Crucify This….

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Drama aside, I am looking for criticisms in regards to a “paper” I am going to try to get published. This is just a draft, but with that in mind I am looking for criticisms. Or in other words: Please attack it. Even if it sounds like “confusing bulls~~~” that is good enough for me. And after all criticisms are done, I am going to delete this post or if the moderators are kind enough, have them delete it for me.

-The Observation of the Will / Transcendence Above the “Will to Power”

Abstract:

The “Will to Power”, which has left its marks in science/philosophy/religion, has become stagnant at multiple levels leaving the Only route of possible “Transcendence” in the “Observation of the Will”.

As a pre-note: The difficulty of this observation will manifest itself in the complexity of language, for language is not complex on its own terms, but because languages reflect upon and off each other, sometimes causing a distortion of concepts and principles through a distortion of observation. It is not ecause of the difference in languages, that there will be “confusion”, but because of the reflective similarities that get distorted through their own perception as one who looks through a wavy window or mirror.

Consciousness, as it is aware of itself, is continually renewing its awareness; therefore is continually renewing itself. Because it is continually renewing itself it is not making something new and separate, but is becoming what it was and will be: The present or the “Eternally Unmoved”. Consciousness manifests the “Unmoved Present” through a “reflection” of itself, with reflection being a movement of
movements within and around both of itself and the consciousness.

A universal consciousness would mean existence (being) always is/was/will be, and that the past and future observed separately is not a deficiency of Universal Consciousness but rather a reflection of Universal Consciousness that is observed through a limited consciousness reflecting upon itself. It is in this Reflection that both Human and Universal Consciousness is revealed to us as separate through the gradiative nature of Human consciousness only. Universal consciousness is complete and eternal, while
human consciousness is just a limited form of universal consciousness, manifesting itself as a reflection of the Universal consciousness upon itself as source of renewal.

We can observe that Human Consciousness is a reflection of Universal Consciousness, for the ability to view the present, the past through the present, and the future through the present, but never both the past and future in the present at the same time in neither the same nor different respects. However one can observe that there is a Universal Consciousness because of a universal “present”.

Universal Consciousness is to be defined as “Existence”, “God”, “Logos”. (This is where the universal reflective properties of language may have some difficulty, and yet within itself is further proof of reflective consciousness in the manifestation of being) Man is the Universe. Universe is the Man. Not in the respect of 1=2 that is contradictory to the nature of what we observe as math or logic, but rather in a gradiative respect where the only difference between Universal Consciousness and Man is man’s lack of universality or complete observation; or to even extend it further a deficiency in nature as something lacking through weakness of observation.
Consciousness is Consciousness. Past, Present, Future movements exist at one time through a Universal Consciousness, yet are separate “entities” as they reflect through the reflection of Universal Consciousness for even the reflections reflect upon consciousness otherwise they would not be reflections of Universal Consciousness. And yet this observation can reflect itself through multiple means, that are right not because of their self contained forms, but further reflect forms of consciousness. Here we can see the reflective properties of axiomatic premises (belief/will) through symbolic logic or math:

Universal (U) Consciousness (C) reflecting (R) upon itself is an Unmoving (Ug) Mover (M).

Human (H) consciousness (C) reflecting (R) upon itself as a Moving (Mg) mover (M).

C+R*Ug+M U
U= C+R*Ug+M > ________ = _ or U/M
H= C+R*Mg+M >
C+R*Mg+M M

and/or

Ug+M=C+R Ug
________ = __ or Ug/Mg or U/M and/or ETC, ETC, ETC.

Mg+M=C+R Mg

And using the above example we find that the transcendence of the “will to power” manifest itself in the observation of the will as will manifests
only in forms. Observation of Observation, as we observe has forms in one respect but in another has no form other than itself.

