July 31, 2026
The Postcolonial Volk
By Benjamin Zachariah
Polity, 176 pages, $25
You might have noticed that at some point, progressive types began to use the term “folks” to refer to “people.” There are black folks, queer folks, indigenous folks. The change is significant. Whereas “people” evokes a sense of a universal subject, “folks” is particular. It implies a world of distinctions: different cultures, different experiences, different interests. No people, just “peoples,” all speaking with a different voice. From this perspective, “The political world is a pluriverse, not a universe.”
While the idea of a pluriverse has become increasingly popular within decolonial thought, that last line didn’t come from the tradition’s ever-proliferating ranks of academic adherents. It came from Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist. At a time when everything is “literally Hitler,” the comparison can seem overwrought. But it is precisely the comparison between post-colonial particularism and the völkisch right that Benjamin Zachariah reveals with a keen sense of the absurd in his new book, The Postcolonial Volk.
Zachariah critiques the “conglomerate” of postcolonial and decolonial theory clustering around what’s come to be known as “theory from the Global South.” But appearances are deceiving, because it’s not really from the Global South at all. As Zachariah describes, its language and legitimacy claims are crafted in the Global North, exported to the Global South, and then reimported as authentic non-Western knowledge.
And just as it is not really of the Global South, this ostensibly left-wing “postcolonial-decolonial-Global South conglomerate” is not really of the left either. Despite the right’s insistence that the ghost of Karl Marx is currently undertaking a long march through the institutions, Zachariah’s central claim is that the contemporary left actually has far more in common with anti-communist and proto-fascist forces than with the nineteenth-century founder of “scientific socialism.” In important respects, its ethos actually arises from an entirely rival tradition, one that encompasses romantic nationalism, indigenism, cultural organicism, and völkisch thought. It is, Zachariah says, “Romanticism, rather than the much-reviled Enlightenment, that suggests itself as the intellectual basis of the ‘post-Enlightenment’ world that Global Southistan now lays claim to.”
This is why, as Zachariah shows, the postcolonial outlook now common on the contemporary left is so hostile to the Enlightenment and its ideal of universal truth. In his satirical “Twelve Theses on Postcolonialism,” he condenses its outlook into its propositions including “the individual is an Enlightenment conspiracy” and “the Age of Reason is the Age of Empire.” Contrary to popular belief, universal reason and the emancipation of the individual were central to Marxism and the socialist and communist traditions shaped by it (“We are communists out of egoism,” Engels once wrote to Marx), however miserably they failed in practice. Marx and Engels were part of the Young Hegelian milieu, who were deeply impressed by the “heroes of the French Revolution,” and even called themselves “encyclopaedists” after the eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosophes. This is a far cry from the unholy trinity that Zachariah skewers, however much its adherents may sometimes rummage in the dustbins for what he calls the “debris of Marx- and- Engels-isms.”
Postcolonialism does not simply swap out the working class for some other group of the oppressed. Its object is a mystic unity of culture, collective memory, fraught relationships to race and place, and inherited victimhood. Blood and soil in these formulations are only slightly obscured by a thin rhetorical dust.
As Zachariah shows, the postcolonial tendency’s hostility to individualism and universalism follows precisely from its Romantic and völkisch premises. This is why, as Zachariah describes through a number of jarring examples, its language passes so easily out of the mouths of Hindu nationalists, Islamists, and white identitarians. All emphasize authentic peoples, violated inheritances, foreign contamination, internal betrayers, and cultural restoration as a magical solution to social and political problems.
One of Zachariah’s most illuminating examples is that of Benoy Kumar Sarkar, a Bengali social scientist whom Zachariah describes as “a self-conscious and dedicated user of völkisch ideas” and “zealous co-worker with the Nazis,” who is now unselfconsciously revered as a pioneer of Indian sociology, political science, and forebear of postcolonial thought. That Sarkar was a resolute admirer of Hitler, whom he called “Vivekananda multiplied by Bismarck,” is forgiven or ignored by those eager to find in him a postcolonial precursor.
The story is similar, if more well known, regarding Martin Heidegger, whom Zachariah describes as “postcolonial scholars’ preferred philosopher of ‘affect’” and whose defenders’ attempt to save him from the charge of Nazism “faltered on the evidence of his own diaries.” One compromised intellectual ancestor might be a mere misstep, a product of a momentary lapse in judgment (even if lasting many years). But when the fascist affinities of your forebears must repeatedly be bracketed or explained away, it should tell you that something is wrong with your outlook.
Not that this is really possible, because postcolonialism’s epistemology means it is singularly incapable of recognizing the proto-fascism of its völkisch affinities. As Zachariah writes, these are instead routinely “underplayed or explained away in terms of the ‘difference’ of non-Western cultures, which are allegedly incapable of fascism or to whom Western concepts such as fascism simply do not apply.” If the volk is light-skinned, the politics belong to the right; if dark-skinned, to the left, and ne’er the twain shall meet. And so, the right remains evil for its organic nationalism, while the left is merely seeking cultural renewal; the right is dangerous for denouncing non-white internal enemies but when the left denounces whites it is merely identifying obstacles to “decolonization.” It is the peculiarities of the volk, rather than the politics, that matter.
Why has the left turned to these romantic ideas? Zachariah cites the collapse of the Soviet Union as one cause. But he hits on an even deeper reason near the start of the book, when he draws on Walter Benjamin’s much-quoted vignette inspired by Paul Klee’s Angelus Novus. This is the backward-facing, forward-blown Angel of History, who is to Benjamin, “surveying the debris of the past” as a storm blowing from Paradise drives him perilously into the future. “He would like to pause,” goes the vignette, “to awaken the dead and to piece together what has been smashed,” but the gale has got so strong he cannot close his wings.
Zachariah’s intended point is well taken: We can no more return to an earlier materialist left than postcolonial volk can return to the idyllic time before the colonial “Fall.” Both the longing and the backward-looking means of overcoming it are misguided. But Benjamin’s image also answers a deeper question: Just why is there such a passionate desire to escape the forces of history and take refuge in the wholeness of the past?
In You Shall Be as Gods, Erich Fromm reads the expulsion from Eden not as man’s corruption but “the beginning of his rise.” Eden is the central symbolic story of man’s gradual alienation from animalhood and nature in the development of his capacity to reason and disobey, that is, his capacity for freedom. But crucially, this freedom is experienced as a painful sense of loss, as freedom imposes burdens of uncertainty, choice, and responsibility.
“Man suffers from this loss of oneness,” Fromm writes, and “his most passionate striving is to return to the world of union which was his home.” And so while man, in Fromm’s radical humanist reading of the Hebrew scriptures, reasons and argues with God on his ascent to independence, he is always drawn back downward, “to the womb, the Mother Earth,” and the certainties and bindings of the past, nature, clan, and idols.
This is the deeper yearning expressed in Benjamin’s Angel of History. We want to go back and pick up the pieces, rebuild what’s been lost. But the most painful lesson, the one we continually cannot accept, is that there is no going back.
Ashley Frawley is a Compact columnist, a visiting fellow at MCC Brussels, and a visiting researcher in the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at the University of Kent.
@AshleyAFrawley
108 posts and 35 image replies omitted.>>2893984>it is not for the individualYet it is only possible through the individual. The ends are only possible by the means - again, like how private property provides the proper return of common use. Common ownership is coercive and so cannot be constituted by friendship, only of which allows for charity.
>opening themselves upThis would imply a mechanism, the same way Lao Tzu says to empty oneself to become full, but full of what? We see Lao Tzu hold to the power of the body in its instincts, which is the vitality of being (Verse 55):
<He who is in harmony with the Tao is like a newborn child. Its bones are soft, its muscles are weak, but its grip is powerful. It doesn't know about the unionof male and female, yet its penis can stand erect, so intense is its vital power. It can scream its head off all day, yet it never becomes hoarse, so complete is its harmony.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.htmlHere, the power of the body is emphasised (Verse 18):
<When the body's intelligence declines, cleverness and knowledge step forth.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.htmlThis degeneration of intuition is then the loss of power. So, we are only opening ourselves toward up toward ourselves. Like Socrates says, all Knowledge is Memory. This is why I say never to deny the reality of oneself, or as Feuerbach writes, feeling is a disclosure of our being.
>qiQi, Prana, Blood, Vril; whatever have you - it is a cycle of energies in the body.
>the returning of man to the unity of BeingThis was the aim of Feuerbach and Proudhon, but Marx posited becoming in place of being. The fallacy exposes itself whenevet you interrogate Marxists on the object of species-being. They are typically unphilosophical types.
>for marx, practical sensuous activity is the originary preemption of the division between subject and objectWhere does he write this? To Marx, alienation begins by the externalisation of labour into property, and in time this comes to rule him as a thing which he worships as an idol (e.g. the Feuerbachian "Essence of Christianity"). This is why the only proper framing of Marx's critique is a critique of idolatry. Unfortunately, Marxists have made Marx into an idol themselves. Engels (1890):
<Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late [18]70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm>the artist fully an authentically puts his vital energies into a work, he is completely lost in itYes, this is why Plato criticised artwork as simulation. We see this in the myth of Narcissus, where a reflection appears to have substance, but it is insubstantial and so drowns its captivator. The representation becomes a simulation in the myth of Pygmalion, whose statues come to life, the same as God making man out of clay, Hephaestus crafting his wife as an automaton, or the "Image of the Beast" (Revelation 13) gaining its own life. The ancients were already weary of poststructuralism.
>dialectical materialism implies that these relations actually exist before the individual existCertainly, but Marx was not a 'dialectical materialist'. He only uses dialectics to elaborate the motions of history, hitherto being class war, but without the conflicts of labour versus the labourer, there is no progress of the Hegelian Concept - which in Marx's Critique of Political Economy, is Capital; the "value-concept" spiritualised. If I'm wrong, please find a passage implying Marx thought that alienation preceded the institution of property.
>what is the actual substance of our disagreement?You appear to deny the actuality of man's individuality, by positing the ego as the personality, or higher self.
>to me what is most important is the evolution of the cosmos itselfThis is a meaningless statement. The cosmos evolves by itself, so is unconditional of our feeling toward it. It is like the sophists who speak of progress. Progress for what? For whom? Why? How? When we personalise language, we are then able to be intelligible, by also being absolute; for example, if I say "I want good things", I escape the circumlocutions of "progress", "evolution", since instead of speaking about impersonal processes, I give an end to my object which is of benefit, not simply to myself, but others. It is in the progress of life to die, so does that make death a good thing? When one is so abstract, they sacrifice true faith for vain idolatry. It is as the saying goes, "the more I love man in the abstract, the less I love him in particular". This is monstrousness. If it be "evolutionary" to murder and rape, what stoppeth it? So, please correct yourself - evolution is amoral since it has no condition, but you want good things, not any evil.
>you want to bring focus to the contingent and the parochialI do not deny reality; and that is my apparent charge by you. We are individuals. We are living, feeling creatures.
>great men think about great things, and allah is the greatest thing of allOf course.
>the cosmos should be your axis mundi, not individual sentimentGod gave me love for friends and family. I'm sorry that you are lost in the Dionysian orgy and think it's liberating. You sound like Nechayev; no honour, no friends, no family - only revolution. Fuck your revolution if it trespasses against honour, friends and family. I choose my kin.
>>2885358The USSR in its anti-imperialists ambitions gave Palestine to opressed people. Seems like nationalism of the opressed doesn't work huh.
>>2894071>Where does he write this?it can be brought out from his thesis on feuerbach (gentile especially points this out) + relating back to hegel's understanding of the role of action in the development of spirit + contemplating base-superstructure distinction + from inverting the statements he makes on alienation.
theses on feuerbach:
<The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism-that of Feuerbach included-is that the object, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or datum of contemplation but not as human sensuous activity, practice, not subjectively. Thus it happened that the active side, in opposition to materialism, was developed by idealism-but only abstractly, since, of course, idealism does not know real sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really differentiated from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as activity through objects. Consequently, in the Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as, the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-Jewish form of appearance. Hence he does not grasp the significance of "revolutionary," or practical-critical, activity.<All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.we remember that he is responding to feuerbach here as well so we bring back in what feuerbach said about sensuous feeling:
<It is not only "external" things that are objects of the senses. Man, too, is given to himself only through the senses; only as a sensuous object is he an object for himself. The identity of subject and object – in self-consciousness only an abstract thought – has the character of truth and reality only in man's sensuous perception of man.<We feel not only stones and wood, not only flesh and bones, but also feelings when we press the hands or lips of a feeling being; we perceive through our cars not only the murmur of water and the rustle of leaves, but also the soulful voice of love and wisdom; we see not only mirror-like surfaces and spectres of colour, but we also gaze into the gaze of man. Hence, not only that which is external, but also that which is internal, not only flesh, but also spirit, not only things, but also the ego is an object of the senses. All is therefore capable of being perceived through the senses, even if only in a mediated and not immediate way, even if not with the help of crude and vulgar senses, but only through those that are cultivated; even if not with the eyes of the anatomist and the chemist, but only with those of the philosopher. Empiricism is therefore perfectly justified in regarding ideas as originating from the senses; but what it forgets is that the most essential sensuous object for man is man himself; that only in man's glimpse of man does the spark of consciousness and intellect spring. And this goes to show that idealism is right in so far as it sees the origin of ideas in man; but it is wrong in so far as it derives these ideas from man understood as an isolated being, as mere soul existing for himself; in one word, it is wrong when it derives the ideas from an ego that is not given in the context of its togetherness with a perceptibly given You. Ideas spring only from conversation and communication. Not alone but only within a dual relationship does one have concepts and reason in general. It takes two human beings to give birth to a man, to physical as well as spiritual man; the togetherness of man with man is the first principle and the criterion of truth and universality. Even the certitude of those things that exist outside me is given to me through the certitude of the existence of other men besides myself. That which is seen by me alone is open to question, but that which is seen also by another person is certain.by introducing the sensuous of activity, now activity and not just feeling becomes a core carrier of an identity between subject and object
in the spiritual animal kingdom section in the phenomenology, hegel really highlights the role the work plays in the entire game of recognition
<This is the concept that consciousness, which is certain of its concept as the absolute permeation of individuality and being, makes of itself. Let us see whether this concept is confirmed by its experience and whether its reality thereby corresponds to it. The work is the reality which consciousness gives itself; it is that in which the individual is for the individual139 what he is in itself, so that the consciousness for which the individual comes to be in the work is not a particular consciousness but rather universal consciousness. In his work, he has placed himself outside of himself and into the element of universality, into the determinateless space of being. The consciousness which steps back from its work is in fact the universal consciousness – because it becomes absolute negativity, or activity within this opposition – which confronts its work, which is determinate. As a work, consciousness thus goes beyond itself, and consciousness is itself the determinateless space which does not find itself fulfilled in its work. However much its unity was previously sustained in the concept, still this took place simply as a result of the sublation of the work as an existing work. But the work is supposed to be, and it remains to be seen how individuality will sustain its universality in the work’s being and how it will know how to satisfy itself therein. – Initially, what is up for examination is the work for itself which has come to be. It has received the whole nature of individuality; hence, its being is itself an activity in which all differences permeate each other and dissolve into each other. The work is thus cast out into a stable existence in which the determinateness of the original nature in fact plays the part of itself against other determinate natures and intervenes in their affairs, just as they in their turn intervene in the affairs of others, and within this universal movement, each loses itself as a vanishing moment. However much it is in the concept of individuality which is real in and for itself that all the moments, circumstances, purpose, means, and actualization are all the same as each other, and however much the original determinate nature only counts as a universal element, still, while this element becomes objective being, its determinateness as such a determinateness reaches the light of day in the work, and the individuality receives its truth in its dissolution. This dissolution exhibits itself in detail so that the individual, as this individual, has, to himself, in this determinateness, become actual. However, this determinateness is not only the content of actuality but is just as much the form of actuality, or actuality as such actuality is the very determinateness which consists in being opposed to self-consciousness. From this standpoint, actuality exhibits itself as the actuality which has vanished from the concept, or which exhibits itself as only an alien actuality which one only finds oneself. The work is, i.e., it is for other individualities, and it is for them an alien actuality in whose place they must posit their own actuality in order to give themselves through their activity the consciousness of their unity with actuality. That is, their interest through their original nature is placed140 into the work, is something other than a proper 141 interest in this work, and the work is thereby transformed into something different. The work is thus something utterly transitory which is erased by the counterplay of other powers and interests and which instead exhibits the reality of individuality itself as disappearing rather than as achieved.<To consciousness, in its work the opposition of being and doing emerges, an opposition which in the earlier shapes of consciousness was at once the beginning of action but which is here only a result. However, that opposition has in fact likewise been established as the basis by consciousness as individuality setting itself to action as real in itself. This is so because the determinate original nature as the in-itself was presupposed for action, and the original nature’s content was pure achievement for the sake of achievement. However, the pure doing is the self-equal form which is thereby not equal to the determinateness of the original nature. Here, as is usual, it is a matter of indifference which of the two is called concept and which is called reality. The original nature is what has been thought, or it is the in-itself confronting the doing within which that original nature initially has its reality; or the original nature is the being both of individuality as such individuality and of individuality as its work. [ea] However, the doing is the original concept as absolute transition, or as becoming. In its work, consciousness learns from its own experience about this inadequation142 of concept and reality that lies in the essence of consciousness. Therefore, it is in its work that, to itself, consciousness comes to be as it is in truth, and its empty concept of itself vanishes.
