Just finished reading decline of the west and I'm in the middle of reading Julius Evola's Revolt against the modern world.
A rundown on decline of the west can be seen in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsaieZt5vjk
Spengler goes to sometimes annoyingly long lengths to describe exactly how things relate to culture's birth in the west and talks a lot about how it compares to classical, Chines, India, and Egyptian cultures which he viewed as the other high cultures along with Babylonian. In the end Spengler decries Kantian thought, along with most western thought on linear history to express the more temporal nature of history being more like an organism.
Pretty much ends with him dropping a big blackpill saying the west is going to die and that he predicts the west will loose all creative expression within his century and will become in a state of civilization where everyone is fucked without culture because rationalism will cause people to destroy culture in place for civilization. Personally I'm sorta forced to agree with his conclusions just because of how accurate them have seemed, even if I'm not a big fan of relating historical "cycles" to our time since my belief is the destiny in which Spengler talks of is in the end unknown, wheres he believes in the end its ruin.
One thing I'm still contemplating is a line in Spengler's book where he talks about how time creates space and space destroys time. It seems right when you consider it within physics and how time is bent by space. But this makes me think that if the west is a civilization which based its end theme on infinite space, could it not be the destiny of the west to end all of history? That is assuming of course Spengler's prediction on destiny is right and my own gut feeling is wrong.
Like I said still making my mind up on that and a lot of other things within it, if you haven't read it I'd encourage reading it. Wondering what your thoughts on Spengler's work (the video does a good job of summing it up) is. Also might as well discus other reactionary ideas and work here as well and how if at all we can keep the west from dying.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 2D316BDF038E1A6D764E842749CFED9E-1059009.jpg (1.0 MB, 1500x984, 1534359597658.jpg)
>>168526
Personally I'm dyslexic as fuck, and so I just listen to audio books of everything while I do mindless tasks. But here is an archive that has the PDF.
https://ia800304.us.archive.org/12/items/Decline-Of-The-West-Oswald-Spengler/Decline_Of_The_West.pdf
I've read Reflection on the Revolution in France, Patriarcha, the Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, and Beowulf. Like I said I'm in the middle of Revolt, I've gotten to chapter 24.
Personally I'm dyslexic as fuck, and so I just listen to audio books of everything while I do mindless tasks. But here is an archive that has the PDF.
https://ia800304.us.archive.org/12/items/Decline-Of-The-West-Oswald-Spengler/Decline_Of_The_West.pdf
I've read Reflection on the Revolution in France, Patriarcha, the Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, and Beowulf. Like I said I'm in the middle of Revolt, I've gotten to chapter 24.
Bumping because I'd actually like to talk about this.
Also Spengler's answer to the blackpill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwAd2T41-o
Also Spengler's answer to the blackpill:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwAd2T41-o
>>168522
>>168522
I've been reading Spengler's Decline of the West, or trying to at least. I think I'm around to chapter 5.
On the subject of time and space, I think it is very important to understand that Spengler is coming from the German Idealist view of the world, which is about as radically different from the English view of the world as you can get. In the English view of the world, which is the way of viewing the world that all of us here probably have, the human organism is an animal that exists in a material body that exists in time and space. Stars, chairs, animals, rocks, and planets, and so forth, are all every bit as real as you and I. In fact, in a way, they can be more real, because stars and planets are supposed to have existed long before humans existed and will exist long after. In fact, under English evolutionary theory and cosmic models, the universe is supposed to have existed long before humanity. Further, the information that science provides about this world of stars, planets, and animals, is supposed to be at least somewhat accurate. When we see an object, the way that object exists in the universe is supposed to be similar to the way we see it. And when we think about things rationally, we suppose our thinking to correspond, more or less, to the way things actually are. The universe abides common principles which we call Nature, and science is able to understand nature. In short, humans are not the center of the universe, and human senses, reason, and science are competent to try to undertsand the vast universe.
But in Prussia, along came Kant. Kant argued that actually human sense organs add something to the experience of objects that is not there in the world outside of our minds. English philosophers like Locke had already claimed that things like color are parts of experience that your mind or sense organs add, but that other parts of experiencing an object, like the dimension and width of an object, really are there. Kant went much further than Locke, and argued that basically everything we experience about objects is added by either the senses or the way the mind structures and interprets experience. Kant argued that time and space were not parts of objective reality, but actually are purely subjective, and a part of how the mind structures experience. They do not, according to Kant, exist in reality. Causality, likewise, is added by the mind to experience, but is not a part of reality.
Then came Hegel. Hegel took Kant's theories even further. Kant still believed in some kind of reality beyond the human mind, because he believed that this reality was necessary to provide sensory input. Hegel did away with this altogether. The only thing that exists, to him, is mind and experience. Further, Kant understood that while it was the mind that shaped experience, it was always the mind of the individual human being. Hegel did not share this belief. He thought of mind and reason as being collective, and belonging to nations and cultures. This idea sort of makes sense when you think about language, which is necessary for reason (probably), and which belongs to and is created by cultures. Hegel also believed that only the whole is real, and parts do not exist absent the whole. This means that Hegel believed that only cultures exist. Stars, planets, animals, and individual human beings are creations of the reason and mind of cultures. Almost everyone who came after Hegel disagreed with him in some significant regard, yet they all agreed with Hegel and Kant on reason's incompetence to understand any sort of reality outside of the mind.
I think that understanding the above is necessary to understand at least some of what Spengler says, because otherwise his claims seem kind of weird.
>>168522
I've been reading Spengler's Decline of the West, or trying to at least. I think I'm around to chapter 5.
On the subject of time and space, I think it is very important to understand that Spengler is coming from the German Idealist view of the world, which is about as radically different from the English view of the world as you can get. In the English view of the world, which is the way of viewing the world that all of us here probably have, the human organism is an animal that exists in a material body that exists in time and space. Stars, chairs, animals, rocks, and planets, and so forth, are all every bit as real as you and I. In fact, in a way, they can be more real, because stars and planets are supposed to have existed long before humans existed and will exist long after. In fact, under English evolutionary theory and cosmic models, the universe is supposed to have existed long before humanity. Further, the information that science provides about this world of stars, planets, and animals, is supposed to be at least somewhat accurate. When we see an object, the way that object exists in the universe is supposed to be similar to the way we see it. And when we think about things rationally, we suppose our thinking to correspond, more or less, to the way things actually are. The universe abides common principles which we call Nature, and science is able to understand nature. In short, humans are not the center of the universe, and human senses, reason, and science are competent to try to undertsand the vast universe.
But in Prussia, along came Kant. Kant argued that actually human sense organs add something to the experience of objects that is not there in the world outside of our minds. English philosophers like Locke had already claimed that things like color are parts of experience that your mind or sense organs add, but that other parts of experiencing an object, like the dimension and width of an object, really are there. Kant went much further than Locke, and argued that basically everything we experience about objects is added by either the senses or the way the mind structures and interprets experience. Kant argued that time and space were not parts of objective reality, but actually are purely subjective, and a part of how the mind structures experience. They do not, according to Kant, exist in reality. Causality, likewise, is added by the mind to experience, but is not a part of reality.
Then came Hegel. Hegel took Kant's theories even further. Kant still believed in some kind of reality beyond the human mind, because he believed that this reality was necessary to provide sensory input. Hegel did away with this altogether. The only thing that exists, to him, is mind and experience. Further, Kant understood that while it was the mind that shaped experience, it was always the mind of the individual human being. Hegel did not share this belief. He thought of mind and reason as being collective, and belonging to nations and cultures. This idea sort of makes sense when you think about language, which is necessary for reason (probably), and which belongs to and is created by cultures. Hegel also believed that only the whole is real, and parts do not exist absent the whole. This means that Hegel believed that only cultures exist. Stars, planets, animals, and individual human beings are creations of the reason and mind of cultures. Almost everyone who came after Hegel disagreed with him in some significant regard, yet they all agreed with Hegel and Kant on reason's incompetence to understand any sort of reality outside of the mind.
I think that understanding the above is necessary to understand at least some of what Spengler says, because otherwise his claims seem kind of weird.
>>169153
On to an analysis of Spengler's theory of math, epistemology, and whatever else (that I have read so far). I know what everyone really wants to hear about is Splengler's theory of politics, but Spengler chose to open his work with several hundred pages of discussion about everything other than politics, so it must be important to him. The discussions of math and time do help you to understand what Spengler thinks are the defining differences between the cultures, so there is that.
In Spengler's first chapter, Splenger makes the claim that each culture has its own truth, and that no truth can belong to all cultures. Exactly what he means by this is unclear, but I think this line is significant because it shows that he probably has more in common with Post-Modernists - who were the product of the same cultural milieu as created post-modernists.
He introduces what he claims is the central idea behind his work. That is, the idea that the reality lies in the becoming, rather than the become. Growth and change are the reality of a thing, and the final state an object reaches, where it has stopped growing and changing, is like death. You can contrast Spengler's claim with Aristotle. Aristotle claimed that all beings that grow and change do so in accord with a kind of internal "plan." They are actualizing themselves, growing to become more fully what they are. This means of course that the final state, and only the final state, is what is real, and anything less is unrealized potential. Spengler would have the process of growth and development and change be less than fully real.
You take note of the fact that Splenger believes history to be organic, like an organism. I think that that isn't really unique to Spengler, but is a pretty normal metaphor to understand the Hegelian approach to history. I recall reading a speech by Woodrow Wilson during the time that he was a president of Princeton University around the turn of the twentieth century, and he claimed that the theories of the age often understand the world through reference to a central metaphor. Wislon said the old way of understanding the world - the way of English philosophy - thought of the world as like a machine. Machines are made of smaller parts that could be indifferently combined in different ways to different effects, and act according to principles and rules. The new way of understanding the world, according to Wilson - the German way - is to think of it like an organism. Organisms function as a single whole, grow, develop, and don't act consistently over time because they change.