Falsity is deficiency in Universal Consciousness, not in the respect that Universal Consciousness can have falsity (otherwise it would not be “Universal) but rather its Reflections, by their vary nature are. It is in these deficiencies in observation that reflections manifest themselves as deficient in consciousness when reflecting only upon themselves as we see in the observation below:

I think; therefore I am equates thinking with being. This is false, as one could also say:

I move; therefore I am equates moving with being. This is false, as one could also say:

I believe; therefore I am equates believing with being. This is false as one could also say:

I observe; therefore I am equates observing with being. Is this false?

For I observe this through thinking, moving, and sensing. One cannot think thinking, move moving, or sense sensing. But one can observe observing. One cannot think observing, but one can observe thinking. One cannot move observing, but one can observe moving. One cannot sense observing, but one can observe sensing.

And yet in this observation we see a manifestation of different forms of observation:

Observe=Thinking/Moving/Believing
Philosophy/Science/Religion
Rational/Sensual/Instinctual (Belief)

Observation manifests itself through

Methodologies:
PhilosophythroughScience Sciencethrough Philosophy
Philosophy through Religion
ReligionthroughPhilosophy SciencethroughReligion Religionthrough Science

Experience:
ThinkingthroughMoving
MovingthroughThinking
Thinking through Believing
Believing through Thinking
MovingthroughBelieveing
BelievingthroughMoving

Belief:
Rational through Sensual
Sensual through Rational
Rational through Instinctual
Instinctual through Rational
Sensual through Instinctual
Instinctual through Sensual

To observe is to be, to be observed is to be begotten, to be begotten is to observe. This is a paradox, but a paradox is just observation of the will, which is why it is “illogical” yet exists within logic. Or to put it in
“clearer” terms: A paradox is nothing but logic, form, and belief at the same time in different respects for they are the different manifestations of reflective observation.

The past and the future manifest themselves in the present and only through the present, because only the present can be observed since observation is always present. For even when one observes the past or the future, in whatever means this is achieved, it is only done in the present. And yet even then distortions occur not because of a lack of “access” to the past or future, but because of a deficiency in observation. Distortions of not only the past and/or future, but seeing either the past or the future in the present proves a deficiency in Human Consciousness for they reflect within the reflection of a Universal Consciousness.

It is in this renewal of reflection that the unmoving (present) consciousness
reflects movement around itself. Or in other words: reality is but a reflection of the consciousness with time/space being not a “thing”
but a deficiency in Man’s observation or Consciousness. An unknown reality is an unknown consciousness. An unknown consciousness is no consciousness.
We see the reflection of this within man, through the observation, that he neither understands the universe around him nor himself. And yet this very lack of observation can be tied to a lack of will, for where the will is lacking so is the intellect. An a limited intellect results in a limited will. This, deficiency in both will and intellect magnifies itself in the
physical deficiencies as man is unable to continually renew himself, or in other words “dies”. The deficiencies in this trinity, magnify as they reflect upon each other manifesting in deficiency in observation. For what is observation but a union in the physical, intellectual, and spiritual reflected in the trinity of science, philosophy, and religion? And yet this
Trinitarian nature of observation reflects in the conscious being, known as “Man”, through mind/body/spirit. Now whether it is universally “known” as man being a Trinitarian observer is a separate question, but it is without doubt observed and manifested through observation. Here we see with this example of Trinitarians the reflection of math not as a result or cause of this observation, but inherent within the form not on its own terms but through a reflection of consciousness. However, to avoid confusion, or even furthering it, I will stop with the observation of reflection and its inherent properties. I, or other observers can delve into this at some other moment.

And how will the “Observation of the Will” reflect at a macro societal level? Well let’s start with the “Will to Power” from which is transcended from.

The “Will to Power” which defined the 20th and 21st centuries is becoming obsolete, on its own terms, as the Will to Power has not “Willed to Power”, past itself yet. And if it were, it would cancel itself out and cease to be the “Will to Power” or the means in which knowledge and being manifests itself. However the “Will to Power” must “Will to Power” past itself if it
where to be Truth. It is stuck, as a philosophy or way of being, between a rock and a hard place. And as all things that stagnate,they begin to die unless they move past themselves or transcend. And what is transcendence but an expansion of consciousness through observation?

