Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Esotericism 101

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Esotericism 101 Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Lesson 1

The basic difference is: male and female.
As represented by the triangle (m) and circle (f).
Tension and release.
Inhale and exhale.
Order and chaos.



Last edited by Laconian on Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:47 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:34 pm

Is this about semiotics?
If so, study the Greek letter Φ, as in φιλοσοφια (philosophy), and the Λ, as in λακεδεμονοιοι (Spartans).
Observe the shape of the letters.
Philosophy is essentially the study of the ‘feminine’, the increasing, perpetual, chaos: nature.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:22 am

Yes, many circles and triangles in the greek alphabet. Indicating that it deals heavily in the basic male and female difference. Forget any western science into this ("Semiotics"). Feeeeel it! Just imagine those pharaohs of Egypt, that had these huge Pyramids! And look at us, living mostly in box-shaped houses today. Nothing good can come off that. That does something to the people dealing with these shapes. In terms of entropy or order. The pyramid of course also being a symbol for the hierarchy. Another ancient ordering tool.

The "Runes" are a very archetypical alphabet. With direct relation to nature:



From the "Edda". Odin....in the tree:

Quote :

The poem Hávamál explains that the originator of the runes was the major deity, Odin. Stanza 138 describes how Odin received the runes through self-sacrifice:

I know that I hung on a windy tree
nine long nights,
wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin,
myself to myself,
on that tree of which no man knows from where its roots run.

No bread did they give me nor a drink from a horn,
downwards I peered;
I took up the runes,
screaming I took them,
then I fell back from there.


Philosophy from my limited pov is a masculine scientific approach to the "female". There are other systems like Esotericism, that are already closer to the female. There is a whole area, Philosophy doesn't go into: the occult. And that makes Philosophy dry, lifeless and masculine. Never reaching for those depth of understanding nature and reality.


Last edited by Laconian on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:21 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
Recidivist

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 471
Join date : 2012-04-30
Age : 41
Location : Exile

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:33 am

Laconian wrote:
There is a whole area, Philosophy doesn't go into: the occult.
That's because there's no credible evidence for the paranormal, so philosophers ignore it.

(On a related note, the actions of a poltergeist always seem to me to resemble those of a hysterical woman)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:26 pm

Quote :

That's because there's no credible evidence for the paranormal, so philosophers ignore it.

I will not go into the paranormal here. Some occultism does, but I don't. I hope my "Lessons" will be of value.



Lesson 2 - The Vertical Worldview


What does a cow, a monkey, a dog, a cat and a horse have in common?
-They're all animals.

What do red, white, black, yellow, blue and green have in common?
-They're all colors.

What do bed, table, chair, lamp, bookshelf and sofa have in common?
-They're all furniture.

What do waitress, manager, pilot, engineer, musician and salesman have in common?
-They're all jobs.

What do T-Shirt, pullover, pants, skirt, dress and shoes have in common?
-They're all clothes.

What do rain, sunshine, wind, breeze, storm and lightning have in common?
-They're all types of weather.



The above is what we consider horizontal categories. The Western mind is very occupied with these categories.

The vertical thinking is strange to us. But let's explore it. Let's look at what a vertical category is:


a.) What do the color purple, the metal pewter, a horse, a Redwood tree, Beethoven and the movie Ben-Hur have in common?
More difficult?

b.) What do the God Thor, Jeans, the adjective: hot, spring, war, rhino,
Chili, Samuel Hahnemann and teeth have in common?



So these categories are more difficult to classify for a western mind. Since they are not related horizontal, but vertical. Each of the above categories a.) and b.) belong to a certain archetype.
a.) belongs to the archetyp of Jupiter, the Greek God Zeus and the star sign Sagittarius.
(This is the time quality we are in at the moment.)

b.) belongs to the planet Mars, the God Ares/Mars and the star sign Aries.


This knowledge can be practised in everyday life. It can help you to judge situations and people better.


Last edited by Laconian on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:12 pm

Lesson 3: Female Weapons

1.) Love, decadence, prestige, deception, wealth, status, wellness, enjoyment, relaxation, luxuries, lust, desire, need, greed, shallowness, avarice, fetishism, materialism, need for security, ignorance, rigid, stationary, peer pressure, need for beloning, superficial.

2.) Lunacy, irresponsibility, childishness, not caring about others, not caring for the consequences of ones own actions, sentimentality, emotional weakness, self-chosen victim role, manipulation of moods, sulking, whining, nagging, criticizing, being sore, flight, dependency, serfdom, bondage, enslavement.

3.) Sexuality, lure, seduction, destruction, leveling, weakness, weakening of will, pulling down, keeping on a primal base level, holding down, dread, filth, kinkiness, perversions, sadism, masochism, violence, obsession, revenge, abuse, fanatism, self-destruction.

4.) Silence, mysticism, indecisiveness, unclarity, blurred, unclear, melancholic, addiction, chaotic, insanity, confusing, dissociation, corrosion, mania, loss of identity, being cast out, self pity, feeling of degradation, antisocial, dishonest, amoral, lying, life rejection, deception, diminishing borders.

5.) Lost in details, fussy, overly tidy, nosy, getting in someone elses space, work'o'holic, coldness, hardness, strictness, unwillingness to learn, insistence on being right, obtuseness, fear, envy, ruthlessness, compulsive, depression.

6.) Worry, anxiety, living not lightly, taking minor matters very serious, not being able to relax enjoy let go have fun, rumors, chattiness, gossip, pedantry, hairsplitting, cynicism, sarcasm, condemning others, devalutations, ordering- and tidiness craze, despotism.




Lesson 4 - How to develop a laconic style?


1.) Write a diary.

2.) Read books, make notes.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:44 pm

Lesson 5 - Astrology

Astrology has nothing to do with the horoscope, you find in the newspaper. And it doesn't mean that the stars influence anything here on earth. Compare it to the seasons. You don't go swimming in a lake in December, but in July or August, it may be more suitable. Our earth and its nature show us some of these seasonal changes. The stars are just another factor. Like in early November there was again some war in the Gaza area. Was it because of Scorpio and the planet Pluto!? No but those events merely fit together. You can draw an analogy!!!!!!!!! Like I taught you in lesson 2, above. Astrology is a tool to learn the thinking in analogies. The vertical worldview. Instead of JUST staying within our rational modernistic linear time- and worldperception. It doesn't mean to erase the linear way of thinking either. It just offers an alternative. It has nothing to to with magic or superstition. I have experienced that in December (before Christmas), people are likely more happy. And that is in analogy to Jupiter. Jupiter doesn't cause people to be happy. But it's a happy planet and he somehow seems to be around when people are happy too. This happiness doesn't have to have just a good outcome, it can be very egoistical too. So there are no good or bad times, just certain times for individual things. Knowing that, is an advantage. Like knowing the seasons, when planning the vacation at the beach.


Last edited by Laconian on Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:33 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:57 pm

Lesson 6 - Like cures like (similia similibus curentur, lat.)

I will give you a pop-cultural analogy to explain the above phrase.

Batman thought he was a "white knight" in the movie "The Dark Knight". The Joker showed him and evoked in him his "shadow" (C.G. Jung). So Batman saw, that he isn't just good, but has the potential for evil in him also (when aiming for the greater good or his love interests life is threatened).

In "The Dark Knight" rises, the Catwoman is introduced. She represents the "dark side" as well. Only in a little bit lighter fashion, than the joker. More accessible to Batman. Why? Because:

Like cures like (similia similibus curentur, lat.)

The Batman and the Catwoman are more alike, than the Batman and the Joker. That's why he can learn better from the Catwoman, than from the Joker. The Joker was too far away, too contrary, not similar enough. He was his opposite. He a modern day Apollo and the Joker a Dionysus. Batman couldn't kill the Joker, because he sensed this deep connection. That the Joker is Batmans shadow, but too far away, to integrate.

Catwoman of course also has her own issues, that Batman could cure. Like cures like. Very simple. Contraries on the other hand crash together. And no one learns anything, like in "The Dark Knight". The Joker in the end was still a Dionysos, and Batman still a Apollo. Whereas in the end of "The Dark Knight Rises"... I don't want to give the ending away for people who haven't watched it.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:32 am

Lesson 7 - Buddhism

In all of Buddhism there is the dogma of the Four Noble Truths, which goes back to the earliest and therefor original buddhist texts.

Quote :

1. "This is the noble truth of dukkha: birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, illness is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha."

2. "This is the noble truth of the origin of dukkha: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."

3. "This is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."

4. "This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of dukkha: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration."


I've witnessed Buddhists pushing these dogmas too far. The Buddha never meant to found a Religion (Buddhism). Just like Jesus didn't want to father Christianity (But Paulus invented it). Within Buddhist sanghas this leads to narrow mindedness and to much focus on the suffering aspect of existence. But it's valuable. For further information on original Buddhism, this is a great source (non sectarian, academic):

Kathodos Blog

Kathodos Youtube Channel

In the case of Esotericism I strongly believe in the value of oral transmission. Live is the best. The closest thing I can offer here, is a youtube lecture. It is on the 4 Noble Truths, or The 4 Great Seals of Dharma, as they are called here. It is a young, but very high tibetan Lama. I like his authenticity. Enjoy:

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:19 pm

Addendum

I kind of feel like I should give some oral transmission on the above topic as well. I'll do it as laconic as possible in writing. I feel humbled with my little experience and knowledge in this sector by the long history of Indian tradition. But I'll give it a try.

