Satyr

Let us discuss Satyr.

What is he?
What are is problems; do we not all have problems?
What of any of us humans are perfect? What are his flaws in thinking?
What does he fear?
What does he refuse to admit?
What does he refuse to admit he fears?

What does he use his logics to escape from?
Surely there is something of himself he doesn't understand that holds him back from what completely he can be.

What do I see? I see him wanting to be strong in humanity. A powerful unique being un-emit-ably to himself.

Does he fear being wrong or is he more wiling to accept his flaws to seek further how to better himself: surely he seeks to be strong and so surely he wants to see what weakness to hims the "we" only see as flaws.

Does he not fear that which is not yet understandable to him, does he not want to have a category an understanding of all that he can?
Is his main flaw his urge to be more when being "more" is so socially relative to begin with.
What is he missing?

In short you seek fora flaw to bring me down and humble me before you.

Shall you begin or do you wish for me to disrobe in public so that you can pick me apart?

I don't want to sound like Satyr's self appointed squire, or cheer leader, but.. all we ever hear about Satyr are his supposed vices.. I want to hear about his virtues.

Allow me to get the ball rolling-

He's an independent thinker, intelligent, witty, an articulate, eloquent and expressive writer, he has a wide array of philosophical and, poetic weapons in his arsenal. Thought provoking and thoughtful, a positive, systematic and idiosyncratic philosopher. Charismatic, forthright, possessing breadth and depth, a difficult opponent, and a worthy adversary.

He's also an extremely entertaining, humorous man, he's the only writer on KT, iLP and elsewhere I find a pleasure to read. Every line is an absolute delight, like an orgasm in my mind, and that's coming from me, I'm usually so engrossed with my own thoughts, I rarely take the time to read what others have to say unless it is a reply to me, but for him, I make an exception.

For those of you who don't know me, believe me when I say, I never dole out praise.

Satyr is an intellectual giant, he may very well be one of the foremost thinkers of the 21st century, whether he's acknowledged by the academic community or not.

It is my theory that most of those who criticize him, do so primarily out of envy, or hatred of his ideas. They cannot logically attack his ideas, so they attack his person instead. Everything they accuse him of, trolling, ad homs, etc, they are just as guilty of committing them as he is, if not more. If Satyr was using his intellect and methods to defend communism, egalitarianism and feminism from fascists, elitists and masculinists, few would take issue with him.

He is hated and feared for he discriminates, and what is thinking if it is not discriminating, positing these two things are alike or causally related, and those two things are not alike or causally related? The nihilists and the skeptics refuse to exercise their reasoning faculty out of cowardice, for fear of being wrong, not being able to substantiate their assertions, and the social monists only admit similarities, not differences. We live in an age where nihilism, skepticism and social monism are prevalent and ubiquitous, so it should come as no surprise that someone who proclaims the opposite-people are not equal in being and value, will be feared and hated. However, I do not believe Satyr strays too far towards the other side- dogmatism and unsubstantiated discriminations. Although I don't always agree with him, he usually does a fair job in substantiating his discriminations.

Demonstrate the difference between nihilism, skepticism and monism on the one hand, and a corpse or zombie (or an animal) on the other.

Satyr is exactly the sort of philosopher I've been searching for, someone who makes systematic, well thought out discernments between people, places and things. Once again, I don't always agree with his discernments, so what, I don't always agree with Freud, nonetheless I recognize a genius when I see one, and what philosophy is supposed to look like.

In many ways, his philosophy is for those with a more.. refined palette.

Pigs are used to eating/identifying with whatever shit comes their way.

Oh, and all ideas are equal, and all people are equal, and all food is equal, it's popular, so it must be good, and if it feels good, it must be true... nonsense.

My God man, I'm beginning to see exactly what Satyr means when he says (I'm paraphrasing)- what looks like ordering/progression is actually disordering/regression. We are light years ahead of classical Greece, Rome and Europe in style and quantity only, we are light years behind in substance and quality. We live in a technological wonderland.. but a cultural wasteland. We are surely in decline. How they mighty have fallen.

I'm not used to such accolades.
I'm more accustomed and comfortable with assaults.

But they are appreciated.

Quote :

My God man, I'm beginning to see exactly what Satyr means when he says (I'm paraphrasing)- what looks like ordering/progression is actually disordering/regression. We are light years ahead of classical Greece, Rome and Europe in style and quantity only, we are light years behind in substance and quality. We live in a technological wonderland.. but a cultural wasteland. We are surely in decline. How they mighty have fallen.

Yes...I base it on scientific insight.
If, as they say, entropy is increasing, therefore looking back is a way of looking towards a more ordered state.
And if this is so then these "progressives" are really conservatives, because they with to destroy all ideas and ideals which attempts to stop change or to return it to an earlier, more ordered state.
Change is the norm, not the exception; it is the awareness of increasing entropy. And so to wish for constant change is to wish for the inevitable or to subscribe to the norm.

The so called "progressives" or "liberals" are really conservatives, in the metaphysical sense, as they simply advocate a surrender to the norm. It is the, so called" conservatives with their ideals concerning order which are the true rebels.

In the first case this is an expression of the feminine attitude; in the latter it is the masculine one.
To be feminine is to give-in to the strongest power, and what is stronger, or more powerful, than reality or entropy?
To be masculine is to resist, to reject, to oppose authority....even God's....even reality.

eyesinthedark wrote:

My God man, I'm beginning to see exactly what Satyr means when he says (I'm paraphrasing)- what looks like ordering/progression is actually disordering/regression. We are light years ahead of classical Greece, Rome and Europe in style and quantity only, we are light years behind in substance and quality. We live in a technological wonderland.. but a cultural wasteland. We are surely in decline. How they mighty have fallen.

