Orgy of the Will

The_Eternal_Warrior · August 10, 2014, 11:46am

Magnus Anderson:

How can opinions be “cliche”? Opinions can either be true or false, right or wrong, useful or useless, better or worse. They either reflect the reality or they do not.

Sure, you can classify opinions according to their originality, but who cares about originality? Who prefers endless speculation over certainty? Who prefers an endless spam of original opinions over a definite rank of opinions?

You say that this “has been done 100 times”. Where exactly?

Have you understood anything at all? Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Have you read Nietzsche? Or Baudrillard? Or Heraclitus? They are all about “mere opinions”, and yet, people still call them philosophers. Have you read Thus Spoke Zarathustra? Or Human, All Too Human? Or The Gay Science? Or Beyond Good and Evil? You have cited Kant’s The Critique of Pure Reason as being philosophy, but according to Nietzsche, Kant is a mere philosophical laborer.

People who pay too much attention to style are always suspicious to me: it is a sign that they are unable to deal with the substance.

“It is too hard to read! The author didn’t put any effort in his writing!”

“The author is swearing! That means he’s not serious enough!”

“The author isn’t presenting his arguments in a way that I want him to present them!”

“The author isn’t solving my confusions!”

Or they simply dismiss everything by calling it “cliche”, pretending that it has been all said – and not only said, but also dealth with – a billions of times before.

Or they simply accuse the forum poster who started the topic of being the philosopher himself.

You care more about dismissing things than about dealing with things. But there is a simple way to dismiss things: just stop engaging with them. But that’s exactly your problem: you are incapable of simple disengagement. You have to act in order to disengage, and in Nietzsche’s vocabulary, that’s called reaction. That’s a very bad habit.

Anyways, I presume that the content on his website is a collection of his notes, not an excerpt from his book (I have no idea what’s going to be in the book.) If you want to see what his books tend to look like, you can take a look at his On the Genealogy of “Art Games”.

When you refuse to react; refuse to do anything; what good are you? If you’re not contributing something to the rest of society, what good are you? The fact is that whether you will or no, you will always contribute something; you will always work. You are constantly reacting to everything. Stopping reacting is a reaction to reacting. You are not solving anything by dipping down that road; all you’re going to do is rebound between the two until you finally get smart enough to stop being between a rock and a hard place.

Style and presentation is very important. Even God must give the Devil his due. Sleight of Hand. God was never the man on the seat of power; he was the one the angels claimed as Lucifer. And he’s honest and as hard-working as the day is long; or at least he was when they named him Christ Mikael the Redeemer. Bam; name-change right over night and nobody the wiser. They thought it was another decoy of God’s; the right hand. God cut his right hand off because it offended him. Metaphorically. In doing so, he remained lofty while sending his sins down here and that is His sin. He cast his demons onto the world of man in their fledgling state and when he fell from grace as Lucifer; they let him know it, because in his bitterness he told them everything he knew in exchange for everything they knew. They’d already been playing the devil’s game for a while and they let him in the know in the appropriate manner to revive his love; berating him and breaking him down like he had done to so many before him. His crime was love of self; for he looked upon the mortals and loved them at the same time as seeing them as an insult to his image for how crude they were.

Vanity.

God wanted to go down and be amongst the mortals. Envy.

God valued his creations above himself; worshiping a false idol according to the christian bible. If you don’t love your works, who else will? You can’t sell bullshit. It doesn’t work. We’ve tried.

And when God threw Lucifer out of Heaven; he killed all that Lucifer was in the worst way possible. Or, the best way, depending on how you see it. Those minute differences in opinion mean the most. Otherwise you’re berating some poor sap who’s just taking a breather. The future I envision has room for everyone; even slackers. We need everything we can learn from; and we need to learn how to take things slower and more methodically and be more like the calm of the water instead of the tempest.

What we’re looking for is anything that will cause insecurity. Reach out to it, contain it and break it down, teach it the ropes. We have no need to kill anymore. Let the people do what they want and you will find them more than willing to respond in kind. Be gentle. As I said, I’ve got you all covered.

Lev_Muishkin · August 10, 2014, 3:47pm

You typed this…

And you ask me what is wrong?
You might as well ask why the Barbary Pirates used white slaves? If you had half the knowledge you think you have, then you know that your question is a stupid one and can only lead to an equally stupid answer.
Then you shoot yourself in the foot immediately by demonstrating that slavery and inferiority are not connected, as in the Greek and Roman model of slavery.
Then there is the childish use of language:" They didn’t go, “You blacks are racially inferior, so we’ll use you as our slaves”; the blacks were simply THE EASIEST ONES TO USE (and hence, the most racially inferior)…"
“GO” for say? Really? Are you a ninth grader?
And then you equate the “ease” of use with racial inferiority. How absurd. Black were not racially inferior, they just did not have guns, and ships and the wealth that the British Empire was able to mobilise in the Slave Triangle. Slavers were not “superior” they just had a lower standard of morality, and better technology.
Maybe you would benefit from some education first?
Moulay Ishmail also had great maritime expertise and would take slaves from European coastal regions such as the West of England.

