Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The best book on Nietszche i've come across. Nietzsche elevated alongside Plato.

Given that you have not read such works on Tradition as I would recommend, I can certainly understand how you wouldn't see the fundamentals of Tradition encoded in those pagan mythologies - nevertheless, they are there, sometimes directly inherited from the scriptures whence the particular tradition arose.

A brilliant example of this: in Vedic literature, one metaphorical account for the creation of the universe is that of Purusha, the "Cosmic Man", who is principally existent in the void and is separated by the "Gods" ("devas", which here means "senses") into the sensory world we experience (the notion here being that the seemingly exterior reality is nothing more than an expansion into physicality of the true, singular, universal self).  This myth was faithfully carried into the Norse tradition of the construction of the world from the body of the giant Ymir, who is also born out of the primordial duality (Musspelheim and Niflheim have their correspondants in Vedic scripture as well).  Notice that it is still the original, primitive "Gods" who do the act of separating.  There is no doubt in my mind that the Norse tradition was as intricately mystical and consistent with Tradition as the Greek, Persian, or Vedic traditions.

If you have believed that Tradition stems from Plato, then you must now be honest in the face of greater knowledge: Tradition has existed since before Man was civilised, being Truth as humans might know it; thence, every civilisation has encoded that same Tradition in its culture and religions.  Egyptian civilisation is perhaps one of the greatest examples of the success and prosperity earned by people building their society upon the foundations of Tradition - are you going to tell me that Plato inspired the Egyptians?  Is it not consistent with our history that it was indeed Plato who was inspired by his predecessors, who, in their turn, were inspired by the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Persians (who were inspired by the Vedics)?

By the way, there is nothing in this physical world that is transcendent; transcendence is always that of this world, that is, a return from here to the origin!  Surely you've read Wittgenstein?

The Pagan Bible

Quote
An alleged fair use ASCII version is available at http://www.nyx.net/~wboas/pagan.txt

The audio version of the book, hosted at this controversial (nationalist) website is narrated by a digital female voice. Play time is over nine hours. At least 2 hours on, the text is still giving an overview of all world religions, including science among them. Science is predicted to end up assimilated by one or more prevailing world religions that endure into the coming centuries. It is already subjugated to some degree by what the text calls democratic Christianity right now. The introduction states the purpose isn't for a comprehensive overview but to set perspective in order to deliver contrast for the pagan portion of the work. If interested:

http://www.majorityrights.com/audio/ThePaganBible.mp3

Some thoughts on the subjects discussed in this thread.  Firstly, from the point of view of pure metaphysics, it is clear that the physical world can be nothing more than a medium upon which certain possibilities converge under particular conditions.  The fact that our sensory inputs open directly onto the physical realm does not for that reason imply that it has any privileged status in the hierarchy of existence, or that our own existence is limited to this domain, in fact it clearly is not.  The extent to which modern man exalts physical existence above all else is simply a reflection of the fact that his ability to perceive anything other than it has diminished.  Modern science, however far it continues its expansion, can never overcome the inherent limitation in attempting to unlock knowledge of the physical world for its own sake and never placing its discoveries within a metaphysical context which could integrate them and make them spiritually functional. 

For the metaphysician, all knowledge proceeds from 'within', from the truths that are inscribed in the essence of our being - our access to which is possible because of our fundamental identity with a reality which transcends us - and it is only in light of these that observations we make of the external world can be of any value.  Now this is impossible to understand for someone absorbed by the modern way of thinking, which places man, not at the center of existence but at its periphery, and therefore substitutes an endless accumulation of physical facts for true knowledge.  This way of thinking engages the mind in such a way that it makes the Intellect, the faculty of man's consciousness which allows for pure and not discursive knowledge, completely inoperative.  Only persistent contemplation on the nature of Being combined with an appropriate framework of symbols can begin to wash away some of the illusions caused by the defects in our perceptive faculties and the erroneous intellectual constructs they have given rise to.

