## Fixed Cross Lamentations

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Moderator: MagsJ

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist

Posts: 17632
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

Merlin wrote:
Turd Ferguson wrote:Damn, your really getting to Fixed Cross if Sauwelios had to crawl out from under his slimy rock behind the manure pile to defend him.

Funny shit.

Yes, nothing says desperate like sending a lackey envoy in one's own place.

Sauwelios, does Fixed Cross pat you on the head?

For the record, I haven't even been in touch with Fixed Cross since before he made those posts. Which means he didn't send me. As for the rest of what's said here, I'll leave that to your imaginations (interesting what your images say about each of you).

Merlin wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:

Dumbledore, Fixed Cross seems to have left ILP for good this time--and rightly so, considering the all-time low it's been at for a while now due to the likes of Turd Ferguson*--, so how could he have talked about you in public if not "behind your back"--on your own forum, perhaps? What the hell is it with you and your buddy Brian's tendency to create and delete forums, anyway?

* I seriously suspect Turd, anarchist Christian that he is, of always having had the aim of destroying ILP (insofar as an abortion can have the self-awareness required for having an aim, that is).

For years now I have only valued ILP as an archive. It's yet another example of how liberalism leads to nihilism.

Believe it or not but I can view his forum seeing what he posts there.

I never meant to imply that you couldn't.

If Fixed Cross is too scared to come on ILP I'll understand.

Phobos is often taken to mean fear when it rather means disgust (odium).

What's my deal with deleting forums and websites? One word, experimentation.

Using other people's geniuses (or demons) as guinea pigs? Not very ethical...

So, now you're taking a stance against nihilism? This coming from the guy constantly wandering around with Nietzsche's dick in his ass that he constantly praises. Curious, if you're not a nihilist, how would you classify yourself?

As an aristocratic radicalist, of course. Do you know nothing about Nietzsche?

"Values and their changes are related to increases in the power of those positing the values.
The measure of unbelief, of permitted 'freedom of the spirit' as an expression of an increase in power.
'Nihilism' an ideal of the highest degree of powerfulness of the spirit, the over-richest life--partly destructive, partly ironic." (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 14, entire; cf. 15.)

Paraphrasing Nietzsche, we might call such "nihilism" the nihilism of strength or the Dionysian nihilism.

As usual I have to school most of you what nihilism actually is (including Satyr) because not a single fucking person on this forum and most other portions of the internet have any understanding of the actual word.

Try me. (As for Satyr, he thinks he's Nietzschean because he rejects Nietzsche...)

It may puzzle some readers that I've called myself a liberal aristocrat. The thing is I'm so liberal I'm conservative again. Compare:

"By saying Yes to everything that was and is Nietzsche may seem to reveal himself as radically antirevolutionary or conservative beyond the wildest wishes of all other conservatives, who all say No to some of the things that were or are. Remembering Nietzsche's restrictions against 'ideals' and 'idealists' we are reminded of Goethe's words to Eckermann (November 24, 1824) according to which 'everything idea-like (jedes Ideelle) is serviceable for revolutionary purposes.'" (Leo Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil" (1973).)

"The conservatives stood for throne and altar, and the liberals stood for democracy, or something similar to democracy, and religion as a strictly private affair. But liberalism was already outflanked by the extreme revolutionaries, socialists, communists, anarchists, and atheists. There was a position we may call political atheism.
Now Nietzsche opposed both the moderate and the extreme left, but he saw that conservatism had no future, that its fighting was a real garbage, and its conservatism was being eroded evermore. The consequence of this was that Nietzsche pointed to something which we may call the revolutionary right, an atheism of the right." (Strauss, 1971 lecture on Beyond Good and Evil.)
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

Turd Ferguson wrote:I don't think you have even 30. I can't even think of one. I guess I might pass off something on astrology, though I doubt you know anything about the history of it, competing schools of thought in it. But astrology is absolute total bullshit.

No, think the fault isn't in your stars, but yourself. Now your boyfriend Joker does have some legit threads. Maybe you should ask him to teach you how to post, you can't do any worst.

I'm not even certain what my post count is. I do know some of the more illiterate get upset when I post too much information in my posts. I'm not exactly going for the numbers with that strategy.

But again, this is much more about your inadequacies, and Magsj, and perennially Sauwelios. Jealousy is a bitch, but I shouldn't be chastised for your short comings, especially considering it can be instantly remedied on your end by posting legitimate posts. It is only from your perspective, bring foul minded, that you see me as hostile. Well over half never heard me say anything negative. There is good reason.... they are serious in their philosophy, or lack personalities where they benefit from the gadfly approach. Both you and Magsj started recently doing basic typing.... is there a pattern to my actions?

We are exploring your inadequacies here, so keep that in mind. It is a good starting point in that census of others.

Serious philosophy? Serious philosophy?! Seriously?! Is that what you call what you do? Sorry, I mistook it for neurosis. I thought all you really do here is gripe and wine about how you hate liberals, socialists, and atheists. And a whole bunch of other shit that annoys you.

