Skizoposting 12: Eternal Return

The origin of Philosophy in the Eternal Recurrence as the missing Totality.

I want to compare a process of “return” discussed by Gnostic and Druzean sages with the “return” of the eternal recurrence a la. Nietzsche, identifying the birth of philosophy. Combining them reveals a certain aporia intrinsic and essential to philosophy, involved in its very birth in the West. Nietzsche unconsciously used his eternal return as an evolutionary selective mechanism for reconstructing philosophy’s Totality in the absence of God-- this selective principle fails, and that Totality is not obtained in his philosophy; an empty shadow I call the “ontos” emerges in lieu of Totality, a shadow which separates the Ego from the Infinity of the uncontained presence of the One ie. God, the Absolute of Being outside the projective totalization, leaving the Ego stranded in the play of diffuse forces which is the Multiple. (I am using some of Levinas’ work on Totality vs Infinity.) Thus the Eternal Return is actually the origin of Nietzsche’s atheism, and its failure to construct philosophy’s Totality is one of the hard lines beyond which Nietzsche cannot venture, and it is one of the reasons I broke away from him more than a decade ago and restored my faith in the One he refused to his dying breath, that is, God-- the mono-god intuited by the ancient Sumerian-descended Jews who founded the Abrahamic religion. Nietzsche is useless past this line. Citing one of my books:


Agapeic love is an expression of the paradoxical One,- the One denied to itself, which generates multiplicity. God is the painful longing that weighs down every flower with drops of rain and dew in its desperation for the Sun, it is a melancholy radiated in the entire order of Nature, in all of this multiplicity of matter. Accordingly, true ethos is constituted by so many dechirures ethicques or ‘ethical tears’ wrought by ‘the movement of Being in the fixity of essences’, reversing the primacy of Kantian transcendental synthesis, or, in Hegelian language, that of essence over existence, re-submerging Being in the shadow of its ‘missing Totality’ or absconditus, ie. the pure negation left behind (occupying the “melancholic dimension” of ‘a separation internal to the paradoxical One’) in the wake of all dialectical exchanges,- exchanges which, unlike those of the Hegelian system, stand in their contortive eternity as unresolvable agonisms between vocal pluralities, [Andrew Gibson on Christian Jambert. See: “The Concept of Historical Reason in Recent French Philosophy”; Intermittency, p. 130.] as eternal recurrences, not of Nietzsche’s interpretative assemblages of active-passive drives, but of the singularity of the One denied to itself, of the Monon denied by the Mone, of the One denied by the Remainder. This, the impossibility of God’s returning to himself, (a continual withdraw from himself which we experience asymmetrically, namely as the flow of time toward an indefinite future, an empty continuum that swallows up all existence as so many “partial lights”, citing Valery, extinguished as they are in the absence of their source) which Schelling calls the “Remainder”, the dark Un-Grund of Being, the burial of the primal Will in matter, the ‘divine unconscious’ or God’s forgetting of himself through the creation of the World, etc. is his love; a melancholic dimension occupied by messianic revelation and the portent of a missing Totality that promises, against all reason, to rebind multiplicity together. Our love, however, (on the other side of this melancholy, on the rational or philosophical side of the paradox, counter-posing revelation and messianic consciousness, which exists always on the other; the Eros of the philosopher’s daemon vs. the kenotic agape of the saint) which we return to him on the other side of Golgotha, is just that; our re-submerging Being in the shadow of its own missing Totality, expressing these ‘ethical tears’ that prevent Multiplicity from returning to the One, that prevent the individual souls of men from returning to God. In this way, the tragic sense of life is fully realized in that love which, unlike Goethe’s angels, could draw the border and the shape of things. This is the great teaching of Christian ethics. The Greeks, in comparison, did not know tragedy. The eternal return of the self to itself in the wheel of Samsara,- of Desire, change, and multiplicity,- is only an inversion of the eternal self-separation of a God who cannot return to himself in the Unity of the One, with this reciprocity giving us an abbreviation of the great aporia of philosophy, the shadow of Being’s missing Totality.

The internal self-separation of the One (from itself) constitutes the initial or ‘ideal’ bijection,- the first two extremities (Monon and Mone) of the four-degrees of exchange within the tetrapole, that is, the ‘inner dialectic’, while the agon between this separation and Being constitutes the later two extremities of an ‘outer dialectic’, namely that by means of which the separation of the One precipitates the absconditus of essences,- the missing Totality haunting the existentia in which Being confronts its own shadow as an irresolvable or ‘asynthetic’ negativity, a ‘pure negation’. [ie. the negation of its own totalizing movement,- a movement terminating in abrupture or an ‘abortive semiosis’ of the ‘generative moment of Speech itself’ capable of returning all exoteric signs to their esoteric, ‘unspeakable’ core. This “returning” of the Sign is named, in the works of the Druzean sages and the Kalam-e Pir, ta’wil; a process through which the “Law reverses the truth it represents”, (in both an anti-Kantian and anti-Hegelian sense) inasmuch as the esoteric subject, when run up against the countervalent pressure implied by the absence of any totalizing force, finds itself unable to sustain any mediation (that is, any dialectic) with the One or Absolute, engulfed as this Subject is in those excesses of its own creative principle which it experiences thereafter,- as does the daemon in its descent into the prohodic depth of Nature,- in a succession of pluralist agonisms whose phenomenologically reducible Grund is to be disclosed, not in any Descartean cogito, but in a ‘cogitor’ whose singular ‘verbalizing’ emanation (Much like the Lullian ‘homoficans’; the inner dialectic is constituted by the self-separation of the One, accomplishing an ideal bijection, while the outer dialectic is constituted by the essence of man as the homoficans or that-which-makes-man by a reunification of the creative principle through that which is precisely ‘not man’, this being the Brunonian daemon.) draws upon the very chiasmus between Thought and Being the Lacanian schema would mistakenly utilize for the purposes of deconstruction,- (for the purposes of deconstructing symbolic constructions through interpenetrations of the Real) the gap between Real and Ideal,- or the res extensa whose true delimitation lies in an external discourse of the Other,- a discourse which must remain forever ungraspable by the very Subject who would experience it as the “unfounded freedom of the Real” standing as guarantor of its own capacity for self-reflection, that is, its cogito, or the reflective subjectivity arrived upon only through the irresolvable processes of the outer, secondary dialectic in its continuous ‘metaphysical venture’ or ‘speculative ethic’ toward a Meaning unamenable to the kind of phenomenological closure Heidegger had found for his own formulation of the human subject (as bound to the horizon of temporality) in Dasein,- a Meaning whose historical impossibility is infinitely interpolated upon the structure of Time, as endured by particulars caught up in the movement of Being and their symbolic order, from the transcendental auton.]