In simple and direct terms, the Will to Power must transcend past itself to one of the “Observation of the Will”. We see a manifestation of this as technology is less about creating and determining power, and one of observation of the will to power with the observe being one of a “will to power” but not limited to anything other than observation. For where technology and man is continuing to “exert” his will and creating his own consciousness, we see the very limits of this “exertion” as but a twisting and tearing of both his consciousness and the reflections of which he deems as existence. The “will to power” is but a cannibalization of consciousness
as it has no other frontier to exploit but the consciousness, however the consciousness cannot be “willed” into power. It must be observed,
as observation cannot be willed but rather observed through the will. Not so ironically, the will to power ignores the consciousness in doing so
, giving ad hominum credit to its founder as “going insane” for insanity is but a deficiency in observation. Now we see aspects of the “observation of the will” manifest themselves in technology, primarily the various forms of social media and communication, but this is fundamentally a false (falsity is deficiency) manifestation of observation as the consciousness has
not been observed on its own terms, but through the limits of technological creation reflecting the “will to power.” In an age where it has been falsely observed that “Knowledge is Power”, the will has been driven to knowledge without first observing its own actions, but under the methodology of the “will to power” it had no other choice but action in order to “be”.
Yet it is this very action which seeks to properly act upon itself and always comes up short.

The “Information Age” is nothing other than the consciousness of the masses being aware of not only the “Power” of observation, but also the observation of observation. Social media observing social media as a means to greater “consciousness” is a clear reflection of this, but like the nature of all reflections is but an observation. And in this case it is an observation of a consciousness that is more “massive”, or at least reflects itself as such, than we as both individuals and a society have observed prior to the manifestation of “the will to power”. And we are in a time, and
have been for a while, where “massiveness” is believed to be King. And it is a belief, primarily because we cannot observe consciousness as
anything other than massive. For if it were not massive we would not observe it. Now massiveness (or “mass”) is but a relative term as what is massive (or has mass) is not massive (or has mass) in and of itself,
but rather through the point it is measured and observed. In simpler and direct terms: Mass is, because mass is conceived of observation.
“Mass” is of observation, similarly to how a son is “of” his Father.
In this respect size does not matter but the depth of understanding under an observation, for the deeper the understanding the more massive the observation. It is this instinct towards “mass” through which we seek to gain understanding as science, the method of observation of today, is primary concerned with and deeper observation of this “form” that we like to call “mass” or even “massiveness”.

Now this “theory” (or “treatise” or “belief”) is nota “theory”(or “treatise” or “belief”) but rather an axiomatic premise from which a “theory” (or “treatise” or “belief”) is derived from; there is a false observation that any of the previously fore-mentioned (“theory”/”treatise”/”belief) is the sole means to “seeking knowledge” or “observing”. They are false, because when taken on their own accounts these methods do not sustain themselves, without “ad hominism” the very thing they are trying to avoid.
“Ad hominism”, or the observation of the consciousness behind these methodologies rather than the methodologies themselves, is unavoidable as
a consciousness manifests itself through its own reflection. It is this reflection through which a “theory” (or “treatise” or “belief”) is
manifested falsely as a “thing” on its own terms, when one can observe clearythat it is a manifestation of an axiomatic (self-aware consciousness)
premise giving off deeper reflections. But remember, because it is “False” does not mean one cannot have true observations, but rather they
are “False” because they are not self-sustained/self-reflective ways of observation. And this must be repeated for “Falsity” is nothing other
than deficiency of something else, not a “thing” in itself.

