Beware of Greeks....

The Awakening

“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” they’ve said and no truer words have ever been uttered in the history of man.

Greeks have a way of enticing you with their wares, they charm you with their words and wit, they gain your trust with their cunning and, before you know it, they have entered your most guarded inner sanctum, feast at your table as honoured guests and open you up to their world while you remain oblivious to any of it, until it’s too late.

They did this to the Trojans, they did it to the Romans and through them they did it to the western world and the world at large.

But the gift given, by the Greeks to humankind, was much more tempting than a simple lifeless idol, it was much more enticing than a wooden horse offered in hypocritical humiliation, much more powerful than a symbol of false defeat; this gift was the brilliance of critical thinking that was to revolutionize human contemplation and give rise to change and hope through all the coming ages, it was a spirit of being.

It was from this simple offering, given in feigned humility, that came forth, from the belly of the beast, the forces of deliberation that were to open the mental doors of ignorance and superstition and lay the world bear to the power of mans creativity and curiosity.

It was from this offering that, under the cover of darkness, the forces of human awareness were to make, mans most well devised defences of fear, ignorance and insecurity, ineffective and that showed once more that there is nothing more potent and insidious in the universe than intelligence, wisdom and guile.

From that moment on, when the gates to the walled city were opened, man has reached for heights never before attained by any civilization and to depths imagined by few cultures before.

This simple breaching of the minds ramparts, using intellect where brute force failed, is what the Greeks offered mankind as their lasting legacy through time and has made them immortals in the memories of all those that have come since.

In the fertile soils of critical thought watered by honest scepticism, they planted for us philosophy, science, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, gymnastics, history, theatre, aesthetics and many other seedlings of the human imagination; but much more than this they grew acceptance of mans true nature and awareness of mans promise and possibility.

From the serrated, sea beaten shores of the Greek peninsula, man stood for the first time next to the gods and did not just cower in submission beneath them; like Homers Odysseus man set off into the unknown sea looking for his way to Ithaca and no monsters or enticers would keep him from his course; no threatening horror or promising pleasure would divert his attentions.

The gods, representing the mysterious forces of nature, as all deities do, were no longer unreachable icons or omnipotent despots, but exhibited the imperfections and limitations that man sees in himself and in the universe around him. Man, was to be, no longer an unwilling, helpless pawn or a witless, grovelling victim of unknown powers and domineering entities but was to stand to his full height, face the world with courage and pride and fight for his place in it as an equal and full participant or perish in the fight.

The gods may have been placated, tricked, bribed, cajoled and honoured but they were not idealized; the gods may have been feared, followed, respected, worshiped, loved and hated but they were not surrendered to.

From this straightforward stance on life these Hellenes became a subtle power that affected men from all cultures and through all times and as a consequence conquered Europe as no military or economic power ever could have.

Their power was their message and their message was mans destiny.

The Coming Darkness

Despite this glorious beginning hard times were to later come, that were to plunge the Greek spirit into the darkness for centuries and that was to weaken, a once powerful civilization, to such an extent that it became vulnerable to foreign, slavish moral systems that still, to this day, plague western civilization and chain the human spirit to mediocrity and herd psychology.

The decline of Hellenic thought, not surprisingly, coincided with the deterioration of its last greatest conquest and bastion, the Roman Empire.
Through years of power and privilege the Romans became tempered by easy living and unearned security, as often happens with all empires and elites, which made them susceptible to foreign ideals and moralities coming from the lower classes of Roman society and from the outlying conquered realms, populated by peoples seeking a reprieve from Rome’s dominion and an escape from their viciousness.

Christianity, being an amalgamation of eastern religions, Hebrew ethics and Greek metaphysics, quickly became attractive to the masses of the weak and the deprived and, like communism, preached the degradation of the strong for the appeasement of the frail; as such it was fast to spread amongst the under-classes and the subdued as a new hope for salvation, not only from the cruelty of the Romans but mainly from the brutality of life itself.

Slowly the Greek paideia that was taught to the children of the roman elites for centuries lost its hold and its meaning and in its place Judeo-Christian ethics started replacing it in the consciousness of the nation at large, starting from the ground up.

This was one more cause, amongst many more, that in due course lead to the infiltration of northern tribes into the heart of roman rule and eventually caused the split of the Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire in the west and, what was later referred to, the Byzantium Empire in the east.