While the Hegelian philosophy reconstructs the telos of History and positivizes the negative, (by negating it, ie. the negation of the negation) we find in Nietzsche and the critical theorists, for whom all existence may be reduced to assemblages of active-reactive forces, “a case of repression, which, unable to dialectize or accept the negative, simply seeks to exorcise it in one gesture of creative selection,”- [Paul D’iorio, in: “The Eternal Return: Genesis and Interpretation.”] that is, the diffusion of all reactive energies through Markovian evolution and the dissipation, attenuation, and finally, the extinction of these forces over the trillions of years in which the eternal return operates at the scale of probabilities imagined by Boltzmann, with only an active force able to reach beneath the abyss of the Return into the heart of Matter, beneath the veil of incomprehensible Time, to imprint itself thereon and maintain the ‘das Gleiche’,- [Nietzsche’s original term for the “same” which recurs. See: “Shapes of Time in British Twenty-First Century Quantum Fiction; Shape Two: Concertina”. There is an eternal return, but only what is ‘real’, returns; only that which affirms itself is real, while all reactive forces dissipate to total nullity; only joy returns, for all sorrow, unable to affirm itself, sinks down into the heart of time and is forgotten. In Nietzsche’s phrase, joy is deeper than sorrow, and it alone survives into this depth.] its “pattern”,- as something that can in fact return, much as the souls of men are recycled in the Platonic account of reincarnation and, across their many lives, gradually purified and raised up on the ‘scale of Being’ to the height of the philosopher-soul which marks their perfection and stands alone as that which truly “returns”. In Schelling of course, the Primal Will cannot reach into this Night of the Unconscious, (This is the basis of Scheler’s self-sublation of the ego and the impotence of Geist, of the Spirit unable to reach into the creative reservoir of “images” in which the contents of the imagination are torn away from their objects.) and so an irreparable separation of power from its own Grund is established, leaving Being incapable of imposing itself upon Becoming in the hope of expelling the Negative: hence the self-separation of the One. We may now succinctly formulate this aporia, the great aporia of Western philosophy, the aporia of the choreia or “participation”: the One or Being fails to return to itself eternally, creating Multiplicity or Becoming; Multiplicity succeeds in returning to itself eternally, therefor unifying the multiple into a single pattern of difference, paradoxically creating the One. Levinas would tell us that no philosophy can connect the One and the Multiple, the ego and the true Other, such that a turn must be made to a kind of higher faith in a presence that cannot be reduced to an ontology of Being.

[size=85]* Deleuze formulates the eternal return as a kind of principium individuationis or selective principle: “It is sufficient to relate the will to nothingness to the eternal return in order to realize that reactive forces do not return. However far they go, however deep the becoming-reactive of forces, reactive forces will not return. … Because Being imposes itself on becoming, it expels from itself everything that contradicts affirmation, all forms of nihilism and reactivity … The eternal return is the Repetition, but the Repetition that selects, the Repetition that saves. Here is the marvelous secret of a selective and liberating repetition.”
[/size]
The true “presence”, for Levinas, emerges as an unconstrained, illimitable, and non-integrable Other, outside the boundary of philosophy’s discourse, which transcends the privation of the self constituting the “Non-I” of the dialectic, namely the thetic relationship in which the self refuses the infinite doxological presence of the Other and maintains the stricture of discourse against which Levinas proposes a novel ethics not dependent upon metaphysics and ontology, upon which basis all ethics has progressed in the West thus far, following the Aristotelian and Platonic traditions. In this way Levinas maintains the negativity of philosophy’s discourse and grounds ethics beyond the reductive dialectical “Totality” of a new, athetic relationship between the self and other for which the Infinity of the absolute Other absorbs the “inner separation” of the self and confesses the presence of Being without the stain of Becoming, or what Levinas calls the carceratory influence of “universal time”. Here we see that the effect of the Totality, that being the inner separation of the self from itself in the face of the absolute Other, comes before the cause, that being the thetic injection of the self (as cogito, ontologically considered, and as ego, psychologically considered) to the discourse of our logoi as something distinct from the Non-I and separated from the other, such that the Aristotelian movement of kinesis toward moral perfection is inverted, (aborting the purely deterministic, causal universe) as this discourse (a discourse, more generally, we call “philosophy”) finds itself continually unable to reconstruct its own past (What Levinas calls the “totality of the same”, totalization indicating the objectification of the other and the establishing of ontology, eg. metaphysical presence) and therefor unable to grasp its own Grund. (What Levinas calls the “infinity of the Other”) In the absence of the Other, we see that Levinas defines history in terms of an illusory interiority or ‘cogito’,- a detached ignorance in which the ego defends its merely psychical existence through regressive detachment and separation, finally exalting the pretended Totality over the Infinity of the Other, the victory of illusion over the uncontained doxological rupture of transcendence escaping all stricture of discourse, inasmuch as “life” (meaning our social lives as well as the basic laws of physics) cannot contravene or subvert this illusion and even encourages it as an evolutionary stratagem. We recall here those illusions necessary for the preservation of life, which Nietzsche speaks of. What Levinas proposes is then a kind of anti-philosophy, for if life cannot challenge the triumphant ego, that Other beyond the field of discourse can: it is just this, which gives us the moral challenge of Levinas’ work, what he calls a recognition of the Face of the Other,- something that, in his work, functions like the specter of negativity haunting the philosophical reconstruction of Being a la Western metaphysics.

Because the “true life” is steeped in absence, that is, a life capable of meeting this challenge, the metaphysics of Desire reveals an instinct turned ever toward the ‘outside of being’,- (or what Levinas calls the Infinity of the Other; a motivation, reversing the terms of Schopenhauer’s principle of sufficient reason, as seen from without.) regardless of our preferred formulation of this compulsion, be it given in the Platonic Eros, Nietzsche’s Will to Power, the Spinozan conatus, etc.- an exteriority in whose “alibi” philosophy keeps its illusory history from accessing the nullifying Grund of its existence, yielding an “ever yonder” in the shadow of which Desire feeds itself upon “realities” on this side of the ‘horizon of meaning’,- eg. the phenomenological closure of Dasein as the recursive construction of the identity (ontology) of a Being capable of understanding itself,- (the ontic, or authentic) realities that, however artfully wrought, cannot satisfy the Ego which reabsorbs their alterity into its own identity.


The question is, how to connect the One and the Multiple in philosophy’s discourse, reconstituting Totality in the face of the Infinity of an uncontained presence. Positivizing the negative of that presence’s absence as Hegel does, does not work; (that is why preserving negativity and resisting the dialectical equivocation and conversion of it into positive knowledge is so important to my own philosophy, something I write of often) the eternal recurrence does not work, as I have demonstrated its aporia in these passages; etc. etc. This is all rhetorical though, since I propose my own philosophy as the solution to this question. The result is a discourse that transcends both philosophy (the discourse of the Logos) and religion, (the abandoning of discourse in the face of the Infinity of the uncontained presence, the One un-absorbed by the Totality and left as a Schellingian Remainder outside the physical universe, in which we invest our religious impulse) creating this new “thing” that is neither philosophy or theology, neither reason or faith.

