Heidegger, Platonism, (Anti-)Realism, and the JQ
#1
To move the discussion from the shitbox to a thread per request... Here is the latest iteration of the ongoing discussion with casual rapist wherein the JQ is proxied into a discussion between platonism, realism, and patterns of cultural formation.


Quote:[...a few hundred shitbox posts omitted...]

casual rapist: This behavior never leaves us. It defines us. And expands to include greater number of participants shaing common point of focus. The recursive process that runs among those minds present, while they try to arrive at what it is they're experiencing, is the grounds of "individuality" - the influence of each person among the group is not uniform, some people exert more influence than others. For all kinds of reasons, attributes. Height, beauty, strength. 

casual rapist: The innate nature of man is highly developed biological ability to mimic. Mimicry is basis of intuiting the internal feeling (thought) of others. Recursive mimicry within a group eventually arrives at common conclusion. More or less shared mental state / reaction vis a vis some point of focus. This is conceptualization - the thing is now a concept, delineated and defined in thought.

casual rapist: So anyway, you can see this process very easily happening among band of hunder gatherers. All participate, but some carry more weight. Concepts once formed are carried forward. You have reactions in the moment, to new phenomena, and the creation or emergence of thought / meaning. But this all starts also occuring over an ever increasing tapestry of past events or experiences likewise resolved. 

casual rapist: This is basically "tradition" or "culture" which creates the grounds for "structuring" the material world. 

casual rapist: If you look at a group of teenagers, a group of friends, this is why they will all look, dress and act similarly. They've aged through this process wtihin a family, and then move into peer groups that run the same processes.

casual rapist: When you move from "cutlure" to "civilization", you'll see devices to enlarge / expand the shared point of focus. Structures atop which a display can be seen by larger numbers of people. Dramatic, attention grabbing displays that function as formative basis for now-"professionals" to interpret what others are witnessing.

casual rapist: Here's an esoteric hot take - the illuminati all seeing eye atop a pyramid. That's not something watching you, implying you should run away and disperse. Its reversed. It's your eyes, and the collective vision, watching what is featured atop the pyramid, which is a social technology to amplify this shared focus, experiential, memetic aspect of man.

casual rapist: It's social programming, the precursor of which is shared attention.

casual rapist: Early civilization social technology. Build an elevated structure and attract attention of plebs. Do something dramatic, the minds present will engage recursive process to determine what it is. The elevated position always holds elevated influence, the primary point of memesis. The first among equals. But... it is still subject to revolt. If you can modulate conclusion recursively arrived at below. 

casual rapist: Power of elevated elite is to bring things into view, and keep other things from view. Platonism with its universals is the opposite - things have universal presence. This is not true. (and it creates the paradigm we struggle under, trying to bring information to the masses. Or the haughtiness of those who deem themselves special because they have found such information. The problem or defect is embedded by the platonic conception of reality, ontological presence.)

casual rapist: The Trump phenomenon is simply a natural extrovert that innately feels / intuits the mind of others. It's the way he himself engages the world. He doesn't read books, he reads people. He senses their values, meaings, etc. The structure of their world. Trump doesn't give a shit about gold. He paints everything gold because "gold" means something socially. As extrovert, he is inundated with such messaging, the feelings of other people. These social signals dominate his world, creating the signals he takes to know the world and himself. You like gold? Gold is good? That's what he endeavors to be. The political phenomenon is simply a man adept at this human nature who then himself stands in the center, becomes the point of focus, the prime node of memesis. 

casual rapist: A key point to recognize is that influence flows through affirmation. Memesis is based on affirmation - it is an act of affirmation, perhaps most intimate. To mimic the internal state of another is to internalize it yourself. This is comprehension.

casual rapist: The natural way this happens is that recursive imitation among a group of people originates a "concept", an idea shared by those who participate. This is a process which may contain negation but ultimately arrives at affirmation. The establishment of a concept is an affirmative conclusion, as is its further use - a re-affirmation. And concepts once created are applied to members. If the concept is synonymous with good, an ambitious member will seek to embody it, demonstrate it. And then the group members will affirm that person.

casual rapist: You get a social-participatory "structure" of participating / affirming "low" or "many" or "periphery", in relation to a "center", top, high, "elite". 

casual rapist: It's all based on memesis and is the foundation of concept formation. Trump going out in front of 20k people and ad-libbing had very specific structure. He stepped into a physical center, point of attention. But key was his sending constant affirmations out to the crowd. This engenders memesis back - the crowd sends back a signal of affirmation. This is the natural flow. Trump brings a topic into the center, into shared attention and then demonstrates how to feel about it. The crowd mimics. He rewards with a compliment, affirmation. It just goes around and around and around, and what is created is a new set of concepts, what they mean, and how they structure the world. And the people internalize and this becomes a new "logic". Has nothing to do with pre-existing, independent "facts" and data, and lectures on how it all fits together. Meaning, structure, cognition is all emergent. If you run the paradigm, you can bury existing structure of world. The limitation is usually how many people can you engage, and so form. 

