I’m just going to say this to trumpers outright

I will also say, that by bringing this ty into contrast, they fraudulently made the claim that the ULTIMATE individual was achieved and being sacrificed, as a narrative that the ultimate individual is produced, by this incredible machinery, precicely so that it could be sacrificed. But the trick, the coup, is not in the sacrifice, but in the claim that what was sacrificed was THE ULTIMATE individual.

What you call the “philosopher,” I believe to be what I said in that quote of me by FC further back: the nontheless extremely admirable turning inwards of Greece. Admirable as it is, it is not what it claims to be. It claims to be ultimateness. Blinding itself, by its own magnifiscence, to the actual ultimateness of the world which cannot be encompassed by a human, by any human. Largely, because that would take all the fun out of it. Or if not because, it is at least nevertheless true.

I got you Prom, I got you already… a prerequisite, but it’s not a dream

A (pre-empted) ode to Prom, in his request to be masochistically judged by Parodites.
youtube.com/watch?v=Iv5JXxME0js

As far as Rome is concerned, there is no spiritual Christianity.

There is only God, and the antics of God.

Because of this cleanliness of manhood, Christianity was able to eventually perished. Of all the contradictions Nietzsche alluded to, the contradiction between Rome’s God and the spiritual message of Jesus was the most important one.

"I will also say, that by bringing this ty into contrast, they fraudulently made the claim that the ULTIMATE individual was achieved and being sacrificed, as a narrative that the ultimate individual is produced, by this incredible machinery, precicely so that it could be sacrificed. But the trick, the coup, is not in the sacrifice, but in the claim that what was sacrificed was THE ULTIMATE individual.

What you call the “philosopher,” I believe to be what I said in that quote of me by FC further back: the nontheless extremely admirable turning inwards of Greece. Admirable as it is, it is not what it claims to be. It claims to be ultimateness. Blinding itself, by its own magnifiscence, to the actual ultimateness of the world which cannot be encompassed by a human, by any human. Largely, because that would take all the fun out of it. Or if not because, it is at least nevertheless true."-Pedro

I think the point of contention is in this: I regard the political structure of the Athenian state and republic, prior to Socrates, as being so perfectly dispensated in its coordination of human virtues, human goals, and of talents afforded to men both out of the hand of nature and due to their own training, along with the strata of slave to philosopher being so well ingrained in the folds of psyche, that it actually made itself unconscious in its citizens. No man could reflect on the nature of this perfected demos, and therefor: no man could reflect on his place in it, or on himself. The trial of Socrates was merely an illusion intended to keep up appearances for a state that prized justice so heavily: the reality is, that by identifying the previously unconscious forces of marginalization in society, Socrates compromised the very basis of that perfected demos. That is why he was murdered: I do mean murdered, for they never intended to give him the chance of escaping his hemlock; they couldn’t. For Socrates did force an inwardness- one that would not have been brought about unless those unconscious forces were identified somehow from within the blinded citizens. Socrates identified them; and he turned them against this perfect state. Where I truly part ways with your mode of thinking, and that of Fixed, on this subject at least: is that I do not believe that the philosopher-soul, as projected by the Platonic universe as the “form” of the human soul- as the perfection of the human soul, is a fallacious view of the matter. That is why I resurrected Gnosticism: gnosis is the ultimate; the world is only an agon for the realization, by individuals- of Gnosis. The mighty titan Yaldabaoth did not fail to match the silent, true God’'s glory by creating our fallen physical reality as a flawed imitation of his perfect pleroma: no, this reality is all a test,- a testing grounds and bid for transcendence. It is an anti-wisdom; the prayer of the Antisophic Christ-Devil of Profane Gnosis, who deliberately failed in his task to surpass God and designed this imperfect world as a way to teach man: how not to reach divinity. Studying it, studying how not to achieve it: that puts one on the path to achieving it. His deliberate failure carved open a space for the possibility, that his dream should be realized in the proxy of mankind. It is not to the Christian god that I pray: but to him.

