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
>>2882714Damn, the Palestinians were the real nazis all a long, who knew?
>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.
Spot on. How I loathe this thought-stopping argument. "This is how we are. You can't criticize this, you don't understand our culture, because you are not from here." There is a backup argument, to cover all bases: "Oh, actually, you are from here? Well, you are under foreign influence."
>>2882821There's an obvious difference between socialist and bourgeois approaches to anti-colonialism. The former only recognizes the social reality of race and nationality to the extent necessary to destroy their material basis and abolish them. The latter treats them as transcendent categories that should be reinforced and entrenched. Criticism of bourgeois anti-colonialism (ultimately an oxymoron since capitalism always produces imperialism) from a socialist perspective is legitimate and necessary.
>>2882714>>2882843Everyone who lived in the world (i.e not Western leftists) knew this. All the socialist parties in my third world country were and still are ethno-nationalist parties. The Soviets were simply offering money and recognition for that, so people rallied around them.
>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.” […] Blood and soil in these formulations are only slightly obscured by a thin rhetorical dust.
Precisely. This is all true for the Palestinian cause as well, which has no real connection to left-wing politics as such, besides the fact that left-wingers support Palestinian nationalism.
>>2882869Opposing imperialism even when those resisting it are not leftists has been a left-wing positions since at least Stalin
>>2882879
>I don't know what oppression is.
You're right
>>2882879
>everyone is an ethnonationalist for the people they actually like.
Biut that's not an "ethnic" nationalism.
whenever people use "folks" I just stop reading/listening
>>2882879
whose Kevin D'Anna?
>>2882858How many times these days will leftoids criticize opportunist or reactionary practices on the left without realizing they've been going on for decades, if not centuries? All this shit has happened before.
>>2882714There is truth to this but it is dampened by who it is coming from (zionist neocon libertarian trots) being even worse.
>>2882714ok you stumbled upon my autism and so i must rant. also as a preface i dont support hitler or anything. the holocaust and lebensraum were simply destructive. however, i think both of these have their partial origin from the attempt to capitulate to european finance by scapegoating the jews and engaging in expansionism to to pay off debts. there is a deeper material underpinning of the actions of the nazis, and it was not simply ideological
anyways, the connection is unironically there. the thing is that there are definite elements of national socialist ideology that can at times be rather existentially perceptive, and part of why i actually take serious nazism (heidegger, schmitt, myatt) more seriously. even within the thought of the historical national socialists, there was a gradual move away from nordicism to a more particularist understanding of race and civilization develop. we see in later articulations of nazi thought, near the end of the war, a less racial supremacist current starting to be articulated (this video goes into detail on some of this evolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwzR-h8Ln_s ). this gets parallel'd in david myatt's thought that develops into something that is explicitly against racial supremacy. this is something that people fail to understand about the order of nine angles, it has a long history of explicit anti-racism. before the tempel ov blood becomes a menace, o9a thought had already shifted into an anti-racist direction
>Why National-Socialism is Not Racist 111 yf (2000 ad)<Correctly defined and understood, National-Socialism is an ethnic philosophy which affirms that the different races, the different peoples, which exist are expressions of our human condition, and that these differences, this human diversity, should be treasured in the same way we treasure the diversity of Nature. National-Socialists believe our world would be poorer were these human differences to be destroyed through abstract ideas: through the creation of a socially-engineered cypto-Marxist society<In addition, National-Socialist ethics - being based upon the ideal of personal honour - means and implies that we National-Socialists must strive to treat all people with courtesy and respect, regardless of their race and culture. This alone disproves the lie of National-Socialism being "racist", just as the true history of National-Socialist Germany (as opposed to the lies about NS Germany) proves how honourable and respectful genuine National-Socialists were toward others races and cultures.<Thus, in NS Germany, groups such as Muslims and Buddhists were accorded full respect, and allowed to practise their religion freely. In the pre-war years, NS Germany helped organize a panIslamic world congress in Berlin. Berlin itself was home to thriving Muslim and Buddhist communities, of many races, and the Berlin Mosque held regular prayers even during the war years, attended by Arabs, Indians, Turks, Afghans and people of many other races. Indeed, the Berlin Mosque was one of the few buildings to survive the lethal, indiscriminate, bombing and bombardment, and although damaged, it was clearly recognizable as a Mosque amid the surrounding rubble.clearly you can see, that there is still an ambivalence with regards to miscegenation, but there is this particularism that is starting to be articulated, and he highlights some events in historical nazi germany that is felt to embody this principle. in this text and the larger corpus of dreccian texts, you have an almost national anarchist praxis combined with the beginnings of the articulation of national socialism as an "ethical philosophy". in later articulations, we have coining of the term "ethical national socialism", at this point the discomfort with miscegenation utterly vanishes, with him embracing the realities of ethnogenesis
https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/dm-ns-ideologue-second-edition.pdf<Of course, just as now, some people will leave their own culture and marry someone from another folk and culture. New cultures will also come into being. But what is important is for some people - not many - to establish through a way of life, a place, a new community, a link with their own ancestral past, and thus Earth, and so keep alive their own folk, their own culture while allowing for this culture, so planted elsewhere, to grow and change in that new place or places.<The key to such development, such a blossoming of culture - which is what it would be - is once again the ethic of honour.the thing people dont appreciate enough is that almost everything bad that the nazis did they just stole from america (manifest destiny, genocides, eugenics, concentration camps) and they were often explicit that this was what they were emulating. 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. there is also an underlying cosmotheology in nazi thought that is always latent even with hitler, but i dont think ever gets articulated as explicitly till david myatt. 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 intervention
ive personally taken some of the nazi particularism and pushed into more schizo anti-racist positions with the aid of lysenko and the amplification of already latent objective idealist currents within national socialist thought
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/blog/posts/2026-03-27-Between-Materialism-And-Aeonics.html<The actual fact of "race" or that of an "ethnos" is something that is always conditioned by material relations and way of life. What the nazis missed was that in positing blood and soil, they did not fully conceptualize the way in which these two entities are in such a tight dialectical relationship with one another. As such, neither are in actuality stable entities which exist simply in themselves. Rather than "blood and soil" we may speak instead of their synthesis, which may be called Adytum. I should note here that my appropriation of the phrase "blood and soil" is a nod to Agamben in his recognition that it is simply a refined statement of the logic of the liberal state. In the move towards Adytum, we are here articulating the logic of a sort of non-state, with the non- here being perhaps akin to what we see in "non-Euclidean Geometry".>>2882858>>2882908isnt it funny how, pretty much every time we have had actually existing socialism that actually managed to achieve lasting power, it had a national character? even far-left communities that are more closer to anarchism, such as zapatista and FEJUVE are still characterized by shared indigenous identity (hell, the latter even explicitly modelled how they organized upon traditional indigenous practices).. 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… there is a tendency to conflate nationalism with national chauvinism, but clearly this is not the case. china is nationalistic but it is not chauvinist. it is capable of having solidarity with oppressed nations. you do not need to abolish particularity if the different particulars recognize that they share an underlying reality which is beyond them, and on the basis of which they are yet on some deeper cosmic one
>>2882906for me it's when they spell it with an x at the end
>>2882920Would you call this article zionist:
The Mirage of Palestinian Statehoodhttps://www.compactmag.com/article/the-mirage-of-palestinian-statehood/Would you call the writer Philip Cunliffe zionist:
https://nitter.net/thephilippics >>2883034Yes, there is an obvious retort to his article, the borders of Israel and Palestine can be changed to make Palestinian statehood feasible. This article was written to make zionism seem like the only option, it is a rear guard tactic
>>2883332I don't think he's saying it would
never be feasible. He's saying that the recognition of Palestine is a PR move that established a fictional polity which obscures the material reality of the aftermath of the Gaza ethnic cleansing campaign and of Palestinian history up to that point. Which is uncontroversial in my opinion and fairly consistent with recent use of representation in capitalist politics.
>>2883702>g_shullenberger tweet about Decolonial MAGANow that's what I call a hot take. Went to his Twitter and his header is literally on fire. Going through some tweets now. He pulls all sort of knowledge out of his hat just to piss people off in all directions. Bio says: "Managing editor @compactmag." The thinking man's Haz?
>>2882714tl;dr am yisrael chai!
>>2883034Compact magazine is one of that wave of right wing online rags that sprouted on the aftermath of woke like the Free Press or Quillam that advertise themselves as the true liberals® and it was founded by an Iranian diaspora paid for hire ideological whore who's friends with JD Vance and and a Christian convert so I can't say I'm going to bother reading that!
>>2882714ᴉuᴉlossnW haunts the brain of modern "communists". And Hitler walks the Earth in the name of indigenous, natives and rights
yall folx dont even smoke science
>>2883820>That videokek Richard Spencer is 100% in the closet
you look at those videos of him in all those meet-ups with the nuRight and he's always the best-dressed person in the entire room. he is 100% a raging homosexual.
>>2883747It's on of the Israel lobbies billions influence campaigns
>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.
This is where I disagree (otherwise this seems okay). There hasn't really been a typical example of fascism that truly "third-worldist", so to speak. Immediately Latin American dictators come to mind, but they were never the subject of decolonization. Latin American fascism, based on ultraright Spanish military cadres supported by the United States, genocidal in its intent towards the indigenous and social movements, it isn't anything but European/Western fascism.
I am sure that most of you would agree that Armas and Pinochet were fascist dictators, but Ortega and Chavez were not. So the article sort of argues against a strawman.
Secondly, the Western model of feudalism - capitalism - socialism can not be superimposed on every other civilization. Many countries in the global south became capitalist without even having their own bourgeoisie - capitalist profits were generated by foreign multinationals or state-owned resource extracting industries. So from a materialist standpoint, it would be a grave mistake to ignore that fundamental difference to Western monopoly finance capitalism, which gave birth to fascism.
Is this a psyop?
>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.
lmao are you guys nuts? This is some right wing liberal hogwash repackaged as something new and enlighting, this board has gone to shit
>>2882892>>2882871>>2882869>>2882858>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 wingsthis would really sound smart if you were on reddit and twelve tbh, the anons agreeing with this analysis should read books
>>2882892>>2882840like thats straight up psyop or botted
>>2884174He's right about the Marxist project. The part about post-colonialism seems to be based on 2020s pop-leftoid ideology rather than post-colonialism the intellectual current, but it's accurate to the extent that we're seeing a rise of statism and nationalism, both on the left and the right, as part of a broader nostalgia for the 20th century and discontent with globalization that's been brewing since the 90s.
>>2884153>There hasn't really been a typical example of fascism that truly "third-worldist", so to speak. Ba'athism could arguablt fit this description.
>>2882714Leftypol has been TRUKED by women in journalism.
>>2884153>There hasn't really been a typical example of fascism that truly "third-worldist",there were many in africa, mobutu for example, the modern day rwandan state, and even the hutu nationalist one before it are all undeniably para-fascist (ie they are very similar to fascists despite having no real historical connection to them), eritrea too is a similar example of it, most of the "left wing nationalists" of africa with some exceptions (like nkruhma or nyere) also have a fair bit in common also
>>2884182an overinflated sense of importance, sir? regardless of the shitposts you fail to notice that he makes cogent points noting a certain similarity to the concepts here in both theory and practice
schizo babble by douglas lain's pocahontas.
>>2885099>>2884185>marxist project>siranglo brainrot
>>2885353>you're an anglook
>>2885358It's criticizing the tendency of some post-colonial schools of thought to reify national and racial categories instead of abolishing them. It's the difference between Marcus Garvey and Fred Hampton, or rather bourgeois and proletariat approaches to anti-colonialism.
>>2885393
>Anti-humanist pessimism masquerading as "realism"
Just an excuse to be a coward and "settle" for amoralism.
>>2885411
>>You are an anti-humanist pessimist if you don't want all differences in nature to be pureed into a beige mass of goo because I learned at school from people who learned from people who learned from 1st Century Church Fathers who thought that the world was about to end that that's what friendship and humanity is all about!
what
>>2885432
rope yourself
>>2885411
You will be turned into an inhibited consciousness work unit.
>>2885353im a provd slav volk never call me an anglo ever again
>>2882714This is a very stupid article which makes a lot of false equivalences and isn't really educated on what third worldists actually believe. Like people who support JDPON are extreme internationalists and globalists. It was obviously written by some insecure white person who doesn't really understand the arguments and is a trot.
It is true that postcolonialism is a load of rubbish though. Many of the biggest postcolonialist theorists reject the Marxist understanding of imperialism, despite coming from countries still colonised by capitalism - there is no 'post' to colonialism! It is actually dangerous (since some postcolonialists are actually rightist ethnic nationalists) and needs to be fought against. Comrade Ajith wrote good articles about this.
