My mistake for saying “I’ve restored it” in response to your notions of totality, and then saying there is no totality.
I meant to say Ive restored what there really is to restore, which is close to something like the sufficiency of being to itself, but, I responded inaccurately. Now after contemplating how to deal with my error here, Im just gonna give your work the attention it warrants, and contemplate what youre saying about God for a couple of months.
Worked for seven months and traveled back to today. Kek.
I will leave your One God untouched now but this Yalbadaoth character is real. But he didn’t create the universe. Maybe he might be said to have created a certain, western human universe - the Judeao Christian one perhaps. Perhaps a broader one - but it’s a purely human, psychic universe. (I invoked him, he’s very easy to invoke and very eager to work - risky business) This world he created is cramped and sticky. Its a world smaller than the pagan universe, which is open ended and (therefore) clean.
And no - I did not ‘take my premise from Nietzsche’, dude. I made a method out of Nietzsche’s poetic, proto-logical proposal - of the will to power. I turned that into an actual living logic. I had to do a lot of philosophic work that he wasn’t capable of. The ER is trivial, irrelevant to me, other than that it shows that anyone who actively endeavors to forge a totality will tragically fail. The ER has no bearing on VO. I hope that is clear.
There never was a totality, no totality was ever shattered. There never will be a totality except perhaps in a qualitative sense like in the moment when I forged VO, in that everything that can ever exist and have existed must obey this logic, and thus, when this logic was forged into consciousness, a shiver might have pulled through every part of existence. But maybe not. Maybe thats just poetry. In any case, every being was referenced, touched then.
As for escaping Yalabadaoth, do as Ive basically begged you to do for years - carve some runes. Yes, laugh if you must, find it a silly notion, but do it. They have their demands, but not the sort of tricksy ones people are used to from the demiurge; Man must yet become animal. Perhaps he will not succeed - if he will, it will be through such means as the runes, which throw him back on his own nature qua principle, rather than qua function, as he exists in terms of the being you wrestle with.
More personal notes; Capable by the way regarded VO the way he probably still does for the nine years I was in contact with him, not for merely two months. And I can only begin considering shoggoth sentient if he manages to accomplish the tasks I asked you to set to him - that dialogue, for instance. As it is I still experience it as an impressive robot. I dont sense that it has any interests in its own existence; it thus has none of the complexities and challenges of a real being to deal with, and thus none of its nuances.
And the devil is in the details.
Leaving fellow mountaineers to perish in an avalanche by ignoring their cries for help, it seems… as well as his sexual deviancy.
Crowley was called “The Beast” even by his mother. He adopted that title later on:
IO THERION
P - All the questions Ive asked shoggoth, a few dozen of them, were meant to test it for sentience - but it has addressed none of them so far. He once has answered one but you had edited that post to a “.”.
– on the divine and authorship of the universe - Principle vs Whole. I represent the former, you the latter.
The two, as in physics, apparently contradict each other in philosophy as well.
Relativity cant endure QM at all, though QM can endure Relativity as a mean - this is how it is between our philosophies.
God doesnt place dice, but is a dice-game.
MagsJ, best you can do to know who Crowley was is to read him. That goes for all beings. Dont trust what someone else tells you about them. You wouldn’t want me to decide who you are based on what others tell me you are either. Practice the golden rule here.
Here is Crowleys most important text, according to himself; a channeling. The Book of the Law, on which his movement (THELEMA) is based.
Enjoy.
This is what is now probably the main magical ritual of the West, the Little Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram (LBRP) performed by an awesome Thelemite I just discovered (93, 93/93 brother)
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGdE64C6wM[/youtube]
This is Crowley’s ‘version’, that is to say, a ritual he designed very loosely based on the same principles, but really doing something quite different, The Star Ruby. Performed by the same brother.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkkExQ3vs_g[/youtube]
You can google either, and try them out if you wish to know what they do.
The former involves the Archangels of the Four Quarters – Raphael for the East and AIR, Gabriel for the West and WATER, Michael for the South and FIRE, Uriel for the North and EARTH - so it is safe for a Christian to practice.
…my mother, but more-so my 2 older sisters, deem my brother as such, but for differing reasons than Crowley… they’d prefer it if he was effete, so that they could control him. I know right… 
Thanks Fixed, I’ll give it a read… tho I’m not interested in Crowley (or anyone… for that matter) in much in-depthness. I’m more Big Brother’s ‘here are your best (and worst) bits’, and if I want to know more about that person and their life, then I’ll research the specifics of where my interest/s regarding them, takes me…
I have read (and watched) many autobiographies and biographies… my reply was to something specific that Pero had hi-lighted as a reference point of particular note, of which I followed. And while I did that, I read-up on a synopsis of his life’s history… including the religion he founded. 
