Dionysus the Bodhisattva.

Lets call it instinct. I don’t fear the void or the empty room, as all Ive ever experienced is fullness. I know too well that equally as energy is never lost, so structural integrity of the self-valuig logics of being never deplete, as that is what is behind energy. And I know that at my most meaningful moments I am entirely embodying in experience my structural integrity as a self-valuing. So I know that whatever is truly me, will always exist as the most powerful thing in the universe. I am Ipsissimus, at least in bad weather (wink) - I don’t mind all the mortal coil drama, I like it, as it adds depth to the dharmic reality of the cosmic wheel, which is sheer awesomeness in which I will always partake as goes for more Dragons and those with strong Aries; they identify with the impulse itself rather than with its consequences. I don’t mind who carries the fruits of my work. Its my work that blessed man carries forth. And I have no shortage of it. This is existence, this is the bestowing virtue. I am only a part of nature. I am a rose, thorns and all. I don’t need things to shatter, Ill put up poems on vases for giants to ram to smithereens, and some of these smithereens will be found by archaeologists and interpreted by philologists and I will be understood in ten thousand years once again - ! Oh the universe is full, over full, the horn of plenty is only a thin tangent. And scarcity of meaning is only another layer to meaning - a means to make it refine itself.

Lets say I never move toward the idea but from it and with its direction, its upward cascading dance of elements. I use it as an idea though, and yes I do also use Idea. Idea is of course not separate of the word as we discussed it.

You seek that which is worthy of being called Power. That which is clean and pure and balanced, that which clears up the air for you to steer your ship to where you need it to be. Your task is unclear, but your course is not. Power sets aims.

Your Dhenims and your Castes are your wheels and the thunder is your sibling.

Lightning never strikes twice at the same place, because each strike represent a ring of eternity.

these are some Buddhist thoughts, basically ideas as they form as structural integrity (taste, intellectual conscience, loyalty, etc) is bounced off of the void to become some form that contradicts its origins and thus exists.

I am the Fountainhead. How could I endure for the fish in my waters or the waters themselves to be be eternal? How could I fill the void over and over again with my own unconditioned plenty? I must pour forth, thus nature must destroy.

Not if the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Then all the parts may be zeroes, and yet the whole may still be more than zero.

It seems to me that no parts have being in the Parmenidean sense, but becoming itself has. Change never stops (being (change)).

That sounds amazing, at least on first hearing, but doesn’t that deeply devalue eternal meaning?

I can appreciate what you say about exalting our being as follows, though: when we transcend the self-valuing that we are into mindful awareness of the infinite whole, we embody that whole, because we are our embodied mind.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the idea that meaning is subservient to scarcity”.

Yeah, I don’t find this very convincing… I mean, I think you’re confounding different senses of the word “meaning” here.

Also, like above with the term “being”, I don’t think changing the meaning of “meaning” solves the problem of meaning.

What is sensible is to ask what we mean by “meaning” in this sense. I think the answer is something like “intention”. Then we do bring the two meanings of “meaning” somewhat together, yet there’s still a significant difference between the meaning of words and the meaning of the things those words refer to. For example, the word “you” refers to you, yet the meaning of “you” is not the same as the meaning of you… The meaning of “you” is what’s intended to call to mind by the word “you”, whereas the meaning of you would be the intention behind you. Thus if we replace you by Jesus in this example, we can indeed see him as Word with an intention behind it. What did God intend with Jesus? If the answer is “For him to die for our sins”, then that’s the meaning of Jesus. Likewise, classical philosophy considers the end of a thing the meaning of that thing–and it considers attaining to the complete logos the end of man. This similarity gains even greater poignancy when we consider that authentic dasein for Heidegger meant being-toward-death… “Know thyself” means “know that thou art mortal”; in Buddhist terms, it means “know that all selves are fleeting, that only fleetingness itself is not fleeting”.

