The Holochrist: Saving the Holocene with an Xtian Holocaust.

[Zeroeth Nature]

Or: an Immortal Soul-o-caust. A summary of my Nietzschean religious philosophy.

The way I see it—and note that I've been coming back to Nietzsche (and Hinduism, and religion in general) from within secular Buddhism or nihilism—, creativity is literally limited by Nothing... It is the Nothing or nothingness which is what I've called zeroth nature—that which alone gives rise to "natures", "first natures", e.g. human "nature". Recall that thing I said [...] about being bounded by boundlessness. This is the only true necessity: the maddening lonesomeness of the One or the Nothing, which impels It to WILL Its Other, Its Opposite, the loveliest being It could possibly imagine...

My opposition to Christianity, man-made climate change, Trump et al. etc. is rooted in my will to the opposite of nihilism, namely a world of polities like ancient Israel, Sparta, and Carthage...

"The existence of those illiberal gods [like Moloch, Ares, and the original Yahweh] was disproven in the only way that gods could be disproven in that radically political world—by military defeat and the subsequent destruction of their temples. Prior to such catastrophe, the worth of one's gods appeared self-evident, subject to doubt only by madmen or fools. To its devotees, this piety had nothing to do with faith or belief. It informed a way of life in which the main concern—the piety which unified the nation—was experienced as self-evident truth. This political piety left no room for serious philosophic or scientific questions which became possible only with its discrediting by defeat and destruction of its temples. All moralities or religions informed by this liberal disestablishment naturally are experienced as faith in something questionable, something open to philosophic-scientific inquiry.
Once the pious certainties of the old tribal or civic piety are lost, politics no longer can escape 'the police supervision of doubt', however much desperate partisans may cling to the self-evidence of some pious truth." ([Harry] Neumann, [Liberalism, "The Case Against Liberalism"].)

[...] I have this irrational (because suprarational) desire for the continuation of objectivism and preferably the return of perfect objectivism (without "the police supervision of doubt"). Because of this desire, I'm against objectivists like Trump whose actions threaten to bring an end to the Holocene (and thereby to the ideal conditions for human life on earth, not to mention many other species). And the roots of this anti-life movement lie in Christianity, which gave rise to the countermovement to itself called modernity, with its technology that's led to global warming etc.

Don't the roots of Christianity lie in Judaism? Well, yes, and in Platonism of course. In fact, the roots of Judaism as we know it, itself lie in Plato! And indeed, all of Platonism has to go—exoteric Platonism, that is. And, for that matter, exoteric Vedanta and the like as well (see [Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil,] Preface), what with its belief in immortal souls! (I consider myself an esoteric Vedantika as well as an esoteric Platonist: for me, Atman = Anatta and Brahman = Sunyata.) So in a way it's not so bad if large numbers of poor, simple Hindus and Muslims are sacrificed first. But as for the Jews:

"Some Christian or post-Christian form of monotheism, and with it the death of serious politics, has triumphed everywhere during the last two millennia. If isolated pockets of warrior piety exist today they are pitied as 'backward' or 'underdeveloped' peoples, that is, people whose 'sexist', 'chauvinist' or 'racist' prejudices require replacement by Christian-liberal ideals. The Jews, and only the Jews, never were reconciled to this replacement. They remained aware of the terrifying emptiness of apolitical, cosmopolitan solutions. Nietzsche believed that the Jewish instinct constituted by this illiberal awareness prevented whole-hearted acceptance of any religious or secularized monotheism. For the Jews, monotheism never was more than a means to return to polytheism's serious (political) world." (Neumann, [ibid.])

"Although victorious Judaism had one main war-god, it acknowledged that other peoples had their gods and it itself had various lesser gods. This polytheism was a luxury which defeated Judaism no longer could afford. It desperately required an omnipotent god who could create ex nihilo, transforming ultimate political annihilation and degradation into salvation. Since this god could not be limited by anything outside himself, he must be the one omnipotent god. [...]
Since the monotheism needed to restore the old political polytheism reduces everything, including that polytheism, to nothing, even—and especially—it cannot restore the old warrior piety. Under monotheism, nothing is more than a toy to be willfully created or destroyed by divine omnipotence. Nothing is serious because politics no longer is serious. Apparently omnipotent monotheism can do anything except create a world in which warring political gods can be taken seriously. At best, such creation is childish amusement." (ibid.)

On the meta-plane [a.k.a. meta-level], I'm a perfect nihilist, which [...] means in effect a post-nihilist. What makes a perfect nihilist a post-nihilist is precisely the contrast between these two planes: that there is a plane which is non-nihilist (pre-nihilist, and at most semi- or pseudo-nihilist). Note though that this is no metaphysical dualism; they're just different aspects of one and the same reality—see Buddhism's two truths doctrine.