casual rapist: By the way, memesis is where race comes in. If you're physical similar, biologically similar, maybe even similar neurons - this is least amount of "friction" to flow of memesis. Less friction means easier and more numerous and finer delineation within concept creation. More "culture", and more sophisitcated (delineated, meaning rich) culture.

casual rapist: Diversity is incoherence - highest friction to emergent thought

casual rapist: hard boundaries to memesis 

casual rapist: So what is BAP? He's all confused. Nietzsche is insufficient. The world is not innately intelligible. BAP is anti-collective. This might be overcompensation against collective par excellance - le juden. Nontheless, collective existence is grounds of concept formation. There is social-participatory "structure" to lines of memesis. The reason why BAP is successful at all is not because he's "right" or "correct". That's minor. It's because he engineers attractive spectacle - draws the attention. This is first step towards shared attention, recursive memesis, concept formation.

Zed: i will make a full thread responding to the point in a few days per suggestions, for now: as much i agree with some of your points, i feel like you're operating at a level of abstraction which universalizes phenomena that is not scale-invariant... the dynamics of family differ from the dynamics of a small community differ from that of a city differ from that of a state differ from that of a large nation - one observes at each level of scale new emergent structures. but maybe the most notable one is that of fragmentation, bifurcation, and divergence. this is ofc the history of rome, the history of latin, the history of the reformation, the history of communism, and also the history of modern internet subcultures. every genealogy is a tree.

Zed: when people are removed from each other, even just in time 'n space (let alone class, race, or any other sociological grouping) - they trend towards divergent directions in every aspect of culture and life. the JQ as you present it presupposes the jew as formally and permanently sitting outside of a homogenized aryan culture - but the homogeneity there is largely illusory, and the lines of separation are in practice very blurry... the tastes and culture of NYC art kids and columbia students will never align with that of the rural white in kansas - even if they have some shared markers (say protestant christanity), their views and there cultures will naturally evolve along separate trajectories. naturally, this will also occur along class lines - and any elite is destined towards a hostility towards the middle as economic interests diverge.

Zed: if one has imperial ambitions, and looks towards empire, one makes peace with this - as Rome did. the shared context that underlines your frame - that makes mimesis possible - is simply impossible at scale. cultural and community unity have a ceiling (there is a word for this, but i forget it) where the breakdown naturally and inevitably occurs. the 'Jew' is the eternal easy target when the divergence reaches it's tipping point, because they exhibit overt cultural markers of separation --- but also because it is frankly easier to generate a stigma against a perceived an external group than face the feeling of betrayal by one's own elite. 

Zed: in the end, wherever the Jews have been judged to be up to no-good - it is always the case that it was done with the tacit approval and support of the ruling 'white' elite (who were doing much the same, or found the Jews useful to their ends). such is the history of white slavery in Spain, and pretty much every other case I know of.

Zed: ofc, Jewish enthonarcissism is very real and goes a good deal towards shitting up the socius, and they've never done themselves any favors by collectively historically denying their fuckery. the sense of victimization is too great to permit such an acknowledgement. at least that was how it was historically. in the present, the modern american jew blurs into white along gradient boundaries, rather than seperates from it in a distinctive way that enables ez categorical seperation. this was always somewhat the case, but perhaps only more so now... anyways, to circleback, i think the principal bifurcation point between you and someone like BAP is that what you desire is a smaller scale cultural ethnostate (akin to Japan) -- and BAP speaks and dreams of empire. the two visions are very different, as are the means towards their creation.

Zed: if your language is one of a shared cultural tapestry, his is of tribunes and prefects appointed to manage (by force, if necessary). it's not a perfect description,, but it is roughly the direction the respective frames seem to point.

Zed: ...i apologize for essay dropping in the shitbox, intended this to be a single message and then.... yeah

Zed: let me go make that thread

And here we are. I'll flush out a response to some of the other points raised later.
#2
This doesn't make enough sense for me to respond to.

However, somebody said "Platonism". Perhaps the gods compelled you to say it.

It is worth mentioning that I have declared the First Templist Crusade Against Neo-Platonism.

An ideology born of meaningless abstractions, unobservable concepts, the first taste of Eastern thought that the West had the misfortune to receive.

And now many pagans claim to justify some kind of paganism through it.

The crusade begins with the following tweet, and the attached document refuting Neo-Platonist Alexander Iulianus.

It was prefaced by this tweet, which the Neo-Platonists responded to despite the irony. Displaying their willingness to entertain nonsensical ideas, and thus to believe or to pretend to believe the ideas of Plotinus et al.

To go crusading involves such activities as I have already engaged in, aggressive deconstruction of their ideas, or the mere words that they call ideas.
#3
(12-30-2022, 01:10 PM)The_Author Wrote: To go crusading involves such activities as I have already engaged in, aggressive deconstruction of their ideas, or the mere words that they call ideas.


[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usQA_EodMj4]


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)