The observer, regardless of scientific/philosophical/religious background,
of now must concern himself with the reflective forms of consciousness which not only transform reality but also manifests it. This is the “path” and it is one which we fall to “instinct”, rather than observation, far to often without observing the instinct on its own terms as a falsity or deficiency in observation. Instincts, point to a mathematical or geometric form that continually reflects itself as a continual form. However, we can clearly
observe a lack of clarity as to whether consciousness “creates” math/geometry or math/geometry “creates” consciousness or even if these things are separate “entities”.. We understand that math/geometry has “form” but we cannot observe its “form” without relegating it is aspects or reflections of a greater consciousness. But that is exactly what the false instinct towards the “form” of math/geometry has shown us, a deficiency in observation for there is no mathematical or geometric solution to math or geometry. And there is a danger here, for to relegate the “mass consciousness” that we observe in and through technology, to one of an “Unmoved Mover” without it first fully observing itself on its own terms, we run the risk of distorted false observations. It is this distortion, the new observer, must see through as distortions reflect distortions not forms. And in distortion their is not “transcendence” but a deficiency.

*But what are these “forms” the new observer must observe? Is this even the correct question? We know that observation manifests itself in forms,
and observes form precisely because form is a manifestation of awareness. This observation manifests itself into an already answered question of
“What is form?”.*

Now using the observation found in **s we are aware of answers leading not only to certain questions, but what fundamentally defines the question, while also questions give rise to questions, and that certain questions determine certain answers. And what is the good of all this other than proving a paradox one might ask? We observe all of this, therefore it is manifested and we observe.

[Soldier-MedicParticipant 2566]

I once “tried” to wade through David Hume’s “A Treatise of Human Nature”. I made it through three pages. Most of what you have written is an attempt to establish common definitions and understandings with the reader so that, moving forward, there is a common understanding, a common perception.

I’m not qualified to judge you work so far but would recommend that you attempt to avoid a Kantian “Categorical Imperative”. That is to say avoid attempting to say this is true for everyone. Emmanuel Kant was brought more than once by the Nazis at Nuremberg. Balance this with avoiding relativism. In my experience Relativism is the spring board for modern feminism and all of the bull s~~~ that has come with it. Relativism is the shield people use to hide behind after doing wrong to another or having robbed others of their resources.

"I asked you a question. I didn't ask you to repeat what the voices in you head are telling you" ~ Me. ........Yes I'm still angry.

[RazeSpectator 2]

Heading into a thick wall of intellectualism should be done with a brief and a generalization.

Give us a simpler sense and an intro of what is so we don’t have to go through half of it to measure if we want to know about it or not 🙂

I’m as complicated asshole as they get so trust me you can simplify just a little heading. Without an overview and a stated goal we are just wondering around aimlessly. And I mean the goal of the paper not the help.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Soldier-Medic wrote:

I once “tried” to wade through David Hume’s “A Treatise of Human Nature”. I made it through three pages. Most of what you have written is an attempt to establish common definitions and understandings with the reader so that, moving forward, there is a common understanding, a common perception.
I’m not qualified to judge you work so far but would recommend that you attempt to avoid a Kantian “Categorical Imperative”. That is to say avoid attempting to say this is true for everyone. Emmanuel Kant was brought more than once by the Nazis at Nuremberg. Balance this with avoiding relativism. In my experience Relativism is the spring board for modern feminism and all of the bull s~~~ that has come with it. Relativism is the shield people use to hide behind after doing wrong to another or having robbed others of their resources.

Still working on presentation because notepad doesn’t “copy and paste” well.
With that in mind, thanks for the quick reply.

It is my belief, and it is a belief, that philosophy “died” (for lack of a better word) with Nietzsche’s “Will to Power” and when reading through I was hoping for the reader to come from that perspective (a Post-Nietzscheian one).

But yeah, I agree with the strict Kantian “Categorization” of things. You are correct, but it wasn’t so much that I agreed or disagreed with him but rather that Kant’s “methods” were correct but not when viewed on their own terms, strictly because if were to keep “Categorizing”…..well you can’t Categorize “Categorizing”, if you get the point.

In regards to you “being qualified”, everyone observes. It is what people do. I am just asking for observations. “Qualified”, “Unqualified”, doesn’t matter to me.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Raze wrote:

Give us a simpler sense and an intro of what is so we don’t have to go through half of it to measure if we want to know about it or not

I agree. I can’t “edit” it for some reason, but to give a really brief general intro:

“The Will to Power” as a man’s path to truly “being” does not work for one cannot “will” past the “will to power” however one can “observe” past the “will to power” and observe past those observations too.
For Man to truly “be” Man we do this through observation. For observation
transcends the will while manifesting it.

