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.
Duhh yes.
Why do you think I engaged your “insolence” this intensely during 16 years? To develop myself. You are a diamond against which I polish my sword.
I can’t crack you. You don’t understand me nearly anything close to perfectly at all, but who cares? As long as you keep understanding yourself I will do the same. Contrast.
Anger outward turns into joy, anger turned away from joy, inward, is “depression”, also a very awesome state. Many die of it but it is no less meaningful.
Achilles was the most joyful warrior. He was a God in a mortal coil. His joy was mistaken as vengefulness. He just was busy making a name for himself, i.e he was creating he Occident. He was creating us. And he felt all that in his heart, he must have, his valuing reverberated trough Homer and Alexander, his reactance to not self-value even in the most unreasonable ways. His will was absolute. Atreus’ legacy shuddered on its pedestal. But the Gods had bigger plans and did not discriminate between Achilles and Agamemnon in the end. Achaioi or nothing, and thats what it will always be, until the Sun sets in the East. And that is just one facet of a diamond in a great cosmic diamond robbery on a tv that a small kind watches, and yet in truth it is the one and only singular reality that enables any diamond to exist. Yeah we walk the facets and precariously climber from one to another across the ridge once or twice in our bravest lifetimes but only because we are at east at the heart of he diamond. We walk our own moon.
Earth became man to touch the moon.
Splendid indeed. Contrast.
Neither state is a goo. Both are goods.
of course anger is only joyful if it leads to conquest
But that speaks for itself.
What was lacking in Buddhism so far was a sense and notion of honour.
Honour before the facts. Honour before the Void.
Only from a position of honour, an honourable perspective on no-thingness, can That (being nor non-being) be appreciated.
In some fortunate and well-turned-out sects of Buddhism, we see an emphasis on a kind of porto-honour, which translates in things like martial arts and the stoicism of a zen master. So I can’t rightly state that honour was truly lacking - but it has only played a part in Buddhisms physical disciplines.
The renunciation of physical disciplines is itself dishonourable. “Hygiene” can not exist without such discipline. After all mind and body are truly one.
I now realize that I have, so far, failed to place emphasis on the cultivation of a strong and subtle body to the aim of understanding my philosophy. I will in the future focus primarily on that aspect.
One moment you stated there is no honor in the Buddhism and the next moment correct yourself to say there is honor in Buddhism.
Note Aristotle’s;
The above is the same within Buddhism proper
Within Buddhism proper, in progressing towards an enlightened state, one can do anything as long as it is within the above conditions, i.e. with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way, i.e. within the Noble 8 Fold Paths.
So in essence, there is no lacking of a notion of honor in Buddhism proper.
It is entirely dishonourable to be angry as a form of obedience to another man or his “list of truths”. The 8 fold path is dishonourable and slavish, the “noble truths” are wretched lies. Anger that is not the child of ones own heart is pure murderous psychopathy.
This is indeed Buddhism supreme dishonour, why it has been a slave-religion spawning many goo-like sub-entities.
The most daring and modest (silent/poetic, as opposed to systemic and dogmatic [“the horror, the horror” - Marlon Brando]) Buddhist men have cultivated a proto-honor as I said, which has prepared some of the most healthy minds in the world for an actual honourable form of Buddhism.
The Yoga of Valuing.