_
I’d prefer not to be staring into Nietzsche’s abyss Peter… 
I’m in a drôle mood of late and can’t help it, so do excuse me. 
K: to each their own…
Kropotkin
in the modern era… we have had “discoveries” about the basic
nature of human existence…
for example, Darwin book came out in 1859… evolution is another
way to look at human existence…
we have distinct looks at the conscious and unconscious mind,
Husserl and Freud…
we have had extensive look at “Being” by Heidegger and his followers…
we have a vast library of what is economics since Marx… and we still
continue to explore this…
we have explore what it meant to exists without a god… for as
Nietzsche points out, “God is dead” and the more important point,
we have killed him… it isn’t enough to point out that “GOD is dead”
we have to notice we have killed him… and that very vital point is
left out…so we had an extensive look at god and theology since N.
the various political revolutions, in the modern era, the American,
the French, the Russian, have forced us to think and rethink what the
political means to us as human beings…
what all this means is that we have had to rethink the foundations
of human existence since the first great modern event, the French Revolution…
we have to rethink the foundations of human existence with the rise of
the scientific revolution… but science travels slowly and we have had time,
until recently, to keep up with science… but today,
we have yet to incorporate modern science into an understanding
of what it means to be human…
we have, as yet, not been able to incorporate Quantum physics into
a what does this mean to be human? And that failure has lead to something
important…
Human beings are and have been, since the inception of the modern age…
say, 1800… we have been fractured…the various revolutions and
the new explorations into such things as “being” and “consciousness” and
“unconsciousness” and “evolution” and to short hand it, “marxism”…
has lead us to become fractured…both collectively and individually…
there has been no collective theory which unifies the whole that we
have been exploring… “being” and “consciousness” and “evolution”
are simply individual terms with no overall understanding of what
they mean to us as human beings…
we are fractured, individually and collectively because we don’t have
a unified theory that can incorporate evolution and being and
consciousness… the very important aspects we have been exploring
since the French Revolution…
but the question arises… can we unify these quite different aspects of existence…
can we incorporate quantum physics and evolution and “being” and
consciousness into one overall understanding of our existence?
of the universe we live in?
if we focus on the individual aspects of existence, say “being” we miss all the rest
of what it means to be a human being in this universe, at this time and place…
or if we focus on the evolution aspect of existence, we miss other aspects of
existence…
we cannot hold to a single vision of our existence… we must
engage with large aspects of existence to explain or understand
what it means to be human…so for Marx to try to explain that
all of human existence is found in the study of economics is simply
false… to be sure economics play a role, but just a role, just
as the political and the social and philosophical and the scientific plays a role in
what it means to be human…
I think being fractured, individually means that one has gone deeply into
what it means as a human being… and seeing our understanding of existence
is fractured, we too are also fractured…
Kropotkin
In my reading, by Safranski, Martin Heidegger ‘Between Good and Evil’,
biography, I came across this sentence…
“According to Windelband, the natural sciences seek general laws, the humanities
seek understanding of the individual”
and I see this statement is incomplete… the humanities should seek the individual,
but it also must seek an understanding of the individual within a collective situation…
the individual yes, but also within with a understanding of how a human being fits
within a society and the state, in such a way as individuals can fit into society/state
in regards to economically, politically, socially and philosophically…
human existence is not only individually but is collectively… it takes a village…
Kierkegaard was right to pursue the individual, but he missed the boat by
not finishing his understanding with a sense of how that “Kierkegaardian
individual” fits into the state and society…
he finished half the mission, but he failed to complete it…
Kropotkin
and the very next line in Sufranski is this:
“Put differently, in Ricket’s words, natural science examines facts,
while the humanities examine values”
we cannot just pursue facts, we must engage with values…
what values are the values that we should engage with…
by the pursuit of IQ45 tilting at windmills, overturning the election,
they miss the vitally important task of understanding why we have rejected
IQ45… because of his failed and dangerous values that negate and deny
what it means to be human…IQ45 pursues nihilism in his values
and we ought to be investigating positive values…
what value is your value?
and why that value?