But the onslaught of Christianity against Hellenism was not to end here.
In later years through the Crusades and the Iconoclastic Wars, Greek culture- now labelled paganism- was either completely illegalized and forced under ground or assimilated into Christian doctrine and rituals; the heart of the eastern roman empire now- after the acceptance of Christianity as its official religion- called Constantinople, was repeatedly ransacked by western Christian hordes on their way to the “Holy Lands” and so weakened that it became easy prey for the coming of the Turks that were to completely destroy Byzantium and later threaten all of Europe.

Europe plunged into the Dark Ages losing its past in the process and strengthening the control of Christianity over its soul.
How revealing it is that during these dark times Christianity flourished and prospered as all religions do in times of desperation and need.

Like the vulture that can only feed on the weak and dying, this mutated nihilistic religion feasted upon the carrion of Greco-Roman civilization and grew strong upon the fat of the meek and fearful.

It would be unjust of me to blame the fall of Rome and the decline of Hellenism entirely on Christianity. It is obvious that empires and civilizations come and go as a natural course of history and of life as a whole and keeping this in mind we can see Christianity more as a natural consequence rather than a decisive cause of Roman decline; but I also believe that there are environments that breed destruction as there are environments that breed construction as an innate aspect of their nature, as there are mentalities that cause enlightenment and ones that cause degradation and ignorance through their mere existence. Because of this, I believe, Christianity hastened, even if it didn’t completely cause, the fall of Rome.

It is interesting to note here that in present day Greece the idea of Christianity {Orthodoxy} has so immersed itself in the psychology and identity of the population that Christianity is now considered a necessary particle of Hellenism and is often considered a tautology even if, in essence, these two ideals are irreconcilable with each other.

It is, therefore, ironic that in modern day Greece there are very few real Greeks as described by their own ancestors and many more barbarians of Turkish disposition.

To be Greek is neither a national identity nor a racial one, but it is a way of thinking, a way of education, a position towards life and a spirit of being.

How can there be Greeks in a country so submersed in Judeo-Christian theism and how can Hellenism coexist with Jewish morality?

Hellenism teaches man to stand strong and courageous in front of the mysteries of the universe; Christianity teaches shame and humility.

Hellenism teaches man to stand in defiance of fate and in opposition to the unknown; Christianity teaches surrender and ignorance.

Hellenism proposes a man as a full and equal participant, beautiful in his nature, proud in his being and creator of his destiny; Christianity proposes a man as a blind puppet to a strange puppeteer, hideous in his denial of his spirit, his body, his nature and a slave to chance and superstition.

Hellenism proposes a man of wisdom through effort, knowledge and ability; a dominator of what is beneath him and builder of his world.

Christianity proposes a man of faith through acceptance of another’s hope and subjugation to his inner insecurities, egotism and fears; a follower and unaware nothing in a herd of nobody’s.

Hellenism interprets existence as an opportunity; something to be explored, understood and conquered.

Christianity interprets existence as a period of atonement for life itself; as an opportunity for offering payment for even being what one is and in longing for escape into a promised “otherness”.

Hellenism breeds men of the world: brave, proud, aware, challenging, changing, becoming and knowing; while Christianity breeds sheep for slaughter: meek, huddled in pools of “averageness” and hoping for a better after death than a life.

Through the propagation of Judeo-Christian ideals and false democratic equalitarianism throughout the western world, western man has been degraded and diluted. Weakness and inferiority is promoted and sheltered while the distinct and superior are asked to lower themselves or to hide their special nature so that the many will not feel insecure or irrelevant in comparison.

Political correctness is a modern catch phrase that harnesses language and personal expression to the cart of conventionality.

This levelling of man for the sake of peace and conformity has declined western civilization but has also altered it from what it was or supposed to be, into a horrific mutation with nothing in common with the original and has made man into a terrible replica of his original Platonic Idea.

The Reawakening

Fortunately Greek thought was not to perish. It lay dormant in Arabic libraries and in the minds of learned men waiting for the long night to pass and the tides of time to bring back fertile ground to seed the minds of men once more, and to tempt the west with the same original gift.

The Renaissance was a period of reacceptance, rediscovery and a rebirth of ancient ideals, but this time with the added obstacle of struggling against, a now, firmly entrenched alien ideology that would resist it all the way.

Christianity with its Buddhist selflessness and denial of life coupled with Jewish shame and original sin and the addition of Greek mythology and spirituality within its dogma imposed limits to the extent as to which Hellenism took root.

