The Dialectics of Repression.

As far as I can tell from reading back, your first entry here was to spout an arrogant comment about Ascolo’s getting banned. No one was talking about being banned. He mentioned it in brief and then went back into the general conversation. You entered here uninvited and with nothing to add to that conversation, and you distracted it with irrelevancies. Whether this distracting was deliberate or not I will not comment upon, because we both know the answer to that despite your protestations otherwise.

What does it say about someone who behaves thus? Who can deliberately ignore such a vast topic as is being discussed here, in order to enter and slander those who are discussing? Do you make it your personal mission to follow Ascolo around and taunt him until he gets banned for responding to your innane instigations? Or are you just interested in butting in where you are not welcome, where you admittedly have no conversational interest, in order to derail a topic? Do you find this sort of thing amusing? I can assure you that we do not.

It stands that you entered here and began talking about being banned and the rules involved therein. That is and was not relevant to the conversation. You started it here so I am not sure why you are pretending to be hiding behind claims that the conversation naturally turned in that direction – it did not. You turned it there. As I said, it makes me wonder what your motives are in behaving like this.

[-X

My great interruption and thread sabotage amounted to this post:

viewtopic.php?p=2130946#p2130946

and then this:

viewtopic.php?p=2130949#p2130949

When Jakob commented on banning, I wrote this:

viewtopic.php?p=2130968#p2130968

…in which I helpfully linked to a thread whose topic is banning (so as to avoid derailing this thread). I also added another one-line comment offering my opinion. There followed a series of responses and replies, not instigated by me.

Your questioning my ‘motives’ here just looks like throwing toys out the pram.

Thank you for linking up the evidence so that I dont have to be bothered to do so myself.

You prove yourself wrong, you prove yourself an instigator and derailer with your own mouth here, your initial posts here speak to your intentions and malice quite clearly – and yet you pretend otherwise. When you yourself even present the evidence which damns you, you turn a blind eye to it and pretend to be something you are not, despite how undeniably false such pretentions are.

I wonder what depth of depravity and intellectual dishonesty must lie within a soul capable of such a feat.

Wow.

Just wow.

Dont think for a moment that your unwillingness to dispute any of my claims has gone unnoticed.

Some advice: pretention begets the necessity for more of the same. Your feigned surprise and disbelief only serve as further illumination to these motives. You might be wise to consider the virtue in silence; for, as I have noted to others here, you betray too much, and it is embarassing for everyone involved.

Anyways, I will take my own advice in regards to silence, and for quite different reasons of my own. I have no interest trading blows and egos here, nor do I consider this conversation with you a useful or sufficient enough reason to truly let my fangs out, so I will take my leave of you in regards to this issue. Do what you like in terms of pursuing your intentions and goals here, I will merely choose to ignore it from now on.

And please do not feel that I have any enmity towards you if we ever converse elsewhere on this website in the future.

I’m honestly staggered by your assertions. Truly- I’m sitting here with my jaw dropped, shaking my head. I keep expecting you to say you’re pulling my leg or something.

So I’m not really sure what to say, especially since I always enjoy reading your posts here and had considered you such a level-headed and very likeable fellow. However, it seems you’re convinced my character is evil and my intent malign, though reading back through this thread it’s hard for me to imagine how you should possibly come to that conclusion. [ETA: Can anyone else here, with a perhaps less emotional perspective, shed some light on this?]

As for refusing to refute your claims, I utterly and completely deny everything you have said as total hysterical madness. I cannot credit it. But in any case, you are profoundly wrong. Following such an unjustified and outrageous slur on my character, I cannot be silent about this. You’re way too far out of line.

Indeed - shouldn’t there be a policy against posters who parasite off other posters flammable emotions? But I’ll drop this subject now.

I reject this idea - it is in no way made plausible to me that suffering is the basic value. It simply isn’t viable bio-logically - only accidentally could it be sufficient impetus for an organism to persist, but as already the entire coming-to-being of life and of structure itself is supposed ot be accidental, it would only add to the implausibility of the model we, as anything-but-creationists, pretend to share. Overcoming suffering, on the other hand, could be a basic value, from which suffering as a value is then derived, instead of vice versa. As such we get to a more dynamic, less Platonic thesis - as it describes a human action, a true state of consciousness, whereas suffering is an abstraction. Overcoming, or trying to overcome suffering, is between suffering and pleasure - what I call existential rapture is (of course) overcoming. Overcoming as being overcoming no being - i.e., becoming, physis. Ontology is falling back into a Nietzschean/Heideggerian focus for me now that Ascolo is no longer here to try to convince me that there is something deeper, which I very much appreciated, as long as it lasted, and as much as I still disagree with him.

