Intelligent Earth

A much neglected part of Nietzsche’s philosophy - always adressed as the tough guy, the ruthless savage, the brilliant prophet of opportunity in evil, wahterver makes the fan look cool to himself; strangely then, that he is never propagized as a prophet of hope.

Maybe the times haven’t been right.

The work of Heidegger has not yet been placed into a Nietzschean perspective very meaningfully. Heidegger is a much different intellect - more mathematical, systemically arranging language to it’s logic. But I find he builds towards a same world - a thoroughly Germanic philosophy of Land.

As much as Nietzsche and Heidegger differ from each other in approach - their essential motivation is akin. Converse to this stands the nautically based, adventurous and opportunistic thinking of Anglo-Dutch liberalism.

The Dutch thieves and the English robbers, they do not really have substantial philosophic contributions to make. They are good scientists, and beyond that it suffices that they demonstrate how the world is ruled when you make up your own rules. So this we know, we are seeing it every day, everywhere around us.

I think the situation could be improved drastically.
How to make a better, more balanced world?
Here I have to introduce Heidegger’s philosophy of ‘Dwelling’. This is central in a series of lectures he, in his later years, referred to as his quintessential work.
What does Heidegger’s dwelling signify? Let’s forsake the dictionary and go straight to his own definition;

I think I have said enough. I’m not proposing a debate here, as I see only pessimism on the board, a sentiment I don’t relate to too well - I suffer from it emotionally. It is a strain on my nervous system. But I am fully aware of the pain which determines the lives of all beings. So how to be realistic but not pessimistic?

Ah, what a way to bring the mind to death! Making death desirable without rejecting life.

And there it is rooted, my attempt to break down context for the fear of death without reaching for a metaphysical solution. It will be difficult for me, as I have occupied myself with mysticism for ten years. But I am almost 31 now and want to live ethically responsible without justification. There is no need for God to make life and death good to an honest man.

I wonder if you had a main point, or if this is just a general writing, but I believe that anybody who tries to become a yea-sayer to actual reality qualifies as a sort of healer. In the essays area, another guy was writing about how the overcoming had to do with being in open agreement with becoming, not spoiling the eternal cycle of one power overcoming another.

A healer has to see the wound for what it is before he can heal it. But accepting the permanent necessity of life and death is not the same as accepting the status quo as necessary.

On this board the sentiment rules that life is meaningless, and man is unworthy to be taken more seriously than ape.
It’s an obvious result of the precious guilt complex - a residu of burnt-out religion. The idea of original sin is still deominating the intellect. Nothing can be good. The Earth is full of misery, so life is meaningless, and man is only capable of keeping himself alive by frustrating others.

That is the way the Earth is managed, not doubt. And it is tempting to see this as the only possible way, and adjusting one’s thinking to fit this passive approach. ‘Amor Fati’ - affirming the way things are.
But in my life, things are not like that. If I affirm my own existence, I deny the reality of many of the people around me - a futile reality, deterministic, dead set on continuing what it detests. Tazz, fuck that. Thankfully, there are always thinkers with a vision of a world that can be affirmed without much strain on the consciousness. They are the most difficult thinkers, and hence the most easy ones to reject without losing face - a bit like Karl Rove finds it easy to turn around any attempt to restore a sense of decency to look stupid.

Heidegger’s idea of Mastery of the Earth delves from his studies of old Germanic language, in which cultivating, building, was synonymous with existing. I envision a world where cultivation is the determining drive, instead of plundering. Focus on sowing instead of reaping.

How naive and hypocritical this must appear to people who understand ‘the true nature of man’. But it is a fact that I don’t get pleasure out of ripping people off, and I do enjoy creating opportunity for others to develop along the lines of their desires - just to watch them grow.

I need to provide for myself, sure - but the baker doesn’t bake bread because he is selfish asshole, but because that is the way the Earth works - you sow, you reap. A baker who doesn’t enjoy baking but does it only because he gets paid is a disfunctional creature of a diseased world.
But not all of humanity is as sick as the conclusions made on board suggest. I will use this thread to give a counterweight to sceptical reduction of existence to principles the basest of minds can comprehend and advocate.

In the same passage, the answer to the question as to the dynamics of being a healer is given:

“Physician, heal thyself: then wilt thou also heal thy patient. Let it be his best cure to see with his eyes him who maketh himself whole.”
[Thus Spake Zarathustra, Of the Bestowing Virtue.]

And to be whole, of course, means to be well-integrated. But to be well-integrated, one must also be individuated:

“[T]he more an object demonstrates the *Hailagaz energy (wholeness) the more it will also demonstrate *Wihaz energy (individuality) - as that which is whole and integrated is also that which is more self-contained and individuated.”
runegild.org/pq_tyr_odhinn.html

So the healing process cannot be distinguished from the individuation process.

