Pseudo-Intellectuals complain about Pseudo-Elitism

[ASBO]

Ever since some of you have noticed that my own ideals are similar to those of ANUS, I have had to explain myself again and again...

Please do not associate me with the ANUS people as far as possible, for I have a few problems with this...

There is a certain sense of "elitism" that pervades the group, and it repels me. The people there are convinced that they are superior to the "morons" that they repeatedly mock. They maintain this superiority complex through this taunting itself, and also through affirming their own egos by placing their way of life above everybody else's, and thereby gain an increase to their status as "nobility in an ignoble age". Instead of searching for Virtue, they mirror their own images upon one another, in hopes of catching a reflection of the Divine through this sociality. This is entirely feminine and entirely futile in regards to Truth; the value here is found in the collective views of the group, rather than the Self, which is always the conduit to the Divine (inner Truth).

They use music most particularly (and obviously) to highlight their sense of "higher being". Once you get past the Classical and Death / Black metal, I do not think that it is hard to see that their tastes in music and mine don't line up all that well...

I detect a sort of anachronism amongst them, as well: "knights of another age". Everyone was born into this age for a reason, and in this age, there are no kshatriyas, there are no true brahmins. Virtue died along time ago; all you can be is continent. Thinking yourself as "nobility" is pure delusion. Your Self is what makes you YOU.

There is certainly no lack of intelligence in these guys (and the very odd girl), but not very much wisdom, sadly.

Also, the assault on Christianity is cliched to the point of nauseum... Their blind homage to Nietzsche is rather ignorant of others, namely, the Christian mystics. Actually, many things seems to point to anti-religion in general... "Pro-spiritual, anti-religious", I think I remember seeing...

http://www.revolvermag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=408&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=20

While this guy is clearly butthurt, and drunk with love for his own ego, he makes a good point about some of the behavior at this forum.

Of course, he mistakes the forum for the site, but that's not really important. I've seen some of this pseudo-elitism and it's tedious. As is individualism. Maybe this place can shape up, and this dude will pull his head out of his ass at the same time.

[Cigno]

This guy is right about the forum.

 I see an inner development, a meditation within a cave... only. The rest is called action, and from there he should realize that action requires union & organization. These things teach us about hierarchy and selection, wich most people are afraid to embrace. Such individualism is the worst state for the individual.

By the way... let's pay homage to this christian gentleman: St. John of the Cross     

[Bereft]

So he bashes ANUS yet supports Corrupt; quite an odd stance. Are the two forums really that different in the context of which he's speaking?

I think he's wrong about the anti-religion stance of the site - it's anti-stupid religion, but here you'll find Nietzsche's portrait on the same page as Emerson's and Blake's. Generally, the Bhagavad Gita gets as much praise around these parts as Beyond Good and Evil. A cursory look at the forum seems to have given him the wrong impression.

There is a worthy point in all of it though; pretentiousness and egoism destroys meaningful discussion.

No comment on Traditionalism or the nuances of random capitalisation.

[ASBO]

A cursory look at the forum seems to have given him the wrong impression.

There is a worthy point in all of it though; pretentiousness and egoism destroys meaningful discussion.

Good summary, and I agree. Even more, I think what he's saying is that people can pose at being elitists and use that to get over on others. Of course, that is weak behavior, and it's why the Tarditionalists got thrown out of here...

[Clef_Burton]

I thought what I understand to be Traditionalism is one of the tenets of Corrupt?

[Todessehnsucht]

I thought what I understand to be Traditionalism is one of the tenets of Corrupt?

I agree. I see no great divide between German Idealists (which this site has no qualms about praising) and the Traditionalist School. Both are influenced by ancient Indo-European spirituality, have a general distaste for the modern world, and value organic culture.

[ASBO]

Even more, both are Platonic in that they recognize that patterns, while not inherent, are formed of this world and suggest a spiritual divinity to idealistic thinking -- the pattern is greater than the material in which it is created.

As such, both see two modes of society: syncretic (traditional) versus deconstructive/disassociative (modern). What we call modern is basically social decline, via crowd empowerment and eventual domination of mass tastes, as facilitated by technology.

CORRUPT undoubtedly supports that kind of Traditionalist, but not "Tarditionalism" in the dualistic sense that certain philosophically-illiterate, posing posters have attempted to foster here. Their tarditionalism is just pretense and inaction justified by a sense of some mystical warfare that goes on by capitalizing Words on message boards.