I'm basically an esoteric Vedantika in that I'm a reverse bodhisattva: I don't strive for the enlightenment of all beings, but rather to the contrary:

"The saḿskáras [conditionings] of all individuals could be withdrawn in one moment if Parama Puruśa [the Supreme Youth] so desired. But He does not because it would stop His entire creative flow and lead to the dissolution of this world. [...] To continue the flow of His divine play, it is not desirable that all entities of the vast universe should attain the Supreme stance [enlightenment] at one time[.]" (P.R. Sarkar, Ánanda Márga Philosophy in a Nutshell, Part 5.)

::

[M]odernity was a reaction to Christianity, and the modern ideal is still the Christian ideal at heart. Modernity however has brought impending doom, not just to human nature, as Laurence [Lampert] has it, but to "nature" itself—the Holocene... And I no longer believe non-violent measures will be able to prevent that doom—not with the direction the world has been taking. I think it's time for Odysseus and Telemachus to kill all Penelope's suitors once more—this time on a global scale. These suitors, the suitors of nature as divine, not noble, are not just all those who have the Christian ideal at heart (WP 252, 200), but also those who believe in the immortality of the soul (WP 246, 247). The latter include not just all exoteric Platonists, but also exoteric Vedantikas for example (cf. BGE Preface).'

(WP is The Will to Power by Nietzsche; BGE is Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche.)

"The doctrine of the immortality of the soul does not require heroic exertions on the part of its votaries—it is the democratic equivalent of heroic virtue." (Harry V. Jaffa, "Neumann or Nihilism".)

If fighting to the death with Odin and then being revived and feasting with him every day is your idea of Heaven, that may be much greater than if it were a Christian idea (e.g., lying in green pastures with your Shepherd or gloating at the people in Hell). However, if you actually believe in it—and I'm not saying anyone does—, then you don't really believe in death. It's like what Nietzsche says about solitude: if you believe in God, you cannot really experience solitude.

"Solitude probes most thoroughly, more than any illness proper, whether one is born and predestined for life—or for death, like by far the most." (Nietzsche, Nachlass.)

[Bill Boethius] once said death was [Nietzsche's] Zarathustra's seventh solitude.

If human beings suddenly became rational, a population of billions—which I consider completely ridiculous in any case—might indeed be sustainable. But if anything, it's irrationality that's on the rise. Therefore, the population needs to go down, and fast. And I'm not in the first place thinking of the Chinese, the Indians, or the Muslims...

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/14/the-religion-of-millionaires-.html
(The 1%'s ecological footprint is as large as that of the world's poorest 50% or something.)

The species requires the sacrifice of individuals on a large scale—especially now. Getting 7+ billion people to live sustainably is a pipe dream.

Against white Christians, for white Christmases.

What I wish to make clear is the following. One reason why I'm in the first place thinking of white people is that, otherwise, things would be too easy; and another, that it's the least politically incorrect—which is not something I care about directly, but which may make it easier to gain people's approval... (The second of these reasons is meant to at least somewhat balance out the first.) But the main reason is that Christians should be the first to go, and then especially Protestants:

[P]erhaps the poorer "Christians" are the more "real" they are, but ultimately all of "Christendom" is fake except those very rare people (by no means necessarily culturally "Christian") who are truly Christlike. Why? For two reasons: 1) Catholicism, whether Roman or Orthodox, "is precisely that against which Jesus preached—and against which he taught his disciples to fight" (Nietzsche, WP 168); and 2) the further a "Christian" deviates from Catholicism—into Protestantism for example—, the less of a true believer he becomes: for a true believer does not need reasons to believe or not to believe, in relics and rituals for instance. Thus Nietzsche, whose father and both of whose grandfathers were Protestant parsons by the way, writes:

"The Protestant parson is the grandfather of German philosophy, Protestantism itself its peccatum originale [=original sin]. Definition of Protestantism: the hemiplegia [=paralysis of one half] of Christianity—and of reason... [...] One should be harder on Protestants than on Catholics, harder on liberal Protestants than on true believers [strenggläubige]. The criminal nature of being a Christian increases with the extent to which one approaches science. Consequently the criminal of criminals is the [Christian] philosopher." (The Antichrist.)

Now of course Protestants tend to be white, whereas Catholics tend to be brown (among which "race" I've decided to include the Portuguese, the Spanish, and even the Italians). And yes, I know there are many black Christians as well.

What will probably happen, though, is that hundreds of millions of poor blacks, poor browns, poor Chinese, poor Indians, poor Muslims, etc. are sacrificed first, just because it's easier. And that's not insurmountable for me, as long as the Christian ideal is utterly and completely destroyed, too:

"One should never forgive Christianity for having destroyed such men as Pascal. One should never cease from combating just this in Christianity: its will to break precisely the strongest and noblest souls. One should never rest as long as this one thing has not been utterly and completely destroyed: the ideal of man invented by Christianity." (Nietzsche, WP 252.)