Ascolo did turn me on to another interesting philosopher- Schelling - I am now reading Zizek, who indeed goes into Schelling a lot. Its interesting how much what the two share, via Lacan, is very easily explained in kabbalistic terms, as crossing the abyss, as the pre-ontological becoming Real via a primordial act, which cannot be traced back to but is nontheless rooted in, well, something that I can not yet defined in either Schellings or Zizeks terms, but in kabbalistic terms the, supernal triad. But what does this say about repression?

Zizek relates how, in my own words, the act which establishes law, a consciousness, is a primordial crime against the consciousness it comes on top of - a crime which has to immediately sink into unconsciousness for the new consciousness to remain operative. So there is a fundamental, primordial repression which is necessary to function as a consciousness.

I share your perspective here. I think that we are understanding a single word, “suffering”, in different ways, but I think that the essence of what we mean is very similar. When I agree with Ascolo that suffering is the only value (almost the only value) what I mean is perhaps not what he means - I mean that struggle and movement, being in a state of lack and of need, of insufficiency or imperfection or incomplete saturation. A sort of being-in-lack, if you will. This state necessarily engenders the organism, on whatever level it exists, to structure and organize itself in such a way as to mitigate or relieve this need, to fill it up, to saturate itself (its potentialities), else that organism will perish, will be subsumed underneath another organic process which is performing this action of filling-up more effectively than itself.

This is why, how, I have resisted the thought of the ubiquity of suffering from overtaking my consciousness. There was a moment when I was contemplating this idea deeply, and I encountered superficially this state of being consumed by it… it overwhelmed my senses and emotions, memories and hopes and joy, threatening to take their place by usurping them within itself. What Ascolo talks about in his three stages, this is very, very real. But I also had, at this precise moment, a thought, inspired from Zarathustra, about not throwing away one’s most heroic value with one’s ‘waking up’, with his overcoming. I consider this most noble or heroic within me the vision of radiant joy and creative expression, as I have tried to hint at earlier despite the concept being somewhat beyond mere words – what I called, in sum, innocence (or love). I could not throw this away. I could not, but more than that, I would not, it cried out in protest, I began to cry at the sight of the tremendous monstrousness of the act I was about to perform – to truly murder oneself. This is something I cannot do, am not ready to do. Is this holding-on a false attachment, a superficiality, an egoism, a love of self? I dont know. But even if it is, I do not despair of it, for as Nietzsche writes through Zarathustra: “There is always some madness in love. Yet there is also always some reason in madness.” I must give myself over to my intuitions here, at this point of staring into the abyss, i must trust and have faith in that most irrefutable and sublime within me - to do otherwise would be such a contradiction of my very nature, of the truly genuine and philosophic-of-spirit that I feel embodies me, that, despite that I understand this ultimate resistance little, I nonetheless know that it represents the best and highest within me. This knowledge, sincere and simple and irrefutable, has sustained me against this storm.

I feel as if I have encountered this chasm perhaps too early, perhaps I have not yet gained enough substance to fall back upon after the burning-away. . . . regardless, I resisted. And in so resisting, this perspective of ‘suffering’ was incorporated within this more essential structure, my more implicit and highest image and perspective, embodied within Nietzsche’s character of Zarathustra and in a very, very real way. This perspective, this lightness and joy and laughter and innocence, glowed anew and flamed itself, became a bit more assertive, began to take within itself, to appropriate the perspective of suffering in that I tend to agree with you that a sort of basic existential rapture, if you will, a basic creative force or willing is at the heart of beings-in-suffering. It is more of an impulse, but for myself, I know it is true. But nonetheless I still agree with Ascolo, his perspective is true I think, that happiness and human valuations are reactions against suffering, they depend upon a state of being in need/lack, they are responses in an unconscious/structural sense… and yet, as I wrote, this does not, for me, take anything away for them, nor does it change their essential nature or how we experience them.

When we experience something as real, regardless of how we define it or if we later come to think it as illusion or dream, it is still experienced as real. It is made real, in the mind, by the mind. Perhaps this hints at the deep-rooted creative will at the heart of man. To value, to esteem, to grant meaning to, to be in happiness, these states are no less real or important or wonderful because they derive secondarily from a more basic unconscious suffering (lack) – and further to this, as I tried to indicate, as humans I believe that (perhaps all of us, perhaps only few of us) have a creative, self-affirmative essence which we might not even know or sense in any way, but which grants us immediacy and sustainability within our experiences - which gives deeper meaning - so that, when our unconscious sufferings or energies flow in new directions, a permanence is still maintained, a state of ‘being human’, of willing, Being which sustains itself not reactively but actively, for its own sake. To me, this is at the heart of man.

