The Philosophers

If I had fear of heights, Id get Vertigo from looking down at you here, SM.

I like you, but it is beyond me how someone can do something as stupid as you are doing here. To judge something you havent researched. It is just beyond me how shitty life must be for people who live like that.

Up your game.

At least granted that you don’t have a truly shitty chart, which may explain peoples dislike of astrology - they see they were born worthless, and they resent that so they claim ignorance of it.

Possible too!

Jakob,

On the other hand, does your sense of great worth and identity come from your own astrological readings?
It works both ways I would think.

I would imagine that it would be quite ignorant (not knowing or understanding a thing in the first place) to assume that one’s self was born “worthless” based on what astrology says of that person.

Your above statement also reeks of ignorance, Jakob. Try contemplating and considering in your spare time, all of the African Americans, let us say, who were thought to be ignorant and worthless and eventually flew and soared higher than you could ever imagine or reach for yourself?
You might also ask yourself the question: "Who was given the greater opportunities?

I wonder ~ how much higher can a person really fly when their own sense of self is at least partly measured and/or judged based on those who they deem as worthless, and so much less so than their own selves?

Hell, even back then the exchanges revolved more [rather than less] around “waiting for godot”. Besides, how are my own speculations not “ineffably and inextricably” embedded in what must surely be a gigantic gap between what “I” think is true here and now about all this and all that one would need to know about the very nature of Existence itself.

I always start there. Trust me: only a fool would suppose that infinitesimally tiny specks of existence like us can actually put more that just a few hapless dings in it.

No, my subjective stressors reside more in the future than the past. But how on earth can I explain what that means to someone who really hasn’t a clue as to what motivates the shit “in my head” here and now. These exchanges can only go so far in rooting out the variables that configure and reconfigure [from the cradle to the grave] the eixstential parameters of my own particular “I”.

On the other hand, sure, maybe you know me better than I imagine anyone ever could:

Still, it really is all just a blur now.

Again, this may well be more perceptive than anything that I can come up with. And yet my cynicism still seems embedded more in that dwindling future than the ever expanding past. And here folks like Moreno were very effective in reminding me that the points I was making really were just political prejudices rooted in existential contraptions rooted in dasein. That kind of shook me up.

I can only assume that perhaps you are being ironic. And, if not, I’ll weep for your future. Not to mention the future of some who will cross your path.

Oh, he’s back alright. Back to the future.

Jakob wrote:

What are you talking about?

I have no chart.

A chart is generated from your birth date, time and place.

It is the perspective on the cosmos from your birth moment. It is your root in time space.

Most people have suboptimal charts. Everyone has a difficult or disappointing chart. Astrology is intensely cruel. Thats probably why Jesus forbade it.

You can avoid ever knowing yourself fine, just be a spectator to other peoples self discovery.
astrologyweekly.com/forum/

you’ll see.
Its far harsher and raw-life than philosophy tends to be.

Of all the astrological systems, the Vedic one is the cruelest. Its matter of emphasis. Since astrology involves exploring all the potential weaknesses of a constitution to their cosmic consequences, there is unlimited potential for creating psychological hells. There is only one way into astrology that doesn’t damage the psyche - will to power.

You, SM, come across to me as Saturnian Virgonic. What appeals to you in my art is the melancholic depths I reach, the truths that connect only in these depths. Death, lack of meaning, meaning therein.

I think you have Earth and a touch of air, a lot of water that is still and quite deep, there is consideration, time.
Hesitation before what isn’t tried and tested, but little inclination to try and test - enough has been discovered already.

Compare this to a Fire-Air person like Trump, a Gemini Sun, with Jupiter andNeptune in Libra and Moon in Sagittarius, he can work with hypotheticals and beat the game without having any prior grounds. Air-Fire works from the future more than from the past. Earth-Water are entirely susceptible to precedent.

Not even close.

Have another guess.

I will give you a kick start…Incompatibility: Fire signs, like Aries, Leo, which is you, no?

Let me guess.

Fixed cross.

You may be the first one to dive in, kickstart a project, or start a new trend. The trouble is your staying power is not quite as strong and can make you hesitate, so that you wind up with a zillion genius ideas that never get off the ground. You want to become a leader without doing everything yourself, becoming completely bossy and domineering. There can be a “my way or the highway” pitfall for you.

It doesn’t take much to analyse a person and astrology leans heavily on this, hence Jung’s fascination with astrology.

The important point is that the horoscope is true only in the time sense, not astronomically. It is independent of the stars. We see that menstruation has a moon period, yet it does not coincide with the phases of the moon; otherwise all women would menstruate at the same time, and they don’t. It simply means that there is a moon-law in every woman and likewise the laws of the stars in every human being but not in the relation of cause and effect. – C.G. Jung, December 11, 1929

If we are to have any hope whatsoever of understanding Nietzsche, we should not see him as merely another link in a chain of thinkers. We must instead recognize his thought for what it was and still remains: a radical break with the Western intellectual tradition. Which is not to say, of course, that Nietzsche’s thought was not influenced by that of others, for it most certainly was.

