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

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Transilvania

[1] 2 ... 8
Interzone / Re: Darkness
« on: April 18, 2014, 10:31:13 AM »
Polarity is the epitome of the process of life- this is the stability that grants existence as a altogether prior essential. This occurs when we avoid stacking 'good' and 'bad' on the world itself. This is "The Will to Power" and Heraclitus's notion of the world as strife.

Experience modulates us in and of itself- our interpretations remain interpretations, not the reality of those events which we instinctively adapt to merely by virtue having experienced them.

To immerse oneself in the rapids is what is 'dark'. The rapids do not fancy themselves dark.

Interzone / Re: The 'Domain' of Man
« on: April 16, 2014, 10:18:37 PM »
Anyone can tell how I feel about this thread from my posting history so I'll spare the repetition and say simply:

The "scholasticism" of art is unfortunate. While I enjoy the perspectives of others on it, nothing is more gay to me than a "black metal symposium." Could you imagine anything less black metal than a bunch of uptight dorks sitting in an air conditioned room (not even sipping brandy, fags) analyzing the Norwegian scene(because that's the only one that anyone seems to know/care about).

Ugh classical is even worse. If I see another non-german speaker use "fantastiche" to a Schubert song, I'm going to step on my own testicles.

As Goethe says, "One must BE something in order to DO something."

Unfortunately, these academics reveal exactly what they aren't... Their subject material. They just pick it apart, and enjoy it on the side. What kind of legalized dishonesty is this? Of course, I think we should welcome honest analysis- This website's existence and core beliefs/philosophies are a testament to this.

People rarely operate on a level relevant to life anymore. They just blithely dance around on a canvas- the art of a failed artist, painting poor souls meant to legitimize his failed work! This also sums up the postmodern ethos I would think.

Interzone / The 'Domain' of Man
« on: April 16, 2014, 08:50:20 PM »
There is a tendency to glorify unimportant things, else conflating the superficial aspects of a meaningful scenario with the afflatus. The domain of man is constrained to the definitions, referents, and bases for his self-sourced way of relating to life.

The problem here? The 'self-sourced' way of relating to life only developed in the aeons of history and academicization of time. To this day, the base of our thinking has been shaped according to the amount of dust accumulating on our holy books, whether they be Kant, The Bible, or otherwise.

We have accrued an exceptional amount of data- yet it testifies not to our knowledge, but our ignorance. The more relativised each successive collection of thinkers becomes, the further we drift from what made any of this possible in the first place- a connection to what made us human, and even further, animals, and even further, alive. Progress means moving away from something. Best we check what our wellspring is, before deciding to leave it.

We have walked a long road, a road which has become ever the more bright, clear, and easily traversed. Yet- this has only come at the cost of having a road to find. When you are smack dab in the middle of a cluttered undergrowth, any direction is 'the right way'.

The domain of man, has become removed from everything but itself. It is, autistic. 'Scholasticism' is not strong enough a word.


Interzone / Re: A helm unerring for the rule of life.
« on: April 16, 2014, 02:58:47 PM »
History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of men. Godzilla!

And one of the the greatest follies is that men perceive all their follies can be corrected with more of them. SUCCESS! DUNNOT GIB UP! TONY ROBBINS SAVIOUR SOUL

Interzone / Re: A helm unerring for the rule of life.
« on: April 16, 2014, 02:55:18 PM »
"The rediscovery of man's place" is how we might phrase the question today.

In the old days, there was no such question, as Crow has alluded to on another thread. They simply lived.

Because the will of the universe is unchanging, man's presumptions of progress blind him to the fact that nothing has changed, nor will ever change according to the parameters he's put up.

^This relates to what Sr. Aquiles is saying about curiosity. Since we've developed parameters for everything, that has become what is meaningful- whatever falls underneath the purview of these parameters. Curiosity is actually eternal, for it comes from something that is 'curiously' unchanging, the Rule of Life. Only modern man can admit curiosity is or can be extinguished.

Interzone / Re: A helm unerring for the rule of life.
« on: April 16, 2014, 01:57:54 PM »
Important to add is that this is pretty obvious for some... In fact, what's important is realizing how this worldview relates to the commonalities of life. This I have not discovered for myself yet.

