PDA

View Full Version : Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency



SuuT
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006, 03:42 PM
...It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...

Additions?

Moody
Sunday, January 21st, 2007, 02:10 PM
...It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact ...
... following from a biological imperative, ....
... is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...

I disagree; I think every tribe must have its god or gods if it is to survive.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
[Hamlet]

See also CG Jung's 'Wotan' essay of 1936 for the true god of the Germans.

Pervitinist
Sunday, January 21st, 2007, 02:25 PM
I disagree; I think every tribe must have its god or gods if it is to survive.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
[Hamlet]

See also CG Jung's 'Wotan' essay of 1936 for the true god of the Germans.

But is the God Wotan as a Jungian archetype not all too this-worldly?

I see a huge difference between the theologies (concepts of God) of Semitic and Indo-aryan religions. The Aryan Gods, if one accepts them as real and lives with them (I wouldn't even say: believes in them), are part of this world, not another.

Besides, as racial archetypes, the Gods are part of or in a way linked with our biological identity. They can take on different forms. They don't have to manifest themselves in the form of "religion" - which itself remains a genuinely semitic concept unless we re-define it in a radical way that allows for, e.g. accepting "atheism" (or what Christians and Muslims call "atheism") as a form of religion. Perhaps one can see the Gods as the highest – still non-transcendent – manifestation of what Suut called the "biological imperative".

Moody
Sunday, January 21st, 2007, 02:46 PM
But is the God Wotan as a Jungian archetype not all too this-worldly?

He is - but he is also invisible.


I see a huge difference between the theologies (concepts of God) of Semitic and Indo-aryan religions. The Aryan Gods, if one accepts them as real and lives with them (I wouldn't even say: believes in them), are part of this world, not another.

I agree that there is a differing Semitic/Aryan conception, although I would see this difference as being more in terms of morality.

Also, I would say that the Wotanish archetypes exist on another plane to mortals, too. That is not to say that they don't visit our own plane.
But they are immortals [unlike us].
If they weren't, then we couldn't refer to them as gods.


Besides, as racial archetypes, the Gods are part of or in a way linked with our biological identity.

Of course - but that goes for the God of the Jews too.
That's why a tribe needs its gods, to represent its racial identity on a metaphysical plane.
Wotan does this for the Teutonic peoples.


They can take on different forms. They don't have to manifest themselves in the form of "religion" - which itself remains a genuinely semitic concept unless we re-define it in a radical way that allows for, e.g. accepting "atheism" (or what Christians and Muslims call "atheism") as a form of religion.

That may be a paradox too far, as a rejection of the gods [whih is what a-theism means] would ean a rejection of the Aesir and the Vanir.
You define them out of existence.


Perhaps one can see the Gods as the highest – still non-transcendent – manifestation of what Suut called the "biological imperative".

But is Wotan "non-transcendent"?
If so, how?

Pervitinist
Sunday, January 21st, 2007, 03:24 PM
He is - but he is also invisible.

But many things are invisible and still part of this world like atoms, molecules, abstract concepts, ideas (even nations and peoples are invisible entities). They transcend the realm of the senses, but not necessarily the world as a whole.


I agree that there is a differing Semitic/Aryan conception, although I would see this difference as being more in terms of morality.

I think both differences are very real. Moreover, I think that the different moralities are rooted in more fundamental metaphysical/theological differences, i.e. different concepts of what God/the Divine consists in.


Also, I would say that the Wotanish archetypes exist on another plane to mortals, too. That is not to say that they don't visit our own plane.

The question is: another plane of what? Are such "planes" worlds apart or are they part of a greater whole? At least, it seems, they are both in being.


But they are immortals [unlike us].
If they weren't, then we couldn't refer to them as gods.

At least they are immortal relative to us. But all Indo-Aryan religions include theogonies - i.e. mythological accounts of how the Gods came into being. So they are not 'pre-eternal'. Germanic mythology furthermore includes an account of how they will one day pass out of being again. So they are not even 'post-eternal'. Therefore their immortality is not absolute. They can be seen as 'higher beings' but not as above being itself.

In Homer's Iliad, e.g. there are scenes where the Gods are wounded by human weapons, and there is even a description of their blood. This has to be seen symbolically of course, and their wounds instantly heal, but still it shows how the Gods - even as immortals - are part of this world of becoming and passing away and how they are affected by inner-wordly events.


Of course - but that goes for the God of the Jews too.
That's why a tribe needs its gods, to represent its racial identity on a metaphysical plane.
Wotan does this for the Teutonic peoples.

Here I agree with you. The original form of Jewish spirituality may have been very similar to that of Indo-Aryan religion (or, in fact, directly borrowed from it). But the Jews twisted it and turned it into an absolute Monotheism.


That may be a paradox too far, as a rejection of the gods [whih is what a-theism means] would ean a rejection of the Aesir and the Vanir.
You define them out of existence.

Not exactly what I meant. I mean we should return to the old (Hellenic) meaning of "a-theism" as not accepting the Gods (in the plural) as real as entities that are part of this world. According to this concepts, all adherents of Semitic religions would have to be classified as Atheists - not by being "unbelievers" however, but by virtue of their twisted – transcendentalist – faith.


But is Wotan "non-transcendent"?
If so, how?

I think so. I think he, like the other Gods, is not transcendent to being and to the world. He is immanent in a sense similar to the world-immanence of individual human minds as something that is to be described in an immaterial way as something "invisible", yet not removed from the world of visible things and in some ways affected by them.

Boche
Sunday, January 21st, 2007, 03:56 PM
This is wrong. Wotan and all the other "Asen" (speaking of paganism now) were humanoid. Not invisible. They were actually lifeforms, just with other abilities which were not usual for a human.
Going after the old scriptures they were just some sort of "Übermensch" actually.
The word "God" had another meaning. Not what we know nowadays under the word "God".
A "God" wasn't invisible back then, just a superior humanoid (what that could have been, an anciet race or whatever i can't get further into).

This Neo-Paganism and Neo-Heathenism are the people who christianize our ancient religion with saying that Thor and Odin are somewhere, invisible and never walked on earth.
Also one reason why i distance myself from neo-heathenistic organisations.

The "Gods" existed to teach us what is right and what is wrong, and how to advance ourselves and our spirits.



Gruß,
Boche

SuuT
Sunday, January 21st, 2007, 06:54 PM
...It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...

Additions?

I.) The milieu of any desire to radically change the socio-cultural milieu in which it finds itself, must - as history has shown - utilise said socio-cultural milieu, and the dynamics thereof, to energise the milieu of the desire for radical change.

To simplify: practical and pragmatic concerns are the politics of the day: the Aristotelian "Science of the Good" is mumified - at least right now. What denotes a "practical and pragmatic concern" resides in any manner of every-dayness. That our (e.g. Racialists/Racists) every-dayness differs from that of the every-dayness of the majority presents itself (is true prima facie). With such a quantity of individuals arrayed against a deviant world view such as Racialism/Racism, some political means are necessary to bring to the attention of members within the non-deviant group's attention, our desires - and, why we desire them.

To this end, we swallow the bitter pill of Modern politics, and take from the majority a recognisable socio-cultural scaffold - something to which our words and ideas can adhere, our standard, and superimpose our generalised credo upon the familiarity of anything that has had the advantage of being both recent, as well as aged sufficiently to have imprinted itslef upon a mass (e.g. the 'Decalaration of Independence').

The document that I chose for experimental purposes to these ends stands to reason as the most effective, and affective, generailsation of a peoples credo that is both recent, and sufficiently aged, to introduce to a wider audience principles to which they may very well find themselves simply waiting for (leadership), or put to - and in - a voice that strikes a chord of familiarity in their being.


II.) 'God' (or, and rather, the god 'concept') while must needs addressed, must also take into consideration the hřjde, styrke, rang, pinta, taso, stig, stađa, nivĺ, hřyde, stilling, das Niveau of the concept, itself, which - in the now - differs across Germania.

We address, as is appropriate, this issue in terms of faith, therefore.

Our rubric must be general. It must be accessible as a means of change.

It must address the realities of - if things stay their course - foreseeable extinction. I.e. Biological imperative (whether we inherit the whole of what we are in this way, or no).


It must be down to this Earth - in a necessarily banal way.

Moody
Monday, January 22nd, 2007, 02:45 PM
But many things are invisible and still part of this world like atoms, molecules, abstract concepts, ideas (even nations and peoples are invisible entities). They transcend the realm of the senses, but not necessarily the world as a whole.

I wouldn't lump all those things together:

'Nations' and 'peoples' are collective terms referring to multiple physical entities, which are grouped in a certain way.

A nominalist will say that the universal term 'nation' does not exist in and of itself, but rather denotes an entity in a short-hand way.
It is easier to say the 'British nation', rather than say 'the six million people living in Britain who have British citizenship'.

To Aristotle, such universals cannot exist apart from the entities which instantiate them.

However, Plato did believe that such universals were separate, existent and invisible.

He called them Forms [from eidos, and sometimes called Ideas] and believed that there was a realm of such Forms which were perfect and were only graspable via pure reasoning - the things of this earth only imperfectly 'partake' of the Forms.

So, all the nations on earth would be mere imperfect copies of one Form of The Nation, which is perfect.

So the Platonic position would be that the Gods existed in an invisible realm of perfect Forms. A realm which is out there despite us, and can only be contacted by a few special beings [such as philosophers].

'Atoms' and 'molecules' do refer to things which can be seen by the eye, even if it may need the aid of a microscope, so they are not invisible per se.
Invisibility is not down to the limitations of the human eye - invisibility is down to an absolute non-physicality.

Therefore, the gods inhabit that Platonic realm of Forms, and they may 'visit' this earth via the invocations of gifted and courageous men.


I think that the different moralities are rooted in more fundamental metaphysical/theological differences, i.e. different concepts of what God/the Divine consists in.

Such as?


The question is: another plane of what? Are such "planes" worlds apart or are they part of a greater whole? At least, it seems, they are both in being.

'Plane' is something like a modern word for the 'Forms', I suspect.
Mankind has long suspected that existence happens on may different planes, and the plane that we know [Suut's "this-wordly" plane] is just one of them.
The other planes may be only invisible due to the limitations of human consciousness, or else they may be actually invisible and have no physical presence.

Be-ing itself may partake of an infinite and asymmetrical multiplicity rather than a finite whole. There may be invisible planes which intersect with our earthly one and only be picked up on by 'sensitives' etc.,
Or else there may have been a past and lost civilisation which was able to contact such invisible realms in the past, an ability now lost [Atlantis etc.,]


At least they are immortal relative to us.

Again, as with invisibility, this needn't be judged against human limitations.
We call ourselves 'mortals' and 'human' because we know that Death awaits us all. It is the bare fact that confronts every man - as Montaigne said, 'to philosophise is to learn how to die'.

And this is how we differ from the gods [and it is how the gods differ from the demi-gods].

So I would say that immortality means just that: the gods do not face mortality [death] and neither do they face decay [dying is a part of death].

The tales which describe the gods losing their immortality [such as the Golden Apples of Idunn etc.,] are catastrophic, and unusually depict them as aging, and becoming mortal.
The death of the gods is nihilism in its purest form.
Therefore the immortality of the gods must be absolute for it to be really divine.

And how else could Wotan await his return, as Jung describes it, if He were not immortal?

And then Nietzsche proclaimed that the Christian God had died - but he had rather died in the minds and hearts of men.

The Form 'God' is immortal - and invisible.


But all Indo-Aryan religions include theogonies - i.e. mythological accounts of how the Gods came into being. So they are not 'pre-eternal'. Germanic mythology furthermore includes an account of how they will one day pass out of being again. So they are not even 'post-eternal'. Therefore their immortality is not absolute. They can be seen as 'higher beings' but not as above being itself.

I disagree; you are referring here to the endless cycles [cf., the Eternal Return]. Aryanism does not follow the linear, historicist view, but rather posits endless cycles on the tripartite model of [pre-birth], birth, life, death [after-death].
The Ragnarok clearly describes how the twilight of the gods will be followed by a New Order [and so on ad infinitum].

Also, there is never a complete 'nothingness' - there is always at least some 'mist' between cycles or recurrence [see Nietzsche's philosophical treatment of this in his 'Eternal recurrence of the Same'].

As Nietzsche's Zarathustra says - 'I love you, Eternity'.

I believe that Eternity is an important aspect of the Aryan religiosity, an aspect that atheism seems to reject.


In Homer's Iliad, e.g. there are scenes where the Gods are wounded by human weapons, and there is even a description of their blood. This has to be seen symbolically of course, and their wounds instantly heal, but still it shows how the Gods - even as immortals - are part of this world of becoming and passing away and how they are affected by inner-wordly events.

You say "becoming and passing away", but leave out the important rejoinder; "passing way to new becoming". This is the Heraclitean flux, and the tripartite mystical system of Guido von List.


The original form of Jewish spirituality may have been very similar to that of Indo-Aryan religion (or, in fact, directly borrowed from it). But the Jews twisted it and turned it into an absolute Monotheism.

Well I would say that every people worth its salt has its own gods.
It is when a people worships alien gods that we may be looking at a problematic.
But can we say that 'Monotheism' was necessaily a "twisting"? Perhaps 'monotheism' was a particularate Aryan aberation which was latched onto by the Jews, or else an extrapolation from a form of Henotheism?