see yourself in terms of your value, not in terms of actions taken, but
in terms of the values which determine your actions… the values decide
the actions… and by choosing your values, you can then decide in your actions…
Kropotkin
we are beings in time… that is a crucial point of Heidegger
we exists within time…one way to think of being is
“being is time”…
but the fundamental point of our modern existence is
the fact that man, human beings are fractured…
we have been fractured by the various revolutions,
scientific, social, economic, political, philosophical…
the various revolutions have separated human beings from
the certainties of life before our modern times…
in other words, before 1500 and the scientific revolution…
we believed that human beings were X, Y and Z…
The scientific revolution began to change how we thought or viewed
X, Y, and Z… the dual revolutions of the political and economic
revolutions then changed some more of our understanding of
what we believed to be true, that all human beings hold to X, Y and Z…
BUT that understanding of what is X, Y and Z… has changed…
now to put into words, what X, Y and Z might be is this…
X might be our connection to theological understanding…
we are the children of GOD goes X…
and we are the chosen ones of theology… That may be Y…
and Z might be we are intimately connected to the land…
recall that until this century… human beings were rural,
agricultural beings… our most profound relationship with
with the land… something rural America still deals with…
and today, we are fracture because we no longer have X, Y and Z
beliefs anymore…
we cannot return home again…so we must forge new beliefs that
match our current situation… our situation in this modern world
where we are dependent upon each other… where we are alienated
from each other and ourselves due to our political and economic
ism’s and ideologies of capitalism and religions like catholocism…
and communism…
our ism’s and beliefs must match the reality on the ground…
and currently our ism’s and beliefs don’t match the events/ the
reality on the ground…
our entire understanding can be found in one simple slogan…
MAGA… Make America Great again…
and the problem is the slogan, which will fail in it application because
we cannot return to the values of yesterday because our current situation
must be met by values that reflect what is currently happening right now,
not in the past, as the slogan suggests…
we are a urban, technical, scientific society and our values must
reflect that fact… the X, Y and Z that was the basis of human existence
and underlined what it meant to be human in the past, no longer reflects
what it means to be human under an urban, technical, scientific existence
that we have today…
our values must reflect our environment and MAGA does not
match our current and modern situation…which is why it failed…
our values must, must match the times…
we are fractured because we are using old, outdated values meant
for an rural, agricultural society and are no longer valid in our current situation…
we have failed to keep up with the times and the environment that
currently exists…and our values have failed to keep up…
and so we are fractured, alienated, disconnected… perhaps different
words to describe the exact same thing…
so to think about one point, that God is dead and we have killed him…
that is one huge modern understanding of existence right now…
but what does that mean?
it means we cannot in our current modern, technical, urban, environment
hold onto the belief in GOD as was constructed because we no longer exists
in the same environment that held the belief in 'GOD"… we exists
in a different time, a different environment and a different place
and that requires different beliefs, different values…
Kropotkin
does that mean I am pushing for a “universality” of beliefs?
no, not at all… I understand our pursuit as being individual,
but practices collectively…
in other words, we understand our place in the universe as being
an individual understanding of who we are as human beings
and what it means to be human, but we then practice that new
understanding collectively… as part of a group… as human beings
were “bred” by evolution to be social, collective in practice…
we are not and cannot engage as single human beings without some
understanding that we must engaged outside of our individual selves…
we are social, collective beings and any, any understanding of what it
means to be human must be understood collectively, as part of something else…
but we first understand who we are and what it means to be human,
individually, by our own understanding of the human experience…
and then we apply that understanding into our collective practice
of being human…
we understand individually, but practice collectively…
every single value and thought must reflect back to both us
individually and, and collectively…
Kropotkin
so I hold certain values, values that were either indoctrinated into me,
by society, the state, culture, media, church, family…
I can then either maintain these indoctrinated values without
any type of examination or understanding or I can begin
a reevaluation of values and seek out what MY values are,
not what values I was indoctrinated with…
then I can individually understand what those values mean to
me individually but I must engage with, practice those values
collectively…
so, as christian, I might accept that value of love and I understand it
individually, but I must practice that value of love collectively…
and if I fail to do so, then am I really a christian?