Also a quick word on Platonic forms.  One can understand this doctrine more easily once one does away with the assumption that physical existence has anything concrete about it.  All diversity is simply an illusion in light of the perfect non-duality of Reality as such.  Since this is so it is also clear that diverse objects and elements inevitably tend towards unity, converging upon their metaphysical archetypes which converge upon the innate qualities of Reality which are, in the final analysis, all simply aspects of the One.  One perceives in the physical world, traces of the archetypes in their manifestations (To take the example from this thread, water is the physical manifestation of the passive pole of cosmic existence, it is from this that it derives its reality, and not from its chemical composition, which is peripheral and incidental), and this is necessary since these manifestations are not other than their archetypes but are in fact the realisations of these archetypes within their own particular existential limitations.  In Plato, this is expressed under the guise of rationalism, but it is in fact based on inward knowledge, and this is why, in the modern era, rationalists have inevitably turned against Plato, or completely misinterpreted him.

Jesus, Not again.

Some thoughts on the subjects discussed in this thread.  Firstly, from the point of view of pure metaphysics, it is clear that the physical world can be nothing more than a medium upon which certain possibilities converge under particular conditions.

The last 4 pages of this thread have been discussing the viridicalty of 'the point of view of pure metaphysics', at least related to questions of ontology or 'what there is'. Please don't simply ignore this, assume the point of view that has been called into disripute and make unjustified, sweeping statements. This is all you traditionalists seem to do. You don't enagege with the issues someone else presents, that are possibly serious musings on the human experience, just straight to the ideas that fit your concepts. Blind to everything else.

Why is the following "clear"?: the physical world can be nothing more than a medium upon which certain possibilities converge under particular conditions.

You can't just say it's clear because according to 'pure' metaphysics it's clear. You have to give objective reasons why it is clear.

Quote
The fact that our sensory inputs open directly onto the physical realm does not for that reason imply that it has any privileged status in the hierarchy of existence, or that our own existence is limited to this domain, in fact it clearly is not.  The extent to which modern man exalts physical existence above all else is simply a reflection of the fact that his ability to perceive anything other than it has diminished.

Again and again and again. This is absolutely groundless unless you give some hint of information about what 'other domains' of reality of have access to that scientists and philosopher's don't, and an account of how it is that you have acess to it. Please read the discussion.

 

Given that you have not read such works on Tradition as I would recommend, I can certainly understand how you wouldn't see the fundamentals of Tradition encoded in those pagan mythologies - nevertheless, they are there, sometimes directly inherited from the scriptures whence the particular tradition arose.

I'm not interested in ancient ontologies for more than cultural/artistic/comparitive reasons. Why the hell consult myths to determine complicated ontological questions? It's some sort of joke, some kind of adolsecent obsession with being 'other'.

To use an example that a New Atheist used to bash biblical knowledge (new atheism is a stance i do not take, but the example is apt here): These 'traditions' couldn't even tell a most basic and utterly fundamental ontological piece of advice. This advice relates to the nature of reality and what there is. And it is a no-brainer: 'Wash your hands, there are these things called germs that will stop your daughter dying a painful death'!

Conclusion: If were talking ontology, we consult modern methodologies. Not books that had a very primitive understanding of the nature of reality due to the early stage of cultural evolution the societies that wrote them were in. Culture has changed since then, and we have better methodologies for inquiry into the structure of reality. Get off internet forums and engage with people with your 'superior' methodologies: see how far you will get, and how dissconnected you are with reality and other human beings.

Quote
If you have believed that Tradition stems from Plato, then you must now be honest in the face of greater knowledge: Tradition has existed since before Man was civilised, being Truth as humans might know it; thence, every civilisation has encoded that same Tradition in its culture and religions.  Egyptian civilisation is perhaps one of the greatest examples of the success and prosperity earned by people building their society upon the foundations of Tradition - are you going to tell me that Plato inspired the Egyptians?  Is it not consistent with our history that it was indeed Plato who was inspired by his predecessors, who, in their turn, were inspired by the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Persians (who were inspired by the Vedics)?

I will be honest in the fact of greater knowledge. I don't know a great deal about traditionalism, as a cultural phenomena, and I am always interested in learning more. I think I am pretty justified in holding the belief that it is grossly outdated if it is used to determine ontological questions (as we have been arguing about). However, it's not necessarily useless when it comes to examinations of human nature, morality etc.

What does washing one's hands have to do with Ontology?

Here's some ancient advice which we could certainly use in the modern West: uphold Balance (Ma'at).  If that means not washing your hands so that you contract a disease and die, then so be it!

I find that the majority of people I interact with face to face (which is a great many, I don't spend much time on the internet anymore) are not only receptive of these traditional ideas, but actively champion them over modern ones.  People around the ages of 18 to 25 seem to be fed up with the physicalist paradigm (probably because it doesn't work).