Up until our time the struggle continues.

The most remarkable aspect of the reincarnation of Hellenism is that it has mostly been advanced by Anglo-Saxons and other Europeans not originally infected by its message in the early years.

It is, in fact, a German, Nietzsche who stands as the last great “Greek” philosopher of our times; it was he who first appreciated the true spirit of Hellenism and freely displayed his appreciation of it throughout his work.

The modern Greeks themselves, never having participated in the Renaissance due to their enslavement to the Ottoman Empire and still weighed down by Christian Orthodoxy and its stifling effects, rediscovered their own ancestors through third parties and foreign philosophers and still, to this day, resist them and their teachings.

The Forked Road

Man is a torn being; two forces push and pull him in different direction even though they are effects of the same cause and are motivated by similar goals.

Nietzsche described these two opposing natural human impulses as Dionysian {change, creation, destruction, movement, rhythm, ecstasy, oneness} and Apollonian {order, lawfulness, perfect form, clarity, precision, self-control, individuation} where as Schopenhauer stated that it was the will struggling against intellect or rather the excess of intellect becoming pure will-less knowledge trying to break free from its servitude to the blind will.

Through the lifetime of a man he will be asked to decide between these two facets of his being and due to this decision he will form his character and values that will guide his actions and designate his virtues.
But more than this man is torn between complete acceptance of his being or total denial of it.

Christianity, in its true spirit, as with Buddhism, teaches a full withdrawal from the temptations of existence and an extreme ascetic subsistence devoid of all pleasures and pains as a penitence for mans nature and a payment for mans consciousness.

Despite the infringing theologies and ideologies that have mutated modern Christianity, the real spirit of Christian dogma contains a selflessness and denial of life equal to Buddhist teachings and Schopenhauer’s philosophy of pessimism.

Atheistic materialism, on the other hand- as well as hedonism as its encompassing dogma- holds that the other extreme position towards life is the wise one. Here pleasure is valuable for its own sake and since no other higher entity exists there are no rules, no purposes, no goals worth sacrificing personal contentment for; life is its own reward and any denial of mans nature or his will is a waste of time and an exercise in futility.

Hellenism contains both paths but not to either extreme. The Greeks recognized the meaninglessness of human existence and the melancholy and horrors it contains.

Socrates and Plato made no effort to hide their disdain for life and they labelled it a disease that only death could cure; Diogenes turned inward seeking fulfilment and truth and the stoics accepted pleasures, if offered, but made no effort to indulge themselves.

Asceticism, and the mental discipline it breeds, was a necessary part of Hellenic thought and an acknowledgment that the mind made up mans particular distinctness in nature, but the Greeks never went so far as to deny life in its entirety and to preach an extreme asceticism as was taught in the eastern faiths and later by Christianity.

Within Hellenic thought both the horror and ecstasy of life are represented and embraced. It is this opposition, this dual nature of Greek thought that gave birth to tragedy and comedy that so fully expresses the duality of human thought and the inner struggle that often reveals itself in contradictions bordering the ridiculous or sad.

This battle between Apollonian and Dionysian impulses was how Nietzsche explained the birth of Tragedy and Comedy in ancient Greece and it so perfectly represents Greek thought overall.

The Hellenes have built their symbolic icon and they place it before us as a tempting gift to our vanity; it contains insidious forces, anti-establishment notions and challenging ideas that will open our mental doors to the world where we will either be lost or inflamed but we will not remain the same.

Will we allow it through the walls of our mind, will we succumb to their calling and allow the idol within our walls, will we surrender to the Greeks and become one of them ourselves?

Well, I thought it was damn good, myself.

I want to know how a Hellenistic ethos could be practiced, how those principle might be applied in modern life. I wonder how you, Satyr, could spot one in a crowd. Which is to ask, how radical indeed is the difference and are its proponents really practical and useful.

The paper designed an alternative to our ways of life?

detrop

Yes

I don’t know if it will be helpful but I will post an essay below that is related to your question.
I have no time now to go into detail.

An Aesthetic Perspective of Power

What is beauty?

There she stands, both strong and pure, with head held high and a furrowed pensive sneer plastered across her countenance hinting at strength of resolve; a symbol of quiet dignity and power of Will that strikes you like a slap in the face and reminds you of what is possible and not just an unapproachable ideal to be fantasized over or that can only be found in books and movie screens.