where we suffer from an “inauthentic” life is when we fail to
practice our individual values in a collective sense…
if I accept being a christian, then I must accept that values both
individually and collectively… I must act upon those values within
a social and collective manner… if I accept values privately
and fail to act on them collectively, then I am not being authentic…
if I accept the values of capitalism, values of being selfish, greedy,
envy, then to act upon those values publicly, that is might be
acceptable individually, but certainly has no place in a collective
understanding of what it means to be human…
I must practice my values collectively… hence we must practice
positive human values of love, justice, hope, to make our collective engagement
work out… if we disregard those positive values of love, hope, justice,
beauty, then what kind of world are we creating?.. and the world is always
being recreated… my individual actions taken collectively recreates the world…
Kropotkin
Dada manifesto written by Hugo Ball:
Read at the first public by Dada soirée, Zurich, July 14, 1916.
Dada is a new tendency in art. One can tell this from the fact that until now nobody knew anything about it, and tomorrow everyone in Zurich will be talking about it. Dada comes from the dictionary. It is terribly simple. In French it means “hobby horse.” In German it means “good-bye,” “Get off my back,” “Be seeing you sometime.” In Romanian: “Yes, indeed, you are right, that’s it. But of course, yes, definitely, right.” And so forth.
An International word. Just a word, and the word a movement. Very easy to understand. Quite terribly simple. To make of it an artistic tendency must mean that one is anticipating complications. Dada psychology, dada Germany cum indigestion and fog paroxysm, dada literature, dada bourgeoisie, and yourselves, honoured poets, who are always writing with words but never writing the word itself, who are always writing around the actual point. Dada world war without end, dada revolution without beginning, dada, you friends and also—poets, esteemed sirs, manufacturers, and evangelists. Dada Tzara, dada Huelsenbeck, dada m’dada, dada m’dada dada mhm, dada dera dada, dada Hue, dada Tza.
How does one achieve eternal bliss? By saying dada. How does one become famous? By saying dada. With a noble gesture and delicate propriety. Till one goes crazy. Till one loses consciousness. How can one get rid of everything that smacks of journalism, worms, everything nice and right, blinkered, moralistic, europeanised, enervated? By saying dada. Dada is the world soul, dada is the pawnshop. Dada is the world’s best lily-milk soap. Dada Mr Rubiner, dada Mr Korrodi. Dada Mr Anastasius Lilienstein. In plain language: the hospitality of the Swiss is something to be profoundly appreciated. And in questions of aesthetics the key is quality.
I shall be reading poems that are meant to dispense with conventional language, no less, and to have done with it. Dada Johann Fuchsgang Goethe. Dada Stendhal. Dada Dalai Lama, Buddha, Bible, and Nietzsche. Dada m’dada. Dada mhm dada da. It’s a question of connections, and of loosening them up a bit to start with. I don’t want words that other people have invented. All the words are other people’s inventions. I want my own stuff, my own rhythm, and vowels and consonants too, matching the rhythm and all my own. If this pulsation is seven yards long, I want words for it that are seven yards long. Mr Schulz’s words are only two and a half centimetres long.
It will serve to show how articulated language comes into being. I let the vowels fool around. I let the vowels quite simply occur, as a cat meows . . . Words emerge, shoulders of words, legs, arms, hands of words. Au, oi, uh. One shouldn’t let too many words out. A line of poetry is a chance to get rid of all the filth that clings to this accursed language, as if put there by stockbrokers’ hands, hands worn smooth by coins. I want the word where it ends and begins. Dada is the heart of words.
Each thing has its word, but the word has become a thing by itself. Why shouldn’t I find it? Why can’t a tree be called Pluplusch, and Pluplubasch when it has been raining? The word, the word, the word outside your domain, your stuffiness, this laughable impotence, your stupendous smugness, outside all the parrotry of your self-evident limitedness. The word, gentlemen, is a public concern of the first importance.