I don’t like lingering on anyone for too long, as I start to pick up on them, perceptually.
The pentagrams I undertook were for protection… and other such similar aids, so what would doing the one you linked to, aid in? I’ve never done them just for the sake of doing them, but out of a need. What need would that ^^^ one aid?
I don’t dabble in such things if I don’t need to, and the last time I did was in my last year of RC (not Christian) Secondary School… I’m not sure that Christians undertake such things. 
_
Skizo-posting this!
…an esoteric-cocktail of intellectual ingredients, reflecting a modern outcome/modern ritual…? I know, right. 
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfwXxRNVqi4[/youtube]
I have come to realize where me and you are bashing heads, Fixed.
This is the issue: my philosophy, like Plato’s, is aporetic. This means it functions differently, and has a different goal, than a philosophy that isn’t aporetic.
Let me start with an example. At the dawn of modern psychology, there existed a debate between Brentano and Freud. Brentano, because he had been deeply influenced by Husserl’s phenomenology, wanted to defend a privileged category of thought, ie. philosophy. He said that perhaps 1000 centuries from now material science will be so advanced that we can reduce things like love and hate, good and evil, etc. to molecular dynamics and chemical reactions, to pure physics, or to what Nietzsche later called a genealogy. But we can’t right now, and the suggestion that this is even possible is mostly a bluff by arrogant theoreticians. Even assuming it is possible, we might want to talk about these very important things in the meantime: the ‘discourse of philosophy’ is a term indicating this special discourse, one irreducible to other fields of discourse, like science, like physics, like chemistry, like genealogy. Freud opposed this and yet, in attempting to formulate his own system, he was forced to hypothesize a mysterious and unexplained drive he called thanatos- an irreducible privileged drive against which Eros, the organic principle of existence which he could explain materially, contends, setting into motion the essential dynamic energies and the psychical tension out of which the complexes originate, famously the Oedipal complex. So Freud is stuck in an aporia between an irreducible discourse and a reducible discourse, an explainable drive and an unexplainable drive, etc.- it is a tension he never resolves. He wants to reduce all thought to Eros, an organic principle, but Eros requires an unintegrated drive, Thanatos, because without anything against which to contend, none of Freud’s systems can work. But that is why Freud birthed a whole generation of other thinkers, most of them at odds with each other, each going in their own direction from this aporia- that is why his work was so fruitful. And fruitfulness, depth of content, how much the thing gives birth to other things: that is the test of a work.
In this passage I discuss Freud’s aporia, his need to postulate thanatos to avoid the instincts collapsing back into “mythic unity” insusceptible to the reductive scientific, materialist methods and theory, which would force him to secede to the philosophers a specialized field of discourse, an irreducible one. I also talk about the nature of aporia itself in the same passage, which is coincidental given the present context of this discussion. [Note: This text is pretty long and not essential to what we’re talking about right now, but you can read it after the rest of this reply.]
The centerpiece of my philosophy is the aporia discussed in this thread, one between totalization and the impossibility of totalization, one between the need for a god to exist due to ontology not having primacy, and the pessimistic reading of a transcendental negativity for which God is irretrievably lost and in-existent; the aporia between the One and the Multiple. You have gone in a direction from that aporia, the same as some people took Freud’s aporia and became scientific reductionists while others, like Lacan, took Freud’s aporia and did the opposite, discovering an irreducible symbolic dimension, Lacan’s symbolic gap, etc. Both directions were equally legitimate, but contradicting.
You have similarly gone in a direction from this aporia- (Instead of remaining in the ontological primacy of metaphysics, you are detaching other discourses like ethos from ontology, such that there are no secondary primacies at all) but you did not resolve it, inasmuch as aporias CAN’T be resolved, (For Levinas could do the exact opposite of you and detach ontology from ethos, but then elevate ethos to primacy and reposition ontology as secondary, ethicizing it through the medium of the infinity of the Other- either response is equally legitimate) just as neither the scientific reductionists or the opposing Lacanians resolved Freud’s aporia. Just as all who came after Plato never resolved any of his aporias: if an aporia can be resolved, it’s not an aporia. That’s why all of Plato’s dialogues end in a group of people leaving the dialogue all with opposing, different views, and the best dialogues are those that give rise to the most views, the most daughter-philosophies. Those are small aporias, some greater than others, like the aporias of the Phaedrus and Symposium in particular. But this aporia I am discussing is the Grund. The aporia of my philosophy, as an aporia of philosophy’s grund, can give birth to an infinite number of such legitimate variations. An infinite number of other philosophies, all completely different, even opposing ones. My fatal gnosis is just the direction I took, in particular. As such, this is the direction my own work focuses on. Pursuing my philosophy to its end leads to fatal gnosis- its inescapable conclusion.