Interzone / A helm unerring for the rule of life.
« on: April 16, 2014, 01:50:10 PM »
Or, as it was later translated "On Nature". This was the original title of Heraclitus's fragments and reflects much more deeply on the essence of what it means to live. In fact, the translational scheme from "On Nature" to "A helm unerring" is of the greatest import.

Now what does this imply? This was a guideline for those capable of living by life's own rules- without the pro/con or moral thinking that colors men of lower status (as Heraclitus might have put it). This mode of thinking is the closest to the traditional Nihilistic paradigm. If we are to live then we cannot live under any presumption. We must live in line with life.

A big portion of this is eradicating the 'telos' from your depiction of how to live. *Just* live. Otherwise, you live on a balancing scale, "Be wary of gazing into the abyss, for if you gaze too long it gazes back into you."

Having goals is different from living according to a nebulous telos you are to fulfill. By positing this telos before you have started to *live* you are already fighting a losing game. Merely by living according to the rule of life, you have fulfilled everything that needs to be fulfilled.

The point is not to conquer life, but mould yourself to the rule of the world- nay, the universe. In doing so, you have already conquered the most dangerous of all foes.

Interzone / Re: Vis Comica
« on: April 15, 2014, 08:13:22 PM »
Really a fantastic post here.

Though, this has prodded me to ask of myself a variety of questions.

Do things like 'satire' develop when a society has lost it's naivete? Is satire just sourpuss attitude (Take Juvenal for example)?

At any rate.

Though I suppose that's why one sees children laughing the most. Not only are they the most foolish- they are often said to be the most 'radiantly' intelligent of all.

Interzone / Re: Blind Folded
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:37:19 PM »
It's impossible to have a conception of the outside before cutting the string. Being in the bottom of a hole, it might not be pretty either- but once you've climbed to the top, you can finally see the sun unmitigated.

And all around you, are the pits others have fallen into. A legion of them- and if we count those who have died without getting out, we consider those pits tombs.

This is sounding awfully like Plato's Cave allegory now I've realized- but perhaps slightly more pertinent to the specifically modern condition.

And, if looking like a fool is bad when considering your peers, how much worse can it be, for he who has crawled out of his hole, to see the living tombs of everybody else, refusing to budge out of a fear of the unknown?

Interzone / Blind Folded
« on: April 14, 2014, 01:38:04 PM »

When we’re born, we are born blind, like the kitten, yet we learn to see rather quickly. The imprint our parents produce, of course, is the first and foremost development- alongside our genetic predispositions. These conspire, work, plan, and the format for perception is thus laid out.

The problem is, in today’s world, we often grow into blindfolds. Having only ever seen what lurks on the reverse side of the fabric, we don’t know anything else but the slightly annoying tugging sensation that comes with wearing something a mask. Most people brush it off, the visual stimulus painted on the back side is too appealing, too rewarding, too gratifying.

This can go on for some time; to the extent we lose all sense of direction. Falling down is a change certainly, but the fabricated vision remains, so we walk in circles in our new lairs. We are going nowhere but further into the sight laid before our eyes- we are not even delving inward. We are delving into a surrogate reality, where the lines are blurred and nothing can matter.

What does it take- it takes a basic snip of the string to ‘free’ oneself from the pall. What is hard about this, is wielding those scissors which lie beyond the blindfold. They are an unknown existent, and do we wield them with certainty, just to cut the illusion off at the root? It’s a decision that all folk in today’s western world must make.

Interzone / Re: How to use the internet as a weapon
« on: April 13, 2014, 11:02:24 AM »
The investiture of the ego in this medium is one of the big draws for social atrophy as it makes itself a surrogate reality. People who are in need of trolling, are generally those most easily trolled. This in principle extends to a lot of other outlooks, but I cannot help shirk the feeling that most people are not really aware of the consequences that an internet life really has, and thus, as per the rule of demographics, a group of internet dwellers has quite an unintended impact...

Calculating these balances and social interactions is possible as everybody instantly becomes 'another user' and nobody else. Therefore, predicting behavior has never been easier, as long as you get the internet mentality in check.