K: when I read this I think of several posters here…limited types who,
who mistake intensity for clarity and intelligence…who lack the vision to
see what is really important…who total understanding of their self worth is
tied up in their political, social, economic and philosophical choices…
in other words… their self worth rises and falls based on how IQ45
is doing today…or how their favorite football team is doing…
their self worth lies outside of them selves… it is external and not
internal… but imagine someone like Gandhi or MLK… did their self worth
lie in their external images of the world or within their internal image?
if you ask what does it matter, then you to are external driven
and your own self worth is decided by external factors, not
internal understanding of who you are…
and if you want to find greatness, you must be internally driven,
not externally driven…
Kropotkin
as I have noted before, individuals can become stuck
within their own ism’s and ideologies…
we become victims as it were of our own slavish devotion to
the ism’s and ideologies that we use to elevate how we feel about ourselves…
some see their own self worth residing within their ism’s and ideologies…
not internally as a Gandhi or a MLK would, but their self worth is found
externally… as part of the MAGA crowd or as a conservative or as a liberal
or as a fan of Man U…their own understanding of who they are relies on
outside factors in their life…
but the same hold true collectively as it does individually…
we Americans can find our own self worth tied up into how well
or how badly we do as a country…
as a country we get locked up into viewpoints and understandings
of who we are based upon how well the country is doing…
we get locked up in a ism or an ideology that helps us feel
better about ourselves collectively…
did MLK or Gandhi use collective ism’s and ideologies to feel better
about themselves?
no, they had their truths and they held onto their truths to death…
in both cases… till death…
which leaves us trying to understand how does the individual
understanding of ism’s and ideologies fit into a collective
understanding of ism’s and ideologies?
I am Kropotkin… and how do I fit into the collective understanding
of the United States of America? which standard shall we use?
mine or America standard?
shall we understand people as a unthinking, mindless drone of America,
to be used and abused as America see’s fit? or do we have a collective
discussion about the proper place of the individual within the collective?
think about it this way… how shall we view each other here at ILP?
are you a friend, an enemy, how do we fit together as a collective
given our own individual approach to “philosophy?”…
what has greater value, the collective… ILP or the individual, Kropotkin?
and what standard shall we use to make a decision?
what is more important? the collective… ILP or the individual… Kropotkin?
it would seem that we need each other… for clearly ILP has some function
in Kropotkin life… and just as clearly Kropotkin has some function in ILP…
how do we work out this relationship between ILP and Kropotkin?
and we must understand that this connection between ILP and Kropotkin
is far more free and voluntary then our connection and relationship
we have within the state/society/media/educational/ church…
these relationships are much tighter bonds between the individual
and the respective bonding of state or society or media…
my relationship with the state or the society is far tighter then
my relationship with ILP because my relationship with the state isn’t
voluntary… I just can’t go live out in the forest and ignore the state…
for the state makes a strong demand upon the connection between
the state and myself that isn’t voluntary or as easily discarded as my
relationship with ILP… people come and go as they please from ILP
but one doesn’t do that with the state…in my relationship with
ILP, I hold the key to the relationship between myself and ILP
and in the relationship with the state, it seems to me that the state
hold the key/power to the relationship between the state and me…
so we should, perhaps even out the power between the state and the
individual to give the individual more say in the functioning of the state
given I have no choice in my relationship between the state and me…
the less choice one has in a relationship, the more say one should have within
a relationship… but that is to be determined…
so what should the relationship be between the state and the individual?
Kropotkin
the focal point of my philosophy lies in this question of “doing the right thing”
what is the “right thing to do?” how do we know? to give examples,
is supporting IQ45 the right thing to do or is supporting Biden the right
thing to do?