I've barely scratched the surface of what Spengler says, but I need to pause now
\r
On to an analysis of Spengler's theory of math, epistemology, and whatever else (that I have read so far). I know what everyone really wants to hear about is Splengler's theory of politics, but Spengler chose to open his work with several hundred pages of discussion about everything other than politics, so it must be important to him. The discussions of math and time do help you to understand what Spengler thinks are the defining differences between the cultures, so there is that.
In Spengler's first chapter, Splenger makes the claim that each culture has its own truth, and that no truth can belong to all cultures. Exactly what he means by this is unclear, but I think this line is significant because it shows that he probably has more in common with Post-Modernists - who were the product of the same cultural milieu as created post-modernists.
He introduces what he claims is the central idea behind his work. That is, the idea that the reality lies in the becoming, rather than the become. Growth and change are the reality of a thing, and the final state an object reaches, where it has stopped growing and changing, is like death. You can contrast Spengler's claim with Aristotle. Aristotle claimed that all beings that grow and change do so in accord with a kind of internal "plan." They are actualizing themselves, growing to become more fully what they are. This means of course that the final state, and only the final state, is what is real, and anything less is unrealized potential. Spengler would have the process of growth and development and change be less than fully real.
You take note of the fact that Splenger believes history to be organic, like an organism. I think that that isn't really unique to Spengler, but is a pretty normal metaphor to understand the Hegelian approach to history. I recall reading a speech by Woodrow Wilson during the time that he was a president of Princeton University around the turn of the twentieth century, and he claimed that the theories of the age often understand the world through reference to a central metaphor. Wislon said the old way of understanding the world - the way of English philosophy - thought of the world as like a machine. Machines are made of smaller parts that could be indifferently combined in different ways to different effects, and act according to principles and rules. The new way of understanding the world, according to Wilson - the German way - is to think of it like an organism. Organisms function as a single whole, grow, develop, and don't act consistently over time because they change.
I've barely scratched the surface of what Spengler says, but I need to pause now
\r
>>169153
Yeah Spengler's thoughts on causality, and space he seemed to take a lot from Hegel and Kant all be it he heavily modified them on time which he pretty much separates and claims is its own thing. I think its within the frame of where you've already read but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on them since I'm finding myself in agreement with him on his metaphysical view of time and space. Sure I think its missing something something that is my personal view on the metaphysics of nothingness but I find myself in agreement otherwise.
>>169160
As far as Hegel goes he is pretty different is so far that Hegelian though is linear to which Spengler claims outright is wrong. Spengler claims that such an idea is an invention of the Faustian soul, or the driving soul of Westernism. He claims it is a natural state of western cultures drive for infinite space and that it is beyond the Faustian souls ability to allow non-universal principles to continue. Things like progress, ending slavery worldwide, and having a universal religion along with universal truths is what Spengler claims are all part of the Faustian soul and a driving motivator for western man. It is also why the Faustian should hates hypocrisy where other cultures don't as much. So just because he believes in non-universality doesn't mean that he doesn't see the necessity of them within a culture such as the Faustian culture.
Spengler on the other hands views history as you said like an organism, which means it also dies and declines eventually. This makes Spengler a advocate for cyclical history rather then linear. Like I said before I think this is overall also wrong but I'd be wrong to outright deny that time and thus destiny have a say in history, though I'm unsure if Spengler's analysis is wrong entirely or if only the idea that destiny is in fact cyclical.
Yeah Spengler's thoughts on causality, and space he seemed to take a lot from Hegel and Kant all be it he heavily modified them on time which he pretty much separates and claims is its own thing. I think its within the frame of where you've already read but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on them since I'm finding myself in agreement with him on his metaphysical view of time and space. Sure I think its missing something something that is my personal view on the metaphysics of nothingness but I find myself in agreement otherwise.
>>169160
As far as Hegel goes he is pretty different is so far that Hegelian though is linear to which Spengler claims outright is wrong. Spengler claims that such an idea is an invention of the Faustian soul, or the driving soul of Westernism. He claims it is a natural state of western cultures drive for infinite space and that it is beyond the Faustian souls ability to allow non-universal principles to continue. Things like progress, ending slavery worldwide, and having a universal religion along with universal truths is what Spengler claims are all part of the Faustian soul and a driving motivator for western man. It is also why the Faustian should hates hypocrisy where other cultures don't as much. So just because he believes in non-universality doesn't mean that he doesn't see the necessity of them within a culture such as the Faustian culture.
Spengler on the other hands views history as you said like an organism, which means it also dies and declines eventually. This makes Spengler a advocate for cyclical history rather then linear. Like I said before I think this is overall also wrong but I'd be wrong to outright deny that time and thus destiny have a say in history, though I'm unsure if Spengler's analysis is wrong entirely or if only the idea that destiny is in fact cyclical.
File (): 590EF71732A2F208984B1AB07B71BD43-470539.png (459.5 KB, 1280x924, involution.png)
>>168522
Just finished reading Evola's Revolt against the modern world. For those of you who are interested it very much is about the symbolic and integral parts of reactionary traditionalist thought. Evola for refrense was a critic of both Mussolini and Hitler, because he thought that neither were "right wing" enough. Not in a capitalist sense since he view capitalism as nothing more then a step down from the symbolic and spiritual necessities of the world.
Evola starts the book describing the hierarchical man and how it is that it can be seen across time. He goes on to describe the primacy of spirit and symbolism in life and how great kings of past are the ones who utilized this divine god king aspect found in northern and solar symbolism. He later on goes onto explain how this contrasts with the lunar southern symbol of mother. Paternalism, and mother symbolism derive from the southern is what he then claims, while the northern and masculine god king come from the Aryan spirit. He goes onto contextualize these in history especially classical time and goes onto claim how the dark ages best illustrate these principles. In it he criticizes the Greeks, and gives mixed feelings on the Roman Empire and Catholic Church, the former he claims started out well and degenerated while the latter he espouses the opposite views.
Lastly Evola goes into describing his theory of involution. He classifies the view of the world into four ages in which principles manifest themselves and goes onto describe where one can see them. Pic related
Evola's ideas read very similar to Spengler's which would make sense since Evola did translated Spengler's work into Italian. Especially considering their dislike of rationalism and belief in the earlier ages having been a time of greater culture (Spengler) and super wold (Evola.)
Just finished reading Evola's Revolt against the modern world. For those of you who are interested it very much is about the symbolic and integral parts of reactionary traditionalist thought. Evola for refrense was a critic of both Mussolini and Hitler, because he thought that neither were "right wing" enough. Not in a capitalist sense since he view capitalism as nothing more then a step down from the symbolic and spiritual necessities of the world.
Evola starts the book describing the hierarchical man and how it is that it can be seen across time. He goes on to describe the primacy of spirit and symbolism in life and how great kings of past are the ones who utilized this divine god king aspect found in northern and solar symbolism. He later on goes onto explain how this contrasts with the lunar southern symbol of mother. Paternalism, and mother symbolism derive from the southern is what he then claims, while the northern and masculine god king come from the Aryan spirit. He goes onto contextualize these in history especially classical time and goes onto claim how the dark ages best illustrate these principles. In it he criticizes the Greeks, and gives mixed feelings on the Roman Empire and Catholic Church, the former he claims started out well and degenerated while the latter he espouses the opposite views.
Lastly Evola goes into describing his theory of involution. He classifies the view of the world into four ages in which principles manifest themselves and goes onto describe where one can see them. Pic related
Evola's ideas read very similar to Spengler's which would make sense since Evola did translated Spengler's work into Italian. Especially considering their dislike of rationalism and belief in the earlier ages having been a time of greater culture (Spengler) and super wold (Evola.)
>>170849
With Evola's work done I now have a been given a criticism of ethno nationalism which find myself I agreeing with, since it is given from the right wing's perspective. It is that ethno nationalism isn't enough, after all are you brother's with someone who has disowned you? Someone who has been banished really isn't your own just like how a convert or traitor no longer is part of your own kind. Ethnonationalism is a good starting point but it isn't enough is what Evola argued while under the Fascist regime. It is a step back to the superworld but still needs the divine.
Thoughts?
With Evola's work done I now have a been given a criticism of ethno nationalism which find myself I agreeing with, since it is given from the right wing's perspective. It is that ethno nationalism isn't enough, after all are you brother's with someone who has disowned you? Someone who has been banished really isn't your own just like how a convert or traitor no longer is part of your own kind. Ethnonationalism is a good starting point but it isn't enough is what Evola argued while under the Fascist regime. It is a step back to the superworld but still needs the divine.
Thoughts?
>>170852
If you continue to ostracize people from your group don't you become smaller and make the outsiders larger and therefore more powerful? I think that any segregation is already doomed because transportation and communication tech guarantees us all mixing together. And if the West won't have children it is fucked anyway because of how debt works. One day in the near future automatic translation will be a part of the internet and Middle Easterners and Westerners will be shit posting on the same chan until a middle ground is reached etc.
>>169164
Things have to be cyclic because the conditions that allow a society/culture to exist are finite. When a culture hits that bounding edge and risks its own demise it has to turn back and go over old ground. When you then view this over time we are like atoms of air trapped in a box, with a limited set of states to be in you eventually repeat. You can symbolize this as a sign wave or a wheel but it is infinitely more complex and somewhat fragile.
>>170849
Chart looks reasonable to me. It shows entropy at work until the human atoms dissolve back into the chaos. A successful society allows more chaos because a successful society grants itself more emotional and selfish indulgences. The "Deadly Sins" pull it down. A successful society makes liberated free humans, who are free to do as they desire, those desires are destructive and collected together destroy the society as we are observing today. Most free humans don't pursue logic, they pursue feelings. Which makes me thing Great Depressions serve a valuable purpose of destroying the inane cruft produced by a selfish successful society with too much time and energy on it's hands. The tl;dr success = failure. Which is a cycle.
