Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Esotericism 101

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:13 am

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

How dare you corrupt our master-slave relation!Wink N. was both, for no one and everyone.

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

All that and yet he never made excuses and sat at home; he chose to go to war at any capacity he could and served as a medic.
He did not go insane. He made himself go insane.

Quote :

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

Total discipline. Using himself as an example [so that his work can be open to scrutiny and verified] as to how food, climate and such things have a bearing on one's thinking, and writing.

Quote :

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.

One overcomes by affirming. Its the Manly way. One does not simply brush things aside and pretend they have overcome it all. Everyday is a constant and continued confrontation - does life ever rest? Doesn't the sea bring forth again and again the same stupidity you have pushed back, the same dirt you have managed to keep down under?
One has to do battle everyday. Look for his passage on how he defines "The Great Health". One again and again overcomes the same things.
Satyr is a living example of this good health. Look at him constantly having to deal with the same idiots over the same topics again and again... its the Affirmative way of the Warrior. One does not simply cut something down and pretend they have won. Weeds grow again. Relentlessness makes you develop heart-muscle, that's how a Warrior and a Philosopher is born. It needs attitude and strenth of spirit to take in all that repeated nausea without becoming tired and bored of the same recurring things.


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

Whatever.

Quote :

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.

Except in Zarathustra he differentiates this very difference - between himself and a christian martyr. I won't tell you the passage, since you've pretended to have already read it. I'll let you mire in your ignorance.


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

Philosophy, whether you put it down, or live it out can and only reveals You. Beyond the context of any marriage and what not. At the end of the day, your actions reveal who you are.


Quote :

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!

Have already covered that in the forum here. You find it. Swim. Wink

Quote :

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.

See Human, all too Human, for example, and contrast with how he was in real life. He was known for his absolute courtesy, politeness, and gentlemanly behaviour with women, but then one reads what he really thought of them, and the humour it is just plain. He made fun of academia and scholars all his life, while he himself was one, a professor at the unv.
How he mocks and satyrizes his own profession is so funny.
And his calling himself the Prophet of the Future just adjacent to his saying I'm no saint, only a satyr is his being Artistic like Crowley was. No doubt he was deplorable and a thorough decadent in his lifestyle,, still one cannot but laugh at the whole theatrics of Crowley. All the "seriousness" of introducing a new religion, a new way of life is him being a Satyr as much as Nietzsche was. The honest kind where you throw your pearls for the few who get it and have a good laugh at the expense of the others.

Quote :

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]

Physically he may have been nitwit, not intellectually. He had intellectual independence and suffered these women trying to take all decisions for him.

Quote :

Quote:

He was a rare beauty.


Emasculated.

So manly he has men in the living world trying to overcome him, trying to fight him, while he's dead and gone. That's power.
It comes from courage and courage comes from total honesty with one's self.


Quote :


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.

You are free to suppose. Whoever prevented chattel from dreaming and thinking as they wished.


Quote :

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.

Do I? Can you feel it?
See what I mean, you have a sharp Neptune. You pick up subliminal stuff.
You found me out!! I'm here to impress men with my citations LOL
How I pretend to be intellectual!! how cheeky of me Wink

[/quote]
Do you compare the FICTIONAL character of Hannibal with Nietzsche?[/quote]

I was teasing Satyr. But more seriosuly, yea, they have many elements in common archetypically speaking. You could say, Hannibal was Nietzsche's Master type.

[/quote]
Quote:

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


Ex, so he left Sparta or was made to leave...[/quote]

I meant in the sense, he could have been total spartan to the end, but he got sick of life and gave up and decided to die, no matter how Socrates judtifies it.


Quote :

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.

His Dionysian had Apollo subsumed, else he could not have managed being Dionysian and that's what his phil. is about.
And being a "disciple" simply means submitting yourself to a "discipline" - a Dionysian discipline. How much truth and honesty can you endure? Living life on those Disciplined terms.
One cannot command or have command over oneself, unless one obeys oneself first.
Ridiculing obedience and slavery as herd values is already giving into herd values. Obedience and submission can also have significance in the context of a Master moral.
When I describe him like this, there are times I wonder if its myself or him I describe; our paths are too similar. That's why I say how you see and interpret others ultimately only reveals you.

_________________
[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 Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:27 pm

Quote :

Crowley. All the "seriousness" of introducing a new religion, a new way of life is him being a Satyr as much as Nietzsche was.

I think Hubbard exceeded both. Even though he was no poet or very good writer. He was more apollonian. A doer, a maker.

Quote :

His Dionysian had Apollo subsumed, else he could not have managed being Dionysian and that's what his phil. is about.

I think Satyr and others prove him wrong. He had not subsumed Apollo completely.

I haven't read Thomas Mann "Dr. Faustus". The protagonist is supposed to be a hybrid of Wagner and Nietzsche I guess. Thomas Mann was somebody who could pick up nuances and had read Nietzsche. Rüdiger Safranski's book on Nietzsche is also translated.

A quote, I noted down from Safranskis book:

Quote :

N., in a letter to his friend Overbeck of 1.June 1885, my translation:

My life now consists of of the wish, that all things would be different, than I understand them; and that somebody would make my "truths" unreliable (unbelievable) to myself.


So there is your task! To honor N. you have to overcome him. He didn't want followers himself.
My recommandation: L.Ron Hubbard.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:49 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Look for his passage on how he defines "The Great Health".

I know someone who took part in Thorwald Dethlefsen's ( a german Esoteric) Kawwana (the name of a cult he founded) rituals. Dethlefsen studied from Oskar Rudolf Schlag. His "sect" was gnostic, kabbalistic, but also with greek mythological influences. It was more a temporary project than a sect. But they did a "Perseus" Ritual (Chrysaor) too. To achieve greater health one has "to cut off Medusas head", without turning to stone. (I think I read it in a book by Angelika Koller on the Kawwana rituals.) This is the symbolism. (I am just assuming here, I don't know what Dethlefsen or Schlag actually meant and how the ritual went about.)

Perseus

Quote :

Medusa is presented by Freud as "the supreme talisman who provides the image of castration — associated in the child's mind with the discovery of maternal sexuality — and its denial."

The Medusa later became a symbol of Feminism.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:12 pm

The Question of male and female equilibrium is (see my first posting in this topic): do you place the triangle within the circle? or do you place the circle within the triangle?

Nietzsche placed the triangle within the circle.

Satyr places the circle within the triangle.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:25 pm

Hannibal Lecter is the first step towards overcoming man.
He is an example of a man, separating himself from mankind.

A new species...alone...seeking a mate.

Think of it...a rare Master...would be condemned, or blessed, to live a life of loneliness.
A reason why this type is not politically viable, unless he lowers himself to the level of a manimal and decides to be a hypocrite, a parasite...Plato's corrupted Philosopher King.

Such a creature would only seek sharing.

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

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 932
Join date : 2013-01-04
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:26 pm

Laconian wrote:
The Question of male and female equilibrium is (see my first posting in this topic): do you place the triangle within the circle? or do you place the circle within the triangle?

Nietzsche placed the triangle within the circle.

Satyr places the circle within the triangle.