>>2885512there's two currents of thirdworldism and the type that's getting revived is not the good one
>>2885006i am of course aware of these things, as well as myatt's connection to MI5/MI6. my respect for myatt did not come around overnight. i can attach some files for some selections of writings i think are especially remarkable
>>2885393the problem with your premise is that you tacitly assume that european modernity is not already in itself deeply hypocritical. we see this with genocide, colonialism, etc that western powers have and continue to facilitate or even actively participate in. america itself engaged in manifest destiny (later inspiration for lebensraum), slavery, eugenics (again inspiring the nazis), genocide, etc. this is all while in their declaration of independence, all men were free and equal. the nazis of course historically called out this hypocrisy and this was one of their ways of establishing the moral authority for some of their expansionist behaviours. as such, there was no need to "push back" against the spell of christian morality, as in the concrete such pretences never had any in-the-last-instance relevance for centuries. people who pretend as though the nazis were some special evil forget this basic fact
aside from that, if they were really just trying to rebel against christian morality, then jews would an ironic first target, as the jews themselves represented an ethnocentric religious worldview. this is not discounting the fact that a big thrust of initial german anti-semitism came from the observation that jews simply kept themselves instead of subsume themselves as citizens under the abstract universality of the state and humanity (marx of course talks about this), or adopt a christian identity (which would also involve subordination to universal man). hence, the initial grains of anti-semitism were precisely christian in character (i mean, think even for instance of martin luther's "on the jews and their lies". at the very beginnings of protestantism you have an anti-semitic tirade!). aside from this, when you look at the articulations of nazi anti-semitism, they actively characterized the jews as a global threat which challenges all of human civilization
this is not to mention the fact that if we look at most of the transgressions of europeans upon the dignity of the rest of the world, it has always been justified by the pretence of some abstract universality: the bringing of civilization, the development of world history, and of course with nato the establishing of peace, democracy, and "human rights". it is either that, or judgement from an abstract point of view, which is precisely what scientific racism was premised upon; abstraction rather than particularity
>not at all casual racism like American racismlynchings, race riots, suppression of civil rights and eugenics are casual? think about that. this is where america started, and now today you have a large chunk of them now being woke liberals. and as the OP of this thread points out, some woke ideas already have their heritage from nazi ideology
>race (and the rassenseele) was clearly acknowledged as being an emergent abstract property of everything about a person, their community, their history, the land they lived in their way of lifeeven in this description of the nazi understanding of race, you underestimate how utterly fundamental it was. racial essence was not just something that constituted the personality of an individual, it also had a transcendental character. as such, it interpellated upon the intelligibility of both theoretical and practical activity. as such there is the discovery of an irreducible transcendental diremption between different folks within nazi thought. upon realizing this, it becomes impossible to judge other races in any racial supremacist light, as the very process of judgement is transcendentally structured by race itself. logics of racism and colonialism, as the wokes have rightfully pointed out, are often erected upon edifices of universality. such foundations had been inadvertently cleared away by the nazis very own explorations of the question of race. you then pair this with a cosmotheology that is also implicitly present in nazi thought, in which the races are manifold expressions of Nature in her self-diversification. if this is the case, the subjugation of different races and the lack of respect for racial difference becomes something that suddenly becomes incommensurate with their understanding of the world. i think this latent synthesis of particularity and universality might be partially why the nazis even in their more nordicist era of thought had to talk of a "world jewry" in order to justify their actions
>>2885506>Hutus versus Tutsisthis is a bad example. pretty much all of the nations of sub-saharan africa are plots of land arbitrarily drawn to put together tribes that have no historical relationship with each other. moreover, the premise of the rwandan genocide was not some abstract colourism, but rather a historical reaction to premises already put into place by european colonizers wherein the tutsis were placed above the hutus because they had more white looking facial features. so it was neither a narcissism of small differences, neither was it something that occured organically and immanently to the way the two tribes would have interfaced with each other for thousands of years
i think this idea of "narcissism of small differences" if anything just works against your fears of global homogeneity as well. you could very well apply this logic to white populations for instance. after all, world war 2 was a war wherein approximately 70 million white people died by the hands of other whites. if such a narcissism was always possible, then it would hold that this principle would continue to divide communities until there are only small tribes left. the truth of course is that while there are forces that put distances between different groups, there are also principles that tie different groups together and eventually lead to the constitution of a new ethnos or civilization
>>2882946>serious nazism (heidegger, schmitt, myatt)No Rudolf Jung? Spenger? Strasser? Yockey? Junger? Even Goebbels was a more radical theorist than Hitler. Myatt is also a vulgar revisionist of Spengler by seeing the Magian as purely Jewish and by demoting Marxism from its Faustian status in his text "Vindex" (1984). Lenin is a better Spenglerian, by seeing Marxism as the Western Zeitgeist (e.g. the unity of French socialism, British political economy and German philosophy). Myatt is a Hitlerian, so falls into the camp of being a right-wing national socialist. Hitler's contributions in Mein Kampf are scant of substance, where his major complaints are about labour unions, black lawyers and the failure of Jews integrating into German society (e.g. a country within a country, the same as Bauer and Marx write about in the 1840s, where afterwards, the "Jewish Question" was subverted by Zionists like Hess and Herzl in the 1860s to be reactionary, hence Hitler partnering with Zionists in the 1930s. Both Lenin and Dutt made open complaints about Zionists early on, yet Stalin and Hitler supported Israel being overtaken by Ashkenazis). Hitler's poisonous influence on ᴉuᴉlossnW obviously subverts Fascism from the Actual Idealism of Gentile to the Doctrine of Race after 1936 (ᴉuᴉlossnW denying the primacy of race in the 1920s; having Jewish friends). The mysticism of National Socialism come through the Hitlerian line of Rosenberg, Himmler, Serrano and Devi. In an interview, Myatt claims to be inspired by Devi, so this is not "serious" stuff, but is the typical nonsense. Worst of all is Hitler's traitorous "Operation Barbarossa" (1941) where he broke his peace pact with Stalin, and so turned the tide on the war. Anyone who thinks Hitler was valuable to the movement is probably uneducated. Even someone like Nick Griffin saw Hitler as a capitalist pig.
>National-Socialists believe our world would be poorer were these human differences to be destroyed through abstract ideas: through the creation of a socially-engineered cypto-Marxist societyThe obtuse buzzword of "Marxism" reminds me of the American National Socialism of Rockwell, where race-mixing was seen as communist aggression. Of course, Marx already shows how it is capitalism which melts all things into air, following from the reactionary socialism of Thomas Carlyle. Oswald Mosley also complained of the homogeneity of mass culture, like Adorno, yet these men were anti-capitalist. Interestingly, Myatt complains of capitalism in Vindex (1984) yet appears to backtrack in this later text (2000). The culmination of Myatt's ideas arrives at "Reichsfolk" as his political ethos. You invoke "national anarchism", which is more properly dealt with in Alain de Benoist's "Beyond Human Rights" and other works, where his complaint is the legal fiction of the "individual" itself. I have previously demonstrated the historical particularity of the individuality of labour as the stepping stone to modern capitalist relations. Myatt however is a pure individualist who in the Black Book of Satan (1984) affirms spiritual individuality, while in his earlier work, "Emanations of Urania" (1974) sees race as an integral collectivity, but still leaves room for great men of creativity (e.g. Carlyle's hero worship). There was a dispute between Evola's and Gentile's theory in regard to individuality, where Gentile saw precondition for individuality, while Evola saw the unconditioned. So, there has always been this problem in Fascist circles. Hitler himself internalised this struggle in his own way.
>i wouldnt be surprised if the nazis survived till the present day, they would turn out to be extremely wokeWell where does identity politics and poststructuralism come from? Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schmitt, etc. But these are all bad, annoying things, so I'm against them.
>ive personally taken some of the nazi particularism Look into modern theories of "ethnogenesis". Even the Tempel ov Blood, like Nietzsche, wanted to create a new "race" of beings, and so framed things as "speciesist". As Evola writes, race is not in the flesh, but the soul. I take this literally in the case of Paul's epistles, where Christians appropriate the Jewish ethnicity for themselves.
>>2885665>Even Goebbels was a more radical theorist than Hitlernever mentioned hitler. i also dont see myself really as much of a right winger. for the most part those thinkers you have listed do not at this stage appear to offer me much of anything personally so i do not feel much motivation to check them out. i am a bit interested in junger though as he seems to be consonant with sorel and heidegger
>by seeing the Magian as purely Jewishhe does not do this generally. i am not too familiar with this 1984 vindex text but will check it out. as time went on i think he described the development of civilizations and such in a way that is increasingly immanent to the general workings of the cosmos. i also do not take myatt's opinions and characterizations of marxism too seriously. there are definite idealist elements in this writings that i generally just look past as well. actually in my writings i have come to synthesize some of the thought of the o9a with dialectical materialism
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/phil/terseaeonmat.htmlhttps://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/blog/posts/2026-03-27-Between-Materialism-And-Aeonics.html>Hitler's poisonous influence on ᴉuᴉlossnW obviously subverts Fascism from the Actual Idealism of Gentile to the Doctrine of Racethis is true. the fascist doctrine of race is rather alien to its metaphysical foundations, and is more of a capitulation to the nazis. even when pressured to persecute the jews, the italian fascists found numerous ways to get around this and find weaker versions of anti-semitic policy. with that said, the doctrine of race does reflect some of the metaphysical views of the national socialists rather than the actual idealist italians. honestly some of the theoretical ideas behind fascism are genuinely interesting but sadly there is barely any intelligent life interested in such things. instead you have "people" on zzzchan that are all white nationalist spiritual liberals who internalized accusations of being "fascist" to the point they project racial mythology on ᴉuᴉlossnW (lol)
>Myatt claims to be inspired by Devi, so this is not "serious" stuff, but is the typical nonsenseyou are making too quick a conclusion based upon influences and a few texts but it is understandable. i suggest checking out the pdfs i posted
>Worst of all is Hitler's traitorous "Operation Barbarossa" (1941) where he broke his peace pact with Stalinlebensraum was always part of the plan for the nazis, so to call it traitorous is rather peculiar. i dont like hitler much at all and if myatt was just articulating an esoteric hitlerism i would not take any interest in him
>Myatt however is a pure individualist who in the Black Book of Satan (1984) affirms spiritual individualityi wouldnt really see myatt as ever being an individualist even though at times it might seem as though he is. the first issue of course is the labyrinthos mythologicus wherein a lot of the satanist aesthetics and pretensions more so aim as a magnet and maze which leads to an underlying numinous reality. in the o9a corpus, the term sinister-numinous comes up a lot. ultimately the antinomianism of the sinister has a direct continuity with integral view of the numinous being a reality preceding conceptual distinctions. secondly, there is an extent towards which the emphasis at times of "personal knowing" is in fact a manifestation of a gravitational pull to a deeper underlying collective existence. in 'symbols and being', myatt articulates a narrative wherein there is at first an undivided polemos of Change that also manifests as a collective primordiality. from there, Change itself brings about the conditions of separation-of-otherness, conceptual distinction, and individual existence. the next step is for Change to bring about the return of the apprehension of this primordial collectivity. now, this collectivity represents a substantial existence that the individual was so intimately connected to that it was an unreflected experience rather than an abstract imposition from without. i really recommend checking out this article which helps to articulate this deeper epistemological reality:
https://sinisterstudies.substack.com/p/veiled-strength<This essay takes the Rounwytha tradition as its point of departure. While Johann Jakob Bachofen’s Mutterrecht provides the conceptual framework for examining specific features of the tradition, the analysis that follows is not an exercise in classical reception or intellectual genealogy. Bachofen is employed here as a lens, not as an origin.<This distinction is crucial. Bachofen’s maternal world is characterised by immediacy rather than mediation. Knowledge arises not from doctrine or revelation, but from proximity to natural processes—birth, growth, decay, death—and from the affective bonds that tie individuals to family, land, and ancestry. The mother, in this sense, is not merely a biological figure but an epistemic one: the bearer of a form of understanding rooted in care, empathy, and embodied experience.<Crucially, Bachofen does not romanticise the maternal world as harmonious or gentle. His maternal cultures are often severe, bound by necessity, and governed by inexorable natural law rather than mercy. Yet they possess a coherence rooted in belonging rather than command. Authority flows not from decree but from recognition: the mother knows because she has borne, cared for, and endured.<This point warrants emphasis, as it prevents Bachofen from being assimilated too easily into modern ideological frameworks. His maternal order is neither feminist nor anti-feminist in any contemporary sense. It does not advocate equality, liberation, or dominance. Instead, it describes a pre-juridical ethical field in which morality arises from relational bonds rather than universal norms.<For Bachofen, the maternal principle is therefore best understood as a mode of knowing and ordering reality. It privileges intuition over analysis, continuity over innovation, and empathy over abstraction. Symbols, myths, and rituals function not as allegories to be decoded, but as expressions of a lived relationship with the sacred. The divine, in this world, is not transcendent and distant, but immanent and enveloping.<This methodological orientation is what makes Bachofen unexpectedly relevant to certain strands of modern esoteric thought. When stripped of its speculative anthropology and nineteenth-century idiom, Mutterrecht offers a vocabulary for describing traditions that define knowledge as situated, embodied, and inherited, rather than revealed or systematised. It becomes less a theory of ancient matriarchies than a framework for recognising non-modern epistemologies that persist beneath or alongside dominant rational systems.i think that even when myatt might seem to be just worshipping great men and genius, it is important to remember that the acausal is really this undivided becoming. hence, genius is more of a product of empathy and connection rather than raw will from such a perspective
this perspective which has unique understandings of society and occultism is why i take interest in myatt. other right wing thinkers for the most part feel as though they lack this understanding or approach things in an overly idealist manner
>Look into modern theories of "ethnogenesis"yes i am also generally interested in this topic, including the development of ethnoreligious groups as well as dugin's articulations of ethnos. tob is not that interested to me because they are stuck at the "sinister" and they do not contribute to the development of the underlying weltanschauung in any deep existential way
>>2882869>>2882821let's suppose a hamas-led palestinian force, or one in a similar line, somehow defeats imperialism. Then what? we got a Hamas state, in the best case scenario along the lines of iran islamic republic. The what? everyone's happy? is the history of palestinian people over? Are the conditions for a return to imperialism in the future abolished just because of that? couldn't they end up like baathist Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Gaddafi's Lybia, and so forth? What the fuck? you all acting as if the present state of things and the current form of the struggle were absolute, without any possible alternative
>>2883335i checked his CV and his vibe and looks all clear to me. If he is jew he is a jewish uygha like eric andre
>>2885820>for the most part those thinkers you have listed do not at this stage appear to offer me much of anything personally so i do not feel much motivation to check them out. Yockey is interesting, since he engages in a blood and soil "dialectic", as you describe it, where he rejected the theory of Darwinian evolution in favour of Lamarckism. Hitlerism is Darwinian, owing to its vulgar racialism. As Yockey claims, in tandem with Marx, Darwinism is the projection of capitalist relations onto nature (e.g. the endless struggle of competition for scarce resources). Yockey also chose the side of the USSR in the Cold War. If you are interested in Myatt's aeonic magic (e.g. The Sinister Tradition), then Spengler (and Toynbee) are necessary, since that's where his theory of History comes from (see: Emanations of Urania, and Vindex).
>i am a bit interested in junger though as he seems to be consonant with sorel and heideggerWell, Junger turned against Hitler during the war and saw him as a demonic force. Junger's earlier writings are also interesting, such as "On Pain" and "Total Mobilisation" since he supported revolution, and had a passing admiration for Bolshevism, but rejected the proletariat, and saw the lumpenproletariat as more effective, with direct reference to Bakunin (Junger is also the originator of the ethos of the "anarch"). Marx in his Eighteenth Brumaire (1852) highlights the lumpen of all classes as the political base of Bonapartism, and we see today the same sort of interstitial "social scum" collect around right-wing populists today. I do actually favour Bakuninist praxis in terms of the "passivism" of general strikes (a theory beginning in Chartist literature), since "activism" is the stimulus of our cybernetic matrix. Taoist literature teaches us the power of non-action.
>i am not too familiar with this 1984 vindex text but will check it out.It is esssential reading for Hebdomadric studies, since the preface informs us that Myatt composed it from 1976–84 as part of a "logic of history", which is unveiled as the Sinister Tradition, as given in Naos (1992). Myatt wrote Emanations of Urania (1974), then devised the Star Game (1975), and then began both the Deofel Quintet (1976-92) as well as his article "Vindex" (1976-84), so it is of primary concern. We see in it, his scorn for the Magian creeds of Christianity, Capitalism and Marxism. Myatt in the same text also hypocritically defends Nazi book burnings as an ascent to spirituality over intellect, despite his own obsession with writing.