Are you sure? Aren't you making the same mistake by viewing current situations in black and white? isn't it also stereotypical to romanticize the past for all it's good and ignore what was regressive and focus on what is only wrong today or not to your tastes and ignore the positive or what has been improved or changed? It makes me wonder how fast you would want to come back to today if you were transported to the time you think was oh so wonderful.

We are not light years behind in substance and quality, it's just a different time with good, bad, superior and inferior as it was then. btw, there is always ordering/progression and disordering/regression.

Please get a grip and get your head out of the clouds. lol

Eyes, I think we may hear much of what people rather asidedly insult him with aoften in that he is not the most flawed others as he first said seek to weaken him to boost themselves... i am interested in more intellectual considerations then weak ad homs and such directed at him...

In other words you seek for a direction, a weak spot, to assault me intellectually.
Perhaps you might come up with an angle I had not considered.

I must admit that the last, such, great assault upon me and my positions was by Spinoza, carried out by someone named Dunamis.
He was a "white-knight' with shiny armor; a defender of the whole, particularly its most vulnerable aspects, who found some pride in knowing what he could never know, and in reciting, religiously, what he then called "stringent philosophy".
This might aid you.

Of course, having later read Spinoza myself, I realized that what was at play here was a baptismal right, something the Jews are good at, where the same old past variants were renamed and then all of it was recast as "perfect" though the senses cried out against it.
I mean, Spinoza himself goes on about how the myth of the Bible is based on a misunderstanding of local, Hebrew, idioms of the time...as in that the term "god's' this or that was but a metaphor for "big"....just as the Arabs today use "mother", as in "the mother of all battles".

The final piece was in turning the senses into tools of self-deception, where survival of the fittest was turned into a game of "hide-and-go-seek" for the deity or the divine, in the common usage of the term; you might know it as the absolute.

Satyr wrote:

The so called "progressives" or "liberals" are really conservatives, in the metaphysical sense, as they simply advocate a surrender to the norm. It is the, so called" conservatives with their ideals concerning order which are the true rebels.

Liberalism: "of freedom", independent, opened, unrestrained, released, abandoned.

Conservatism: "to preserve", cherished, consolidated, restrained, ungiving, obstinate.

To me, the conservative/liberal axis works really well. They're solid archetypes, made even better by the fact that the words themselves are largely denotative.

So, in the same spirit, I'd say it with different letters: Conservatism (focus on understanding/elaborating the conditions for stability/balance) is progressive (towards creation of positive order); liberalism (focus on novel experiences and increasing permissiveness) is regressive (towards destabilizing childlike hedonism).

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

Satyr wrote:

The so called "progressives" or "liberals" are really conservatives, in the metaphysical sense, as they simply advocate a surrender to the norm. It is the, so called" conservatives with their ideals concerning order which are the true rebels.

Liberalism: "of freedom", independent, opened, unrestrained, released, abandoned.

Conservatism: "to preserve", cherished, consolidated, restrained, ungiving, obstinate.

To me, the conservative/liberal axis works really well. They're solid archetypes, made even better by the fact that the words themselves are largely denotative.

So, in the same spirit, I'd say it with different letters: Conservatism (focus on understanding/elaborating the conditions for stability/balance) is progressive (towards creation of positive order); liberalism (focus on novel experiences and increasing permissiveness) is regressive (towards destabilizing childlike hedonism).

huh? literally, of course. in politics, that is totally different.

political conservatives can work toward destabilization or regression in one area and stability in another just as liberals work toward positive or stability in one area but permissiveness in another. sometimes, liberals have to clean up or put restraint on conservatives who never thought ahead of the consequences and vice versa.

do you really think political conservatives don't indulge in rampant consumerism/hedonsim? they are not materialistic???!

it's so obvious, this post must be a joke. what are you? like two years old?

i don't know if this ever occured to any of you, but you need both to have both stability and growth. can't be conservative only and have growth, eventually it will regress and gone too far the other direction, it will destabilize due to lack of restraint.

both political conservatives and liberals have their own areas of excess and restraint.

for instance, most religionists identify as conservatives but they are big time consumerists and wasters.

for instance, liberals often care about the impact of rampant consumerism on the environment.

what exactly are you talking about? the world of ideas detached from the world or what's going on with the real world and real people?

besides, since when are 'adults' immune to childlike hedonism or immaturity? they perpetuate it all the time. when does greed, selfishness, jealousy, anger, ignorance etc automatically stop in adulthood? lol.

no reply?

so if someone tells you they are a conservative, you literally believe them because it's their political affiliation or what they say they are?

so would it shock you if they drive a gas-guzzling suv, live in a mcmansion too large for their needs or are rampant consumerists?

again, when have conservatives not been rampant consumerists and hedonists? or is it a case of cherry-picking here?

how about religionists as they think they are conservative, are they creating positive order or more eventual delusion/chaos?

what is your idea of hedonism?

In modern systems the difference between conservative and liberal is slight.
It consists in debating on how much government should intervene in the affair of man.

From a metaphysical perspective, conservative indicates a desire to create and to maintain order; a liberal, or a so called "progressive' indicates a desire to destroy all restrains and abandon one's self to the natural course of things which is increasing entropy (chaos, and the uniformity this produces.

