The Philosophers

Absolutely, yes.

This is excellent stuff. Trump is indeed the rightful representative of America, the true face of the US. I’ve disliked the US since my adolescence, and therefore also dislike Trump; Fixed Cross has loved it since childhood, and therefore also loves Trump.

Last night I was in a heightened state and wrote something in English again, against my resolution–something philosophical, that is. I will post it here in honour of the Philosophers and also because it may be fitting in this context.

::

Philosophical supremacism is the claim that philosophers rank above all other men, or that philosophy ranks above all other–activities. Now this has always been widely considered insane–consider Glaucon’s response to Socrates’ idea of the philosopher kings in Plato’s Republic–, and even in modern times it will be considered so. For to a modern, philosophy or science only has value insofar as it improves the people’s life. But one need not be a modern or even a Platonist to find grave problem with the claim. For there is an inner, analytic inconsistency to it.

Philosophical supremacism is concerned with rank. Rank however is not the subject of philosophy as such, but only of political philosophy. That is to say, it’s not the subject of natural, but only of moral philosophy, not of physics or metaphysics but only of ethics, at most of religious philosophy but not of “first philosophy”–philosophy proper, “philosophical” philosophy. This means that philosophy proper cannot claim a higher rank than any other activity.

The philosophers proper, however,–the genuine or actual philosophers–are those who lay claim to a highest form or way of human life, a virtuous life or person. To claim this about the (meta)physician is inconsistent, as we have seen. But is claiming it for the political philosopher not circular and thereby absurd? “The highest man is he who commands and legislates as a statesman, a moralist or a prophet that his kind of life is considered the highest.” He will then have to do so as a rhetorician, a play actor, an inspired poet: his self-expression, not what is expressed is then the focus: it is only the shadow play suggestive of the blaze behind it.

In the case of moral philosophy, that blaze is the blaze of natural philosophy: the impassioned conviction that every part of nature, as a manifestation of the whole or the nature of nature, is divinely glorious to see in truth. On some level, be it only the microscopic, science and divine service are one. Sublime patterns are found that fill us with awe. But the microscopic and telescopic are in a sense different planes from our natural, human-scaled one. In this sense, science is an escape. The greatest challenge lies in what is seen with the naked eye and the naked mind. This is the level on which dust is dust and fire is fire. The level on which virtue or virility banishes filth into nooks and crannies. On this level, the divine itself is ranked into high and low–even into divine and non-divine, even demonic.

::

The level on which dust is dust and fire is fire is also the level on which worms are worms (as per another of FC’s most recent posts). I was actually thinking of worms around when I wrote “filth” and, then, “dust”. I also thought of the brain of the leech (Zarathustra part 4) and of gnats’ anuses (Aristophanes’ Clouds).

Here’s something else I wrote today: “Tastism: the view that there is such a thing as good and bad taste.” I may be a Cato to Trump’s “Caesar”, but I do assert that an objectively higher taste and tastefulness can only arise out of the consistent assertion of some irrational and arbitrary taste.

“Voegelin seems to believe that ‘post-constitutional’ rule is not per se inferior to ‘constitutional’ rule. But is not ‘post-constitutional’ rule justified by necessity or, as Voegelin says, by ‘historical necessity’? And is not the necessary essentially inferior to the noble or to what is choiceworthy for its own sake? Necessity excuses: what is justified by necessity is in need of excuse. The Caesar, as Voegelin conceives of him, is ‘the avenger of the misdeeds of a corrupt people.’ Caesarism is then essentially related to a corrupt people, to a low level of political life, to a decline of society. It presupposes the decline, if not the extinction, of civic virtue or of public spirit, and it necessarily perpetuates that condition. Caesarism belongs to a degraded society, and it thrives on its degradation. Caesarism is just, whereas tyranny is unjust. But Caesarism is just in the way in which deserved punishment is just. It is as little choiceworthy for its own sake as is deserved punishment. Cato refused to see what his time demanded because he saw too clearly the degraded and degrading character of what his time demanded. It is much more important to realize the low level of Caesarism (for, to repeat, Caesarism cannot be divorced from the society which deserves Caesarism) than to realize that under certain conditions Caesarism is necessary and hence legitimate.” (Strauss, “Restatement on Xenophon’s Hiero”.)

With this ad hoc “signature” quote I will return to my self-imposed exile from English in philosophicis.