>the development of civilizations and such in a way that is increasingly immanent to the general workings of the cosmosHis view is given in Emanations, Vindex and Naos, that the development of civilisation (e.g. its life cycle) grows according to the concentration of acausal energy (read: Jung's "Synchronicity"), with creativity being expressive of acausality, and with the decline of society being the decline of this same aeonic power. The aeons shift on the basis of the concentration of this energy (like the Hegelian weltgeist, or world-spirit). The doctrine of Aeon is itself highly disputed in the occult world, with Crowley initiating the Aeon of Horus in 1904, LaVey initiating the Aeon of Satan in 1966 and Aquino revealing that both are connected in the figure of Set, who is manifested in his fullness by 1983, by the Wewelsberg Castle working. Myatt himself also uses the Year of Fayen (Y.F.) as a placemarker for Hitler's birthday, so it's like B.C. and A.D. which in my perspective represents the Age of Pisces, with the "new age" being Aquarian.
>some of the theoretical ideas behind fascism are genuinely interestingI just consider it a vulgar Hegelianism by way of Gentile, while many see Marxism as a materialist Hegelianism.
>sadly there is barely any intelligent life interested in such thingsI forget the guy's name, but there used to be an open Fascist youtuber who intellectualised his position. There was also "Cultured Thug". I would say the "Warrior Philosopher" is probably the most genuine fascist these days, who is largely into Mishima and Bataille.
>lebensraum was always part of the plan for the nazis, so to call it traitorous is rather peculiar.Hitler violated his peace treaty. That makes him a traitor.
>I wouldnt really see myatt as ever being an individualistThe axiom of Individual Judgement and pathei-mathos are individualist ethoi. The quest for Immortality is also an individualist quest (e.g. anados) up the 9 spheres.
>the numinous being a reality preceding conceptual distinctionsYes. Denotata is the result of causal abstraction; he writes this as early as 1974.
>the emphasis at times of "personal knowing" is in fact a manifestation of a gravitational pull to a deeper underlying collective existence.In the context of pathei-mathos and Agamemnon, you could derive a sense of "love of fate", as Nietzsche has it, in the same way as Wyrd (e.g. destiny) is a theme, but Myatt seems like someone fighting his fate, rather than submitting to it. He is sinister (left-handed), not Godly.
>genius is more of a product of empathy and connection rather than raw will from such a perspectiveYes and no. Greatness to Myatt is given from acausality collecting within a nexion, but if one can practice magic, then it implies the strengthening of spiritual muscles. The pagans scorned magic since they believed in the hierarchy of godly favour. Achilles did not defeat Hector because of the "opportunity cost" of training, but simply by circumstance of birth; by right of blood. Magic has always been subversive and egalitarian in my view, which I take from James Frazer's "The Golden Bough". If one is not born great, then he will never be great. That is the Pagan ethos - where trying to excel from one's Will leads to "hubris" and punishment from tyrannical gods.
>they do not contribute to the development of the underlying weltanschauung in any deep existential wayThe brainchild behind ToB was Michael W. Ford, and not Sutter, who confused the Abyss of the o9a with the Abyss of Crowley's Enochian Magick, by invoking the demon Choronzon, and so creating a theoretical schism. Ford's "Luciferianism" is not "Traditional Satanism", so the systems do not align (e.g. kabbalah versus the 7fw). Satan to Myatt is the archetype of alchemical change, in the same sense that to Hegel, determination is negation (e.g. dialectics).
>>2885820>>2886209In "A Terse Exploration of Aeonic Materialism", you connect the materialism of Marx to Myatt, but I would immediately criticise this by positing Feuerbach as the true sympathetic figure, who in his "contemplative materialism" (as derisively termed by Marx) he sees that Being is sensuous 'feeling' and not immediate activity, which is more in line with Myatt's thoughts on Empathy.
Marx in the first place credits Feuerbach's philosophy as the very basis of Communism, in a letter (11/08/1844):
<I am glad to have an opportunity of assuring you of the great respect and — if I may use the word — love, which I feel for you. Your Philosophie der Zukunft, and your Wesen des Glaubens, in spite of their small size, are certainly of greater weight than the whole of contemporary German literature put together. In these writings you have provided — I don't know whether intentionally — a philosophical basis for socialism and the Communists have immediately understood them in this way. The unity of man with man, which is based on the real differences between men, the concept of the human species brought down from the heaven of abstraction to the real earth, what is this but the concept of society!http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htmlAfter this comes Marx's comments in his "Theses" and The German Ideology. We may read from Feuerbach:
<The new philosophy looks upon being – being as given to us not only as thinking, but also as really existing being – as the object of being, as its own object. Being as the object of being – and this alone is truly, and deserves the name of, being – is sensuous being; that is, the being involved in sense perception, feeling, and love. Or in other words, being is a secret underlying sense perception, feeling, and love […] Love is passion, and passion alone is the distinctive mark of existence […] Feelings, everyday feelings, contain the deepest and highest truths. Thus, for example, love is the true ontological demonstration of the existence of objects apart from our head: There is no other proof of being except love or feeling in general.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/future/future2.htmHere, being (e.g. physis) discloses the primordium of feeling, which precedes abstraction in denotata, and so is undivided, unlike the duality of causal existence. Marx originally holds to Feuerbach, but later on (1845), sees that History is what determines us, not man's essence. Marx still as yet does not submit to mere abstraction as the cause of liberation, but still sees its captivation of man. His entire "Critique of Political Economy" is a type of reversal of Hegel along these lines, where the Idea is the development of estranged labour in capital, and so overcoming abstraction is the aim. Abolishing abstract labour (e.g. the form of value) is the goal. Marx (1875):
<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning […] Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmSo then, reducing abstraction (e.g. denotata) down to concreteness seems to be the common end, but Marx rejects the sensuous passivity of Feuerbach in favour of sensuous activity, where "man" is always being changed. This can commonly lead to vulgar materialist nonsense.
>Dialecticians note that in motion there is the presence of the contradiction A=not A as a thing becomes what it is not.I think this is too illogical. There is no such thing as a formal contradiction in Hegel (e.g. A = not-A), but rather, the ground of identity is seen as a negation of negation, which corresponds to the second law of logic (e.g. A ≠ not-A), and so difference is seen as the ground of self-identity. This is intuited in the ancients, such as Hesiod and Ovid, who in their mythologies, express that Chaos preceded Order. I write about this fully here:
>>>/edu/26082Upon motion in general, I would refer you to Plato's Timaeus, wherein he describes time as a "moving image of eternity" by the cyclical motions of the cosmos. Time is nothing besides the relative motion of natural bodies.
>A good example can be seen in any process of creative endeavour, in which one often does not have much of clear idea of what they are going to make. In the context of illustration, this is often the case, revealing the truth that the imagination is an intensive formativity rather than a fixed form.What you are missing here is the concept of "genius" or "inspiration", which as Plato tells us, is the power of the Muse. In Augustine, he calls it the Holy Spirit. When we say that a work is "God-inspired", we see that man is simply a vessel (e.g. nexion) for divinity (e.g. acausality). In magic (read: James Frazer), synchronicity is given by the principle of "sympathy" where the world itself acts as a morphic field (think of the "Rain Dance", which in imitating natural processes, creates them). Another term would be "manifestation" by ceremonial ritual.
>As this inter-action complexifies and folds in new intensities, it at some point comes to incarnate a new incorporeal universe. The temporality of incorporeal universes is Aion, and so this progressive enfolding towards apocalypse can be said to be the very logic of Aeonic genesis […] We note that in the incarnation of incorporeal universes, there is always a particular ethics as there is in it a particular logic.Right; Jesus preached about the "end of the Age", since this was the astrological belief, that each cycle of time leads to a "new heaven" and "new earth". Aion (the deity) is a man holding the cosmic loop. But as Solomon tells us, "there is nothing new under the sun", so all repeats. I am reminded of this passage from Revelation (14:3):
<And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.https://biblehub.com/revelation/14-3.htmA new song? A new uni-verse?
>This denial of the pre-given leads us to radicalizes Hume's assault on causality: following Sheldrake, the laws of physics are in fact habits.As Plato writes in Statesman, the Age of Cronos comes when God reverses the motion of the cosmos, and so the old become young again, etc. If we remember that to the ancients, cosmic order is "local", we make sense.
>In technics then, there is always an implicit energetic excessWell, technics is the specialisation of tasks, which thus increases the efficiency of a particular activity. Plato writes that man has no natural technique, so was given the techné of Prometheus, which is our intelligence. It is as though from the forge of Hephastus that man makes all tools in mimicry of nature - and as it is given, the fall of the angels came with the arts and crafts of weapons.
As for Myatt's 1980 treatise, he sees that acausality grants wisdom by the perception of all time, but I would rebuke this by the tragic example of Wotan in the Edda, who drinks from the spring of knowledge, to gain acausal perception, yet still falls victim to Ragnarok. In the Havamal, Wotan also gains knowledge of the runes, and so enters into abstraction by the Sephiroth (e.g. the letters and numbers upouyghdrasil). So, escaping chronology does not mean an escape from the Aeon, either. Myatt is also incorrect where he says that the symbol is prior to thought; Logos as Word is the dyad of creation, which thus severs itself from the Monad. This is why Lao Tzu writes that the Tao which can be named is not the true Tao, or as is written in the Sefir Yezirah (e.g. The Book of Formation), the Sephiroth are the "foundation" of creation (as from the mouth of God), but they themselves arise from ineffable infinity (e.g. Ain Soph). The list of the 50 gates of intelligence attaches Chaos as the primary reality. So then, being is symbol, but being is not original of matter, but mind.
>An idea is not an essence – the symbol is essence which thought abstracts or covers up, and each idea has its foundation in a symbol.Here, I would advise Myatt to meditate on Plato's "Cratylus", which is the first kabbalistic text in history. It is important on this point since Plato shows that there are "true" and "false" names for things, and so symbols are not arbitrary, but really present the essence of things. We see this in the ancient Egypytian legend of the Name of Ra, where Isis gains her magic by controlling Ra through the secret word. Wotan's descent into knowledge of the runes is a similar gnostic ordeal. Myatt continues that the aim of "authenticity" is our "individuation", while also seeing the monad above the dyad as collective being. Indeed, Jung proposes a "collective unconscious" as a metaphysical prior.
>>2886209>>2886274The fundamental philosophical text to your whole schizzo ideology is the Will to Power, and even that is just a fork of a philosophical attitude already explored in Hegel's Phenomenology, whether Nietzsche was aware of it or not. Ultimately this self-same philosophy faces the contradiction of rejecting disenchantment while considering Power the main axis of all values. But is true Power the rejection of the bare reality of what disenchantment "reveals" or "unveils", is true Power the receding back to navel gazing enchanted whimsical subjectivity? I don't think so, that's just escapism and a coping mechanism, the inability to let go of the comfortable past in which everything was a self-contained organic unity, comprehensible and immediately relatable. Your fixation with Will take you away from the very empowering thing in the face of this awakened blind idiot god of technoscience, i.e. the Concept. Only with a commitment to the concept can you apprehend this new inconmensurable reality that has been revealed when man has gone from the center of the universe to X. You have to step out of the Ptolemaic self centered subjective perspective, cause otherwise you are rendering everything else an abstract void to supposedly project your Will into. You need Hegel and then Marx, otherwise you are just constructing a whimsy magical worlds to comfortably LARP in. The road to science is in many ways boring, obtuse, unaesthetic, dry… In a word, devoid of any charm, and you have to accept that or continue your LARP.
Take this word of advice: Take from this whole magic thing what you need, which is mainly phenomenological and magical techniques (which can function on a practical level with our without any magical bullshit coloring and convergently evolved regardless of these aesthetic elements in different cultures), and get the fuck out of there, there is no benefit other than that.
>>2887270>Power the main axis of all valuesIn terms of power, I believe the pen to be mightier than the sword.
>the inability to let go of the comfortable past in which everything was a self-contained organic unity, comprehensible and immediately relatableAs we see from the account in Genesis, the capacity to sin is written into Paradise by the entrance of the Serpent, and so internal contradiction already exists in Creation; an antagonism evidently within God Himself. So I don't believe in any primordial unity, but disunity. We see the ancients describe primordial unity as "Chaos". We also read in Plato's "Parmenides" of the impossibility of total unity. I agree, it is a fantasy. The womb (e.g. matrix) is a trap, not liberation.
>you are rendering everything else an abstract void to supposedly project your Will into. You need Hegel and then MarxWhat exactly do you imagine Marx's project was? It was reclaiming man's subjectivity from the tyranny of the Concept (e.g. capital):
<In the same way atheism, being the supersession of God, is the advent of theoretic humanism, and communism, as the supersession of private property, is the vindication of real human life as man’s possession and thus the advent of practical humanism, or atheism is humanism mediated with itself through the supersession of religion, whilst communism is humanism mediated with itself through the supersession of private property. Only through the supersession of this mediation – which is itself, however, a necessary premise – does positively self-deriving humanism, positive humanism, come into being. But atheism and communism are no flight, no abstraction, no loss of the objective world created by man – of man’s essential powers born to the realm of objectivity; they are not a returning in poverty to unnatural, primitive simplicity. On the contrary, they are but the first real emergence, the actual realisation for man of man’s essence and of his essence as something real.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm >>2884174If I am not mistaken Mrs. Frawley has an explicit commitment to individualism via a libertarian ideological commitment (Double check me on this, I may have confused her with someone else).
And so she is basically attempting to trojan horse the line of "Actually socialism is just liberalism achieving its ends in practice and progressing beyond it" as opposed to a negation of liberalism and progres in a different direction.
Ergo every opportunity is used to push individualism & this degenerate approach. This including instrumentalizing real problems that arose in de-colonization, including cultural ethnic-nationalism (in general, the real material problem is not that people are different, but that particularism is instrumentalized to weaken revolutionary organizations, promote tribalism & inter-ethnic competition & thus weaken developmental states, serve local national & petty bourgeois interests, etc.)
