Satyr’s x=y=z power revaluation

Zeroeth_Nature · February 23, 2024, 9:04am

The pearls of wisdom in the Platonic dialogues are meant neither for women nor for gentlemen, but for natural men.

“The third stage of Socrates’ philosophic education initiates him into an ontology based on understanding the nature of the human as eros; it is an account of beings as a whole based on acquaintance with the being most intimately knowable. As an ontology it occurs within an understanding of the limitations on human knowing, the dreaming and shadow-painting that inevitably construct the forms and particulars of human experience blocking all direct access to beings. And as Socrates’ ontology it can be sheltered comfortably within a refuted teaching on irrational forms that he advocates to the end.” (Laurence Lampert, How Socrates Became Socrates: A Study of Plato’s Phaedo, Parmenides and Symposium.)

I made bold a passage for you and underlined a passage for “Satyr”. I can safely do so, because you can’t intimately know yourselves, anyway.

Ichthus77 · February 23, 2024, 9:43am

Word to your mother.
psychologytoday.com/us/blog … crates?amp

Ichthus77 · February 23, 2024, 9:52am

A wise man once said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.”

Lorikeet · February 23, 2024, 10:23am

What blocks beings is chaos…the counter-intuitive part of nature.
This is not accessible to anyone…not even those using words to pretend that they somehow comprehend the incomprehensible.

Charlatan and the priestly have always exploited this, presenting themselves as mediators…when they are as ignorant as any other being.
Their claim is that they have found order where there is none; they’ve deciphered the patterns, presenting them in poetic forms, mystical runes, semiotic magic.
The Magian ruse…exploiting human vanity, ignorance and anxiety.

Woman, as representation of nature, is receptive to chaos, through her irrational intuitions…also confusing her.
The myth of female “complexity” once more mistakes chaos for complexity, i insinuating an occult order hiding in the irrational.

Ichthus77 · February 23, 2024, 10:30am

Deflect much?

Ichthus77 · February 23, 2024, 10:31am

Lorikeet · February 23, 2024, 10:45am

Mortality is what forces men to make compromises and sacrifices.
Civilization always feminizes…
Depending on the ideology underlying it, the culture, it feminizes men to a degree.
The cycle proceeds from less towards increasing levels of emasculation… towards the end of a civilizational cycle emasculation is total… like present day Americanism.

Morality/Ethics offer men a compromise… extending time, reducing effort, for his services.
Morality becomes innate; ethics is what must be enforced through laws and gods - fear.

The extreme being a complete inversion of manhood into feminine surrogacy; civilizing, taming man, into a docile domestic beast of burden.
Pussy was always the bait.
Man pretends to submit, and women pretends he is master.
Both give in to necessity…mother of wisdom…

The objective always binds the subject through effort…investment in time.
Triangulation of evaluation.
Wisdom = necessity…how to achieve an objective with as little effort, sacrifice, as possible.
A wise man knows how little he truly needs to be content, and how little time he has.
All else is excess. A display of his freedom/power… purging.

Zeroeth_Nature · February 23, 2024, 11:25am

It’s not just that; although, to be sure, it’s also not just “the forms and particulars of human experience”. As Arthur Melzer so eloquently puts it:

“[The skeptic Socrates] experiences the whole as neither perfectly transparent nor perfectly opaque, but elusive and alluring. And this experience derives not simply from the limitations of human reason but from the character of the world: hiddenness is a property of being itself. Nature is esoteric.” (Melzer, Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing, page 234.)

Wrong. As Laurence Lampert so eloquently puts it:

“[I]t is the investigation of […] the human soul, that promises […] to give privileged access to the reality shared by all beings; in this respect the Nietzschean turn resembles the Socratic turn described in the Phaedo and the Symposium. And with Nietzsche too it is not simply the human soul that the philosopher investigates but the different character of the soul he finds within himself, the soul of the driven knower.” (Lampert, Nietzsche’s Task, pp. 19-20.)

Chaos, the yawning, gaping abyss, is like a wide open question. So the Answer is in the Question…

Not as every other being, though. Also, it’s precisely what you yourself do, using empty words to keep young men in awe. “Oooo, Satyr knows… He’s just like the real…” But really, the pitiful old man is just trying to convince himself, like in his Bitching About Nietzscheans thread.

