Atheism

[Dontaskme]

You often assert that others failed to read what you wrote, and you're right about that but don't think for a moment that the same complaint can't be lodged against you. On philosophy forums where so much is written I guess that is to be expected.

Well said.

The path to truth takes more quiet listening than it does rambling on and on and on in the attempt to make clear who can speak the loudest.

Says the guy who has made more than 15 thousand posts in seven years. Only Mr I. Can has more posts on this site.

Yes, but I'm only listening to myself in a loud and clear kind of way. FFS, this is not personal. No one is writing, reading, listening, or speaking. The universe is an impersonal phenomena, only appearing as personal, as in a dream.

Sometimes, the things people don't say are louder than the words that come out of their mouths.





How many more times do you want to hear, life is a dream dreamt by no one?

Dubious was right, don't ignore others while taking centre stage, for there is no centre, as you are everywhere at once.

[FlashDangerpants]

I would imagine metaphysics can be a lot of things, depending--including games. So I guess my question to you AJ, since you disagree with Dubious's opinion, is why do you do metaphysics and what is the purpose or reason that you do it? Or do you not do metaphysics?

All throughout what I have been writing, for months and months, has dealt in one way or another with my ideas about metaphysics. Did you not read?

Had you read and considered what I have said you’d know the answer.

Do you know, can you state — in paraphrase — why Dubious denies that the metaphysic is a ‘real’ category? Can you connect that denial with an atheist’s general stance?

I find you quite astute quite often, truth be told. You are much more thorough and have developed and structured presentations of your views, concerns, and preoccupations. For this reason I honestly think you could do your own research and you would not ask me a lazy man’s question.

You vould also examine any part of Evola’s thoughts on metaphysics and why the question is vital — for men living in ruins.

I take that's a "no", you're not going to answer my question?

Uwot has a way of describing philosophy as a story telling activity, it's a good enough way to think about it up to a point, after which it stops paying off. Jacobi's works are illustrative of this to an extent. Jacobi has a certain set of stories he likes, some are about racial integrity and duty to race, others are about heroism in the golden age before the downfall of man.

If you look around this forum, you'll find other people partial to similar stories on occasion, especially that second set. In fact if you did a forum search on the word "Rome" you would find it is really common for these people to refer to the fall of Rome as part of that story so almost every mention of the celestial city is a giveway in this matter. So the story about some prior age where people were better because they had an extra sense of piety or of old timey religion, or there were no trannies and homos or whatever is there as a point of overlap with anyone who is partial to that set of stories.

There's some sort of mystical angle in there too, but I don't read enough Jacobi to know what it is, it looks banal though. Something about a universal human yearning for meaning perhaps, or one of those other dreary positions that people hold when they have an overpowering need to explain religion, and make use of it for social control, but who don't want to commit to actual metaphysical speculations about nonextended substances and whatnot.

It's not a very tight, nor a highly reasoned version of metaphysics, rather it's just mcnuggets of "wisdom" for mediocre poets who don't need anything that a philosopher would recognise as an argument. But it gives Jacobi a sense of superiority which is what he's really in it for, and in this way it is also self supporting without the need for those pesky argument things because simple adherence to these caped-hero-storytime "metaphysics" tales instantly grants the bearer both a right and a duty to pour scorn on others for not being impressed by it, even while no reason is ever presented for doing so.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your view of my conceptions hardly conforms to my views at all. You fail to understand what was explicitly stated in my last post. Be that as it may, whatever views or counter views we may have all default to nothing in the end.

“Explicitly stated” perhaps, but all of our varying positions are often obscure to those oriented differently. Frankly, but respectfully,
I do not believe that I grasp your essential and core predicates. It would be necessary to spend real time with someone, over days and even weeks, in a cordial atmosphere, to really be able to understand.

As for Evola, I consider him the scumbag of all metaphysicians...if he actually ever was one. If this is what you accept as metaphysics then I have to say that even my "opinion" of its actual potential is much higher than yours and would annul every vestige of metaphysics rather than accept any of his puerile, medieval, superstitious nonsense. He reminds me more of Aleister Crowley than any true believer in metaphysics.

I might be able to understand what you say that — I intuit why just as a result of the exclamation — but you’d have to spell it out more.

But it is not hard for me to imagine what you refer to. I’ve had similar thoughts.

…his puerile, medieval, superstitious nonsense

Such a glossary condemnation! I would only mention, respectfully of course, that such glossary condemnations of [fill the blank] are common but too easy.

Say more ….

