There is something darker to Greta. Which I know from being closer to these young mummies than most developed thinkers.
But that is the entry, indeed, the trumpet.
Curiously, while the 90’s gave us rap, or the ascension of rap, it also gave us the doorway by which nazis would ultimately be alowed to prance in with their faggot prancing.
For it was an old science to them, self-loathing, and a simple thing to manipulate.
Oh indeed, there is something darker than Id even attempt to elucidate if I had a grasp on it.
I have had the luxury of being able to seclude, meaning no newspapers, no tv, no talking people around me, so Ive just not sought out this monstrous apparition, knowing full well she represents he very darkest bunghole humanity has on offer.
I had already been astonished by the weaknesses of the modern mind, so the fact that Greta was embraced by the great oligarchs already guaranteed that the masses would fall at her feet.
The 90s were a magickal portal.
Tell me how you see this stuff being planted in he 90s. I cant see the forest through the trees.
There was so much planted in the 90s, it was the first and last decade of true Hegemony.
Yes.
Am I allowed to cry?
Or is this a wicker man kind of moment?
The answer would be neither if a certain beautiful piece of ass weren’t involved.
With hegemony came a decision, for which humanity had been made unready by Plato and Aristotle: how then to make of those had hegemony over?
"Thats how I get em,
how I get to men
rile em up without precedent to anger them …
etc "
Exactly.
Only now, after Hegemony is gone, did the world produce the Anti-Aristotle, the antidote to Aristotle, the valuator logic.
Perhaps then … Hegemony is not truly dead?
Where but at the heart of a Hegemony could such a logic arise?
Phathometer in the red.
No. Maybe hegemony is just stretching its legs.
A way of thinking:
if it is only power that sets goals, and if true self-valuing (meaning fully self-conscious (and to allow that, happy )will to power) means the actual intent and plan to control the entire universe, it could be argued that one must feel a “hegemons innocence” for such a notion to occur.
Political, financial and moral hegemony is tenuous at best, but the hegemony of US art is a done deal.
Was this not actually the goal?
Because it is an artists hand which must shape the Earth from hereon out.
Right.
Bending the knees, reaching as low as he can.
We here are the anti-Plato:
The rebirth of philosophy, the only step N couldn’t make and for which he awaited and instructed his friends of a hundred years after him, was to recreate the Greek forum and to restore the living Presocratic dialogue.
Out with the dialogue of the upper hand, right and wrong, zero sum; in with the Ill be damned you’re right now lets see what I can build on top of that engine made out of philosophy;
Socrates reduced, Plato consolidated the reduced world. With the archaeological tool of the internet we philosophers unpack the ancient world - but the key to unlock the mechanism of Platonization is, even as it fits the lock, not easy to turn.
it requires not just human, but also astronomical forces.
There is a moment when the world says click.
Several moments, click clack clock. A complicated lock.
Cause you’ll be damned assured the old Plate himself used the ancient mechanisms to establish his hegemony.
baddabing, baddabang
And in this he was the greatest.
He was the greatest wizard.
So at the crucial moment where the knowledge needed to propagate itself as Truth, the time before and into the conquest Alexander, it must have been the Pythagorean aspect that had the upper hand. Of all philosophers before Socrates, Pythagoras was the only one that held any claims to truth as an institution. His was the true nature of the “Academy”, namely, a lodge.
There’s a definition of truth in the brush; truth is knowledge that has acquired self-valuing.
So in case of human knowledge a self valuing would consist of humans and often the involvement of written language.
And a general way in which the truth is conveyed, a statement.
I wonder then if a type of statement can pertain to “truth”;
is there such a thing as an untruthful type of statement?
Yes, presumably.
A lie can be said to be a type of statement.
but that is a type of untruthful statements.
A lie as a member of a type is truthful if it is told deliberately.
What is an untruthful type? It cant exist.
A type is a truth. A type is always truth.
Archetype is a ground-truth.
If its effective it is a grounding truth.
Arching type.
Just trying this Platonic damn key…
We need weird yet transparent magic tricks to convince the people that the truth is human.
We need camels and sheep, camels like lions among the sheep.
But is truth always a type?
“A truth told so as to be understood will always be believed”,
But even if it isn’t understood, truth must be a type to be believed.
I do not mean “a type of truth”. Shit this Platonic shit is so ancient and wack. Theres just no rubrics cube click clack to it, its purely pegs and holes and a whole bunch of pegs for which there is no hole and mostly vice versa. Thats Platoniism. It creates holes for which there are no pegs and is itself a peg for which there is no hole, except itself, which is us.
But the wackness of it is due to its having outrun its purpose. Which ironically was to preserve what came before it.
If it hadn’t been for Aristotle and his incredible wish to categorize we would have a shred of what we have now in knowledges of almost everyone who came before him, and almost nothing of the Presocratics. If Socrates hadnt made such a upheaval, all of it might have been forgotten, buried with Athenian political hegemony.
As long as an ethos explicitly elaborates the things it renounces, it preserves those things for posterity to weigh their preference at a moments desire.
I exaggerated the scope of the Academy’s role in preserving knowledge referring to the rest of sources as a shred, but still, perhaps if it hadn’t been for those fanatics of the supremacy of truth, none of the whole preceding enterprise would have acquired such prominence in any culture whatsoever, Neither Arabic nor European. Universal monotheism would still be an alien notion. Like literally something only aliens hold.
Which brings me to any next point. I read something recently about the appearance of Socrates that brought immediately to mind Edgar, from Men in Black, after he had become a suit.
Apparently this is now a type.
A truthful type?
See there ya go into Plato.
Eggarsuitness. No Dasein allowed, only a giant mall of sometimes-items.
Anyway. As long as an ethos explicitly elaborates the things it renounces, it preserves those things for posterity to weigh their preference at any moments desire. If it wasn’t for the gravity which holds the whole enterprise together at a level of being able to understand money, which is where I have to defer to Parodites, before reducing it immediately to “abstract valuing”. Here is one thing where only something as voluminous as his work could ever even pretend to do justice.