Conservatism: a towards uniform thingness, or some-thingness as the absence of an absolute makes all projection a hypothetical "some".
The absolute as positive or God or substance.

Liberal: a towards no-thingness, or a uniform oblivion, an emptiness; the uniform void.
the absolute as a negative, which might be sold as a Utopia, contradicting itself.


In a more balanced state to conserve means to preserve your existence or the factors that contribute to it and that make it possible; to progress means to grow or to stretch or to enlarge the elements of yourself which are resiting obliteration. to progress would mean to increase in one's resistance to the natural state of increasing entropy.

I think the conservative/liberal is one of, if not the most basic and fundamental dichotomies for humans.. like yang and yin. Within it, all dichotomies take root. Satyr equates liberalism with nihilism.. that I think is a mistake. Nihilism, or oblivion, is the absence of conservatism and liberalism, or extreme conservatism or liberalism. Existence, especially human existence, happens somewhere in the middle. I too am interested in pondering the metaphysical in addition to the political implications of these 2 concepts.

At the highest level, conservatism = Jehovah and liberalism = Lucifer. Conservative = man's Epimethean gifts, Liberal = man's Promethean gifts. I'll delve more into this later. BTW, I should mention- even Jehovah has been contaminated by liberalism to an extent, if we wish to fully comprehend paleoconservatism, we have to go further back in time, to the epic of Gilgamesh, to the Mayan, Aztec, Babylonian and Egyptian world view. Christianity was a further liberalizing of Judaism, and Protestantism was a further liberalizing of Catholicism.

1. Politically, conservatism either = Communitarianism, or it = less economic intervention and more ethical intervention. Liberalism either = Libertarianism, or it = more economic intervention and less ethical intervention.

2. Conservatism = quality over quantity, liberalism = quantity over quality. In politics, this translates to conservatives favoring elitism, liberals egalitarianism.

3. Conservatives perceive time as cyclical, therefore, in order to understand the future, we must remember the past. Liberals perceive time as linear.

4. Consequently, conservatives are determinists, cynics, fatalists, realists, pessimists, liberals are indeterminists, naive, idealists, optimists.

5. Consequently, conservatives do not believe reality can (fundamentally) get better or worse, pleasure cannot be created without pain, life cannot be created without death, therefore, they do not try, rather, they merely attempt to preserve the cycle of pleasure and pain, life and death, liberals attempt to reality or transcend it.

6. Consequently, conservatives do not believe in good and evil, rather, they believe in sustainable and unsustainable, for them, more is less, quality over quantity, conservatives are egoists, ascetics and minimalists.

7. This is why we see Mayans and Aztecs sacrificing humans and animals by the thousands, for overpopulation was sin to them, they were not humanists, the Gods, nature and the elite were placed above man, civilization was at best, a necessary evil, they did believe humans could increase their fortune without decreasing the fortune of other entities, and thus, humans own fortune in the long run, for we were dependent on other entities. True conservatives are environmentalists. Old school Judaism was antihumanist That is why we see Jehovah occulting knowledge from man, and the tree of life from man, and destroying decadent, debauched man in a flood, destroying the tower of babel, and confusing the languages and the races. Jehovah represents the elitist, fascist contempt and disdain for the productive, lower classes, who would eat away at the earth like a cancer, if not checked. In the original deluge epic in the Enuma Elish, from Babylon, Enlil attempts to destroy man with a flood specifically because man has overpopulated the earth. Of course, a few remnants of man and civilization were preserved by Enki, the Babylonian equivalent of Lucifer, and man's true father. In many ways, contrary to what Satyr would have you believe, I believe western society is fundamentally Promethean, liberal, or at least more so, and eastern society, particularly middle eastern, Epimethean. However, one needn't be wholly one or the other, every individual society is an eclectic mix of both, we could not survive without both. At my core, though, even though I superficially take on Promethean characteristics.. I'm Epimethean.

At this point, I should mention, savages are neither conservatives nor liberals, fundamentally, the dilemma of civilization does not exist for them, sustainable vs unsustainable and good vs evil do not exist for them.. they are innocent, in the garden of Eden, as it were. Nevermind Nietzsche, good/evil vs sustainable/unsustainable, or creation of good/destruction of evil vs preserving good/evil vs letting good/evil perish is my paradigm- Epimethean vs Promethean. Perhaps Epimethean vs Promethean could exist alongside Apollonian and Dionysian.. I believe in the four/five temperament theory, it does.

8. Conservatives believe in tradition (if it is not broken, do not fix it), authority, and patriarchy, liberals innovation, liberty, and matriarchy.

9. Conservatives place the spirit above the flesh, and philosophy above science.

10. Conservatives place warrior priest class above the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Conservative and liberal are relative, so what's liberal for one society, may be conservative for another.

Conservative doesn't necessarily mean less advanced, just advanced in a different sort of way than we're used to. Conservative societies can borrow some of the external innovations of liberal societies, well still remaining at their core, conservative.

So, for Satyr, death and disorder is the norm, those who surrender to it are conservative, going along with tradition dying and disordering, those who rebel against it by creating/preserving life and order are the progressive. Hmmm, I think most people mean something different by conservative and progressive, they mean, conservatives preserve old order and progressives create new order. It sounds like you're more for order, whether it be conservative order, or progressive, although, I understand you think the past tends to be more orderly, since the universe is apparently dying and disordering. You have a very unique POV Satyr, though I'm sure some of it can be found in Nietzsche and Evola, did Evola not say life does not evolve, evolution, it involves, involution, it regresses from a higher, God like state to a lower, degenerate state? If this is true, then I understand your melancholy. You've applied the physical principle of increasing entropy to the social.. intriguing.