[Alexis Jacobi]

Jacobi's works are illustrative of this to an extent. Jacobi has a certain set of stories he likes, some are about racial integrity and duty to race, others are about heroism in the golden age before the downfall of man.

Because you misread, and counter-read, and immediately jump to outrageous, over the top, wildly emotional conclusions, and very common ones, your analysis is skewed.

You end up jabbering into the air and fighting windmills.

When you do that — mis-characterize so boldly with absolute assertiveness — you end up revealing your own limitations and prejudices.

Will you — could you — modify this modus operandi? It is doubtful. You’ve invested in it so heavily.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not a very tight, nor a highly reasoned version of metaphysics, rather it's just mcnuggets of "wisdom" for mediocre poets who don't need anything that a philosopher would recognise as an argument. But it gives Jacobi a sense of superiority which is what he's really in it for, and in this way it is also self supporting without the need for those pesky argument things because simple adherence to these caped-hero-storytime "metaphysics" tales instantly grants the bearer both a right and a duty to pour scorn on others for not being impressed by it, even while no reason is ever presented for doing so.

As if such an encapsulated reduction could explain, or even attempt to explain, the deep divisions that make it next to impossible that people understand their differences — in times of intensification of differences.

You’re turning snide, superficial retorts into an art. I can admire the ‘art’ but I do not respect what it achieves.

[FlashDangerpants]

Jacobi's works are illustrative of this to an extent. Jacobi has a certain set of stories he likes, some are about racial integrity and duty to race, others are about heroism in the golden age before the downfall of man.

Because you misread, and counter-read, and immediately jump to outrageous, over the top, wildly emotional conclusions, and very common ones, your analysis is skewed.

You get interpreted on the basis of the answers you've given to past questions. If you feel misinterpreted that's because you invest every effort into bamboozling anyone foolish enough to ask you a straight question and expect a meaningful answer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Jacobi's works are illustrative of this to an extent. Jacobi has a certain set of stories he likes, some are about racial integrity and duty to race, others are about heroism in the golden age before the downfall of man.

Because you misread, and counter-read, and immediately jump to outrageous, over the top, wildly emotional conclusions, and very common ones, your analysis is skewed.

You get interpreted on the basis of the answers you've given to past questions. If you feel misinterpreted that's because you invest every effort into bamboozling anyone foolish enough to ask you a straight question and expect a meaningful answer.

No, I think you are bullshitting yourself and those who read you. Between you and I you mis-interpreted, you deliberately reinterpreted into the worst possible terms, what you misunderstood (deliberately) me to be saying.

For this reason, and quite early, I noticed this, and I determined that no conversation would be possible with you. And that is how you want it. That is what you set out to establish.

Now it is true, I find that worthy of examination. Why is it that people do this?

Here, in the part that you have chosen to highlight, your doing can easily be seen, and noted. I have referred to those issues of race and ethnicity because they are relevant to human affairs. I am aware of people who write on these themes and, occasionally, I refer to them.

There is, in fact, a great deal that could be said from philosophical perspectives about this issue, and its connection with entire ranges of interconnected issues. But you, you cannot in any sense carry this out. Any conversation on the theme is defined by you, in outrageous over the top declarations, to be Nazi-stuff, and to be aligned with Ontological Malevolence of the worst imagined sort.

Now, why do you do this?!? It is a question that calls forth an answer. I believe that the reason you do this (you plural: i.e. millions of conditioned people) is to shut down conversation while simultaneously locking yourself up into your cherished structures. You certainly do not have to consider any perspectives that you define as Nazi. Get it?

But that also means, simultaneously, to also favor some other idea-set or set of predicates and assertions. What are those? They can be examined except not by you! Therefor, and if this is so, it illustrates power-dynamics in operation as well as profound ideological battles that, inevitably, are reflected here, in these pseudo-conversations. How could it be otherwise? And surely 'pure philosophy', an ideal impossibility, gets really confused by sociological politics and 'the Culture Wars'.

You lack self-consciousness, in my view. And in your case this is particularly pronounced. In the quoted paragraph, above, you double-down on assertiveness, on declaration, as if you think that a word-wallop will actually get you somewhere! And in fact it does! It gets you exactly where you want to go because you wanted it like that from the start.

And that is why I always refer to *guiding and determining predicates* and other such terms.

There is a game that is played. The game-player pretends to *genuinely* ask a *simple question* but the asker has already determined that the one of whom the question is asked is (as in your case!) a Nazi! You could use any number of different derivative terms related to 'Nazi' and this, of course, is done all the time!

