Schizopost #7: Philosophers as "Gods of the Earth".

Hard for me to believe anyone who has has even skimmed Nietzsche could come to this conclusion… And considering how well read you are (thus I assume you have read all of Nietzsche)…I conclude this is a all theater and/or shit-posting/bait. ’

Also, it’s quite fortuitous that Salome rejected Nietzsche, or else we never would of got mankind’s greatest book (TSZ)… Not that Nietzsche would ever of settled for a normal marriage even if he got one.

Obviously it’s a shitpost/joke, I called N. a pussy and implied he was a progenitor of the modern incel movement. Not so much theatre as it was too much percocet, phenobarbital and booze. However, still, every joke is meant to be taken with a grain of salt, and by salt, I mean a grain of truth. That grain of salt-truth is this: I didn’t marry my Salome either,- because yes, if you marry someone, you have just pledged yourself to a great commitment that requires an investment of energy and soul,- one on account of which a man cannot possibly still keep investing everything he is to his work, to his philosophy, to his creative life. But it doesn’t change the fact that he was rejected. Because of that rejection he suffered, which was inevitable given the kind of manic-pixie-girl-archetype Salome was, (the quirky, rebellious, permanently young type of female soul that swoops in from heaven to drag the mordant and lonely thinker back into the world one day, to experience some adventure, to experience,- even against his will,- Life, etc. Faust’s type of woman. Telling that this type is promised by Mephistopheles.) he maintained a stunted form of Romanticism all the way to the end of his life, saturating his text. Beyond that, I believe one reads any artist best, in the image of their Muse. An artist’s ‘taken angels’ tell us who they are most of all.

As Aristoxenus of Tarentum wrote, on the Pythagorean Ethic: “There are many things in human life that benefit from late learning, Love most of all.” But it is nonetheless true, that such learning may in fact come too late. It makes us Romantics.

Obviously, as a hardly inconspicuous anti-Nietzschean, (In fact, not only am I anti-Nietzschean,- I am a strange kind of Christian philosopher. A gnostic Christianity, even my own unique version of gnostic Christianity,- in which the divine Trinity is inverted and the Son, instead of equalizing a dialectical circuit between the Father and the Ghost, actually serves as an antagonist to the Father, through which the Holy Ghost, as the third component, is self-sublimed: Christ as the enemy of God. That is what the ‘death of God’ is: the Christus overthrew him, and left behind the Ghost for mankind’s future apotheosis,- but Christianity nonetheless.) I don’t think TSZ is,- in keeping with Nietzsche’s own shit-posting about himself in Ecce Homo,- the greatest book. In fact, I don’t value it as highly as I do his other books,- books which I do value, despite disagreement.

Despite despising him a great deal, mostly as an unconscious predecessor of dialectical historical materialism, (He laid the seeds for that in the Genealogy. Instead of developing a theory of morality based on man’s transcendental capacity for recursive self-reflection,- the category of the transcendental subject, he traces it geneologically, by way of economic forces. You can slice that any way you want, but that is Marx. You are dissolving higher-level abstractions, like moral values or ‘the self’, into elementary fragments of materialist forces within the dialectic of history.) Nietzsche is actually the only human being for which I feel an innate affinity. We lived nearly identical lives. Chronic pain, opium addiction, inhuman solitude, (I haven’t even left this house in 16 years. Save for one occasion, and that was only because I was with ‘Salome’. I didn’t speak out loud once for ten years: it atrophied the tissue in my throat so when I did try to speak after that, my voice would give out after only a few minutes, becoming so hoarse I could not physically articulate speech. I understand where he had been.) He is, to me, a kind of spiritual brother,- a fraternal spirit. But our projects cannot coexist, since mine necessitates a great rebirth of Metaphysics, as well as a rebirth of Christianity. The essence of that splitting of paths is in my defense of the category of the transcendental subject, (as an asynthetic, negative ground for the ‘disjunction of exteriority and immanence’) which the Kantian framework of synthetic apperception never properly grounded, the Hegelian system simply ignored, and everyone else basically just never understood. That category, besides splitting me from Nietzsche, also split me from “scientism” and the atavistic resurgence of Pre-Socratic philosophy, while at the same time re-aligning my own trajectory with the destiny of Christianity. (It also led to my vast re-reading of Plato, especially his theory of Participation.) As I elaborate in one of my books:

" The chiasmus torn in this absent Whole, or the ‘disjunction of exteriority and immanence’,- in order to be brought out of the theoretical depth of the impossible and so made philosophically readable,- must be conceptualized through a new, properly ontological thinking-through of Time, which Heidegger had promised in the third division of Being and Time, but had not achieved, and Badiou simply ignored. While I find great intellectual sympathy in OOO and speculative realism, most especially with regard to their implicit rejection of the pre-Socratics as well as the respective modern equivalents in the cult of popular science, (A thinking which undermines philosophy, like the pre-Socratics and the sophists equally accomplished, as though philosophy were simply an outdated mode of science,- as opposed to a fundamentally different human project entirely. See Harman’s book “Object-Oriented Ontology” for a great account of the Pre-Socratics in their undermining of the Western philosophical project.) or likewise an assumed faith in the tenability of a Theory of Everything, it should be clear from my own conceptualization of the episteme that an alternative to their theorizations of a pure ontology of time is pursued in these books. In the third dialectical triad, the logoic chiasmus noted here is intellectually supplanted by the ‘lepsis’, such that the pure ontology of temporality is then left to trace the movement of a super-transcendent methexis (toward ektheosis) through the super-immanent lepsis (using Eriugena’s notions of supra-immanence and supra-transcendence) and its resulting perichoreia,- an ‘Image’ of Time which cannot be reduced to the merely intramundane or ‘encosmic’ (See Joshua Ramey, in “The Hermetic Deleuze: Philosophy and Spiritual Ordeal.” Thus: “The cosmological and metaphysical problem for orthodox Christian thinkers was that, if in creation the same divine being is both the expressor and the expressed of a world, how it is possible to avoid the unwanted consequence that God’s nature might be limited to the expression of intramundane or merely encosmic possibilities? Some kind of process theology seems to loom, whereby God’s essence would be seen as restricted by time, or even that God might be forced to discover God’s own essence through time.”) movement from potentiality to actuality within the ‘tritogenos’ like that at the basis of a causal or correlationist theorization of temporality,- namely as a distinctive vocity: the vocity of the Subject as a kind of “hepatic inscription of the chora” capable of confronting the “choraic motility of the semiotic” and infilitrating the symbolic order, as divine perichoresis, with an intrusion of jousissance (beyond the threshold of structured and socially reinforced libido) which embodies the inherent lacuna or instability of the body, that is, the Negativity of the mortal Subject, whose unstable forces, as graphe or traces of more elemental universal forces, therefor draw the subject upward into the visionary ekstasis of the eidos,- into the mantic presence of the Symbolic."

But I have expounded upon my attacks on Nietzsche many times, so I would also include how I positively situate him in the history of philosophy, as well as in my own personal philosophical history:

" Nietzsche did not make an advance; instead, he mistakenly returned back to a philosophy
grounded on the first of the three epistemes, ie. the ontic, with which he mirrored the
order of the universe within the order of the individual soul as all the pre-Socratics had
done, each of them thereby generating a unique and purely affirmative image of Being as
Ontos, oblivious to the Pandemaic Loss of Being. [That is, to the fall into sin, knowledge,
and death…] However, he did this in order to reconstruct and eventually become that
potential hero of heroes in perfect conformation of psyche to the political order, of
individual and state, of Eros to its object, representative of a fulfilled psychological drama
between Psyche and Eros.

The wound out of which the fantasy of primary narcissism is born, rather it is configured
by the image of the Cross in Christianity, Oedipal sexual guilt in Freud, etc. is the price
paid for civilization, namely the fall from innocence into sin, into knowledge- into
death. I take it as factually existing, though it can be overcome, by moving beyond a view
of man’s immanent subjectivity to a psycho-philosophy of the transcendental subject.
Such a philosophy does not presently exist. Rather than achieving that, Nietzsche rediscovered
what the Greeks were in my view- and in his view, namely by regressing to
the ontic subject and becoming a Greek in the manner of that strain of philosophy I spoke
of Socrates as terminating, perhaps prematurely. (“Before philosophy reached this final
configuration…”) He was a necessary step backward, so that man could eventually move
forward.

That we should read Nietzsche and his various Heideggarian interpreters as
unconsciously recapitulating this conceptualization of the Ontos, we should first recall the
Protagorian term, appropriated from Pindar and his Pythic odes, of the agones logon as
properly the domain of philosophic discourse in the Pre-Socratic estimation, in that the
agon is a contest of wills and of quanta of power,- for the Platonic Sophist, in its analysis
of Being, tells us already that the onta is essentially Being-as-Power, and the res-onta an
actualization and confirmation of this potentia and internal struggle, which the Pre-
Socratics referred to as the inherence of Being, as within a particular differentiated form,
(This is the basis of the ancient form of skepsis, as given by Sextus Empiricus, who
extends the concept of inherence by the two additional concepts of the epoche and
ataraxia, that is, the suspension of judgment and the imperturbability which follows in
the process of ‘energizing the agon or conceptual-opposition of things perceived, ie. onta,
and things that are, in accordance to noia or thought-abstraction alone, ie. the ontos.’) as
opposed to the ontos or Being in itself,- as positioned in the stages of ontogenesis at a
much higher level of abstraction,- therein serving, at least for the noble philosophic soul,
as a kind of modus of arbitration- a “guiding-image of thought” or episteme to which the
agon might be conformed and determined, and with that, the great agon of the World
itself,- the greater destiny of Being in the cosmogonic struggle against nonexistence- and
all of this in a poignant clarification of the important ontic-ontological distinction that
Heidegger believed all of Western metaphysics had unanimously rejected and sought,
however consciously or unconsciously, to confuse and undermine.


On the category of the individual as inherited from Christianity,- the category of the transcendental subject.