Can you expand on this. How do Nietzsche and Satyr differ regarding their understanding of masculinity?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:47 pm

perpetualburn wrote:

Can you expand on this. How do Nietzsche and Satyr differ regarding their understanding of masculinity?

Nietzsche leaned more towards the feminine. Satyr leans more towards the masculine. Of course I can just judge Satyr from his writing. Nietzsche loses himself in is writing. Satyr is laconic. Therefor systematic. Like the late Nietzsche, according to his sisters and her husbands compilation of WTP (Will to Power) was too. But N. can be quoted how he rejected all systematic thinkers and thinking. I could find a quote. I think it was regarding Schopenhauer and Kant.

So to your question. I don't think N. put masculinity as high as Satyr puts it. Satyrs essay "Feminization of Mankind" is re-actionary to something more recent. They're both children of their time, as we say in Germany. Nietzsche lived at the end of the enlightenment era. Today we are well into the modern era. N. has been made a part of pop-culture. That's why he needs to be overcome. Looked at new. I consider myself Nietzschean, as I would like him to be protected against misuse for example for antisemitism.

Satyr of course hasn't been the first intellectual post Nietzsche, who is more masculine. I think of Freud as the first more masculine thinker post N.. I'd rather see a Freud criticism on here (Lacan, Deleuze/Guattari, Alice Miller), than the old Nietzsche debates.

____________

My question: was N. referring to Aryanism (in WTP), as a race? Of course genes weren't known then. Or as a meme? To a Biology or to an ideal? Was he a racialist? Or only an idealist?
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 Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:56 pm

Quote :

Quote:

His Dionysian had Apollo subsumed, else he could not have managed being Dionysian and that's what his phil. is about.


I think Satyr and others prove him wrong. He had not subsumed Apollo completely.

Twerp, stop inserting words; who said anything about "completely".


Quote :

I haven't read Thomas Mann "Dr. Faustus". The protagonist is supposed to be a hybrid of Wagner and Nietzsche I guess. Thomas Mann was somebody who could pick up nuances and had read Nietzsche. Rüdiger Safranski's book on Nietzsche is also translated.

I don't like Mann. I only recall that much, so no comment. Safranski, etc. - I don't read second hand sources to understand N.
"What N. really said" and such bogus titles don't interest me.


Quote :

A quote, I noted down from Safranskis book:

Quote:

N., in a letter to his friend Overbeck of 1.June 1885, my translation:

My life now consists of of the wish, that all things would be different, than I understand them; and that somebody would make my "truths" unreliable (unbelievable) to myself.


So there is your task! To honor N. you have to overcome him. He didn't want followers himself.


You didn't have to go to all that trouble. N. explicitly says he doesn't want any disciples in WTP, Zarathustra, Ecce Homo,...
You don't get it, do you? I repeat, Overcoming is not like a horse that jumps above an obstacle and leaves it behind and does away with it. You stand Over what keeps on coming again and again.
“Great health - a health that one not only has but constantly acquires and must acquire, because one again and again relinquishes it, must relinquish it!” [Joyful Wisdom, Colli M, ed. KSA 2.1988]

Just because you keep on engaging with idiots doesn't make you an Idol-worshipper of Idiots, does it?! Its a modern mentality that thinks you read something once, find a flaw, argue against it, better it in some way and think that's the end of it and you've overcome it. A good book is always Alive, because its wisdom/values lend themselves to a different interpretation, every diff. day because the person who encounters it today is not the same as who he was yesterday. One tries to exhaust and Over come a book by engaging with it; doesn't make one an idol-worshipper.
Why is Plato still read when he's been Overcome by Nietzsche? Why?
Good health means having a Joyous distrust; you engage with joy because you love wrestling with thoughts that don't settle down and keep bubbling up -  if this joy is misunderstood as "worshipping" a guru, an idol... who can explain any more? Great health is having Distrust, joyfully.
If I call myself a Nietzschean or a Hyperborean disciple, I joyously engage in a certain discipline. And when you are one with pride, then you want to deal with the best. That's how the chain goes. N. was Overcoming Schopenhauer ever since discovering his mentor. Everytime N. mentions WTP, he's overcoming Schopenhauer again and again. You'll find N. dealing with very few than him, and the Greeks because they are the best. Its only a few passing lines and passages he devotes directly to Hegel, Kant, etc. Did this mean N. was an idol-worshipper of Schopenhauer or that he Overcame Schopenhauer just because he offered a revaluation of values?
I, likewise.
Its laughable to simply say, 'yea, he was wrong here, I've overcome him'!
And whoever said only N. should be read? Not I. Different people have their own kinds of "enemies"; their own selectivity. I like N. among a few others too I cherish.

Quote :
My recommandation: L.Ron Hubbard.

Smells bad. Trash bin.
Same reason I don't touch Freud. He smells foul.


Quote :

Quote:

Medusa is presented by Freud as "the supreme talisman who provides the image of castration — associated in the child's mind with the discovery of maternal sexuality — and its denial."


The Medusa later became a symbol of Feminism.

There's a nice book by Klossowski - N. and the Vicious Circle, explains the ER through the figure of the Medusa.
Scribd might have it.

Quote :


The Question of male and female equilibrium is (see my first posting in this topic): do you place the triangle within the circle? or do you place the circle within the triangle?

Nietzsche placed the triangle within the circle.

Satyr places the circle within the triangle.

First off, I even disagree with you denoting circle with the feminine and the triangle with the masculine. These are abstract relative symbols meant only as tools. For the Hindus, the square represents order and the masculine and the triangle in the shape of the "yoni" or the female womb/reproductive part is therefore feminine.
I don't care for these signs as permanent allusions or metaphors to more flowing thoughts.

Satyr philosophizes from the perspective of Self - he's Apollonian; I see from the p.o.v. of Entropy, the Dionysian.

Now there are many kinds of Dionysian.

From the entropic view, the Apollonian guards and Resists the Self from and against disorder - chaos -  nature - the feminine in the sense it is max. raw material available for use, exploitation, to be imposed upon. It is the pure Dionysian - growth, swelling, flowing. Life is a woman, feminine. The self is masculine.
From the entropic view, the Apollo-affirmative-Dionysian grows and Expands the Self not by "dissolving away" into disorder, self-fragmentation, but by "appropriating within" the chaos it confronts; it binds or extra-natures and nurtures the fragmented self.

So within the same individual, you have two Masculine drives, one trying to Resist the Dionysian and Create Order - the Apollonian drive - which in excess can turn into a  "frozen" static absolute Thingness, God. Extreme Masc.
The other Masculine drive within the same individual, tries to Destroy, swell, overflow, and Expand the Apollonian "not necessarily" into a more richer, powerful Self - which in excess can turn into a "frenzy", flux of absolute Nothingness, Void. Extreme Fem.

So for me, from an entropic view, it becomes a question of how much chaos Can you appropriate, how much dissonance can you allow ... how much you can Balance is a sign of Masculinity. Feminity overwhelms.

The Dionysian need not be the Feminine Nothingness [Void], but it can also signify  a Masculine Nothingness - Brahman - the perspectival site of Tension, Tense Order from maximum connectivity, linking max. angles, max. dissonance. Balancing is masculinity, as Euripides' Bacchus demonstrates to Pentheus.

