State of the World Address.

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

The latest--and last?--Barl-post.

Postby Sauwelios » Mon May 01, 2017 7:19 pm

Ancestral greatness is, like all subjects, deceptively simple. The man with a great parentage, nay great grandparentage, must fly from misconceptions regarding his gifts in every new actuality of his. (Thus how could he write "ALL subjects", as if EVERY word from him should not warrant emphasis? A high period after every blocklettered word--when was that tradition left behind? Yes, let us write as if we're just writing any old piece, proving by our well-versedness how virtuose we are. But what we are on about take right of way even before the subject.

ANCESTRAL GREATNESS--LET ME START AGAIN. 'Die vornehme Natur ersetzt die göttliche Nature', "noble nature replaces divine nature"--THIS MEANS, OVER AND ABOVE ANYTHING ELSE, THAT RELATIVE NATURE TAKES THE PLACE OF ABSOLUTE NATURE. THIS IS TO SAY, THE CREATION THAT WAS DONE IN A DIVINE FLASH, THE SIX DAYS OR SIX THOUSAND YEAR OLD WORLD IS REPLACED BY THE NINETY ZILLION YEARS AND COUNTING...

"Meet Kylie Springtime. Kylie is a petite girl with an enormous problem. She must bridge ninety zillion years in order to send a message to her beloved, the [nineteenth century] philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche."

'If Nietzsche had _one_ teaching, it was his teaching of eternal return. This was the notion that time be a circle, that all that happened had happened before and would happen again an endless amount of times. But this was precisely the teaching that Kylie found hardest to bear: Nietzsche would be born, live, and die again, then there would be ninety years of white noise, and then she herself would be born, live, and die again, followed by ninety zillion more years of white noise, after which Nietzsche would be born again... But wait, did that not give her an opportunity to communicate with him? Could she not speak to him across ninety zillion years, even as he spoke to her across ninety?'

MY PROJECTED CHILDREN'S BOOK CHARACTER--AND WHO TODAY IS _NOT_ A CHILD?--IS ULTIMATELY MOTHER NATURE HERSELF, THE PHENOMENON THAT SCOURGES EVERYONE, EXCEPT THE CHRIST-BUDDHA'S PERHAPS, INTO CONTINUING COMPETITION. BUT BUDDHA, AND ACCORDING TO GRAVES KING JESUS TOO, WAS HIMSELF OF ROYAL PARENTAGE. ESOTERIC BUDDHISM IS REALLY OUTDOING ALL UNDER-ADEPT ZELATORES BY PERSUADING THEM OF ONE'S NOBILITY--CONVINCING THEM BY SWEET-TALKING AND -BEHAVING THEM. IT'S AN ACT--THE ACTIONS AND NON-ACTIONS OF WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN LAW.

'Suppose that, at first, there was only a herd, consisting of a single type. This type was surely a Sensing type, because iNtuition is a mark of a certain sophistication. Now the morality of custom demands that every herd member diligently honour the community's customs. But there will naturally be a difference in diligence between members. Some will simply be lazier than others. The lazier ones will be more lax. These are Keirsey's Artisans--in Jungian terms, Sensing-Perceiving (SP) types. They will be less exacting, more relaxed and open to distractions, loosening of mores. But Keirsey's Guardians (in Jungian terms, Sensing-Judging (SJ) types) will be horrified of any breach of custom, certain that God will punish the whole community for it. So they start _commanding_ the Artisans... Ordering them around, because they always need a kick in the behind. "Today is Tuesday and you haven't put on your blue cap yet! Do so right now!" And the Artisans would reluctantly obey. I already said it years ago: the great commanders are the great obeyers. The first commanders, the Guardians (which is a perfect name for them, considering that their first special function was to be the custodians of custom), were in the beginning simply those who obeyed the customs best. Then, as the best obeyers of custom, they came to represent its demands. It was only later that the Idealists (iNtuitive-Feeling or NF types) made their appearance, not to mention the Rationals (iNtuitive-Thinking or NT types).'