Lorikeet · February 23, 2024, 11:47am

Wrong…both questions and answers are words, naming what is incomprehensible.
Naming something does not reveal it.
The human soul is order…chaos is not order. Chaos is the absence of order. It conceals nothing…
All you see is how you react to what you cannot comprehend.
You study yourself, in relation to the unknown.

Those who pretend to know, are the most ignorant.
My worldview admits that most of existence is unknowable. A source of anxiety, charlatans, like you and your Van Clan cult of priestly demi-gods, exploit.
I know humans…and claim to know nothing else with any certainty.

HA!!
In Awe?
I demystify…you are the pitiful vain man, forever mistifying…pretending you know something deep.

If I indulge in your type of expression, it is to display how easy it is.

Nietzsche’s Bitches…exposes the effect words can have on the human psyche…when it is vulnerable, immature, and needy.
Magical words, young minds want to use to become as effective…politically, as the one that so affected them, psychologically.

An example of Jewish cunning…with words. Feminine mystique. Feminine power.
Man leads, but which woman whispers in his ear at night?

What did Nietzsche really provide in answer to Schopenhauer’s pessimism?
Nothing…a method of coping. Psychological insights, charlatans, like you, can use to exploit other humans… because they lack innate talent.
Like astology…for those with no psychological talents …a recipe book to cook up delicious cakes for the children.

Will to Power…to manipulate.

Lorikeet · February 23, 2024, 3:11pm

Jones:

Psychoanalysis and Illuminism were, in effect the same project – the Illuminist term Seelenanalyse is simply the Germanified term of psychoanalysis or vice versa – with the details changed to suit the sensibilities of a later age, an age which believed that ‘science’ and ’medicine,’ rather than secret societies, would lead to heaven on earth. Both psychoanalysis and Illuminism engaged in what a later critic called ’Seelenspionage,’ spying on the soul. Both made use of what might be called a Masonic doctrine of two truths as part of their very nature. What the adept knew was not the same as what the controller knew. The patient saw psychoanalysis as a form of liberation; whereas the therapist fostered ’this illusion as a form of control. Psychoanalysis adopted all of the essential characteristics of Illuminist mind control, but Illuminism can just as easily be seen as an early form of psychoanalysis, a project long cherished by the Enlightenment. Christian Thomasius, writing at the very beginning of the Enlightenment in 1691, describes the ‘new discovery of a science that is both well-grounded and highly necessary for the common good,’ a science, namely, that ‘is able to recognize the hidden things in the hearts of other men even against their will out of the details of their daily conversation.’
At the heart of psychoanalysis we find Freud, as the paradigmatic analyst acting out, in his own words, the role of ‘father confessor.’ The manipulation of both confession and examination of conscience as the heart of Illuminism is a well-established fact. Adam Weishaupt was a student of the Jesuits for eight years. In creating his secret society, Weishaupt simply took the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, most specifically the examination of conscience and illuminized them. Weishaupt was a case study in ambivalence when it came to the Jesuits. He hated them and yet told Friedrich Muenter that as a young man he almost became one himself (dass er als junger Mann ‘selbst nahe dabey war, Jesuit zu werden‘). By stripping the examination of conscience of all supernatural content and removing the controls on the confessional established by the Church (most notably the notion of confidentiality intrinsic to the seal of the confessional), Weishaupt turned confession into an instrument of manipulation and control. Examination of conscience taken out of the confessional became Seelenspionage. Instead of liberating the penitent from sin, it rendered him bound to his controller, liable to blackmail, but more often than not manipulated according to the passions he described in detail to his ‘confessor.’ Illuminism is not the adoption of the spirituality of Ignatius; it is its perversion.
[size=80][Libido Dominandi – Sexual Liberation & Political Control][/size]

Lorikeet · February 23, 2024, 3:12pm

Jones:

Psychoanalysis and Illuminism were, in effect the same project – the Illuminist term Seelenanalyse is simply the Germanified term of psychoanalysis or vice versa – with the details changed to suit the sensibilities of a later age, an age which believed that ‘science’ and ’medicine,’ rather than secret societies, would lead to heaven on earth. Both psychoanalysis and Illuminism engaged in what a later critic called ’Seelenspionage,’ spying on the soul. Both made use of what might be called a Masonic doctrine of two truths as part of their very nature. What the adept knew was not the same as what the controller knew. The patient saw psychoanalysis as a form of liberation; whereas the therapist fostered ’this illusion as a form of control. Psychoanalysis adopted all of the essential characteristics of Illuminist mind control, but Illuminism can just as easily be seen as an early form of psychoanalysis, a project long cherished by the Enlightenment. Christian Thomasius, writing at the very beginning of the Enlightenment in 1691, describes the ‘new discovery of a science that is both well-grounded and highly necessary for the common good,’ a science, namely, that ‘is able to recognize the hidden things in the hearts of other men even against their will out of the details of their daily conversation.’
At the heart of psychoanalysis we find Freud, as the paradigmatic analyst acting out, in his own words, the role of ‘father confessor.’ The manipulation of both confession and examination of conscience as the heart of Illuminism is a well-established fact. Adam Weishaupt was a student of the Jesuits for eight years. In creating his secret society, Weishaupt simply took the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, most specifically the examination of conscience and illuminized them. Weishaupt was a case study in ambivalence when it came to the Jesuits. He hated them and yet told Friedrich Muenter that as a young man he almost became one himself (dass er als junger Mann ‘selbst nahe dabey war, Jesuit zu werden‘). By stripping the examination of conscience of all supernatural content and removing the controls on the confessional established by the Church (most notably the notion of confidentiality intrinsic to the seal of the confessional), Weishaupt turned confession into an instrument of manipulation and control. Examination of conscience taken out of the confessional became Seelenspionage. Instead of liberating the penitent from sin, it rendered him bound to his controller, liable to blackmail, but more often than not manipulated according to the passions he described in detail to his ‘confessor.’ Illuminism is not the adoption of the spirituality of Ignatius; it is its perversion.
[size=80][Libido Dominandi – Sexual Liberation & Political Control][/size]

Jones:

The similarities between Freud’s secret society and Adam Weishaupt’s become even more striking if we look at the incident which threatened to bring both institutions down, namely, incest. When challenged by Jung to explain his relationship to his sister-in-law, Freud retreated, saying by way of explanation, ‘But I cannot risk my authority.’ In a letter to his co-conspirator Hertel, Weishaupt admits to having had an affair with his sister-in-law, who is now pregnant. Barruel relates the incident in the following way:
‘Now,’ says Weishaupt to his adept, ‘let me, under the most profound secrecy, lay open the situation of my heart. It destroys my rest, it render [sic] me incapable of everything. I am almost desperate, my honor is in danger and I am on the eve of losing that reputation which gave me so great an authority over our people. My sister-in-law is with child.’

Incest may have been coincidental to Weishaupt’s scheme, but it became part of the occult revolutionary program thereafter. It played a key role in Byron’s and Shelley’s writings and in their lives as well. As part of his Illuminist cabal. Shelley first had sex with his sister-in-law, Claire Clairmont, and then sent her to seduce Byron as well. The ‘league of incest,’ as contemporary gossip termed their menage, was to become complete when Byron seduced or was seduced by Mary Godwin, but Shelley had a psychotic breakdown before the incestuous circle could be completed. Taking his cue from Nietzsche, Freud saw incest as a way of forcing nature to reveal her secrets and therefore her power to him, but he also understood that the secret which was the source of his power over nature must be guarded if he were to retain his authority. If people like Jung were ever to find out about his relationship with Minna his sister-in-law, they would have the key to Freud’s sphinx-like riddle and that would mean the end of his authority and, therefore, his power. They would also understand the real source of the Oedipus Complex in Freud’s guilty conscience.
[size=80][Libido Dominandi – Sexual Liberation & Political Control][/size]

Ichthus77 · February 23, 2024, 7:00pm

Question! Can a man not have a concept of being self-empowered without being other-dominating (emasculating, if you prefer)?

Because a woman definitely can. Is it only certain types of men who are unable to conceive of this?

Fake ones, maybe?

Ichthus77 · February 23, 2024, 7:16pm

It seems to me that anyone, male or female, who wants to upset the balance of consent respect and be treated like some special kind of special above and beyond everybody else’s specialness … is experiencing a “you problem” that is nobody else’s problem but theirs. They need to look around & notice that there are unique versions of themselves walking around outside their bodies that deserve to be treated exactly the same as they expect to be treated (as long as this does not self-destruct).

