What about all those that don’t believe in the immortality of the soul but are nonetheless a drag on the strong? Would you also include in the 90 percent those who don’t affirm the ER? Does not affirming the ER necessarily translate to a belief in an afterlife?
I’m also wondering what victory actually looks like here. If time is circular and affirming ER means willing even the Christians, then is victory just a moment of sorts? (“let your peace be a victory” in the “good war”)… Let all wars from now on be “good wars”?
“@Meno_: I don’t agree, killing is not goal here. Then, as for the value of ritual sacrifice, there is at least one clear paragraph (no time to check on my quotes today) in the Antichrist.”
I agree, but as things go, as You suggested that Lamarkism and behavior may not either be absolute contrarian concepts, the archetypes could not possibly suggest either an absolute construction, or a defensive deconstruction against either adulation ( The Christ) or the negative (The antichrist)
Considering the basis of such semantic logistical method to solve an ontological problem; things may become clearer.
Sacrafice on the phenomenological level may occur as an obvious daily affair,with believers in the soul not really posing a threat to material acquisition in the sense of trending or transvaluing the ideal into pragmatic utility , a reductive effort that Marxism tried to counterbalance ; through the world.( and it appearently hasn’t worked)- mass sacrifice is the preferred method of silent victimization, where the poor are being progressively impoverished at they’re own expense. Such are manipulated in the name of monetary policy and supply demand functions.
There are millions of families, including hungry children, even now dying of malnutrition and allied illnesses.
These are the real martyrs, the silent sufferers, while tradition has it that price control methods have been noted as vulgar as dumping excess food into the sea to control prices
So with the advent of ‘democracy’ , ‘sacrifice’ has taken on a less delible look, one that has reduced to lower levels of participatory mystique.
But what I really wanted to imply and focus on is the sacraficial shift of religious unto socio economic transformations and how they effect the transition from an idyll of sacrificial motive from Abrahamism to it’s paralogical narratives, and that idea is not present in ‘The Antichrist’
, at least not to my knowledge. That archaic point of view could opine Lamark to it’s most advantaged politically derived suggestion, in order to maximize the perception to the initial motive of reducing scientism to the the least misunderstood level.
That is like converting the social economic theories toward minimalist Freudian economies of the will, to enhance the traditional view around social economic reality.
Well, let’s ‘sacrifice’ those too. No… seriously, it’s really not about killing. The idea is to have a race of slaves to prop those who are ‘superior’, and I guess their beliefs would not be the main criterion (it’s not about ideology either). Sacrifice here means that these people are expendable with a view to a greater good. In some economics perspective we could call that ‘operational costs’, or even ‘investment’, though the victims will by no means reap the benefits.
I am not trying to make it any more palatable than it sounds, but whoever has even a modest experience in some working environment, can see that large organisations do have these expendable members. Obviously, they need not to die, but neither need they in N.’s plan (but if that happens… well, no big deal). And as for ‘dragging the strong’, as soon as there is some predicament, let’s call that ‘crisis’, those people are ditched.
I guess this is nothing you haven’t seen in your lifetime.
Then, no, it’s not about an afterlife, it’s about a comeback. More of the same, no qualitative difference. And, please, consider that in N.’s view individuals are by no means what people mean by the word. The only ‘reality’ would be the ER itself.
Actually, I am kind of oversimplifying here, there are some private notes where the man considered how much a belief in the ER would affect people’s life-view, the ramifications this core belief would spread. In a way, if you focus just on the process, that would be analogous to the destruction triggered by the death of God, but unlike that in a life-affirming sense.
This is interesting and I have no simple, quick answer to that.
As a tentative answer, let’s say that victory is what feels like it and one would know how much that is ‘real’.
At the end of the day, your questions can be said to be ‘the truth’. But, then, you may also want to question the value of truth itself.
@Meno_
Man, you pack a lot of stuff in there. I have to confess that I could not grasp all that you wrote. I guess that when you point out that, in fact, this mass of servants exists already, and it’s not some deranged fairy tale, we agree. And, yes, the white lie of some kingdom of justice awaiting it is what helps them to carry on. Although, let’s be frank, a lot of people do not really believe that. They just content themselves with thinking that they are ‘decent’. And, honestly, I guess we all do that, if only for some time.