>To Marx, alienation begins by the externalisation of labour into propertyyes because in the commodity and private property, there is an estrangement of the object as it separates into use value and exchange value. exchange value under capitalism comes from abstract labour which has reference to an abstract totality of production. hence the object created by man enters an inhuman abstract system of seeming necessity completely disconnected from man's social existence. in alienation, the worker can no longer find himself in the work or in his productive activities. in the process man ultimately ends up being estranged from himself
<We have considered the act of estranging practical human activity, labor, in two of its aspects. (1) The relation of the worker to the product of labor as an alien object exercising power over him. This relation is at the same time the relation to the sensuous external world, to the objects of nature, as an alien world inimically opposed to him. (2) The relation of labor to the act of production within the labor process. This relation is the relation of the worker to his own activity as an alien activity not belonging to him; it is activity as suffering, strength as weakness, begetting as emasculating, the worker’s own physical and mental energy, his personal life – for what is life but activity? – as an activity which is turned against him, independent of him and not belonging to him. Here we have self-estrangement, as previously we had the estrangement of the thing.
>This was the aim of Feuerbach and Proudhon, but Marx posited becoming in place of beingwhat do you think communism is? implicitly it is the actual rediscovery of unalienated existence where hegel only sought the return to substantiality from out of alienation purely contemplatively
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
>Certainly, but Marx was not a 'dialectical materialist'he had no problem with engels's publications. dietzgen is one of the first dialectical materialists and marx also read his work
<It is difficult to pass absolutely definite judgement on the thing; the man is not a born philosopher and, in addition, half self-taught. Some of his sources (e. g., Feuerbach, your book [Capital, Vol. 1] and various trashy publications on the natural sciences) can be immediately traced partly from his terminology, but one cannot tell what else he has read. The terminology is, of course, still very confused, hence the lack of precision and frequent reiterations in new terms. There is also dialectics in it, but appearing more in the form of flashes than in any connected way. The presentation of the thing-in-itself as a conceivable thing [Gedankending] would be very nice and even brilliant if one could be certain that he himself had discovered it. There is plenty of wit in it and, despite the poor grammar, a marked talent for style. All in all, however, a remarkable instinct to think out so much that is correct on the basis of such inadequate studies. >>2894071>>2894266>This is a meaningless statement. The cosmos evolves by itselfthe cosmos is not a mere in-itself. it is a concrete universal with internal contradictions; cosmic existence is a self-veiling. it has a fundamental truth that has yet to been fully reflected in actuality and it has a deeper practical commensurability with spirit that has yet to brought out into actual mobilization. this unveiling progresses by virtue of the actions expressed by modalities of self-interaction, individuals, as they spawn from the cosmos's own self-diffraction. individual consciousness is itself an expression of the cosmos itself even as it is to change it which creates what seems almost a paradox
https://xcancel.com/InfraHaz/status/1672279505774448640#m<Marxism thus regards itself as a type of science. Most people think of science as something purely descriptive. But the reason Marx’s contemporaries called him Prometheus is because he bequeathed a science that did not just describe reality, but participated in its development. This makes Marxism totally contrary to modern science. Modern science places knowledge above its object. To know, means to strip something naked to consciousness and turn it into a utility for the knowing subject. He who knows an object, can control, master, and alter an object. But the ‘object’ known by Marxism is none other than human society itself. And the paradox lies in the obvious fact that society is not just an object, but also a subject. Marxists (subjects) are themselves part of the very object they make knowable. To complicate matters further, Marx does not claim knowledge of society alone can transform society. Instead, he proves that society is already coming to know and transform itself materially in the form of the then growing proletarian class. Most people think Marx is ‘Promethean’ because he wanted his ideas popularized. But the REAL reason was because he had the courage of declaring the return of knowledge back to being itself, and human beings in particular. He created a science that ceased to be above its object. For Marx, the knowledge of historical laws arrived at by consciousness, was being reflected in history itself. Knowledge of humanity does not dominate humanity, but reveals that it was there, and part of it all along. “Communism is the riddle of history solved.”<Why the need for class consciousness? This is where people misunderstand Leninism as an attempt to turn politics and state power into a tool for realizing some goal of the mind. In reality, the role of Marxists lies in spreading the ‘good news’ to the despairing proletariat. Class consciousness, the so-called ‘vanguard party,’ and the Communist state is the realization of the proletariat’s faith in itself. Communism is not realized ‘automatically’ without the participation of a Communist party because society is not just an object. Neither just a subject either. Communist parties do not create new societies, only guide the existing development of society. This guidance is necessary because politics, Communist or otherwise is itself part of material reality. "Communism is not […] an ideal to which reality will adjust itself to. We call communism the real movement that sublates the present state of things." - K. Marx. Without the guidance of proletarian consciousness, the movement propelling society still continues. But it leads to an economic, political, spiritual, moral and overall social crisis. Society eats away at itself as it cannot make sense of the contradictions driving it.<The crisis of Western Marxism lies in its inability to overcome the subject/object distinction when it comes to society. How can society both be a real (material) object, while also given the quality of subjective responsibility? Two responses emerge: The first cope of Western Marxism is a type of fatalism, which Lenin calls economism. According to this view, politics is not involved in the revolutionary transformation of society at all, which happens only because of economics, or a spontaneous uprising of the proletariat. The second (more relevant) is the opposite extreme. In this view, society must act as a pure subject in the form of institutions (party or otherwise), exterminating every trace of its pre-conscious, and objective material being, recreating all society from scratch. But both two sides of Western Marxism are incompatible with Marx’s Promethean gesture of suspending knowledge back to being. In the first, being is upheld entirely independent of knowledge. In the second, knowledge is asserted over and at the expense of being. If society will become communist independently of the engaged subjective partisanship of communists, then all you have is the conceit of some subject-in-the-know passively watching their object fulfill the expectations of subjective knowledge. If communism is just some enlightened consciousness, then what you have are psychotic subjects devoid of any trust that their knowledge is actually based in (non-conscious) reality itself, denouncing the latter as ‘reactionary.’ Knowledge only as ‘subjective self-consciousness.’ The ‘praxis’ uniting thought and practice then is only in the fractal movement of subjective self-consciousness - voluntary ‘action’ becomes the ‘object’ of the subject, who then acts on its basis: ‘object’ takes on the processual quality of yet-to-be fulfilled subjectivity. This is exactly why @conceptualjames places Marxism in the Gnostic tradition: This Western interpretation of Marxism is founded upon a metaphysical distrust for reality. Because of that distrust, good, virtue, etc. lies only in knowledge as pure subjective self-consciousness.>evolution is amoral since it has no condition, but you want good things, not any evil.and what is "good"? if the good can not be found in something of objective existence, then it is a mere sentimentality. anyone can feel things but it does not mean those feelings are the prime determinant of what is good or bad. and once we have finally found what is good, the true master signifier, one pursues it to such an intensity that they lose themselves in it
>You appear to deny the actuality of man's individualityultimately i do not care for upādāna
>>2894266>>2894267>it can be brought out from his thesis on feuerbachBut as Marx has it, fetishism abstracts man as a thing outside of himself, as a camera obscura, that is, of inverting his being. This is the criticism of religion; that it can only relate man to himself by a medium, like what Marx writes concerning money as a medium (1844):
<Owing to this alien mediator – instead of man himself being the mediator for man – man regards his will, his activity and his relation to other men as a power independent of him and them. His slavery, therefore, reaches its peak. It is clear that this mediator now becomes a real God, for the mediator is the real power over what it mediates to me. Its cult becomes an end in itself.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/Thus, where the abstraction becomes an end in itself (e.g. by forfeiting man's essence to an object outside of himself) does it become idolatry. We may read Engels make the same point; that all religion is idolatry (1843):
<this desultoriness and hollowness, this “soullessness” this irreligion and this “atheism” have their roots in religion itself. Religion by its very essence drains man and nature of substance, and transfers this substance to the phantom of an otherworldly God, who in turn then graciously permits man and nature to receive some of his superfluity.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/carlyle.htmSo then, it is not mere abstraction, but the estrangement of man from himself by externalising his essence that constitutes alienation. Marx's critique of Feuerbach is of the same sort as with Bauer (1843), that contradictions exist in society, which produce contradictions in ideas. Thus, overcoming false consciousness does not create 'real' conditions thereafter. The Young Hegelians (Ruge, Bauer, Feuerbach, Stirner, etc.) all saw consciousness as the method of liberation rather than "practical activity":
<Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/As yet, there is a transcendental error in Marx's own method, since if ideas are subordinate to activity, why propagandise at all? We can read Engels on this (1895):
<According to Marx’s views all history up to now, in the case of big events, has come about unconsciously, that is, the events and their further consequences have not been intended; the ordinary actors in history have either wanted to achieve something different, or else what they achieved has led to quite different unforeseeable consequences.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/letters/95_03_11.htmWe see Marx's economic determinism as well (1867):
<Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonisms that result from the natural laws of capitalist production. It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htmAnd if, as Marx says, material conditions result in the conditions of the mind, how has Marx become free?
>yes because in the commodity and private property, there is an estrangement of the object as it separates into use value and exchange value.Property precedes commodities. It can be argued that labour itself is alienating since it objectifies itself. The idol is always a "graven image" and so a result of labour:
<This fact expresses merely that the object which labor produces – labor’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor which has been embodied in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labor. Labor’s realization is its objectification. Under these economic conditions this realization of labor appears as loss of realization for the workers; objectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htmHere, estrangement appears in both the special case, but also in the general case. I treat it in mythology, that the creations of labour become objects of transference. For this, I would recommend Baudrillard's anthropology.
>it is the actual rediscovery of unalienated existenceBut this makes no sense where man loses his essence. It requires an affirmation of human nature and purpose. If man is something always self-created, he is always in revolutionary practice, and so everything is tautological; self-identical. Why is Communism more "authentic"? A thinker like Chomsky sees the need to affirm human nature, the same as Graeber and other anarchists, like Kropotkin and Proudhon (e.g. mutualism as a natural fact, and not just as a political system). Marxists on the other hand have a Faustian perversion to distort nature into moulding clay - criticised by Orwell in 1984; another libertarian writer. To me, authenticity is an essentialism.
>it is a concrete universal with internal contradictionsYou are confusing contradiction with immanence. It is through time that all things are revealed by teleology.
>it has a fundamental truth that has yet to been fully reflected in actualityRight, this is teleology; the end or purpose of a thing.
>individual consciousness is itself an expression of the cosmos itselfRight; this is the ancient theory of astrology.
>what is "good"? >feelingsThe good is that which is done as an end in itself, or as Jesus says, the right hand should not know what the left-hand does. As it is said by the prophets; "good deeds are as filthy rags before the Lord", and the vindication of faith is given by the maxim "faith without works is dead", so what does this mean? It means that one should not seek any reward, since goodness is inconsequential of its outcome; what is good is always good, and it can only lead to evil by no fault of its own - thus, the good is absolute. Further, one can only do good by choosing to be so; virtue is thus also rational - not by a theoretical paralysis, but by the practical reason of duty. The good is that which must be done, or not done. Once you see that war is a choice of the warriors, it is revelatory. For example, there was the Truce of 1914, where German and British soldiers stopped fighting for Christmas. The war machine stopped with the decisions of the soldiers, whilst the generals persisted to continue. The Dark Knight (2008), while being unrealistic, displays a cycle of violence being interrupted, by civilians and prisoners declining to blow each other up - it was wu-wei (non-action) which was revolutionary in this case, like George Carlin's imperative to not-vote. A world where no one votes is more radical than one where everyone does. So the good is that which is absolute and necessary in us. The ancients (such as the Stoics) saw it as "nature", or perhaps "physis". What is good is "natural", and we still have this common sense today. For a good example of practical reason, watch vidrel on the queer question. The ceremony of "coming out" is a confession of faith; it is martyrdom, and so is most subjective, in the Calvinist sense.
>they lose themselves in itNo, it is that we find ourselves in it. Our heroic moment is doing what is good even in the face of danger, you wouldn't say? We are impassioned by a higher duty.
>ultimately i do not care for upādānaAgain, contemplate upon the transcendental clause of this statement. Why do you post on this board if it is not to continue in personal existence? Why market your brand? Why be idiosyncratic? You can try, but you will never escape yourself - because it is you which is which acts. It is like how you cannot desire to abolish desire, or you cannot will yourself to sleep. As Aquinas also adds, you cannot control your sexuality with the will, since all of these things concern our Freudian unconscious.