When I ask how much Nature can I Affirm or in-corpo-rate, how much Excess can I possess within me, I see the Apollo-subsumed-Dionysian as a Masculine drive. This is why N. characterizes the Dionysian drive to self-destruction as a No from a "Yea-saying", meaning the Self is always affirmed in the affirmation of Nature, It is a double affirmation. Hence in Zarathustra is introduced the figure of Dionysos-Ariadne and their wedding.
The Affirmative Dionysian stance cannot work without the Apollonian, which is why, he points out, the Greeks called the Greco-Asian orgiastic cults as Barbaric in their violent destruction and sex frenzy, where everything goes loose. He distinguishes the Titanic as this kind of violent anarchic Dionysian, who tore the child apart and was punished by Zeus, different from another kind of Dionysian the Greeks managed to incorporate with the help of the Olympic Apollo. And thus was a mutual agonistic hand-shake established bet. Apollo and Dionysos, the two brothers. Dionysos prevents Apollo from static abstraction, and Apollo prevents Dionysos from excess destruction.

Which is why Architecture to N. represents the most static, frozen, near-abs. Apollonian form... and Music, represents the most dynamic, fluid, maximal near-representation of dissonance/chaos we can get to "meaningfully", or humans have managed to get to meaningfully. Music mirrors the most closest Dionysian will of Nature in ourselves to meaningfully self-reflect, experience the "infinity" of chaos.

So basically, while Satyr works from two end points Order/Disorder that allow maximum clarity, max. pathos of Distance, Duration of life, Resistance - "how much entropy can I endure?, how much Self can I affirm?", I work from the midst of things. The middle is the edge where two things are held together-apart at their max. incommensurability like the dividing line in a book holding together-apart two pages at their extreme edges. The edge becomes a middle, a site of Tense Order, where it is Both this page and that page...  a pathos of Amor, Intensity of life, Appropriation - "how much entropy can I exploit, how much Entropy can I affirm?".
The Apollo-affirmative Dionysian is Both self And nature; it is a double affirmation.

_________________
[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.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:02 pm

Satyr wrote:
Hannibal Lecter is the first step towards overcoming man.
He is an example of a man, separating himself from mankind.

A new species...alone...seeking a mate.

Think of it...a rare Master...would be condemned, or blessed, to live a life of loneliness.
A reason why this type is not politically viable, unless he lowers himself to the level of a manimal and decides to be a hypocrite, a parasite...Plato's corrupted Philosopher King.

Such a creature would only seek sharing.

The movie tries to explain his cannibalistic venting as a Reaction to what happened to his sister; the young Hannibal is taunted as also having partaken in his sister's flesh - does that have some incestual significance? The anguish of the Byronic hero 'Manfred' alludes to an incestual relation with his dead sister.

So, the movie atleast does not make a case for his separating out directly because of his fine tastes, but as a reaction. You'll have to excuse if I haven't recalled the facts correctly.

_________________
[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 Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:19 pm

Lyssa wrote:

I don't like Mann. I only recall that much, so no comment. Safranski, etc. - I don't read second hand sources to understand N.
"What N. really said" and such bogus titles don't interest me.

Safranski is well received amongst scholars over here for his biographic books on Goethe, Heidegger, Nietzsche. I don't "like" Thomas Mann either. He is difficult. But it's not always about what one likes in life.

Quote :

You didn't have to go to all that trouble. N. explicitly says he doesn't want any disciples in WTP, Zarathustra, Ecce Homo,...
You don't get it, do you? I repeat, Overcoming is not like a horse that jumps above an obstacle and leaves it behind and does away with it. You stand Over what keeps on coming again and again.

I think you can overcome certain thinkers. By being more specific. Being more systematic, less verbose. Combining ideas, dropping others. Michel Houellebecq seems like a more contemporary Nietzschean to me.

Quote :

“Great health - a health that one not only has but constantly acquires and must acquire, because one again and again relinquishes it, must relinquish it!” [Joyful Wisdom, Colli M, ed. KSA 2.1988]

Nice poetry. The Medusa/Perseus/Freud example has more truth to me.

Quote :

Just because you keep on engaging with idiots doesn't make you an Idol-worshipper of Idiots, does it?!

Yes, it does. I am a humanist.

Quote :

ts a modern mentality that thinks you read something once, find a flaw, argue against it, better it in some way and think that's the end of it and you've overcome it. A good book is always Alive, because its wisdom/values lend themselves to a different interpretation, every diff. day because the person who encounters it today is not the same as who he was yesterday. One tries to exhaust and Over come a book by engaging with it; doesn't make one an idol-worshipper.

WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM WITH NIETZSCHE?

Quote :

Why is Plato still read when he's been Overcome by Nietzsche? Why?

He is more popular.

Quote :

If I call myself a Nietzschean or a Hyperborean disciple, I joyously engage in a certain discipline.

Why are you so keen on putting labels on yourself and others?

Quote :

And when you are one with pride, then you want to deal with the best. That's how the chain goes. N. was Overcoming Schopenhauer ever since discovering his mentor. Everytime N. mentions WTP, he's overcoming Schopenhauer again and again. You'll find N. dealing with very few than him, and the Greeks because they are the best. Its only a few passing lines and passages he devotes directly to Hegel, Kant, etc. Did this mean N. was an idol-worshipper of Schopenhauer or that he Overcame Schopenhauer just because he offered a revaluation of values?

You have to be in love with a thing/person, to overcome it.

Quote :

I, likewise.
Its laughable to simply say, 'yea, he was wrong here, I've overcome him'!
And whoever said only N. should be read? Not I. Different people have their own kinds of "enemies"; their own selectivity. I like N. among a few others too I cherish.

My love for Nietzsche just isn't there anymore. He is too unlike me. I do not love him anymore.

Quote :

Smells bad. Trash bin.
Same reason I don't touch Freud. He smells foul.

Hubbard was an enemy of Freud.

You like to psychoanalyze people, too, a lot. He is masculine. They both are. Nietzsche compared to these two is very feminine. So if you wish to learn about masculinity you have to read Freud at least. (I know Hubbard has a bad reputation.)

Quote :

There's a nice book by Klossowski - N. and the Vicious Circle, explains the ER through the figure of the Medusa.
Scribd might have it.

And what is your opinion on it, as a woman?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:51 am

Nietzsche on his sister and mother:

Quote :

A couple of months before his collapse he declared in Ecce Homo (in a passage that only narrowly survived Elisabeth’s attempts to suppress it): ‘When I look for my profoundest opposite, the incalculable pettiness of my instincts, I always find my mother and my sister – to be related to such canaille would be blasphemy against my divinity . . . I confess that the deepest objection to the “eternal recurrence”, my real idea from the abyss, is always my mother and my sister.’