She is beautiful, a fact made all the more poignant by her complete innocence about it, her complete ignorance concerning her own force of presence.

She feels her power, sometimes, she perceives the effects of it on the world around her but she lacks the ego and the presumptuous nature to fully appreciate it.
Her pride is often misconstrued as arrogance and her nobility as snobbishness.

This is power in its purest form. It just exudes itself in genuine honesty and is not the product of imitation, inheritance or surrogacy.

A beautiful woman need not use makeup or dress in flamboyant, flattering garments to become so-she simply is- no more than a powerful woman needs to find authority through social positions of status or economic sway. The most pathetically weak individuals are often those that, when stripped of their labels, acquisitions and status, have nothing else left to be proud of. Powerlessness can always be recognized by how it tries to acquire control through external sources where personal incapacity is filled by institutional or symbolic strength; the weaker the individual, the uglier the person, the simpler the mind, the more it looks for substitutions for inner power and beauty.

But she needs none of this, others just gravitate to her they sense her authenticity of spirit; they want to partake in it, rub against it, gain a bit of it through association or they fear it, loath it, despise its existence until they want to tear it down and defame it in public view. They feel threatened by it because it forces comparisons and its purity of force and ease of expression exasperates them.

But beauty can’t be completely defined or mathematically measured; we feel it first and then search for the reasons why; we first acknowledge it as such and then we attempt to intellectualize and conceptualize it so that we may try to reproduce it.

The ancients understood beauty and its power, they tried to capture it and reproduce it using its external manifestations.

But how do you capture intrinsic beauty, how do you symbolize spiritual symmetry, how do you grasp strength of Will?

You can only symbolize it using outer impressions that attempt to define inner forces.

What is beauty?

He walks into a room and makes no first impressions of note. He resembles the common man to the extent that he can blend into the throng and get lost in the multitude.

But spend enough time in his presence and he unfolds the wonderment of his being to you. Slowly but surely you begin deferring to him, you seek his approval, his agreement, his friendship, his love.
It happens unconsciously and while you are offering opinions on a multiplicity of subject matter and trying to resist him, your eyes drift his way, they seek out his, looking for reaction, looking for consent, looking for communion.

He doesn’t always speak honestly, often being bored by the simplicity of the world or the opinions trying to encompass it, but when he does he sets a standard to be reached and reveals a perspective that can be ignored and/or opposed but not completely denied.

He is beautiful in the one way that matters, for a beautiful spirit can result in symmetry of form but symmetry of form doesn’t always hint at spirit.
He is threatening, even though he may be oblivious to it most of the time. He sucks energy out of a room until there’s little left-over to be shared; he draws attention unexpectedly, when at first he is ignored, and even those that despise him for it, unwillingly measure themselves against him and unconsciously try to flatter themselves by tearing him down.
The shadows are his preference, from here he can be himself, but the spotlight is often his unavoidable and uncomfortable destiny.

What is beauty?

I’ve caught a glimpse of it in dying sunlight or through canopied forest paths, when the shadows are cast just right, or in gentle early-morning snowfalls right before the dawn.

I’ve caught a passing resonance of it in euphonious melody and in the angry tension of a driving tune or in the vocal reverberations of someone dear to me, that lingers long after they are gone, or in the unexpected rising of a summer breeze rustling through the grass after a spring shower.

I’ve caught a hint of it through the gentle traces of a tender caress, in the smooth aftertaste of wine and a loving genuine kiss or in a subtle scent wafted up from hidden sources that brings back a memory of a time, a place or a person you’ve forgotten.

In those moments, of perceptive clarity, I’ve enjoyed the transcending truth of my existence and I’ve rejoiced, lost for a while in sensation, with the soft strumming of intuition upon my mind.

But there are two types of beauty, as there are two types of power:
One is attained through artificial means; it is inherited and adorned like finery but never truly possessed.

Like a policeman out of uniform, a priest with no collar, a wealthy man made suddenly poor again or a beauty-queen cleansed from all the exaggerating affects of wardrobe, paint and shadowing, their power/beauty rests on external sources and facades of institutional symbolism and well crafted imaging. They are usually the ones that, when talking about themselves, always talk about things and objects and symbols; they distract you from the self with external attire and all the stuff they wrap themselves in and hide behind.

