No previously published material, original work, one of many books he has written, this one is 454 pages. He asked me to take care of this.
1 Like
Can you say any more about it? This post and the amazon listing are pretty sparse on details.
1 Like
Hard. Ive thought about that for a long time, I mean weeks. And realized that indeed anything Ive ever read or heard secondhand of any philosopher removed me farther away from the meaning I ended up finding in his works than where I was before I even knew of his existence. And I figured, ok that makes sense, like you cant summarize a gold atom. Any summary will give you precisely the wrong idea.
Im not playing. Best I can do is just advise you to read a few of his posts, and then decide if youâre interested in what that guy has to say in more detail and depth. If you like his posts then you will probably like this. If you donât like his post, you will probably not like this.
It is certainly about being human, man in particular, the limits of it. Not limits most will consciously encounter but things that have been in play for historical humanity as such. His orientation is classical, he was not very interested in most of the famous moderns, finding them too easily dialectical, I think, not properly addressing the ground of the dialectic. Of Hegel he said: âHegel is an incinerator oven. I just threw him in it.â
I had to put something on the back, it ended up, with agreement of those who know him a bit, being just a statement about the challenge of reading this guy and the type of change that comes from understanding some particularly alive sentence.
I first met him here on ILP when he was writing strictly part Latin aphorisms, very dense and time consuming to try to grasp. To my surprise, when I did grasp one, it made a whole lot of sense and in a way that I had not seen sentences make sense before.
Where is fixed cross now? Why not posting here?
Parodites was, apparently, a âWestern Esotericistâ who however did not apply philosophic exotericism (the art of writing rediscovered by Leo Strauss) to the texts he studied (Gnostic, Lurianic, etc.)âhence the quote marks. He believed the 2020 US national election had been stolen from Trump.
I am Fixed Cross. I tried to login on that account but itâs inactive and the site wont send me a retrieve password link.
To be clear, Fixed Cross is not Parodites. Fixed Cross is from Amsterdam, Parodites from the Southestern USA. We are friends. I am publishing his work as he asked.
Parodites never had much to say about Sau⌠the only time he mentioned him he referred to him as âa first rate second rate scholarâ.
1 Like
On February 12, 2021, he sent me a humongous PM, full of quotes from his books, titled âRe: The Holochrist: Saving the Holocene with an Xtian Holocaâ, because he believed that, in my Holochrist thread, Iâd attained to the first of the four levels of nothingness or something. I donât think I ever replied to it, and I donât seem to have salvaged it from the old site. However, he did post a few replies in that threadâin which Jakob and Fixed Cross also featured heavily.
So if youâre fixed cross, and Parody-Tease is not⌠why is your name in the link to that book?
Glad youâre not dead. And apparently not Parody-Tease, either.
I vaguely recall someone elseâs tome being published on their behalf here, apparently posthumously. Not to speak too abstractly.
Reminds me of another guy who probably faked his own death. If he was ever not a sock puppet.
Yeah. His drunk shitposting phase. But good to know he appreciated some of your not entirely boringness.
I think that that OP is extremely moralistic and hautain, it annoyed me so much⌠and now again. Thanks for that.
Your hardest, most subtle and consistent work, Im both ashamed and proud to say, happened under the auspices of my doctrine with which you were struggling, which is Nietzscheâs doctrine (to which, exhausting my politesse, you introduced me) the work of the one who manages to actually serve the master, not take any liberties. See what is there to be done. Then liberties will grant themselves out of pure philosophy as such, the endeavor, not the Idea.
EsotericâŚ. All writing of such order as Plato and Nietzsche, is by nature of the endeavor, which is the Being, esoteric in that Straussian sense. Genius is esoteric. The human ego belonging to the philosophical laborer is not the architect here. I donât doubt that if this shitty ILP engine were either improved or weâd just go back to the original, weâd be able to establish the esoteric core of the site itself. In fact weâd have to have a database of all posts in chronological order.
But yeah when you served Nietzsche through my lens, you enacted your original genius. A paradox. But not really as my thought represents the cutting edge, an advanced stage of what began as a rope to which now the cord dancer has progressed.
Through my lens, Plato becomes readable in a Nietzschean sense. In fact we can see how Nietzsche is the first to address the esoteric core of Plato. And thatâs not some opinion about the preferability of this or that or the maybe of maybes, but about the axis of reason, truth. Which can not itself be reason, truth.
I know you donât consider N to be an esoteric writer in the Straussian sense. But then I donât consider Strauss to be an esoteric genius. He has gleaned the existence of the esoteric, but he is to small, too lukewarm, to grasp much of its nature. But I think you are neither essentially small nor lukewarm, as I judge the thinker by his high and health-bringing thoughts, not by any of the endless all too human facts that cling to him.