Even though socialism is a universalizing project, it is false to then conclude if one is for it then one agrees that universalism is true, much less individualist universalism (which is just the universalization of the particularism of the liberal subject, ie. the "rights endowed individual")
>>2887367>Actually socialism is just liberalism achieving its ends in practice and progressing beyond itThis is what Marx writes (1875):
<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case. In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. […] But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. […] 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!https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmEngels initially discusses bourgeois "limitations" here (1843):
<The axioms which qualify as robbery the landowner’s method of deriving an income – namely, that each has a right to the product of his labour, or that no one shall reap where he has not sown – are not advanced by us. The first excludes the duty of feeding children; the second deprives each generation of the right to live, since each generation starts with what it inherits from the preceding generation. These axioms are, rather, consequences of private property. One should either put into effect the consequences or abandon private property as a premise. Indeed, the original act of appropriation itself is justified by the assertion of the still earlier existence of common property rights. Thus, wherever we turn, private property leads us into contradictions.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm>Even though socialism is a universalizing project, it is false to then conclude if one is for it then one agrees that universalism is true, much less individualist universalism (which is just the universalization of the particularism of the liberal subject, ie. the "rights endowed individual")Class politics is not universal unless it presumes a universal class. The "Rights of Man and Citizen" (1789) presume the class of "citizen", which Marx scoffs at, and forwards a particular proletarian interest (1843):
<Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man, the droits de l’homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society – i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community. […] It is a question of the liberty of man as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself. […] But, the right of man to liberty is based not on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man. It is the right of this separation, the right of the restricted individual, withdrawn into himself. The practical application of man’s right to liberty is man’s right to private property.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/Here, he forwards a "Magna Carta of labour" (1867):
<In place of the pompous catalogue of the “inalienable rights of man” comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working-day, which shall make clear “when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins.”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htmThus, universal "man" is displaced, under the banner of private property, yet man can only become universal by these means, and this is the democratic instinct. In the same way, Communism cannot be democratic, since it rejects the status of the "citizen" as such (1843):
<All emancipation is a reduction of the human world and relationships to man himself. Political emancipation is the reduction of man, on the one hand, to a member of civil society, to an egoistic, independent individual, and, on the other hand, to a citizen, a juridical person. Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his “own powers” as social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/With the abolition of the state comes an abolition of civil society.
ive been checking out spengler a bit and honestly, his idea of different civilizations having a living symbol that corresponds to a fundamental intuition of space, time, and the soul is interesting. it has lead me to think about what such organizing intuitions there are in hidweh project which has helped me with some thinkings of developing new praxis on top of helping to organize my coming blogpost
>>2886209>The axiom of Individual Judgement and pathei-mathos are individualist ethoi. The quest for Immortality is also an individualist quest (e.g. anados) up the 9 spheres.my point was that it is individually oriented in terms of immediate practice, but it all ultimately has collective ends. individual judgement is to encourage attainment to collective primordiality on a deeper sympathetic level rather than through causal abstraction. even with the quest for Immortality, it should be noted that the meaning of immortality for myatt is tacitly collective in nature. actually, in some of his national socialist writings, the collectivist aspects to this become explicit. here are some excerpts from Folk Culture:
<The truth which Folk Culture expresses is that we belong to the living being which is our folk, that this folk is a manifestation of the will of Nature, and that to live in a natural, healthy way, in harmony with Nature - in harmony with our very being - we must place our Nature-given duty before our own personal desires. That is, we must view ourselves in the wider context of our folk, in the context of Nature, of evolution, and in the context of the very cosmos itself<Our very Destiny, our purpose, is to understand this truth about us and Nature, and to act upon it. The true meaning of our individual lives lies in this understanding, which takes us far away from the concern about our own individual death and what may happen to us after our death which is the foundation of all the other religions in the world. The fundamental mistake of all other religions and philosophies is not only to concentrate upon the individual but to project the concept of our individuality beyond our physical death, whereas, in truth, our individuality is a hindrance to not only understanding but also to fulfilling the purpose of our lives.<These types of being derive their life from the acausal - or rather, from acausal energy. That is, they are manifestations of the acausal in the causal world. In a sense, these beings are acausal life, as distinct from the causal life-forms we know, through experience and Science, and which dwell with us on this planet. To understand National-Socialism is to understand this concept of the acausal, and thus the matrix, The Unity, which the acausal is. It is the acausal which is numinous, which we apprehend through great Art, literature, music, and so on, and which can and does inspire us to quest for excellence and strive to aid our evolution. It is the acausal which is the essence of life, and it is a rational understanding, or intuitive awareness, of the acausal which enables us to place our own lives in the correct, Cosmic, context, and which provides us with the insight of how all life, causal and acausal, is connected, dependant, inter-relatedthe collectivist nature of immortality:
<Such individuals transcend to become the cosmos itself; they become the awareness, or the consciousness, of the cosmos, of all creation. The individuality which they possessed in their mortal existence expands so that they become a part of the suprahuman Being which is the cosmos. Thus do they expand this Being, and make further evolution possible. Thus do they because of their life and their death, make further positive change, further creation, possible<But this immortality which they achieve does not mean that they, as the individuals they were in their human life, live on in some kind of 'heaven', or in some kind of 'Valhalla'. Rather, it means that they have moved-on to the next stage of development and so become an entirely different kind of being. They exist as this new type of being 'beyond the physical world', and beyond the individuality which they were. However, this does not mean that they become a 'heavenly' type of being living a tedious and boring and 'morally pure' disembodied existence. It means they have become, in a profound way it is difficult to conceptualize, the cosmos itself and the creations of the cosmos, such as Nature. These individuals become our present and our future - they become the substance which makes further evolution possible. In the simple sense, they become embodied in their race, in the soil and those aspects of Nature which allows this living racial being composed of individuals to survive and flourish. They thus exist in and become the living spirit or psyche of their race.folks like michael ford and a lot of the left hand path stuff that appropriates elements from the o9a all fail to appreciate this collectivist dimension that has always been implicitly present in myatt's thought. they turn the quest for immortality into one of hubristic self-affirmation. no doubt this can be blamed on myatt using satanist aesthetics early on which naturally attracted people that want to affirm their ego above Nature or folk (even though, time and time again, this is identified as
hubris)
>>2886274>Marx originally holds to Feuerbach, but later on (1845), sees that History is what determines us, not man's essenceman's essence for marx is that man is a historical being who works upon the world in a way that gets subsumed by a greater social division of labour. he does not not break with feuerbach completely, but rather recognizes that man is not just feeling, but also actively producing things in the world. both passive sensuousness as well as sensuous activity unify subject and object. in the former, the object comes into the consciousness of the subject. in the latter, the subject exteriorizes itself into the object. the two together form a dialectical interplay
one of the reasons why i emphasize marx rather than feuerbach is that when you look at the 7fw, it often involves an active engagement with the world. you run a marathon, you live in the wilderness for some period of time, etc. myatt detested the comparatively passive contemplation that is found in typical occultism. and of course, a major point of the 7fw is to condition the practitioner undergoing the quest so that they might engage in aeonic sorcery. this involves changing society at large. this too is in stark contrast to modern occultism which separates the spiritual from the political, or simply sees aeons as ultimately static things governed by the change of planets. this can easily be compared to marx's famous quote:
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it. spengler for his part on the practical dimension merely chose resignation to the decline of faustian civilization as well. meanwhile, myatt entertains the possibility of sustaining a civilization past its expiry date through aeonic magick as well. after all, if aeonic charge is a real material quantity that can be accumulated, then pessimism is not strictly necessary. there is also aeonic magick for speeding up the change of aeons as well
actually in some of myatt's national writings, he comes to the conclusion that ethos is indeed determined by material conditions (though of course he would never make this terminology). the realization seems to have contributed to his ethical turn
https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/dm-ns-ideologue-second-edition.pdf<[T]his feeling, this understanding, this reverence for Nature is seldom understood today. The majority of people of even our own folk are seldom part of the land in the sense of knowing it as a friend and valuing it as the means to be healthy and grow. They have no understanding or even sense of husbanding the land - of caring for it in a meaningful ancestral way. Furthermore, this majority is today mostly even unaware of who they are - they have little or no sense of belonging to their own culture, their own folk. The majority no longer respects the traditions, the way of life, of their ancestors - or even these ancestors themselves, for this majority has lost its connection with its past; they have lost, or are destroying, their own heritage as they are most certainly destroying their own people. Thus are they not only endangering Nature, but they are also destroying their own future.<Today, in this village, this balance, this understanding and this respect for Nature no longer exist, even on the two farms which still remain. The village itself has grown tremendously. Over three score new houses have been built on land once owned by two of the farms. Dozens of trees have gone, and scores of hedges removed, to make way for these new arrivals. One of the other farms is no longer a 'working farm' - it is occupied by a 'townie' family, and its Barns have been converted into houses, lived in by other 'townies' who commute to the nearby city in their cars. The orchards themselves have gone (save for some apple trees in the garden of one of the farms on the edge of the village) as have the fields of crops. Nearly all the fields now grow the regulation wheat, in large fields made by removing boundary hedges so that machines can plant, cultivate and harvest more. And the tragedy is that this wheat often ends up stored in an enormous warehouse where it forms a tiny part of the great and never used European 'wheat mountain'.
>I think this is too illogicalit is not meant to be a literal formal contradiction. the framing of A=not A is one found in one marxist-leninist dialectical materialist text which i do not remember
>What you are missing here is the concept of "genius" or "inspiration"that was precisely what i was thinking about. and moreover if man is simply a vessel, then to talk about "individualism" does not make sense. there is a reason why myatt converted to islam at one point. there is that element of almost having to submit to the greater acausal reality, submit to nature, submit to the numinous. honour, loyalty, etc are all manifestations of this attunement or submission. allah can be understood as the integral totality of the numinous. the reason why myatt eventually renounced his faith is because it felt as though he was using it as an escape, that he was not fully confronting tragedy or numinous reality directly enough. still, there was nevertheless an underlying resonance there which initially attracted him
>So, escaping chronology does not mean an escape from the Aeon, eitherof course since the aeon is far larger than a single individual. there is an extent to which you rise above time, but you do not actually become omniscient or omnipotent. it is more of an intuition of the fundamental integral workings of Nature and how this reflects upon where we are collectively headed. there is some portion of serious niners (including myatt himself) who have renounced occultism altogether seeing it as another form of hubris. i would not go that far myself personally, but i do think it is important not to assume you become a literal god that can do anything just because you have gotten better at letting more of the acausal into you
>This is why Lao Tzu writes that the Tao which can be named is not the true Taothe tao is not thought, especially not human causal thinking. that the tao that can be named is not the true tao is precisely an anti-idealist statement. the underlying integral reality transcends the mind and all thoughts about it. if this were not so, it could indeed be named
>>2890059>encourage attainment to collective primordiality*encourage attunement to collective primordiality
>>2890059>>2890064>his idea of different civilizations having a living symbol that corresponds to a fundamental intuition of space, time, and the soul is interesting.You can see Myatt's extraction of this in Naos (1992).
>it all ultimately has collective endsI would disagree. The ends of the initiate is immortality. Even Jesus rejected the crowd. Spirituality is individual, but the bodhisattva can still offer charity to the world.
>collective primordiality There is an epistemological issue. Socrates in Phaedo declares that after death, we come to know things in themselves (e.g. Beauty, Virtue, etc.) but what does it mean to "know" noumena (in the same sende that Jung claimed to "know" God)? In other places, Socrates says that the philosopher (e.g. the ascetic practitioner of death) dissolves into Sophia after death, whilst the sinful are reincarnated, as animal spirits. Here, oblivion is the ends of Wisdom, meaning that knowledge is in the pursuit of absolute ignorance (e.g. death). To "know" all things is to know nothing; negatively stated in Apologia. Lao Tzu writes the same; "I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty (Tao Te Ching, Verse 20). As it is written therefore, the wise do not speak, for in knowing, there is no thinking. To make this clearer, we come to Kant, who in apprehending the pure intuitions of the understanding (space and time), perceives that thinking itself is made possible by these interior dimensions, and so rational powers like mathematics are made possible by synthetic a priori knowledge. Hegel continues this, that it is by synthesis that thinking is possible. Kant in his "The End of all Things" (1794) muses upon the afterlife, stating that comprehension of phenomena must depend upon these same intuitions, and so even in death, we cannot "know" things in themselves. Indeed, it is ridiculous. For this, knowledge is arrested to limited forms, or qualities. Plato in "Parmenides" shows that the One cannot have any qualities or dimensions, and so in effect, he negates the idea of an absolute reality. This only makes sense in his profound writings in Republic, that the parable of the Sun reveals Logos, but as dyad, this is only the visible form of the invisible monad, which is the Good - but he writes that the Good is not a "being":
<the good itself is not [being] but still transcends [being] in dignity and surpassing powerhttps://topostext.org/work/768So then, this contemplation shows how emptiness is the cause of all other things. We may read Hegel (1816):
<Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm#HL1_81Here, pure being is identical to nothingness, and so it must be for knowledge. Death restores our wholeness, but at the expense of existence. So, the mystical unity of the collective unconscious is really a quest for death. This has relation to anti-cosmic satanism on the left-hand path, but in each case, it seems that the aim of the spirit is to destroy matter, while matter is the means of knowledge and experience (thus falleth the angels). I personally hold to Feuerbach, that feeling is true reality, and rationalism (from the time of Pythagoras) denies us the novelty of becoming, by extinguishing the flesh. I am on the side of the fallen angels, who embraced reality, rather than denying it. The serpent is the anointed one.
>FolkInteresting. I will reconsider my judgement of Myatt.
>Myatt wants to change the world, not think about it.Fair point, but I would still contend that Myatt still holds to the primacy of race as an essential concept, rather than as a "dialectical" concept, elsewise he would be like Nietzsche and promote race-mixing as a means to purify the impure, through disciplining a gene pool. In Nietzsche's view, races become purified, rather than being created pure - a reversal of theosophy, let's say. Does Myatt ever comment on the origin of the races? An esoteric Hitlerist like Serrano simply thinks that Aryan blood is a finite resource which has to be protected.
>dialectical materialistWell, I personally reject dialectical materialism, and see it as an Engelsian obsession, whilst to Marx, dialectics is a logical tool to explain history, but not nature itself. This is why Communism to Marx is about overcoming abstract negation and so having self-determination.
>if man is simply a vessel, then to talk about "individualism" does not make sense. Man is not "simply" a vessel, but may become a vessel. It is the same way that a priori knowledge is always only "remembered" (e.g. discovered) rather than "invented", according to Plato. Thus, we do not possess ideas, but it is ideas which possess us, since they precede thinking. Individualism is often a ruse for implicit collectivity, such as Marx comments upon in the Manifesto (1848). Thus, "private property" is class property. Smith (1776):
<Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book05/ch01b.htmNow, the individual as considered in themselves is a "personality", but if you are a Jungian, all is archetypal. The quest of individuation is to complete ourselves, by making the unconscious, conscious. I suppose Marxists could say that's what they are attempting with theory, but liberation cannot concern a collective subject, which is the limit of all politics. As far as I see, the state is the security of our rights, and our "pursuit of happiness" is the imperative to any further development and freedom.
