Romancing Rogue Instincts

Roughly in mindParodides' idea of the birth of human consciousness through the dissociation of the instincts from their service to the animal, and them collapsing in on themselves-
The instincts would start to value themselves in terms of their individual powers rather than in the grand terms of the animal coherence.

Mind as trans-instinctual intercourse.
Thats pretty compelling. Occultism basically fits that description.

i think the idea is that locked up instinct becomes able to discover a new order of being- logic. facts, reason, ...thought.

instinct not destroyed but freed.

No, in Parodides' work it is about decohering,  decadence basically,  out of which followed a strange fermentation of drives "as such"; the hallucinatory faulty of "humanity" emerges basically as a feverish infection. My own words but I'm entirely positive that this is what P hypothesised to me in 2011. I remembered because it is plausible.

So as he went on to say the first epoch of this mind was marked by a nightmarish excess of cruelty and suffering,  as basically the perimeter of human endurance of its own brain was being calibrated like a grinding stone calibrates a piece of metal.

Through cannibalism and sacrifice of his offspring did the early human deal with the excess violence that his large brain interpreted from its dissociated drives.

Our point in history shows that this primordial cruelty still reigns over those humans that do not have the good fortune of having disclosed animal coherence in themselves anew; "pagans".

i’ve read much of his books. what i am fairly sure of is that he is stating how nature has tuned the instinctive animal to “survival” (a secondary effect), via natural selection, by pairing reflexive musculature movements with external stimuli to such a degree that a small stimuli can cause the massive reflex response (run away from a predator, or eat a piece of food, or fuck, for example) in terms of which the animal’s neurology and brain then become organized. the brain is where these sort of reflexes converge and meet and thus where the governing organizing principle takes most hold.

in man, as P says, “reason fundamentally disqualifies the affects...” which means this reflexive organization of nature that is entirely accidental and secondary becomes disturbed, loosened against itself, the internal harmony of the drives is ruptured. according to P, for an animal in nature it’s entire being is reflexively mobilized in terms of external stimuli due to how tightly wound together is instincts are, whereas in man we began a process of inserting degrees of separation between these instincts, namely “thoughts”; we began to think as we began to form abstract language, so that a stimuli no longer compelled our entire being this way or that way but instead the instincts or drives were brought into conflict with each other as their internal and immediate harmonization failed.

this produced chaos. all of the human sacrifice for example, things like that are expressions of the war of the drives and of the nascent struggling human mind (thought) trying to understand how to retroactively organize its own instinctive body according to some new and strange principle, namely logic and reason. all of the errors and madness of history and still going on today are only signs of the as-yet lack in this process, the fact it isn’t completed and we aren’t very good yet at using reason and logic to make sense of our drive-structure.

man isn’t some kind of madness and hysteria that is a perversion of the animal. man is taking the animal to a higher dimension and freeing instinct to be structured in new ways, in terms of truth rather than in terms of just some naturally selective mandate functioning to hone genetics over a billion years, which is what animals are. but this process of learning how to use reason and logic, truth, to reorganize the instincts and drive-structure is very long and painful and difficult and involves many errors. humanity isn’t there yet. we are just working through it somewhere in the middle.

Mostly what I see here is a difference in value judgments.
We describe the same type of process.

VO is the first human power to cohere in terms of drives without sacrificing reason.
The understanding, first, that there is no "self", that there are only values, i.e. valuings; drives.

Such drives, in fortunate conditions, cohere into a self-nurturing process, a stable self-valuing.
But in humans such stability is the exception. It has to be construed and forged philosophically, but only VO can do this with lasting structural integrity as a result. All the rest is just error.

The subject is not a thing, it is an experience of many valuings at once, and the power to select and rank these valuings in some efficient manner.
There is no subject besides the transcendent subject. The (idea of the/ones) self is thus always an art form, a selection of the things one can do forged into some kind picture, which changes over the years, or hours in case of a more chemical being.

Basically the self never existed. An animal is a set of valuings, arranged in natures meritocratic into a perfect beauty. One may call this arbitrary, but that is to distract from the self-valuing balancing that went into it. No being that manages to emerge out of the primordial soup and survive as a species is arbitrary, that survival is a reflection of the same integrity in estimations that we call our philosophy. Its just that in us it goes through words (though I really dont think in words at all, I just "see" processes and integrities) where in animal and in trees it works differently;

in any case only with VO do words make sense to the instincts. Its just true, weird as it is -only now, with VO, can the human being unfold without shame.

Before I surgically disconnected logic from "reasonable assumptions" and clinically purified it to the mind that employs it, reason was unable to attain to being. It existed as an excess of being but never spoke being, like a sheet of paper cant become the house that is drawn, suggested on it.

It adds a full dimension to thought. It thus makes any proper definition infinitely longer and more complex than it used to get, as we are no longer myopic but come from all directions, like Zeus.

I call it Odins logic because that turns out to be what it does. Given that there are no subjects enclosed in themselves, that all true subjectivity is transcendent, it speaks to reason that gods or other beings on whom we can properly project valuing are required for true subjectivity, for true experience. No doubt animals and plants are oriented on such god-forms, perhaps even on Odin himself. In any case, that is what happened to become the body of VO in time; an Odinic mindset. Runes are perhaps the most elemental self-valuings available to the human brain. They speak (to) what lightning speaks (to) in a healthy heart.

This is for why dudes that think they "are Jesus" or other god-forms always die or collapse into depression or madness; they project their values on Jesus and then destroy the distance through which projection works; they want instant gratification of their valuing, rather than the being of that valuing.

I don't mean when you say "we are gods", which refers to our power and ethical standing, but when someone identifies literally with some existent god. That can be awesome and brave but it does always end up the same way, with a shattered human being.

It would never occur to me to want to be Zeus, who is my first God, because the very reason I value him so is that he is greater than I am, which is very rare. Zeus is actually great. So I value the distance between us as something of the same fabric of greatness, and my deference before Zeus as part of that whole self-valuing complex that we may call the "templar structure" or banally the "religion"; the being which allows me my own greatest, freest being.

There is a fundamental economy to subject-consciousness, the power we give to gods to exist, they return to us, so that we may be born into the world of power, "the real world" which is the only world that is remembered, that is being relied on, referred to, worked with- the world that evolves, nature. Most human consciousness is hermetically excluded from this world, which gives rise to the nightmarish realm of the left, which consists entirely out of hallucinations pressed and dripping from despair and the sense of being trivial.

I remember James S Saint was partly on to this but missed the essence, when he proposed that each aspiring self-harmony should have a "mygod"; an abstraction of ones higher values to keep projecting on.

Reality is however different. The god of projection is required precisely to not belong to the subject. The subject must transcend his ego (his reason) to attain to his full subjectivity.

The true glory is felt when one realizes one belongs to ones god(s). When one feels loved by ones Gods, the subjectivity comes free of mere human reason and comes free to wield genius with impunity.

All proper existence is genius.

Genius in a human is a prerogative to shape the world for other humans.

And for ones "self" which in such a reshaping of the world can actually come to exist as the distance between the creator and the creation.

The creator is genius, the creation is the world, and in between stands the magnanimous being.

I am not "Jakob"-
I am "Jakob, son of Rob and Marisca".
My mother and father are part of me in as far as I have any proper existence.

Freud was really misguided, caused more sadness than any psychologist.

It is of course both. Within my own vital value bound meta-perspective which I may no longer abandon; From the vantage point of reason, it is reason that was liberated out of the animal form which must seem trivial in its historicity, a mere resource to the extraction of instincts as means to reason; from the vantage of the animal, it is the derangement of the beauty, the decay of the fine balancing act that makes a self-reliant predator like a feline or wolf, into the group-supported body that is fed by the rational commerce of social merits. Parodites describes both these sides, I am evidently partial to the latter, I leave it to another to do justice to the former. Insofar as my own contribution to the body of human thought stands in a certain way to reason it is as a miner before his mine, comprehending all too well, like once reason stood before the instincts; I am the vengeance of the instincts on the brittle boned castle of reason that haunts this age with its nightly negation and conflation. Naturally I am close to this enemy. I believe we are three riders in the same ghost ridden dream, becoming the beacons of this same scarlet Earthly morning. What are we yet but beacons in the moonless night? Directions to show that there is such a thing as direction - or flames to come to with a lyre or a voice or just cold hands. A promise that will be fulfilled, a promise which fulfills itself.

i will be spending time with this thread and offer more replies soon.

Fixed Cross wrote:

I remember James S Saint was partly on to this but missed the essence, when he proposed that each aspiring self-harmony should have a "mygod"; an abstraction of ones higher values to keep projecting on.

Reality is however different. The god of projection is required precisely to not belong to the subject. The subject must transcend his ego (his reason) to attain to his full subjectivity.

The true glory is felt when one realizes one belongs to ones god(s). When one feels loved by ones Gods, the subjectivity comes free of mere human reason and comes free to wield genius with impunity.

the gods i belong to are other humans who are worthy of it. this is love which is worship which is a combination of the other person’s intrinsic worthiness with the whole social webs thing i talked about.

we belong to something bigger than ourselves, whether that is another person and love or whether it is a great idea or movement. either way these “gods” give us unlimited meaning and the ability to purge our lives of the dross and ennui which is the natural condition of being isolated in oneself. ego of being isolated to oneself is like communism in being a self-consuming fire, or like drug use too, it produces lots of heat and light for a while until the fuel is spent and the game of diminishing returns catches up to us.

traditional gods in religion seem in part to function to symbolize this fact of the importance of not narcissistically collapsing into oneself.

I agree with that.

Also the literal gods I belong to , who appear to me and my loved ones so vividly and help us, they make me connected to other worthy humans.

But also trusting contact with people that belong to distinctly different gods and humans actually deteriorates the good structure, as VO would indeed have it.
So this whole global community thing we are supposed to be living in actually forces me to become much more particular. Both because I get better choices, of which BTL is proof, and because I see so much more that is undesirable.

Its as exact as physics. More exact than current physics. This is why I don't distinguish categorically between life and non life, let alone between man and animal - een though all of that caries truth, what I am privy to mostly is the overruling consistency of the laws that rise from self-valuing logic placed in any arena, any context whatsoever.

We ultimately respond like atoms, but generally like molecules; the structural integrity of the molecule Ive been building/becoming/thinking requires that certain standards are always enforced in social interactions.

By the way I just remembered I figured out how to build an AI yesterday night before I fell asleep. Ill need to develop it some more before I publish on it. its relatively simple, but Im sure its never been done. It would seem useless and dangerous to do something like what I thought of.

Interesting that self-valuing logic is never about reasons - reasons are masks partially exposing values that don't have faces of themselves.