The way I see it, Nietzsche’s thought was no more a radical break with the Western intellectual tradition than Machiavelli’s and Plato’s were–or rather, the latter were no less than the former was (and yes, still remains:)–unless it be like Tiresias’… See my “Tutorial in Platonic Political Philosophy” (including what it links to and what that, in turn, links to).

SM - see Ive managed to get you to read something.
But you’ll have to study it every day consistently for at least 10 years to be able to talk about it sensibly. Especially you own chart, as this is the path through which you can understand most profoundly, honestly. (in theory, if you have it in you, which I still don’t think you do)
Like with any science, it requires, um, staying power.

I can’t believe you are as silly to attribute me a lack of staying power - have you noticed that Ive been working daily at developing the same formula for 7 years, and that Ive gathered a whole circumference of discourse around it?

You are most definiely thinking of the wrong “Sign”.
But studying astrology you will find it has only so much to do with the tropical (not Sidereal, as you think) Zodiac, and everything with aspects.

Don’t be a failure like everyone else. Do something. Exert yourself. Prove that you have some depth to you.
Anything less causes boredom and nausea and thus turn acidic responses.

There is nothing Id rather do than pour forth my knowledge. But this is offensive to the structurally ignorant. An ignorant self values in terms of its ignorance, therefore it hates to perform structural studies. The ignorant remains what he is by disregarding consequence, by avoiding consistency. I hope that is not all you have to offer here, Shieldmaiden.

What is an aspect, you ask?
The Fixed Cross is an aspect.
You can look up what it is exactly, I am beginning to feel disinclined to give too much aid to lazy minds.

You are semi-lazy, which is already part of the to 5 or even 2 percent of humans. But the truly active are Id say closer to .000001 percent. Just, very few people even out of the very upper most “successful” seem to know what how to exist so as to endure power without having it corrupt them into becoming a shadow of their own power. It feels significantly better to be active. It sheds all the unconscious resistance against pride and happiness, as you know you are actually making the effort of existing. The cosmos isn’t prior to you anymore, you are parallel to all of its origins. Not as a human being but as a brilliant genius, a star, a source of nuclear power. Thats what it takes to understand your own chart.

It seems that Satyr and Zoot are at it again here: pathos-of-distance.forumotion.co … e-ontology

The ontology of love this time.

Post after post after post of that which can only be deemed relevant [by one of them] to “serious philosophers”.

Go ahead, see if you can recognize your own rendition of love here.

Unless of course it is all just tongue in cheek.

You know, giving them the benefit of the doubt. :wink:

Humans suck

Sometimes though you encounter one that really doesn’t.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34kCSuOvHLw[/youtube]

With respect: Machiavelli does not represent a radical break with traditional ethics. Rather, he simply suggests that the “good prince” should not be bound by them if he is to retain power. Nor does Plato, who (significantly, to be sure) puts the determination of ethical norms beyond the realm of both gods and men. Nietzsche, however, places moral valuations squarely in the hands of men. Not all men, of course, but those very few who are fit for the task (the “Overmen”) - individuals who are, nevertheless, “human, all too human.” A philosophy which holds that men, and men alone, are the sole arbiters of moral valuations must, necessarily, represent a radical and explosive break with traditional philosophical thought. It is Nietzsche, alone, who undermines the entire edifice Western philosophical thought, and dares us to question - nay, shatter - the very concepts which underpin Western civilization. Is not the so-called “death of God” (i.e., our rendering the Judeo-Christian concept of “God” utterly untenable) the essential malady of Western society to this day? Do we not, in the wake of two World Wars, remain morally rudderless as a society? We should take note that Nietzsche himself predicted the coming - the necessity, in fact - of one, perhaps two, wars the likes of which the world had never seen resulting from the loss of a viable moral center of gravity? Is not the “reevaluation of all values hitherto” our most pressing duty?

Thats what I get from The Prince, too, and thats the only thing I know about M. I am therefore curious where Sauwelios and Lampert get these ideas.

Interestingly phrased. And true.
Why I feel doubly justified in loathing the man, by Zeus.

I don’t think there is any way around this.
Do you have any specific suggestions, or powers, in this respect?
Im asking this in all seriousness - for if it is not us who instigates this revaluation, who will it be?
Understanding this matter is rare enough, as to understand it is frightening enough - let alone resolving it.

My gift to mankind is the power to value his own valuing directly, without requiring a pre-existing object of valuing, a value. The objects are functions of the valuing, they are valued into existence.

And by this virtue, the world becomes divine.