The more distant members of the Archaic period, like Aeschylus, avaunted themselves
shamelessly the championship of the daemon, and that evinced in their long-standing
desultancies with regard to the constant recycling and traduction of the numerous
pre-rational concepts out of whose store the Hellenic mind later repulsed itself, declining
from the height of Athenian power and Aegypto-Alexandrian cosmopolitanism,-- a
refusal which took on the form of Euripidean tragedy as far as the arts are concerned,
following the birth of tragico-artistic pride in Aeschylus and the death of this pride,- a
passion now perhaps grown as incomprehensible to us through the centuries as the very
language in which it was afforded testimony,- which is to say a world, a philosophy,
ontos,- in the shame of Pericles,- respective witnesses to the birth and the loss of that
mighty civilization over which they couched their president luminaries,-- the total agon
of existence, out of which the precedents of these new aristocratic classes emerged in
continually higher-forms, each poet-philosopher bearing in his turn a unique guiding
image-of-Being or ontos developed in only that manner in which it could be developed,
that is- in the confrontation with the daemon. Euripides continually deconstructs those
pathic influences which served the chief instruments of Aeschylean tragedy,- incapable of
generating a unique ontos, though finding as he did, new purpose in a kind of exploration
of the limits of each image of Being advanced by the older tragedians,- not unlike the
Socratic mode of teasing and testing the limits of ΣΟΠΗΙΑ. [Sophia; wisdom.] This
much is said in the motto of Euripides’ Medea: “There is danger in love; for Love without
limit can bring disgrace.” Thus, in Euripides, we find the bacchic celebrant Dionysus
vilified as a vindictive and petty usurper, as contrasted with Pentheus, and all the older
passions, (Heroic hybris, Love, Revenge, etc.) once utilized in the artistic transfiguration,
the mythologizing and general dignification of man’s power, glory, and nobility,- as well
as man’s hunger for the same,- were submit to a deconstructive aesthetics of human
failing, mortality and the intransigence of his often thoughtless ambitions upon the earth,
heedless of the gods above- gods who in turn have grown cruel toward man, even with a
silent mockery, like that of the stars by whose promise of light and age their heavens are
so adorned, to lament with Flaubert- a psychological depth that expressed itself,- at least
with greatest faith in its own aims and needs,- and with the greatest exultances, rejoicing
in its own irrecoverable fatum,- in character-study and in closet-dramas, moreso than in
the posturing bloat of the more theatrical typus of Aeschylean writing, as it would be
perceived by the Euripidean playwrights, or by any strict adherence to the forms
suggested by the theoretical models of the Aristotelian poetics of catharsis,- a grand
revelation that should bring about a moment of overwhelming sympathy and a final
identification between subject and audience,- (The Euripidean drama pursues quite the
opposite goal, in attempting to distance the tragic subject and the audience, as we see in
the irredeemable portrait of Medea, so that a kind of moral repulsion thus evoked might
spur us into self-reflection,- the consciousness in which the heart of the Law presides
eternally. Nietzsche is correct in informing us that Euripides is a moralist: but the
morality of Euripides is an imputation of individual human failing, not the collective
social failings demanding our obeisance and blind subservience to either the Gods or
other men; a call, as is Socratic morality, to the category of the individual in its ethical
and political reality,- an intimation of a much greater metaphysical truth which would be
further developed in Christianity,- in magis saeculo non est subitus regi,- [Manuel de Sa,
in: Aphorismi Confessariorum ex Doctorum Sententiis Collecti. Clerici rebellio in regem,
non est crimen laesae-majestatis, qui non est subditus regi
. See: Steinmetz, in: the
History of the Jesuits, Vol. 2, P. 443. The People, in having been absorbed as civitas or
a singular body by the Ecclesia to serve as the chief instrument of the power of the
Church, stake their own sovereignty in turn, gaining through the political organization of
religious authority their own parasitic dispensation, though it is admittedly a power that,
in being superprojected eo majis saeculo, in the ‘world after’, to cite Aurelianus in the
37th epistle to Avitus, falls quite below that won in the later formulation of Republicanist
doctrine and the consequent elevation of the Individual in his affordances of more
canonical liberty and legal right, that is,- in the subsumption of the civitas to republica.]
or, as may be surmised from the introduction to that history,- ‘save for posterity, nothing
survives for posterity’,- nil mortali ad gloria trahitur posteris quasi lumen est,- [No light
survives the extinguishing of our mortal glories here on earth, that we should guide
posterity by the accomplishments of another age; for each age were a world. Natura
quisque; mortali ad gloria trahitur; acriori tamen stimulo, cui oculus, imitana exempla
domestica obiecta; maiorumque laus, posteris quasi lumen est.

Sebastianus-Andreantonelli, in: Asculanae Historia Sacra, Liber Primus.] not to the
decadent and genuinely nihilistic elevation of society and the petty liberties of mortals
won by political experiment over the will of the Gods.) and moreover, a general
heightening of man’s introspective gaze that, perhaps, was not entirely innocent in the
later degeneracy of Athenian virtu,- though, if we wish to avoid the kind of scapegoating

  • of the artist-metaphysician and poet-philosopher implied by the mere surface reading of
    a work like Plato’s Republic, it must be taken here as symptomatic of a deeper
    transformation of the social ordo than the merely psychotypal,- and one that went far
    beyond the development of mere culture, as opposed to a causative agent of the same
    kind of social disorder for which Socrates was executed, much less the actual loss of
    Athenian nobility, or that height of enlightenment, political organization and artistic
    flowering by which, even now, we are haunted,- a height man may never again achieve.
    A simple return to the pre-Rational archaics like that implored by Nietzschean aesthetics
    would not be much of a solution to the question of social degeneration we are faced with
    in both the Eurpidean drama and our own era, considering this would amount simply to a
    return to the ontos, which is not the highest-most of the epistemes.

Finally, that full text I referred to earlier in this message, regarding the degeneracy of the pre-Socratics and the need to defend the ‘category of the transcendental subject’:

