Money and energy are artificial intelligences, impossible things that by treating them as if they were possible, by a sort of inversion of values, with the attractive force of indifference, make possible the impossibility they represent.
Whoever abdicates shaping the world calls it a liar, creates conspiracy theories and is a bit paranoid. This must occur especially in generations in which «freedom only as equal» dominates; these are golden ages that like this material offer to be molded. How does this combine with this other occurrence ?: one shapes it by liberating it from afar.
The compulsion of the individual to start again and again from scratch is intellectual force at work—it does not seem to want to go backwards step by step, but to leap over everything towards originality.
Being in practical terms an atheist, however, I realize that religion is invaluable, because humanity being so full of possibilities, not deifying it until its parallels cross in infinity, makes it live below its own level.
Copernicus overcame the overvaluation of visual evidence (of the visual over vision), but then accepted it again, as Einstein accepted his own work and then partly denied it; but one more step would lead us to «the lesser is less than the greater is greater», and one more to recognize an “«outside» not only in the beyond but also in the hereafter; this demands a physical theory not of multiple universes but «of two great parts of the universe»; in it, the human being and the earth are restored as the center of the world, as would be any concentration or logic between ««the lesser is less than the greater is greater» and «the greater is greater than the lesser is less»»; the center of the world would now be like the neck between the two horizontal blisters of the hourglass.
One must separate the symbol from its radiation—it will go further but it is not the limited and symbolic logic that created it. Otherwise one remains a new rich of the spirit.
It is valuable to keep things separate and at the same time recognize the conformal relationship between them; thus, «what nature separated on its own» is related in a Dionysian dance that produces transcendence, exponential growth and compound interest.
The apparent reason of why this or that happens to you is an effect and not the original cause; this effect is the consequence of the crossroads of reason and your reason (reason + your reason), and it happens long before-deep down, without us realizing it.
«The best only once» at a time, a day, a year or a month, and more once in a lifetime than once a year: this has already happened and that is why not knowing about it leads to tragedy.
Effort is an inferior occasion that we treat so comprehensively that it does not accord with the diameter of its own nature, otherwise its treatment would vitalize us, since they are small «sleepings and dreamings» that are there in favor of the whole and our general satisfaction. https://image.nostr.build/c4acbcde71d8c5fcae144caea86e3a1771d7bb41aee5daca83287f2730705ee9.png
Perhaps truth is always «equivocal», and it is a criterion of truth that everything that surrounds it agrees with it, speaks of it, as it happens with a symbol.
And perhaps we have to separate »the equivocal» from »the mistake», and propose the hypothesis that the only error is one of direction, "of inversion of values", and that the "equivocal" is in reality, once separated from the direction, a criterion of truth.
Perhaps our originality is conformal to the origin of the world, and this inversion of direction, this having to develop from the inside out and not like reality as a whole from the outside in (seen from our perspective) is already living according to the origin of the world, and not living from the inside out would produce in us a delay.
In this respect religious expectation, "the taste for amulets, the hope that something from outside you will save you, as Georg Jünger would say, would be a retardation, a waiting in vain", since that which we expect from outside in religious expectation has already arrived, it is only that we participate in it in our own way, "from our logic and origin", from the inside out.
With some minor corrections:
Perhaps truth is always «equivocal», and it is a criterion of truth that everything that surrounds it agrees with it, speaks of it, as it happens with a symbol.
And perhaps we have to separate «the equivocal» from «the mistake», and propose the hypothesis that the only error is one of direction, "of inversion of values", and that the «equivocal» is in reality, once separated from the direction, a criterion of truth.
Perhaps our originality is conformal to the origin of the world, and this inversion of direction, this having to develop from the inside out and not like reality as a whole from the outside in (seen from our perspective) is already living according to the origin of the world, and not living from the inside out would produce in us a delay.
In this respect religious expectation, «the taste for amulets, the hope that something from outside you will save you, as Georg Jünger would say, would be a retardation, a waiting in vain», since that which we expect from outside in religious expectation has already arrived, it is only that we participate in it in our own way, from «our» logic and origin, from the inside out.
Technique (and technology) is the worst of the best, close to the point of occasion, at the crossroads, where the best is exhibited.
A good ChatGPT version:
"Technique, being the worst of the best, stands at the threshold of critical decisions, at the crossroads where the essential is revealed. At this juncture, what prevails is the authenticity and inherent freedom in each interaction."
An argument cannot use the origin as a specific justification, since in the titanic and original everything is justified; the specific justification has to do with the surface, the game, the goal and the occasion.
Energy, capital and before that the ether, are all fictions that when treated as real, by a matter of inversion of values, make the impossible possible out of indifference.