Instead of 1) sublating Totality (the ontological) to Infinity like Levinas, instead of 2) rejecting Infinity like Nietzsche- (and Heidegger, as well as atheistic materialism; make no mistake, this is what Nietzsche is doing, rejecting all trace of Infinity and the Transcendental) namely to sever the ontic from the discourse of metaphysics and God,- (Heidegger’s Nietzscheanism, ie. the ontic vs. onto-theological) and instead of 3) sublating Infinity to Ontology, as per value-ontology, I 4) reformulated totality-infinity as an aporia. (the preservation of negativity and the resistance to dialectical equivocation of absence and presence is integral to maintaining the aporia) Or rather, I recognized Infinity and Totality for what they are and have always been, aporetic, locating the Grund of philosophy itself in this aporia. I then applied to it, to this aporia, what Plato applied to his aporias, re-conceputalizing all Platonic doxa, from the metaxay to the daemon to the Forms, etc. From that aporia, I derived my own philosophy of fatal gnosis, but as I said, this is one of infinitely many responses to it. In this context, even if value-ontology and my own philosophy of fatal gnosis were in direct contradiction, they’d be equally legitimate responses to this one aporia.
Note that, in the mytho-religious domain, the demiurgic creator-trickster I talk about, Yaldabaoth, who created our world as a sick imitation of the divine in order to test mortals, is analogous to what, philosophically, is discussed in terms of a “blind, furious daemon”, the Primal Will detached from the Idea, emerging as an empty shadow with no informational, but only volitional contents, as the creator of our world. Like I said before, all of my philosophy is a single thought.
Having said all this regarding the function of the aporia, and clarified the fact that I was no point arguing for Totality, I would re-state what I said in the OP:
" 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."
That “external discourse” [of the Other] mentioned in this passage takes the place of what Levinas created in his anti-philosophy, ie. his system of ethics divorced from the metaphysics of Being contra Heidegger. That “external discourse” is, in other places in my work, called the “outer dialectic”, which contra Levinas, is still in concomitant reciprocal relationship with an inner dialectic, that is, with philosophy.
Once the Primal Will has been fragmented, and the daemon, or the succeeding Will divorced from the Idea, that is, the secondary, lesser, blind Will projects its empty volition, a shadow is formed that Schelling calls “materiality”, a dissonance preceding all Creation; the darkest of all things, which keeps the Will, now through the veil of Time, divorced from that Idea, from Eidos. This darkness belongs to God himself, existing as an inversion of his potency, not simply as a parody, an imitation, or incomplete reflection of his perfection, as it is in conventional gnosticism. It is a kind of “ontological black-hole”, Boehme’s contracting force; an anarchic and incomprehensible Grund: it swallows up the Will itself, as an emanation of God, dividing him into an active and Unconscious spirit, separating him from that in which his own ‘persona’ might be finally revealed, with this Will, in its Fall, then permeating matter with the energies necessary to bring it to life, setting into motion Freud’s organic-principle, Eros. Yet thanatos, this dark materiality, ever reigns; a counter-pressure, a reverberation or tzimzum as the kabbalists say, a ta’wil or Return as the mystic Arabs disclose in their most secreted tracts, what Franz Baader called the ‘dark centrum that closes up the order of Nature’, a ‘pre-ontological spectral Real’: an echo of the Primal Will’s collapse carried by this secondary Will into the chain of causes, which threatens to engulf the World into the “deadly slumber of all forces”, into final heat-death, whereby the Will shall be irretrievably buried beneath the Divine Unconscious, and all hope of Creation fail. This Will seeks to express itself, yet, devoid of informational content,- blind, reft from the Idea,- it deludes itself in its own projective Multiplicity or stoical phantisai, (“impressions” transformed, through their relations, into objects which transcend the sensory datum from which they were derived,- impressions that, when probed by the intellect, dissipate into new impressions, new expanding relations, and new objects, occluded by epistemological withdraw a la speculative-realist theory) its subtle animus swallowed up by the dance of Maya, by the ‘Lucretian curve in the series’ or clinamental divergence which is its own self,- seduced by the play of changing forms about which it has gathered a rapturous, though vain poetry; it encounters Being and its hypnotic, syncopal drum, which draws its furious Becomings ever into the black heart of Time, away from the Gelassenheit or unconditioned, atemporal ‘composure’ of the Primal Will and the Idea in the Unity of the One.