"I regard Christianity as the most fatal seductive lie that has yet existed, as the great unholy lie: I draw out the after-growth and sprouting of its ideal from beneath every form of disguise, I reject every compromise position with respect to it—I force a war against it.
Petty people's morality as the measure of things: this is the most disgusting degeneration culture has yet exhibited. And this kind of ideal still hanging over mankind as 'God'!!" (WP 200.)

"In moving the doctrine of selflessness and love into the foreground, Christianity was in no way establishing the interests of the species as of higher value than the interests of the individual. Its real historical effect, the fateful element in its effect, remains, on the contrary, in precisely the enhancement of egoism, of the egoism of the individual, to an extreme (—to the extreme of individual immortality). Through Christianity, the individual was made so important, so absolute, that he could no longer be sacrificed: but the species endures only through human sacrifice— [...]
The species requires that the ill-constituted, weak, degenerate, perish: but it was precisely to them that Christianity turned as a conserving force; it further enhanced that instinct in the weak, already so powerful, to take care of and preserve themselves and to sustain one another. What is 'virtue' and 'charity' in Christianity if not just this mutual preservation, this solidarity of the weak, this hampering of selection? What is Christian altruism if not the mass-egoism of the weak, which divines that if all care for one another each individual will be preserved as long as possible?—
If one does not feel such a disposition as an extreme immorality, as a crime against life, one belongs with the company of the sick and possesses its instincts oneself—" (WP 246.)

It's true [...] that I think there should be a kind of holocaust in any case: namely, Nietzsche's "merciless annihilation of everything degenerating and parasitical" (EH "BT" 4). But it wouldn't be that urgent if it wasn't for what I, just before reading your post, realised I might call the Holocenocaust. (The Holocene is the current geological epoch. The "caust" part, i.e. the burning part, can be seen in the fires in Australia and California, to name only two.)

[EH is Ecce Homo by Nietzsche; "BT" is "The Birth of Tragedy" by Nietzsche.]

I think the earth's population should decrease, fast! Christians and other deplorables first.

To my knowledge, Nietzsche never speaks of killing the degenerating and parasitical etc. Not just not of killing them himself, but not even of other people killing them (except for suicide by cop and the like). Instead, he says things like this:

"I want to teach the idea that gives many the right to erase themselves—the great cultivating idea." (WP 1056. Cf. 55, 247, 462, 862, 1053-55 and 1057-59.)

This idea is of course the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power:

"Suppose there is no 'other world' to flee to; suppose there is only this world, condemned by Christian ideals as cruel, false, purposeless, meaningless; suppose then that it does not happen just once, releasing men forever to a dreamless sleep, but must repeat itself senselessly always, grinding in the horror of existence like a cosmic dentist's drill—would that not produce a truly 'ecstatic nihilism'?" (George A. Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, pp. 356-57.)

Consider how sublime this is: Nietzsche was so pure (such a philosophic or priestly type...) that not only was he exalted above the crude, warrior task of killing people, but he was even exalted above telling others to kill people; instead, he taught an idea meant to make people kill themselves... Eugenasia!

Ironically though, I've recently begun to doubt whether that might work. So yeah, I'll consider it!

To affirm the eternal return (in which each man has his "origin and ender" to speak with Shakespeare) gives one supreme confidence to laugh at death. To be in love is truly to be "deathless." However, running parallel to this feeling is an equal heavy feeling of time running out and physical death narrowing in. The real issue, I guess, is having to restart again after not doing enough, not "dying forever."

I don't think there's a difference! In other words, I don't think you've affirmed the ER, because you haven't understood it... The ER means there's absolutely no difference between your current recurrence and your next. This means there's no more of a sense of déjà vu to it, either!

"Bad memory.—The advantage of a bad memory is that one enjoys the same good things for the first time multiple times." (HatH I 580 whole.)

—

[HatH is Human, All Too Human by Nietzsche.]

What's great about Covid is that it's mostly just a threat to the weak, the sick, and the elderly. What's not so great (nicht so geil), however, is that it doesn't in the first place affect those with the largest ecological footprints, but rather the poor. Like I wrote recently:

'Let me emphasize [...] that I think there are deplorables—and nondeplorables—among all classes of people. It's just that I think we should start with those with the largest ecological footprints—and with Christians, for that matter, because Christianity is considerably worse than, say, Islam.'

"[T]he Medieval enlightenment was an event in Islamic and Jewish history; it was not an event in Christian history. [...] To tyrannize philosophy as the True Philosophy is far more dangerous than banishment[.]" (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 139-40.)

"What an affirmative Semitic religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: the law-book of Mohammed, the older parts of the Old Testament. (Mohammedanism, as a religion for men, is deeply contemptuous of the sentimentality and mendaciousness of Christianity—which it feels to be a woman's religion.)
What a negative Semitic religion, the product of an oppressed class, looks like: the New Testament (—in Indian-Aryan terms: a chandala [=pariah] religion)." (WP 145.)