Source Article

____________

Nietzsche on Judaism:

Source Article

This is in line with what Satyr said earlier. He had jewish friends. So he wasn't racist. He saw them as a necessary counterpart.
In the text, a quote from the Anti-Christ (1888):

Quote :

The Jews are the most remarkable nation of world history because, faced with the question of being or not being, they preferred ... being at any price: the price they had to pay was the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality, the entire inner world as well as the outer. ... Considered psychologically, the Jewish nation is a nation of the toughest vital energy which ... took the side of all décadence instincts—not as being dominated by them but because it divined in them a power by means of which one can prevail against ‘the world.’ The Jews are the counterparts of décadents: they have been compelled to act as décadents to the point of illusion.... [T]his kind of man has a life-interest in making mankind sick, and in inverting the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ ‘true’ and ‘false’ in a mortally dangerous and world-maligning sense. (sec. 24)

Didn't he also side with "Being", rather than "Not Being"? His Yea-Sayer? So there was a part of Judaism he admired. He wasn't a Darwinist either.

___________

Nietzsche on Darwin:

Source Article

Quote :

Nietzsche vs Darwin

Nietzsche wrote not long after Darwin. Millions of years had long been regarded as ‘fact’, and evolution was hugely popular among the intelligentsia, of whom some were still debating its mechanism. An atheist must, by definition, believe in ‘evolution’—a world that made itself—regardless of how such transformations were achieved. It is thus not surprising to see the atheist Nietzsche writing in Thus Spake Zarathustra: “You [mankind] have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now the human being is still more of an ape than any ape is.”9

Yet it surprises many that he vehemently opposed Darwin’s ideas as to the ‘how’ of evolution, preferring his own notion of what he called “the will to power”.

Nietzsche said Darwin was wrong in four fundamental aspects of his theory.
1. Small changes could not produce new organs.

He realized that a partly formed organ was of no survival value, and wrote:

“Against Darwinism.—The utility of an organ does not explain its origin; on the contrary! For most of the time during which a property is forming it does not preserve the individual and is of no use to him, least of all in the struggle with external circumstances and enemies.”10

Nietzsche claimed that in real life the weak survive rather than the strong. He wrote:
2. The weak outlast the strong.

“Anti-Darwin.—As regards the celebrated ‘struggle for life’, … where there is struggle it is a struggle for power … its outcome is the reverse of that desired by the school of Darwin … the weaker dominate the strong again and again—the reason being they are the great majority, and they are also cleverer. … Darwin forgot the mind.”11

3. Sexual selection not normal.

Nietzsche wrote of Darwin’s notion:

“Anti-Darwin … We almost always see males and females take advantage of any chance encounter, exhibiting no selectivity whatsoever.”12

4. Transitional forms absent.

Nietzsche wrote:

“There are no transitional forms. … Primitive creatures are said to be the ancestors of those now existing. But a look at the fauna and flora of the Tertiary merely permits us to think of an as yet unexplored country that harbors types that do not exist elsewhere, while those existing elsewhere are missing.”12 [“Tertiary” refers to one of the divisions of the ‘geologic column’, ‘dated’ after the dinosaur extinction, with its implied acceptance of vast ages of pre-human history.]

Nietzsche then gave us another lengthy section, again headed Anti-Darwin:

“Anti-Darwin.—What surprises me most when I survey the broad destinies of man is that I always see before me the opposite of that which Darwin and his school see or want to see today: selection in favor of the stronger, better-constituted, and the progress of the species. Precisely the opposite is palpable … I incline to the prejudice that the school of Darwin has been deluded everywhere … .

“That will to power in which I recognize the ultimate ground and character of all change provides us with the reason why selection is not in favor of the exceptions and lucky strokes: the strongest and most fortunate are weak when opposed by organized herd instincts, by the timidity of the weak, by the vast majority.”13

Not surprisingly, then, in his autobiography, Ecce Homo,14 Nietzsche describes as “oxen” those scholars who think that his Superhuman is a product of Darwinian evolution.15


I confirm the WTP quotes.
____________


Freud on Medusas Head:

Wikipedia Article

___________

Scientology Anti Psychiatry Documentary:

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 Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:14 am

I never realized Nietzsche was such a nihilist.

Of course half an eye is better than no eye at all. Even a primitive lens which only dimly perceives light and dark confers a survival advantage. A stump instead of a fully evolved leg would allow a creature that slithers on its belly to move just that little bit faster than one with no stump at all.

What is not clear to me though is how changes in an organism are carried into the general population if they only occur in one creature, as interbreeding would wipe them out. I think there must be some potential for the change in an organism's DNA, so that it occurs in several individuals, perhaps whole populations, as this would make more sense than just some 'random' event in an isolated individual.

This way the changes could only ever be within the context of the organism's existing DNA structure, rooting its future evolution within its physical past.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:28 am

[quote="Laconian"]Nietzsche on his sister and mother:

Quote :

A couple of months before his collapse he declared in Ecce Homo (in a passage that only narrowly survived Elisabeth’s attempts to suppress it): ‘When I look for my profoundest opposite, the incalculable pettiness of my instincts, I always find my mother and my sister – to be related to such canaille would be blasphemy against my divinity . . . I confess that the deepest objection to the “eternal recurrence”, my real idea from the abyss, is always my mother and my sister.’

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


Such Bull. And all for what? To prove what? I have said much worse things about people I care about, how ridiculous you are. Tells me, how much you understand relationships, Fool!

A letter from his last year to his sister:

"Nice, January 25, 1888.
MY DEAR OLD LAMA:
It was with great pleasure that I read my brother-in-law's pæan on his "incomparable wife." I am proud of having brought you up—only very few women would have overcome those extraordinary difficulties with such bravery and unassuming cheerfulness. But please let us have a little less modesty! Do not forget that the herd insists on having picturesque people—that is to say, people who draw pictures of their gifts, aspirations, and successes in such bold and obtrusive strokes that they can be grasped even by the dullest eyes. The herd honours everything in the nature of a pose, any solemn attitude,—things from which we two are averse. Only subtle spirits understand the shame of the noble mind, that conceals its highest and its best beneath a plain surface. I feel certain that among all those people over there, only a few have any idea with what little regard for yourself and with what passionate resolution you try to realize your ideals. The only question I ask myself is—are these ideals worthy of so much self-sacrifice? I very much fear you will yet have to overcome many bitter disappointments in your life. Ultimately you will be come a sceptical old woman—without having lost your bravery; and you will be well suited to your sceptical brother. How we shall laugh then over the idealism of our youth—possibly with tears.
Now let me tell you a little experience I have had. As I was taking my usual walk yesterday, I suddenly heard some one talking and laughing heartily along a side path (it sounded almost as if it might have been you); and when this some one appeared before me, it turned out to be a charming brown-eyed girl, whose soft gaze, as she surveyed me, reminded me of a roe. Then, lonely philosopher though I am, my heart grew quite warm—I thought of your marriage schemes, and for the whole of the rest of the walk I could not help thinking of the charming young girl. Certainly it would do me good to have something so graceful about me—but would it do her good? Would my views not make her unhappy, and would it not break my heart (provided that I loved her) to make such a delightful creature suffer? No, let us not speak of marrying!
But what you were thinking of was rather a good comrade [ . . . ]. Do you really think that an emancipated woman of this sort, with all her femininity vanished, could be a good comrade, or could be tolerable as a wife at all? You forget that, in spite of my bad eyesight, I have a very highly developed sense of beauty; and this, quite apart from the fact that such embittered women are repugnant to me and spoil my spirits and my whole atmosphere. Much intellect in a woman amounts to very little as far as I am concerned, for this so-called intellect, by which only the most superficial men are deceived, is nothing more than the most absurd pretentiousness. There is nothing more tiring than such an intellectual goose, who does not even know how tedious she is. Think of Frau O.! But in this respect I must admit that Fraulein X. is incomparably more pleasant—but, nevertheless! You think that love would change her; but I do not believe in any such change through "love." Besides, you have not seen her for many years it is obvious that she must have changed in the direction of ugliness and loss of womanliness. Believe me, if you were to see her now—at her very appearance the thought of love and marriage would strike you, as it does me, as absurd. You can take my word for it, that for men like me, a marriage after the type of Goethe's would be the best of all—that is to say, a marriage with a good housekeeper! But even this idea is repellent to me. A young and cheerful daughter to whom I would be an object of reverence would be much more to the point. The best of all, however, would be to have my good old Lama again. For a philosopher, a sister is an excellent philanthropic institution, particularly when she is bright, brave, and loving (no old vinegar flask like G. Keller's[100] sister), but as a rule one only recognizes such truths when it is too late.
Well, this has been a nice chat on marriage with the Lama. With many hearty wishes and greetings to you and your Bernhard,
Your devoted F."