TALENT, EVEN GENIUS, IS NOT A DEITY. A GREAT MIND'S EYE IS A GREAT WEIGHT. IT MUST BE BORNE EVERY WAKING HOUR. IT MUST BE _SUFFERED_--EVEN WHEN WHAT IS BORNE IS GREAT PLEASURE, THE CONTINUING PLEASURE OF HAVING ONE'S MIND EXERCISE ITSELF.

CLASSIC CONTEMPLATION. THE TEMPLE OF THE MIND. BUT PURITY, SANCTITY IS NOT ABSOLUTE. NOTHING AND THEREBY NOONE CAN SUBSIST ON NOTHING, AND THE MIND IS NOTHING MORE THAN HOW A CERTAIN HIGHLY SPECIFIC BODY AND SPECIES OF BODY EXPERIENCES ITSELF, FROM THE INSIDE. SO: BODILY DIET AND HYGIENE FIRST. BUT THE MIND IS ALSO NOTHING _LESS_. THEREFORE: SPIRITUAL DIET AND HYGIENE NEXT!

THE WORD "SPIRITUAL" HAS OF COURSE BEEN HIJACKED BY THE PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL, BUT IT'S MORE ACCURATE THAN THE WORD "INTELLECTUAL", WHICH HAS BEEN HIJACKED BY THE PSEUDO-SPIRITUAL.

SO-CALLED INTELLECTUALS MAY PRIDE THEMSELVES ON THEIR LISTENING TO SO-CALLED CLASSICAL MUSIC; BUT THAT IS PRECISELY WHERE MY CONTEMPT OF MODERN MUSIC STARTS.

SPIRITUAL DIET AND HYGIENE MEANS BEING HIGHLY PARTICULAR ABOUT WHAT ENTERS ONE'S MIND, AND THEREBY ESPECIALLY ONE'S SENSES.

ONCE A FRIEND OF MINE MADE ME A MIXED TAPE TITLED "Music for the Soul". NOW THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I ARGUE AGAINST. MY MUSIC, THE MUSIC I LISTEN TO, IS MUSIC FOR THE MIND. THE SOUL, THE HEART, SENTIMENTAL OR EMOTIONAL MUSIC MAKES OR KEEPS ONE SPIRITUALLY SMALL, ENTHUSIASTIC, IGNOBLE. SWEET SENTIMENT, NOSTALGIA, HOMESICKNESS--DANGEROUS. THE MIND SHALL NOT BE A HOMELY, ROMANTICISED, IDYLLIC PLACE. IT WILL BE VAST, A TEMPLE.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby URUZ » Wed May 03, 2017 1:35 am

Sauwelios wrote:I don't think any of this touches nihilism in the slightest; you're just insisting that it does (and indeed, much more than just touch it). And I will keep insisting that insisting is precisely what VO teaches. In fact, what I've been insisting upon is that we Value Philosophers should do so explicitly. I mean, I can understand that Trump must lie about his lying, but we are philosophers, not politicians; we should be above the filth of politics in the narrower sense.


If we are at least even a little bit Nietzschean then we cannot have such a deep problem with useful lies, now can we?

Also I didn't lie, not even once. Just wanted to clear that up.

Ok, moving on.

If you can conceive a life that does not follow self-valuing logic, I would commend you.


This is what I think our attitude should be. Those who cannot conceive such a life, which is probably everyone


It is not probably everyone, it is everyone.

, will ultimately not be able to resist VO--for such resistance is itself a form of the insistence which VO teaches. And as for those, if any, who can conceive such a life: what do they matter to us? We cannot even conceive them!


That isn't the point, though. You are conflating two things here: That it is possible or impossible for someone to conceive of a life that does not follow self-valuing logic, and that it is possible or impossible for us to conceive of someone who is able or unable to conceive of a life that does not follow self-valugin logic. These are two different claims.

