The Philosophers

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em-hmbYgJeo[/youtube]

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.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCKK5hlXTrc[/youtube]

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.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzC1rJjZ3_c[/youtube]

For the homies

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wsUZ59N23Q[/youtube]

Yeah, I myself have a loathing for everyone who doesn’t at least initially loathe Aristotle. But I think he, like Plato (whom Nietzsche calls boring), had to present himself like that. Philosophy did not become Socratic for nothing; Sophism actually endangered philosophy.

I think Aristotle really describes the subtle unity of bhusis, but does so in a way that seems to clinically dissect it. I find it ironic, by the way, that you now speak positively of “a subtle unity” when in your previous post you spoke negatively of Unity. A Socratic subtlety, perhaps?

Nietzsche writes:

“The question ‘why?’ is always a question after the causa finalis, after the ‘what for?’ We have no ‘sense for the causa efficiens’[.]” (WP 550.)

Modern (Machiavellian) science basically retains only the efficient cause, conceiving matter as a function of force. Nietzsche puts the eidos/telos back in it by conceiving force as on the inside will (WP 618); will is inconceivable without a vision of power, a feeling of value (WP 668).

Well, there’s a difference between how Machiavelli himself saw it and how he says (or seems to say) he saw it; but insofar as his intended audience consisted of people who took Platonism at face value, I don’t think he said he saw the imagination itself as an effectual cause. For example, he argued that a prince who tried to be “a good king”–kind, merciful etc.–would probably come to ruin, whereas a prince who was to be successful needed to be “Machiavellian”. In other words, the prince’s idea of the good should not be what drives him; what drives him should be efficiency (virtù). Yet what Machiavelli wanted was the creation of “Heaven on Earth”, at least as a goal striving for which Christianity’s tyranny would be broken. His real goal was the furtherance of philosophy.

Well, those that survived the wars and plagues, at least–like the war and plague which were the direct reason why philosophy needed to become Socratic in Athens. “Brutish and short” was a reference to Hobbes, who indeed wrote with the Middle Ages in mind. I didn’t mean that life was brutish and short in all of the past (as I conceive the past as cyclical). And isn’t vigour already quite “brutish” from a modern standpoint, anyway?

Sure, but are you willing to return man to brutish and short life if that is a necessary consequence or a prerequisite of your “Ideal”?

Yea and amen. The human spirit seducing itself to itself. “Wo Geist herrscht, wird das Seiende als solches immer und jeweils seiender.”

It occurs to me that in what we might call your grand narrative, it is philosophy itself which represents the primal self-valuing.

That is to say, it is the subject of your identification, perhaps even rather than that you are that subject - you are its subject in so far as you deem yourself up to its standard. Is that correct?

This is not meant as an attack, the contrary, it is a noble thing and useful, valuable - but I say it to be able to say that I do not consider it so - I consider philosophy as having been ‘dead to me’ from shortly after its very beginning with Thales, to essentially Nietzsche. I do admire various philosophers in between, but more for their characters than the merit of their thoughts. Descartes, for example. As such as I am far more ‘arrogant’ - I consider my work, which is really our work - a group including even Bill and Weary Locomotive - to be the rebirth of the Ancient world. That is my aim and my eidos, my soul and my taste, the scent in my nostrils whenever I engage myself…it is what seduces me to myself.

I speak here of unity of principle. This same unity, as it is a cleaving principle, precludes unity of the world.

The unity of the steel that makes this sword disunites the weaker unities.

Absolutely.

Machiavelli is definitely the most mysterious figure in your chain - I would appreciate much more reading material on this. The way you phrase it, his sword seems to have cleaved the soft wood of Platonism.

Id always make a distinction between raw strength and brutishness. A brute is an ugly, stupid thing - I know, for example, when Ive been brutish - I feel weakened. When Ive relentlessly attacked an enemy unto his downfall, I dont feel brutish, I feel clean.

I dont understand. Arent you asking me if I want to move to the opposite of my ideal if this is necessary to attain my ideal?

I do not see Man as one thing. I discern distinctly differing types, and I would never return my own type to a brutish life (like Luther actually prescribes - brute, ugly) nor to a short one - but I dont mind if enemy types return to such a life. Like I dont mind if a colony of pestilent bacteria suffers a short and brutish life.

Thanks for this great quote. Yes indeed.
So there is no need to actively contemplate reduction of Man - there is only the necessity of raising our own type - so that the deeply sick masses will recede away from us into the background, where they form just another desert in the distance.

Yes, I would reduce these masses to short life or to immediate death, out of mercy. But then I dont consider them a species of Man, strictly, - I do not consider them as individual entities. I see the postmodernist masses as goo, which in its ultimate capacity for being turns into swarms. It is quasi-being, unable to be alone, to itself - to exist. Its resistance against more healthy types is nothing more or less than a terror facing the ultimate reality of actually being something. Transgenderism is a symptom of the will to deny the specificity of nature, and thereby the friction, resistance - suffering and overcoming - selfvaluing.