A scientist will mention his credentials in the attempt to gain the intellectual credibility and respect he lacks in personally, a police officer will use his uniform and gun to achieve institutional empowerment to compensate for personal feebleness, a wealthy man will use his acquisitions and monetary sway to achieve distinction and a sense of well-being out of reach from him in every other way, a woman may use surgical enhancements, good grooming or the illusionary effects of clothing and cosmetics to hide her plainness or inner ugliness, a man will use large muscles and a well defined physique to overcompensate for intellectual or psychological weakness, a priest will use his collar and station to insinuate piety and spirituality where there is none, a common man may use his career and his social position of authority and community ties to excuse his own simplicity of thought and total conformity with and commitment to the norms.

The second type is derived from the very essence of a persons being. It isn’t bought or learned it is the very fabric of its existence, expressed naturally and with little effort and so with even less conscious awareness, just like a beautiful sunset.

This is why it is detestable to the many, awe inspiring to the few and threatening to the insecure and fearful.

What is beauty?

It has been said that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and that it is an evolutionary process by which the mind, through psychology and genetic predisposition, recognizes what is worthy of its attentions and how one distinguishes the healthy from the ill.

It has also been said that beauty is power -although it could, more accurately, be restated that it is power that is beauty- as it is an inexorable manifestation of a notable convergence of strength and health within a single entity/phenomenon in space/time.

Even if it is so, this still does not take away from the profound impact it has on human thought. Nobody can ignore the effects of harmony, symmetry and order upon the human mind; no amount of deconstruction and rationalization can minimize its influence. In a universe with so little of it, every instance draws us to it and imposes itself into our reality. We look for it, we covet and envy it and we aspire to and are inspired by it.

I don’t know what beauty is, the closest I’ve come to defining it is as an expression of order and harmony in a universe of chaos and disharmony that comes across as eloquence, symmetry and grace that leaves us breathless.

We all want to know that when we lie on our deathbed and we prepare to be taken back to the oblivion that birthed us, we might have, for at least once in our lives, perceived a particle of it so that we can hold onto its memory, as we drift away; a memory to savour in the void, a singular instance of definitiveness in a universe of uncertainty and then, perhaps, our lives would not have been all in vain.

Do you think it’s possible that the source of beauty may lie in people. I mean we derive anything beautiful from their likeness to anyone beautiful?

Pureasonist - Uniqor

Beauty is much more than a likeness.
Sure, on a purely physical level, beauty represents a genetic past. It is indicative of a historical continuum, both personal and genetic, that resulted in health and vitality that is represented by physical symmetry.

The physical body wears its genetic history.
It’s coloration, height, weight, shape, its movement, and even its scent expresses a historical continuum.
But it also expresses an individual, personal reality, as all individuals are the sum of their past.

It also exposes psychology and belief and awareness and mind, through detail and subtlety. Through movement and posture and sound the inner self is exposed.
Physical beauty can be enhanced, promoted, cultivated or hidden, degraded and deteriorated, as environment decides where within potential we fall.

That’s physical beauty.

There are other forms of beauty which stem from an inner harmony.
Beauty can also be a product of the mind, like a projection of inner creativity.
Through character, spirituality, intelligence, personality, art the mind displays itself beautifully even while housed in a physical ugliness.
It creates beauty either in self or outwardly in objects or ideas or ideals.

In essence it surpasses itself and its historical past. This is only possible if an excess of intellect and force of Will, coupled with a focus derived from mental discipline, are present.

Anyway, that’s how I see it.

Here is something else related to the subject.
This too is mine but influenced by multiple sources.
Can’t remember if I’ve posted it already but, whatever.

First Proposition

Let us consider the universe and existence from a purely human perspective.
It may be true that the labels of “evil/negative” and “good/positive” have no real meaning other than as a subjective interpretation of events and phenomena from an individual or communal point of view. What is “good” for you may be “evil” for me, and vice versa, but there are certain general ideas that we agree, as living, conscious beings with shared interests, as to their nature.

For instance most human beings will concur that darkness, cold, and death are negative forces whereas light, heat, and life are positive ones.
{Let us ignore the fact that the labels can be reversed without losing any of the meaning so that we don’t get bogged down with semantics}
Taking this shared humanistic perspective as a given and leaving behind more objective philosophical interpretations, we notice that the universe, as it relates to us, is mostly a negative place.

Darkness, cold, and death predominate as the most common state of things but also need no effort to exist; they just are. In other words, they appear to be the “normal” condition of the universe in general.

