Orgy of the Will

[Magnus_Anderson]

Orgy of the Will is the upcoming philosophical book by Alex Kierkegaard.

The book is supposed to “draw the ultimate conclusions of philosophy” and is the continuation of the work of Nietzsche and Baudrillard.

If you want to get a glimpse of what’s going to be in the book, there is a live blog on his website where he posts his notes.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and read upwards.
orgyofthewill.net

Here’s a bit of it:

56. Linguistic optics: the time for it has come. The idea is basically that no one (and nothing) is “wrong”; they can’t be wrong because they are part of the universe, and whatever is in their brains — in the brains of even the stupidest person — is as “correct” as what’s in my mind or Nietzsche’s or Baudrillard’s. What we need then is an art of interpretation so subtle and powerful that it can bring out the “truth” that’s hiding inside even the dumbest person’s brains.
    For example, when a Christian says “God created the universe and he loves me”, he is not wrong. It’s just that the concepts he designates with the words “God”, “universe” and “love” are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word “God”, going by the Christian’s definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says “God”, he doesn’t really mean an “omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being” (since he’s so dumb he can’t even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means “a very powerful being”. Similarly, when he says “universe” he doesn’t mean what I mean by “universe” (i.e. “everything”), he simply means “the earth” — or at most, if he’s had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps “the solar system”. And finally, when he says “love” he doesn’t mean what I mean by “love” (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. “help me” (= shape me).
    So basically, when the Christian says “God created the universe and he loves me”, what he’s really saying, translated in our language, is “A very powerful being created the earth (or the solar system), and he wants to help me” — which could very well be true!
    All of this stems from Nietzsche’s positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person’s brain, and all brains are different.

240. They don’t think, therefore they don’t exist.

273. The fact that there is not a single successful artwork — whether a novel, movie or videogame — depicting “utopian” conditions, proves that we, as mankind, DO NOT WANT THEM. The prevalence of so-called “dystopias” in art, on the other hand, proves what we really want — and where we’re headed…

330. One can see everywhere in the slave society habits and attitudes which betray what the slaves really think about themselves. Take the first day of the year. Why is it a “holiday”, i.e. a day of doing nothing? Why is the first day of the year a day of “rest”? Precisely the time to make a strong start, where dynamism, optimism, etc. are called for, the slave stays at home and does nothing, BECAUSE HE HATES WHAT HE DOES. He can think of no higher gift to give himself on the first day of a new year, than to take a break from his reality. But if a rest day should be taken at all, it should clearly be the last day of the year. The first day should be a day FOR GETTING DOWN TO WORK, and indeed for working harder than any other day. With more zeal, more focus, more determination, etc. It’s like making the first hour of the day an hour of — sleep. But you just woke up! And it’s precisely on waking that our powers are at their apex, and consequently should not be squandered but fully utilized. The slave, however, never wakes up, and even in his sleep, in his eternal sleep, contributes to what happens all around him, as Heraclitus so insightfully relates to us. “Those who are asleep are fellow-workers in what goes on in the world.”

341. Looked at more closely, it is not the alphas who make the rules but the philosophers. The alphas merely put them into practice, as the Han dynasty did with Confucius’ philosophy, Alexander with Aristotle’s, the Roman emperors with the Stoics’ and the Epicureans’, Lenin and Mao with Marx’s, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco with Nietzsche’s, and even the democratic pseudo-leaders, to an extent, with the pseudo-philosophers’ liberal claptrap. It is only subhumans who think that philosophy is superfluous and causes nothing, but as the fascists’ and communists’ millions of victims discovered (a little too late for their liking), not only is philosophy (which is to say thought) not superfluous, but it makes the world go round.

396. Why did the whites use the blacks as slaves, instead of say, the yellows or the browns? Slavery was not racist in the ancient world: most of the Greeks’ slaves were whites, so it was not on racist grounds that the whites picked the blacks. They didn’t go, “You blacks are racially inferior, so we’ll use you as our slaves”; the blacks were simply THE EASIEST ONES TO USE (and hence, the most racially inferior). It was one thing for the Japanese to capitulate to Perry’s demand and open up their borders, for example, and another to agree to be bound in chains and shipped off across the world as his slaves. If the whites had tried to pull off that stunt in Japan, they’d have no doubt succeeded to an extent, but with a lot more casualties and losses, a great deal more of trouble. Also, this sort of treatment doesn’t seem proper when you see up close the culture of the Japanese, their literature, architecture, and so on; but the blacks were basically begging to become slaves, living in huts or in the dirt, with no proper clothes or tools, etc., no literature or even writing. The greater the distance between you and your inferiors, the easier it is — even from a moral standpoint — to simply impose your will on them, and monkeys live in cages and no one cares.