So Buddhism is founded in Indian Brahmanism. The Buddha was an Elitist AND a Liberal. This is my perspective. Which makes him hard to judge. He appeared at the end of the declining civilization of India. And was soon assimilated within Hinduism. They merely made him one of their Avatars. Buddhism was never a "thing" (I hesitate to call it Religion) for the masses. The Buddha was a prince and philosopher. He got a group of followers, but never intended to found a Religion, or even monasteries. No such thing. In the 7th and 9th Century A.D., two journeys were made to save the then already evolved Buddhist teachings, by getting them from India to Tibet. The first by Guru Rinpoche (which was ended by some King) and the second by Marpa the Translator. Other Yogis were involved, too. It was then an oral tradition, with a very dedicated master(teacher)-student relationship. The most famous one being the one of Marpa and his main student Milarepa.

The reason why I , in other topics, spoke so critical about tibetan Buddhism (creeping poison in the West), is that it is already influenced by Bön (or Bon), a form of Shamanism, that was very widespread in that area at the time around the 7th and 9th Century AD. Hinduism and its Pantheon. And probably also: Judeo-Christianity. This is to be recognized, to truly appreciate it, for WHAT IT IS. And it can surely be appreciated, I just haven't found a person yet, who could grasp this. (The Abidharma, which are today considered the most intellectual buddhist teachings are non-canonic from the pov of the original teachings and very dangerous, if not looked at with care. The tibetan monastery tradition is even worse. Still there is deep truth and gems to be found in there. A view of life, that is very opposite from our western one, that it is very transforming for westerners minds. But also full of traps and possibilities to lose oneself in these teachings and their fundamental Nihilisism.) Buddhism today can only be found in its tibetan form in the West, so that's why people need to pay attention to these influences. I don't want to hold anybody back from making some experiences with a western sangha. (For me it was a bridge to search for my own spiritual roots...and I learnt meditation, which is a very useful tool) But they all tend to be very sectarian (especially the ones that pretend not to be) and the Dalai Lama, who does know, keeps most his knowledge to himself and only passes out crumbs. (Buddhism historically in Tibet has also been used to suppress the poor and keep them as anxious servile slaves. Hard physical punishments for crimes were the law still only 50 years ago in Tibet. The latest scandal of abuse in a Buddhist monestary -besides all the power misuse by Lamas towards their female students in the West- is the case of the Kalu Rinpoche (so also not different from Catholicism):



His lecture early this year is pretty great though (It's on his shoulders, I guess, that the future of Buddhism rests.):



It has become a Religion for liberals, yuppies and feminists in the West. But find out for yourselves.

Kathodos Website

The above website (which now has restricted access) is dedicated, to what is called original Buddhism. Or Alt-Buddhismus (German) (Old Buddhism) as founded by Georg Grimm, who followed Schopenhauer. This Buddhism is solely relying on the earliest sources of the Buddhist texts. (Even before Theravada/Hinayana, which is, as the Abidharma it includes, already to be considered a sectarian offspring and therefor non-canonic).

What still fascinates me with Buddhism is the Buddha himself. We are also in a declining civilization (from O.Spenglers pov), so the buddhist teachings may be suitable for our time, as Julius Evola also saw, and published two or three books on the subject.

On the one hand Buddha clearly was a libaral. He attested Buddha Nature to not only every man, regardless of race (or caste, at that time in India), but also to animals. Buddha Nature, being the capability to reach enlightenment. But he was elitist in saying:

Quote :

"The Tathagate (Buddha) teaches only Aryans (arya),...not puthujjana (inferior, profane)" [Majjhima Nikaya 2]-Gotama Buddha


He also first excluded women from this, but changed his mind, after his favorite student asked him for it.

The following quote is from the above website. It gives a state of the modern Buddhist sects and captures the picture very well in my opinion:

Quote :

"Silly-putty Buddhism" - Modern Buddhism is somewhat like the toy "Silly Putty" which can be shaped into a variety of grotesque clumps as young children are wont to do. All the people who play with this Buddhist putty, however, are not the same. Some wish to shape it into religious agnosticism. Others, who are quite pessimistic, are eager to shape it into a form of mystical suicide - or worse yet, nihilism. Others just want to look at it because it is something quite novel and antiquarian. Still others wish to shape it into global do-goodism being a rationalization to handout ham sandwiches to the poor. Others are of the conviction that whatever shape the putty takes in the hands of its user, it is the right form of Buddhism.

The Sock-puppet philosophy of modern "Buddhism":

1. Zen sock-puppet heresy: "If I put the sock-puppet on a zafu cushion with correct posture for a long enough period of time it will eventually become enlightened."
Rebuttal to Zen: "Whether he walks, stands, sits, or lays on his side; so long as his mind (citta) is sovereign upon his very Soul, he is thoroughly quelled" [KN 4.82].

2. Theravada sock-puppet heresy: "This sock-puppet is composed of five aggregates alone and is animated by mere karma and ignorance. There is nothing underneath the sock-puppet in reality since all phenomena are devoid of a Soul. If you hazard a look under the sock-puppet you would find only another sock-puppet composed of karma, one after another through many lives driven by desire and taints. Ultimately the sock-puppet is just name and form, and when by wisdom this is known, the sock-puppet can be unraveled by its very thread to reveal that there is ultimately nothing whatsoever; knowing this is Arahantship."
Rebuttal to Theravada: The mind (citta) is none of the five aggregates [MN 1.436]. "To be fixed in the Soul is the other shore, is having gone beyond." [Theragatha-Att. 3.6.]. "The Soul is Charioteer" [Jakata-2-1341].

3. Vajrayana sock-puppet heresy: "Our sock-puppet comes from a long and honorable unbroken lineage of sock-puppets which can be traces all the way back to the very first sock puppet "Sock-yamuni Buddha". All our sock-puppet gurus were approved of by their sock-puppet masters whom we serve and give money to in hopes that they will shed their wisdom upon us, the pathetic and undeserving. Emptiness is our supreme teaching, for our sock-puppet gurus tell us that if you take the sock-puppet off your hand and look inside, there is nothing at all; this emptiness is the great Sock-yamuni's Buddha nature which he discovered and taught!"
Rebuttal to Vajrayana: Vassakara asks Ananda whether anyone had been specified by the Buddha as one who would, after his death, become the leader of the Order or as a successor under whom everyone would seek shelter. "The Buddha (speaking of himself) does not appoint a succesor to the Order [DN 2.158]" "My teachings will, after my passing, be your teacher." [DN 2.134]" "Having become the very Soul, this is deemed non-emptiness (asunna)" [Uparipanna'sa-Att. 4.151].

Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:16 pm

Would you say that the way Buddhism is understood and practiced
in the west is really a modern variant resulting from a general decline of the
spirit behind the original teachings?


I’ve heard that the original doctrine did not allow
females to enter the path towards becoming a Brahman, but that this rule was
alter changed to allow females to enter.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:37 am

It is an uphill battle trying to fight to clean the terms Esotericism, Mysticism and so on. I resign. I think they are forever tainted and will always be associated with secrecy, an elite, one does not belong to, and generally anti-science, emasculated new-age fags, deluded and abusive powerhungry gurus, anti-progress, superstition... too bad so much value is lost along the way... (All hail Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists! I love you Big Brother! 2 plus 2 equals 5.)

Modern Buddhism is an altered form to make it appealing to the masses. Original Buddhism is the opposite of modern (tibetan) Buddhism. Luckily we are still able to study old Buddhism today. (Georg Grimm, Arthur Schopenhauer and Julius Evola wrote books on the subject. The Webmaster of the Kathodos Website and the Aryan Buddhism Blog, seems to me the most trustworthy guide for Original Buddist sources.)

Women own modern Buddhism. (There are way more women than men in Buddhism in the West.) It is heavily connected with Feminism even! So sad. Here is the wikipedia article (wikipedia itself heavily favors feminist topics and tends to write history new):

Women in Buddhism

From my experience mostly women in their late 30's and 40's, 50's, who didn't find a husband flock to tibetan Buddhism. It's an escapist route. And they want to get laid. Live promiscuous like before. Without any emotional bonding or commitments of any kind. They actually do seek some kind of masculinity and ordering in the practices for themselves. Especially the younger ones, in their 20s. The older ones just want to get laid. It's all pretentiousness. In reality they just want to get fucked, by the feminized yuppie male "buddhists". Who aren't doing the job, which is funny to watch.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:13 am

Final "lesson": Polarity and Unity

Look at the following picture:



What do you see?
.
.
.
.
.
There are plenty more fancy ones online. In german "Vexierbilder", in english, they're merely called "picture puzzle", "optical illusions" or "hidden faces".

The clue here is that you can either see a vase or two peoples faces turned towards each other in profile. You cannot see both at the same time. This is our state of perception, in the world. We perceive the world as polarity. As duality. We are constantly forced to make choices in this world, to decide for the one or the other. We can never perceive "unity", the "one", "god", "singularity". We are forced to make choices and thereby lose our inner equilibrium. Become unhappy, unbalanced. Only throughout the detour of time, can we look at the other side too and "integrate" it. We can never see it all at once. That both are there simultaneously: the vase and the faces, in the above example. But we have to decide and thereby become unbalanced towards either the black or the white. The faces or the vase, in this case.
Back to top Go down
Recidivist

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 471
Join date : 2012-04-30
Age : 41
Location : Exile

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:31 am

But the reason they are called 'hidden faces' is because you see the vase first, as this is what is common to us in everyday life, not two perfectly symmetrical profiles staring each other in the eye.

If anything it's a feminine trick designed to make people question what they see, a sleight of hand by the simulacrum. Not evidence that we are forced to perceive the world as a duality by our physical nature.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:19 am

Important is, that you cannot perceive both images at the same time. You can merely switch from one viewpoint to the other and perceive either the vase or the faces.



Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:27 am

The "I" and the "Self"

In Esotericism, we distinguish between the "I" and the "Self". As I showed in my final lesson above "Polarity and Unity", we are forced to decide constantly, which way to go. The right path or the left path. Choices. Even doing nothing is a choice. We cannot perceive unity, but only polarity. The "I" (or Ego) is blind to this fact and therefor identifies one pole as "good" (or preferable) and the other as "evil" (or lesser) and the "I" tends to nourish the pole that it identifies as "good". Thereby man becomes unbalanced towards this pole.