=D> And you, the ego-maniac, self-deceiving, drug addict who can’t face his mental illness who fucks black whores with ketamine up their asses and brags about it while some lame sock puppet on ILP are of a high standard, more valuable, than the average American, like Joker and I who deal with our families, don’t flee from our countries, and fuck each other legally while sober, we are ugly since we reject a greedy, religious conspiracy. Yes, you are the epitome of sound judgement. :laughing: You keep bringing up my name, desiring my attention being the sick fuck you are and now you have it crazypants! Was the chick you took the photo of and posted in the rant house the Islamic girl you knocked up?

Only a low life would use a girl, without her consent, for some sleazy photo-op proof of having sexual affairs. =D> Good job dumdum!

That’s his Muslim girlfriend, eh? :laughing:

Last night I wrote something in English in a heightened state again. It incidentally has some common ground with Fixed Cross’s latest post in his “Grand Scheme” thread, but it belongs in this thread. I guess I’ll also post links to the rest of my English-language videos here soon.

::

Aan wie richt ik mij? O Muze, is dat het beste dat we te bieden hebben? O godin!

“Light my fire” is the ardent cry for something higher than it itself is. Something that departs from where “The End” begins. Something older than Oedipal—nay, something that only now opens the eyes to that That is where it all begins. The Son as the self-fulfilling prophecy of the Father—the Fathers.

Oedipus, the three-in-one eyed, Wisefoot, the three-legged, Snake.

He who shows Eve Adam.

The true Adam.

The Omega, the Alpha.

The Lion-dogged who steals or “robbeth”.

The King of Actors on your horizon. But thus far ever beyond it, unknown and unseen. Beyond what you know of “Evil”. Greater than the greatest evil is the Good, that is, the only one not insane, or the sanest being present, accessible. The best speaking being. The gender king.

One who is somehow between the nerds and—the rest, the strong and the weak, or at least manages to convince himself thus far. An Oedipus blind to the Swell-Foot that he is, who forces himself to See only when seduced by the best, like Uma Mohan—Saraswati Stotra, “Trishakti — Devi’s Divine Dimensions”—

Which reminds me: I have these thoughts about dimensions. The great Singers’ or Seers’ ground art is rhythm, rushing, roving in time. Melodies, let alone lyrics, only serve to catch the dance thereof (of both, respectively). The Dunce, the fool whose rapid tongue flows ahead of the king’s—the wise guy, the wit. But the true King is of course the Queen—that is, of all who sport to be king.

Who is the REAL Sir Lancelot? The one who best honours the king, most barely leaves him in his pride. Most supermanly portrayed by Henry Cavill in The Tudors. But King Arthur had only one wife. And Lancelot returned to the fold, having tasted Magic, the third path between Peasant and Nobility, between Boor and Knight, clumse and Supreme Servant.

Words tend to distract from where I really meant to go. I will try again.

Where did Ser Knight find HIS magic? Where magic was most devowed: the True Religion, the Abrahamic or Ibrahimic Magic, really Persian Magic, Persian Virtue… The Fire of Light as opposed to that of Darkness. But That is precisely the Darkness, the sweetest most persuasive Burning, the crackling of witchwood, of witchhood… Even in ancient Greece, Oedipus had this “irrational conviction” that he needed to be vaporized by lightning in a sacred grove or garden, where no one should find him. Why? Because he was wise and not mad, and his was the strongest way to attest to it. Not insane, not impure, not raving, not off the right track, not hubristic—not deluded in having truly seen the power of the Gods.

Those who, having lived as Oedipus, move on as if no line was crossed that might be drawn by Gods, had to be burned as witches in earlier times. Today the civilized world is much more lenient, ever more lenient than the “barbaric” past. Yet this was made possible thanks to the past. We are still only relatively lenient, and may always have to be that way even if given forever. And “forever” could only be given if man remains a relatively intelligent being, not allowing itself to go extinct.

For all of history, man has been the species of the three types: two obvious ones and a third, questionable type. Yet it’s precisely this one that sets the standard, “type”, the notion of two types to the stronger of which he himself belongs. To the men, say, he shows that he’s a man, and to the women, he intimates that he is on their side.

My sacrifice is the forced coming out of the third type. I recently spoke of “the naked eye and the naked mind.” But I wear “eyewear”—eye glasses, man-made lenses, like telescopes and microscopes. (I’m a telescopic wearer.) Likewise, I regularly—though not often—melt an eyeglass for my mind—a substance-induced grounding-anew for my mind. Usually, I am most sober, but my best sobriety is still slightly, if essentially, off. Just like my glasses don’t have to be perfect, my mindglass need only converge the light I see with it enough to clearly make it out—make out the form it takes. A wellspring.

