What I truly Believe . . .
honey moon groyper
The vast majority of our analytic efforts are geared towards cultural, political, and racial subjects. However effective our criticisms and polemicizing may be, we cannot be contented with this. The necessity of a positive vision remains. This is not the same as a "plan," like the ones discussed already in threads here and twitter. Rather, I am addressing the question of Worldview. What is real? What is good? These questions lie at the heart of our disputes amongst each other regarding any plans we make. If we do not take this seriously, then we should only expect to fail when it comes time to execute our plans.
It is therefore necessary that each man lay out an orderly account of the world. I am not the first one to suggest something along these lines. Rockies gets the credit for the title of this thread. He uses it as the title of an imagined retrospective memoir written after We Win. Lindy Observer (I am 99% sure it was him, but I cannot find the tweet now) has said that he plans to write a book along these lines eventually. This issue comes up peripherally in many of the other threads too. So far I have not seen anyone really make an attempt to tease out the core issues. This is my attempt.
[Image: 71ceeb8e8e692cbc1ef98ad5fc2e89ebfd902cee.png]
Nietzsche was and is still the man of the hour. His thoughts regarding the topic of this thread are summed up nicely in this meme. To elaborate, the vast majority of philosophy and theology is ultimately absurd. Nevertheless, humans need a mythology to thrive just as much as they need water and air. Therefore, the men which understand this ought to come up with a mythology which they know is ultimately absurd, but will result have a net positive biological affect on the race and enforce it on the people.
I am guessing that most of that is not controversial among this crowd, but that seems to be at least partially driven by a lack of interest in some of the more radical philosophical implications of Nietzsche's comments.
What are your first principles?
Do you believe in grammar?
Do you believe in the laws of logic? (non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity)
Hatsune Miku Clitoridectomy Groyper
Meritocracy, Misogyny and Middle-schoolers.
anthony
If I can't talk to someone I don't want them. From there everything works itself out. None of this is hard.
turnip
You pose an important question, as I feel many are led astray by bad metaphysics or other confusions. It's kind of hard to address such broad philosophical questions in a context like this however, because there is always the difficulty of choosing where to start. In lieu of that, I will quote this passage from Blood Meridian which I feel adequately sums up my view of things:

Quote:The question was then put as to whether there were on Mars or other planets in the void men or creatures like them and at this the judge who had returned to the fire and stood half naked and sweating spoke and said that there were not and that there were no men anywhere in the universe save those upon the earth. All listened as he spoke, those who had turned to watch him and those who would not.

The truth about the world, he said, is that anything is possible. Had you not seen it all from birth and thereby bled it of its strangeness it would appear to you for what it is, a hat trick in a medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analogue nor precedent, an itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning.

The universe is no narrow thing and the order within it is not constrained by any latitude in its conception to repeat what exists in one part in any other part. Even in this world more things exist without our knowledge than with it and the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way. For existence has its own order and that no man's mind can compass, that mind itself being but a fact among others.
 (I highly recommend reading the whole book if you have not)


I feel like this is one of the better descriptions of a kind of Heraclitan/Nietzschean worldview I've seen. As for how this relates to your question:

Quote:Do you believe in laws of logic? (non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity)


I don't think A=A actually describes anything in reality. So it is a kind of falsification, but a useful one.
Hamamelis
"Tu was du willst"
JohnnyRomero
I have a loosely Hermetic/Elemental/Evolian view of reality. I believe that the beginning of this existence and universe is that which was described in every ancient myth, wherein a masculine & solar Logos-principle embodying order, form, energy, heat, and light conquered, enslaved, and subsumed a feminine & lunar Chaos-principle embodying dissolution, mass, matter, cold, and darkness. You can see this dichotomy in the first words of Genesis (the Spirit (lit. "wind") of God hovering above the cold, dark, formless waters of void), Marduk slaying the salt-water dragon Tiamat and building the world from her corpse, Mithras slaying the Bull and building the world from his corpse, Odin slaying Ymir and building the world from his corpse, Thor vs. the Midgard Serpent, Yahweh vs. Leviathan, Yin & Yang, Fire & Water, even in BAP's dichotomy of Fire vs. Yeast. The ultimate point of this is that I believe that reality itself is defined by the interplay of these two forces. You have the fiery & masculine Logos-principle, which is more or less God Himself, acting out into the world and working to build things into a higher and superior order. In opposition to this you have the dissolving side of the feminine Chaos-principle, usually symbolized as a venomous dragon or serpent that seeks to strangle all higher aspirations in her coils and use her venom to dissolve everything back into base matter. You can see this dynamic playing out or at least reflected in many aspects of life, whether it's politics, sexuality, racial differences, etc. I see Faustian man as the quite literal "flame-bearer" for the Logos that is Christ, whose job it is to fight back against the Serpent's venom (i.e. entropy and Yeast-Life) and enforce higher order onto a world, a universe, and for the most part a humanity all in league with an Enemy who seeks to drag everything down to base matter. I genuinely believe this and it affects how I view reality, but even though I have very strong doubts about the efficacy of cynically creating a mythology that you don't believe in out of pragmatism (are there any historical examples of this working?) I think that it still works on the practical side. It breaks the core dynamic of various mythologies down to their most important components, the Eternal Chaoskampf of Solar Man vs Lunar Serpent.