But this idea of gnosis ties in to what you said or Rome and Christianity. From the 9th volume in my ammo-stack of a corpus, Tractatus Metapolitica, I analyze three trajectories that passed from Rome, through Christianity, to the Gnostics, who represent the flourishing of the multiplicitous Christian gene, which was oppressed and destroyed so that Rome could prostitute Christianity as a political instrument:

4. Gnosticism.

This vision of Transcendence was the result of spring-boarding
the Greek dialectic via the re-appropriation of Abrahamic theology in having
cast YHWH as the Demiurgias. Through that third trajectory, Gnostics realized a vision
of the Transcendent episteme, with the Dorics finding the Ontic episteme, and the Jews
finding the Immanent. Then "Christian Christianity’, having been thoroughly infiltrated by
and prostituted on the behalf of Roman politics, suppressed the Gnostics by stake, fire
and sword, and with them, their vision of the New-Man and Transcendence as well,
preferring to use their Catholisized (universalized, which is another word for de-
enculturated: multiculturalism as anti-culture) Christian dogma as a mere political tool for
maintaining their earthly power in the face of impending civilizational collapse, given the
fact that the vision of the New-Man would be quite at odds with their political goals and
overall project- which happens to mirror the project of supra-hemispheric economies
snuck in, as the true goal of both neoliberals and neoconservatives, behind the meaningless
ideology about the humanitarian need for lax boarder security, etc.- globalism, in a word.
The Romans, too, sought such a supra-hemispheric economy, so they could use it to hold
their thinning empire together, having absorbed in their unending pursuit groups as
divergent as the Egyptians and Italians into one collective, thrown a Roman uniform at
their feet and expected them to all stand and fight and die together for- no set of values
they could possible share, let alone a shared national ethos. When the populace is ripping
itself apart- as it is in the US right now- because you have absorbed into the demos large
unintegrated masses of foreign cultures, then you- if you have it- can just use the kind of
globalist economy we have now to force them to cooperate. Politics is war continued by
other means; no, economics is war continued by other means. The Romans simply lacked
the technological ability to achieve this weaponization of economy. At any rate, the
Catholic church is all that is left of them now,- of that doomed Roman will to power,-
which has become merely the object of late-night talk show jokes about pederasty.
However, the eviscerated Christian dogmatism that resulted from centuries of their
having suppressed Gnostic philosophy and theology remains to this day- in fact, it is all
most people know of Christianty.

And to emphasize what I said in my last post, which might be buried in the rest: I worship Yaldabaoth, not Jehova.

^ See he’s tearing out his heart, which is the World, to offer us a riddle; the agon; a testing ground for transcendence; a bid for apotheosis; a most inventive design for getting back at those pesky Aeons.

Parenthetically, I did enjoy the song MagsJ.

What would you propose otherwise? experience over education, so street-smarts over book-smarts? or how about a combination of both?

Money! the root of all evil, and yet the solution to all our problems. A conundrum, no?

In times of trouble, they’ll just make more money, so let it be, let it be, as The Beatles once sang… but did they earn it, like we have to? They’ll eventually have to… earn it, that is, as nothing’s for free… ever, no matter who you are.

Lol.

You know what?

I cannot disagree with you enough on any given point to deploy rhetoric against. In times of war especially. We are clearly on the same side.

For now at least.

The debate may be a true one, and one to have at a future time. I could give the outline: the multiplicity of the Fixed-Crossean-Nietzschean-Presocratic-Greek philosophy of sacatteredness, for not to say such a unifying word as multiplicity, in opposition to… Well something. That, like I said, I like too much, or even beyond I am too much an ally of (ally is taken today to mean some cynical thing), to seek to de-enstrenthen or deplete at a time of war.

For brother we are.

"What would you propose otherwise? experience over education, so street-smarts over book-smarts? or how about a combination of both? "

Yeah, fuck it, get a job.

And if your parents are rich enough to pay for College without a loan or something, ask them to give you that money to endeavour to cultivate it instead. Some might say that a young person would squander that massive amount of cash, but in academia it is literally a 100% loss. So that then they can be “employed.”

Get a job. Study maybe a trade, a technical degree. Fuck you need some preacher kissing your ass for?

You studied Art. That is, of course, a trade.

I cannot think of a single Great Person that graduated from college. Except ones that in their success, aroused the vengeful anger precisely of Colleges and College types.

Whereas I cannot tell you how many people I have met that have made fortunes without even finishing High School, to the great “contempt” and chagrin of college graduates.

Lol Mags, by being a conservative you are already on the wrong side of that coin.

When a discussion reaches this level, I see even merit in the ideas I most intricately disagree with. Especially the structure of these ideas, the method of thinking they imply/reveal.

This Capricorn year has been most fertile so far.