Quote :

Nietzsche on Judaism:

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

This is in line with what Satyr said earlier. He had jewish friends. So he wasn't racist. He saw them as a necessary counterpart.

And where did I say he was an anti-semite, twerp? N. was no racist; he was a racialist. His Dionysian path meant making a home, an affirmative place for Everything in His Hierarchy of Pro-Aryan values.
Yes, the jew had a place, an order of rank in an Aryan hierrachy.



Quote :
He realized that a partly formed organ was of no survival value, and wrote:

“Against Darwinism.—The utility of an organ does not explain its origin; on the contrary! For most of the time during which a property is forming it does not preserve the individual and is of no use to him, least of all in the struggle with external circumstances and enemies.”10

Twerp, that's not what he said - "that an organ had no survival value". You mislead others here with your deficient understanding. He said an organ does not evolve with a telos, with a will to self-preservation", but everything in the organic world struggles to grow, flourish, expand, approp. others in its way; it doesn't seek self-preservation as an ends in itself. An organ was not meant to be for its own sake; the underlying substratum of all things is power.


_________________
[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
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:28 am

Laconian wrote:


Safranski is well received amongst scholars over here for his biographic books on Goethe, Heidegger, Nietzsche.

The popular representations are always well-received.

Quote :
I don't "like" Thomas Mann either. He is difficult. But it's not always about what one likes in life.

I do not like him not because he is difficult, but I remember him being too apologetic. Still in the good/evil.
And to me, it is about what I like.- I do not become poorer for not having read Mann!

Quote :

I think you can overcome certain thinkers. By being more specific. Being more systematic, less verbose. Combining ideas, dropping others. Michel Houellebecq seems like a more contemporary Nietzschean to me.

Yes, this is the modern meaning of Overcoming. You deal with it and then you are done with it. I'm old-fashioned.

Quote :

Quote :

Just because you keep on engaging with idiots doesn't make you an Idol-worshipper of Idiots, does it?!

Yes, it does. I am a humanist.

So you are Today...
So, you are saying as per the prv. example, Satyr is an Idiot-worshipper becaue he deals with the same idiots and their same problems again and again?


Quote :

WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM WITH NIETZSCHE?

Your bolding seems to insinuate that I have ignored your supposedly asking me the same in the past [which you've not]. Lets settle that first.

Quote :

Quote :

Why is Plato still read when he's been Overcome by Nietzsche? Why?

He is more popular.

Exactly my point. So just because N.'s work is out, doesn't mean he has Overcome Plato. The same dirt will wash over the world like the tides again and again, and one has to deal with this same rubbish again and again. This is Over the coming of it.


Quote :

Quote :

If I call myself a Nietzschean or a Hyperborean disciple, I joyously engage in a certain discipline.

Why are you so keen on putting labels on yourself and others?

Did I or did I not say "If"?

Quote :


You have to be in love with a thing/person, to overcome it.

Affirming need not always be about loving, it can also be about Aversion and Disgust.
This is Zarathustra.

Quote :

My love for Nietzsche just isn't there anymore. He is too unlike me. I do not love him anymore.

Indeed. He is unlike you. And that's good news to me.


Quote :

Hubbard was an enemy of Freud.

He is masculine. They both are. Nietzsche compared to these two is very feminine. So if you wish to learn about masculinity you have to read Freud at least. (I know Hubbard has a bad reputation.)

Hubbard, Freud, etc. all these are the same to me. Not of my world.
And N. to me is hardly feminine. Freud appears like a sissy with all his little boy theories of phobia and castration anxieties... silly. He infected the whole world with his pollution.
A real Male does not fear, does not abhor the Feminine although it may start there.
The Dionysian is about affirming the opposite within.

Quote :
You like to psychoanalyze people, too, a lot.

Why, do you feel exposed...?
No, I just observe, and I say it as I see it.
You could say I'm actually psychoanalyzing myself - how obnoxious, uncouth, rude, nonchalant, can I get, how much discomfort can I take with my own behaviour... its a skin I'm playing with for a while, for a promise I've made and I intend to keep.
Life is a stage and all the world is a play and I'm a theatre-artist.

Quote :

Quote :

There's a nice book by Klossowski - N. and the Vicious Circle, explains the ER through the figure of the Medusa.
Scribd might have it.

And what is your opinion on it, as a woman?
[/quote]

Very simple, very un-Freudian.
Medusa represents the excess of nature, the abysmal self within one - the fascinating beauty as well the tremendous monstrosity. One cannot transgress the nature inside without facing the consequences of it out and vice-versa. It is a confrontation with the Self, where looking too deeply inside you, can overwhelm you into a stupor, into a paralysis - like the nightmare of the eternally recurring life fills you with dread of the same self as well as beauty of an immortal self. The looking into a mirror to eventually decapitate the head [another ego growing or you could call it the encountering with your recurrent self that gives you that deja-vu feeling...] signifies it takes Art, a Dionysian laughter to break the fetter of the Medusa.
"Life can only justified as an aesthetic phenomenon." - N.
Noted this from an online source somewhere:

"The confrontation with Medusa marks an epiphany; in this moment the observer comes to know himself, he is forced to introspection. The misshapen creature staring at him has an alienating impact on him, at first sight because of their completely different looks. However, this is deceptive. Introspection leads, after all, to the discovery and recognition of the self. One realises that one is not the god one thought oneself to be, but rather a monster that - above all - cannot escape the process of transience. In Medusa one recognises oneself and one's own mortality... Perseus' assignment is a game of reflections, a game of seeing and not seeing, a game of seeing or being seen."

When one affirms the monstrous abyss within, the severed ego is naturalized back with oneself and raised as an apotropaic weapon.
To me, the Medusa-complex ultimately says, Joy is more primal and more ancient than Pain.