Orbie · August 10, 2014, 5:34pm

Actually interpretation as optics is not new. It has been suggested, albeit inconclusively and veiled very thinly by others. (Steiner, for one) His thesis is credible, but the dynamics and structure underneath them are inconsequential. Not that, i don’t perfectly agree with the idea that intentionality has run it’s course, whereby Nietzche and Baudrillard can be connected and mentioned on the same page. Reality has been centrifuged into a thin film, all appearently and obviously overexposed, but without any real knowledge as to how to go back to the centre. (source)

Fixed_Cross · August 11, 2014, 9:25pm

Magnus Anderson:

Orgy of the Will is the upcoming philosophical book by Alex Kierkegaard.

The book is supposed to “draw the ultimate conclusions of philosophy” and is the continuation of the work of Nietzsche and Baudrillard.

If you want to get a glimpse of what’s going to be in the book, there is a live blog on his website where he posts his notes.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and read upwards.
orgyofthewill.net

Here’s a bit of it:

Linguistic optics: the time for it has come. The idea is basically that no one (and nothing) is “wrong”; they can’t be wrong because they are part of the universe, and whatever is in their brains — in the brains of even the stupidest person — is as “correct” as what’s in my mind or Nietzsche’s or Baudrillard’s. What we need then is an art of interpretation so subtle and powerful that it can bring out the “truth” that’s hiding inside even the dumbest person’s brains.
For example, when a Christian says “God created the universe and he loves me”, he is not wrong. It’s just that the concepts he designates with the words “God”, “universe” and “love” are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word “God”, going by the Christian’s definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says “God”, he doesn’t really mean an “omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being” (since he’s so dumb he can’t even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means “a very powerful being”. Similarly, when he says “universe” he doesn’t mean what I mean by “universe” (i.e. “everything”), he simply means “the earth” — or at most, if he’s had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps “the solar system”. And finally, when he says “love” he doesn’t mean what I mean by “love” (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. “help me” (= shape me).
So basically, when the Christian says “God created the universe and he loves me”, what he’s really saying, translated in our language, is “A very powerful being created the earth (or the solar system), and he wants to help me” — which could very well be true!
All of this stems from Nietzsche’s positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person’s brain, and all brains are different.

They don’t think, therefore they don’t exist.

The fact that there is not a single successful artwork — whether a novel, movie or videogame — depicting “utopian” conditions, proves that we, as mankind, DO NOT WANT THEM. The prevalence of so-called “dystopias” in art, on the other hand, proves what we really want — and where we’re headed…

One can see everywhere in the slave society habits and attitudes which betray what the slaves really think about themselves. Take the first day of the year. Why is it a “holiday”, i.e. a day of doing nothing? Why is the first day of the year a day of “rest”? Precisely the time to make a strong start, where dynamism, optimism, etc. are called for, the slave stays at home and does nothing, BECAUSE HE HATES WHAT HE DOES. He can think of no higher gift to give himself on the first day of a new year, than to take a break from his reality. But if a rest day should be taken at all, it should clearly be the last day of the year. The first day should be a day FOR GETTING DOWN TO WORK, and indeed for working harder than any other day. With more zeal, more focus, more determination, etc. It’s like making the first hour of the day an hour of — sleep. But you just woke up! And it’s precisely on waking that our powers are at their apex, and consequently should not be squandered but fully utilized. The slave, however, never wakes up, and even in his sleep, in his eternal sleep, contributes to what happens all around him, as Heraclitus so insightfully relates to us. “Those who are asleep are fellow-workers in what goes on in the world.”

Looked at more closely, it is not the alphas who make the rules but the philosophers. The alphas merely put them into practice, as the Han dynasty did with Confucius’ philosophy, Alexander with Aristotle’s, the Roman emperors with the Stoics’ and the Epicureans’, Lenin and Mao with Marx’s, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco with Nietzsche’s, and even the democratic pseudo-leaders, to an extent, with the pseudo-philosophers’ liberal claptrap. It is only subhumans who think that philosophy is superfluous and causes nothing, but as the fascists’ and communists’ millions of victims discovered (a little too late for their liking), not only is philosophy (which is to say thought) not superfluous, but it makes the world go round.