Take "Christians", who only prefer the white and nice and lovely aspects of life and nourish them only. They've closed their eyes to the unity (which is also called "God") and decided to only stay in their comfort zone. They become big Egos. Like any pastor at your local church. Or take "Bodybuilders" who identifiy only with their muscles and tend to neglect their brains/intellects. They too become one-sided. And you and I too! Everybody, in his/her fields of preferences.

The "Self" on the other hand represents both sides of every coin. To "know thy self" therefor is the opposite of "to build thy ego" (to know thy "I"). To "know thy self" is to tear down your ego and see all sides of the spectrum. There's an Indian phrase (which has several meanings): "Tat wam asi". One translation is: "that over there is also within me."

For Christians it means to realize, that they also have the capability to do evil within them. And for Bodybuilders, that they are not just their muscles, but also brains, heart and so on.

Acknowledging that every known psychological archetype (represented in the greek pantheon) is also within yourself: is to know thyself. It's not an ego identification of heritage, race, geography, family, wealth, ... Those are all "I"dentity markers, but are as such part of the "I". The "Self" is beyond the "I" (the "ego"). It's ego-lessness. Some eastern traditions call this realization "Enlightenment".
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:24 pm

To know yourself is to explore your past as far back as you can.

The further back you get the more you disappear in the everything.

At some point the absence of an absolute, which life is a reaction to, is this rejection of void by establishment a self, an ego.
The ego is what distinguishes you and makes even the perception of your own imperfection and the absence of an absolute possible.

The ego, is another projection of the absolute...an idea...an ideal.
Going towards it is a movement towards godliness.
God is a representation of a completed SELF.

That ego has become a word of shame is part of the feminization process. See, why I equate your eastern philosophies with feminization?

This is more of a social and political tactic. Take the ego out of the individual and you turn him into a good, humble, automaton...an emasculated robot that can then be trained to be anything...including an empty husk of a man ready to receive orders from his betters.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:41 am

Satyr wrote:
To know yourself is to explore your past as far back as you can.

The further back you get the more you disappear in the everything.

The Eastern Traditions have the way of meditation to "disappear in the everything", without a need of exploring the individual past, though it is not prohibited to do so and often done as well. (Since everything that ever was, can still be found in what is present at this moment.) The Indian (Brahmanism) that is, and the original Indian Buddhism. They call the everything Brahma ( a name for the deity. Deism).

Quote :

At some point the absence of an absolute, which life is a reaction to, is this rejection of void by establishment a self, an ego.
The ego is what distinguishes you and makes even the perception of your own imperfection and the absence of an absolute possible.

But everybody has an Ego. There is no need to try to establish an ego, it is there from earliest childhood on and growing. This is the root of dukkha (skt. for "suffering), the identification with the Ego and the non-realization of the Self.

Quote :

The ego, is another projection of the absolute...an idea...an ideal.

It is very real to me and everybody else I know and see around me, who are all suffering from their identification with the "I" (the ego) and have not realized the "Self".

Quote :

Going towards it is a movement towards godliness.

From my perspective growing an even bigger Ego, than one already has anyway, is the wrong direction.

Quote :

God is a representation of a completed SELF.

Yes and "the Self" has transcended the "Ego". It has seen itself in everything and everyone. And doesn't need to distinguish itself anymore, by race, class, heritage, family, job, favorite music....

Quote :

That ego has become a word of shame is part of the feminization process.

It hasn't in my opinion. I see all kinds of perfume, car, cigarrette, watches, make-up and beauty products in general commercials, where the "I" , the "ego" is very much promoted. "Because I am worth it", is one of their slogans. Everything in pop-culture is centered around the Ego. You can become a super-hero too, is the message of Batman. And so on.

I've had two teachers in the past 5 years and the second one also claimed that the Ego is important. He said it's root was "I go". E go. From E for electrical. And go from going (to go). So without an Ego (I go), you stand still. And that is true. You need the Ego to reach the "Self", but it is only a tool on the way. So I agree that some eastern traditions slander the Ego and thereby miss the mark. And never reach the self, but lose themselves in wellness meditation, which is then pure Ego-stroking (as I've witnessed with western tibetan Buddhists), being neither hot nor cold, but luke-warm, like Jesus said. And are "spit out" (to stay within this biblical metaphor), by Enlightenment (Brahma, "God").

Quote :

See, why I equate your eastern philosophies with feminization?

Yes. I look at these traditions as a tool box. My roots is western esoterics. On this foundation, I see some very valuable tools within easter philosophies though. Plus the FOCUS within eastern tradtions is correct. In Western traditions there are many traps also (with theism and dogmas, that often get added to a deistic outlook, like in Kabbala or Gnosticism). And you can lose focus easily by all the mulitple distinctions, categories and so on. Easterners are more spartan in their ascetism and simplicity.

Quote :

This is more of a social and political tactic. Take the ego out of the individual and you turn him into a good, humble, automaton...an emasculated robot that can then be trained to be anything...including an empty husk of a man ready to receive orders from his betters.

My first teacher ended up like that (actually he is rebelling, but hates himself for doing so, which is extra absurd). The second one, who emphasizes the ego isn't much better off though. He is in his late sixties, has two grown up children and a mother still alive and brothers/sisters, who he has NO contact with. (And doesn't care or see a need to step into contact with.) Instead he uses every opportunity to stroke his ego. He is into all kinds of Ego affirmative esotericism, like huna shamanism. And the mayan calander according to Argüelles and channeling and all sorts of stuff.

My favorite myth is the one of Prometheus. He rebels and than later he takes his place in the cosmic order. (As marked by Goethes Poems: "Prometheus" and "Limits of mankind", that I posted on here.) He builts up a very strong ego. And people should do that until their mid-life crisis. But there is also "a way back", towards the self, towards unity. And the end-sixties guy, I mentioned above, should long be on his way back, towards the self. Which includes his family of course and acceptance, integration of all. But he still rebels and struggles and thinks he knows it all best and has just an immense Ego, that he constantly keeps adding to. He doesn't face his jungian shadow. He pushes away immense parts of reality. The Ego always relies on an illusion. That's why he cannot face me, because I pointed some of them out to him. He too is immensely feminized. He thinks of himself as masculine, but it's a caricature of masculinity. It's a farce. He is full of suppressed anger of course at anyone, who points out any truth about him and only seeks the young and weak that he plays the teacher for. This guy had some severe stomach problems. And psychosomaticly stomach represents "reception"/"receptivity". He is just like a chatter-box, who cannot listen to anybody else, but himself. In astrological archetypical psychology it is the moon element that he misses. He is all sun. Smiling and (fake) shining all day. But he's superficial, because he doesn't learn.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:05 am

1.) Theism and Deism

I've been called a theist on here before and rightfully so, because I haven't taken the time to explain myself in more detail. I am a deist and have studied Religions more than Philosophy. Call it weakness, whatever. I've been fascinated with Religion for a very long time, growing up with Atheist parents. Once on a vacation we were in Spain visiting a huge beautiful cathedral and in the middle aisle, I was only seven or so, I went on one knee and did this cross sign, like the Catholics do. And my father pulled me away and hit me behind the ear. He said "this is blasphemy". Of course I could have never understood the term blasphemy at that age, nor do I until this day know, why my father hit me and said it. So this is where I kind of sensed that there was something unexplainable, big about Religion, that even my father, who I of course idolized far beyond the age of 7, feared. So this is my personal story. In the US at 16/17, living there for a school year, I experienced some charismatic gospels. I studied Nietzsche from 20 until 25. But it was only with 26 that I started to allow myself the study of Religion.

So I am a deist today. I think there is some kind of order within the "cosmos" (a term that means "order" in its greek origin), even with the Universe expanding. And that this order can be understood to some degree, even. (Gnosis)

We have a blurred line between Deism and Theism. And that is because mans wish has always been to make sense of the unity. The Oneness. The Cosmic Order. You can see this in the materialization of God. In the Old Testament. But more so in Jesus Christ, who was an Avatar. In the Indian Gods and Avatars. In the paintings of them. Some of the Jews too are waiting for a different Avatar, than Jesus. So there is a desire to make God into Man. To make him touchable.

2.) Gods Sexuality (The Sexuality of God)

In this context God has a Sexuality too. In Indian and Tibetan drawings you can see that. You even see the deity uniting with a female partner. Having sexual intercourse. In the ancient greek creation myhts, you have this too: a male and a female entity. In Shintoism also. Also in the Western Gnosticism and Kabbala. But in the western exoteric theism this is of course unimaginable. Even mother Maria had to be made into a virgin.

3.) God is unheal

God is "unheal", not in unity anymore (after a partly fall into matter), according to Gnosticism and Kabbala. This is where the "Great Work" comes into play. The dynamic. He longs for his lost "Shekhinah", his female half, which is this earth, mankind. We must look up and seek him and unite with him. He is broken in two halfs. We are one half and this half is needed for his completion, so that he can become "One" again.

This belief is something unique to Western occult traditions as far as I know.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:00 pm

Laconian wrote:

But everybody has an Ego. There is no need to try to establish an ego, it is there from earliest childhood on and growing. This is the root of dukkha (skt. for "suffering), the identification with the Ego and the non-realization of the Self.
No, ego, the self , is what is becoming.
It is active, so nobody fully possesses it, or knows it.

Laconian wrote:
From my perspective growing an even bigger Ego, than one already has anyway, is the wrong direction.
Then you've been nifected with the Judeo-Christian, modern, nihilistic shame concerning ego.

Ego is another word for self...ego is the Greek term for it.