You cannot think yourself to be justified in anything until you have actually looked at the source material, so I ask, for the last time: please read a book.

What does washing one's hands have to do with Ontology?

"Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences" (WIKIPEDIA).

Germs would be classed as 'microorganisms'. They studied by microbiology. They are single or multicelled. Cells can be reduced to elements, which can be reduced to atoms etc.

You don't see the point i'm trying to make? If ancient ontology knows so much, why didn't it break down the structure of things in the actual world we live in?

Quote
Here's some ancient advice which we could certainly use in the modern West: uphold Balance (Ma'at).  If that means not washing your hands so that you contract a disease and die, then so be it!

Like a horoscope reading. It's so broad it applies to nothing and everything. This is not a great ontological revelation. We're talking ontology, ontology ontology.

Quote
that the majority of people I interact with face to face (which is a great many, I don't spend much time on the internet anymore) are not only receptive of these traditional ideas, but actively champion them over modern ones.  People around the ages of 18 to 25 seem to be fed up with the physicalist paradigm (probably because it doesn't work).

Fair enough.

Quote
You cannot think yourself to be justified in anything until you have actually looked at the source material, so I ask, for the last time: please read a book.

we're not talking about me, we're talking about you and traditional views. As someone who has been trying to defend traditional vewis on ontology for 4 pages, the interesting point is that you are not justified in holding your views - because you never provide the ground or justification.

I've got little interest in reading about ancient views on ontology. This isn't supposed to be some philistine dismissal. I say this because I don't know why I would consult books when attempts by proponents like you to defend these views are never inspiring at all. And it isn't like i've never come into contact with tradition writings. I've read Evola, the Ghita, Norse epics, greek philosophy, huxley (on perennialism), some guenon (on the meaninig of the cross or whatever that book is called - this was one of the most intellectually offensive books i've tried to read, filled to the brim with sweet-nothings).

It seems you've never read about Atomism, then, if you think that the ancients didn't "break things down".  Parmenides is a good enough place to stop, though; the Atomists kind of get the wrong idea.

What does microbiology have to do with ontology?

You seem to think that ontology is the practice of exploring each layer of reality.  It isn't; it's simply recognising the layers of reality and ordering them.  There are many which cannot be explored (there must be substance to be explored if exploration is to occur, surely?).

Yes, the concept of Ma'at is very broad, but if you were to research it, you would realise that every single aspect of Egyptian life (including cleanliness, I might add) was contained within that concept (which is why it's very broad!).

If you've only read one book by Guénon, it's no wonder you don't get it yet.  Listen to Nasr for a while, consider the things that he says, start meditating, and then read Guénon again (and some Schuon).  Furthermore, do all of this with that "open mind" I talked about - you're not going to get anywhere if you go into an endeavour with a dismissive attitude.  I can't believe they don't teach that kind of wisdom in school.

Edit: my views are quite clearly defended, from the point of view of a perennialist.  They might seem undefended to a physicalist, but that is because he cannot see the defenses.

Quote
You don't see the point i'm trying to make? If ancient ontology knows so much, why didn't it break down the structure of things in the actual world we live in?

I understand your criticism of blind faith etc., and your questioning of pure metaphysics. But even I, with little I know on the subject, can see that you are ignorant of what it truly was and is just by reading the above quote.

If you had any idea of the depth that those studies went, you would think differently. Again, I aplaud your courage to deny superstition and fight blind faith and stagnation.

Also think about this: Yes ancient people were far more superstitious, but the majority of people today still are. Not to mention that blind faith in science, specially studies published on news media, is a kind of superstition because the people who swallow this without questioning are also doing a kind of magical thinking. But there are still superstitions of the same kind as the ancients, the same ones in a lot of cases. What I want to get to is this: The geniuses that made metaphysics were not superstitious, but the people who did not get this stuff were superstitious. So you should use the superstitions of the common folk to attack metaphysics.

You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Quote
You don't see the point i'm trying to make? If ancient ontology knows so much, why didn't it break down the structure of things in the actual world we live in?

I understand your criticism of blind faith etc., and your questioning of pure metaphysics. But even I, with little I know on the subject, can see that you are ignorant of what it truly was and is just by reading the above quote.