>>2894463>This is the criticism of religionwith religion man does not see how the messages there are really just an expression of his own humanity, just as man does not see the commodity as a reflection of his own sensuous activity
>It can be argued that labour itself is alienating since it objectifies itselfok but at that point you are not talking about what marx thought about alienation
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want […]>since if ideas are subordinate to activity, why propagandise at all?the propagandizing is itself an embodiment of history and part of how history unfolds itself. it is all an integral unfolding and whether or not the inner tendencies of practical activity get fully expressed at a particular time of history is contingent
>But this makes no sense where man loses his essenceman's essence is historically conditioned collectivity. a random individual can not affirm such an essence in the abstract
>You are confusing contradiction with immanence. It is through time that all things are revealed by teleology. i already said that contradiction here is not a logical one
>The good is that which is done as an end in itselfso not to be done for the sake of feelings. it doesnt matter what you feel your kin is. what matters is what is objective. if you are flimsy about what is actually "absolute and necessary in us" then i guess jeffery dahmer did the good because he made being a serial killer his master signifier
>As Aquinas also adds, you cannot control your sexuality with the willpeople can't control being pedophiles either. it is a good thing just because someone feels something it means it always have to matter in an unqualified way
>>2894071also
>God gave me love for friends and family. I'm sorry that you are lost in the Dionysian orgy and think it's liberating. You sound like Nechayev; no honour, no friends, no family - only revolution. Fuck your revolution if it trespasses against honour, friends and family. I choose my kin.of all the great men in history, how many of their friends and family does anyone know and how much does anyone know about these people? imagine learning general relativity and theres 5 classes dedicated to einstein's wife. wouldn't that be absurd? some things, when discussing the contributions of anyone of actual worth, only deserve to be a footnote. the biographical data of a great thinker or artist often happens to just contain all of the things that are not the reason the person is actually remembered. there is only
one reason anyone is ever great. that is what he has actually done that has world historical significance. not kinship significance. not family significance. not individual significance. world historical significance for
all of humanity (and therefore universal brotherhood can not be elided as that is the defining beneficiary of true greatness). if you want to think small then go ahead but what you are going to get is small. a tribal chieftain will
never have the significance of caeser as a chieftan is only the leader of his tiny irrelevant tribe - caeser meanwhile spoke for one of the greatest empires of all time. empires that large do not run off of individual strength. they run off of principle, logos, objective order. everyday i am surrounded by people who only know how to think small - "what about my fleeting interpersonal problems? what about my transient grievances?". it is like talking about the importance of defecation (the toiletry of the blonde beast..). ah yes, i am sure humans have to continue engaging in that activity too (for now) but why does this deserve to be held to a comparable level as cosmic destiny? this is like spiritual intersectionality - no sorry there is actually only one primary contradiction and the individual is subordinate to that.
the emperor is only legitimate so long has he has the mandate of heaven. arguably neither christ nor the buddha even had a discrete sense of self ("I and the Father are one"; anatta) yet they shifted the spiritual fabric of history in an irreversible way. that just shows how important the concept of an "individual" really is
>it is a cycle of energies in the bodyit very much is not just that. what would be the point of fengshui if that was the case?
>>2894542>someone feels something it means it always have to matter in an unqualified way*someone feels something it doesnt mean it always has to matter in an unqualified way
>>2894463>It is like how you cannot desire to abolish desire, or you cannot will yourself to sleep. As Aquinas also adds, you cannot control your sexuality with the willthese are limitations you placed on yourself because you are thinking in terms of fixed abstractions rather than energetic processes. if i gave myself a lobotomy would i not have successfully have abolished desire? you meditate to set up the conditions whereby clinging is eventually extinguished. also there is a difference between wanting something and clinging to something. these are not the same thing. clinging is fuel, stagnant qi, fixation that leaks to areas where it is not appropriate. similarly, if i injected sedatives into myself i would have successfully willed myself to sleep. lastly i can very much control my sexuality at will by just castrating myself, or alternatively modifying my awareness so i spend less time attending to sexual stimuli
>>2894542>>2894568>>2894544>labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime wantThis is one of the most absurd quotations in Marx's corpus. It has no justification. It has no context. All we can say about it is conjecture.
>expression of his own humanityIn Marx's estimation, but Frazer has a much better idea of religion, that it comes about from the loss of magic, and so the birth of religion is man's alienation from the sympathetic/synchronous spirit of nature. The mark of distinction of magic from religion is the sacrifice, which evidently only emerges from neolithic surplus. The line of original kings to Frazer were also priests who were the administers of ceremony. Religion is hierarchical because it is a reflection of class society. God is a king. Marxists have no theory of magic besides seeing the animistic as an expression of ignorance, while Frazer sees magic as properly scientific, and thus we return to the primitive by the aid of advancement. This idea is seen in Marx's first draft of his letter to Vera Zasulich, that as history moves forward, it moves back (1881):
<The crisis will come to an end with the elimination of capitalist production and the return of modern society to a higher form of the most archaic type – collective production and appropriation.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/draft-1.htmThis is also shared by Terence McKenna's own "archaic revival", or Graeber's new age credit economy, or Nick Land's teleoplectic time-loops. In essence, this is all a discourse on the cyclical time of Hesiod and the Yugas. It is the story of the New Heaven and New Earth (Eden). The abolition of religion is thus the return of magic. Both Freud and Crowley were also inspired by Frazer's work.
>an embodiment of historyBut here again you are attributing agency to impersonal subjectivity, which is alienating. For inspired writing, we see the Muse at work, but that does not mean it doesn't need man to first pick up the pen. It is predestination, not "determination". God chooses particular persons.
>man's essence is historically conditioned collectivity.So again, in your view, under capitalism, man's essence is whole, but simply configured for its circumstance as a wage labourer - which cannot derive a value judgement. On the other hand, I say being a wage slave is bad. I would recommend you reading Albert Camus' "The Rebel" () in which he proves the axiom of individuality as something affirmed within itself. It is "de-humanising" to transgress against man's nature to be free, for example. If "Humanity" benefits by scapegoating a minority, why not do it? You haven't confronted this. But let's say this, if you could gain the whole world but have to sell your soul, would you do it? If not, why not?
>a random individual can not affirm such an essence in the abstractYour collectivity is a dead abstraction - as individuals, we are essential beings. We do not require precondition. All living creatures are individual. All are personalities.
>it doesnt matter what you feel your kin is. what matters is what is objectiveYou keep forgetting that feeling is real. You claim to be a follower of Myatt yet appear to dismiss intuition.
>master signifierDahmer was driven by passion, not reason or philia. It is impossible to commit unnecessary evil through reason.
>people can't control being pedophiles eitherBeing a paedophile is amoral; molesting children isn't.
>kinship significanceI would rather let the world burn that sacrifice my family for a nebulous "humanity"; a grubby hoard of maggots with open palms and salivating mouths. The multitude has no respectable character, but individuals within it are the real substance of mankind. I can make friends with men, but will always be an enemy of "humanity".
>Greatness is a condition of consequencesYou misunderstand. Like all matters of faith, it is not that good works proceed of themselves, but faith is what causes the good works. The great man is always great. He is born great because he is loved by God. This was actually an interesting point of contention betwixt Žižek and Peterson. Peterson sees greatness scaled by meritocracy, but Žižek, following Kierkegaard, sees Jesus as worshipful because he is the son of God, not as a result of his actions. The glory of Christ precedes his service to men. The Communist is incapable of understanding the virtue of charity, since his vicious mind is full of fantasies of theft. As I say, ends must be effected by the proper means. What is causeth virtue? We can say what is good, but whence cometh thee?
>universal brotherhoodAnother hermeneutic fallacy. The fellowship of the Church is the body of believers, not of all creatures.
>the emperor is only legitimate so long has he has the mandate of heaven. Precisely - as I have repeated. Divine right.
>the concept of an "individual"The individual is not a "concept", but manifested reality. Humanity is a "concept" which requires violence to sustain, just like all destructive, fabulous fantasia. It would benefit you to be acquainted with Foucauldian historicism - where does "humanity" begin and end? Is a blood or sperm cell part of our universal brotherhood?
>if i gave myself a lobotomy would i not have successfully have abolished desire? No. Desire is not a neurological phenomenon, but is something intrinsic to life.
>i can very much control my sexuality at will by just castrating myselfSexuality is not chemical, but unconscious. Symbolic.
>>2894592blah blah blah. i will tell you what. come back to this thread at the end of 2027. during the events that shall conspire in the course of next year, and ask yourself: "is this the value of fleeting individual feelings over 'the multitude'?", "is this fate?", "do we not all at the end share the same destiny?". we shall all suffer until the fear of god, the cosmic sublime that transcends pathetic tiny individual fancies, is firmly planted in our hearts, until when we realize collectively, that we live in an
interconnected cosmos that is far grander than what the mind could ever hope to comprehend, and that it is
precisely for this reason that this world must be said to be material. it is either we realize this or we are rightfully blot out of existence
<I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.>You claim to be a follower of Myatt yet appear to dismiss intuition.<If this means killing, wars, suffering, sacrifice, terror, disease. tragedy and disruption, then such things must be - for it is one of the duties of a Satanic Initiate to so presence the dark, and prepare the way for, or initiate, the change and evolution which always result from such things. Such things as these must be, and always will be, because the majority of people are or will remain, inert and sub-human unless changed. The majority is - and always will be until it evolves to become something else - raw material to be used, moulded, cut-away and shaped to create what must be. There is no such thing as an innocent person because everyone who exists is part of the whole, the change, the evolution, the presencing of life itself, which is beyond them, and their life only has meaning through the change, development and evolution of life. [ea] Their importance is what they can become, or what can be achieved through their death, their tragedy, their living - their importance does not lie in their individual happiness or their individual desires or whatever. [ea] - Nythra, Longthat is all from me
actually let me highlight some choice points that have demonstrated to me that arguing with you is a fundamental waste of time as you prefer taking the most petty shallow interpretations of everything you read due to ego. and no i will not argue with you on these
>Another hermeneutic fallacy. The fellowship of the Church is the body of believers, not of all creatures.
all of man is created in the image of god and so we are all sons and daughters of god. in genesis, god breathed into man's clay body in order to bring him to life. do you know what that means? it means that every soul is a mere branch of the tree that is a singular cosmic breath. this unity, this identity, this is the immanent truth of christ's universal brotherhood. that is why damnation awaits those that deny universal brotherhood in god, as they are denying the very basis of their existence. never mention christ again
>Qi, Prana, Blood, Vril; whatever have you - it is a cycle of energies in the body.
qi is the web of activity which glues the entire cosmos together. as it is a cosmic web any vibration in one portion propagates everywhere else. this is how the ancient daoists understood qi. you reduce it down to just bodily processes lol - why would the daoists bother with feng shui then? rituals? what do you think the mandate of heaven is? heaven. 天. the entire integral cosmos. again you are making shallow what is impossibly profound. never mention daoist philosophers again
>You could say that the way of the bodhisattva is the way of Caesar
the buddha didnt even believe in the existence of self. compassion comes from emptiness. when the self becomes so porous it comes to gradually embrace all sentient beings. it freely flows precisely from the continual annihilation of the self. never mention the buddha again
>It can be argued that labour itself is alienating since it objectifies itself
for marx alienation represents a diremption in collective spiritual substance. that is why socialism is the answer to alienation. there is nothing absurd about my quotation. what is absurd is your conflation of alienation with not being able to neet and eat chicken tendies or whatever. there is a reason why marx says that the proletariat is the ingenious soil of the whole people. what you look for in marx is something small and merely sentimental, but what he is talking about is grand, cosmic, the fate of the human species. never mention marx again
>You claim to be a follower of Myatt yet appear to dismiss intuition.
and i have pointed out time and time again that myatt's chief concern has been cosmic evolution, the passing of aeons, and he has very aggressively placed this above individual whims and fancies to the point of writing tales about performing upon terrorism the average person. what do you think possessed him to do such a thing? why would he do that if the aborted feelings of every mundane actually mattered? the "intuition" which is talked about in the o9a is dark empathy. it is the deep recognition of the acausal forces which permeate the cosmos, the unfolding of wyrd immanent in the cosmos, and the individuals connexion to all of life in the cosmos. that is what myatt saw. that was the madness which possessed him - not the immortality of the mere individual hahaha. it is better to die and have your soul evaporated than live the life of a mundane
i am tired of reading your pretentious self-elevation above the common person as though you are anything. you are not anything. you are one small creature in this incomprehensibly vast cosmic existence. i am tired of seeing you abuse quotations of thinkers that were clearly sensitive to something that you refuse to be sensitive to. what is the point of me responding any further when this is the simple, fundamental, problem? i am looking to the stars and you are asking me why i am not talking more about feces
and again again again, i need to reiterate this as this is final:
<i will tell you what. come back to this thread at the end of 2027. during the events that shall conspire in the course of next year, and ask yourself: "is this the value of fleeting individual feelings over 'the multitude'?", "is this fate?", "do we not all at the end share the same destiny?". we shall all suffer until the fear of god, the cosmic sublime that transcends pathetic tiny individual fancies, is firmly planted in our hearts, until when we realize collectively, that we live in an interconnected cosmos that is far grander than what the mind could ever hope to comprehend, and that it is precisely for this reason that this world must be said to be material. it is either we realize this or we are rightfully blot out of existence
take my advice: forget this whole metaphysical bullshit. When you reach high level meditative practices you realize those are all bullshit anyway, since your finite mind cannot exhaust by those colorful representations the austere field of truth. Truth is some times beautiful, rich, colorful, but most of the time is hard, austere, barren. Truth is not this whimsy bullshit you are speaking about, this whole religious-wisdom bullshit. You seem foolish enough to think that what some hellenized jewish hobo said two thousand years ago has some kind of special relationship with truth, as if that same logic wasn't what all religions adscribe to their own doctrines or prophets or whatever. Do you really think that the Truth is such a shallow, superficial, ready to hand thing that some random human or group will somehow exhaust it or get some kind of monopoly/oligopoly on it? Do you really think that some homo sapiens specimens are somehow born with a spiritual umbilical chord linked to some kind of unexplainable truth priviledge? It is easy to believe the unexplainable, one only has to WANT to believe it. The hard thing is looking for the truth DESPITE what one wants it to be. Truth has never been exhausted and never will be, if it could be exhaustible it wouldnt be truth, since truth is what destroys every sedimented dogma and opens up the field of knowledge to new horizons, always. And if we are going to see which of these whimsy-daisy wisdom-religious bullshit is better, or mix them up according to some criteria, aren't we already renouncing this whole special-relationship-to-truth thing they claim to have? Aren't we just doing second-hand philosophy applied to religious-wisdom dogma? You are not far away from schizzo theosophists ranting about lemuria, hyperboria and shit. It doesn't take much to leap from your present state to their schizzoness, you are basically following the same criteria, they are just more consistent than you are because you are still "grounded" compared to them. These wisdom-religious representations are nothing but blind people stumbling upon some logical formulations, and painting the picture with colors taken from this or that locality, and then they are stupid enough to pretend that impressionist picture is the exhaustion of truth. If you see a buddha, kill him, said a wise buddhist.
