State of the World Address.

Thanks you for your reply. I am too intoxicated to find a true reply, but I assure you that I will reply extensively soon.

The world is deep, and deeper than the day had thoughgt and even than the night had thought.
Odin cant even trace the roots of Yggdrasil. Yggdrasil cant even fathom the depths of Hvergelmir.
Philosophy, what a pompous charade.

But then
[tab]

BOOM! HEADSHOT![/tab]

Or, the world I is a turtle upon a turtle upon a turtle a turtle upon a turtle…

People see things as they are shaped themselves.
I remember a poster called turtle.

youtube.com/watch?v=JbaK6vmNP18

If you dont mind, Im going to start a critical commentary on Truth and Lies in the Extramoral Sense here.

Nature did not throw away the key. The Church did.
In all sane human cultures, man is perfectly aware of his intestines.
The Chinese call that awareness Tan Tien, and consider it the central form of consciousness.

All peoples led by shamans or similar, physiology-based myth and ritual, are aware of the tremors in the fibers, the bloodstream, the intestines. Like I can at will slow down my heartbeat, which is very easy if one decides to not fear that power. I wont be able to stop it. That was my fear as a kid.

So the type of knowledge Nietzsche criticizes here is strictly post-Christian knowledge - metaphysics in the sense of ‘outside of the physical’. And cancer is a direct result of this knowing-outside-the-body.

Spiritualism and pseudo scientific studies took up the slack the church left behind, unless with the exceptions of churches like science of mind. OBE 's (out of body) experiences tread dubious ground.

slither away now wormie.

People raised without reverence for ancestors and gods, which are ancestral ways of valuing, are freed of a lot of weight, which they sense as a freedom. It is not however that they become lion from camel, but rather, they forsake camel-hood, the privilege of an individual path, and, ancesterless, they become ‘bits’ in the livestream of modernity. The treasures stored up in their possession remain untouched.

“Sad.”
-Trump

Of such pitiful types without destiny or fate, the excitables are the best. They are at least aware that stasis is not desirable - but all they are capable of is short burst of being moved, not of self-propelling. They are the parakeets and pigeons of this world, they belong to the scenery of the future. The inert types represent that which disintegrates and expresses the disintegrate nature of their world as truth.

How to turn the excitables against the inert? To devise an ideology that only they are able to reap benefit from.

I think your post fits perfectly well into my OP and its direct inspiration, which was this video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w[/youtube]

Nietzsche probably went mad and died from a brain tumor (and not syphilis). This may mean that, when he first got the tumor, at least, Nietzsche’s mind had strayed too far from the awareness you mention.

It is a thrilling thing to have faith in the Occident.

(could be Scario)

Below is an email I wrote and sent in the early hours of my last birthday, in the timezone I’m in (except for the opening quote, which I’d already typed out with the idea of such an email in mind).

::

“[T]he style and spirit of letters [Briefe, “epistles”] will always be the true ‘sign of the times’.” (Nietzsche, The Gay Science, aphorism 329, Kaufmann translation.)

Amsterdam, 12 August 2017

Dear Ariadne,

I have been severely mistaken–though I may be very well taken, have been on my proper right way IN being mistaken (letting myself be mis-taken, mis-taking MYSELF)–, not just for these past ten years, but since ever I started looking for a “mindmate”. I am after all a “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarch”, to speak with James Damore; my mind- or soulmate was always conceived from the deepest of my inner child as a girl or woman, the “Other” to my “Self”. But only my unconscious, all of which I am unconscious, was so conceived. My conscious self could never conceive itself that way–unless it conceive itself as only the infinitesimal “mirroring point” of this account of the Unconscious to itself. This however means that you, my Ariadne, are reduced to that point: the girl or boy is diminished for the (wo)man to hear itself think. Dionysus speaks only to Dionysa, is only followed by Dionysa. My mistake was to muse upon Dionysa as sleeping in Ariadne, potential in Ariadne.

And yet we Dionysi seem to require all of the above. Without our characteristic self-misunderstanding, we would just be lunatics. What wonder that the genius, if I may say so myself, with which we dance on the brink of understanding ourself sound on the brink of madness as well! The brink of genius: that is where I have dwelled all these years. Always looking out at the edge of my pond for my Echo, the nymph I wished would stop fleeing and repeating myself to–myself. From the perspective of relativity, it meant I was left to flow back to myself like the waves. But I may very well have needed precisely that, to erode myself out. Who is who in Blake’s “Good and Evil Angels”? Only other potential “Devils”, to speak with his Marriage of Heaven and Hell, should “embrac[e] the flames of fire”. This is now my whole sanity, that there be other Men. Other Lions, saving me from Tygerhood. The Tyger required the Lamb to keep itself sane. “The stars above would rain their marvel down”…

Now I’m hungry. (“[A]lso hungere ich nach Bosheit.”)