[Christ Fucking Malarkey]

Even more, both are Platonic in that they recognize that patterns, while not inherent, are formed of this world and suggest a spiritual divinity to idealistic thinking -- the pattern is greater than the material in which it is created.

Isn't this a reversal of of the concept of emanationism? (The web site clarifies a few philosophical issues better than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's no surprise, however--modern universities are driven by propaganda, and philosophy departments lie nearest to the heart of the farce.)

The greater cannot proceed from the lesser; that's a mathematical impossibility. Any examples that attempt to prove otherwise are generally anthropocentric in nature, i.e. the building of a house from raw elements, the aggregation of cells to form an organism, etc. This sort of evolutionism is often wielded by people who aren't fully aware of the tenets underlying evolutionary theory (nor its historical impact on philosophy, and vice versa when considering the likes of Hegel), and therefore tend to romanticize it. On that note, Goethe's idea of "Steigerung" needs to be studied more carefully by the fans of the German idealists--if I recall correctly, the poet-thinker acknowlegdes the fact that there is ultimately no progress, no evolution of forms in our world, because the manifest will always succumb to an entropic course.

[kontinual]

The greater cannot proceed from the lesser; that's a mathematical impossibility.

What is mathematically impossible about it?

Any examples that attempt to prove otherwise are generally anthropocentric in nature, i.e. the building of a house from raw elements, the aggregation of cells to form an organism, etc.

What is anthropocentric about the aggregation of cells?

[Christ Fucking Malarkey]

The greater cannot proceed from the lesser; that's a mathematical impossibility.

What is mathematically impossible about it?

Qualitatively speaking, taking any entity (unity, if one wishes to speak of universals, rather than existential contingencies) and subdividing it into smaller components,  as with the separation of a cube x units in length into xxx identical units, will yield no superiror results. Quantitatively, of course, we can observe that the number has increased. Relative to the original condition, however, we must express each component as a fraction. Thus we arrive at an important question, and one which bears upon many social ills of our time: Can something more numerous truly be termed "greater", and if so, on what terms?

As one delves more deeply into set theory, this truth becomes clearer. Any element of a set cannot be greater than the set which contains it. Should one expand this concept to its limit, then the universe as an absolute "set" cannot produce anything greater, with regard to both quantity and quality, than any of the elements which it contains (and which must necessarily be contained within it at all times, otherwise the set has been improperly defined).

Any examples that attempt to prove otherwise are generally anthropocentric in nature, i.e. the building of a house from raw elements, the aggregation of cells to form an organism, etc.

What is anthropocentric about the aggregation of cells?

The aggregation of cells is, of course, not in itself anthropocentric, but humanity's assignment of greater value, or its attribution of some arbitrary term like "intricacy" or "complexity" to such a phenomenon is  borne from our perspective as sentient beings, often misted over by our self-awe. Indeed, we ourselves as beings maintained by intercellular communication, capable of functions particular to such a condition, and thereby construct a hierarchy--intentionally or not--that places single-celled organisms at the base. Thus, softcore (as well as hardcore) evolutionary theorists often place man at a privileged position, the crowning achievement of many millions of years of refinement, when in truth man is a rather inefficient intermediary along a spectrum of indeterminate magnitude.

[K. Sear]

Should one expand this concept to its limit, then the universe as an absolute "set" cannot produce anything greater, with regard to both quantity and quality, than any of the elements which it contains (and which must necessarily be contained within it at all times, otherwise the set has been improperly defined).

How does one account for quality in mathematical terms?  Is it as simple as the larger value has the greater quality?  If so, that seems unsatisfactory.

Thus, softcore (as well as hardcore) evolutionary theorists often place man at a privileged position, the crowning achievement of many millions of years of refinement, when in truth man is a rather inefficient intermediary along a spectrum of indeterminate magnitude.

To my knowledge, that is not how evolutionary biologists view man's position in nature at all.  There is a false perception that evolution is ongoing progress towards perfection, hence the often misused analogy of the ladder or line with man at the top.  However, the analogy of the tree encompasses the idea much more adequately; many branches, each in near perfect adaptation to the environment already.  Man has no special position in this model (ie. no branch has any greater significance from any other).

[Todessehnsucht]

The greater cannot proceed from the lesser; that's a mathematical impossibility. Any examples that attempt to prove otherwise are generally anthropocentric in nature, i.e. the building of a house from raw elements, the aggregation of cells to form an organism, etc. This sort of evolutionism is often wielded by people who aren't fully aware of the tenets underlying evolutionary theory (nor its historical impact on philosophy, and vice versa when considering the likes of Hegel), and therefore tend to romanticize it. On that note, Goethe's idea of "Steigerung" needs to be studied more carefully by the fans of the German idealists--if I recall correctly, the poet-thinker acknowlegdes the fact that there is ultimately no progress, no evolution of forms in our world, because the manifest will always succumb to an entropic course.