_________________
[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 Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:09 am

Lyssa wrote:

You mislead others here with your deficient understanding.

I am not misleading anyone, since I am only quoting. The inked site quotes from WTP. Section 647.

I also stumpled upon sections 682,683,684,685 in my exemplar of WTP with excessive Darwin citicism.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:10 am

Recidivist wrote:
I never realized Nietzsche was such a nihilist.

And he is the father of the New Right, whichever way you put it. That's why I opened a topic on the New Right.
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 Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:12 am

Laconian wrote:
Lyssa wrote:

You mislead others here with your deficient understanding.

I am not misleading anyone, since I am only quoting. The inked site quotes from WTP. Section 647.

I also stumpled upon sections 682,683,684,685 in my exemplar of WTP with excessive Darwin citicism.

"an organ had no survival value" are not His words, they are yours.

_________________
[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 Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:23 am

Lyssa wrote:

And to me, it is about what I like.

Cyndi Lauper - Girl just wanna have fun

[/quote]

Quote :

- I do not become poorer for not having read Mann!

And life is all about abundance, right?

Quote :

Yes, this is the modern meaning of Overcoming. You deal with it and then you are done with it. I'm old-fashioned.

And how does the old-fashioned way of overcoming work?

Quote :

So you are Today...

Boys want to have a little fun, too!

Quote :

So, you are saying as per the prv. example, Satyr is an Idiot-worshipper becaue he deals with the same idiots and their same problems again and again?

No, he doesn't.

Quote :

Quote :

WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM WITH NIETZSCHE?

Your bolding seems to insinuate that I have ignored your supposedly asking me the same in the past [which you've not]. Lets settle that first.

Confirmed. Proceed.

Quote :

Exactly my point. So just because N.'s work is out, doesn't mean he has Overcome Plato. The same dirt will wash over the world like the tides again and again, and one has to deal with this same rubbish again and again. This is Over the coming of it.

So you believe in re-inacarnation?

Quote :

Hubbard, Freud, etc. all these are the same to me. Not of my world.
And N. to me is hardly feminine. Freud appears like a sissy with all his little boy theories of phobia and castration anxieties... silly. He infected the whole world with his pollution.
A real Male does not fear, does not abhor the Feminine although it may start there.
The Dionysian is about affirming the opposite within.

Life is resistance to entropy. N. would have lived longer, been more healthy, if he hadn't fallen for Dionysos so easily.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:28 am

Lyssa wrote:
Laconian wrote:
Lyssa wrote:

You mislead others here with your deficient understanding.

I am not misleading anyone, since I am only quoting. The inked site quotes from WTP. Section 647.

I also stumpled upon sections 682,683,684,685 in my exemplar of WTP with excessive Darwin citicism.

"an organ had no survival value" are not His words, they are yours.

These are the words from the site I quoted, not mine. So I shouldn't have quoted them. And I trust you, if you say they aren't what Nietzsche said.

The cited quotes on that site from WTP are correct though! For anybody reading this (this is highly charged politics here, I understand), who doesn't have a copy of the book.


Last edited by Laconian on Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
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 Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:31 pm

Quote :
Cyndi Lauper - Girl just wanna have fun

ha

What makes you think I'm a girl, twerp? Just because my profile says so? Wink
But its true; only the idea of "fun" differs...


Quote :

- I do not become poorer for not having read Mann!


And life is all about abundance, right?

Because life is all about abundance, life is all about Discrimination and Selectivity. Mann does not make it to me!


Quote :

And how does the old-fashioned way of overcoming work?

Like a lover...

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

If life spurns you, you Overcome it by saying,
Life? Once More! You'll do it again...

You never do away with the one you're always trying to do away with; you don't want to because the idea that two things, two beings can be so easily reconciled [either for being too similar to you or for being so different] enrages you. Easy Reconciliations of either sort hurt your pride. So you never overcome, leave anyone behind you forever, you don't snap the link, its having endurance for protracted passions; you always keep Over the coming of them...

Friends too similar become enemies and enemies become friends for keeping you alert and in form, sharing a similar battle-ground, a similar destiny and this friendly similarity turns them into enemies again... they turn over and over the same way and so you have to keep on overcoming them again and again... Living well is about Loving well. Old-fashioned means being rom-Antique. ;

Quote :

Quote:

So you are Today...


Boys want to have a little fun, too!

Yes, why not. You've been working so hard. Anyone redfining Philosophy as self-therapeutic psychiatry deserves some time off!

Quote :

Quote:

So, you are saying as per the prv. example, Satyr is an Idiot-worshipper becaue he deals with the same idiots and their same problems again and again?


No, he doesn't.

Then you show some dim hope for grasping what overcoming means.


Quote :


Quote:

Quote:

WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM WITH NIETZSCHE?


Your bolding seems to insinuate that I have ignored your supposedly asking me the same in the past [which you've not]. Lets settle that first.


Confirmed. Proceed.

Confirmed? You made a wrong insinuation at me.
Say sorry.

If you say sorry to hear my answer, I'll turn it into a case-study, a question of what makes men stake their pride for something they are uncertain of attaining - I might not tell you even after you say sorry. Its a risk you might have to take. But if you take the risk, it means the outcome doesn't matter to you, you feel no loss, then it must mean that you don't care enough, suffer your questions enough to deserve my answer. So why would I share?
And if you take the risk because you trust me and you might feel a great loss if I didn't give you the answer, then you are gullible and I don't suffer fools; that would be beneath me. So why would I share?
If you say sorry genuinely, no longer needing my answer, there's no need to give then.
If you don't say sorry, and accused me of being a faker, then why would I bother with a man who's already distemepered me with his baseless insinuation? Wink

mmm...

How does it make you Feel?...

my answer to your question is in my answer.

[would you take my word for it? LOL... ]

Now, no matter how/if you respond, you are going to expose yourself to me...

What does a Man do?

What should a Man do?

Do you understand Overcoming?


Quote :

Quote:

Exactly my point. So just because N.'s work is out, doesn't mean he has Overcome Plato. The same dirt will wash over the world like the tides again and again, and one has to deal with this same rubbish again and again. This is Over the coming of it.


So you believe in re-inacarnation?

No, you silly. That's not what I'm saying.
Would you send your father or mother away to some asylum just because you have 'overcome' their 'stupidity', their 'backwardness' because you are intelligent now in the uptodate information world; would you be done away with them?
Would you have overcome your retired father and send him to an old age home just because you are earning now and have all the money you need? Would you leave him behind in your "progress"?
That's one side. On the other side,
Even if they have hurt you, they humiliate you, they use and abuse you, they misunderstand you, they don't acknowledge you, and you become worth-less and broken to them, as long as they Affirm You in their very hate, in their disgust of you, you take pride in your duty in returning that affirmation of theirs, by affirming them. You bestow honour on Yourself in your enemies. You never wash your hands clean of anyone. How much you can afford to Overcome that way depends from man to man.

Overcoming means suffering, confronting, delighting, in what you've already done away with, and that keeps coming at you, or you go to it. Remember, Ideas cannot be Destroyed. They can only be Pushed and kept away temporarily, placed beneath or beside or behind other ideas... To Overcome is to Affirm their Resurgence again and again... by standing Over their coming. To Will and take delight in their coming again and again...