You two should humble yourselves, and get deep into the use of CONCEPTS, which is the exclusive domain of PHILOSOPHY. Nothing these hobos have done conceptually has ever been superior to what serious concept-workers were doing in philosophy. Only in philosophy there is a systematic shedding away from bullshit like that. Their only advantage are meditation techniques, which can be learn without the stupid colorfoul whimsy dogmas full of regional flavour. Warhammer 40k lore is also full of whimsy special things that are cool to read about, so what? That's not truth, something being 'cool' and 'mysterious' is not the truth. Wouldn't it be cool if there was this qi energy shit, or some soul shit, what a 'cool' world, the scientific world is so 'uncool'. You are so desperate to live in a 'cool' world you will believe the first absurd shit with some semblance of credibility. That 'qi' shit is at most a phenomenological thing, a piece of software, even a placebo effect, not that 'cool' energy shit. Can you learn from some buddhist schizzo how to do stuff with your brain? Yes, you can. Does that mean he is telling you how things ACTUALLY are? No, he is following some discourse they have made thousand years ago that is just complex enough to explain away the black box they got in their hands, and they were foolish enough to belieive they got the truth about it. They, as priests, had the time in the hands to 'just breathe', and then some shit happened at the phenomenological level, they took from their inmediate folklore this or that colour, and painted a picture, and said it was "truth", it "worked", so they moved on and didn't question it. Only in western philosophy, modelled after mathematics (nowhere in any other culture is there something like the Elements of Euclid, no theorems, no rigour), is there a systematic questioning, a systematic search for the concepts beheind the colouring. Don't get me wrong, im not a western supremacist, it could've happened elsewhere, but it happened here, probably because of the information highway of the mediterranean. But those other religious priestly dogmas that got a lot of 'cool' stuff save for the truth and truth-seeking, they are another story. They even think they have a thousand year unchanged tradition, where the actual records show that they are constantly changing opinion on everything. Those opinions they have are mostly the need to keep a tradition that makes sense of shit and keep up the monastic institutions that also serve social functions. That has nothing to do with truth. This is why philosophy is superior, it takes their opinions, dismantles them, reverse engeneer them, show the concept working beheind the regional flavour, integrates it, and moves on.
This is my advice, kids, get serious, you are fighting shadows, you are dressing up a wooden saint with silk clothes. Read some Kant, start with Dreams of a Spirit-Seer and THEN read the critiques, otherwise you are just going to project your whimsy daisy wordlview into it like so many others. Some Heidegger, against onto-theology, against metaphysics as well, but don't get too schizzo on that one. Some Marx, for the love of god… You are so lost kids.
>>2894856>You seem foolish enough to think that what some hellenized jewish hobo said two thousand years ago has some kind of special relationship with truthread hegel's phenomenology of spirit and philosophy of religion then read feuerbach's essence of christianity and marx's theses on feuerbach. religion is the alienated expression of material being and german idealism culminating in marx's dialectical materialism has been the attempt to express its essential truth in an unalienated way. your attempt at demeaning religion in favour of reflective thought (as though both of these things do not spring out of the same integral material reality) is a testament to your own idealist arrogance. the idea that
either of us do not engage seriously in the use of concepts is also absurd. please read this and tell me again whether or not i am just treating random woo as gospel:
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/phil/philref.htmlhttps://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/phil/terseaeonmat.html >>2894856>Nothing these hobos have done conceptually has ever been superior to what serious concept-workers were doing in philosophy. If you will excuse my quotation of a philosopher. Plato's Phaedo:
<The founders of the mysteries would appear to have had a real meaning, and were not talking nonsense when they intimated in a figure long ago that he who passes unsanctified and uninitiated into the world below will lie in a slough, but that he who arrives there after initiation and purification will dwell with the gods. For 'many,' as they say in the mysteries, 'are the thyrsus-bearers, but few are the mystics,'—meaning, as I interpret the words, 'the true philosophers.'https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1658/1658-h/1658-h.htmHere, Plato declares mystics to be the true philosophers.
>>2894770>>2894845>interconnected cosmosPrecisely - but what are the nodes of the network? You are failing to apply the atomistic deduction of seeing that the fundamental unit of a system is its smallest, indivisible aspect. Atoms are individual, but also interconnected, and each (the individual and collective) cannot exist without each other, like a mother and baby. The totality is then only total where it includes all things within itself. By contrast, you impose an abstract collectivity in contradiction with its units of being. You keep invoking "humanity", but humanity is a group of individuals, not something unto itself. The egalitarian thus subtracts the particular man in favour of the universal, thereby justifying all sorts of horrors:
<The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular. In my dreams, I often make plans for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually face crucifixion if it were suddenly necessary. Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together […] I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more I hate men individually the more I love humanity.https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/297299-the-more-i-love-humanity-in-general-the-less-iPlease meditate on this for your own sake.
>>2894845>all of man is created in the image of god But not all of man is Israel. The fallen angels were the "sons of God" yet they are an abomination, no? God discriminates against the wicked.
>it means that every soul is a mere branch of the treeGod cuts off the old vine. He extinguishes the unfruitful (John 15:1-2):
<I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015&version=NIV>never mention christ againSuch fascinating zealotry. Surely a Christian would be more persistent in saving the lost sheep and not deny his universal brother salvation - in any case, I wish you well and hope that you find true fellowship in life.
>you reduce it down to just bodily processesI nowhere state that it is "just" bodily processes - but as we read from the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu is precisely discussing the "intelligence of the body", which is how intuition is chiefly understood (e.g. "gut feeling").
>compassion comes from emptinessThe Bodhisattva is not a strictly "enlightened" being though, are they? The compassion for living things comes from one's attachment to them, rather than the detachment from worldly consequences. To be truly empty denies the possibility of compassion. You know this.
>your conflation of alienation with not being able to neet and eat chicken tendiesWhere do I state this? You are hallucinating.
>the proletariatNot too long ago you wrote this:
>>2893984<communism is not understood as merely the liberation of the proletariat (what would largely be just a slave morality), but rather all of humanityBut now you write this:
>>2894845<the proletariat is the ingenious soil of the whole peopleYou can't keep your sloganeering straight.
>what you look for in marx is something small and merely sentimentalHow? Alienation is a mechanism. It is a mode of relation. I then accept the reality of alienation in nature, while you appear to try and overcome it.
>grand, cosmic, the fate of the human speciesThe fate of all species is extinction.
>individual whims and fanciesYou are an individual with whims and fancies, sorry to say.
>terrorismTerrorism is narcissism. Are the school shooter kids shining examples of martyrs, or are they pathetic, sadistic weaklings? You are confused.
>what do you think possessed him to do such a thing?His sad, Hitlerian narcissism, like all of these anti-social rejects.
>the "intuition" which is talked about in the o9a is dark empathyRight, which actually relates to all beings of whom we have kinship. Carl Jung in his "Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle" (1960) shows how our personal unconscious is connected to the collective unconscious of our friends and family, across the world. So, where we form kinship or fellowship, we become part of each other's intuition.
>that was the madness which possessed himMyatt's writing has never been claimed to be inspired - it is clearly all very intention and rationally imposed. In his biographies he explains how he personally derived all of his concepts, by also borrowing from other thinkers. There is no "possession" at work, like in great poetry. Even someone as mundane as Nick Land has claimed inspiration, yet Myatt never has. The acausal has been insufficiently presenced by him. For some good humour, I suggest you read the "Satanic Letters of Stephen Brown" (1990-2). Myatt is reviled by Aquino, who is the carrier of the actual Satanic current, according to his own revelation.
>it is better to die and have your soul evaporated than live the life of a mundaneWhatever happened to the universal brotherhood?
>i am tired of reading your pretentious self-elevation above the common person as though you are anything. Nowhere do I claim to be better than anyone else - nowhere. In fact, I will freely say that I am lesser than most. I am unskilled, impracticable, parasitic, vicious, and so on. I am a net drain on society and the world.
>i am looking to the stars and you are asking me why i am not talking more about feces Well, keep stargazing, O great woman of the age. Agios O Ala.
I hope you have the greatest life possible and achieve the greatest things. I am content to live as a mundane, filthy and unitiated, unlike yourself. I freely admit, you are better than me, so please do your duty. Why discuss feces any longer? Why keep talking to us mundanes at all?
i see why i was so annoyed here. i have been for some months trying to articulate something very simple about aeonic existence as well as the implications with regards to a sense of responsibility and various fixations. and it is like .. i cant seem to transmit the underlying weltanschauung - the understanding that at the end of the day fleshcraft transmutes the very foundations of existence for everyone in a rippling cascade of effected qi - what it means to embody the initial locus of such a rippling and how the rippling of others essentially remolds your very existence as well. people will read in whatever in the grand scheme of things catches their fancy but they will not actually see the whole. so it becomes a maze of wandering about and not just seeing what i am talking about. and then when i respond and try to clarify the essential point i just feel like i am just being subjected to nothing, smallness, and it is staining the clear cohesive vision which i am trying to cultivate. because they refuse to actually enter into the basic intuition. maybe it is partially because they are operating with their own ideas on what things are. they cant just grasp what i am referencing, but instead want to play thoughtless hermeneutic and logic games that don't actually comprehend what is being said - pointing out contradictions which only appear so because they are not actually entering into what is the point. like when i reference 'emptiness' i am referencing interpenetration and lack of self-standing existence. in mahayana the cosmos itself later comes to be understood as the buddha's body. but i cant get people to just shut the fuck up and expand themselves with the buddha and look at what everything they think is important actually just looks like from such a perspective. how do i get people interested in hidweh project who are racist? are they not able to see how bogglingly pointless such a sentiment is from the perspective of biokinesis and what it means for the very ontological foundations of all of our very being? when i reference "contradictions" in the context of dialectical materialism, they cant just feel what that word means and understand that it was never a statement about logic but a visceral tension subsumed under a higher unity a unity that would be their very own body if they were the buddha. and obviously when i quote myatt on the terrorism of the satanic initiate, i am trying to gesture to the marrow-deep sentiment which he felt. but again, they cant feel that frustration with him - his anger that there was just something that he could intuitively understand but everyone around him just couldn't: the expansiveness of the galactic aeon, mankind's destiny, and the fact that when we neglect to acknowledge the implicit not immediately obvious connections we have with other people, we commit a great sin even against our very own existence. and of course they do not seem to just get the feeling of genuinely being lost in doing something because you are genuinely just fully invested in it at that moment and giving it your all; no reflecting at all, there just being the basic doing - the feeling of full alignment between heaven and earth. no no no, they cant just let that moment sit. they have to bring back the "individual" into such a pristine experience, basically shitting all over it. and i am here just thinking "what the fuck?". it is all just words and reaction but there is not actually any feeling going on. at that point what is the conversation? i am just entertaining someone's autism as they lumber about being lost in themselves not actually saying anything of actual significance to me, not raising problems that i find at all relevant. like "individuals exist", ok? that doesnt elide the desolation that comes when an individual neglects their fundamental connectedness to the rest of the cosmos. im receiving signals about not wanting to be trampled on or something? and it is like, my problem is your lack of sense of responsibility. you can not even begin to entertain the idea of what it would practically mean if all of your actions actually rippled out to effect everything around you, entering into the perspective of the "great man", and how differently you would have to think about the sheer scope of who and what is actually relevant to your own individual existence. that homeless man you saw on the street? you did that. that child starving in a gutter from across the world you see online? you fucking did that. that is the mindset you acquire when you are truly great, when the entire cosmos becomes your buddha body-mind. you only think it is abstract because you can not enter the feeling; you want to critique and dissect a singular image into tiny pieces thereby destroying it but you do not actually want to listen. when you genuinely just take that perspective you can see just how disturbing what the things you say actually are. because anyone can have feelings, like jeffery dahmer for instance. but obviously those feelings were not aligned with collective substance - naturally as individuality itself is a real abstraction from the whole as are the feelings of random impulses which do not fully reach into the full infinitude of feeling itself. he went about doing what he pleased as though he was god. hubris. and that is how so many people fundamentally act today - that they are in their own enclosed world absolute, that they are atomic, that they have absolutely nothing essential to do with anyone else. how can i transmit this basic understanding to people? unfortunately it seems as though ultimately for the majority the answer is pain, and pain shall befall on us all as we have all collectively chosen to forget the very foundations of our very existence, and next year this will become very clear to all of us. i dont even need to do anything myself and i dont feel any need to. the hammer of god shall strike down on all of us without any care in the world for how righteous we were. it will just be mindless suffering and bloodshed until we are forced to confront this very basic fact. oh what is pain? a brief moment in the vastness of eternal existence. have you ever entered into the idea of what eternal life would actually entail? has it never struck you how terrifying eternity and time really is? what could anyone possibly be doing for an infinite amount of time? feel that. we could well all have already lived for an infinite duration of time, and this moment, in our ineptitude and blind wandering, this is the culmination of such an infinite chain of events. pain - yet an eternity in a single moment, where the veil of lies which we call "everyday existence" is torn apart and we are forced to come to the understanding that we are nothing. are you following what i am saying properly? that is not a logical or metaphysical statement. you are fucking nothing. think about how vast the cosmos is, how vast time is, and then look at how small your piece of shit existence is. you are nothing. enter into that feeling. don't argue with me. SEE IT. nothing. nothing yet everything. everything packed into a little nothing. and the fact that you do not see that and may indeed never is just so lonely, comical, and depressing. maybe i just suck shit at writing or something idk
>>2895034Can I sex with the anime in your image?
>>2895034Is this scrawl what "emptiness" looks like?
You are allowed to view *yourself* as a "piece of shit" in comparison to everything else, but you can't impose that on others. Others have real lives - maybe you don't, but please don't push your baggage onto everyone else. Your frustrations are your own. Live and let live. Keep gazing at the stars, o wise one, and stop caring about us mundanes, okay? We are unworthy of your contemplation. Hope you feel better.
>>2895049i am a bit more calm now so let me break this down. dont respond immediately point by point, read the whole of what i am saying
>The egalitarian thus subtracts the particular man in favour of the universal, thereby justifying all sorts of horrorsdoes the great leader think in terms of the particular or the universal? the universal. because as one leading a whole that is far vaster than his immediate existence, he can only approach it in a general way
you talk about the "the individual" but is that not itself an universal? "the individual" is not this individual or that individual. "the individual" then is itself a principle. a government premised upon "the individual" is thence nevertheless premised upon a universality. when a homeless man is incarcerated for thieving within a liberal society, it then is "the individual" he is made subordinate to
and of course, a great leader has authority. when he speaks, the people follow. this is doubly so in war,
where all must act as one, or the entire nation may fall into slavery
so your actual problem has nothing to do with universality vs particularitydo you know what is your real problem? you fear having a leader that tries to force things before the people are actually ready to accept it and when the time is ripe. but of course, that is why a great leader ought to cultivate the dao. because by doing so, the leader
is attuned to the times. yet, notice,
the times is itself a universality, but a vital one. one is attuning themselves to the "acausal charge" of the entire civilization
i do not believe that myatt had everything right. there were excesses as he struggled to be fully able to square the aeonic perspective with the here and now. terrorism is not sufficient, because the world only dances when the rose is fluttering about in the sky. but what he settled on, full uninvolved resignation, forgets the fact that man is an integral part of the whole. the evolution of the cosmos is not some abstracted teleology that progresses without anyone ever doing anything. there needs to be people who are the ones that push it forward when the time is right
>>2895586>does the great leader think in terms of the particular or the universal?We can see Xenophon comment on leaders (360 BCE):
<the power, namely, of command […] one who is by right divine a leader, good and brave, a man of scientific knowledge […] I assert that he who is to have this power has need of education; he must have at bottom a good natural disposition; and, what is greatest of all, he must be himself a god-like being. For if I rightly understand this blessed gift, this faculty of command over willing followers, by no means is it, in its entirety, a merely human quality, but it is in part divine.https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1173/1173-h/1173-h.htmHere, the "god-like being" has "willing followers", by his (i) education, (ii) disposition and (iii) divine right. The condition of legitimacy is thus contained in the clause; that a willing follower is earned through respect. We may read Lao Tzu on the grades of command (Verse 17):
<best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.htmlWe further read in King James' "Trew Law" (1598) and Robert Filmer's "Patriarcha" (1680) that the rule of a king is constitutional, by the reciprocity of duties (e.g. James writes that the king is the protector of law, the same way Lao Tzu writes that the Master allows others to rule themselves). So, a divine leader (e.g. a Hero, or demi-god; an initiate; a Brahmin, etc.) must think of both the universal and particular, by his education and justice.