[Lev_Muishkin]

@Magnus Anderson

Orgy of the Will is the upcoming philosophical book by Alex Kierkegaard.

The book is supposed to “draw the ultimate conclusions of philosophy” and is the continuation of the work of Nietzsche and Baudrillard.

If you want to get a glimpse of what’s going to be in the book, there is a live blog on his website where he posts his notes.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and read upwards.
orgyofthewill.net

Here’s a bit of it:

56. Linguistic optics: the time for it has come. The idea is basically that no one (and nothing) is “wrong”; they can’t be wrong because they are part of the universe, and whatever is in their brains — in the brains of even the stupidest person — is as “correct” as what’s in my mind or Nietzsche’s or Baudrillard’s. What we need then is an art of interpretation so subtle and powerful that it can bring out the “truth” that’s hiding inside even the dumbest person’s brains.
    For example, when a Christian says “God created the universe and he loves me”, he is not wrong. It’s just that the concepts he designates with the words “God”, “universe” and “love” are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word “God”, going by the Christian’s definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says “God”, he doesn’t really mean an “omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being” (since he’s so dumb he can’t even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means “a very powerful being”. Similarly, when he says “universe” he doesn’t mean what I mean by “universe” (i.e. “everything”), he simply means “the earth” — or at most, if he’s had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps “the solar system”. And finally, when he says “love” he doesn’t mean what I mean by “love” (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. “help me” (= shape me).
    So basically, when the Christian says “God created the universe and he loves me”, what he’s really saying, translated in our language, is “A very powerful being created the earth (or the solar system), and he wants to help me” — which could very well be true!
    All of this stems from Nietzsche’s positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person’s brain, and all brains are different.

240. They don’t think, therefore they don’t exist.

273. The fact that there is not a single successful artwork — whether a novel, movie or videogame — depicting “utopian” conditions, proves that we, as mankind, DO NOT WANT THEM. The prevalence of so-called “dystopias” in art, on the other hand, proves what we really want — and where we’re headed…

330. One can see everywhere in the slave society habits and attitudes which betray what the slaves really think about themselves. Take the first day of the year. Why is it a “holiday”, i.e. a day of doing nothing? Why is the first day of the year a day of “rest”? Precisely the time to make a strong start, where dynamism, optimism, etc. are called for, the slave stays at home and does nothing, BECAUSE HE HATES WHAT HE DOES. He can think of no higher gift to give himself on the first day of a new year, than to take a break from his reality. But if a rest day should be taken at all, it should clearly be the last day of the year. The first day should be a day FOR GETTING DOWN TO WORK, and indeed for working harder than any other day. With more zeal, more focus, more determination, etc. It’s like making the first hour of the day an hour of — sleep. But you just woke up! And it’s precisely on waking that our powers are at their apex, and consequently should not be squandered but fully utilized. The slave, however, never wakes up, and even in his sleep, in his eternal sleep, contributes to what happens all around him, as Heraclitus so insightfully relates to us. “Those who are asleep are fellow-workers in what goes on in the world.”

341. Looked at more closely, it is not the alphas who make the rules but the philosophers. The alphas merely put them into practice, as the Han dynasty did with Confucius’ philosophy, Alexander with Aristotle’s, the Roman emperors with the Stoics’ and the Epicureans’, Lenin and Mao with Marx’s, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco with Nietzsche’s, and even the democratic pseudo-leaders, to an extent, with the pseudo-philosophers’ liberal claptrap. It is only subhumans who think that philosophy is superfluous and causes nothing, but as the fascists’ and communists’ millions of victims discovered (a little too late for their liking), not only is philosophy (which is to say thought) not superfluous, but it makes the world go round.