Quote :
Yes and "the Self" has transcended the "Ego". It has seen itself in everything and everyone. And doesn't need to distinguish itself anymore, by race, class, heritage, family, job, favorite music....
Then it is assimilated.

To identify with a Greater Self, like God, Nation, Otherness, Ideal is to surrender self to the Stronger, uniforming, assimilating Superorganic Self.

Paganism was originally a worship of one's dead ancestors.
The father figure was the connection to them...a holy figure for his family.

By worshiping them he essentially worshiped himself, his own existence.
The prayer was esoteric as the past was present in him.

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:
Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:10 pm

Then I should draw the line between "Ego/Self" on the one hand and the "I" on the other hand.

We live in a culture that worships the "I", like in "iphone" and debases the "Self/Ego". In its common usage the "Ego" is unfortunately an inflated "I" even.

I am not here to change common trends (usages of words). I just want to point something out, that I've realized to be true.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Laconian wrote:
From my perspective growing an even bigger Ego, than one already has anyway, is the wrong direction.

Then you've been nifected with the Judeo-Christian, modern, nihilistic shame concerning ego.
No, I just put "Ego" and "I" together and contrasted it with the "Self". You corrected me, giving the correct greek origin of the word. So it is "Self/Ego" vs. "I". So let me correct my phrasing:

From my perspective growing an even bigger "I", than one already has anyway, is the wrong direction. Better would be a working towards the Self/Ego. Which there are more than one ways towards. The old pagan way of ancestor or family head (father) honoring being one. Meditation being another.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:26 pm

You are adding complexity when you should be trying to simplify.

Here's the thing, from my perspective:

Language often uses multiple words to describe the same concept with only a slight variation.

Take the concept of the absent absolute.
Because it is absent it can be anything: Self, Here, Now, One, God, Idea, Ideal etc.


The "I" is simply another term for self/ego.
it is the same concept from the first person perspective.
The other is the same concept from a second person perspective. The mind detaches itself, from itself...like how self-consciousness is a partial detachment of a part of perception , mind, from the rest.

Take consciousness or life. It is a part of existence detaching itself from the rest attempting to complete itself by separating and isolating itself from the world.
Self-Consciousness, in turn, is a part of consciousness detaching and separating itself from consciousness.
It can be thought of as an agency.

Like I the Matrix...all the characters represented a part of the Matrix...both participating within it but separate...trying to become independent.
This is how the concept of freedom, independence, makes sense.

So, freedom is, yet again, another term for the absent absolute.
It is the desired which is lacking...and we experience, interpret as need/suffering.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:29 pm

By the way...trying to create complexity with verbal acrobatics and semantics is a feminine disposition.

A male orders...and ordering entails a simplification.

What is order, after all, but limited possibilities.
A singularity would have one possibility, as it would encompass all others.

Space/Time shrunk to a point.
The point, is yet again, another term for the absent absolute.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:03 pm

L. Ron Hubbard explains Scientology

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:58 am

I am all for simplification. And I read your "Encapsulation", which is very much in line, with what I have read from the Webmaster of Kathodosdotcom (and Aryan Buddhism Blog). To stay within Dawkins terminology the question remains: are you an atheist? an agnostic? or a pagan? And what am I, out of these 3?

Quote :

Self-Consciousness, in turn, is a part of consciousness detaching and separating itself from consciousness.

In my view self-consciousness and consciousness are the same.

Quote :

What is order, after all, but limited possibilities.
A singularity would have one possibility, as it would encompass all others.

Limited possibilies is disorder from my perspective. Even the highest form of disorder. In the most chaos, possibilities are limited the most. Or as Heinz von Foerster stated in his Ethical Imperative:

Quote :

Act always so as to increase the number of choices.
_______________

Quote :

The point, is yet again, another term for the absent absolute.

Correct, that's why we can only perceive and imagine a circle or a ball, but not a point (without height, width, depth, length...)

So for me agnosis is a tool to learn. It's a dynamic tool. If I say: "I know something", than learning (more) becomes impossible. There is no more drive to learn, if I already (think I) know. On the otherhand I do not completely reject the possibility of knowing. Nor do I claim that everything is an illusion and in reality nothing exists. The things that I perceive and I myself exist. AND they don't exist. It is actually both. And the human mind is not capable to understand this. It sounds crazy. So Dawkins categories are helpful only to a degree and become mere tools for somebody, who doesn't have a political agenda, like he does. I don't want to belong to an atheist, new atheist, agnostic or pagan club. Therefor I don't have to decide for one of the categories and can look at all of them as tools. And I would add the category: Gnosticism (in its combination with the Kabbala or Neoplatonism), that draw very useful models of this complexity and thereby simplify it (unfortunately sometimes mixed and distorted by political agendas, like all human constructs). But not to the degree of oversimplification, that limits the possibilities of the individual, like Dawkins categories, which are purely for politically distinguishing friends and foes. I could be friends even with a theist, like Guenon [the difference between a deist and a theist isn't yet fully established. Guenon like many others was a very vivid deist at least. To call him a theist is a perspective, that might do him injustice. It is just my current perspective.], who used and applied his belief consciously to learn about life, in a very meditative way. (I haven't read him yet. Ananda Coomaraswamy was like that, too.)

Coomaraswamy - Living with one Religion
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:34 am

Good and Evil

It is almost impossible to escape the dichotomy of good and evil. If you say the right-wing is good and the left is evil. Maleness is good and femininity is evil. Discrimination is good and Egalitarianism is evil. The jews are evil and aryans are good. Hedonism is evil and ascesis is good. Religion is evil and science is good. The West is good and the East is evil. Paganism is good and Christianity is evil. Whatever categories you chose, you are within this paradigm. Good and evil is the hardest category to ever transcend. I've grown aware of this in my early twenties, reading Kafka and Nietzsche. And ever since, distinctly searched for what is considered "evil" by most of society, or at least my immediate surroundings. I've always played the devils advocate. But in modern times there are too many of us devils advocates. The devil himself is unemployed, because there are so many clones of him running around. It's hardly a special position anymore, but desired and fought for, by many. In fact the opposite: the good side is what is becoming more and more void. Every good deed is immensely calculated. An act of weakness, by the weak to establish a social security net of their own. Evil is the norm. And Goodness comes only in portions, in the form of social acts, that are sponsored by taxpayers money. They're not heartfelt, but done out of pure necessity. Egotism.

Evil in my definition is everything that is incomplete (one-sidedness). Like Hubbard above. He is more complete than his offspring (the Harry Palmer, that I posted elsewhere), but still lacking. And this simplicity works. The cults in self empowerment. I know many people who are involved with this one way or the other. These courses work for the simple minded. But they are self perpetuating and system relevant. All carriers of the modern system. Like the Aurini. He states he is not like the MRA, but doesn't create anything on his own. Mere criticism doesn't get you anywhere. If you have an idea of your own, you've got to market it. You've got to take it out there. Being an introvert helps nobody. Not even yourself. Nobody is unaffected by the stupidity of the masses. Unless you belong to the old money elite, you are somehow affected by modernity. Unless you can buy your freedom, you are a slave. That's why the focus on money by all cult-leaders and groups is a given.

Evil is the own limitation, towards the goal of survival.

So evil is nothing to be rejected. It is merely a tool. All of creation is "evil". But you've got to know how it's done to manifest a reality that is livable for you.

In our world of polarity we must decide either for one thing or the other. It's the acceptance and integration of both sides of the coin that makes a person whole and not one-sided anymore.

Change

Change in Esotericism has nothing to do with opinions. In fact opinions have no place whatsoever in Esotericism. As an esoteric I am not right or left. Male or female. Good or evil. I don't identify by anything physical. That's why many call it escapism and nihilism. It is a tool. And a very usefull tool. Nihilism can be a tool. You just have to perceive it as such. That is important. Esotericism is a higher layer of meaning. Life is a stage, where all kinds of things are done and happen, involving persons. But the esoteric has a view beyond. He has found a way to make sense, to a certain degree. Some more, some less. It is this gnosis, that allows him an escape from the reality, within the reality. He does not leave his body. He still depends on food and shelter, like everybody else. But he has learnt to ask for things. He knows how to ask and who to ask. Take "money". You don't ask someone who's mind is occupied with the accumulation of money to give you money. You ask somebody who wishes to reach some higher stage of awareness or enlightenment. Who wants to be a Bodhisattva. You take a different route: knowing people and being able to imagine a more ideal state of the world. Not hallucinating, merely envisioning. This is not about positive thinking, empowerment, self-affirmation. It is actually the opposite. It's a parasitism. You are not a producer. You are a consumer. Everybody from the 19th Century onwards, is set on production. Be a productive member of society. You've got to make them youtube vids, where you educate them people about your experiences. You've got to help the weak.

Change in Esotericism is a constant dying and birth process. It involves the person as a whole. The old Karma dies off, and the newly created appears, until all is gone someday eventually.

Pretentiousness

In Esotericism you pretend so long until you become it. You pretend to be a Buddha until you become one. You pretend to be a Bodhisattva until you become one. It's a mechanism called Guru Yoga. You study Satyr until you become Satyr. I've first realized this mechanism in Basketball. I'm not very skilled at sports, but somehow exceeded in Basketball. It's because in my youth I watched long hours of basketball on television. Later in school I imitated what I had seen Michael Jordan doing in basketball. I pretended to be him.