Absolute Monotheism is certainly antithetical to the Aryan way - but Henotheism isn't.
See how Norsemen took one god in particular to heart, for example.
Indeed, this tendency may have helped to usher in Christianity.


I mean we should return to the old (Hellenic) meaning of "a-theism" as not accepting the Gods as real as entities that are part of this world. According to this concepts, all adherents of Semitic religions would have to be classified as Atheists - not by being "unbelievers" however, but by virtue of their twisted – transcendentalist – faith.

But you need to explain what you mean by the seeming paradox of a non-transcendental god [and I would say that transcendentalism is more Aryan than Semitic].
Do you mean a 'god' like Jesus who came among us as a man and was punished and executed like a man - bleeding and dying like a common criminal?


I think Wotan, like the other Gods, is not transcendent to being and to the world. He is immanent in a sense similar to the world-immanence of individual human minds as something that is to be described in an immaterial way as something "invisible", yet not removed from the world of visible things and in some ways affected by them.

Yes - He is immanent, but also transecendent; in order to be a god He must have transcendent qualities .
Do you deny that Wotan is able to transcend Time & Space?



Wotan and all the other "Asen" (speaking of paganism now) were humanoid. Not invisible. They were actually lifeforms, just with other abilities which were not usual for a human.
Going after the old scriptures they were just some sort of "Übermensch" actually.
The word "God" had another meaning. Not what we know nowadays under the word "God".
A "God" wasn't invisible back then, just a superior humanoid (what that could have been, an ancient race or whatever I can't get further into).

I don't see why there should be such an either/or.
Sure, the gods are depicted as taking on human form and of sometimes having human-all-too-human traits. But they also have, not only superhuman, but [i]trans-human qualities: such as their immortality, their ability to shape-chage and to generally transcend Time and Space.

That there was a belief in the After-Life is indicated by the strong mythos of the Valkyries and Valhalla. The transcendent aspect is illustrated by well-known concepts like the rainbow-bridge etc., i.e., there was a belief in other worlds - at least 9 of them! - which all existed on different planes.

"This world", this middle-earth, was only one of them.

And the Viking sutte funerals in which the soul of the dead man was thought to go up in the smoke to join the gods suggest that a world of invisible spirit was accepted - likewise the belief in a parallel faery world of sprites, elfs etc.,


This Neo-Paganism and Neo-Heathenism are the people who christianize our ancient religion with saying that Thor and Odin are somewhere, invisible and never walked on earth.

This is illogical - it is Christianity that says that God walked the earth as a man ; it is Christianity that takes an historical form and teaches a 'realist' relgion.
Snorri's view [in the Elder Edda] that Odin was a real man [[i]euhermerism] must be seen in the context of Snorri himself being a Christian.
I am not denying that Odin, Thor, Balder etc., may have walked the earth - nor am I denying that they visited the earth as the myths tell us. However, I believe also that they are gods - able to exist on invisible planes, beyond Time and Space.
This transcendental view is Aryan and far pre-dates Christianity - just as the Vedas pre-date Judaism.

SuuT
Monday, January 22nd, 2007, 10:12 PM
First off, I am no atheist (as is known); I am, however, an agnostic - as are all thinking peoples. One thing I am with no reservations whatsoever, is an Infidel.

Agnosticism requires a single doubt, however minute, about the existence of an argument that proves the existence of (G)od, or any other god (who is not an agnostic...?). An agnostic insists that it is impossible to prove that there is no God and impossible to prove that there is one. He insists as such as it is a manifest truth. Not necessarily because he is an Atheist (from the Greek άθεος [without a god/godless] - not "rejection" of a/the god(s), as you have said in this thread), but because it is an issue of faith in the immaterial (if one is a divine immaterialist); or, an issue of faith in the material (in the cases in which divine transcendency/transmogrification is the result of superior human beings are made all the more so via legend, fame, and time).


Are you not an agnostic, Moody?



Originally Posted by Suut http://forums.skadi.net/images/asgard/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=445918#post445918)
...It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact ...
... following from a biological imperative, ....
... is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...



I disagree; I think every tribe must have its god or gods if it is to survive.

As you have cherry-picked this, I disagree too! However, I can think of no way to legislate a peoples god or gods. Any such documents that will in the future address our standard must deal with these two most basic items, detailed already:

I.) The milieu of any desire to radically change the socio-cultural milieu in which it finds itself, must - as history has shown - utilise said socio-cultural milieu, and the dynamics thereof, to energise the milieu of the desire for radical change.

II.) 'God' (or, and rather, the god 'concept') while must needs addressed, must also take into consideration the hřjde, styrke, rang, pinta, taso, stig, stađa, nivĺ, hřyde, stilling, das Niveau of the concept, itself, which - in the now - differs across Germania.

Based on your posts that resonably enter the orbit of this matter, one would be forced to assume that you would argue in favour of a Theocracy.

If so - you're dead already: I wouldn't hold your breath in expectation of agreeable parties.



There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
[Hamlet]

"To be or not to be, - that is the question -
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"
Hamlet (III, i, 56-61)

Moody
Thursday, January 25th, 2007, 01:34 PM
Agnosticism requires a single doubt, however minute, about the existence of an argument that proves the existence of (G)od, or any other god (who is not an agnostic...?)
.....Are you not an agnostic, Moody?

One can be a believer and an agnostic - indeed, I think it is near impossible to be only one or the other.

If we had total doubt then, as Blake said, "if the sun and moon would doubt, they would quickly go out."

We must have some belief, otherwise we would not be able to go on.
After all, who is to say that the sun [i]will come up tomorrow?

Shouldn't you doubt that too?

And who is to say that your next heart-beat will not be your last?

Doubt that too!

We believe in so many things that we really could doubt, but we don't - either because they are automatic and unthought, or are just habit.

As Hume pointed out, we assume cause and effect in so many siutations where that assumption is not prooved.

In other words, we believe in far more than we doubt.

No man - not even Descartes - can follow the maxim de omnibus dubitandum, no matter how pious he is in his avowed scepticism.

So let us not doubt the gods - lest they 'go out'.


Based on your posts that resonably enter the orbit of this matter, one would be forced to assume that you would argue in favour of a Theocracy. If so - you're dead already: I wouldn't hold your breath in expectation of agreeable parties.

But the gods do rule ... the cosmos.

The mistake is in making the priests into rulers here on earth.

No, the warriors should rule on earth - that is the way the gods prefer it.

Pervitinist
Thursday, January 25th, 2007, 07:53 PM
I wouldn't lump all those things together:

'Nations' and 'peoples' are collective terms referring to multiple physical entities, which are grouped in a certain way.

Not merely I think. A nation or people is not just a collection of physical bodies but also an entity created, defined and held together by a collective intention (like Rousseau explains in his theory of the volonté générale). This intention is, traditionally speaking, not part of the physical world (of cause and effect) but belongs to the world of reasons.


A nominalist will say that the universal term 'nation' does not exist in and of itself, but rather denotes an entity in a short-hand way.
It is easier to say the 'British nation', rather than say 'the six million people living in Britain who have British citizenship'.

That's why extreme Nominalism is inconsistent IMO (just like extreme 'Realism'). "Britain" refers not only to all individuals with British citizenship taken in a mereological manner, but also to the separate entity 'Britain' defined by the will and objective national interests of the British taken as a collective. Now if you're e.g. an anti-British English Nationalist you can claim that the entity 'Britain' is merely fictional or inexistent. But this would only mean that the reference to 'Britain' is (allegedly) empty, not that "Britain" doesn't refer to 'Britain' and only to individual Britons.


To Aristotle, such universals cannot exist apart from the entities which instantiate them.

I don't think that this is completely wrong. But Aristotle's theory has its own tricky aspects.


However, Plato did believe that such universals were separate, existent and invisible.

He called them Forms [from eidos, and sometimes called Ideas] and believed that there was a realm of such Forms which were perfect and were only graspable via pure reasoning - the things of this earth only imperfectly 'partake' of the Forms.

So, all the nations on earth would be mere imperfect copies of one Form of The Nation, which is perfect.

Yes, so far you're probably right about the Platonic position (which I don't support btw). But I have my problems with the following statement:


So the Platonic position would be that the Gods existed in an invisible realm of perfect Forms. A realm which is out there despite us, and can only be contacted by a few special beings [such as philosophers].
[...]
Therefore, the gods inhabit that Platonic realm of Forms, and they may 'visit' this earth via the invocations of gifted and courageous men.

Their existing in the realm of forms/ideas doesn't make the Gods special in the Platonic sense, since according to Plato, everything exists in the dual form of idea (form/archetype/ ...) + instantiation. The Gods "out there" would be analogous to the fork "out there" or the sheep "out there". There would be immanent Gods and God-ideas just like in Plato's view there are immanent sheep and the sheep-idea. Plus, if this realm can be "contacted" (even if only by the very few), can it really be "out there" in the sense of being completely transcendent to our world? Or what does "transcendent" mean if it is linked with our "sphere" (or, as you said, plane) of this-worldly immanence?


'Atoms' and 'molecules' do refer to things which can be seen by the eye, even if it may need the aid of a microscope, so they are not invisible per se.
Invisibility is not down to the limitations of the human eye - invisibility is down to an absolute non-physicality.

I agree that non-physicality is a better term than invisibility in this respect. But I was referring to atoms and molecules as entities that are postulated within models of scientific explanation. Taken in this sense, they are neither visible nor physical but conceptual. What kinds of entities the Gods are is a difficult question (and one that I'm not yet able to answer). It seems clear that for those who worship them, they are not merely conceptual. They are (if we affirm their existence) not things like sheep (Aristotelian substances/natural kinds), forks (artefacts) or molecules (theoretical entities), but kinds of things they are I don't really know.


Such as?

Answering this question would probably transcend the present discussion. My point was that moral notions presuppose certain metaphysical or cosmological notions. Perhaps we can discuss this some other time.


'Plane' is something like a modern word for the 'Forms', I suspect.
Mankind has long suspected that existence happens on may different planes, and the plane that we know [Suut's "this-wordly" plane] is just one of them.
The other planes may be only invisible due to the limitations of human consciousness, or else they may be actually invisible and have no physical presence.

There is a problem here: If other planes constitute "other worlds" (like suggested in the term "other-worldly"), they are not part of our world. But then, how can we get in contact with them? In order to imagine this we must suppose a "super"-world that contains our world and these "other" worlds. But then they are not transcendent but parts of the (assumed) super-world. On the other hand, if we take them as transcendent, there is no way how they could get in contact with us or vice versa. Between our world and a truly transcendent "other" world there can be no contact whatsoever. So the Gods, if they merely exist in such an "other-worldly" world are irrelevant (and their worship consequently an act of foolishness or hypocrisy).


Be-ing itself may partake of an infinite and asymmetrical multiplicity rather than a finite whole. There may be invisible planes which intersect with our earthly one and only be picked up on by 'sensitives' etc.,
Or else there may have been a past and lost civilisation which was able to contact such invisible realms in the past, an ability now lost [Atlantis etc.,]

I wouldn't exclude the possibility of this however doubtful it may be. But the philosophical question is still: Do these facets/planes of Being constitute separate worlds or are they (even the most loftily transcendent ones) parts or extensions of our world (in a Heideggerian sense: are they not all linked to the fundamental level of our - immanent, down-to-earth - Dasein?)


Again, as with invisibility, this needn't be judged against human limitations.
We call ourselves 'mortals' and 'human' because we know that Death awaits us all. It is the bare fact that confronts every man - as Montaigne said, 'to philosophise is to learn how to die'.

And this is how we differ from the gods [and it is how the gods differ from the demi-gods].

So I would say that immortality means just that: the gods do not face mortality [death] and neither do they face decay [dying is a part of death].

This largely depends on how one understands "mortality" and "immortality". That the Gods don't face death is not completely true when you look at myths like Ragnarök where Gods are actually killed. They will be resurrected afterwards, but so will the rest of the world. Does the immortality of the Gods really go beyond the immortality of a world that is destroyed and "resurrected" in infinite cycles of existence? I think the notion of immortality in the Paganistic (again, not Christian-Eschatological) sense is deeply rooted in such a cyclical world-view where basically everything - the Kosmos as a whole - is eternal. We can also imagine this of ourselves like e.g. in the Nietzschean thought experiment of eternal recurrence. If the world is eternal, immortality is a property of every part of the world - from an individual wave in the ocean or a grain of sand to a God.

So I would see the immortality of the Gods as a relative term. They are immortal relative to short-lived humans. They stand above us in the hierarchy of Being. But relative to a cycle in the infinite series of eternal recurrences (which may be 1 Septillion or whatever years long), even they are "mortal".


The tales which describe the gods losing their immortality [such as the Golden Apples of Idunn etc.,] are catastrophic, and unusually depict them as aging, and becoming mortal.
The death of the gods is nihilism in its purest form.
Therefore the immortality of the gods must be absolute for it to be really divine.

It is not nihilistic if no death is absolute and everything returns in infinite cycles. Like everything dies, the Gods also die. And like everything is recreated, so are they.


And how else could Wotan await his return, as Jung describes it, if He were not immortal?

In the Jungian sense, Wotan - as Wotan - emerged at some point of human history (probably with the emergence of the Germanic tribes). In this sense he can be seen as some sort of tribal deity that exists as long as his tribe exists. When the Germanic tribes and what became of them will one day cease to exist as distinguishable entities, Wotan will also be no longer there (will have "died" so to speak). His memory will be erased and other Gods (like those of other tribes - the Jewish "Jahweh" or the Arab tribal God "Allah") will take his place. Wotan as an archetype is dependent on the continuity of the Germanic bloodline and ethnical identity.