>he can only approach it in a general wayAs we have read, divine right contracts voluntary service by subjects, and so the agenda of the leader is a willing act of those he commands. The fearful leader is lesser because of the subversion of one's Will for another. It is a violent assertion of one Will contrary to its collective. This is also why the General Will of Rousseau is not the tyranny of a majority, but is authentically inclusive of all, since the fearful leader contradicts the spirit of people.
>a government premised upon "the individual" is thence nevertheless premised upon a universalityPrecisely, which is why universal politics is only possible by a universal class - namely, the "Man and Citizen".
>when a homeless man is incarcerated for thieving within a liberal society, it then is "the individual" he is made subordinate toWell, all crime is a violation of property rights. The thing which the criminal is responsible towards is property, even if it has no "individual" owner, such as destroying public property, or shoplifting from a corporation. This is also why natural right theorists may justify appropriating the commons (e.g. public property) for private use, or may see a contradiction of "property" and "possession" such as in Proudhon (1841). The law in this case equally resists rationalising itself as an individual affair, while burglarising somebody's home is an individual relation. So, all individuals have property, but not all property is individual - today, "capitalist property" rules; e.g. Marx, but this is simultaneously an erasure of private property:
<In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmSo then, we can say that "capital" is our universality, not "individuals" or even "private property" in general. The voluntarists, libertarians and classical liberals (such as myself) aim for the establishment of individualist laws.
>when he speaks, the people followRight, but we must remember; either by choice or coercion.
>all must act as one, or the entire nation may fall into slaveryYes; revolution also combines into the General Will.
>your actual problem has nothing to do with universality vs particularityYou're right - my issue is with universalists posing their particularity as universal, like putting "humanity" over real human beings. The real universality is individual, as you say, and this is expressed by a choice to follow a given representative, which is not given from without. You will notice that my critique is not against men in their potential to be united, but only in pretending that there is an actual unity between all men - there isn't. We could call this (in Marxian terms) class war. You engage in this yourself, by posing the proletariat as "humanity". This cannot be a "universal brotherhood" because it is exclusive, incl. your own elitism against us "mundanes". On the contrary, I posit "fellowship" (φιλία) as our unity.
>you fear having a leader that tries to force things before the people are actually ready to accept it and when the time is ripeThe divine leader cannot force anything, but requires the population to comply. The best leader lets people rule themselves in the same way. If a leader must force his subjects to do things they don't want, he is a bad leader.
>terrorism is not sufficientThe Bolsheviks rightly scorned terrorism in their early writings. Revolution is not terror. Revolution is justice:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/01.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htmAnarchists and reactionaries on the other hand, view the act of destruction as creative. We read Bakunin (1842):
<Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternally creative source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1842/reaction-germany.htmIt is Romance, but only a lustful passion, not loving.
>man is an integral part of the wholeOf course, which means that Man should not be denied.
>the evolution of the cosmos is not some abstracted teleology that progresses without anyone ever doing anythingOf course not, but the internal process of change is still fatal of the telos itself. Quantity turns to quality, but this requires individual units to move in a proper direction. The telos of man is not simply abstract, but directly lived, from within a process. This is "growth" (e.g. physis).
>>2895614No prob, Bob.
By the way, I have gone through all the archives of the Hidweh masses and found your early /x/ posts (e.g. from the Biokinesis thread), and in that you claim to have been in a trance while you wrote a Gnostic "musing" upon Christ and Satan. You write this (13 January, 2025):
<i was in a trance writing this and there was a certain metaphysical vision in my head wherein the whole world was created though forces repulsion and attraction.https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/39585262/#39623004You write that concerning this post (5 January, 2025):
<christ the embodiment of logos. satan the embodiment of chaos. good comes from the marriage of christ and satan. evil comes from te strife of christ and satan. marriage begets strife and strife begets marriagehttps://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/39554281/#39569712This is configured as so on your website:
<Hidweh - the personification of biokinesis, associated with sympathy with the formative processes of the universe as well conscious creative evolution. Whilst Christ, her twin/husband, is Word made flesh, she is flesh made Word.https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/zine/lithp.htmlWould you say that the original post is "inspired", whilst the later work is contrived? I am also sceptical of "Baaelithu", since this revises the Hebdomian Baphomet (Mistress of Blood) by strategy of "deception":
https://substack.com/home/post/p-184842416 >>2895626>Would you say that the original post is "inspired", whilst the later work is contrived?hmm well it might have felt a bit more contrived phenomenologically, though the latter more refined expression leads to more synchronicity like with baaelithu
>I am also sceptical of "Baaelithu", since this revises the Hebdomian Baphomet (Mistress of Blood) by strategy of "deception"like with the manifestation as hidweh, baaelithu is articulated as though she is the nexus of different forces. one of the hidden such forces in baaelithu's name
is baphomet
https://tempel-ov-bernkastel.neocities.org/article2<She in her Wickedness and Ineffability contains a third tie, unseen, to yet another known Acausal Rose-Crowned Queen of Death that is a spawn of many deadly childrennote one difference is that baphomet is mother and bride of satan meanwhile baaelithu is the counterpart to vintrei (archetypal form of vindex). baaelithu also has her own planetary correspondences and such. i think baaelithu is more related to dark empathy with sacrifice being a means to open up organisms to acausal forces which is something this article goes into a bit:
https://substack.com/@annullxiferotherists/p-184751467i can feel the resonances w hidweh for various reasons. here is one i dont think ive noted before
<Through the sacrification or the opfering of both the blood of ourselves (self-sacrifice) and others (ritualistic sacrifice), we can see the two major poles of growth which is in other words represented in the Tree of Wyrd as Vindex (Vintrei) and Nythra (Vesteria). The two forces mix and merge together creating a union, or infinite effect of growth for the satanist as pain is evolution, illustrating the deeper and genuinely satanic and evil, or adversarial, importance of why trials are necessary for those of the temple's kin as a sort of drawn-up symphony, or rondo of alchemical forces communing with one another, as do the causal and acausal in our hearts through Sinister Empathy.when we make the associations vindex ~ christ and nythra ~ tiamat and substitute autoethosis/self-sacrification for chandali there is here described the energies that get tied in during projective reunion. they also have a replication of the formula of the double cross in terms of 388 488 588
https://tempel-ov-bernkastel.neocities.org/article7<388 is not a "being" but rather a constant found throughout time, as all currents are. Alastoros, the wrathful reaping death spirit of war and blood, cultish form of Mars, Shugara, an all-knowing crown (inactive counterpart to Atazoth) of Ishtar, Satanas the ungoverned fire of IAO and the "trial by fire" that all of these Martian-Sol currents lead to, Scorpio the zodiac sign associated with a: the masculine war planet of action and courage Mars and b: one of the three trans-Saturnian Nameless Cardinals Pluto. There's also connections to Ahriman, Abraxas, Gaubni, Sorath and Shaitan along with many more, but this is suffice enough for public dissemination.<The dark daughter is the archetype that the Current 488 sits behind. as well as the black cube of Saturn; as opposed to the black tetrahedron. There is already a long article written (to be published soon) of Current 488 and its connection with Darkat and other numinous archetypes, and as such there will not be so much information about it inside of this specific article. What will be said, however, is that Current 488 represents: misfortune, calamity, trials, pathei-mathos, the earth and the subconscious. She as the dark daughter rules over all subliminals, the subliminal plane and decides who gets results from any magickal, baneful or benefic working (including subliminals or manifestations or bodily changes) and who is doomed to the despair of nothingness and gore. She represents the failures of the macrocosm and the failures and nothingness of the Nameless God and All-Reality. Her symbol is the Black Cat and the Jumping Spider, and, really - all Spiders, given her connection of "Life" to the 480 (Abyssal Spider Queen).<588 is perfection, completion, absolute power and the true idol of the Luciferian Death Praxis and Black Flame Current. The THRONE of power that all of these omnipotent archetypes and narratives sit upon, the "Sitra Achra" or Universe B that we all seek to attain; it is the infinity beyond infinity, the Nameless Cardinal, and the Nameless God; or the Black Numinoua Aspect of Ain Sof. All self-intent, self-affirmation, self-destruction and outer-changes are amplified infinitely through the 588 current because the 588 current echoes into itself endlessly through the cardinal number 3.i dont think deception is particularly more of their strategy than anything else. baaelithu is what they call an "inaccessible cardinal" which sometimes presences theselves in works of fiction as "acausal hauntings". i think she was discovered by them from the visual novel umineko but she is also represented in saya no uta
<Causally, this inaccessibility is seen through their - sly, deceptive - emanations on our planet as characters of fiction; unlike egregoroi or tulpae, whom are born from the human consciousness, but rather these characters are reflexions of the acausal inaccessibility which exists inside of the collective unconscious (centered around the Star Gate of Aldebaran). These fictional manifestations are created in a similar way that light moves through cracks of glass - the glass being the barrier between our causal, three-dimensional bound universe and the acausal, non-euclidean world of which they inhabit."deceptive" seems to be functioning somewhat like "sinister" as a description for a process which ultimately points to the acausal. also these inaccessible cardinals for them are not the same thing as o9a's dark gods for them though related
<We have found, through practical work and external rites, the existence of a particular race of acausal beings whom are made of the similar archetypal energy as the O9A’s Dark Gods, but not quite the same. These beings exist in the three Supernal cardinals beyond the planet of Saturn - as in, if you were to physically move past Saturn using advanced starcraft, you would pass through the causal space wherein there is an acausal existence of extraterrestrial entities in the Milky Way approximately sixty-five light years away. This race of beings are called the Inaccessible Cardinals, and due to their very distance away from Earth, acausally this is reflected in the inaccessible nature of their existence. >>2895049oh yeah also
>but you can't impose that on othershidwehproject is an attempt at an articulation of a new civilizational morphology. it is not possible to simply "logic it" anymore than you can just refute the logic of buddhism based upon a western interpretation of what terms like "emptiness" mean.
you need to actually enter the morphology yourself. i am trying not to operate within the faustian civilizational symbol anymore, and so i avoid using terms like "will" (myatt was still working within that framework hence the tendency to classify people who don't get it as subhumans in some of the satanic writings - i see it more as tragedy than a weakness of will. a "mundane" to me is someone who lacks henchaangjayth or being-heaviness - i have not yet developed my own terminology for such a person, maybe ksiingwn?). this also shows in my approach to biokinesis:
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/how2.html<An alternative definition, one that the modern occultist may be inclined to adopt, would be "changes to bodily form according to one's Will". I avoid such a framing as I tend to avoid the tendencies in various estoeric traditions which fetishize the individual ego, often breeding various forms of narcissism and hubris. Rather, I personally prefer to focus more on relationality as opposed to mastery. Still, if you wish to go down such a route, you may go ahead. Such an orientation may lead to interesting developments in its own right provided you remember to check yourself.also i know the Will for crowley is more than just an egoistic thing, but it often gets interpreted that way due to the faustian tendencies in thelema (tendencies that he himself fell victim to, as can be seen in his battle with drug addiction and making it a problem of his "will"). even taking in the higher interpretation of Will, i still take issue with it because it leans into a "pre-established harmony". also when you look at crowley's anti-social actions, the frequent avoidance in thelema to actually articulate much of a positive ethic, and also the egoistic in-fighting that seems to tear at thelemic circles, i am very cautious of the concept. to me "will" does not give me much in the way of interesting enough new information to include it, and it just feels like a distraction especially coming from my own weltanschauung. i would note too that neither taoism nor buddhism place much emphasis on the will at all either in the way westerners do so trying to insert it in is a western projection. also when you emphasize the point on "bodily intelligence" and relate it to "power", this is western civilizational morphology you are reading into things. lao tzu could not have been thinking in these terms and if you read the nei ye it becomes clearer that this can not be where they are coming from with this. actually yuk hui provides an interesting quote as part of his demonstration that the chinese were operating within a completely different framework of cosmotechnics:
<What I love is Dao, which is much more splendid than my skill. When I first began to carve a bullock, I saw nothing but the whole bullock. Three years later, I no longer saw the bullock as a whole but in parts. Now I work on it by intuition and do not
look at it with my eyes. My visual organs stop functioning while my intuition goes its own way. In accordance with the principle of heaven (nature), I cleave along the main seams and thrust the knife into the big cavities. Following the natural structure of the bullock, I never touch veins or tendons, much less the big bones!notice also how even one's visual organs stop functioning. within the action, separation-of-otherness is completely elided and one taps into a consciousness that is undifferentiated. this gets very much emphasized in the daoist practice of zuowang as well which goes on the influence chan and eventually zen buddhism. so when you make what lao tzu is saying about paying attention to people's "voluntary behaviour" - this is a western theoretical abstraction trying to make sense of the activity. when you actually step into the weltanschauung, the framing is really besides the point. that is why i framed what you were doing so harshly, as i was trying to convey a very clear image and framing, and you try cutting it apart to make it consonant with your own faustian consciousness, and
then you frame it as a "refutation" when you did no such thing. we were not even having an actual conversation
for me feeling is not an immutability but rather contingent on how one resonates with the world. this is dark empathy.
you need to enter into what is being said rather than simply treat it as a series of propositions. if you are not at the right resonance you can not understand what is being said at all. contemplate this zen koan:
<Zen master Baoche of Mt. Mayu was fanning himself. A monk approached and said, "master, the nature of wind is permanent and there is no place it does not reach. Why, then, do you fan yourself?"<Baoche replied, "Although you understand that the nature of the wind is permanent, you do not understand the meaning of its reaching everywhere."<"What is the meaning of its reaching everywhere?" asked the monk again. The master just kept fanning himself. The monk bowed deeply.hidwehproject is not a form of western occultism anymore. one way to see it is as a "syncretism" of lebenphilosophie and east asian mysticism with a soteriology that resembles the not fully articulated russian civilizational morphology. ive even developed a language for it. if you look at the source for many of the roots, it comes from a mix of different civilizations
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/phil/langguide.htmlhere is the anatomy of the human soul that ive written in my notes after looking at spengler:
<holshwmkhoor - holographic-khoraing-enshadowing<dhemwuudh - film-turning<dhwkhoum - accumulating-contraction<aqyykh - emptying-activation<awnycawnwuudh - medium-self-intra-ctionthis maps onto the pentagram in the spirit-fire seal. the triangle meanwhile is an energetic diagram of soteriology: nigredo-albedo-nigredo’ (tiamat, the white light, the black light). btw, the baaelithu people also discovered the spirit-fire seal on their own which is just another synchronicity that can't be ignored. this and just interacting with them makes it feel like we are both within the same resonance even though it might seem at first glance as though we are not as i tend to not just explicitly draw from satanism as much and i don't even bother identifying as 'left hand path' (i also see much of the western left hand path as another western liberal perversion of the originary eastern left hand path where the whole point is to transgress societal norms as a means of going beyond separation-of-otherness and hence consequently an individual-centred framework - myatt was much closer to the originary vāmācāra than aquina ever was, but he still perverted it with the remnants of his faustian consciousness)
>>2897033also looking at the zen koan also compare it with this quote from john 1
<In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.the logos then is much akin to the wind which can reach everywhere. though it is ever present, you still need a fan
the meaning of "god's judgement" and "death" is hence much subtler than it initially seems. i dont think calvinism provides a very good interpretation of scripture as it is operating from a context several times removed from the original. their talk of "pre-destination" is itself a mistranslation of the original greek. the result is a monstrous abomination of scriptural interpretation that always leaves a bad taste in my time every time i come across it. if you really want to understand what the bible is saying, you will do a better job working with middle platonism (this is where the christian articulation on logos is really an elaboration upon) and greek orthodoxy (wherein man must choose to partake in god's uncreated energies and so it is an invitation towards participation .. moreover both evil and hell is seen as god's absence - what we get then is a view of the logos that is much like the koan). i recommend checking out david bentley hart for his own interpretation as well as for a more faithful translation of the original greek
>>2897037bad taste in my mouth*
>>2896764>>2897033>>2897037>>2897067>synchronicityWell, we do we see in the genesis of HIDWeh, an initial claim of synchronicity on part of various posters:
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/39585262/#39613410https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/39585262/#39623755https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/39585262/#39681817https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/39585262/#39694158Synchronicity is understood by Jung (1960) to be the coincidence of phenomena by acausal means, through a collective unconscious, and so is a presencing of being.
>one of the hidden such forces in baaelithu's name is baphometRight, but as someone with a protestant hermeneutic ethos (e.g. sola scriptura), I feel that where we are extending from an original text, there is often intrinsic illegitimacy. In reading the Zohar (e.g. a primary source of medieval Kabbalah), it is clear that the Rabbis are massively revising the Torah. This is why I treat myths such as Lilith, and Samael being the father of Cain, as folklore, rather than theology. It is the same with Jesus being associated with Lucifer, when as it has been seen, Lucifer was always Venus, until Jerome translated the Hebrew (הֵילֵל); helel - shining one, as Lucifer (Isaiah 14), leading to its association with the devil. Occultists in general thrive on bad faith interpretations like this, which is why the occult is also full of various fraudsters. This is also why I stylistically insist upon primary texts, since I don't want to indulge any insistence of my own. In treating of Bernkastel's Baaelithu thence, I can view it within its own concept, but I am sceptical of continuity with the previously Hebdomian orthodoxy. The doctrine of "inaccessible cardinals", for example, is foreign to it. This is why Tempel ov Blood, in imbuing Ford's doctrine of Luciferianism (e.g. wamphyrism) and Choronzon (e.g. Enochian Magic, and Kabbalah) distorts any Traditional Satanism - so I feel the same way toward Bernkastel. It is the Syncretic reflex which often dulls fuller meaning.
>i dont think deception is particularly more of their strategy than anything elseThe article I posted concerns the "deceptive tradition":
https://annullxiferotheristes.substack.com/p/practical-work-of-the-deceptive-traditionWhich is said to concern "narrative magick", and so the revision of existing narratives seems "deceptive" to me. This is why in my own life I began to reject the Satanic, since corruptions like Pride obscure reality. I still view a
Sabbatean "redemption through sin" (as you reference) as necessary for Wisdom, in the sense of "integration" rather than submission to vice. Revelation (22:11):
<He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.https://biblehub.com/revelation/22-11.htmThe completion of things is thus in their utmost being, and so with a greater evil also comes the greater good. This is also the music of harmony, as the high and low. The "sinisterly-numinous" captures this, but not totally.
>fetishize the individual egoWell, the esoteric reading of Crowley's "Liber Al vel Legis" (1904) is to see that Thelema (Will) and Agape (Love) both equal 93 in their respective gematria, which is why "Do what thou Wilt" is the Law, as well as "Love". Will is the power of the Higher Self (e.g. Holy Guardian Angel), not the egoic man. We read in Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible" (1968) a rejection of Thelema, by priority upon the ego, as opposed to any higher self. The power of Will to the ancients is contained in the soul (e.g. All life is defined by self-movement, or Will, hence we say that beings which are ensouled are "animated" by life). Will as a power is also distinguished from "volition" by Kant (1785), as between necessity and contingency. Thus we say that the Willful is moved from within, while the volitional is moved from without. The egoic man is impassioned by objects of his senses, so sacrifices his power to them. This is a meaning of idolatry; unreason. So, I would repeat that Will is spiritual, not of the flesh.
>the frequent avoidance in thelema to actually articulate much of a positive ethicThe only ethic was "magick", which is more of a method. The grades of initiation lead to Ipsissimus (wholeness), which is also emptiness. The Magus in his oneness is a master of himself, and of the world. Crowley said that Nietzsche was a disciple of Thelema, and Nietzsche obviously lacked a true ethic. You are right to notice. This is not due to Will itself, but only Will as divorced from Reason, another power intrinsic to various souls.
>neither taoism nor buddhism place much emphasis on the willThe Will is not personal, but impersonal (e.g. the Will of God). This is why dharma is understood as the static equilibrium of nature; as the resting state of things. Will is given, but by divinity. This is why the device of hubris in ancient tragedies was always a Promethean attempt to overcome the Will of God - obviously manifesting in the explicitly Faustian later on. We do see however thart the poets also praise Prometheus granting man Zeus' flame (which is said by Plato to be techné, and so the seeds of Faustian man begins in antiquity - as a reader of Jason Reza Jorjani, you are obviously familiar here). So, Will is given in these traditions, but in contradiction to the Will of man, who defies nature, creating suffering. For this, I would cite the words of Paul (Romans 6:16):
<Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206%3A15-23&version=NIVHere, there are two 'masters' of which we may serve.
>PowerLao Tzu makes much reference to power:
<Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power. […] The Master doesn't try to be powerful; thus he is truly powerful. The ordinary man keeps reaching for power; thus he never has enough.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.htmlThe discourse of "true" power is then important.
>their talk of "pre-destination" is itself a mistranslation of the original greekPredestination is just a discourse on fatalism in general. I used to think that Europeans were uniquely fatal in their outlook (e.g. by contradiction of the personal and impersonal Will), but in reading the Epic of Gilgamesh, I saw an intelligent commentary upon the tragedy and fear of death, as an end to all glory, and of which the "fruit" of eternal life (also featured as the golden apples of the gods) is lost from mortals. Nietzsche sees that tragegy is historically particular to idealism, which separates the intelligent and the sensuous, whilst the presocratic materialists were vitalists. The symbolism between these are Dionysus and Apollo. Tragedy to Freud is the unconscious fantasy of Oedipal wholeness; a root of nostalgia, which we see in stories of a Golden Age. Nietzsche evidently imbibes in this indulgence. The tragic in its Greek context is seen as a result of hubris.
Also, I have been meaning to ask about this video:
https://kp.odysee.tv/@PresidentSunday:9/scp-610-the-flesh-that-hates-henri:eYou claim that it was made for you - were you speaking literally or figuratively? Is it just a topical coincidence by manner of request?
>>2897098>The doctrine of "inaccessible cardinals", for example, is foreignforeign but it is not completely alien since the acausal is meant to be infinite dimensional. there isnt any reason to believe the named dark gods are the only ones. tobern do take influence from tempel ov blood and i ofc dont like those guys, but tobern brings further focus on dark empathy again. pic rel you see a conversation i had with their leader on the concept of "genius" for instance which is in line with how i intuit things (especially with regards to the description used of "permeabiliy"). tobern also brings back the numinous more which was sorely lacking with tob
<non-dualistic existence is defined not by the “left” or the “right” - or any similar moral opposites - but rather the synthesization, and transcendence of, those aspects of society which limit the immaterial from making its fullest manifestation into our causally observable universe; and to that, it would be necessary to say that our loyalty is to those numinous beings, known throughout history, whom go beyond such causal abstractions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’>Which is said to concern "narrative magick"i think narrative magick is more about alteration of the narratives which we live rather than those of existing literary narratives. this is sort of implied in some of the docs of the subliminals this guy produces but also can be seen here
https://annullxiferotheristes.substack.com/p/blood-alchemists-the-typhoon-and<[…] The cattle stays silent while the wolves, the successive theoretical schemes, prey on them and devours their narrative power through superimposed Autoethosis - which is the form of vampirism natural to the Inaccessible Cardinals, and the strongest form of vampirism in general.<An individuated paradigm understands itself as one perspective among many, orbiting a transcendental numinosity of which it cannot fully render. It recognizes other paradigms as legitimate approaches to the same ineffable reality and holds its frameworks with the appropriate humility, knowing that they are useful maps rather than the territory itself. But the unindividuated paradigm positions itself as the sole center of truth. It treats its frameworks not as interpretive tools but as the pure, fullest reality itself. The crescent moon appearing to be the full moon underneath the shades of the blindness of absolute consciousness. This narrative framework regards all other paradigm as not other possibilities, but errors to be created and primitives to be developed.<The Blood Pyramid is the structure that unindividuated paradigms build.i guess with the imposition of an unindividuated paradigm on masses of people, there is a bit of a deception there going on, though their own practice doesnt engage with that (at least from what ive seen and for now)
>Will is the power of the Higher Self (e.g. Holy Guardian Angel), not the egoic manyes. actually when i said that i know Will can go beyond just the individual ego, i was even thinking beyond that and how "every individual is a star" also integrates the Higher Self into a greater constellation
>The Will is not personal, but impersonal (e.g. the Will of God)the will in thelema is still much more practically focused upon the individual's own personal destiny and archetypal psychology. i think you can draw parallels but i do not think they are quite the same. i am also not ready to call christian universal brotherhood as necessarily the same thing as buddha-nature (christianity places a stronger emphasis on
personalism [not individualism] meanwhile buddhism moves more towards a bracketing of the "person") though you could at some resolution make the comparison. this article does a good job better developing the distinction between eastern and western spirituality
https://qigonginstitute.org/docs/SecretGFCommentary.pdf <The compatibility or agreement of the fundamental psychic state Jung wanted to emphasize between East and West is perhaps best expressed by the self in analytical psychology and the Dao, in both of which there is a harmonious coexistence and integrated functioning of yin and yang The remaining question is whether the self is highly functional in ordinary life with a heightened sense of intentionality. Or is it also characterized by diffuse or nebulous attention as in the strictly speaking non-functional, non-active, purely spiritual and detached psychic state of the East? Without capitalizing ‘s’ in the self and with all its described qualities (Jung 1966), it seems Jung distinguishes the self from the Dao or Self in Mahayana Buddhism that is strictly speaking an ideal state of pure spirituality although it is often said to be transcendent and immanent simultaneously. Chapter 7 of Golden Flower does talk about how it is possible to keep circulating the light without giving up an ordinary occupation. The manifestation of that psychic state seems to be most compatible with the Jungian self functioning within the total personality. A realized practitioner living in such a psychic state as Golden Flower describes has to ‘react to things by reflexes only, without any admixtures of a thought of others or of oneself, that is, a circulation of the light arising out of circumstances’ (Ch. 7; Wilhelm 1962, p. 51). This raises the question of how the realized self embodies or unfolds in a Jungian ordinary life—a question I leave Jungian readers to consider.zizek also distinguishes between different forms of subjective destitution as well
https://revistes.uab.cat/enrahonar/article/view/v70-zizek<Already from this brief description it is clear that the phenomenon of subjective destitution assumes many forms which cannot be reduced to the same inner experience. There is the Buddhist nirvana, a disconnection from external reality which enables us to acquire a distance towards our cravings and desires: I assume a kind of impersonal stance, my thoughts are thoughts without thinker. Then there are so-called mystical experiences which should not be confused with nirvana. They also involve a kind of subjective destitution, but this destitution takes the form of a direct identity between me and a higher Absolute (typical formula: the eyes through which I see god are the eyes through which god sees himself). My innermost desire gets depersonalized, it overlaps with the will of god himself, so that the big Other lives through me. In short, while in nirvana one steps out of the “wheel of desire”, the mystical experience enacts the overlapping of our enjoyment with the enjoyment of the big Other. Then there is the subjective stance described by Giri: the destitution of a revolutionary agent which reduces itself to an instrument-object of the process of radical social change – he obliterates his personality, inclusive of the fear of death, so that revolution lives through him. Then there is the explosion of self-destructive social nihilism; think of Joker, but also of a scene in Eisenstein’s October in which a revolutionary mob penetrates the wine cellar of the Winter Palace and engages in an orgy of massive destruction of hundreds of bottles of expensive champagne. And, last but not least, subjective destitution in its psychoanalytic (Lacanian) sense of traversing the fantasy, which is a much more radical gesture than it may appear. For Lacan, fantasy is not opposed to reality but provides the coordinates of what we experience as reality, plus the coordinates of what we desire. The two coordinates are not the same, but they are intertwined. When our fundamental fantasy dissolves, we experience the loss of reality, which also impedes our ability to desire. (We should also recall that traversing the fantasy is not Lacan’s final word. In the last years of his teaching, he proposed as the final moment of the analytic process identification with the symptom, a gesture that enables us to have a moderately acceptable form of life.)the differences are subtle but they very much are there especially when it comes to practice and when you think
ontologically (a la heidegger) rather than
metaphysically (admittedly i might have been interpreting myatt a bit too metaphysically at times .. he is certainly personalistic though i would still say this is not an individualism). in recognizing this i organized pic rel to locate some terms. note that Self and Other are in reference to peter hamilton-giles's understanding so that the Higher Self in thelema is more like the Other
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385485403_Meta-Reflecting_the_Otheralso i would say that with hidweh project it is probably an inbetween between the subjective destitution of nirvana and the immediate identification between the subject and the divine. this is done by expanding the porousness of the intention, energy body, and godform into interpenetrating fields
>Lao Tzu makes much reference to powernotice in that quote its paradoxical framing? it is not meant to be a particularly significant term in its own right. qi is more of an accumulation nervous reactivity in this context (or what i would call "activation")
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00556/full<Thus, it remains controversial whether the revisions of affordance can free the concept from its original limitations. First, the means by which potential effectivity can be activated should be determined. Direction indicates what is implied with a bi-direction relation, such as subject-to-object or object-to-subject (e.g., Dotov et al., 2012). Second, how can potential effectivity be activated in a situation? Is effectivity primed by the mind, matter (or the body) or both? Third, it is understood that affordance is coextensive with information. Is it possible that affordance and information are not differentiated in concept and reality (c.f., Fajen et al., 2009)? In proposing a third paradigm, it is necessary to specify the entity that subordinates both the mind and the material and thus affects both the subject and the object. Therefore, this paper argues that one such third entity, Gih, as discussed by Choi (1857) and by Lee and Shaw (unpublished), is defined as potential activation. The argument is threefold. First, Gih is specified, not as static potential, but as activation without purpose. Second, Gih specifies bi-directional interactions between subject and object. Third, Gih is psychosomatic, thus relating the mind and the body. These three propositions indicate that when refined, the concept of Gih extends the understanding of the coordination of perception and action beyond that proposed by the concept of affordance.here we see how relevant non-personalism is for a different paradigm of psychology that moves beyond both the traditional as well as what has been hitherto the "ecological" (gibson et al.)
