Nietzsche did always understand philosophy as war, from the very beginning…
That’s also why Nietzsche said, quite comfortably, that philosophy would be counted before him and after him. Because all he had to do was be greater than Plate, which he was.
When I said there were greater philosophers before Plate, I meant in terms of the quality of the questions they asked, not their philosophical achievements.
"Sure there were greater philosophers than Plato before Plato. "
They weren’t philosophers. The other “philosophers” before Socrates represented a direct intimation of Being, and each produced an independent island-universe that I call the ONTOS; a guiding image of thought. Each of the pre-socratics appeared seemingly overnight, without precedence, fully formed. But they could not truly interact, there was no true philosophy yet. Socrates was the first. Nietzsche is a return to the ontos, and by taking a step backward, allowed us to see where a step forward could be made. Sometimes that is necessary. I do not value Nietzsche very much; only for that. But it is well known, that I am not a Nietzschean, though his personality and chronic pain and life tragedy (and life comedy) were very much like my own. I even have my own Salome.
I don’t think these super-elites are soulless, well some of them are. I just think that Option C usually prevails: I insulate myself and my family from the world and withdraw into a subculture of equally rich guys. And then I talk to these guys. And human nature takes over and we start to all kind of think the same way.
As to my remark about state-sponsored monopolization.
I wager that it is true. A company can rise to a certain point. They don’t care about multi millionaires, or even billionaires. But there is a kind of barrier embedded in the structure of both US regulations, International law, and the international banking system, that is not neutral: it has a secret political intention. That intention, is to encourage the growth of companies and organizations that will concentrate wealth a certain way, and which will help to carry out social engineering and political exercises concocted by the state. There actually is a very small, select group of people sitting around in a room with a world map and economic channels mapped on it, tied to the carefully designed banking system and international laws, as well as internal US companies. They have weaponized the economy, and transformed it into a political instrument, just as they did with Academia. The origin of it is this:
Free-market, classical Adam Smith capitalism led to a massive national excess-capital. But it was homogenized, that is, equally distributed across innumerable very small companies. What this meant is that this excess-capital could not be consolidated into the international channels of global trade, and exported. This excess-capital could not be translated into the system of import-export that our nation came to rely on. So that meant a massive failure economically that led to the first world war.
Okay so that didn’t work. But we still hate communism. So: In comes what Braudel called state-sponsored monopolization. We have to set up the system so that the excess we generate internally, in what was the expansionist era of capitalist free-trade, can actually be exported and converted into physical goods, imported from other nations. So we’re going to create an international banking system that will entangle everything in debt-obligations that ensure the channels by which import and export is conducted. This is the beginning of globalization. And oh what’s that? Germany wants to be self-sufficient and doesn’t wanna participate in all this good shit? Fuck em and just make them carry the entire burden of the first world war. Then people resort to eating each other in the streets, here comes Hitler, and boom: second world war.
3.) Fucking rekt both the communists and the Nazis, so we introduce an overly complicated system of internal regulations, set up several international systems of law, and better secure the international bank: and that has been working so far. Not for us I mean, but for the State. But it won’t for much longer. We have a third and final war. Three stages; three wars.
"And human nature takes over and we start to all kind of think the same way. "
As philosophers, we already know all possible things they can be thinking, and none of them are overly impressive.
“1) Free-market, classical Adam Smith capitalism led to a massive national excess-capital. But it was homogenized, that is, equally distributed across innumerable very small companies. What this meant is that this excess-capital could not be consolidated into the international channels of global trade, and exported. This excess-capital could not be translated into the system of import-export that our nation came to rely on. So that meant a massive failure economically that led to the first world war.”
Adam Smith Capitalism never existed.
Capitalism is and always has been in a state of constant tension with a myriad of enemies. This isn’t new, it’s constitutional. Capitalism is and always has been growth, never state.
War isn’t coming. War is already here.
I tend to think that WW1 was an echo of the Absolutist Monarchy vs Reformist wars before them.
It was about changing political structures, more than economic ones. The changing economic structures may have simply triggered it, allowing the cash needed to carry it out.
Another beautiful thing about Napoleon. He stood cleanly outside that debate. His disdain for reformists was only surpassed by his disdain for Monarchy. Also why there was no obvious immediate political transcendence from Napoleon.