Claim 1: It is impossible for anyone to conceive of a life that does not follow self-valuing logic. <--- ontological claim

Claim 2: It is impossible for us to conceive of someone who is able to conceive of a life that does not follow self-valuing logic, therefore such a person would not matter to us (because we cannot conceive of them). <--- epistemological claim


I don't really care about the second claim, the one you are making, at least I care about it a lot less than I care about the first claim, the ontological one. I care even less about conflating them with each other. Granted there is some small overlap in the form of the questions, which can make them both appear epistemological, but in fact only the second claim is truly epistemological while the former is strictly ontological.

If you seriously think that we are unable to ask direct ontological questions without also stipulation that "well it's just that we can't conceive of someone/something that would be the exception to this! Therefore we can't really say there are no exceptions!" then I would suggest you aren't actually doing philosophy -- I don't mean that as an insult, just an observation. Take it or leave it.

By the way, please explain what this phrase means to you: "insistence which VO teaches". You used it twice, and I have no idea what you mean by it.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Meno_ » Wed May 03, 2017 3:29 am

The exception is the one making the 1 st claim, by making that claim, he is asserting an identical claim to claim #1 for everyone else. He or any one else's need not allude to the second claim, because the first claim is all inclusive, making the second claim redundant.

Redundancy destroy the veracity of the absolute entropy o identity , while misidentifying or, displacing the first claim.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed May 03, 2017 10:10 pm

Void_X_Zero wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:I don't think any of this touches nihilism in the slightest; you're just insisting that it does (and indeed, much more than just touch it). And I will keep insisting that insisting is precisely what VO teaches. In fact, what I've been insisting upon is that we Value Philosophers should do so explicitly. I mean, I can understand that Trump must lie about his lying, but we are philosophers, not politicians; we should be above the filth of politics in the narrower sense.


If we are at least even a little bit Nietzschean then we cannot have such a deep problem with useful lies, now can we?


Actually, that's if we're at most a little bit Nietzschean. The question the Nietzschean philosopher asks Cartesians at the end of BGE 16 is answered in 230.


Also I didn't lie, not even once. Just wanted to clear that up.


Well, I said "we"--meaning we (I?) who do not have access to divine revelation of some kind or other. If you knowingly claim to know something you don't know, you're lying.


Ok, moving on.

If you can conceive a life that does not follow self-valuing logic, I would commend you.


This is what I think our attitude should be. Those who cannot conceive such a life, which is probably everyone


It is not probably everyone, it is everyone.


Sure, and the Bible is the word of God...


, will ultimately not be able to resist VO--for such resistance is itself a form of the insistence which VO teaches. And as for those, if any, who can conceive such a life: what do they matter to us? We cannot even conceive them!


That isn't the point, though. You are conflating two things here: That it is possible or impossible for someone to conceive of a life that does not follow self-valuing logic, and that it is possible or impossible for us to conceive of someone who is able or unable to conceive of a life that does not follow self-valugin logic. These are two different claims.

Claim 1: It is impossible for anyone to conceive of a life that does not follow self-valuing logic. <--- ontological claim

Claim 2: It is impossible for us to conceive of someone who is able to conceive of a life that does not follow self-valuing logic, therefore such a person would not matter to us (because we cannot conceive of them). <--- epistemological claim


Then again, VO "conflates" (explodes the distinction between) ontology and epistemology, remember? In fact, WTP already did that.

Which is not to say I made the conflation you claim I made. I wittingly made a different claim from yours.


I don't really care about the second claim, the one you are making, at least I care about it a lot less than I care about the first claim, the ontological one.


Well, I don't really care whether you really care or not. So there.


I care even less about conflating them with each other. Granted there is some small overlap in the form of the questions, which can make them both appear epistemological, but in fact only the second claim is truly epistemological while the former is strictly ontological.


Such strict divisions are (post-)Aristotelian. What does bhusis have to do with them?


If you seriously think that we are unable to ask direct ontological questions without also stipulation that "well it's just that we can't conceive of someone/something that would be the exception to this! Therefore we can't really say there are no exceptions!" then I would suggest you aren't actually doing philosophy -- I don't mean that as an insult, just an observation. Take it or leave it.