Id like to add a note, in reference to a correspondence between you and Wyld, that self-valuing does not refer to a valued self- it is auto-valere, a valuing that feeds its own power to value -
what it values is outside of itself, but it values it in such a way as to sustain itself in that valuing.
Like you value philosophy, and depending on your accomplishments therein, you exist to yourself.

Yes, but from my perspective, this difference is due to your essentially rejecting my “grand narrative” (even calling it a narrative reeks of postmodernism, in the sense of the rejection of “metanarratives”). Nietzsche, too, only had inklings, relatively speaking, of the exotericism of the philosophers. Thus he said Plato was worth more than his philosophy (Platonism). However, both of you admire such philosophers for their characters. Aren’t you then, like Nietzsche, puzzled by the fact that their thought does not seem to match their character? My Straussian metanarrative argues that their thought does match their character–and is thereby as admirable–, but that it might well not even have come down to us if they hadn’t obfuscated it. It certainly wouldn’t have been able to seduce the human spirit to itself! Thanks to Cartesian exotericism, human life has cut into life, dissected life, and created the machine…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdRf-IVFeOs[/youtube]

Ironic though that “to cleave” also means “to cling” (kleven as well as klieven).

Yeah, Machiavelli is definitely the link in the chain Homer–Plato–Machiavelli-Nietzsche that most needs “rounding out”. I think my focus on the concept(ion) of nature may finally enable me to do so.

Fair enough.

Nietzsche argues that the victors’ and the victims’ experience of events gave rise to two different ages in Hesiod.

Yes! Exactly! Would you rather have both your ideal and its opposite than neither?

I think the valuing must insist on its own value, which is the value of valuing its “higher self” (which is indeed outside of it), though. If it is to persist, that is.

I don’t reject it and never have said that I do.
I simply see our work and where it is leading to as a point in it, an apex that comes to be served by the entire narrative. Else I would not be doing this work. I only do it because I know I can excel, exceed.

Ill concede that I would be more consistent in giving them a little more credit.

Not so ironic - indeed by cleaving, it ties - the will to power is a case of separation, and separation is the condition to union.

Some more on this: is he then not simply changing ‘the good’ from a moral to (also) a teleological judgment?
We can liken this to prescribing a balance between mercy and severity.

I look forward to it.

Of course - like here, like the recent ones that survived depression and the diseases of our time, the cancer, the aids, what not.
Our times are brutish -much is ugly, banal, sick.

I must read Hesiod.

I certainly would. But in this case I do not see a path between the two.

Per value ontology or selfvaluing logic, that insistence is the indirect result of what we might call a lucky insistence on something outward.

I thusly interpret Nietzsche’s ethos of self-overcoming as the mechanics of self-valuing - one must always aim for something higher than oneself to retain ones power.
Aything aiming for preservation will gradually lose out to ascending wills.

According to my logic, Nietzsche’s will to bring about the Superman is Nietzsche - his valuing beyond his ‘self’ (in which I do not believe) was his self-valuing. It is the consistency of his character, his Eidos - as well as the effective cause that he is to the world, to my own work, character, nature, being.

Hence the greatness of Alexander, and Caesar. It is their will which reaches thousands of years beyond their lives that defines these lives, even keeps defining them in retrospect.

This is Honor as Achilles understood it, as Ive long feared even as I understood it, and which with VO I fear no more.

Yes, but I see that apex as the vortex at which the narrative–the unfolding/realization of Spirit, not in the Hegelian but in the Nietzschean sense; the doctrine of the development of the will to power (BGE 23)–is actually willed (to power!) by projecting it into the future, as recurrence.

Yes, this is excellent: the Heraclitean logos:

“[W]ar is [in] common[.]”

“[S]ome he [war] shows as gods, others as humans; some he makes slaves, some free.” (fr. 80-79, trans. McKirahan, Jr.)

This logos shall be the theme of my next video.

I shall force it into my next video, then.

I shall try and show you the path, which is the same and not the same up and down.

Yes, this all makes perfect sense. But what I shall, must needs, try and show is how Odysseus is superior to Achilles, the Odyssey to the Iliad: “Mere Caesars, however great, will not suffice, for the new philosophers must teach man the future of man as his will, as dependent on a human will in order to put an end to the gruesome rule of nonsense and chance which was hitherto regarded as ‘history’: the true history–as distinguished from the mere pre-history, to use a Marxian distinction–requires the subjugation of chance, of nature (Genealogy II n. 2) by men of the highest spirituality, of the greatest reason.”

Reason, or merely human reason? That is the question. Being, or human being? Nay, human reason or just your reason (each of us)?