Why did the whites use the blacks as slaves, instead of say, the yellows or the browns? Slavery was not racist in the ancient world: most of the Greeks’ slaves were whites, so it was not on racist grounds that the whites picked the blacks. They didn’t go, “You blacks are racially inferior, so we’ll use you as our slaves”; the blacks were simply THE EASIEST ONES TO USE (and hence, the most racially inferior). It was one thing for the Japanese to capitulate to Perry’s demand and open up their borders, for example, and another to agree to be bound in chains and shipped off across the world as his slaves. If the whites had tried to pull off that stunt in Japan, they’d have no doubt succeeded to an extent, but with a lot more casualties and losses, a great deal more of trouble. Also, this sort of treatment doesn’t seem proper when you see up close the culture of the Japanese, their literature, architecture, and so on; but the blacks were basically begging to become slaves, living in huts or in the dirt, with no proper clothes or tools, etc., no literature or even writing. The greater the distance between you and your inferiors, the easier it is — even from a moral standpoint — to simply impose your will on them, and monkeys live in cages and no one cares.

Excellent start.
Good title, too.

fuse · August 12, 2014, 3:30am

[size=85]24. We die twice, once when the last breath leaves our bodies, and again when the last person who knows our name dies. [/size]
Plagiarism?

"Some day soon, perhaps in forty years, there will be no one alive who has ever known me. That’s when I will be truly dead - when I exist in no one’s memory. I thought a lot about how someone very old is the last living individual to have known some person or cluster of people. When that person dies, the whole cluster dies,too, vanishes from the living memory. I wonder who that person will be for me. Whose death will make me truly dead?” ― Irvin D. Yalom, Love’s Executioner and Other Tales of Psychotherapy
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/336070-there-are-three-deaths-the-first-is-when-the-body
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/stand_up_guys/quotes/

[size=85]42. No woman has yet been touched by any genuine philosophical concern whatever. [/size]
Based on what, personal observation? If women are totally inferior beings of the least significance, why spend so many words of ridicule on them throughout the book and why does it seem like there is so much bitterness in it?

[size=85]55. “Waaaaaaah, mooooooommy, he swears a lot, I don’t like him!” — I don’t like you either, fuckface. As for the swearing, Earth to flaming faget: that’s how men talk. If you don’t like it, go sit with the womenfolk. [/size]
This is dumb.
Swearing has little to do with what a man is or what makes a man important.

[size=85]
84. The answer to any problem: from grand politics, to mastering the environment, to combating pseudo-intellectualism and the artfag plague, is always one: death. Violence is the answer to every problem — the only answer. The first and last solution. Everything else is compromise; which is to say retreat, bargaining, defeat.[/size]
I think he should more clearly define the problems and explain why they necessitate one singular solution before calling impotently for so many deaths.

[size=85]91. The opposing viewpoints: Everything passes away, so nothing matters. This is nihilism speaking. And the retort: Everything returns, so everything matters. And this is Nietzsche speaking.[/size]
I can appreciate this.

[size=85]183. All the hatred against the NSA is contemptible; I would be proud if my country had an intelligence agency as cool as the NSA. After all, what else is an intelligence agency supposed to do than gather information? Everyone does it, and you little maggots are outraged by the Americans because they are doing it better than everyone else. As for your privacy, no one gives a shit about it. You think we WANT to read about the inane ant-like existence that you call your life? Your correspondence makes us DEPRESSED. The only reason we are gathering it is because it’s the best way to achieve our objective — not to protect you! but the interests of the nation! And YES, WE are the ones who determine the interests of the nation because we work for the NSA and you, fuckface, do not and never will (because you are a fuckface). Get it?[/size]
Why is he talking about himself as if employed by the NSA, when he is clearly not American? Just associating himself with what he views as power?

[size=85]383. The 5-year-old child who suggested that America “kill everyone in China” to avoid having to pay its 1.3 trillion dollar debt to that country. We finally got to the point where the solutions to our problems are literally obvious even to children.[/size]
A world war that could threaten the conditions for all life on Earth? Even if “successful” and the planet isn’t scorched in the process, why is this the best solution?

[size=85]386. With Heraclitus something begins, while with me that something ends, and that something is philosophy. [/size]
How does philosophy end with the internet figure, Alex Kierkegaard? It’s a bit much to say for oneself whose “ultimate conclusions of philosophy” are inconsistent and underdeveloped.