>Predestination is just a discourse on fatalism in generalyeah but the original greek was not referencing any of that. the error i believe came when they used a latin calque of a greek term which completely changed the connotations
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/anent-garry-wills-and-the-dbh-version/<After all, one can be predestined to any number of ends, and the later fully developed picture of “hell” need not be one of the destinations on offer. I refuse that translation for the very simple reason that that is not what the word means, even though such a definition has backed its way into some lexicons as a result of theological tradition. The reason that a theology of predestination never took shape in the Greek-speaking Eastern Christian world is because, well, it was Greek-speaking. Again, I lay this out in my postscript.then you combine this with sola scriptura which can completely butcher texts especially as you have semantic drift and mistranslations.. i guess i am more of a "traditionalist" of sorts even though i am not a christian. still like hegel though
>were you speaking literally or figuratively?figurarively
This thread should be on /ufo/ at that point, pure nonsensical two-way discussion
>>2882946>what was actually unique to the german right within that general epoch was the concept of volksgemeinschaft as well as an existential particularism that later gets linked to racial mythology … overall, i wouldnt be surprised if the nazis survived till the present day, they would turn out to be extremely woke, maybe more so than the us is now, as their emphasis on particularism would move against the rainbow imperialism the west employs to justify foreign interventionAlso see Leni Riefenstahl's photographs of the Nuba. I think there was a strong current running through Nazi ideology of there being an inseperable and organic connection between the German people and the particular natural environment in Germany. "Blood and soil." It's like the blood-race and the dark forests in that country interact in some kind of spiritual or interesting way.
>and we have data on the fact that religious communes tend to last longer than secular communes.. meanwhile the western left, which is convinced that the future is globalist dissolution of all local collective identities, has ultimately achieved nothing… But the effects of technology and urbanization on the world has been just unbelievable! Like whatever you think about the Western left, particular identities are just getting rendered no matter what. The 21st century is still just beginning. Like it might be said that the 20th century really started to accelerate into high gear at the end of World War I and the revolutionary transformations that occurred in the aftermath of that. We're in the 2020s now. We really don't know what the world will look like in 2100 but show people from 100 years ago a Turkish girl-pop group that is a hybrid of hyper-modern American, Korean and European cultural influences, it might as well be out of some science fiction.
>>2897150>there isnt any reason to believe the named dark gods are the only onesWell, the Cardinals are not strictly seen as Dark Gods (e.g. unconscious archetypes of the Sinister Tarot), but as it is written, they are extra-terrestrial (e.g. "acausal"):
<We have found, through practical work and external rites, the existence of a particular race of acausal beings whom are made of the similar archetypal energy as the O9A’s Dark Gods, but not quite the same. These beings exist in the three Supernal cardinals beyond the planet of Saturn - as in, if you were to physically move past Saturn using advanced starcraft, you would pass through the causal space wherein there is an acausal existence of extraterrestrial entities in the Milky Way approximately sixty-five light years away. This race of beings are called the Inaccessible Cardinals, and due to their very distance away from Earth, acausally this is reflected in the inaccessible nature of their existence.https://annullxiferotheristes.substack.com/p/practical-work-of-the-deceptive-traditionHere, acausality is seen as a distance of space-time.
>PermeabilityRight; Socrates claims to know nothing - which is why Plato separates Knowledge (episteme) from Wisdom (sophia). To know nothing is to be full of "intelligence":
<I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html>universal brotherhoodWe see below that Rousseau's General Will is universal, since it includes "every part" of the body politic, rather than being a tyranny of the majority. Kiekegaard writes that the crowd presents its particular parts as whole, and so abstracts a false universality - the same as that which is written by Engels; that parts cannot be whole by virtue of generalisation. Kiekegaard also aptly writes that the leader of a "crowd" must hate humanity, such as reflected in the words of Dostoevsky. The true "equality" of men, Kiekegaard continues, is in loving a "neighbour", who is not a member of the crowd, but is an individual. Here, we see what I have written, that we cannot love men in general, but only singularly, by kinship relations. The abstraction of the multitude according from Murray Rothbard thus exacts the direct opposite of justice, in seeing the innocent as guilty, and this is also elaborated on by Samuel Francis. All injustice is then born from the cause of tyranny; a "mob rule" of dictatorial contempt. It is impossible for the multitude to be totalising and so to be universal, because it excludes all those against itself - and in the end; justice, order, and all virtue is inverted.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Political Economy (1755):
<The body politic, therefore, is also a moral being possessed of a will; and this general will, which tends always to the preservation and welfare of the whole and of every part, and is the source of the laws, constitutes for all the members of the State, in their relations to one another and to it, the rule of what is just or unjust […] the most general will is always the most just also, and that the voice of the people is in fact the voice of God.https://constitution.org/2-Authors/jjr/polecon.htmFriedrich Engels - 'Outlines' (1843):
<The term national wealth has only arisen as a result of the liberal economists’ passion for generalisation. As long as private property exists, this term has no meaning. The “national wealth” of the English is very great and yet they are the poorest people under the sun.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htmSøren Kierkegaard - The Crowd is Untruth (1847):
<A crowd […] in its very concept - is untruth […] The untruth is first that it is "the crowd," which does either what only the single individual in the crowd does, or in every case what each single individual does. For a crowd is an abstraction, which does not have hands; each single individual, on the other hand, normally has two hands […] There is therefore no one who has more contempt for what it is to be a human being than those who make it their profession to lead the crowd […] to honor every individual human being, unconditionally every human being, that is the truth and fear of God and love of "the neighbor"; but ethico-religiously viewed, to recognize "the crowd" as the court of last resort in relation to "the truth," that is to deny God and cannot possibly be to love "the neighbor." And "the neighbor" is the absolutely true expression for human equalityhttps://www.ccel.org/ccel/kierkegaard/untruth/files/untruth.htmlFyodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov (1880):
<The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular […] the more I detest men individually the more ardent becomes my love for humanity.https://www.ccel.org/ccel/dostoevsky/karamozov/files/book02/chapter04.htmlMurray Rothbard - For A New Liberty (1979):
<"Society” is everyone but yourself. […] Consider the typical view that not the individual criminal, but “society,” is responsible for his crime […] It would follow, then, that if society is responsible for crime, and criminals are not responsible for crime, only those members of society who do not commit crime can be held responsible for crime.https://mises.org/online-book/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto/chapter-2-property-and-exchange/society-and-individualSamuel Francis - Anarcho-Tyranny, U.S.A. (1994):
<While one characteristic of anarcho-tyranny is its propensity to criminalize and punish the innocent and the law-abiding while refusing to punish the criminals, another is its refusal to enforce the laws it has already enacted and to enact more laws that have no effect on real crime and that further criminalize the innocent or restrict their rights.https://www.unz.com/print/Chronicles-1994jul-00014/Only the love of a neighbour (e.g. fellowship) is universal.
>when you think ontologically rather than metaphysicallyOntology (the study of being) is metaphysical (based on first principles). Being begins propositionally, which is why the mystical (e.g. non-propositional) experience is not one of being, but of nothingness - like a dream. Once we come into reflection, we already mediate experience.
>notice in that quote its paradoxical framing?Exactly. Freud's analysis of "phallus" is also apt. We see the term "fragile masculinity" today present a paradox.
>the original greek was not referencing any of thatWell, we see that predestination is largely commentary by Paul, so it is primarily conceptual:
https://biblehub.com/greek/4309.htmThe context for my use of predestination was to show the way in which the Will of God and man intersect, by an assignment of fate, but only retroactive of one's own causes for a prophecy to become realised, such as we may read in Sophocles' Oedpius Rex (420 BCE), and in the Biblical context, Jacob and Esau - did God's hated for Esau precede and thus cause the selling of birthright to Jacob? It must have, the same way Pharaoh's heart is hardened according to the scripture. Exodus (7-8):
<I will harden Pharaoh's heart […] Pharaoh hardened his hearthttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%207&version=KJVSo we see both God and Pharaoh act toward this end. I think it is mistaken to view things purely through the Will of one over the other thus, least either Will be denied. We read in the Lord's prayer "Thy Will be done", but if the Will is unconditional, whence cometh the plea? We see the same issue of causal predestination in the Quran (2:7):
<As for those who persist in disbelief, it is the same whether you warn them or not—they will never believe. Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and their sight is covered. They will suffer a tremendous punishment.https://quran.com/al-baqarah/7Man is punished for disbelief, from the sealing of his heart by Allah.
>>2882946>Why National-Socialism is Not Racist soooooooo dumb
>i wouldnt be surprised if the nazis survived till the present day, they would turn out to be extremely wokethe world would be a better place without imageboard pseuds
>>2897168>But the effects of technology and urbanization on the world has been just unbelievable! technological progress is not linear (see cosmotechnics .. also the move towards higher global connectivity is primarily a function of industrial capital) and we are going to see more of imperialism turning inwards and nations becoming more balkanized and enclosed unto themselves so i am skeptical the current trends we have seen are going to continue
>but show people from 100 years ago a Turkish girl-pop group that is a hybrid of hyper-modern American, Korean and European cultural influences, it might as well be out of some science fictionsyncretism has been a thing throughout human history. check out manichaeism. i think a problem is that the left overestimates deterritorialization while the right acts as though different cultures were bestowed by god and they were not formed through various mixings not just geographical isolation
>>2897178>the world would be a better place without imageboard pseudsnice gut reactions but what are your arguments? the nazis took manifest destiny and eugenics from america, and america didnt even have universal suffrage for all races and look at america now. a lot of woke stuff that talks about "lived experiences" is based upon the thought of nazi thinkers like heidegger. there was also the diachronic development of national socialist racial theory in a direction that was increasingly less supremacist (makes sense since you cant be an existential particularist and a supremacist). if the nazis completed their own genocide and manifest destiny, why exactly wouldnt they not then practically memory hole their history in a hundred years like americans do now? especially since capital would naturally lead to the importation of 3rd world cheap labour? when you stop holding nazis on a pedestal of evil and see all the genocides european capitalist nations have done before them it doesnt seem that absurd
>>2897184actually there is an excellent SCP on this which is SCP-6140. here, the evil oppressive daevite empire finally breaches into the present and … they just end up being a modern liberal nation. well duh history is a thing
>>2897192so you have no argument and you concede. thanks
>>2897194>debate me debate me debate me debate me debate me hahaha you CONCEDE. I win. I win the debate. im the winner.debate addict pseuds need mental help, not another 12 hours online spewing fascist garbage
>>2897198>i am not a fascist or a nazi thoughI dont believe you. the weeb avatars and weird conflation of liberalism and fascism have convinced me otherwise
>>2897202>weird conflation of liberalism and fascismoh dear are you lost? liberals are funding a state actively genociding children
right now and you think relating the two at all is weird hahahaha wow. it is called material analysis. i gave the material reasons why the nazis did the things they did. when bourgeois countries developed scientific racism, that was also based upon particular material relations (i.e. colonialism, slavery) demanding superstructural justification
>weirda lot of western leftists do this thing where they just sort of react to the vibes of what you are saying instead of any of the content. of course you can not engage with the content because you have nothing
for what it is worth vid rel points out similar things that i do and this guy is a marxist leninist soooo
now get out. this is my thread now since that post already conquered it
>>2897172>Here, acausality is seen as a distance of space-time.i dont think they are referring to causal space-time. you have in myatt's writing the entertaining of developing a new mathematics to articulate an "acausal manifold". you can see elsewhere in the article they describe an "acausal universe"
<that, at various points in history, there were multiple individuals whom, unconsciously, crossed throughout the acausal map re-presented in the causally observable form known as the Higher Cardinal Parallel, and immortalized themselves in a non-linear, confusing and metaphysical way on the planet of Aldebaran in the acausal universe, - such as that of Elizabeth Bathory, Gilles de Rais and Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova.i still wouldnt characterize the acausal this way myself, especially as really having "planets" though it could be more metaphorical
>Only the love of a neighbour (e.g. fellowship) is universal.to me it is not simply an abstract prescriptive statement but rather an ontological (and i suppose also metaphysical one) one. it is like the mystic who achieves divine transparency and sees all of creation as God. that does not mean automatically the prescription that all of creation ought to be worshipped (though vamacharans take things that far), but it does result in a particular reverence and respect for all beings. there is a particular route of "soulmaking" which is entailed here where one's phenomenological reality and intuitive means of rendering various situations intelligible is actively transformed. so for instance if you intuitively understand all men as brothers, you are less likely to want to mistreat your geopolitical neighbours. so there is a deeper generalizability there that transcends a particular prescription. you can view this then as something like what dugin would call a "logos" or resonant hyper-logic. this might be an interesting video which sort of expands more on this concept of soulmaking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acieNjS1hoIthis is also a nice little site
https://hermesamara.org/teachings/soulmaking-dharma>Ontology (the study of being) is metaphysical (based on first principles)well for heidegger, ontology is explicitly differentiated from metaphysics and is more the study of the general structures of the world's disclosure. so it is more to do with the background structure of meaning and the intelligible itself. hence it is more like transcendental philosophy or phenomenology rather than metaphysics. when you try to cut up the world into analyzable pieces you enter into present-at-hand, which is a particular way of being in the world in its own right. you can sort of get back to something like metaphysics through ontology but it is a roundabout path. zizek does this by basically positing Being itself as a superposition of different modes of being in the world, and this becomes his interpretation of quantum mechanics. hence liberal ontology would be a particular "wave function collapse" of Being's hyper-structure. deleuze's transcendental empiricism could also probably be interpreted as a post-heideggerian materialist metaphysics as can aeonic materialism. the different modes of being can hence interact with each other in the same reality but they also have their own relative autonomy
also as a side note it is interesting to compare this with analytic philosophy's own "post-modern" turn. we see with quine the reinterpretation of ontology to mean a particular explanatory vocabulary
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-commitment/<Meta-ontology concerns itself with the nature and methodology of ontology, with the interpretation and significance of ontological questions such as those exhibited above. The problem of ontological commitment is a problem in meta-ontology rather than ontology proper.[1] The meta-ontologist asks (among other things): What entities or kinds of entity exist according to a given theory or discourse, and thus are among its ontological commitments? Having a criterion of ontological commitment for theories is needed, arguably, if one is to systematically and rigorously attack the problem of ontology: typically, we accept entities into our ontology via accepting theories that are ontologically committed to those entities. A criterion of ontological commitment, then, is a pre-requisite for ontological inquiry.<A theory is committed to those and only those entities to which the bound variables of the theory must be capable of referring in order that the affirmations made in the theory be true. [2] (Quine 1948: 33)analytic metaphysics has waaay more wacky stuff than post-structuralism as this is their starting foundations. for instance you have people who unironically write books about why "the world" doesn't exist (see markus gabriel) or how
nothing existshttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2021.1934268i actually think there are good reasons to be an ontological nihilist (within the context of what analytic philosophers call 'ontology') given for instance nottale's scale-relativity in physics and biology
>The context for my use of predestination was to show the way in which the Will of God and man intersect, by an assignment of fate, but only retroactive of one's own causes for a prophecy to become realisedi see
>>2897282>i dont think they are referring to causal space-timeThey describe a specific distance through causal space:
<you would pass through the causal space wherein there is an acausal existence of extraterrestrial entities in the Milky Way approximately sixty-five light years away. https://annullxiferotheristes.substack.com/p/practical-work-of-the-deceptive-tradition>the acausal universeWhich as described, is implied to simply be beyond the solar system
>an ontological (and i suppose also metaphysical one) oneRight - I use Jung (1960) to show how a collective unconscious forms between friends and family:
<An acquaintance of mine saw and experienced in a dream the sudden death of a friend, with all the characteristic details. The dreamer was in Europe at the time and the friend in America […] We often dream about people from whom we receive a letter by the next post.This has happened to me frequently; that I have had a dream about someone just before they call me - so the techniques of communication are variable to sympathy. Me and my sister have been able to read each other's minds by intuition, but when intention is applied, the gut feeling is diluted, and the connection is lost. In the case I am discussing, me and my sister asked each other to come up with numbers between 0–100, and the RNG of the results proves a determinate coincidence of data. Identical twins obviously demonstrate a soul connection.