If you continue to ostracize people from your group don't you become smaller and make the outsiders larger and therefore more powerful? I think that any segregation is already doomed because transportation and communication tech guarantees us all mixing together. And if the West won't have children it is fucked anyway because of how debt works. One day in the near future automatic translation will be a part of the internet and Middle Easterners and Westerners will be shit posting on the same chan until a middle ground is reached etc.
>>169164
Things have to be cyclic because the conditions that allow a society/culture to exist are finite. When a culture hits that bounding edge and risks its own demise it has to turn back and go over old ground. When you then view this over time we are like atoms of air trapped in a box, with a limited set of states to be in you eventually repeat. You can symbolize this as a sign wave or a wheel but it is infinitely more complex and somewhat fragile.
>>170849
Chart looks reasonable to me. It shows entropy at work until the human atoms dissolve back into the chaos. A successful society allows more chaos because a successful society grants itself more emotional and selfish indulgences. The "Deadly Sins" pull it down. A successful society makes liberated free humans, who are free to do as they desire, those desires are destructive and collected together destroy the society as we are observing today. Most free humans don't pursue logic, they pursue feelings. Which makes me thing Great Depressions serve a valuable purpose of destroying the inane cruft produced by a selfish successful society with too much time and energy on it's hands. The tl;dr success = failure. Which is a cycle.
>>170905
>ostracize people from your group don't you become smaller and make the outsiders larger and therefore more powerful
I don't even really want to argue with such a point. What is practical is always stumped by what is ideal. Its why communism and materialism is winning now. I could argue that if I had 100 spiritual nationalists together we could out-breed and then conquer the world in 5 generations. Practicality is a very bad argument since its so nebulous in the end.
>I think that any segregation is already doomed because transportation and communication tech guarantees us all mixing together.
I think this is the curxs of your world view. Holding a view like that is to say that everyone will choose the rational view in the end. A very Kantian thought. But I disagree not only do I view people as irrational, but I don't think real rationality exists outside a relative state. If this idea, one I agree with Spengler in is true then univeralism is impossible without conquest.
>Things have to be cyclic because the conditions that allow a society/culture to exist are finite
Disagree. Everything dies in the end. Infinity isn't infinite outside of the west a point Spengler makes. Doesn't mean things aren't organic and cyclical in the short run. But a plant, or culture might have a cycle but when everything dies there is nothing left to live. Same with the universe.
>ostracize people from your group don't you become smaller and make the outsiders larger and therefore more powerful
I don't even really want to argue with such a point. What is practical is always stumped by what is ideal. Its why communism and materialism is winning now. I could argue that if I had 100 spiritual nationalists together we could out-breed and then conquer the world in 5 generations. Practicality is a very bad argument since its so nebulous in the end.
>I think that any segregation is already doomed because transportation and communication tech guarantees us all mixing together.
I think this is the curxs of your world view. Holding a view like that is to say that everyone will choose the rational view in the end. A very Kantian thought. But I disagree not only do I view people as irrational, but I don't think real rationality exists outside a relative state. If this idea, one I agree with Spengler in is true then univeralism is impossible without conquest.
>Things have to be cyclic because the conditions that allow a society/culture to exist are finite
Disagree. Everything dies in the end. Infinity isn't infinite outside of the west a point Spengler makes. Doesn't mean things aren't organic and cyclical in the short run. But a plant, or culture might have a cycle but when everything dies there is nothing left to live. Same with the universe.
File (): EEC48DE2E2A232986DF8691C980C78B1-56420.jpg (55.1 KB, 945x743, cycle-to-persist.jpg)
>>170922
>>Things have to be cyclic
>Disagree. Everything dies in the end.
To clarify if something does persist it is likely to be cycling. It could be still in the first rotation and die before the second, like our lives themselves. But the structure built upon us, humanity and civilizations, rise and fall as it interacts with all the components of its environment seeking some form of stability. Similar to:
>The Gaia hypothesis, also known as the Gaia theory or the Gaia principle, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
If a stability occurs it is a symbiosis. But I don't expect these to be perpetually stable. But they would be self correcting if they continue existing.
>>Things have to be cyclic
>Disagree. Everything dies in the end.
To clarify if something does persist it is likely to be cycling. It could be still in the first rotation and die before the second, like our lives themselves. But the structure built upon us, humanity and civilizations, rise and fall as it interacts with all the components of its environment seeking some form of stability. Similar to:
>The Gaia hypothesis, also known as the Gaia theory or the Gaia principle, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
If a stability occurs it is a symbiosis. But I don't expect these to be perpetually stable. But they would be self correcting if they continue existing.
>>170941
>To clarify if something does persist it is likely to be cycling.
Well I don't disagree I'm just saying we're not in a endless cycle is all. All things have an end so on the macro we aren't linear or a cycle.
Also I want to respond to >>170933 → since its more related to this thread rather then the other.
>I have a problem with the assumption that Aristocracy is good.
Aristocracy is good, elitism isn't. Let me explain. An aristocracy's role in society can be envisioned when you look at a military. They are the officers. The plebs are the grunts. Both need each other for a military to function well. If the officers do their job well they save grunts lives and increase the output of the military's success. If a grunt does his job well he keeps his life and potentially saves others. The two roles are innately seperate because they are different in qualifications, one grunt can be the best grunt and the best at driving a truck from point a to b without hitting land mines or getting shot, but that won't make him a good officer. Their is an honor that comes with being the best at one's craft. Same with officers, ordering planning and seeing logistical options doesn't make you a good gunner. Officers are trained and born better at leading. This is aristocracy. These men, not always on merit deserve to be in charge.
Elitism is believe their your merit or sometimes not your merit as a well skilled individual, whether it be aristocracy, officer, pleb, or grunt makes you better then others. Aristocracy naturally doesn't feel this way like how a man doesn't feel better then a chimp. He just knows he's different. Elitism is bad aristocracy is good. To have the officer be ordered by the grunt is begging for disaster, just like how having the pleb order aristocracy is to beg for societal dysfunction.
>The video blames over intellectualization where as I would blame over-emotionality in civilization.
Rationalism is the cancer killing society, feeling isn't. Rationalism causes the questioning of common values to attempt to come up with a set of universal ideals that are only rational (Rousseau), a perfect bodily lifestyle (Socrates), or a way of life that brings enlightenment through breaking through the mysteries of life (Buddha.) All of these men deserved the same poison Socrates did because they killed the culture. Emotion irrational embraces the culture, the problem today is that emotion embraces the culture already killed my rationalism. They reflect the hollow confused state of western culture which isn't sure what to make of itself.
>Trump/Q stuff fits the imperium part of the cycle
Sorta it reflects the start of winter which is the rise of a Caesar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpof96pVx-c
>To clarify if something does persist it is likely to be cycling.
Well I don't disagree I'm just saying we're not in a endless cycle is all. All things have an end so on the macro we aren't linear or a cycle.
Also I want to respond to >>170933 → since its more related to this thread rather then the other.
>I have a problem with the assumption that Aristocracy is good.
Aristocracy is good, elitism isn't. Let me explain. An aristocracy's role in society can be envisioned when you look at a military. They are the officers. The plebs are the grunts. Both need each other for a military to function well. If the officers do their job well they save grunts lives and increase the output of the military's success. If a grunt does his job well he keeps his life and potentially saves others. The two roles are innately seperate because they are different in qualifications, one grunt can be the best grunt and the best at driving a truck from point a to b without hitting land mines or getting shot, but that won't make him a good officer. Their is an honor that comes with being the best at one's craft. Same with officers, ordering planning and seeing logistical options doesn't make you a good gunner. Officers are trained and born better at leading. This is aristocracy. These men, not always on merit deserve to be in charge.
Elitism is believe their your merit or sometimes not your merit as a well skilled individual, whether it be aristocracy, officer, pleb, or grunt makes you better then others. Aristocracy naturally doesn't feel this way like how a man doesn't feel better then a chimp. He just knows he's different. Elitism is bad aristocracy is good. To have the officer be ordered by the grunt is begging for disaster, just like how having the pleb order aristocracy is to beg for societal dysfunction.
>The video blames over intellectualization where as I would blame over-emotionality in civilization.
Rationalism is the cancer killing society, feeling isn't. Rationalism causes the questioning of common values to attempt to come up with a set of universal ideals that are only rational (Rousseau), a perfect bodily lifestyle (Socrates), or a way of life that brings enlightenment through breaking through the mysteries of life (Buddha.) All of these men deserved the same poison Socrates did because they killed the culture. Emotion irrational embraces the culture, the problem today is that emotion embraces the culture already killed my rationalism. They reflect the hollow confused state of western culture which isn't sure what to make of itself.
>Trump/Q stuff fits the imperium part of the cycle
Sorta it reflects the start of winter which is the rise of a Caesar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpof96pVx-c
File (): E04E32FAB2305495A39CDF047E6177A7-1322471.png (1.3 MB, 1920x1080, Caesar.png)
File (): D2486F6E53AA3B69023F50776B476E86-63383.jpg (61.9 KB, 640x480, Armstrong-Hidden-order-inside-chaos.jpg)
>>171289
>Well I don't disagree I'm just saying we're not in a endless cycle is all. All things have an end so on the macro we aren't linear or a cycle.
Agreed. I use pic #1 as my visualization of cycles.. they are messy and can collapse (ie. everything dies). The utility of cycle theory is you only need to be in the second cycle to make predictions using the first. So assuming 100 years ago (only) is a close approximation of our today then we can predict the rise of Authoritarianism now. Seeing Trump and the EU shows that. And since the left and right can do Authoritarianism this isn't surprising despite EU and Trump being opposites.
>Aristocracy is good, elitism isn't.
All of this is true, but intrinsic in every romanticizing of an ideology is the assumption that humans can be molded into being their best. In practice bad humans always emerge and act as cancer in any "perfect" and pervert it by locating its Achilles heal. The saying "communism has never been tried" is not just a untruth, but also a truth because we can never do any pure ideology because chaos undoes us and our structures, always.