I suspect the clues lie in several different places…we have seen
morality being connected to the law… but as been suggested that
the law and being moral are two, different and distinct things…
for example the morally right thing to do and the legally right
thing to do has been vastly different…
slavery pre-civil war was legal but it certainly wasn’t the right thing to do…
and the holocaust was legal but it wasn’t the right thing to do, it wasn’t moral…
and laws that make women the property of men is legal but it isn’t the moral
thing, the right thing to do…
both Gandhi and MLK spent time in prison because they fought for the moral
obligations to be fulfilled and that violated their legal obligations…
Gandhi time and time again, violated the law to do the right thing
as did MLK… what is part of their understanding of the “right” thing
to do and what is the “legal” thing to do…
they both referred back to “higher” moral obligations…
it wasn’t the law that they referenced, but the values…
the “higher” moral obligations were the values that they espoused…
for both of them, part of the “higher” values was freedom… for Gandhi, the freedom
to the people having sovereignty over their own country in India…
an India:
“for the Indian people, by the Indian people, of the Indian people”
for MLK, to have the African-American people be free of the odious laws
of Jim Crow… to be able to enjoy the exact same rights as the White people…
the higher principles of both men involved values… not ism’s or ideologies…
for Gandhi, the higher principle was called “Satyagraha” (Sanskrit and Hindi word)
“holding onto the truth” a concept introduced in India to designate a determined but
nonviolent resistance to evil…think about it… HOLDING ONTO THE TRUTH…
what truth is that? the higher values of freedom, of peace, hope, of love …
the values that rise us to being better human beings, not lower us into
being animals… those values of hate, anger, lust, violence, injustice…
Ecmandu brings up a point that has always bothered me…
the attempt to negate great soul people by bringing up their human failings…
sure, MLK cheated on his wife… but does that negate his attempt to bring
people into freedom? I say no… but why? every single human being can
be negated in this fashion… oh, him… Jesus hung out with hookers…
negated… it is a very, very, very easy game to negate every single person on planet earth…
with their human failings…why must we tear down those who attempt to
achieve greatness… because we are petty and narrow-minded and shallow…
if we can bring down the great ones, we are absolved from making any
type of attempt “to do the right thing” if the great ones have failed, what
makes me think I can succeed in achieving greatness… it allows us to
avoid trying to reach greatness… it is an escape hatch that prevent us from
trying to reach greatness…
if I see a great person, do I say, oh, he cheated on his wife or he beat his kids…
or do, do I attempt to reach that person greatness while avoiding his very
human flaws…Goethe had flaws and Hume had flaws and Kant had flaws,
does that mean I make no attempt to become greater then them because
of those flaws? I simple cannot become a great philosopher because Socrates
hated going home to his wife? Is that what I am suppose to do?
Avoid reaching for greatness because someone else failed in being human?
I can’t follow the footsteps of Gandhi preaching love and peace and
nonviolence because he wasn’t nice to his wife?
is that the message you are telling me? he failed, so don’t preach
love or peace or nonviolence?
Kropotkin
Both Gandhi and MLK worshipped a male supreme being. That’s acceptable to the propaganda ministers.
As people, MLK cheated on his wife constantly And Gandhi abused his wife verbally and constantly.
[quote=“Ecmandu”
As people, MLK cheated on his wife constantly And Gandhi abused his wife verbally and constantly.[/quote]
K: and?
are you perfect?
have you acted perfectly in regards to other people?
I know I haven’t…
Kropotkin
It’s impossible to be perfect in any zero sum reality.
So no. I’m not perfect. I’m more perfect than those two however. Lots of people are.
[quote=“Ecmandu”
It’s impossible to be perfect in any zero sum reality.
So no. I’m not perfect. I’m more perfect than those two however. Lots of people are.[/quote]
K: and completely missing the point…
Kropotkin
You want to talk about the point? You can’t handle the point.
Having sex in a negative zero sum reality, no matter who you have sex with … always crushes millions of hearts (if not billions). Same with getting married. Same with simply seeing someone naked in a non global public way. Same with having children.
You, like others like you, think you’re the conqueror. Billions of people think this way… amongst 2, you and Donald Trump. Look in the mirror Peter. You are your worst nightmare. Selfish, greedy, narcissistic, psychopathic.
And to boot, you’re a moral nihilist like Trump, which is why your hatred of him seethes through your posts — he’s you in the mirror. You’re yelling at yourself.
You fucked up, you fucked up big. For once in your life, own it.
[quote=“Peter Kropotkin”]
[quote=“Ecmandu”
It’s impossible to be perfect in any zero sum reality.