" A theory of theory,- a philosophy of philosophy,- a ‘theory of everything’, cannot formally exist, because Theory [Philosophy] cannot account for its own Negativity, that is, for its own negation, which would be ‘pure negation’- that Negativity which cannot be accounted for through Theory or ‘absorbed’ by the strictures of System, in Bataille’s formula,- or the ‘secret of consciousness’ as appercepted by the appropriate schema through transcendental synthesis, which Kant claimed existed only in the depths of the soul, rent fatally beyond the veil of the Dialectic. This is the nature of Bataillean violence: the fundamental scissure of Discourse. Thus when we point the dialectic against itself,- when we work out a dialectic of the dialectic,- as Kierkegaard ironically recapitulated the Hegelian philosophy, we achieve what Kierkegaard called the ‘paradox’ (what Plato called the ‘aporia’) as an engine of thought, while similarly, when we invert the dialectic, as Marx did, we initiate a process of de-construction by which all concepts are dissolved into elementary fragments of material-history and reduced to a singular quanta of Force a la. the Will to Power. As the Hegelian thought builds up, within the movement of Geist, the Babel-tower of positive knowledge toward the Absolute, so the Marxist dialectic deconstructs System and descends toward a bare materiality, within whose conflux of elementary forces the image of Utopia has been hopelessly distorted. A reductio ad absurdum of the categorical Negation occurs as well, when we attempt to circumscribe a dialectic of the dialectic, leading to Baidou’s ‘bad infinity’ and Bataille’s un-absorbed Negative as an accumulation of those entropic stresses upon the system of Capital produced by the flow of material-history, to again return to the Marxist formula. This reduction was precisely the meaning of ‘Death’ in Heidegger’s account of Being. Heidegger sought in fact to fully explicate Dasein’s opening toward Death by bearing the Negative to its implicated reductio ad absurdum, (this titanic struggle was his project of de-struktion) peering beyond the veil of History through a kind of ontological black-hole compressed within the folds of Aryan race-memory, whose event-horizon had trapped the European soul within the inescapable orbit of Capital, Modernity, the image of Techne(ology) and the merely ontic,- that is, the metaphysical Presence of ousia’s Absence, toward which the human dimension is properly enfolded by Death,- by Death as a kind of noetic ‘escape route’ out of the ‘phenomenal bind’ of correlationist philosophy, [Or, in other words, an escape route out of the confused nebula, bereft of political or ‘emancipatory’ potential, found in the purely intermediate or initiatory role of Dasein, which rests on a movement from its own horizon of possibilities (Moglichkeit) to the disclosure of an actual futurity, (Wirklichkeit) to be later grasped by a pure ontology of time in which the movement from potentiality to actuality, in terms of the Aristotelian categories, becomes a movement from the non-ego to ego,- that is, a kind of cosmic awakening of insensate matter to Geist reenacted on the part of Dasein. “Hoher als die Wirklichkeit steht die Moglichkeit.” Ernest Joos, 1983: “Lukacs’ last autocriticism, the Ontology; On the Usefulness of Ontology.” On the inter-mediation of Heidggerian disclosure, see Raymond E. Gogel, “Quest for Measure; the Phenomenological Problem of Truth.”] in Meillassoux’s reconceptualization of ‘finitude’, which we must also pair with our conceptualization of Dasein. [See: Anamnesis; Aesthetics After Finitude. When the post-Kantian correlationist doxa is dispensed with, we are left with an ‘un-territorialized’ domain of the human Subject formerly rejected by the three modes of Kant’s critique,- criticism, skepticism, and dogmatisma, a la. ‘philosophy’,- an uninhabited subjectivity awaiting a new ‘terraforming aesthetics’, just as we are provided with the converse, that is, a hyperrealist or ‘inhuman’ vision of the cosmos in which the distinction between primary and secondary, or ‘subjective’ and ‘external’ qualities has been extinguished. In “The Existence of the Divine”, Meillassoux calls this radically contingent separation of the human subject and the ‘arche fossil’ of the Real simply, “the impossibility of the whole”, for whose assertion object-oriented ontology and speculative realists, like Harman, have been accused, to some extent justifiably,- and to a greater extent, unsurprisingly, given the fact that we find here an oblique continuance of the Heideggarian strain,- of disavowing the philosophic vocity of the Subject,- much as the assertion of Dasein disavows the vocity of the ‘human’ subject. The chiasmus torn in this absent Whole, or the ‘disjunction of exteriority and immanence’,- in order to be brought out of the theoretical depth of the impossible and so made philosophically readable,- must be conceptualized through a new, properly ontological thinking-through of Time, which Heidegger had promised in the third division of Being and Time, but had not achieved, and Badiou simply ignored. While I find great intellectual sympathy in OOO and speculative realism, most especially with regard to their implicit rejection of the pre-Socratics as well as the respective modern equivalents in the cult of popular science, (A thinking which undermines philosophy, like the pre-Socratics and the sophists equally accomplished, as though philosophy were simply an outdated mode of science,- as opposed to a fundamentally different human project entirely. See Harman’s book “Object-Oriented Ontology” for a great account of the Pre-Socratics in their undermining of the Western philosophical project.) or likewise an assumed faith in the tenability of a Theory of Everything, it should be clear from my own conceptualization of the episteme that an alternative to their theorizations of a pure ontology of time is pursued in these books. In the third dialectical triad, the logoic chiasmus noted here is intellectually supplanted by the ‘lepsis’, such that the pure ontology of temporality is then left to trace the movement of a super-transcendent methexis (toward ektheosis) through the super-immanent lepsis (using Eriugena’s notions of supra-immanence and supra-transcendence) and its resulting perichoreia,- an ‘Image’ of Time which cannot be reduced to the merely intramundane or ‘encosmic’ (See Joshua Ramey, in “The Hermetic Deleuze: Philosophy and Spiritual Ordeal.” Thus: “The cosmological and metaphysical problem for orthodox Christian thinkers was that, if in creation the same divine being is both the expressor and the expressed of a world, how it is possible to avoid the unwanted consequence that God’s nature might be limited to the expression of intramundane or merely encosmic possibilities? Some kind of process theology seems to loom, whereby God’s essence would be seen as restricted by time, or even that God might be forced to discover God’s own essence through time.”) movement from potentiality to actuality within the ‘tritogenos’ like that at the basis of a causal or correlationist theorization of temporality,- namely as a distinctive vocity: the vocity of the Subject as a kind of “hepatic inscription of the chora” capable of confronting the “choraic motility of the semiotic” and infilitrating the symbolic order, as divine perichoresis, with an intrusion of jousissance (beyond the threshold of structured and socially reinforced libido) which embodies the inherent lacuna or instability of the body, that is, the Negativity of the mortal Subject, whose unstable forces, as graphe or traces of more elemental universal forces, therefor draw the subject upward into the visionary ekstasis of the eidos,- into the mantic presence of the Symbolic.] * The inability of Theory to account for its own Negation leads to what I have named ‘mimetic hyperinflation’, while the subversion of mimesis appears as a consequence of the perfection of techne as a hypermnemata, in whose image the direction of human history has been deterministically bent. We take the hypermnemata as a potential theory of the ‘Spectacle’,- meaning, a conceptualization of the Spectacle amenable to philosophical analysis, namely through the use of the episteme-model of vocity and Truth, (and its respective counter-Hegelian epistemology and aporetic metaphysics) by which the underlying ‘mnema’ of the technomimetic subtrate might be excavated from its own autopoietically generated materials without encouraging further viral transmission of those materials. The first task of such a project would be the deployment of a kind of buffer-zone in which the mnematic core of ‘System’ might be unloaded, with a secondary protocol focused on a re-engagment of the symbolic-exchange function and thus, eventually, a reconstruction of philosophy out of its at that point inert materials. The episteme, as a model of the subject’s unique vocity as well as that of the variable thresholds to the Real which the Subject can access, promises a theoretical explication of the category of ‘experience’, that is, an explication of the experiential subject’s vocity, recalling one of Walter Benjamin’s most urgent tasks,- (for he felt that it was this,- a conceptualization of the nature of experience in its totality,- which the Kantian framework most urgently lacked, with the ‘secret’ of the appercepted subject being said to reside unutturably in the soul, by Kant himself) a task which, given the limitations of critical-theory as merely a mimetically inverted Hegelian dialectic, was fated to remain unfulfilled. Such a model of human experience,- one of experience in its totality, in its vocity,- would, in its praxis, give rise to a theory of creativity, not merely an aesthetics- and therefor, would materialize the very creative techniques and strategies as served for its subject precisely as what I have before called “a mode of aisthesis capable of conforming the very effects whose techne it informs and so inverting the series of causes”,- that linear series whose ultimate telos is self-fulfilled in the image of Capital. (ie. inverting the structure of temporal co-relation, to use the terms utilized in the present text.) It is with these techniques that the reconstructive task hinted at here would be initially surmounted. **

  • For more on this term, as it relates to the Platonic theory of Presence, see Nicolet., Isar, “Chora: Tracing the Presence”; Review of European Studies, 2009. The perichoreia defines the final manifestation of the chora’s impossible presence. The aporia of metaphysical Presence is one of Plato’s most significant, reaching its most energetic pitch of course, in the Timaeus. Presence is here encoded by the unstable logic of the ‘chora’,- a kind of hypnagogic or transitional phase (tritogenos) between the immaterial eidos, on the one hand, and the material eidolon on the other, that is, the world of Being and that of the Image, the world of the actual and the potential. The ‘impossible presence’ of the choreia, which is absent from itself, only instantiates the distorted logic of ‘pure difference’ for which it has been so often attacked by critical theorists with the mistaking of absence for presence, with the conflation of negativity and knowledge,- for such a misconstrual of the eidos for eidolon,- arising out of the reduction of this ‘Image of Time’ (the perichoreia) to the chora or ‘Being of Time’,- (as stated concerning the correlationalist dynamis) gives rise to an illegible graphe of the Platonic choreia,- and thus, to the loss of its hepatic inscription in the choreia of the body, which replicates the ‘Form’ of the higher universe in the lower one as a ‘participation’, according to Plato’s account and the cosmology of the Timaeus.

** I would clarify several terms in relation to what has been said here. The interaction of the primary and secondary processes, (the inorganic and organic, the inhuman and human, cosmic and egoic, social and individual; the ‘anorganic’ and ‘aorgic’, to recall Schelling’s distinction) borrowing the terms used in Simondon’s socio-psychology, has thus far occurred on great scales of time,- giving rise to what Land and the CCRU referred to as long-range feedback cycles,- the kind of cycles we find ourselves unable to statistically model, much like the massive data-sets related to weather patterns and their computer-driven prediction, which had inspired the concept of the hyperobject. This unpredictable feedback-cycle has produced an epistemological blind-spot (this blind-spot is, simply “critical-theory”.) within which one such hyperobject (A ‘dragon’; see Consolandi, in: “I Saw a Dragon! - Envisioning Hyperobjects: culture, collaboration and madness in the Anthropocene.” Note also J. Sheu, in: “Conceiving the Hyperobject in Stanisław Lem’s Solaris”. ) has been generated, namely through the process I refer to as mimetic hyperinflation: Capital. Capital represents a final submission of the secondary or human, individuating process, to the primary one. The hypermnemata is the auto-poetically generated form in which the secondary process, ie. human history, has been re-encoded on the higher-dimensional surface of the unreadable hyperobject. This sociological trajectory, because it is the eventuality of an inertial telos suspended within the image of Capital itself, constitutes the self-fulfilling prophecy par excellence,- inevitable, perhaps, though only from within its own ontological horizon. The question is one of first reaching an ontological ground-zero, or what I have called the skhisma,- an ontological-minima of differentiation,- and then finally escaping that horizon. In the past, man possessed a metaphysics, and not merely a statistics-driven, scientifically derived model of himself and the world, as that reified by critical-theory, such that a revitalization of metaphysics is required in order to excavate the human mnema from the process of material-history. The ‘episteme’ is posited as just such a metaphysics.

As Theory cannot circumscribe its own Negation, so neither can Theory circumscribe its own Essence,- it’s positivity or Affirmation. Harman’s account of hyperobjects lies in the notion of epistemological withdrawal. The contingent sensual qualities of an object, as available to our senses, do not modulate the essence of the object, such that objects can only enter into relationship with one another on the level of the sensual, whose ontological gaps can therefor never be reconstructed within the fabric of the symbolic. Objects thus contain a haunting core unavailable to the absorptive grasp of System, by which relationships are capacitated and governed. The problem is that, through the formation of perceptive relationships between objects, new objects are created, which in turn telescope hidden essences of their own, further miring System in the kind of entropic stresses about which Bataille was so concerned. Here we also find negation as a driving force in the ‘engine of thought’, though one potentially destructive in its ‘unrestrained mimesis’ of essences. Theory, when attempting to fathom its own hidden essence through the fabric of relationships available to it on the part of whichever System theory has chosen to operate under, cannot help but effloresce from out of its own confabulations ever new multiplicities of impossible essences, whose veil (the ‘confused nebula’ noted above) renders Theory’s own essence progressively more and more unreadable. All such networks of explosive essences exceed the limits of the singular human ego, such that, when perceived as relational complexes undulating or ‘phasing’ in and out of our own local Real from a higher-dimensional vantage, we might regard them as hyperobjects. "

Keep disregarding my challenges.

Keep expecting me to apologize for having taken you seriously and being disappointed when you turned out not to be.

Keep impressing yourself and leaving discussions when people are less impressed with you than you are. Keep shrouding yourself in endless repetitions. Keep disregarding your friends until they get bored and annoyed with you. And when they do, be sure to not think about what might have caused that.

Keep perfecting the art of solipsism.

Keep running from VO. Keep in the dark.

Yeah this shit actually hurts me, by the way. I liked it more when I considered you a fellow god. I hated it when you succumbed.