This game, and certainly in Gary's case (to whom I wrote what I did write), is insincere through-and-through. And the same sure seemed to be true in your case. You therefore seem to me to pretend to a *philosophical perspective* and the capability of interchanging philosophically and intellectually, but you do not show that you are even remotely interested in that level of inter-communication.

Now, with all this said what will result? The exact same as always takes place here! To roundly avoid the actual issues and battles between people plagued with personal issues.

[FlashDangerpants]

Now it is true, I find that worthy of examination. Why is it that people do this?

Same here.

I note that you seem to think of yourself as operating at a higher (or at least more remote) conceptual level than those white supremacist authors you refer back to, however I also note that you accept the great white replacement theory without much question, which is an odd thing for somebody who is actually operating at even a moderate level to fall for.

Why do you do this? Because you are prone to that set of beliefs that are typical of the "dissident right" and you are merely concealing an allegiance when you feign academic indifference.

As to why you avoid answering simple questions - well we both know why you need do that. You can pretend that you had to evade the holocaust question because I was trying to entrap you in nazism, but if the honest answer brings that problem with it, then let's just be real about what you are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here is Evola at the beginning of Ride The Tiger. I quote it because it seems to me a good place to start when considering both Guénon and Evola, but also as a way to begin to examine and to understand those who are drawn to *critical postures* of the present Order; where it is leading, what *ideas* (or lack of ideas) inform it, and as a way to begin to examine the many different people, with very different orientations and proposals, who have read Guénon and Evola. Simply put, G and E are influential figures and their reach is wider than one imagines. For this reason, at the very least, the ideas that are presented can be entertained and thought about.

This book sets out to study some of the ways in which the present age appears essentially as an age of dissolution. At the same time, it addresses the question of what kind of conduct and what form of existence are appropriate under the circumstances for a particular human type.

This restriction must be kept in mind. What I am about to say does not concern the ordinary man of our day. On the contrary, I have in mind the man who finds himself involved in today's world, even at its most problematic and paroxysmal points; yet he does not belong inwardly to such a world, nor will he give in to it. He feels himself, in essence, as belonging to a different race from that of the overwhelming majority of his contemporaries. The natural place for such a man, the land in which he would not be a stranger, is the world of Tradition. I use the word tradition in a special sense, which I have defined elsewhere.

It differs from the common usage, but is close to the meaning given to it by René Guénon in his analysis of the crisis of the modern world. In this particular meaning, a civilization or a society is “traditional” when it is ruled by principles that transcend what is merely human and individual, and when all its sectors are formed and ordered from above, and directed to what is above. Beyond the variety of historical forms, there has existed an essentially identical and constant world of Tradition. I have sought elsewhere to define its values and main categories, which are the basis for any civilization, society, or ordering of existence that calls itself normal in a higher sense, and is endowed with real significance.
Everything that has come to predominate in the modern world is the exact antithesis of any traditional type of civilization.

Good observation, and good question as a result of making a definition: the dissolution of man, or let's say of people, either people we know but certainly our own selves -- this can be examined and thought about.

And in that light, to then propose, to ask again, What is the right way to live? is a very good question. These periods when people, in a certain desperation, ask that question -- What happened? and How did this happen? -- seem particularly poignant in my view. It happened after those two European wars had finally ended. They literally stood among the ruins and had no choice but to ask What happened?!?

And such introspection leads, inevitably, to the inner plane. Me, myself, what I do, how I think, what I value.

If there is just one thing that has been made clear to me it is that we must look to and consider the especially gifted and capable person as an exemplar of what we, perhaps, might aspire to. Such valuation of those who have gobe to levels we might not be able to reach, points up the issue of hierarchy. Our age (it is said) attacks hierarchy. This is the age of equality & inclusion and determined outcomes. This tendency, or this strategy, has roots. They can be examined.

But my view is, philosophically let's say, that we can only hope to achieve something within ourselves. The political world is disastrous. If we tie ourselves to it, we are lost. Therefore what Evola says seems a good idea, a fair and necessary admonition:

What I am about to say does not concern the ordinary man of our day. On the contrary, I have in mind the man who finds himself involved in today's world, even at its most problematic and paroxysmal points; yet he does not belong inwardly to such a world.

There you have it: the core *aristocratic* stance. Myself, I have already resolved this. I admire and I elevate people, in a wide range of fields and pursuits, who I consider 'higher types'. I distinguish them from 'lower types'. But to say this, today, is dangerous and unthinkable thought! And too I can admire (as a higher type) even those I do not agree with or desire to be like.