Interzone / Re: How forums work.
« on: April 11, 2014, 03:38:59 PM »
No matter who it is, that's great philosophy. If Heidegger wrote about nothing, still it inspired others to write about things they never would have written about, but for him.
Maybe they found him dull, but his dullness caused them not to be so dull, after all.
And somewhere, off in the distance, a crow became delighted, and a Vigilance had a good laugh.
And what is philosophy, if it doesn't do that?

I've generally found that 'thorough' thinkers tend to spawn adherents in their youth who ultimately splinter and explode off of the progenitor. Same thing happened to Freud.

Too true regarding the value of philosophy.

Interzone / Re: How forums work.
« on: April 11, 2014, 03:19:23 PM »
For the record, that's Hannah Arendt, to dispel any confusion (if there was any- I can't write these sorts of things to save my life!)- the point still stands.

Interzone / Re: How forums work.
« on: April 11, 2014, 02:11:23 PM »
Heidegger deceived himself. He wanted a new language so badly, one to revolutionize the practice of philosophy, that he inscribed himself in a box of his own making. I say this without any reference to Hannah Arendt's comments on the dude either- she uses the exact same phrasing I did. Perhaps I unconsciously sourced her on this but, it stands. That being said, Heidegger's philosophy says nothing, absolutely, and is a cautionary tale in philosophical nonsense.

Heidegger says, with great pride: "People say that Heidegger is a fox." This is the true story of Heidegger the fox: Once upon a time there was a fox who was so lacking in slyness that he not only kept getting caught in traps but couldn't even tell the difference between a trap and a non-trap. This fox suffered from another failing as well. There was something wrong with his fur, so that he was completely without natural protection against the hardships of a fox's life. After he had spent his entire youth prowling around the traps of people, and now that not one intact piece of fur, so to speak, was left on him, this fox decided to withdraw from the fox world altogether and to set about making himself a burrow. In his shocking ignorance of the difference between traps, he hit on an idea completely new and unheard of among foxes: He built a trap as his burrow. He set himself inside it, passed it off as a normal burrow—not out of cunning, but because he had always thought others' traps were their burrows—and then decided to become sly in his own way and outfit for others the trap he had built himself and that suited only him. This again demonstrated great ignorance about traps: No one would go into his trap, because he was sitting inside it himself. This annoyed him. After all, everyone knows that, despite their slyness, all foxes occasionally get caught in traps. Why should a fox trap—especially one built by a fox with more experience of traps than any other—not be a match for the traps of human beings and hunters? Obviously because this trap did not reveal itself clearly enough as the trap it was! And so it occurred to our fox to decorate his trap beautifully and to hang up equivocal signs everywhere on it that quite clearly said: "Come here, everyone; this is a trap, the most beautiful trap in the world." From this point on it was clear that no fox could stray into this trap by mistake. Nevertheless, many came. For this trap was our fox's burrow, and if you wanted to visit him where he was at home, you had to step into his trap. Everyone except our fox could, of course, step out of it again. It was cut, literally, to his own measurement. But the fox who lived in the trap said proudly: "So many are visiting me in my trap that I have become the best of all foxes." And there is some truth in that, too: Nobody knows the nature of traps better than one who sits in a trap his whole life long.

Interzone / Re: The menace of intellect.
« on: April 10, 2014, 11:47:55 AM »
This reminds one of Nicholas of Cusa.

"Nicholas begins with a single trope or symbol to lay out the parallels between his teachings in the three books, that of the “maximum.” God is the absolute Maximum; the universe is a created image of God, the “contracted” or restricted maximum. Christ unites the first two as the Maximum at once absolute-and-contracted. “Contraction” is a metaphor for the finite statusstatus of creatures, all of whom are limited images of God. “Absolute” is used in its etymological sense of “free from” (ab-solutus) to characterize God's infinity. As absolute maximum God is both unlimited and transcendent, unreachable by human conceptions that measure the limited or contracted realm of moremore and less. Once Cusanus conceptualizes human knowing as measuring, he proposes that our knowledge also cannot measure exactly the essence of any limited thing. A fortiori, when it comes to the unlimited God, Nicholas asserts that “there is no proportion between finite and infinite.” The infinite God remains beyond our ken. Human efforts to understand the depth and implications of this assertion are what will render our ignorance “learn-ed.”"


[1] 2 ... 8