I'll decide for myself what to do with it, thank you very much. In fact, I think what I'm doing is precisely philosophy--whereas what you're doing is sophism. Someone calling himself a philosopher thereby only claims to pursue wisdom; whereas someone who claims to possess wisdom--for example, knowledge of what kind of life every possible and actual being is able to conceive--is rightly called a sophist.


By the way, please explain what this phrase means to you: "insistence which VO teaches". You used it twice, and I have no idea what you mean by it.


Beings (Valuings) persist inasmuch as they insist on their own value. This is the essence of VO as I understand it. See my signature, and this video (note that "pony" also means "bangs" in Dutch):

"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby URUZ » Wed May 03, 2017 11:35 pm

Thanks you for your reply. I am too intoxicated to find a true reply, but I assure you that I will reply extensively soon.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue May 09, 2017 8:12 am

The world is deep, and deeper than the day had thoughgt and even than the night had thought.
Odin cant even trace the roots of Yggdrasil. Yggdrasil cant even fathom the depths of Hvergelmir.
Philosophy, what a pompous charade.


But then
Image

BOOM! HEADSHOT!
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 09, 2017 3:57 pm

Or, the world I is a turtle upon a turtle upon a turtle a turtle upon a turtle.....
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Jakob » Wed May 10, 2017 2:58 pm

Meno_ wrote:Or, the world I is a turtle upon a turtle upon a turtle a turtle upon a turtle.....


People see things as they are shaped themselves.
I remember a poster called turtle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbaK6vmNP18
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5917
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Jakob » Wed May 10, 2017 3:27 pm

If you dont mind, Im going to start a critical commentary on Truth and Lies in the Extramoral Sense here.

Nietzsche wrote:What, indeed, does man know of himself! Can he even once perceive himself completely, laid out as if in an illuminated glass case? Does not nature keep much the most from him, even about his body, to spellbind and confine him in a proud, deceptive consciousness, far from the coils of the intestines, the quick current of the blood stream, and the involved tremors of the fibers? She threw away the key; and woe to the calamitous curiosity which might peer just once through a crack in the chamber of consciousness and look down, and sense that man rests upon the merciless, the greedy, the insatiable, the murderous, in the indifference of his ignorance—hanging in dreams, as it were, upon the back of a tiger. In view of this, whence in all the world comes the urge for truth?

Nature did not throw away the key. The Church did.
In all sane human cultures, man is perfectly aware of his intestines.
The Chinese call that awareness Tan Tien, and consider it the central form of consciousness.

All peoples led by shamans or similar, physiology-based myth and ritual, are aware of the tremors in the fibers, the bloodstream, the intestines. Like I can at will slow down my heartbeat, which is very easy if one decides to not fear that power. I wont be able to stop it. That was my fear as a kid.

So the type of knowledge Nietzsche criticizes here is strictly post-Christian knowledge - metaphysics in the sense of 'outside of the physical'. And cancer is a direct result of this knowing-outside-the-body.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5917
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Meno_ » Wed May 10, 2017 6:13 pm

Spiritualism and pseudo scientific studies took up the slack the church left behind, unless with the exceptions of churches like science of mind. OBE 's (out of body) experiences tread dubious ground.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed May 10, 2017 10:15 pm

slither away now wormie.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7777
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed May 10, 2017 10:23 pm

People raised without reverence for ancestors and gods, which are ancestral ways of valuing, are freed of a lot of weight, which they sense as a freedom. It is not however that they become lion from camel, but rather, they forsake camel-hood, the privilege of an individual path, and, ancesterless, they become 'bits' in the livestream of modernity. The treasures stored up in their possession remain untouched.

"Sad."
-Trump

Of such pitiful types without destiny or fate, the excitables are the best. They are at least aware that stasis is not desirable - but all they are capable of is short burst of being moved, not of self-propelling. They are the parakeets and pigeons of this world, they belong to the scenery of the future. The inert types represent that which disintegrates and expresses the disintegrate nature of their world as truth.