Except I guess the independence of the entire American continent.
And the modern nation state.
And conscious capitalistic policies.
And total war.
Napoleon was first and foremost a war nerd. All the rest of what he did was in order to allow him to conduct war.
This is not an interpretation. This is what he openly discussed with his generals at their dinner table.
i mean i do but goddamn man, it would take like an hour to deconstruct all that rambling nonsense. ever walked into a room that was such a mess you didn’t even no where to start?
but none of that is really important. all that really matters here is whether or not the sense of meaningfulness and certainty you have in your head when you engage in such language that doesn’t directly represent or reflect anything about the real world, becomes a danger to you. that’s all that’s important. if it’s just a practice in benign poetic rambling and you’re in no danger because of it, then you’re good. knock yourself out. but if it’s this kind of junk that’s contributing to your being stoned for ten hours at a time and locking yourself in the house… then bro, we should probably work on that. say, aren’t you the one who plays the piano like a madman? or was that the ‘capable’ guy?
i would ask how a thirty year old is able to finance daily ten hour drug binges, but we’re supposed to not get personal on the forums. problem is, what you do, and why/how you are able to do it, would explain to me more about your general philosophical tendencies (your stripes) than anything you would ever write. we usually subscribe to philosophies that justify our prejudices and luxuries so that we can convince ourselves we deserve what we have/do with a clear conscience. rarely is a philosophical pursuit a genuine quest for disinterested ‘truth’. we’d rather turn it into a search for things we find agreeable and fulfilling.
but mines is different, see. i’ve passed through a series of stages that have culminated into what i consider some 33rd level shit. the progression looks something like this; an occupation with continental philosophy in the early years > introduction to the analytical tradition > application of analytical principles to the traditional philosophical ‘problems’ > discovery of much shenanigans > entry into active nihilism > reversion back into historical materialism (the only philosophy free of mass conceptual and linguistic confusion).
although i will admit i have always been partial to a marxist approach being a working class joe. only before i had thought there was a way around it. then i discovered all my other options were bullshit, and i’m not a bullshitter, so i had to submit to it once again. if was a troof i could no longer ignore or pretend wasn’t real, and what little humanity was left in me could be put to good purpose through it.
lol, and if only because so rarely is a philosopher able to articulate a clear cause in the first place!
yup, gonna be a rough ride, man. we’re diametrically opposed. this is clear now. i think if you had your way, i’d be a new initiate in an aleister crowley study group… and if i had my way, you’d be put through detox, provided a decent and productive job, and given a grand piano so you can straight run that shit (if that is you and not the ‘capable’ guy).
p.s. judging by your recent posting i can tell you didn’t read your daily rosa from the links i provided for you. this is disappointing, young man.
Correction:
Only philosophy articulates causes.
Alrightalright, see you all later.
Marx is an echo of pre-existing Greek philosophy, so is any extra-Marxist socialism, fascism or communism or Anarchism. It was all thought before.
Ok fuck bye. BYE.
and it couldn’t ever… not even with the ‘invisible hand’, because without that hand a pure anarcho-capitalist state would evolve and then destroy itself… while with it, this hand inevitably becomes a nanny/crony to the bourgeois.
the very origins of the dual party system of government was a forced event that happened because of the divisions of labor. when this division is made, classes emerge with conflicting interests, and both must have some representation in the governing system. hence, the right and the left. and here these western idiots still believe there is something more fundamental to the necessity of partisan politics… while in fact it’s a system that only exists because of class divisions. it’s an astonishingly simple thing that has been purposely over complicated by the founders of western civilization. and behind them stand entire droves of ‘philosophers’, starting with those godforsaken greeks.
if you want a history of the polis, of the ‘political man’, don’t read aristotle. read engels and that guy with the unruly beard.
so if ancient man wasn’t a species that universally shared similar enough physiological characteristics so that the same kinds of social and material relations took place within all civilized groups - hence giving rise to the same kind of ‘theorectical questioning’ (philosophy is praxis) of the basic structures of those interactions - and instead there was a specific group over here that was experiencing genuinely novel problems that all the other groups weren’t experiencing, you could grant some exception to the greeks and say the philosophical dialogue they engaged in was unique only to them.