And then Nietzsche proclaimed that the Christian God had died - but he had rather died in the minds and hearts of men.

The Form 'God' is immortal - and invisible.

Actually, Christians themselves claim that their God has died (on Good Friday) - and was resurrected three days later. There is a protestant Church song quoted first by Hegel that contains the line "Oh große Not, Gott selbst ist tot" to which Nietzsche's statement probably also refers. Nietzsche's "little extra" was that the Christian God simply died without being resurrected and the neglect of this basic truth is the root of all post-Christian Nihilism with its consequent twisting of morals in favor of the "other world". Christianity is a cult of death based on the historical lie that the death of the man Jesus was the beginning of a "higher", "more sublime" form of life. I fear that a similar Nihilism is present in the notion of "absolute immortality" and of a timeless sphere of immortal forms.


I disagree; you are referring here to the endless cycles [cf., the Eternal Return]. Aryanism does not follow the linear, historicist view, but rather posits endless cycles on the tripartite model of [pre-birth], birth, life, death [after-death].
The Ragnarok clearly describes how the twilight of the gods will be followed by a New Order [and so on ad infinitum].

Also, there is never a complete 'nothingness' - there is always at least some 'mist' between cycles or recurrence [see Nietzsche's philosophical treatment of this in his 'Eternal recurrence of the Same'].

But that's exactly what I meant. Maybe we misunderstand each other about our very misunderstanding? ;)


As Nietzsche's Zarathustra says - 'I love you, Eternity'.

I believe that Eternity is an important aspect of the Aryan religiosity, an aspect that atheism seems to reject.

Yes, I also think that a different conception of Eternity is the most crucial point of departure of a Pagan/Aryan cosmology from the Christian (similarly Jewish and Islamic) worldview. When you look at how e.g. medieval Christian and Islamic theology tried to accomodate the Aristotelian notion of the world's eternal existence, it becomes clear that the reason for this is a different view of divine transcendence. The "jealous" Monotheistic / Abrahamite God cannot accept a second thing next to himself. So he is the only genuinely eternal being while the world and everything else must be imagined as having an (absolute) end. In the Aryan sense, the world and the Gods are both - paradoxically - eternal and finite. They are finite relative to a single cycle in the series of eternal recurrences, and they are eternal relative to the whole series through being destroyed and reborn infinite times.


You say "becoming and passing away", but leave out the important rejoinder; "passing way to new becoming". This is the Heraclitean flux, and the tripartite mystical system of Guido von List.

I didn't exclude this at all. My point was merely that the Gods are not simply immortal without having to pass through such a phase of (mutual) destruction.


Well I would say that every people worth its salt has its own gods.
It is when a people worships alien gods that we may be looking at a problematic.
But can we say that 'Monotheism' was necessaily a "twisting"? Perhaps 'monotheism' was a particularate Aryan aberation which was latched onto by the Jews, or else an extrapolation from a form of Henotheism?

Absolute Monotheism is certainly antithetical to the Aryan way - but Henotheism isn't.

Well, I think that all kinds of absolute Monotheism are forms of Nihilism. Henotheism, on the other hand, is something very different from that.


See how Norsemen took one god in particular to heart, for example.
Indeed, this tendency may have helped to usher in Christianity.

This was very unfortunate indeed, since the Christians managed to sell their nihilistic cult as something else. It took several centuries until, in the Renaissance, Europeans noticed that they were cheated. It is up to us to finish this re-birth of the old world, the ancient Gods and maybe also the Pan-Theistic notion of "Deus sive natura", like the Jewish (or no-longer-Jewish?) philosopher Spinoza said.


But you need to explain what you mean by the seeming paradox of a non-transcendental god [and I would say that transcendentalism is more Aryan than Semitic].
Do you mean a 'god' like Jesus who came among us as a man and was punished and executed like a man - bleeding and dying like a common criminal?

The concept of a God that is not transcendental in the absolute, Monotheistic sense can have several facets. One is the "pantheistic" notion that the Divine essentially manifests itself in nature, and that nature herself is not only, as Heraclitus said, "full of Gods", but divine per se. Another is that Gods can really be seen as deified humans, not completely unlike the myth of Jesus, if it is understood correctly and in an anti-Christian way. The motif of Odin hanging on the tree and receiving the wisdom of the runes can be seen as either allegorical "hanging" on the World Tree or realistic as the hanging of a real (exceptional) man on a real tree. I'd say that neither alternative should be excluded. The mythological image may point to a deeper allegorical truth about nature or to actual historical events. The first is a cosmological, the second a "magic[k]al" interpretation. Both is possible in a broader sense and we simply can't deny any of them categorically. But what is important for the question is that neither interpretation forces us to posit a God that is absolutely transcendent to our world. The same goes for seeing the Gods as powers within nature or supernatural powers acting on nature. If they are to be present in our world, they stand above us as higher beings, but they are not absolutely transcendent. I see no contradiction in that.


Yes - He is immanent, but also transecendent; in order to be a god He must have transcendent qualities [ie., be outside of Time and Space].
Do you deny that Wotan is able to transcend Time & Space?

I think this question of time-/space-transcendence is more complicated than it may seem on first sight, insofar as "time" and "space" are also not simply givens. If time and space are conceived as finite like in the Christian cosmology where the world had an absolute beginning (creation) and comes to an absolute end at some point, it's only natural to suppose a transcendental "beyond", "divine sphere" or "heavenly kingdom". If, on the other hand, time and space are themselves eternal (the ancient conception of aion), it would be more coherent to say that the Gods are in some way part of this eternity and of the infinitity of processes that constitute it. Maybe the Gods are persons or living beings of a higher ontological order than men, maybe they are the forces behind or within the cosmic processes, maybe they are just our symbols, projections and personifications of things we don't (yet?) fully comprehend. I can't say for sure. But what I can say is that I don't believe that all this was "made" by a transcendent "Creator" or that one of the Gods is such a transcendent, all-knowing, omnipotent entity. Like Heraclitus said:

"This order, the same for all things, no one of gods or men has made, but it always was, and is, and ever shall be, an ever-living fire, kindling according to fixed measure, and extinguished according to fixed measure."

Moody
Friday, January 26th, 2007, 02:32 PM
A nation or people is not just a collection of physical bodies but also an entity created, defined and held together by a collective intention (like Rousseau explains in his theory of the volonté générale). This intention is, traditionally speaking, not part of the physical world (of cause and effect) but belongs to the world of reasons.

And "the world of reasons" is, traditionally speaking, seen as a transcendent realm.
To believe that there is a particular ineffable aspect of the 'Nation' is to believe in a transcendent 'invisible'.
Is that 'Nation' more than just the sum total of 'intentions', and if so, does that Nation evaporate when the 'collective intentions' are removed?


Now if you're e.g. an anti-British English Nationalist you can claim that the entity 'Britain' is merely fictional or inexistent. But this would only mean that the reference to 'Britain' is (allegedly) empty, not that "Britain" doesn't refer to 'Britain' and only to individual Britons.

Does 'Rome' exist, now that its 'collective intentions' have been removed in that it no longer 'exists' and that there are no longer any 'Romans' in the sense of ancient Rome?
Doesn't the notion of the imperium Romanum still exist somewhere?
Somewhere it does exist, but invisible and transcendent.


Their existing in the realm of forms/ideas doesn't make the Gods special in the Platonic sense, since according to Plato, everything exists in the dual form of idea (form/archetype/ ...) + instantiation. The Gods "out there" would be analogous to the fork "out there" or the sheep "out there". There would be immanent Gods and God-ideas just like in Plato's view there are immanent sheep and the sheep-idea.

Of course, Parmenides put a similar objection to Socrates as he was formulating the Platonic Idea.
Parmenides's view was that there could only be One such Form, and Socrates was unsure about his own concept of the existence of a multiplicity of Forms, which would have to include Forms of things like muck and so forth.
However, Plato clearly posits an hierarchy to the Forms, the highest Form being that of the Good. Therefore, I would say that the gods partake of that Higher Form.


Plus, if this realm can be "contacted" (even if only by the very few), can it really be "out there" in the sense of being completely transcendent to our world? Or what does "transcendent" mean if it is linked with our "sphere" (or, as you said, plane) of this-worldly immanence?

It means that this plane is not subject to the limitations of the worldly plane. It is not subject to the limitations of time [and therefore not subject to decay], space [and therefore not bound to be in only one place at a time], and extension [and therefore not bound by physical form].

When a man can free himself from those limitations, he can thereby 'contact' that godly realm - if only everso briefly.
But then he could never survive in such a realm for long, given his own inherent limitations [this is not to say that those limitations will never be overcome - cf., the Ubermenschen].

So the godly plane is connected to other planes on a like to like basis [this is why we have an anthropomorphic view of the gods].


I agree that non-physicality is a better term than invisibility in this respect. But I was referring to atoms and molecules as entities that are postulated within models of scientific explanation. Taken in this sense, they are neither visible nor physical but conceptual. What kinds of entities the Gods are is a difficult question (and one that I'm not yet able to answer). It seems clear that for those who worship them, they are not merely conceptual. They are (if we affirm their existence) not things like sheep (Aristotelian substances/natural kinds), forks (artefacts) or molecules (theoretical entities), but kinds of things they are I don't really know.

But we can concieve of the godly; we can conceptualise it; the theory of gods is one of our oldest sciences.

I particularly enjoyed Cicero's lucubrations on the subject, which begins;

"While there are many questions in philosophy which have not yet been by any means satisfactorily cleared up, there is in particular, as you, Brutus, are well aware, much difficulty and much obscurity attaching to the inquiry with reference to the nature of the gods, an inquiry which is ennobling in the recognition which it affords of the nature of the soul ..."
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Cicero0070/NatureOfGods/0040_Bk.html[Cicero's 'On the Nature of the Gods' online]

While this question of the gods remains an aporia, surely it is eddifying to continue to pursue it?


This largely depends on how one understands "mortality" and "immortality".

The main understanding would be that of the unchanging; given its purest expression in the Parmenidan One and the Platonic Forms.
This is the most important aspect - things do not change in that realm [whereas in this-world things are continually changing].


That the Gods don't face death is not completely true when you look at myths like Ragnarök where Gods are actually killed. They will be resurrected afterwards, but so will the rest of the world. Does the immortality of the Gods really go beyond the immortality of a world that is destroyed and "resurrected" in infinite cycles of existence? I think the notion of immortality in the Paganistic (again, not Christian-Eschatological) sense is deeply rooted in such a cyclical world-view where basically everything - the Kosmos as a whole - is eternal. We can also imagine this of ourselves like e.g. in the Nietzschean thought experiment of eternal recurrence. If the world is eternal, immortality is a property of every part of the world - from an individual wave in the ocean or a grain of sand to a God.

That's a good point, although I think that the eternal recurrence of the same was more than just a "thought experiment" for Nietzsche.
Of course, 'the twilight of the gods', and Balder's 'death' at the [Loki guided] hands of his blind brother Hod, were/are catastrophic events; the ideal existence of the gods was one of unchanging vigour. However, the cyclic imperative means that even the gods will be subject to the wheels of change. However, only the gods are able to stride across the cycles, just as only gods are able to metamorphose.
Perhaps this is all related to the planes coming into contact via 'likeness', which can be either enlightening or else disastrous, depending.


So I would see the immortality of the Gods as a relative term. They are immortal relative to short-lived humans. They stand above us in the hierarchy of Being. But relative to a cycle in the infinite series of eternal recurrences (which may be 1 Septillion or whatever years long), even they are "mortal".

Interesting concept of the gods, I must say. However, if the gods span a whole cycle [something no man can live long enough to do], and the gods are reborn every cycle, then they are to all intents and purposes eternal, unlimited and immortal.


In the Jungian sense, Wotan - as Wotan - emerged at some point of human history (probably with the emergence of the Germanic tribes).

Surely he pre-existed them, as the myth of Ask and Embla implies. When was the first German, from whence did he and she emerge?
And as a shape-shifter, can we really say that Wotan ever began 'historically'?
Isn't He rather an expression of the eternally recurring cycle in all its raging vehmence?


Wotan as an archetype is dependent on the continuity of the Germanic bloodline and ethnical identity.

Or are the latter rather not dependent upon Wotan?
Is it not possible that if the Germanic bloodline should [Wotan forbid!] become extinct that Woden Wili and We will once again give form to two true trees?


Actually, Christians themselves claim that their God has died (on Good Friday) - and was resurrected three days later. There is a protestant Church song quoted first by Hegel that contains the line "Oh große Not, Gott selbst ist tot" to which Nietzsche's statement probably also refers. Nietzsche's "little extra" was that the Christian God simply died without being resurrected and the neglect of this basic truth is the root of all post-Christian Nihilism with its consequent twisting of morals in favor of the "other world".

And with the important caveat that the great reversal of Aryan morals occurred via the Christian 'slave revolt'.
However, I think our discussion is demonstrating that the kind of lines usually drawn between Christianity/Heathenism/Atheism/Agnosticism etc., are not so clear cut.


Christianity is a cult of death based on the historical lie that the death of the man Jesus was the beginning of a "higher", "more sublime" form of life. I fear that a similar Nihilism is present in the notion of "absolute immortality" and of a timeless sphere of immortal forms.