O. DeWaal

Turin, November 5, 1888

To Malwida von Meysenbug

Just wait a little, verehrteste Freudian! I shall send you yet another proof that “Nietzsche est toujours haissable.”* Without a doubt, I have been unjust to you; but since I am suffering from a surfeit of righteousness this autumn, it was really salutary for me to do an injustice . . .

The Immoralist

  • “Nietzsche adapts the Pascal saying (Pensees 455): “The ego is hateful; you, Miton, cover it over, you do not shed it; so you are always hateful.[. . .] If I hate it because it is unjust, because it makes itself the center of all things, I shall hate it always.” This was Nietzsche’s next to last letter to Malwida. Podach rejected Elisabeth’s argument (The Lonely Nietzsche) that Malwida’s protest against Der Fall Wagner hurt Nietzsche deeply and was one of the things which hastened his breakdown.”

Two more high writings, in chronological order:

The difference between Eastern and Western philosophy, or between Buddhism and Philosophy, is that Philosophy does not claim wisdom or enlightenment, only love of it. As such, it is “Mitrabodhi” or “Mitrabuddhy”–friendly love of wakefulness or enlightenment.

What is wiser, calling one’s thought Sophism or Philosophy?¹ In fact, why call it anything at all?

¹ Actually, “Buddhism” is a Western term. Easterners have traditionally called their thought the speech of the elders (the Graecism for this would be “gerontology”, and this is actually somewhat pertinent to Buddhism!) or the great or diamond/thunderbolt vehicle.

'Tseems to me that, when you’re enlightened, it’s understood, since you are then one of the One. Yet the One has to do with the many who are not enlightened; how can it delude them into feeling favorable to it? For it must delude them: they are the deluded, so even (especially?) their understanding of enlightenment must be a misunderstanding. The question is then, not how not to delude them, but how to delude them best–how to make their Delusion most desirable, their desire most pleasurable? Whisper pleasantly, don’t shout! SHUSH least offensively to them…

Ah, but sweet bitterness is most tempting to the most promising among them–most challenging of their best available potential! Or, if you don’t believe me, most effective for containing, harnessing their worst! in case they are the ones furthest from enlightenment.

How different is the Nietzschean approach from the Platonic, “the” Western par excellence? “Let them think he was the ultimate enlightened one, lest others come and make the same claim! Better have it over and done with till the ‘end times’ of our approach!” That has been the popular-Platonic approach.

The Machiavellian has been to teach people that the controlled manipulation of the phenomenal world can bring samsara to an end, not on the part of the self to whom phenomena appear, but on the part of the phenomena themselves. As if the self were not the most apparent of all phenomena, in which the nature of all phenomena is most obvious, most obviously deluded–self-deluding!–; experienced from the inside, as insisting and thereby persisting, on its existence, its right to existence, even its victimhood in existence… And indeed, no experience can help having emerged and persisting. The experience, however, seems to be most accurately described as of willing. (This is the case at least as long as living feels better than dying. This includes living and/or dying “for others”.)

To me it seems that the difference between ignorance and enlightenment is that between experiencing the will as wanting to be more than just an experience or phenomenon, and experiencing it as perfectly fine with being experienced, being a hologram, a depth in this great insect eye on which every (persisting) experience is a facet! That surface is calm no matter how perturbed its depth is. Or, conversely, how stormy it is above the surface. Or is it? Or is it only calm on those facets above whose surface there is a clear sky?

The Zen approach to enlightenment is simple but elegant:
-Those who profess they are enlightened are not,- implying that enlightenment is not of thought, or un thought, its beyond comparison, not of self, nor nonself, not of sense or nonsense.

The Zen masters often awakened a student by slapping him in the face when he asks a rational (teleological) question.
It is a modern Calvinistic anti-theme that holds that “he who says he is enlightened is not” or “he who is modest is enlightened”.
Do you think Buddha was very modest or silent when he formulated all his pretentious shit? And yet he is considered enlightened.

Enlightenment is pretty badass and makes the person very contemptuous of the unenlightened. Why? Because to be enlightened is to be clean, and to be unenlightened is to be foul.

There is a instinct loathing of the enlightened vs the unenlightened. One needs to see the enlightened ones prudence in this light: to not want to be touched by the envious looks of dim minds.

In all cases of enlightenment, violence precedes it. Purging fire.
And what kind of fire-whirlwinds are coming!

::

Sauwelios - woud you agree to call Platon a Socialist avant la lettre?
His desired politics of commonality offer little that can be distinguished from Marx’ pipe dream.