Abundance


Every Religion that has its foundation in esotericism and is not an exoteric offspring like Judeo-Christianity knows that the principle within nature is abundance. In fact it is only the cult of Darwinism that invented scarcity. Darwinism is the only Religion based on scarcity, because it was modelled after the british industrialisation of the 19th Century. The Class system like Marxism. It is in this sense completely ANTI NATURE. But it is of course found everywhere in our modern world today. But people cannot see that it is a problem of distribution of goods and wealth, demographics, overpopulatuon, privatisation, and a looting of natural resources that got us into the mess of scarcity. It is UNNATURAL. You don't have to been an idealist to recognize that.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:55 am

The Secret and the more important law of fate of polarity

You've probably all witnessed, if only as bystanders, the hype about "The Secret - The Law of Attraction" only some years ago. I've posted a scientific refutation of its claims on here somewhere. Actually of it's predecessor documentary "What the bleep do we know?" First off, let me mention what I like about "The Secret - Law of Attraction". I like that they kind of demystified the terms "Secret Traditions". Occultism and Kabbala (Quabalah) can be directly translated as "Secret knowledge", "Secret wisdom" or "secret groups". Even "Esotericism" contains such meaning. It was Hans-Dieter Leuenberger ( an honest esoteric ) in the 80's that already stated that secrecy is not the future path of Esotericism. And that was before the internet. He was right of course and now every moron can get any ancient esoteric text. BUT the secret stays secret, the secret keeps itself, like it always has for all millennia, because a moron still won't be able to make sense of it alone all by himself. He will just look at it like an old outdated text and fall prey to the many online gurus out there, who have at least read and understood some. Maybe had teachers. Maybe within a real oral tradition, like all true esotericism is transmitted and preserved. (Never through written texts alone, always at least accompanied by verbal teachings or even bodily exercises in some traditions, such as tantra and yoga.) So what I liked is that the movie kind of went against this secrecy. It used the term for self-promotion though.

To the criticism:

The Law of Attraction comes after the Law of Polarity (as explained in an above posting of mine). So all these positive thinkers out there just like Christian-Churchgoers just want to nourish the good, the white pole and reject the dark pole, the dirty, the base. This comes back at them. Because within polarity you cannot push anything away. The Law of Attraction works, once you've understood the other one and see the other one (Law of Polarity) as superior.

Masuro Emoto

This guy appears in the "Bleep" movie. I think he cannot be criticized and his pictures are evidence. Only evidence of what? And that is up to interpretation. But I think it is interesting to look at the analogies of sounds/words and the effects on the water they have, just for the sake of observing relations. (Vertical Worldview, see post further above)

Emoto Water Crystals
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:24 am

Good and Evil Addendum

Traditionalism good. Progressivism evil. ... I probably forgot some...

This good and evil dichotomy can then also be linked to the Law of Polarity. Once you label Progressivism evil, negroes evil, jews evil, egalitarianism evil, religion evil, spiritual new age esoteric cults and gurus evil.... your world becomes very small. Smaller and smaller. Your choices and your knowledge becomes very restricted and you become one sided in all these areas where you push something away from yourself. Satyr has of course this funny metaphor: that these new-age sluts (sluts evil!) should all give homeless people blowjobs, if they claim to be so integrating. So all loving. And he is right to challenge these cunts. And most cultist cunts hide in their cults. It's just a social security net for them. Just a back-up, for their lazy hedonistic asses. (Laziness evil! See how much I am also involved in this pushing away of certain aspects of life. Being a lazy ass myself.) Theory and practice are two pairs of shoes. You practice to be a Buddha, until you become one. Or a Jesus. Buddhist cunts are egotisic anyways. It's always Christians who help the homeless and the poor. Buddhists in the west are exotic and think they're too good for that. So YES the Buddhist cunts are right. It's about INTEGRATION of both sides of the polarity. Most haven't understood this actually. Actually none that I know of. Well, that's why I am teaching on here. You have to integrate both: good and evil. Nice and ugly. All sides of the polartity. All principles this cosmos exists of, to reach enlightenment. As long as you still point outward, saying: "these evil feminists", you still project (onto). You still haven't found the feminist in you. But there are different methods to "integrate" and different paces also for different temperaments, different esoteric teachings. An enlightened Buddha for example, maybe wouldn't give a beggar money, but just walk by and the beggar just seeing the Buddha in his enlightened state would be inspired to follow him. Like that. There are no prescriptions that fit every situation. And why not let a beggar die? Maybe he deserves to starve or freeze to death. That is karma then. Good or evil. You have to look at eastern traditions to at least have the chance to transcend some of this dichotomy. In this particular field western traditions stand behind.

As long as you are still unwilling to see the similarites between you and a feminist, a progressivist, a negroe, understand what religions, cults, certain gurus are all about, you are one-sided and ignorant. You just nourish the one pole of the polarity. Whiteness, maleness, traditonalism, science. Thereby you are just like the Judeo-Christians, only that your distinctions between good (preferable) and evil (lesser, below, to be rejected) are different from theirs. But just LIKE them you're unable and in most cases UNWILLING to escape the basic dichotomy, that always relies on some sort of good and evil distinction. On its very fundamental level.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:22 pm

You said it yourself though you can only perceive one given perspective at a time never both at once. Whether you stand on the side of the pole of whiteness, maleness, traditionalism, science or feminist, progressivist, a negro, you can only empathize with one side at a given time. You can never come to a full comprehension of a side outside of your own (the self) you can only place yourself in another's shoes so to speak. In this way you can only be a self and never an other. What I take from your post is that you are purposing that one keeps subjective and objective values blended together and in this sense you come closer to finding a truth, a better understanding of the world. I don't know if it is so much as unwilling to see as it is being unable to see. If you choose to blend a self perspective with an other that is still your own perspective, your own way of seeing the world. Just like if you were to choose to see one side of the coin that is your own form of identification. Basic dichotomy such as good and evil, simplification is the only way to come to a the closest thing to a complete (as close as possible never quite full) understanding of the world in my opinion. You start with a simple model and then add complexity not start with complexity and add simplification. And if merging is possible then it would have to start with understanding your own view (the simple) and moving on to the more complex (the view outside of your own).
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:27 am

Malik01 wrote:
You said it yourself though you can only perceive one given perspective at a time never both at once. Whether you stand on the side of the pole of whiteness, maleness, traditionalism, science or feminist, progressivist, a negro, you can only empathize with one side at a given time.

You can emphazise with all sides. In polarity it is just impossible to perceive everything at the same time. You always take an indiviualist perspective and only by time can work your way to integrate other perspectives too.

Quote :

You can never come to a full comprehension of a side outside of your own (the self) you can only place yourself in another's shoes so to speak.

Listen to the Hubbard vid above. The first step in esotericism is to place mind over matter. Consider yourself a spirit, don't identify with the "meat bag" (your body).

Quote :

In this way you can only be a self and never an other.

I am not talking magic here. Just mental models.

Quote :

What I take from your post is that you are purposing that one keeps subjective and objective values blended together and in this sense you come closer to finding a truth, a better understanding of the world.

Don't blend anything together. We are in a time of massiv ego pursuits, started by Nietzsche, Freud and Darwin in the 19th and early 20th Century. All suffering comes from this focus on the Ego.

Quote :

I don't know if it is so much as unwilling to see as it is being unable to see. If you choose to blend a self perspective with an other that is still your own perspective, your own way of seeing the world.

Don't blend anything together.

Quote :

Just like if you were to choose to see one side of the coin that is your own form of identification.

If you already know that there are two sides of a coin, then that is wonderful. Then you already know there is another side. You've already integrated that knowledge. Now all you need to do is let go of your strong identification with your side of the coin and see what the other side is all about.

Quote :

Basic dichotomy such as good and evil, simplification is the only way to come to a the closest thing to a complete (as close as possible never quite full) understanding of the world in my opinion.

Like I said, it's rather impossible, to transcend this dichotomy of good and evil. The eastern traditions are way ahead of the western ones in this regard.

Quote :

You start with a simple model and then add complexity not start with complexity and add simplification.

Take a child. A child perceives the world as complex. So a learning model is always geared towards simplification of what is perceived as chaos, by ordering (reduction of complexity).

Quote :

And if merging is possible then it would have to start with understanding your own view (the simple) and moving on to the more complex (the view outside of your own).

I am not talking about merging anything. You start with your own view, your Ego and then you learn whatever possible, without loosing your integrity as an Ego, as a Being, as an healthy organism, and so on. Do what is possible for you and what you like basically. I just present mental models here, no living advice. If you need a strong self, with heavy Ego walls, than that is so. Sometimes that is important in life for survival reasons. Some people never give up a mere survivalist perspective. They are always in the warrior or fighter perspective. If you think that is necessary, then that is what it is for you, I won't argue. I don't know your lifes circumstances.
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:02 pm

Satyr wrote:
By the way...trying to create complexity with verbal acrobatics and semantics is a feminine disposition.

A male orders...and ordering entails a simplification.


Yes. Doesn't that characterize all Leftist writings in general?
One resorts to codes because of fear of censorship or one does not wish to be understood by all.

"The result was that a re­markable amount of the output of Western Marxism became a pro­longed
and intricate Discourse on Method. The primacy accorded to this
endeavour was foreign to Marx, in any phase of his development. The
degree to which epistemological themes dominated this whole tradition
can be seen in the titles ofits characteristic works. Korsch's Marxism
and Pltilosophy set out the basic rubric, at the very outset. The
companion volume published by Lukacs in the same year opened with an
essay entitled What is Orthodox Marxism?, which concluded confidently
that the term referred 'exclusively to method'.8 This precept was
thereafter to find faithful reflection in the obsessive methodologism
of the works of the subsequent canon: books entitled successively
Reason and Revolution (Marcuse), Destruction of Reason (Lukacs), Logic
as a Positive Science (Della Volpe), Tne Prohlem oj Method and
Critique ofDialectical Reason (Sartre), Negative Dialectic (Adorno),
Reading Capital (Althusser).