396. Why did the whites use the blacks as slaves, instead of say, the yellows or the browns? Slavery was not racist in the ancient world: most of the Greeks’ slaves were whites, so it was not on racist grounds that the whites picked the blacks. They didn’t go, “You blacks are racially inferior, so we’ll use you as our slaves”; the blacks were simply THE EASIEST ONES TO USE (and hence, the most racially inferior). It was one thing for the Japanese to capitulate to Perry’s demand and open up their borders, for example, and another to agree to be bound in chains and shipped off across the world as his slaves. If the whites had tried to pull off that stunt in Japan, they’d have no doubt succeeded to an extent, but with a lot more casualties and losses, a great deal more of trouble. Also, this sort of treatment doesn’t seem proper when you see up close the culture of the Japanese, their literature, architecture, and so on; but the blacks were basically begging to become slaves, living in huts or in the dirt, with no proper clothes or tools, etc., no literature or even writing. The greater the distance between you and your inferiors, the easier it is — even from a moral standpoint — to simply impose your will on them, and monkeys live in cages and no one cares.

This book will never be published.
Your quote contains a massive contradiction in the first paragraph and does not define what is meant by “dumb”, which is a word that no serious writer would use in this context in a book that wants people to read it.

The rest sounds like the childish rantings of an adolescent Breivik wank-fan worship club member.

Here’s your HERO, would you like some Kleenex?

He looks like he is about to squeeze one out - or is he about to blub?

[Lev_Muishkin]

[Only_Humean]

Lev, post according to forum rules or you will be warned.

I’ve not followed the link, but I’d be disappointed if I’d paid for a book promising to follow Nietzsche and Baudrillard and got those quotes.

[Lev_Muishkin]

@Only_Humean

Lev, post according to forum rules or you will be warned.

I’ve not followed the link, but I’d be disappointed if I’d paid for a book promising to follow Nietzsche and Baudrillard and got those quotes.

I think the only valid response to a racist is humour.
But thanks for the warning of a warning.

[Lev_Muishkin]

@Only_Humean

Lev, post according to forum rules or you will be warned.

I’ve not followed the link, but I’d be disappointed if I’d paid for a book promising to follow Nietzsche and Baudrillard and got those quotes.

Nietzsche and Baudrillard on the same page?
I have to tell you, I did follow the link and you would be right to expect to be disappointed, as I was but I was not surprised.

It’s all a bit undigested as you might expect.

[Magnus_Anderson]

What’s wrong with the quotes?

[Mr_Reasonable]

It sounds more like a general brainwashing people into hating their enemy than a philosopher. Might not be bad if it’s just an exposition of the guy’s opinions on how people ought to act or what constitutes art, but it doesn’t really talk about anything particularly philosophical. It just seems like a writer employing a rhetorical tone in order to persuade people to act one way or another.

[Lev_Muishkin]

First, what’s wrong?

Line One:

Orgy of the Will is the upcoming philosophical book by Alex Kierkegaard.

The words “upcoming book” would imply a completion and a publication which, given the quality of the writing, do not seem likely.
The idea that the “book” is philosophical also seems rather hopeful as Mr. R. has pointed out seems not to have any philosophy in the quotes.
Then we might ask who is this “Alex Kierkergaard”? Is he the same “smartest bloke”, in this link? thatsaterribleidea.com/2010/ … -room.html
His facebook page is odd for a person claiming to be an “AUTHOR”, having no publications and a mere 13 “likes”
facebook.com/AlexKierkegaard?ref=stream
Sadly he seems to have no friends, and no replies to his litany of polemic which mirrors the style of the quotes offered here.
I think we might expect a person claiming to be an author with any prospect of completing a book for publication to have a better public profile.
That his traffic with others is minimal is not surprising, that fact of the style of writing is unfortunate.

This style is exactly what is wrong with the quotes, as I pointed out before:

Your quote contains a massive contradiction in the first paragraph and does not define what is meant by “dumb”, which is a word that no serious writer would use in this context in a book that wants people to read it.
The rest sounds like the childish rantings of an adolescent Breivik wank-fan worship club member.

It seems to me that the moderator who reminded me of the rules of the Forum, for this comment has guessed exactly who is the author; who is ALex Kierkergaard. As it is more acceptable to insult a person not on the Forum, the moderator guessed your ruse. Alex Kiekergaard in none other than our friend Magnus.