Quote:Do you believe in grammar?

Do you believe in the laws of logic? (non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity)


There is no possible way that I could ever make myself say that I "believe in grammar" or "believe in the laws of logic." I have no idea what you mean by this, and I fail to see the relevancy. Furthermore, I have strong anti-logocentrist tendencies that I have internalized from BAP & Hakan, so it is difficult for me to even ponder such questions without feeling a strong sense of self-disgust. The keywords that inspire me and which immediately and intuitively suggest greatness and potential to me are action, mystery, myth, meditation, brutality, violence, beauty, solitude, silence, predation, and Universal Order.

Excellent thread idea howalthougeverbeit.
honey moon groyper
(04-09-2023, 11:32 AM)Hatsune Miku Clitoridectomy Groyper Wrote: Meritocracy, Misogyny and Middle-schoolers.

Would you say that you believe this instinctually? That is the impression I get from most guys when they refer to those things.
If it is, then fair enough, but, pragmatically, you must be open to the fact that there are guys out there with good instincts that are being suppressed by a poor worldview.

(04-09-2023, 11:38 AM)anthony Wrote: If I can't talk to someone I don't want them. From there everything works itself out. None of this is hard.

You're making a utilitarian argument. Please see my response to Hatsune. Perhaps, I am too naïve, but I think there are a lot of guys that could (albeit slowly) be persuaded to our way of viewing things.

(04-09-2023, 12:05 PM)turnip Wrote: You pose an important question, as I feel many are led astray by bad metaphysics or other confusions. It's kind of hard to address such broad philosophical questions in a context like this however, because there is always the difficulty of choosing where to start. In lieu of that, I will quote this passage from Blood Meridian . . . 

That is an excellent quote. Thank you for finding that. As it happens to be, I am about fifty pages away from finishing that book. I have never heard him talk about it explictly, but I have to imagine that McCarthy is heavily influenced by Nietzsche.

I agree that this is a poor context for this specific type of discussion. I think that a twitter space would be quite good for this. I have some ideas about how that could work. I would like to hear if there is any interest in that. I think I could make it interesting for people that are not otherwise interested in metaphysics and philosophy.

(04-09-2023, 05:09 PM)JohnnyRomero Wrote: I have a loosely Hermetic/Elemental/Evolian view of reality . . .

It sounds like you find this worldview compelling in so far as it corresponds to your observations of life. Is there a story behind that? It is one thing to find a theory that explains the data, it is quite another to feel compelled by it.

(04-09-2023, 05:09 PM)JohnnyRomero Wrote: There is no possible way that I could ever make myself say that I "believe in grammar" or "believe in the laws of logic." I have no idea what you mean by this, and I fail to see the relevancy. 

I was thinking of this passage when I posed that question.
From The Twilight of the Idols, "Reason" In Philosophy, Aphr. 5:

Much, much later, in a world that was more enlightened by a thousandfold,
certitude, subjective certainty in manipulating the categories of
reason, entered the startled consciousness of the philosophers: they concluded
that these categories could not come from experience—all experience
stands in contradiction to them, after all. So where did they come
from?—And in India, as in Greece, they made the same mistake: “We
must already have been at home in a higher world at one time”—(instead
of in a far lower one, which would have been the truth!)—“we must have
been divine, since we have reason!” . . .
In fact, nothing up to now has been more naively persuasive than the
error of being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics, for instance: after all,
it has on its side every word, every sentence we speak!—Even the opponents
of the Eleatics fell prey to the seduction of their concept of being:
this happened to Democritus, among others, when he invented his
atom . . . “Reason” in language: oh, what a tricky old woman she is! I’m
afraid we’re not rid of God because we still believe in grammar . . .
Reverend Moon Immortal
I believe that the only thing worth Pursuing else then Self-Mastery(Self-Satisfaction) is Immortality. The Heart itself can only Love What it Perceives to be Eternal. We can Only begin to Truly love once we Know the Object of our love can not be Stolen from us. Knowing Self-Consciousness(Desire) has an end is to Know that Meaning Itself can also End, thus Meaning was Unreal. Unless I can become Immortal I can never without Ignoring the fact of my own Mortality Truly Believe in anything, Thus I must become Immortal. To make Belief Real. If I can not Achieve Immortality then I can only be self-assured that I Endeavored towards the only Thing that could make Meaning real 