The second-order nature of the discourse developed by these works - on
Marxism, rather than in Marxism - had a further corollary. The
language in which they were written came to acquire an increasingly
specialized and inaccessible cast. Theory became, for a whole
historical period, an esoteric discipline whose highly technical idiom
measured its distance from politics. Marx's own work, of course, had
by no means always been conceptually easy, for readers of his own time
or posterity. But both his early philosophical texts and his late
economic works (the two most difficult parts of his oeuvre) owed their
initial system of terms to pre-existent theoretical ensembles -
essentially Hegel and Ricardo - which they sought to criticize and
surpass, by the production of new concepts clearer and closer to material reality:
less 'hypostatized' (in the vocabulary of the young Marx), less
'theologicaP (in that of the mature Marx). Moreover, while never
concealing the intrinsic difficulties for a reader of mastering any
scientific discipline, Marx after 1848 always sought to present his
thought in as simple and lucid a way as possible, to maximize its
intelligibility to the working class for which it was designed. The
care which he took for this purpose on the French translation of
Capital is famous.

By contrast, the extreme difficulty oflanguage characteristic ofmuch
of Western Marxism in the twentieth century was never controlled by
the tension ofa direct or active relationship to a proletarian
audience. On the contrary, its very surplus above the necessary
minimum quotient of verbal complexity was the sign of its divorce from
any popular practice. The peculiar esotericism of Western Marxist
theory was to assume manifold forms: in Lukacs, a cumbersome and
abstruse diction, freighted with academicism; in Gramsci, a painful
and cryptic frag­ mentation, imposed by prison; in ,Benjamin, a gnomic
brevity and indirection; in Della Volpe, an impenetrable syntax and
circular self­ reference; in Sartre, a hermetic and unrelenting maze
of neologisms; in Althusser, a sybilline rhetoric of elusion. 9

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:20 pm

Codes is also what Nietzsche used...that Oracle-like method, which Christianity adopted and applied in the Bible.

Then let us clarify...simplify.
To speak clearly in a world dominated by slaves and the control of slaves whoa re now convinced of being masters of their own destiny, is to be expected.
I often speak of parasitism.

In a world that punishes divergence, while professing to be pro individuality, it is best to wear the skins and the smells and the ho9rns of those one depends upon for nutrition.

There is no shame in this.

But when dealing with your own kind, it is noble to speak clearly, simply and directly...like a man.
Obfuscating and clouding your words in rhetoric with no substance is to pretend that you understand more than you actually do.
The world is full of this pretense, making knowledge a synonym with understanding.

Remember the laconic decree which simplified an entire mindset down to three basic tenets:
Know thyself
and
Nothing in Excess
and
Make a pledge and mischief is nigh

The third of which has little application in a world with no responsibilities and no honor.
The entire code of conduct of Apollo is contained in these three pledges.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:38 pm

Satyr wrote:
Codes is also what Nietzsche used...that Oracle-like method, which Christianity adopted and applied in the Bible.

In fact, he's argued for the opposite; for Clarity and Simplification.
I'll have to check for his quote; meanwhile a second-hand reference:

"Nietzsche cautions us, we should not infer, as many do, that
the best style is the one most suited to whatever spirit we happen to
wish to communicate. On the contrary, the best style is the one most
suited to communicating the best spirit, the spirit most worthy of
communication:
Learning to write well . . . Always to invent things more worthy of
communi- cation and actually to be able to communicate them; to become
translatable into the languages of neighbors; to make ourselves
accessible (zuga ̈nglich) to the understanding of those foreigners who
learn our language; so that all goods become common-goods, and
everything stands free for the free (den Freien Alles frei stehe);
finally, to prepare that still so distant condition of things, in
which good Europeans will come into possession of their great task:
the direction and supervision of total earth-culture. – Whoever
preaches the opposite, not concerning himself with writing well and
read- ing well – both virtues grow together and decline together – in
fact shows peoples a way that they may become ever more national: he
augments the sickness of this century and is an enemy of good
Europeans, an enemy of free spirits."


"The task, that is, is to create the style best suited to the
communication of the tragic, Dionysian spirit, and thus to the
development of tragic, Dionysian culture.
The question, however, is what general strictures would apply to such
a style? First, tragic style must have something in common with the
style and language of those who are not yet possessed by the tragic
spirit. For if this were not the case it would be incapable of
communicating anything to them. Communication requires commonality,
and so tragic style must make use of words, concepts, figures, and
conventions in common use:
Three-quarters of Homer is convention; and it is similar with all
Greek artists, who had no reason for the modern rage for originality.
They lacked all fear of convention; through this indeed they were
connected (sie hingen zusammen) with their public. Conventions are the
achieved artistic means, the toilsomely acquired common language, with
which the artist can ac- tually communicate himself to the
understanding of the audience...That which the artist invents beyond
convention he gives out from his own voli- tion (aus freien Stu ̈cken)
and with it puts himself at risk, in the best case with the result
that he creates a new convention."

"In Nietzsche’s terms, common words are words become petrified, words
that have entombed particular views and values and therefore func-
tion as prejudices, as invisible boundaries which people using common
language can neither think beyond nor even see. In the shortest of the
three hundred and fifty aphorisms that comprise “The Wanderer and His
Shadow,” Nietzsche writes: “The danger of language for spiritual
freedom. – Every word is a prejudice.”13 In Dawn, he elaborates,
writing first:
Words lie in our way ! – Everywhere the ancients erected a word, they
believed they had made a discovery. How different it stood in truth! –
They had touched on a problem, and in supposing they had solved it
they had created a hindrance to its solution. – Now in every act of
knowing (Erkenntniss) one must stumble over rock-hard, immortalized
words, and will thereby sooner break a leg than a word.14
And then: “Words present in us. – We always express our thoughts with
the words we have at hand. Or, to express my whole suspicion: we have
at every moment only the thought for which the words we have at hand
make possible the approximate expression.”15
The problem, then, is somehow to use the common words with which one
can communicate to communicate something other than the com- mon
prejudices that they immortalize. The hope for a solution lies in
Nietzsche’s view that at the same time that they are stones and
stumbling blocks, words are also pockets into which various meanings
have been and can be stuffed.16 The trick is thus to load or stuff
these common pockets with tragic rather than decadent contents, and so
to transform people’s thinking by disrupting the prejudices of the
language they already speak."

"The tragic content with which language’s pockets must be stuffed is
itself the knowledge that words are stuffed pockets, that every word
is a prejudice. If this content can be communicated, it will undermine
the tendency of common language to reinforce the metaphysics of being
and the morality of enslavement, as it will expose the fact that words
do not refer to preexisting stable beings and values, but rather
temporarily create stable beings and values by artificially dividing
the chaotic cosmos into unified pieces to which we can henceforth
refer: “This has given me and continues to give me the greatest
trouble: to realize (einsehen) that unspeakably more lies in what
things are called than in what they are . . . It suffices to create
new names and valuations and probabilities, in order in the long run
to create new ‘things’." [W.Dudley; Hegel, N. and Philosophy]


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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:44 pm

And yet he produced a work based on metaphors and symbolism.

In this regard Schopenhauer was the more clear and direct mind.
He did not cloud his words with pretty verbiage nor was he feminine in his sly indirectness.
So shy was your sexually inexperienced boy.
Do you see it in his face in that picture with Salome and his buddy, who fucked her in the end?

If you want to say why Jews, for example, would not be hated, say it!!

Your worship of this man, clouds your own perceptions of him.
You remind me of Oliver, de Waal.

This shit of Will preceding consciousness is false.
He was human, all too human.
Not an idol...not a demi-god.

Break free...break free...see the faults in your ideals and your idols.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:51 pm

Satyr wrote:
And yet he produced a work based on metaphors and symbolism.

And yet, I have already explained on this forum, to keep in mind the contextual climate. N. saw J.-Xt. morality was being the "great antidote" against practical nihilism. That as long as forcing open situations of war, conflict, misunderstandings, did not happen, this morality of preventing the weak from dying would continue to reign. And the fact that their "good and evil" values too stem from the dissimulatory reversals of the Strong, would never get exposed. The idea Was to Promote War, misunderstandings - to push and widen that originary agon Rome vs. Judea which had stagnated into and being doused by herd morality. N. wanted to stir up the flame.
"This antagonism... - Not to be Allowed any longer to esteem the Lies we should like to tell ourselves." [WTP, 5]
N. wanted a cathartic war to break out, that would expose these lies, that would expose the decadents and the suicidals for who they were.

Quote :
In this regard Schopenhauer was the more clear and direct mind.

N. had other purposes.
Not only to incite war, but to show what the art of Philosophy should be like. - Powerful and Capable of even breaking open a war, of being a Ruling Regal Art.
Dividing history into two as he prophesied.

Quote :
He did not cloud his words with pretty verbiage nor was he feminine in his sly indirectness.

Verbiage? From the Master of Aphorisms and the Aphoristic Style... ha!

Quote :
So shy was your sexually inexperienced boy.
Do you see it in his face in that picture with Salome and his buddy, who fucked her in the end?

Who gives a damn about Salome? She made no secret of believing in multiple-livings with multiple-men. N. was no fool.
And what does it matter if he was sexually inexperienced or not; he Divided history into two.
Masculinity is about possessing Spirit; to allign word with deed.
He did what he set out to do, and that's all that matters.

Quote :
If you want to say why Jews, for example, would not be hated, say it!!

Why would he do that and have his books tyepcasted into anti-semitic literature when they weren't.
Why would he engage in such petty wars when he was out for Grand Politics,... playing dice with the Gods!
And what does it matter when the Jews themselves Get It that he was their most dangerous enemy - see George Waite's book 'Exquisite Corpse' - its a book by a scared Jew that shrieks shrill in fear of what N. was aiming to accomplish.
Its a N.-hostile book, which makes it all the more savoury.

Quote :
Your worship of this man, clouds your own perceptions of him.
You remind me of Oliver, de Waal.

hahaha Oliver was/is involved in creating a self-deification philosophy. He claims He Is the Mad God.
Do I remind you of him? Really?!!!
Is that all you got?
Please; if you are going to mis-understand me, find someone a little more Un-godly, a little less Jewish!!