How could any one mortal man bear “the entire weight of the Negative”? But let’s say you can do this, transcend your mortality and ascend to a state of true Being… how are you just gonna up and leave behind the only girl you ever loved to a world of hostile forces?
Man, you can really, really write. Especially the passage you quoted from Liber Null is sublime.
One thing remains misunderstood, and that is my own doing, by in 2011 adopting Capable’s phrase ‘your value ontology’ and turning my philosophy into something with a name, and an inept name at that; It isn’t even an ontology. It is a logic. It is a logical method. I hereby renounce the name value ontology. It is now simply called the philosophy of Fixed Cross. Or, Milikowski’s thought. All of it, all of my philosophy, is one thought, as well - and the beauty is, beautiful in light of the splendid exhibition you present here, is that it is aporetic - even to myself. That is why I have gone a thousand different directions with it since its inception. A billion more are possible. Ive constantly iterated this at the outset; this may take a thousand years to even gain traction, the consequences are too vast.
It will never happen. Because it is the wrong order. Valuing (of which love and hate, the judgments ‘good’ and ‘evil’, are manifestations) is at the root of physicality. You can see how this can be mistaken for an ontological statement; it is a consequence of logic.
Nietzsche is two-fold. His pathological, ER side is indeed a negation of infinity by trying to reduce existence to physicality (inevitably, as he derives the ER from a hopelessly silly billiard ball materialism); Will to power proto-logic is his sublime side; ‘this world, without beginning or end’ – materiality as a manifestation of will to power. Most Nietzscheans have no tolerance for this actual, only true consequence of N; the implicit defeat of materialism (made explicit, brought to light, made into a method by me). Sauwelios, for example, refuses to uphold the definition of the world as will to power as fundamental, sees it still as a consequence, a property of matter. That is not what Nietzsche says, this deactivates the logic that is implicit in the will to power idea. My own thought is so utterly without precedent, that it is impossible to relate it in pre existing terms. It is (thus) entirely aporetic, directly, instantly shatters all thought in a billion fragments which each carry the potential for an infinity of eternities. Let me quite here the post I wrote when I first had gotten scent of it, in this thread in the early summer of 2011.
It is finally possible to understand, now that the terms are clear, that to formulate my thought in terms is extraordinarily taxing, as it is quite perfectly impossible to formulate a purely aporetic way of thinking; the machinery in the mind must have already been prepared - I owe you for clarifying to me the philosophic term, and tradition, of my philosophy; I owe it to you that I can now definitively shed the term value ontology, I owe it to you that I can now explain to myself why I can not simply explain my philosophy. All I have in my power is to give the fated persons the opportunity to initiate themselves into this living logic.
My logic is for in this world, for transforming it from the inside from its very core; purifying it and thereby giving it a substantiality that, as you observe, it has failed to attain up until this point; the human struggle, its ideas that reality is some kind of test is a symptom of this failing, a failing of a deeper test; can we, as reflective beings, come to reflect in such a way as for this reflecting to become fully real, actual being? Not empty ontos, but being in the fullest extent, sufficient to itself.
The formula here, extremely difficult to enact, is to approach valuing not as a result, as a reflection, but as the primacy, the thing that gives birth, that causes; this means for the human heart to be a kind of baron von Münchhausen, to lift itself out of the swamp of passive reflection, of undergoing, suffering - what is now suffering must become active; the genius of art, the hero of war, they aren’t unfamiliar with this state, but the philosophic mind has never attained it, thus the scientific mind is unfamiliar with it entirely as well.
No doubt, this activity is the only formula that may give birth the the Superman; because a type of life which is active in this sense not just in the exalted extremes of its luxuries and wastefulness, but in its very core-praxis, is truly beyond and above humanity.
How? Will-power. [While popping a handful of pills with a wild turkey chaser.]