Not necessarily. First off, I have mentioned the 'slave revolt' in morality.
It is not 'morality' per se that we should reject, but Slave Morality. Aryan/Germanic Master Morality should certainly be immortalised and eternalised.
Similarly, it is not so much the 'death cult' itself that is objectionable' [the gods know that such things were prevalent amongst pagans too], but rather the meaning of the Chrtistian death-event.

The latter claimed that by dying, humanity was cleansed of 'sin'. Moreover, Christians make the claim that a mere believing in Jesus by whosoever , since that historical event, will give one a 'clean slate'.

To imbue the immortal, the eternal and the [i]divine with such moralism is the problem - not the Forms themselves.

The noble conceptions of Plato definitely place the Good at their apex, but it is the noble 'Good' of the Aryan 'Good & Bad', not the reversed 'Good' of the Slavish 'Good & Evil'.

I therefore place the Aryan Good of Master morality at the head of the Forms, and so necessarily impose such Being on Becoming.

Arrian
Friday, January 26th, 2007, 05:18 PM
"While we may believe
our world - our reality
to be that is - is but one
manifestation of the essence
Other planes lie beyond the reach
of normal sense and common roads
But they are no less real
than what we see or touch or feel
Denied by the blind church
'cause these are not the words of God
- the same God that burnt the
knowing" [Varg]


He called them Forms [from eidos, and sometimes called Ideas] and believed that there was a realm of such Forms which were perfect and were only graspable via pure reasoning - the things of this earth only imperfectly 'partake' of the Forms.

So, all the nations on earth would be mere imperfect copies of one Form of The Nation, which is perfect.

Isn't that taking an un-racialist view, or perhaps I didn't follow that well;
the white nation, black nation, brown and yellow, all correspond to One form?
Does each have its One, or do they all represent imperfect copies of the same One?

SuuT
Friday, January 26th, 2007, 06:05 PM
In numerous ways the thread is now dealing with the Philosophy of Mind in general; and Trancendental Phenomenology, in particular. It would be interesting to know how the respective participants would deal with the noesis and the noemata (Husserl) of 'transcendency'.

Specifically, the 'existence' of an object of Intention (in this instance, the gods) independent of human agency/minds.

The short of it: the gods have a necessary connection to a given set of objects in a group i.e. gods; while it may well be true that some contemplated 'plane' may exist as the substratum of differentiation between humans and they, their existence on this plane - indeed the plane itself - has a tremulous ontological status in so far as any such 'plane' is a permutation of the 'plane' in which it is contemplated. It would follow that the necessary connection of the gods to their 'plane', if their plane be dependent upon the plane in which they are contemplated, have transcendency only in as much as there are minds that permutate the connection/division between 'planes'. It would further follow that if there were no minds - there would no longer be any gods, as their essence is in Being being contemplated. Therefore, the 'trancendency' of the gods, as well as any differentiating 'plane' between humans and they, exist only in so far as the 'plane' which permutates the differentiation exists- which is either an absurdity; or, we are forced to assert our own transcendency in apprehension of the gods: we have unified the 'planes', OR, we have dispensed with the notion of Transcendency.

Carl
Friday, January 26th, 2007, 06:46 PM
The original thesis seems to be that we should be content with Nature - and not need to bring in any God(s). But who are we to make this judgement? It may seem reasonable to us - but is that good enough. Two pointers: that Heidegger said towards the end of his life:

"only a God can save us...."

----which I take to mean 'Germanic Europe' and its friends ( - but am I right about that?) But what does he mean by God? Was it just a 'popular' thing to be saying.... could he have said, in some other sense, Being rather than God - ie. a metaphysical understanding of what has perhaps always been, for Europeans, "God". Remembering that Heidegger was more than capable of reaching back into the "theological mysticism" of the mediaeval Germans of the order of Meister Eckhart and the like.

And secondly, my unease in dismissing the God concept completely. Are we really so clever to be doing such a thing - when God has always been there in some sense. Are we trying to put the Superman into the place of the old God before his time? What we? ---


To a God the Wisdom
of the wisest of men
sounds but apish......

. Heraklitus F98.

One thing I did gain from looking again at the ancient Vedic thought ( and believe me , I don't want to go there!) is that all the Gods can be seen as dwelling in nature and also in each other. ( Elsewhere I have made the observation that this is particularly true of Agni, the Fire-Priest highGod of the Gods - something which Heraklitus might have appreciated). The indwelling nature of the High God (- would not the Edda just call him 'High'?) in the natural world, which is our own ground, seems to me to underline the significance of the important comments about Henotheism. Nomatter how many Gods the people may have, the thinker sees only the High, Wotan at first perhaps - but ultimately in the form of the 'AllFather' Odinn. Where could such a god locate himself except within the natural world and so within ourselves - yes, indeed , as a biologically based Archetype yet realised only by the warm blooded in possession of that Spirit. And we might say that Odinn is in the very Wind that blows across the land - but only we of warm blood and Spirit can actually say that through our very perceptions and awareness..... that which is already within us and looking outwards upon the world.

Seekers of Wisdom first
need sound intelligence.

. Heraklitus F49.

SuuT
Friday, January 26th, 2007, 07:44 PM
The original thesis seems to be that we should be content with Nature - and not need to bring in any God(s).

The original thesis has been transformed. The thesis, now, is that a Tribe does indeed need its gods to survive; but what is the 'nature'/'essence'/'substance'/etc. of the gods of whom we speak? -in what sense are they 'extant', and why.


But who are we to make this judgement? It may seem reasonable to us - but is that good enough.

It is dependent upon what the gods are: if gods are contemplative, any essence we may assay to them could be incorrect at any given time, as contemplation supercedes the possibility of a fixed nature (Plato falls off the map at exactly this point). It is certainly feasible that certain individuals are bound to divinities in such a manner that the contemplative individual changes in tandem with the changing essence of his god/gods.

I am of the belief that this is indeed how it goes; and the resultant union issues a divinity and godhood to the contemplative individual that places him squarely in godhead.

The Earth is shaped, thereby.


Two pointers: that Heidegger said towards the end of his life:

"only a God can save us...."

Those who have unified the planes that have been mentioned: that a man can attain godhood is the en toto expression of Heideggerian Metaphysical investigation. MEN, qualified by transcendency.


...And secondly, my unease in dismissing the God concept completely. Are we really so clever to be doing such a thing - when God has always been there in some sense. Are we trying to put the Superman into the place of the old God before his time? What we?

Who wants to dismiss the god concept?

The Ubermench will show themselves in their time, as they have the patience of a god.



To a God the Wisdom
of the wisest of men
sounds but apish......

. Heraklitus F98.

Heraklitus is to be revered in his humility! Yea.


... the thinker sees only the High, Wotan at first perhaps - but ultimately in the form of the 'AllFather' Odinn. Where could such a god locate himself except within the natural world and so within ourselves - yes, indeed , as a biologically based Archetype yet realised only by the warm blooded in possession of that Spirit. And we might say that Odinn is in the very Wind that blows across the land - but only we of warm blood and Spirit can actually say that through our very perceptions and awareness..... that which is already within us and looking outwards upon the world.

There is indeed something very meta-, about the physicality, of blood.


Seekers of Wisdom first
need sound intelligence.

. Heraklitus F49.

Yes.

Moody
Saturday, January 27th, 2007, 01:45 PM
"... Other planes lie beyond the reach
of normal sense and common roads
But they are no less real
than what we see or touch or feel ..."

This is essentially a NeoPlatonic conception, like Shelley's;

The One remains, the many change and pass;
Heaven's light forever shines, Earth's shadows fly


Isn't that taking an un-racialist view ... the white nation, black nation, brown and yellow, all correspond to One form?
Does each have its One, or do they all represent imperfect copies of the same One?

In the hierarchy of Forms we would have to suppose that ultimately, nationhood corresponds to a single perfected Form of Nation.
The degree of mimesis , or rather methexis [participation], that particular nations have in relation to this ultimate Form would therefore depend on how close they were to perfection.

The Aryan 'ur-nation', before the Aryan diaspora, could be viewed as a near perfect partaking of that Form, whereas a contemporary multicultural nation [take your pick] will be a very poor imitation of that Form, and therefore much lower down the order of rank.

Likewise, we must imagine that the quality of 'race' per se must have an ultimate Form of Race.
Again, only one race will be able to approximate that perfected Form [the Greek Ideal seen in its ancient sculpture was probably an attempt to realise this perfected correspondence].

The Platonic theory of multiple Forms must be attached to an Order of Rank.


It would be interesting to know how the respective participants would deal with the [I]noesis and the noemata (Husserl) of 'transcendency'.

Derived from the Greek word noesis, meaning 'the intuited', 'perceived by the mind', 'apprehended', 'thought about'.
In Husserl's Phenomenology [which was influential on Heidegger, although he followed an ontological path], the terms are used thus;

"The noetic meaning of transcendendent objects is discoverable by reason, while the noematic meaning of immanent objects is discoverable by pure intuition. Noetic meaning is transcendent, while noematic meaning is immanent. Thus, noesis and noema correspond respectively to experience and essence."
Husserl's Ideas on a Pure Phenomenology (http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/husserl.html)


Specifically, the 'existence' of an object of Intention (in this instance, the gods) independent of human agency/minds.

Of course, the whole notion of intentionality derives from the 'Copernican Revolution' of Kantian philosophy, which has reality being a creation of our conceptual categories.
Such a view is somewhat alien to the Platonic outlook.


It would further follow that if there were no minds - there would no longer be any gods, as their essence is in Being being contemplated.

If there were no minds, then would there be any reality?
Or, more plainly, was there reality before the existence of minds?


Therefore, the 'trancendency' of the gods, as well as any differentiating 'plane' between humans and they, exist only in so far as the 'plane' which permutates the differentiation exists- which is either an absurdity; or, we are forced to assert our own transcendency in apprehension of the gods: we have unified the 'planes', OR, we have dispensed with the notion of Transcendency.

Not necessarily. The notions of transcendency include;

Whatever is beyond possible experience [as in Kant, who believed in the possibility of the synthetic a priori];

That which is perfect, incomprehensible, remote from Nature, alienated from natural man. [all various theological notions]

The view which holds that the real transcends apprehending consciousness, i.e., is directly inaccessible to it. Thought is said to be self-transcendent when held to involve essentially reference beyond itself. [all various epistemological notions]

The view that posits the transcendence of the Will over Nature. [ various ethical outlooks]
[Link: Philosophical Dictionary, 'T' (http://www.ditext.com/runes/t.html)]


Heidegger said :
"only a God can save us...."
----which I take to mean 'Germanic Europe' and its friends ( - but am I right about that?) But what does [B]he mean by God? Was it just a 'popular' thing to be saying.... could he have said, in some other sense, Being rather than God - ie. a metaphysical understanding of what has perhaps always been, for Europeans, "God". Remembering that Heidegger was more than capable of reaching back into the "theological mysticism" of the mediaeval Germans of the order of Meister Eckhart and the like.

Heidegger resisted equating 'Being' with 'God', but he also thought that the likes of Sartre were too "rash" in rushing into atheism.

Heidegger's philosophy rather creates an opening, like an ancient temple, which allows the return of the gods when they so wish.
So I think you make a valuable point.
Heidegger & Religion (http://www.webcom.com/~paf/hlinks/hreligion.html)

Carl
Saturday, January 27th, 2007, 02:48 PM
I must return to an earlier post by Pervitinist - always thoughtful and challenging. It concerns the nature of our God(s).



At least they are immortal relative to us. But all Indo-Aryan religions include theogonies - i.e. mythological accounts of how the Gods came into being. So they are not 'pre-eternal'. Germanic mythology furthermore includes an account of how they will one day pass out of being again. So they are not even 'post-eternal'. Therefore their immortality is not absolute. They can be seen as 'higher beings' but not as above being itself..

You are of course relying on the Eddas in this and the stories which we have acquired from the north. All however are beings in time. The Gods appear , in their time, after the Ice giants have brought them into existence. And in turn , these Ice giants arise from the the Primal Ice being Ymir , nourished by the primal Ice Cow. And of these? -- are they not the children of the Fire that comes upon the Ice? A frozen world, " a gaping nothing... green things nowhere". But for the Fire then , nothing but frozen nature. And nothing comes of it. But there IS Fire, the ice is melted to a sludge...giants and Gods appear according to the "scripture" and the world is brought into being through them. We too acquire breath and warmth from the mouth of the runic God , the Triple-Odinn who stalks the land.

What meaning is there in such a story? Are they all in the world as we are in the world - or do they precede the world into which we are created? There is, I feel , no easy interface between the metaphorical understanding of this story (- perhaps even seen in a theosophical perspective) and the world of everyday reason, of commonplace or even of metaphysical interpretation. The mythological truth exists in a different order to , for example , the biological grounding of any racial Archetype. But Suut has already indicated the manifest strangeness of our notion of blood (warm) as a meta-substance , having more to say to us that any medical laboratory could ever give evidence for!

And Perv. mentions then the post-eternal nature of the Gods ,and not least of Odin. And yet it is here again that we encounter one of the mysteries of time itself and an argument that Moody has formerly deployed : the eternal recurrence even of the world and the gods. Since though Odinn is "slain" by the Wolf, yet it is he as his brother who once more returns --- reading again the bloodrunes " when the earth grows green again". ( This according to the Seeress of the Voluspa, Edda 1.)