From a greater perspective, though, wouldn't this chaotic unraveling of the primordial whole result in the eventual reordering of the constituent parts back into progressively more complex systems (evolution)? Thus reaching back towards the greatness of the whole yet unable to reach it unless all of existence is reordered into the original configuration, forming a cycle of order and chaos as if/when it is whole again, it is sure to decay.

To my knowledge, that is not how evolutionary biologists view man's position in nature at all.  There is a false perception that evolution is ongoing progress towards perfection, hence the often misused analogy of the ladder or line with man at the top.  However, the analogy of the tree encompasses the idea much more adequately; many branches, each in near perfect adaptation to the environment already.  Man has no special position in this model (ie. no branch has any greater significance from any other).

But the organisms which are best adapted to their environment are rewarded with longevity, those which aren't prepared face extinction. Now, there is no inherent greatness in one or the other, this only comes when put into context; for example, competition between species for food.

[The Last King of Scotland]

"The greater cannot proceed from the lesser; that's a mathematical impossibility."

Of course it could. A multitude of individuals could sprout from the union of only two people. A human being itself started as a singular cell entity.

" Any element of a set cannot be greater than the set which contains it. Should one expand this concept to its limit, then the universe as an absolute "set" cannot produce anything greater, with regard to both quantity and quality, than any of the elements which it contains (and which must necessarily be contained within it at all times, otherwise the set has been improperly defined)."

I really doubt if the universe is actually an "absolute set" because contrary to what some think, the universe doesn't operate in a vacuum nor is it in a state of stasis but is always in a state of fluctuation of change plus quantity may not mean quality or even equality of the sum of a set's parts but may prove the only the superiority of an individual component. Proof of this can be found in the death and black metal scene where surely, 90% of the practitioners churn garbage while the remaining percentage come up with the metal gold.

[Dylar]

More intelligent discussion of music and less undergrad masturbation about the nature of the universe, please.

[Christ Fucking Malarkey]

More intelligent discussion of music and less undergrad masturbation about the nature of the universe, please.

OK, let's seek out the nexus between the two subjects: the best albums of metal have expressed some aspect of potentiality--that is, the ability to generate content that provide cues for future artistis within the genre (or formulators of an entirely new genre)--whilst bands that create "dead-ends", which may appear as competent, thoughtful albums at the time, nevertheless pale in comparison. This is the difference between "Hell Awaits" and "South of Heaven". Another example of this would be Demilich's "Nespithe" vs. Emperor's "In The Nightside Eclipse". Though no band claiming to be directly-influenced by the former has emerged, or produced a worthwhile release, "Nespithe" remains a benchmark to entice intelligent, creative musicians to one-up this masterwork. Meanwhile, ITNE generated an indefinite amount of rip-off bands that capitalized on the use of cheesy synths and melodramatic riffing.

How does this relate to the previous posts? From the very origin of music, there hasn't been any significant increase in quality of the artform. Rather, that which has persisted has done so because of a trans- or supra-temporal character that nevertheless blossoms at the appropriate age, and suffuses its audience with information pertinent to their growth (or survival!).

Therefore, the best music is that which works with the most comprehensive set. In effect, it comforms most closely to some aspect of the universe (or cosmos, which might be the proper term here--there isn't really a need to isolate space from time, because the two are inseparable insofar as they are jointly embedded in the physical condition).

The best metal in subsequent years will be that which will exemplify the mathematic principles inherent in the artform. Fuck Romanticism...the fugal form of the Baroque is absolutely essential to the survival of the genre. A shift in this direction, both by the demands of the listeners as well as bands, will ultimately distinguish the transient garbage from the truly potent material. Otherwise, people will continue to seek novelty and  find merit in blithe attempts at self-expression. Nature doesn't merely consist of a radiant forest withdrawing  its thorny boughsfrom the well-wishing ambitious traveler. Nature will fuck you up and leave even the most sincere environmentalist for dead, not because it concerns itself with the morbid, but quite simply because it is governed by fixed laws. To that extent, the best of metal must convey this--and that is why black metal, brimming with suburbanites filled with a sort of refracted ressentiment, will ultimately fail to yield any worthwhile progenitors of metal to come.