I was considering using magic truffles (the lightest kind) this vacation, but this trip was induced by vaporizing weed. This is my coming-out as what Morrison called “a
visionary-scientist
radiocal biochemical
aviationary sky-diver”. A shaman. A Magus, a black-magic user—which reminds me of something I thought of saying before, of going into before. There is ONLY black magic, except for the kind that charms the world to think it is not. Zoroastrian, Abrahamic, Roman, Liberal, Globalist: these are all so many links in the chain away from the Brahmanic, whose mirror image or foil is the Brahmanic. Nietzsche wrote:

“It is an eternal phenomenon: always the greedy will finds a means to hold fast, through an illusion spread out over things, its creatures in life and to impel them to live on. These here are fettered by the Socratic lust of knowing and by the delusion to be able to heal the eternal wound of existence thereby, those there are ensnared by the seductive beauty-veil of art fluttering before their eyes, those there in turn by the metaphysical consolation that, beneath the whirl of appearances, eternal life flows on indestructibly: not to mention the baser and almost even more powerful illusions which the will keeps at the ready in every moment. Those three stages of illusion themselves are only for the more nobly equipped natures, who experience the burden and hardness of existence with deeper unlust and who are to be deceived over this unlust through exquisite stimulants. Of these stimulants consists everything we call culture; in proportion to the mixtures we have respectively a SOCRATIC or an ARTISTIC or a TRAGIC culture: or if one will permit historical exemplifications: there is either an Alexandrian or a Hellenic or a Buddhaistic culture.” (The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music [1872].)

But he later corrected himself:

“[T]here is either an Alexandrian or a Hellenic or an Indian (Brahmanic) culture.” (Pencilled correction in Nietzsche’s own handwriting in his copy of The Birth of Tragedy. Or: Hellenism and Pessimism [1886].)

This makes perfect sense. Socratic, Apollonian and Dionysian. Modern, Ancient (Platonic) and

::

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9qhFKMaTWY[/youtube] SEVEN, Sacred Chants III, “Vishnustuti-Vishnushodashanamani”

Emoticon -[tab]your claim to moral superiority about my posting the pic, out of your own scummy nature assuming that no consent was given or that I would do this without consent, while putting my rant house post in the open just to troll me some more (you’re in all my threads trying to mark your territory like a dog) proves once again your total personal collapse due to your sexual obsession with me. Admittedly Ive made it easy for you to get obsessed and to troll me. But you’re just ongoing proof of being a piece of more and more sordid shit. Thankfully Ive not been telling relevant truths about my personal life since a few years. That had proven dangerous when KTS began to approach me.

You are entirely transparent, which is a good thing since you’re so ugly. Please, for the sake of this world, if you have any shred of self respect left in you, be gone and make a home up your ass where you live with Joker.[/tab]

Sauwelios, thank you for your promising posts. You’ll understand Ill take some air and sunlight before I allow myself to them. What used to be discernible as persons with whom I could have some conversation are now largely become true chandalas, negations of dharma. With this rather absolute contrast between their sordid obsession with things outside of themselves and your inward gratitude (which is the same as beauty) I see a signal point to finally brandish them untouchable.

We could perhaps simply begin to categorize posters in castes for the sake of keeping ILP clean and entertaining. This prerogative defines us as the first caste, but who else shall this supreme space include?
A delightful conundrum.

But all this as the circumference of such matters as are addressed by The Philosophers.
As Bobo would endlessly quote from A Fistful Of Yen: You. have. our. gratitude.

Back to de Weteringschans.

Stop referring to me (period!) and you didn’t have her consent to post that in some pussy-getting thread online, liar!

I actually have an idea on how to enforce this casting.
To simply strip them of their supposed individuality by addressing them never directly and when in tbe third person always referring to them as “the chandala”. This may then apply to anyone too wretched to be discerned whole, in or out of ILP - we speak strictly of the unwholesome substance the type represents, a substance which precludes structural integrity. These posters are best described as dharmic lepers.

The chandala keeps begging for the mans attention as its nature prescribes but sometimes it does so in offering music it did not itself produce. This is the only way in which it can touch the skies, indirectly.

The Chandala is an exhausted type
it does not desire anything for itself besides comfort in life and a merciful death.
It fears all that expects something for itself besides comfort - it thus fears all its benefactors, all the forces that love to exert and provide all the comforts of the world, the Creator.
The thing is that the Creator does not create for them - they are merely the flies that come to nibble from the fruit - but they prefer for the fruit to be gone rotten.
So that is what they make - rot. Rot makes rot.