Thought of another ten or so dope allusions and quotes to add to my text-block while reading over it. Notice all of it is a single sentence. A 9-10 page long sentence. To avoid becoming a mere run-on, one must utilize a lot of archaic grammar and complex subjunctive clausal structure. Proust did that in French, I am just doing it in English. As always, actual quotes in italics, authors’ names and book titles without italics.

Unable to comport earnestly with the ‘audacity of wisdom’ in the broken measure of perfection’s heart,- in audacia totum pectus possideat, iret stultitiam immodicam fletum Philosophiciis,- [The audacity of the philosophers, that were an index of all human follies. Eleutheri Byzenius, in the Encomion Triumphus Capnionis. Fletum Heraclites risum Democritus iret stultitiam immodicam, vel que se audacia tantum extulerit, vel que cui totum insania pectus possideat, recte sapere & se dicere credat.] nor believing himself to have fathomed the mysterious bond of Poesy’s ‘voluptas dissimillima natura’, [Gualterus Quinnus Britannus, in: Corona Virtutum Principe Dignarum ex Variis Philosophorum. Etiam labor & voluptas dissimillima natura, societate quadam naturali inter se junguntur. The purpose of human society is only to forge the bond between labor and pleasure, which exists nowhere in the world of Nature. Though it were perhaps a bond forged only ‘in sapientes reliqua virtutum flecterent.’ Stephanus Riccius, Commentarius in Hesiodi Ascraei Erga Kai Hemeras; Accesserunt Ulpius Frisius et Nicolaus Vallae: cum autem bellis & mutationibus regnorum, quae crebrae erant, mores hominum paulatim deteriores fierent, neq; amplius nudis sententiis, ad virtutem flecti possent, tum demum sapientes eam rationem inierunt, ut propositis spectaculis, scenicis animos hominum ad modestiam, & reliqua virtutum officia flecterent.] the poet, unlike the philosopher,- pretending not to the ‘Dei Mortales’ [mortal god] of immortal Wisdom in hominis immortalem, after the phrase of Lucian, [God is but an immortal man, and man, a mortal God. An aphorism of Lucian’s, as recorded in: Reusnerii Aenigmatographia sive Sylloge Aenigmatum et Griphorum Convivalium; Aenigmata de Umbra Theodectes Phaselites, item alia quadam de Theseo Circumscripto. Quid sunt homines? Dei mortales. Quid sunt Diis? Homines immortales. Compare the ‘free mixture’ of things human and things divine in the Greek imagination, in Matthaeus Collinus Choterinae, Ode Continens Precationem ad Deum Pro Pace et Tranquillo: humana sacris miscuimus in corpore qui latebras habitant, commertia coeli mente colunt. Note also: Quam mire dispensant Dii mortalium studia in peregreni, & exules, & maximi regis homines, cum possent quam tenerrime fovere corpora cupediis lectissimis, tum nectare Divum se recreare atheletice. Hebenstreittus, in: Daniel Scholico-Theoneirocrites; Drama Novum de Regio Monarchae Babylonici, Somnio item Theopempio; Actus III, Aschpenazus Regii Epitropus.] in mortalis condita in frustra sapiente Deo,- [An echo of the Lucianic dictate. Petrophilus in Uranias Apocatastasin et Carmine Heroica eiusdem Cyctoixia Christi, P. 462: At quibus est lumen, norunt, quae maximae montes commoda, qua sylvae cunctis mortalibus addant, nec frustra a sapiente Deo sint condita nostro.] assured as he is by the Mind’s deathless progeny,- in mensis femine intelligibiles patris radios sapientiae, [Cosmas Magalianus Bracarensis, in Sacrae Scripturae Conimbricae; Sacram Iudicum Historiam, Explanationes et Annotationes Morales, P. 699. Adhibentur etiam mensis his Essenae faeminae, anus fere quibus non coacta castitas, sicut apud Graecos … corporis voluptates per totam vitam contempserunt. Nimirum divinae, non mortalis prolis cupidae. Spei, in the Historico-theologicum Carmeli Armamentarium; Scutum Septimum: nimirum divinae, non mortalis prolis cupidae, quam solae Deo charae animae ex scipsis pariunt, excipientes pro femine intelligibiles patris radios, ut decreta sapientiae contemplando percipere valeant.] in mensis aeternare sapientia extendi in aeternitatem,- [Lull, in the Proverbiorum: Sine aeternare sapientia non posset extendi in aeternitate. Note also, Ludovicus de Ponte Oletanus, ex Meditationes de Praecipuis Fidei Nostrae Mysteriis cum Orationis Mentalis Circa Eadem Praxi; Interpretes Melchior Trevinnius: Nam memoria & intellectus solum diligunt, cum recordantur & cogitant, ac perpenduntea, quae ad amorem provocant; imaginandi & appetendi facultates etiam tunc diligunt, cum producunt imaginationes & affectus, quo excitant & acuunt amorem; sensus diligunt, quando oculi, aures, lingua, & gustatus oblectantur, videndo, audiendo, & loquendo de reus, quae ad ipsum amorem diriguntur: & omnia membra corporis diligunt quando subserviunt ad exequenda opera amoris Dei.] and, bearing in their stead a memory of Paradise, in terrestria capax Dei, coelestis quum contactus libidinis Paradisiacae, [Petrus Terpagerus Ripensis Cimbria, in: Rituale Ecclesiarum Daniae et Norvegiae. In reading this passage, which invokes ‘the memory of Paradise’, one must recall that Ficino appropriates Cusanus’ concept of the Intellect as ‘capax dei’, explaing that it had been therefor invested with an ability to,- after having assimilated the teachings of philosophy,- recover a natural power to generate itself in itself: circa prima nascentis mundi incunabula, instituerit ipse, praescripserit atque ordinarit, quemadmodum homo, solus in terrestria capax disciplinae coelestis, in ceremoniis & cultibus numinis divini exterioribus se gereret, idque eo etiam tempore, quum contactus plane nullis esset libidinibus, ut cum poeta loquar, vel Salomonis ut utar verbo, rectus; adeo ut ordinem eade cum creatura fortitum exordia, eosdem quoque, quos creatura, habiturum fines, arbores ostendant Paradisiacae.] thereby endeavoring to lift himself beyond his origin, in animis mortalia temnere vota,-- [Andreas Jallosicus, in Poematum Tiberinae; Elegia V. Love gathers the hopes of the multitude, vulgar happiness dispels them, and virtue remains solely to lift the heart above its origin: amor sacri spesque salusque gregis, vani murmura vulgi felicem, virtus te tua sola beat; sic animis maior mortalia temnere vota; aemula sic superis pectora ferre doces; virtus dudum super astra locavit. (Or likewise,in Emmanuelis Pimentiis Scalabitanus Eborenses; Poematum; de Christo Triumphatore, P. 230: Es puer; & solas hilarat tua gratia sylvas; es vir, & es populis deliciosus amor. Vivus, inassuetam demonstras pollice vitam; mortuus, extinctis nuntia fausta refers. Tristiam in risus, mutas in gaudia luctus; bella geris, pulchra tempora pacis eunt.) To ‘mortalia temnere vota’, compare ‘temnis hominesque Deumque’: Non metuis, nec amas, regi nec fidis Olympi; non animum quidquam symbola sacra movent; fanda nefanda patris, temnis hominesque Deumque. From Adamus Siberius Schoenaviensis Grimmae, in Poematum Sacrorum per Oporinum; Epigrammatum Lib. II; Acarpo.] to lift himself, in a word, beyond Sin,- in cuncta repente mala constans, in cuncta creati morte relinquis,- [Intereant casu bona vel mala cuncta repente et vere constans nil vagus orbis habet. Paulus Negelius Republ. Aurbachiae, in: Enchiridion Precationum Sacrum Hassiae. Secondarily, Triumphus Poeticus Mortis ex Turnemainnus: omnipotens aeterne Deus, qui cuncta creasti; genus humanum non dira in morte relinquis, effigiem que tuam non perisse finis.] Sin, that were the sickle that cutteth through all things; Sin, that were reft from the flesh, torn ‘in factave carnis victor’; (Non equidem proprias per vires, factave carnis: vivida per Christi vulnera, victor eras. A beautiful phrase from out of Nicolaus Rodingus, ex Treisensis Pastoris Epitaphia Celli.) Sin, that riddles out the heart of the World in detinet viciis improba vita; [Lyresius Clivanius, in: Echo Elegiaca. Te fidei moveat vox illa doloris, quam tumidae spernit fax modo naris, sis pia spes miseris, quos haresis implicat, detinet in viciis improba vita, murus eris semper velut alter aheneus illis noxia bella piis qui pariunt, sic Christi poteris mystes bene vivere, et dicere piis esse levamen, haec tibi fixa, scio, est studiorum semita. The same poet expresses this idea again, though in more visual language, using the image of the sickle, in the following text: Vitus Iacobaeus ex Seyttentalleri Dialogus Elegiacos. Thus, we have: quam nihil est certum constansque sub orbe, quam fluxis pereunt omnia facta viis; quam manet infestus nec inevitabilis ordo, qui sua nos mortis iura subire facit. Qua neque ingenua probitate fideque moveri, omnia fatidica quae male falce secat. Unica quae claris virtutibus invida dextram iniicit, & saevas in fera damna manus. Sic nullus uti flecti probitate nec arte, vel prece, vel quavis relligione queat. Compare the phrasing, where we also find the repetitions: 'fidei moveat… doloris … improba vita’, with ‘ingenua probitate fideque moveri… male’.] Sin, that were the Mystica Crucis insignit ad hortum paradisacum and ultimate pathos of the artist-philosopher, which looks hopelessly beyond us in mortalis alto pectore veri umbram; [Aegidius Vresanus, in: sive Poemata Embricam Clivorum Religiosis. We have here a variation of the Ovidian refrain concerning man’s search for divinity and transcendence: Mystica quos Crux insignit, quos embrica nutrit. Si paradisiacum via nulla patescit ad hortum; serta parate, pia ferte rosaria matri. Huc ades aeternae, quem tangit cura, salutis; sors tua mortalis, non sit mortale quod optas. As you desire immortal things, being mortal, so you are beholden to undying beauties, though you will die. Secondarily, one does not need to reach the stars to avoid the Styx; see Ioachimus Tydichius, in: Carmine Elegiaco in Proverbia Salomonis. Astra salutiferae via tendit ad ardua vitae, et vitare docet te loca foeda stygis. Plurima mortalis secum deliberat alto pectore, consilium constituit que grave. Or, as given by Sebastianus Artomedes, in Elegiarum Liber Primus ad Zodicium de Coniugiuo Sacerdotum: Claudere qui coelos potis es, sed claudere tantum, et Stygias tantum qui reserare fores. Adventus Christi: nosque salutifera collustra desuper Aura, ut tibi terrenas posthabeamus opes. Ut tibi fidentes uni, noctemque perosi, optemus clarum lucis amore diem. Finally, note the Poemation Reformatio de Henrici Meibomius: sub recti simplicis umbram, sub specie veri, fanaticus error in aedes irrupit sacras, atque infinita sub Stygis millia demissit.] Sin, that maketh sport of the World, in fortunae ludibriis dominae; [Laurentius Mondanarius, in Miscellanea Disticha ad Vitae Institutionem; Distichon LII, P. 69: Recte agitur mecum, si non extrema tenendum, in tot fortunae ludibriis dominae. Johannes Marius Catanaeus, in Apthonii Progymnasmata: Fortuna res humanas ludibrio habere dicitur. O fortuna potens, quam variabilis, tantum iuris atrox quae tibi vendicas, evertis que bonos, erigis improbas.] Sin, that were most curious a salt, of high bargain the world besides, or more vainly delectated in adornavit voluptates lethiferas homini, quo mortalis vanum;-- [Man would salt his food with poisons, if poison were of high price and more elegant signature of his type and cast, as he would clothe himself in Nessus-shirt, if he might die therewith in higher esteem. See Vincentii Contensonus, Theologia Mentis et Cordis; Tomus VII: ‘peccato mortali excidat, in vanum lethiferas’. Joannis Urius, in the Carmen Mysticum Busiridae Aegyptii: Et anima est ut infans, quem si sibi relinquas, adolescet ad amorem lactendi, at si ablactabis eum, ablactabitur. Adverte cupiditatem ejus; caveque ne illam praeficias, nam cupiditas, quando praeficitur, necabit aut dehonestabit. Quot adornavit voluptates homini lethiferas, quatenus non scivit, esse venenum in pinguedine?] must learn to pay a certain deference before Nature,- parva amplus Naturae in pyxidis accumulant Artes,-- [Ioan. Bussierus, de Rhea Liberat; P. 33. Hic Mundi simulacra iacent, hic desidet amplus Naturae partus, se pictae hac pyxide parva accumulant Artes, confusa sed ordine nullo omnia, delusae fallacia somnia mentis.] to weigh the meter and the Scale of things in primus imaginis addit Astra trutinis auctorem,- [An non, Iustitiae quae sit natura, bilibri discimus ex trutina, quam primus imaginis auctor addidit Astraeae: in Joannes Ivitius, Carmen et Epigramma. To ask he who would question the course of Nature what he might add to the image of the celestial firmament, make improvement upon the design of God, or better portion the motion of the stars.] to travel the mystickall gate of Sophia ‘in porta imaginem creatura creatas’ [Ex creaturam imaginem, in portat imago. Raymundus Sabundeus, in the Theologia Naturalis, de Utilitate Redditionis Debiti; Titulus CXX, P. 172. Illam creaturam quae portat imaginem & similitudinem suam quia post deum sequitur immediate imago sua. Note also, Harprechttus Filius Sendivogius, in: Lucerna Salis Philosophorum tuis Ophir Dono Fert Theca Saturni. P. 61: Per ullam artem, neq; per ipsam Naturae, inter omnes creatas creaturas.] and peer beyond the ‘thin veil of human flesh’,- in tristes luminis oras prodit, exili humanae tectus velamine carnis,- [Andreas Sartorius, in Partus Virginis Iessaeae: exili humanae tectus velamine carnis, ecce deus, deus ecce in tristes luminis oras prodit, & immites mundi se expellit auras.] readeth the celestial keimelion [κειμηλιον] its mighty Oracle, [Garcaeus Iuniorii Brenniis, in Primus Tractatus Brevis et Utilis de Tempore; Epistola Dedicatoria: motus luminum integra tempora series retenta est, ab initio mundi usque ad Persicam; pulcherrimum keimelion ut rectius intelligamus & admiremur, oraculum proposuit deus generi humano, luminaria omniaque sidera firmamenti condita esse, ut sint in signa, tempora, dies, & annos.] that were the thesaurus of Nature,- ex primaevo scientiarum thesaurum incomprehensible divinae fatum, [Francisci Antonii Zindt in Kenzingen, Commentatio Historico-Ethica de Fato Hominis: Et nullo non ab Orbe nascente Aevo, Omnipotens Fatorum Rector Homini futura Hominum Fata patefacere destiti, quippe vigente adhuc sola Lege Naturae primaevo Hominum Parenti, praeter infusum Divinitus amplissimum Scentiarum Thesaurum, incomprehensible Divinae Incarnationis Fatum.] and measureth the stars by the stars,- in aeternitatem regni mensurat ex potestate aeterna proprium,- [Judaismus Convictus, Camenecensis Publicae Luci Authore Puteanius Casimirus; P. 54-55: qui aeternitatem regni Messiae mensurat ex potestate aeterna ejusdem Messiae, quae cum aeterna aeternitate proprie dicta sit, ut pote Messiae qui est Deus. Only what endures, truly is; only what endures forever, endures at all,- as we endure in longum Deus salvum, quo longum sideris nitore, (As in Enochus Suantenius, Litavit ex Familiae Varenianae Sacrum; Cineribus Incomparabilis Literum Herois Theologi Summi Augustus Varenius; Septuplici Hectatombe Heroicum Versuum: Longum Deus assere salvum, quo longum sideris hujus incolumi nobis liceat gaudere nitore.) sparing neither mortuary comportments in the latency of our Nature, that were but sepulcrum patriae invides (Phrase out of Avianius Tuntorphinatius, in: Miles Vagus seu Mendicans.) in quietum ossibus indulgere. Joahannes Molanus Belgae Trevirensus; Hyacinthiis Bergii in Disquisitio Critica; Poemation Turpe et Lugubre Nellericidium: Turpe est, inquis, mortuorum insultare cineribus, nec quietem ossibus indulgere. Note also, Joachim Curaeus, in: Exegesis Perspicua & Ferme Integra Controversiae de Sacra Coena. 