[size=85]399. “Alpha” PUA advice on how to be cool: “Act as if anything you like or are interested in is cool.”
O rly? So stamp-collecting is cool now because a bunch of retards like it? But no matter how loudly the stamp-collecting retards shout that they love stamp collecting, it will never become cool. Why? Because stamp collecting is retarded.[/size]
What’s “retarded” about stamp collecting?

[size=85][…]Reality is reality and no amount of wishful thinking (which is essentially what feel-good “be yourself” claptrap amounts to) can change it. You either ride the wave (of reality) or you are drowned by it. There are no alternatives.
To acknowledge reality is to acknowledge the existence of everyone else (since that is what reality is: the universe, and the universe is a collection of lifeforms and nothing else). Denial of reality, i.e. of everyone else (=solipsism) is not a valid strategy of growth but a mere symptom of weakness. There can be no REAL growth without the acknowledgement of reality. Only the fake kind.
Reality is the others, your genes, the past. Any denial of any of these things, be it ever so slight, is a symptom of WEAKNESS. If you deny the others it can only be because you feel inferior to them. To deny your genes means to feel them to be inferior genes. To deny the past means that you feel that your performance and that of your ancestors in it were bad. I do not deny the others: it is precisely because the others are precisely what they are that I am the best among them. I do not deny my genes: it is precisely because my genes are the best that have ever been that I am so awesome. I do not deny the past: it is precisely because the past was exactly how it was, down to the least, most insignificant detail, that I am today in the position that I am.
So here’s my advice for being cool: Be born with great genes. Everything else follows…[/size]
I’m always amazed at talk of being the best, smartest, most philosophically prescient person to ever exist. C’mon, dude, halfway understanding three great thinkers who came before you is cool, but with so little substance how can anyone accept claims of ultimate superiority as anything other than delusion and narcissism? This person should reevaluate the purpose and accuracy of such claims. If they were true his greatness would speak for itself. It’s not worth it to me to press on with his philosophy any further. Most of what I read was Nietzsche paraphrased and somewhat clipped. Unfortunately, if there is something I misunderstood I doubt it’s even worth the time to figure out what was meant.

Weird. Word is that Alex Kierkegaard aka Icycalm aka Antony Zyrmpas is a fugitive criminal who scammed people for thousands of dollars on eBay and then fled with so great a prize of maybe $120,000 USD. There’s a decent internet trail of this person for anyone who wants to do some research.

Magnus_Anderson · August 31, 2014, 12:57pm

Some new stuff:

Manosphere dudes arguing about what is natural and how to get back to it. Complete misunderstanding of nature and culture. There is nothing “natural” about mankind and civilization at all. In the order of the universe, our condition and our progress are utterly unnatural. (Not anti-natural — anti-nature is decadence. Our kind of nature is progress.) They are utterly atypical, unique, irreproducible.
Going back to the past in any way, shape or form is ALWAYS decadent. Even in the best past that has ever existed. Imagine you were living in that past right now, what would you say? “Oh this is so great, let’s not change anything”? Instant fail. Civilization wiped out of existence due to an inability to progress. We only look back with a view to shaping the future, not with a view to ACTUALLY GOING BACK (time travel belongs here, as does any kind of romanticism whatsoever). The manosphere dudes would have hated any kind of past whatsoever, if they could have been dropped there for a while to see what it’s like for reals. They are peasants in the present (which is why they are whining so much), and they would have been peasants in the past too. Today they are whining about feminism and multiculturalism destroying their chances for a better future, yesterday they would have been whining about the feudal lords and the nobility “sucking their blood dry” and monopolizing the best estates, wines, horses, and women. This is very difficult to grasp, but the moment you whine, it’s game over for you, and has been for some time, since whining is not merely the END, but the EPILOGUE to the pathetic little tragedy that is called YOUR FAILURE. Whining is a tombstone that seals the miserable little mistake that is yourself.

Misogyny, from Greek misos (μῖσος, hatred) and gynē (γυνή, woman), means “hatred of women”. The idea here is that, because I call things as I see them, and recognize the fact that women are, on the whole, less intelligent than men, THAT I HATE THEM. This is the kind of inference that only subhumans would make: i.e. one that DOESN’T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE. For there are billions of lifeforms in the universe which, on the whole, are less intelligent than men in general, and me in particular, but from this fact it in no way follows that I hate them. Take my dog, for example. Does the fact that I realize he is far less intelligent than me mean that I hate him? Am I a “miscaninist”, a “misdogist”, because I say that dogs are stupider than men? Am I not allowed then to love anything that is stupider than me? Is it necessary that I place everything I love on an equal basis with myself — even if all signs point to the fact that they aren’t? And the same goes for “homophobia” (as if anyone would ever be afraid of a fag lol), “race hatred”, and the like.
But of course the subhumans’ inference DOES make sense, if you understand their language, and do not misinterpret what they are saying as I did above. For the only reason to hate someone is if you feel yourself inferior to them. When the subhumans charge me with hatred of women, or of fags, or of dogs or of trees or rocks or whatever, therefore, all they are saying is that I am inferior to them. I tell them that I am superior, and they reply “But no, you are not superior, you are inferior”, which though false, certainly makes perfect sense. But to understand this you must speak Subhuman