Keeping this in mind we must suppose that negativity is the rule of the universe while positive forces are the exception to this rule. This because light, heat and life, as well as all other forces associated with positive ideas, require a sacrifice, a consumption and an effort to come to be and to continue being. When this effort, sacrifice and consumption ceases the universe returns to its natural, previous condition.

The universe, in essence, is a place, as perceived by human minds, where positive forces push back the negative fabric in small temporary pockets and establish a momentary equilibrium in which consciousness is made possible.

Man perceives this momentary balance of forces as order and mistakenly assumes that it is the general condition of the entire universe itself. Most go even further and suppose a dominant positive essence as the creating force of the universe, whereas in fact the opposite is more likely to be true.

In the balance of positive and negative forces and in this constant battle of “the positive” to gain a foothold in a “negative” universe, change becomes a fundamental part of survival and makes evolution a necessary mechanism of continued existence in a universe striving to destroy life and to return to its normal condition of lifelessness as it strives to return to darkness and cold.

From this first proposition, it is easy to conclude that life is, in fact, a constant striving and suffering caused by this pushing back of forces that seek to return to pre-existing circumstances.
As Schopenhauer put it: “Life is need and need is suffering; therefore life is suffering”

It was Schopenhauer also that defined pleasure as a negative idea, since it is merely the absence of suffering and a momentary reprieve from the natural state of consciousness.

In other words death and pleasure are synonyms.
Indeed life rewards with survival all those that have paid their dues to her in misery and action and embellishes, those of her creations, with superiority that have exerted and struggled on her behalf.
It is in this continuous fight against death that life becomes creative, adaptive and ascends to higher and more complicated constructs.
Within this interpretation of the universe lies the true spirit of asceticism and its real worth to man.

Second Proposition

Most, due to dictionary definitions and religious extremism, associate asceticism with a complete rejection of pleasure and luxury and a total denial of life itself. But I will propose a new perspective on asceticism that may prove advantageous and attractive to all seeking personal empowerment.

It is true that Buddhism and Christianity have taught an extreme level of self-denial and many other religions and philosophies advocate abstinence as a form of escapism from life’s trappings and temptations, but for me one need not become so severe in order to benefit from asceticism’s merits.

Asceticism, as I see it, is more akin to athleticism, where both strengthen an individual through pain and suffering but need only be practiced consistently, not continuously, in order to profit from them.

Both athleticism and asceticism require self-control and an exposure to unwanted and mostly undeserved pain and suffering through which a body and a mind gain strength, discipline and stamina, necessary throughout life and under all circumstances.

It isn’t a mistake to believe that misery is the sources of all mental and physical beauty given that nature denounces stagnation as death itself and imposes a constant striving and changing through the promise of pleasure.

It may be disturbing for us to acknowledge that nature abhors conformity and lethargy and so rewards struggle and exertion with superiority, that is easily distinguishable in all those exposed to physical and mental suffering and becomes most beneficial to an individual who experiences and survives adversity, but it cannot be denied.

In contrast the effects of comfort and overindulgence can also be plainly noticeable in individuals lacking any contact with suffering and effort; their intellectual naivete and insecure, over-optimism will bear witness to their limited experiences in a dangerous and indifferent universe, just as their softness of muscle tone and inability to endure physical hardship will reveal their limited experience with physical effort and exertion.

How appropriate that the Greek word ασκησης-askisis[exercise]- is used to denote athleticism but is also the root word for asceticism which denotes a mental exercise or an exertion of the mind.

For what athleticism is for the body, asceticism is for the mind; alike but different only in the focus of their disciplines; interdependent but mutually exclusive in their areas of influence.

To better clarify the relationship between asceticism and athleticism it may be profitable to juxtapose the two.
Athleticism is the training of the body. It hardens flabbiness and denies lethargy through which a body is weakened and becomes soft and vulnerable to external forces and phenomena.

Asceticism is the training of the mind. It invokes mental discipline, focuses energies, and denies apathy and pleasure through which a mind becomes complacent and susceptible to external temptations.
Athleticism does not require a continuous exertion, even if it was possible, but through temporary strain the body becomes more efficient even at rest.

Similarly asceticism does not require continuous self-denial, but through momentary or selective resistance the mind gains discipline and resolve that become helpful even when indulging in pleasure or giving in to need.

The effects of athleticism are hard to ignore since they appear in the empirical world accessible to all, through the senses, equally; acknowledging the benefits of exercise and physical effort and the aesthetically beautiful physical form it leads to cannot be argued away no matter how much we wish to do so.