butcha can’t do that. what you can do is fall under the spell that because modern endo-european languages owe much of their historical development to the greeks, the philosophical problems posed and set forth with and through that language could only have been realized by the greeks.
you are under the impression that socrates was the first person to look up into the sky and ask ‘why’, yes?
news flash: human beings have been doing philosophy since they were beating each other with sticks. the sophistication of that philosophy depends solely on the levels of complexity involved in their social and material relations. more people, more shit going on, more philosophy. moreover, the dominant philosophy existing during any literate period will be the one concocted and disseminated by those in power, with the only purpose being to sustain that power over succeeding generations. there is no search for troof here, bro, because troof is too painfully simple and leads directly to nihilism. the fact that history is a theater of hedonistic animals fighting over who’s going to do the work and that there is nothing ‘spiritual’ about any of this comedy, is a troof too embarrassing to bear for the sapient animal rationale. we’d rather like to think (if we are in power) that our status is rationalized by some grand teleology… which we then proceed to pull directly from our asses.
you don’t need to study the greeks, big P. the only thing you need to study is your ass.
But… But Marx was a philosopher… I don’t… I don’t understand…
Help me promethean! Before my self fractures and I start saying “note to others” everytime I want to say a thing!
He sure as shit wished himself into a lot of traditionalist Neo-Greek German Idealist philosophy there.
that’s because hegel had that whole continent on lock-down, bro. if you were doing philosophy or trying to destroy it, you were face to face with the hegeler. as they say; when in hegel, do as the hegels do.
my homegirl rosa used to say marx ‘coquetted’ with hegel, but didn’t date him.
“you are under the impression that socrates was the first person to look up into the sky and ask ‘why’, yes?”
No, I’m not. You ought to drop the assumption that you actually know everything (Or like Socrates: that you know anything.) particularly about what I am saying and just listen to me. I am talking about how each Pre-Socratic philosopher hypostatized ousia or Being, like Thales in the image of water or Heraclitus in the image of fire, and generated a sui generis ontos as the foundation to an intellectual system that emerged in the historical record overnight and fully formed, though it was incompatible with any other system. Through Socrates a new era was achieved, in which such interaction was possible, and without which the Western tradition would have died prematurely- and any death of the Western mind would be premature: Sophos or wisdom, in other words, became a distinct object of this life of the mind, and philosophy as we know it came along with that attendant with a conception of a mysterious internal criterion Socrates named his daemon, which judged itself and only through that judgement, judged the world.I will include more on this at the bottom of this post, though it speaks a little to Pedro as well.
" but none of that is really important. all that really matters here is whether or not the sense of meaningfulness and certainty you have in your head when you engage in such language that doesn’t directly represent or reflect anything about the real world, becomes a danger to you. that’s all that’s important. if it’s just a practice in benign poetic rambling and you’re in no danger because of it, then you’re good. knock yourself out. but if it’s this kind of junk that’s contributing to your being stoned for ten hours at a time and locking yourself in the house… then bro, we should probably work on that. say, aren’t you the one who plays the piano like a madman? or was that the ‘capable’ guy?"
I talk about it ironically, but I finance it because it is free, at least essentially free with my medical insurance. I have legitimate diseases for which I am prescribed certain things; physical pain type diseases. But before they ever developed I had resigned myself to my exile and solitude. I taught myself 10 languages so far in that time, and extended my learning to near omniscience: plus I wrote 10 volumes worth of my own philosophy. It was hardly time wasted, and it is no different in principle than any monastic path in life; it is one I assumed for myself willingly, deliberate- with knowing intent and ascesis. And again I repeat, you don’t have anything Prometheus. You don’t understand anything I’ve been talking about as far as I can tell. And your lame negation of it as being disconnected from ‘real life’ is as tired as your epistemology is. Your own epistemology refuted itself decades ago- from the pen of its own author, who disavowed it later in life and went into an entirely different direction. It’s an outdated positivist worldview that has no place either in the real life you brought up, or the intellectual life.
Pedro, as to the economics, we will have to agree to disagree for now. Though I might start a thread devoted to the subject; I just haven’t been shaken in my understanding of the causes of the world-wars and the entire three-staged mechanism of capitalist expansion.