One could of course step beyond the mythology, even beyond this theology itself. But one cannot step outside of the time that returns - nor even of the Fire that burns....



I think he, like the other Gods, is not transcendent to being and to the world. He is immanent in a sense similar to the world-immanence of individual human minds as something that is to be described in an immaterial way as something "invisible", yet not removed from the world of visible things and in some ways affected by them.

..... presence and meta-presence ; he , in the warmth of the blood, that which long ago he hath breathed spirit upon....


Soul gave Odinn, sense gave Hoenir -
warmth gave Lothur -- and goodly hue.

Voluspa 18.

----------------------------------------------------------------

SuuT
Sunday, January 28th, 2007, 03:01 PM
...
Derived from the Greek word noesis, meaning 'the intuited', 'perceived by the mind', 'apprehended', 'thought about'.
In Husserl's Phenomenology [which was influential on Heidegger, although he followed an ontological path], the terms are used thus;

"The noetic meaning of transcendendent objects is discoverable by reason, while the noematic meaning of immanent objects is discoverable by pure intuition. Noetic meaning is transcendent, while noematic meaning is immanent. Thus, noesis and noema correspond respectively to experience and essence."
Husserl's Ideas on a Pure Phenomenology (http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/husserl.html)


Of course, the whole notion of intentionality derives from the 'Copernican Revolution' of Kantian philosophy, which has reality being a creation of our conceptual categories.
Such a view is somewhat alien to the Platonic outlook.


... The notions of transcendency include;

Whatever is beyond possible experience [as in Kant, who believed in the possibility of the synthetic a priori];

That which is perfect, incomprehensible, remote from Nature, alienated from natural man. [all various theological notions]

The view which holds that the real transcends apprehending consciousness, i.e., is directly inaccessible to it. Thought is said to be self-transcendent when held to involve essentially reference beyond itself. [all various epistemological notions]

The view that posits the transcendence of the Will over Nature. [ various ethical outlooks]
[Link: Philosophical Dictionary, 'T' (http://www.ditext.com/runes/t.html)]


These are advanced issues, so I'm certain this back-drop is appreciated. (However) In the argument provided, all possible permutations of "Transcendency" are accounted for: the gods have a necessary connection to a given set of objects in a group i.e. gods; while it may well be true that some contemplated 'plane' may exist as the substratum of differentiation between humans and they, their existence on this plane - indeed the plane itself - has a tremulous ontological status in so far as any such 'plane' is a permutation of the 'plane' in which it is contemplated. It would follow that the necessary connection of the gods to their 'plane', if their plane be dependent upon the plane in which they are contemplated, have transcendency only in as much as there are minds that permutate the connection/division between 'planes'. It would further follow that if there were no minds - there would no longer be any gods, as their essence is in Being being contemplated. Therefore, the 'trancendency' of the gods, as well as any differentiating 'plane' between humans and they, exist only in so far as the 'plane' which permutates the differentiation exists- which is either an absurdity; or, we are forced to assert our own transcendency in apprehension of the gods: we have unified the 'planes', OR, we have dispensed with the notion of Transcendency.

I'll elaborate:

I.)
Whatever is beyond possible experience [as in Kant, who believed in the possibility of the synthetic a priori];

- We have no way of knowing the limits of possible experience, and can therefore never be in a position to assay its beyond-ness: qualification of an unknowable entity is a double absurdity. Moreover, we are referencing a 'beyond' that is in direct connection to human agency even if it is only in so far as it is a mind which apprehends its inaccessibility. Ergo, we have unified the 'planes', OR, we have dispensed with the notion of Transcendency.

II.)
That which is perfect, incomprehensible, remote from Nature, alienated from natural man. [all various theological notions]

- that which is 'perfect' will always be dependent upon a mind making such an attribution: if it were a god making the attribution, even the god possesses is-ness, and mind therefore. That which is incomprehensible is only known by its qualification which is a linguistic fallacy - like the word "no-thing" - existing only in abstraction and, even only if to this extent, a part of Nature, and, by extention, phenomenal to the Natrual-ness of Man. Ergo, we have unified the 'planes', OR, we have dispensed with the notion of Transcendency.

III.)
The view which holds that the real transcends apprehending consciousness, i.e., is directly inaccessible to it. Thought is said to be self-transcendent when held to involve essentially reference beyond itself. [all various epistemological notions]

- And yet it requires minds to apprehend consciousness: it is rational to assume that our organs are not the work of our organs (contra idealism) in so far as human agency is bound-up in and with mind(s). Ergo, we have unified the 'planes', OR, we have dispensed with the notion of Transcendency.

IV.)
The view that posits the transcendence of the Will over Nature. [ various ethical outlooks]

- This view presupposes many things, not the least of which is that Nature can be Transcended. Moreover, if Will and Nature are understood as synonymous (the Will to Power) we have unified the 'planes', OR, we have dispensed with the notion of Transcendency.



The question is again begged: how would the respective participants deal with the noesis and the noemata of 'transcendency'.

Specifically, the 'existence' of an object of Intention (in this instance, the gods) independent of human agency/minds.

What are we talking about when we say "Gods"?


What are we talking about when we say "Transcendent"?

Moody
Sunday, January 28th, 2007, 04:07 PM
It would further follow that if there were no minds - there would no longer be any gods.

And as I have already said - if there were no minds, there would be no reality either.

Can we think of reality without minds?

Was there reality before minds?

But I have already asked this.


The main difficulty lies in the conflation of the senses with mind here.

Transcendental philosophy makes the distinction between the senses and mind.

The transcendental, or 'higher planes' are beyond the senses [this is why I referred to them as 'invisible', early on], and non-physical.
Beyond the senses, not beyond mind.

This is what 'transcendental' means in this connexion - 'transcending the senses'.

Our 'this-wordly' plane is physical and sensual [and mainly 'mindless'].

However, the 'higher planes' can be reached via mind, which partakes [even if only through a glass darkly], of the 'higher plane'.

Therefore, the 'higher plane' [of the gods] is 'Pure Mind'.

Mankind is 'touched' with the Divine in his attribute [albeit rare and only of the Few] of Mind.

The Seer, using the invisible powers of Mind can therefore intuit the higher planes.

This works on the principle, already mentioned, of like attracting like.
The higher plane of Pure Mind can be 'tuned into' by the minds of some gifted men.

In a Hegelian sense, human existence is working towards [no matter how circuitous the route] the eventual - if distant - realisation of Pure Mind [or Spirit, Geist].

SuuT
Sunday, January 28th, 2007, 04:37 PM
And as I have already said - if there were no minds, there would be no reality either.

Can we think of reality without minds?

Was there reality before minds?

But I have already asked this.


The main difficulty lies in the conflation of the senses with mind here.

Transcendental philosophy makes the distinction between the senses and mind.

The transcendental, or 'higher planes' are beyond the senses [this is why I referred to them as 'invisible', early on], and non-physical.
Beyond the senses, not beyond mind.

This is what 'transcendental' means in this connexion - 'transcending the senses'.

Our 'this-wordly' plane is physical and sensual [and mainly 'mindless'].

However, the 'higher planes' can be reached via mind, which partakes [even if only through a glass darkly], of the 'higher plane'.

Therefore, the 'higher plane' [of the gods] is 'Pure Mind'.

Mankind is 'touched' with the Divine in his attribute [albeit rare and only of the Few] of Mind.

The Seer, using the invisible powers of Mind can therefore intuit the higher planes.

This works on the principle, already mentioned, of like attracting like.
The higher plane of Pure Mind can be 'tuned into' by the minds of some gifted men.

In a Hegelian sense, human existence is working towards [no matter how circuitous the route] the eventual - if distant - realisation of Pure Mind [or Spirit, Geist].

...therefore, until 'Pure Mind' is attained - if it can be attained, to any degree, by the embodied - there can be no mind without bodies, regardless of the highness of the gifted embodied man; and Transcendental Philosophy has made erroneous disections in its birfurcation of mind and sensuality.

Boiled down, the conflation of sense and mind becomes an ontological necessity - and begs the Traditional permutations of Transcendency for Inclusion, of Blood.

The higher mine crown reaches to the Heavens, the deeper are the roots to mine Earth - I am the middle-man, yet no less Blood (Notes: April of 2001).

Moody
Sunday, January 28th, 2007, 05:12 PM
there can be no mind without bodies

That's a rather dogmatic assertion.
And can there be bodies without Mind [or Geist]?

Just as I have asked twice before;

was there reality before minds?

If there were no longer minds, would there be reality?


Transcendental Philosophy has made erroneous disections in its birfurcation of mind and sensuality.

Has not Spirit evolved, and so branched off at some point from the physical?

Or has Spirit rather not pre-existed the physical, and does it not form the background to all existence?

Is not the Universe closer to discrete Mind than it is to organic bodies?


Boiled down, the conflation of sense and mind becomes an ontological necessity - and begs the Traditional permutations of Transcendency for Inclusion, of Blood.

Is that the Form "Blood" - i.e., Blood as Spirit?

If not, then why do you capitalise it?

And you say "boiled down" - is this not an admission of reductionism?

Let's not forget that Metaphysics consists not only of ontology [of Being], but also theology [of the Gods], cosmology [of the Cosmic Mind] and psychology [of the Soul] too.

Doesn't your rejection of the transcendent and therefore of the godly demonstrate your own particular preference for the logical and the materialist?


The higher mine crown reaches to the Heavens, the deeper are the roots to mine Earth - I am the middle-man, yet no less Blood [/I](Notes: April of 2001).

And what are "the Heavens", to you?

Just a 'figure of speech'?

Can there be non-transcendent Heavens?

SuuT
Sunday, January 28th, 2007, 05:56 PM
That's a rather dogmatic assertion.

But I've not made an assertion: it is the conclusion to the procession that is occured over the thread - is it absurd? Nor is it dogmatic - I'm flexible: its just that I have every reason (transcendental, emotional, rational, logical) in this world, to believe it.


And can there be bodies without Mind [or Geist]?

Certainly: walked around England lately?;)


Just as I have asked twice before;

was there reality before minds?

If there were no longer minds, would there be reality?

I have answered thrice by implication.




Has not Spirit evolved, and so branched off at some point from the physical?

Or has Spirit rather not pre-existed the physical, and does it not form the background to all existence?

Is not the Universe closer to discrete Mind than it is to organic bodies?

I do not know. What I do know (to the extent that anything can be) is that the organicity of my body is, necessarily, the starting point of investigation - as I am me, I am easier to prove than are adjuncts to my embodiment: to invert this, is an asceticism too far (for me).




Is that the Form "Blood" - i.e., Blood as Spirit?

Blood qua Blood.


If not, then why do you capitalise it?

In my standard, Blood is absolute: It goes 'where' I go.


And you say "boiled down" - is this not an admission of reductionism?

Nope. It is the bare-bones of a complex philosophical problem that cannot be stuck into the sound-bitish nature of this medium: volumes have been filled on the matter - we can only gloss the surface, here. People will have to do their own thinking and studying.


Let's not forget that Metaphysics consists not only of ontology [of Being], but also theology [of the Gods], cosmology [of the Cosmic Mind] and psychology [of the Soul] too.

Any examination of is-ness invloves, necessarily, ontology - even when it is not called as such: this is the basis of many a thinker asserting Ontology as the Philosophical fundament.


Doesn't your rejection of the transcendent and therefore of the godly demonstrate your own particular preference for the logical and the materialist?

Moody: where have I rejected the transcendent? - or the godly? I am inquiring as to what is meant when these terms are used, and by whom.



And what are "the Heavens", to you?

A permutation of Transcendency.



Can there be non-transcendent Heavens?

Depends on what we make of the Earth, I suppose. But more importantly, how we each answer to these questions:

What are we talking about when we say "Gods"?


What are we talking about when we say "Transcendent"?

Arrian
Sunday, January 28th, 2007, 09:33 PM
In the hierarchy of Forms we would have to suppose that ultimately, nationhood corresponds to a single perfected Form of Nation.
The degree of mimesis , or rather [i]methexis [participation], that particular nations have in relation to this ultimate Form would therefore depend on how close they were to perfection.
The Aryan 'ur-nation', before the Aryan diaspora, could be viewed as a near perfect partaking of that Form, whereas a contemporary multicultural nation [take your pick] will be a very poor imitation of that Form, and therefore much lower down the order of rank.
Likewise, we must imagine that the quality of 'race' per se [beyond particular racial types] must have an ultimate Form of Race.
The Platonic theory of multiple Forms must be attached to an Order of Rank.

I get it, thanks.

The standards for measure (of perfection) - aren't these our own expressions and compulsions?
Everytime we try to surpass the previous, and the existing-so-far, everytime we try to perfect, are we really guided by intuitions of some deep memory of having seen the ultimate form? Do you believe we have seen this?

Then what really separates that Real from the copies? What does the hierarchialising revolve around? Perfection?

What does perfection mean to us?
Is it the most true, i.e. to say least destructible and hence closer to the enduring and eternal, and in that case, do we then say, the Greek nationhood was more Real than the German nationhood of the Third Reich period and that the latter was only a copy, since the former endured more (chronologically anyway)...?
Yet, if Greek thought continues into German thought (as was the case), what was more perfect, what do we call real, and what copy? Are those Germans a Greek copy?

Or is perfection meant to 'do' something else?

Moody
Monday, January 29th, 2007, 02:20 PM
What I do know (to the extent that anything can be) is that the organicity of my body is, necessarily, the starting point of investigation - as I am me, I am easier to prove than are adjuncts to my embodiment: to invert this, is an asceticism too far (for me).

It is this "me" which we precisely do not know.
This is the flaw in your Phenomenology which sought, by going back to the Cartesian cogito [your "starting point"], and to thereby supposedly 'study' a bracketed consciousness, to side-step the necessary relativism set in train by Kant.

However, not only is this "me" not "easier to prove", there is no guarantee that this "me" - even if known - would provide the necesary 'rules' which could be applied to any other me's.
'We knowers are unknown to ourselves'.
In general, Phenomenology's scientism has been found wanting, hence the steps taken by hermeneutics and by the later Heidegger.


Any examination of [I]is-ness invloves, necessarily, ontology - even when it is not called as such: this is the basis of many a thinker asserting Ontology as the Philosophical fundament.

This depends on the order and breadth of your concept of 'isness'.
Does it in-corporate Souls, Minds, and Gods?
Do these things have the kind 'being' [on] that is dealt with in your on-tology?
Again, do we want to "boil" everything "down" in the manner of a phenomenological reduction?


where have I rejected the transcendent? - or the godly? I am inquiring as to what is meant when these terms are used, and by whom.

Clearly, the thrust of your argument [as far as I can tell] has been to suggest that the transcendental plane is not logically possible and that, unless it can be so "proven", then it must be "dispensed" with.
Of course, this then makes your own references to the 'gods', 'heaven' etc., as "absurd" as that transcendental realm which you wish to dispense with, as the former are transcendental concepts.

Therefore, the onus is on those 'phenomenologists' to demonstrate a non-transcendent god or a non-transcendent heaven.

We have seen earlier attempts with euhemerism etc., - but does this really go beyond a very solid and admirable hero worship?

Clearly, for gods and planes [such as Heaven] to mean anything, they have to be transcendental.
As I have pointed out previously, the term 'transcendental' has been given a few different meanings [and even Husserl refered to his own move as the transcendental self]; but I think it is clear - from my talk of Plato etc., - what is meant by a 'transcendent' niveau in this context.


The standards for measure (of perfection) - aren't these our own expressions and compulsions?
Everytime we try to surpass the previous, and the existing-so-far, everytime we try to perfect, are we really guided by intuitions of some deep memory of having seen the ultimate form? Do you believe we have seen this?

I believe we have 'known' it, but not in the sense in how we 'know' ourselves, or in how we 'know' the world.
So yes, as you say, possibly deeper memories, deeper intuitions - perhaps!
Or perhaps such perfection is only dimly known as a kind of rumour, a whisper.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with us, just as the evolution of the eye may not have had anything to do with sight.

I believe that the "ultimate form" is 'out there' and reduces us to insignificance.

Of course, it is a Truth which we are not yet equipped to 'know', as Plato described in his parable of the Cave.
Those who do manage to 'know', and so escape from the Cave will be blinded by the light of this Sun, as their eyes have not evolved to the point of being able, unlike the eagle, to look this Sun straight in its 'eye'.
And he that escapes his shackles but remains inside to free the other prisoners will be denounced by them as a lunatic and his life snuffed-out


Then what really separates that Real from the copies? What does the hierarchialising revolve around? Perfection?

It would have to be degrees of Spirit [Geist]. In other words, the amount of Spirit compared to non-Spirit - a case of dilution or its lack.
In that sense, then, it is about Purity.
The problem is that as things near perfection they become 'invisible' to us, the distance is too great.


What does perfection mean to us?
Is it the most true, i.e. to say least destructible and hence closer to the enduring and eternal, and in that case, do we then say, the Greek nationhood was more Real than the German nationhood of the Third Reich period and that the latter was only a copy, since the former endured more (chronologically anyway)...?
Yet, if Greek thought continues into German thought (as was the case), what was more perfect, what do we call real, and what copy? Are those Germans a Greek copy?
Or is perfection meant to 'do' something else?

This ultimate perfection exerts a gravitational pull, drawing up those things which have some kinship with it [even if they only be glimmers and fragments set in impure matter], causing them to rise and fight against the odds in their attempts to attain Perfection [so gifted things have this inate will-to-perfection].
Of course, on this-worldly plane, the forces of materialism and impurity are legion and multiply like a virus.

Those beings who naturally aspire to the purity of Mind are in constant peril.

In terms of world history, I would say that the ancient Aryans [prior to their eruption] were closer to the perfected Form of Nation due in part to the relative lack of negativity around in that particular part of the cycle. Unfortunately, at each rising - with the Hellenes, and then with the Germans - the forces of the eternal enemies of the Truth have become thicker and more clotted, making each rising more difficult.
This is not to decry the inherent Spirit found amongst the Hellenes or the Germans; however, as we see now, the Age is so dark and inpure, so materialist and reductionist, that the Spiritual urge to Perfection is finding it hard to even make contact with the transcendent planes via Mind.

It may mean that a great cataclysm awaits, which will have an aftermath such as will free up Pure Minds in this worldly-realm.
This could be a war or an intervention from outside of our plane.

Perfection means, to us, Life - Eternal, Pure and Ascending.

Like the Gods.

SuuT
Monday, January 29th, 2007, 04:14 PM
It is this "me" which we precisely do not know.
This is the flaw in your Phenomenology which sought, by going back to the Cartesian cogito [your "starting point"], and to thereby supposedly 'study' a bracketed consciousness, to side-step the necessary relativism set in train by Kant.

The questioning of the Cartesian cogito has never eliminated its manifest primacy. You merely posit the antithesis of my position, by faith - which does nothing to explicate why I ought not position a subject (me/I): the position of an "I/me" occurs ipso facto even in the denial/questioning of what can be known about it. I am, by far and away, not the first to notice this. Again, and in different words: if there is no "me" (or you!) - there is nothing. You have made the implication yourself in the positio negatio of your questions: "...was there reality before minds? If there were no longer minds, would there be reality?" - and then by stating it flat-out: "And as I have already said - if there were no minds, there would be no reality either."



Positing an "I" - if it be flawed - is a flaw you and I (and everyone else) evince together, and is therefore confirmed phenomenologically - and begs examination from that point. - which rather indicates a flaw, or at the least missing pieces, of an ontology (such as yours) that presupposes Trascendency that can be known - and spoken of, therefore - without a knowing subject.

You propose to study a "consciousness/plane/Form/Transcendency" that is 'outside' of the self which ponders it ... while denying the self!!

"Carve yourself" (Nietzsche).



Clearly, the thrust of your argument [as far as I can tell] has been to suggest that the transcendental plane is not logically possible and that, unless it can be so "proven", then it must be "dispensed" with.

Then re-read: if something is not clear, you have but to say so and I will (likely) particularise.



Of course, this then makes your own references to the 'gods', 'heaven' etc., as "absurd" as that transcendental realm which you wish to dispense with, as the former are transcendental concepts.

This is getting tiresome: SHOW me where I "wish to dispense with" the 'transcendental realm'.

I have shown the necessary connection between any such realm to this. I have further shown that knowledge of any such realm is inextricably bound to this. I have further raised the issue, which has gone either misunderstood or ignored (it is a difficult matter), of whether or not Transcendency is a permutation of embodied higer minds; and further, what do we mean when we use specific terms in the context of Transcendency.

There are no concepts without minds. We can only know of embodied minds. Therefore, concepts are necessarily connected to embodiment, which in no way denies Transcendency. To the contrary - [I]it affirms what it is.


...It may mean that a great cataclysm awaits, which will have an aftermath such as will free up Pure Minds in this worldly-realm.
This could be a war or an intervention from outside of our plane.


"Beware those spouting super-terrestrial hopes! Poisoners they are! - whether they know it, or not" (Nietzsche).


Which, as it should, returns us the the Primacy of Blood.





There is something very meta-, about the physicality, of blood.

Airmanareiks
Monday, January 29th, 2007, 11:15 PM
The Gods are more then mortals. Snorri states they were men from Asia. Snorri was a Lokean Jesus lover, as were many others who goal was to diminish Aryanism so that the people would believe Jesusism.

But you are right, the Gods did incarnate in this world. Snorri was right, Odin was from "Asia" and came to Europe. God incarnated on earth and created the Aryan race, gave divine law, and the people spread across the world from the Aryan homeland. It is common for Norse to be named after a God attribute. Thus, warriors liked Thor and were named AFTER him Thorolf, etc......... From transcendent immateriality of pure Mind (Odin or God Father/Zio Pitar) to Will (Thunar) to Man (Frey/Lord/Aryaman). So you have the story of creation of the cosmos by Odin/Mind thinking and willing and procreating through integration into matter. Thus, the cosmos is moving and changing, but the underlying, transcendent, eternality, is Odin, the All Vater which is where true Aryan goes after death and feast and have all they want in Val Hall.

The mind exists without matter, but can live in it. But when the material body dies, the mind/spirit goes back to the all father. This is true when you look at near death experiences. What happens after death is your mind/spirit going through a dark tunnel to light, where a life history is performed by spirits. This is the well of Urd where the Norns judge your life. There is a crystal city of minds all thinking the same, but moving. These people live after their body dies, thus the mind transcends the body.

But is the God Wotan as a Jungian archetype not all too this-worldly?

I see a huge difference between the theologies (concepts of God) of Semitic and Indo-aryan religions. The Aryan Gods, if one accepts them as real and lives with them (I wouldn't even say: believes in them), are part of this world, not another.
".


This is a common false stereo type.

What is of this world. Jesusim has a dualism of mind and body. God is not of this world. Aryanism is monist, mind and body are one and IN this world.

For Jesusism, God is dead being God does not live. What is "God"? What can be beyond the mind and will. Only pure matter which are Jotuns. Pure matter does not exist, live, because there is no soul. So what is the God of Jesus if this God is transcendent? God is Dead, there is no being.


Aryanism believes God lives in this world but surpass this world in scope. This is Irminsul, the world pillar. Midgard is part of Irmsul, the cosmos. God, created this world out of matter and made Ymir, bringing mind/body/spirit into matter creating the first man (aryaman).

Odin means possessed. (gothic)
Odin is the All Father of all the cosmos. GOD. The Mind, Being. All Being. ALL Life, thus spirit, God is in nature. Nature is alive with spirits. Jesusism believes that this world is evil, hence God is evil, for if there is no worlds, there is no life, without life, there is nothing but death. Thus, Jesuits are atheists.

Odin is the Mind, which is Kant's Dang an Sich, transcendent, Eternal, Being, God.
Thunar is Will, which is energy, fire, which is the Cosmos.


They are not archetypes, but existential uber realities which people born from that existence have in them and connect to them through religion (rites) and thus become immortal, living with the immortal God(s).


Some Gods cannot die. Voluspa is wrong, written either by a Lokean Gythia or an outright Jesuit Gythia.

There will always be energy in the cosmos. Energy is Villi or Thunar/Thor.

There will always be the mind in the cosmos (although, some might not believe this is provable). Mind is being. As Descartes states, the only thing I can say for certain is that I think, therefore I exist. Thinking and Being are the foundation of facts. Thinking is the Mind. The mind must exist. The Mind (for Aryans) is Odin. Odin has two ravens, Huginn which means thought and another means Memory, Munin. This indicates, Past, Present of the Mind. Thus, Odin is the Universal Mind or Universal Being.

This is the view of actual Aryanists, not non Aryans who stereotype it.

The great thing about Aryanism is the pursuit of Perfection. If God is the Mind and Aryans seek the Pure Mind. How is the Pure Mind obtained.

By Eugenics. Breeding of the Brain. Here and Now, we can create the Pure Mind, thus controlling the cosmos IF your PURE MIND is superior and connected to all the other minds in the worlds.

Thus, live is about creation of Gods in God(Thunar/Energy - cosmos).
Perfecting Creation, perfecting God.


This is the religous ethic of God. The first incarnate God was Rig Heimdall, the whitest of the Ases. He breed from Apes (matter) the Aryans, procreating until his children looked like him. He was satisfied with the Nordic, which is the Pure Mind or Aryan Archetype Godman. After generations of breeding from ape to aryaman, Rig finally gave religion to his kind (runes) and taught them how to go to war (defend themselves and expand) and gave them Law (Law of Manus) so to show them how to govern/rita/rede others creating nations. Thus, From the north, flows (guth means pores forth) all nations. In essence, from Rig flows all nations. The actions of Rig is the actions of all aryans, breeding the pure godman (God) and godwomen (Godess) which are archetypes of perfection of mind/body/spirit, odin/villi/ve. Once obtained, midgard becomes asgard, the center of the cosmos, the well of urd, from which flows all IDEAS into other worlds.



.

Moody
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 05:46 PM
This is getting tiresome: SHOW me where I "wish to dispense with" the 'transcendental realm.'

Your first post in this thread states;


...It follows to say a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact ...

"This-worldly" is the antithesis of the 'transcendental realm', as the latter transcends "this world."
So your assertion, allied with its references to "verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact" is clearly speaking the language of the anti-metaphysical approach which regards 'transcendental realms' as 'meaningless'.
I am sure you are aware of the scientistic turn in philosophy, which - variously in Phenomenology and Logical Positivism [the latter with it's principle of verification] - sought to dispense with the transcendent realm(s).
The only philosophically literate inference that one can draw from your words are those that I had to draw in this discussion.