Did Empedocles not say the universe presently increasing in chaos.. though what he meant by chaos (pluralism) is probably what you mean by order. Also, he believed the universe went through seasons, an orderly season (monism), an orderly/chaotic season, a chaotic season, and a chaotic/orderly season. Do you also believe the universe is cyclical, or do you believe we're moving towards permanent oblivion, or indetermined?

Also intriguing, he was an egalitarian, a democrat, and a believer in the principle of love contra strife.. the opposite of you. Although, he acknowledged life could only evolve from a mix of love/monistic order and strife/pluralistic chaos. You acknowledge this law too, do you not, life can only arise in opposition to death, right? It's funny how his metaphysics seems to correspond with his ethics and politics, just as your metaphysics with your ethics and politics. In many ways, I find your philosophy to be diametrically opposed to Empedocles. I wonder if Empedocles believes in survival of the most symbiotic too (he did have a theory of evolution, I'll be it contrary to Darwinian evolution). In a way, it reminds me of my former philosophy of Omnisymbiote. I suppose he believed in maximizing the feminine contra the masculine.

Quote :

Eyes, I think we may hear much of what people rather asidedly insult him with aoften in that he is not the most flawed others as he first said seek to weaken him to boost themselves... i am interested in more intellectual considerations then weak ad homs and such directed at him...

I don't see why we must only discuss his philosophy negatively, instead, I think we should get to know it better, and celebrate it's achievements. Why not look for the good in it instead of the bad, and there are people who critique his philosophy intellectually, or at least they attempt to, but it is difficult because it is well thought out, and mainly internally consistent and consistent with what we know about the world, though there may be other ways of interpreting the world that are more/less equally valid. I'm interested in trying a different approach, I want to take what makes sense to me from his philosophy and leave the rest, but if you want to critique his philosophy, fine, many have tried, and failed, on emotive and rational grounds.

I wouldn't want to tear down his philosophy, even if I could, for it is a work of art, in addition to being more/less logically consistent, it's a very good attempt at describing the world and prescribing a reaction to it. I think we need more Satyr's, more positive, constructive system builders, who stick with what makes sense, and build from there, instead of constantly changing their minds about things, and playing the what if game, and critiquing things from every concievable angle, more of a pragmatic balance, as opposed to hairsplitting or dogmatism, and I think he has achieved this subtle balance, you would do well to employ some of his methods.

I'll bring up something Satyr may not have considered, the Dionysian may have a strength, an intellect of it's own, such as an improvising or spontaneous ordering, or an intuitive, instinctual ordering, it may be pro life in it's own way, in a more impulsive, primitive, reckless sort of way, a way suitable for some situations where on doesn't have time or energy to plan and organize, and must take the path of least resistance. For example, Jazz is very Dionysian, it has an order to it, but the order is improvised, created on the spot. Many interesting, subtle variations and nuances may have gone undiscovered if everything in music, art and philosophy is preplanned. Civilized life is certainly more suited to the Apollonian, which is why man uses his left brain more now than ever before, although there has been this trend since the 60s to go in the opposite direction. The Dionysian may still be suitable sometimes, we can't be Apollonian all the time, obsessive, perfectionist, sometimes we have to let lose, free ourselves, be spontaneous random, and I don't think we should necessarily, automatically equate these qualities and states with death. There is good improvising, and bad improvising, good planning and bad planning.

It can be very painful, I would know, being obsessive, and perfectionist all the time, never being able to relax, being too rigid, I'm not like this in my personal life, but in my intellectual life, I'm extremely organized, always thinking, my mind never relaxes, I'm always conscious, always in my head, and it can be very painful, and unnecessary, sometimes we have to slow down, but Satyr has conveniently equated passivity with death, so his metaphysics don't allow him to rest, which is perhaps a relection anal retentive, drill sergeant psychology, it's like he's always on guard, like death is always around him, Dionysus is just waiting for a moment for him to slip, and pounce, and then he will give into temptation, lower his standards for excellence, or whatever, but I guess this mentality works for him, it's who he is.

I mean, passivity and activity are relative terms, are they not, perhaps nothing is entirely passive, things are always interacting with each other, on the go, from humans to particles, but than nothing is wholly active either, would not total activity be moving a particle moving from one side of the universe to another in a nano second? Perhaps some particles, like in absolute 0, slow down, come to a halt for a while, lie dormant as pure potential, only to be activated at a future time.

eyesinthedark wrote:

So, for Satyr, death and disorder is the norm, those who surrender to it are conservative, going along with tradition dying and disordering, those who rebel against it by creating/preserving life and order are the progressive. Hmmm, I think most people mean something different by conservative and progressive, they mean, conservatives preserve old order and progressives create new order. It sounds like you're more for order, whether it be conservative order, or progressive, although, I understand you think the past tends to be more orderly, since the universe is apparently dying and disordering. You have a very unique POV Satyr, though I'm sure some of it can be found in Nietzsche and Evola, did Evola not say life does not evolve, evolution, it involves, involution, it regresses from a higher, God like state to a lower, degenerate state? If this is true, then I understand your melancholy. You've applied the physical principle of increasing entropy to the social.. intriguing.

Evola is a Top>Down thinker.
That he denounces Darwinism as some sort of conspiracy makes him ridiculous in my eyes, despite his other good qualities.
If he is selling an idea to placate the masses then I can see his value; but if he actually believes that there were civilizations before this one and that man did not evolve from lower life-forms then he was just another fool.