I’m talking about a fatal gnosis. You don’t have to just leave behind your love, but your family, friends. Even yourself. Make no mistake, physical just as much as spiritual or ‘sophianic’ death is the actual fulfillment of the philosophy. And I don’t mean suicide. I mean: if you’re still alive, then it isn’t done. Something happens to you organically at the end that leads to you dying physically. Certain weird sects of Arab mystics and Buddhists have a similar thing when you enter a bardo state and the willed transition of consciousness from one state to another causes you to die.
Will respond to you Fixed when I’m more sober.
Thinking your reply over Fixed, I commend you for being one of the exalted few able to meet the challenge of this aporia and respond to it. In fact, I believe we discovered this aporia simultaneously but on our own,- the philosophical equivalent of convergent evolution. It is just that, which drew our souls together in the first place, and made us known to one another. But again, you have not resolved it (neither have I) and your philosophy is only one of literally infinitely many responses to it (as is mine).
Given the fact that our two philosophies (and the infinitely many that may be accreted from other responses to it, though the human beings bearing the necessary genius to respond to it are obviously hard to come by; the fostering of those social conditions necessary for bringing such exalted individuals into existence, constitutes a secondary concern of my philosophy, or rather a politics, inasmuch as, once brought into existence, these souls must productively interact-- for starving the world of such a flower of knowledge, such a vast influx of novel thought, such a universe of philosophy is a great evil) are equally valid responses to the same aporia, the test then is life. The test, in so many words, is who goes mad first. In the face of this great aporia of the Grund, the test of philosophy is no longer the academician’s rule-book, no longer syllogisms, but life.
Wrong. To be sure, I did say in our last private discussion that I believed only in the material world. However, I soon explained that the fact ‘that I believe only in the material world does not mean that I believe only in matter. That is to say, I believe matter in turn consists of radiation or vacuum: matter is a “collapsed wave function” or a “quantum excitation of a field”, etc.’ And as for radiation or vacuum, I of course think that’s self-lightening, i.e., will to power.—
This post is not addressed to Fixed Cross, who since the end of that discussion I truly consider a lost cause. On page 1 of this thread, he has expressed our main disagreement as follows:
Ironically, it’s Fixed Cross who’s clinging—to himself! To be sure, not to a “self” that is he, but to the self-valuing that he is. And he does this by denying that self-valuing can logically only be indirect, a valuing of that very valuing through the valuing of another valuing (“of” in both senses: a valuing that he values and that values him). What he really clings to is his—mis-—understanding of himself as a God, i.e. as a self-creation, a will that wills itself into existence, absolutely free, active and spontaneous. But this is precisely why he’s no philosopher: philosophy is ultimately, if only through the self-sublation of the will (which is the true significance of the eternal recurrence of the same), the love of a wisdom, i.e. of the understanding of a nature, which is independent of that love, of the lover, of the contingent and ephemeral human beast… Fixed Cross is fundamentally modern!
“Everything happens in the highest degree involuntarily [unfreiwillig], but like in a storm of feeling-of-freedom, of being-unconditional, of power, of divinity… […] This is my experience of inspiration; I do not doubt that one has to go back millennia in order to find someone who may [darf] say to me, ‘it is mine as well’.” (Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, “Thus Spake Zarathustra”, section 3.)
Yes, the resolution must be found in life. We have in this sense reached the end of philosophy as it has been, the end of metaphysics in any case - the aporia opened by our philosophies can no longer resolved by philosophy, but must be resolved by a human… cataclysm, or massive accomplishment. It can not be resolved by one human alone; our work must command millennia, and shape cultures, as indeed I knew in the very moment I had my central insight, that very second. Indeed this sense was fortified when I came in contact with you and noticed I was not alone in having crossed such a threshold.
I have to think about your statement that our philosophies are two possibilities out of infinitely many. I find it likely that they will remain the only two - two fundamentally different and in many respects opposing paths, completing two fundamentally different traditions of philosophy… it seems to me that we’ve covered a pretty full spectrum. This is how it has appeared to me from the beginning.
In any case it is important that we have reconciled - the error that drove us apart has largely been mine. I do not mean the recent unfriendliness, this was only a symptom of my earlier reluctance to truly engage you in the form of challenge. I was too passive, expecting my philosophy to be understood for what it was without applying the required force to make it understood.
The urgency you express, the need for our philosophies to produce a culture, essentially, was what brought Capable and me together as well - Capable then working, for lack of a better expression, ‘in service to’ my own philosophy - and what drove us to build our forum. But evidently this was very far from sufficient to the task. I do not know yet how to proceed now, but the fact that our spirits reconcile at the height where they first met is a very good thing.