>if you intuitively understand all men as brothers, you are less likely to want to mistreat your geopolitical neighboursI find this to be too ethnocentric, which also disregards the narcissism of small differences; Ukrainians and Russians are "brothers", the same as Pakistanis and Indians, yet they hate each other - whilst a human being and a dog can have a symbiotic relationship. A dog is not a "brother", but "man's best friend". So "soulmaking" is ideally seen as fellowship, like Christ says (Matt 18):
<For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018%3A20&version=NIVAnimals are also worshipful of God (Job 7):
<ask the animals, and they will teach youhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2012%3A7-10&version=NIV>"the world" doesn't exist (see markus gabriel) or how nothing existsThis is the only consistent view of totality (Hegel):
<Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothinghttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htmThis is also why the Tao is no-thing, like Plato's Good or the Hindu Brahman. Every-thing is no-thing, it seems. Thus as Žižek writes, the material world is "less than nothing". It is the absence of an absence.
>natives resisting their genocide and cultural erasure is Nazism
We have this thread every week
>>2897232moralistic argument
>>2897367i already gave a materialistic explanation though for both of their behaviours… if you are going to deny the plausibility of what i said because "uhh the nazis were just too evil" then you are the moralist not me
>>2897320>you would pass through the causal space wherein there is an acausal existence of extraterrestrial entities in the Milky Way approximately sixty-five light years away.i think it is referring to a nexion to the planet though i can try to confirm with them what they mean
>This has happened to me frequently; that I have had a dream about someone just before they call meoh yeah this is really interesting. it seems like there might have been a time in human prehistory where it was far more common for entire tribes to be extremely in tune with one another
<As Rupert Sheldrake reports in The Sense of Being Stared At, Europeans who have gone hunting with the Bushmen in the Kalahari Desert of southern Africa have noticed that the tribe, whose encampment is as much as fifty miles away from the hunting site, seems to know whether or not the hunt has been successful.82 If it has been, preparations to welcome the victorious hunters begin to be made immediately so that by the time they actually return everything is in order for a ceremonious reception. When queried about this ability, the tribesmen who were somewhat familiar with the colonial culture tapped their chests and drew a comparison to the telegraph: “They know by wire. We bushmen have a wire here that brings us news.” There is a strong correlation between the technological development of artificial aids to navigation – such as signposts, maps, and compasses – and the atrophy of this primordial experience of directional orientation towards things of concern in their places.i think modern cultures likely further lost this ability as life became more rationally mediated and it might also be comparatively harder to maintain as there are more people. but you can imagine that stuff like gods might have at some point have a much more real presence due to this acuasal syncing. actually this also takes me to the piraha. often what gets emphasized about these guys is that they are atheists, but they actually do believe in spirits but they are for them very tangible entities
<Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that "Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle." Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach.[7]one thing you can also think about is also the "bicameral mind" that jaynes seemingly observed in civilizations before bronze age collapse and how afterwards ancient peoples would draw depictions where the gods would no longer be at their thrones and such. what if the bronze age collapse triggered a dispersal of the acausal energies within these civilizations? this would provide evidence for aeonic materialism insofar as we would see material relations effecting psychic phenomena in a very profound way. actually this is making me think of hegels critique of psychic abilities. he believed they actually did exist but that they represented an inferior form of knowledge
https://brill.com/view/journals/arie/8/1/article-p20_3.xml?ebody=Article%20details<There follows, by a curious transition, a discussion of the nature of sensation, and then we pass to the section on “Feeling Soul”, the second major division of Anthropology. Hegel’s discussion of feeling, and of the difference between sensation and feeling, is obscure to say the least. Whereas sensations are fleeting, feeling seems to involve the coordination of sensations. But we are not yet at the conscious level, where sense-impressions have been coordinated into a coherent experience of the world around us. Th e soul is, again, ‘the sleep of Spirit’. Th e natural soul is nature within us; all that which lives and works within us unconsciously. In feeling soul, on the other hand, we find the first glimmer of awareness. Feeling soul is the great depth of the psyche: a congeries of impressions, sensations, intuitions. At this level, however, no firm distinction has been made between the subjective and the objective. Human life begins at this level, and individual identity must be carved out of it (which is, in effect, what is involved in the transition to Actual Soul).<Hegel claims that feeling can actually take place without the apparent mediation of the senses at all. He states later on that ‘feeling, or the subjective way of knowing, dispenses wholly, or at least in part, with the mediations and conditions indispensable to an objective knowledge and can, for example, perceive visible things without the aid of the eyes or without the mediation of light’.10 Th is is the basis for Hegel’s discussing psychic phenomena under the rubric of “feeling”, a discussion which occupies the bulk of the section on Feeling Soul.11 When the individual is at the level of feeling soul, it is possible for another subject to exercise a “control function” over it. Hegel calls this its Genius. Th is can occur in at least two ways.(i actually completely forgot how hegel already was talking about feeling as a more immediate preempt of the division between subject and object before feuerbach .. actually on my own while forgetting about all of this stuff, i had drawn the conclusion that labour is actually a form of astral projection, when understood sufficiently esoterically)
<First, early in life, when the child lives at the level of feeling soul, another individual (such as its mother) may play the role of genius. Hegel refers to how striking changes in the child’s disposition can be caused by ‘violent emotions, injuries, etc., of the mother’.12 To say that the child can be affected by the mother’s emotions seems an uncontroversial claim about maternal influence during the very impressionable period of childhood. But what does he mean by “injuries”? Is he referring to injuries of the mother while the child is in utero? Th is may be the case, as later we will see that Hegel believes that the child can undergo psychic and even physical changes in utero as a result of the mother’s thoughts or feelings. Th is is not, however, the only instance in which someone’s genius may be another person: it is also possible for adult individuals to “regress”, for brief or extended periods, to the level of feeling soul. In such a state, another individual may control them and become their genius. As we shall see, this idea is crucial for comprehending Hegel’s discussion of animal magnetism. Hegel refers to such relationships, including that between mother and child, as involving ‘a magic tie’ and states that they may go so far as to exhibit ‘magnetic phenomena’.<Hegel’s use of the term “magic” (Magie) is deliberate and meant in a technical sense; he is not using the term figuratively or poetically. In the Zusatz to this paragraph he explains it as follows:<<this term connotes a relation of inner to outer or to something else generally, which dispenses with any mediation; a magical power is one whose action is not determined by the interconnection, the conditions and mediations of objective relations; but such a power which produces effects without any mediation is “the feeling soul in its immediacy”.14<Hegel does not stress these anatomical speculations, however. His basic, philosophical (or psychological) theory of animal magnetism and psychic states in general makes essentially the same point, without reference to the body. Put simply, Hegel argues that in paranormal states the individual sinks down into a sub-mental state of identity with the deepest, “feeling” part of the soul.40 Consciousness undergoes an altered state: the most primordial part of the soul is awakened, the part of the soul that is closest to what Hegel calls the worldsoul, anima mundi. And for a while—for the duration of a trance, or a clairvoyant state—it usurps the higher levels of Spirit.41 In this identity with the primordial soul distinctions of time and space, distinctions between individuals, are, in fact, cancelled, and therefore such things as remote viewing and mind reading become possible.<Hegel goes on to assert something quite unexpected: he draws parallels between the clairvoyant state and philosophy. The former, of course, involves the lowest level of the psyche, and the latter the highest. But in a dialectical philosophy we would expect that the lowest level would not just be transcended but also, in a sense, recapitulated at the highest. Indeed, Hegel announces this in his remarks on the Introduction to the Philosophy of Spirit itself: ‘in the visible liberation of Spirit in those magnetic phenomena from the limitations of space and time and from all finite associations, there is something akin to philosophy . . .’.47 Like the paranormal, philosophy also cancels the limitations of time and space. Hegelian philosophy cancels the rigid categories of the Understanding, which insist on the absolute distinctness of objects and persons. And Hegelian philosophy is also, in a sense, a kind of magical cognition since it is a presuppositionless science, founded, literally, upon Nothing. Paranormal states are one way in which the individual transcends the categories of the Understanding—but Hegel is careful to point out that the ‘absolute elevation’ above the Understanding takes place only in ‘the conceptual recognition of the eternal’ (nur in dem begreifenden Erkennen des Ewigen).48<Earlier in the text, in his discussion of magic, Hegel states cryptically that ‘Absolute magic would be the magic of Spirit as such’ (die absolute Magie wäre die Magie des Geistes als solchen).49 Remember that, for Hegel, a magical power is ‘one whose action is not determined by the interconnection, the conditions and mediations of objective relations’.50 The magic of Spirit as such is simply Absolute Knowing, or philosophy.
>Ukrainians and Russians are "brothers"i dont think these guys have an active politics premised upon their brotherhood. narcissism of small differences is an attempt to avoid recognizing shared brotherhood by exaggerating differences that are barely relevant. same with india and pakistan
>Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothingthis is still stage 1 of the science of logic. hegel's true infinite is not simply nothingness
https://hegel.net/en/v11123froeb.htmi think zizek's "less than nothing" is closer to this concept of true infinite than simply the enantriodromia between indeterminate being and nothing (though i guess that enantriodromia as such can be also related to the true infinite)
actually contemplating hegel's true infinite and contrasting it with the tao is how you can also see how christianity differs subtly from the dao. hegel's philosophy is ultimately the most sophisticated elaboration of trinitarian metaphysics. you see with the true infinite, you have the finite overcoming itself. this can be compared to christianity where there are finite persons that contain in their nature the full infinitude of god in potentia. compare with this episode of new confucian thought that yuk gui commonts on:
<Dao is not a thing. It is not a concept. It is not the différance. In the Cixi of YiZhuan (易傳‧繫辭), Dao is simply said to be “above forms,” while Qi is what is “below forms.” We should notice here that xin er shang xue (the study of what is above forms) is the word used to translate “metaphysics” (one of the equivalences that must be undone). Qi is something that takes space, as we can see from the character and also read in an etymological dictionary—it has four mouths or containers and in the middle there is a dog guarding the utensils. There are multiple meanings of Qi in different doctrines; for example, in classic Confucianism there is Li Qi (禮器), in which Qi is crucial for Li (a rite), which is not merely a ceremony but rather a search for unification between the heavens and the human. For our purposes, it will suffice to simply say that Dao belongs to the noumenon according to the Kantian distinction, while Qi belongs to the phenomenon. But it is possible to infinitize Qi so as to infinitize the self and enter into the noumenon—this is the question of art.(note that qi here is 器 rather than 氣)
>>2897498oh yeah i should note that i think what hegel was noticing with "genius" is a limited articulation as mesmerism is an underdeveloped usage of psychic abilities. daoist dao fa is meanwhile premised upon stabilizing one's taishi body so that it is no longer excessively reactive. this allows one to behave as their own genius. this leads to a sort of inverted form of hegelian self-consciousness with the the infinite process of the true infinite starting from the pole of the taishi field to incorporate the stabilized taishi body within it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu7SLhKOyKcwith these notes it would appear that the occult could perhaps have its own phenomenology and "shapes of spirit", and a historical materialism of the occult might be an interest field of study. the following is an interesting looking book ive read a bit off but it is more focused on the husserlian tradition of phenomenology with deleuzian seeming concepts
https://centreforexperimentalontology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/tractatus5-2.pdf.pdf >>2897498>it seems like there might have been a time in human prehistory where it was far more common for entire tribes to be extremely in tune with one anotherAs you reference, Hegel comments upon "animal magnetism" by means of the "feeling soul", which has an intrinsic kinship relation (1830):
<the phenomena of animal magnetism have given, even in experience, a lively and visible confirmation of the underlying unity of soul, and of the power of its ‘ideality’ […] traces of this magic tie appear elsewhere in the range of self-possessed conscious life, say between friends, especially female friends with delicate nerves (a tie which may go so far as to show ‘magnetic’ phenomena), between husband and wife and between members of the same family.https://hegel.net/en/enz3.htmPsychic sensitivity thus produces this "magic".
>hegel's true infinite is not simply nothingnessNo, since Hegel is concerning himself with "becoming", not "being". I personally take "necessary evil" in the constitution of law as the meaning of freedom by a primary prohibition, given in Rousseau (1755) and Paine (1789). I thus possess a liberal ontology, where it is our entrance into society from nature by medium of the state which allows our freedom. Now, ideally, the Kingdom of Ends, as given in Kant's deontology, naturally leads to Proudhonist mutualism, but this requires an adherence to Dharma, which is only perfected in the Golden Age (e.g. Satra Yuga). On Dharma, I enjoy a false Luther quote:
<The Christian shoemaker does his duty not by putting little crosses on the shoes, but by making good shoes, because God is interested in good craftsmanship.https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/924405-the-christian-shoemaker-does-his-duty-not-by-putting-littleThe "protestant work ethic" is obviously reminiscent of this end.
>Occult HistoryThe Occult worldview is essentially Homeric, by viewing a Golden Age descend into the Iron - as told in popular religion. A lost paradise which is sought to be regained. Theosophy probably goes deepest into all the details, like the Root Races and whatnot. The unity of science and magic is the basic creed, by a recreation of Atlantis. It is my own educated opinion that modern science is magical in origin. Medicine is Shamanism. Chemistry is alchemy. Astronomy is astrology. Physics is from Newton (e.g. an avid alchemist). Computing is based from Lullism. Electromagnetism is Mesmerism. Photography is "Heliography" ("Sun Writing"). And so on. Science is a form of magic.
Unique IPs: 21