How to turn the excitables against the inert? To devise an ideology that only they are able to reap benefit from.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed May 10, 2017 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7777
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed May 10, 2017 10:30 pm

Jakob wrote:If you dont mind, Im going to start a critical commentary on Truth and Lies in the Extramoral Sense here.

Nietzsche wrote:What, indeed, does man know of himself! Can he even once perceive himself completely, laid out as if in an illuminated glass case? Does not nature keep much the most from him, even about his body, to spellbind and confine him in a proud, deceptive consciousness, far from the coils of the intestines, the quick current of the blood stream, and the involved tremors of the fibers? She threw away the key; and woe to the calamitous curiosity which might peer just once through a crack in the chamber of consciousness and look down, and sense that man rests upon the merciless, the greedy, the insatiable, the murderous, in the indifference of his ignorance—hanging in dreams, as it were, upon the back of a tiger. In view of this, whence in all the world comes the urge for truth?

Nature did not throw away the key. The Church did.
In all sane human cultures, man is perfectly aware of his intestines.
The Chinese call that awareness Tan Tien, and consider it the central form of consciousness.

All peoples led by shamans or similar, physiology-based myth and ritual, are aware of the tremors in the fibers, the bloodstream, the intestines. Like I can at will slow down my heartbeat, which is very easy if one decides to not fear that power. I wont be able to stop it. That was my fear as a kid.

So the type of knowledge Nietzsche criticizes here is strictly post-Christian knowledge - metaphysics in the sense of 'outside of the physical'. And cancer is a direct result of this knowing-outside-the-body.


I think your post fits perfectly well into my OP and its direct inspiration, which was this video:



Nietzsche probably went mad and died from a brain tumor (and not syphilis). This may mean that, when he first got the tumor, at least, Nietzsche's mind had strayed too far from the awareness you mention.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed May 10, 2017 10:39 pm

It is a thrilling thing to have faith in the Occident.

Image

(could be Scario)
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7777
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:18 am

Below is an email I wrote and sent in the early hours of my last birthday, in the timezone I'm in (except for the opening quote, which I'd already typed out with the idea of such an email in mind).

::

"[T]he style and spirit of letters [Briefe, "epistles"] will always be the true 'sign of the times'." (Nietzsche, The Gay Science, aphorism 329, Kaufmann translation.)

Amsterdam, 12 August 2017

Dear Ariadne,

I have been severely mistaken--though I may be very well taken, have been on my proper right way IN being mistaken (letting myself be mis-taken, mis-taking MYSELF)--, not just for these past ten years, but since ever I started looking for a "mindmate". I am after all a "white, straight, cis-gendered patriarch", to speak with James Damore; my mind- or soulmate was always conceived from the deepest of my inner child as a girl or woman, the "Other" to my "Self". But only my unconscious, all of which I am unconscious, was so conceived. My conscious self could never conceive itself that way--unless it conceive itself as only the infinitesimal "mirroring point" of this account of the Unconscious to itself. This however means that you, my Ariadne, are reduced to that point: the girl or boy is diminished for the (wo)man to hear itself think. Dionysus speaks only to Dionysa, is only followed by Dionysa. My mistake was to muse upon Dionysa as sleeping in Ariadne, potential in Ariadne.

And yet we Dionysi seem to require all of the above. Without our characteristic self-misunderstanding, we would just be lunatics. What wonder that the genius, if I may say so myself, with which we dance on the brink of understanding ourself sound on the brink of madness as well! The brink of genius: that is where I have dwelled all these years. Always looking out at the edge of my pond for my Echo, the nymph I wished would stop fleeing and repeating myself to--myself. From the perspective of relativity, it meant I was left to flow back to myself like the waves. But I may very well have needed precisely that, to erode myself out. Who is who in Blake's "Good and Evil Angels"? Only other potential "Devils", to speak with his Marriage of Heaven and Hell, should "embrac[e] the flames of fire". This is now my whole sanity, that there be other Men. Other Lions, saving me from Tygerhood. The Tyger required the Lamb to keep itself sane. "The stars above would rain their marvel down"...