Of my view of the Pre-Socratics vs. Post-Socratics:
From one of my letters:
These philosophic powers I do recognize, though at a different stage in the development
of the Western tradition. I see pre-Socratic philosophers as having received a direct
affirmation of Being, and out of that, each of them produced a fully formed, unique
“image of Being” or ontos that guided their thought. They were thus essentially,
completely incapable of comparatio which I will talk about in this message- incapable of
generating meaningful knowledge by interacting because each pre-Socratic philosopher
was an island philosopher, a self-contained, indivisible revelation of the affirmation of
Being. The Athenian state owes its existence to a later stage of philosophy which I will
discuss throughout my message here in terms of Aristotle’s politikeia. At any rate, that
inability for comparatio was a serious problem, because the “Doric trace” with which
Being was so revealed, was necessarily lost over time- because it cannot be written down
or taught, and there were few capable of it in the first place: the State could not have been
brought into existence without a move past that Doric origin and philosophy would have
dissolved without Socrates, for island-philosophies can only clash as force against force,
with no possibility of generating new knowledge or comparatio. The tradition would have
dissolved as the island camps of pre-Socratic philosophies just wages battle against each
other, the Doric trace lost through generations until that battle simply died out without
any new insight being injected through comparatio. I indicate all that in this text:
[ Plato, in Epistle VII says that “the philosopher’s idea bursts forth like flashing light in
his soul, and nourishes itself, kindling its own fire with itself.” The philosopher has one
singular idea, which then expands into a multiplicity, but then the philosopher must,
struggling with his own internal reality and with this now metastasizing cacophony of
phantasmata, find the unity (Holderlin, ie. extremity of non-differentiation) within the
seeming multiplicity (differentiation) that has burst forth from his mind and now engulfs
him, that is- find the self-engendered impulse originating it all, the inner cosmos or order
as the stoics said, mirroring the loss of the Particular within itself in its grasping toward
the Universal, the loss of (b)eing within itself in struggling toward Being, of man in man
reaching for God. That is what this world is, to my mind; this ceaseless transformation of
empty forms, an unending hieroglyphic and recombination, a trading of limbs for limbs
and heads for heads, like the therianthropes painted on Egyptian walls, the whole
evolutionary progression; a self-consuming loss of (b)eing within itself struggling toward
Being, and failing to achieve it,- for this Being is lost to us, and the love we bear in its
absence, reaches through us and all that we do love toward it, beyond the shore of death,
as the old poets used to say. * The light Plato spoke of does not burst forth to originate
the multiplicity from nowhere- it is a response to this Loss, like that experienced by the
pre-Socratics. This is also why each of their doctrines were island philosophies, sharing
no common pool of materials like the sciences do, and each philosopher stood proudly
alone- offering a unique image of Being, born out of a unique internal struggle with and
response to, the Loss of Being, the self-consuming multiplicity and self-engendered unity,
of his thought. The expansion of unity into multiplicity and redissolution into unity, is the
pattern of philosophic history, of the history of philosophy. From the perspective of a
scientist, because science relies on continually enlarging the Babel edifice of material
knowledge, observation, and evidence, it would appear that we were but going in circles-
and we are, going in circles. But so is the universe. The impulse to hypostasize this
process itself as Hegel did with the dialectical approximation of the Absolute within the
movement of geist, is easily observed. To help alleviate this attraction, one must never
fail to keep in mind the Doric beginnings of sophos on the earth and the tradition of tragic
philosophy demonstrated among the pre-Socratics like Parmenides and Empedocles, in
which the central concern was the relationship of the One to the Multiple, Being to
Becoming, and the tragic annihilation of the finite seeking to embrace that infinite or
divine source for whose intimation each of them advanced their own unique guiding-image
of thought, that is, a configuration of the Ontos. At the highest realization of that
mode of tragic philosophy we find that the universe, this world- is this loss, and each soul
must struggle with its own internal recognition of it. Men are alone in this, as are
philosophers. If philosophers are to share some common doctrine, to share in a