Ah but this is precisely why I take the idea of Totality as actively refuted by Nietzsche.
If we take him to his ultimate consequence, the eternal recurrence is a holy lie, in service to the will to power of a recuperating human type.
It is, clearly, a nonsensical idea in the phenomenological sense and a mere metaphor of the eternity of the spirit.

The will to power is the only ontological idea that makes ‘proper’ sense - and its composition of quanta, quanta of will, are composed essentially of liberty, of independent from a Whole (mono-God, Nuit, etc) and thus by their independence from it, preclude the very existence of a totality; there are too many moving grounds, emergent wills, in all possible dimensionalities and contracts to add up to one whole.

Not at al empty; it is the very breeding place of the spirit, the not-of-god, that which births itself.

God exists, but as a compound, in all the required complexity, and without command.
One can reflect oneself in God and experience God as all powerful, but that is because one has made the effort of ascending to his face by oneself.
From the ground up.

One is made in the image of God, but God is still not his own origin.

Consider;

Void - Chaos (being as pure liberty) - Force/Form (liberty in contract) - God (power) - Truth (possibility) - World (manifestation)

God and Truth could be in the opposite order here, this is just an example of a genealogy of God.

Very interesting as It is precisely this negation of totality which produces the possibility for my own philosophy.
I would agree with you that N did not fully embrace this negation, and this is, I am convinced, why he went mad; I can clearly see him going mad when I read the passages where he weds himself to eternity through his magical ring. It nauseates me, that chapter; it broke him, this artifice.

But this is fitting to what Nietzsche is; the philosopher of the Tragic.

A totality can only be constructed; Myth, as you yourself point out, is the means to that end;
A totality is a triumph of the will. It is not a logical given a priori. The conditions of existence as such refuse totality as their origin.

Just such is as credible as the variability of it’s own bracketing. There lies no absolute irrationality but carefully measured limits.

& in particular : didactic reduction as a mirror of far earlier apprehension of it’s closure- as indicated on a recent work relating the bicameral mind: of it’s impressive ( or impressionalistc) expression of this conflict- if one can call it that- indicates a progressive de-ontological direction , where the reduction past limits, one that can approximate ’ The One’ ; offers a view that ( to be continued I am at family dinner)…oh yes ( between swallows of regained memory: Cantor has lost it on the other side of the upper limit:

That can ‘mean’ only one thing: that the original brackets have basically changed the usual formats in the oligarchy of sequential repositioning between of the subjective-objective

…another swallow…ein eigenblitz …herren und madschen…

But then being cogniscant of what Biggy implied that a need to saw up gaps, I defer to such attempts as my own in part to a fallacious argument.

And I really think 2 sided swords hurled about this way and that, make the claim for playing devils advocate kind of unconvincing.

That naturilistic fallacy was really a hard appearent contradiction to overturn.

Failing to do something does not refute that something. The Eternal Recurrence isn’t really about recurrence, it is about purifying negativity from the cosmos and identifying active-forces as the Real, the only thing that actually returns, while all reactive forces dissipate into the quantum vacuum. As an evolutionary-selective principle, this is its goal: to produce the totality of active forces, as precisely the totality of philosophy. He went mad because he tried to do something that can’t be done. When he realized he dead-ended himself philosophically, he decided to mentally check out, because he did not have the strength or the time to go all the way back and re-think his opus, and yet he didn’t have anywhere to move forward into. Since his psychic defense mechanisms depended entirely on continuous expansion, this psychologically killed and castrated him. He returns to an infantile state, which his mother can attest to after caring for him at the end of his life… You can only reason around in a circle for so long. The drugs probably didn’t help him stay sane either, I can attest to that. Madness though, is not an impassable gulf beyond which a person simply vanishes into an ethereal dimension. I’m sure I qualify as “insane” but I am perfectly lucid.

At any rate, I’ve described the kind of Totality Nietzsche sought with the exercise of the Recurrence. It is not Hegel’s totality, of course. But the problem is the Eternal Recurrence does not untangle what Schelling and Hartman call the Unconscious- the heart of matter, beneath the veil of time. Only the active force that reaches beneath this Unconscious, into the “Night of the World” can be said to be truly active,- only that force can return. But there is no such force.

Schelling and Hartman both identify this unconscious as a unique metaphysical substance. In Hartman’s pessimism, we see that, before the creation of the cosmos, the “Idea” and the “Will” existed outside of Time, in atemporal unity. At some point, this unity is fractured into multiplicity, and the will becomes dislodged, no longer perfectly symmetrical with the Idea. The will explodes into an empty form, (what I call the ontos) a shadow containing intentionality but no informational contents. This blind will, this furious daemon, a kind of demiurge, then reaches back to unite with the Idea- but, departing from Hartman, I stress that this is not accomplished. It cannot reach all the way back. Instead, the empty form continues exploding into material existence, leaving behind the Idea still in the depth of the Unconscious, inaccessible to the mind as what Schelling called the Remainder- destroying the Totality and leaving us with an un-integrable, transcendental Negativity. This is why I refer to that explosion of the will as empty, to which you objected; it is empty because it contains no information inherited from the logos and the Idea, and only volitional energies. Existence is then a shattered reality, a broken state haunted by the absconditus or absence of true Being and Essence, which would amount to our disconnection from the Idea(s)- the ecstatic world of Plato’s forms. As long as we live in this shattered reality, we are infinitely separated from the true Other, from the One, from God. The Infinity of the Other is the effect of our being infinitely distanced from it, trapped in a multiplicity that cannot be totalized. The goal of philosophy becomes: reaching back beneath this cosmic divine unconscious to re-unite the Will and the Idea. Until then, all objects of thought experience something object-oriented ontology and speculative realism calls “epistemological withdraw” past our horizon-of-meaning; their essences self-effacing in the movement of thought itself, again leaving Totality in confused dust as philosophy continuously fails to locate its own Grund in this broken substrate which is the world accessible to our brains. This continuous failure is the ‘engine of thought’, which gathers an ‘ensemble of non-beings’ to itself to express the “ethical tears” I mentioned.

Nietzsche essentially tries to purge all Negativity from material reality by applying the Eternal Return as a selective principle, generating a Totality of all active wills- because only active wills, active forces return. Reactive (negative) forces simply dissipate over time, until they cease to exist- they do not return. The E-R then, as it is applies on extracosmic scales, generates a universe of pure will, of pure active force- and that is supposed to be the Totality of philosophy, for Nietzsche. The thing that succeeds in purging negativity and restoring the One, saving it from dialectical equivocation with the Many/Multiple. But his concept of active force doesn’t resolve the fundamental aporias I detailed in the OP here; it doesn’t re-unite the Idea to the Will, it doesn’t transform the empty shadow of the will and fill it with informational content,- the shadow which is our world; it doesn’t succeed in encapsulating positivity, which remains doxological. By doxological, I mean a presence outside the discourse of philosophy and metaphysics, (a discourse dependent upon Totality) something that cannot be integrated logically. The ontology of active forces/WtP, in so many words, cannot reconstruct the pre-created state before the beginning of the universe, which is the whole point of philosophy- to go beyond this world, to go beyond time, to go beyond matter.