θάνατός ἐστιν ὁκόσα ἐγερθέντες ὁρέομεν, ὁκόσα δὲ εὕδοντες ὕπνος
“Death is all we see while awake, all we see while asleep is sleep.”

(Heraclitus, fragment DK B21. More literally than “Enlightened one”, Buddha means “Awakened one”.)

This reminds me of the second of the “three marks of existence”, though: “all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory”. Of course, “deeply” is a relative term, so it may be that, when our being is relatively fulfilled, we can exalt it to absolute fulfillment. I’m afraid this reminds me again of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, though, where the fulfillment of the highest need, self-actualization, rests on an adequate fulfillment of the lower needs. All I can offer for the sake of reconciliation at this point is that, when the need for self-actualization is adequately fulfilled, the “lower” needs turn out to be even higher than that (one goes back down, in a way), perhaps as needs for fuller self-actualization.

That makes sense. But then being a “true being” means being aware that there are no beings in the Parmenidean sense (a person being the latter kind of being).

Right. The will to truth. The lust (eros) for truth, or even moral indignation/vengefulness (thumos) against truth.

Right again. My jogging, for instance, tends to be quite meditative. I wonder what physical exercise our academic interlocutor gets.

The real contrast is the downside. This one is far worse than nothingness or meaninglessness.

It is the Sheol. The pit. Not hell, but just the antithesis of self-valuing, and the process of undoing that antithesis into nothingness. here are many unpleasant names for this but I don’t like mentioning them except to those who are on their way and asking directions.

I see you posted - lolkek well my point was actually that it are the nihilists who are juggling different meanings of meaning and letting the balls drop which is the cause of their sorrow. They’re just bad thinkers, thats whats causing the pain, like bad lumberjacks and bad pilots.

Bad philosophers are truly masochistic. HAHAHAHA it made me think of someone.

Anyway more later. I see you quoted Greek and I look forward to finding out what thats about. Glimmering of the sun on the crest of the tsunami.

Yeah, I don’t find this very convincing… I mean, I think you’re confounding different senses of the word “meaning” here.

I honestly think you need to think this through some more.
Meaning wasn’t originally a word.
Or if it was, it does not refer to anything that has ever existed outside of the word.

You see? Languague confounds. Period.
Meaning is… that what life is, when you’re not sick of the soul. )e.g. sadistic for no reason other than watching cartoons(

Does anyone honestly believe that an animal doesn’t know it will die?
If it doesn’t know of death, why does it run from it? All we know is death, at the outset. Whether we are mouse or man we just deal with it until it deals with us.

Its the lolkeks of 19th century science, truly below my contempt.

Animals are too noble to become nihilistic like humans get at the prospect of this one life not being enough for their fuckin ingrate shitty cunt souls. This is Achilles, - thumbs from the outside, gratitude as experienced in itself. Monster of Energy / the self-valuing logic of being.
‘And nothing besides’ - but a lot inside.

But… I suppose sheep and cattle are nihilistic… those that are being led to the slaughter have reason to be nihilist.
But is a nihilist ever truly led, except by his own beliefs in its lack of power to divert its own course?

Show these cows the light!
Yeah.

θάνατός ἐστιν ὁκόσα ἐγερθέντες ὁρέομεν, ὁκόσα δὲ εὕδοντες ὕπνος
“Death is all we see while awake, all we see while asleep is sleep.”

Haha, yeah exactly. But when we are asleep all we see is life. Hypnos, illusion, forms, distinct patterns of nothingness into sentience, yes this is vegetation, life.

This is too funny
This is the most antichristian thing Ive ever …

And yet, yes, I guess I have the very same.

It is no small feat to be tolerant of 7 billion people, considering all the things you know some of them are doing but even just the sheer number itself.

I just want gods in my band, and of some gods I really fucking like to think I am sort of in their band.

TO ORBIE

Mithras is a Landlord. He owns the Aquaduct that runs to what is now Nice, France.

He is mor Ethan just a landlord. He has, of course, a dungeon and a mystery cult inside of that -
but the dungeon is the head, and he thoughts are the mystery and speech is the holy water.

Rome is a word that conceals the world and imposes an Imperium.

Sometimes words come to be in the context of sayings. Sometimes a word is an entry that disrupts and intended meaning nd aspires to its own, using, us and everything to be valued into being and receiving the sustenance for self-valuing. As that often goes…

Once a path
never last
trust your sand
always ready

Goo contrasts with marble, different kinds of marble contrast which each other, and marble itself is still relative goo. In fact, it’s absolute goo, the only absolute non-goo being the stream of all relative non-goos (literal goo itself is relative non-goo, too).

I find this kind of claim hard to take literally. You just spoke of goo and vague blob in a disparaging way, so you have experience of that and it’s not a fulfilling experience. Likewise, you regularly experience anger and it doesn’t seem you like being angry.

Sure, there will always be self-valuings. Not the same self-valuings, though. This is the problem of all self-valuings except those that realize themselves as individual self-valuings and transcend that, identifying with the universal principle of self-valuing (the logic of being itself). The individual self-valuing that I am will perish and probably never recur (though similar ones may occur, which is what “the” Buddha may have meant by reincarnation without transmigration of souls–historical recurrence, rhyming instead of repeating). The universal principle has always existed, however, and this may be what Picht understood by eternal recurrence–if we understand his Jesus (whose Second Coming Picht understood as the ER) as Nietzsche’s Jesus, basically “a” Buddha. (Every Buddha is essentially the Buddha–Buddha-nature itself, the whole of nature(s) or the Nature of nature(s).)

Certainly, a Buddha must have perfectly adequate structural integrity, to sustain its very wakefulness. And now that you mention it, interesting that Crowley calls the highest grade Ipsissimus, as that suggests he understood Buddhism along the lines I’ve tried to draw here. The Selfmost one as “the Master of the Law of Unsubstantiality (Anatta)” (“One Star in Sight”).

"He has identified Being and not-Being and Becoming, action and non-action and tendency to action, with all other such triplicities, not distinguishing between them in respect of any conditions, or between any one thing and any other thing as to whether it is with or without conditions.

He is sworn to accept this Grade in the presence of a witness, and to express its nature in word and deed, but to withdraw Himself at once within the veils of his natural manifestation as a man, and to keep silence during his human life as to the fact of his attainment, even to the other members of the Order." (ibid.)

Oops, you didn’t do that… You were supposed (wink) to claim the grade in private at most, and thenceforth claim no higher than the grade of Magus. Of which latter it is said:

"A Magus can therefore only appear as such to the world at intervals of some centuries; accounts of historical Magi, and their Words, are given in Liber Aleph.

This does not mean that only one man can attain this Grade in any one Aeon, so far as the Order is concerned. A man can make personal progress equivalent to that of a ‘Word of an Aeon’; but he will identify himself with the current word, and exert his will to establish it, lest he conflict with the work of the Magus who uttered the Word of the Aeon in which He is living." (ib.)

Formerly, I took Nietzsche to be the Magus of the new Aeon (the aeon of Thelema, Will), but I suppose I could accept you instead. Of course, it does not say that only a Magus can attain the grade of Ipsissimus, or make personal progress equivalent to that. In any case, I may at this point still be a Magister Templi at most.

“To attain the grade of Magus he must accomplish […] the renunciation of His enjoyment of the Infinite so that he may formulate Himself as the Finite[.]” (ib.)

Perhaps it’s because you formulate yourself as the finite that I find it hard to accept your claims. They seem too exclusive. I mean–at this point I’m reminded of something Lampert’s first book says about Nietzsche–, you may have been the first to work out the self-valuing logic of being (Lampert came back from his exclusive claims about Nietzsche after his first book), but does it really matter who was the historical SV-Buddha? I’m just thinking aloud here.

But do you feel he must acknowledge that? Can’t the pioneering logician be forgotten yet his logic be remembered? To be sure, it may be helpful for understanding the logic to know what questions led you to it. The life of Siddharta Gautama is of course also remembered, be it shrouded in mystery, as a great way for many people to get into Buddhism.

Perhaps. Or someone similar will come along and work out the logic in similar fashion, in similar circumstances. Or quite different. What matters is that there still or again be philosophy–otherwise they couldn’t get to understand you, anyway.

Right, I can relate to this.

I am the logic.

I have perfected consciousness, now consciousness exists.

Yes, I do like being angry. I am, after all, kin to Thor. But of course I don’t smile when Im angry.

I must perhaps cease my public discussion of these exalted matters, of which Ive given some glimpses here, perhaps so much as to blind the eyes… in any case, the path is for all to find on their own. I can only be a distant star to point the way. I don’t obey scriptures or mystics almanacs, Ipsissimus following a command is of course not Ipsissimus.

Of course I do not care of my current name is remembered. I am not my name. I live in all beings that work with what I forged in depths and heat that no other man has endured or will need to endure. What endures is my accomplishment, which is what I am, which is the bedrock of the future.

Of course I know few will see the reality behind these words, and I know you will never see things the way I see them, in particular, you will always see me very differently from how I experience myself. That is a stimulus, a gift from you to the world, as it compels me to explain myself for all to enjoy and benefit.

This is how Thurisaz works.
[i]

Rip, thorn. Ragged, drawn out tear in the fabric. Gaping black out of which monsters (can) come. White teeth, cat teeth, sharks, or the horns of a bull. Wrathful, seriously pissed, lightning hurled down in irritation, flat, hard ramming. Then, silence to lick the wounds and wait until the beep subsides.

The Thurisaz rune initiates the world into the heart of a man, the awesomeness he loves in youth so as to not grow cowardly in age. Memory of disorienting rattling and wounds, a leg stuck to a spike, sudden blood, mesmerizing pain that forgets the future and becomes the now.

The blow of the axe, the small setback in the weaving of a fine fabric. The error around which we seek for re-perfection. In this sense Thurisaz is the father to god or the religious instinct. But it is not the religious instinct, rather the opposite. That which ruptures and ravishes before the maiden ready.

Cruel bindings, love of life’s zig-zag motions, a too sharp curve in a roller-coaster, a voice breaking, becoming hoarse and truthful. A nail struck right on the head. A single hailstone that comes through the roof and splits the table, shattering the grails and goblets, then laughter and wine and gratitude for life.
[/i]

Such is my fullness. Fullness isn’t flaccid.

I realize from the reasons of your questioning my fullness (that I am a being of fury) that you consider fullness to be a passive thing, a thing that pacifies. But fullness is pure fury. It is bestowing, not calmly like an auntie from a porcelain karaf, but like the Sun.

The Sun is fury. It is furious from fullness. In the same way all that bestows does so from fullness which is fury.

These are the ethics of your friend. Ethics, nature, taste, life, essence; the joy of fire.

This all makes me realize that I do not know what, to you, the term fullness represents.

Now you know what it means to me, and also why I am angry: I am the embodiment of a world-shaping fury. This is the heat in which my ring of power was forged.

What “climate” do you associate with fullness?

Anger == the desperate pursuit of strength.

Perhaps you and M-S will prove to have this as a shared belief.

Aint Christmas wonderful.

If you like being angry, does that mean I’m doing you a favor when I cause or catalyze anger in you?

I’ve always thought anger is an expression of sorrow. Compare the claim that depression is internalized rage, from The Sopranos. That, too, makes sense to me. It’s only as an expression, an outlet, that anger is joyful, discharging excess sorrow and possibly even lifting depression. “Excess of sorrow laughs.”

And be it only the sorrow of excess joy, excess energy. Thus Geist derives from a root meaning “anger”.

::

Disclaimer: I wrote the above while sober. Splendid, that I can now excuse my sober writings as being sober and my intoxicated ones as being intoxicated! I write this disclaimer while being mildly under the influence of weed, by the way.