I want to genuinely attempt to 'clense the doors of perception' and leave my ego behind. Where, exactly, am I going amiss in my above criticism. I'm just assuming the following:

1. Ontology is the study of what is.
2. 'What is' involves sutdying the layers of realty.
3. When you engage in such a 'reductive' enterprise - you find out about things like germs.
4. Knowledge of germs isn't profound, but that's sort of the point. It's just a basic bit of knowledge about 'what is' that you would think any wise people would have worked out if they had discovered greater or more profound truths.

You seem to think that ontology is the practice of exploring each layer of reality.  It isn't; it's simply recognising the layers of reality and ordering them.  There are many which cannot be explored (there must be substance to be explored if exploration is to occur, surely?).

This is a valid criticism. Ontology probably isn't about exploring each layer rather than identifying them ordering them. I think you're right. My line about germs is probably not on the money. However, the argument can be shifted to the following: Why then, didn't the ancients discover (rather than speculate about) the layers of the physical substrate of reality: the physical, chemical, biological, psychological. I know some embarked upon this route, and so they were proto-scientists.

I am deeply skeptical about the enterprise of metaphysics for the reasons we have been arguing about. I think due to the nature of being a physical organism we only have contact with one broad layer of reality - the physical. As this layer has been explored in more and more fine-grained detail by science, it has been enlarged beyond the wildest dreams of the ancients. This new-found depth in the physical substrate of reality has provided the means and mechanisms to explain so much of the world we used to have to revert to non-physicalist substrates to explain.

I just don't see how we can have contact with other substrates of reality. (1) I have never encountered a discriptive account of how this works. (2) I have never encountered an account of these other substrates themselves that has any meaningful, concrete content that can be accepted by someone who is not already 'won over' by the language of metaphysics and 'against' empirical science.

As an empiricist, i'm not categorically closed to other substrates by any means. I'm an empiricist because time and again this seems to be the only objective method of learning about the wonderful world that doesn't sow unneccessary division and dogmatism between intelligent human beings.

if you like, suggest to me two or three works that you think might go some way towards these issues. I will hopefully get around to them at some stage.

Quote
You don't see the point i'm trying to make? If ancient ontology knows so much, why didn't it break down the structure of things in the actual world we live in?

I understand your criticism of blind faith etc., and your questioning of pure metaphysics. But even I, with little I know on the subject, can see that you are ignorant of what it truly was and is just by reading the above quote.

I want to genuinely attempt to 'clense the doors of perception' and leave my ego behind. Where, exactly, am I going amiss in my above criticism. I'm just assuming the following:

1. Ontology is the study of what is.
2. 'What is' involves sutdying the layers of realty.
3. When you engage in such a 'reductive' enterprise - you find out about things like germs.
4. Knowledge of germs isn't profound, but that's sort of the point. It's just a basic bit of knowledge about 'what is' that you would think any wise people would have worked out if they had discovered greater or more profound truths.

You are right, and they did know about germs. That is, I can say with certainty they speculated and that most believed in the existence of microorganisms. The specific knowledge about certain germs I don't know, but I don't deny it either. As far as I know a lot of the knowledge was restricted to very few people, many of whom probably intentionally deluded the people with false notions to get them to do what they wanted.

Thousands of years in the past people were making structural analysis of reality, breaking it down on very reasonable ways. I know little about indian thought and forms of buddhism, but those people really liked to break stuff down. And they did it with practice, considering reality.

Quote
To me, this outlook is the perfection of solipsism and anthropomorphism.

Take the all-too-human human perspective of something (namely, H20 - when you drink water you're not interacting with a 'Form', you're interacting with H20), and elevate it to a diabolical level ('essence') to have the so-called 'essence' (hydration) replace the thing in-itself (H20).

It's a bit like standing in front of a mirror masturbating over what you see.

But you can use this to compare things in reality. Woman is woman, but there are a lot of them. A tree is a thing, but there are different kinds of tree. What is this? Is there an essential tree? Then how come we perceive things like this? Is a human equal to an alligator? Or not, because it is an animal? Then is an alligator equal to dog because they're both animals? Or is an alligator equal to a chameleon? You see, maybe there is no Essential Chameleon, Essential Alligator, Essential Human, like a big, giant blueprint, transparent and glowy design in superspace or something. But simple observation of all those categories, differences and unquestionable similarities in physical appearance, organs, behavior, etc. suggest SOME kind pure essence, maybe not of every thing itself but of everything in unity. Not to mention that interior states, being a major driver of human intent, cannot rationally be thought to be totally unrelated to reality, I mean, or else they would not be the way they are. GO TO LOCATION X AND CONSUME FOOD is much better message to send than the feeling of hunger, eh? What about SYSTEM BEING DAMAGED - TAKE RADICAL ACTION NOW instead of pain? What about DO NOT STOP COITUS: INSEMINATION ALMOST DONE NOW in the place of orgasm? Orgasm, pain, hunger, those things would still exist, but they would not feel so specific, so directed. BTW the subjective experience of feeling and perception  can never be "explained" objectively by science, no matter what anyone says.