The chandala here are just as well defined as rot as literally falling apart shit-dwellers, but they are even worse, uglier and stinkier here, because they consider themselves entitled to walk the streets and bathe in clean water.

They must bathe in shit, as it is their only cleanliness.
Χρισμένος στα σκατά - Anointed in shit.

Christed in Shit.

For me this is all very radical, when I was young and equality-loving I still had no idea of how wretchedly human beings can process reality. All I offered any of these people was friendship and philosophy. I am only figuring out now that shit is simply all they have to offer, that it is not intentional, like friendship and philosophy is really all I have to offer here even when I am trying to curse them. All this will be delicious nectar for them. So be it.

It is better than trying to level with them to clean up their busy little minds a bit to see some beauty - that is like paying a disease in gold to come up with its own antidote.

Sigh - here we go.

So there are 5 castes.
The chandala is below 4 the castes
one only interacts with it to dispose of things.

Who belongs to the warrior caste, what is the standard here?

The reason I no longer have philosophical discussions with Wendy (prior to my resolution to limit myself to Dutch, which I’ve obviously broken–though I still want to continue that experiment) is that she’s a woman:

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2667471#p2667471

Note that, when immediately after writing that post, I for the first time in quite a while talked philosophy to my girlfriend, I made her cry for the first time in a long while.

One can be a woman and belong to the first caste, however. Is it then perhaps Wendy’s (kind of) Christianity that makes her a chandala from a Nietzschean point of view? But Nietzsche exclaimed:

“[A]s if a woman without piety would, for a profound and godless man, not be something perfectly contrarious or laughable”! (BGE 239.)

Still, I think it is her kind of Christianity, but not the piety in it! As Nietzsche also said:

“One shall be harder against Protestants than against Catholics, harder against liberal Protestants than against firmly believing ones. The criminality in being a Christian increases in the measure that one approaches science. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher.” (The Antichrist, “Law against Christianity”.)

And:

“Definition of Protestantism: the hemiplegia [half-sided paralysis] of Christianity–and of reason…” (AC 10.)

Reason (science, philosophy) paralyzes Christianity and Christianity paralyzes reason. This is why “[t]he priest is our chandala”:

“Vicious is every kind of antinature. The most vicious kind of human being is the priest: he teaches antinature. Against the priest one does not have arguments, one has the house of correction.” (“Law against Christianity”.)

“The antinatural is natural to the mind of humanity” (Lampert, Nietzsche’s Teaching, page 228): this means that “the basic will of the mind”, which is “divinized into the most artful of beings, divine womanliness [i.e., Ariadne]”, is a will not to know nature; whereas “the contrary will of the mind”, which is “divinized into a philosopher god, divine manliness” (op.cit., page 234), is a natural will against that natural will against nature. Wendy is an abomination inasmuch as she represents the hemiplegia of these two natures, male and female human nature.

“These two classes of men are always upon earth, & they should be enemies: whoever tries to reconcile them seeks to destroy existence.
Religion is an endeavour to reconcile the two.” (Blake, MHH.)

Blake can simply say “religion” because Christianity (Catholicism) itself is already a liberalisation, a perversion of the completely natural, completely irrational: tribal animism. For those who have eyes to read or ears to hear:

“The history of our species shows that enormous danger has enhanced two aspects of humanity: mind [Geist] and will. Mind, humanity’s ‘strength of invention and strength of alteration,’ developed under prolonged pressure and compulsion into something ‘refined and daring.’ Will intensified itself under such conditions from ‘life-will’ into ‘power-will.’ The latter term emends the term used in this sentence in the drafts: will to power; ‘life-will’ is itself already a will to power. Will to power as human life-will expands beyond mere survival in ages of greatest danger and ascends to human power-will.” (Nietzsche’s Task, page 98.)

Human life-will is Wollust, human power-will is Herrschlust. Woman is stronger-willed in the sense of the former; man is stronger in the sense of the latter:

“Mind is life which itself cuts into life[.]” (Zarathustra, “Of the Famous Wise”.)

Rider-Waite tarot, King of Swords

Excellent stuff. Truly.
I think it would be a loss for humanity if you stopped publishing in English. You are perhaps the only full blooded Nietzschean philosopher out there.

At this point I can mainly just agree and laugh a bit about the cruel realism of your thinking about the chandala-muck… the brain of a leech,- that is exactly the abject frenetic dullness, the hyperactive impotence that we are treated to by the sub-wormish life that slithers around here.