>Rationalism causes the questioning of common values
Agreed. I don't object to there being destructive thoughts, but the video fails to point out that there are also destructive emotions too. So I am forced to divide high emotions/thoughts from low emotions/thoughts. The "low" is self-centered and so divides society into fragments ("there is more than 2 two genders" -- this show both low thought and low emotion). High thoughts/emotions are spiritual longings, the feeling and thought to become more angelic, Christ-like, nationalistic, globalistic, etc., despite it being unreachable fantasy. Unity of society comes from trying to obtain the non-existing better. This is the ladder we try to build upwards away from being chaos and "rule of the jungle" Nature. This is why faith is important, and and probably why rationalization is being considered destructive.
>Rationalism is the cancer killing society, feeling isn't.
Disagree that rationalization is the lone destroyer. "Refugees welcome" is a feeling. It's the innate feeling that humans are good, and that prosperity always exists. This comes on average from the youth (whose existence has been mostly free stuff from parents), women (who have an instinct to be mothers to all, even more so when they don't plan to be actual mothers), and in successful rich societies (because they don't realize that the prosperity came from when the demographics had high workers per pensioner ratios, which the non-mothers have since destroyed). It is the origin of communism, and it is why communism will never die. Most definitely feelings can destroy just as thoughts can. Everything has within it a duality (or more). Everything is a sword that cuts both ways.
>Aristocracy
An element of the plebs will be looking to have a French Revolution. Entropy likes to smooth things out. Nothing lasts because chaos/entropy is the base we all are standing on, and it's why everything will fall over. Even nature can't make a perpetual life/existence. A successful society adds energy to individualism which is the same as adding energy to chaos. A successful society is a boiling jug of water. That cohesion of water becomes the individuality of steam and is then lost back into the chaos of the atmosphere. Your Aristocracy is putting a lid back on the jug while the pressure builds and the water molecules seek escape. You would need to keep the plebs poor and low energy. Which is what we have now I suspect, anyway (Debt money, etc). You can't have hierarchy and energized citizenry, they will seek liberation.
Using the ideology compass we can say there are 4 factions (broadly speaking). Any faction ruling at any time has 25% support (probably more in its moment, but roughly speaking to make this point) and the remaining 75% join together (hello Nazis, AnCaps, Libertarians etc. on /mlpol/ your division will come soon) to chop down that 25% tree. No final victory will every exist in a battle between 4 factions of roughly equal distribution. And chaos/entropy resets ideologies to equal distribution.
Any attempt to make Utopia guarantees Dystopia as it automatically generates an equal (or more) opposite according to the rules of physics. One can say that every civilization dies, but one can also say civilization[b]S cycle in and out until they don't.
The one monkey wrench in all of this cycling is technology. We have not seen technology "die" and be "reborn" and this is a major force that is distorting the future away from the past observations. Perhaps a techo-authoritarian empire can rise (UK big brother) that is undefeatable by its plebeian slaves. But I find it unlikely, humans always rebel and destroy eventually so that even ideological distribution can re-emerge.
>Well I don't disagree I'm just saying we're not in a endless cycle is all. All things have an end so on the macro we aren't linear or a cycle.
Agreed. I use pic #1 as my visualization of cycles.. they are messy and can collapse (ie. everything dies). The utility of cycle theory is you only need to be in the second cycle to make predictions using the first. So assuming 100 years ago (only) is a close approximation of our today then we can predict the rise of Authoritarianism now. Seeing Trump and the EU shows that. And since the left and right can do Authoritarianism this isn't surprising despite EU and Trump being opposites.
>Aristocracy is good, elitism isn't.
All of this is true, but intrinsic in every romanticizing of an ideology is the assumption that humans can be molded into being their best. In practice bad humans always emerge and act as cancer in any "perfect" and pervert it by locating its Achilles heal. The saying "communism has never been tried" is not just a untruth, but also a truth because we can never do any pure ideology because chaos undoes us and our structures, always.
>Rationalism causes the questioning of common values
Agreed. I don't object to there being destructive thoughts, but the video fails to point out that there are also destructive emotions too. So I am forced to divide high emotions/thoughts from low emotions/thoughts. The "low" is self-centered and so divides society into fragments ("there is more than 2 two genders" -- this show both low thought and low emotion). High thoughts/emotions are spiritual longings, the feeling and thought to become more angelic, Christ-like, nationalistic, globalistic, etc., despite it being unreachable fantasy. Unity of society comes from trying to obtain the non-existing better. This is the ladder we try to build upwards away from being chaos and "rule of the jungle" Nature. This is why faith is important, and and probably why rationalization is being considered destructive.
>Rationalism is the cancer killing society, feeling isn't.
Disagree that rationalization is the lone destroyer. "Refugees welcome" is a feeling. It's the innate feeling that humans are good, and that prosperity always exists. This comes on average from the youth (whose existence has been mostly free stuff from parents), women (who have an instinct to be mothers to all, even more so when they don't plan to be actual mothers), and in successful rich societies (because they don't realize that the prosperity came from when the demographics had high workers per pensioner ratios, which the non-mothers have since destroyed). It is the origin of communism, and it is why communism will never die. Most definitely feelings can destroy just as thoughts can. Everything has within it a duality (or more). Everything is a sword that cuts both ways.
>Aristocracy
An element of the plebs will be looking to have a French Revolution. Entropy likes to smooth things out. Nothing lasts because chaos/entropy is the base we all are standing on, and it's why everything will fall over. Even nature can't make a perpetual life/existence. A successful society adds energy to individualism which is the same as adding energy to chaos. A successful society is a boiling jug of water. That cohesion of water becomes the individuality of steam and is then lost back into the chaos of the atmosphere. Your Aristocracy is putting a lid back on the jug while the pressure builds and the water molecules seek escape. You would need to keep the plebs poor and low energy. Which is what we have now I suspect, anyway (Debt money, etc). You can't have hierarchy and energized citizenry, they will seek liberation.
Using the ideology compass we can say there are 4 factions (broadly speaking). Any faction ruling at any time has 25% support (probably more in its moment, but roughly speaking to make this point) and the remaining 75% join together (hello Nazis, AnCaps, Libertarians etc. on /mlpol/ your division will come soon) to chop down that 25% tree. No final victory will every exist in a battle between 4 factions of roughly equal distribution. And chaos/entropy resets ideologies to equal distribution.
Any attempt to make Utopia guarantees Dystopia as it automatically generates an equal (or more) opposite according to the rules of physics. One can say that every civilization dies, but one can also say civilization[b]S cycle in and out until they don't.
The one monkey wrench in all of this cycling is technology. We have not seen technology "die" and be "reborn" and this is a major force that is distorting the future away from the past observations. Perhaps a techo-authoritarian empire can rise (UK big brother) that is undefeatable by its plebeian slaves. But I find it unlikely, humans always rebel and destroy eventually so that even ideological distribution can re-emerge.
>>171295
>but intrinsic in every romanticizing of an ideology is the assumption that humans can be molded into being their best
This view is not common help with a traditionalist's view however. The kingdom of heaven can never be recreated on earth because utopias are static unchanging, and life is by nature something that feeds on change. To a traditionalist Utopianism and believe that all players will play their role to the best of their ability is nonsensical. You will always have bad grunts and bad generals. The plebs don't have nearly any effect when they are bad, life is about the struggle between generals as plebs it is our job to hope the good ones come to lead us.
>but the video fails to point out that there are also destructive emotions too
Emotions aren't really what destroy culture is my main takeaway. Emotions are reflections of culture. If the culture is shaky like it is today then of course emotions will illustrate themselves society by breaking apart society with hedonism and self-centeredness, both values which were rationally encouraged through the utilitarian calculus and the enlightenment ideas of life, liberality, and hedonism.
>"Refugees welcome" is a feeling
A feeling that is expressed by our culture which was twisted by rationalism. We are open to such an idea and feel it is right because the Faustian souls wishing for universalism has been twisted and morphed because of rationalism breaking what this original feeling of exploration and longing for infinite space has become a sick cosmopolitanism. Like I said feelings are a reflection on culture, on the soul of a nation. Rationalism hurts and kills that soul and turns it into stone through laws, things that once didn't have to exist, such as the norm that gay marriage was wrong, then had to be confided because it rang hollow in the nations soul. Because of that the laws didn't exist for much longer. Same with culture it'll then turn to law and then disappear.
>plebs
On the contrary India lets a great counter example with their caste system and its continuous existence. Citizens here only seek "liberation" because hierarchy has been questioned and hurt by rationalism. But it'll come back, not to worry, after all you can see it coming back today with how people treat the "public servants." Soon these men can throw off the vial and restore order and the hierarchy of spirit missing from the west. Liberalism may have us believing that we entropy will create an environment where things like hierarchy will be leveled and destroyed but the truth is that as long as energy is being pumped into a system life will play its course and created even greater edges between those fit and not. This discord express itself best in hierarchy, which we'd be foolish not to embrace, after all we are only human, and to attempt to fight our nature would be striving for a utopian ideal out of our reach.
>but intrinsic in every romanticizing of an ideology is the assumption that humans can be molded into being their best
This view is not common help with a traditionalist's view however. The kingdom of heaven can never be recreated on earth because utopias are static unchanging, and life is by nature something that feeds on change. To a traditionalist Utopianism and believe that all players will play their role to the best of their ability is nonsensical. You will always have bad grunts and bad generals. The plebs don't have nearly any effect when they are bad, life is about the struggle between generals as plebs it is our job to hope the good ones come to lead us.
>but the video fails to point out that there are also destructive emotions too
Emotions aren't really what destroy culture is my main takeaway. Emotions are reflections of culture. If the culture is shaky like it is today then of course emotions will illustrate themselves society by breaking apart society with hedonism and self-centeredness, both values which were rationally encouraged through the utilitarian calculus and the enlightenment ideas of life, liberality, and hedonism.
