The Being of Thought

I'll have to think about that for a bit---equating Will to Power with Will to Thought. My first inclination is to change that to the Will to Power gives rise to the Will to Thought. Nietzsche, for example, saw a difference between will to power and will to knowledge.

Thank you Meagain, I will have to look for that.

 

we are all beings of thought. our bodies exist to feed our brains and provide interactivity with our physical surroundings. our brains exist to house our thoughts and interface our true spirit selves.

 

the body then a communication device

 

I see thoughts as little beings swimming around inside the oceans of our minds.
self replicating machines that evolve.
there is no such thing as free thinking. every thought is implanted. tho in extreme cases thoughts can just come to life. just like dna can appear in the right conditions.
I believe there are self replicating machines that make up our bodies and there are self replicating machines that make up our mind. Consciousness is separate tho it is part of the mind.
the whole universe is an ripple getting more and more complex. this is evolution. and everything is a product of this. Every ripple holds a universe and every universe holds a version of you in itself. There are infinite worlds (all the same with slight mutations) appearing and disappearing inside each other. There are infinite versions of you existing!

Where did these thoughts came from? When I open my mind and clean out every thought from it the only thing left inside is a ripple...

 

The being of thought itself would be the only Being per say which can cease to exist and come back to existence whenever it pertains to a description of a mental activity. But something else may also cease or return to the reflective Consciousness besides this hypostatized being for the determination of beings. Some way we might regard the Being of thoughts to be there and represented for anyone as a kind of display of the person's psychic factual condition. It seems that we can an only by some chance Creation be invaded by the distinction of 'private' vs 'un-private' thinking.

Nevertheless, such utterly chance creation would also be available to thoroughly existing material objects or Matter proper. Matter can be somewhat in difference to ideas be wholly self-created or be distinctively a Being different from the being in Ideas be some creation of it's own physically unjustified freely into Experiencng Creation.

Such is how pro-Life explains the presence at hand of the life of the unborn child; perhaps it could be an emergence of a mechanically articulated in unique fashion new organism.

Are we at considering that thought as noble to be judgemental at the pregnancy in a woman's body.

 

that and principally a surrogate, with which to create and modify physical aspects of existence. not exclusively as a form of communication, but as a source of gratification independent of the need or desire to communicate.

 

The statement in bold presents an obstacle to peace and suggests the world is valuable for what it has to offer. In my estimation the world is invaluable, that is useful and we give it all the value it has for us. If the body is the source of gratification it is also the source of irritation but I think those phenomena are reflection of polarity or level of communication.

 

Without thought there could be no rational thinking for the materialist, so to say that thought is simply a piece of our rational world completly defies rationality altogether. I do not presume to know anything but I do percieve that things are always much deeper than what they are often thought of by humanity as a whole.

By the way nice thread M.V.W. sorry that I didn't get around to it sooner. Definintly some food for though

 

Thank you Indy Hippy!!!

 

My view is that, there really for the property of fate at understanding love and survival, is no such thing as a Material-ist proper. There are only the conclusive practice needed BOOKS of Materialism.

For example: Alvin Toffler, or Marshall McCluhan, or for that matter Buck Minister Fuller; are these "materialists"? The substance of materialism is in their productive work.

 

Not 100% sure what you said there but I think you're saying that we shouldn't try to group materialism into a single set group. Which by the way i agree whole heartedly with. If we do that then we are going to take away from what makes each materialist their own person.

 

History is a group, and then science is the objectified valued Being of interest. History is ultimately a History of various subjects. And of course there was and still is historical materialism.:afro:

 

As we experience it,
Will to is motive or power. Consciousness interprets will to as will to right direction or goodness, the notation for which is, where our treasure lies there is our heart also. knowledge could be included in a model of good. In their simplest form of course models of good revolve around perceptions of pleasant or unpleasant. Real things however have no sentiment for such arbitration, that is their only relevance being to the psychological construct.

 

Ohh, you doing Aristotle now. There needs to be a prior purpose for the good Or goodness. I guess materialistically they were borrowing the purpose for the mental Progress of Ethos. Idealistically, we were maybe after-all sentimentally trained from a teacher's referral.:biker:

 

As usual I don't know. Let me check...

No. There has been a lot of water under the bridge since then.




:

I think will or intent to be the psyches shorthand for gravity and "good" is the propensity for matter to arrange itself into patterns.

 

Ahhhh... now tempted by the devil. GreatestIam seems to grip his influence upon you. Surely "propensity for matter to arrange" is no way a rational predication. It's like "no pain no gain". Thus I must write a blog on the Nicomachean Ethics.

 

Perhaps will to self-interest would be a better way to say it. Nietzsche felt that morals and ethics--what the status quo would label as 'good,' was the creation of the weak, and meant to oppress or hold back the strong. While I may not wholly agree with that, we were referring to Nietzsche's concept of Will to Power.

You will have a tough time reading Nietzsche if you take his emphasis on a Will to Power as a dynamic that validates or brings to fruition any concept of goodness as defined by the values of religion or the status quo.

He saw the Will to Power as an empowering thing for mankind--but it could lead to all kinds of consequences---good, bad, or indifferent. Which is in fact a reflection of reality.

For example, I happen to live in a county where the justice system is broken and the jail and courthouse is owned by 8 judges, who are turning these institutions into a very profitable enterprise for themselves.

 

Then I read Nietzsche easily! If you find my axiomatic statements as statements of religious values then I hope it will not be difficult to dissuade.

Will to equals power. Will to equals inertia. Will to equals friction. Will to equals three properties of matter, absorption reflection, and polarity. Good, bad, or indifferent are reflections or complex extensions of those three properties of matter. Will to is the will to be and being is good, from the density of a stone to intensity, the sense of gratitude. Limited power is a contradiction of terms.

I would say you live and there is nothing broken!

 

All of this Being lacks integrity. as it is reasoned-in-itself. I thought for the Being of thought that potentially the action be apart of self-identity, and the self-identity equally in Matter as in Form. No such reduction writes Nietzsche.
Aristotle was devising integrity in rational judgment in how rational actions were actualized for the sense relieving "the pleasance from the un-pleasance". In turn I thought you understood.
Appearance? Is it multi-valued, or multi-tasked? For Nietzsche; how did that come up; No. No reasonable In itself. In other words, possibility equals Individualized self-possibility, and being IS non-being beyond time; why bother with Nietzsche; his probe is about one's disease rather than thought. Aristotle is the one identifying thinking for thought.:sunny:

 

Separate selves is not integrity, the whole defines the parts but the part does not define the whole.

.
I understand that I prefer ease to disease. I used to think I preferred pleasure to pain. Being temperate the heat of friction must be dissipated or used to forge alloys that can stand up to the heat.

It is forever self referential or dependable.