You're familiar with my idea of engineering a historical recurrence, right? A great but not too great cataclysm, which may decimate man [once or twice], but won't completely wipe him out and will keep him in the Holocene. I've come down from my dark-skied dunes to undo the damage the Platonists and the Moderns have done to man and the earth!

It would remain to be seen what people with Homeric values would do with nuclear weapons. Perhaps a cataclysm is inevitable. And perhaps a nuclear Trojan War would really be “the greatest of all”¹ violent cataclysms, whereas a nuclear Third World War would not. Then again, such advanced ages may well terraform other planets, so that even the annihilation of all (human) life on Earth would not mean the extinction of our species.

¹ Source: Muhsin S. Mahdi, Alfarabi and the Foundation of Islamic Political Philosophy.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Sometimes I'm like "Oh Zero Sum made a new post!" and then I'm like "oh."

[MagsJ]

_
Religions are divisive methods of growing one’s tribe to biblical (pun intended) proportions, nothing more.

[Meno_]

All i can think of at this time is, if there is smoke, there must be fire.*




*unless it's a screen.

[Dan~]

Sometimes I'm like "Oh Zero Sum made a new post!" and then I'm like "oh."

Maybe you are trying to be funny but this is supposed to be a serious forum too.

[Meno_]

E ban Alexander's lecture came to mind, and it synch with this forum

[obsrvr524]

An impressive OP I think.

"The saḿskáras [conditionings] of all individuals could be withdrawn in one moment if Parama Puruśa [the Supreme Youth] so desired. But He does not because it would stop His entire creative flow and lead to the dissolution of this world. [...] To continue the flow of His divine play, it is not desirable that all entities of the vast universe should attain the Supreme stance [enlightenment] at one time[.]" (P.R. Sarkar, Ánanda Márga Philosophy in a Nutshell, Part 5.)

But I think I could put together a rational argument against that.

[phoneutria]

the sacredness of life is not a christian invention
the christian part is to preserve life at any cost
rather than simply let live
and let die

takes a big grown up man brain I reckon
to do all that thinking
to arrive at the conclusion
that you know better
than your mother herself
what's best for your mother
but when you're done playing savior
she will put your g.i. joes away

she will eat you too
she will eat your big man brain
she'll still be standing here
long after all of this is gone
and you can be sure
that when she requires another mass extinction
she won't be needing your help

[Pedro I Rengel]

the sacredness of life is not a christian invention
the christian part is to preserve life at any cost

That's also not true.

In fact the truth is that the Christian invention is that life is the opposite of sacred.

So, I did not read what zero wrote, but if he is defending that life is not sacred, he is defending a Christian position.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Christians believe the same thing as budists: that life is illusion and unimportant.

The Christian reason, for example, to stand against the travesty that is abortion is that it deprives immaterial souls from going through this illusory test to enter the real world after they die. To Christians, life is not real or sacred. It is a punishment from God. In a sense, you are depriving God of his vengeance of giving life.

The real Christian deal is not the sacredness of anything. It is creating the possibility of a world without pain. This world of pain, also known as life, is an illusion and a test for the real world where pain does not exist.

Sort of the precursor of safe spaces.

"What is the good news?"

"The Safe Space is at hand!"

[Zeroeth Nature]

An impressive OP I think.

"The saḿskáras [conditionings] of all individuals could be withdrawn in one moment if Parama Puruśa [the Supreme Youth] so desired. But He does not because it would stop His entire creative flow and lead to the dissolution of this world. [...] To continue the flow of His divine play, it is not desirable that all entities of the vast universe should attain the Supreme stance [enlightenment] at one time[.]" (P.R. Sarkar, Ánanda Márga Philosophy in a Nutshell, Part 5.)

But I think I could put together a rational argument against that.

Well, to say that it's God's will not to withdraw the conditionings of all individuals is tantamount to saying they could not be so withdrawn, if that's what you mean.

::

the sacredness of life is not a christian invention
the christian part is to preserve life at any cost
rather than simply let live
and let die

Yes, and that's why, after two thousand years of Christianity and its secular successor, Modernity, we now have to kill in addition to letting die.

takes a big grown up man brain I reckon
to do all that thinking
to arrive at the conclusion
that you know better
than your mother herself
what's best for your mother
but when you're done playing savior
she will put your g.i. joes away

she will eat you too
she will eat your big man brain
she'll still be standing here
long after all of this is gone
and you can be sure
that when she requires another mass extinction
she won't be needing your help

Ayahuasca is a hallucinogen, my dear; there is in reality no Mother Nature or Mother Earth or Mother Ayahuasca... After all, that's just the female version of God; and God

Is

Dead!