>"Refugees welcome" is a feeling
A feeling that is expressed by our culture which was twisted by rationalism. We are open to such an idea and feel it is right because the Faustian souls wishing for universalism has been twisted and morphed because of rationalism breaking what this original feeling of exploration and longing for infinite space has become a sick cosmopolitanism. Like I said feelings are a reflection on culture, on the soul of a nation. Rationalism hurts and kills that soul and turns it into stone through laws, things that once didn't have to exist, such as the norm that gay marriage was wrong, then had to be confided because it rang hollow in the nations soul. Because of that the laws didn't exist for much longer. Same with culture it'll then turn to law and then disappear.
>plebs
On the contrary India lets a great counter example with their caste system and its continuous existence. Citizens here only seek "liberation" because hierarchy has been questioned and hurt by rationalism. But it'll come back, not to worry, after all you can see it coming back today with how people treat the "public servants." Soon these men can throw off the vial and restore order and the hierarchy of spirit missing from the west. Liberalism may have us believing that we entropy will create an environment where things like hierarchy will be leveled and destroyed but the truth is that as long as energy is being pumped into a system life will play its course and created even greater edges between those fit and not. This discord express itself best in hierarchy, which we'd be foolish not to embrace, after all we are only human, and to attempt to fight our nature would be striving for a utopian ideal out of our reach.
>>171298
>The kingdom of heaven can never be recreated on earth because utopias are static unchanging, and life is by nature something that feeds on change.
Yep.
>life is about the struggle between generals as plebs it is our job to hope the good ones come to lead us
>hope
"Optimism is cowardice"
Your utopia breaks right there. A meritocracy is a fantastic idea. It's a shame humans are deceiving predators that will predate upon the system.
>A feeling that is expressed by our culture which was twisted by rationalism.
I'd be more comfortable with the statement: "The loss of unifying fantasy destroys unified culture/civilization." I think that the objective view of actual reality is black pilling. To void the black pill you have to have the fantasy of (unifying, purpose giving) hope, despite its illogic. A rich society has the free time to uncover its delusion of its optimism.
As a tangent I have been exploring the black pill and I have found something odd. It's best shown in what should be the darkest of music, "funeral doom metal" ( >>171111 → ) sounds like new age music. The very darkest point in the black seems to become its opposite. I do not think that intellectualizing is the doom bringer although it does much destruction to our unifying fantasies (traditions). I suspect that if we actually faced dismal reality the reaction is to fight against the ever persistent chaos/entropy in everything. Its this failure then to go into the final intellectualization, which stops us from becoming the ubermench. We flee back to communistic-utopian-traditional-gov/god will save us and *I* will never have to face that *I* have to be *my* saviour. That *I* have to maintain *my* part of civilization. The problem with "traditional values" solution is that it falls apart under scrutiny and so the "solution" is to stop being "intellectual". I am personally "offended" :P . Spengler has the problem correct, and "Optimism is cowardice" will never end producing ironic(?) joy in my heart and mind but the escape back to fragile fantasy imagery is invalid as history, and hence cycles, keep showing. I want to paint the world black https://youtu.be/RYPWxymohWs and have humans give up hope in god and gov and the universe and "people are good". If we give up hope ("Optimism *is* cowardice!!!!!!") we become the god/gov/parent/savior we need in a "evil" heartless destructive universe. By extension I am forced by my bias to say neo-intellectualism is good and neo-emotional fantasies are bad.
The reality is likely to be that a mix of emotions and intellect causes conflict. Neo-emotional traditional 'culture' can have cohesion. And a neo-intellectual scientific 'civilization' could have cohesion as it efficiently exploits nature. The problem is neither of the extremes can exist because the humans can never be intelect alone nor emotion alone and so is perpetually at war with itself and therefore raises above itself a meta-war as culture/civilization cycles away/to each one. The nature of some atoms/molecule creates a meta object crystal. And the nature of a perpetually dualistic human creates a perpetual cyclic 'culture'/'civilization'. There are no final solutions, just cycles and death. But for a time we have youth-middle age in which the spring/summer shines on us. Optimism IS cowardice. The Universe/physics is an unyielding enemy of life and by extension, culture/civilization. Fight the Universe!
>India
https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/destroy-indias-caste-system-before-it-destroys-india/
Every existing thing has its opposite tearing it down. Eventually the Indian caste system will fall. Everything cycles/dies. And the harder any ideology tries to persist it becomes extremist and thereby smaller until it is overrun. The Indian gov will continue to push against the caste system and will eventually take it out. The caste system is over a thousand years old and will fall very slowly over a thousand+ years (most likely). This longevity is not the same as persistence or even success. The violence in the article above is not successful civilization/culture.
>The kingdom of heaven can never be recreated on earth because utopias are static unchanging, and life is by nature something that feeds on change.
Yep.
>life is about the struggle between generals as plebs it is our job to hope the good ones come to lead us
>hope
"Optimism is cowardice"
Your utopia breaks right there. A meritocracy is a fantastic idea. It's a shame humans are deceiving predators that will predate upon the system.
>A feeling that is expressed by our culture which was twisted by rationalism.
I'd be more comfortable with the statement: "The loss of unifying fantasy destroys unified culture/civilization." I think that the objective view of actual reality is black pilling. To void the black pill you have to have the fantasy of (unifying, purpose giving) hope, despite its illogic. A rich society has the free time to uncover its delusion of its optimism.
As a tangent I have been exploring the black pill and I have found something odd. It's best shown in what should be the darkest of music, "funeral doom metal" ( >>171111 → ) sounds like new age music. The very darkest point in the black seems to become its opposite. I do not think that intellectualizing is the doom bringer although it does much destruction to our unifying fantasies (traditions). I suspect that if we actually faced dismal reality the reaction is to fight against the ever persistent chaos/entropy in everything. Its this failure then to go into the final intellectualization, which stops us from becoming the ubermench. We flee back to communistic-utopian-traditional-gov/god will save us and *I* will never have to face that *I* have to be *my* saviour. That *I* have to maintain *my* part of civilization. The problem with "traditional values" solution is that it falls apart under scrutiny and so the "solution" is to stop being "intellectual". I am personally "offended" :P . Spengler has the problem correct, and "Optimism is cowardice" will never end producing ironic(?) joy in my heart and mind but the escape back to fragile fantasy imagery is invalid as history, and hence cycles, keep showing. I want to paint the world black https://youtu.be/RYPWxymohWs and have humans give up hope in god and gov and the universe and "people are good". If we give up hope ("Optimism *is* cowardice!!!!!!") we become the god/gov/parent/savior we need in a "evil" heartless destructive universe. By extension I am forced by my bias to say neo-intellectualism is good and neo-emotional fantasies are bad.
The reality is likely to be that a mix of emotions and intellect causes conflict. Neo-emotional traditional 'culture' can have cohesion. And a neo-intellectual scientific 'civilization' could have cohesion as it efficiently exploits nature. The problem is neither of the extremes can exist because the humans can never be intelect alone nor emotion alone and so is perpetually at war with itself and therefore raises above itself a meta-war as culture/civilization cycles away/to each one. The nature of some atoms/molecule creates a meta object crystal. And the nature of a perpetually dualistic human creates a perpetual cyclic 'culture'/'civilization'. There are no final solutions, just cycles and death. But for a time we have youth-middle age in which the spring/summer shines on us. Optimism IS cowardice. The Universe/physics is an unyielding enemy of life and by extension, culture/civilization. Fight the Universe!
>India
https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/destroy-indias-caste-system-before-it-destroys-india/
Every existing thing has its opposite tearing it down. Eventually the Indian caste system will fall. Everything cycles/dies. And the harder any ideology tries to persist it becomes extremist and thereby smaller until it is overrun. The Indian gov will continue to push against the caste system and will eventually take it out. The caste system is over a thousand years old and will fall very slowly over a thousand+ years (most likely). This longevity is not the same as persistence or even success. The violence in the article above is not successful civilization/culture.
>>171303
>hope
That was the point of the statement.
>The loss of unifying fantasy destroys unified culture/civilization
But this statement is not true. Mind destroys soul when mind has the chance. Soul is the becoming and mind is the become. The creation of a unifying fantasy is the as a fantasy is the death of the becoming and is the become. The primordial soul of this however is the form in which it expresses itself through, a Platonic form which defers from every high culture. This is not a fantasy but a form. When it goes from form to fantasy in which longs for the form that has been lost then its already dead and become.
>Tangent
Disagree with the assertion for it so I really can't comment.
>Eventually the Indian caste system will fall
India's prime symbol of their culture is void. It can be seen with how all their statues are close eyed and their philosophy touches on it the most. It can also be seen with how their peoples have been invaded so many times but kept to a tradition more ancient and have expanded upon it with those who come in. Their embrace of hierarchy and that status quo as an inevitability is a reflection of this. No matter how much western powers attempt to influence it India as a form won't really ever get ride of the caste system. Maybe the west will have it drop it because our culture has driven into it, but India will fall back like everything does into the void.
>hope
That was the point of the statement.
>The loss of unifying fantasy destroys unified culture/civilization
But this statement is not true. Mind destroys soul when mind has the chance. Soul is the becoming and mind is the become. The creation of a unifying fantasy is the as a fantasy is the death of the becoming and is the become. The primordial soul of this however is the form in which it expresses itself through, a Platonic form which defers from every high culture. This is not a fantasy but a form. When it goes from form to fantasy in which longs for the form that has been lost then its already dead and become.
>Tangent
Disagree with the assertion for it so I really can't comment.
>Eventually the Indian caste system will fall
India's prime symbol of their culture is void. It can be seen with how all their statues are close eyed and their philosophy touches on it the most. It can also be seen with how their peoples have been invaded so many times but kept to a tradition more ancient and have expanded upon it with those who come in. Their embrace of hierarchy and that status quo as an inevitability is a reflection of this. No matter how much western powers attempt to influence it India as a form won't really ever get ride of the caste system. Maybe the west will have it drop it because our culture has driven into it, but India will fall back like everything does into the void.
