Satyr

You are in my mind no way a Dionysian. You are a man of system, like all the philosophers who threaten the world with their 'systems'. You despise nihilism, you do not embrace it. You planed your life. You dare not let go of your mask. A Dionysian would not care if he would make a mockery of himself. He would search to expose his weaknesses, which you have never done. Of course you expose others' weakness, but you dare not expose yours. And you are protective of your weakness. A true Dionysian would expose himself without explaining himself, not try to explain himself like that turd RU, so in the end neither you or that dipshit RU can ever have any authority on what you try and systemize. This is all just quackery.

A nice system you have, all build upon the sophistry of the hidden humanists Nietzsche and that silly nazi Heidegger. In truth christianity is not a submissive idea as little of virgin fool Nietzsche believed. Jesus said he came to bring the sword and not peace. The belief in the superman is similar to the christian believe in the next life. Jesus worshiped the body as much as Nietzsche did. He did not resent evil, he embraced the evil people just as much as the good people, he welcomed the thief or murder to heaven, this is why humanists hate christianity, like Dawkins and Hitschens. Poor little saint Nietzsche, he was trying to feel important, he wrote of power and victory while he was jut a sick fool. An unimportant fool! tried to worrship what he lacked! think about that. Dont you worship what you lack? you are schopenhauerian, its so smelly in your writting, thats why you worship the Nietzschean baffoonery. Powerful people do not write about how they worship power and glory, only those who lack it do. And you foolishly claim that nihilists write about renounciating power, when in fact they do not care for it. It took me some time to realize Nietzsche as a baffoon.

Long live Bacchus
long live Rome
and Romania!
drunken immoralists we are
in the Church united
of Folly and Debauchery
We live with sheep and drunkery
our foolish lives of wreckery
we give not a shit about modernity
we want chaos and folly.
We steal from europeans without regret.
We care nothing but our fulfilment!
Romania is our kingdom of perversity
We and the gipsies are conquering it
from L.A. to Shanghai
we all over it.

Eh...I've heard better.

Thanks for exposing yourself.

Feel better now.

U hheart better what? pls tell.

never heard u say
' i heard better' .. thats interesting. You didnt attack me. Why is that? you dont attack me like a douchebag like RU, or other fools on ILP, ILO. What's the matter.

Better?
Was I not feeling well?

Satyr wrote:

Better?
Was I not feeling well?

Ofc. And I feel well as well. Rhyme. I dont feel resentment. I know the medium of Eastern Europe. I am part of the medium. Not like these foolish Americans or Western Europeans. I know exactly how history is for us in Eastern Europe.

And you are a perfect example of an "eastern" so called European.

So, I was feeling okay but still I must feel "better" now for some reason?

I don't attack you because after years of dealing with simple minds I've grown somewhat tired of it.
I know the routine, the poking, the angles.

I know what you will say in response to what I say.
Can't be bothered, really.

Plus, changing your mind is the last thing I want. I want you to stay exactly as you are.

Oh yes, and you think u are not the eastern european package of the seducer of fools from the west? u think we dont "get" greeks? we know your kind as charlatans, we interacted, we were lead and we commereced with your kind, my dear Satyr, sellers of illusions for fools. I do not have any bad feelings, because I understand you, you learn to survive, you are so similar to jews, my dear greek, my aunt is married to your kind, your kind is a commerce being, just as the jews, this is the true reason your greek culture bonded with the hebrew strucutural bible. U cannont fool me. My people know your illusions, they know your bourgoise kind, you may mesmerize the westerners, but as a romanian, I see past through the foolishness.

Cool!
Thanks again.

writtin all dis shit while being drunk!

where the fuck is our pet RU to make us laugh!

He's spreading his influence with clandestine maneuvers and building his empire.

Chaos and folly yay.

Self castrating gentleman is rather attractive.

Oh, btw kiddo, I'm watching a Romanian movie called Strigoi. It's hillarious, I love it.