The natural place for such a man, the land in which he would not be a stranger, is the world of Tradition.

Well, that's his declaration. And what does he mean? Dubious says that he is a scam-artist, a fake, a miserable, back-asswards conniver and certainly no metaphysician!

It is simply too glossary for my taste. But then to even discuss 'the Mediaeval Era' carefully, rationally, is not easy. Frankly I have always been interested in the topic and have only been able to gloss it. I simply do not have the time that I'd like. I got hold of and began, years back, to read The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson but only got so far.

But no matter how one views or reviews history, there is no going backward. And the fact of the matter is that the World is on the verge of absolutely chaotic and dramatic changes which, at this point, seem beyond anyone's power certainly to change. But that leads one, perhaps even more dedicatedly, to cinsider one's own internal status. I mean existentially, spiritually, metaphysically.

Am I *selling a product*, an outlook? a political program? No, and I have always made that plain. I am not an activist I am a researcher. And I can consider all ideas not only those favored in the present moment.

a civilization or a society is “traditional” when it is ruled by principles that transcend what is merely human and individual, and when all its sectors are formed and ordered from above, and directed to what is above.

A sound idea, in my view, when one examined the creations of those societies, and those epochs, when such ideas did rule. It is a coherent idea but what 'rules' and what is meant by 'above'? I have my own ideas as I have struggled with the question.

But then so have Belinda, Immanuel, Dubious, Henry and every other person who appears here! That is, in one way or another.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I note that you seem to think of yourself as operating at a higher (or at least more remote) conceptual level than those white supremacist authors you refer back to, however I also note that you accept the great white replacement theory without much question, which is an odd thing for somebody who is actually operating at even a moderate level to fall for.

You are here doing it again! You cannot stop yourself. I cannot help you to get your prejudices reordered. I have to stand back and let you charge forward. I cannot counter what you assert, because you cannot change your view that produces the assertion.

You have no interest in knowing what I do think or where I stand. You have decided, a priori, that I stand with Nazism. End of conversation!

I can only propose, and suggest, that you examine your own *operative predicates*. I hope that those reading will be able to notice the outrageousness of your assertions and how skewed they are.

And that is why I say that my *purpose* is, largely and often, just to expose these conceptual impositions.

See, in your tendentious, determined, highly prejudicial paragraph I have quoted, you allude to things that could be talked about carefully and fairly. Except you are incapable of that!

Absolutely and dedicatedly incapable. If you owned that, if you admitted it, it would be a huge advance! But you will double- and tripe-down on your limited view and defend is 'like a junkyard dog'...

[promethean75]

only when the bourgeoisie try to emulate Evola does it become corny, but if an anarchist like your homeboy Renzo appropriates Evola and rides the tiger, genuine aristocratic glory in a poetic sense can be realized. Yes democratic institutions produce mediocrity. yes people are not equal. yes there is no god and the fittest survive. but no, nationality, culture, the state, do not supersede the individual. Stirner knocked Evola out like a hunerd years ago man. he's still sexy tho. Evola i mean. He had the crazy-mad Italian eyes of fire in that one video with the Mr. Rodger's sweater.

[Alexis Jacobi]

only when the bourgeoisie try to emulate Evola does it become corny, but if an anarchist like your homeboy Renzo appropriates Evola and rides the tiger, genuine aristocratic glory in a poetic sense can be realized. Yes democratic institutions produce mediocrity. yes people are not equal. yes there is no god and the fittest survive. but no, nationality, culture, the state, do not supersede the individual. Stirner knocked Evola out like a hunerd years ago man. he's still sexy tho. Evola i mean. He had the crazy-mad Italian eyes of fire in that one video with the Mr. Rodger's sweater.

I always appreciate Promethean who never ceases to surprise with his interesting angles.

[Harbal]

Yes democratic institutions produce mediocrity. yes people are not equal. yes there is no god and the fittest survive.

And yes, we have no bananas.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I take that's a "no", you're not going to answer my question?

You have so little clear idea why you thoroughly disgust me. You mindless, self-centered sick fuck. Get down here right now and I will tear you to utter shreds. It has become THAT SERIOUS!



(Said of course from a stance of love & kindness).

[Alexis Jacobi]

We must give credit where credit is due!

Harbol and DontAskMe deserve accolades!

For sheer mindlessness that has no competition.

I had this thought: If they were to mate, in some preposterous love-encounter, would Gary be the result of their blending?

Hmmmmm. Something I will have to think about deeply & seriously...

I salute you both!