Looking at more primitive, smaller and more simply structured cultures, such as Sparta (10th Century BC until 146 BC) for example, may be somewhat romantic and have it's value (I don't doubt that).
But I think a different focus would be more suitable for our time. We are now living in a "civilization" and there is no turning back, to the stage/phase of a more primitive culture (that our Western Civilization went through from 900 until 1800 A.D.). At the end of a civilization even. In the "Decline of the West"(ern Civilization). In the last centuries of this cycle.
So, when looking at different ancient civilizations, such as Greece: why look at early philosophers, such as Heraclitus (535-475 BC)? And not the late ones such as Plotinus (204/5-270 AD) (and Neoplatonism)?
My impression is that otherwise there is too much pressure on the individual. If I declare everything around me as evil modern decay, then I put a lot of pressure on myself to distinguish myself from it. And it may not even increase my chances for survival, because it is an untimely worldview. Not that modernism is ever timely, but compared to a view, that considers cyclical time and therefor looks for certain time periods in the past, that relate to ours in this way. And not just at anything that seems noble in the past (where there are undoubtedly a lot of examples of).
My proposal is another one. Look at Plotinus or Buddha (around 500 BC). Two figures who appeared at (and marked) the end of their specific culture/civilization cycles: namely of Greece and of India.
This way, one would be "in the right time" from a cyclical time pov and still be able to resist modernity, just not with so much trouble or force, as by chosing other guides and cultures, who may be even more heroic and noble than Plotinus and Buddha (I am not sure that is even possible), but do not fit into our current time at all, are too idealistic, too unreasonable in their outlooks.
My idea is a path of less resistance, because resistance consumes a lot of energy, that could otherwise be used more productively.
So my view is not a glorification of everything in the past or what are perceived as gems of the past, but a cyclical view of time and thereby relating our time period to certain periods in the past. Namely those times, when great Civilizations were declining, like our western one is today.
Last edited by Laconian on Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:12 am; edited 1 time in total
I would be willing to take the path towards the absolute if someone could define it as something other than a projection of what is absent.
Taking a trip towards a destination given to you and described as the "end of the road" is foolish and heavily reliant on faith. The end, the final, the singular, the absolute, are all terms describing the non-existent. They are an Ideal which is useful and one which defines the one taking the path towards it.
I would be willing to take the path towards the absolute if someone could define it as something other than a projection of what is absent.
In this sentence you admit to the possibility of the idea of an absolute. This is the most important step: to have this distinction of materialism and transcendence. With Nietzsche spirituality/transcendence/metaphysics/sacred-aryanism and materialism/the mundane, were all mixed together, why Evolas excessive N. critique in "Ride the tiger" is VERY valid.
The apophatic theology of Buddhism is a getting rid of obstacles to freedom/personal liberty (this experienced Liberty, as a constant state within a person, is how I would describe the realization of "the Absolute"). I can not refute Lyssa's accusation of "Hedonism" though. Buddhism is unpolitical and uncaring for anybody else, even family members, ancestors. (In this sense: modern.) It's very self centered. (Self-fish) Why it's egoistic core was destructed by Theravada (Hinayana), especially their Abidhamma claim that man only consists of the "five aggregates" and no self (soul) (which is an outright lie, like the guy in the vid never gets tired of explaining to tibetan "Buddhists", with references to the original doctrine) and watered down by Mahayana (Judeo-Christian humanistic moralism) for modern purposes. Zen is accepted, because the meditation is really hard (also not doctrinal, see the mentioned youtubers vid titled: 'The lie of "breath meditation". Original Buddhism on the metaphysical 'air', or Atman') and with the wrong doctrinal teachings, you end up like Theravadins and Mahayana Buddhists: soul (and self) denying Nihilists.
The Vajrayana includes the body, why Evola saw it as suitable for modernity (even for Aryans), but I have read only part of his "Yoga of Power" yet.
The step from Platonism to (Judeo-) Christianity is taken too quickly, without exploring the distinctions first. It's too easy to just draw the chronological conclusion and not even mentioning Gnosticism (which seems way more related to Neo Platonism from my viewpoint). I would assume there were great differences (though I haven't read Socrates, Plato or Plotin in their own writings). But to jump from there to Judeo-Christianity and the church founders seems like a long leap. Nietzsche too showed some respect for Socrates (aside from his critique). I will post this here (from "Twilight of the Idols": )
"Socrates was the buffoon who got himself taken seriously: what really happened there?"
"He fascinated by appealing to the competitive impulse of the Greeks — he introduced a variation into the wrestling match between young men and youths. Socrates was a great erotic."
"But Socrates guessed even more. He saw through the noble Athenians; he saw that his own case, his idiosyncrasy, was no longer exceptional. The same kind of degeneration was quietly developing everywhere: old Athens was coming to an end. And Socrates understood that the world needed him — his method, his cure, his personal artifice of self-preservation. Everywhere the instincts were in anarchy, everywhere one was within sight of excess: monstrum in animo was the common danger. "The impulses want to play the tyrant; one must invent a counter-tyrant who is stronger." After the physiognomist had revealed to Socrates who he was — a cave of bad appetites — the great master of irony let slip another clue to his character. "This is true," he said, "but I mastered them all." How did Socrates become master over himself? His case was, at bottom, merely the extreme case, only the most striking instance of what was then beginning to be a epidemic: no one was any longer master over himself, the instincts turned against themselves. He fascinated, being an extreme case; his awe inspiring ugliness proclaimed him as such to all who could see: he fascinated, of course, even more as an answer, a solution, an apparent cure for this disease."
Pushing aside Socrates too lightly, would be like calling "Kant a douche bag", like they did on the other forum. (Kant who inspired Schopenhauer to his work. Schopenhauer who inspired Nietzsche...)
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I would be willing to take the path towards the absolute if someone could define it as something other than a projection of what is absent.
In this sentence you admit to the possibility of the idea of an absolute. This is the most important step: to have this distinction of materialism and transcendence.
I do believe you misunderstood. I already know what the absolute is: a human projection of an abstraction constructed by simplifying/generalizing sensual data into ambiguous mental models....then projected as a destination. I think that its purpose is to give the organism a focus....a focus for its Will. The absolute, being a symbol, a human construct, can never be attained. It is a tool of orientation.
The absolute, being a human construct, reliant on ambiguity and projected, can take on any form: Idea, Ideal, God, Self, There, Now, Here, One etc. It is precisely BECAUSE it is absent that it lends itself to any hypothetical.
Now you tell me how your guru defines this absolute.
Socrates, like Jesus, is a symptom of decay. A individual with symbolic value...that may or may not have existed and may or may have said and done what he is reported to have said and done...by others. With Socrates we get Plato's world-views. A Plato who realized that a noble lie was necessary for the maintenance of a city-state...and who better to be the one who sacrifices himself, like Jesus, to this love of state, than Socrates?
Plato who admires the Spartans because he knew none but the few had the qualities to be self-regulating, self-critiquing, philosopher kings, and that the Democracy he lived in was a sham...and an undesirable ideal that corrupted the minds of the young with ideas of self-importance.
But you do not offer an absolute destination. What is it? Is it what your guru tells you it is? Does it involve detachment from reality?
What is this return to the absolute...this Brahman?
I do believe you misunderstood. I already know what the absolute is: a human projection of an abstraction constructed by simplifying/generalizing sensual data into ambiguous mental models....then projected as a destination. I think that its purpose is to give the organism a focus....a focus for its Will. The absolute, being a symbol, a human construct, can never be attained. It is a tool of orientation.
I do :-) appreciate you taking the time to answer and watch the vid. I think the unanswerable question is: if there is a "reality" besides (apart from) mans imagination OF this absolute. Or if it is just wishful thinking. That's why I tried to talk to you about Schopenhauers "World as Will and ..." . Idea. Or Representation. Well, you put the ball in my court, the vid in the other topic answers my position. Is the "projection" real? Or is only the corporeal real, like Darwin assumed? How real are memes? (Thoughts, ideas...?) Are they any less real than genes/the corporeal, because they cannot be grasped with our hands? Or are they even more real than genes, because they can be altered more quickly than genes (as of yet)!? Or as you yourself put it: "Memes are becoming more 'important' than genes." Why?
Quote :
The absolute, being a human construct, reliant on ambiguity and projected, can take on any form: Idea, Ideal, God, Self, There, Now, Here, One etc. It is precisely BECAUSE it is absent that it lends itself to any hypothetical.
The question remains. "Absence" like in "the student was absent from class, because he was at home sleeping" or "Absence" as in "Not there at all. Nowhere to be found. Unborn."?
Quote :
Now you tell me how your guru defines this absolute."
See other topic. And he is no guru, but a sincere intellectual. (I posted him as a sacrifice to Purple Dragon. I think P.D. makes a decent fool/joker. I like some of his humor.)
Quote :
Socrates, like Jesus, is a symptom of decay. A individual with symbolic value...that may or may not have existed and may or may have said and done what he is reported to have said and done...by others.With Socrates we get Plato's world-views. A Plato who realized that a noble lie was necessary for the maintenance of a city-state...and who better to be the one who sacrifices himself, like Jesus, to this love of state, than Socrates?
Okay. But is a "tribal culture" preferable to a "city-state"? And is Plato's "City-State" like the modern party democratic/corporatism/paper money mess we witness!? Or is it still superior to our modern mess? And can we learn from it... as we might have to deal with masses of people and not just a tribal few. My big topic at the moment is to find out suitable solutions for modernity. I was accused of romanticism before. I could say the same about too high ancient ideals, that dealt with a tribal few people, rather than the large numbers that surround us today. While I respect that elite/aristocratic/aryan thinking to distinguish oneself and ones own from the masses: I still wonder how this distinction looks in real life (the space without physical borders). I admire the structure of this forum: with the 4 Citizen groups. (It's more than a mere hierarchy. It concerns involvement in a common cause.) But that's mimetics. I am concerned about "real" life also. "Will and Representation". What kind of a will does a Spartan have today? It isn't conquering other lands anymore. Is it "just" mimetic "purity"? Staying in shape (martial arts...) for the civil war? How is this not conservative? How does this not lead to decadence and decay? Why did Sparta fall? What lead to its decay? We all (think we) know how Rome fell... But how did Sparta fall?
Wasn't Socrates a satyr?
From "Twilight of the idols":
"This foreigner told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum — that he harbored in himself all the worst vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!""
How do you get from there to Jesus!? He had a satyric style of asking questions. And prinicipally unanswerable questions (Where does the Universe come from? ect.) reveal more about the person answering the question, than do they hint at any sort of ontological reality. He was a psychologist, like Hannibal Lecter. Very modern, very western.
Quote :
Plato who admires the Spartans because he knew none but the few had the qualities to be self-regulating, self-critiquing, philosopher kings, and that the Democracy he lived in was a sham
But was that Platos ideal? Idea and Reality may be apart, why? Like I said I haven't studied Plato much yet, but he was a Philosopher, a wordly politician, while Jesus refered to something out of this world (more like Buddha).
Quote :
...and an undesirable ideal that corrupted the minds of the young with ideas of self-importance.
I will have to see about that for myself. Why is self-importance to be rejected?
Communism - a Libertarian once told me, I think he got it from an indian chief - works perfectly fine for communities of up to about 500 or 1000 people. I forgot the exact number. So for little groups like Spartas "300" (forgive me my illiteracy, I know they were more than 300!), some kind of communism may have worked.
Plato had to "deal with" a much larger mass of people.
Quote :
But you do not offer an absolute destination. What is it?
It's the same as the "origin". The self, the soul, as described in the vid. "Origin" here in a relativistic non-absolut sense, since we are not talking "creation of the universe" or "big bang theories". In Buddhism there is no beginning or end. The Buddha left those questions (by his students) unanswered (or said there was no beginning, I am not sure). Why Buddhism at this point becomes a dead-end (according to the scholar, who is no guru) for truth seeking metaphysicians (which he might be). For me it suffices, I admit.
Quote :
Is it what your guru tells you it is?"
"Kathodosdotcom" seems to me just someone who came to the same conclusions I did, but just has better formulations than I do. That's why I offered them here, being a proud Perioeci. (maybe too excessivly, why I got a strike. Again, because I like something about P.D. spirit and want him to improve. Yes, very christian, I know.).
Quote :
Does it involve detachment from reality?"
There we go again. And you have been avoiding that question yourself. What do you mean by "reality"? Is it what Schopenhauer calls "World" as in his "The World as Will and Idea"? In this case, the answer is: no. Transcendence is the opposite (!) of detachment, since Non-duality a state that might be reached by thinking within these fields of thought, enables the "enlightened person" to face much more parts of the world ("duality", "reality"), than he would otherwise be able to confront. (Some of Buddhas students reached their "enlightenment" within 2 weeks, without "breath meditation" or any of those false modern ideas about Buddhism. And: no, I am not enlightened, but it's a gradual process of liberation.). This kind of knowledge helps the person, that identifies himself with his body/persona to see his true self and be more capable within this "world". Like a spartan warrior for example. See the article Lyssa posted in "Banter" on the Baron who studied from an earlier tibetan Lama. Guru Yoga is a powerful tool (forget about this guys obvious modernistic political outlook, he's a modern "tibetan buddhist", but listen to what he says about "Guru Yoga", if you wish!, again: there is nothing I can or want to convert anybody to, I am not a cultist ( I merely visited a cult or two or three or four to experience what they had to offer, in a practical sense, aside from the mere studying I can do by myself), I may be a fool, but growing more aware of my limitations and being careful about this destination too (since I do think there are unaryan fools/jokers). So take this as an offering from a lower to a higher ranked):
Evola spent a lot of time analyzing doctrinal Buddhism and also Vajrayana. "Only a true ascetic can be an excellent warrior." And that Baron from the Evola article most likely too learnt Vajrayana teachings (that involve the body as well as the mind). So there might be something in Buddhism for your (more corporeal) worldview too. The warrior outlook. The "Warrior-Priest". Of course it is covered by modernist feces today. But there are diamonds underneath. ( I will continue posting short to the point quotes in "Riding the Tiger of Modernity" regarding this subject, already assuming that I agree with Evola and that he merely puts words to something I already know, but cannot express as lucid and simplistic as he does).
Quote :
What is this return to the absolute...this Brahman?
It is the death for the individual in doctrinal Buddhism. Very much in line with your "metaphysics" (Encapsulation of your views). The difference being that Buddhism makes claims to know more about the transcendental. For you life and death -in my interpretation- must look like a cruel joke and you are much more focussed on the corporeal, why you are very much more in fear of loosing this body, than a Buddha would be (not that Buddhism teaches reincarnation, it does not). And you may miss out on transcending the Left on a deeper basis, than any mere conservative could. For you only traditional values and all these warmhearted family sentiments, as well as your warrior spirit in the fight for what's good and right, can give life meaning and not hedonistic pleasures of video games, sex for mere pleasure, drugs or fatty foods, entertaining movies, which you consider decadence/nihilism. (I do not promote these either, but care less if others engage in them.)
Your value judgements are in their basis deeply humanistic! Even the spartan ideals were! Wouldn't Eugenics be the only way to save mankind as a "whole"? Isn't the lack of human sacrifices (Dysgenics) leading towards a decay that might mean the end for all of humanity? And your "fight" for the traditional gender roles (male/female difference) and against feminization and for racial awareness and against race mixing!? Isn't THAT truly humanitarian? Isn't that truly Christian? Isn't that truly GOOD? Isn't to become a non-Nihilist to be this truly good man? They yea-sayer can only say yea on the fundament of the highest order surrounding him. You sacrifice to this ordering, while the parasites enjoy their feast. (Even if it means their end in the medium run.) You are a father, so you are a non-Nihilist, by definition. From my point of view.
This is what you won't find anywhere in the East (maybe China or later Indian Philosophies) at least not in the focus: the distinction of good and evil on the level of western judeo-christianity. There are no explicitly mentioned morals in Buddhism (aside from reaching enlightenment by reaching for the soul/self and not confusing the 5 aggregates for the self/soul). This is what is frightening to westerners. This is what is frightening to me. Why I am no Buddhist and if I follow any "cult", it'd be KnowThySelf, if this was a cult, which I don't think it is. I am a Buddhologist, i.e. Student of these teachings as well as an admirer of this scholar, who amongst the living I rank next only to you. But maybe closer to my genetic make-up, since this linear warrior (spartan) perspective is new to me and I might not have the morals to care enough for mankind to bother so much about saving it (by creating a circle of a mimetic distinct few: Philosopher kings). But I respect and honor this idealism.
Some american indians considered their dreams to be more real than the awakened state. They gave more credit to dreams than the awake state. (see Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan series.) They learnt a shamanic way of dreaming "consciously", where they were able to decide on what to do and what to leave in their dreams! Thereby they controlled their subconsiousness. Way ahead of any petty freudian modernist "psychology".
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I do :-) appreciate you taking the time to answer and watch the vid. I think the unanswerable question is: if there is a "reality" besides (apart from) mans imagination OF this absolute. Or if it is just wishful thinking. That's why I tried to talk to you about Schopenhauers "World as Will and ..." . Idea. Or Representation. Well, you put the ball in my court, the vid in the other topic answers my position. Is the "projection" real?
The projection is like a photo real, but not the actually phenomenon depicted. Like a photo it is also incomplete in that it cuts away dimensions to simplify/generalize the phenomenon into a static thing.
Laconian wrote:
How real are memes? (Thoughts, ideas...?) Are they any less real than genes/the corporeal, because they cannot be grasped with our hands?
Ideas, concepts, ideals are representations of the perceived phenomenon. And because they are representations they can be combined in ways that have no reference point outside the human mind, or inverted, as with Nihilism, making tyhe absent absolute a negation of what is perceived.
Laconian wrote:
Or are they even more real than genes, because they can be altered more quickly than genes (as of yet)!? Or as you yourself put it: "Memes are becoming more 'important' than genes." Why?
Because man is creating with his cosntant interventinos, an increasigly artificial reality....an nisitutinoalized existence, governed by his ideas and ideals, by excluding nature. Nature which contradicts most of his more fantastic, and so nihilistic ones.
Laconian wrote:
The question remains. "Absence" like in "the student was absent from class, because he was at home sleeping" or "Absence" as in "Not there at all. Nowhere to be found. Unborn."?
The absence is felt as a need. A need requiring satiation in otherness. Life feeds on other life, but since all are imperfect, not absolute, life never satiates itself. Need is the sensation of Flux; need is the sensation of existing.
One knows absence in one's self...and so one projects an end which offers a hope for satisfaction, a final destination. A desperate attempt to turn the annulment of existence into a positive. This is the "positive nihilism" I speak of....and it is represented by Judeo-Christianity and certain variants of Buddhism. The desire to never be born again, even if the idea of rebirth or of a soul being reborn, is taken for granted, is Nihilistic. A hatred of life.
A man who loves himself and life wishes to relive his life over and over and over again. This is Nietzsche's mental test...contrary to Schopenhauer's Buddhist pessimism. Some would say this kind of Buddhism is really a westernized, modernistic, kind...just as humanism, and Marxism is a modernistic form of Judaism.
Laconian wrote:
Okay. But is a "tribal culture" preferable to a "city-state"? And is Plato's "City-State" like the modern party democratic/corporatism/paper money mess we witness!?
Plato cared about his City...and so he changed his mind, through Socrates, making Socrates alter his views in relation to his earlier practices of spreading doubt within the young of Athens. When Socrates returns to Athens after going to war, he brings a wisdom he gained from a Thracian mystic, or thinker. Something about Zalmoxis and his monotheism.
Plato realizes that not all can be philosophers or kalon kai agathon...they cannot be noble, and wanting to preserve his City state he realizes that this monotheism is what Athens, and its youth, needs, to turn them more into Spartan youths. An authority so frightful they must abide by the rule of His law. The Spartans were never foolish enough to teach freedom from authority and reserved thinking for the few, the select...amongst their select citizenry. This made Sparta strong...and Athens weak.
Plato, through Socrates speaks about the responsibility of the wise, to Parmenideis. He cautions him to not say more to those who cannot grasp or cannot tolerate what is real. To be frugal, laconic with his teachings.
Laconian wrote:
Or is it still superior to our modern mess? And can we learn from it... as we might have to deal with masses of people and not just a tribal few. My big topic at the moment is to find out suitable solutions for modernity. I was accused of romanticism before.
Modernity does not require a solution...no more than anture does. It requires, like nature, caution, awareness, selectivity, endurance...cleverness.
The moment you overcome this concept of humanity you will find modernity to be no more than another version of the jungle....populated with a single species....but this is not so. Genetically we are the same...still, but memetically we are as diverse as a pack of wolves is amongst the sheep, or a turtle is amongst the cows.
Laconian wrote:
What kind of a will does a Spartan have today? It isn't conquering other lands anymore. Is it "just" mimetic "purity"?
THIS war is like no other...and being like no other arms are not to be sued. Quantity always drowns out Quality....and Leonidas falls at Thermopylae. This is a war of attrition. One must change perspective. Not all other humans are of the same kind, and so, depending on your qualities, few might be like you. So, what does this make of the rest? Apes in a jungle....hyenas and wild dogs of the savannah. How would a human survive there? What would he do surrounded with so many strange and alien creatures?
Laconian wrote:
Staying in shape (martial arts...) for the civil war? How is this not conservative? How does this not lead to decadence and decay? Why did Sparta fall? What lead to its decay? We all (think we) know how Rome fell... But how did Sparta fall?
Everything decays and grows old and dies...but not totally. Does the flu virus vanish when you've fought it off from your body?
The meme survives just as long as it is passed on to another mind; impregnating it. Memes reproduce mentally. When one convinces another, one essentially seduces him/her....opening him/her up for fertilization.
Laconian wrote:
Wasn't Socrates a satyr?
Ironic, isn't it? Satyr is not who I am...not totally. It is the part I wish to control. The internet is where I let him roam.
Laconian wrote:
From "Twilight of the idols":
"This foreigner told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum — that he harbored in himself all the worst vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!""
My vices are few...but Dionysian. My god is Apollo...and like all gods, all absolutes, He acts as a projected destination.
Laconian wrote:
How do you get from there to Jesus!? He had a satyric style of asking questions. And prinicipally unanswerable questions (Where does the Universe come from? ect.) reveal more about the person answering the question, than do they hint at any sort of onological reality. He was a psychologist, like Hannibal Lecter. Very modern, very western.
Socrates offered a monotheistic god....he preached revolution against the system....he sacrificed himself, though he could have escaped, to the masses....to make a point. I would think Jesus imitated Socrates.
Laconian wrote:
But was that Platos ideal? Idea and Reality may be apart, why? Like I said I haven't studied Plato much yet, but he was a Philosopher, a wordly politician, while Jesus refered to something out of this world (more like Buddha).
And Platop taught about his Ideals...existing in some other-world realm, which this world was but a shadow of. He is modern...and this is why he is so popular. He was perfect for Judaism to memetically conjoin with...they were compatable. The offspring? Christianity.
Laconian wrote:
Communism - a Libertarian once told me, I think he got it from an indian chief - works perfectly fine for communities of up to about 500 or 1000 people. I forgot the exact number. So for little groups like Spartas "300" (forgive my iliteracy, I know they were more than 300!), some kind of communism may have worked.
Plato had to "deal with" a much larger mass of people.
Dunbar's Number: 100-230 The average human tribe.
Laconian wrote:
There we go again. And you have been avoiding that question yourself. What do you mean by "reality"?
I've covered this in my Interactions and Interpretations. Reality is another term for existence.
The rest I've already covered.
Existence is experienced as need/suffering. Need is what your dogma wishes to escape. Most popular dogmas do the same. They are nihilistic.
Laconian wrote:
Evola spent a lot of time analyzing doctrinal Buddhism and also Vajrayana. "Only a true ascetic can be an excellent warrior." And that Baron from the Evola article most likely too learnt Vajrayana teachings (that involve the body as well as the mind). So there might be something in Buddhism for your (more corporeal) worldview too. The warrior outlook. The "Warrior-Priest". Of course it is covered by modernist feces today. But there are diamonds underneath. ( I will continue posting short to the point quotes in "Riding the Tiger of Modernity" regarding this subject, already assuming that I agree with Evola and that he merely puts words to something I already know, but cannot express as lucid and simplistic as he does).
Aceticism in the Hellenic sense is the opposite of asceticism in the Christian and your version of it. Asceticism is not an attempt to deny self or need.suffering...but to habituate one's self with it. This is what is meant by strength and the warrior spirit. Asceticism for the Greeks was akin, they used the same word in fact, to athleticism. Why does one stress the body with athleticism?
Laconian wrote:
Your value judgements are in their basis deeply humanistic! Even the spartan ideals were! Wouldn't Eugenics be the only way to save mankind as a "whole"?
The Spartans were not interested in humanity. they practiced eugenics to improve their tribe...to keep their tribe healthy.
--------------------
Laconian wrote:
Some american indians considered their dreams to be more real than the awakened state. They gave more credit to dreams than the awake state. (see Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan series.) They learnt a shamanic way of dreaming "consciously", where they were able to decide on what to do and what to leave in their dreams! Thereby they controlled their subconsiousness. Way ahead of any petty freudian modernist "psychology".
Dreaming away reality demands a soemone looking over you. One cannot dream away a bear...or a flood.
Dreams were used to unleash the subconscious and gain guidance form the imagery. See Jaynes on the Bicameral mind.
The difference between imagination and fantasy is obvious, and yet imprecise. The less reference points a mental abstraction has to a world experienced through constant sensual input, the more unreal it is...unreal in the sense that it does not exist outside the human brain.