“[F]irst the notion that man has a body distinct from his soul, is to be expunged: this I shall do, by printing in the infernal method[.]”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsxFrCJaVTY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO7EisE4Fk0[/youtube]

That’s you, right? I should do one myself.

You totally should!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cePM3kLBw6U[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fitybbF3vq8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGv8xcj78uI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYRgMaTxhAI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3cqhGWHzeA[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3f6SinJnAk[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqeBY12hvR8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuWT5E_qDCM[/youtube]

Very nice.

Ive completed another episode of my Tree of Life series.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdnMEShz5N0[/youtube]

Which Im able to focus on due to Sauwelios taking responsilility for the baseline of this… clan of Zeus.

Ill be posting the vids / lectures in the designated thread in a more organized fashion.

New version, I think a bit more modest.

youtu.be/qfLECTYUbJ8

– notes the sisters Dagaz - Daybreak. it is significant that the Armanen Runenset ‘revealed to’ Otto Van List exclude this rune. endless night. Dark sun imploding. Association: the third leg as the pillar of mildness

– Yes, I have now–through Nepalese shamanism–arrived at the Qabalistic Tree of Life again. “Three unities”. And I think ῥαπίζεσθαι is problaby cognate with ῥάβδος, which interestingly is feminine even though it seems to have a masculine ending, and which means “stick”, “staff” or “wand”, like the magic wands of Circe and Hermes…

– Reminds me of these lines from the Havamal, where Odin speaks: Runes you will find, and readable staves, Very strong staves, Very stout staves, Staves that Bolthor stained, Made by mighty powers, Graven by the prophetic God.

– Unnatural wisdom - Chokmah is indeed beyond nature, a violence that rips through nature, forces it to rebirth, reinvent itself. Look at the image youtube suggested as thumbnail to my video about that sephira. /watch?v=em-hmbYgJeo

– Very nice narrative. (“In the beginning was the story” - FC… narrative is required for even logic to be possible - logic walks from its premises to its conclusion through the primordial logic of the progression by the synthesis of subjects in time, with “power” always as the direction… ) On Blake: You as man must love man - a rigid selfvaluing standard. I dont comply. There has not yet been a man great enough to eclipse tree, bird, or galaxy - no man has yet lived in the right direction. Following up on the dream: the fourth leg as the baby’s attribute - the treasure is in the baby’s ways? ‘babe of the abyss’ Weirdly, I already associate Wilhelmina with Daath, with respect to the discovery that lead up to rebranding my film project as “Oranje in Dagen van Strijd” - Victor of Daath: the back Lion. (my symbol) Im listing in fascination now… Oedipus is what you might call a problem child. Mankind is a problem child. Yes - the central pillar. Perhaps also the dual Pisces turning into the monic Aries.

– I think any man who realises the nature of man thereby rivals–if not eclipses–tree, bird, and galaxy. And I think there have been many such men in the past–though they have at the same time been only few.

– I dont think that before Nietzsche, any man has truly understood man - at least not since before Socrates, who, to my mind, obscured all understanding by positing as standard his quality-less, substance-empty, unverifiable and invisible ‘daemon’ which replaced the hard won Reality of Athens -the superstition that leads to nihilism. In our time, we are at the very frontier of human understanding, approaching its disclosure - and this approach is the direction I value most. To rival is a far stretch from eclipsing… even surpassing doesn’t mean eclipsing - and there have been men that have surpassed tree, certainly.

– The Occident
The Occident
8 hours ago
“I dont think that before Nietzsche, any man has truly understood man -
at least not since before Socrates, who, to my mind, obscured all
understanding by positing as standard his quality-less, substance-empty,
unverifiable and invisible ‘daemon’ which replaced the hard won Reality
of Athens -the superstition that leads to nihilism.”

Well,
that’s what I meant recently when I said you reject my narrative (not
this part of the narrative, but the part about the ages). Socrates did
not obscure all understanding; he didn’t replace the hard won
reality of Athens, but only obscured it, for most understandings. This
was necessary at that point precisely for preserving the Greek
enlightenment. But yes, through Christianity his exotericism led to the
loss of (virtually) all understanding in Europe, until the Renaissance
finally regained it for some (e.g., Machiavelli). But even then the
enlightenment remained esoteric until Nietzsche, to be sure.

::

“In
our time, we are at the very frontier of human understanding,
approaching its disclosure - and this approach is the direction I value
most. To rival is a far stretch from eclipsing… even surpassing
doesn’t mean eclipsing - and there have been men that have surpassed
tree, certainly.”

But is eclipsing even desirable? Should a shepherd “eclipse” his sheep? I’m reminded:

“I fear that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.”

But
what about a poet lovely as a tree? If not in the narrow sense, every
great man has surely been a poet. Indeed, you basically say there have
been poets that surpassed tree. But wouldn’t a poet who eclipsed
tree have to be a poet who surpassed tree so far that tree paled in
comparison?