"[S]omeone who, like us, has recognized the monstrous accident which has played its game up to this point with respect to the future of humanity—a game in which there was no hand, not even a 'finger of god', playing along!—someone who guesses the fate which lies hidden in the idiotic innocence and the blissful trust in 'modern ideas', and even more in the entire Christian-European morality, such a man suffers from an anxiety which cannot be compared with any other[.]" (N, BGE 203.)

[phoneutria]

ok kid whatever you say
we'll be here
when you're back a few months later
when a whole new username
and a whole new set of ideas
just don't get any sauce on your bib ok?

[Zeroeth Nature]

ok kid whatever you say
we'll be here
when you're back a few months later
when a whole new username
and a whole new set of ideas
just don't get any sauce on your bib ok?

That's just pathetic.

I shall put the record straight for any worthy readers. The opening sentence of my very first post on this account reads: 'Mitra-Sauwelios was a false start.' The Mitra-Sauwelios account was created on Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am Amsterdam time. Before that, I only had the Sauwelios account, which was created on Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm. Mitra-Sauwelios was a false start of my current account (and clearly not a whole new username, for that matter). So there's account # 1 (Sauwelios), then a false start of account # 2 (Mitra-Sauwelios), and now the rightful account # 2 (Zeroeth Nature). I've never had any sock puppets, I've always been clear about who I was.

I've formulated the reason for the false start as follows: '[M]y best friend did not accept my exemption and pushed me on[.]' (Source: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2785107#p2785107.)

And I've explained what the two account names mean here. (That is to say, their meaning in the sense of their significance; as for their "name meaning", sauelios means "sun" and zeroth nature means the universe...)

[Zeroeth Nature]

Since females are the limiting factor in reproduction, I think my "final solution" should especially target pre-menopausal women. It's simply more efficient!

On the other hand, men of course have significantly larger ecological footprints on average, so we should take that into account as well. #wastefulmasculinity

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm holobored.

[Meno_]

I'm holobored.

I see and I know the above to be an evocation of the very principle that many died for, and others lost their reason for.

The ambiguity in Niet zche is a deliberate smokescreen against a raging illogical fire burning within men's breast.

The will to power is a covered baseless illogical tenet, whereby the will needs to reorder that which was list by man's evolving doubt, by a science which was and is was thought to be a replacement for a lost Holocene.

The original fall says literally that, and by the token antiscientific Evolution based in multiple universes, a unification has been sought defensively.

In the idea of multiple , the idea of the reincarnation of the Holocene , was willed to be reinterpreted across the universal template.

What drives this home was the Faustian redemption as a sleight of hand trick.

It is that close, that socialism can upend their eschotologically persuasive inversion.


This again is merely an undefined moment, wherein this objection can be made on any substantive premise of a very remarkably and exquisite work of excellent scholarship.

[Zero_Sum]

Sometimes I'm like "Oh Zero Sum made a new post!" and then I'm like "oh."

Huh?

[Meno_]

Can only figure by a pseudo objective correspondence , Pedro. as far as I am concerned, it is a matter of talking to my self. vis,
a risky autistic sembling ploy : for Zero his dramatis personae are exported.

A subtle rhetorical shift causing a large interpretational difference.

[Zero_Sum]

Everybody talking about me here but not responding when I make my presence known, I'm right here you guys.

[WendyDarling]

Two names beginning with zero: zeroeth and zero sum.

Is our will to power our unresolved need to be whole once more?

[Zero_Sum]

Two names beginning with zero: zeroeth and zero sum.

Is our will to power our unresolved need to be whole once more?

This is so confusing, I'm out of here....

[perpetualburn]

I'm basically an esoteric Vedantika in that I'm a reverse bodhisattva: I don't strive for the enlightenment of all beings, but rather to the contrary:

"The saḿskáras [conditionings] of all individuals could be withdrawn in one moment if Parama Puruśa [the Supreme Youth] so desired. But He does not because it would stop His entire creative flow and lead to the dissolution of this world. [...] To continue the flow of His divine play, it is not desirable that all entities of the vast universe should attain the Supreme stance [enlightenment] at one time[.]" (P.R. Sarkar, Ánanda Márga Philosophy in a Nutshell, Part 5.)

You might have decided to re-enter your fallen state- as did I. Hence my irreverence, my ego, (I would note that my ego is balanced by the fact that I freely offer all my knowledge- the fact that you people- not you Wendy, or Menos either- would rather annoy me than ask for it, is the first test I administer to people I talk to. To see if they're worth talking to.) my flesh-experiments as the Zosimian Gnostics would call it- my poisons, my drugs. But recall the myth of the Bodhisattva. Having attained the nibbanic vision, he refused re-absorption into the Godhead to be re-precipitated into the dregs of matter, echoing the 'divine infidelity' of the Godhead itself, the Creator's having turned his back upon the Creation ... He does this so that he can be thrown back into the cycle of birth and death and rebirth, to exist alongside the rest of the species for another 100 billion years and serve as a guide for others, for others to attain the Paradise he refused. This duplicity, of having attained the highest vision and denied it to one's self... this deliberate act of sin, to fall purposefully, as the Demiurge or Gnostic angel himself did, back into matter... This is what Dante calls the duo ultimos hominis. An aporia or interim between the conclusion of the earthly and celestial paradise.