So no. I’m not perfect. I’m more perfect than those two however. Lots of people are.[/quote]
(MLK and Gandhi among others)
K: and completely missing the point…
K: and I shall ignore Ecm for the moment as he is on one of his random tangents…
and return to this point…
the false belief that “I’m more perfect then those two (MLK, Gandhi) however.
lots of people are”
and people feel good about this… but think about it… who remembers you?
how many status are built do you? are you considered to be great?
NO, NO AND NO…and that is the point… the false belief that one is “more perfect”
then MLK and Gandhi… and this means you are “better” then MLK or Gandhi…
you can feel a sense of accomplishment or pride in this… false pride or false
accomplishment…
the point isn’t about whether you are “more perfect” then two of the icons
of the 20th century… the point is they achieved something you wouldn’t even
dare in your wildest dreams…they changed history… something very few of
us will ever achieved… I most certainly won’t change history…
they found greatness… who among you has achieved greatness?
and how did they achieve their greatness? not by following ism’s or ideologies
or by seeking baubles like fame or wealth or titles or power…
the old familiar path of those without any imagination or possibility of
greatness…
they found greatness by following values, not baubles…they sought to
achieve something by the pursuit of values like love and hope
and non-violence and justice…they achieved greatness by
holding firm to the values of justice and love and non-violence…
remember the word Satyagraha… that word is a compound word.
Satya: meaning truth…agraha: polite insistence or holding firmly to…
holding firmly to the truth…Satyagraha…and this is what Gandhi
himself writes about Satyagraha… in regards to “passive resistance”
“Therefore it is different from satyagraha (passive resistance)
in three essentials: Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits
no violence under any circumstances whatsoever; and it ever insists upon
the truth”
He didn’t fudge or adapt this “truth” to fit the situation…he hung
onto the “truth” regardless of the situation…
most people exists on the lowest level of existence… seeking food,
water, shelter, education, health care… a few exists on a higher level,
seeking love, safety/security, esteem… but who among you seek
to pursue something greater and beyond yourself? few to none…
at least none here…who dares to fly like Icarus… in pursuit of
greatness…to become something more then just animal/human…
but to become human, fully human…
it doesn’t matter if Gandhi or MLK were animals in some aspects of
their lives if they attempted to reach greatness in their pursuit
of values… who among you has tried to reach greatness?
none because you are mired in the muck of day to day existence
and you can’t see the possibility of greatness that lies outside of
your vision…outside of pursuing the lower level of existence,
food, shelter, water…etc. etc…or pursuing the baubles of existence,
wealth or power or…etc. etc…
there is a third path of existence and that path was followed by those
whom we call great…the Gandhi’s and MLK’s of the world…
the Goethe’s and Einstein’s and Shakespeare’s of the world
they pursued something beyond just mere lower levels of
existence… they pursued values… not ism’s or ideologies…
or food or safety/security…
they pursued what it means to be human and they explored the
possibilities of existence in ways most of us haven’t even dreamt of…
do I see greatness today? no, I see pursuit of the lowest levels of existence
or the pursuit of modern day baubles…and I won’t see greatness until we
begin to pursue the path of seeking what is possible for human beings…
to become human, fully human…
Gandhi and MLK are human beings in the finest sense of the word…
and the rest of us? we are just mere animals seeking the lowest levels
of existence… we don’t even realize that existence has many different
levels of existence, many different paths in which we can walk down…
my path is to seek greatness through my possibilities of philosophy
and understanding of what it means to be human…
and the exploration of values…
and what is your path? what are your possibilities?
what path will lead you to greatness?
Kropotkin
Peter,
You’re a fucking moron.
Plants suffer, even rocks suffer as much if not more at times than cows or people do.
Gandhi was a moron. MLK was a moron.
You have no fucking clue what the cosmos is Peter.
You’re blind like they were blind.
You still think you’re the conqueror.
You cannot be great until you make everyone great.
You cannot be interesting until you set up an impossible task for yourself.
Both of your icons are neither.
K: and what is your path to greatness?
Kropotkin
Working with the entire cosmos to establish positive non-zero sum hyperdimensional mirror realities attached to individual desire matrices for all, forever. Infinite heaven for every being in existence.
It’s been a collaborative project from the brightest spirits in existence.