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
Doing is the radius of creating.
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.
Conformal chaos has a ring to it, also a ring to itself, also a circularity and twist.
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.
Luxury is a superficial originality.
Moralists are suspicious of the most comprehensive morals; they are suspicious of themselves.
Wars are between inverted values.
In what is alive possibilities are more real than facts.
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.
The technical is a critical culture; it implies the lack of a duration that we want and the possession of another that we want to appreciate.
Hi everyone, Nicolás here; I'll be posting some ideas hopefully contributing something to this interesting mix...
#grownostr
#philosophy
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.