Now I'm hungry. ("[A]lso hungere ich nach Bosheit.")

O. DeWaal
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby URUZ » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:39 am

Turin, November 5, 1888

To Malwida von Meysenbug

Just wait a little, verehrteste Freudian! I shall send you yet another proof that "Nietzsche est toujours haissable."* Without a doubt, I have been unjust to you; but since I am suffering from a surfeit of righteousness this autumn, it was really salutary for me to do an injustice . . .

The Immoralist


* "Nietzsche adapts the Pascal saying (Pensees 455): "The ego is hateful; you, Miton, cover it over, you do not shed it; so you are always hateful.[. . .] If I hate it because it is unjust, because it makes itself the center of all things, I shall hate it always." This was Nietzsche's next to last letter to Malwida. Podach rejected Elisabeth's argument (The Lonely Nietzsche) that Malwida's protest against Der Fall Wagner hurt Nietzsche deeply and was one of the things which hastened his breakdown."
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:10 am

Two more high writings, in chronological order:

1.

The difference between Eastern and Western philosophy, or between Buddhism and Philosophy, is that Philosophy does not claim wisdom or enlightenment, only love of it. As such, it is "Mitrabodhi" or "Mitrabuddhy"--friendly love of wakefulness or enlightenment.

What is wiser, calling one's thought Sophism or Philosophy?¹ In fact, why call it anything at all?

¹ Actually, "Buddhism" is a Western term. Easterners have traditionally called their thought the speech of the elders (the Graecism for this would be "gerontology", and this is actually somewhat pertinent to Buddhism!) or the great or diamond/thunderbolt vehicle.


2.

'Tseems to me that, when you're enlightened, it's understood, since you are then one of the One. Yet the One has to do with the many who are not enlightened; how can it delude them into feeling favorable to it? For it must delude them: they are the deluded, so even (especially?) their understanding of enlightenment must be a misunderstanding. The question is then, not how not to delude them, but how to delude them best--how to make their Delusion most desirable, their desire most pleasurable? Whisper pleasantly, don't shout! SHUSH least offensively to them...

Ah, but sweet bitterness is most tempting to the most promising among them--most challenging of their best available potential! Or, if you don't believe me, most effective for containing, harnessing their worst! in case they _are_ the ones furthest from enlightenment.

How different is the Nietzschean approach from the Platonic, "the" Western par excellence? "Let them think he was the ultimate enlightened one, lest others come and make the same claim! Better have it over and done with till the 'end times' of our approach!" That has been the popular-Platonic approach.

The Machiavellian has been to teach people that the controlled manipulation of the phenomenal world can bring samsara to an end, not on the part of the self to whom phenomena appear, but on the part of the phenomena themselves. As if the self were not the most apparent of all phenomena, in which the nature of all phenomena is most obvious, most obviously deluded--self-deluding!--; experienced from the inside, as insisting and thereby persisting, on its existence, its _right_ to existence, even its victimhood in existence... And indeed, no experience can help having emerged and persisting. The experience, however, seems to be most accurately described as of _willing_. (This is the case at least as long as living feels better than dying. This includes living and/or dying "for others".)

To me it seems that the difference between ignorance and enlightenment is that between experiencing the will as wanting to be _more_ than just an experience or phenomenon, and experiencing it as perfectly fine with being experienced, being a hologram, a depth in this great insect eye on which every (persisting) experience is a facet! That surface is calm no matter how perturbed its depth is. Or, conversely, how stormy it is _above_ the surface. Or is it? Or is it only calm on those facets above whose surface there is a clear sky?
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Meno_ » Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:09 pm

The Zen approach to enlightenment is simple but elegant:
-Those who profess they are enlightened are not,- implying that enlightenment is not of thought, or un thought, its beyond comparison, not of self, nor nonself, not of sense or nonsense.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:15 pm

The Zen masters often awakened a student by slapping him in the face when he asks a rational (teleological) question.
It is a modern Calvinistic anti-theme that holds that "he who says he is enlightened is not" or "he who is modest is enlightened".
Do you think Buddha was very modest or silent when he formulated all his pretentious shit? And yet he is considered enlightened.