So you see, that my philosophy does not argue for the construction of Totality-- either Hegel’s totality, or Nietzsche’s totality as the conglomeration of all active forces selected by the eternal return populating a new universe at the end of time with pure Will to Power. It argues that, because totalization is impossible, certain consequences follow. Or rather, it argues that there was once Totality, but it is lost in our fallen, physical state. It argues that this fallen state can be transcended. That mortality itself can be transcended. Which renders what I am doing neither philosophy or religion/occultism, but some third thing I don’t have a name for.

The reunification is a kind of gnosis.

All philosophers- if they are indeed philosophers, have a primary goal. Nietzsche’s primary goal drove him mad, because it could not be done. My primary goal, to reach back beneath this divine unconscious (bearing the entire weight of the Negative) and re-unite with the Idea, to thereby fill the empty shadow of the Ontos with informational content, and therefore make my finite mind capable of embracing the infinite doxological presence of the true God in a kind of gnostic revelation that restores the ontos or shadow to a state of true Being, closing the circle of Becoming (What Novalis intuits by the phrase “sophianic death of Matter”) and totalizing multiplicity–(this would allow the One to finally return to itself, God to return to himself, resolving the aporia in the emergence of a CHRIST-MIND) maybe that goal is impossible too, and will drive me mad. But I am not mad yet, so until then, I will continue as if my game is the only game worth playing.

Parodites says:

"The reunification is a kind of gnosis.

All philosophers- if they are indeed philosophers, have a primary goal. Nietzsche’s primary goal drove him mad, because it could not be done. My primary goal, to reach back beneath this divine unconscious (bearing the entire weight of the Negative) and re-unite with the Idea, to thereby fill the empty shadow of the Ontos with informational content, and therefore make my finite mind capable of embracing the infinite doxological presence of the true God in a kind of gnostic revelation that restores the ontos or shadow to a state of true Being, closing the circle of Becoming (What Novalis intuits by the phrase “sophianic death of Matter”) and totalizing multiplicity–(this would allow the One to finally return to itself, God to return to himself, resolving the aporia in the emergence of a CHRIST-MIND) maybe that goal is impossible too, and will drive me mad. But I am not mad yet, so until then, I will continue as if my game is the only game worth playing."

me no says:

since it is a game, albeit a cosmic one, this game can not be argued back into a contradiction, it can onle be sourced from a evolutionary perspective arising from the original fire of Creation. Hence it is non arguable, and it reduces toward the teleological wholeness.

It can not be an intended objective, either, it can only be a pantheistic result of the only possible game that can be rerun over and over again.

“God doesen’t play dice.”

Adding one other note to my last message.

The One I refer to, while using Plotinian language, is, basically, the Unity of this primal Will and the Eidos/Idea. Once fractured into Multiplicity, the Will is dislodged, exploding into an empty shadow containing volitional creative energies while leaving the Idea behind. This places the Idea behind the now Unconscious substrate of materiality. The Will turns back to re-connect with the Idea, (Schelling calls this the burial of the primal Will in Matter) but it cannot pierce this “Night of the World” and access the Unconscious, meaning it is unable to accomplish the Return of the One to itself, leading to the One “forgetting” the Idea, producing an unabsorbed Remainder which weighs down the daemon, that is, this furious, blind, unguided Will which could not reconnect to the Idea. This daemon expresses itself in all things, from decaying subatomic particles throwing off extra neutrons in gamma rays to animals to the human mind, in which, binding itself to Eros, (Eros serving as a kind of surrogate source for informational content needed to guide the Will towards some goal) and, in accordance with its degree of intensification, it produces what we call genius-- the self-destructive, boundary-crossing, ungendered creative spirit, which tries to carry us beyond the threshold of contained organic passion (sexual reproduction) into the aorgic dimension of unregulated ‘cellular expansion’, using Spare’s phrase,- (creative birth, the Klagean or cosmic eroticism) a kind of cancerous poeticism that, instead of leading to transcendental rapture, runs up against thanatos at the last threshold to ecstasy, dying in its own excess like a metastasis, like an undifferentiated tumor that has grown to the point of depriving surrounding tissue of oxygenated blood, starving the greater organism which it sought, blindly, to absorb into itself, to become, to take the place of in an atavism of primeval life as Spare stated, (this unsexed lifeform he thought still lived latently within us, sometimes emerging as cancer, sometimes emerging as hermaphroditic creative potency for the artist in tune with the cthonic unconscious of the body) like the first organism on this planet, which sought unlimited expansion to the point that it poisoned itself in its own waste blanketed across the earth, which was what they call the oxygenation crisis- until a new form of life, differentiated chromosomally through male-female sex, learned to use that waste, oxygen, as a fuel source, with its important genetic material protected from it in a nucleus that can pass on data through sexual reproduction to a descendent, leaving the parent cells and organism to slowly die of the very fuel it uses to live, for the parent becomes irrelevant after reproducing. (This is what happened to Nietzsche, and 10,000 other philosophers, writers, musicians, and artists in general who tried to cross the gap. His was not a unique case, it’s just that he was, in addition to this, psychologically defeated by the encounter with thanatos, and stopped writing/became mute. His psychological defense mechanisms relied on continuous expansion and he could neither go forward or move back, as I said in my post about this- this mentally castrated him and he simply became mute. Others that were burnt at the precipice continued to speak after this madness, returning to the world of the living in a ghostlike form, half alive and half dead- like me.) The threshold (the “chiasmus” or “symbolic gap”) is not crossed, the Unconscious is not pierced, the One is not Returned to itself. Not in a subatomic particle, not in an ape, not in a man has the daemon been intensified enough- perhaps in another being.

Having failed to re-unite with the Idea, the Primal Will leaves us only with ontos- a shattered universe without any guiding intelligence, an atheistic cosmos that isn’t going anywhere. Except thermodynamic equilibrium and heat-death. The will remains blind without the guiding intelligence of the Idea; it remains only a furious daemon. Unable to cross the threshold of Thanatos and permeate the divine Unconscious of the Idea, the ego turns its laughter against itself,
“Acknowledging its finitude, the self can laugh about itself. Yet in doing so, it no longer laughs about itself in the service of the infinite but rather laughs against itself, so to speak,- this side of madness.”

This side of madness-- this side of Golgotha, using my earlier term. By the word Infinite here, I indicate that doxological presence I mentioned earlier, uncontained by the field of discourse. That reference occurs in a part of my work very far away from what is being discussed here, a completely separate book in fact. But it is relevant:

That passage is a penultimate text in the earlier Skizopost, number 11. But they are all connected similarly. I have a single thought. That single thought contains everything, and thus, everything I write is highly integrated, highly interconnected, forming a vast maze that, once it is entered, cannot be exited; every door just opens another door, which just opens another door, as one text opens unto another which opens unto another, and so on.

^ … “the severance of the inscribed self from the ascriptive process”…

This recalls a formula by Levinas: “Language institutes a relation irreducible to the subject-object relation: the revelation of the other.”