commitment to some end, it should be only in this idea that they stake a common ground:
the encouragement of this deepening of man’s internal reality through recognition of the
Loss, an encouraging of the mens heroica or heroic mind "as philosophy encourages the
psyche in all (b)eings to take up the pursuit of Being, as philosophy spurs all things to
independent action- as philosophy induces all things to philosophize … " ]
Sampled from a few volumes in my books:
The Ontos asserts Being, not as an ontic closure beyond which Consciousness is eternally
separated from the Ground of its own existentia, as it is through the registers of the
Lacanian psychoanalytic, [To here address the Lacanian theory with my own philosophy,
it is sufficient to note that the traumatic register of the Real, through the decoupling of the
subject-object function at the level of the Virtual, (the domain of culture par excellence;
the storehouse of our shared ancestral memory, our language, and those memetic
complexes with which we are capable of asserting a tribal identity, be it on the grounds of
politics, race, age, era, etc.) modifies the Symbolic in which it is concatenated by a series
of nested hierarchies and recursively embedded within the original psychoanalytic triad,-
that is, the level of reality within which the conversion of the symbolic-exchange is
negotiated. However, due to the accumulation of entropic negativity within the system of
capitalist-logic underlying the actual structure of the Symbolic order and those Oedipal
defenses upon which it depends having finally reached a breaking point, the sequence of
intrapsychic processes has been reversed, generating thereby an insurmountable epistasis,
so that the unresolved tensions within the virtual,-- which would otherwise be remediated
through the processes of mimetic reproduction (as applied to what, in generative
anthropology, we call the surplus or aura of the event, therein generated through a
continuous mimesis of the original object, as is challenged in my use of Bataille’s
accursed share, by which the unabsorbed negative demands the violent discharge of such
a surplus- that is, the “self-sublation of the Real” and the consequent aural deflation) and
symbolic reification, or simply sublimated, as are the contradicting impulses of the
Freudian ID in the course of mankind’s cultural development,- which, unable to be
hologenetically supplied in reality, must be redirected merogenetically toward an
imagined object, that is, the Image of Schelerian Geist, in order to coexist, that is to say,
in order for any one impulse to achieve gratification without compromising the others,–
are left behind as ontic ruptures, those scissures which Lacan accused philosophy as
entirely avoiding, rendering any pure contact, that is, the recoupling with the Real,- or, to
return to Heideggarian language, the Ontological, quite impossible.] nor as an ontological
reduction through which that Ground can be skeletonized, absorbed by existential Angst
(ie. the dread of consciousness over its own inability to ground itself within itself, over its
closure, beyond which it cannot venture to gaze, for this is the closure of Being, whose
blindness is- Death, and the silence of which Death is, God: “God is dead”.) and
transformed, through the totalization of Absolute Spirit, into merely the phenomenal
mimesis or dialectical reproduction of its own essentia,- a process which, in the Hegelian
lexicon, is but “Consciousness as the struggle of Being with its own intrinsic nothingness,
for Freedom”; rather, a discontinuity,- a discontinuity between that Ground and its
Emergence into “Being and Time”,-- and within which the asynchron can forestall the
eschaton and usher in a new kairos; the great ur-mantra, a new karma and aeon around
which to seduce yet another generation of souls,- a new race of philosophers into the orbit
of the old star; the staircase of souls upon which Plato’s Republic was constructed so as to
lead the philosopher unto his utmost perfection and kingship; the dance of samsara
against the imposition of Hegel’s Night of Being-- between Monon and Mone, or the
Universal and Particular which, through philosophy, is recognized as Loss,- as tragic loss
or the Empedoclean pathos by whose tremens Holderlin was consumed, and finally
reified in the heroic-ekstasie of the Plotinian epistrophe, or the daemon of Bruno’s
soprassano or tragic over-knowing of philosophic love, so as to repair the relationship
between Being and Consciousness, (and in so doing provide the possibility of Value, for
an ethical project) that is, to repair this ontic discontinuity, for which task the
transcendental interdependency I write of is necessary. * This reparation of the
discontinuity is the Doric trace, through which the first order of sophic masters emerged-
the Pre-Socratics; Parmenides, Thales, Heraclitus, etc. etc. each carrying their own fully
formed and independent philosophy seemingly produced overnight and without any