It is time we understood that to seek happiness is a symptom of sickness. The healthy individual does not seek happiness, he — quite literally — seeks pain, suffering and sadness. For what is happiness? It is a certain mixture of chemicals in the brain. To “strive for happiness”, therefore, means quite literally to strive for a certain balance of chemicals in your brain, an endeavor in which the greatest connoisseurs and ultimate authorities are the drug addicts. The man who says “I only want to be happy” is saying — for those who understand Subhuman — “I only want a certain mixture of chemicals in my brain”, and the only reason he attempts to achieve this goal INDIRECTLY, by striving for the attainment of objects and goals which can help produce it (such as material possessions or social relationships), is because he is too stupid to figure out the direct way and get himself a drug dealer.

Magnus_Anderson · August 31, 2014, 1:01pm

You have nothing else to do with your free time but to do research about “Internet figures”, as you call them, that you do not even care about.

Lev_Muishkin · August 31, 2014, 4:33pm

You have already owned up to being ALex K. SO why refer to him as “he has already…”?
A single page of Internet BLog IS NOT A FUCKING BOOK. And posting a poorly written blog cannot be described as “PUBISHING A BOOK”
Maybe you have a split personality problem?

Magnus_Anderson · August 31, 2014, 5:52pm

That’s rude.

I am making fun of people like you. Of course I am not Alex Kierkegaard.

I started a similar topic on philosophyforums.com a while ago and I got banned within seconds. Reason: criminal.

Not only am I Alex Kierkegaard, I’m also a criminal!

That’s a very intelligent observation, I must say. However, I am not sure how you got this idea that I think that a single page on an Internet blog equals to a book?

He did write these books and he did publish some of them. “A single page on an Internet blog” has nothing to do with it.

This is what happens when your favorite musician is Iggy Pop.

Maybe you’re on drugs or something?

Magnus_Anderson · August 31, 2014, 5:56pm

Lev, you’re a mentally-stunted child-fagot and you should suck my dick instead of smoking weed all day long. It would be much healthier for you – trust me. Do you get that, Lev? Or should I write it in all caps so that your exhausted nerves can make some sense of what I am trying to say to you, you flatheaded moron?

Lev_Muishkin · August 31, 2014, 10:05pm

Dear Maggy,
With a choice of avatar like yours it is probably not t good idea to attack others for their choice.

Rather than getting all uppity why not address the points I made? You, the amusingly self styled Alex K, has not published any books. I’ve given you some straight advice why you, as Maggy A, OR Alex K will not be able to publish due to style and content.
So why are you here?

Lev_Muishkin · August 31, 2014, 10:10pm

Teehee. No we are claiming that YOU and your other self Alex K, is not a philosopher, and that the stuff you are posting is not coherent.

Magnus_Anderson · August 31, 2014, 10:37pm

My choice of avatar is perfect.

Now go fuck yourself, moron, and leave this thread alone.

James_S_Saint · August 31, 2014, 10:49pm

Look who’s talking …

Arminius · August 31, 2014, 11:34pm

Oh, … YES …! The CHILD …!

Lev_Muishkin · September 1, 2014, 5:57pm

Yes perfect for an aspiring philosopher who has published several books and is praised all over fantasy land.

I understand that publishers all over Soulcalibre Toyland are printing a million copies of all your wonderful books, right now!!!

How is it to be so famous?

Magnus_Anderson · September 1, 2014, 7:14pm

You’re making a fool of yourself.

Someone ban the moron already.

MagsJ · September 2, 2014, 6:45am

Locking this thread until OH is back to deal with this…

MagsJ · September 4, 2014, 9:24am

Thread unlocked…

Lev_Muishkin · September 4, 2014, 1:45pm

Hopefully the temporary locking of the thread has cooled tempers.

I think someone has listened to your plea, but perhaps not in the way you wished.
To get back to the thread.
If you really want some advice about the “book” I am happy to give it. But as the thread has proved, it is not always easy to take honest critique.
And remembering to whom you have responded, so as not to dissimulate in your answers is also advised.
E.g. if you admit you are Alex, K. yesterday, it’s pointless denying it today.