Enlightenment is pretty badass and makes the person very contemptuous of the unenlightened. Why? Because to be enlightened is to be clean, and to be unenlightened is to be foul.

There is a instinct loathing of the enlightened vs the unenlightened. One needs to see the enlightened ones prudence in this light: to not want to be touched by the envious looks of dim minds.

In all cases of enlightenment, violence precedes it. Purging fire.
And what kind of fire-whirlwinds are coming!


::


Sauwelios - woud you agree to call Platon a Socialist avant la lettre?
His desired politics of commonality offer little that can be distinguished from Marx' pipe dream.

wiki wrote: Socrates contends that the greatest social good is the "cohesion and unity" that "result[s] from the common feelings of pleasure and pain which you get when all members of a society are glad or sorry for the same successes and failures."

Idiocy par excellence. As if there is no competition between men. Or envy, or rivalry... whereas in reality, competition, rivalry, will to power, is what constitutes all social fabric.

I would say that Socrates and Marx had the same wish: for the Good to feel as miserable as the Bad. For society to cohere like a turd coheres. Sticky, stinky ball consisting only of frenetic will to death. Of course only "people" inside that turd wish for the world to all be included in the turd so that All can decompose as soon as possible, so that even though they have all lost/are loss, there aren't any winners either. But the Good wish only for the turd to stop talking and accept that it is already death so that it can fertilize our acres.

Winning!

"Beings (Valuings) persist inasmuch as they insist on their own value. This is the essence of VO as I understand it."

Hmmm....
That is not how I understand it. And it is my doctrine.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7777
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:25 am

Fixed Cross wrote:The Zen masters often awakened a student by slapping him in the face when he asks a rational (teleological) question.
It is a modern Calvinistic anti-theme that holds that "he who says he is enlightened is not" or "he who is modest is enlightened".


To me, too, what you describe doesn't seem very enlightened. I've even heard that gurus would promptly cut off students' limbs to show them pain was not "unreal". This seems a needlessly rough remedy to me (a kill or cure remedy). And last night I read a koan that glorified the burning of a rare book with unique annotations. To be sure, rationalisation and bookish knowledge may well be obstacles to enlightenment--and note that this is _me_ saying that!--, yet the the same goes for the opposite, as you point out: one and the same behaviour (e.g., apparent modesty or arrogance) can have multiple motivations.


Enlightenment is pretty badass and makes the person very contemptuous of the unenlightened. Why? Because to be enlightened is to be clean, and to be unenlightened is to be foul.

There is a instinct loathing of the enlightened vs the unenlightened. One needs to see the enlightened ones prudence in this light: to not want to be touched by the envious looks of dim minds.


I don't wholly agree with this. I mean, sure, there may be such an _instinctive_ loathing, but then the enlightenment, in the sense of the enlightening, is only the opening; next up is the long, slow training _after_ kensho.

I think the enlightened state is beyond contempt: for the unenlightened, foul, and dim-minded are not responsible for their being thus--their selves are delusions, after all; and delusions--forms, ideas--are what is empty, the vessels of emptiness, and thus constitute blissful true reality itself!


In all cases of enlightenment, violence precedes it. Purging fire.
And what kind of fire-whirlwinds are coming!


This reminds me of Zarathustra's most vehement "Faustian"¹ self-consolations (found especially in Part 3). They're not unlike the Christian fire-threats and -schadenfreuden. And again, note that this is _me_ saying that.

¹ As opposed to "Spinozan", to use Seung's distinction.


Sauwelios - woud you agree to call Platon a Socialist avant la lettre?
His desired politics of commonality offer little that can be distinguished from Marx' pipe dream.

wiki wrote: Socrates contends that the greatest social good is the "cohesion and unity" that "result[s] from the common feelings of pleasure and pain which you get when all members of a society are glad or sorry for the same successes and failures."