2 ] as things earthly by the earth,- ratione coelestia ex coelo, nasci terrestria ex terra, [Christiana de Rerum Creatarum Origine per Lambertus Danaeus, P. 124.] and like by like in their turn, cum nihil astrifero tibi non inserviat orbe Olympus, spiritumque duces ad tua iusta volent Mundus,-- [Pascham datum Marcus, Baptista encaeniat, Euge, non Vae, clamemus; Mundus, Olympus, ovant. In: Molnarus, Epigrammata in Carmen Jubilaeum Cassoviae. Cum nihil astrifero tibi non inserviat orbe: spiritumque duces ad tua iusta volent. In: Petrus Pontus Caecus Brugensiis, Carmen Invectivum.] lest the poet finds himself doubly-fooled, and with little upon which to stake his heart in stimuli mortalia altum mens inchoat,- [Stenechthon, Epaenesis de Illustrium Familiarum ex Ioanne Engerdii. Secondarily, ex mundo saecli fraudesque aurea Saturnis; the world longs to be fooled, and the poet deceives himself in aiming to deceive it. Lettingius, Carmen ad Martinum Gregorii Geldrum. Cedent mundo fraudesque doli que, aurea praeterea Saturni saecla redibunt, … et terras Astraea reviset.] should he bear still in his drear charge the ‘semina Prometheae’ upon the desperations of Time,- in prima fovere sacra Prometheae coepisti semina flamme,- [Fallettius Trignanus, ex Phalethus Savonensis Poematum ad Hercule Atestinum: Augescit que puer, plenis qui fortior annis vernantes tenui vestit lanugine malas: ac pede decurrit volucri formosa iuuentus; immutat que, comam saeclis effeta senectus; nam pater omnipotents te nostra Musica vitae aurigam dominam que, dedit, tu prima fovere sacra Prometheae coepisti semina flamme. 1 The poet as bearer of the Promethean flame. Compare, ere the fading poet dedicate himself to a fading world, ‘dedit quondam morientibus eripit artes in terras saecula mutat’, in Publius Gregorius Tiphernus, Opuscula; Ioanne. Umbris Pontanii Naeniae, ex Nutrix Somnum Invitat, Epigramma, & Sulpitiae Carmina. Die mihi Calliope quidnam pater ille deorum cogitat an terras & patria saecula mutat: quasque, dedit quondam morientibus eripit artes; nosque, iubet tacitos etiam rationis egentes quid reputemus enim.] for the Parnassian summit bestows, not laurels, but rest,- not applause, but silence,- in sacra parnassi sede quiescas laureaque,- [Carmina Antonius Gigantis Forosemproniensis Exametra, Elegiaca, Lyrica, & Hendecasyllaba: Ocyus ut sacra parnassi in sede quiescas, laureaque exactos compenset laeta labores. The artist labors to reach the height of his powers, only to rest on laurels that were always a meager compensation.] and our faded glories speak more eloquently than our youthful boasts,- (Youth’s low ambition, or 'levis ambitio procellas’) antiquior aevo evictis gloria, saecula non jactat fatis inventi,- [Camillus Eucherius Quintus, Inarime de Balneis Pithecusarum. Verax inventi gloria tanti auctorem non jactat adjuc, antiquior aevo multa quidem evictis produxit secula fatis. See also, Janus Cosmi Anysius, in: Protogonos Tragoedia et Epistola de Religione. Here, too, the pride of youth (Quae credit alto per patentia aequora, levis ambitio, inepta, sui inops amentibus quantas procellas excitabit gentibus.) is measured against that of age: “Exempla pulchra vetera plus adeo placent; id discitur libenter, affert quod lucrum.” Note the use of the ‘semina Prometheae’ as a lexical nucleus for these various associations of the poetic instinct, mortality, and ambition.] that altereth in essence if not in form, as the poet says,- materiale unum, formale alterum,- [Jacob Herrenschmidiis, in the Osculologia Theologico-Philologica Christianorum, Gentilum, Exoticorum et Commentariolus. Materiale unum, formale alterum. Materiale, inquit, videri potest, formale est invisible. Subsumimus Ecclesiae materiale videri posse, sed quatenus est formale fidei non videtur, sed creditur. Quid enim est fides, nisi credere quod non vides. Quae apparent, jam non fidem habent, sed cognitionem.] or, in accordance with the dictum of Lavater,- as Beauty knoweth Beauty best, so the fine painter paints best, the fine hand,- [Or, in the phrase of another poet, so strength best reveals strength, and courage painteth courage: Aeneas quondam charo confisus Achate, Euryalus Niso, fortis uterque fuit. Quam bene junguntur similes, virtute corusci! Sunt animosi Ipsi, nos animant que suos. See Aescherus Tigurinae, in: Vota Syncharistica; Colloquium Apollinis tou Musagetou & Polyhmniae. Likewise, the philosopher finds the picture of man in hominis essentia picta aurificis statera Thimantis; in umbra vitam vivere, ab remotam hominum oculis, turbas fugit non fugavit. (The philosopher knows that we must flee from the Multitude, in order to discover the One. See Pelecyus, in: de Officio Hominis Religiosi; Epistola. Coenobii umbra vitam vivere ab hominum oculis remotam constituisset, turbas fugit non fugavit.) Secondarily, note: ‘In Thimantis operibus plura intelligerentur neq trutina examinandum populari, sed essent picta aurificis statera.’ See: Heidfeldii Sphinx Philosophica Excudebat Corvinus in Herbornae Nassoviorum; Scrupuloso Lectori Precatur Aenigmatistes. As Timanthes the painter demonstrated, it were the artist that measures the height of art, and not art that finds the limit of man, for one can scale the full measure of human nature,- not by consideration of the multitude,- but in the perfected representation of one of its heroic individuals, (neq, trutina examinandum populari, sed aurificis statera. … Thimantis pictoris artificium olim co nomine celebratum, fuit, quod in ejus operibus plura intelligerentur, quam essent picta.) as similarly stated out of Thrasybulus Clidipyrgus Gnisus, ex Carmen Adiuncta est Copia Literarum: "Praesentem fugimus virtutem ac odimus ipsi, quareimus amissam; sic nescia fortis semper mens hominum praesentis, nec sibi constat." To know the strength of the man as a whole we must nonetheless also know his strength in the moment; human inconstancy has likewise its place in the constancy of our Nature.] for the ends of art were not the ends of man, [Janus Caecilius Helvetiis Freii, Opuscula Varia et Cribrum Philosophorum qui Aristotelem Superiore et hac Aetate Oppugnarunt: Iste est finis artificis, non autem artis. Art consummates and brings to its conclusion all the artist could not.] and our poeticam contagionis, borne in nobilis ardor defervescere coeperat, [Romae saltim alto sublimis solio haec diva sedebat, quam diu heroicae virtutis patriique soli conjuncto amore Poetarum incaluere pectora; postquam vero pullulantis luxuriae avaritiaeque contagione hic tam nobilis ardor defervescere coeperat, illam protinus de sua dignitate, venustate ac robore multum amisisse observamus. Petrus Gustavus Suedelius, in: de Usu Poeseos in Sacris. For want of Virtue, the charms of lesser poetry induce a faltering race. Compare the figure of the solitary poet, hidden from the touch of sin ‘in the shadow of the Muses’,- alienis omniam culpae in Musis cantando umbra. Eliaeus Argentoratus, Fasiculus; in Autodidactum Lucifugam: Odisti lucem, caecis latitas que, lacunis, vivis ut in vasto bestia sola specu. Quae facis, illa probas, aliena sed omnia culpas, te doctum, solum te cor habere putas. Sic Musis cantando tuis, vanissime, nescis, quales efficiat, quos fovet, umbra, viros.] that seeketh to flee from mortal love by an love immortal,- ita mortalis amore evades humaniorem, ita immortalis laborem facesses sudorem Poetis, [Tobias Silesiae Aleutnerus, in: Epigrammatum Chilias in Pentacosiades, Praescriptio. Ita Deus quidam eris: ita immortalis, mortalis licet, pio in Musas humaniores amore ac beneficio evades; ita laborem facesses ac sudorem Poetis. It is of great benefit to the industrious poet, that he avoids love in all but her image. As Goethe tells the poet; fear Love, though do not attempt to avoid it. Or, from Amralkeisus Cenditae, cum Scholiis; in, Accedunt Sententiae Arabicae Imperatoris; ex Rosarium Politicum sive Amoenum Sortis Humanae Theatrum de Persico in Latinum a Georgii Gentius: felis Leo est in capiendo mure; sed mus est in certamine Tigris. (The cat cannot be sure of catching the mouse, but the mouse can be sure of catching the cat.) ] with hope to therefor purchase succor from our crucis arborem,- [Brunnerus, in: Fasti Mariani cum Divorum Elogiis; Sermo Maximilianus Boiariae. Paraphrs. Sed numquid Triumphalis obliviscemur coronae? Laudo trophaeum nobile, crucis arborem. At tu cape has coronas victor Amor, & si omnibus his rosae sese immisceant, ne has repudia. Spinae nuperae dederunt. Ecce ante currus triumphales cum mundo daemonem, cum morte carnem. Hath the victor forgotten his crown? Love which, shall it entertain ambition, cannot claim the rose and refuse the thorns, (Or, as similarly indicated out of Pyragallus Henning, in the Carmen Penitentiale,- in poetas genus aut facundia dulcis non virtus animi, non probitatis opus hic status est meriti.) borne with all else in viae ad mortem compendium totis arbitrabatur; (The way of death is rarely taken by leaps, but by steps. Johannis Schuccelius Arnstatensium Cippus Mnemosynes Structus & in Immortalitatis ex Georgii Grosshainii. Sin vitam, excessisset, tum viae ad mortem compendium se fecisse arbitrabatur.) for, to the end of that remonstrancy of conceit, and by the same barb that would discover the pride of an Antisthenes, * we are discovered by both the Left hand and the Right, and the sin of one hand were not recompensed by the virtue of the other,- non male est impune relinquo manus et bene rependem manu. See David Crinitus Nepomucenus, Arphasidis praescripta; in, Carmen pro Felici et Allusiones ad Nomina Imperatoris. Non male si quicquam factum est impune relinquo, et bene munifica facta repende manu.] hardly the final estimation of our Nature, or reprovement of the god Amore, that makes small distinction in those of her own order and of man,- for love, as much as war, hath no end but in itself,- praelia pacis amore putabit, moliri pacis amore indignum, [Humanae Sapientiae Poetico-Historicum ac Ernestus Augustus Osnabrugensiis; Protrepitcon Calliopes: Praelia moliri nisi pacis amore putabat, pacis amore Caesareo indignum pectore. For love, that hath no end but in itself; ‘ibi viget amoris, ubi viget amor.’ Augustin Nagore Aesopolensi, Lucerna Mystica pro Directoribus Animarum. De languore divino, sive aegritudine divini amoris: languor divinus, qui ibi viget ubi viget amor a divino amore procedit, crescit, & perficitur.] taketh nothing for the heart of man at least in ultra Venerem placans invide, [The price of a woman’s envy were not remunerated by our love returned; it is not the heart, but the man, which is demanded. Ioan. Vatellius, Commentarius utriusque Gulielmus Lamarensis Paraphraste de Insano Leandri ac Herus Amore Poemation, Tetrastichon: in cupido concilians sacris miros adolebat; mulliere genus speciosis invidet ultro sed Venerem placans. Or, to cite Ubertinus Carrarae, in Samson Vindicatus Drama Sacrum Decantandum,- nulla pulchrior vindicta, nulla iustior sagitta, laesa iura sunt amoris.] and findeth out our nature in ‘non dissimilesue Diis’ ‘latet summum mens fiedei’. [Euphrenius Georgiadis Amstelii, in: De Duplici Amore, Fere ex Sententia Luciani; Poeseos et Medicinae Studiosi Erotica, Basia, Coma et Sylva; Heironimus ad Pammachium. Love offers war to the warlike spirit, and peace to the peaceful one. Non tenet unus Amor mentes, non una Cupido: sed duplex hominum pectora versat Amor. Hic, satus Oceano, mortalia corda feroci et vario fallax comprimis ingenio. Hic fluctu Veneris animum in contraria raptat; non secus ae tumidis astuat unda vadis. Ille, velut coelo demissa cathena sereno, et licito & casto iungit Amore duos. Non juvenum ille animos lethali vulnere rupit; non impudicis ignibus urit eos. Mentibus ille bonos immittit rite furores, et non ignotos, dissimilesue Diis. As stated elsewhere, peace measures the warlike soul: nota tua est virtus, est & tua nota voluntas, nec latet in summum mens tua fida Deum. At fera tranquillam cum rumpunt bella quietem, excutiunt haustum martia corda Deum. In Christophorus Preisius Pannonius: Elegia ad Nicolaum Granuella.]
[size=85]* ‘The Pride of an Antisthenes were seen, not in his cloak, but through its chinks.’ A playful allusion to the imagery of claiming the rose and trying to pick its flower without being spited by the thorns, drawn up from the following: “… though I have by the study of wisdome and philosophy corrected that which was a defect in nature; the philosopher saith vultus est index animi, the eye is the casementt of the soule, through which wee may plainely see it, better then he that saw Antisthenes his pride through the chinks of his cloake.” See Walkington, in The Optick Glasse of Humors; Or, The Touchstone of a Golden Temperature.

