "Self-Valuing and valuing in terms of self-valuing" is a concept with all these 4 modi integrated in each other. The Thing that it identifies the Will to Power.

And as Pezer keeps stressing, you can't approach that as if it is separate from your approaching it. It is you, your approach, the thing you approach, the terms in which you approach it - and more. Thats the problem, our proper object (being) is open-ended. Self-Valuing is, as Mitra will concur, a spiralling concept, that draws you along and forces you to make ever more nuanced discernments, until at last you arrive at the abyss where the mind can no longer be different to its findings, as its findings will now determine whether or not the mind can continue to exist.

There is a psychotic element to the mind that VO addresses. Monstrous masks et al.

i'm coming, B. gotta make another thread real quick. be back before you can spell antidisestablishmentarianism...

Zoot Allures wrote:i know you're lurking, B.

you lying so low in the weeds... bet you gonna ambush me. you'd have me down, down, down to my knees.... wouldn't you, Barracuda?

Beautiful.

...

true story: when i got out of prison in 2014, i met two female cybots, lyssa and phoneutria, at two philosophy forums, and was immediately entranced by them both (my sirens and muses). i then created a fantasy where in another space/time, lyssa was nancy wilson, phoneutria was ann wilson, saully was lead electric guitarist, jakob rhythm electric guitarist, satyr the bassist (listen to that bass gallop starting at 3:17), and i was the drummer minus the big hair. it was totally awesome.

*sigh*

p.s. the video is out of sync with the audio, but that's the only live performance of the song that's decent.

I can't see it happening in that formation, but we can make music from the spirit of philosophy.

https://soundcloud.com/jakob-milikowski/all-them-bastards
https://soundcloud.com/jakob-milikowski/eve

... and that, unfortunately, is where i distance myself from jakob. i cannot stand that 'music', and it hurts me too know that someone with his talent (he's a fine pianist) is making that garbage.

i can fully understand the use and appreciation of synthetic devices and music, but at that crap i draw a line. i don't know what has gotten into him or why he does this. i have to remind myself constantly of his intelligence so that he is redeemed in my eyes, and you have no idea how difficult it is for me to not abandon him completely for even wanting to listen to that trash. it speaks volumes about his soul.

i had a 'rap' phase when i was eighteen. it lasted a year... then i grew up. i remember that period fondly, but in a sentimental way... not because i still admire that kind of music. can i express both my short lived appreciation for rap music while also making parody, caricature and satire out of it? i think so: https://sendvid.com/kewvt4gh

but jakob is SERIOUS about that stuff. i'm tempted to buy his ass a piano to give him something he's worthy of doing....

Im just better at what you're also trying. Ive seen your videos, don't be ridiculous. I used to play around with 7 and 5 8ths and 13 and 15 16ths and guitar drumming endlessly when I just got into recording music. I rediscovered the 4 bars tension for its efficiency in sustaining lyrics. All this is improvised. If you can't appreciate that art you're a weakling in my book. Id like to see you do it, come up with rhyming, tight rhythmic narrative on the fly. That said, send me a piano. Ill definitely play it.

well, well if it isn't the man himself, Mr, Jakob Milikowski. i knew you would come, i just didn't know when and in what form.

yo, saully, check this out my nigga:

this dude creeps up in a mask
with a mission and a wish
instead of calling him jakob
he wants to be called a fish?

a barracuda
but i do da
things that he wants to do
you can't run in witcho gun
straight outta tha blue!

you'll get smoked, homeboy
with that attitude

now check it

let's put your work on the scales
and then let's look at tha weight
you sell that cut up shit
on a big plastic plate?

i berate these fools
with they weak ass hustle

you better sharpen your pencil, mang
and start readin' russell

*drops mic*

yo, saully. gimme a light, nigga, and get this dude a drink, yeah?

...

now you know i put on gloves before the occult, and even still feel i should wash my hands after handling it. there is no need to delve into occult or mysticism to support VO, because if VO is supportable, it will not be so by this.

for every religion there is a supporting, esoteric doctrine of some sort which, taken as a complete system, accomplishes the same thing for itself as does every other religion. that being the case, such doctrines are contingencies that don't prove anything about the religion they support. if there is some metaphysical foundation for a religion, it would be without contest and accessible to everyone who could grasp the logic that supported it.

if i wished to develop an esoteric foundation for an exoteric religion, it would be a pure metaphysics... nothing cryptic about it. and whatever i identified as a metaphysical principle would not be the exclusive right of my system only... but all systems... and therefore it would be a redundancy to call it esoteric. if it wasn't a redundancy, then all esoteric systems would be equally true. this is logically impossible... unless they are trying to identify and explain the same thing. in that case, there is no need to call such knowledge esoteric, again, because the knowledge isn't exclusive to any one system. do you follow that reasoning?

how appropriate these lyrics are:

If the real thing don't do the trick
You better make up something quick
You gonna burn it out to the wick
Aren't you, Barracuda?

p.s. nice to see you again, dutchy.

just tell me you would be playing a piano if you had one and i'll let the beat-box go without any objection. and stop with that lil' wayne thing you're trying to do with your voice. i hate that clown. just rap in a regular voice if you insist on doing it. for what it is, its not bad; you are fluent in the use of those devices you use. just chill on all the heavy breathin' and shit you do when you rap.

and no, you don't play guitar. i saw a video in which you struggled to get even a single clean chord. stop frontin', bruh.

you certainly can buy a guitar though, and put that damn beat-box away... at least until you've got something to go with it. just think of how much more rich your stuff would sound with some guitar tracks over the synth.

Yes(edited)

Baracude wrote:As soon as there is change, there is potentially discernible being, time.

i'm disagreeing. time is not 'being'; it is neither a physical thing nor is it able to become any different than what it is (simply duration). a duration is no different now than it was then, and won't be any different later.

but are we asserting that being must precede time, again? remember this cannot be, because there isn't a moment in a being's existence when it isn't changing. it does not begin existing and then start changing later on. therefore being and time are synchronized, exist together. if being and time had a begining, is a good question, but that can't be answered. there is justifiable belief in cosmology and physics that there was no begining, and that time, space and energy are eternal.

Barracuda wrote:But what I the ground of time?

Being, and likewise, time is the ground it it, too.

Barracuda wrote:Yous ask about origins, I ask about ground.

if you mean by 'ground', a 'cause', that's a problematic question. several philosophers have thoroughly critiqued the notion of a 'prima causa' (as Aquinas and Aristotle thought it). what we now know is that it is illogical to assume therre can be a first cause that is not also an effect of some other cause, and so on. this idea works well withh the concept of eternity; no begining to space, time and energy. the postulation of a creator god is now out of the question.

Barracuda wrote:I say it is the lack of power of nothingness, vacuum, to enforce itself.

this is nonsense. nothingness is nothing, and nothing cannot 'lack' anything. insofar as nothing is an absence of being, yes, you could say that it 'lacked' being... but that's a peculiar misuse of the word 'lack'. when we say that something 'lacks' something, we imply that the something is already existing, and existing without a particular quality... which it lacks. see the difference?

Barracuda wrote:But, because language can't ever escape being, this lack of power is itself also a being.

i'm not even sure what this mean, so i can't reply.

Barracuda wrote:Any discrete thing is a bundle of change with respect to a stable paradigm.

what do you mean 'stable paradigm'? do you mean natural laws? the operations of change and why change happens like it does, or....?

about the numeral '0'. really it's just a place holder in mathematics and not a number... like 1-9. there came a problemm when mathematicians needed to express quantities more than 9, but couldn't make the next number 11... so they invented the 0. if they didn't invent the 0, they'd lose a numeral when counting:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, etc.

when we put 9 oranges beside 11 oranges, we see that the new quanity is two more. but what if we have a quantity that is only one more? we need to be able to account for that number; hence the 0.

Barracuda wrote:Its kind of hard to explain because in order to sensibly compute epistemology with ontology, we need to be able to talk about concepts as things, and about things as concepts, not just things as things and concepts as concepts.

i like to simplify this. concepts can be about things, relationships between things, processes, and relationships between processes, but nothing else. think of an instance of having a concept and you will see that it's about one of these.

when you say 'talk about concepts as if they are things', you're right, but they are not the same things as the things they 'talk about'. they are not objects or relationships between objects, but are about these relationships and objects, instead. and, there can be a concept about a concept without the concept about which the concept is about, being an object.

concepts simply aren't in the same class as objects.

regarding the kind of language game that occult narrative plays.

i could invent a system such as:

the tereceff marks the third level of the diosatic stage of prodeses. prodeses cannot occur without tereceff first happening, so it cannot take the niasian form without it.

what this must be describing is either a real, tangible natural process or a process involving the relationships of the words themselves, which don't reflect anything about nature. if the former case, it wouldn't matter what you called these things, because it would be the process and objects involved that were real... and if they were real, they would be describable in general scientific terms. that's means the narrative would no longer be esoteric.

if the latter case, then the narrative is only internally consistent and refers to nothing about the world; imaginary concepts and processes are invented, and the meaningfulness of the use of these concepts exists if the statements and conclusions take a logical form. they certainly can... so that's what makes the narrative seem as if it represents real things and events.

if i were to say: the niasian form cannot be taken by prodeses until the tereceff is reached in the diosatic stage, i would be speaking the truth... because that conclusion logically follows from my premises.

but i've merely created a tautology which is reached through deduction. deductive truths say nothing about the world.

the truth of my claims need not reflect reality in any way to be true, see. and if they do reflect reality, they are scientific claims, and therefore not esoteric but inductive.

"and nothing cannot 'lack' anything. insofar as nothing is an absence of being, yes, you could say that it 'lacked' being"


Dude I can't rationally respond to posts where one sentence says the literal opposite of the next.
You're not the only one doing this, not by a long shot.

Take yourself more seriously please, as I would like to converse with you. Another thing you'd need to do is to stop putting words in my mouth, stop suggesting I said things I didn't say, stop loosely paraphrasing me. You cant loosely paraphrase logic.

Realize that I mean only what I say, and nothing besides.
This is really the very beginning. To read well, so that there can be consistency from one writer to the next.

Its a waste of time and mind to sit here telling you over and over "I didn't say this here, I used word x and not word y, and I don't share your assumption that x=y".

i'll try again a little later, then, though i suspect that whereof i cannot speak, thereof i must be silent.