You go on to suggest that this non-transcendental approach is;


... a solution superior to reliance on ... any god, , as;


... practical and pragmatic concerns are the politics of the day ...

The reference to 'pragmatics' [the philosophical approach of Pragmatism is well known, beginning with the scientism of Pierce] is clearly another thrust in a non-transcendental direction.
As is the following;


It must be down to this Earth - in a necessarily banal way

Here we have a straightforward assertion of 'down-to-earth banality' - how could anyone reading your words draw any other inference than the non-transcendental one?

When discussing my posited transcendental plane of the gods, you say that this is;


... either an absurdity,
[on the basis of logic based arguments],

OR, we have dispensed with the notion of Transcendency

You repeat this clause over four times!

Clearly, as your very first statements assert - you advise that we do dispense with the transcendent realm.


The questioning of the Cartesian cogito has never eliminated its manifest primacy.

The emphasis placed upon it by Husserl and his Phenomenology was rejected by Heidgger [a pupil of Husserl] who rather emphasised being-in-the-world.
You have not grasped this further turn in Germanic philosophy, where the Cartesian cogito is recognised as a blind alley by Heidegger and by Hermeneutics in general.


You merely posit the antithesis of my position, by faith

No, I "merely" disagree with your positions, which are;

1) a rejection of the transcendent realm, and

2) a reliance on the Cartesian cogito.

I have given my reasons.


You have made the implication yourself in the positio negatio of your questions: "...was there reality before minds? If there were no longer minds, would there be reality?" - and then by stating it flat-out: "And as I have already said - if there were no minds, there would be no reality either."

You are making the mistake of confusing the "me" of the individual Cartesian cogito with the collective 'mind'.

I have frequently and deliberately used 'mind'/'spirit'/'Geist' interchangeably. These are not egoistic concepts.

In transcendental philosophy the Mind is not the Self - it precisely transecends the Self.

I have referred to Plato and Hegel enough times to make it clear that I [like they] do not recognise mind in this individualistic and reductionist sense.

I have said enough times that the Forms are "out there" [rather than "in me"] - that is the basic premise of transcendental [or Idealist] philosophy.


Positing an "I" - if it be flawed - is a flaw you and I (and everyone else) evince together, and is therefore confirmed phenomenologically - and begs examination from that point. - which rather indicates a flaw, or at the least missing pieces, of an ontology (such as yours) that presupposes Trascendency that can be known - and spoken of, therefore - without a knowing subject.

You said you made the "me" [or 'I'] a "starting point" - not that you merely used the term.
The transcendental philosophy does not do this; it makes the Truth which is "out there" to be the starting point; as Hegel says,;
"Reason rules the world" - and he means a Universal Reason which is 'out there.'

In transcendental philosophy we begin with the Cosmic Mind, and we desire to lose the "me".


You propose to study a "consciousness/plane/Form/Transcendency" that is 'outside' of the self which ponders it ... while denying the self!!

I do not equate the Self with the Transcendent [as Husserl tries to].

I do not deny the self as such, of course; I rather deny that the self is that which we have the most immediate knowledge of, as Descartes thought [and as you followed suit with a similar approach].

We have more immediate knowledge of the world than we do our self - being-in-the-world, remember.

We also only gain knowledge of the self by giving ourselves over to the Cosmic Mind.

This is the Perennial Philosophy [see the Huxley anthology which is linked on this forum].



There are no concepts without minds. We can only know of embodied minds. Therefore, concepts are necessarily connected to embodiment, which in no way denies Transcendency. To the contrary - [I]it affirms what it is.

No, this suggests that 'minds' create concepts of transcendence, which then do not really 'transcend' those minds in any real sense of the term : this is the position you have made again and again, and the one which I have quoted you as putting in this post and others.

However [i]my position says rather that the transcendental realm is 'out there', completely beyond the human realm - on a different plane.

It is a Transcendental Realm of Mind [which is a collective notion, not an individual one], which some men, some cultures, some races, some souls etc., are able to connect with [some can get Jungian at this point].

This is where the gods reside - this is where your "Heaven" is.


"Beware those spouting super-terrestrial hopes! Poisoners they are! - whether they know it, or not" (Nietzsche).

As Nietzsche rejects metaphysics and the transcendental realm - and you quote him here with approbation, why are you claiming that it is incorrect of me to say that the thrust of your argument is non-transcendental?



Which, as it [I]should, returns us the the Primacy of Blood.
There is something very meta-, about the physicality, of blood

Especially in the Christian mythos.

Carl
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 06:02 PM
We were again Germanic once more. What made it so? - the very essence of the Race, the ancestral history, the coming of a Godhead, the Henotheistic primacy of the mytho-historical Wodan-Odinn. We could think of him in the forests of Roman times and again into the fiords of the North. We could even find him stalking in England. But then, apart from Mythology, there was the Metaphysics : not who he was - but what? Where did he feature in the Soul-Structure? I will quote from the Swedish Theosophist Elsa-Brita Titchenell (- since Moody has earlier mentioned her strange and unique book :) ).

" The Allfather is the divine root of every being in all the worlds, the essence of all divinity in all life forms, in the smallest particle as well as in the cosmos itself". As Vast as that, the Allfather of old. She quotes from - "the primary and most comprehensive lay of the Elder Edda, Voluspa", addressed to Odin as 'divine pilgrim'. (!Odin wouldn't have bothered if he did not think it worthwhile). She also, of course, singles out Odin for the highest of divine status , ' the guiding spirit of the planet Mercury' ( again from his Roman days?) , "the inner God of every being on earth... and the divine messenger ".
She affirms that Odin as Deity exists on many levels - " a creative power in all the worlds , the Logos of Greek philosophy , the informer of the human spirit " - omnipresent, " to be found at every stage of existence, sometimes disguised, often under different names". It is not surprising then to find that his name runs all through the many chapters of the Edda...and even perhaps beyond it.

If we step back and into the clearly metaphysical, we are able to move in many directions. People have already spoken of Eternity and of the passing of Time. We can float back ,mythologically, into the earliest cosmology, into a world of Fire and Ice before ever Giants, Gods or Men were. A Primal World of Energy and Matter....perhaps then, only of Energy itself - all being Fire as Heraklitus originally surmised. Is this the God before ever the Worlds came into being? If we then come forward to the world of Man, is the God not still within - the Fire that first warmed very Existence into being? That which is Germanic is , one must assume, that which was already there at the emergence of the Kind - perhaps long ago 'in the lands of the north'. And we do know from Science that in Nature many things have come into being - and now are no longer! Yet the Old God still calls within since he is there and we are here. And what he calls speaks of the future time,that which is not yet, of the being that is not yet...and of the Becoming itself. Whither, he says ,not wither!

And then, there is the Nietzsche problem that wants to transcend it all, that wants now to be beyond all Gods -- to stop looking for them! -- to allow surely , that which has now become - to Be! Perhaps the gift of Metaphysics is indeed to ultimately transcend the old God in a way which does not deny. That which remains within but seeks upon newer ventures and to sail upon newer seas. Indeed, the ultimate transcendence, the moving onto higher forms capable both of asking the newer questions - and finding then the way to unfamiliar answers.

Moody
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007, 12:19 PM
We were again Germanic once more. What made it so? - the very essence of the Race, the ancestral history, the coming of a Godhead, the Henotheistic primacy of the mytho-historical Wodan-Odinn. We could think of him in the forests of Roman times and again into the fiords of the North. We could even find him stalking in England. But then, apart from Mythology, there was the Metaphysics : not who he was - but what? Where did he feature in the Soul-Structure?

The crux of the issue on this thread now is this: given that we accept the necessity of the gods, is it possible to talk about gods in any meaningful way while denying transcendence?
I say not - those who disagree are getting into all kinds of tangles due to the fact that gods/heavens etc., are transcendental concepts.

It is bizarre that atheists think they can continue to pay lip-service to the gods!
Let them have the courage of their atheist convictions and pronounce the gods to be dead!

Carl
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007, 05:49 PM
The key to the Prolegomena is surely :

".....to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly is a solution superior to reliance on any god..."

Does the Germanic Independence in question need a god? Are we to remain 'only' this worldly?. I suspect not but much will depend on the meaning we would give to 'god'. It is a matter of what is effectively the essence of the Germanic! It is a useful question - which is why, perhaps, it has returned - though not ,of course, how.

Moody
Thursday, February 1st, 2007, 12:26 PM
The key to the Prolegomena is surely :
".....to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly is a solution superior to reliance on any god..."

Again, I am glad that you recognise this too; this is indeed the aspect I picked out for analysis.

I made the case that this "superior solution" was by definition godless [negating even the Germanic gods] and therefore non-transcendent.

The question then became the interesting philosophical one [a metaphysical question to boot]: viz., is it possible to have non-transcendental gods and a non-transcendental heaven?


It is a matter of what is effectively the essence of the Germanic! It is a useful question - which is why, perhaps, it has returned - though not ,of course, how.

I still think that Jung's Wotan thesis has much to recommend it, as I have mentioned more than once!

You see, I find materialistic atheism to be antithetical to the essence of Wotanism.
Wotan [whether he be the Odin of the Norse or the Woden of the English, and however else he may be 'dressed up'] is the god of the Germanic peoples.

Therefore I find the so-called 'prolegomena' [a term made famous by Kant, of course] to be objectionable.
I have accordingly constructed arguments against it in this thread, using the theme of transcendence.
Link to Article on Jung's 'Wotan' (http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Analytical_psychology/jungs_shadow.htm)

Carl
Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 02:18 PM
I begin, this time, with Heraklitis - a master of brevity in this - and a truthful thinker !

Yet they lack the skill
to listen or to speak.

Fragment 6 .

.....which is perhaps why I confirmed that Suut would probably not be content with my initial summary. So I am bringing it back in a revised form to reconsider if I have not listened correctly. At first sight I concluded - my goodness! this is a philospher's work!. I may have been thinking with Nietzschean cynicism; it is a prickly hedge, full of qualifications. It even includes the invitation to add yet further qualifications. I am not surprised that there weren't any takers (?).... it is scarcely an ordinary statement intended for ordinary people! Consider it again as revised --

------------------------------------------------------------------

.......It follows to say that -

A cosmology that is this-worldly......

( i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns)

......is a solution superior to reliance on a God ( or any god )

( that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation.....)

Additions?
----------------------------------------------------------------

It can certainly be seen as an exercise rather than a statement of faith as such. To what extent the qualifications (- which I have included once more in my re-formulation) are themselves essential to the statement, is for Suut to make clear. Without them, it would no longer be the same statement - this is what I hear!

Can I assume, Suut, that you do, in fact, rely upon 'a God' --- which makes this not a belief-statement but a piece of 'philosophic' rhetoric, a thread-question which in fact lay for months in the gloom of Skadi's bowels? Clearly, a God would have about 'him' an aura of transcendence...even within his believers, his Spark ( Eckhart's funklein or scintilla animae) would retain its own divine transcendence.

And, on the otherhand, any "Cosmology that is this-worldly" would be itself necessarily rooted in the substance of this world alone - and therefore be denied any possibility of "transcendence" ? --- unless - that is - one might venture further into the new possibility that matter and substance could contain, in some way, a purely Metaphysical Transcendence arising (perhaps) from the very Mystery of Being?

SuuT
Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 03:11 PM
...
.....which is perhaps why I confirmed that Suut would probably not be content with my initial summary. So I am bringing it back in a revised form to reconsider if I have not listened correctly. At first sight I concluded - my goodness! this is a philospher's work!. I may have been thinking with Nietzschean cynicism; it is a prickly hedge, full of qualifications. It even includes the invitation to add yet further qualifications. I am not surprised that there weren't any takers (?).... it is scarcely an ordinary statement intended for ordinary people! Consider it again as revised --

------------------------------------------------------------------

.......It follows to say that -

A cosmology that is this-worldly......

( i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns)

......is a solution superior to reliance on a God ( or any god )

( that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation.....)

Additions?

Expertly done: the inquiry can, indeed, now stand alone as pure investigative material; and the questions can be asked that need to be about whether or not the substance of your deconstruction (and elucidation/clarification) is first and foremost an issue of metaphysical interdependence; or, a matter of the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, and where there is necessary cross over between these apparently antithetical things (meta-physics v. physics), if any, understood within an investigative milieu given its recent placement into the philosophy forum.


It can certainly be seen as an exercise rather than a statement of faith as such. To what extent the qualifications (- which I have included once more in my re-formulation) are themselves essential to the statement, is for Suut to make clear. Without them, it would no longer be the same statement - this is what I hear!

Spot on.


Can I assume, Suut, that you do, in fact, rely upon 'a God' --- which makes this not a belief-statement but a piece of 'philosophic' rhetoric, a thread-question which in fact lay for months in the gloom of Skadi's bowels?

Yes, I am not an atheist. The whys of the lack of interest in the original post when it was conceived I cannot (and neither can anyone else) speak intelligently on: the conjecture is neither here nor there - but a workable investigation now is.


Clearly, a God would have about 'him' an aura of transcendence...even within his believers, his Spark ( Eckhart's funklein or scintilla animae) would retain its own divine transcendence.

We would have to question the traditional notions of Transcendency as being 'out there' - and unpack such a metaphor: where is 'out there'? - "There" implies a location. What is the nature of this location or loci?