We make nice movies. I think our best one is called 'the secret of Bacchus', its a comedy from the communist era.

@Jester, Who is secret of Bacchus directed by?

The best Romanian film I've seen is The Death of Mr. Lazarescu.

Satyr is an orthodox atheist. That makes him very apollonian. I enjoy that, because there are too many feminized irrational Dyonisuses out there already. His orthodox atheism restricts him a little bit though. He doesn't see the right-left political battleground clearly. Because he makes himself receptive to leftism and liberalism by overemphasizing the importance of non-theism. He picked a wrong battle ground in my opinion. Nietzsche isn't the main problem, but to even discuss an utter trash leftist movie like "Fight Club" and not see it for the immature piece of garbage that it is, is a weakness. I see some hypermasculine aspects about him, though he has introduced my to the idea of "hypermasculinity" in the first place. Which is a little ironic. I owe him a lot.

So you played the Apollo and now you play the Dionysos? The Apollo suits you better. You admitted in one of your vids, that you find sex to be overrated. (A satyr would never say that!)

First : Plato was right. Neoplatonism is the foundation of all occultism or these secret societies. The "elites". The exoteric religions (theism) are for the masses. Though I guess Guenon and other spiritual persons proposed a way to even work within theism in a way that is beneficial. ( I don't know how yet. But am open to find out. The Right Hand path of one Religion, as opposed to Evolas Left Hand Path, of more than one spiritual traditions.)

Neoplatonism, I guess, is a form of deism.

I am not talking about any modern eastern civilizations. I am talking about the old traditions.
That the east is feminized is a result of overpopulation (and unequal demographics: too many men on too few women, due to a preference of male babies and the 1 child policy. Infanticide of girl babies) and the I Ching. Not Buddhism, though it was misused also.

Deism is not Theism. It is just a higher aiming than the common marxist material goals of wealth and status. When you talk of Hyperborea, it is also aiming higher. That is Platos Idealism. Man doesn't have a soul. But he is contained within a soul. (Or he has a lesser soul? I don't know exactly.) It's a top-down perspective. (We are born of metaphysical ideas so to speak. We are not material, like Darwin suspected.) Of a higher soul and lesser souls. Humans being in the lowest realm of the (soul)cosmos. But not like a christian rejection of this nature, at all. It's pretty complicated at first. There are of course discussions. I have only studied some occult sources so far a few years ago. Plotin is more academic. I plan on studying him. That's going to take a while.

Quote :

How much do you want to belong to an otherness?

That is a good question. I do have dreams and ideals. So I guess I do want to belong to an otherness. But I could rephrase it. I already do belong to an otherness. My heart and soul long for higher ideals, than I find anywhere represented in this material world. But this doesn't make me reject this world or nature. It just lifts my view above the common. I am more discriminatory about my choices in this world. Because my (upper) soul does not belong to this world. Or the upper soul I am also part of. However you want to put it. Like I said it's a little confusing/complicated.

Quote :

Let us see where you take us with your eastern wisdom.

I cannot do the work for anybody else. The wisdom is all there. I don't claim to be a guru or master. But I'll provide sources. I have done so already.

Quote :

So far you've proposed a return to Theism,

No.

Quote :

yet profess to being an atheist.

I was raised an atheist. I am a Buddhologist/Neoplatonist now. I guess that is a form of Deism, but not Theism.

Quote :

Show us the way forward.

The Aryan Buddhism Blog, is a great. That guy seems to be a western intellectual, much smarter than me. I am way more intuitive (feminine). But with what I understand: I agree with him 100%. He also provides download links to pdf files of Plotins Enneads and many other metaphysics texts.

Hyperfemininity ... So someone acts feminine and pretends to be all instincual and deeply rooted in nature? Well, you're "pisces", so am I, so we are deeply feminine. No need for pretentiousness there. Passiveness is our nature.

I guess Darwinism is really the essential point with you. This is a materialist worldview. Darwin proposed that we come from matter and the mind somehow devoloped from this matter. That is a non-platonic materialist worldview. That's why today leftists are the foremost Darwinians. They too are materialists and embrace this worldview.

L. sounds like a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A Confusion Platitudist?

I was hoping for some verbal sparring like baqck in the day in good old Sciforums...before the retards took over.

Satyr wrote:

Yes, but I know Hyperboprea is a metaphor and no palce that exists.
The ideal, hte idea, is another word for the absent absolute.
I think I've said that about a million times now.
It is a tool for orienting self.
The destination is never reached...it is only travelled towards.

For me this is just like the diverse soul-theories of NeoPlatonism, or the occult versions of this, that I've studied so far. No esacapism, though I have discovered some of that (escapism) with the actual occultists I've met, so I am glad to now know about the greek original(s).

Quote :

Spirit is a reference to the past.

You introduced me to the idea. I can relate to that too. It fits in with Neoplatonism. The past is also the "above" in that theory. We come from the ideas above and strive back towards them.

Quote :

Confusion always tries to mask itself in the implication of compelxity. This is why the simple is not enuogh for you...you need the mysterious, to be flattered, and you hide your ignorance behind the excuse of "complexity".
If you cannot explain something then you probably do not understand it.

I did explain it. As it is sufficient for me. This is spirituality. Not philosophy or science, where everything has to be explained or understood in detail. I've only known it as occult knowledge. It's the first time I ever explain it to someone "publicly" or in even at all. Read Plotin.

Quote :

I'm with Heraclitus...your Plato and his Socrates were a symptom of Hellenic decline.

Yes, which makes you an even higher idealist than Plato was. Why I am here. My Neoplatonism is more modern, more suited for the decline we're in. Less struggling with the world around me. More feminine. I admit all that. Why I am here: to learn.

Quote :

I'm not with Evola, unless one speaks of utility and manipulating lesser minds.

I am glad we cleared that up.

Quote :

The effects of weather on the infant is one thing, but genetics an entirely other thing.

Astrology is to psychology what alchemy is to chemistry, and magic is to science.

I explained what Astrology is in my Esotericism 101 topic. Nothing to do with weather.

Laconian wrote:

You introduced me to the idea. I can relate to that too. It fits in with
Neoplatonism. The past is also the "above" in that theory. We come from the ideas above and strive back towards them.

There’s no mystique here.

It is what you would call “materialistic.”
The past is immutable because it cannot be changed; the past is determining because it is the sum of the present; the past is order because all is veering towards randomness/chaos…ergo the past is personified as God.
Spirit is another word for it. Essence is another....nature is yet another.

I am a wordsmith...I am immune to the power of words.

Laconian wrote:

I did explain it. As it is sufficient for me. This is spirituality. Not philosophy or science, where everything has to be explained or understood in detail. I've only known it as occult knowledge. It's the first time I ever explain it to someone "publicly" or in even at all. Read Plotin.

Calling it mysterious and complex is not a definition.
Christians define their God as well: omnipotent, triad of omniscience loveliness.

Saying something is complex does not make it so.Then again, everything is complex.
Saying that it is so does not mean you have understood it.
True understanding simplifies...see how Schopenhauer simplified with his Will and Representation.
Did not Heidegger simplify with his Dasein?
All concepts are simplifications/generalizations.
The more sophisticated ones can incorporate more data into their abstractions.

Laconian wrote:

Yes, which makes you an even higher idealist than Plato was. Why I am here. My Neoplatonism is more modern, more suited for the decline we're in. Less struggling with the world around me. More feminine. I admit all that. Why I am here: to learn.

Calling me an idealist is funny.
It’s like that dude who worshiped and idealized the idol-breaker himself, and saw no irony in it.
Even Heraclitus could not escape his mental limitations. He had to use metaphors like “river” and “fire” and “substance.”

