An interesting view. Astrologically then, the Germanic race would be on the Taurus-Scorpio axis. In esoteric/Theosophic astrology, this is attributed to ray 4 of Harmony through Conflict, the ray of art and immersion in difficult conditions.
I would associate the original Indo-Aryan culture with Aries, "I am". Of course Taurus is ruled by Venus and exalts the Moon, it is thus a Goddess-sign, and it was the constellation under which the spring began in the time of the Mother cults, most notably Taurean being the Minoan civilization.
Although as you point out, Moon is (still) Masculine in German, and Sun is Feminine. This again points to a predominance of the Feminine is the German reverence-cultus which makes perfect sense for a Masculine culture.
The Taurus-Scorpio axis can be seen as accumulation of self first and then, due to the richness of this accumulated self and the scope of what it pertains to, being completely overwhelmed (good attribution) by otherness later. Taurus is of all signs best able to value, thus it is also least able to reject value, even if it is largely alien. Why Europe is so slow in coming to its own defenses, and why, when it does, the means is a complete overhaul of value, a total negation of the prevailing trend. The concept revolution was invented in Europe. It is vital enough to carry though internal dialectic, to endure that suffering.
The response to the bland unity Europe is the glorification of the diversity Europe. The only way in which Europe can be united is in its fierce assertion of internal differences. This is what makes Europe different from West-Asian cultures, and what also characterized Rome - its tolerance of imported ethnic religions, ultimately underestimating the force the religion that contradicts this multi-facetedness of nature. As we still underestimate the power of the One God. This God needs to be actively negated. A focus must be brought on the 'scattering of God in a thousand pieces'.
All these pieces are Gods in their own right - 'proper' Gods, cultural benefactors, blessings.
"Count your blessings" - a Taurus command.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
The Taurus-Scorpio axis can be seen as accumulation of self first and then, due to the richness of this accumulated self and the scope of what it pertains to, being completely overwhelmed (good attribution) by otherness later.
My whole aesthetics is a Plutonicism. Self-possession is the truest wealth, and that emergence of consciousness from the hidden tremors I ascribe to pluto; the Venetian taurus is materialistic comfort and 'acquisition' - not proper-ty. Pluto strips to the bare minimum, till there's nothing left but the irreducible self. It is ruthless self-severity. Venetian comfort is a feeling of security that acquisitions give, and the need for such security. The plutonic is self-secure.
Taurus - I resist. [unshakeable security] Scorpio - Otherness overwhelms me. [Assessment of self and other in terms of power, and staying master.]
Taurus is Apollonian, it Resists. Scorpio is Dionysian, it Seeks Resistances.
Therefore Sagg. - Otherness thinks me [because I have dominated it in scorp., it now thinks in terms of my values] is how I would continue your scheme.
What? Value with no judgment... Self preceding the emergence of self. Even a rock, has a sense of self, it values this self and it resists destruction.
Christians called it love. Love, the emotion, mystified...made into a pure ontology = God.
Where the fuck is that face-palming emoticon?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
In the meantime, terrestrial globalization has decentred the city of cities too, turning the metaphysical broadcasting headquarters of the Old European globe into a location among locations. One should not underestimate the fact that the fifty-six men who signed the American Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776, almost all of them freemasons and amateur metaphysicians, refer to the evidence first, only then declaring the human rights – as if they had intuitively understood that attempts to break away from Europe do not succeed unless the truth is conveyed across the Atlantic first: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ For the anthropological commune of the Global Age, however, a metaphysical ground of unity in the manner of the ‘divine presence’ which Voegelin claims inhabits every soul is no longer in sight. A different medium of universal coexistence will therefore have to be found.