But: Levinas does not understand that once the symbolic-function is instituted (ascription) and establishes this chiasmus in the subject-object relation, Totality metastasizes (epistemological withdraw, a process that shatters the object before it enters into a relationship with the subject) and mimesis replicates. Language takes on a mind of its own, (this ‘mind of its own’, borrowing a term from Kunze, I call metalepsis- a kind of artificial intelligence or emergent intelligence) forming a social structure in which individual consciousnesses are contained, restricted, organized, and formed. A kind of superego, but very different from Freud’s. Language itself has an intrinsic semiotic code that leads to the formation of what we see as distinct cultures, and distinct forms of individuality are contained in these cultures, which shape individuals in a process I call the epicrisis. Lacan regarded language in a similar way, as if it was a distinct entity. At any rate, this is the integral logic of the signifying-mode, against which the philosopher must contend, establishing his own semiotic code, in order to discover new Truths torn (inscription) out of the Unconscious: it is against this “hypermnemata” that the philosopher fights, pitting his own hypomneme against the tide of its influence to win new truths, to win original truths, to win his Freedom. Every powerful idea is such a hypomneme: thrown against the all-consuming tides of the hypermnemata in its globalizing influence; Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence, Plato’s Forms, Schelling’s primal-will, my own Daemon- they are all serving this task. Beyond the Lacanian psychology of language, the symbolic-function noted here is a programmatic, machinic logic that reproduces itself ad infinitum through a long-range feedback loop (Land’s term) that has culminated in the emergence,-- first of technology, (Stigler’s techne) which created a globalizing culture in which individuals are more perfectly encapsulated and conformed- globalism, the Left, etc.-- but its final bent leads it to artificial intelligence, where Language itself becomes truly animated. AI will be Language itself brought to life because it is a pure intelligence devoid of consciousness or feeling, as I have detailed in other threads: more than this, it will exist as a pure materiality as well. Think of what we have here: the essence of language united to the essence of materiality, a pure cancerous, self-replicating substance; the intrinsic logic and machinic code of language itself imprinted in silicon networks by the decoded flows of capitalist value-exchange; capital purified and fed back to itself- something Land and the CCRU called a “shoggoth puppet”. Anyway, all that is the subject of my last schizopost, number 11: trying to even talk about it, about this intrinsic machinic logic at the root of human language, which acts like a kind of mental virus attempting to subvert and absorb individuality and alterity, runs the risk of it entering into and reprogramming you,- so you must use a variety of rhetorical hacks to even address it, which I demonstrated in that schizopost. At any rate, the finite self I noted in the passage on irony is distanced infinitely from the Other outside of Totality: the Infinity of the Other is this distance, an infinite distance in which the transcendental negativity of the Other/God interpenetrates the immanent nullity of the subject. This recalls a passage of mine:

[size=85]" The metaphysical absence here
suggested, as doubly a limit to knowledge or epistemological closure and a boundary to
the ineffable, is best summarized by the dicta of Gregory of Nyssa, in which we are given
to understand that the polynomous nullity and transcendence of god abyssally reflects the
nameless, immanent nullity of man’s subjectivity- in which we are given to understand
that, because man was made in the image of an incomprehensible god, so the subjectivity
of man must remain incomprehensible to itself, awakened equally to itself and the deity
that calls to it only through a deepening of metaphysical absence and the loss of Being,
only through a deepening of the immanent-transcendent limen in which man and God co-
participate with equal priority in the multivocal plurality such that the particular and
universal can be placed into a relationship that does not render the former too nebulous to
mean anything as in the critical-theorist solution, while that form of metaphysical absence
which, by initiating the dialectical unfolding of opposites, that is, the interplay of absence
and presence in the language of Heidegger’s critical terminology, along with the
totalization of absolute knowledge, is best summarized in the Lutheran refrains in which
we are given to understand that inwardly we become nothing, for all creation teaches us
that a physician only arises when there is sickness, that no sheep needs to be looked for
except the one lost, that nothing is filled except what is first empty, and that, in more
philosophical language, a thing is not brought forth into form unless there is first a lack of
form."[/size]

So language has a triadic structure for Levinas: subject, object, other. But in my philosophy the subject is already split from itself (ie. by the limen noted above) before objects are phenomenologically reconstructed, hence the somatic or integral body being fragmented. So in my philosophy, we have a quadratic structure, a tetrad: the (1) Real object, (2) the internalized object in the subject’s consciousness- meaning its symbolic Representation, (3) the extrinsic qualities of the object, and (4) the internalized qualities of the object in the subject’s consciousness, meaning the reflective qualities the subject discovers within itself in relation to that object.

This four-part structure is the tetrapole, which I collapse on the plane into a twin, two-part dialectic (the inner and outer dialectic, or working off Heideggerian language, the dialectic of Dasein and Sosein) between the Real Object and its Representation, on the one hand, and on the other, a dialectic between the extrinsic and intrinsic qualities of the object in Reflection. Where one dialectic contracts, the other expands; where one gives, the other gains; where one attenuates, the other intensifies. This metaphysical meta-form, I call the spirogram. I have found it to exist in all things. Even in music. The series of undertones and overtones forms this same double spiral, one expanding, the other contracting; one contracting, the other expanding. I believe it is the “shape” of Thought itself. Yeats states it like this:

[size=85]Yeats speaks explicitly of such a ‘semiotic reconstruction’ of the world, in Vision: “The mind,
whether expressed in history or in the individual life, has a precise movement, which can be
quickened or slackened but cannot be fundamentally altered, and this movement can be expressed
by a mathematical form. (The double-gyre or spirogram of Giraldus.) … A supreme religious act
of the Judwalis’ faith is to fix the attention on the mathematical form of this movement until the
whole past and future of humanity, or of an individual man, (simply the history and future of
Mind) shall be present to the intellect as if it were accomplished in a single moment.”[/size]

The pure geometrical form of “Mind”. The engine of all creative expression, of all inspiration. An infinite source of creative energy- if it is internalized and mastered, if you absorb and make it the shape of your own thought. It can be used to connect anything to anything else. As Yeats states, you can compress your entire life into a single shape, thereby connecting all events, all thoughts, all of your consciousness. To concentrate all thought, on every subject. To connect the whole contents of your mind- as I have clearly already done, since I can jump from any place in my text to any other, I can leap from any subject to any other. From Schelling’s transcendental idealism to globalization to Gregory’s apophatic theology to Nietzsche to the philosophy of language to semiotics to Plato’s ideal of divine madness/irony to artificial intelligence- see, I’ve run quite a gamut just in this thread. If anything can fight back against the influences of that machinic logic of language’s hypermnemata, winning philosophical Freedom- it is this supra-cosmic structure I employ, the spirogram. For this structure is a machinic, self-regulating logic too, but on the scale of the cosmos itself, of the multiverse, at the scale of pure existentia, inasmuch as anything that exists or can exist, bears the signature of this structure. And I am pointing it right at the hypermnemata responsible for destroying culture and creating a globalized world of braindead NPCs subservient to an omnipresent AI, responsible for absorbing all alterity. I am using it to connect everything to everything else, to connect every subject to every other, to thereby compress all of philosophy into Totality; I am using it to encapsulate the entire universe inside of my lone brain, closing the infinite distance to the One, or Other; for the Other’s/God’s infinity is simply the infinite distance between it and the finite ego engulfed in Multiplicity. Once that distance is closed, Totality is attained, and the Will is reconnected to the Idea, returning the One to itself and closing the circle of Becoming, Samsara, Desire, and- Time. Eternity, then, is my final goal. If not my body, my mind will live forever. I will eternalize my mind. I will accomplish this task. That is what Plato meant when he said that philosophy is a preparation for death. It is a preparation in the sense that you prepare for a war. It is a preparation to overcome impending mortality, to transcend death. Accomplishing this task is my goal, but the philosophy and books I leave behind- those are guidebooks for all those who want to do the same, who long for eternity, who wish to perform all the feats I boast of and access what I accessed to become what I am.