The pattern you exhibit isn't new. It's been done a thousand times before by head cases just like yourself. Your type comes to philosophy forums like this one because they need some outlet to vent out their deeply twisted psychological damage. Your type cloaks it in the garb of philosophy, but that by no means makes you a good philosopher. It makes you disturbed. You need therapy and you know it. This is a form of self-therapy for you.

So yeah, don't confuse bitching about Hillary Clinton for doing philosophy.

Other than that, you read a lot, and you spew out much of what you've read, but that's doesn't make you a philosopher either--that makes you, at best, a (amateur) scholar.

Oh, and then there's your really dumb threads like: Did Neanderthal have British Accents? <-- There you're just being your normal retarded self. But you can't help that.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
- unknown source

Men must be taught as if you taught them not. And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
- Alexander Pope

Here lies the body of William J, who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
- Boston Transcript

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 8771
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

Turd Ferguson wrote:I don't think you have even 30. I can't even think of one. I guess I might pass off something on astrology, though I doubt you know anything about the history of it, competing schools of thought in it. But astrology is absolute total bullshit.

No, think the fault isn't in your stars, but yourself. Now your boyfriend Joker does have some legit threads. Maybe you should ask him to teach you how to post, you can't do any worst.

I'm not even certain what my post count is. I do know some of the more illiterate get upset when I post too much information in my posts. I'm not exactly going for the numbers with that strategy.

But again, this is much more about your inadequacies, and Magsj, and perennially Sauwelios. Jealousy is a bitch, but I shouldn't be chastised for your short comings, especially considering it can be instantly remedied on your end by posting legitimate posts. It is only from your perspective, bring foul minded, that you see me as hostile. Well over half never heard me say anything negative. There is good reason.... they are serious in their philosophy, or lack personalities where they benefit from the gadfly approach. Both you and Magsj started recently doing basic typing.... is there a pattern to my actions?

We are exploring your inadequacies here, so keep that in mind. It is a good starting point in that census of others.

This is as good a time as any to foe Turd. Bye.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 7119
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

Sauwelios wrote:Phobos is often taken to mean fear when it rather means disgust (odium).

So Jakob is a homophobe.
A homie who is disgusted.

I always tell the homo lobbyists that it's true. They are disgusting.

I should write a novel, the Merchants of Phobos. Phobia Merchants would probably be too obvious.
It would be a book about the Homies who are disgusted with the Normies who They Live among. And so they sell them the idea that not celebrating eating poop is a phobia and a sin, a social no-no.
It's inspired by the John Carpenter movie.

Is_Yde_opN
Thinker

Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

gib wrote:
Turd Ferguson wrote:I don't think you have even 30. I can't even think of one. I guess I might pass off something on astrology, though I doubt you know anything about the history of it, competing schools of thought in it. But astrology is absolute total bullshit.

No, think the fault isn't in your stars, but yourself. Now your boyfriend Joker does have some legit threads. Maybe you should ask him to teach you how to post, you can't do any worst.

I'm not even certain what my post count is. I do know some of the more illiterate get upset when I post too much information in my posts. I'm not exactly going for the numbers with that strategy.

But again, this is much more about your inadequacies, and Magsj, and perennially Sauwelios. Jealousy is a bitch, but I shouldn't be chastised for your short comings, especially considering it can be instantly remedied on your end by posting legitimate posts. It is only from your perspective, bring foul minded, that you see me as hostile. Well over half never heard me say anything negative. There is good reason.... they are serious in their philosophy, or lack personalities where they benefit from the gadfly approach. Both you and Magsj started recently doing basic typing.... is there a pattern to my actions?

We are exploring your inadequacies here, so keep that in mind. It is a good starting point in that census of others.

Serious philosophy? Serious philosophy?! Seriously?! Is that what you call what you do? Sorry, I mistook it for neurosis. I thought all you really do here is gripe and wine about how you hate liberals, socialists, and atheists. And a whole bunch of other shit that annoys you.

The pattern you exhibit isn't new. It's been done a thousand times before by head cases just like yourself. Your type comes to philosophy forums like this one because they need some outlet to vent out their deeply twisted psychological damage. Your type cloaks it in the garb of philosophy, but that by no means makes you a good philosopher. It makes you disturbed. You need therapy and you know it. This is a form of self-therapy for you.

So yeah, don't confuse bitching about Hillary Clinton for doing philosophy.

Other than that, you read a lot, and you spew out much of what you've read, but that's doesn't make you a philosopher either--that makes you, at best, a (amateur) scholar.

Oh, and then there's your really dumb threads like: Did Neanderthal have British Accents? <-- There you're just being your normal retarded self. But you can't help that.

Gib, are you still around?

I almost thought you were going through this whole being too good for us in being within the rest of our company phase.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit

Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

Sauwelios

People fear what disgusts themselves often. When have I ever claimed to be an ethical man? You should know better.

I know plenty about Nietzsche, his mistake was rejecting nihilism that he heavily outlined in his writings. He didn't really have anything that was a workable substitute for nihilism and there is a reason for this. There is no solution or substitute to nihilism. I embrace nihilism because for me it is the way of the world and universe. Johann Kaspur Schmidt understood this and heavily influenced the writings of Nietzsche.