No, I don’t think not affirming the ER necessarily translates to a belief in an afterlife; so yes, I would also include (though not necessarily in the 90 percent—see above) those who don’t affirm, if not the ER, then at least the abysmal thought.
Yes, “the short peace”:
“Against the value of that which remains eternally the same (vide Spinoza’s naiveté; Descartes’ also), the values of the briefest and most transient, the seductive flash of gold on the belly of the serpent vita—” (WP 577, Kaufmann trans.)
I think Jakob’s making a logical error. If I consider the fear of permadeath a mark of weakness, then why should I prefer it to rebirth? In fact, I would gladly be reborn in the Hellrealms!
Those who believe in the immortality of the soul usually also believe in a Heavenly afterlife, which may require a stay in Purgatory or even in Hell (and life on Earth is itself often looked at as some kind of Purgatory or Hell), but which is a life of eternal bliss. It’s basically only Buddhism—which rejects the immortality of the soul—which teaches that even such Heavenly afterlives don’t last forever and even the Gods in those Heavens (the Christian and Islamic Gods, for example) must eventually die, and will then probably be reborn in a lower realm (because the intense bliss of the Godrealms is not very conducive to enlightenment).
I don’t think weaklings would really prefer permadeath to rebirth. For example, my—now ex—girlfriend used to dream of permadeath, until I pointed out to her that she wouldn’t be able to enjoy it (experience the contrast between life and permadeath), which was what drove her so desperate as to travel 5,000 miles to come and stay with me for three years. What she’d dreamt of was actually a kind of Heaven: eternal peace! And I think this is typical.
That laughter at the end is really maniacal, by the way.
The Antichrist need not eve. need to be opened, for Sacrafice of the absolute can be read on it’s face, as the negation of Greek ideals. But it is more, of shows a relation of proof between God and Man, a proof pf love: the angel appeared both times, in the case of Abraham it was tappearance to Abraham, who would and could naturally desist from such ultimate proof of love, buy god? He could mot allow himself to be let off, since OT was the test of the literal proof of love toward his very own , a test of which was his own test of a doubt about the intent toward his own creation.
The angel could only appear as a symbol, a metaphor of the whole parable of being as a creation of love! That is what it’s stake.
The Antichrist is a return to a negation of that, a destruction of the Greek elements that the Talmud incorporated into it’self, that bound god, to question the very reasons behind and beneath the whole idea of the test of faith, based on formidable gaps between the creature, the Creation and god. Here, the split between the first and the second covenent, had to ignore the purported effects of god’s denied fear of life, and take on the appearance of a real albeit opposite force to content with, where both, work, ultimately later on, with a new structural heresy involved: the Gnosticism prescription in between working things out, hermetically but without proof through temptation and deliverance through redemption.
There’s definitely a certain percentage of the population that hopes there’s nothing after death so they can just be “rid of themselves” as Jakob says. But this isn’t really that much different than hoping for an “eternal” life after death, in the sense that both are logically impossible. Most people probably just want the easily obtained bliss of some promised after-life.
However, the only “eternity” there is, the only one that can even be experienced is what you quoted earlier:
““Against the value of that which remains eternally the same (vide Spinoza’s naiveté; Descartes’ also), the values of the briefest and most transient, the seductive flash of gold on the belly of the serpent vita—” (WP 577, Kaufmann trans.)”
Even your ex-gf’s “eternal peace” was a transient peace as it was experienced in a dream.
Well, I meant a daydream, but yeah. The only true eternity is indeed Blake’s “eternity in a moment” (also Zarathustra’s gateway “Moment”, ancient Greek kairos, etc.).
Of the percentage of the population which hopes there’s nothing after death, I think the greatest part hasn’t thought it through (like my ex). And I’m not sure it’s logically impossible; why do you say that?
Ollie youre talking about Muslims and Christians. Not about Chinamen or Indians.
Good to know you’d be glad to be reborn though.