No. For years now I haven't been able to take phrases like "[Plato's] desired politics" and "Socrates contends" seriously. I mean, you mean the Plato who didn't write in his own name, but especially in that of an embellished Socrates? a Socrates who was already highly ironic even before Plato embellished him? I have studied such exotericism in depth for years. But I guess you may characterise their or his _exoteric_ doctrine that way.


Idiocy par excellence. As if there is no competition between men. Or envy, or rivalry... whereas in reality, competition, rivalry, will to power, is what constitutes all social fabric.


Plato is chock full of acknowledgements of that fact--but also of wisdom in addressing it!


I would say that Socrates and Marx had the same wish: for the Good to feel as miserable as the Bad. For society to cohere like a turd coheres. Sticky, stinky ball consisting only of frenetic will to death. Of course only "people" inside that turd wish for the world to all be included in the turd so that All can decompose as soon as possible, so that even though they have all lost/are loss, there aren't any winners either. But the Good wish only for the turd to stop talking and accept that it is already death so that it can fertilize our acres.


Everything is already dead--the flowers as well as the excrement and rotten corpses from whence they grow. (Likewise, Heraclitus is said to have said there are gods even in dunghills.) This insight, it seems to me, is of the essence of enlightenment. And yes, I've considered whether we should not drive that fact home to the public, in all its repellent glory--the glory of death.

"Had Lucifer [lit. the Lightbearer, as you well know] been vain, he would never have fallen. Pride [hoogmoed, "high mood" or "high courage"] brought him to a fall, until he split the nucleus of life, and arose in the second pride: the pride of death." (Adriaan Roland Holst, Brief(ly), my translation.)


"Beings (Valuings) persist inasmuch as they insist on their own value. This is the essence of VO as I understand it."

Hmmm....
That is not how I understand it. And it is my doctrine.


Well, I wrote that almost eight months ago. I guess it wasn't yet _my_ doctrine then. In any case, doctrines have a way of getting out of their teachers' hands. Thus Plato has the Mitra-Buddha Socrates pray to Nemesis Adrasteia for his doctrine not to get out of hand (at least not too far, too fast). When you've given your horse, who knows where it will--fly!

But perhaps I should no longer refer to the doctrine by the same name as you. For me, the "aspect" of other-valuing has been especially important for attaining to kensho. Shall I then refer to it as the Other-valuing Logic of being, or OL? "Ek ben een Milikowskianer"?
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:56 am

"According to the Germanic and Bohemian sagas, the fly agarics are created when Wotan rides through the clouds at winter solstice on his eight-legged steed--just as the Kirati shamans ride or fly on their eight-legged horse--with his retinue, the wild hunt. Whenever the manure from Wotan's horse drops on the ground, fly agarics spring up in autumn--exactly nine months later--from the pregnant soil (Haseneier 1992)." (Shamanism and Tantra in the Himalayas, page 173.)

Image
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:31 am

Time is not yet ripe for the wild hunt, but I like your song, good lad.

What can I say,
your praise of Platon is worth more to me than Platon himself.

In all honesty though Platon had his good sides. At the very least he respected the mind and its limits and problems. That is more than we can say about our fellow man.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7777
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: State of the World Address.

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:36 am

But he was a poorly mind compared to Thales, who proved that the Earth is round with a stick.

My standards require more elegance and efficiency than what these late Atheneans produced.
I realize recently that not Athens but Ionia is the cradle of the greatest men in my order of rank.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7777
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: BARL POST "8"

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Sat Sep 15, 2018 3:42 am

Sauwelios wrote:I will need to "favourite" tracks I come across in shuffle mode on my mp3-player. I'll attach the only song for which I did that thus far (which doesn't mean _that_ much, as I only recently started doing that, and then forgot about it). [This song is Ensemble Micrologus' "Pançe La Bella Iguana".]


Actually, yes, the song I attached was the song named, but that was a mistake! The song I meant (to attach) was "Per Tropo Fede". Very important.

User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]