Even though you are a "reverse" bodhisattva, do you still similarly deny yourself the "highest vision" as Parodites puts it?

[M]odernity was a reaction to Christianity, and the modern ideal is still the Christian ideal at heart. Modernity however has brought impending doom, not just to human nature, as Laurence [Lampert] has it, but to "nature" itself—the Holocene... And I no longer believe non-violent measures will be able to prevent that doom—not with the direction the world has been taking. I think it's time for Odysseus and Telemachus to kill all Penelope's suitors once more—this time on a global scale. These suitors, the suitors of nature as divine, not noble, are not just all those who have the Christian ideal at heart (WP 252, 200), but also those who believe in the immortality of the soul (WP 246, 247). The latter include not just all exoteric Platonists, but also exoteric Vedantikas for example (cf. BGE Preface).

"The doctrine of the immortality of the soul does not require heroic exertions on the part of its votaries—it is the democratic equivalent of heroic virtue." (Harry V. Jaffa, "Neumann or Nihilism".)

The principle of love comes from the small community of Jewish people: a very passionate soul glows here, beneath the ashes of humility and wretchedness: it is neither Greek, Indian, nor German. The song in praise of love which Paul wrote is not Christian; it is the Jewish flare of that eternal flame which is Semitic. If Christianity has done anything essentially new in a psychological sense, it is this, that it has increased the temperature of the soul among those cooler and more noble races who were at one time at the head of affairs; it discovered that the most wretched life could be made rich and invaluable, by means of an elevation of the temperature of the soul

But what we do stand up against, is that ideal which, thanks to its morbid beauty and feminine seductiveness, thanks to its insidious and slanderous eloquence, appeals to all the cowardices and vanities of wearied souls,—and the strongest have their moments of fatigue,—as though all that which seems most useful and desirable at such moments—that is to say, confidence, artlessness, modesty, patience, love of one's like, resignation, submission to God, and a sort of self-surrender—were useful and desirable per se; as though the puny, modest abortion which in these creatures takes the place of a soul, this virtuous, mediocre animal and sheep of the flock—which deigns to call itself man, were not only to take precedence of the stronger, more evil, more passionate, more defiant, and more prodigal type of man, who by virtue of these very qualities is exposed to a hundred times more dangers than the former, but were actually to stand as an ideal for man in general, as a goal, a measure—the highest desideratum. The creation of this ideal was the most appalling temptation that had ever been put in the way of mankind; for, with it, the stronger and more successful exceptions, the lucky cases among men, in which the will to power and to growth leads the whole species "man" one step farther forward, this type was threatened with disaster. By means of the values of this ideal, the growth of such higher men would be checked at the root. For these men, owing to their superior demands and duties, readily accept a more dangerous life (speaking economically, it is a case of an increase in the costs of the undertaking coinciding with a greater chance of failure). What is it we combat in Christianity? That it aims at destroying the strong, at breaking their spirit, at exploiting their moments of weariness and debility, at converting their proud assurance into anxiety and conscience-trouble; that it knows how to poison the noblest instincts and to infect them with disease, until their strength, their will to power, turns inwards, against themselves—until the strong perish through their excessive self-contempt and self-immolation: that gruesome way of perishing, of which Pascal is the most famous example.

The catholic church burned us all a long time ago and confused the ideas of Christianity, re-purposing it to their imperial-political instrument in the Church, and now every time someone hears the name Jesus they think of: well they don't think of the anti-sophic christ-devil of profane gnostic enlightenment, aglaia or apotheosis. They think of that bastardized Roman popery,- that and Nietzsche's not-revolutionary revolutionary attack against that Bastardized Roman popery. It's like watching two people argue about something neither understands, the Christians and Nietzscheans. Then you throw in the Sam Harris/Dawkins type and you've got three groups of people arguing about something that not one of them understands. From a certain level, it is quite amusing.

Nietzsche did not understand Plato, or even Romanized Christianity- Plato's fetid afterbirth. Which is understandable, given he had no access to any of the necessary reading materials. Knowledge was harder to come by back then. He existed to take philosophy backward a step, so that philosophy could recuperate and understand itself again, to then move forward. It is necessary, sometimes, not only in war,- to fall back before an advance.

...And my soul too is the song of a lover.

Such things have never been written, never been felt, never been suffered: only a God, only Dionysus suffers in this way. The reply to such a dithyramb on the sun's solitude in light would be Ariadne. ... Who knows, but I, who Ariadne is!