File (): 44B6FB2ECBAEA2277D1BFE45A6117507-52246.jpg (51.0 KB, 400x255, ninja-horse.jpg)
>>171304
>>The loss of unifying fantasy destroys unified culture/civilization
>But this statement is not true. Mind destroys soul when mind has the chance.
I find this to be acceptable because I have an escape clause. Science has shown that reincarnation is likely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Reception which means it can be examined by science and logic and take us into a logic based hopeful(?) "religion" which doesn't need faith. If we reincarnate, then we have persistence when not incarnate. Facts > Faith.
The rest comes under: "Disagree with the assertion for it so I really can't comment."
I am continuing my black pilled bias towards: there is only chaos which spontaneously emerges things into existence. I reject any overarching eternal forms/gods/archetypes etc. We emerge upwards, we are not created from an on-high fall into corruption. The random has within it infinite arrangements that which can self-maintain for a time. But the only absolute is chaos... absolutely no-thing. The forms are therefore moments of persistence that crumble because chaos is unyielding and forms yield. In the end this is the same thing using different origin points. Order comes from chaos, so Chaos is the Primary. Praise Kek the Destroyer.
Of course, I am Spenglers "Winter". But I find nothing to mourn from a meta-perspective here. The clarity of Winter. The sharpness of ice. The cold absoluteness. I wish we would go further, rather than turn back to "Spring". But instead we succumb to despair, instead of reacting positively to make a new order based on fact.
Another odd thing, I note that Nature's Winter involves freezing and inactivity.. previously associated with Heaven by you. Yet civilizations Winter is associated with chaos and collapse. I'd reconsider the seasonal associations with the culture/civilization stages. What if Summer is social collapse because of its high energy entropy. If Nature's Winter is freezing, where is culture/civilizations freezing? Perhaps when it's unity is unquestioned. Which then makes your "Heaven is unchanging" make sense. Heaven is cold, Hell is hot. So many ways to play with this. Oh! Hi Chaos welcome to this thread.
Winter deserves celebration just like the other seasons, and is a necessary part of cycling. Endings are needed because the Universal Chaos/Entropy corrupts ALL things. Because of this everything must die or it becomes a undead zombie.
I love you Civilizational Winter-chan. Thank you for your destructions of the eternal evil that grows in all and allowing the re-attempt of perfection (that can never be reached).
https://youtu.be/sH1BpsB9Bks
>...will fall back like everything does into the void.
Heat Death is coming! SOON! There is no void. Energy does not disappear. There probably cannot be a smooth energy field either, quantum flux keeps chaos going and forms emerging. The Universe dies and is reborn by the eventual fluke.
>>The loss of unifying fantasy destroys unified culture/civilization
>But this statement is not true. Mind destroys soul when mind has the chance.
I find this to be acceptable because I have an escape clause. Science has shown that reincarnation is likely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Reception which means it can be examined by science and logic and take us into a logic based hopeful(?) "religion" which doesn't need faith. If we reincarnate, then we have persistence when not incarnate. Facts > Faith.
The rest comes under: "Disagree with the assertion for it so I really can't comment."
I am continuing my black pilled bias towards: there is only chaos which spontaneously emerges things into existence. I reject any overarching eternal forms/gods/archetypes etc. We emerge upwards, we are not created from an on-high fall into corruption. The random has within it infinite arrangements that which can self-maintain for a time. But the only absolute is chaos... absolutely no-thing. The forms are therefore moments of persistence that crumble because chaos is unyielding and forms yield. In the end this is the same thing using different origin points. Order comes from chaos, so Chaos is the Primary. Praise Kek the Destroyer.
Of course, I am Spenglers "Winter". But I find nothing to mourn from a meta-perspective here. The clarity of Winter. The sharpness of ice. The cold absoluteness. I wish we would go further, rather than turn back to "Spring". But instead we succumb to despair, instead of reacting positively to make a new order based on fact.
Another odd thing, I note that Nature's Winter involves freezing and inactivity.. previously associated with Heaven by you. Yet civilizations Winter is associated with chaos and collapse. I'd reconsider the seasonal associations with the culture/civilization stages. What if Summer is social collapse because of its high energy entropy. If Nature's Winter is freezing, where is culture/civilizations freezing? Perhaps when it's unity is unquestioned. Which then makes your "Heaven is unchanging" make sense. Heaven is cold, Hell is hot. So many ways to play with this. Oh! Hi Chaos welcome to this thread.
Winter deserves celebration just like the other seasons, and is a necessary part of cycling. Endings are needed because the Universal Chaos/Entropy corrupts ALL things. Because of this everything must die or it becomes a undead zombie.
I love you Civilizational Winter-chan. Thank you for your destructions of the eternal evil that grows in all and allowing the re-attempt of perfection (that can never be reached).
https://youtu.be/sH1BpsB9Bks
>...will fall back like everything does into the void.
Heat Death is coming! SOON! There is no void. Energy does not disappear. There probably cannot be a smooth energy field either, quantum flux keeps chaos going and forms emerging. The Universe dies and is reborn by the eventual fluke.
>>171307
>Energy does not disappear.
Oh you poor sweet child, it does, information can be destroyed as seen with black holes destroying information, which means conservation of energy is a lie, which means that matter can be destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
>Energy does not disappear.
Oh you poor sweet child, it does, information can be destroyed as seen with black holes destroying information, which means conservation of energy is a lie, which means that matter can be destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
>>171308
I am not sure that information and energy are interchangeable words/ideas. Information is an arrangement of energy, I don't see why an arrangement of energy can't disappear, but the energy persist informationless. Black holes also evaporate with "Hawking Radiation" basically the chaos can even destroy black holes. Chaos wins every time.
I am not sure that information and energy are interchangeable words/ideas. Information is an arrangement of energy, I don't see why an arrangement of energy can't disappear, but the energy persist informationless. Black holes also evaporate with "Hawking Radiation" basically the chaos can even destroy black holes. Chaos wins every time.
>>171308
And then to make us both wrong:
>In 2004 Hawking himself conceded a bet he had made, agreeing that black hole evaporation does in fact preserve information.
from your wiki link.
And then to make us both wrong:
>In 2004 Hawking himself conceded a bet he had made, agreeing that black hole evaporation does in fact preserve information.
from your wiki link.
>>171309
>not sure that information and energy are interchangeable words/ideas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
Void is nothingness, light is concrete and ideas. Light and dark, something and nothing. Metaphysically light is something and darkness is nothing. Ideas are reality, while nothing isn't reality. Everything sinks back into nothing in the end.
>>171310
>Hawking conceded
Doesn't make him right or wrong there are a lot of different interpretations from plenty of other scientists on the entire thing. The entire thing just does well to illustrate what I metaphysically believe.
>not sure that information and energy are interchangeable words/ideas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
Void is nothingness, light is concrete and ideas. Light and dark, something and nothing. Metaphysically light is something and darkness is nothing. Ideas are reality, while nothing isn't reality. Everything sinks back into nothing in the end.
>>171310
>Hawking conceded
Doesn't make him right or wrong there are a lot of different interpretations from plenty of other scientists on the entire thing. The entire thing just does well to illustrate what I metaphysically believe.
File (): 750C00365082D4D646332725920CBF11-80019.jpg (78.1 KB, 512x512, unnamed.jpg)
>>171311
Your intellectualizations are destroying civilization!! Stop it!! You are creating division by these acts of thinking! Repent to your God!
Your intellectualizations are destroying civilization!! Stop it!! You are creating division by these acts of thinking! Repent to your God!
>>171312
>intellectualizations are destroying civilization
There isn't anything left to destroy at this point tbh. Besides I'm an accelerationist.
>intellectualizations are destroying civilization
There isn't anything left to destroy at this point tbh. Besides I'm an accelerationist.
File (): D1EFF76120CCE76C9649C4EA5CCCB1F3-1636778.png (1.6 MB, 1101x725, winterchanwave.png)
File (): C11A97A3EE02F8CE56FAFE31C19C7703-103276.jpg (100.9 KB, 1408x792, winter-is-coming.jpg)
>>171313
You are a cycle maker!!! Let me chase you around in a circle to destroy you making cycles!! The only peace is the peace of Wintery Death/Heaven of the central axis!! Why don't you want to go to Heavenly death?
You are a cycle maker!!! Let me chase you around in a circle to destroy you making cycles!! The only peace is the peace of Wintery Death/Heaven of the central axis!! Why don't you want to go to Heavenly death?
>>171314
The circle is a lie its how you simply order chaos and order. Chaos and order are just things that remain inside of visible light. The unknown is where its at my nigger. Space destroys time, with the space cultures fall time will end and the universe will be free of light and all Platonic forms.
The circle is a lie its how you simply order chaos and order. Chaos and order are just things that remain inside of visible light. The unknown is where its at my nigger. Space destroys time, with the space cultures fall time will end and the universe will be free of light and all Platonic forms.
File (): 5E0C21058D3B70593148AB129193F64D-110165.jpg (107.6 KB, 1280x720, Andromeda-solar-avatar.jpg)
>>171315
>The circle is a lie its how you simply order chaos and order.
Anything I say is how I order something. Is it objectively there? Sometimes.
>Chaos and order are just things that remain inside of visible light.
Might have to dispute that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
>The unknown is where its at my nigger.
So we will never be at at then.
"To know him is to love him is know him" - Data.
>Space destroys time, with the space cultures fall time will end and the universe will be free of light and all Platonic forms.
Wat!? Space destroys time? Space-time is just 4 dimensions. Where is this space culture? Us? The suns are our allies! Support the Solar Reich, and push back the night and chaos! Gravity and Life forever!
>The circle is a lie its how you simply order chaos and order.