“The goal of the individuation process is the synthesis of the Self.”
[Jung, Psychology of the Child-Archetype, 2C.]

This means the synthesis of conscious and unconscious elements of the personality. This goal is symbolised by the Child. To attain this goal, however, it is necessary to re-presence the Shadow. I have written about that here.

I notice that - since I’ve become more honest to myself about my self interest, I am more aggressively attuned towards my environment. It is much the result of gaining self respect - I want the world to improve, I don’t find it lives up to my standards of well being. Healing is done from a militant mindset.

I’e spent the past 10 years in growing intimacy with my shadow. I have transformed (my perception of) it to a bright burning sun.
During my deepest crisis, up until about 4 months ago, my shadow was the only thing keeping me alive. It was also what enabled me to reestablish light in my being.

Jakob,

A short while ago there was a discussion of Camus and his writings that all was absurdity. There is nothing particularly negative about stripping away all the pretentions. We are still left with ourselves, are we not? Out of complete abject absurdity comes not nihilism, but hope if one chooses. Not some slap-happy collection of warm fuzzies, but of making life as we choose it, recognizing both pain and pleasure, discipline and leisure.

Yes, there is negative sentiment on this board as well as many others, but as you said, it comes from incomplete understanding or acceptance of the necessity to invent ourselves.

That said, it is not a group or social perspective, but can only come from within ourselves as individuals.

Absurdity can be a liberating perspective. Sure - but to say that all is absurdity is a bit megalomanic.

Yuk, warm fuzzies. Let’s heal the world first of all of warm fuzzies.
We can’t really choose how to make life - we can choose, at the most basic level, with what intention we act, which determines how we act.
The results of acting decisively and in clarity are different from those of acting half heartedly in doubt or in fear. The results will be more useful to us if we act in the full presence of consciousness, if only because we will always learn something from the course of consequences when the initial action can be clearly defined.

It’s also a trend of fashion. It’s cool to say you accept man ‘for what he really is’ - meaning the worst he is capable of.

But what individuality would there be without a social perspective? Can man really exist alone?

Life doesn’t have to be absurd. It becomes absurd when you run into extremities with a mindset adjusted to every day life, or vice versa.

Jakob,

But that pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? “Thou art not August unless I make thee so.”

Absurdity is valid to the extent that it leaves us face to face with ourselves. To look beyond our constructs is a search for absolutes and Truth outside of our consciousness, which is the real absurdity. We are as we make ourselves.

?

It is pain which leaves us to ourselves. Absurdity is a way of making something with no aparent meaning meaninful in an illogical way. It is a tool to deal with a disconnectedness from life - to reconnect, basically.

If only that were true. We are what we are. We can either choose to act from that position and live a real life, become who we are, or just react to our environments demands and wither away as a nonentity.

Man is capable of making intelligent assessments of what he perceives.

Man has for millennia been taught that what he doesn’t perceive is real - so there was no need to interpret perception, so no need to consciously perceive. Now, he is free to perceive and sees first his animal lusts. He assesses that this is more real than the invisible God that taught him he was higher than an animal.
At the same time, man also peceives the universe on a level beyond the visible; he is able to interpret the inner structures of the stuff he is composed of. First he sees attraction of opposites. It reflects perfectly his animal nature.

There is good reason to view man as ruled by a drive to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Men will claim this is the way of nature. But even if this behaviour seems to reflect the animal kingdom, actual beasts peform much greater rites than mere consuming. Birds cross great divides, felines compete in beauty and strength, elephants make lengthy, seemingly meaningless travels, - and of course negro’s play basketball, kaukasians make documentaries about negro’s playing basketball, and asians invent nintendo. So we have culture. We’re not just porn. ut the tendency on this board is to reflect the porn and plunder culture the anglosaxon world has become.

Inevitable - intellectuals reflect their culture. Philosophers determine a culture; it takes time before their ideas settle in with the crowd. Nowadays is a fast food and fast think culture - conclusions need to be drawn instantly. But ideas ripen, and man is bred to be who he needs to be. Without knowing it, the human species is turned into a coherent anthill. A four dimentional pyramid is formed - at the pinnacle the Masters of the Future - at the base our present pornproducers. The power lies with them - they can’t do anything but excersise it to the limit of their potential. What we’ll have in ten years is a world halfway saturated with sex, halfway wrought with cancer. Survival of the fittest.

Standards for fitness need to improve. Man needs to assess his weaknesses. He is weak in the flesh, and strong in cunning. Thus, porn films. What else is man?

The thought introduced by this 7th name change of my thread;
The dynamic planet is intself intelligent in the possibilities it embodies.
The self serving intelligence of man, part of the Earth, as of all species, only feeds off the intelligence of the Earth. It does not act intelligently in itself.

Man is capable of acting intelligently - but he mistakes his role on Earth - he is the shepherd of intelligence. Expressionist artists know this. Gamblers as well.