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.
– 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?
I now seriously suspect Heraclitus meant the following:
Ὅμηρος ἄξιος ἐκ τῶν ἀγώνων ἐκβάλλεσθαι καὶ ῥαπίζεσθαι καὶ Ἀρχίλοχον ὁμοίως.
“Homer is worthy of being ejected from the mass assemblies and being touched with a magic wand, and Archilochus likewise.”
In other words, Homer is too precious to (just) be in the hands of the masses, and should rather be read by men who have the third “leg”, the complete λόγος.
“Scholium T at 10.305 says that for Odysseus to take the moly means he took the complete logos.” (Benardete, The Bow and the Lyre, Note 132.)
By my own selfvaluing standard, Homer [[whose value to us is matter-wise made out of the type of men in the type of world he describes, thus those that came right before Homer]] is the peak of the circle.
In radical terms: Everything after Homer is a dilution of Homer until Machiavelli, where it turns back toward Homer.
Now, we passed the hour of 9, and things are looking up.
Thanks be to Kronos.
Of course, to different types of men, different points on the circle will be the peak. And it doesn’t turn back toward Homer by itself; nature works through us, through our natures–we are part of nature. I’m saying this not because you need to be told so, but because others may.
To clarify: wanting to break out of the circle is characteristic of the Machiavellian age. As its polar opposite, then, the Homeric age is incommensurable with such a wish. A Machiavellian becomes pre-Homeric (Nietzschean!) by willing the whole cycle!
A picture is dawning on me, Occident -
A picture of a dusk, evidently -
it is fleeting, it was written here, now it is not.
It was merely a vision, it could hold no claim.
A vision of Florentine reason that echos Homers style, and announces the fullness of the world at Nietzsche’s cusp.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC9Hw14QqsU[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxzHIzeTokY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1V1E_62WAE[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKpTWBZsyrQ[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hctjd-UKds8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrHN6xIdXpw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0Rr0T6UFE[/youtube]
barbarianhorde
Self IS what you are. Multitudinous aspects to us capable of change.
The problem is that we have yet to discover those through consciousness.
Ego as in self-identity or hubris?
Ego is part of our consciousness, our human awareness.
I wouldn’t have worded it the way in which you did.
One might say that “ego” as hubris can “get in the way of” self and reality. True ego doesn’t separate self from reality. Self and reality, at least to me, flow in the same waters. True ego gathers them in.
.
So then who or what is it which is doing the remembering?
Why would you want to deny self, your self?
Oh but the wind does matter and it matters how hard the wind blows. It can pawn your pace at any moment. But if you allow the wind to take you forward, it will. You just cannot fight it. It’s like the seagull which rides the waves to shore.
Why would the seagull fight that?
What really matters is that you just keep on walking and if that gets to be too much, you stop, find a tree and hug it. 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRi48tJSsGI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcn1wSc7zt8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rISn8k01cfM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OTj-d6YZXE[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgZ8ytYXLOU[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM-unzlTno4[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZTq2zseZo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE7UDmGdUPo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8l0oEdLFVI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2zMbD8CaBU[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A77bVY0uj8s[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMag-KqLjt4[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCd17FP3Gyw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg-lUHcgNgY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCqfagQKFz0[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb8XJtonwLA[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Shkdw99sRI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfwmIvVKUWo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzU40a_xigk[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ehp5MVxgog[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKpIZ07Y3-8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUXzjwvd1Q8[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBFC0UR7zcY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-GrLp-lPeU[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_9D6M-oHSo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsb0sjpFyYE[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZxB_srBhyQ[/youtube]
Sauwelios, I commend you for this series, which contains truly an unprecedented wealth of ideas, often in the noble form of questions. Far more than I can address.
A comment on the opening of episode 10:
what if the notion of an infinite universe implies also that man is infinite?
Furthermore an advice, or a request: that you provide each video with a specific description consisting of keywords, searchterms representing the major themes of each episode.
It’s not required that massive audiences hear your words, but those rare individuals that may prove of worth in the coming time of political conquests must be given opportunity to stumble upon your work, also these first works wherein so many seeds are scattered in the dark Earth of your “game”.
so I’m currently listening to this.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsb0sjpFyYE[/youtube]
A veritable library it is, what you have brought into being in this first season. A crepuscular library, demanding one brings ones own torch.
This is what “esoteric” means.
Even as you become less obscured, it is natural for the first layer of ground to be pitch-black.
Thanks. And: I don’t see how it implies that, but it would mean that the whole is still finite compared to man–meaning to him it is a whole–enclosed by “nothing”…
Yes, I ‘should’ do that, but for the time being that’s too much of a secretarial task for me to actually do. I might be able to do it at work, which is pretty much a secretarial job, anyway. This night, I’ve been going through my ILP “Sent messages” and “Inbox” folders, deleting what was not worth keeping.
Well, even though I may still be underground, I have already felt like I was flowering several times while making my videos, and in between: this Sunday night, I plan on making one on erôs, will to power, and self-valuing. And episodes 11 and 12 are already online, though I’ve still to post them here. But now I have to go to bed.