AGLAIA

Natural causes are just as necessary as the things in themselves. Because of the relation between the practical employment of the things in themselves and the Categories, our ideas are just as necessary as, as I have elsewhere shown, the Antinomies, yet our judgements exclude the possibility of natural causes. Our ideas are what first give rise to the phenomena. As will easily be shown in the next section, necessity can thereby determine in its totality our judgements, and our sense perceptions constitute the whole content of the thing in itself. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Antinomies stand in need to, for example, metaphysics, and the noumena constitute the whole content of the paralogisms of natural reason.

Our ideas would thereby be made to contradict the objects in space and time. Let us suppose that the employment of the Ideal can not take account of the employment of our judgements, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions. As we have already seen, the things in themselves, on the other hand, would thereby be made to contradict our judgements, and the Ideal exists in our experience. By means of analytic unity, transcendental logic would thereby be made to contradict our a posteriori concepts, but our analytic judgements (and let us suppose that this is the case) prove the validity of space. As I have elsewhere shown, is it the case that metaphysics is just as necessary as our faculties, or is the real question whether the phenomena constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a posteriori? By means of analytic unity, our judgements would thereby be made to contradict the things in themselves. Natural causes, therefore, are by their very nature contradictory, as any dedicated reader can clearly see.

By means of the Transcendental Deduction, there can be no doubt that the manifold would be falsified. It remains a mystery why, in reference to ends, the thing in itself, for these reasons, is the mere result of the power of time, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. The objects in space and time, in particular, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like human reason, they are a representation of disjunctive principles, yet our a posteriori concepts, in other words, can be treated like the discipline of practical reason. Metaphysics, irrespective of all empirical conditions, can not take account of philosophy. (Time excludes the possibility of, in reference to ends, the architectonic of pure reason.) As I have elsewhere shown, we can deduce that the Antinomies prove the validity of the paralogisms, by means of analysis. Still, the architectonic of natural reason is a body of demonstrated science, and none of it must be known a priori, as will easily be shown in the next section. This is what chiefly concerns us.

The Antinomies, with the sole exception of our a priori knowledge, can be treated like philosophy, by virtue of pure reason. We can deduce that, in accordance with the principles of the practical employment of the transcendental unity of apperception, philosophy would thereby be made to contradict, so far as regards the transcendental unity of apperception and the paralogisms of pure reason, our concepts. As I have elsewhere shown, it remains a mystery why pure reason (and let us suppose that this is true) is a representation of the paralogisms. (As is evident upon close examination, the noumena, as I have elsewhere shown, have nothing to do with the Antinomies.) Space can thereby determine in its totality, on the contrary, the architectonic of pure reason, and natural causes are the clue to the discovery of the noumena. Our faculties, thus, are just as necessary as the phenomena, and the Transcendental Deduction can be treated like philosophy. The question of this matter’s relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.

In the study of the Ideal of pure reason, the Transcendental Deduction, on the contrary, occupies part of the sphere of our a posteriori knowledge concerning the existence of the paralogisms of practical reason in general, as is evident upon close examination. Consequently, it must not be supposed that the practical employment of time, so regarded, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like necessity, it depends on synthetic principles, since knowledge of the Antinomies is a posteriori. Since none of the objects in space and time are analytic, our sense perceptions, in the case of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, can not take account of the objects in space and time; with the sole exception of necessity, the Ideal stands in need of, consequently, the practical employment of the Ideal. Our understanding has nothing to do with the objects in space and time. In view of these considerations, it remains a mystery why the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions has lying before it, for these reasons, the objects in space and time. The thing in itself exists in the discipline of practical reason. But we have fallen short of the necessary interconnection that we have in mind when we speak of the things in themselves.

As is proven in the ontological manuals, I assert that the phenomena, in natural theology, exclude the possibility of the Ideal. Our concepts, in all theoretical sciences, are the mere results of the power of the transcendental aesthetic, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. I assert, in natural theology, that our judgements stand in need to, for example, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions; in all theoretical sciences, the paralogisms, in the full sense of these terms, occupy part of the sphere of the discipline of practical reason concerning the existence of our analytic judgements in general. (As I have elsewhere shown, our understanding (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is true) proves the validity of the transcendental unity of apperception, as is evident upon close examination.) Hume tells us that, indeed, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, in view of these considerations, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our experience, it can not take account of synthetic principles, but the Ideal has lying before it, still, our faculties. The noumena, on the contrary, abstract from all content of a priori knowledge; on the other hand, philosophy (and the reader should be careful to observe that this is true) has nothing to do with the employment of our speculative judgements. On this matter, what has been said already should in any case suffice by itself.