The terms "divine"...."transcendence"...."self" mean something totally different form his.
I ground my idea on the earth, in reality and i do not require a "beyond". the female is not to be dismissed but used....passion directed using the Will.
Man stands upon earth and reaches upward...if this contact diminishes he is floating in air, void of grounding, prone to fantasy with no application.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Did Empedocles not say the universe presently increasing in chaos.. though what he meant by chaos (pluralism) is probably what you mean by order. Also, he believed the universe went through seasons, an orderly season (monism), an orderly/chaotic season, a chaotic season, and a chaotic/orderly season. Do you also believe the universe is cyclical, or do you believe we're moving towards permanent oblivion, or indetermined?

For me chaos is increasing disorder, fragmentation, change towards the void...the no-thing. this is the only state which can produce an opposite (re)action which we call life.
Now being human and obsessed with binary logic, dualism, man must close up this open-ended perceptive by imagining that this towards no-thingness must be also accompanied by a towards some-thingness, which occurs without effort...because in fact in my perspective it is life which constitutes this towards less entropy or towards some-thingness (order).
So, for many to conceptualize and close off this open-end they loop it, making it into a self-contained model.
This is a masculine attitude...an Apollonian one. The model must always be self-supportive.
In this conception we can only experience increasing entropy thought entropy is both increasing and decreasing, but decreasing entropy, ordering, can never be perceived...it can only be deduced as the antithesis to the experienced....this is where the notion of God comes from.

eyesinthedark wrote:

I'll bring up something Satyr may not have considered, the Dionysian may have a strength, an intellect of it's own, such as an improvising or spontaneous ordering, or an intuitive, instinctual ordering, it may be pro life in it's own way, in a more impulsive, primitive, reckless sort of way, a way suitable for some situations where on doesn't have time or energy to plan and organize, and must take the path of least resistance. For example, Jazz is very Dionysian, it has an order to it, but the order is improvised, created on the spot. Many interesting, subtle variations and nuances may have gone undiscovered if everything in music, art and philosophy is preplanned. Civilized life is certainly more suited to the Apollonian, which is why man uses his left brain more now than ever before, although there has been this trend since the 60s to go in the opposite direction. The Dionysian may still be suitable sometimes, we can't be Apollonian all the time, obsessive, perfectionist, sometimes we have to let lose, free ourselves, be spontaneous random, and I don't think we should necessarily, automatically equate these qualities and states with death. There is good improvising, and bad improvising, good planning and bad planning.

jazz is actually a good metaphor, for it is a feminine type of music in stark contrast to a Mozart or a Wagner with their harmonies and melodies or order.

With Jazz, as with Dionysus, he having priestesses (Hysterias=hysterics) the disorder is not totally so. It might be considered a lower form of order as disordering does not mean absolute disorder but a process towards. So, in this art-form what is expressed is a more fragmented reality where order is sparse or so complicates that the mind cannot fully grasp it. It erupts spontaneously in pieces of genius and then tumbles back into a jumbled mess. Of course art being a human construct must always contain some order or else it is pure noise...white noise.
That we can hear it means that it contains some level of order which we can perceive....just as that we can see something means that it has a level of activity showing a degree of pattern which we can pick-up on. If we could not it would not be seen.
Silence, darkness is what increasing entropy leads to. Man invented machines to compensate for his lack or his trouble. these enhance his perceptual abilities so that he can detect more activity or patterns.

eyesinthedark wrote:

It can be very painful, I would know, being obsessive, and perfectionist all the time, never being able to relax, being too rigid, I'm not like this in my personal life, but in my intellectual life, I'm extremely organized, always thinking, my mind never relaxes, I'm always conscious, always in my head, and it can be very painful, and unnecessary, sometimes we have to slow down, but Satyr has conveniently equated passivity with death, so his metaphysics don't allow him to rest, which is perhaps a relection anal retentive, drill sergeant psychology, it's like he's always on guard, like death is always around him, Dionysus is just waiting for a moment for him to slip, and pounce, and then he will give into temptation, lower his standards for excellence, or whatever, but I guess this mentality works for him, it's who he is.

Even in moments of comfort you are in a state fo stress. Your body is continuously fighting off invaders and healing itself form the consequences of entropy or feeding itself.
Comfort is conditioned by power or habituation.

eyesinthedark wrote:

I mean, passivity and activity are relative terms, are they not, perhaps nothing is entirely passive, things are always interacting with each other, on the go, from humans to particles, but than nothing is wholly active either, would not total activity be moving a particle moving from one side of the universe to another in a nano second? Perhaps some particles, like in absolute 0, slow down, come to a halt for a while, lie dormant as pure potential, only to be activated at a future time.

No...activity IS existence.
To exist is to be active, or existence is a dynamic state.
Inertia is non-existence.

There are slower or faster rates of activity and these are what man interprets as the elements...or the characteristics of a phenomenon. This is why the appearance is not other than the phenomenon or the otherness perceived.
When a phenomenon approaches a state of inertia, a singular state, an absolute state, it begins to fall-out of existence...or it begins to be non-existent.

Chaos can be thought of as a decrease of activity. Distances increase leaving bigger and bigger gaps of inactivity...even on a cellular level the electron in relation to the nucleus or on a cosmic level one galaxy in relation to an other. the distances are maintained by force, which is dissipating...the universe being torn-apart.
So the gravity that keeps the stars rotating around a galactic "center" is the only thing maintaining order...and the electromagnetic force keeping electrons at a constant distance to one another and to the proton is also a form of order which is maintain by force...by a burning matter creating frictions or further decomposing existence.
In effect the very mechanisms used to maintain order are contributing to the disordering.