Have you understood me? Dionysus versus Christ.

Christianity: the birth of Christianity out of the spirit of resentment, not, as is supposed, out of the "Spirit,"—in all its essentials, a counter-movement, the great insurrection against the dominion of noble values.

Dionysus versus Christ (or the Crucified). Does this imply an opposition only to Paul's interpretation of the cross, or also to Christ himself even when properly understood (the Christ that died too soon):

This "bearer of glad tidings" died as he lived and taught -- not to "save mankind," but to show mankind how to live. It was a way of life that he bequeathed to man: his demeanour before the judges, before the officers, before his accusers -- his demeanour on the cross. He does not resist; he does not defend his rights; he makes no effort to ward off the most extreme penalty -- more, he invites it. . . And he prays, suffers and loves with those, in those, who do him evil. His words to the thief on the cross contain the whole evangel. “That was verily a divine man, a child of God!” says the thief. “If thou feelest this” -- answers the Redeemer -- “thou art in paradise, thou art a child of God.” Not to defend oneself, not to show anger, not to lay blames. . . On the contrary, to submit even to the evil one -- to love him

Can this love be harmful (even in its passivism) to the "dominion of noble values" insofar as it will always attract a Paul. Is love like this almost like the UV light emitted from those mosquito killer lamps, luring in the stronger types and "exploiting their moments of weariness and debility." Or is this love still something positive?


Or is Parodites right in that Nietzsche just didn't understand Christianity well enough.

"such things have never been written, never been felt, never been suffered"...Or that Nietzsche is possibly wrong here because he just didn't have access to the right texts.

[Zeroeth Nature]

I'm basically an esoteric Vedantika in that I'm a reverse bodhisattva: I don't strive for the enlightenment of all beings, but rather to the contrary:

"The saḿskáras [conditionings] of all individuals could be withdrawn in one moment if Parama Puruśa [the Supreme Youth] so desired. But He does not because it would stop His entire creative flow and lead to the dissolution of this world. [...] To continue the flow of His divine play, it is not desirable that all entities of the vast universe should attain the Supreme stance [enlightenment] at one time[.]" (P.R. Sarkar, Ánanda Márga Philosophy in a Nutshell, Part 5.)

You might have decided to re-enter your fallen state- as did I. Hence my irreverence, my ego, (I would note that my ego is balanced by the fact that I freely offer all my knowledge- the fact that you people- not you Wendy, or Menos either- would rather annoy me than ask for it, is the first test I administer to people I talk to. To see if they're worth talking to.) my flesh-experiments as the Zosimian Gnostics would call it- my poisons, my drugs. But recall the myth of the Bodhisattva. Having attained the nibbanic vision, he refused re-absorption into the Godhead to be re-precipitated into the dregs of matter, echoing the 'divine infidelity' of the Godhead itself, the Creator's having turned his back upon the Creation ... He does this so that he can be thrown back into the cycle of birth and death and rebirth, to exist alongside the rest of the species for another 100 billion years and serve as a guide for others, for others to attain the Paradise he refused. This duplicity, of having attained the highest vision and denied it to one's self... this deliberate act of sin, to fall purposefully, as the Demiurge or Gnostic angel himself did, back into matter... This is what Dante calls the duo ultimos hominis. An aporia or interim between the conclusion of the earthly and celestial paradise.

Even though you are a "reverse" bodhisattva, do you still similarly deny yourself the "highest vision" as Parodites puts it?

No, I do not recognise myself in Parodites' acount. Rather in Crowley's:

"So as each Master [of the Temple] has his own appointed Work to perform in the world, he is cast down into the Sephira suitable for that work. If his function is to be that of a warrior, he would find himself in Geburah; if that of a great poet or composer, in Tiphareth; and so on. He, the Master, inhabits this dwelling; but, having already got rid of it, he is able to allow it to carry on according to its nature without interference from the false Self (its head in Daäth) which hitherto had hampered it." (Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears, Chapter 50.)

In my experience, the nirvanic vision is the highest precisely because it is the lowest and, from that absolute low point, samsara is seen to be the supreme: the nirvanic vision is the samsaric vision in that respect.

By the way, this translation is really quite terrible:

Such things have never been written, never been felt, never been suffered: only a God, only Dionysus suffers in this way. The reply to such a dithyramb on the sun's solitude in light would be Ariadne. ... Who knows, but I, who Ariadne is!

"Such things have never been written [gedichtet, "written poetically"], never been felt, never been suffered: only a god [all nouns are capitalised in German], only a Dionysus suffers in this way. The answer to such a dithyramb of solar solitude in the light would be Ariadne... Who besides me knows what Ariadne is!..."