evolutionary precedence in the historical record. For each of them had produced an
Ontos; the Ontos, through which the discontinuity is repaired, always appears differently,
for it is the ‘imaginal eidesis of thought,- of Consciousness itself, which perpetually
deconstructs the Ground of its own Emergence to Being’, much like the Bataillean
violence of perspective or the Symbol in its relationship to the Depth,- that is, the Erotic
form in its relationship to the Psyche which it objectifies, in Voegelin’s metaphilosophy
of the Transcendental Order. As I have written elsewhere: "As philosophy emancipates
the daemon, as philosophy encourages the psyche in all (b)eings to take up the pursuit of
Being, as philosophy spurs all things to independent action- as philosophy induces all
things to philosophize, … " Instead of absorbing extrinsic data into itself and reproducing
it within the circular inscription of Logos, thereby reducing it to the univocal mode of
Being after the Hegelian and Marxist method of dialectic and reconciliation, philosophy
spreads freedom to every object upon which it has set itself,- and the true object of the
philosopher is simply all the universe, to recall the dictum of Schelling, and encourages
an extrinsic datum to assert its own image of Being or Ontos in a rapturous moment of
aporetic multiplicity,- the shattering of the Empedoclean pathos against whose image of
Truth any one voice in the multitude of voices characteristic of the Platonic dialogue must
defiantly injunct itself upon, and to thereby “philosophize itself”- namely, by providing a
new ground upon which philosophy can insinuate the imaginal eidesis of its own
perfection and form and generate ideas that correspond to this datum within a given
episteme. Thus, philosophy does not begin in an impulse toward knowledge,- not in the
sterile pseudo-passion of mere scholasticism or the emasculate will to truth that guides
the natural scientist, but in some extrinsic impulse, that is- an impulse that is not
philosophy, be it an impulse directed toward artistic excellency, a political aim, etc.
Eventually, that impulse will learn to command and to absorb all others and finally serve
to anchor the self-destructive cycles of daemonic fury required to carve out character
from destiny and engrave dike upon psyche, law upon the soul,- for that impulse will
become your consciousness, it will become your life; it will become you,- and it will
announce itself as SUM over COGITANS. That SUM is- a philosophy.
There is knowledge, and then there is the far more difficult matter of gnosis, that is, the knowledge of knowledge. For, if we truly
know, then we know what we know, just as we must also know what we do not know, given the fact that knowledge is infinite, like
the ways of Psyche herself. So it is, that what we do not know surpasses and must surpass all that we do- infinitely so, as sophia.
Parmenides epitomizes the trap of (mis)identifying self-knowledge on the one hand and the consciousness of knowledge as self on the
other,- the trap of elevating the ontos [image of Being] to the level of Sophia, and of reducing Sophia to the level of the Ontos,- [and
by the noemic heuresis of the ontos, concluded upon an Image torn between the diaxe in kata-menses and ana-mense. Diaxonia refers
to the derivation of opposing elements in knowledge and self-consciousness, with the knowledge of the divine being limited by
knowledge of the nescience of a silent God, which in turn intuits, as opposed to ontos, the ‘agnosia katamen-ontos’ or καταμενοντος
and “nescience of him that is in us”- the nescience and “katamensis” (measured by less-than) of our own human self-consciousness
against the ontos, which should not be confused with any direct insight or anamensis (measured by other-than) about the Deity as
Ontos, according to the anonymous Gnostic commentaries on Parmenides. Recall the sense in which the ontos serves as an initiatory
episteme or guiding-image of Thought, which harkens to Parmenides’ original formulation of the ontos as distinct from the ontic or
ontogenesis,- the Ontos as that Being within which the being of thought is thought; and that Thought within which the thinking of
thought- Becomes: ontos pephitasmenon heuresis noia. Heuresis designates the pure affirmation of Being through which the Logos
circularly reinscribes its own image as Ontos and shatters its primordial relationship to the mythos because the mytho-logos had kept
it chained and restricted by Nature.] that is, from the object of eros or love- a lived negotiation of the daemon with fate in the tireless
passage on the part of man from Becoming into Being, to the status of Being itself, or the Promethean techne of human Becoming as
circularly inscribed by the logos in Parmenidean Being. The equation of ontos and sophia being a mistake relies on my own
formulation of the metaphysics of unemployed negation, (and my semiology of meta-reflection ascending ad infinitum toward its own