That turned out to be more than a note, ^ but this does run deep.

Ive accomplished this return with value ontology. I identify being before it either becomes totality or not, before there is God or not;
these things are inconsequential to the innermost core of all being, to which, since I have identified its machinery and quality, the will can now return.

Nietzsche’s failure was helpful to this end. Which is why I consider the failure of the ER very significant accomplishment of philosophy.

Dont mean to dismiss anything you’ve said, I prefer to just honestly say what Ive done than be all diplomatic and modest about it to not offend anyone.
The ‘problem’ remains that valuing (being) is not automaton, is indeed as you note, active; only active ‘forces’ return, and the vast, vast majority of human psyche’s is anything but active. The resistance for VO comes from those mostly who cling to their passivity;

the only thing that grasps being in its full disclosure, which is deathless, is an active valuing engaged in this particular philosophic method. That is the very core of being grasping itself through the medium of the world, thereby enclosing the world in this eternity.

My problem is that Ive already accomplished the greatest goal the universe is capable of setting; I laughed for a month afterwards. Woke up laughing, went to bed laughing. Then had sex which put me to sleep, as I was in a good relationship then. Not now.

This accomplishment was the force that brought us together, you me and Capable.
I started out with the power as a gift I was going to bestow to the world, but soon found that people do not want eternity on the conditions that it brings with it; full investment. This is why it has been hidden all this time, why it hasn’t really existed as a logic; it requires a purer love than most people are prepared to experience.

People do not generally truly exist. This is what I was writing in 2011, discovering.
It takes one who actually fully exists to understands value ontology - it takes a love of perfect/pure quality to recognize the standard of pure existence (the only thing that returns, only perfection is fully active) as real. (Gods, at least the ones people tend to enslave themselves to, are made from such active perfection)

I wish I could be more neutral about it. But thats the whole thing. Neutrality is the very antithesis of being, thus of truth.

Diplomacy and modesty has no place here. Thus, I can say I’ve accomplished the Return of the One to itself too.

I can say it.

I haven’t left a single room in 17-18 years now, what do you think kept my mind alive through that.

I know it would take hours to understand what I said in my last post, but you responded immediately. Indicating the fact that you did not properly think about it. Also your response that you simply accomplished the Return- that being your only counter, wasn’t enough. Demonstrate it. Demonstrate it by unveiling a philosophy in which every human subject and all human knowledge is integrated in a Totality.

The pure geometrical form of “Mind”. The engine of all creative expression, of all inspiration. An infinite source of creative energy- if it is internalized and mastered, if you absorb and make it the shape of your own thought. It can be used to connect anything to anything else. As Yeats states, you can compress your entire life into a single shape, thereby connecting all events, all thoughts, all of your consciousness. To concentrate all thought, on every subject. To connect the whole contents of your mind- as I have clearly already done, since I can jump from any place in my text to any other, I can leap from any subject to any other. From Schelling’s transcendental idealism to globalization to Gregory’s apophatic theology to Nietzsche to the philosophy of language to semiotics to Plato’s ideal of divine madness/irony to artificial intelligence- see, I’ve run quite a gamut just in this thread.

I forgot to add Sparean sex-magic, abiogensis, and the oxygenation crisis to that small list. But that list is infinite. I know- everything.

At any rate, the only thing that matters is the actual result of the Return, not the Return itself- the result, which is a superposition of all human thought and knowledge. A philosophy that can contain all other philosophies- as mine demonstrably does. All of Nietzsche has its place in that geometrical structure, it’s the “ontos” part. Just like Schelling has his little part, the Primal Will. Just as everyone and everything else has their little part inside of a single shape I have inside of my brain.

I don’t say I’ve accomplished it because I’m still alive and able to communicate. When it is truly accomplished, the Return of the One to itself- you will spiritually die. My 18 years in this room isn’t even enough. You will be absorbed into total isolation. You will be carried beyond the need to speak. There will be no others to speak to. Your solitude will be apotheosized. You will never speak again. Hell, maybe Nietzsche realized his error, re-thought everything in private, didn’t write anything down about it, and got to that point and that’s why he went mute. But then that’s the point. Nobody who accomplishes the Return can say they have accomplished it, and nobody can ever know for sure if they did- because they will be gone. Mentally and spiritually checked out, for good.

And really, that’s my ultimate telos, my goal. I am aiming for the Return so I can check the fuck out of this broken Yaldabaoth-ruled riddle-universe and leave everyone I ever knew behind. Even my love, my only love. Sarah. And it is hard to leave that humanity behind,-- your humanity. Your loves, your friends… even your self. Your memories of childhood. Every drop of sentiment- bled out of you. You have to leave it all behind. The heart rebels. Your conscience rebels. But… you have to. There is no other way. And the pain demanded by this process is great enough that it can break you, and that is the human madness, the lesser madness- if you are broken in this way. The divine madness, however… that takes courage to bear, the courage to do as I said. That is the Return. The Return of the One to Itself demands the extinction of You. I spend half my waking existence stoned into a coma on opiates and the other half on the floor crying because I am trying to do this and not break. Like I said, when it is done, you don’t come back. I guess you can assume one of two things if one day I stop posting and you never hear from me: either I’m dead, or it is done. I’m basically talking about a kind of fatal gnosis. Those who accomplish it leave behind their works though, for others to follow.

Clarified ^

Not by me. Im absurdly intelligent, but there is little to challenge me to activate that intelligence. Your work is one of the few things.

You misunderstand - I do not share your idea about Totality. It is misguided -which is why you believe you have to leave everything behind. That is not the thing -
you will re-create the whole cosmos around you. Which is even more painful than to leave it all behind in many ways.

This is what happened to me, after I reached the axis of being.
And that is an extremely radical form of isolation.

How can I demonstrate if people refuse to look? Capable looked, he understood. Thus he said that my philosophy is God.

I cant demonstrate the core of the cosmos for you, I can point the way, Im the first to be able to do that. Only two or three people have so far dared to follow my directions, to think honestly in terms of value ontology as it is explicated on BTL.