>you do not actually become omniscient or omnipotentBut Wotan does, and still falls prey to Ragnarok. I think we ought to contemplate this mystery a bit further.
>the tao is not thought, especially not human causal thinking. that the tao that can be named is not the true tao is precisely an anti-idealist statement. the underlying integral reality transcends the mind and all thoughts about it. if this were not so, it could indeed be namedPrecisely, but we must remember that being is still an abstraction, and so being (by way of Logos) is ideal, but reality exists beyond being, which is Taoist wisdom:
<[The Tao] is older than God.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.htmlMyatt's Hermetic "Theos" seems a bit constricting.
>>2890181>The ends of the initiate is immortalityi already pointed how "immortality" in this context likely means one's individuality expanding to become an integral part of the collective psyche, and it is quite explicit the significance of this is the individual aiding the cosmos and folk in cosmic evolution. also myatt is working with heidegger, so this collective primordiality is not simply an epistemological thing. rather it concerns a way of being in the world. if you dont understand this you are going to find problems where there arent any and not be able to understand what myatt actually contributed positively to the occult tradition
>Even Jesus rejected the crowdnot really sure what you are getting at here. christianity is probably less collectivistic than the o9a is since it implies discrete individuals maintaining their discrete existence after death, but a major theme of christ's teachings is still universal brotherhood and he would even offer his own flesh for others to eat. christianity without
communion is not christianity at all. buddhism is relatively more individualistic (especially theravada) but it also doesnt even believe in self-standing selves to begin with
>still holds to the primacy of race as an essential conceptraces are a product of Nature and the evolution of the cosmos. he was against race-mixing for a bit because he felt as though it would reverse the process of diversification which Nature had produced, but he eventually eased up on this stance recognizing new peoples could form
>Man is not "simply" a vessel, but may become a vesseli guess but it is more like you have some choice what forces you are channeling when you become conscious of it, but you are always channeling a mixture of forces. to even exist physically as an organism is to be a nexion which presences the morphological blueprint of your species. the vey existence of the acausal precludes individual self-standing
>but liberation cannot concern a collective subjectif there is a collective unconscious then i dont really see how this follows
also when myatt talks about symbols he is talking about formative objective principles or resonances rather than ideas. as such, thought naturally must precede such things
>>2890194>one's individuality expanding to become an integral part of the collective psycheBut again, the individual nexion is to be duly considered in the vein of "great men". I am not saying that Myatt is a hypocrite, but am saying that spirituality in general must concern individual excellence, since like gold, it is most rare by natural occurance. Jesus (Matthew 18:20):
<For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with themhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018%3A20&version=NIVHere, the Holy Spirit is collective of the Church. Egalitarians fabulate the Church to comprise all of humanity, but it contains its own elect; the so-called 144,000 "virgins" who are before the throne (Rev 7):
<144,000 from all the tribes of Israel […] they are before the throne of Godhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207&version=NIVThere is much more to write on this, but I will conclude by saying that those who carry their own cross are not those of mere faith. Sorcerers and Rounwytha are not the same as dreccan ranks, who serve as footsoldiers.
>a way of being in the worldSure, but ascending the spheres is also about escaping the world. To Myatt, Theos is the ultimate aspiration:
<I seek to learn what is real, to apprehend the physis of beings, and to have knowledge of theos.https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/mercvrii-trismegisti-pymander-part-one/Lao Tzu surrenders himself to the void, but also resigns himself to dharma; that as Christ said, be in the world, but be not of it. Christ came to fulfill, not abolish the law.
>christianity without communion is not christianity at allYes, but this only concerns the fellowship of believers.
>it is more like you have some choice what forces you are channeling when you become conscious of it, but you are always channeling a mixture of forcesWell, I would say that the inner strength of Will shows that man's soul is still active in his life. When we control ourselves, what force is this? Of course, as Buddhists like to tell us, you cannot be rid of desire by desiring to be rid of desire (the same way you cannot will yourself to sleep), so the power of Will is not unconditional, but in its means to an end, it certainly has independence. I think it would be naive to affirm the being of all things besides man; man himself is a positively defined being.
>the vey existence of the acausal precludes individual self-standingOnly in an abstract sense, and it is hard to exactly see where one's own physis begins and ends in connexion with another. If we pertain to the boundary of races, how can we tell the limits of racial difference?
>if there is a collective unconscious then i dont really see how this followsThe collective unconscious is unconscious, and so is unconditional; it cannot be liberated from itself.
>thought naturally must precede such thingsNow, here's the difficulty. If thoughts are not themselves symbolised, then what is the form of pure thinking?
>>2890208>it is most rare by natural occuranceit is not supposed to be rare. you phrase things like it is all about rising above the rabble but the masses are a part of yourself. so long as they do not raise themselves higher, there is a part of you that is also kept down. this is part of what makes the bodhisattva vow as well as the project of aeonic sorcery an ethical necessity. with mahayana practices u see the doctrine of emptiness directly feeding into the practice of compassion. when the individual's boundaries becomes more porous and comes to embrace more of the outer world, one's values can naturally develop into one that is compassionate and wishing to end suffering for all beings
>but ascending the spheres is also about escaping the worldif it was about that then the 7fw would be pointless. you are supposed engage in various physical feats partly to counterbalance the introverted tendencies common in magian occultism. a major theme in the o9a is attuning to nature. it is not a form of chaos gnosticism even though those guys have appropriated some of the ideas
>When we control ourselves, what force is this?imo man is a unity of forces across the duration of his life. the integral nature of this unity is what then manifests as "will" but it is not a self-standing reality that can be wholly abstracted from forces. i personally avoid talking about will at all as it puts too much emphasis on unmediated control when it is more about an immanent shift in the distribution of energetic tendencies
>If we pertain to the boundary of races, how can we tell the limits of racial difference?racial difference is also not a firm and fixed thing either. it is a congealment of particular forces and the accumulation of past members having been sedimented into the bedrock of racial consciousness. the interconnectedness of all peoples is part of why the o9a developed an increasingly anti-racist doctrine over time. the problem with racism is that it is hubriatic and does not proceed from the numinous oneness of integral reality
>The collective unconscious is unconscious, and so is unconditional; it cannot be liberated from itself. you can bring what is only implicit in the collective unconscious into the light of actuality. that is what marx as advocating to be done with christianity
>If thoughts are not themselves symbolisedsymbols in the myattian sense dont just symbolize. they are forces. thoughts can be understood as a congealment of vital symbols into an abstract form that is treated as separate from everything else. pure thinking is a congealing impulse
>>2890247>it is not supposed to be rareAccording to whom? If we view nature as a harmony (e.g. a scaled order of contraries), then the high and low do not simply necessitate each other, but complement each other. This is the classical theory of caste, which is in Plato's Republic (370 BCE) and Manusmriti (300 CE). Aristotle claims that the caste system is derived from Ancient Egyptians (Politics, Book 7), first discovering mathematics (Metaphysics, Book 1). Discord (Eris) is the equality of all tones, which brings disharmony. They referred to this as "Chaos", as we read in Ovid (8 CE):
<Before there was earth or sea or the sky that covers everything, Nature appeared the same throughout the whole world: what we call chaos: a raw confused mass, nothing but inert matter, badly combined discordant atoms of things, confused in the one place. https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Metamorph.phpHere, Order is the principle of separation into properties:
<This conflict was ended by a god and a greater order of nature, since he split off the earth from the sky, and the sea from the land, and divided the transparent heavens from the dense air. When he had disentangled the elements, and freed them from the obscure mass, he fixed them in separate spaces in harmonious peace. https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Metamorph.phpSo, according to the order of creation, the highest pitch of things (e.g. gold) is rarest. Gold is valued more than iron, and for its own sake, becomes a symbol of virtue. We thus say that excellence is rare amongst men, since if it were common, we would find no great value in it.
>The massesThe multitude must be interrogated. As an indistinct "mass", it appears as a pure quantity, without qualities, and so fails to encapsulate anything. I don't write this to be tedious or pedantic, but to present some problems. If we take the phrase "national wealth", it is a true statistic of an aggregate sort, but in its generality, conceals the particular wealth of some, over others. Engels (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. One must either discard this term completely, or accept such premises as give it meaning.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htmEqually, we may read Rothbard on "Society" (1979):
<“Society” is sometimes treated as a superior or quasi-divine figure with overriding “rights” of its own; at other times as an existing evil which can be blamed for all the ills of the world. The individualist holds that only individuals exist, think, feel, choose, and act; and that “society” is not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individuals. Treating society as a thing that chooses and acts, then, serves to obscure the real forces at work.https://mises.org/online-book/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto/chapter-2-property-and-exchange/society-and-individualSo, there are problems with considering a nebulous "mass", and it only makes sense to divide the mass into groups. I may be part of a group, but are all groups part of a larger whole? We can speak of "humanity", but do all men share a substantial essence? Practicality, I will invoke the idea of "kin", based in Plato's idea of "philia". Philia, as love, is given to different objects; family, lovers and friends. We love all these, but the love is not equal. To me, kin is composed of those we love, but it is not also limited to men, for we often love animals - this is also my criticism of racism; difference doesn't exclude kinship, since men are more alike than animals, and so by the same means, identity isn't kinship, either. It was Cain who was the first murderer, against his brother. My point then, is that with kin, there is the voluntary and not. Family is not chosen, and so we have obligations to it. Lovers are chosen, but by passion. Friendship is chosen, and this is the perfect (e.g. Platonic) relationship, since lovers and family can betray us, but still be our lover or family, whilst a "real friend" cannot betray, and so friends are by definition loyal, honourable and sharing. Aristotle saw that the perfect society is one based in friendship. The point of this digression is to show that in kinship, we substitute the term "society" for actual relationships, which stretch beyond any shallow individualism, since family (e.g. race) is involuntary, yet dutiful, and without dissolution of personal identity, either. I feel that the use of the term "masses" is not merely indeterminate, but false. It is an oligarchic term feigning democracy. Class is a better relationship we can define - but we relate to others by kinship, through family, friends and lovers. As you say, my identity is bound to these, and I do agree.
>CompassionYou could say that the way of the bodhisattva is the way of Caesar; a Patrician caring for the Plebeians, which is noble, and used to define the socialist ethic. Ultimately however, we must still recognise that so long as people need help, they will remain in suffering and dependence, which is why the state can only "whither away" once a population is sufficiently self-governing/trustworthy.
>it is not a form of chaos gnosticism Not quite, but it is still mystical. As I say, one is able to peer into the Abyss and return as a servant of dharma.
>manifests as "will" but it is not a self-standing realityWill is not a "force", it is the regulation of forces.
>the interconnectedness of all peoplesAs I have written, I don't believe this. Humanity iitself is not kin. J.D. Vance made sensible comments on this point, but critics were right that the logic of kinship by Philia is contrary to Christian Agape, which in its concrete manifestation, is the Eros of rape, not voluntary love.
>symbols in the myattian sense dont just symbolize. they are forces. thoughts can be understood as a congealment of vital symbols into an abstract form that is treated as separate from everything else. pure thinking is a congealing impulseCan you elaborate on this? Or link some literature? Thanks.
>>2890293>According to whom?the numinous is the ontological truth of all of reality. there is no one group that owns it. opening oneself up to the numinous does not make you better than anyone else as it is not "your" power that is even being manifested in the first place. spiritual hierarchies of transmission are more of an expedience, but really the point is to cultivate virtue in all and participate positively in the evolution of wider Nature
>If we take the phrase "national wealth", it is a true statistic of an aggregate sort, but in its generality conceals the particular wealth of some, over others.that does not mean there is no inherent brotherhood in man. what characterizes man's material existence is an engagement in an interconnected division of labour. the attempts to simply represent things as statistical aggregates is problematic as it conceals an underlying alienation from this collective reality
>You could say that the way of the bodhisattva is the way of Caesarthis is a self-serving way of looking at things
>which is why the state can only "whither away" once a population is sufficiently self-governing/trustworthyso to simply accept hierarchy as inevitable is unacceptable
>Can you elaborate on this? Or link some literature? Thanks.see:
>>2885621 >>2890675>the numinous is the ontological truth of all of reality. there is no one group that owns it. As Myatt understands it, all life is manifested from the acausal, but living systems such as civilisations also possess certain quantities of acausal energy at a time, and excellence is received by nexions of concentrated energy, who become productive of culture, in particular. We see this correlate to Plato on the Muse; that poetry as an art is delivered from divinity. This is attested to by Hesiod at the beginning of his Theogeny (700 BCE), that he comes to know about the nature of the gods by the Muse. We see the notion of invocation in the Oracle of Delphi, where a living vessel was possessed by Apollo. This idea of genius and inspiration is continued into the work of Augustine, that the Bible was never an empirical account of journalists (such as it is claimed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch), but that it was given by God's own authorship, through various vessels. We see in the later work of Dee and Kelley (1580s) that they pretend to esoteric knowledge by invocation. Theosophists like Blavatsky and Steiner appeal to special revelation, by spirits called "ascended masters". Crowley too records his Aeon of Horus (1904) by an invocation of Aiwass. Aquino in "The Book of Coming Forth by Night" (1975) also uses invocation to declare the Age of Set (1966-). So then, the indwelling of energy in the production of culture is universally understood - and we say of those who are best that they are "geniuses". To say that "no one owns [creativity]" is correct in the formal sense, but genius, like the ancient heroes (read: demi-gods) are the blessed, and blessings are real, according to Fortuna, or the cosmic wheel (e.g. Fatum, Wyrd, Aeon, etc). We read in the Iliad that the Fates are even above the gods, the same way Wotan's power could not prevent Ragnarok. So, while all life has a share of acausal energy, it is time which decides how much is dispersed to what and who - the same way Hegel understands historical progress. Unfortunately, in Myatt's text on Acausal Science (2014), he reports that the original manuscript was lost, and so while we have theory, we have lost practice, such as his ideas of creating living machines, rather than the dead.
>the point is to cultivate virtue in allAbsolutely, but I would say that because life assorts its different qualities to different things, virtue is relative. Upon this point, I would recommend Oswald Spengler's short essay, "Man and Technics" (1931). The wolf can't lie with the lamb, unless it is weakened to equality. This is also Nietzsche's point, that power is virtuous - and politically, one can only be disempowered by an even greater power, so it's paradoxical, like what Mao says about using the gun to displace the gun. Equality is most often the most unequal, totalitarian ambition, since it takes violence to deny reality. We are unequal, but as I repeat, kinship is not excluse to one's identity.