Reversely, the effects of asceticism are hard to prove since they appear in the mental world accessibly only, through introspection, to the individual; so acknowledging the benefits of cerebral exercise and mental effort and the intellectual symmetry it leads to cannot be confidently argued for.

Despite this, I believe, all can recognize that denial of the will creates a mental framework by which an individual becomes a master of his own being and not merely an instrument of instinctual desire.

A man devoid of all self-restraint and discipline becomes a victim of his own emotions and cravings. Like a rudderless ship he is cast to-and-fro by any subtle wind and becomes a man with no direction and no purpose; a helpless victim of his own whims and a vulnerable prey to clever predators.

For the ship to be controlled a strong rudder is needed and an even stronger captain to direct it. This rudder is mans mind and the captain must be mans intellect.

Final Proposition

All men seek to minimize their exposure to pain and suffering and it is therefore a contradiction of goals that this very compulsion is detrimental to survival and the continued promise of pleasure.

This conundrum is what plagues human existence in its entirety.
We reach for happiness and comfort and yet it is this very striving that causes the opposite condition of suffering and discomfort; we dream of an absence of need and an existence devoid of all torment and yet its realization is the very definition of death; we dream of power and self-reliance and yet we must give up power and become dependant to achieve it.

The Greeks understood the irony of existence and they fully expressed it in their art, in their philosophy and in their total acceptance of it as a part of human existence.

Man is in a very precarious position; not fully intellectual, not completely instinctual.

The choice arises in every thinking mans life as to what path he will choose: will he give in to his instincts and live entirely within the dictations of his nature as an animal, where the mind is simply the facilitator of instinctual desire or will he deny both pain and pleasure and become pure intellect devoid of all need and in complete control of his being ?

But there is a third, more reasonable, choice. A choice embraced by the Greeks and now offered, through Nietzsche, by them to us: will we embrace both pain and pleasure as parts of our total being and focus our efforts in enjoying life’s pleasures and experiencing the rapture of consciousness and yet will we not forget that it is suffering that elevates and strengthens us and it is this payment, which we pay willingly, that makes us more than just animals and ennobles us before a universe wanting to degrade, embarrass and destroy us?

Whether we like it or not, suffering and pain are the natural participants in life’s experiment. We either recognize them as such and use them to our advantage or we spend a lifetime running from them into futility.

It is this aspect of life’s truth that most spend their entire lives escaping from and in the process become weak, gullible, naive, soft and easily manipulated. How unfortunate for them that even the temporary escape from life’s truth cannot save them from its eventual inevitability.
The signs of human disorderly existence are everywhere plain to see; from the lack of self-discipline in nutritional consumption that leads to obesity and disease to the absence of sexual self-control that leads to promiscuity and immaturity.

The “easy way” is searched for by all those lacking the discipline to go at it the “hard way” and the realization comes to them too late, that there is no “easy way” and those offering it are either con-artists or manipulators.
The controlled exposure to suffering, made possible through athleticism, creates a strong and durable body that will be ready, in a time of need, to meet life’s unforeseen challenges and come out of every battle, a survivor.

It will reveal itself to all in its harmony, symmetry and beauty; it will speak of its superiority in graceful movement and efficiency. It will be something to admire and inspire.

But more importantly, the controlled exposure to suffering and pain through asceticism creates a strong and durable mind that will be easily adaptable to a variation of environments and challenges and come out of every confrontation the dominator.

It will reveal itself, more subtly than the body but no less magnificently, in its harmony, order, and virtue; it will speak of its superiority with noble ideals and strength of will. It will be something to admire and inspire.

I comprehend the way you see it, you made it quite clear and decent, but I differ, and my thought is not as nice I’m afraid.

There is one thing I do as a thinker: avoiding divide and define. I like the fact that you mentioned “historical continum”, because I myslef believe in total continuality of all things. Hence for me, what’s physical and what’s spiritual, are inseperable at this kind of level. I have this very vague thought about the original source of beauty:

Gender attraction.

I got this nutty idea while writing a piece of poem, in which I tried to compare everything beautiful with women. I started from then, roundness of body, softness of skin, fair and clear facial features… you know, stuff like that. Obviously as you might imagine, I choked at music. I mean, how can even try to compare the way women speak with symphonia eroica? Since I believe in the principle of total continuality, I managed to find a way around it:

Evolution.