If you consider the absence of an ideal, the IDEAL, then this is how you must understand it.
For me it is like an absent participant in a party. He or she can be described as anything, as anyone, precisely because (s)he is absent.
It is his/her/it’s very absence that makes it open to all conceptions.
And this is what all politics is about: the definition of the absent absolute.
What metaphor shall be used?
What imegery?
What effect should it have?

The weather comment was my own conception.
I struggled for some time with the idea behind astrology.
I could not reconcile my thought with the effects of distant stars in alignment.

Such a small force when compared to more closer heavenly bodies like our Star, the moon, the environment, the weather.
I concluded that the weather does, somewhat, determine the early upbringing of a child. The month of the year and its weather, is influential…but not as much as genetics and memetics.
In the latter case, the power of suggestion is powerful.
The need to find control in the chaos is powerful.
It is how faith-healing works.

Satyr wrote:

There’s no mystique here.

I don't claim there to be ANY mystique. Neoplatonism is as complex as needed and as simple as possible. Everything is in the right order there.

Quote :

It is what you would call “materialistic.”
The past is immutable because it cannot be changed; the past is determining because it is the sum of the present; the past is order because all is veering towards randomness/chaos…ergo the past is personified as God.
Spirit is another word for it. Essence is another....nature is yet another.

That's Neoplatonism 100%!

Quote :

I am a wordsmith...I am immune to the power of words.

You're good. I said that before.

Quote :

Calling it mysterious and complex is not a definition.

Neoplatonism doesn't do that. Plotin doesn't. One should read the originals. And not go by second-hand sources here. They bullshit all over it and yes Christians adapted and perverted some of its ideas to form their cult of power and terror.

I don't claim a man that lived almost 1800 years ago to be on our present day expression level. But probably more refined in some parts even.

Quote :

Christians define their God as well: omnipotent, triad of omniscience loveliness.

I have never understood Christians. They're all assholes in my opinion.

Quote :

Saying something is complex does not make it so.Then again, everything is complex.

Sorry for using that word.

Quote :

Saying that it is so does not mean you have understood it.

I've understood something. I'll present my understanding of Neoplatonism these days. I just don't like to copy and paste, but use my own words on matters that are important to me.

Quote :

True understanding simplifies...see how Schopenhauer simplified with his Will and Representation.
Did not Heidegger simplify with his Dasein?
All concepts are simplifications/generalizations.
The more sophisticated ones can incorporate more data into their abstractions.

Neoplatonism is in my opinion the highest form of simplification.

Quote :

Calling me an idealist is funny.

You are. And I mean it in a good sense. How many people do you know, who share your understanding of the value of the past. The Genetics, family, the heritage...and not confuse it with some christian moralizing.

Quote :

It’s like that dude who worshiped and idealized the idol-breaker himself, and saw no irony in it.

I admire Nietzsche too, but I'd like to go beyond.

Quote :

Even Heraclitus could not escape his mental limitations. He had to use metaphors like “river” and “fire” and “substance.”

Yes. And that's okay. I would never call him a mystique for that! Or anything derogatory.

Quote :

If you consider the absence of an ideal, the IDEAL, then this is how you must understand it.
For me it is like an absent participant in a party. He or she can be described as anything, as anyone, precisely because (s)he is absent.
It is his/her/it’s very absence that makes it open to all conceptions.
And this is what all politics is about: the definition of the absent absolute.
What metaphor shall be used?
What imegery?
What effect should it have?

Exactly. Everbody is a mystique in this sense. L.Ron Hubbard said something cool. I can only paraphrase. 'The one is in power who has the greatest imagination.' He built his whole cult on being a failed science fiction writer. 'We're all part of someones imagination' or 'whoever has the most vivid imagination, is the one that dominates and people flock to', something of that sort.

The 'cult' around you comes from your writings and youtube vids. Your imagination. Is it close to reality? It satisfies some peoples needs...

Quote :

The weather comment was my own conception.
I struggled for some time with the idea behind astrology.
I could not reconcile my thought with the effects of distant stars in alignment.

It helps to think of the rule of: "microcosm equals macrocosm". Or the latin: "pars pro toto". Like you are a descendent from your parents.

Quote :

Such a small force when compared to more closer heavenly bodies like our Star, the moon, the environment, the weather.

"Being pisces" means that Neptun was in alignment with the sun at your birth day, in relation to the earth. Look at your complete birth chart (or radix) horoscope (as it is called). It's like looking into your soul, with all the planetary archetyps in accordance to your birth date/place and time. (There are free birth chart calculators online.) You also have a planet that was aligned with the moon at the time and date of your birth (in relation to the earth). That is your moon sign. Very significant also. It shapes the character of a person. The star sign (sun sign) is just the persona that is outward, perceived by others. Children from 0-7, who haven't developed much of an identity yet are still to be regarded as more from their moon sign. So you are correct the SUN and the MOON are what is important in Astrology. It is just the other planets in relation to them (if they're in alignment or not, in accordance to the earth) that shape our horoscopes. (Horoscope means: to look into the hour.)

Quote :

The need to find control in the chaos is powerful.
It is how faith-healing works.

Definetely! Much more than most westerners would give credit for! I guess there is a movie coming out. "The Master", should be a good watch. It's partly based on Hubbards life. Read his biography "The bare faced messiah" if you like a fun read. It's not accepted by "the Church". Especially read the first chapters with Crowley and Parsons. It's crazy!

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

The Feminization of the East lies in a false Traditionalism. We witness the same in the Islamic countries today. Their men are also becoming feminized. Why? Because male children are prefered. A father wants a son. (In order to pass on his legacy.) This is rational on the one hand, but it was taken up to infanticide or neglect of girl children. And then the harems: One (rich) man having multiple women/wives, and many other poor men with no wives at all.

Quote :

Plato and his Socrates were a symptom of Hellenic decline.

And this decline is not unlike the decline we are in today according to Spengler.

Why I try to relate to Socrates and Plato, these days. Not out of comfort, but out of a felt necessity. And not to refute any of their predecessors, who lived in times of a more ordered, more primitive Culture, like Heraclitus, and not yet a Civilization, with all its implications. We need guides that had to struggle, like we do today. And in this sense Socrates and Plato should be closer to our suffering, than Heraclitus and other earlier Philosophers.

The principle here is "similia similibus curentur". "Like cures like".

Am I decadent? Yes! (to a degree)

Am I feminized? Yes. (to a degree)

Am I weak? Yes. (to a degree)

So the common approach would be: to seek idols that are the "opposite", to build yourself up. If you're obese, take an example that is slim. If you're dumb, somebody that is smart. And so on. That is what conventional orthodox western medicine does. But it doesn't cure the illness. It merely attacks it's symptoms, it doesn't get to the core, the heart of the matter. And even if intervention on a symptomatic level is needed sometimes, in extremely hard cases. That's why I am not anti-science and do not reject the western way. I just want to fill the missing (eastern) parts, in our western mind.

So I wouldn't consider Plato and Socrates SYMPTOMS of the decline. Like you and I are no symptoms of the star sign pieces, but were born in a relation to it. No cause and effect here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing caused the other to occur. Mere analogies. It's hard to let go of the western cause and effect language. I made this mistake, above once, too. Aleister Crowley has rightly criticized this heavily.

So you can draw an analogy between Socrates/Plato and the hellenic decline. But the one occurrence did not cause the other. There are only analogies, in this picture. That is at least the eastern way to look at it. Westerners would always have to debate what is the cause and what the effect!? What came first, the hen or the egg? With analogical thinking one doesn't have this problem. One just states that certain occurrences happen simultaneously. Like Socrates/Plato and the "decline" of ancient Greece. Another term by Spengler for decline is: "civilization". I would call it domestication. Or even feminization.