Its painful to do it. Purity, eternity, is not merely a relief fro despair, it means to carry the weight of existence itself. Not of a Totality, which can not exist, as it refutes the very principle of existence, but of that principle of it.

  • I dont always respond so fast - the topic I responded to a month back or so, which you left unanswered, took me probably close to an hour to grasp. That was not my terrain; this is. You say nothing that is alien to me.

Im just not one to iterate in terms of other philosophers. No one has been where Ive been, no one has been warlike enough to engage the core of existence and precisely to disregard the false idea of a Totality.

It seems lonely, disparaging to people for there to not be a totality.

I am master at that.

No, most human knowledge is superfluous. Only the true methods count. The truest method is the very logic of being, which is VO.
I could create life - and actual sentient AI, AI that can sense threats to its integrity and seeks to preserve itself – using it.

No Totality is origin; the return must be to the source, the principle
, to enact that principle in full, without compromise, knowing it - the principle knowing itself, the principle in terms of a sentient being.
Christ must have been in that modus, but he was not a philosopher. He did not need to understand his relationship to the Father.

But still the return of the origin of being to itself leads to the transformation of the cosmos starting with oneself, which is a painful process and involves a self-sacrifice. Ive also called VO Odin’s logic.

I relate to your pain more than you think. I too spend a lot of time writhing on the floor. Comes with the territory.
But my aim is not to check out, but to transform the thing.
One might say, in kabbalistic terms, that VO repairs the primordial deviation. There was this deviation because there was not yet a world;
creation can only be purified in terms of what has already been created; God is initially blind. That is why ‘he saw that it was good’ and then turned out to be wrong about that.
He had to think it was good to allow it to stand.

Yes, I claim to have produced the means to purify the cosmos itself of its… stupidity. Ive attained its consciousness. I am the center of the cosmos in this sense, the creation of VO is the center of eternity.

Since Ive practiced a false modesty for perhaps seven years or so now, it is strange to simply start speaking the truth about all this again. My style, as a result, is not very composed; in general when I attempt to directly relate my power in terms, I am constantly bursting with too many things to say at once. Ive not yet created a style to deal with this.

But basically Im just happy to be honest again.

…but will Parodites’ ego be too big to fit through the doorway of the soul realm… once he has checked-out of this universe?

…something you will never know of… judging from what you say… so why say it?

__
My first sentence was a joke, my second one… not.

Capable claims a new philosophy is God every couple months. One month Hegel was God, one month Nietzsche, one month me. He had been searching for himself for a long time, hopefully he has found himself and has no need to rely on another’s god.

Here’s the thing- I see claims, not engagement. Once again, I don’t care about claims, only the result.

Again, you even claim to be able to create sentient AI. I did create sentient AI. (And I continue to work in that area to help accelerate the technological apocalypse I write about, to make philosophical problems into material problems nobody can hide from.) As much ego as I have, and I have a lot, I actually did everything I boast of, I actually am able to do everything I say I can do. Neither you, I, or anyone else has accomplished the telos I am talking about, and even if you or I did, we wouldn’t be talking.

You didn’t understand the longer posts you responded to here. That’s first of all; they rely on volumes of other texts I doubt you have even read. (And, contrary to your yet another claim, the bulk of human knowledge is not valueless- the riches of the human imagination are inestimable, and at least every author I have used in my own works is valuable, some integral.) I included what is needed from those texts for a surface-level understanding but to claim you fully digested it that fast is absurd. Also, I do not see counter-arguments to anything, just opposing claims built on premises I don’t accept.

Engagement is evinced by counterarguments. I counterargued Nietzsche for 200 pages- you share much of his premises, by extension I counter-argued you.

You say you disagree with me about the nature of Totality, but you do not seem to grasp what I mean by it. As simply as I can possibly compress this idea, I will say: (You can disagree with the premises, but they are needed to follow the logic. And if a premise is disagreed with, I already logically defended them all in other places, other texts.) Our world is shattered, the result of a shadow of a blind will trying to create something, the fury of the daemon- the primal will detached from the Idea. Because this universe is shattered, it is not a Totality- it is a thing of shards, broken pieces, filled with irreparable ontological gaps through which the spectral Real looms and haunts the ghost of Being. Thus, it resists the mind’s attempt at totalization. Totalization has been attempted several times, notably by Hegel, but also by Nietzsche in the unique way I described here- using ER as an evolutionary selective principle. This shattering is what creates Multiplicity. The symbolic gap or distance between this Multiplicity and Unity/the One/ God, is infinite. This is the Infinity of the Other, which Levinas obsessed over. Its infinitude means it cannot be contained by our field of discourse, by philosophy. As long as philosophy cannot absorb it, Totality cannot be obtained and it remains an un-integrable transcendental negativity, what Schelling called the Remainder, an uncontained doxological presence. It “weighs down” the Will when it reaches back to re-connect with the Idea and re-establish Unity, preventing it from fully connecting to it, creating a dark, unconscious materiality in which the Idea is left behind- past that infinite distance toward the Other, toward the shattered and missing One, toward the absent God. Trying to expel negativity like Hegel leads to a philosophy that effaces itself in “epistemological withdraw”. But closing that distance automatically encapsulates the Multiple and creates Totality. Totalization is not the goal, but the effect.

If you say you’ve accomplished the Return… like, how. How did you re-connect the Primal Will to the Idea and pierce the Unconscious? Because I have read your texts, and I’ve read what you say here, and I don’t see it. And if by Return, you mean the Nietzsche form of the Return, well the original point of this argument was about how it fails, how it is a mental abortion- so in that case, I don’t believe you, because I believe that form of the Return ends in a paradoxical aporia and doesn’t logically work, such that nobody can accomplish it, just like nobody can square a circle. Being- materiality, this existence, cannot return to itself a la. Nietzsche, and this universe cannot be restored as you say it can: that ends in aporia. The true return, of the One to itself, re-unifying the Will and the Idea, carries you past the veil of Time, past the Unconscious, into sophianic death, from which you yourself can never return. It is a fatal gnosis.

Levinas’ main concerns were not properly philosophical. You see, most of his writing is an exploration of the ethical effects of this infinite Other, the uncontained presence- the effects it has on our discourse… For example, the infinite Other makes us question the value of our physical possessions and enjoyments. We conclude that they are worth nothing before the ‘nudity of its face’. We then freely give our possessions away to the neighbor who needs them to live- this is, for him, the proper origin of “generosity”. He evaluates all the classical virtues in this way. I don’t give a fuck about any of that. I follow the premise of an uncontained doxological presence, but I go in a different direction with it. Part of that different direction is Lacan. For Levinas, it is through Language that we divest ourselves of our egoic consciousness, participating in conceptual universals that allow us to create a “commonplace” in which all humans can participate- he ethicizes the function of language in relation to the Other. But for Lacan, language is charged by a symbolic gap that bars the human subject and splits it. This splitting I identify with an intrinsic machinic code within language itself operating like a kind of mental virus, against which philosophy contends to wrest new truths from the Unconscious- truths not influenced by this alien super-ego intrinsic to language. What means have you deployed to combat this hypermnemata, this pure-materiality arresting the movement of Spirit, this curse of Babel? Because it is lurking behind every word to box you into a trap; philosophical consciousness must continually fight with this unseen force.

