The West is the best.
Get here, we’ll do the rest.
You are remarkably talented when you let it flow naturally, forget intellectualism (for vids) and concentrate on the artistic.
Give birth to more of your ‘small gems’.
Thanks. Thats nice.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUQQfWSYc2g[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsO83nOP1GM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQcW89hTaE[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaKCvaEmRcQ[/youtube]
Phasing out of my own videos continues. I deleted the last video, this is an altered and longer version of it.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wj3gpcWRQA[/youtube]
Ive also set foot on my new videocratic path.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06ZfESt3Bpk[/youtube]
Do you know the warm progress
under the stars?
Do you know we exist?
Have you forgotten the keys
to the Kingdom?
Have you been born yet
& are you alive?
Let’s reinvent the gods, all the myths
of the ages
Celebrate symbols from deep elder forests
[Have you forgotten the lessons
of the ancient war]
–Jim Morrison, excerpt from An American Prayer
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svPAvfrHj4A[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMlcjrIQHVE[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RZ9Q09OIcc[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn9Alwl2g_s[/youtube]
Do you value the notion of the “true world” at all? I do not think that such a notion can have merit, I do not think there is a the world at all - there is only a “monster of centers”… where these centers “self-appear” as well as appear to each other, in terms both of their own self-appearance and these others self-appearance. “The World” is thus, in a sense, a diplomatic affair.
[edit
- I posted a hastily reviewed edit of the second episode, removed it. The final version is now rendering down and will be up in an hour or so.]
I do value it, but I also agree with your conception of “the world”. The “true world” presupposes a God’s-eye view, whereas to all appearances the world is really composed of many views, viewpoints, viewing and acting centers none of which are Gods (in that there can only be one God in this sense). Nevertheless, I value the notion of the “true world”, for the purpose of deceiving the non-philosophers into being moral during the Platonic age.
Ah yes - but/and I think that all such notions of (a/the) True World must result in the shattering of that sacred appearance. It is after all the inevitable result of any idea of unity pushed too far - that is to say beyond the support of the disunity that created it; it crashes, and takes all that believes in it with it along with much that held it in no regard: believing in a Unity thus also tends be accompanied by the exclusion of a lot of entities from that conceived Union - all this to say that indeed it is not an idea for philosophers, but very much one for the masses, the mobs.
So which kind of Unity would you propose if you would want to destroy in this age?
Well, I don’t think along these lines. I think it goes in steps, so it isn’t as if there is the notion of a True World in one moment, and in the next moment, whoosh! it’s gone. In Platonism, the four causes discerned by Aristotle were divided in two and absolutised: the eidos/telos was conceived as the True World, and the material/efficient cause was conceived as the Apparent World. Then Machiavellianism conceived the latter cause(s) as the effectual truth and the former as imagination. Today’s nihilism is really the total lack of imagination (“the Nothing” from The Never Ending Story!), man’s wretched contentment with being man, his not being spurred on by a superhuman ideal. Yet still he believes in “progress”, i.e. the furtherance of his contentment, and taking this away may enable him to be content and more than content, not just with the present but also with the past, when life was brutish and short… This possibility then becomes the new superhuman ideal–the cycle of man’s sprouting, flowering, seeding and withering.
Right. And I have a distinct loathing for Aristotle. It started as a mere boredom, now I properly can’t stand the fellow and his systems. It has everything to do with his distinctions tearing up what I have come to see as a subtle unity: I do not see effcient and material causes as separate of Eidos or Telos - I am rather “Japanese” in this.
The sword that wooshes through the air and hacks off a limb is the “beginning of all thing” - if executed properly!
This is how I replace value-neutral metaphysics - I contend that only the Good, i.e. the strong and swift, grace out of strength, is Eidos, True – only clean action is ground, as it emerges out of certainty: certainty of self-valuing, of power - of possibility of a straight line.
This is my happiness - the straight line, and the certainty that it is the only truth, the only true path - and, since all is in motion, there is no absolute stillness, no 0 degrees Kelvin, no “atom-ness” - there is nothing besides a path. So Machiavelli is a bit closer to my tastes.
And how did he value imagination?
Did he see that the imagination itself is an effectual cause?
This is my problem with the distinction. Men act in the presence of a sense of Eidos and Telos (“God” to the pious) and this effectively governs their material goings-about, and then, it is fed by the results of these material goings-about – it is thus effectively their standard, i.e. their self-valuing.
Terrible, yes. How can this exist? A “party” nowadays… have there been duller, drabber things? How does one survive such … feebleness of spirit?
Id like to make an observation here: In archaic and classical Greece, life was anything but brutish, and generally quite as long as it is today. Mans pathetic lifespans of 30 years belong in the Dark Ages, and possibly, these were actually darkened by volcanic clouds, making health impossible… that’s a theory. Fact is that the poets and Philosophers of Greece lived longer and more vigorously than those of the 20th century.
And to me this is the “Ideal” - Greece - and myself. I don’t care to return man to brutish and short life - to me that is a thing of Medieval Christianity, of feeble spirit - Health is what I relate to a vigorous and mature Oak or Ash, and to all humans made of “hard and supple wood”.
Where are these humans now? They are around, among the weak. And this is all I want. To gather the strong, the oak-like and ash-like to find each other, and to create their own sovereignty, take over this or that state to that end - and let the rest wither perish as they must according to their natures.
The only possible politics for a ‘value ontologist’ is conquest. As philosophical-shamanic conquest starts with seducing the human spirit to itself, it is a rather slow process. But the results of value-standard-raising are the opposite of transient - this is existence, and as existence is eternal, this Ethos is eternity itself.