Before The Light
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeSearchRegisterLog in

 

 New philosophy?

Go down 
AuthorMessage
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

New philosophy?  Empty
PostSubject: New philosophy?    New philosophy?  Icon_minitimeTue Dec 12, 2017 9:28 am

I have not come across any good philosophy, of which I was not already aware, in a long time. Wondering if anyone has found any good philosophy lately? With our own writings I have plenty of excellent material to read, but I would also like to find some new material as well.

Please use this topic to paste any good philosophy, text, links or discussion regarding new philosophy that is of merit (new to us, anyway, or at least new to me).

 

___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”.  -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

New philosophy?  Empty
PostSubject: Re: New philosophy?    New philosophy?  Icon_minitimeWed Jan 17, 2018 9:15 am

Fuck it, there is nothing out there. Everything of important is right here, we are doing it.


 

___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”.  -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

New philosophy?  Empty
PostSubject: Re: New philosophy?    New philosophy?  Icon_minitimeWed Jan 17, 2018 9:15 am

On Glow-ball-ism:




I understand why the Vikings, Greeks and Romans had multiple gods: because they could self-value, which means they could hold multiple different value-standards at the same time and without collapsing these into one “universal” standard. They had slaves, and free people. A slave could be killed and no one cared, but such was not permitted against a free person, because for a free man the law applies. Two different standards. This is self-valuing: one standard for oneself and one’s type, and a different standard for everyone else. To experience and judge/determine reality according to one's own terms. This is also the birth of globalism in the inverse, which is thoroughly Xstian; glow-ball-ism, the trendy neon party philosophy of millennials everywhere, millennial “agonstics and new agers” who are even more Xstian than are their Lutheran or Catholic parents: “Love is, like, an attitude, bruh”.

When self-valuing was lost to the Xstian perversion, to the “one god”, no longer could man will and value in tiers according to himself-as-standard, he had to subvert himself to “the all”, to the Kantian category, to the Hegelian absolute, to the Jezuz and his worldcross.

European globalism is just the survival of the Xstian strain. But the old gods still walk, and they do not take kindly to this upstart forger and petty criminal of values, who nonetheless breeds quite creative men and quite deep hearts if only, as with Shakespeare, because when you are bred to grow everything together with everything else then honest men will be forced to make something of that, to find a compromise, a higher more comprehensive idea, in it. Yes. Universalism as a means to the further comprehension of values, because of how it works upon the valuer. But it cannot survive as ideology, as it currently is. Values are earthy. Many gods, many value-standards. The future will be like this: men and slaves. Hell, the present is like this right now. Just that the Xstian and his one god doesn’t realize it. But I mean that slavery as a status as well as a factual reality (and indeed these millennials will even attempt to value themselves and turn it into a status) will come back in full force.

Compassion is the new face of the one Abrahamist god today, as liberal leftism, as “humanism”, as “Love to all”, which is obviously the death of love as Nietzsche and so many others knew. If you love then you must also NOT love what is NOT your love. Yes... just imagine the mind of Ragnar or Floki, with these multiple worlds (“gods”) circling in the dark ether of their mental universes, like lightning, each god a totally separate center of logic and its own reality. Ah, to be formed by such a plural tectonics, to be the self-valuing born thereof! The sheer power of this is hard for us moderns to even think about, for it is the sheer power to not even possess a concept-space in ones mind for “universality”.

Universalism or “the one god” is a perversion. There is no other way to look at it. This perversion was necessary to eventually be found, because of the logical possibility of it sitting in the mental universe of concepts to eventually be discovered there, but its only proper purpose is to be used as a new ground for sustaining individual valuings and self-values, and should never be used for its own sake. The universal idea cannot be valued directly without destroying valuing (Being), because all valuing comes from an individual, a self-valuing, a valuer, and “universal value” means only “lack of differentiation and discrimination”, presupposing the loss of valuing and of the valuer. And since the world is made of values this also presupposes the destruction of the world, of reality as such. That is what globalism is, the threat of this. But can it be Romanized?

The Romans took the Xstian idea of universality offered by their god and Greeked it, or Jezuz took the Jewish idea of the one god and he Greeked it. I must study this history more. In any case, by using Greek philosophy the Romans were able to use the Xstian perversion to a new value-ontological end: they just willed the power of a new ground for themselves with it, as mythologos, in order to expand their individual self-valuings. This created a “family” out of the west, out of anyone who the Roman Empire and spirit was able to value-to itself. Thus the west flourished.

Family is the most basic value-concept, and also the most basic crime because it directs valuing away from the state. Xstian Rome therefore became not “a state” so much as “an actively applied and applying philosophy”. But by flirting with the pure concept of the state as such and for its own sake, western nations tempt their own destruction by reversing their own structure-logic. That structure-logic is based on the value-primacy of family, each nation is to itself a large family composed of lesser families within it. Criminality thrives and runs this, as Fixed has noted, but it isn’t so much “crime” as that we call it that from the standpoint perspective of the state, of the universal idea. Crime is the opppsite concept to that of law. Crime is merely the limit-delimitation of law, always proving that law is a value-construct and never “a universal”. Kant totally misunderstood this, and so did Hegel and Marx after him. Nietzsche against Kant-Hegel-Marx. Nietzsche’s idea of will to power is an attempt to discover how and why the Roman Empire was able to birth Europe. The answer of course is self-valuing.

Jezuz tried to universalize value. How did he try to do it? He made "everything" subject to one valuing, that of his "one god". How does this valuing translate and apply in human terms? Jezuz decided to achieve this by employing the concept of love (agape). Love is used to extend the valuing without limit, that is the Xstian idea. In a logical circle we are told that "God loves us" and that we should "love all things". That is the "X" in "Xstian" (my rendering of 'Christian'): his love is a point in the center from which is supposed to emanate radiating light of love in all directions, forever without end.

Value being either pointed at the state or at the family; no, now a third term is introduced: value irradiated with/in/to/as 'everything'. Obviously such a 'magical' move would produce strange and powerful effects, especially manifest on a large scale. And it did. But the Romans had the right idea of what to do with it: they made it their own, they valued it. They did not value themselves in its terms, rather did they value it in their own terms.

Today, 2000 years later, Xstianity suffers a natural entropy and its concept-use of love has degraded into being merely one of 'compassion'. This makes it easier to see the void within Xstianity, because compassion is a much smaller concept than is the concept of love. One cannot fit so much of oneself into a universalized compassion as one can into a universalized love. Liberal-left secular humanism is Xstianity. It has the exact same dead god at its center. Now globalism is arising to try and value this religion of the one dead god, the empty universal, the Kantian lobotomy, but so far globalism is largely being valued in Xstian terms. Globalism allows itself to be nothing more than the fulfillment of Xstian prophecy, something that I am sure the globalists know and are wishing to allow because they think it is funny. But the Xstian will can only be put in practice by an equal and opposing will, that of a ruthless self-valuing that makes use of the Xstian one-dead-god and values it in that self-valuings own terms. No "synthesis", just a bubbling up series of many relatively small or large daemonic differentiations.

Can globalism, under German or American influence, learn to be Roman again, learn to value the universalist idea and Xstian remainder in its own terms, in the terms of Rome? What is Rome? Law, philosophy, art, commerce, war. Self-valuing. Glow-ball-ism rejected and transformed as Rome transformed the Xstian cult-religion, turned into a new means for individual valuings. Then the whole world, or at least a large part of it, would become a new Europe. Probably with a new Dark Age and Middle Age to inaugurate it.

 

___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”.  -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

New philosophy?  Empty
PostSubject: Re: New philosophy?    New philosophy?  Icon_minitimeWed Feb 21, 2018 8:39 pm

All we have are our individual level valuings. Creative work, knowledge, other people. All else is just philosophy— truth without personal import, without a context.

Nothing matters without context applied to oneself.

This truth is deeper than all “individual truths” themselves.

 

___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”.  -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
Fixed Cross

Posts : 7283
: 8650
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Acrux

New philosophy?  Empty
PostSubject: Re: New philosophy?    New philosophy?  Icon_minitimeFri Aug 10, 2018 2:41 pm

There is only Truth. Ive decided to see it. The pull of the future as hitherto I saw it is the mouth of truth. Its eyes are already on the prey, inside the present. Its ears are int e past where the facts resound in te chasm and dance, form stories and unravel, and form songs and new heroes and stories and unravel.

Philosophy since Nietzsche apprehends truth directly, as a very mad raging surface we can see around something deeper that we can only embody - often not consciously and not by our own volition - (ER as recovery of volition in this
no doubt our minds have marked territories into the belly of that beast, but which is rather a pinnacle of activity;

There is never absolute activity in the universe, but the conquering philosophical mind is well up on that asymptote, beyond the sun or any core of stable, raw processing of being at the ontic base of things; the Sun does not perceive, in all likelihood, much of what it does or that happens - since this week I suspect Saturn does perceive - and perception is certainly a truer activity than mere chain reacting. No offence to our Star, its blindness to itself is certainly merely a product of its vitality, which is thus conceptually separated from a activity. The utmost activity rests in the kind of conscousness that can transform an environment far larger than the entity's physical scope would suggest. God in a needle, so to speak.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
individualized
Tower
Tower
individualized

Posts : 5737
: 6982
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : The Stars

New philosophy?  Empty
PostSubject: Re: New philosophy?    New philosophy?  Icon_minitimeSun Aug 04, 2019 10:14 am

New philosophy, I suppose this is a good place to put it.

Edit, I'll just make a new thread for it in Production.

 

___________
“Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...”.  -N

“A man is not great if he is not small, and he is not small if he is not great. Concepts flirt with the loss of their significance in the oscillation between ambiguous states, and this is in part the function and purpose of concepts.” -Primer on Meaning
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




New philosophy?  Empty
PostSubject: Re: New philosophy?    New philosophy?  Icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
New philosophy?
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Crown :: Production-
Jump to: