About your next two posts, FC, I can only say again, "good stuff"!
Fixed Cross wrote:In short, I do not value self-valuing in terms of anything else, I value everything else in terms of self-valuing.
Thus, Crowley, Jung, the ancient Hebrews, or whoever, have no fundamental significance - they are merely grain on my mill.
Nietzsche, Heraclitus and Thales are men I consider akin to my ethics of logic, and these three do hold for me a fundamental significance.
Homers works are no less fundamental, for the same reasons.
I truly see most of what has been thought since Athens became too civilized and produced Socrates who could never be imagined in war or in the wild, as abject nonsense. And that is because Socrates introduced the practice of indirect, referential virtue. Virtue that can be inferred using tricks of reason. But real virtue is alway splendidly palpable, radiantly healthy and straight-forward. So to me Sokrates represents a klippotic shell of virtue empty of self-valuing, wanting only death (being un-death).
Plato depicts Socrates in war: retreating, to be sure, but fighting or at least _
scaring_ off pursuers, while carrying wounded Alcibiades on his back.
As for women: that's a great complement to aphorism 68 of
The Merry Science (as I recently translated it). The reason I translated and posted that, by the way, is the whole #MeToo virus. My point is that a well brought up man is not just one who can control his urges, but moreover one who disdains women wearing skimpy clothes in public. If enough men were brought up well enough, a lot more would change than men regularly groping women in clubs and the like...