Taking this to heart, and applying what you said in the other thread, these are my thoughts, Koros:
I will never be 210 lbs. I will always be a lightweight. I am a priestly nature, not a warrior nature. And as Nietzsche says,
[size=95]Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the “powerful,” the “strong”, the men—.
[The Will to Power, section 864.][/size]
But as you can see in said other thread, and as you could have seen in the past, I don’t allow woman to conspire with me. I am on the Nietzschean side, even if that means taking sides against myself. You may call all this feminine, and be justified in it, but how does this further your cause? Do you even have a cause, besides gloating? Note again that I never turned against you, you turned against me. What I am against is your turning against potential allies, not you. You may look down on these potential allies, but what benefit do you have in driving them away? As, again, Nietzsche says,
[size=95]“Where force is, there becometh number the master: it hath more force.”
[Thus Spake Zarathustra, Of the Three Evil Things.][/size]
Do you not want to—become master? If you don’t, however, you are no bridge for me to the Superman. I will then take my business elsewhere. So kindly let me know.
Strength is more than weight.
In the other thread I was making a primal point to a woman who takes her safety and her rights for granted.
Your 'priestly nature" is obviuos in your total and complete dedication to an idol.
Then this makes you noble.
My cause is my own.
You and i being forced to act feminine, is different than it being innate…as in total subm8ission to the authority of another.
My cause has been and forever will be selfish, for I recognize no other motive as anything but bullshit, used to exploit the dull.
Yes.
Finding my own kind is part of it…but as your own mentor tells you, free-spirits must be solitary for in every community there is a hierarchy which inhibits one or the other’s free-spiritidness.
This is both this kind’s greatest advantage and vulnerability.
Quality is buried under quantity, but making itself part of the quantity contradicts its nature.
So, the cave upon the mountain is where one ascends, only venturing forth when he is brimming with excess.
This is what I have agaisnt what you call “potential allies”.
Allying my self with Nietzsche, through you, is no potential at all. My relationship to him, as to anyone else, does not go through YOU and has nothing to do with YOU!!!
If an ally you seek, then speak with your own voice.
Is not remaining true to one’s nature the way to this ideal you call the overman?
Is that not what your dead master urges you to do?
Then why is my domineering nature and your reaction to you, not lead to your master’s ideal?
But for me this ideal is an internal struggle and goes through nobody and depends on no one.
It is I, and I alone, that has to come to terms with my ephemeral nature and overcome what resentment lies in me because of it.
Wow Sauwelios. Nietzsche is literally your idol. You talk about nothing but Nietzsche. He is one of a hundred with whom I hold congress in the land of the dead… He would call you an over-sized, monstrous organ. For someone who takes his perspectivism so seriously you would figure you would have more real perspectives.
Note again that I never turned against you, you turned against me. What I am against is your turning against potential allies, not you. You may look down on these potential allies, but what benefit do you have in driving them away? As, again, Nietzsche says,
“Where force is, there becometh number the master: it hath more force.”
[Thus Spake Zarathustra, Of the Three Evil Things.]
What a hypocrite. Note that I never turned against you, you turned against me- out of nowhere.
Why should I if Nietzsche has already said it sufficiently well? I have never tried to suggest that your relationship to him should go through me, or has anything to do with me. Though I may not be on a par with Nietzsche, at least I am alive… But perhaps I, unlike him, am just not your kind, and therefore not interesting to you. I can live with that.
If that were so, my remaining true to my (priestly) nature would as much be the way to the overman as your remaining true to your nature. Perhaps if the fool persists in his folly he will become wise. Perhaps the dedication you scorn is just my persisting in my folly.
The rest of your post is just thought-provoking (not word-provoking) to me at this time.
Not out of nowhere. In my view you derailed a thread which I found important, with what I see (but apparently I am the only one? ) as utter nonsense, as I think I have shown in this thread.
This must be another one of your ‘jokes’. You talk about necromancy, and then tell me I need more ‘real’ perspectives??
As for Qabalah, I agree with Crowley:
[size=95]The Qabalah, that is, the Jewish Tradition concerning the initiated interpretation of their Scriptures, is mostly either unintelligible or nonsense.
[Crowley, Little Essays toward Truth, ‘Man’.][/size]
Sadly, the same goes for Crowley’s own writings in my view.
You aren’t much of a Nietzschean after all, are you?
: “In the actual world, in which everything is bound to and conditioned by everything else, to condemn and to think away anything means to condemn and think away everything.” (The Will to Power. p.316).
To not regard nonsense as nonsense: would that not be to think it away?
I have wasted enough time not regarding your nonsense as nonsense. If you really believe in it, however, I have wrongly accused you of being a fraud etc.
Don’t I, or don’t I cloud them in metaphor trying to make them more than word-associations and pretentious dribble?
art, dear fellow, does not mask it exposes…and your “art” exposes you as a fake.
Explain it to me in Latin, because English fails you. Shall I go into Greek, to battle you?
Those that know of me know of my thoughts.
Clarity is what a true thinker seeks, not ambiguous claptrap, to hide the parroting and immitation.
If you follow more than one dead teacher then follow, for a while, Schopenhauer.
He had your number.
It is funny that the line “a great thinker strives for clarity” came from the man who wrote Zarathustra. You and your master are so double-faced it is almost funny.
Why did Nietzsche fail every time he set down to outline his philosophy in academic terms. Why did he never publish the will to power- if we was a great thinker, if he had such clarity?
Let me explain something to you, you insolent little weasel. I don’t need your vindication. I don’t need you to like what I write. I love the writings of Johann Hamann, or Robert Burton. They are like my writings. They are slow to digest, a lot of research has to go on, they are rhapsodies. You don’t like that? I don’t really care. I write exactly what I enjoy reading.
The point to my first post is the following one. From the initial experience of love- one in which all things are strictly interpreted on the basis of whether or not their sacrifice would bring eros closer to his object, the beautiful… from this initial experience springs up an unaquit passion (once the ultimate limit of the beautiful is discerned, with eros’s self-sacrifice in the name of beauty) that is nonetheless not registeed as pain- for it does not bear the usual salt for the old would of solitude- a wound in which formerly all pains were interpreted by the lover as healing salts, ie. eros himself is abnegated, who by this time has becoming nothing more than a vestigial organ perceptible of mere pain. I am talking about the entire dynamic of desire’s self-abnegation.
Also, again I stress: what kind of Nietzscheans are you exactly, constantly deploring my word-play?
And the several Latin quotations were describing how this self-abnegation is not to be confused with the effect of woman herself: obsessions, seduction, extravagance, shows of power, etc.
) as utter nonsense, as I think I have shown in this thread.