On an organic level the burning of energies requires to sustain a life creates free-radicals which harm the cells and which must then consume more energies to heal themselves or to replace themselves (reproduction). The entire thing can be considered a battle for efficiency; a struggle to compensate for entropy using innovations.

Quote :

Evola is a Top>Down thinker.
That he denounces Darwinism as some sort of conspiracy makes him ridiculous in my eyes, despite his other good qualities.
If he is selling an idea to placate the masses then I can see his value; but if he actually believes that there were civilizations before this one and that man did not evolve from lower life-forms then he was just another fool.

I'm also a top-down thinker. The key is I eventually come down to the ground, to see if my holistic, intuitive seeds can be planted in the soil.

Evola is a top down thinker indeed, I can't think of anything more top down than life beginning in the human, the metaphysical and ending in the animal, the physical, the opposite of the Darwinian paradigm. Perhaps he was merely using it as a noble lie of sorts, to draw people into his ethics, politics.. perhaps not.

Some people prefer to lock themselves in their ivory towers, in the fantastic, imaginary world of their own construction, afraid to venture downward.. like Purple Dragon. Such is the condition of the advanced Schizoid, Schizotypal, Schizophrenic and paranoid personalities.. but then, we must be careful not to stray too far to the other side, as I've always said, there is a fine line between genius and insanity, but an even finer line between sanity and stupidity, we should be able to connect the dots and put the pieces of the puzzle together ourselves, otherwise, we become cowardly, dull thinkers, and I find people on iLP and elsewhere are more guilty of committing the latter crime than the former, more guilty of stupidity than insanity, so I tried to encourage them to go in the opposite direction.. however, in so doing, perhaps I ventured too far out myself, and your critiques have pulled me back in. There ought to be a disorder for those who are too extroverted, too sensual, empirical, besides stupidity, as stupidity denotes lack of ability, but some people have the ability, but they refuse to use it, like a fuse, a WW3, or a Flannel Jesus.

Since the theosophists I think, there has been this idea that all ancient "myths" are essentially telling the same story- a superior, Aryan, Atlantean civilization with advanced spirituality and technology existing prior to a flood, where humans were more divine, and had contact with advanced entities coming down from the heavens, whether they be Gods, or extra terrestrial intelligences piloting vimanas. Then the advanced entities destroyed Atlantean civilization, apparently one of the entities, known as Enlil, Yahweh or Zeus, among other names, did not like us for some reason (decadence?), and when human civilization reappeared, we tended to worship him as opposed to the entity known as Enki, Lucifer or Prometheus, his rival. Perhaps your Apollonian is more representative of the Promethean, or a combination thereof, I'm not sure. Is our collective unconsciousness responsible.. or does history need to be revised?

Anyway, there is strong evidence suggesting man has come into contact with extraterrestrial intelligences, now and in the past, so I wouldn't rule it out. Perhaps the history was distorted over time, exaggerated, but their remains nuggets of truth.

Quote :

The terms "divine"...."transcendence"...."self" mean something totally different form his.
I ground my idea on the earth, in reality and i do not require a "beyond". the female is not to be dismissed but used....passion directed using the Will.
Man stands upon earth and reaches upward...if this contact diminishes he is floating in air, void of grounding, prone to fantasy with no application.

Right, things seem to have their basis in the physical, in the earth, and move upward, however, there are a growing number of thinkers who are challenging this paradigm, from the the theosophists and Aleister Crowley, to Zecharia Sitchin, Erich Von Daniken, Graham Hancock, Lloyd Pye, Robert Dean, and many more, and many in the army, navy and air force, astronauts. There seems to be a growing probability humans were engineered by supernatural/extraterrestrial entities, I'm not entirely convinced, but I take the idea seriously.

Tell me what you think of this-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

eyesinthedark wrote:

I'm also a top-down thinker. The key is I eventually come down to the ground, to see if my holistic, intuitive seeds can be planted in the soil.

Evola is a top down thinker indeed, I can't think of anything more top down than life beginning in the human, the metaphysical and ending in the animal, the physical, the opposite of the Darwinian paradigm. Perhaps he was merely using it as a noble lie of sorts, to draw people into his ethics, politics.. perhaps not.

you sound proud of it...but perhaps anyone can become proud of an aspect of himself. Survival entails an aspect of denial.

Top>Down means you begin with a conclusion, which satisfies some of your basic existential needs.
Emotion, at is root, is a Top.down form of thinking, the primordial beginning of this form. as it assumes that the given, the observed is known, simply because of the emotions it produces.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Some people prefer to lock themselves in their ivory towers, in the fantastic, imaginary world of their own construction, afraid to venture downward.. like Purple Dragon. Such is the condition of the advanced Schizoid, Schizotypal, Schizophrenic and paranoid personalities.. but then, we must be careful not to stray too far to the other side, as I've always said, there is a fine line between genius and insanity, but an even finer line between sanity and stupidity, we should be able to connect the dots and put the pieces of the puzzle together ourselves, otherwise, we become cowardly, dull thinkers, and I find people on iLP and elsewhere are more guilty of committing the latter crime than the former, more guilty of stupidity than insanity, so I tried to encourage them to go in the opposite direction.. however, in so doing, perhaps I ventured too far out myself, and your critiques have pulled me back in. There ought to be a disorder for those who are too extroverted, too sensual, empirical, besides stupidity, as stupidity denotes lack of ability, but some people have the ability, but they refuse to use it, like a fuse, a WW3, or a Flannel Jesus.