FJ:
Some work of mine was published by a friend long ago. I revisited some these past days, The Abyss and the Marx ones are solid Trembling to confront the Trump one but I know thereâs some decent stuff in there as well. My belief at the time, in 2016, was that Trump would bring dirt out of the political woodwork, and not cause war with Russia. These were my primary concerns at the time, but the book goes into more philosophically interesting l things, such as the future of collectivism, and Parodites introduces a model of 4th stage Capitalism.
Still completely psychotic, I see.
âKnowâ is a weasel word here, since itâs not true. Iâd already begun to consider that Nietzsche might be an exoteric writer in the Straussian sense when I posted this:
The âthunder and lightningâ remark was actually an allusion to you.. Youâve always been entirely lacking in things like good reading and patience. Also, your âprideâ (vanity!âreinterpreting vanity as pride is itself an act of vanity) has always hampered your intelligence.
Anyway, thus far the roots of my considerations. As to the fruits:
You belong to the ânobleâ, the âproudâ, the âreal menâ.. But yeah, maybe I should go back to the will to power:
Was I just put on ignore, or is that standard with this sockpuppet towards me? Unintentional? Iâll reput:
And put some more:
Why do you & Pezer rap like you are the same person?
This is def Jakob: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/dont-do-drugs/49205?u=ichthus77
This says Jakob: Epic Rap Battle #2 - battle thread - #16 by Carleas
This one says PZR: ILP Rap Battle 2024 - #30 by Carleas
This is def PZR:
Sounded like you:
Settle this once & for all, @Socrates & @Jakob. I demand a reckoning.
And no. Self lightening is not the will to power. It entirely lacks the epistemological component.
You did understand this component at one point, but apparently not the importance of it, not that the fact that it annihilates the gap between ontology and epistemology is the only analytic value Nietzsches doctrine has at all, that it is what makes for the first genuine positive honesty against the Socratic negative honesty of not-knowing. Descartes stands between these honesties as a lesser one that is nonetheless required to get from one to the other.
Stop trolling, Ichthus. I will only post a rap in response to a poetry slam from you.
1 Like
Iâm sure thatâs why I wrote this only two years ago (over four years after I coined the term âself-lighteningâ):
Those links no longer work, but these do:
The first amendment is entirely about the epistemological âcomponentâ, the sublation of the gap between ontology and epistemology. And, Your Mendaciousness, my development of this idea was by no means predated by your nonsensical doctrine:
That link actually still works:
âThis identification of will to power with interpretation and our exposition of Nietzscheâs broad conception of interpretation allow us to answer the last of our initial questions: is will to power an epistemological or an ontological doctrine? The answer is that it is both, or neither: both, because it offers an account of knowing and being; neither, because it collapses the rigorous distinctions between subject and object, knower and known, upon which epistemology and ontology are traditionally founded.â
Thus opens section 5.3.2, titled âBeyond Epistemology and Ontologyâ. And note that the following passage, which I quoted to you once again in a private email from August 19âintroducing it as âthe precursor to my âself-lighteningâ insightâ!â, is from section 5.2.4:
On the
face of it, will to power would seem to be the drive to acquire power; yet both passages assert that it
essentially concerns the expenditure (âdischarge,â âsacrifice,â âoverflow and squanderingâ) of power,
âeven to the point of absurdity.â Furthermore, having criticized one âsuperfluous teleological principle,â
the instinct of self-preservation, Nietzsche seems to substitute another, the desire for power. Lastly,
this desire (for power) would seem to signify a fundamental lack (of power), that is, a fundamental
indigence and distress, which, however, here and elsewhere, Nietzsche repeatedly denies is the basic
condition of nature.[38]
These difficulties rest on a teleological interpretation of will to power and disappear as soon as we
begin to understand Nietzscheâs doctrine otherwise. If the fundamental condition of life is one of
superabundance and exuberance rather than indigence and distress, power is not primarily something
an organism wants or needs but something an organism is or has and must exercise. Will to power,
then, is not a teleological principle but a dynamic force, like a stretched spring or a dammed river.[39]
The âwillingâ of will to power, Nietzsche writes, âis not âdesiring,â striving, demandingâ; rather, it is
â[t]hat state of tension by virtue of which a force seeks to discharge itselfâ (WP 668).[40]
If Nietzscheâs language is puzzling, his basic hypothesis is fairly straightforward. It is one later
taken up and developed by the French
Nietzschean Georges Bataille: namely, that the dynamic force of nature (that which propels growth,
sexuality, procreation, struggle, and death) and of culture[41] (production, form-giving, creativity, and
play) is the superabundance of energy in the biosphere and the compulsion to expend it.[42] As
Bataille puts it, âit is not necessity but its contrary, âluxury,â that presents living matter and mankind
with their fundamental problems.â[43]
âWhoops!â 
The giant himself.
Oliver, for goodnessâ sake, you are a Christian.