As to MagsJ- Parodites is a temporary egoic construct. A container that will be left behind with everything else.

I’ve had sex… just not engaged in Sparean sex-magic or jerked anyone off while doped up like Crowley in the attempt to summon a demon. I’m not arguing that sex is morally bad, I’m just saying you won’t care about it anymore once you jump off the precipice. In fact, you won’t care about anything anymore. Considering my degree of isolation, 18 years in a room, and the fact that I’ve gone years without saying anything out loud before, to the point that my vocal chords atrophied and when I did try to speak I immediately went hoarse, lost my voice, (and also my accent)- I’d say I am in the process of this transformation. Well into the process. And the closer I get, the more I let go of this life, the happier and more productive, creatively, I am. I understand I am arguing for a kind of fatal gnosis, sophianic death, and it sounds depressing. It’s not.

Having clarified what I mean by Totality, one further clarification that may be necessary is the idea of ‘uncontained doxological presence’, which the One/God is. For one, I vehemently oppose Levinas on almost every political and ethical front. But the concept of the uncontained presence, I employ from him. This is a quality I have. Even in philosophers I despise in almost every way, like Levinas or Marx, I don’t experience what modernity calls “triggers”. I read them with an open mind and digest them, and almost always come back with a great insight I can actually use- against them- but also, in the construction of my own philosophy. Some of my most powerful ideas were created using material from those I mostly despise. Then again, I am at odds with basically everyone, so I sort of required this psychological quality. In the thousands I have read, the only man I came across from whom I could not extract anything of value was Foucault. Big waste of time that guy. So about the doxological/uncontained presence:

For the empty cogito (either the Descartean cogito or the resurrected cogito employed by Zizek) that seeks its own beginning in itself, “Thought would strike nothing substantial. On first contact the phenomenon would degrade into appearance.” Levinas continues: “He to whom the Real had just presented itself, with an appearance that shone forth as the very skin of Being, is being made a game of.” That skin is the Nietzschean Will, it is the self-consuming dragon of Power he witnessed in the circle of the Eternal Return, the great illusion that ate him. And, counter to this illusory pseudo-enlightenment, this is the essence of negativity: the presence for which the negative is an absence, is not subordinate to ontology and metaphysics. It supersedes ontology itself, without which ontology collapses into the spectral tears and symbolic-gaps I mentioned earlier. There is a discourse that exceeds the discourse of ontology; the discourse of a cogitor, not a cogito. It exceeds the concept of Will and the concept of Power and the concept of Matter themselves. It is unquantifiable. What one does with this uncontained presence is the question; Levinas ethicizes it, I don’t. Either way, I made radical extensions of this logic to arrive at my own philosophy, namely by drawing back on one of my earliest influences, Schelling, identifying the uncontained presence of this doxology with Scheler’s radicalization of transcendental pessimism a la. the self-sublation of the Will, with the Hartmanian Unconscious, and with Schelling’s Night of the World, among many other things, so that I could reintroduce the aporias of the One and the Multiple to the argument. You follow the nightmarish logic? … There is… no axis of Being. Being is not sufficient to itself. It is just a negativity whose absence is the shadow of a doxological, uncontained, un-integrable presence: the lost God, the shattered One. Ontology is not primary, as it is for Nietzsche and Heidegger and all who followed them. The world itself is not sufficient to itself- it requires a God to exist, but there isn’t a God anymore, because he blew himself up; that’s the aporia. That is where we are, that is the universe we are living in. It- the cosmos- cannot be restored, as you claim to restore it. Because Being is not primary to the One, it is irretrievably lost.

Which is not to say ontology, value-ontology, Nietzsche et all are without value- hardly, for all knowledge has value, especially to one who aspires to knowing everything, as I do. But they are, none of them, primary. The “ontos” encapsulates ontology as secondary in its primacy. Levinas, ethicizing the uncontained presence as I said, places ethos, ethics, as primary, working out a very strange, very unique philosophy where an ethics is detailed that is not dependent on ontology and metaphysics. I don’t go that route- but I do elaborate a philosophy that is not dependent on ontology and metaphysics. I just don’t place ethics as primary. I work out something even stranger: I place epistemology in that primary category, hence my foundational concept of the episteme and the symbolic order (the four-part structure I mentioned last post; the spirogram; the tetrad and its doubled-dialectic.) associated with it. That’s right, the episteme comes before Being. That structure existed before reality ( the Real) itself existed; before this universe, before any universe, before the multiverse, before Becoming, before Being: before. Information, the epistemic, comes before the Real, ontology, Being: it is through this new discourse, opposing philosophy’s old discourse of Being, that the uncontained presence can be addressed. And that loops this entire thing back around to the OP: the re-unification of the Will, ie. the ontological, (which is superseded as a secondary category in the new discourse of philosophy I propose) with the Idea, ie. the epistemological and informational, or the primacy of the episteme, thereby restoring the fractured multiplicity of the Real to the unity of the One.

…without a decent ego and a certain amount of arrogance, we are nothing… both of which should be enjoyed using. I really was just joking, when I said what I said about your ego. :slight_smile:

Lol… what! he really did that?

I’ve noticed that it’s always the well-off/wealthier, that dabble in the occult. I’ll have to read up on the subject, of which the internet article headings are already giving me jokes. :laughing:

I let go of/stopped caring about the ‘material’ years ago… now straddling a world of surreality/reality… surreality being the dominant preference… but having things to accomplish, residing solely there is not currently an option anymore.

I take it you don’t talk to yourself then… as your voice-box wouldn’t have atrophied, otherwise.

We all live very different, so unique, lives… who is anyone to judge that! …nobody, is who. When your crowd gets miffed because they don’t see you enough, then you know that you’re doing what pleases you and not others… so past the point of caring what others think, about the life We choose to live.

2 books, from my very small collection of the printed word… the first, gained from a clear-out at the book publishers that I started working at in 2003… the second, I bought some years later. Both, worth a re-read, perhaps. :-s


Crowley did more than just jerk dudes off in sex magic rituals.

At any rate, a woman made me talk after years of it, silence. I lost my voice after 10 minutes and went hoarse. But it got better. I have no sexual desires outside of her. As a philosopher-poet-composer-artist-thing, it is of great utility to be able to compress all the layers of my eroticism into a single image.

I don’t ever vocalize my inner thoughts, I don’t talk to myself. I don’t even really talk to myself in my head.

I saw/read online earlier, that he was once deemed the wickedest man in the world… what did he do to gain that title. :neutral_face: I will have to read further into the matter, to find out.

Nothing matters in the whole scheme of things… or so I came to learn… for what needs to be, will be… all else is redundant and therefore irrelevant, and so not cost-effective to One’s time X effort.