 We are, really, made of star dust, or something like that, no? Star is our sun, right, this is where we get energy and he is impregnating the moon everyday: If he was not directed in a way that lighted the moon we would never see it, it would be a black, lifeless ball. In fact, it is lifeless, its life being only an illusion of the Sun. As are we, but I speak on metaphorical terms, of course. Can it be that the Sun is self-conscious? Can it be that, like microorganisms seeing their reality in a whole different ways than us, not really aware of our full figure even while they're exploiting us, compares to our perception of the Sun and of his on us? I took those ideas from a book.

Other people say this a lot better than I do, anyway, so I'm going to post some quotes soon.

I'm gonna start by the blog aryan buddhism:

"There are no such things as waves. What does this mean? A wave, be it light, or as per metaphysics, empirical consciousness, is an adjective, an action, a topographical activity and coordinate ACTION. A wave is not a noun, not a thing, not a principle. A wave is the ACTION of what? (X) A wave is the amplitude (~agnosis/tolma-quanta) and frequency (manifestation) of what? (X)


This is just an analogy for your capacity towards metaphysics and genuine philosophy.

"
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Bill, the reason you have problems with this is because you consider yourself to be your body.  Consider yourself to be that which is conscious of the body, and, suddenly, all doors are opened.

Just keep in mind that doing what Cargest said is difficult and is best done relaxing in your bed or practicing sports, because when you practice exercise with dedication you become the life force that moves your body. I can only get to the state cargest described while relaxing lying down.

The thing is, in order to achieve this state you must be more conscious of the body than ever in order to relax it. You may commit the error to try and fous more on the head, so you will concentrate your consciousness there and end up generating more confusion. Feel your heart and other areas too. What you want to do is spread your energy around your body in continual movement, like a rapid fire. You MUST extend the consciousness that is usually more on the head to the whole body specially the middle line of forehead, tongue, neck, chest, belly, phallus, butt etc.. Direct in this straight line the energy into the "hells below" and stay there, that way you will harmonize your whole body and then you will be able to know what cargést described. This thing is so simple and obvious that sometimes we don't realize, but we DO concentrate a lot of energy on the head when we fall pray to obssessive thoughts and you CAN redirect that and spread the energy around your body and actually see your head become lighter.

 Just trying to make you avoid the common error of thinking those kinds of things should be idealistic and angelical: When I discovered those studies I thought it was, and now I see how this can lead to wishful thinking. So you don't go around reading anything on spirituality.

I in fact think you should keep your skeptical/atheist posture for as long as it seems right. Your changes should be in consciousness instead, but consciousness is adaptive and incorporeal, so all it will do is make you more aware of things you missed before.

I'm saying this because when the atheist/materialist discovers that there is something more, this can lead to wishful thinking, delusion, obssession with ideals/abstractions, etc... because religion/god/spirit is associated with christianity and its fairy tales. The only way to dissociate this in your brain is to seek impartial spiritual texts, like the ones on aryan buddhist and others I will show here, but even more, agressive ones, so the notion of spirit will be increasingly away from the sweet white dove of Jesus.

And another thing: Metaphysical knowledge is different, you have got to change your life and practice it (not necessairly meditation, but apply what you learned) or it goes wrong and you can obssess over ideals.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Bill, the reason you have problems with this is because you consider yourself to be your body.

Precisely! And I see no reason to reevaluate this consideration after having read widely, meditated for months, practiced zen buddhism under a sensei (not for a great period of time, but nevertheless), having broken down experience with lsd and other agents, excercising consistently, recovering in emergency rooms, etc.

You may as well tell lightening that it is having problems because it considers itself to be electrical discharge. This might disallow the acceptance of some propositions relating to 'metaphysics', but that doesn't mean it isn't true.