Anything I say is how I order something. Is it objectively there? Sometimes.
>Chaos and order are just things that remain inside of visible light.
Might have to dispute that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
>The unknown is where its at my nigger.
So we will never be at at then.
"To know him is to love him is know him" - Data.
>Space destroys time, with the space cultures fall time will end and the universe will be free of light and all Platonic forms.
Wat!? Space destroys time? Space-time is just 4 dimensions. Where is this space culture? Us? The suns are our allies! Support the Solar Reich, and push back the night and chaos! Gravity and Life forever!
>>171317
>Is it objectively there?
Nope their are facts but not truths.
>Might have to dispute that.
Sorta proves my point.
>Space-time is just 4 dimensions.
Time and space are opposites like how light and dark, chaos and order, soul and thought. One is the becoming the other the become. Darkness, soul, chaos, and time are the becoming, and space, order, thought, and light are the become.
>Is it objectively there?
Nope their are facts but not truths.
>Might have to dispute that.
Sorta proves my point.
>Space-time is just 4 dimensions.
Time and space are opposites like how light and dark, chaos and order, soul and thought. One is the becoming the other the become. Darkness, soul, chaos, and time are the becoming, and space, order, thought, and light are the become.
File (): D7D5AB6A4F6634107804718113A05BB9-42968.jpg (42.0 KB, 736x490, 1534950653936.jpg)
>>171318
>Nope there are facts but not truths.
... divide by 0 error ...
I assume this means facts are transitory but real and Truths are eternal.
>Time and space are opposites like how light and dark, chaos and order, soul and thought. One is the becoming the other the become. Darkness, soul, chaos, and time are the becoming, and space, order, thought, and light are the become.
And at this point it is just how we choose to categorize things in our head. Nice table.
My table is better than your table! :P
For my UFO propulsion hypothesis to work time has to already exist in the future. Therefore I can't accept your table as it destroys my previous hypothesising.
And all of this thinking shows how we have both destroyed the cultural unity of this thread. And further accelerated the civilizational winter! At the end you and I are allies in the destruction of civilization. You with accelerationalism (you anarchist!) and me with my embracing of the black pill (you cuck!). Did you get your skull shoulder pads yet? You murderer of all that is good!!
>Nope there are facts but not truths.
... divide by 0 error ...
I assume this means facts are transitory but real and Truths are eternal.
>Time and space are opposites like how light and dark, chaos and order, soul and thought. One is the becoming the other the become. Darkness, soul, chaos, and time are the becoming, and space, order, thought, and light are the become.
And at this point it is just how we choose to categorize things in our head. Nice table.
My table is better than your table! :P
For my UFO propulsion hypothesis to work time has to already exist in the future. Therefore I can't accept your table as it destroys my previous hypothesising.
And all of this thinking shows how we have both destroyed the cultural unity of this thread. And further accelerated the civilizational winter! At the end you and I are allies in the destruction of civilization. You with accelerationalism (you anarchist!) and me with my embracing of the black pill (you cuck!). Did you get your skull shoulder pads yet? You murderer of all that is good!!
>>171319
>I assume this means facts are transitory but real and Truths are eternal.
It means that lived reality has facts. But abstracts and congnizing things are truths which are relative. Only to the Faustian soul are truths universal and that's because it cannot stand things within its infinite space being otherwise.
>My table is better than your table
Also the fact that you even need to compare shows the dementedness of the faustian soul in two other forms I did not mention, infite space (direction or movement is a better word but Spengler refers to the Faustian soul as a drive for infiite Space) and classical man's body. It is very Faustian to claim x is better if its mine because they need things to be universal, and if there is truth to them then it need be universal as if its a fact. Wheres for the classical man this was the opposite which is why Greek and Roman pantheons easily accepted conquered God's into their temples as long as they accepted their own as well. My system is very Platonic which has its ups and down but I like thinking of things symbolically and thinking of how these forms can be seen everywhere. I loved that they showed up in Spengler's work showing me that I've been onto something.
>I assume this means facts are transitory but real and Truths are eternal.
It means that lived reality has facts. But abstracts and congnizing things are truths which are relative. Only to the Faustian soul are truths universal and that's because it cannot stand things within its infinite space being otherwise.
>My table is better than your table
Also the fact that you even need to compare shows the dementedness of the faustian soul in two other forms I did not mention, infite space (direction or movement is a better word but Spengler refers to the Faustian soul as a drive for infiite Space) and classical man's body. It is very Faustian to claim x is better if its mine because they need things to be universal, and if there is truth to them then it need be universal as if its a fact. Wheres for the classical man this was the opposite which is why Greek and Roman pantheons easily accepted conquered God's into their temples as long as they accepted their own as well. My system is very Platonic which has its ups and down but I like thinking of things symbolically and thinking of how these forms can be seen everywhere. I loved that they showed up in Spengler's work showing me that I've been onto something.
>>171320
Symbolism allows us to efficiently store information. Its zipping all the data into a smaller size in our head. Holographic storage in our brain. Alike things may or may not act alike in each situation. Our heads can't hold all the possibilities so we are reduced to making inadequate symbolic models of the world. If they work well enough they go on, otherwise not.
We can go a long way contorting the world data onto our substandard inner model, and there can be multiple different models that work well enough. Newtons Laws work well enough. You and I both being alive with different models shows that. No-one will ever have a true model of reality in their head.
We all die stupid.
Symbolism allows us to efficiently store information. Its zipping all the data into a smaller size in our head. Holographic storage in our brain. Alike things may or may not act alike in each situation. Our heads can't hold all the possibilities so we are reduced to making inadequate symbolic models of the world. If they work well enough they go on, otherwise not.
We can go a long way contorting the world data onto our substandard inner model, and there can be multiple different models that work well enough. Newtons Laws work well enough. You and I both being alive with different models shows that. No-one will ever have a true model of reality in their head.
We all die stupid.
>>171322
>Symbolism allows us to efficiently store information
Store information for what? People biological beings? For observes of the universe? Seems to me more or less like your rationalizing this idea in such a way that your removing its meaning so I don't think I'll accept that statement.
>Symbolism allows us to efficiently store information
Store information for what? People biological beings? For observes of the universe? Seems to me more or less like your rationalizing this idea in such a way that your removing its meaning so I don't think I'll accept that statement.
>>171323
It does serve a purpose. When I think of a symbol.. lets say, cat. I can't use a domestic cat as a accurate way to describe a lion. I get a decent approximation but not reality. A lion is unique from a domestic cat. But running from a large house cat (lion) is a good idea anyway despite them being different!
We can't fit the Universe in our head, but we can hammer it into categories and store the categories. Very useful, very meaningful, a mere shadow of the fullness of reality.
It does serve a purpose. When I think of a symbol.. lets say, cat. I can't use a domestic cat as a accurate way to describe a lion. I get a decent approximation but not reality. A lion is unique from a domestic cat. But running from a large house cat (lion) is a good idea anyway despite them being different!
We can't fit the Universe in our head, but we can hammer it into categories and store the categories. Very useful, very meaningful, a mere shadow of the fullness of reality.
File (): E4961072D53CBFF0495387A8A86A3D99-36385.png (35.5 KB, 1000x1000, anon-filly-smile.png)
>>171327
Okay. I need to run... entropy is attacking me and I have to go re-establish order. Thanks for the chat. Suns > Void. :)
Okay. I need to run... entropy is attacking me and I have to go re-establish order. Thanks for the chat. Suns > Void. :)
>>168522
I'm'a bump this, because I intended to respond to some posts here, but never got around to doing it
I'm'a bump this, because I intended to respond to some posts here, but never got around to doing it
File (): 1C4E7151068FAD87A426AF320E13C0C7-13897.png (13.6 KB, 561x437, autistic scribble.png)
>>169153
Holy shit, I've come out of that English worldview and into something like the Kant/Hegel worldview through my own thinking (and use of psychedelic drugs).
It started in high school when I learned that color was something your brain imposed on the world. Uncontroversial fact. That seed began to germinate and extend towards things like sound, light, etc. I had the world of experience on one hand, then what I called the "Dark World", which was lightless, soundless, and made of physical objects bumping into each other.
Now, getting comfortable in my adulthood and starting to feel mature, the Dark World began to dissolve, and I started to see the world as a totally human thing. The world became one thing again, the "Human World", although I never named it that until now. I figure there probably is a "real world" out there, behaving mechanistically, but there doesn't need to be, and it wouldn't "look" anything like our world, or even have much bearing on what matters to us.
Now I'm turning from a straight Atheist-materialist into some kind of weird occultist (see pic). I can't help but feel like a retard though, especially having gone through a fedora-tipping phase. I still have all of that Rationality in me, screaming at me, but I also feel the icy cold of the godless world that Nietzsche elucidated in his madman parable. An excerpt:
"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."
I HAVE to try to exist in that "higher history" and make my own religious system, but I'm human! I can't trust myself, or any other human, to establish or identify a source of divinity. That's why the god of Christianity is all-knowing and all-powerful. Even if it's all bullshit, it gives believers a point of absolute reference from which they can build a coherent and meaningful life narrative. That's a very important thing to have. Without it your whole culture starts to rot. If I was only a little more ignorant, or arrogant! It's like I've laid eyes on Cthulhu, and the aweful memory comes back to suffocate me whenever I get too quiet and still.
For now, I've decided the best I can do is to pretend (like a method-actor) that observing pagan gods and rituals is a perfectly sensible thing to do. I can make tense peace with my rationality with the pragmatic life-narrative argument that I laid out earlier. I'm just trying it, and seeing what happens. I've been satisfied to the extent that I can give myself up to the practice. I've had some spooky stuff happen to me. Even just going outside and looking at the sky, or very closely at the ground, or listening to music that isn't culturally bankrupt. The gods are still alive in there, in pieces.
Can anyone relate? I have no fucking idea what I'm going to teach my kids.