Society should exist for the Proliferation of the Genius. All other non-genius humans should be slaves in the service of the Genius. The Genius can be Either the Scientist or Artist. The Scientist will make Immortality Real or Create the Overman who will make it real. The Artist Exists to Create an endless Stream of Media to encourage the Scientist. Too many things are held sacred and holy that Obscure this Dream and thus should be Destroyed. The Total Extermination of all lesser Creatures who would impede this Dream is thus Completely Justified. I think from this basis all other things can also be Justified as necessary.
JohnnyRomero
(04-11-2023, 09:43 PM)honey moon groyper Wrote:
(04-09-2023, 05:09 PM)JohnnyRomero Wrote: I have a loosely Hermetic/Elemental/Evolian view of reality . . .

It sounds like you find this worldview compelling in so far as it corresponds to your observations of life. Is there a story behind that? It is one thing to find a theory that explains the data, it is quite another to feel compelled by it.

The fact that I find this sort of Hermetic/Perennialist Elementalism compelling is likely in large part to Evola. He did a very good job of connecting the abstract aspects of metaphysics and occultism with real life and a man's real destiny. More or less I think I just sort of intuitively view myself as an agent of Divine & Masculine Logos/Fire and everything ugly and evil in the world as out-of-control Demonic & Feminine Chaos/Water. It maps onto reality very well, and I feel this dichotomy gets to the root of my basic feelings about reality and what goes on in it: life as a constant struggle to assert Divine Masculine Order against the ever-pressing waves of Demonic Feminine Chaos. It also helps that I am a Christian and this dichotomy maps very easily onto the stories of the Scriptures.
Reverend Moon Immortal
(04-09-2023, 11:09 AM)honey moon groyper Wrote:  Do you believe in grammar?
Do you believe in the laws of logic?

Believe, can one truly believe in grammar or logic by their nature. It’s not something to believe in. Grammar and Logic are pleasing to the human sensibilities because of their orderliness. What we seek and find in them is Beauty. Beauty is what is pleasing in itself. I do not have the opinion that beauty can truly be believed in, the recriminations of the aesthete fall on my ears deafly. Pleasure and pleasing are things we are naturally drawn to by our Inherent nature. They are but a part of the law of life, they are in nature what is living. To carry existence in it’s own as meaning is either to lie to oneself and like some Indian ascetic believeing all life is holy out of some vague sentiment of the lower social nature(yes that is right, it lies in nature of personal relation and ego, not its unraveling) or to find its value In sentience and self-conscious(ego) therefore in it’s nature is but a reflection through the carnival mirror that is man of small parts of nature at one time of another never to come to some greater view of. 

Which leads me to, in nature of the relation to the law of life—morality—which stems from the same value we find in the aesthetic, order. To live for beauty is to: either for the protection of that which is already existing or randomly occurring, or that which can be contrived by or through one own will. In nature morality is much more tyrannical in its need to be itself. Beauty will always be, but morality without constant participation ceases to exist. But both of these worldviews displease me by relation to there need for order, the desire for order. 

Weakness, if sin exist then the first and only sin should be weakness. The desire for order forms from a deeper weakness that makes men so tame and lame. It’s closeness to smallness is inherent from relation of range of scope and power needed to achieve that scope. This desire is what drives men to be small and dull. This nature, this passion which in itself can be said to be good through the weakness in the human heart seems to be both mankind’s greatest flaw and grace. For man uses man, he is his own slave and master. Early urban man was a domesticated animal fed the greatest source of domestication, grain. By being forced to eat such grass he soon acquired a bovine-like disposition while his masters who fought with nature itself soon came infected by the same sickness they inflicted in their slaves. It would seem that the Totality of man’s beliefs came from this bout, Icarus flew to close of the sun and now falls down lower then all. 

This is why the need for Chaos is not through the word of some self-conceited poets only a seeking for a more unknowable divine order but rather the need to escape this myopic view inherent to humanity and ascend. Beauty and Morality thrown both into the fire of the pure ambition for ascension. Only the pure of heart may continually be said to be truly heartless for they seek not the human heart which they were given but that of a god.
Reply 



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




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)