Quote :
This shit of Will preceding consciousness is false.

It isn't. We've had this exchange.

Quote :
He was human, all too human.

Neither he, nor I deny it. And that's what makes him so fantastic.
What he's accomplished being human - the raising of the standard of what it means to be Human!

Quote :
Not an idol...not a demi-god.

Did you see me praying?
I affirm everything; he is part of my Fate, a strong part.
We are blood-related.

Quote :
Break free...break free...see the faults in your ideals and your idols.

"Being no longer human, why should I
Pretend humanity or don the frail attire?
Men have I known and men, but never one
Was grown so free an essence, or become
So simply element as what I am.
The mist goes from the mirror and I see.
Behold! the world of forms is swept beneath-
Turmoil grown visible beneath our peace,
And we that are grown formless, rise above-
Fluids intangible that have been men,
We seem as statues round whose high-risen base
Some overflowing river is run mad,
In us alone the element of calm."

Ezra Pound. Paracelsus In Excelsis

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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14202
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:25 pm

Lyssa wrote:
N. had other purposes.
Not only to incite war, but to show what the art of Philosophy should be like. - Powerful and Capable of even breaking open a war, of being a Ruling Regal Art.
Dividing history into two as he prophesied.
And he never declared open warfare on anyone.
In fact he flattered Socrates and Jesus...and wrote Thus Spake Zathusrtra in a style where he could retain plausible deniability.

Lyssa wrote:
Verbiage? From the Master of Aphorisms and the Aphoristic Style... ha!
YES!!
Words upon words avoiding clarity...speaking over the heads of those he feared, making him popular, to0day, even amongst the chattel.

Who does not quote Nietzsche today or don not interpret the quote in whatever way he or she pleases?
This from a man with a stipend.

Fuck you and him together.
This pussyfooting and verbal crap, only Athenians would engage in. Socrates was a his idol, no?
This was a man?

Lyssa wrote:
Who gives a damn about Salome? She made no secret of believing in multiple-livings with multiple-men. N. was no fool.
And what does it matter if he was sexually inexperienced or not; he Divided history into two.
Masculinity is about possessing Spirit; to allign word with deed.
He did what he set out to do, and that's all that matters.
How easily you can relate to the common.
history?
For whom?
He "divided history in two" for whom?
For the manimals?
Big fucking deal.
Might as well feel proud for fucking a nigger.

Lyssa wrote:
Why would he do that and have his books tyepcasted into anti-semitic literature when they weren't.
Why would he engage in such petty wars when he was out for Grand Politics,... playing dice with the Gods!
You, like Sauwelios, have made an idol out of the idol breaker.
What did he do?
Connect modernity to the past?
Gods?
Only a worshiper would speak in such terms.

And where do "grand politics" avoid hate?

Lyssa wrote:
And what does it matter when the Jews themselves Get It that he was their most dangerous enemy - see George Waite's book 'Exquisite Corpse' - its a book by a scared Jew that shrieks shrill in fear of what N. was aiming to accomplish.
Its a N.-hostile book, which makes it all the more savoury.
Still covered with the syropy sweetness, which a Jew can reinterpret and pretend it said something else...like the damn Bible!!!
Where were his BALLS!!!!

Lyssa wrote:
hahaha Oliver was/is involved in creating a self-deification philosophy. He claims He Is the Mad God.
Do I remind you of him? Really?!!!
WRONG!!!
Oliver, a.k.a Sauwelios proposed Nietzsche as the God. Not himself...his Idol...like you.
He sniffed his every fart and called it daisies.
At least, you, are a FEMALE, biologically speaking...HE, Sauwelios, what the fuck was he?

Lyssa wrote:
It isn't. We've had this exchange.
Chicken/Egg debate.
No motive present, unless there is consciousness.
To have consciousness the first care you have is to preserve it.
The "excess" comes in once self-preservation is ensured, for a time being.

I know it is less noble...but I really do not give a shit.
Even the notion of nobility is a human ideal.

Lyssa wrote:
Did you see me praying?
Yes, I did.
I saw you on your knees, dear.
Would you bend so low for a living mortal, as I, or is your reverence reserved for the dead, and so immune to your scrutiny?

Lyssa wrote:
I affirm everything; he is part of my Fate, a strong part.
We are blood-related.
When I speak of my father I do not speak of him in a way that makes him seem immune to imperfection.
When I speak of my mother I do not speak of her as if she were pure.
When I speak of myself I do not speak of it as if I were perfect.

The rest is perfume.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:30 pm

Just because something came out of Nietzsches ass doesn't mean it isn't crap.
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:22 pm

Quote :
And he never declared open warfare on anyone.

Genealogy of Morality is pure declaration of why he declares war.
Ecce Homo is how he's declared war.
Antichrist is against whom and For whom he declares war.
Will to Power is him Declaring war.
Zarathustra is his delighting in declared war.

Quote :
In fact he flattered Socrates and Jesus...and wrote Thus Spake Zathusrtra in a style where he could retain plausible deniability.

One affirms the standards of individuality one has to overcome in order To overcome!
Zarathustra is a miracle given the suffering he experienced - the migraines, the nearing blindness, nearing insanity...
N. himself says, he was merely mouthpiece of an overwhelming and overpowering inspiration that spoke through him and unmade him in the process. "I fall down by my own word."

Quote :
Words upon words avoiding clarity...speaking over the heads of those he feared, making him popular, to0day, even amongst the chattel.

The intention Was to write books for everyone and no one. Fear? Didn't he say, when one wishes not to be read or understood too soon, one only Intimates. He was honest in wanting to be what he himself experienced. "Intimations". Doesn't he already say, all Philosophy in the end is really one's own autobiography.

"The development of a thinking and a language adequate to the tragic spirit, that is, must come about not through a thoughtful displacement of style, but through
a displacement of thought that enables a tragic style to emerge:
...Nothing is more compromising than a thought! Rather the condition before thought, the throng of not yet born thoughts, the promise of future thoughts, the world as it was before God created it – a recrudescence of chaos . . . Chaos makes intimations..." [Dudley]

"The idea (Vorstellung) of being a mere incarnation, mere mouthpiece, mere medium of overpowering forces...The concept of revelation, in the sense that suddenly, with unspeakable certainty and subtlety, some- thing becomes visible, audible . . . One hears, one does not seek; one takes, one does not ask who gives; like a lightning
bolt a thought flashes up, with necessity, in form without hesitation – I have never had a choice. A rapture whose tremendous tension occasionally discharges itself in a storm of
tears...a complete being-outside-of-oneself (Ausser- sichsein) . . . Everything happens involuntarily to the highest degree, but as in a storm of a feeling of freedom, of being unconditioned, of power, of divinity – The involuntariness of image, of metaphor, is the most curious of all; one has no more concept, what is an image, what is a
metaphor, everything offers itself as the nearest, most correct, simplest expression. It actually appears, to recall some words of Zarathustra, as if the things themselves approached and offered themselves as metaphors (“...Here the words and word-shrines of all being burst open to you; here all being wants to become word, all
becoming wants to learn to speak from you”). This is my experience of inspiration." [N., Joyful Wisdom]

Acute sufferers experience heightened epiphanic moments, and its even a wonder if they manage to hold and form into words, without being overwhelmed or collapsing under their weight. N. partially collapsed. That he managed to give voice to this much is something I'm grateful for.

Quote :
Who does not quote Nietzsche today or don not interpret the quote in whatever way he or she pleases?

What makes you think he did not want that? What makes you think he was a victim? What makes you think he did not foresee how he would handled?
He intended to have fun at their expense. He was a Satyr. He was a Player. A delightfully wicked one.
Its a shame not many men know how to play like he did. He mocked at everyone and the esp. the jews in a way that they cannot even say for certain whether he did or he didn't. In fact, your own brand of humour is quite like that. One walks away from you not knowing if they were flattered or mocked at. He shared his jokes for the few who could see the whole comedy of it.

Quote :
This from a man with a stipend.

Quite. Like the kind of music that flows from a Vivaldi, dirt-poor, starving on the streets, playing for pennies to secure a meal. Remarkable, how such things, how such creations leave an unforgettable, haunting feeling. You hear them once, and you carry them with you for life.
This from a man with a stipend, who sat at every nook and corner of all possible humiliations, and disadvantages.
A fine man would rather find his own hell and then his own heaven from his own hell, than be prancing about in a ready-made one.
How much he suffered. Surrounded by Idiots!! that drove him to nausea. And such suffocating women who decided everything for him, treating him like a child and an invalid. How much he wept. How much he made others laugh.
He was a rare beauty.
One goes away from him feeling richer, feeling challenged, feeling inspired and grateful - whether one is herd or the other kind.
Isn't that why I am on this forum here - because there are writings by people here that leave me feeling enriched and indebted.

Quote :
Fuck you and him together.

I plan to visit him and lie down on his grave. Don't try to stop me, please.
Bla. Wasn't your Hannibal sexually inexperienced too? What the hell was he doing changing clothes for some Clarice instead of enjoying her!
Didn't both N. and Hannibal both want to show how Unfree the other were! Weren't women and people just experiments to both?

Quote :
This pussyfooting and verbal crap, only Athenians would engage in. Socrates was a his idol, no?
This was a man?

Are you mad? Socrates was an ex-Spartan!!!
Spartans said, Come, get it.
Nietzsche was extra-Spartan. He said, You Will Have to come get it, because you don't have any other way! hahaha He left them no choice but to deal with him.
He was standing blocking their sunlight.
He made himself unignorable.
That's how irresistble he was/is. What a spartan beauty.
How he laughs with his mad twinkling eyes! at those jews.