If that makes any sense.

[RazeSpectator 2]

Yeah, well I read it before you clarified.

So here is your crucifix… Whatever merit you may think this has will probably be lost on people. Its like synthesized vitamins. May be good (if you need any) but taste bad and you need to force it though the other senses.

If you are interested in making this accessible for more people, you have to provide benefit for the other facets of the mind beyond intellectualism.

Simplifications, clear string of progression (some of the stuff comes off as isolated things stacked together), rewording. More accessible metaphors and practical examples that apply the reached conclusions and exhibit them in situations.

or so i think…

Think of it as a literary work. A boring one may hold meaning and value. But the real cool ones, hold both interest and and value. Intellect is a burden that can barely be carried without emotion. You just need to ask people with clinical depression (they cannot feel emotions). Most of them suicide, logic is not enough to sustain life, that’s why it achieves less on its own.

[Soldier-MedicParticipant 2566]

A few notes here.

Observation is clearly the lynch pin of your argument. I believe that I am using the word ‘argument’ correctly here. I would recommend that there is an examination of the components of observation. Why do these matter? Structurally, what is the significance of these components and perhaps what do they represent? Observation, in and of itself is a passive exercise.

You are, to me, restating some of the tenants of scientific thought after having lived and experienced scientific thought.

The “Will to Power” which defined the 20th and 21st centuries is becoming obsolete, on its own terms, as the Will to Power has not “Willed to Power”

If you make a statement such as this, please qualify why it WAS not obsolete before, and what makes it obsolete now.

What is the relevance of observation? How does this translate in to the human condition or the ability to achieve goals? You can not state the obvious in an ”axiomatic premise from which a “theory” (or “treatise” or “belief”) is derived from”

“This is the “path” and it is one which we fall to “instinct”, rather than observation, far to often without observing the instinct on its own terms as a falsity or deficiency in observation. Instincts, point to a mathematical or geometric form that continually reflects itself as a continual form. However, we can clearly observe a lack of clarity as to whether consciousness “creates” math/geometry or math/geometry “creates” consciousness or even if these things are separate “entities”.. We understand that math/geometry has “form” but we cannot observe its “form” without relegating it is aspects or reflections of a greater consciousness.”

To me you are making the “cat in the box” discussion/argument/statement/theory. You see the can in the box, it exists. When the box is closed, you question the existence of the cat. Does the cat exist solely upon you own observation? To me this has always been a relativistic argument when discussing the mundane and is more applicable to physics. I confess to my limited experience in which this is applicable to my day-to-day.

Hope I helped and didn’t sound too much like the old fart that thinks he knows something.

"I asked you a question. I didn't ask you to repeat what the voices in you head are telling you" ~ Me. ........Yes I'm still angry.

[Soldier-MedicParticipant 2566]

John Doe wrote:

For observation transcends the will while manifesting it.

I read this and now I think I understand more now.

How is it the will (please use small words here) is transcended by observation. I can understand how observation is a result of the will or how the will gives rise to observation. Through observation we become more that what we were before. New knowledge bring about greater understanding.

The will – I want to know
Observation – I have garnered new knowledge
The will – I want to know more
Observation – I have garnered even more knowledge rooted in what has been observed before
The will – what do I do with this knowledge?
Observation – What is the most correct choice given what is known?

to me, observation transcends the will in that it brings about clarity of action through more complete knowledge. The will is important, but nothing more that a moron slapping at switches without the understanding as to how to use or manipulate a system. Observation transcends the will in this way. Carefully in this observation, I am reminded of the (dredging up my memory here) the argument of Plato and the man who stated that “everyone” would do anything they wanted with a ring of invisibility.

Between the will and observation is a moral construct, however it was birthed.

"I asked you a question. I didn't ask you to repeat what the voices in you head are telling you" ~ Me. ........Yes I'm still angry.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Good points, Thanks.

[Author]

Posts