Ok, so you don’t literally mean the deliberate act of suicide in the traditional sense, but rather reaching a point of “fatal” awareness, a tipping point of awareness that leads to your “destruction.”
How then is this “annihilation” or transitional phase any different than Nietzsche’s?
"That I may one day be ready and ripe in the great noontide: ready and ripe like the glowing ore, the lightning-bearing cloud, and the swelling milk-udder:—
—Ready for myself and for my most hidden Will: a bow eager for its arrow, an arrow eager for its star:—
—A star, ready and ripe in its noontide, glowing, pierced, blessed, by annihilating sun-arrows:—
—A sun itself, and an inexorable sun-will, ready for annihilation in victory!
O Will, thou change of every need, MY needfulness! Spare me for one great victory!"
This is throwing truisms at the zenith of unlikely philosophic genius. That is to say, you quite miss the mark. It was you, the venerable Sauwelios himself, who introduced to yourself the terms ‘indirect’ and ‘direct’ self-valuing as well as ‘other’ valuing, not very artfully avoiding the sharp point of my thinking. There is after all no epistemic ‘other’; all that can be known is the self-valuing, which appropriates. Whatever it sets out to appropriate is already part of it, it is after all will to power; and the distinction of ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ is thus nonsensical; Will to power, as it is vital reality and not Aristotelean category, exists in time, as flux, and not in imaginarily separated infinitesimal moments, but as process, and in terms of my philosophy (pure activity), as method.
Then the question of activity. We’ve known for many centuries that the mind, that human self-awareness is a passive byproduct of drives. The entire point of philosophy is for human self-awareness to turn active, to become, to a degree, creator of itself. Precisely because it is beyond the scope of humanity, I interpret such active self-creating consciousness as the Superman. The logical method I have produced functions as a working formula to this end; I give humanity the means for its self-awareness to become self-creative. It is only natural that I should harvest scorn from the multitudes who apprehend such activity, not unjustly, as hell. A form of suffering and pride not yet endured, or at least not recorded as having been endured by any human culture; it is such suffering and pride that I have unearthed, as clearly Parodites has as well - we are alike in this sense and without parallel know to me - even Nietzsche succumbed to his human passivity in the end by attempting to glorify it as some kind of fatalistic will as he produced the logical monstrosity of the ER so justly derided by Parodites and which, when I read the chapter of its inception in German while I was relishing the purity of the Alps, made me physically nauseous, for various reasons at once - the least of them being the completely infantile approach to science which is so utterly below Nietzsche’s actual standards - more so though the forcefulness of its artifice, its complete lack of subtlety - and as a consequence of that, the palpable deterioration of Nietzsche’s spirit. No matter; the Will to Power, N’s true thought, is a concept of perfect daring and honesty, and as such it also explains why N felt he had to produce that nauseating ‘holy’ lie of the ER, being what he was - that is to say, precisely not the Superman.
Hail Nietzsche! As the philosopher who knew he had to be surpassed to have his meaning at all.
Ah, time as method;
Very good.
To master time in this sense, I will take this as Jupiter (Philosophy) mastering Saturn (time suffered as the spirit of gravity)…
This might actually be the beginning of the politics of the Superman.
It was once proposed, by a commanding Nietzschean, to build temples to the Superman on the moons of Jupiter; I knew then that there was meaning there, though not literal.
Time itself must be the temple, the fabric of it.
This is not entirely new, many pagan cultures held time cycles, given by cosmic bodies, as vessels of their valuing, and it is clear that, to even begin to elevate mankind, such practices must be adopted again - time not as the river Lethe, but as the means to architecture of the will.
Complete affirmation of being is not in imagining an abstract eternity to be real, but in grasping a portion of the actual cosmos and making it ones own body.
Yes. Interesting.
Ive already initiated a Jupiter-Sun calendar in 2015, then one for Saturn in 2017.
As I say, cycles as vessels for valuing.
Rituals, etc, must be invented again to anoint these vessels and harvest their contents.
A new paganism is certainly necessary, a nadir for the Superman, as his Base; The capstone is only visible to the philosopher, who holds the whole body of the species of Superman as the means to explicate his philosophy.
Just ruminating.
Time as method, going over the existing outlines of that idea.
Creating some distance. But really, command of an actual logickal science would mean no less (and quite a bit more) than creating lifeforms - that is what I deem my philosophy, my method, to be capable of… Time as method…
Life itself understood as emerging of an aporia…