In my anti idealism prescription of the world I reject government of all kinds stemming from both the left and right because I understand the entropic erosion underpinning them. Liberalism, conservatism, and Marxism doesn't matter, I reject all.

Anarchist autonomous self rule is the only sensible way to look at the world.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit

Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

Merlin wrote:Gib, are you still around?

I almost thought you were going through this whole being too good for us in being within the rest of our company phase.

Whatever gave you that idea?

I don't post as often as I used to, if that's what you mean, but that's just because of the hectic schedule I live through; that plus the time I do spend here at ILP is spent on only a couple intensive threads that take a lot of time: Making iambiguous's day and The Philosophy of Rick and Morty.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
- unknown source

Men must be taught as if you taught them not. And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
- Alexander Pope

Here lies the body of William J, who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
- Boston Transcript

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 8771
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

gib wrote:
Merlin wrote:Gib, are you still around?

I almost thought you were going through this whole being too good for us in being within the rest of our company phase.

Whatever gave you that idea?

I don't post as often as I used to, if that's what you mean, but that's just because of the hectic schedule I live through; that plus the time I do spend here at ILP is spent on only a couple intensive threads that take a lot of time: Making iambiguous's day and The Philosophy of Rick and Morty.

Yeah, tough work schedules suck. I'm damn near working almost six days a week now myself.

Well, I'm glad that I misjudged the situation and hope you post more often in other threads at some point.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit

Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

Merlin wrote:Well, I'm glad that I misjudged the situation and hope you post more often in other threads at some point.

Yeah, it would be good to get back to the days when I'd just spur off a whimsical thread about a trivial topic. Some of them would last a few days or a good week, but they wouldn't consume my time. These intensive, serious ILP projects of mine are fulfilling, but the more playful ones are a lot more fun.

I'm going to take a bit of a break after Season 1 of Rick and Morty, maybe spin off a few mundane threads, and then get onto Season 2. Then I think I'll start a thread on Canadian politics. For that, however, I'm going to search out a "Canadian Politics" forum and start a project similar to my Reforming Democracy thread. <-- What I liked about that one was how educational it was. I did a thorough analysis of the American Constitution, but now I figure that if I want to pursue political philosophy in any more depth than that, I've really got to understand my own government first. So that's gotta be the next project. What I'm going to do here at ILP is post a link to the thread in the Canadian politics forum and post some commentary here (I'm sure Turd will be all over that one).

Then I figure *maybe* I'll be in a better position to decide whether I want to align myself with right-wing politics or left-wing politics, or neither, but even that requires answering the question: how do I know what's a trustworthy source of information and what isn't. <-- That one, at the present time, seems an insurmountable challenge.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
- unknown source

Men must be taught as if you taught them not. And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
- Alexander Pope

Here lies the body of William J, who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
- Boston Transcript

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 8771
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

Merlin wrote:Sauwelios

People fear what disgusts themselves often. When have I ever claimed to be an ethical man? :P :lol: You should know better.

Of course I do. It was supposed to sound paradoxical coming from me, considering Nietzsche called himself an immoralist. But then there's Berkowitz's book title, Nietzsche: the Ethics of an Immoralist. The thing is Nietzsche also said he was the first decent human being--which, hyperbolic though it may be, is serious in the sense of Berkowitz's "ethics". But more about that below:

I know plenty about Nietzsche, his mistake was rejecting nihilism that he heavily outlined in his writings. He didn't really have anything that was a workable substitute for nihilism and there is a reason for this. There is no solution or substitute to nihilism. I embrace nihilism because for me it is the way of the world and universe. Johann Kaspur Schmidt understood this and heavily influenced the writings of Nietzsche.

This makes some sense to me, reminding me as it does of the self-proclaimed nihilist Harry Neumann. But I disagree with Neuman and with you. Here's an excerpt from my forthcoming translation of my "tutorial in Platonic political philosophy [by which I also mean Homeric, Machiavellian/Baconian, and Nietzschean political philosophy]":

::

The Baconian scheme, in which science serves the common good, was so successful that the unreasonableness of such utilitarianism was almost completely obscured by it; today, virtually everyone considers democracy's absolute superiority a self-evident fact (though not everyone may find things are sufficiently socialist or anarchist yet). Near the end of 2012, I saw a nice example of how much people regard certain moral values as self-evident and science as their vehicle. It's an imaginary postcard sent to religion by science, in the week that skydiver and BASE-jumper Felix Baumgartner jumped from the stratosphere in a stunt sponsored by Red Bull.

Dear Religion,

This week I safely dropped a
human being from space while
you shot a 14 year old girl in the
head for wanting to go to
school.

I kinda feel like you need a
better hobby....