Getting back to the formula "like cures like".

We could probably agree on that we admire Socrates and Plato for having been great Philosophers. You know them better, than I do and you know what to criticize about them, but in general we probably both could agree that they were great thinkers.

So I (knowing Spengler a little), at this point in our history of the "Decline of the West", would propose to exactly take these two Philosophers as examples for the suitable medicine for our time. Since "like cures like" and I don't believe in the application of antagonisms, like orthodox (western) medicine believes in.

This is all I am saying. Thereby I do not wish to discredit the West as a whole. Or if I present a different viewpoint than yours I do not wish to "break your whole thought system down" or anything of that sort. (My sometimes provocative style is lazyness. I am no native english speaker and don't feel like expressing myself in english at all times. And then I just want to get something started. Unfortunately it's the emotional crap that gets going then and not what I intented to point to intellectually.)

So I am not against western medicine either, as a whole. For example if there are emergency operations. A patients leg has to be taken off and so on. Heart procedures. All kinds of stuff. But in some of the areas of healing the more CHRONIC illnesses, the East has better ideas. Rather than suppressing the symptoms, like orthodox western medicine. "Like cures like", dates back to very ancient Greece.

I see Greece and India not only as the cradle of the Western, but also of Eastern Civilization. (Notice how here 'Civilization' is used in a good way.)

The "simile"-law ("similia similibus curentur", wasn't invented by Samual Hahnemann, but can be found already in the writings of Hermes Trismegistos). It's a cosmic law.

So you could call it Western, if you wish. I tend to use "eastern wisdom" to provoke westerners a little. There is something that got lost in all the scientific breakthroughs and achievements that are undoubtedly there in the West. The cradle of thought is India and Greece though, neither East nor West. But exactly there.

Shintoism that I admire in Japan, was only able to develop in this secluded and sheltered part of the world. Japan profited from the Chinese empire and their armed forces, until recently.

__________

Neoplatonism is found in Gnosticism to some part. (Although confused there.) And it is holistic. And therein lies the problem of expressing it as a whole. There'd always be stuff to fill in, the gaps. The easiest metaphor is "Platos allegory of the cave".

What is "up there" from the viewpoint of the man in the cave? His ancestors? A god? A creator god? Multiple gods? I really don't know and don't care, how anybody else defines this for themselves. This is where knowledge ends and belief starts. Where science doesn't reach. That's why the great scientists were all deists and not atheists. Even Paganism from my viewpoint is a form of deism. And not atheism. In that case the ancestors are the "gods". They are the "ideal".
_________

One thing the Easterners are ahead of NorthEuropeans is their sense for constant flux. Changes. Development. In this sense we tend to be much more static.

"And so long as you have not attained it,
this, "Die and become!",
you will only be a gloomy guest
on this dark earth." -Goethe
________

One more thing: the same doesn't cure the same either. That's why some diversity is always better than complete homogeneity, like in Socialism. Like cures like, not the same cures the same.

I followed your recommendation some time ago to read Spengler and Evola ("Things to read...").

Why did you think they were important back then (not so long ago)?
________

I don't believe in initial harmony (but respect). I believe in hegelian dialectic. A thesis that provokes an antithesis and in this confrontation leads to a synthesis. And this synthesis may imitate a temporary harmony, but is itself a thesis and might be challenged by another antithesis, which starts the process all over again.

Why must I agree with everything someone says in order to recomend him and to consider him valuable?

Same with me and tibetan Buddhism. There is something valuable in those teachings, for westerners who are mostly co-opted by the Judeo-Christian kind of Nihilism towards a higher order: state or god. Even if the tibetan Buddhist teachings are nihilist towards the void.

The Westerner can see the immense difference between the two kinds of Nihilism and thereby learn to appreciate to go a third path instead: Paganism.

We are in a war after all.

What then is it that you consider valuable in Evola? I didn't get that.