  1. Anthony David Nuttall, in “The Alternative Trinity: Gnostic Heresy in Marlowe, Milton, and Blake.”, traces a similar linguistic web depicting Prometheus as a duplicitous image of poetic independence and creativity next to a subservience to Nature and the course of Fate: (“We have come far enough in this story to know that no allegiance can be trusted; that which is hated can become, suddenly, that which is loved. But the Gnostic belief in a wicked, tyrannical Demiurge does imply, with surprising constancy, a hostility to nature and therefore to pastoral. This diurnal round of rocks and stones and trees is, to the Gnostic, the wheel of the torturer on which we are all broken. ‘Nature’ is a hate-word, not a love-word. ‘The Garden’, by Milton’s friend Andrew Marvell, is a brilliant, hostile, pastoral commentary on Paradise Lost, written before Paradise Lost existed.”) 1) On Poetry and Poets; Politiani, Silvae IV., Nutricia. Thou who dared before all others to fan the celestial seeds of the Promethean fire in man: tu prima fovere ausa Prometheae caelestia semina flammae. 2) Vida, de Arte Poetica: Dona deum Musae; vulgus procul este profanum! Has magni natas Iovis olim duxit ab astris callidus in terras insigni fraude Prometheus, cum liquidos etiam mortalibus attulit ignes. Long ago wise Prometheus by his celebrated deception led these daughters of great Jove (the Muses) from stars to earth, when he carried inconstant fire to mortals. 3) Chapman, Shadow of Night: "Therefore Promethean poets with the coals of their most genial, more than human souls, in living verse created men like these … " Milton, using the word vestigia, recalls his use of the same term in the bitter ‘vestigia’ of earthliness carried even by the angels. 4) Milton, ad Patrem: Nec tu vatis opus divinum despice carmen, quo nihil aethereos ortus, et semina caeli, nil magis humanam commendat origine metem, sancta Promtheae retinens vesitigia flammae. Retaining as it does a trace of the Promethean fire, nothing argues better for our heavenly beginnings, for our celestial seed, for the human mind commended by its origin,- and that ambition of our more chimaerickall philosophe, that needs must compute inversely, the circle of this our life, venturing ever toward the past, and this for the sake of a future borne ad praeterita, ab agnoscas,- ['Adverte animum ad praeterita, ab agnoscas naturae non passus decipi’: Iulianus Hainovius, in: Vita Veritatis ad Vitam; Gratia et Veritate Disposuit Corde in Ascensiones apud Iodacus Kalovius Coloniae cum Privilegio; Pars. Sexta. Adverte animum ad praeterita, ut agnoscas, an non sit ea naturae indoles, & an ab illa te decipi sis passus.] for the sake of a past borne in nihil jam evinere, non olim evenerit,- [Luzacus, Oratio de Socrate Cive: Naturae paremus omnes; & fieri non potest, quin animus, sic a teneris factus & institutus, in eadem continuo, invictus licet propemodum reluctans, deferatur tamen cogitandi viam, inter calamitates Patriae, inter sui etiam ipsius aliquando miserias, hac se solatus recordatione, nihil jam evenire quod non olim evenerit.] than poetry.