A Dionysus, mind you (though I do actually identify the Nietzschean Dionysus with Parama Puruśa), and what Ariadne is: these are the most important things. Did you notice my new signature? It proves that the abysmal thought is not the ER itself. In my experience, on the contrary, it's nirvana ("extinction", dis-integration, (an)nihilation), and from thence springs a Yes to all "things", i.e. to all of samsara. And the passage immediately continues with Nietzsche again quoting from Z "Before Sunrise", although this time it's a subtle misquote:

"Into all abysses do I still carry my beneficent [segnend, literally "blessing"] Yea-saying"...

The actual quote is:

"Into all abysses do I then still carry my beneficent Yea-saying"...

Then? When is that!

"I [...] am a blesser and a Yea-sayer, if thou be but around me, thou pure, thou luminous heaven! Thou abyss of light!—into all abysses do I then carry my beneficent Yea-saying." (Thomas Common's translation, which leaves away the "still".)

Heaven, or the sky, before sunrise is the clear light (from Buddhism), what I've called light-space and zeroth nature, among other things.

"The clear light or the dark light is in fact the appearance of one's true nature, of one's true Buddha-nature, appearing just so—just as it is. It is the true face of the primordial Buddha[.]" (Jetsunma Ahkön Lhamo, "P'howa, Part 4: The Appearance of the Peaceful Deities".)

The heat death of the universe is when the universe almost entirely consists of space. It is, however, the end that never ends, just as the Big Bang is the beginning that never began. So it doesn't matter if the serpent actually bites itself in the tail or not! Consider that thing I said:

'The ER means there's absolutely no difference between your current recurrence and your next. This means there's no more of a sense of déjà vu to it, either!'

::

Dionysus versus Christ (or the Crucified). Does this imply an opposition only to Paul's interpretation of the cross, or also to Christ himself even when properly understood (the Christ that died too soon):

I recently stopped making that distinction, adapting the following passage by Strauss:

"The true doctrine of the legitimacy of Caesarism is a dangerous doctrine. The true distinction between Caesarism and tyranny is too subtle for ordinary political use. It is better for the people to remain ignorant of that distinction and to regard the potential Caesar as a potential tyrant. No harm can come from this theoretical error which becomes a practical truth if the people have the mettle to act upon it. No harm can come from the political identification of Caesarism and tyranny: Caesars can take care of themselves." (Leo Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Xenophon's Hiero".)

Here's my adaptation:

'The true doctrine of the possibility of Christlikeness is a dangerous doctrine. The true distinction between Christlikeness and Christianity is too subtle for ordinary political use. It is better for the people to remain ignorant of that distinction and to regard the potential Christ as a potential Christian. No harm can come from this theoretical error which becomes a practical truth if the people have the mettle to act upon it. No harm can come from the political identification of Christlikeness and Christianity: Christs can take care of themselves.'

Note that this suggests Christianity is a kind of tyranny, which it is. We should regard anyone who willingly associates with Christianity as a Christian, and have the mettle to act upon that.—

[Zeroeth Nature]

I'm holobored.

Actually, a contact of mine recently pointed out to me that "the issue at hand may not be the end of the Holocene, but rather the end of the Pleistocene. The Holocene, in the end, can be seen as a warm period within the Pleistocene." This is confirmed by scientific consensus:

"Although it is considered an epoch, the Holocene is not significantly different from previous interglacial intervals within the Pleistocene.[10]" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene#Dating)

So we're on the verge, not just of the Holocenocaust, but of the Pleistocenocaust... Even more reason for a panhuman pleistocaust!

[Zeroeth Nature]

Here's something I wrote in a private email late last month:

I've formulated [VO, or whatever it's called these days] as "self-Valuing through other-Valuing" (note the Krellian capitalisation). The closest formulation by Nietzsche that I can think of is this:

"[N]o things remain but only dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their 'effect' upon the same[.]" (Workbook Spring 1888 14 [79]; cf. [80].)

This is closely related to the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination. [...]

Thus far philosophy as cosmology or metaphysics (First Philosophy). Now for political philosophy. Why must the philosopher become political? [...]

The philosopher, who as such has gained insight into the will to power (by whatever name), must will the show [Schein], the whole play and spectacle [BGE 56], because that insight tells him he himself, too, is the eternal flux... But what does it mean to will the show? [...]

In the first place, for the philosopher to will the show means willing the more or less stable collection of self-Lightenings that he is (even if that means willing his own death, like Socrates)—in other words, willing the collection of valuations that he is! The show will go on in any case: the heat death of the universe is an end that never ends. But his valuations, being the valuations of a particular being, pertain especially to a specific part of the show.

The most spiritual means to my panhuman pleistocaust is simply the transmission of the abysmal thought:

"The Grade of the Babe of the Abyss [...] is an annihilation of all the bonds that compose the self or constitute the Cosmos, a resolution of all complexities into their elements, and these thereby cease to manifest, since things are only knowable in respect of their relation to, and reaction on, other things." (Aleister Crowley, "One Star in Sight".)