and if there is a fine line between genius and insanity then there is a fine line between delusion and stupidity.
In all things balance.
But how does one come to a balance?
What standard is he, or she, to use?
I say, empiricism, or sensuality...and this includes the sensuality and experience passed down to us from the past, once the past source has been deduced to be reliable, to a degree or another. Cross referencing is important.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Since the theosophists I think, there has been this idea that all ancient "myths" are essentially telling the same story- a superior, Aryan, Atlantean civilization with advanced spirituality and technology existing prior to a flood, where humans were more divine, and had contact with advanced entities coming down from the heavens, whether they be Gods, or extra terrestrial intelligences piloting vimanas. Then the advanced entities destroyed Atlantean civilization, apparently one of the entities, known as Enlil, Yahweh or Zeus, among other names, did not like us for some reason (decadence?), and when human civilization reappeared, we tended to worship him as opposed to the entity known as Enki, Lucifer or Prometheus, his rival. Perhaps your Apollonian is more representative of the Promethean, or a combination thereof, I'm not sure. Is our collective unconsciousness responsible.. or does history need to be revised?

Still, you resort to the extraordinary when the ordinary fails you.
You jump to fantastic assumptions because you require an explanation in here here and now- an immediate explanation.
Like Christians when facing the unknown you seem to desire to place there a "known" no matter how ridiculous or detached from your experiences it might be, to make it known.
This is easy.
Instead of seeing a light in the sky and saying "I do not know" submitting to the stress and fear this implies you, like those like you, choose to give-in, to settle, for the easy extraordinary, the imagined 'what if?' so as to make the unknown known, or presumably so.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Anyway, there is strong evidence suggesting man has come into contact with extraterrestrial intelligences, now and in the past, so I wouldn't rule it out. Perhaps the history was distorted over time, exaggerated, but their remains nuggets of truth.

and so, in this case you choose, you will, to settle for a conclusion which against odds you choose to think is plausible because to simply say "i do not know' is more stressful.
Neanderthal man saw fire and instead of saying "i do not know" postponing his conclusion he settled for saying "I do know" it is a spirit.

Now besides the odds of life being "out there" or the odds that this life grew and flourished in exactly the same time; besides the odds of this civilization surviving long enough to develop space travel or to invent travel to such an extent as to challenge everything we know about time and light-speed and distances in space; despite the infinite resources available to a species that may have developed some technology that can reach us or even care to do so,, you, you and your kind, choose to consider this irrelevant.
The odds do not matter. All that matters is that this solution offers you a peace of mind, even if a stressful one. To know, after all, of your death is far less stressful than to not know and to wonder.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Right, things seem to have their basis in the physical, in the earth, and move upward, however, there are a growing number of thinkers who are challenging this paradigm, from the the theosophists and Aleister Crowley, to Zecharia Sitchin, Erich Von Daniken, Graham Hancock, Lloyd Pye, Robert Dean, and many more, and many in the army, navy and air force, astronauts. There seems to be a growing probability humans were engineered by supernatural/extraterrestrial entities, I'm not entirely convinced, but I take the idea seriously.

Stupidity takes many forms in every age. The ignorant pretend to be in the know.
Jesus was a sort of Alister Crowley and there were many others like him during that time.

U.F.O. means "Unidentified Flying Object"...Unidentified means unknown.
Instead of explaining the unknown using the known you, and your kind, choose, will, prefer, to use the unknown....the unknown explaining the unknown. Imagination unfettered by reality leading to fantasy or delusion.

When I hear a sound I cannot recognize in the dark I do not assume that its a monster or an lien or a sprite, i use what I know, what I've experienced to deduce what might be the source of this unknown sound.
You, if this is what you like to do, can pull crap out of your arse and find communion with other morons out there to support whatever stupidity you think is preferable to simply saying "What was that?"
If a christian during the Middle Ages urged me to accept his bullshit based on our common ignorance I would be just like you are in the here and now.

1. So we agree improvisation tends to produce a sparser, more quantitative order, in music and other endeavors, and planning tends to produce a denser, richer, more qualitative order. Improvisation is more indicative of the Dionysian, right brained, Negroid mind, and planning more of the Apollonian, left brained, Caucasian mind. The Dionysian can be pro order and pro life in it's own way, it is wrong to equate it with nothingness.

2. It is wrong to equate activity with order, increased activity is more capable of creating and destroying order/uniformity, decreased activity is more capable of preserving order and chaos. A chicken carcass is order. If you leave it out in the sun, it will quickly rot, if you put it in the fridge, it will slowly rot, if you put it in the refrigerator, if sufficiently cold, it will be preserved in pristine condition.

3. Too much activity can be just as detrimental to order as too little. Asteroids and comets colliding with the earth can disrupt order, too much heat can cause the sun to explode/implode.

4. I'm not an expert in physics, so bare with me. I'm under the impression nothing seems to drop in or out of existence, matter does not cease to exist because it is greatly divided or decreased in activity, it is merely temporarily imperceptible to us/can no longer affect us or other things we can perceive/be affected by, the moment it is infused with more matter and/or energy, we will be able to perceive it/be affected by it again. When something is divided to the point we can no loner perceive it, we don't assume it drops out of existence, we know if we had a microscope or an electron microscope, we would be able to detect it. When things reach/approach absolute 0 (assuming absolute 0 even exist (I doubt it), they do not disappear, they temporarily lie dormant, they can be reactivated by energy, heat, gravity or repulsion.