Taking this idea, this Image of thought and becoming it, projecting it within oneself, living it is maybe something I am not yet ready for - I will take such a step, maybe your kabalistic crossing of the abyss, when I feel the moment is ripe for it, when all circumstances converge and when my strength and joy are at their peak, when I am most myself, honest and penetrating and light. Is this resistance, this putting-off of the moment apathy or rationalizing, is it a being afraid? In part, yes, I know it is all of these things. But behind these psychological functions lies, I believe, a sincere realisation that the moment is not yet here, that to take this step now, prematurely, would lead to the irreversible incorporation of error and impurity and darkness, loss of my substantial self, my essence, within me, in some incomprehensible way that I cannot really explain… basically, yes I fear this step, but fear indicates respect, at least in this moment for me it does. When I can laugh at this fear with joy, when I take it into myself and affirm it with love, when I make it truly my own, then perhaps the step will be taken, the abyss opened up before me.

Anyways, speaking in metaphor isnt quite as much my strength as Ascolo’s, although it seems to be the only way that I can formulate these responses even somewhat coherently. But basically I think we are in agreement with regard to suffering, only that I think we might see it from a slightly different perspective or emphasis, which is of course perfectly fine and good. I like to think that I can incorporate yours and Ascolo’s perspectives together, I think that this is in essence what I am doing, but I also realise that I am forming a third image in this manner, one that is somewhat different from the basis of each of your perspectives - and yet, this personalization, individuation is absolutely necessary, perhaps the highest goal of a true philosopher, to learn not to imitate but to create – not to imitate through one’s creating, but to create through one’s imitating.

I will have to read some more of these fellows they are very interesting. Can you elaborate a bit more on the ‘supernal triad’? Using PMs would maybe be perferrable here if you wish, since Ascolo has be forced away from us.

I think I’m with you there. So it is not a matter of whether or not Ascolo’s step is truthful, but whether or not it is desirable - whether it is justified.
Of course this concept, justification, is exactly what I (and Nietzsche and perhaps you) differ from in opinion with Ascolo. That would follow logically from the steps we’ve made.

I do want to go into the supernal triad, but I’m not sure how much it will amount to given that it is an occult theorem that gives form and structure to the essentially formless, which does not, in the strictest philosophical sense, make sense. I don’t know what can be accomplished by it exoterically - that is, in language. But in the meantime, I would be interested to read more about this awareness of the ubiquity of suffering. Could you descibe this? Does it have to do with an inherent lack of capacity in all organisms to fully incorporate what they conceive of as existing? This is how I now understand the suffering which drives organisms, and cultures, to evolve into greater structures.

Thesis the pain principle + antithesis the illusion-principle
Synthesis…?

I think this follows from Ascolo’s intervention.

illusion principle = meaning and such.

I have already responded to Ascolo’s intervention above.

Where exactly?

viewtopic.php?p=2131048#p2131048

I missed that. Well put!

What Ascolo’s position might be is that suffering is the most direct way the being has, to consciously relate to his being.

This is the essential question, it seems. Does need presuppose that which needs? Surely psychological need, biological need presupposes the psyche, the biology. But what they are these? In and of themselves, non-living matter, elements and chemicals and molecular relations of energy. Do these ‘need’? We can speak of their state of aquisition, that they react in the presence of certain things as if they need them. But this is just basic natural law of electromagnetism, or whatever the case may be. Surely we need not ascribe a will or a primal ‘being’ to these non-living energies.

It seems that need might only relate to living beings which are capable of suffering from a lack. Being that this lack is the foundation for all striving-behavior, all growth and overcoming, all happiness and satiation and pleasure, then suffering (need) is the basic value, the basis of all living behavior is the avoidance or overcoming of suffering. But does the fact that this system presupposes the living organism itself mean anything? I dont know. At the point where the “living thing”, the organism ends and becomes only arrangement of non-living matter, it would seem the the concept of need stops here as well – and yet we can see that this concept of need would extend right up to this point, and cease at the exact same moment. So there might be no overlap where we could say that the need itself presupposes its opposite, in a prior fashion. I would imagine that values per se only apply to living things, but as for what Ascolo might say, I dont really know. Yet if this is the case, that values only apply meaningfully to living entities, then the idea that need presupposes the needer, value presupposes the valuer, might not amount to a genuine criticism of Ascolo’s ideas. It is too bad he cannot answer this question for himself.

Suffering and repression suck, so why go there… having said that, I’ve been dabbling in narcissism and asceticism this past year gone and it felt kinda good - I think I’ll stop before I get to self-flagellation though :laughing:

Perhaps the Suffering/repression are warranted as long as they are self-inflicted…

Nothing at all wrong with a healthy dose of narcissistic asceticism :smiley:

Apparently Ascolo was only banned for a week -
was - I dont know if that is still his status.

That can be be seen as untrue by observing assimilating of particles on an inorganic level. Atoms do not evolve into molecules because of need, or do they? If not, need is a derivative concept of something more fundamental, pre organic, certainly prepsychological.

Minerals evolve, as Darwin observed, in the same way as animals.