Holy shit, I've come out of that English worldview and into something like the Kant/Hegel worldview through my own thinking (and use of psychedelic drugs).
It started in high school when I learned that color was something your brain imposed on the world. Uncontroversial fact. That seed began to germinate and extend towards things like sound, light, etc. I had the world of experience on one hand, then what I called the "Dark World", which was lightless, soundless, and made of physical objects bumping into each other.
Now, getting comfortable in my adulthood and starting to feel mature, the Dark World began to dissolve, and I started to see the world as a totally human thing. The world became one thing again, the "Human World", although I never named it that until now. I figure there probably is a "real world" out there, behaving mechanistically, but there doesn't need to be, and it wouldn't "look" anything like our world, or even have much bearing on what matters to us.
Now I'm turning from a straight Atheist-materialist into some kind of weird occultist (see pic). I can't help but feel like a retard though, especially having gone through a fedora-tipping phase. I still have all of that Rationality in me, screaming at me, but I also feel the icy cold of the godless world that Nietzsche elucidated in his madman parable. An excerpt:
"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."
I HAVE to try to exist in that "higher history" and make my own religious system, but I'm human! I can't trust myself, or any other human, to establish or identify a source of divinity. That's why the god of Christianity is all-knowing and all-powerful. Even if it's all bullshit, it gives believers a point of absolute reference from which they can build a coherent and meaningful life narrative. That's a very important thing to have. Without it your whole culture starts to rot. If I was only a little more ignorant, or arrogant! It's like I've laid eyes on Cthulhu, and the aweful memory comes back to suffocate me whenever I get too quiet and still.
For now, I've decided the best I can do is to pretend (like a method-actor) that observing pagan gods and rituals is a perfectly sensible thing to do. I can make tense peace with my rationality with the pragmatic life-narrative argument that I laid out earlier. I'm just trying it, and seeing what happens. I've been satisfied to the extent that I can give myself up to the practice. I've had some spooky stuff happen to me. Even just going outside and looking at the sky, or very closely at the ground, or listening to music that isn't culturally bankrupt. The gods are still alive in there, in pieces.
Can anyone relate? I have no fucking idea what I'm going to teach my kids.
>>188433
Sorta similar experience here, but instead of psychedelics its been dreams and nightmares for me. Pushed me out of what you call the world of man, and into the dark world as you call them. I've come up a bit with a system, its sorta Platonic but I think it for the most part describes what your thinking and gives a helpful implication on where your next steps should be (it helped lead me this way at least.)
You can think of the world very similar to your own description of it, a human world (I call the fact world), the dark world (I call the rational world), but I have another plane of existence above both called the divine world. Think of the fact world like it is, a world of facts. We live here and see here. Everything we get out of here is through our sense, all which are facts, true to us and thus reality. However one fact may conflict with another, and often times do in this world do to other experiencing facts differently, so it is a lower form of reality.
The reason world is able to be glimpsed into by the fact world and is mathematical and logical in nature. Counting on your fingers, facts, leads to this world, counting the circumference of a circle and then its radius and the relation between leads to numerical laws, and all these lead into a glimpse of the reason world. The world of reason has laws, laws that are much harder to break then facts, ideas that are near impossible to prove wrong. But all ideas can eventually be thought to death, and then proven invalid or illogical. Reason as a world ends into doubt, at the end of the day 1=0 somehow (forgetting the name of the proof that shows this but it exists and when I'm not dead on sleep I'll post it's name.) So the reason world is a higher form of reality but still not absolute, it exists in laws and not truth.
Lastly there is the divine world, which is in fact, divine. It like counting can be seen through driving from reason into its nature as a higher plane like how using facts can break you into the reason world. Same with this, symbols form the reason world can help you enter into to divine wrold. These symbols of reason all lead back to one central item, which is what is divine. This divinity, is the plane, the highest form of what is real. It is what is real, and all that is, facts, and reason both come from it just like how facts lead to reason reason must lead to it, but what is divine needs neither fact or reason to exist.
If this is starting to sound like a God, then it is because it must be. This divine thing is our quest, but since we only really function in the fact world, or if we try really hard can sorta work in the reason we are limited in a quest of working off this divine through lower symbols. The divine is The Good, but we cannot work with The Good and must deal with a singular symbol of good, which is a good. The a good is what is talked about in Spengler Faustianism tackling a good of infinity and movement, while the Romans tackled a good of bodilyness. Our two cultures handled different a goods but both derived from The Good.
In our life we must strive for The Good, to the best of our ability, this is what we must always try for. The divine, a symbolic form of life since this is what leads us closes with The Good one in the fact world can get. This means embrace what is our a good to the best of our ability, and learn from other groups a goods to better our appreciation for our own a good and strive to make our better understanding of our a good translate into a closer relationship with The Good. Personally for me this is traditionalism and fundamentalism in your religious choice. Catholicism seems to me to be the only bridge between a good in our world view of a good and tradition and thus a closer relationship to The Good in western thought. If you are a Slav though it'd obviously be orthodoxy (not to say I wouldn't press for the inquisition on you heretics), but if your not then you'd be jumping off the a good in quest for The Good which will lead you astray.
Same goes with paganism, which is the same deal, you dump the a good in favor of chasing The Good, which means you lose all the symbols for the a good and end up with a twisted The Good, which is why it feels occultish rather then divine. The same shouldn't be done for the other way around, going all in on a good leads to nihilism since if you strive for symbols but not for the divine then your end goal is perfection in your symbol but nothing beyond that. Buddhism, Confucianism, Stoicism, and Liberalism all suffer from this and so are nihilistic and terminal. Eventually these ideas break down since they have nothing, while ideas focused on The Good lead to ideas of mixed a good and The Good which lose their way into soley a good by losing touch with the mythstic aspects of The Good. I'm sure you see the cycle.
In the end I encourage you to think about the West's a good, infinite space, and The Good, and how you can best bridge it. I'd say from my understanding Catholicism is the only thing that I really know that can, and I mean real hard core orthodox Catholicism, not the weak shit you see out of heretics.
Sorta similar experience here, but instead of psychedelics its been dreams and nightmares for me. Pushed me out of what you call the world of man, and into the dark world as you call them. I've come up a bit with a system, its sorta Platonic but I think it for the most part describes what your thinking and gives a helpful implication on where your next steps should be (it helped lead me this way at least.)
You can think of the world very similar to your own description of it, a human world (I call the fact world), the dark world (I call the rational world), but I have another plane of existence above both called the divine world. Think of the fact world like it is, a world of facts. We live here and see here. Everything we get out of here is through our sense, all which are facts, true to us and thus reality. However one fact may conflict with another, and often times do in this world do to other experiencing facts differently, so it is a lower form of reality.
The reason world is able to be glimpsed into by the fact world and is mathematical and logical in nature. Counting on your fingers, facts, leads to this world, counting the circumference of a circle and then its radius and the relation between leads to numerical laws, and all these lead into a glimpse of the reason world. The world of reason has laws, laws that are much harder to break then facts, ideas that are near impossible to prove wrong. But all ideas can eventually be thought to death, and then proven invalid or illogical. Reason as a world ends into doubt, at the end of the day 1=0 somehow (forgetting the name of the proof that shows this but it exists and when I'm not dead on sleep I'll post it's name.) So the reason world is a higher form of reality but still not absolute, it exists in laws and not truth.
Lastly there is the divine world, which is in fact, divine. It like counting can be seen through driving from reason into its nature as a higher plane like how using facts can break you into the reason world. Same with this, symbols form the reason world can help you enter into to divine wrold. These symbols of reason all lead back to one central item, which is what is divine. This divinity, is the plane, the highest form of what is real. It is what is real, and all that is, facts, and reason both come from it just like how facts lead to reason reason must lead to it, but what is divine needs neither fact or reason to exist.
If this is starting to sound like a God, then it is because it must be. This divine thing is our quest, but since we only really function in the fact world, or if we try really hard can sorta work in the reason we are limited in a quest of working off this divine through lower symbols. The divine is The Good, but we cannot work with The Good and must deal with a singular symbol of good, which is a good. The a good is what is talked about in Spengler Faustianism tackling a good of infinity and movement, while the Romans tackled a good of bodilyness. Our two cultures handled different a goods but both derived from The Good.
In our life we must strive for The Good, to the best of our ability, this is what we must always try for. The divine, a symbolic form of life since this is what leads us closes with The Good one in the fact world can get. This means embrace what is our a good to the best of our ability, and learn from other groups a goods to better our appreciation for our own a good and strive to make our better understanding of our a good translate into a closer relationship with The Good. Personally for me this is traditionalism and fundamentalism in your religious choice. Catholicism seems to me to be the only bridge between a good in our world view of a good and tradition and thus a closer relationship to The Good in western thought. If you are a Slav though it'd obviously be orthodoxy (not to say I wouldn't press for the inquisition on you heretics), but if your not then you'd be jumping off the a good in quest for The Good which will lead you astray.
Same goes with paganism, which is the same deal, you dump the a good in favor of chasing The Good, which means you lose all the symbols for the a good and end up with a twisted The Good, which is why it feels occultish rather then divine. The same shouldn't be done for the other way around, going all in on a good leads to nihilism since if you strive for symbols but not for the divine then your end goal is perfection in your symbol but nothing beyond that. Buddhism, Confucianism, Stoicism, and Liberalism all suffer from this and so are nihilistic and terminal. Eventually these ideas break down since they have nothing, while ideas focused on The Good lead to ideas of mixed a good and The Good which lose their way into soley a good by losing touch with the mythstic aspects of The Good. I'm sure you see the cycle.
In the end I encourage you to think about the West's a good, infinite space, and The Good, and how you can best bridge it. I'd say from my understanding Catholicism is the only thing that I really know that can, and I mean real hard core orthodox Catholicism, not the weak shit you see out of heretics.
39 replies | 13 files | 5 UUIDs | Archived