One could make a distributed philosophical school using Nostr, AI, Blockchain.
My whole way of thinking is designed so that others can use what I write in their own works «without explicitly attributing it to me», since my way of writing is principal, meta, original, aphoristic.
In the renaissance painters had their colleagues, young people who thus were better initiated in painting by taking advantage of the experience of someone already initiated.
But today this can be done much better, in a more planetary and cosmic way, with more independence, respect, and distance between the sorcerer and the sorcerer's apprentice, in a more cosmopolitan way, as Nietzsche said: "meeting in the widest circles".
The value in this case (philosophy) is to be able to use a well conceived event (aphorism) in your own world and work, but without having to explicitly attribute it to the one who originated it, since the attribution is given automatically and implicitly, because by using Nostr one has an original relationship with all the rest: in this way one can go much further, we can be more comprehensive and perhaps someday be more cosmic than planetary.
Something like this changes everything, and it is part of what is of value in this new expansion of our culture, which among its ramifications, has produced remarkable insights such as those of Satoshi and Fiatjaf.
#Nietzsche
#Satoshi
#Fiatjaf
#growNostr
#philosophy
#nostrphilosophy
#AI
#Blockchain
Thnx!
I should clarify that what you quote is not what I said.
More to the Point: for things to work completely, participation is necessary, without participation there is a part that is always missing; in this sense it seems to me that Nostr is a valuable experiment, it allows you to implicitly attribute the origin of a maxim, and allows you to spend less time thanking with words and more time thanking with participation, use, practice; nothing against words, but it seems to me a very interesting experiment to see what happens if one is not «explicitly thanking» for every calorie one ingests, what kind of cultural organism can develop in this way.
I am in favor of recognizing how deep our common originality is and how necessary it is to recognize it in its depth so that we can all grow in power without self-destructing.
I am completely against plagiarism.
hehe, what ?
Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems you haven't grasped yet what I said and you are being (without realizing it) a bit superficial at the moment...
Something that is annoying of people is when they do not recognize that equality is valuable as conformal equality and not «as being free only as equals»; there has to be an exchange for all values to be worth, for there to be a cosmos; the original is more conformal than the exoteric and superficial, to create is more conformal than to consume. Ernst Jünger, Esgrafiados: "Equality between free people is not the same as being free only as an equal". The second equality is ungrateful and unfortunate, one that thanks the superficial radiation and not what generated it, that worships more the exhibited than the totality of references that were involved in creating that fortunate work; it is the problem of the hare that remains bulging in front of an intense spotlight, or that of voluntarily exchanging gold for colored mirrors.
One is conformally free and therefore conforms there; and when one squares oneself, what one squares there does so with the totality of references that determine it.
Statistics is contradicted by the best human examples in history: its error is given (that of the overvaluation of statistics) by the incomprehension of the majority, because a majority can be not very comprehensive by the confabulation of the image with superficiality: what is clear and obvious can also be only for a few.
In the vital we also see what is dead, which is why both «humans and animals» can feel animosity towards the artist: human beings cannot live within the entire vital spectrum, but human genius is the vital spectrum, as seen in children and some fortunate adults; everyone is brilliant: the problem lies in the fact that we can be acting foolish for too long.
The value of blockchain consists in being an example of self-sufficiency that allows a better distribution of responsibility, since it is the totality that determines the point; in the case of money and the financial sector blockchain is one more step towards the ethereal (as was the move from the gold standard to "GDP"); and courage & mastery, are they not the power to take steps towards something more intangible and ethereal ?; the development of AI is an experiment with games that produce different syntheses of distributed responsibility.
«Pushing things to the limit»: this is how the parallels «intersect at infinity». So, thinking at the limit is a way of thinking projectively. What bothers us about many of our mistakes is that the solution was right next to us, «like in parallel», and that, with the solutions so close, we can go through a whole lifetime without seeing them. However, we cannot go through an infinity without seeing them, and this is where thinking about things at the limit helps us. Nietzsche liked to think this way sometimes, and so does the remarkable Elon Musk. In them, we see an emphasis on the titanic, typical of our time. This emphasis is one of the few things that Ernst Jünger criticized Nietzsche for: «the timeless is preeminent over the infinite», the power of time grows the less comprehensive the sphere is. It's not a matter of completely disregarding time but of understanding the relative value of what we are dealing with.
Luxury is the exoteric equivalent of origin as probability is the exoteric equivalent of possibility; the question is whether there are more possibilities than probabilities, more originality than luxury; it seems to be so: the original and possible is pre-eminent then over luxury and the probable.
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by @ddocurrencias | export