Yours,
Science

I won't say much about this other than that the idea behind it seems to me to be the following: "We over here in the West are, thanks to our scientific enlightenment, already able to employ science for the purpose of excitement and sensation, whereas you over there in the Middle East haven't even used it to guarantee peace and security!" For these, I think, are the two value sets which are met by the Machiavellian strategy. A student of Leo Strauss whom I haven't yet mentioned, Harry Neumann, may express the truth behind this even better than Lampert and Strauss. Thus he writes:

"Sometimes I ask students if any real restraints, limits set by something like nature or gods, exist to curb scientific experimentation. Can science, for example, make men immortal or transform them into eagles? Most students deny that anything is intrinsically impossible. They acknowledge that some things probably will not happen tomorrow or even in a century, but, in principle, nothing prevents anything imaginable from happening at any time. Like good liberal democrats, these same students usually cling to a groundless faith that science's uncurbed experimentation ought to be used for liberal democratic goals--to promote freedom rather than slavery, peace rather than war. As if that made any difference in the nihilist world revealed by science! The faith that science's omnipotence can be restrained in the name of some non-arbitrary moral obligation is unscientific. It is relapse into the philosophic illusion from which science liberates itself. Interpreted scientifically, any such relapse, any moral-political commitment, springs from the tyrannic decision to have it so: all moral-political demands are efforts to tyrannize over reality, to replace nature or truth with the propaganda dearest to one's heart." (Neumann, Liberalism.)

"The philosophic illusion from which science liberates itself" is the illusion of "a universe in which [the philosopher] and what is good for him exist as something more than nihilist experience" (Neumann, ibid.). So not only are the said value sets valuable only insofar as people insist on their being valuable, but man himself only exists insofar as he insists that he exists... The latter idea, that beings exist only insofar as they value themselves, is of the essence of value ontology. But since we're talking about political philosophy, not about metaphysics, I won't go into that too deeply. Suffice it to say the following. Democracy exists owing to the fact that the people who want it to exist, together are more powerful than the people who do not want that. These, however, are people with relatively weak wills: hence they must be with a great majority. That their individual wills are weak may be appreciated from the fact that most of them at least cannot acknowledge the aforesaid; they have to believe that their values are universal, that they are not driven by will to power but by moral sense. Nietzsche's philosophy, on the other hand, indeed, all esoteric, that is to say actual philosophy, is scientific: it is the most spiritual will to power, the tyrannical drive to the creation of the world... Thus Nietzsche wants the world to be will to power and nothing besides, and therewith as hierarchical, not egalitarian.

::

As for Max Stirner, my very succinct criticism of him--and at the same time of the notion that he heavily influenced Nietzsche, or at least of the notion that Nietzsche was an epigone of his--can be found here:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2574823#p2574823

In my anti idealism prescription of the world I reject government of all kinds stemming from both the left and right because I understand the entropic erosion underpinning them. Liberalism, conservatism, and Marxism doesn't matter, I reject all.

Anarchist autonomous self rule is the only sensible way to look at the world.

Self-rule? But nihilism is solipsism without even the ipse, the self! Your "self" is only different from your preciously rejected government in degree, not in kind...

"Artists such as Beckmann, Grammaté and Grosz are more scientific (liberal) than Aristotle, Newton or Einstein who mean to present communicable theories or hypotheses. Their artistic insight into life's nihilism precludes anything really common or communicable. What is communicable is the horror of the confrontation with nihilism depicted in their art. They realize that they themselves and the world in which they live is nothing but nihilist experiences. [...]
In this they antagonize not only pseudo-scientists [like Aristotle, Newton and Einstein] and other political men whose terror at genuine science's nihilism demands faith in a world in which theories can be tested or communicated, in which scientists (and others) can work with each other and for each other. They also differ from humanist artists and intellectuals who, while agreeing that the external world is empty, nevertheless find a wealth of meaning in their own inner life. These are the apostles of self-expression, 'finding one's real self.' Thus so-called non-objective or abstract art often denies the meaningfulness of objects, of the external world, while affirming the richness of inner experience. At their most scientific, Beckmann and Grammaté, unlike Klee or Kandinsky, realize that their inner selves are as devoid of substance or meaning as the external world. No inner integrity or complexity exists in reality's nihilism. Only men alive to life's total nothingness are as scientific--as knowledgeable about reality--as men can be. Other intellectuals, whether 'scientists' or humanists, artists or computer experts, are no more than conscious or unconscious propagandists. Genuine education, Nietzsche's experiment to incorporate truth's nihilism, requires elimination of their propaganda: 'I would drive out of my ideal state the so-called 'educated' just as Plato drove out the poets: this is my terrorism.'" (Neumann, ibid.)

I agree with Neumann about all this, but not with his notion that Nietzsche's aristocratic radicalism is at odds with this. As I wrote in a private email to Fixed Cross about a month ago (in Dutch; what follows is obviously a translation):

::

I've plunged into Neumann's nihilism again recently, but now I think I've found an error in it even on his terms: there is no original phobos (fear/hate) of the will, it's a circle, that phobos exists only for the natural philosopher who thinks through modernity to its ultimate extreme; every step away from that zero-point is one of Lust [Ger. pleasure], not of phobos. This again became clear to me from the superpositive Will to Power 853: to speak with [Nietzsche's early essay] "The Greek State", "the genius of wisdom and of knowing" is himself an Apollinian genius, that cannot exist without the state, with all the steps and leaps away from that zero-point required for [the emergence of] the state. So the zero-point is the high point of the whole pyramid of semblance... That high point, by the way, is not just a manifestation of Apollinian, but also of Dionysian geniality: there the self-valuing realizes its identification with its own Primordial One (I now think every (supreme[*]) self-valuing has/is its own Primordial One, in accordance with VO as poly-solipsism).

::

* The word "supreme" was an allusion to a private discussion I had with Fixed Cross and Wyld by PM here on ILP, in which I wrote:

"[E]xcept for the supreme self-valuings (the 'peak' I mentioned in my first post[**] in Magnus' recent 'Self-valuing' thread), self-valuings do value their real selves, but only as means to their ideal selves[.]"

** http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2627203#p2627203

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

gib wrote:
Merlin wrote:Well, I'm glad that I misjudged the situation and hope you post more often in other threads at some point.

Yeah, it would be good to get back to the days when I'd just spur off a whimsical thread about a trivial topic. Some of them would last a few days or a good week, but they wouldn't consume my time. These intensive, serious ILP projects of mine are fulfilling, but the more playful ones are a lot more fun.

I'm going to take a bit of a break after Season 1 of Rick and Morty, maybe spin off a few mundane threads, and then get onto Season 2. Then I think I'll start a thread on Canadian politics. For that, however, I'm going to search out a "Canadian Politics" forum and start a project similar to my Reforming Democracy thread. <-- What I liked about that one was how educational it was. I did a thorough analysis of the American Constitution, but now I figure that if I want to pursue political philosophy in any more depth than that, I've really got to understand my own government first. So that's gotta be the next project. What I'm going to do here at ILP is post a link to the thread in the Canadian politics forum and post some commentary here (I'm sure Turd will be all over that one).

Then I figure *maybe* I'll be in a better position to decide whether I want to align myself with right-wing politics or left-wing politics, or neither, but even that requires answering the question: how do I know what's a trustworthy source of information and what isn't. <-- That one, at the present time, seems an insurmountable challenge.

I look forward to seeing you write in other threads. I prefer your non-trivial stuff myself.

I think you're wasting time articulating anything on state controlled democracy but you're of course familiar with my opinions on that.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit

Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

Sauwelios wrote:
Merlin wrote:Sauwelios

People fear what disgusts themselves often. When have I ever claimed to be an ethical man? You should know better.

Of course I do. It was supposed to sound paradoxical coming from me, considering Nietzsche called himself an immoralist. But then there's Berkowitz's book title, Nietzsche: the Ethics of an Immoralist. The thing is Nietzsche also said he was the first decent human being--which, hyperbolic though it may be, is serious in the sense of Berkowitz's "ethics". But more about that below:

I know plenty about Nietzsche, his mistake was rejecting nihilism that he heavily outlined in his writings. He didn't really have anything that was a workable substitute for nihilism and there is a reason for this. There is no solution or substitute to nihilism. I embrace nihilism because for me it is the way of the world and universe. Johann Kaspur Schmidt understood this and heavily influenced the writings of Nietzsche.

This makes some sense to me, reminding me as it does of the self-proclaimed nihilist Harry Neumann. But I disagree with Neuman and with you. Here's an excerpt from my forthcoming translation of my "tutorial in Platonic political philosophy [by which I also mean Homeric, Machiavellian/Baconian, and Nietzschean political philosophy]":

::

The Baconian scheme, in which science serves the common good, was so successful that the unreasonableness of such utilitarianism was almost completely obscured by it; today, virtually everyone considers democracy's absolute superiority a self-evident fact (though not everyone may find things are sufficiently socialist or anarchist yet). Near the end of 2012, I saw a nice example of how much people regard certain moral values as self-evident and science as their vehicle. It's an imaginary postcard sent to religion by science, in the week that skydiver and BASE-jumper Felix Baumgartner jumped from the stratosphere in a stunt sponsored by Red Bull.

Dear Religion,

This week I safely dropped a
human being from space while
you shot a 14 year old girl in the
head for wanting to go to
school.

I kinda feel like you need a
better hobby....

Yours,
Science

I won't say much about this other than that the idea behind it seems to me to be the following: "We over here in the West are, thanks to our scientific enlightenment, already able to employ science for the purpose of excitement and sensation, whereas you over there in the Middle East haven't even used it to guarantee peace and security!" For these, I think, are the two value sets which are met by the Machiavellian strategy. A student of Leo Strauss whom I haven't yet mentioned, Harry Neumann, may express the truth behind this even better than Lampert and Strauss. Thus he writes:

"Sometimes I ask students if any real restraints, limits set by something like nature or gods, exist to curb scientific experimentation. Can science, for example, make men immortal or transform them into eagles? Most students deny that anything is intrinsically impossible. They acknowledge that some things probably will not happen tomorrow or even in a century, but, in principle, nothing prevents anything imaginable from happening at any time. Like good liberal democrats, these same students usually cling to a groundless faith that science's uncurbed experimentation ought to be used for liberal democratic goals--to promote freedom rather than slavery, peace rather than war. As if that made any difference in the nihilist world revealed by science! The faith that science's omnipotence can be restrained in the name of some non-arbitrary moral obligation is unscientific. It is relapse into the philosophic illusion from which science liberates itself. Interpreted scientifically, any such relapse, any moral-political commitment, springs from the tyrannic decision to have it so: all moral-political demands are efforts to tyrannize over reality, to replace nature or truth with the propaganda dearest to one's heart." (Neumann, Liberalism.)