Magnus if you really want to know in detail what is wrong with your writing, then you would have to fess up to being Alex K.

[Mr_Reasonable]

I’ve tried explaining the difference between an opinion piece and a philosophical inquiry to lots of people. A lot of them don’t understand it. There’s a difference between methodologically analyzing something that’s in front of you vs dressing up opinions and points of view in a poetic fashion in an attempt to persuade people to some social or political view. It doesn’t matter if you quote 10 philosophers if you’re not doing philosophy when you’re doing it.

[Magnus_Anderson]

Magnus if you really want to know in detail what is wrong with your writing, then you would have to fess up to being Alex K.

Sure, why not.

I confess: I am Alex Kierkegaard.

Now, can you tell me what’s wrong with his writing?

So far, all of your criticisms were directed at his style. But philosophy isn’t about style, isn’t it? It’s about truth.

[Magnus_Anderson]

The words “upcoming book” would imply a completion and a publication which, given the quality of the writing, do not seem likely.

I must correct you here. He has already published two books (Videogame Culture I and On the Genealogy of “Art Games”) and has two waiting to be published (Videogame Culture II and Videogame Art) and a couple waiting to be completed (Understanding the Antichrist and Understanding the Exterminating Angel.) So it seems pretty likely that he will finish all of them.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Philosophy is very much about style. If you’re conducting an inquiry, according to some method, then you might be doing philosophy. If you’re writing a piece that simply articulates your opinion as to what’s good or bad, then you’re just doing a sales pitch.

Why use Kierkegaard’s name?

[Magnus_Anderson]

@mr reasonable

Philosophy is very much about style. If you’re conducting an inquiry, according to some method, then you might be doing philosophy. If you’re writing a piece that simply articulates your opinion as to what’s good or bad, then you’re just doing a sales pitch.

I think you’re confusing philosophy with rhetoric and/or philosophical labor.

Note this:

@Nietzsche

Actual philosophers… are commanders and law-givers: they say ‘‘thus it shall be!’’, it is they who determine the Wherefore and Whither of mankind, and they possess for this task the preliminary work of all the philosophical laborers, of all those who have subdued the past / they reach for the future with creative hand, and everything that is or has been becomes for them a means, an instrument, a hammer. Their ‘‘knowing’’ is creating, their creating is a law giving, their will to truth is / will to power. Are their such philosophers today? Have there been such philosophers? Must there not be such philosophers?

[Mr_Reasonable]

I think you’ve got it backward. The goal of philosophy is to understand, and to understand you need to employ a systematic method by which you label the objects you’re dealing with. What you seem to be doing is promoting some ideal, rather than show how you’ve employed some method to reach your conclusions. Citing authorities is a big mistake. You might as well be saying, “because god said so”. When you start off your writing by distinguishing between what’s good and bad in a social context, or for society or whatever, you’re not doing philosophy…you’re doing politics. That’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with preaching about how people need to be the way you want them to be so the world will be the way you want it, but it’s just not philosophy.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Philosophy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

Not philosophy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

[Mr_Reasonable]

I mean even in your Nietzsche quote he says shit about “knowing”. But to understand epistemology correctly, what you can know shouldn’t dictate your social opinion. It should only dictate the form by which you understand the things that are given to you empirically. You can’t say, “I know these kinds of people are bad”. I mean…you can, but then it’s not philosophy anymore.

[Magnus_Anderson]

Well, it seems to me that you’re claiming that Nietzsche, Baudrillard and Heraclitus aren’t philosophers, which is strange.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Look man, I’m not trying to hurt your feelings here but there’s a difference between a paper that promotes a political view and one that inquires about reality. It is what it is.

Besides that, me telling you that your work here is politics and not philosophy doesn’t mean what you say. I haven’t said anything about those philosophers.

What makes you so confident in lumping yourself in with those guys?

[Magnus_Anderson]

What makes you think that Alex Kierkegaard hasn’t done inquiry about reality?
(EDIT: You have edited your post. You have said that you think the philosophers that I’ve mentioned have done some sort of inquiry about reality.)

As I’ve already said, there are only two things that matter here: opinions and reasons behind these opinions. Both are present in Alex’s work.

I started this topic in order to discuss his opinions not his style.