The Second Ecumene broke open the universals of the first in all directions. It labelled both the Christian and the Greek conceptions of the world, with their supposed logical evidence, provincial – however vehemently they insisted on their universality. Christianity too had to face being told of its particularity, and time will tell whether it will manage to expand its authority through attempts to become a ‘world ethos’ – a project on which Hans Küng and others are working with the élan of belated Church Fathers. This much is certain, however: none of the so-called world religions can qualify as the Great Vehicle for all factions of humanity. In the long term, every one of them will have difficulty keeping its shares on the global market of metaphysical needs, and the prospects for synthetic universal religions of practically implanting a unified language or final vocabulary for the anthropological commune are non-existent. Under these circumstances, it seems plausible to lower the requirements for the concept of a ground of unity for the species. What the Second Ecumene can learn from the First, at least, is that it will not do to invoke biological ‘foundations’ as a ground of unity for mankind – not even after the emergence of a younger, politically correct genetics that affords all humans a place in a largely homogeneous gene pool. This Adamitic racism is a delusional system whose structure is similar to all earlier biological collectivisms, even if genetic arguments are now no longer used to discriminate between races, but rather to unify them. Consequently, the Second Ecumene too will be able to formulate the ‘unity of the human race’ – to adopt the language of the eighteenth century for one moment – not through a shared physis, but only through a shared situation. The situation can only be determined ecologically and immunologically, and it points everywhere to the compulsion to civilize cultures. This means that none of the life forms in local traditions are adequate to the new situation with only their onboard means. The ‘unity of humans’ in their scattered species is now based on the fact that all of them, in their respective regions and histories, have become synchronized, affected from a distance, shamed, torn open, connected and overtaxed: locations of a vital illusion, addresses of capital, points in the homogeneous space to which one returns and which return to themselves – more seen than seeing, more acquired than acquiring, more reached than reaching. Every person must now, in returning to themselves, make sense of the advantage or disadvantage of being who they are. ‘Mankind’ after globalization consists mostly of those left behind in their own skins, victims of the locational disadvantage of oneself. The development of the world has, without any philosophy, shifted people away from the middle in an unexpected fashion. In the course of globalization, they not only experience themselves as antiquated, as some theorists of alienation have lamented, but now actually perceive themselves as located on the outside – beings looking at themselves from without, not knowing whether anyone will be at home when they want to get into their own places.
If the exemplary human in the First Ecumene was the wise man who meditated on his dysfunctional relationship with the absolute, and the saint who could feel closer to God than ordinary sinners through grace, then the exemplary human in the Second Ecumene is the world star who will never understand why they had more success than other people, and the anonymous thinker who opens themselves up to the two key experiences of the age: firstly, to constantly recommencing ‘revolutions’ as the ‘presentations of the infinite in the here and now’,6 and secondly, to the shame which affects every thinking life today more than original sin: never rebelling enough against the ubiquitous degradation of all that lives.
On the last orb, the location of the Second Ecumene, there will be no sphere of all spheres – neither an informatically produced nor a world-state sphere, let alone a religious one (for anyone who would join Habermas and Ratzinger in relying on the unifying power of religion would need to be more resilient to disappointment than the people of today).
Even the super-inclusive system of the Internet, as manifold as its potential might be, inevitably produces a complementary super-exclusivity. The orb consisting only of a surface is not a house for all, but rather an epitome of markets on which no one can be ‘at home’; no one is meant to settle where money, commodities and fictions are changing hands. The global market is a concept for the realization (and demand) that all suppliers and customers should meet in a general externality. As long as the global market or global markets exist, all speculations on the recovery of a domestically or capital city-centred circumspection in an integral interior of humanity are doomed to failure. If the Middle Ages already proved incapable of placing the world orb and the orb of God within each other concentrically,7 modernity would only produce even more folly if it attempted the hubristic project of integrating the multitude of cultural and entrepreneurial locations as sub-spheres within a concentrically built monosphere.
Marshall McLuhan seems to have underestimated this when he embraced the vision of the global village for a time, before disappointment had caught up with him: ‘The media extensions of man are the hominization of the planet.’ Today, such words could not even be repeated in missionary sects. As generous as the media theorists expectations were, the dying-out of imperial-centrist world-form creations also destroyed the basis for electronic Catholicism (the central position of the sender). The last orb allows further constructs only in the horizontal – which does not rule out individual high-rise buildings. It stimulates neighbourhoods, joint ventures and intercultural transactions under artificial, not overly steep skies; it demands forums, podiums, canopies, patronages, alliances and sponsorships; it favours gatherings of interest groups at tables of different formats in conference rooms of graduated sizes. In future, it will no longer support the idea of a super-monosphere or a power-holding.
We can file Humanarchy under the heading "hominization" where even rocks attain an anthropomorphic spirit of self-valuing, resiting disunity by willfully putting up a fight...a world of ghosts and spirits, where stones have life.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Hrodeberto
Gender : Posts : 1318 Join date : 2014-07-14 Age : 37 Location : Spaces
My answer to the question posed here, what does it mean to be a master, is simple: to be without slaves. But this includes without slave to oneself. If I recall rightly the origin of this word slave was very much like the word addict ("addictum" perhaps) and referred to someone who was temporary slave in order to work to pay off debt. In other words "addict" is synonymous with "slave" and means to be a slave to oneself, ones needs, wants. To be without either, to the extent that this is possible, is to be a master. Most important master is master over oneself. I've seen a form of this idea, where the inner state is characterized as a Monarchy, where this produces a want/acceptance/affinity for external anarchy. Basically the more someone is wounded the more they want to control others, so theoretically if all or most in a given place reached this state on inside, then this society could exist as an anarchy.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37337 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
All (inter)actions establishes a hierarchy, a power relationship.... In nature it is more fluid...inorganic being more fluid than organic - the latter because ti is self-organizing which means it seeks to be more ordered, more stable, more consistent, the former, the inanimate, being unconscious, and not self-organizing, not self anything, but following the turbulent baths-of-least-resistance.
In human systems this hierarchy is further solidified, made more rigid, by institutionalizing it....abstracting it into a symbol.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
you can see they themselves say, esp. @18 they specifically clarify by the self-valuing of a rock, they do Not mean human consciousness or human valuing in the normal sense we understand.
Nietzsche says,
"Against determinism and teleology.- From the fact that something ensues regularly and ensues calculably, it does not follow that it ensues necessarily. That a quantum of force determines and conducts itself in every particular case in one way and manner does not make it into an "unfree will." "Mechanical necessity" is not a fact: it is we who first interpreted it into events. We have interpreted the forrnulatable character of everits as the consequence of a necessity that rules over events. But from the fact that I do a certain thing, it by no means follows that I am compelled to do it. Compulsion in things certainly cannot be demonstrated: the rule proves only that one and the same event is not another event as well." [WTP, 552]
"All events, all motion, all becoming, as a determination of degrees and relations of force, as a struggle-" [WTP, 552]
"Against apparent "necessity": -this is only an expression for the fact that a force is not also something else." [WTP, 552]
Whether the organic or inorganic world, at every minute there is a quanta of force, a "relation" of "decisive" forces by which a power manifests in a certain configuration and cannot exceed that configuration. That force cannot also be something else. This retentive logic is what gives the apple its appleness from the orange. Needless to say, the appleness of the apple is our mind abstracting that 'logical necessity' as a pattern by which it is what it is and not something else.
In the video, they call it the "cohesive force" that keeps an entity together as that entity - the rock is that value of rockness - and to destroy its suchness is a "violation of its nature" as they call it.
This is also what is known as Dharma or "law" - not that laws exist as a valuing conscious entity, but "the rule proves only that one and the same event is not another event as well."
In Apollonian paradigm, "value" is a "strict" term for the product of will and consciousness... how they mean it is more in the sense of dharma.
No cohesive force, dear. The rock is in the midst of (inter)acting, it is not keeping itself together. It is, in fact, deteriorating, as we observe it.
We, as consciousness, make it into a unity and then declare it willful, or godly, or self-whatever. We, as consciousness, construct its supposed unity, which is entirely incidental, when it comes to inanimate matter and not living matter. Only life can will and value (judge); only life can be accused of believing in self, of pursuing an identity, an idea(l), an object/objective.
Law is a human term meaning patterns of (inter)action.
Glad you admitted your affiliation. We are attracted to what is most like us, if we love self...if not we are attracted to what is less like us and what promises to compensate for what we perceive as lacking in us. As a result our affections alter, in time...particularly when they begin with a erroneous appreciation of self.
I don't mind... My greatest value is honesty. It's why I become vitriolic...to bring it out in those who hide from it.
So, thank you.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
No cohesive force, dear. The rock is in the midst of (inter)acting, it is not keeping itself together. It is, in fact, deteriorating, as we observe it.
A cohesive force is what on this forum we have referred to as a congruence, an emerging unity that tries to maintain itself as a certain rate of flow relative to our perception.
My intellectual capacity is one matter, my intellectual integrity is another matter; anyone who is truly honest will not collapse the nuance between the two.
The attack on my capacity is more than welcome, not the latter.
Like I said, do carry on,,, because my only affiliation is to self-honesty.
Cohesion only requires the "self" which is constructing it as a singular thing. It need not be innate in the phenomenon.
This your agreement with the Fixed.
The only self I acknowledge is the living organism which is, itself, an incomplete unity.
The tone is not self=cohesive, it is (inter)acting, discovered in the midst of ts particular (inter)action in time/space. Th mind makes it a thing, a one.
Your integrity was not assaulted. Self-Honesty is a matter of self-knowledge.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Then they are projecting their "suchness" as being willful, or part of some universal motive.
As "such" everything perceived can be "evaluated", using self, as part of a grand scheme, some unifying law.
Its not for no reason, I'd titled that thread as the "Hyperreality of the Humanarchization of VO".
I had already made a list of their statements to expose their hedonistic liberal/sec.humanist/libertarian agenda, at a time that suited me...
Video wrote:
@52:00 - we are not saying things need to be this way or that way, but to make you more aware of this is what you have valued.
@56 - "same incentives" as xt., marxism, etc. need to be installed into humans but without turning into institutions. VO lets how we relate to each other to keep the unity.
@1:02:14 - The challenge is to affirm your own group wthout rejecting any other group
@1:03 - a mature identity doesn't divide into classes, but that we are a part of this group because we see something of value in it and not because we hate the other; we are just distinct.
@1:05 - we are giving them power to empower themselves
@1:06 - it is not relativism because it is objectively true for each subjective being; my subjective experience is what it is - it is reality for me, your values are no less than your very existence. not valued by some universal agenda or world order. they are creating the world as they explicate their values. if valuing is all that exists,, you effectively allow other beings to grow... many worlds grow and become possible.
@1:09 - what are your core values and how do you make those values thrive? there will be more joy in the world, living more fulfilled lives, we'll achieve more.
@1:11 - if you change how you approach the world, it will literally change your eyes.
...but pls. dont spare me any credit; I want none of it.
I guess philosophy has transformed. From a discipline exploring 'what is' it has become a discipline of 'how much of this can we endure, and then share, and admit, so as to preserve the environment that protects us from what is'.
I guess consensus has been reached, and all that is left is deciding what we tell the retards, and how much we disclose to not turn them mad with desperation. If that's the case, I'm for anything that provides that narcotic.
So, what the fuck, why not God, or rocks that self-value, because they want to "keep it together, maaaan", dogs that speak, burning bushes, woman and men being the same, appearances do not matter, changing my mind changes the universe, curing cancer using math, and so on and so forth?
Let's be polite about it. No hint of our disdain. All "civil" and shit. The more civil the more we sacrifice to their stupidity. Let's not hurt them.
I mean...why, fuckin' not? Let's just say anything to keep every damn imbecile out there from going insane. Then, let's invite them to KT and share the good news. It's all subjective!!!! We are all valuable. There's some power keeping it all ordered.
Why not?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
It isn't the same, and if you had paid attention, you'd have read me pointing out to their obfuscation on this very point between Dharma and Humanism:
Lys wrote:
"Plutonic in-tensity is a rigorous selecting standard that aims to hold max. dharmas IN their max. dharma and not As their max. dharma. Get it?"
...then again, your question mark was really superfluous, an act of reciprocal kindness on your part like you were really asking me,, when in fact, you have already concluded as such.
Quote :
You sound very close to Fixed.
The man wants to elude committing to certain answers,, and I can Afford to be patient - if someone wants to misconstrue that as my not wanting to hurt him, my love for him,,,,,,,, pls. dont stop yourself.
Also, don't forget to share with all, how much I want to f--- little Erik, that hot, primordiality of his throbbing cock swinging at me. I'm very easily seduced, as you know me too well. Don't forget to reveal the revelations your paranoia has first imported into me. It...
Don't forget to call me a slut.
Quote :
Maybe he can fix you well.
No one makes me cum out like you do, after your importation.
Quote :
Maybe you've been broken.
You mean exactly like how you would compliment a vampire knowing that is exactly what it wants? You mean I forgot to give you credit for your copyright? Shoot me.
One thing is this. Who on earth can take from me what I do not want to give. Another is this. What is the worth of having managed to take something from me that I did not want to give.
It isn't the same, and if you had paid attention, you'd have read me pointing out to their obfuscation on this very point between Dharma and Humanism:
Lys wrote:
"Plutonic in-tensity is a rigorous selecting standard that aims to hold max. dharmas IN their max. dharma and not As their max. dharma. Get it?"
...then again, your question mark was really superfluous, an act of reciprocal kindness on your part like you were really asking me,, when in fact, you have already concluded as such.
Quote :
You sound very close to Fixed.
Sorry, I do not follow your metaphorical poetry. I can't be bothered by such pretentious crap. Suns and Saturn and Pluto and my ass mooning you.
Oh, I know what the turd is doing, I just want you to bring it out of him without me standing in your way, dear. Those "chosen" always use positivity as bait for their egomania.
Lyssa wrote:
The man wants to elude committing to certain answers,, and I can Afford to be patient - if someone wants to misconstrue that as my not wanting to hurt him, my love for him,,,,,,,, pls. dont stop yourself.
Still...how kind you've been with him. How soft. A history there.
Lyssa wrote:
Also, don't forget to share with all, how much I want to f--- little Erik, that hot, primordiality of his throbbing cock swinging at me. I'm very easily seduced, as you know me too well. Don't forget to reveal the revelations your paranoia has first imported into me. It...
I was going to keep that a secret, along with the truth about you living in Toronto. Ha!!
Lyssa wrote:
Don't forget to call me a slut.
Mmmmm, you taste so wonderful dear. He also smells it.
Lyssa wrote:
No one makes me cum out like you do, after your importation.
Liar.
Lyssa wrote:
You mean exactly like how you would compliment a vampire knowing that is exactly what it wants?
Yes...because you can't fight this dis-ease with honesty, dear.
Lyssa wrote:
You mean I forgot to give you credit for your copyright? Shoot me.
Oh, sweets, you keep on thinking of me as one of those you are used to. I want no copyright, dear...only you doing as you do, being as you are.
One thing is this. Who on earth can take from me what I do not want to give. Another is this. What is the worth of having managed to take something from me that I did not want to give.
- x -
Orgasming right back at them, baby.
Hrodeberto
Gender : Posts : 1318 Join date : 2014-07-14 Age : 37 Location : Spaces
One thing is this. Who on earth can take from me what I do not want to give. Another is this. What is the worth of having managed to take something from me that I did not want to give.