And, on the otherhand, any "Cosmology that is this-worldly" would be itself necessarily rooted in the substance of this world alone - and therefore be denied any possibility of "transcendence" ? --- unless - that is - one might venture further into the new possibility that matter and substance could contain, in some way, a purely Metaphysical Transcendence arising (perhaps) from the very Mystery of Being?

By all means, continue!

Carl
Friday, February 2nd, 2007, 03:20 PM
.......and the questions can be asked that need to be about whether or not the substance of your deconstruction (and elucidation/clarification) is first and foremost an issue of metaphysical interdependence; or, a matter of the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, and where there is necessary cross over between these apparently antithetical things (meta-physics v. physics), if any, understood within an investigative milieu given its recent placement into the philosophy forum.


.... it would be helpful if you unpacked that a bit and made it more approachable.... its language such as this which causes ordinary people :D such problems.

Moody
Sunday, February 4th, 2007, 06:51 PM
.......It follows to say that -
A cosmology that is this-worldly......
( i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact;

But there is a problem here right away; if something cannot be 'verified', does that mean that it is 'false'?

What is the 'principle of verification'?
And how is this 'principle of verfication' itself verified?
This creates a vicious infinite regress with each verifier having to be varified ad infinitium.

Also, scientific facts are only facts because they are always open to falsification.

Therefore, how can something be "rooted" in that which is always falsifiable?
The theories of relativity and evolution could both be falsified by science in the future - so how can they "root" us?


culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race;

To "indeminify" is said to mean;
1) to compensate for damage or loss sustained, expense incurred, etc.,
2) to guard or secure against anticipated loss; give security against (future damage or liability).
Its synonyms are 'recompense', 'reimburse', 'repay'.

Is this the right use of science?
For, cannot science be used to also falsify race and to unverify the principles of race?
Isn't race also a Spiritual concept that must transcend the merely scientific if it is to have meaning?

Or are you so committed to science that if scientists are able to prove that race is invalid as a scientific theory, then you will drop race as a concept [like some have dropped the gods]?


or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns)

But surely "faith" by definition is beyond this-worldly concerns?
If all were 100% verified then we would have no need of faith!



We would have to question the traditional notions of Transcendency as being 'out there' - and unpack such a metaphor: where is 'out there'? - "There" implies a location. What is the nature of this location or loci?


Not necessarily; it rather sets up an opposition to the Cartesian assumption that all begins from within the ego, and that - consequently - man is ultimately trapped in the bubble of his own ego.
This is the blind alley which philosophy has been led down, ultimately into solipsism, radical relativism and ultimate nihilism.

We therefore change perspective from an Egoistic one to a Transcendent one, and concentrate on our being-in-the-world and the Eternity that is the Universal Mind and the Higher Forms which has long preceded our species, and will long outlive us too.

It is this ultimately non-human metaphysic that man glimpses when he contacts his gods.

Then and only then does he imbue life with meaning and escape the vapidity of individualism and selfish egoism.

Carl
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 03:12 PM
But there is a problem here right away; if something cannot be 'verified', does that mean that it is 'false'?

What is the 'principle of verification'?
And how is this 'principle of verfication' itself verified?
This creates a vicious infinite regress with each verifier having to be varified ad infinitium.

Also, scientific facts are only facts because they are always open to falsification.

Therefore, how can something be "rooted" in that which is always falsifiable?
The theories of relativity and evolution could both be falsified by science in the future - so how can they "root" us?


Something along these lines occured to me as well. There is within the original Preface a central thesis with a double set of qualifying clauses. Even before we arrive at these clauses, we are landed in an impossible predicament from which I find it very hard to meaningfully procede.

"..... a cosmology that is this-worldly is a solution superior to reliance upon any God..."

is , in effect, questioning the proposition -

"A 'This-Worldly' Cosmology is 'Superior' to a Divine Faith" .

I see the former as primarily rooted in the substance or material of this world; any secondary metaphysical elaboration will necessarily be dependent on the primary substance. Worldly 'beings' would therefore appear to precede Being -- and Being itself would be dependent on prior existence of such beings. Or am going to far ?

And I agree that to subject a divine faith to 'scientific proving' is inappropriate almost by definition. It is an improper approach to the divine and an improper use of science.

As to the comparison of these two (above), we are left attempting to co-evaluate the ThisWorldly and the Divine! I cannot myself see how this can be done without the devaluing and invalidation of either one or both. They belong to differing Realms. I think it to be akin to arguing for the superiority of apples or pears! It all depends.

Perhaps Heidegger has a solution. When he muses that 'only a God can save us' , perhaps it is that only a God is truely capable of being within each realm ( and indeed, in every realm) without any hint of discomfort. But as to the nature of such a God, I ask : is it possible for us to even speculate?

Moody
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 06:52 PM
I see the former as primarily rooted in the substance or material of this world; any secondary metaphysical elaboration will necessarily be dependent on the primary substance. Worldly 'beings' would therefore appear to precede Being -- and Being itself would be dependent on prior existence of such beings.

I would take it that inert 'matter' is the primary substance, and that this precedes organic life - at least, according to the scientific outlook.
To Heidegger, the scientific view-point neglects to answer the question of Being ['why is there Being rather than Nothing?].
Philosophy too, has skirted around this question, according to him.
No doubt Heidegger believes that this question must be fully understood [let alone answered] before new gods can arise.
But does this necessarily affect the old gods who I claim still live?
My interest here is in keeping the old gods alive, and not throwing them out with the Christian-secular bath-water.


And I agree that to subject a divine faith to 'scientific proving' is inappropriate almost by definition. It is an improper approach to the divine and an improper use of science.

Yes - Kierkegaard recognised that the 'leap of faith' is necessary to religion; but such a leap may also be necessary to us as thinking-beings too, whether we consider ourselves religious or not.
Science itself may be indecent in that it refuses to leap.
And one can never learn to fly from walking. One must learn to leap first.


As to the comparison of these two (above), we are left attempting to co-evaluate the ThisWorldly and the Divine! I cannot myself see how this can be done without the devaluing and invalidation of either one or both. They belong to differing Realms. I think it to be akin to arguing for the superiority of apples or pears! It all depends.
Perhaps Heidegger has a solution. When he muses that 'only a God can save us' , perhaps it is that only a God is truely capable of being within each realm ( and indeed, in every realm) without any hint of discomfort. But as to the nature of such a God, I ask : is it possible for us to even speculate?

Actually, I am starting to think that Kant had the answer with his transcendent idealism.
Given that we very much constitute the world via our own 'forms of consciousness', our metaphysical notions [concepts of gods, souls, parallel planes of existence, eternal returns, et al, as well as the Kantian categories of time/space, causality etc.,] are necessary for the very possibility of us having experience.
This is not to say those things are merely brain-spun; they are necessary and metaphysical [and so a priori], but they are also an inescapable part of experience.
Therefore belief in gods etc., is not mere 'superstition'; it is as necessary to our existence as is our belief in space/time, cause/effect etc., etc.,

Once we understand this, we can get back to our Germanic gods with a good conscience and allow the symbolic order to reassert itself in all its Odinian rage.

SuuT
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 07:15 PM
...It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and committed to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...





There is within the original Preface a central thesis with a double set of qualifying clauses. Even before we arrive at these clauses, we are landed in an impossible predicament from which I find it very hard to meaningfully procede.


"..... a cosmology that is this-worldly is a solution superior to reliance upon any God..."

is , in effect, questioning the proposition –

Yes! This is the metaphysical ‘snare’ of the thought fragment: we are forced at once to confront Physical Cosmology, Metaphysical Cosmology, Esoteric as well as Religious Cosmology – and posit, as the Greeks did, a question as to the essential difference between this, and ‘that’ world; the Greeks had their conclusion... But, let us not forget the “why?” of the thought fragment: …culturally related as, derived from and committed to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns…

Somehow, this statement has gone unnoticed: … or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to…

The thought fragment assumes that such faith systems are indeed possible – and welcomed.


"A 'This-Worldly' Cosmology is 'Superior' to a Divine Faith" .


In so far as the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative are ‘more’ “this-worldly” than they are “other-worldly”, a Physical Cosmology surpasses other permutations in its ability to be of aid in Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...



… to subject a divine faith to 'scientific proving' is inappropriate almost by definition. It is an improper approach to the divine and an improper use of science.
…any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...


Within the thought fragment, it is not an issue of pitting faith against science: it is expelling – or asking to expel, rather – faith systems that are inconsistent to and with Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation. This forces us again into a confrontation with all Cosmologies, and extracting that which aids best in the afore mentioned preservation. The thought fragment proceeds from the assumption that Physical Cosmology can better answer to “this-worldly” concerns.




… perhaps it is that only a God is truely capable of being within each realm ( and indeed, in every realm) without any hint of discomfort. …


Would it follow that such a god has unified the ‘planes’ of existence? And what could we conclude if we assume human union with such a god to be possible?

Carl
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 06:45 PM
...It follows to say that ... A cosmology that is this-worldly indemnification of race and the principles of race[/U] [ ; ] blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative,

or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these [I]this-worldly concerns -

-- is a solution superior to reliance on a God ( or any god) [that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation...]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Somehow, this statement has gone unnoticed: … or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to.....


The thought fragment assumes that such faith systems are indeed possible – and welcomed.


Well, I must say that I do find this quite a valuable "find" -in the sense that the clause was there 'from the beginning' - and yet not picked up before. Could it be that we have been so concerned in raising up the old God that we have significantly overlooked the very real possibility of a purely metaphysical or 'transcendental' re-interpretation of the God concept itself? Well, not really - in the sense that it was always part of the possibility of any resolution to the question originally raised. Heidegger was certainly equivocal on the matter of God - I am still not really clear what manner of God it is that will "save us" ( -Heidegger's own interview.)He was of course buried in the church - but this was largely a local and family matter - he showed little need to gravitate back towards that faith. I suspect that any 'solace' or meaning was to be found somewhere within the Mystery and Grace of Being itself . [-- any thoughts there?]



And then,of course, there is Nietzsche - whom I assume would have us move beyond all need of 'gods' (?) and towards a future in which 'man' is moved beyond himself by resources that are already here-abouts. But insofar as these already partake of any transcendence within them, this would not deny the possibility of transcedence also in the future. That which is to become - must already be , in some way, already unter Wegs.

There is something of a Paradox here. The issue relates to Metaphysics; it need not necessarily be seen purely in terms of Materialism. So long as the Metaphysic is left open, beings that are may still nevertheless contain the possibility, or indeed, the necessity, of 'an inner' transcendence.

Things keep their secrets.




Within the thought fragment, it is not an issue of pitting faith against science: it is expelling – or asking to expel, rather – faith systems that are inconsistent to and with Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation

The thought fragment proceeds from the assumption that Physical Cosmology can better answer to “this-worldly” concerns.

And yet, an apparently Physical Cosmology may also be open to Metaphysical interpretation and possibilities in Time. Who is there to finally define what it is to be?


But here I will open a new derivative thought, is not that idea above the beginning of an Ethik of that which should be and should become ?





Would it follow that such a god has unified the ‘planes’ of existence? And what could we conclude if we assume human union with such a god to be possible?

They have always believed that the God is within in any case, as Spark or Fire. When the 'God' that moves between the Realms lends sufficient understanding of 'his' movement, then the bridge that must be over-crossed lies already before.

There is no returning for those that shall become.....
but that time is not yet. Unless sufficient clearing be made, the gods that would save will surely remain in concealment.

from Suut's Preface

--or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these 'this-worldly' concerns ---

In many ways this entire exercise has been one of testing the limits of divinity as such. It is true to say that Moody has already identified the conflict between 'faith' and the 'this worldly'; what need is there for faith in a world that is entirely rationalized or scientific. If all the parameters of our existence are already mapped out and understood, there is little room for the need of any leap of faith - or any withdrawing from a worldliness of the world into the awesome and heilig. But we know, it is not like that. We know that even Suut confesses 'a god ' - holds out hope therefore for (in) a being that is , at first sight, not at all this worldly. ( Would not any god possess at least some manner of transcendence?)

Moreover, Moody has also made it clear that far from looking for new gods - it might well yet be possible to turn again, in some way, to a re-appearance from concealment of an earlier god. And in the Nietzschean sense, we are not any more looking now for the return of the Lord God, creator of the universe, of the church; we can well believe that such times have indeed past away in all reality. In a world now nihilistic and 'destitute' through the grip and failure of metaphysics and the "loss of gods" within our communities, we are left at the mercy of a rampant worldly technology and the " extinction of divine radiance... in world history".

But Heidegger's idea of the gods, who appear in the fourfold nature of the world, is that they too are beings, divinities, who are not dead at all - but await, in concealment, for their time to shine again. It may not be in our power to command, in any sense, for them to return. We suffer the destitution of our culture and age until such time as their re-appearance as shining forth is again timely. The section in Heidegger's own interview ( first published 1976) makes very clear his own thinking :

""Philosophy will not be able to bring about a direct change of the present state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all merely human meditations and endeavors. Only a god can still save us. I think the only possibility of salvation left to us is to prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline -- so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god........

We cannot get him to come by thinking. At best we can prepare the readiness of expectation......the preparation of readiness could (therefore) be the first step. ""


Now it is true that others have since questioned this apparent fatalism in the face of the worldly destitution that is upon us. But, there are things that can be done .... that are being done. A recogition of our plight is surely one of them. And indeed, a turning to the readiness and to the presence of any clearing in which the radiance may still appear....