Your points on culture and fate essentially, are not infrequently too definitive to respond to.

Yes. By devaluing their own minds and truth, humans forfeit their own existence. So be it.

This is why I never accepted the general denominator “human”. Ive always known this category to include many unviable beings.

Thus, this caste division is not entirely a joke. We may have to help nature out a little bit in the coming centuries where she will definitively separate the leeches from the beings.

Human nature is just starting to show its inner rift, and it is an absolute rift.
There will be two entirely separate human species at the end of 500 years.

We may suppose that if the chandala had human qualities she might, instead of verbally being supremely ugly as some kind of intellectual and moral statement, also simply cry.
But worn down formerly human waste like that has no capacity for such refined emotions as sorrow or love. It can only be angry, excited or horny. Usually it is all three at once. If you look at its behaviour, you’ll see that it emerges consistently from a muddly of these three states, which has become its being.

This is all excellent grounding material for a doctrine of human standards.
We can’t go on pretending that there is a homogenic species. It is required that we set standard and simply disband those that do not live up to it.

This is something we would do for the future generations - allow the thought, for later men who might not be quite as bold as we are, but will require our boldest thought to make a path into the future.

Working unsuccessfully on a reply yesterday, I was trying to find translation for these two terms. Its hard. Because Wollust translates into Lust, whereas Herrschlust translates into Lust to rule - so it is as if Herrschlust is a function of general lust, which isn’t the case.
The original German statement is true though, so we need truthful translation.

“For men of the future who at the present time take up the compulsion and the knot which forces the will of millennia into new paths. To teach man the future of humanity as his will, as dependent on a man’s will, and to prepare for great exploits and comprehensive attempts at discipline and cultivation, so as to put an end to that horrifying domination of nonsense and contingency which up to now has been called “history” - the nonsense of the “greatest number” is only its latest form: - for that a new type of philosophers and commanders will at some point be necessary, at the sight of which all hidden, fearsome, and benevolent spirits on earth may well look pale and dwarfish. The image of such a leader is what hovers before our eyes: - may I say that out loud, you free spirits? The conditions which we must partly create and partly exploit for the origin of these leaders, the presumed ways and trials thanks to which a soul might grow to such height and power to feel the compulsion for these tasks, a revaluation of value under whose new pressure and hammer a conscience would be hardened, a heart transformed to bronze, so that it might endure the weight of such responsibility and, on the other hand, the necessity for such leaders, the terrifying danger that they might not appear or could fail and turn degenerate - those are our real worries, the things that make us gloomy.” [BGE 203]

This gloom is only lifted by virtue of our will to be as hard as we know we need to be. It matters not what we can see for chances of success - it is not up to us to complete the mission, it is our task to breach the world, to bring to ruin the ideal of a unified Last Man.

The way to breach the world is to be too powerful, too clean, too happy for it. The task is to cultivate a happiness, the witnessing of which can literally not be endured by the waning type.

Massive waves of suicide among other desperate violence may erupt as the Earth purges itself by philosophic standards.

This is probably correct. We converged into Homo sapiens, but there is no reason to think that at some point it will not diverge again. This is predicted in such visionary works as 1984 and The Time Machine.

Ive read (not been able to verify, obviously) the Neanderthal was far more capable of reason than Homo sapiens, which caused him to think longer, which caused him to lose in the fight.

Meaning that we need to become vigilant against the type that is abandoning its reasoning faculties - they can become a bigger problem as they lose more cognitive capacities. The fight against stupidity is the hardest there is, as stupidity won’t flinch driving the whole world including itself into the ground, since it simply isn’t able to recognize any reality.

Its been clear that we are a threat to many people here. We need to expand whatever it is that threatens.

And we are - what threatens is that we as philosophers represent, for the first time since 400 BC, reality.

It is like turning over a rock. Our haters are the scurrying vermin and lowly bugs.

One of the humble challenges has been to discern the lowly bugs from the actual vermin. But ill quit that, its unnecessary. The sunlight is killing the vermin.

Perhaps the dumbest thing any philosopher ever did was to figure he needs to be polite to placate his audience.
A polite philosopher is like a caged animal. To a philosopher, most people must always appear insufferably weak, and he cant compromise to that weakness.
Thence how there have been no Christian philosophers.

Our path of increasing power will more and more require of us that we judge and condemn to oblivion those that refuse to engage reality. This is how Athens was born back in the day, by expelling the dumb, which is to say the weak, the scared.

Philosophy has been mistaken for something merely theoretical for too long.