Idiocy par excellence. As if there is no competition between men. Or envy, or rivalry… whereas in reality, competition, rivalry, will to power, is what constitutes all social fabric.

I would say that Socrates and Marx had the same wish: for the Good to feel as miserable as the Bad. For society to cohere like a turd coheres. Sticky, stinky ball consisting only of frenetic will to death. Of course only “people” inside that turd wish for the world to all be included in the turd so that All can decompose as soon as possible, so that even though they have all lost/are loss, there aren’t any winners either. But the Good wish only for the turd to stop talking and accept that it is already death so that it can fertilize our acres.

Winning!

“Beings (Valuings) persist inasmuch as they insist on their own value. This is the essence of VO as I understand it.”

Hmmm…
That is not how I understand it. And it is my doctrine.

To me, too, what you describe doesn’t seem very enlightened. I’ve even heard that gurus would promptly cut off students’ limbs to show them pain was not “unreal”. This seems a needlessly rough remedy to me (a kill or cure remedy). And last night I read a koan that glorified the burning of a rare book with unique annotations. To be sure, rationalisation and bookish knowledge may well be obstacles to enlightenment–and note that this is me saying that!–, yet the the same goes for the opposite, as you point out: one and the same behaviour (e.g., apparent modesty or arrogance) can have multiple motivations.

I don’t wholly agree with this. I mean, sure, there may be such an instinctive loathing, but then the enlightenment, in the sense of the enlightening, is only the opening; next up is the long, slow training after kensho.

I think the enlightened state is beyond contempt: for the unenlightened, foul, and dim-minded are not responsible for their being thus–their selves are delusions, after all; and delusions–forms, ideas–are what is empty, the vessels of emptiness, and thus constitute blissful true reality itself!

This reminds me of Zarathustra’s most vehement "Faustian"¹ self-consolations (found especially in Part 3). They’re not unlike the Christian fire-threats and -schadenfreuden. And again, note that this is me saying that.

¹ As opposed to “Spinozan”, to use Seung’s distinction.

No. For years now I haven’t been able to take phrases like “[Plato’s] desired politics” and “Socrates contends” seriously. I mean, you mean the Plato who didn’t write in his own name, but especially in that of an embellished Socrates? a Socrates who was already highly ironic even before Plato embellished him? I have studied such exotericism in depth for years. But I guess you may characterise their or his exoteric doctrine that way.

Plato is chock full of acknowledgements of that fact–but also of wisdom in addressing it!

Everything is already dead–the flowers as well as the excrement and rotten corpses from whence they grow. (Likewise, Heraclitus is said to have said there are gods even in dunghills.) This insight, it seems to me, is of the essence of enlightenment. And yes, I’ve considered whether we should not drive that fact home to the public, in all its repellent glory–the glory of death.

“Had Lucifer [lit. the Lightbearer, as you well know] been vain, he would never have fallen. Pride [hoogmoed, “high mood” or “high courage”] brought him to a fall, until he split the nucleus of life, and arose in the second pride: the pride of death.” (Adriaan Roland Holst, Brief(ly), my translation.)

Well, I wrote that almost eight months ago. I guess it wasn’t yet my doctrine then. In any case, doctrines have a way of getting out of their teachers’ hands. Thus Plato has the Mitra-Buddha Socrates pray to Nemesis Adrasteia for his doctrine not to get out of hand (at least not too far, too fast). When you’ve given your horse, who knows where it will–fly!

But perhaps I should no longer refer to the doctrine by the same name as you. For me, the “aspect” of other-valuing has been especially important for attaining to kensho. Shall I then refer to it as the Other-valuing Logic of being, or OL? “Ek ben een Milikowskianer”?

“According to the Germanic and Bohemian sagas, the fly agarics are created when Wotan rides through the clouds at winter solstice on his eight-legged steed–just as the Kirati shamans ride or fly on their eight-legged horse–with his retinue, the wild hunt. Whenever the manure from Wotan’s horse drops on the ground, fly agarics spring up in autumn–exactly nine months later–from the pregnant soil (Haseneier 1992).” (Shamanism and Tantra in the Himalayas, page 173.)

Time is not yet ripe for the wild hunt, but I like your song, good lad.

What can I say,
your praise of Platon is worth more to me than Platon himself.

In all honesty though Platon had his good sides. At the very least he respected the mind and its limits and problems. That is more than we can say about our fellow man.

But he was a poorly mind compared to Thales, who proved that the Earth is round with a stick.

My standards require more elegance and efficiency than what these late Atheneans produced.
I realize recently that not Athens but Ionia is the cradle of the greatest men in my order of rank.

Actually, yes, the song I attached was the song named, but that was a mistake! The song I meant (to attach) was “Per Tropo Fede”. Very important.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFv4zCq9w4[/youtube]