Yes, it is a most satisfying response in fact, rarely do you hear the truth spoken. The reason has to do with the general preference the poet philosopher expresses for hell. In a sense it is a better reflection of how we perceive our own nature. To have a nature at all, for a man in this day and age is to have a bad nature. But not to pretend that I have a faint clue of the quality or degree of your badness. But you have understood my point about politics, that much is abundantly clear. So what rests; what else might we say? In case of truth, speak in universals. That has been the devils defense since he invented himself out of mans reflection.
Then Plato is deeper than I had thought. This impacts the view on his forms. For metaxy is the imperfect and time-bound expression of principle; so also in value ontology, the self-valuing is the transcendent principle and the valuing, the skewed reflection upon reflection (of which the devil is a most subtly askew one) ; and this is why we brea idols; to break mirrors. To stand once more alone like the lone fire in the field under the stars. Metaxy may arise from us - but fire is no such thing. Fire is not self-valuing like humans are or even like atoms; it is pure usurping; in the sense that all exothermic chemical reaction is such an usurping. We must count with it always, also in human affairs; wherever there is the condition for things to burn up, any small spark can set it off, and wait long enough and there is always a spark, that is the nature of atmosphere, of metaxy. Thunder is another release of metaxy, clouds are it building up. Violence is often the attempt at breaking mirrors; eros is wholly mirror. Sex is the collision of the two. I think science is a form of sex.
Much appreciated. The first pages of what I read made me laugh out loud. He goes straight to a very tight grip. It appears that what I held for knowledge of him was irrelevant.
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, I think he largely influenced these two. And a lot of Israeli politicians, I am sure. I’d suspect he has access to, or has at least been given a tour of the grand library of their supreme court. I applaud the existence of such a secret library, accessible only to the utter most elite of power - I find it speaks of profundity to keep certain sources a secret until the end of an education in the human world. It provides depth - a dimension for wisdom to fall in its place; which is always gratitude.
What little I read of him compelled me to read the Protagoras, after which I forgot that I read it to read on in Lampert. I’ll get back to him, I trust. But these things have their time and must fall in their place.
Interesting. I know that Sauwelios has correspondend with Lampert, I think he disagreed with him on an issue related to Nietzsche. The fineries of these things are not beyond me but I do not go as deep into each thought as to flesh out each of its consequences in contact with other , often hypothetical thoughts – but this web, mnemosynid tunnel network of philosophers through time amongst each other, this is a ‘place’ without which the world would be quite hollow in its mechanisms.
I recognize some of that, Sauwelios used to quote from this book by Bernadete - It is fascinating, but I am very much questioning it; is not the true merit of Homer that he inspired the Athenians with his Gods, and his heroes? I have a certain reluctancy to treating the raw epic forms of Europe in a way in which one would treat a Torah. As cryptic, encoded. I do paint a crude picture here, but it is the approach that I am least given to by my own devices -what I take from the Odyssey is the absurdly beautiful conceptions of the natural world and mans paths and the perspectives that are revealed along those paths by encounters; but it is on the other hand absolutely given that many hidden meanings do reside in Homer; but it is always so with the writings of great poetry; no good poet ever understands his own work; he must restrict the approach at marveling, as soon as he breaks through that to reason his art is lost to him. Logic is like graverobbing in this sense; a ring here, a skull there, and I heard you can get 30 quid one that in England - good thing people don’t know about that here. But reason is wandering the shadow realm, and politics is never reasonable. It is always opportune. The only reason is contingency, and its ground is will to power, which is eros. To draw everything to oneself; this means to create the path of least resistance for things to flow towards you. Truth suffers heavily; it is either heavy or combusting, it is not ‘gliding’. Every ‘gliding’ rhetoric is politics; rhetoric of truth is full of vigorous and proud self-confrontation.
As long as the philosopher has any subject he will speak his truths. To be explicit is never necessary when one can be pattern-weaving; this fascinates me on the internet, where thinking is truly building, and dwelling. It is evident to me more and more that this phenomenon belongs to us, thinkers. We have most benefit of it of all. Most people are simply entrapped and impoverished by it, using it for convenience, entertainment and worst, education. Only the finest discipline of taste can justify the internet in terms of entertainment, and the whole point of a good education is a wise preselection of sources. To educate oneself on the internet is only given to children of extraordinary moral genius. One would already have to know everything one needs to learn, in seed, to engage without running into the most grotesque falsifications. Information itself is almost the opposite of direction, and truth always has direction, always has ‘spin’ - as does all substance. Thus the individual without forewarning gives off his spin to all facts by his reason for choosing them - the relation of the things that he knows are even before they are established speaking his souls urge. But is this bad? It is in that it precludes leaning of what one does not want to know, but what one may need to know before one can now what one wants to know. “Free-will” in education limits the degree of objectivity one may attain and thus the power one may feel, and thus the joy one may embody. Some of the great states of bliss require years of formalized rigor. To get the taste for education, the habit for trusting the far and deep to reveal things in time, this is to be given the world, piece by piece, before one starts to walk it like Cain, in Kung Fu.
My view on education interests me here. I notice my own preference for a suspension of valuing in ones own terms;
it is evident that one must value each thing in ones own terms wherever this is possible, and otherwise resist them;
but to be inflicted with facts, theories, languages, stories and weird seeming morals at a young age is to be drawn out of ones self-valuing, to be forced to become greater, at least if the presented teachings are indeed of great things; astronomy and mathematics, Greek and Latin - these things are important - I could not imagine what I had become had I not learned a bit of Greek. Not that I say I would have become far less, but less certainly. I know it instinctively, this is one of the few truly good things I learned; to know how these people spoke, before I came to realize what they represented. The rough beauty in the Greek words speaks quite literally of the ocean; I a inclined to say that they were born from the blood of Kronos and the foaming sea; that their goddess of lust and beauty is their truest reflection - for what Nietzsche says is true but what is it that withstands Dionysos in truth? It is she who evokes him. The priestess, this is what a people embodies for great men to arise; all masculine priests are superfluous; a masculine priests immediately gives way to the priestess, yields to her, as only in the female gender does human become God - only in woman does the flesh rule the spirit, is the spirit servilely occupied with the body; laughter of women is for their health, for their red cheeks; men laugh in health to break painful and imprisoning thoughts, girls laugh because they find - know themselves funny, their activities absurd and superfluous, and if there is beauty in it and its pursuit, delightfully so.
In this sense Nietzsche taught some positively feminine virtues; but he taught them to our ‘subconscious’ - he taught it to cohere, the body - cohere by laughter, to be priestess to the mind, muse to it as well as guide, and folly - “chaos in oneself” - “if truth is a woman” - but if not? What is she then? And what is truth to a man, if there is woman? Is truth not the replacement of woman? But I go too far. This is no longer poetic liberty but the beginning of a lie.
, but I think it would suffice to say that I am prone to clumsiness and incaution.