Zeroeth_Nature · February 23, 2024, 11:36pm

No, words are just the formulations of questions and answers… You know words tend to refer to something, right? Here’s a nice little passage I found three months ago, I’ll translate it for you:

“Lacan states that the Socratic method of interrogation in which—according to a Greek play on words by his hand—the eromenos, the ‘beloved’ becomes the erotomenos, the ‘interrogated’, brings out one of the central themes of his commentary namely the function of lack.” (Peter Louis Francis Walleghem, “Eros and Transference”, part 1, section 8.)

Surely this must appeal to you, “lack” being one of your favourite empty words…

Oh my.

The human soul is no more order than is nature, the world, existence (or whatever you wish to call it). It’s only an order in that it’s a composite whose most conspicuous parts are eros and thumos. In fact, order and chaos are themselves such conspicuous parts of nature.

“The way up and the way down [hodos anō katō] are one and the same.” (Heraclitus, fragment 60.)

Ichthus77 · February 23, 2024, 11:41pm

We can’t even do random. And we have special brains. What makes us think nature can do random? DNA has error correction. Just ‘cause we (beings subject to time) can’t predict everything doesn’t mean it’s random.

Zeroeth_Nature · February 24, 2024, 12:46am

“[…] in Laws 10. Plato argues there that […]”

Nope, the Athenian stranger argues there that.

“(Plato of course believes that […])”

OMG.

“Plato, of course, believes that […]”

“Both Plato and Anaxagoras, in their different ways, believe that […]”

To be sure, scholarship like this can make a valuable contribution to the study of exoteric doctrines, but that’s the best it can do.

Ichthus77 · February 24, 2024, 1:35am

Exo… eso… anywhayz.

You know Plato uses the people in his dialogues to make his points for him. Why are you nit picking?

Zeroeth_Nature · February 24, 2024, 2:30am

It’s not nit picking… “Using the people in his dialogues to make his points for him” may mean multiple things. It certainly doesn’t mean those people are his spokesmen, although they may be on occasion. To be sure, Socrates/the Athenian stranger is his spokesman far more than the others, but even he doesn’t need to make his points by what he says… Here’s an example of his making a point both by what he says and what he does not say:

“Apoll. Well, the tale of love was on this wise:—But perhaps I had better begin at the beginning, and endeavour to give you the exact words of Aristodemus:
He said that he met Socrates fresh from the bath and sandalled; and as the sight of the sandals was unusual, he asked him whither he was going that he had been converted into such a beau:—
To a banquet at Agathon’s, he replied, whose invitation to his sacrifice of victory I refused yesterday, fearing a crowd, but promising that I would come to-day instead; and so I have put on my finery, because he is such a fine man. What say you to going with me unasked?
I will do as you bid me, I replied.
Follow then, he said, and let us demolish the proverb:
To the feasts of inferior men the good unbidden go; instead of which our proverb will run:—
To the feasts of the good the good unbidden go; and this alteration may be supported by the authority of Homer himself, who not only demolishes but literally outrages the proverb. For, after picturing Agamemnon as the most valiant of men, he makes Menelaus, who is but a fainthearted warrior, come unbidden to the banquet of Agamemnon, who is feasting and offering sacrifices, not the better to the worse, but the worse to the better.
I rather fear, Socrates, said Aristodemus, lest this may still be my case; and that, like Menelaus in Homer, I shall be the inferior person, who
To the feasts of the wise unbidden goes. But I shall say that I was bidden of you, and then you will have to make an excuse.
Two going together, he replied, in Homeric fashion, one or other of them may invent an excuse by the way.”
(Plato, Symposium, trans. Benjamin Jowett, towards the beginning.)

Socrates going to Agathon’s feast is both an ugly or ignoble man going to the feast of a beautiful or noble one, and a good or courageous man going to the feast of a bad or cowardly one; while Aristodemus going to Agathon’s feast is both an ugly or ignoble man going to the feast of a beatiful or noble one, and a bad or cowardly man going to the feast of a good or courageous one…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hgmCXKgPgg&t=435s
[size=1]Peter Brown, “Reading Plato: Symposium, section 174a2-d2”.)[/size]
The Greek word for “ugly” was aischros, which derives from aischynē, by the way…

Ichthus77 · February 24, 2024, 3:05am

prima donnas
youtu.be/9q_Pi6HHunw?feature=shared

Zeroeth_Nature · February 24, 2024, 3:17am

Did you watch this part about the “New Testament” often quoting the “Old Testament” out of context?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hgmCXKgPgg&t=829s