Ive just made several videos about the ER + the Big Bang/Heat Death idea, and about the extreme harshness of the idea of reincarnation, which means having to go through endless deaths. Hardly for the weak. This one is just uploading now and will hopefully premiere at midnight.
And Attano Im not wearing a bonnet in this one. A scarf. Not on my head either.
Perpetual - please give the logical argument that says eternity of identity is impossible, without basing yourself on the outdated billiard ball model of causality, which is also what sustains the ER, but is pertinently false, as I explain the video.
Glad Blake comes up. He says that the eternal loves the structures of time.
I think I’m talking about exoteric Buddhists and Hindus as well as exoteric Muslims and Christians:
“Pure Land Buddhism […] is a broad branch of Mahayana Buddhism and one of the most widely practiced traditions of Buddhism in East Asia. […] Pure Land Buddhism is built on the belief that we will never have a world which is not corrupt, so we must strive for re-birth in another plane, referred to as the ‘Pure Land’.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism
Thanks. Even in late 2017, when I’d just experienced my first birth throe of the Babe of the Abyss (that is, other than on lesser psychedelics—on whose leaving one feeling gross I disagree with perpetualburn—and a few other unheimliche Empfindungen (“uncanny sensations/experiences”), going back well into my childhood)—even back then, I already wrote:
‘Well, for me that [there would not be infinitely many rebirths] would take away the best part: the suggestion that even infinitely many rebirths would be a blessing if spent on trying and liberating others; that such a rebirth is not a burden at all, but on the contrary! that it’s not even a necessary evil, but a boon!—perhaps even the greatest of boons…’ https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=424608#p424608
"In John, those who accept Christ can possess life “here and now” as well as in eternity, for they have “passed from death to life”, as in
John 5:24: “He who hears my word, and believes him that sent me, has eternal life, and comes not into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.”
Expectations are supposed to be true. That’s what decides whether they are good or bad. True expectations = good. False expectations = bad. So while prognosing that the future is bleak can be a sign of certain kind of ability (the ability to withstand unpleasant possibilities), it can also be a sign that an ability that happens to be more important is lacking (the ability to make accurate predictions.) The purpose of an expectation is to inform you about what’s going to happen in the future so that you can better prepare yourself, not to test your ability to withstand unpleasant thoughts. In other words, if the future is extremely pleasant, but your prognoses are extremely negative, you are doing a bad job.
I agree with you that this belief is loathsome as well as with perpetual that its object is impossible. The two often go together.
I disagree with him on that entirely as well. The only truly filthy drug Ive ever taken is ecstasy. That’s truly self-rape. What a disgusting invention.
Psychedelics are holy, they never fail to make truth more apparent. Ive not taken them for some years, as since my discovery of VO Ive had no need for any clarification or additional bliss of the soul. last thing I did was Ayahuasca in Brazil with Phoneutria. But all its goddess (whom I must praise, she is noble and fair) told me, despite Phone’s father the shaman giving me a double dose, was; VO is the real thing, go back home and teach it. (and an urgent personal advice, which proved more deeply valuable than I could express).
It did clean my bowels very thoroughly as well which was helpful. I can recommend it, no disrespect intended at all, even for that reason alone.
Im almost certain that reincarnation is real and follows the logic of value-bestowing. The greatest investigative psychedelic, on that note, is Merkabatic Kabbalah.
Not that I expect anyone to ever take my word on anything. That is likely because Im usually uncannily right (and make (I should out of decency say almost) no logical errors) and the truth is always unexpected.
Lo and behold.
(Always nice to be on friendly terms with you. I think the philosophy you teach to the internet people is simply not meant for me)
Dear Meno,
I absolutely loathe these horrifically weak and stupendously arrogant ethics of christianity. It makes me sick too read these sentences.
The heaviest task humanity has before it is to apologize to the Earth for believing in such ridiculously undignified falsities.
I have no objection to you having your beliefs. I truly recommend that you persevere in them, as it will make us more distant from each other.
There is no need to enforce caste-systems, the unclean naturally are governed by their own laws, as are the exalted.