Inspired by my grand master Nietzsche, I imagine our hairy ancesters had no concepts such as harmony (as the way we knew it) whatsoever. I also imagine that they didn’t practise music. But I believe, they did something that eventually turned out as all the arts today. These creations of man developed, by man, due to evolution, indirectly. Evolution made us complicated, so we complicated our creations, and that involves our views about the creations, which are effectively, Aesthetics. I could explain more if you give a stuff, but I think I made my general idea clear now:

The concept of beauty is developed from something that’s very basic and consciously distant to us, in my case, I chose the human conception of gender differences.

Quite a nut one wouldn’t you reckon.

Pureasonist - Uniqor

I think beauty is much more than a gender attraction mechanism.

The mind is attracted to patters and symmetry.
This it calls beauty.

I also think the divine is an essential aspect of human psychology.
We need the notion of the divine.
Spirituality can either raise you or diminish you, depending on its dogma.

How about metaphorically translating sound into music.

Eloquence, fluency of movement, charismatic.
Movement has a melody of its own.

There is a school of thought in evolutionary Psychology which states that language is a more sophisticated evolution of the grooming practice.

When creatures phonetically call out to each other, they are connecting with them, establishing or reinforcing a relationship, they are exchanging information.
This originally started as simple vocalizations with different pitch and duration.

It is believed that music is a product of these vocal calls. Originally they were not cut up into words or sentences, but were one long song.
That is why music and singing touches us on such a deep level.

It is a collective “grooming”, done from a distance, which soothes us and comforts us and warns us and informs us.

Many animals have this.

Eloquency, charasmatic, symmetric… these qualities you memtioned, which I think are very likely the constituents of the modern concept of beauty. The question I ask is: what was the concept of beauty at the begining? I think it’s highly unlikely that what we feel towards the matter today being the same to what those half-apes felt. What could they feel? Not much surely, eloquency, harmony… ?? I seriously doubt. But surely, they were sexually conscious.

I checked out the ancient potery among cultures from all over te globe, the thing I noticed is this: the vases looked like tits and asses. I’m sure this is a well known fact anyway. So among the very first objective creations of man, the reflection of the human body is common, if not the only.

But of course sex and procreation is the primary influence for any living being.

If we look even deeper it is the fight against death that is the prime motivator.

In “Life and Death” I describe life as the act of not dying.
Sex is merely a strategy of genetic survival. The individual becomes a genetic vessel that behaves and is made to behave, through instinct and chemicals that produce emotions, in ways that will reproduce the gene.
The selfish gene as Dawkins put it.

But I also think the growth of the human mind and its freedom from immediate survival concerns, have usurped this genetic dominance.
Memes have taken over as behaviour controllers.
We can say that memetic motivations are but continuations of genetic ones but I do believe some memes actually confront genes in their goals.
This could result in different evaluations of beauty.

Thanks for the infor on sex.

Actually, I wasn’t talking about sex as in intercourse, instead - gender, which is mentioned before. While many early poteries took the body shape, others took animal shape… in fact, most are quite basic geometric objects. At this point, I have doubt about my initial theory. But I got lucky when reading Nietzsche today: there was a passage saying that beauty’s origin lies the pleasure of understanding one another when language was abscent, through simple art work. This obviously offeres an entirely different approach, which I have yet to find any flaw.

Beauty is the highest, most pleasing goal of our Aesthetics, or the Aesthesis, our senses, in exactly the same way that the good functions for ethics, and the truth functions for logic.

So when we talk about beauty, we are talking about something in our senses pleasing us; this should not be conflated with that more perverse concept of “physical beauty” in which a woman’s beauty is to be a function of her boob size, muscle tone, etc.

In a certain sense we only see what we are looking for; and when our vision is clearest and most radiant, we see beauty. We could easily live in a world where sickness is turned to beauty… Or anything for that matter, as long as one possesses a firm control of one’s own eye.

I’m not sure how successful you would be spotting a “hellenistic ethos” in the crowd. You should probably look at the margins, the dark corners of society. “too cool for school”.

Practical and Useful? Not necessarily. Depends on your uses and your practice.

Satyr, have you been reading any Objectivism lately? Along with those generous heapings of Nietzshe?

hehe.

Poiesis

No

I’ve read all of his worksa few years ago.
He was a mentor and a spiritual brother.
Him and Schopenhauer.