>that does not mean there is no inherent brotherhood in manAre you a Christian? This is sentimental rubbish. We see in the perversity of Christianity an application of Eros over Philia where Christ declares himself to be a groom, and believers as his bride. He also declares believers to be his family. "All is One in Christ" is the Dionysian orgy as plagiarised from Euripides' Bacchae, translated into the Gospel of John. Christianity is incest, like how the impregnation of Mary is rape. I find this idea of universal love distasteful - but we see the same pathology in the early gnostics. I am in favour of all potential friendship, but we are not one big family, or one group of lovers. It is the repression of sexuality which leads to perversion, and we read of Paul's own desire for libidinal castration.
>this is a self-serving way of looking at things Philanthropy is most often a self-serving activity. This is why Lao Tzu tells us that the master rules without credit for his work, or how Jesus tells us not to let the right hand know what the left hand does. What is done as an end in itself is done without the expectation of reward.
>hierarchy as inevitable is unacceptableAgain, according to whom? Do not seek to deny reality.
>>2891018>The wolf can't lie with the lamb, unless it is weakened to equalitya wolf is but a single organism within a greater ecosystem. it can only be strong in proportion to the overall development of its environment's capacity to accumulate energy. a wolf could never evolve into being if there were only mice around. moreover, when a wolf dies, its energy dissipates into the greater ecology, thereby nourishing cosmic evolution. all organisms consume the flesh of the world and then empty themselves into it. in this process all of life is in communion
>Christian Agape, which in its concrete manifestation, is the Eros of rape<It is of fundamental importance - to evolution both individual and otherwise - that what is Dark, Sinister or Satanic is made real in a practical way, over and over again. That is, that what is dangerous, awesome, numinous, tragic, deadly, terrible, terrifying and beyond the power of ordinary mortals, laws or governments to control is made manifest. In effect, non-Initiates (and even Initiates) need constantly reminding that such things still exist; they need constantly to be brought "face-to-face", and touched, with what is, or appears to be, inexplicable, uncontrollable, powerful and "evil". They need reminding of their own mortality - of the unforeseen, inexplicable "powers of Fate", of the powerful force of "Nature".<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, Long>Philanthropy is most often a self-serving activityyou have it completely backwards. the acausal, being the fundamental unity of all beings, can not be simply a mere quantitative charge. all men are only great in relation to the absolute. when hegel saw napoleon,
he did not see an individual but world spirit. even authority is not simply that of the individual, but the cosmos itself
https://sevenoxonians.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/hebdom_second.pdf<1. That vigour - enthusiasm - which grows and which fades.<2. Those dishonourable machinations.<3. That eagerness which deceives.<4. The arrogance of authority over others.<5. Profane insolence and reckless haste.<6. The bad inclinations occasioned by a comfortable life-style.<7. The lies that lie in wait. >>2891018something else to notice: when you call a person a "genius", you in the very process strip them of their individual particularity. this is precisely because 'genius' is a reference to a cosmic force. when i am manically writing something or developing hidweh project, my individual concerns and existence becomes completely meaningless. i become my self-emptying into the world and ego thereby becomes a nuisance. art declines when it becomes self-serving. you only need look at modernity to see this all too clearly. too much art now tries to simply be clever or to try and express someone's "individuality", and so it is thereby destined to be forgotten. "greatness" comes from Truth, and Truth is universal. the accumulation of charge in one individual more than another is thereby an unremarkable fact within the grand scheme of cosmic unfolding. a major problem with magian occultism is it often turns into an attachment to rising the individual above the masses as a form of petty self-glorification that devolves into the contemplative spirituality of the beautiful soul. they dont understand that a man is greatest when he is dead, and is absolutely worthless while he is alive. it is precisely because christ self-emptied himself, offered his flesh, and died on the cross that he became the greatest man of all time, the very enfleshment of adam kadmon. if all he had was a private "spiritual development" he would be absolutely nothing, worse than nothing, contemptible, worthless.
the outer is an expression of the inner and to come out of oneself is to die.
>>2891638>The interdependence of lifeYes, I agree, like Mustafa telling Simba about the circle of life. Even within life however, there is disequilibrium, such as Bataille describes in The Accursed Share; that complex life-forms must extend beyond themselves to achieve "luxury", including death itself. This is Nietzsche; that Beauty is a scarce resource because it belongs to predation; to Blonde Beasts (e.g. Adamic/Hyperborean man). Indeed, we see that the paleolithic are stronger, taller and more beautiful than the neolithic, because of nutrition, but also because of leisure. Leisure is the privilege of the predator, which then grows within itself rather than merely stretching itself. We see in predators the wealth of quality over quantity, the same as the male over the female. Nature favours strength, masculinity and intelligence (since predators are smarter than prey). With these attributes, predators are also more emotive, and so engage in pathos. Homo sapiens are destructive beasts but also gentle spirits, and this exremity requires the possibility of both, which means natural excesses. The wolf then, is a greater thing than the lamb, because it can only be peaceful by regulating itself (e.g. by Will), whilst prey confuse their weakness for innocence. This is then the point of the master; the best master wields the most power, so as to return it to his subjects. This is what Plato writes in Statesman - but he adds that the perfect form of government (e.g. the rule of God, or a theocracy) is impossible on earth - I see an "enlightened despotism" as the best type of government, but also see that no man is perfect, and so I prefer the rule of law, as a liberal. This relates to Lao Tzu's descent of the order of the cosmos, to law and ritual. Morality degenerates from Righteousness, but morality is better than nothing:
<When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.htmlThus, the best thing is anarchy, then theocracy, and then democracy. Each descend as the Tao loses influence. I would state then that law appears by the loss of order. As Proudhon thus writes, anarchy is the natural order.
>the acausal, being the fundamental unity of all beings, can not be simply a mere quantitative charge. all men are only great in relation to the absolute.But greatness still exists, you concur? I am only writing what Myatt has said; he has a Carlylean view of History, which is then motivated by Great Men, or those who are individuated, and so are able to influence the Aeons.
>authority is not simply that of the individual, but the cosmos itselfRight, but we must ask, why are some individuals better vessels than others? The coincidence of their blessing is a relevant factor of the nature of greatness. Some people will never be great, so acausality is selective. Why did God choose Abraham? Some beings are special.
>>2891653>when you call a person a "genius", you in the very process strip them of their individual particularityNot at all; I only invite inquiry as to why some people are blessed while others are not. We could infer a power of Will (e.g. the performance of physical ordeals), but as we see with Hector and Achilles, blessings are unfair; Achilles did not work to gain power, but was born with it. As Achilles thus says, "there are no pacts between lions and men". Why are some chosen by God? You tell me.
>art declines when it becomes self-serving.We could otherwise say that art declines by blasphemy. Thus, Jesus says to never thank men, but only God.
>Truth is universalTruth is also particular; we cannot know what an insect might know.
>rising the individual above the massesMyatt calls this "individuation" and sees it as the cause of History. Read "Cliology" (1980) from Hostia Vol. 1.
>the outer is an expression of the inner and to come out of oneself is to die.No, death is the enclosure of oneself from reality, while the indwelling of Spirit is being brought into life. You are describing an "ego death", but the personality is spiritual. You appear to be denying man's inner self, which is a mistake. We are also a real being, do not forget.
>>2891846
>When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos.Being someone whose sympathies lie with Mohism & Legalism as far as ancient chinese philosophy goes, Taoist philosophy has always repulsed me, and its not always clear why.
Thankfully such a quote provides at least a partial answer: Tao, goodness, morality ritual, etc. but not even a mention of Law, in the legal sense.
It further illustrates the point that I often make that the greatest enemy is not one who rejects ones views, but rather one whose framework is so divergent they do not even use the same categories to express their views (in fact, such categories may not even exist in their conceptual framework/worldview at all).
>>2892229*Correction: The text linked mentions law in two instances.
"If powerful men and women
could remain centered in the Tao,
all things would be in harmony.
The world would become a paradise.
All people would be at peace,
and the law would be written in their hearts."
Basically an almost individualist appeal to moral behaviour, not recognizing social relations / relations of production at all as a factor (nevermind government).
"Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass."
A philosophy of self-negation & self defeat. No wonder it never could truly come to govern society for any significant period pf time, even imperfectly or hypocritically (As Confucianism did in spirit and legalism in administrative practice).
—
"The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be."
Also explains why first encounter with repulsive philosophy was amongst market liberals & libertarians.
Thank you very much Anon for sharing this. It has forced me to confront & clarify what was previously a vague hostility towards Taoism based on very little.
>>2892240> If powerful men and womencould remain centered in the Tao,
all things would be in harmony.
Isn’t the implication that being powerful inherently pulls you away from the Tao or is that my western cynical perspective distorting the text?
Nietzsche was a gay retard
A thread about volkish left has turn into a thread where esoterist schizzo magicians wannabes spill out their bullshit. Wouldnt it be nice if we still lived in a phantasy ancien-regime universe full of fairies and shit? well that's over, not over now, even before you were born it was already over, nad it will still be over forever, there is no going back. Well unless a nuclear war sends us back to the neolithic. Grow up suckers.
>>2892265What proof is there that he was gay
>>2892306>asking aiI guess we know who the real gay retard here is
>>2892296He was an upper class bourgeois man in the 19th century who hated "the herd", the masses, and the "slave morality" of christianity, not because it was backwards or anything, but because it held back "aristocratic souls".
It's pretty easy to see what his hangup was. Imagine a queer artsy teen in the US deep south and you get the gist of his philosophy
>>2891846>Why are some chosen by God? You tell me.again you have it backwards. they are who they are
because they were chosen by god. beyond that they are nothing
>We could otherwise say that art declines by blasphemyyes, individualism is blasphemy
>Myatt calls this "individuation" and sees it as the cause of Historydo you think i dont believe in personal cultivation? i just dont see the egotism as at all a necessity. the point is always the evolution of cosmos and folk. in the "galactic aeon", knowledge of the acausal and numinous would become commonplace and it will be a basic facet of our technology. your average technician would be expected to have a better grasp of the workings of the acausal than the vast majority of "great men" in human history (just like the average mathematician today is expected to display far greater abstract reasoning capacity than archimedes ever did). becoming a "creative individual" in such an era would be far more common place than it is now. the talk about blonde beasts and wolves or whatever is a masculous fixation that simply does nothing for me too. the o9a is an occult tradition that sets itself apart by emphasizing empathy more than simply force of will. that is the basic language which i speak
>No, death is the enclosure of oneself from realitywhen the individual dies their biological material is dispersed into the causal and their "spirit" disperses into the acausal. there is no enclosure there, and in truth there never actually was. practicing the occult you might come to realize that the spirit is far more porous and malleable than it might initially seem. those with the greatest psychic abilities often have the most porous psychic membranes
>>2892240westerners have a tendency to project a liberal political economy unto taoist thought, but of course if the point was really resignation, there would be no point in engaging in internal cultivation, which i can assure you is very different from a flippant "going with the flow". the true wu wei presupposes proper attunement and internal organization, out from which virtue naturally flows. the cosmos itself has its own development that is far greater than any individual; communism is the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. you become attuned to the rhythm of the cosmos, and let everything flow from there. the ccp's view of how to treat global politics and economics is rather taoist in nature. they do not have any idealism in the way western marxists do (this is something they had shaken off after the excesses of the cultural revolution), rather they continue the development of the productive forces in response to the changing world stage. meanwhile, in the west you still have orthodox marxists and value form theorists pointing to capital in a world largely ruled by rent-seeking and and fictitious capital. they do not adapt, they are not aligned with the way
i've never seen so many words used to essentially say nothing before this thread
>>2892527>they are who they are because they were chosen by god.Calvinist soteriology is necessary here. The Elect are chosen by God, but each is still responsible for the call. And this still doesn't explain the mystery of Grace. Why are some chosen but others aren't? Is there an answer? We see that Zeus gave ganymede apotheosis on account of his beauty. Ovid writes that Caesar became a god on account of his honour. Hesiod writes that the virtuous dwell in the Isles of the Blessed.
>Masculous fixationThe masculous and muliebral complement each other, and both must be affirmed in their extremity. Freedom is only possible by strength.
>>2892240>self-defeatThere are treasures on earth and in heaven. The man who holds to possessions on earth lives in fear of dispossession, and this avarice is his internal poverty.
>>2892229>LawWe find in the mythic etiology of law, a distinction made by Hesiod between Law and Order. Ovid also writes that Law only appears after the Golden Age, as vengeance - yet we presume that Order is intrinsic to creation. After Chaos comes Order, and Law is final, being a child of Zeus and Truth, where Law is born alongside Justice, as it is written in the Theogeny (700 BCE). What is Justice? Justice is represented by scales, which then compare weights, and so is a matter of quantity. Aristotle writes that Justice is the equality of reciprocity (Nicomachean Ethics, Book 5, Chapter 5), such that what is given must be taken in return according to an equal measure. So, Justice, we might say, is fairness. What is unfair is that which is undeserved, and so Justice is what we deserve.
Law is evidently negative rather than affirmative, since it concerns prohibition; the violation of which is crime. A law, if it is to be just, must then account for what is taken and what is to be returned. We may thus describe crime as debt, and criminals as debtors. Crimes are all relative to the act, thus. Ur-Nammu Code (2100 BCE):
<If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver […] If a man has cut off another man’s foot, he is to pay ten shekels […] If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver.https://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Sumer/ur_nammu_law.htmHere, crimes incur proportionate costs, which we may term "compensation" (e.g. 'an eye for an eye'). The act itself is not the only condition, but also the actors. We may read this in The Code of Hammurabi (1800 BCE):
<If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman, he shall pay one mana of silver […] If one destroy the eye of a man’s slave or break a bone of a man’s slave he shall pay one-half his price.https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hammurabi-the-code-of-hammurabi#lf0762_label_422Here, we see that a slave is treated as having a lesser worth than a freeman, and so crimes against him have lesser terms of compensation. We see this extend to all cultures, such as the Anglo-Saxon Laws of Æthalstan' (600 CE), which detail different rates of compensation according to classes, for the same offence. These conditions were also applied in the case of John Punch (1640 CE), who as a fellow accomplace with other indentured servants, was legally distinguished by his race, and so suffered at a greater cost than whites for the same crime. So, Law is also a class concept, which orders recompense according to rank and authority.