"The philosophic illusion from which science liberates itself" is the illusion of "a universe in which [the philosopher] and what is good for him exist as something more than nihilist experience" (Neumann, ibid.). So not only are the said value sets valuable only insofar as people insist on their being valuable, but man himself only exists insofar as he insists that he exists... The latter idea, that beings exist only insofar as they value themselves, is of the essence of value ontology. But since we're talking about political philosophy, not about metaphysics, I won't go into that too deeply. Suffice it to say the following. Democracy exists owing to the fact that the people who want it to exist, together are more powerful than the people who do not want that. These, however, are people with relatively weak wills: hence they must be with a great majority. That their individual wills are weak may be appreciated from the fact that most of them at least cannot acknowledge the aforesaid; they have to believe that their values are universal, that they are not driven by will to power but by moral sense. Nietzsche's philosophy, on the other hand, indeed, all esoteric, that is to say actual philosophy, is scientific: it is the most spiritual will to power, the tyrannical drive to the creation of the world... Thus Nietzsche wants the world to be will to power and nothing besides, and therewith as hierarchical, not egalitarian.

::

As for Max Stirner, my very succinct criticism of him--and at the same time of the notion that he heavily influenced Nietzsche, or at least of the notion that Nietzsche was an epigone of his--can be found here:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2574823#p2574823

In my anti idealism prescription of the world I reject government of all kinds stemming from both the left and right because I understand the entropic erosion underpinning them. Liberalism, conservatism, and Marxism doesn't matter, I reject all.

Anarchist autonomous self rule is the only sensible way to look at the world.

Self-rule? But nihilism is solipsism without even the ipse, the self! Your "self" is only different from your preciously rejected government in degree, not in kind...

"Artists such as Beckmann, Grammaté and Grosz are more scientific (liberal) than Aristotle, Newton or Einstein who mean to present communicable theories or hypotheses. Their artistic insight into life's nihilism precludes anything really common or communicable. What is communicable is the horror of the confrontation with nihilism depicted in their art. They realize that they themselves and the world in which they live is nothing but nihilist experiences. [...]
In this they antagonize not only pseudo-scientists [like Aristotle, Newton and Einstein] and other political men whose terror at genuine science's nihilism demands faith in a world in which theories can be tested or communicated, in which scientists (and others) can work with each other and for each other. They also differ from humanist artists and intellectuals who, while agreeing that the external world is empty, nevertheless find a wealth of meaning in their own inner life. These are the apostles of self-expression, 'finding one's real self.' Thus so-called non-objective or abstract art often denies the meaningfulness of objects, of the external world, while affirming the richness of inner experience. At their most scientific, Beckmann and Grammaté, unlike Klee or Kandinsky, realize that their inner selves are as devoid of substance or meaning as the external world. No inner integrity or complexity exists in reality's nihilism. Only men alive to life's total nothingness are as scientific--as knowledgeable about reality--as men can be. Other intellectuals, whether 'scientists' or humanists, artists or computer experts, are no more than conscious or unconscious propagandists. Genuine education, Nietzsche's experiment to incorporate truth's nihilism, requires elimination of their propaganda: 'I would drive out of my ideal state the so-called 'educated' just as Plato drove out the poets: this is my terrorism.'" (Neumann, ibid.)

I agree with Neumann about all this, but not with his notion that Nietzsche's aristocratic radicalism is at odds with this. As I wrote in a private email to Fixed Cross about a month ago (in Dutch; what follows is obviously a translation):

::

I've plunged into Neumann's nihilism again recently, but now I think I've found an error in it even on his terms: there is no original phobos (fear/hate) of the will, it's a circle, that phobos exists only for the natural philosopher who thinks through modernity to its ultimate extreme; every step away from that zero-point is one of Lust [Ger. pleasure], not of phobos. This again became clear to me from the superpositive Will to Power 853: to speak with [Nietzsche's early essay] "The Greek State", "the genius of wisdom and of knowing" is himself an Apollinian genius, that cannot exist without the state, with all the steps and leaps away from that zero-point required for [the emergence of] the state. So the zero-point is the high point of the whole pyramid of semblance... That high point, by the way, is not just a manifestation of Apollinian, but also of Dionysian geniality: there the self-valuing realizes its identification with its own Primordial One (I now think every (supreme[*]) self-valuing has/is its own Primordial One, in accordance with VO as poly-solipsism).

::

* The word "supreme" was an allusion to a private discussion I had with Fixed Cross and Wyld by PM here on ILP, in which I wrote:

"[E]xcept for the supreme self-valuings (the 'peak' I mentioned in my first post[**] in Magnus' recent 'Self-valuing' thread), self-valuings do value their real selves, but only as means to their ideal selves[.]"

