> Yes, but I cannot ascribe to the idea of a Christian state, the Vatican. Each religion has its own spirit.
Yes, of course. What I am trying to point out is two kinds of decadence;
One, is the Spenglerian view that a culture organically grows into a civilization that organically loses its drive and withers away and dies.
Two, is, the decadence that is brought-upon like a contagion spreading to the healthy parts. 'Did Rome fall or was the falling Rome pushed also?' Did it decline naturally or was it assisted and hastened to its 'decline' from its natural organic pace?
Lack of resources, lagging military discipline, drained by barbaric invasions, etc. etc. are natural signs of an organic decline; but Xt. didn't fight Rome, it subverted it. This is what I understand Nietzsche and Heisman to mean... Xt. could triumph and 'stand' as the Form of an inverted pyramid 'because' Rome didn't decline - Xt. 'stood' by modelling itself on 'thriving' Roman structures and organization, when it had no forms of its own.
For this reason, Nietzsche called the Xt. Church the "last construction of the Romans". Considering that the Church was the exact opposite of everything Christ stood for - anti-state, political structures of any form, etc.; Pauline Xt. was essentially an inverted replica of Roman genius. And even in what 'appears' to be its most waning period, as if its Xt. that triumphed, he remarks;
"When the "masters" could also become Christians. - ...it lies in the instinct of the rulers to patronize and applaud the virtues that make their subjects useful and submissive. ...Submission of the master races to Christianity is essentially the consequence of the insight that Christianity is a herd religion, that it teaches obedience: in short, that Christians are easier to rule than non-Christians." [WTP, 216], and,
“The thesis of Charles Maurras is also ours: pagan Rome had "created" [emphasis in original] Catholicism as a system of order in opposition to Christian anarchy." [Evola, Heathen Imperialism]
From a Machiavellian view, Borgia as 'Pope' was one step short of restoring Rome as a pagan Imperium.
This also explains why the NS regime didn't receive Spengler too well and vice-versa. Imagine a Spengler telling people that Rome lived great, decayed and died naturally!, when the NS were at pains to show how Rome and Germany were being inverted. Satyr >
For me the virtue of knowing yourself is not something mystical.
When I say essence I mean your spirit as this has been determined by your past. To know yourself is to know your past...but to know something you must accept it.
Understand and agree. But let me point out how Evola's notion of the "mystical" Was to denote the sacred connect with the past!
"Transcendence as known to the Civis Romanus is no escape from the Contingent, nor is it submissiveness to a God to which he refers to only nominally or symbolically as a being per se, but is in reality, a point of spiritual force one reaches, not by prayer, but by Will, and which then finds expression upon the existential plane in the form of consequential acts of realization." [Preface to Evola's Revolutionary Force of Rome]
To take one example, the Roman Fides; which started as "devotion" to the entire past and the gods of its past, its ancestors, became expanded, into fidelity of a citizen to his state, and finally inverted by Xt. into devotion to one's neighbours:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"in ancient Latin, 'pietas' belonged to the domain of sacredness, it designated the particular relationship which the Roman had with divinities in the first place, then with other realities connected with the world of Tradition, including the State itself. Towards gods, it was an attitude made of calm and worthy worship : a feeling of belonging and, at the same time, of respect, of gratefulness, as well as of duty and of adherence, as a development of the feeling aroused by the severe figure of the 'pater familias' (hence the 'pietas familias'). (...) pietas could also manifest itself in the political field : 'pietas in patriam' meant fidelity and duty towards the State and the fatherland. In certain cases, the word could also mean 'justitia'. Those who do not know 'pietas' is the unjust, almost the impious, those who do not know where their place." [Evola, 'L'arco e la clava] --- inverted into Xt. "piety" for Christ, etc.
Or, the inversion of Roman Chivalry and Charity in Euergetism to Xt. Grace;[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Point being, it is with (inversion of such) Roman "spirituality", Xt. was able to prevail, to "stand".[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Satyr >
...being male is being another female.
Evola and Rosenberg [Myth of 20th century] too, emphasized an inversion here; the rise of Feminism to the Aristotlean theories of positing the Family as the basic unit of the State, as opposed to the Warrior-clans and the Mannerbunde as the foundation of the State! [Not looked at elaborately in your thesis]. Ch.2 is an interesting one.
Of course while Rosenberg was only concerned with the rise of Feminism, you speak of Feminization. He was talking from the perspective of Feminism vs. the State; you point out that now Feminism is a property, representation, and principal means 'of' the State to preserve itself. Satyr >
But there is no contradiction in my views, as he has not exposed any. He only attacks my motives and character.
Yes, you have already repeated your stand many times on the board - against the kind of nurture exceeding the natural reality. Satyr >
You must forgive this child...he lives in a modern box, where history is linearly ascending and the past has not merely altered states but has been cleaned off the surface of our minds. The thing about these creatures that call themselves human is that they've substituted knowledge for wisdom, and words for spirit, and that the stirring in their heart that keeps them restless is something which they cannot explain, finding objects and objectives to deal with it.
Yes, I see it.
Eyes claims he's no Xt. but there's something so Xt. like about the way he tries to pick the 'good' parts that offer him an advantage to get by in this world and dismiss the rest as useless to him... his way of philosophy is like sewing a quilt. His study and examination and seeking of knowledge, exploring, have for end aims, a blanket he can use to keep out the world and the cold and all that is disturbing... what a distance of worlds! His hypocritic morality suits him. He's got bouts of energy but I doubt his self-fixation will let him grow. Eyes >
In many ways, Greece and Rome constitued a single nation. Metaphysically speaking, Greece was the heart and soul of the country, Rome the body. The Romans adopted their art and literature, their mythology, their philosophical traditions- namely stoicism, epicureanism, and skepticism. They pragmatized Greek culture and spirituality. Rome was less interesting and less dynamic because their state was indistinguishable and inseperable from their philosophy and their religion. This separation between philosophy, religion and state, is what made Greek culture more diverse, more mature and more logical, rational, because rival schools had to fight for dominance and supremacy, via logic and reason, where as in Rome, there was more of a monopoly.
Yes, you are right, but our ideas of individuality differ. We can look at culture and culture-extending-civilization as a centrifugal and centripetal dynamic. To me, the "shape-forming" pagan Roman Will, weaving a unity of such multifarious diversity reveals more Inner spiritual dynamic and fluidity. To move with the enormous 'Individuality' of an Atlas shouldering the whole past, as one spiritualized unit shows more Mobility. Lets note an important point here.
A beautiful Culture emerges only when it has for its goal, Not the simultaneous development of all kinds of talents, but in the correct "proportion" of these developments that lends to a unity of style. If Greek Culture was about the production and flowering of beautiful souls, Rome was about giving it proportion and this naturally means subordination, 'civilizing', and intolerance of some bolder, free-spirited elements. Similarly, a well-turned out human being is one who has let his talents, strengths and weaknesses develop in the correct proportion to each other. And that is why, I cannot see America as the new Rome - Rome was fluid, America is a petrifaction owing to the disproportionate development and encouragement of all sorts of talents altogether.Eyes >
First of all, just who the hell do you think you are?
A guest for a few days. I am here to honour my debt to this board, and not just pay it off. I thank every member and pay my respects. As it goes here, the lambs are silently roasting, spring is in the air, but I'm not here for the food or learning how to cook, and the banter, but 'am here for the music and to face the music... am just All-ears!
Every topic here is thoroughly interesting, and I could drown in it for hours, but I'm not profound, Human and Humble enough to do full justice to each; am here to take/make notes wherever I can. Eyes >
This isn't ancient Rome, dear, last I checked, this is 21st century North America, the home of Denis Leary and Albert Fish, there is no aristocracy anymore, there are no clans and tribes, I'm not talking about medieval Scotland and Ireland, I'm talking about the land the English, Irish and Scotish built on the backs of niggers and natives, this isn't some history book, this is the modern world.
Read again.You're missing the point; being, that you claim your modern individuality is the most free-est as compared to the individuality of your ancestors is a symptom of your decadence. That you identify with the times, taking the slave-owning Anglos. as the point of departure of your heritage, shows the extent of your digestive/integrative power. The instinct which cannot take anything in too deeply, the entire organic growth of the past, of its own heredity, the idea that one can be something other than what one is by picking and choosing what suits it, is an atrophing of the form - only a "semblance" of a unity, of a free unit. Just like a body with an altered organ becomes degenerate, and a degenerate society cannot have any kind of solidarity,, the one who affirms this now, and that another in alter-ation, cannot 'stand'- have self-solidarity. He can only oscillate between positions, no growth, no vitality - no "luck", no fatedness. His individuality and his "freedom" is a Resignation to the times, Serving the moment, whatever preserves him, a slave to Fate...
One appreciates why one of the names given by the ancients to the Spirit and the Soul attached to a 'clannish' 'Individual' was thus called "Chance" or "Luck" [hamingja] as if it were his Second Body... I'll leave you to meditate on frith now.Eyes >
Secondly, I don't want to be part of a clan or a tribe or a gang,
Here you go; its not a "I don't want to be", rather "I can/cannot afford to be"... its not a question of a choice, but a pre-determined capacity. Mustn't the one who is capable of renouncing something first possess something to renounce?Eyes >
not merely because I like being comfortabe, though there is that too, but because I want to preserve my individuality and my freedom.
You "cling" to it, because your 'individuality' is not Self-ed - so, what freedom?Eyes >
I don't want to have to compete with others, for ideals that may not be my own, for things I may not want or need, I compete on my own terms, I have no loyalties, I make few commitments. If people and circumstances change, I change,
Meaning you collapse into 'poses', no self-firmness... are you not merely a Reactionary?Eyes >
I am a Stirnerite egoist, I do not need your corporate or your clannish slave morality, I have my own ambitions, my own visions, dreams and goals. Whether you sacrifice yourself for a corporation or a clan, you're still practicing a form of slave morality, ...at least with corporations, they don't put a gun to your head, if you do not wish to be a part of them, you can leave. I am my own highest value.
Can only point out that you think an individual [the kind abstracted from his past] is always prior to his ends is a great naivete; every individual comes with a long inherited genetic/memetic pre-history. How can the one who does not know himself know his self-limitation and thus the Form of his ego, espouse Egoism?
And only a slave morale would hold sacrifice as a passive submission.
To a Master, sacrifice means actively 'owning'-by-owning up, capitalizing, shaping, and 'elevating' his self in its entirety 'as' an entirety; a self-Overcomer, not a Preserver. A 'clannish' 'Individual' attempts to Spare nothing, not one single thing, least of all himself. He conserves nothing, not the past, not himself, he is a constant over-coming. He covets everything before and behind him, and gives everything as a gift to his self, he is a Lover and a self-Lover.
The modern individual like you, "can only be posed" as an egoist because you lack the will to rule, to want to subject and assimilate everything, to shape things right from scratch Without Sparing anything. You on the contrary want to be Spared! That is why you in the recent past have said things like "if everyone does their duty and minds their own business, takes care not to be overly greedy, doesn't bother me as I go abt. my business, this world would be a better and happier place". A Xt. preaching to be Spared...From the Modernity thread;
" I just get by in this world, I'm barely a part of the system, I am like a ghost, a phantom, if I left this world, few would notice or care. I was never a good slave."Eyes >
There is a time to be quick and a time to be slow, it's about context.
You are not only pity-full, but now you are a Liar. Atleast have the courage to affirm, you mocked at his age, don't leave yourself in the lurch!
What IS Philosophy, if not primarily a Bold and Honest Art of Living? Its not about "Subscribing" to some positions of someone here and there, nit-picking to choose what suits your advantage,, but self-integrity. Even the Cynics had honour when they went about seeking dishonour at themselves. When you squirm and justify your way like this, how can you not but wonder why a "philosopher" attacks you, when you think you've been nothing but forthcoming and 'considerate' of him! Lets assume he has No coherent Philosophy and its full of holes and contradictions, it is full of rubbish, and yet he would still be a "Philosopher" because at the very least he 'tries to be' honest with himself. It is abt. a mode of living. -'That' is why Satyr is spot-on when he says your heart 'stirs' towards him and you cannot understand it, and you call him schizoid! It was not about quick, slow and contexts when you Picked at his age; I introduced that! It was you simply calling him a fool for "waking up only after so long" and all that Xt. condescendence for inefficiency. The only reason I raised this is not to lecture you in a 'thou shalt behave in such and such a way' vein, but because all the while you keep saying you are not a Xt. Your Actions contradict your self-regard, and that's perfectly fine! and how it should be with your kind, but atleast be aware of yourself. Eyes >
'Lyssa', I find it amusing you're criticizing me
I am criticizing the Absurdity of Your calling Yourself Superior for 'challenging' / 'refuting' someone's philosophy Because you Claim it has Contradictions; which exposes Your need for Certainty, to box him to make him usable. Eyes >
for doing what Satyr,..., does on a regular basis... Has Satyr not made it his lifes work to know and unerstand people, their strengths and especially their weaknesses, categorising, labeling, placing individuals in boxes so as to make them predictable, and non threatening.
You are con-fusing your need to do away with contradictions to his need to do away with inconsistencies. A phil. can have many contradictions but be consistent overall.
Another kind of phil. may have no contradictions (because it compartmentalizes) but be inconsistent overall. There's an important lesson he's showing here.
When you claim to be one person and yet your actions have been otherwise to the contrary, did he refute such people as Weak or did he call them Dangerous? Satyr
from the Modernity thread;
"Compartmentalization just does not work for me. i cannot hold a different set of rules in one area, metaphysics, let's say, and then totally contradict them in physics.
I cannot claim to hold onto one set of rules in one area and then act and behave in ways that are antithetical to them.
If I cannot justify why I do this then I am a hypocrite and a liar or delusional and retarded.
For instance, you can't claim that sexual characteristics are superficial and all are equal and then cling unto the label of female when it suits you.
You can't say appearances do not matter and then judge something based on nothing more than its appearance.
You can't say in public that discrimination is wrong and then in private discriminate with such vehemence that it makes you even worse than those that do so openly and honestly."
For you, that a contradiction exists is enough reason to dismiss a phil./person as weak and useless and a fool and a schizoid.
For him, that no contradiction exists (because everything is in neat compartments), is enough reason to understand 'how' a weak phil./person 'thrives' .
Go read his thesis. The Judaeo-Xt. duality and the 'double-think' of the Left are how they make their 'philosophy' to work! Does Satyr try to make them "non-threatening" by 'labelling' them as Feminizers? Does he dismiss them as stupid, useless and schizoid for their compartmentalization and un-contradicting double-think, or is he at pains to show the threat they pose - the very extinction of Man?? Can You understand the Gravity of his thesis?
Nevermind if or how well I know my lord and master, do You Know Yourself? Eyes >
I know you're just standing by your man, but do try to know what your man represents, at least.
How typically unoriginal... I'm tempted to let this pass but we Ice-landers, we 'Lovers', don't want to spare anything; we shall not let-waste anything! Lets pick this line up with our ornate tweezers and examine the froth of jealousy foaming... how shall we enjoy this and give it meaning without putting it to waste? I demonstrate. Here we have a scene that takes us back to Euripides' Bacchae. Pentheus is extremely jealous and threatened by Bacchus' growing popularity in the city. He calls Bacchus and his women followers 'schizoid'. He 'ties up' Bacchus and laughs claiming his 'Superiority', only to have Bacchus standing free before him. Pentheus cannot understand how he managed that. Bacchus tries to help, saying, "I am Balanced, you are Not. Know yourself". Pentheus is too self-fixated to understand any of it; he still looks at Bacchus like an ordinary man, he does not grasp him as an Event, a Phenomenon like Lightning. He doesn't understand he's been Zapped!! Pentheus now wants to dress like and become a woman because jealousy and curiosity get the better of him and he wants to peek at the Bacchic women, he wants to understand why his heart stirs for Bacchus although he denies it, he too yearns to be a woman-follower. He changes himself into a woman... he prowls about like this, not understanding the Gravity of what he has Lost and put at stake. Pentheus is an Egoist, too narcissistic to understand Bacchus, and in the end, has his head decapitated and loses his Ego, the very thing he clung to... Pentheus thinks this is all a game, change of sex is as casual as changing clothes, no harm or consequences to pay in such a harmless play. He cannot encounter the weight of what Bacchus is telling him; he thinks Bacchus is just a man playing games whom he has defeated. His Self-Extinction as Man doesn't hit him at all. Such is the terrifying tragic nature of the line "I know you're just standing by your man, but do try to know what your man represents, at least." that Eyes is acting out before our Eyes.
Lets thank Eyes and pay heed to the example he's offered of Himself for us! Poison >
Lyssa, Women don't misspell.
No they don't, and I'm a woman; so check wiki.