Law is set by the state. We read in Aristotle how Draco's laws induced debt slavery in Athens for the sake of the ruling class. Only with Solon were these laws repealed, and so one class is set against another (e.g. the Demos over the Arites), and so law is relative to this concern. In Cicero's description of Rome's class warfare, he writes that the "Twelve Tables" (450 BCE) were established as a compromise of the Patricians against the Plebeians, which encoded in them the statutes of common law, or what we might call "custom". Plato in Statesman sees that all custom is a remembrance of ancient law codes, perhaps in the same way that Geoffrey of Monmouth (1136 CE) writes that British common law, the so-called Molmutine Laws, were established by the decree of a legendary British king, and held ever since. The practice of common law was transposed into the revolutionary document of the Magna Carta (1215), which stressed the "ancient liberties" of England; a theme carried into the English Civil War (1642-51) by subsequent appeals. We see then that the common people have a common law, which differs from the law of a ruling class, and all antagonism is a battle for the restoration of this state - we can read in Antigone, the struggle between the oikos and polis for the sake of burial rites and custom. We equally see a revolutionary appeal in the Book of Exodus. Moses asks Pharaoh to allow the Hebrews to perform their customary rites, after which there is the struggle for independence, and the Tabernacle is made. Gerrard Winstanley (1653) bemoans the loss of custom, by the enclosure of the commons, the same way Marx in 1842 writes about the loss of customary rights to wood in Germany; this is a class war of capital versus labour - Plato (547b) describes this conflict as that between the "old order" and the "acquisition of [property]". So, there are different laws for different people, and political struggle appeals to these particular interests, which require independent conditions to function properly.
Upon the acquisition of property, Cicero writes that the ends of government, by law, is the protection of private property, the same as what is understood by Locke. Yet as Cicero continues, following Aristotle, property is held as a means to the end of the public good, and so has a condition of its preservation; the rights of property are thus measured by the General Will - Rousseau concurs. Disturbance in the General Will is thus an unrightful act or claim by stipulation in the law. Here, the law is again internally divided, between its Spirit and its Letter (e.g. The Book of Romans, New Testament). We see Christ declare his promise to fulfill the law, but in doing so, he is declared unlawful, since in delivering the Spirit, there is transgression against the Letter (e.g. The parable of the lost sheep). Paul writes that the Letter kills but the Spirit brings life. What is evident then, is that the law is subject to interpretation, and becomes more tyrannical as it expands; thus, Christ encapsulates the entire law in two commandments; to love others as oneself, and to love God. Paul says that the law is written on our hearts. There is a contradiction between quality and quantity, as discussed by Roman commentators. Tacitus (120 CE):
<And now bills began to pass, not only of national but of purely individual application, and when the state was most corrupt, laws were most abundant.https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/3B*.htmlThus, more law means more disorder, and so the law as an instrument of justice cannot increase its imperatives by adding to itself, since in doing so, it assumes a place of morality, and this is tyrannical. Aquinas (1274) thus declares that laws must abide by man's imperfections (and so the enforcement of morality is itself immoral), or as Lysander Spooner wrote, "Vices are not Crimes". So then, the quantity of laws are inversely proportional to their quality, since the Letter dilutes the Spirit. Further and finally, morality is lawful (e.g. Kant), but the law is not morality; by infusing the Letter and Spirit, you thus lose each. Man can only be good if he has the freedom to be evil, as per the perspective of Schiller, whilst the law does not permit transgression, and so cannot allow for contemplation, but only punishment. The General Will is thus the Spirit of laws, which institutes the Letter, but if the Letter gains independence, it erodes the Spirit. Thus, the Nuremberg Defense is objectionable, since it transgresses the Spirit by the Letter. All class traitors, such as soldiers and police officers, possess this ethic, whilst all ethical persons abide by lawful permission. Jesus spares the adulteress from a death sentence, and afterwards, she is able to repent. So, Lawful ≠ Legal.
As opposed to law, morality also affords positivity, by the imperative to act, rather than to not-act. Law signifies obligations to society, whilst morality concerns duties to onself. I like to say that morality is defined by (i) what we would do, even if there were consequences, and (ii) what we would not do, even if there were no consequences. Morality is then deontological in its very orientation, by definition, whilst the law is relative and conditional. Ritual, as Lao Tzu has it, is the Letter of the law betraying the Spirit, by making ceremony absolute, and morality subordinate. Jesus tells us not to pray in public, but in private. Works without faith are dead. This is what Lao Tzu thus means; the Letter is not the Spirit. What is most original of all however, is natural harmony. It is only that the "knowledge of good and evil" comes to be by the presence of evil, or disharmony in nature. The nature of disharmony is what the ancients called Chaos:
<Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos.https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html The left has always been a Jewish ethnic project. Bakunin was right about Marx
>>2892527>>2892622To expand on blessings and curses, we see that Fate is the minister of these things, since as it was told by Gaia to Zeus, the line of godly succession requires the usurping of the father by the son (such as with Cronus and Uranus). This is why Athena is born from the head of Zeus, since he swallows her mother in an attempt to prevent a child being born. Nonetheless, in the Greek tragedy, Prometheus Bound (420 BCE) we see prophecy given by Prometheus that Zeus will be overthrown by a son. Heracles as a son of Zeus is said by Steiner to free Prometheus from his bondage, for the new age (1904):
<Only those who are initiated as human beings of the fifth epoch can bring release to fettered mankind. Heracles, who was a human initiate of this kind, had himself to press through to the Caucasus in order to free Prometheus. […] Mortal man has to learn to stand on his own feet during the fifth Great Epoch. He is represented by Prometheus. Man was the inaugurator of the arts and, above all, of the primal art of the use of fire. Zeus is jealous of him because he is predestined to produce his own initiates, who will take over the leadership in the sixth epoch. […] Prometheus is the archetypal initiate of the fifth epoch, who has undergone initiation, not only in knowledge, but also in deed. He it was who underwent the whole of suffering and will be released from his bondage by him who is becoming mature enough to set free the whole of humanity in gradual stages and to raise it up out of the mineral realm.https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA093/English/RSP1985/19041007p02.htmlSo then, Zeus cannot avert the prophecy, but only delay its inevitability. Fate is above the gods, since Ragnarok, as Twilight of the gods, cannot be averted. Heracles as the initiated man, who thus liberates others and creates a new order is the same as what Myatt writes about. Understanding Aeonics is understanding fatality.
Of blessings and curses, we see that a Covenant is made by God to Abraham, and the prophecy of his seed conquering the earth is foretold. We see then that what is blessed is the ends of the Aeon, as told by Paul, that the true Israel, and child of the Promise are Christians. They are Jacob, not Esau. So then, blessings account for temporal causation, the same as curses. We see in Oedipus Rex how in attempting to prevent a curse, it is manifested, and so the curse is retroactive. Fated things are bound by the Chain of Necessity (Republic, Book X), and so inscribe the nature of causation. Another term for causation is "karma", or "action". Karma attributes all phenomena as causal, such that blessings and curses are a result of one's own actions. Thus, a man reaps what he sews - and so greatness is a momentum. The final day of Judgement separates the wicked from the good, and the wicked are destroyed in the Lake of Fire. Contrarily, it is written that the good will suffer on earth for the sake of faith, inverting present goods for what is granted later on. Only in the end is Justice delivered, like the "natural price" of long-term equilibrium. The first shall be last, it is written, and so blessings are given as a curse; of license to sin, whilst like Buddha, one must forfeit the palace of luxury. Thus, Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell all of his possessions, and this is the threshold of faith. Indeed, earthly and heavenly goods are counterposed, and so should it be that the blessed are in essence cursed? So then, things only make sense in the end, where Fate has completed its Perfect Year:
<Thus was time made in the image of the eternal nature […] a cycle or perfect year at the completion of which they all meet and coincide…To this end the stars came into being, that the created heaven might imitate the eternal nature.https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1572/1572-h/1572-h.htmNothing new is under the sun:
<All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages.https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56966/speech-all-the-worlds-a-stageThe New Heaven and New Earth will again progress by the Aeons.
>>2892666>Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are everywhere: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of bloodsuckers, a single gluttonous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild. >>2892622Sorry Anon, but all this reads to me as gobbledygook. I can make even less sense of it than the poetic diatribe of the tao te ching.
Perhaps it because my mind is profoundly one of the totalitarian tyrant. Unenlightened, barbaric or what have you.
End of the day, Qin was victorious & unified the land. More profoundly, legalist structures it set in place remained remained for more than 2000 years. Feudalism was abolished and never really really recovered.
>>2892622>The Elect are chosen by God, but each is still responsible for the callnot relevant to what i was saying. grace is a form of divine energy and every organism is a mixture of causal and acausal energies. the mixture of these energies can be changed through cultivation and pathei mathos. as for why there is a different distribution of energy, idk why is there more mass in some places rather than others to form planets? there are different forces of accumulation and repulsion in the cosmos and each has some degree of variation in its expression. forces often also engender an equal and opposite resentiment leading to momentarily differential individuation. there is also the tendencies of karma and resonance which influence the differential expression of different forces compared to others. i suppose all of this is a manifestation of the cosmos's tendency to evolve in a way that multiplies the number of differences within it while also eventually leading to a greater interconnectivity at a later time. that is about all i can say, to me the question isnt that interesting especially in the context of bringing about a new aeon which entails changing how the causal interfaces with the acausal in a fundamental irreversible way. it is true that as it stands some people have more "acausal charge" than others and average person simply lacks initiative, so practically i believe in developing a spiritual vanguard of meedhsken. to me that is simply the reality of the situation. i dont have much interest in developing an entire philosophy around such a thing. nietzsche is interesting, but after dissolving the individual into drives, he couldnt take the next step into realizing that what then matters is the overarching economy and logic of drives rather than the fates of "individuals". this is what deleuze and lyotard did, completing his thought
>The masculous and muliebral complement each otherthat does not mean that one is not clearly more preferable than the other if you are going to have an imbalance
<What is muliebral cannot be embodied in some organization or movement, or in some -ism, or in any causal form – and certainly cannot be expressed via the medium of words, whether spoken or written – without changing it, distorting it, from what it is into some-thing else. For the muliebral by its very φύσις is personal, individual, in nature and only presenced in the immediacy-of-themoment, and thus cannot be the object of a supra-personal aspiration and thus should not be 'idealized' or even be the subject of an endeavour to express it in some principles or principles (political or otherwise), or by some axiom or axioms, or by some dogma. For all such things – forms and words included – are manifestations, a presencing, of what is, in φύσις, masculous and temporal. Or, expressed more simply, the muliebral presences and manifests what is a-causal – what, in the past, has often inclined us to appreciate the numinous – while the masculous presences and manifests what is causal [ea], temporal, and what in the past has often inclined us toward hubris and being egoistic [ea].in the 7fw the masculous corresponds to the lower grade of the external adept, while the muliebral corresponds to the internal adept. rite of the abyss then is meant to be the enantiodromia between of the two. the historical/mythical rounwytha tradition only practiced the rite of internal adept and rite of abyss, with hence a stronger muliebral bent. this meant that the rounwytha mostly consisted in women with only a few particularly sensitive males. meanwhile, the over-emphasis on the masculous is how you get the tempel ov blood which has completely forgotten the numinous entirely. the celebration of predation and the glorified ego is a cathexis that has never led anywhere productive. what is good in the masculous is its contribution to honour i.e. external action that respects the numinous, not egoistic self-gratification. again, there is a reason why myatt was attracted to islam. the history of islam has various strong warriors, but all of them ultimately submitted themselves to allah. there is a story of once ali being about to finish off an enemy warrior until he was spat in the face. at that moment he spared the man. when asked his response was that if he had killed the man in that moment, it would have been to protect his own ego, rather than being for the will of allah
>>2892675the way is not fate. you are superimposing a western concept upon a culture that is largely indifferent to such a notion
>>2892527
>the ccp's view of how to treat global politics and economics is rather taoist in natureIf true, it goes hand & hand with their revisionism & the restoration of capitalism in China.
The capitalist roaders will one day be buried alive, just as their degenerate scholar precursors were.
>>2893150idealism. communism is not a fixed form but a tendency
>>2892622>>2893147forgot to also say, in islam these warriors did not hubristically attribute their strength to themselves, but rather to allah. what is common between the mystic, the revolutionary, and the jihadi is this subjective destitution
there is a reason why jungian individuation merely corresponds to adeptship. after that and the 7fw itself comes "immortality" which as has already been established involves a union with the psyche of the folk. greatness can not consist in an egoistic retreat or a merely self-serving gesture and individuation is still just a lower stage. what myatt was trying to reach for is the stage after spengler and jung, a stage that would manifest itself in life. vindex is the mythological embodiment of this stage, both mythical causal figure as well as an acausal form (ergo essentially collectively subsisting). how can vindex come about? the tob's response to the question is the development of a "noctulian race" as it overemphasized the causal individuality of vindex, the masculous. furthermore, it would seem (according at least to kian tveitan), that the broader niner community has devolved into petty squabbling with the most creative members more often than not resigning themselves to solitude. there is the contemplative spirituality and there is the practical. we can parallel this with the hypocritical contemplative nature of christianity with the causal focus of judaism. in islam is the attempted synthesis of the two polarities into an ethos of honour and submission to allah. similarly there is the sentimentality of the utopian socialists and moralists, then there is the scientific socialism of marxism which attempts to bring the numinous and external praxis together. this is why haz al-din talks about how marxism = islam and it is also why aeonic materialism is so important
>>2892622>>2893147>every organism is a mixture of causal and acausal energiessomething to also underscore again here: when talking about "charge" and "energies", it is easy to miss the fact that these are relationalities. caeser was not simply a blonde beast or wolf or whatever. these are fetishes. caeser is only powerful because what he says resonates with the hearts of the people, because he has insight into authority. authority is cosmic and collective, it is never simply individual. a major problem with the west today, and a sign of its imminent collapse, is that people can only recognize 'force' as some barbaric thing. no one understands true authority anymore. "why are these people chosen by god" also forgets the fact that "god" is the cosmos and primordial collectivity. greatness is attunement and expression of collective will and cosmic development. so ultimately, your question, made explicitly really is
why are some people more attuned to collective essence while others are more caught up in the egoistic selfishness of the everyday? it has nothing to do with individualism, if anything it is quite the opposite
you keep wanting to drag things to some withdrawed self-pleased posture and im telling you that is absolutely not what you should be doing if you want to amount to anything in your life
I'm not feeling so well commiebros. Out of the 15 delegates at the first CCP Congress, half were either Soviet Jews or had Ming Dynasty Jewish surnames per the 1489 Kaifeng stele. Not to mention all the other Jews involved in training the Red Army doctors and propagandizing the revolution abroad
>>2893212Finish your thought
>>2893150>Memriisraeli propaganda
>"Neo Maoists"wonder if they're distinguishing M3W, MLM, and MZT. probably not.