  2. As to our ‘mortuary insult’, compare, out of the Solennis Actus of 1608, the ‘calumniatrix sophistica’: in placidamque furore dulce invides cineres atravit mortui. See Joachim Curaeus, in: Exegesis Perspicua & Ferme Integra Controversiae de Sacra Coena, as likewise recorded in Goclenius, out of the following text: Excudebat Guolgangus Kezelius Oratio Ανασχενασιυ; “Necastis heu necastis sapientissimam, nulli nocentem Musarum Luscinniam.”; … medax calumniatrix sophistica misere flagellatum necavit; nec tantum necavit, sed ei etiam dulcem placidamque quietem Diabolico furore invides, in mortui mane saeviit, cineres eius rabiose atrevit, contra divina & human iura exquisitissimis cum lacerans criminibus.[/size]

From the first day I met you until you mentally collapsed for some reason, I treated you with nothing but respect. But one day you just out of the blue started insulting me, saying things to me you never had before. Like seriously calling me a racist for making fun of Al Sharpton’s fingers. Like calling me a traitor to my own political ideals because I didn’t get much out of Steve Bannon’s podcast. Like calling me un-American for not agreeing with you that Trump was playing 4-d chess with his loss to Biden. You’re absurd. Challenge? What the fuck is your challenge, I reply and qualify everything I say whenever you try to make a half-baked point. Every time I articulate my position or argument you run away like the fucking little cuck that you are, and yet you turn around and tell me I’m running? I’m right here, faggot. Every time you try to “challenge” me, I make my response, like I did with regard to the sciences. What fucking challenge am I not responding to? I laid out very easy to follow arguments about how nothing I have said or done is “traitorous”, about how Trump is simply not (contra. your assertion) somehow still the president,- even if it could be proven that Biden’s victory was illegitimate. You just stopped replying in the thread after I laid all that out. Every fucking post you make, makes me lose more respect for you. You’re a fucking loser, dude. It hurts because nothing you’ve said to me lines up with reality and you are, at whatever unconscious level, aware that you’re taking your own intellectual inadequacies out on me, and you know you threw away every friendship you had for literally nothing. See, nothing about this hurts me. You’re ridiculous and you don’t have any point behind any of this animosity, you’re just mentally unstable after realizing you don’t really have anything original to contribute to anything. Go fuck yourself dude, seriously. Over and over again I gave you the chance to grow up and admit you were being a cunt, but you can’t,- because cunts can’t admit when they’re being cunts. You fucking disgust me.

Dude, read your DMs…

I am the one disregarding friendship? You fucking little pissant. Despite me treating you with nothing but respect for ten years, you just started calling me racist one day, you called me unamerican for not agreeing with you, and a traitor. Man, just go fuck yourself you little fucking loser.

Sometimes I don’t want to hear anything and I am trying to enjoy my solitude. Anyway, to Fixed: I am the one disregarding friendship? You fucking little pissant. Despite me treating you with nothing but respect for ten years, you just started calling me racist one day, you called me unamerican for not agreeing with you, and a traitor. Man, just go fuck yourself you little fucking loser. You’re fucking gas-lighting me now too? By trying to confuse me about if it was me or you that started this? You motherfucker I have the chat archives. Just fuck off right now, I am sick of hearing you. Fuck off. I am done with it. I’m done trying to re-connect with you, just get the fuck out my face right now you fucking miserable loser fuck.

What challenges? Every single time you say something, I respond and counter, then you stop responding. What challenges? And the gas-lighting is the final straw. You dare try to tell me I am the one that started this? You motherfucker, that’s it, that was the last bit. I’m done with you. Go to fucking Hell. You fucking make me sick.

Yeah the gaslighting was it, the final straw. I’m done dude. Go rot in your own failure and inadequacy. Gaslighting is literally the lowest, most bitch move a person can pull, and that is where you’re going Fixed.

Gaslighting is about as low as you can go buddy, and that’s where you went. You lost the right to say pretty much anything after that. Go wallow in your own failure now because I am done trying to reconnect with a fucking worm who’d rather stew on their own entitlement than admit they treated a friend wrong who always treated them correctly.

At first you were merely irritating- now you’re gross. I succumbed? You fucking cunt, you started all of this one day, not me? I fucking damn you for trying to confuse me about who started it. You did you fucking piece of shit, even when I tried to re-ground the respectful atmosphere of our interactions, you just kept on calling me a racist, calling me a traitor, calling me … Fucking gaslighting piece of shit, everything you just said APPLIES TO YOU. I wish I had never fucking met you dude. You’re as low as a person can get.

You’re supposedly a fucking MAN, trying to GASLIGHT another MAN? Oh do so kindly just fuck off.

After trying to gaslight me- another male- oh, man. You could come to me crawling on your knees asking to suck my uncircumsized cock in forgiveness and I’d still tell you to fuck off. Enjoy being nothing and no-one, you fucking loser. And I answered every one of your little “challenges.” You just never replied to my rebuttals. Because you don’t have a reply.

I tried everything to get back to the respectful atmosphere that once existed between us and you just keep, I don’t even know what to call it. You’re just disconnected from reality man. YOU CALLED ME A RACIST, NOT IN A SINGLE MESSAGE, BUT REPEATEDLY, FOR MAKING FUN OF AL SHARPONS FINGERS, YOU CALLED ME AN UNAMERICAN TRAITOR FOR NOT AGREEWITHIN WITH YOU OR HAVING FATIH THAT TRUMP HAD SOME 4D MASTER PLAN TO SWEEP IN AND GET THE ELECTION AT THE LAST SECOND, YOU CALLED ME A TRAITOR TO THE US AND A CHINESE DEFECTOR FOR ACCEPTING I HAD TO ADMIT BIDEN WAS MY PRESIDENT NOW, AND THEN YOU GASLIT ME BY TRYING TO CONFUSE ME ABOUT WHO STARTED THIS, WHEN IT WAS EMPHATICALLY YOU. Man just go to fucking Hell.

After trying to gaslight me- another male- oh, man. You could come to me crawling on your knees asking to suck my uncircumsized cock in forgiveness and I’d still tell you to fuck off. Enjoy being nothing and no-one, you fucking loser. And I answered every one of your little “challenges.” You just never replied to my rebuttals. Because you don’t have a reply. I value friendship almost more than anything else in this universe: so I de-value when a friend tries to manipulate and gaslight me just as severely. I don’t even know if you possess the self-awareness to understand what you’ve fucking done, but I don’t even care anymore. Bring your little faggoty challenges bitch, because every time I answer publically on the forum you just disappear. Come on motherfucker, challenge me.

As many times as you scream it at me, it’s still an extremely banal lie. That has nothing to do with what I accuse you of.

The fact that youre so angry only tells me that you know I am right in what I actually told you.
Im glad you have it archived, so do I.

Most people are racist to a degree, or say racist shit now and then. Youve done it in the past, not maliciously I figured, Ive said racist shit in my life as well. Maybe this wasn’t racist. I dont even care, it was just some crappy hateful shit you were throwing at me disregarding, as you still are, my points to you. I was pissed off and still am at your lies about this.

If the anger is about the racism remark, then it’s about that. But for the last time the accusation of traitor had nothing to do with 4d chess. I had no idea what Trump was doing.

I dont care for going into what I did mean, as I dont care to reintroduce that pressure on myself.

I have accepted what has happened. And Im not telling anyone what I think it is.

Yeah dickface, I was that angry because you distracted me, made me lose a train of thought while I had been writing, and ruined a really great high I was riding last night, and I ended up wasting a bunch of pills and a whole bottle of good whiskey on your fucking nonsense. I’m not angry now, wasn’t angry before. But when you fucking get in the way of my high, yeah I can get really fucking pissed off. The last message you sent to me on Gmail was this: “Don’t send me any more of your traitorous horseshit”, “shut up and make room for the true Americans”. So is all of this just me mis-reading that? Am I lying? The 50 pages of courteous counter-argument I was having with you leading up to you collapsing into your own asshole was ‘traitorous horseshit’, (I didn’t insult you in any way leading up to that, I, in very respectful language, laid out what I thought and that is what you came back with: that everything I was saying was traitorous horseshit and I need to shut up and make room for the real Americans. Those. Were. Your. Exact. Words. Fuckface.) but I am wrong for taking that as you basically calling me a political traitor. And I am the one somehow doing bad by my friends. That’s me. Man, you’re a fucking piece of work, you know that? Yeah I haven’t read anything you sent me on gmail after that shit. At any rate, that response of yours was a response to me simply pointing out that nothing Styx did or said was unamerican, traitorous, etc. I felt the need to defend him because the things he had said that prompted you to start talking ill about him WERE THINGS THAT I SAY/SAID/STILL HOLD. So by silent implication, everything you were accusing him of, you were accusing me of. Of course, you then explicitly accused me of all that nonsense, so it is a moot point. So maybe you really are confused about what you did and who started what.

As to the accusation that I am the one not meeting your ‘challenges’. Dawg, every single point you’ve ever raised against me on this forum, I write detailed responses to, sometimes multiple pages, and then YOU duck out and stop responding. What the fuck are you talking about? You made a point against my ‘anti-scientism’, then I wrote a 10 page counter, and then you didn’t respond to it at all and simply said I was refusing your challenge. Uh, WUT? You’re the fucking one not responding to argumentative challenges. Do you mean to accuse me of that because I take a break for a few days in between my appearance online? Aww, did I hurt your feelings by taking too long to get back on the fucking computer and reply to something of yours? When I do get back online, I respond. The fuck is it to you how long I take? I told you a fucking thousand times I’M FUCKING BUSY, when I am not online I am writing, researching, studying, and the shit occupies massive amounts of my time and I end up too tired at the end of the day to get on the computer and do this shit.

  1. Who started with the belligerent insults? You.
  2. Who tried to re-establish the air of respect? Not you. See, that would be- me.
  3. Who blew up their friendships over politics and then just, literally nothing, whatever the fuck you’re ego-tripping about? You.
  4. Who’s being the fucking cunt? You.
  5. Who doesn’t address who, who isn’t offering counter-arguments to actual SHIT THAT MATTERS? You’re the one that doesn’t respond to me when I lay out very clearly and in great detail, counters I have to your ideas and points, like the one about my estimation of the value of the natural sciences. I fucking go out of my way to respond to every point you make. So who isn’t meeting challenges? You.
  6. Who has a needy demand to be praised? You’re the one blowing up because I apparently take too long in between replies to you with my actual life, you’re the one that seems hellbent on getting some kind of affirmation. I never gave a fuck about any of that. I never demanded you praise me, demand you “meet my challenges”, demand you write back to my arguments, demand you do this and do that, BECAUSE I DON’T GIVE A FUCK. So who has the need to be praised? You.

Dude you specifically called me a “Chinese defector” for admitting that Trump likely lost and that Biden is going to be elected. That is the specific two-word combination you used. Then you went on an insane tangent about how Trump is still somehow the president, and I devoted an entire thread to pointing out 10 different ways that just isn’t true, even if it could be proven in the supreme court that Biden’s victory was illegitimate. You of course didn’t respond, but then again, I’m the one not answering challenges. At any rate, when I jokingly refer to Trump’s 4D chess, I am referring to your concept of his still somehow being the president. Perhaps you no longer hold that idea. So what the fuck am I lying about?

Bold tactic gaslighting and attempting to make ME feel bad for everything YOU did. But it’s not working dude. I didn’t lie about anything. I laid out in this post the exact flow of events and your exact words. Just stop trying to confuse what is a very simple reality, the reality of you deciding to be a fucking cunt. Because so far, here’s your line of thought, and I am going to paraphrase for the audience:

[b]Me: I think it’s unfair to accuse Styx of political insincerity and being a Chinese defector shill just because he admitted Trump lost and he decided to temper some of what he was saying so as not to get thrown off youtube until the shit dies back down. I believe that you are purity spiralling, it’s what happens when one guy in a group tries to ‘out-pure’ another, then someone has to out-pure that guy, and so on and so forth. It’s what destroys leftist groups from within because it all just becomes this endless competition to see, in our case, who is the most ‘real american’, the most ‘not a shill’, etc.

You: Don’t send me any more of your traitorous horseshit, shut up and make room for the real Americans. (That bit isn’t a paraphrase, it’s the direct quote from you.)

Me: Dawg why are you calling me a fucking traitor now too? What the fuck is this?

You: NU UH STOP LYING I NEVER DID THAT, LIAR[/b]

never mind.

What do you consider to be the greatest book?

If Nietzsche did not make an advance, then what do you make of of his Superman (because it’s not just a return to the Greeks)…And how do you relate the Superman to your image-of-Being and the transcendental subject.

“Never mind”, is that it, Fixed? Motherfucker, all I asked was for some respect following your stupid outburst, which I quoted. Tell me to be quiet for the ‘real Americans’ and that I am spouting ‘traitorous horseshit’ because I didn’t agree with you on some irrelevant shit? I’m not letting anyone talk to me like that, I don’t give a fuck if it was a member of my family. You say that shit to me, you either apologize, or go get bowel cancer and die and fuck off. But you’re too much of a cunt to apologize for anything or ever admit you were wrong, so here we are. Excuse me for demanding some pretty basic respect from my friends. But excused or not, I’m not letting it go or forgetting it; that isn’t going to happen.

As to Nietzsche- well he made an advance, it was just that he did so by making an… un-advance. He took a step backward so that we could all find a way forward, it was quite necessary. As to the Ubermensh, it is not without precedent. Many thinkers have advanced ideas concerning man’s potential evolution. Giordano Bruno came up with the mens heroici. Lull came up with the homoficans. List goes on.

I thought of something in my books where I loosely relate such concepts to myself:

"The Nietzschean conception of the passions turning inward and, in conformation to the repressive demands of morality, becoming toxic, is one that echoes much of our very early psychology,- and, like all early psychology, does not hold up well to modern scrutiny. Even at the level of experimental evidence, it is known that “repressing” emotions and instincts does not in fact cause them to ‘build up’ while looking unconsciously for some kind of release; in the case of the sex drive, after a great deal of time the person tends to simply stop thinking about sex at all. There’s no great putrefaction of the inward, ‘ensouled’ self occurring, and no consequent self-hatred of the body produced as the result of such psychologizing. A better model of how the inward or ‘self conscious’ subject develops is Girard’s mimetic desire and, moreover, its fusion with generative anthropology, as per my own model of the hypomnemata. Beyond that, as Proust said, all artistic genius owes itself to ‘neurotics’. Every great work of art, philosophy, and science that has yet been conceived was the result of repression and sublimation. However, the nature of this repression was of course only hinted at in the early Freudian work. The libido is properly an undifferentiated affective surplus that, only after being differentiated by Eros, emerges as the procreative instinct at war with Thanatos,- Eros being a secondary instinct molded through mimetic desire and enculturating or ‘ecotic’ codes, which differ from era to era and society to society. The ancestral libido itself has no sexual connotation, it signifies what I call organo-affective unity,- the total energetic potentia of the organism’s neurodynamics, which Spare believed existed as a primordial will, beyond the male-female sexual differentiation, to consume,- like that of the early bacteria which swallowed the earth up to the extent of poisoning themselves in their own waste. In my own work, the daemon serves as a mediating psychic entity that submerges Eros in this ancestral libido (Voegelin’s 'Depth) and in turn moves surplus affect upward from the libido toward the conscious mind (via the ‘intellective circulus’) which inheres it in artistic forms and philosophic ideas- a novel model of sublimation. All libidinous surplus that is not brought up successfully into the conscious mind signifies a neurosis, a potential psychological trauma or danger.

To be sure, there are dangers in experimenting with sublimation of this kind,- in experimenting with the ancestral libido. The mens heroica, a kind of perfection of the philosopher-type, has brought the totality of the ancestral libido into consciousness through a single all-embracing artistic vision. The daemon serves here as a Lullian homoficans: through noesis, completing what Plato calls the metaxy, it ‘makes human’; it ‘makes human’ the contents of the primordial libido, and that through a variety of techniques, namely transcendental reflection, artistic forms, the eideia, etc. The daemon’s role is a liminal one, existing between material and ideal. It brings the concept of a category of pure reflection back into psychology,- the role of abstraction and philosophy in the formation of the human mind, leaving behind the purely drive based psychology, as well as reductive neuroscience. "

“You say that shit to me, you either apologize, or go get bowel cancer and die and fuck off.”

Dude what if that Chinese rocket fell on him?

Yo that thing is like two school buses big man. I can totally see some shrewd ass Chinese scientists and diplomats in a conference about how to get the rocket back to earth safely… and one’s like ‘too expensive… just let it fall wherever.’ that’s gangsta as fuck man.