** http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2627203#p2627203

I wouldn't call myself a decent man. I do pride myself on my radical honesty however even when it gets me into trouble. I call myself an amoralist. Calling oneself an immoralist doesn't make sense to me as you're literally legitimizing morality which is all just one giant fictitious abstraction.

I've never heard of Harry Neumann before until you referenced him in this thread. Peering over some of his writings by a search engine I must say that I like him as a thinker as some of his perspectives match my own. Thank-you for introducing him to me.

Indeed democracy is example of weak wills that can only stand together as a majority to have any sort of power. They have no individual power of their own whatsoever so they stand together as a majority in the creation of an artificial collective power instead. It isn't just restricted to democracy as I would proclaim all forms of government revolve around weak willpower.

If the world is a will to power nothing strikes me as more wilful than anarchist autonomous self rule of the individual. It is where an individual or a handful of individuals take a stand against the rest of the world in defiance and independence of their own. What could be more wilful than that?

The faith that science's omnipotence can be restrained in the name of some non-arbitrary moral obligation is unscientific. It is relapse into the philosophic illusion from which science liberates itself. Interpreted scientifically, any such relapse, any moral-political commitment, springs from the tyrannic decision to have it so: all moral-political demands are efforts to tyrannize over reality, to replace nature or truth with the propaganda dearest to one's heart." (Neumann, Liberalism.)
Very true. I really would like to read more of Neumann's writings and books.

It should be noted that I'm not egalitarian whatsoever in my thinking where my anarchism is very hierarchical just decentralized as opposed to centralization. I despise political and social centralization.

The self could be just another illusion but for me it is a necessary one. The self for me is the primary form of this existence which is why I obviously subscribe to a Stirner notion of egoism or embrace the autonomous self rule of anarchism.

For me all expressions of politics, government, or social order revolves around the folly of idealism which is why all such expressions eventually collapse amongst themselves. More importantly all those ideals are collectivist in nature denying the individual themselves. Those idealist expressions deny the ego. Anything that denies the ego its independence, autonomy, pleasure, and self indulgences I'm against.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit

Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

I do hope that whosoever is wearing the name of Merlin realizes that they still have to deal with Morgana and all of the worst that falls on Merlins shoulders. Also, mixing it with Gandalf, a mere wizard caught up in the war between Iluvitar and Melkor, the principle Ainur or creators of the races of middle earth through song as Tom Bombadil created the actual world and them all. It's like... dude, you put on a potent mixture of 'please come fuck me up'. Just giving a friendly little Jokers' warning that you probably bit off more than you could chew.

and let me tell ya, that Morgana has been places. whoooooo-eeeeeeee has she been places and fucked some shit up.
Slenderman can invoke memory loss in all but the most resolute - you could have already had a Slenderman encounter and not remember it.

The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher

Posts: 2550
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

### Re: Fixed Cross Lamentations

Merlin wrote:I wouldn't call myself a decent man. I do pride myself on my radical honesty however even when it gets me into trouble.

Well, I must admit that is the most important thing--though priding yourself on it may be a problem: for it suggests a lack of honesty with regard to your very honesty--which is will to power, with all the immorality (or amorality) that entails:

"[W]ill to power [...] includes cruelty which, as cruelty directed toward oneself, is effective in intellectual probity, in 'the intellectual conscience'." (Leo Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil".)

I call myself an amoralist. Calling oneself an immoralist doesn't make sense to me as you're literally legitimizing morality which is all just one giant fictitious abstraction.

The point about the term "immoralist" is that it suggests exaltation of what is commonly considered immoral and downplaying of what is commonly considered moral. I think this neutralizes what you say about legitimizing morality.

I've never heard of Harry Neumann before until you referenced him in this thread. Peering over some of his writings by a search engine I must say that I like him as a thinker as some of his perspectives match my own. Thank-you for introducing him to me.

I can sincerely say you're welcome. Interestingly, Fixed Cross despises the guy.

In case you didn't find it yet, here's a whole chapter/essay of his:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2178280#p2178280

Indeed democracy is example of weak wills that can only stand together as a majority to have any sort of power. They have no individual power of their own whatsoever so they stand together as a majority in the creation of an artificial collective power instead. It isn't just restricted to democracy as I would proclaim all forms of government revolve around weak willpower.

Well, I think that's simply because all willpowers are relatively weak. More on this below.

If the world is a will to power nothing strikes me as more wilful than anarchist autonomous self rule of the individual. It is where an individual or a handful of individuals take a stand against the rest of the world in defiance and independence of their own. What could be more wilful than that?

Interestingly, the first entry in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary for "wilful" is this:

"obstinately and often perversely self-willed <a stubborn and willful child>"

This immediately reminds me of a post I made on Facebook almost a year ago:

::

The literal Latin translation of εἶδος is "speciês". A species is a group of individuals with a shared vision (εἶδος, speciês) of their end (τέλος, fînis). Modern Liberalism, as opposed to Classical Republicanism, is epitomised by Max Stirner when he writes:

"Man with the great M is only an ideal, the species only something thought of. To be a man is not to realize the ideal of Man, but to present oneself, the individual. It is not how I realize the generally human that needs to be my task, but how I satisfy myself. I am my species, am without norm, without law, without model, and the like." (Stirner, _The Ego and Its Own_, Second Part, II, 1, Byington translation.)