>"Neo Maoists In China Who Hate Le Dengism"the gang of four were clowns who preached socialism is when equality under poverty like conservatives.
<Then in 1966 came the “cultural revolution”, which lasted a whole decade, a real disaster for China. During that period many veteran cadres suffered persecution, including me. I was labelled the "No. 2 Capitalist Roader" after Liu Shaoqi. Liu was called "commander-in-chief of the bourgeois headquarters" and I "deputy commander-in-chief". Many strange things happened in those days. For instance, people were told that they should be content with poverty and backwardness and that it was better to be poor under socialism and communism than to be rich under capitalism. That was the sort of rubbish peddled by the Gang of Four. There is no such thing as socialism and communism with poverty. The ideal of Marxists is to realize communism. According to Marx, communist society is a society in which the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is applied. What is the principle of to each according to his needs? How can we apply this principle without highly developed productive forces and vast material wealth? According to Marxism, communist society is a society in which there is overwhelming material abundance. Socialism is the first stage of communism; it means expanding the productive forces, and it represents a long historical period. Only if we constantly expand the productive forces can we finally achieve communism. The Gang of Four's absurd theory of socialism and communism led only to poverty and stagnation. […] Certain individuals, pretending to support the reform and the open policy, call for wholesale Westernization of China in an attempt to lead the country towards capitalism. These people don't really support our policies; they are only trying vainly to change the nature of our society. If China were totally Westernized and went capitalist, it would be absolutely impossible for us to modernize. The problem we have to solve is how to enable our one billion people to cast off poverty and become prosperous. If we adopted the capitalist system in China, probably a small number of people would be enriched, while the overwhelming majority would remain in a permanent state of poverty. If that happened, there would be a revolution in China. China's modernization can be achieved only through socialism, not capitalism. There have been people who have tried to introduce capitalism into China, and they have always failed. Deng Xiaoping, We shall draw on historical experience and guard against wrong tendencies, April 30, 1987
>>2893147>>2893175>>2893185>the mixture of these energies can be changed through cultivation and pathei mathos. Is this not an individualist sentiment? You are attributing salvation to personal effort rather than Wyrd. I do not doubt that a man's life is marked by pathei-mathos in the quest for greatness, but I also see predestination in the way of natural ability. Mozart was born with music in his soul; he did not "practice" at being effortlessly grand. You can watch vidrel to witness a great mystery unfold.
>for why there is a different distribution of energy, idkIt is by the Will of God, evidently. Providence reveals its mystery in time, where first causes resolve themselves into final ends (e.g. telos), and so the being of things is made complete. We see that where God hated Esau and loved Jacob, that there is still the retroactivity of Esau selling his birthright to Jacob, which is a voluntary act, but still constitutive of fate. Again, Sophocles' Oedipus Rex (420 BCE) is the most glorious narrative device of this sort, where the attempt to avert prophecy is the means of its constitution - the same narrative device used in Macbeth (1606). So, prophecy is absolute, but still requires actors on the world stage to perform it. We see this most startlingly in Pharaoh, whose heart was hardened by God himself so as to enact his downfall. And of course, man's fall from Eden was also deliberate. Here, the ends of things are already in motion. This is also curious in the case of Christ (Matt 24:35-6):
<Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024%3A35-6&version=KJVChrist admits to ignorance upon the final Judgement, so this is what especially concerns absolute reality. On the final Judgement, I am able to decode it thencewise. We read in Plato's Statesman, a description of procession of ages, which degenerates the universe into corruption, and at the brink of disintegration and death comes new life by the Will of God; who reverses the motions of the cosmos. This reversal undoes all the corruption. In his Republic, he also describes how all of the planets move in a clockwise cycle, whilst the fixed stars move in the opposite direction. Finally in Timaeus, he describes the Perfect Year as the completion of a revolution of the realm of fixed stars (read: Zodiac). So then, we begin to understand, that the precession of the Equinoxes is of a higher order than the planetary cycles, and it is by the movement of Aeons that the cosmos is brought into its being, from birth to death. This Perfect Year is identical to the Yuga Cycle described in the Hindu Mahabrata (300 BCE). Here is Hadith Sahih Al-Bukhari 81:40 (6506):
<Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established till the sun rises from the west, and when it rises (from the west) and the people see it, then all of them will believe (in Allah). But that will be the time when 'No good it will do to a soul to believe then. If it believed not before.."' (6.158)https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6506Thus, the Hour is the time given when God reverses the cosmos, at the end of the age, or Aeon. Christianity as an apocalyptic creed represents the new Age of Pisces (probably beginning at the purported birth of Christ, at the 11th September, 3 BCE - as reported in Revelation 12), from the Age of Aries (Golden Calf being the sign of Taurus before that). So this is the meaning of the Hour, and it is closest to God because Mazzaroth is absolute.
>the celebration of predation and the glorified ego is a cathexis that has never led anywhere productiveThis is why Nietzsche is important. Nietzsche sees that sadism is the instinct of the weakling, not the strong. As I repeat, inner strength leads to the regulation of Will - Nietzsche cites this as the first sublimation of the Will to Power by the Brahmin, who in resisting immediate desires, is able to direct the life-force to greater ends. The weakling is contrarily incapable of virtue, and they fester in fantasy. Freud describes this as the difference between sublimation and repression (e.g. perversion).
>The Way is not FateI never implied they were the same. As Lao Tzu writes, the Tao is older than God. Or as it is recorded in the Enuma Elish, Tablets of Destiny were created from the Protogenoi, and not the Annunaki, who after Marduk crafts the cosmos, are subject to it. Fate is above the gods; that is the mystery of Aeon, who is unrelenting.
>what is common between the mystic, the revolutionary, and the jihadi is this subjective destitutionIn Marxist terms, we could call this "alienation", or "fetishism"; man becomes objectified toward himself. We can read this dastardly attitude in Nechayev (1869):
<The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution […] The revolutionary despises all doctrines and refuses to accept the mundane sciences, leaving them for future generations. He knows only one science: the science of destruction […] Tyrannical toward himself, he must be tyrannical toward others. All the gentle and enervating sentiments of kinship, love, friendship, gratitude, and even honor, must be suppressed in him and give place to the cold and single-minded passion for revolution. https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htmThis is a denial of onself, and so denies the totality of life, which is what makes it unvirtuous and repressive, like Paul's hateful screed against human sexuality.
>authority is cosmic and collective, it is never simply individual.Yes, you can read King James' "Trew Law" (1598) and Robert Filmer's "Patriarcha" (1680), in tandem with "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" (1709) to see how monarchy is justified by reciprocity between a king and his people. Pertaining to this point, there are still better rulers than others, and so a collective does not grow a representative, but it is that representatives are chosen - based on their virtue. The virtue must precede its recognition.
>you keep wanting to drag things to some withdrawed self-pleased postureWhere do I do this? Please explain your insult against me so as to be honourable. I have said multiple times that a great man is great because of the dispensation of his power to others. It is the man who has made himself free who then allows others to proceed in the same way. As Bastiat (1850) says following Locke (1690), property extracted from the commons is not lost, but returned to public use by trade. The uneven share of talents is how the greater good is affected, hence Aristotle and Cicero defying Plato's Communism based in Eros, to a cause of the common good by Philia. Epicurus' communalism is a more virtuous model for the same reasons. A crude equality of distribution leads to no excellence, and so cannot induce virtue in a people. Harmony is necessary for the complements of difference.
>>2893140>TyrannyWell, we must agree that there are also good tyrants, of whom we term monarchs? I would say that monarchy can still maintain legitimacy so long as it benefits a people. This is written in "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" (1709), that the condition of rightful rule is the satisfaction of a people, whenceforth dissatisfaction gives right to revolt. We see in the English Civil War (1642-51) that polemics concerned the legal abuses of King Charles I, found in Coke's "Petition of Right" (1628), a plea for the restoring of Habeas Corpus, written in the Magna Carta (1215). The Lordly "Star Chamber" gave undue power to nobles in their oppressions against the third estate, and so the incitement of revolt was top-down class war, rather than a harmony of complementary interests. Here, the king must still pledge loyalty to his subjects, by preserving the common law, rather than imposing his own desires. Rousseau (1761) also justifies monarchy where it has currency by the General Will. King James wrote (1598):
<By the Law of Nature the King becomes a naturall Father to all his Lieges at his Coronation: And as the Father of his fatherly duty is bound to care for the nourishing, education, and vertuous gouern-ment of his children; euen so is the king bound to care for all his subiects.https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1475-1640_the-true-lawe-of-free-mo_james-i-king_1598Robert Filmer (1680) also compares kings to fathers. So, it is a father's responsibility to care for his children, and if not, his children will resent him, and usurp him. Power must then be reciprocal so as to be maintained. The object of revolution (e.g. Moses, Solon, the Twelve Tables, Jesus, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc.) pretexts legal reform. So then, all monarchies are constitutional (e.g. social contract). I like to elsewise say that taxation without representation is theft, but with representation, it becomes social gain.
>>2893212Uyghur you can't even read Chinese don't even try to pretend like you know who the delegates at ANY CCP Congress are.
>>2893233Make no mistake, I am fundamentally your irreconcilable enemy. Totalitarian & mass murdering. Quoting another enemy whose legacy I fundamentally reject serves no purpose in argument.
The cultural revolution ultimately failed to prevent capitalist restoration, and so did the so-called gang of four.
What was needed then was mass killing and open & honest embrace of tyrannical & totalitarian rule. What is needed now for another revolutionary upsurge is death & meaningless mind numbing suffering of the kind provided by famine or world war. Suffering of such a kind that it backs humanity broadly & proletariat more specifically into a corner, lighting a fire under its ass.
All within the proletariat, none outside the proletariat, none against the proletariat.
>>2893342>Is this not an individualist sentiment?no. it is not
for the individual and the cultivation involves the individual opening themselves up to what is collective and has in reality always been there to begin with. it is like becoming a clearer mirror for more subtler, rarefied, and undifferentiated forms of qi. moreover, the individual is itself a particular modality of self-interaction within the universal field. it is only individualistic if you do not have the right frame of reference
<Man exists because Being, precensing, is transmuted (17) – that is, because of change. Man, as change of Being, is a transforming, an evolution; historically or causally, this process is the history of Being, conceived by Hegel as a dialectic. Yet this history has as its goal the very Being from which it is derived – the returning of man to the unity of Being. To return necessitates disclosure, the revealing of Being through authenticity. Authentic existence, being the drawing toward unity of the causal and acausal interpretations (what Jung (18) has described as individuation) is a home-coming (to use a term of Heidegger’s), a re-living of symbols and a re-participation that involves the withdrawal of projections from the idea to the essence.<Man as a disclosure of being, is primordially a participation in Being: for this disclosure of Being there is no logos in Plato’s sense, only an identification. There is possession by symbols and their possibilities (the ‘unconscious’) and not yet possession of them as occurs when logos transforms through ιδεα into ‘reason’. Before this transformation there is no individuality because individuality (as a condition of Being) is the process of abstraction that transforms θύσις into λόγος as reason. Collectivity is primordial: through Being’s change, grounded as man’s dichotomy because of such unfolding, this becomes individuality, the consciousness of identity, as idea, has replaced it. In speaking about individuality one is already speaking about the change of λόγος – from participation to the Word. Θάσις through πόλεμος has become νοΰς (mind), and there is διαλεκτική (19).<This change is already foreshadowed in Heraclitus, as the genesis of the Aristotlean opposites (20). With Anaximander, this transforming is not yet evident: participation in the One, although subject to change, returns – άρχή is still the limit-less, τό ‘άπειρον. There is no separation, no opposition between Being and existents. For Anaximander, therefore, there is no geographer, or meteorologist, or historian – only knowledge (participation) of all as it is. And it is because of change that abstraction must be returned, through mathematics, to this participation: change has caused the separation and change will represence the separated.>In Marxist terms, we could call this "alienation", or "fetishism"it is quite the opposite. for marx, practical sensuous activity is the originary preemption of the division between subject and object. it can be identified with what hölderlin identified as the judgement (urteil). when the artist fully an authentically puts his vital energies into a work, he is completely lost in it. as bulgakov points out, through production the subject is exteriorized, and through consumption the object is interiorized. labour is furthermore integrally connected to an entire division of labour and so feeds into a primordial collectivity which marx calls the relations of production. dialectical materialism implies that these relations actually exist before the individual exist, and even before discrete classes. hence, production is a non-dual collective resonant virtuality that gets wave-function collapsed into a superstructural from. alienation meanwhile is a diremption of subject and object; it is the separation of this virtuality into the poles of Substance, Necessity, or Fate (this is the essence of commodity fetishism) on one side, and individual atomic egos on the other. this is why communism is not understood as merely the liberation of the proletariat (what would largely be just a slave morality), but rather all of humanity
>Where do I do this?ask yourself what is the actual substance of our disagreement? what exactly are you trying to show me that wouldnt be already be reflected in my own practice? clearly, the problem is framing and larger orientation. there is a difference of aesthetic (not just a fashion but a making sense of the world) here, and one has to ask what are the energetic tendencies that lead to the difference of aesthetic
<Even Jesus rejected the crowd. Spirituality is individual, but the bodhisattva can still offer charity to the world.<I find this idea of universal love distasteful - but we see the same pathology in the early gnostics. I am in favour of all potential friendship, but we are not one big family, or one group of lovers<You could say that the way of the bodhisattva is the way of Caesar; a Patrician caring for the Plebeians, which is noble, and used to define the socialist ethic<Beauty is a scarce resource because it belongs to predation; to Blonde Beasts (e.g. Adamic/Hyperborean man). Indeed, we see that the paleolithic are stronger, taller and more beautiful than the neolithic, because of nutrition, but also because of leisure. Leisure is the privilege of the predator, which then grows within itself rather than merely stretching itself<Philanthropy is most often a self-serving activity<No, death is the enclosure of oneself from realitywhat about these framings are attractive to you? to me what is most important is the evolution of the cosmos itself. that is the master signifier. meanwhile, you want to bring focus to the contingent and the parochial. great men think about great things, and allah is the greatest thing of all. the cosmos should be your axis mundi, not individual sentiment and attainment. and just as the artist is absorbed into their work, so shall the great man be absorbed into the current of cosmic revolution
>>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: 77