Quote :
How easily you can relate to the common.
history?
For whom?
He "divided history in two" for whom?
For the manimals?
Big fucking deal.
Might as well feel proud for fucking a nigger.

How quick and eager you are to relate me to the common.
That's the point. He Was diving history for One and All. The ER of the Same was to tie down everyone with a Common zero-point, a Common ground, so that when two unrelatable things are brought together in the same space, they cannot But Want to Fight, to declare War against each other. He guessed the slaves would declare war from fear of having their comfortable snoozy morality pulled away in the ER paradigm, and they will have to face their own disgust and weakness and might be crushed to die, and so the slaves would fight with every cunning they've got to preserve their world, their morality, themselces. And he guessed the strong would declare war from excess because they cannot be any other way than Dominate, in the ER paradigm. If life were to eternally repeat, they'd rather die than be dominated, and this would push them to fight with every sophistication of mind, will and spirit.
He wanted to organize a Fight-club. Divide history in two for Both. Put a lion and a sheep together in a common paradigm, a common cage and say, there are no rules, except the Rule itself be preserved. One lives off the rule affirming everything.

Quote :
You, like Sauwelios, have made an idol out of the idol breaker.

You wish!

Quote :
What did he do?
Connect modernity to the past?
Gods?
Only a worshiper would speak in such terms. [/quote]

Only someone who saw themselves as God-like would speak in such terms.
He claimed he was a disciple of Dionysos.

Quote :
And where do "grand politics" avoid hate?

And who said it avoids?

Quote :
Still covered with the syropy sweetness, which a Jew can reinterpret and pretend it said something else...like the damn Bible!!!
Where were his BALLS!!!!

Where he wanted them!!! They play into his hands as easy as a dumb fox at the sniff of some blood spilling, some blood he's cut just about, just enough to drive them crazy, keep them confused. He makes them have to want to affirm him when they hate him. When all they can say is he is mad, he has aids, he is syphillitic, he was poor, he was a weak invalid, he was a monster, he was evil, he was a christ-lover,... he makes them expose their own level. He makes them take off their own clothes! What a parody.

Quote :
WRONG!!!
Oliver, a.k.a Sauwelios proposed Nietzsche as the God.

That's how he may have started. His project finally is him saying He Is the Mad God.

Quote :
Not himself...his Idol...like you.

That's it? A poke?
Its like me trying to do this to you -
"Canada is a country so square that even the female impersonators are women.
- Richard Brenner" ! hahaha

I want to be provoked, I want to taste some venom in your spittle. But its simply not true.
Your statements are as sharp as a sackful of screwdrivers, aren't they! Molon, Labe. !!

Quote :
He sniffed his every fart and called it daisies.
At least, you, are a FEMALE, biologically speaking...HE, Sauwelios, what the fuck was he?

What? Like a Female is supposed to feel shame at wanting to be the best, and if a slave, the best slave as well?
Just try and make me feel ashamed.

Quote :
Chicken/Egg debate.

Yes, that one.

Quote :
No motive present, unless there is consciousness.
To have consciousness the first care you have is to preserve it.
The "excess" comes in once self-preservation is ensured, for a time being.

The self is not characterized by the need to survive - that is just a mean,, the goal is always growth. The expression of
every living thing is growth, power - not preserving and survival, although it needs this minimal to function.
The aim of a F1 race car is to do as many laps - it stops for refuelling, to maintain itself, but only to want to do more rounds,
win the race, dominate others. Preservation is secondary, Life is an Overflowing. It is excess, growth, expansion.

Quote :
I know it is less noble...but I really do not give a shit.

I find that quality noble. Indifference. Its part of a noble being, and a noble bearing.

Quote :
Even the notion of nobility is a human ideal.

And your ideals determine the kind and level of human you are.


Lyssa wrote:
Did you see me praying?
[quote]Yes, I did.
I saw you on your knees, dear. [quote]

Is that worship, or is that how a woman dedicates value to a man?
A man who dedicated his life to Raising a spirit like hers?
A woman raises a man she feels elevated by through her down-going.
Fair?

Quote :
Would you bend so low for a living mortal, as I

Yes. Openly.
With pride.
You are my kind.

I would defend your philosopy tooth and nail as though my own - a huge part of it already was.
Does that make you my idol?

Lets suppose it does. Lets suppose N., you, and some other men are my idols.

Aren't you trapped in the moral historicism of what "idol" has come to mean, thanks to the J.-Xt. God, and to Plato?
What were idols to the pagans before them? When they worshipped the "Forms" in nature? The sun and the moon and trees and fire... Wasn't it man who gave them meaning, breathed life into them, until Plato and the Perfect Forms, the Ideal began to dictate meaning to man? The good, the perfect - Plato made man bow his head to the dictates of the Ideal Form. The ideal form was to be idolized.

But there are pre-moral times before all that, when you stood before your idol, you gave it meaning and affirmed your self in those. Your self. It became worth-ship.
Am I supposed to find that shameful?
To be intoxicated by life, and intoxicate it with my meaning and behold again the newly transformed world with my meaning woven into Life that intoxicates me again...
Nah.

Quote :
or is your reverence reserved for the dead, and so immune to your scrutiny?

Am I some coward?! Would I shy from exposing your flaws?
I know what to do.

Quote :
When I speak of my father I do not speak of him in a way that makes him seem immune to imperfection.
When I speak of my mother I do not speak of her as if she were pure.
When I speak of myself I do not speak of it as if I were perfect.

The rest is perfume.

"I want ever more to learn to see the necessary in things as the beautiful – thus will I be one of those who makes things beautiful. ...let that be my love from now on! I want to lead no war against the ugly.I do not want to accuse, I do not want to accuse the accusers even once. Let looking away be my only denial! And, all in all and on the whole: I want someday to be only a Yes-sayer!" [N.]

And what if I can see a larger whole than you, and all that is 'ugly and flawed and imperfect' in your dimension looks necessary and beautiful and a little less imperfect from how and where I see it a little higher... are you so arrogant you'd deny me my vision? :Wink All we can have are our own limited perspectives, and within that, I know perfectly what I see.


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

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:55 am

Get off my topic with your Nietzsche discussion, you two lovebirds! Nietzsche was an exoteric.

Lyssa wrote:

Genealogy of Morality is pure declaration of why he declares war.

The intellectual with his thick glasses and the constant physical pain he was in! War? He was a cripple and went insane.

Quote :

Ecce Homo is how he's declared war.

The first example in New-Age ego masturbation. With his usual self-cucifixions also. Full of Sadomasochism.

Quote :

Antichrist is against whom and For whom he declares war.

A very academic valuable work, but he did have to re-read it (the Bible) in his last years. He couldn't escape that. Little Christian that he was.

Quote :

Will to Power is him Declaring war.

I admit, this was too dull for me to read through.

Quote :

Zarathustra is his delighting in declared war.

I admire this book. For once he tried to attain a view above mere cultural criticism. He was so involved with culture, that he was mostly anti-nature himself.
Like Jonathan Bowden.

Quote :

N. himself says, he was merely mouthpiece of an overwhelming and overpowering inspiration that spoke through him and unmade him in the process. "I fall down by my own word."

What a martyr. Just like Paulus' Jesus. You know the version that died for our sins. The Christ.

Quote :

Doesn't he already say, all Philosophy in the end is really one's own autobiography.

Because he was top-heavy. No wife, no children. No legacy passed on. Just egotistic writing-masturbation as a compensation for that.

Quote :

N. partially collapsed. That he managed to give voice to this much is something I'm grateful for.

Yes, worship your idol, little student! You know how Universities are leftist indoctrination centers?

Quote :

He was a Satyr. He was a Player. A delightfully wicked one.

LOL

Quote :

He mocked at everyone and the esp. the jews in a way that they cannot even say for certain whether he did or he didn't.

Princess of quotes and citations, would you please give us ONE example of that!

Quote :

He shared his jokes for the few who could see the whole comedy of it.

Like your "intuitive" deep understanding of Crowley? All claims my dear. Smoke and mirrors. Show us ONE example of this subtle (hidden) comedic side of N. and see if we can get it.

Quote :

And such suffocating women who decided everything for him, treating him like a child and an invalid.

Yes, because he was a child and an invalid, you moron!

Quote :

How much he wept. How much he made others laugh.

No comment.

Quote :

He was a rare beauty.

Emasculated.

Quote :

One goes away from him feeling richer, feeling challenged, feeling inspired and grateful - whether one is herd or the other kind.

Especially if one is herd, I suppose.

Quote :

Isn't that why I am on this forum here - because there are writings by people here that leave me feeling enriched and indebted.

No, you feel your pussy tingling.

Quote :

I plan to visit him and lie down on his grave. Don't try to stop me, please.

No comment.

Quote :

Didn't both N. and Hannibal both want to show how Unfree the other were! Weren't women and people just experiments to both?

Do you compare the FICTIONAL character of Hannibal with Nietzsche?

Quote :

Are you mad? Socrates was an ex-Spartan!!!

Ex, so he left Sparta or was made to leave...

Quote :

How he laughs with his mad twinkling eyes! at those jews.

Again. Back up THIS claim at least! Little poetry princess! You know the story of "Will to power" and who published it.

Quote :

He claimed he was a disciple of Dionysos.

That shows his emasculation right there! Of course he never even dared to break free in a dionysian sense.

Quote :

He makes them take off their own clothes! What a parody.

That's true.

Quote :

Preservation is secondary, Life is an Overflowing. It is excess, growth, expansion.

Yes.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:13 am

Laconian wrote:
Get off my topic with your Nietzsche discussion, you two lovebirds! Nietzsche was an exoteric.

Okay. I give in. Proceed then! Let's talk Nietzsche! I don't want to open a "Nietzsche"-topic.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101

Back to top Go down
 
Esotericism 101
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Esotericism 101

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA :: LYCEUM-
Jump to: