[3rd cycle] Need

The task of the philosopher today, made possible by the philosophers before us, is to understand health. I may understand it personally, have lived it in an absolute loneliness and with the aid of certain drugs. But no philosopher, in his capacity as a philosopher, has understood it.

This is what Nietzsche asked and what he demolished for. The only ideal that must survive.

Water now, so war later.







The true insight of our age, from our age, o philosophers, is that there is no separation between our fate and everybody else's. If their fate is unworthy, ours is unworthy.

Wherefrom this maddly wide optimism?

The funk. The stenchy truth of primordial truth, the very one that makes modern man so comical in his glass houses of the mind.

Fffunk. Funk is depth. Earth is potential, hunger the promise of greatness.

What makes modern man wrong is not his premises, it is that they don't follow their noses.

The only being that will survive, that deserves to survive this destruction ofrom nature is the philosopher. For funk can exist without him, and be tragically poorer for it. I hereby humbly invite him. I need him. Hell, we all do.

First I must say, great opening post.


Funk.. what is funk but grooving in the aesthetics of being, as someone once said to me?

Yes, I’ve too seen these modern fac(ad)es fragmenting at risk of coalescing a vantage larger than what they call their self, from which they would appear so much smaller than their ego. And I’ve been inside that breaking-apart. Health is then a necessary denial? To live as one is, at all costs, or to change at all costs, and live anyway? Schopenhauer’s desire for death as sign and will? Or instead what lives out from health, isolate and remote as the higher echelons of life from itself, from life.. is this the ideal? Life is after all a principle of contraction.

It’s fascinating watching truth break against silence. How much more futily too does personality crack open against that silent abyss. Sometimes I think man’s only task is to learn in the end how to speak something into the nothingness of his own soul, even if but just a single word, or perhaps just an echo of that same silence.

Health cannot be denied, as need is need, we speak in the language of life: health to overcome and to be overcome, modern or postmodern, not much cares which way the pendulum swings on that account. Back and forth, back and forth, the cycles of the eons progress unendingly, we can eat or be eaten. “Health” must mean both of these (unless of course by health we mean only my health.. and surely we’re past all that by now), if we expand our range of sight far enough beyond our own smallness and pride. Yes, we can will to power--! And it is quite easy to look around the world and see this form of health-virtue exerting itself in that same excess of smallness and pride, whispering to itself of its “mastery”— ha. A material goo ego-profusion of sublimated death-love, certainly — but where will it end? Does anyone have a clear scope on the impacts of technological and global culture on the future, hell even on the present? Not really, no. To rise up and birth something is only to create a personal antithesis, a motherly procreating, which is why women are both closer to truth than men but also have such a harder time with truth than men. Closeness isn’t always good for one’s.. health.


"Only those who lack health, must make of it a top priority"— so the saying goes. So the idea went. Then that idea broke upon its own silence, and truth never heard from it again.


The standard of health qua health, strength, to survive, growth, to be and to become, to live; yes, this very standard and value must be ….questioned. Why? What is healthfulness to the philosopher? Fun destruction and wanton excessive profusion of inward pathos and pathology, a ‘releasing’, for which might and right are felt as one. We cannot begrudge that, but neither can we will it any higher position upon the universal continuum as befits it.

Who knows, maybe death is the higher value than life, sickness than health? The deep sweet earth-soil out of which “soul” was coined, funk yes this is quite good, this soil is fresh as ever today and only grows wetter, more dank, ripe, over-ripe and rotten. None of this modern world has done anything to touch this truth, it has merely made a loud commotion to distract from that sinking core eternal Perspective and life-quanta which, after all, is what man is. And has always been, but now I would say, all the more so.


The last gasp of personality - as it used to be. But nothing evolves more than personality, because nothing enjoys to evolve more. As nothing loves to falsify more than language does.


When Nietzsche stood up from out of the abyss and declared man an infantile creature, he broke the system— the matrix shattered with his fist and laugh, and the shards pieced Nietzsche’s heart. His mortal wound is our mortal wound or, at best, our mortal denial. Perhaps nothing “deserves” to survive, except maybe what is able to speak those ideas, manifest this fate and fact, render logic and orient some living element in its term, under imposed law. The philosopher, who better to always fail to move the hearts of men? Who therefore more suited to chronicle for the history books, albeit with great bias?

When one thing rises up another sinks, when one idea or ontic clay survives another perishes; elements reconfigure and release, minds spin into existence while others vanish in a blink, into oblivion. Should we construct Values and New Values upon this reality, with Nietzsche? Yes, perhaps. I mean why not? The world continues to grind its slow arc through space, health akin to ‘time’: so long as we live out a sufficient number of years and make of those years something which stands even further into time than us, we feel satisfaction. But I would implore us, with our love and call to the philosophers’ funk, never to use mere form as an excuse to degrade content where even that form is also able to act as substance for new eternals. Truth ——> (Novelty) ——> Depth..

Novelty… is only faith. Sometimes we call it beauty, other times we call it truth. And faith is only a word used to mask something from ourselves, a pride of depths unknown, structurally-honest requirement of a "philosophy". The sharpest blades are those best put to dual and opposing uses. Philosophy ought to be curing the ignorances of the psyche, which it most certainly is not doing in the vast majority of cases (in most cases the personality/self is broken irreparably by exposure to truth): thus I implore too that we always utilize philosophy as a brutal psychic weapon against ourselves and never as a mere covering-veil or secondary discharge, never as a simple “tool". If we bleed, let us bleed openly, at least to ourselves. Only we can heal ourselves as Holderlin's danger and saving power. We can then at least surrender something of life to truth as by our calling idea to idea, as by refusing one need for, yes, a still greater one.

Life… is what is left over after our philosophy is finished with us.

I think health is integral to Value Philosophy. Just consider the word "convalescence". "Health", however, literally means "wholeness". It is the wholeness of the self that a self-valuing strives for. But wholeness is only one edge of the sword that is health; the other, complementary edge is separation. A thing cannot be whole or holy without being hallowed, consecrated--and consecration is local, focal: "hallowed ground" for example implies that the ground around it be not hallowed, or not quite as hallowed. I think this is integral to Value Philosophy: at the Franco-German border, for example, France turns away from Germany and Germany from France, like a universe bursts away from nothingness or infinity. But the contrast between hallowed and unhallowed is not black and white; there are shades of grey, gradations of health: thus philosophers can hallow themselves while at the same time also hallowing, albeit to lesser and lesser extents, their social circle, their city, their State, their Union, their--first--world, their planet, their solar system, their universe; and also their type, their caste, their race, their genus, etc. I think this is what Pezer means when he says that, if the fate of the non-philosophers is unworthy, so is the fate of the philosophers. I take this to mean two things: 1) in a "deterministic" sense, if the lower orders upon which the higher are built are lacking, so will the higher orders be; and 2) in a "free-will" sense, if the higher orders fail to sufficiently actualise their potential, the lower and their lowly conditions will not be justified. The latter, I take it, is what he means when he says we all need the philosopher.

But what's a philosopher? A philosopher is a mind who is impelled to profound insight into the real. As such, he is driven or drives himself away from the surface into the depths--into the primeval forests, uncharted oceans, and looming heavens of the mind. This, I think, is what Capable so temperamentfully proclaims. The philosopher must not be too attached to his polity, but be a cosmopolitan, in the literal sense: a citizen of the cosmos. As Strauss said, all philosophy is cosmology. But in order to be able to afford being a cosmologist, one must have what Nietzsche called the great health. Health is wholeness, and an essential ingredient of wholeness is simplicity, in the literal sense: singleness, oneness. Thus in order for the philosopher to endure, his inclination into the deep and complex must be complemented by a similarly strong inclination towards the superficial and the simple. In addition to this, the philosopher is indebted to his passion, philosophy, and thereby to the polity that has--wittingly and willingly or not--allowed it to arise in him and allowed him to pursue it. As Novalis said, philosophy is really homesickness--the drive to be at home everywhere--; but political philosophy is really reconciliation to the fact that there are but few places where philosophy could find shelter--the dedication to a polity nurturing philosophy.

< I quite like that this cycle is rather informal, which is to say that it allows for commentaries on the situation we're in. After all we are very much addressing the situation we find ourselves in, and situations in which we might find ourselves in the future; as well, we are all well aware of the imperfection of a philosophical collective such as ours - and yet we are also aware that we may have to endure such imperfections, and content ourselves with gradually perfecting what can be perfected, and allowing the other imperfections to exist, as it were as the excess between philosophers, or philosophical perspectives. >

Funk - I believe philosophy has need of both the open lines of Earth and of the closed lines of Heaven; and I am forever navigating this fine line, granting myself the luxury of dipping fully into one or the other periodically, or perhaps this is not luxury but necessity. In any case my conception of health, in the highest sense that I can conceive it, comes to be out of an impossible combination of the two; whenever I encountered contradicting perspectives in myself, I have always held on to them with a secret smile, as I knew myself privileged to do what passive logic can not; I knew my own logics to be more powerful, since they did not really see fatal contradictions as much as great and powerful contrasts.

This is a very clear and unassailable mark of health; the capacity to endure contradictions and imperfect states; the lack of an urgent desire for resolution; the ability to stay in uncertainty and still rely on that greater, non-abstract certainty of overflowing health. In me this is the highest state, and it is in this state that value ontology was made conceivable to me; after all the very notion of an ontological foundation that is not at once an aspect of or representation of an ontological totality is, within the standing paradigm of systematic thought, not thinkable; the fact that the concept self-valuing splits up "being" into a multiplicity, and renders the idea of a totality unapproachable, therewith banishing any notion of a creator god or general purpose into very distant and empty hypotheses; it throws us unto ourselves, and thus demands a certain state of health.

And this has caused my proud attitude early on, the instinctive knowledge that it is only a great health that allows me this idea, and that it is often clearly weakness, sickness, that disallows others to uphold it. Make no mistake, man is sick unto death in his mind, he has no vital or vitalizing substance in his mind, his ideas about the world are void, pale or crippled, it is sickening even to read of modern mans conceptions of the universe as some kind of object,  and of man as some kind of entity that can be boxed and directed to some objectively correct conduct; in general the death of God has made men arrogant in their stupidity, only in very few it has caused the impulse to fill the void, to continue the work of exalting mankind, to philosophize. This was for the longest time what religion granted man; it enforced on the lesser the fear of hell and a general deference toward 'spirit', by virtue of which fear kings would consider the thoughts of 'spiritual men' - i.e. those who were known for not being too apish to reflect on things from a distance.

Now that God is no more however, there is no more protection and no more fear-inspiring, there is no human reason why philosophers should be heard. After the time of the Sophists, the only reason philosophers were heard was fear, suffering of absolute ignorance about life death and fate -- now that science has taken away some of that ignorance it has caused the rest of it to get very inflated and bloated and comfortable with itself. I am always powerfully nauseated by this bloated non-thinking that we know as the modern idolatry of "science" - I put it between quotation marks because scientific thought does not figure into it, and so, nor do actual scientists - it only a practice of inaccurately reproducing general ideas and turning them into idols that prescribe mindless fatalism. One has to be excessively healthy to break out of this habit of belief - because beyond it is only thought, which is a very painful thing to undertake if one is not used to it. It is painful because by its very nature it destroys certainties; and the certainties at which it arrives (such as value ontology) are only certain to the one who can properly employ the logic, for which the standard altar of certainty has to be toppled.

Thought is life cutting into itself - did you know this already?

Health and thought compares to flux, sickness and belief to stasis. Philosophy is the art of stabilizing in flux, it is quite literally a form of navigating. We might even say that all of the human world lives in a state of drowning (not too far fetched if we look at what 'humanity at large' is constantly doing to itself), and philosophy is the art of swimming or sailing, or simply of not drowning.

Now in order that it stay fit and healthy, it must also stay 'funky', I tend to agree with that; it must contain in itself the earthly, it must be able to sit down modestly amongst the creatures of the soil and drink from the brook; it can not live on the nectar of the gods alone; it is in fact of such a nature that it turns the fruits of the earth into divine gifts. This is why philosophers are followed and hallowed; they make life on Earth better, they know of the mystery of valuing and thus know what 'hell' is and where it comes from; and 'funk' is certainly the antidote to 'hell'; which is a subset of 'Heaven', i.e. the world without moss, earth, the unexpected and the transient, the seasons, and the love affair with convalescence, which is also a love affair with pain.

I suggest that we all endure the pain that comes with bringing together such different perspectives and appetites; such differences tend to come in handy for groups embedded in nature. We are perhaps the first explorers of the jungle of language; the first with a 'compass' that enables us to determine a course. But what we are steering as far as I am concerned, is not so much how we move through the jungle, as how the jungle grows from here-on out. We have become its center; and given that a we are a multiplicity, we are also in part jungle; but a smaller jungle with a center which is what centralizes us in the jungle; all that we can do from here on is grow, both in coherence and in difference. Our health is represented by the degree to which we can differ without undoing the principle-based coherence; the principle itself after all commands difference as the very fabric of cohesion.

We need healthy conflict to cohere into a whole. Conflict as in addressing differences;  healthy as in addressing them so as to fertilize the space in between the perspectives. It is this space in between that we need to cultivate so as to become as healthy as our philosophical impulse. This is giving form to force, which is at once the self-activation of consciousness, which in turn is the grassy field in which Heidegger envisioned mind (man, Mannaz) would one day roam free.

To rule the jungle around us we may have to cultivate a healthy jungle between us. To cultivate a jungle is of course a contradiction; let this be our working-contradiction then, the heart to our daemonism, the axe that cleaves the principle into a world.

Indeed the philosopher resists drowning, as you say Fixed. You also said thought is life cutting into itself- I have written something similar:


Life is a grasping within itself the forces that obstruct and break it, that pain and suppress it- a grasping of
these forces in the full depth of life's freedom, and in this way an expansion through a
contraction, a resolution of the duality and the dis-proportion that life itself creates.


There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts.


Philosophy is concerned with a kind of liminal process, and this I take as "health." Health certainly involves wholeness, and moreover the ability to maintain this wholeness against the imposition of external forces.

The most profound and fertile lines of investigation, as the most powerful thoughts and drives, must be perpetually hidden from one another and kept safe at the height of their power and unsquandered prodigy; for the truth, which is their object, is above all something whole- a totality, and cannot be witnessed to by any partial hierophancy of singular genius nor heralded by the lone passion, and therefor certainly requires all of these things to break forth upon it at once, if it should find within our own totality of will and character its peculiar kairos and be uncovered. The truth is not a datum of our experience, but rather our limit, our basic reality, our fatum. It is a great insight both of modern natural science and of psychology, that the forces which engender and vitalize life are the same forces which decay, arrest, and destroy it; the majority of creatures on this planet, in fact all of them save for man, exist at a liminal, quasi-conscious boundary at which an effective, if however fleeting, equipoise is achieved between the integrating and disintegrating forces of creation; a higher limiting factor and lofty fate belongs only to man;- it belongs only to man, to indwell in the primordial excesses of creation and reorganize himself in relation to them. Nietzsche represents a total collapse into the immanent domain of these latent tensions and energies, and nothing of the reformulation of human nature that is actually required of philosophy in our era; in Nietzsche the attempt was made to render man the mouthpiece of these forces, to annihilate the ego in its reality and become an animation of or a satyr mask for the immanent forces themselves, as was first carried out in the orgiastic rituals of the ancient Greeks. The reorganization of human nature would begin with a clarification of philosophy itself, and no less the procedure of philosophic reflection. The process of thought has, as its face, an inclusive function which belongs to domain of the deceitful, of the protective, stunted, and of the imprisoned real-ego, whereby its own productions are reintegrated with the forces with which they operate and by which they are operated upon,- whereby the movement and the operation of thought and the image of this movement and operation are logically consociated, identified, and at the most abstract superficies finally unified by a purely gestural semiotics, as so fascinated Nietzsche, and which he took for the whole of consciousness itself, in which every thought is reinterpreted by the conscious mind, or, by way of psychological designation- the real ego, as a symptom of what underlies its genesis in the unconscious- characteristic to its manner of fortifying itself against itself and preserving the illusory wholeness or its reality and organicism, the real ego in this way constructs its own causal universe in which the contents of consciousness are separated from alien forces external to it and are instead fixated upon the motive center of an atomic, free will, as serves for the basic type of the gestural procedure itself; secondarily the process we call thought has an exclusive function, whereby the boundary between what is thought and what is not yet thought is vigilantly maintained as a schema in accordance to which the integrity of the former Parmenidean universe of the movement-image can be determined-- the deeper philosophy is the product of this later exclusion of the contents of consciousness from consciousness itself, for it is capable of realizing the temporal universe, not as the falsification of, but rather as an image of or moment within, the eternal, as within a thoroughly acausal association. The truth here becomes, for the deeper philosophy, not the opposing category of falsehood, but the form of that schema whereby thought is brought into proximity with the outer boundary of its own power and its limiting fatum, as the locus of its daemonic dissolution and, within the horizon of the eroto-daemonic, no less its re-solution, whereby man is awakened to the ego in its ideal aspect. Heidegger believed that a grave error was perpetrated at the inception of Western philosophy, which he of course calls onto-theology: he thought Plato confused the Being of beings with beings themselves, which in my view never happened. Plato simply understood that there was no "Being of beings", that there was no Being behind or underneath beings. The "Being" of beings is not a being, and that's why Plato speaks of the absolute as a Form or eidos.

Since the first cycle of this Pentad, there has been a straight line ignored so as to increase the reverence of it: the cure to the equalizing unhealth of these our still times is distance.

But what distance? We asked ourselves. The walls are full with the blood of our heads, our minds constantly turning to aristocracy or God or spirits or war or politics or art or universal thought, and turning back in disgust. NOT ENOUGH! We yelled inwards. Very much not enough.

I have turned my sight to aristocracy's opposite, to filth. In our own ways, we all have. And we all followed the snaky path, guided by the Eagle, to safe harbor for our thoughts, for Time itself. The distance we seek we have found the beginning of, and it is stunning: it is the distance between philosophy, Philosophy finally self-valued, and thought. The distance between Philosophy and life. The distance of philosophy within life.

What a great distance philosophy will have to go to reclaim the ground it had thought belonged to thought! A lot of overgrown weeds will have to be slashed. A lot of pride will have to be broken... All upon the rock of what is greatest in philosophy: an unrelenting love of life.

What is health? Health is effective separation and, of course, the ultimate surrender to life for the sake of sublimity. And sublimity, as we know, lies in battle. This will be the health for everybody else, our gift: the ability to surrender to life/wage battle.

So, let health take on every single dimension it can. Let philosophy's tyranny begin. Let the conquest begin.







When the noise of it dies down, and life with its funk creeps back in... As they say in my mother land, que Dios nos agarre confesados! May it grab us armed to the teeth with philosophy.

Distance is a weight, and a void. Void is the heaviest weight of all, because one stands alone. Nietzsche's abyss is nice but doesn't go deep enough for me -- When you stare into the abyss, nothing stares back.

Distance became petty because the life it found here was petty, "psychological capitalism" is now the law of the land; filth and aristocracy have been being bred together here for a while now. Man likes to engage himself in thought because he enjoys believing in things, for him thought and belief mean the same thing. With belief is ego and will and clumsiness, a clumsiness that life itself seems to crave more than most other things.

Funk is clumsy too, maybe clumsiness set to a purpose. But I've come to realize the concept of purpose is absurdly simplistic and largely empty of content. So we have images within images, the whole setup breeds much confusion and distance mixing oils and waters so life can have something to play with, or in the best case to paint with.

Maybe it is our need for distance that we most need distance from. The machines of the world and history cannot be commanded by one person, which means by one idea; for a man has his idea by which he lives, and lives alone in it tho he may dwell among others. To realize our idea we are estranged from - not others, but from the idea of others. Thus the way back is to remember-recollect what it means for another person to be another person. Not in our idea but in reality, which means in their reality. The philosopher is usually so clumsy with this kind of love, as if it's almost too easy for him to accept.

Only distances from the ground hold their own. The easy distance may be the shortest, or it may be the longest and most coherent, solid; the most purified in truth.

Ive tried to explain, but I can't; for reasons that must remain in impenetrable chaos of violence, value collapse and combustion in the  immense terms that this thread produced, the wheel has reversed. It is now a Black Pentad, and the turn has gone to Pezer.

Coincidentally, this happens a year after the last post.

Because a turning wheel is in itself chaotic, Sauwelios has the chance to turn it.







- the cardinal cross

LAW

STUPID IS DIRECTION

INTELLIGENCE IS CONTENT


PHILOSOPHERS!

mAKE yOUR sTUPIDITIES!

Pezer wrote:

The true insight of our age, from our age, o philosophers, is that there is no separation between our fate and everybody else's. If their fate is unworthy, ours is unworthy.

Wherefrom this maddly wide optimism?

The funk. The stenchy truth of primordial truth, the very one that makes modern man so comical in his glass houses of the mind.

Fffunk. Funk is depth. Earth is potential, hunger the promise of greatness.

What makes modern man wrong is not his premises, it is that they don't follow their noses.

The only being that will survive, that deserves to survive this destruction ofrom nature is the philosopher. For funk can exist without him, and be tragically poorer for it. I hereby humbly invite him. I need him. Hell, we all do.

YES. I WILL NOW MORE FULLY ANSWER YOUR CHALLENGE.

THE PHILOSOPHER IS HE WHO MOST NEEDS "THE ABSENCE OF FUNK"--THAT IS, MOST EXCLUSIVELY HIS OWN FUNK. BUT HE CAN NEVER DO WITHOUT OTHERS WHO'VE FELT THE SAME--IF ONLY IN THE DISTANT PAST OR EVEN IN THE WILLED FUTURE.

Philosophers are always bred in a certain funk. For example, the funk of Jewish philosophers will be different from the funk of Hindu philosophers. The question is if the philosophers' own funk transcends the funk of the "folds" in which they've been bred, so as to make them prefer the funk of foreign philosophers over the funk of their own "fold".

In any case, there will always be a need for such a "fold", such a soil, such subphilosophical funk. But as I wrote in the Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism thread:

Quote :

In the meantime I've thought some more about this, especially in relation to what I wrote in my first Pentad post:

Sawelios wrote:

[T]he philosopher is indebted to his passion, philosophy, and thereby to the polity that has--wittingly and willingly or not--allowed it to arise in him and allowed him to pursue it. As Novalis said, philosophy is really homesickness--the drive to be at home everywhere--; but political philosophy is really reconciliation to the fact that there are but few places where philosophy could find shelter--the dedication to a polity nurturing philosophy.

If the philosopher, by being indebted to his passion, is indebted to the polity that has, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, allowed his passion to arise in him and allowed him to pursue it, then what about the rest of existence? Has not the rest of existence, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, allowed that polity to rise and persist? Well then, does this not mean that the philosopher, by being indebted to that polity, is also indebted to the rest of existence? To the entire cosmic process thus far? And thereby even to the great Unknown beyond it which, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, has allowed that process to start and go on?

But even if the philosopher is indebted to what I now call the whole infinite variety, that does not warrant his conservatism toward it. To the contrary: if he was merely a conservative, he would not justify himself. Thus I would naturally choose Hillary over Trump, whereas Fixed Cross, with his different funk, naturally chooses Trump over Hillary; but that would be uncreative, merely preserving (and even that probably only on the short term). The destructive potential of Trump would be preferable to the untransfigured Hillary. Hilldawg must be husbanded by "the philosopher".

Sauwelios wrote:

THE PHILOSOPHER IS HE WHO MOST NEEDS "THE ABSENCE OF FUNK"--THAT IS, MOST EXCLUSIVELY HIS OWN FUNK. BUT HE CAN NEVER DO WITHOUT OTHERS WHO'VE FELT THE SAME--IF ONLY IN THE DISTANT PAST OR EVEN IN THE WILLED FUTURE.

Quote :

Philosophers are always bred in a certain funk. For example, the funk of Jewish philosophers will be different from the funk of Hindu philosophers. The question is if the philosophers' own funk transcends the funk of the "folds" in which they've been bred, so as to make them prefer the funk of foreign philosophers over the funk of their own "fold".

This indeed is much of what our 'dirty business' on the forums the past years has manifested; a particular kind of funk that indeed does repel a lot of other types of hygiene. Therefore I must object to something further down in your post.

Quote :

In any case, there will always be a need for such a "fold", such a soil, such subphilosophical funk. But as I wrote in the Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism thread:

Quote :

In the meantime I've thought some more about this, especially in relation to what I wrote in my first Pentad post:

Sawelios wrote:

[T]he philosopher is indebted to his passion, philosophy, and thereby to the polity that has--wittingly and willingly or not--allowed it to arise in him and allowed him to pursue it. As Novalis said, philosophy is really homesickness--the drive to be at home everywhere--; but political philosophy is really reconciliation to the fact that there are but few places where philosophy could find shelter--the dedication to a polity nurturing philosophy.

Quote :

If the philosopher, by being indebted to his passion, is indebted to the polity that has, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, allowed his passion to arise in him and allowed him to pursue it, then what about the rest of existence? Has not the rest of existence, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, allowed that polity to rise and persist? Well then, does this not mean that the philosopher, by being indebted to that polity, is also indebted to the rest of existence? To the entire cosmic process thus far? And thereby even to the great Unknown beyond it which, however unwittingly and even unwillingly, has allowed that process to start and go on?

Yes, clearly this is the case.

Since we are limited beings, the absolute affirmation of our roots must come in an absolute re-invention of the fruits that these roots produce; one must 'fall from the tree' - and establish ones own; this is what I aim for with the Clan, a primordial crime as per the standing (stumbling) order, at the same time a first logos of the new order; an Axiomatic Philosophical Funk. But how to get there?

Quote :

But even if the philosopher is indebted to what I now call the whole infinite variety, that does not warrant his conservatism toward it. To the contrary: if he was merely a conservative, he would not justify himself. Thus I would naturally choose Hillary over Trump, whereas Fixed Cross, with his different funk, naturally chooses Trump over Hillary; but that would be uncreative, merely preserving (and even that probably only on the short term). The destructive potential of Trump would be preferable to the untransfigured Hillary. Hilldawg must be husbanded by "the philosopher".

Actually my support of Trump is not to do with conserving, it has to do with averting something, namely the Last Man. Hillary's agenda is purely this: The weak (but far from meek - rather genocidal ) shall inherit the Earth. Trumps agenda is this: Let nature do her will, help weakness perish, so that it does not drag us down. That is neither progressive nor conservative, or rather, both; to conserve the progression of willings-to-power over another.

Hillary has affirmed no values, which is an accomplishment - she is truly an incarnation of death, quite literally. Not just the ghastly deaths she is causing all the time, but simply the absence of valuing. She does not exist. She would not be able to listen to a philosopher.

My funk is music. I am willing to go as general as that.