Philosophy is not for everybody.
Those who just want to get by in the world... - this is not It.


Quote :

Life is resistance to entropy. N. would have lived longer, been more healthy, if he hadn't fallen for Dionysos so easily.

Life is both entropy and its resistance to it and its resistance to its resistance ad.inf. It is agon.
He was already mad since his childhood.

_________________
[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 Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:46 am

Lyssa wrote:

Because life is all about abundance, life is all about Discrimination and Selectivity. Mann does not make it to me!

He was Bourgeoisie. New rich, old rich, I don't know. He won the noble price for his "Buddenbrooks" a novel about the decline of a merchant family. I read his "Zauberberg" only after seeing the movie. Then I was calm enough to not expect any kind of "action" in the book. His language is probably the most distinguished anywhere in the world. I am interested in him again, because he was a Nietzsche scholar and Wagner. I link Hitler very much to Wagners music. The whole fatalism of Nazism, that Nietzsche criticised too about Wagner. Then of course the attraction to Wagners music on the other side. I'd like to get more distinguished in this subject. I ordered "Letters and Diary of Nietzsche" from the 1880's. It's just the style of WTP that annoys me. I honour N..

Quote :

Yes, why not. You've been working so hard. Anyone redfining Philosophy as self-therapeutic psychiatry deserves some time off!

Thanks. I never claimed to be a Philosopher. In fact I wouldn't consider myself a Philosopher.

Quote :

Philosophy is not for everybody.
Those who just want to get by in the world... - this is not It.

Who would you consider a Philosopher today? Philosophy sounds "ancient" to me.

Quote :

He was already mad since his childhood.

And I love him. Just not as much as I used to. But I ordered his diary/letters. (I read some of that about 10 years ago.)
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 Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:03 pm

Laconian wrote:

Quote :

Yes, why not. You've been working so hard. Anyone redfining Philosophy as self-therapeutic psychiatry deserves some time off!

Thanks. I never claimed to be a Philosopher. In fact I wouldn't consider myself a Philosopher.

I didn't call you as one. Gathering information, musing over things, stumbling, groping in the dark, self-healing is part of a philosophical Activity - which is what you are engaged in; doesn't necessarily make one a philosopher though.


Quote :
Who would you consider a Philosopher today? Philosophy sounds "ancient" to me.

Yes, I can't think of any "Philosopher" today [leaving aside our own resident Philsopher here! - I regard him highly and one in the true and ancient sense.]
I get Heidegger, but the last was prob. Hitler to me.
But there are wonderful commentators, goaders, thinkers, scholars today who are the Necessary connecting dots to the Philosophers of the Future...
Perhaps "You" might like David Myatt - his writings on the Numinous Way; look him up.

Quote :

Quote :

He was already mad since his childhood.

And I love him. Just not as much as I used to. But I ordered his diary/letters. (I read some of that about 10 years ago.)
[/quote]

N. triumphs over Xt. and has a left a Ruling Phil. because his only weapon was "Health". He philosophized with his Excess.
N. cannot be overcome intellectually because he does not use intellectual gimmicks; only someone with Greater Health than him can overcome him. That is the gauntlet he has thrown; it reveals how he wishes to be "defeated", "overcome", "criticized"... one finds it touching how he's styled his exit, what charm and manners, the care and self-reverence in being taken down, how cleverly he designed his "enemies"... a wicked delight..

And for me, that's where the small hole opens up. N.'s ER to bring the herd and the strong into a common platform to provoke a war is really an appeal to their pride. His creativity ultimately is an Appeal, a banking that each would respond out of different motives. Which is perfect. There is no flaw. Given his circumstances, the climate and course of history he was facing, he feared the herd and its technological values would sweep over like a carpet, diminishing the chances of man as a species itself. He had foreseen that much.
As a woman, I understand he did what he needed to do. Coursing through life is knowing when to pull and push the currents, oaring, using whatever at hand or creating whatever possible as a weapon... the ER was such.
But, if I were a man, I should be enraged!!! that preserving the probability of the human-species should rest on an Appeal to Man's Pride!
The last thread...
I should be enraged because it is not Bleak enough for me!!!

This is where Satyr comes in. If I have understood him, he states, patriarchy has its own flaws, and so the only kind of noble monogamy that would create men of sturdy character would be if the women were discriminating, selective. Its the only other way a monogamy can emerge, a stable institution that can breed stable men, before a technopoly takes over and even women or the need for women are made redundant.
Satyr doesn't Appeal; he hints at the quality of women.
Satyr Shifts the nightmare placing it in the domain of women. How Bleak!!!!!! How Sexy!!!! than N.'s for one who understands the nature of women. I see a shift from Man's Pride to Women's Pride. What a huge Gamble!! although he wouldn't want to call it a gamble.

Satyr doesn't feel the need to appeal to anyone's pride, to Appeal per se. What Han!! He IS his own model, his own Oasis, that 'should' create the Thirst. He is his own model, making no appeals, in a world that is veering towards a gender annihilation. N. had to create a Thirst, a need to awaken men through a concept, an ER device, a real-istic psychological Appeal - "If I loved myself, I would want to recur again and again and so I have to will-to-power, have to dominate". N. has to place man in such a paradigm first before he can get them to move.

Satyr IS the Thirst. He banks on nothing except himself!, his own Be-ing to Intimate what Being Human must mean - that one rely on nothing but oneself, even in the face of worst odds. One doesn't make appeals, no "If a demon came to you at night..."...
Even if the end is going to be doomed, he wants to say "I should be enough of a model" for men to want to be men. Satyr being himself Is the Philosophy, than his philosophy.
He doesn't locate others in an appealing paradigm. He "wants to be" enough. And by that he wants to make men "who want to be enough".
N.'s Future Philosophers would be Ruling-Legislators, Artist-Tyrants working on humanity with Machiavellian Intelligence, growing more sophisticated in proportion to the equally growing cunning and cleverness of the herd.
Satyr's Philosophers would Rule others in their Indifference - "How Lightly Can One Live?"...
From a woman's view, they appear complementary, fantastic.
From a man's view, one should say, Satyr has "Health"; it "overcomes" N. in my eyes, although this would make Satyr say who the f--- is N.! LOL he knows he is Hot!
He expects criticism from me! He can't see how similar he and N. are, how they both employ Health to tackle them. Its what makes them both Satyrs.
If I as a man, were to criticize him, I'd have to open up a breach, between him and 'doomsday'....
I'd have to find a way to "overcome" even this "Banking" on himself, avoiding the immediate resignation to any faith or fate to that side.
I'd have to find a bleaker view... that is how My Health would be asserted... that is How I would "overcome" and choose to "overcome" him... make it a question of sheer Heart. And I would Do it.

But I'm a woman [luckily!!! Ha!], and I don't believe in women being philosophers. So I don't mind if anyone calls me a N.-worshipper, or a Satyr-sheeple. What does it matter...

My criticism in the end can only amount to Where I suffer, than what...
And that's how I choose to distinguish myself.


_________________
[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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:05 pm

My "philosophers" are Goethe & Nietzsche and some more poetic or literary writers of the 20th Century (Kafka, Manfred Kyber, Meyrink...)

I translate something I just read in N's 1880's diaries:

'1. We want to hold on to our senses and believe in them and think them through! The anti-sensuality of Philosophy up to this point is the biggest absurdity of man.'

I tried some of the Philosophers before N., that he refers to. But except for Goethe none appeal to me. I am interested in Foucault and Deleuze, of the more recent past.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:17 am

Take the analytical philosophy. I admire that and want to understand Heidegger. The metaphysicist. Take all these descriptions of flux, the constant change, the constant movement, transformation. For easterners that is a given. That's why they BUILD on it and reach deeper layers of understanding. Unlike westerners who describe it and teach it to one another. I agree that westerners (white race) have more scientific drive. And the achievements are greater too. Easterners are more focussed on introspection. Not power, making the world theirs. But it happens anyway (to some degree). Since the inner spaces and outer spaces aren't different in reality (anymore).
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 Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:11 pm

Quote :

Take the analytical philosophy. I admire that and want to understand Heidegger. The metaphysicist. Take all these descriptions of flux, the constant change, the constant movement, transformation. For easterners that is a given. That's why they BUILD on it and reach deeper layers of understanding. Unlike westerners who describe it and teach it to one another. I agree that westerners (white race) have more scientific drive. And the achievements are greater too. Easterners are more focussed on introspection. Not power, making the world theirs. But it happens anyway (to some degree). Since the inner spaces and outer spaces aren't different in reality (anymore).

If you want to understand Heidegger, take the indirect approach. Start with Ister, Elucidations on Holderlin's poetry, and Parmenides.
Then his thoughts on N.
Then his work Being and Time, etc.

Your east/west bifurcation is irrelevant, or atleast I can't see any value. See Thomas McEvilley's 'Shape of Ancient Thought'; you will like it. [Not all academics and scholars are leftists; that's your own narrow-minded bias.] One could maybe see this divide as male/female temperaments.
I though, slice the philosophical schools only as pagan/non-pagan.

_________________
[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 : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:38 pm

I would suggest Heraclitus.

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



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:46 am

You two both represent the 5th card of the Great Arcana in the Tarot. It's the High-Priest. The Hierophant. I am dealing with the 4th stage at the moment: the Emperor.

The High-Priest: He is the Hierophant. The herald of the law. A teacher of the law. Of the knowledge. "Only who subordinates himself under the law is free."

The next card (6th) is the "Crossroads". Or "at the crossroads". Or "the Lovers". It's a card that makes a decision in the world of polarity. To not stay stuck in the solidification: We have to move, to decide, so that activity comes in our development. We have to realize that we must decide for a path. One way or the other. We can't have both ways at the same time (see my Avatar picture: either the faces or the grail).
It's the clarity, that every one-sidedness must be balanced at some point. And still NOT stand still, but choose. "I have to decide. I have to become one-sided, but I also have to balance it out at a given time."

But in the Tarot there are different journeys. You don't necessarily go card by card in the Great Arcana. So according to my above estimation (Priest) you are either on the Isis Journey, or the Fool's Journey (which I'll not explain).

The Isis Journey would suggest your next step to be the (8th card): the Scale. It's about justice. Justness. It's about realizing that justice is equilibrium. It's the Karma-scale. Like at the judgement of the dead in ancient Egypt. It's the stage of realizing equilibrium within yourself.

My next step (Osiris' Journey) is the charioteer (7th card), who has made the world of forms a means of transportation. It's also an active step towards life.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:21 pm

[quote="Lyssa"]
Laconian wrote:


Medusa represents the excess of nature, the abysmal self within one - the fascinating beauty as well the tremendous monstrosity. One cannot transgress the nature inside without facing the consequences of it out and vice-versa. It is a confrontation with the Self, where looking too deeply inside you, can overwhelm you into a stupor,


She can also represent one's opposite who is actually a mirror reflection. I think Jung wrote about this before. I find the Medusa symbol rather fascinating.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:30 pm

So the difference between "The Emperor"(4) and "the Highpriest"(5) is that the emperor is a teacher. That's the most important difference.

The numbers I might add are significant here too. 4 and 5. 4 is the law. 5 is resonance (like in the pentagram). 4 is magnetism.

But I will tell you about the next card on the "Fool's journey" also, in case that may be yours (it's not mine).

The Hermit. (9th card). The Wanderer, the magician. Inner solitute. And an inner light that guides him. That is knowledge and guide.
His walking-stick represents the teachings, the tradition. The magician at this point comes into the world completely. Into life completely.
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 Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:17 pm

Laconian wrote:
You two both represent the 5th card of the Great Arcana in the Tarot. It's the High-Priest. The Hierophant. I am dealing with the 4th stage at the moment: the Emperor.

I neither see myself, nor Satyr as the Hierophant.

He is like the Magus to me.
"How carefully a wise ruler chooses his words. He performs deeds, and accumulates
merit! Under such a ruler the people think they are ruling themselves." [Tao, Verse 17]

And I don't believe in these linear tarot-operations like you do.


_________________
[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 Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Lyssa wrote:

He is like the Magus to me.

I guess everybody MUST be the Magus, to get started on the journey. The Tarot is his journey in either case. It's the most basic card.

He's got his tools before him: the four elements. Water, Fire, Earth and Air.
The stage of life lies before him.

The Fool is the 0 or the 22nd card. So he might precede the Magus, in one perspective. He is the most superior card.
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 Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:00 pm

Laconian wrote:
Lyssa wrote:

He is like the Magus to me.

I guess everybody MUST be the Magus, to get started on the journey. The Tarot is his journey in either case. It's the most basic card.

He's got his tools before him: the four elements. Water, Fire, Earth and Air.
The stage of life lies before him.

The Fool is the 0 or the 22nd card. So he might precede the Magus, in one perspective. He is the most superior card.

Its why I said, I don't interpret this in a linear continuity. The Fool in the Fool's journey is like the joker in the pack of cards, a substitute for any other - meant to symbolize he is Nothing [clings to nothing] and therefore he is/can be Everything. It is why the Jester's cap in the royal court was the opp. of the King's crown - it is subversive - bearing both the structure of a King's *and* not also. This *and* that - that Han point.
No one brings this out better than Shulman's book 'King and the Clown' - its a classic. Although the setting is India, the archetype is universal.

_________________
[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 Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:54 pm

Nice post, thanks.
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 Jun 12, 2013 8:45 am

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

_________________
[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
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:46 am

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

_________________
[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 Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:42 pm

89 535972647.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 13743
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:18 pm

ghosttroll wrote:
89 535972647.
Keep it up.
The Dungeon awaits.

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



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:50 pm

Know thy self, Know thy Devil. 
Satyr. Satire. Saphire. DuhFIA!!!!!!!!!!!
yu da man. yu da man, sun!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Me happiez to join da dunjun. I like torture Very Happy
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Esotericism 101 Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:53 pm

This ain't Esotericism, that's bullshit (BTW. I'm drunk - well, acting like I'm drunk). I knowz more Esotericism than all ya bitches!!!!! lol
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 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» Esotericism 101

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