The inconsistency of political liberalism is that it politicises, i.e. republicanises, this radical individualism. And though Nietzsche is often depicted by the Left as a secret student of Stirner, an extreme individualist, etc., he is actually the diametrical opposite. His extreme individualism is for the few; his vision is of a hierarchical republic, a pyramid, whose summit consists of the Übermensch, the realistic version of the liberal ideal. As I wrote in my "Note on the First Chapter of Leo Strauss's Final Work",

"according to Nietzsche, 'the full development of everyone' is an impossibility; only a _minority_ can be noble and great, which is to say free (frank) and fully developed; and this only inasmuch as the _majority_ is limited."

And ironically, Stirner affirms this, by immediately continuing his book as follows:

"It is possible that I can make very little out of myself; but this little is everything, and is better than what I allow to be made out of me by the might of others, by the training of custom, religion, the laws, the state. Better--if the talk is to be of better at all--better an unmannerly child than an old head on young shoulders, better a mulish man than a man compliant in everything."

It is blatantly obvious today that the main product of modern liberalism is unmannerly children. I'm not just talking about actual children. I'm talking first and foremost about mulish adults, grown men who behave like spoiled children. Oh, and lest I be mistaken, let's not forget about the women. Don't get me started about women!

What's the solution to all this? Strauss has formulated it quite perfectly:

"For a better understanding of 'our virtue' it is helpful to contrast it with the most powerful antagonist, the morality preached up by the English utilitarians which accepts indeed egoism as the basis of morality but contends that egoism rightly understood leads to the espousal of the general welfare. That utilitarianism is disgusting, boring and naive. While it recognizes the fundamental character of egoism, it does not realize the fact that egoism is will to power and hence includes cruelty which, as cruelty directed toward oneself, is effective in intellectual probity, in 'the intellectual conscience.'
To recognize the crucial importance of cruelty is indispensable if 'the terrible basic text _homo natura_,' 'that eternal basic text' is again to be seen, if man is to be 're-translated into nature.'" (Strauss, _Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy_, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _Beyond Good and Evil_".)

That terrible basic text does not resemble a mule, but rather a blond beast, a lion. Ironic, by the way, that mules are infertile: this seems to stand in sharp contrast to the idiots who make modern democracy an idiocracy. But it makes perfect sense if it's not taken in a literal, biological sense, but in a metaphorical, cultural sense: just look at Pop Culture! The contemporary ideal is the bonobo. Yes, Frans de Waal, bonobos have culture, too...

::

In case you don't know it, the term "idiocracy" is a reference to the movie of the same name by Beavis and Butthead-creator Mike Judge:

The faith that science's omnipotence can be restrained in the name of some non-arbitrary moral obligation is unscientific. It is relapse into the philosophic illusion from which science liberates itself. Interpreted scientifically, any such relapse, any moral-political commitment, springs from the tyrannic decision to have it so: all moral-political demands are efforts to tyrannize over reality, to replace nature or truth with the propaganda dearest to one's heart." (Neumann, Liberalism.)
Very true. I really would like to read more of Neumann's writings and books.

He only has one book, Liberalism. Unfortunately, I don't have a spare copy, as I only have two... But it certainly doesn't have to cost you what's currently charged for it on Amazon, as I got one of my copies for 25 euros including shipping (on eBay) and happen to know somebody else got it for $30 from Alibris.com (it may discourage you to look there now, though. Also, at some point some seller charged$2500 for it on Amazon...).

It should be noted that I'm not egalitarian whatsoever in my thinking where my anarchism is very hierarchical just decentralized as opposed to centralization. I despise political and social centralization.

The self could be just another illusion but for me it is a necessary one. The self for me is the primary form of this existence which is why I obviously subscribe to a Stirner notion of egoism or embrace the autonomous self rule of anarchism.

For me all expressions of politics, government, or social order revolves around the folly of idealism which is why all such expressions eventually collapse amongst themselves. More importantly all those ideals are collectivist in nature denying the individual themselves. Those idealist expressions deny the ego. Anything that denies the ego its independence, autonomy, pleasure, and self indulgences I'm against.

I do indeed think the self is an illusion and is indeed necessary for the self-valuing in question, except for those rare self-valuings who see their selves as nothing but their self-valuing. But I also think the State is necessary, if not as absolutely as the self, then at least relatively, to an ever higher degree for ever higher self-valuings. Allow me to explain.

Without the State--that is, the organization of Society--, you would have to rely wholly and only on yourself. You would have to get your own food from scratch (scavenging, hunting, gathering, animal husbandry, agriculture, etc.), find or build your own home, treat your own injuries, etc. etc. etc. You would not be able to dedicate your life to philosophy.

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Previous