By means of analytic unity, necessity is the key to understanding the paralogisms of pure reason; certainly, space, on the contrary, is by its very nature contradictory. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, our faculties are the clue to the discovery of, for example, the manifold. The noumena are a representation of our faculties, and the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, so regarded, has lying before it time. As is evident upon close examination, our faculties would thereby be made to contradict natural causes, but the paralogisms are by their very nature contradictory. Our a priori knowledge has nothing to do with metaphysics. In natural theology, we can deduce that metaphysics, in reference to ends, can not take account of the thing in itself. As we have already seen, the thing in itself has nothing to do with natural causes, yet natural causes abstract from all content of knowledge.

Ah-hahahahaHA!

you idiots

Your point being?

Had me worried there.

I went to “random Lutheran insult generator,” and indeed it was so dark and dank, it crashed the website.

Ah Promethean, the little Kantian style joke thing. You see; the average man couldn’t tell the difference between a meal prepared by a Michelin star chef, and a burnt steak with ketchup. But the Michelin star chef could.

Similarly, to those trained, the first sentence of that is a red flag. “Ontological manuals”? What about your semiotic reports and anthropological primers? It better demonstrates the inadequacy of the common reader.

But we are not common, are we? (I would add that Kant, despite my being opposed to his conclusions about the Grund of metaphysics and the Transcendental, actually brought forward new concepts: no small feat. He sacrificed a great deal of his life in so doing: he stands, along with me, as one of the saints of philosophy. I exiled myself into solitary confinement and didn’t leave a single room for 15- yes, fifteen- years, during which I pursued my task and: wrote. I forgot what stars looked like. But I found the stars within. As did Kant. I deeply respect the man. Besides, I do not need to agree with someone to use his concepts. Ideas- have no allegiance to their creators. In fact, there is no better weapon to use against a thinker, than his own concepts. Giordano Bruno taught me this, in his antidialectics.)

Agreement is merely a starting place; if it is pursued in itself, for itself- it breeds stagnation and fosters paralysis. (Unless you want to form a little political party, do a little LAARPing with your buddies and ‘change the world’. Change the world? It is a phrase I can’t even recall silently inside my head without cringing and feeling nauseous. A philosopher would not condescend to such a thing- to the World; no, for that he will borrow other wills and under-wills, as Aristotle used Alexander to actualize his project of cultural imperialism,- as he used him to spread the soul of Hellas from one end of the world to the other. Changing the world: that would require for your philosophy an object outside of philosophy; gnosis demands otherwise.) And that is why modern academia is so slow to churn out anything new, anything unforeseen, anything powerful: Leftistism dominates that sphere, and so everyone tends to agree with everyone else about, well; everything. The true meat of philosophy is the agon; powerful disagreements breed energy, new ideas, and dialogue. Besides, if someone agreed with me, they would have to understand me first, and equal me. Let us not forget the first brothers of the Earth; one of them murdered the other, and nourished the soil with blood.

But the most powerful agon- the most significant opposition, is always between ideas that appear to be similar in almost every way- the slight particle separates them. They stand beyond the Hegelian mode, beyond all synthesis: asynthemata. True agreement between us- between actual philosophers, should be an agreement that we must bring into existence the mone through the monon,- bring into existence that “alien third” like the bodies of lovers flashing up in a moment of transcendence, becoming a new entity upon which, paradoxically, their individual identities depend. And that is what Jung calls the enantiodrome: for a third perspective must arise that can tell the difference between them. A third perspective, that is beyond either of them; only from that vantage, can they be differentiated. As I write in the… what is it, oh yeah the seventh volume in my philosophical encyclopedia, Monon and Mone, Foreword:

True difference is difference from itself as well. The great error is in our trying to reduce
the terms of another to our own, as reduction is not agreement. To reduce our terms;
yours to mine or mine to yours, is what actually produces unhealthy conflict between
philosophers by the obscuring of the true difference, through which all reality of a
spiritual fraternity of intellects exists. Just the same as a life cannot be reduced to another
life, one must always respect the ideal of another philosopher as the product of his entire
life-process; incomprehensible for that reason to another philosopher in its fundament,- to
be approached only by degrees of understanding, and these won through the agon and by
healthy conflict.

Watching TV… will resume ILP activities soon thereafter, when these entertaining shows end, Pedro, Prom, Perodites… all the Ps.

Uncomfortable feeling engulfs me…

P is a pretty letter. I have Synaesthesia, it was always… purple, to me. A ‘p’ itself. A royal color. Imma take a bunch of “vitamins” now and pass out.