5. Perhaps it is just as accurate to say- there is no activity, there are only degrees of inactivity. Activity is a something, inactivity is a nothing. There doesn't seem to be somethings and nothings in the universe, only in our brains, as you often point out. It follows, it is more accurate to say- existence is (in)activity (not absolute becoming/unbecoming, but relative becoming/unbecoming).

6. If the totality of the universe is increasing in void, inactivity, cold and sparseness (I think it would be more accurate to say the universe as we know it), it matters not, for if there is an absolute 0 and/or an absolute smallness, we would have reached it by now, since the universe has probably always existed, we've had an infinite amount of time to reach it, so we should've reached it an infinite amount of time ago.. therefore, it matters not, and since activity is relative, entities are also increasing in void, inactivity, cold and sparseness, a trillion years from now, the universe may be a trillions times more inactive and cold, but for the entities living a trillion years from now, it will be normal, and they will not notice it, what looks like absolute zero to us may look extremely active to them.

Quote :

you sound proud of it...but perhaps anyone can become proud of an aspect of himself. Survival entails an aspect of denial.

Actually, I'm a top-down/bottom-up thinker, I alternate. I Consume just as much knowledge as I produce in understanding. It's cause and effect, every thought I've had began with a 1st/2nd hand experience, and every experience I've had began with a thought.

Quote :

Top>Down means you begin with a conclusion, which satisfies some of your basic existential needs.
Emotion, at is root, is a Top.down form of thinking, the primordial beginning of this form. as it assumes that the given, the observed is known, simply because of the emotions it produces.

None of what follows from here may be true, I'm just testing you- Our thoughts can be just as outside of our control as our sensory impressions, so I wouldn't say pure thought, or rationalism is more indivicative of the will/wishful feeling than pure sensory impressions, we have control over sensory impressions via our body, and we have control over our thoughts to a degree, but I can't think in four dimensions, I can't think outside dichotomies, so I may be just as bound/frustrated by my inner world, as my outer. I often can't turn thoughts off in my head, unpleasant thoughts perpetually plague me, even the best world I can imagine, is full of holes. Did Schopenhauer not say (I'm paraphrasing)- "we can no more bend our minds than our limbs? Our thoughts limit what we can experience, so therefore, knowing how our minds work, can tell us a great deal about what we can and cannot experience, how the phenomenal world will come to be organized. Perhaps multiple realities our happening simultaneously out there, but we filter out the ones we cannot perceive through our perceptions and minds, if I know the limitations and how a camera is structured, I can foreknow what sort of a world it will capture, what colors it can see, the way it picks up shadows, how it organizes information and it makes it intelligible/perceptible. In some sense, to know the mind is to know the world.

Since interaction is relative by definition, the I cannot be eliminated, however, the subjective can be reduced, we can try to exercise our minds, and stretch our conceptual and emotive constraints in order to perceive more of the world, but only to an extent.

Edit- Did Kant not say we can't know the details of the universe through reason alone, but we could know the big picture through reason alone, through knowing the categories? Maybe I misunderstood him.

Quote :

and if there is a fine line between genius and insanity then there is a fine line between delusion and stupidity.
In all things balance.
But how does one come to a balance?
What standard is he, or she, to use?
I say, empiricism, or sensuality...and this includes the sensuality and experience passed down to us from the past, once the past source has been deduced to be reliable, to a degree or another. Cross referencing is important.

Right, for the most part I agree with you, I think reason should work in conjunction with the senses, not against them. It seems to me, reason can only tell us what is possible/impossible, not what is/isn't, and it seems almost anything but an internal contradiction may be possible, purple unicorns that explode upon touching candle wax could be just out of reach of our sensual awareness, we'll never know.

Quote :

Still, you resort to the extraordinary when the ordinary fails you.

And should that not be the protocol?, when ordinary explanations cannot suffice, we should consider the extraordinary, but no, we should not jump to any extraordinary conclusion, and that's not what I'm doing here, perhaps those lights in the sky are extremely advanced government aircraft, light years beyond what they've told us about, though I doubt it, since the public and the military have reported observing such lights for... hundreds, thousands of years, at least 100 years, and I doubt they had the technology back then, it could be weather phenomenon, but some of these unidentified flying objects are metallic, so, that kind of rules that out, and some people from the public and the government have reported encountering extraterrestrial entities, not demons, robots, or whatever. There is an enormous amount of evidence that points towards us being visited by extraterrestrial intelligences, not weather phenomena, perhaps you're not familiar with it, for it's more than a little outside your paradigm.

Quote :

You jump to fantastic assumptions because you require an explanation in here here and now- an immediate explanation.
Like Christians when facing the unknown you seem to desire to place there a "known" no matter how ridiculous or detached from your experiences it might be, to make it known.
This is easy.
Instead of seeing a light in the sky and saying "I do not know" submitting to the stress and fear this implies you, like those like you, choose to give-in, to settle, for the easy extraordinary, the imagined 'what if?' so as to make the unknown known, or presumably so.

Anyway, I partially agree with you, but it's not just one little light in the sky, there's so much more, from anomalies in pyramids from around the world, and records of close encounters of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd kind, in religious and secular paintings/texts, going back hundreds, thousands of years, it all seems to point in one direction, however, that being said, I understand your caution, perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, let's just say that to me, the evidence seems to be pointing in the ET direction, but yes, there is so much about this phenomenon we still don't know, so it may end up being something else, so you're right, I should be more flexible, and leave room for error.