transcendent object: the transcendental dependency of self-consciousness on that object prevents self-grounding and requires a
relationship to Voegelian depth, that is, to the unknown mysterium of sophianic death centered on God.) not the traditional formula of
good=beauty=virtue, for the very concept of value has no meaning to me anymore outside of the fact that man’s transcendental
autonomy is dependent on the object of scalar reflection, which by extending toward infinity cannot be known by us and thus sets up
the source of value as an external, independent mind- God, though a God I have defended with far more potent philosophy than trite
Augustinian ontological arguments. that fact, that I rebuke the equation of ontos and sophia as a primitive atavism of pre-Socratic
philosophy, and the rest of this message, should be read against the backdrop of this text: “Before philosophy reached this final
configuration, the pre-Socratic individual lived …” The Nietzschean conception of the instinct toward knowledge (philosophos) being
subsumed by the Will to Power and instinct toward life, and therefor possibly at odds with it prior to its subjugation to and
assimilation within it as the lesser, secondary impulse, to my mind, examples only the atavism of the Greek demos, and a re-assertion
of the suspicion of philosophy as a “corrupter of the youth” as mentioned in the cited text, that is to say, a potential corruption of the
integrity of the polis. (Nietzsche himself is simply a useful atavism of pre-Socratic Greek man, for me.) One cannot enact what one
does not know,- in that case, one enacts only their demological status, their “cultus”, instinct or culture in the naive formulation of
Evola- which isn’t an enactment, but a re-enactment. It was the great achievement of Socrates to instill that internal criterion by which
knowledge values itself,- by which philosophy asserts itself as a genuine mode of life, free from the influences of all external forcesan
ectype of life itself. The test of a philosophy is not ultimately a measure of what it is capable of reducing to its own terms, but of
what it can induce into developing a philosophy itself. The Great Philosophy would spur all beings to the “pursuit of Being”, that is,-
would spur all of Being, (as Schelling spoke of the instinct toward freedom being radiated throughout all the universe by the
philosopher) into philosophizing,- “philosophizing its difference from philosophy”. In this way, the philosopher knows how to make
use of all things to produce philosophy- (as I brought up in reference to Plato’s Doctrine of Illuminations) even errors,- and it is for the
perfection of the foolishness and the errors of judgment of others, that his conscience is singularly overwhelmed by the feeling of
duty. Of the four epistemic modes I detailed, Nietzsche essentially resurrected and utilizes the first and most primitive, the ontos. In
short: the loss of Being, that is, the “unemployed” or unsynthesized negativity,- negation without univocal reduction and the
identification of the image of Being (the Ontos: an image produced out of the conversion of the negative into positive knowledge
through the thetic inscription of the logos, as epitomized in the circular Parmenidean formula: everything that is, is; I am, therefor I
am everything there is.) with Sophia, implies the loss of (B)eing to (b)eings- that is, the multivocity of the ontic and the ontos, (the
duplicity of the monon) and the site of the agonism within which this plural vocity of philosophic-truth enacts its final aporia beyond
the terminus and operative closure of the dialectic of history and thought,- within which, above all, beings struggle toward
identification with Being as sophic ectypes, and within which the philosophers brave enough to bear the Loss heroico-daemonically
seize upon their EIDEIA as a fleeting vortice in the overwhelming nebula Being, in refusal of the Parmenidean trap of proclaiming the
oneness of wisdom and Being, and all of this to the end of guiding the next generation of thought toward a still deeper confrontation
of the un-intuitable.
hold on man i’m still hollering at pedro.
and you’d never guess how important your boy max stirner was when all this shit went down. it was this radical break from the hegelian tradition that threw all the young hegelians for a loop. hegel wuz like ‘something something something mind is the rationalized ego evolving toward absolute spirit’, and then max wuz like ‘wtf are you talking about you stupid wind-bag? there ain’t nuthin but the ego and the nuthin. i, we, are the creative nuthins, and none of that fichte and shelling shit is real. grow the fuck up.’
when karl saw this he was totally bamboozled, and from that stirnerite foundation of nihilism and the rubble of the german idealist empire that max just bombed the shit out of, he built everything. max played an indispensable role in this whole thing, man.