Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: The Metaphysics of Power (rewritten essay)

  1. #11
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    1. Metaphysics
    A 'Philosophy of Power' would be a better designation in my opinion, simply because Metaphysica is usually understood in the Platonic sense as a theory of what is 'beyond' ['meta-'] reality, or the physical.
    This goes for Plato's Theory of Forms, and also for German Idealism - both very well-known philosophies.

    The use of 'metaphyics' for fundamental reality is a MISNOMER.
    Aristotle called this study 'First Philosophy', but because his [untitled] book dealing with the subject was catalogued AFTER [or 'beyond', 'meta'] the book called The Physics, it was erroneously named The Metaphyics.
    Taking this title literally lead to the aforementioned more common philosophy of 'Beyond Reality'.
    My point is that naming your postion on a misnomer is unhelpful.
    Ok then.

    2. Energia
    ctionSurrender itself is an 'action'; that class of actions we might cal re-actions, but actions nonetheless. To the Noble morality of Nietzsche, a re-action is far more important than an action [although ultimately we might find that all actions are in fact re-actions].
    Therefore, the re-action of Surrender is a response to defeat.
    It seems you agree that power can be negative, anyway.
    Nietzsche himself often pointed out that true Nobility resided in the power NOT to act.
    That idea seems to come dangerously close to the slave morality of Jesus Christ. You might say tolerance is a virtue of the noble man, and I would agree - partially. Tolerance to the point of capitulation, weakness of will, and so on, I would count as the characteristics of the despicable. Self discipline as a means to achieve your aims is something different altogether. Tolerance of what does not concern you or violate your capacity to bring your convictions into reality is a sign of the noble man. I would say the noble man is defined by his disgust at people's tendency to control what does not concern them - example: modern leftists who want to control discrimination against nonwhites, when they aren't being discriminated against. Stupidity and weakness of will.

    Power includes the imposition of restrictions as well as the lifting of them.
    Of course, life is ALL about restrictions and is never bereft of them.
    Of course, power does include imposing restrictions as well as lifting them. Power is the capability to act - including the capability to act on other people. Controlling them through force is one way. Setting them free from force is another. Or you could convince them to work for you, or whatever.

    Life on Earth is restricted by the need for food and water, the pervasive force of gravity, the inevitability of death etc.,
    I agree. Power cannot be infinite.

    If we get away from the interpretive language of 'power' [deriving from the root 'to be'] and 'freedom' [meaning originally 'closeness to the (tribal) chief'], and think instead of 'energy', then we realise that energy can never be created or destroyed.
    Therefore a loss of energy in one place means the increase of energy in another.
    So there is always a quantum of energy/power/freedom existant.
    Yockey calls this the law of political plenum. I disagree with it. By destroying resources you can limit everyone's power relative to their objectives, but relative to other individuals, power changes hands but is not destroyed. Social power versus material power.

    If we think of this quantum as a Tiger, then it is a case of who is 'riding the Tiger' at any particular moment. I would say that economics/politics/arts etc., are just manifestations of this energy in the human realm.
    Arts, culture? I'm not sure about that. Economics and politics I can agree with. Energy I'm likely to interpret as life-force, I would say (psychologically) this comes through in instinct. I'm going to try give my own meaning for instinct below.

    3. Values
    With there is undoubted a conflict of values, there is also a conflict WITHIN values. Indeed, the conflicts that occur WITHIN factions are usually more destructive than outer conflicts.
    So we have the spectacle of those with the 'same values', working within the same faction, falling out in bitterly destructive ways [see forums such as this]. The ancients knew that the most evil war was civil war.
    So I would say that the conflicts WITHIN values are far more important than the conflicts between different values.
    I don't see how conflicts within values can exist. Conflicts within groups who hold common values, yes - then that would be between values in the context of a greater value, not inside a value itself (example: say, the trotskyites versus the stalinists within the greater value (I don't hold it, the people I'm discussing do) of achieving communist utopia, that idea being held by the Communist Internationale circa 1925). I would say these is the difference between primary and secondary politics. I've discussed the potential advantage and disadvantage of its internal-group destruction through infighting in the essay. I think this is what you are referring to. And I certainly agree that there's a more epic struggle that occurs when a group cuts itself apart in self destructive infighting than when two groups meet and fighting cleanly (clean meaning without infiltration and other forms of 'dirty warfare').

    4. Instinct
    The word 'instinct' is meant to describe the phenomena of action without self-awareness. This is usually more effective as it is not impeded by doubt. No wonder then, that it appears paramount in the animal kingdom; man himself has tended to blunt his instincts, try to tame them and even tried to deny their existence. This is why modern man cannot understand crime and war, for example, and resorts to age old moral concepts such as 'evil'.
    Modern man can't comprehend war and crime because he is used to the notion of rights (Thorburn, we discussed this online, I followed rights down to the logical argument for globalist capitalism, and we both ended up agreeing that what you call positive rights are the priveliges of social power), a product of rationalism. This is what I have a problem with - rationalism, or what I call analytical rationalism. Analytical rationalism looks at charcteristics of objects (Apollonian in the extreme), like man's capability to reason, calls it his essence, and everything else follows from that. Analytical rationalism is false, if we are to understand how the world actually works, rather than how it could optimally work. In contrast to analytical rationalism, I pose synthetic rationalism (my own perspective), which looks at tendencies, motivations, origins, force, energy, power, space. It's descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive.

    I would define instinct as the reason that does not have to be thought into existance. Sex, Love, Hate, Aggression, Defence, Family, Race, Nation, that is instinct. Culture, Religion, Philosophy, that is intellect. I have no hesitations in saying intellect draws its motivations from instinct. Instinct is drawn from the blood and channelled into the requirements for man's social mode of existance. The best (that is, most useful, from anyone's subjective perspective) products from the intellect are the products of Genius (see further down).

    5. Morality
    Morality is the judging of actions, period [cf 'mores']. The popular sense of 'moral' meaning 'good' is a another misnomer; morality is an [often systematic]interpretation of behaviour(s).
    It can be, but I would not link morality with interpretation. Man percieves, then he builds a concept to fit it in, then he asks himself the question, "what can I do?". Morality is measuring something that does happen against a standard of what should happen - what the individual observing desires to happen. Morality distinguishes what is good from what is bad (or evil). The question is: good or bad according to what (and who's) standard? Analytical rationalism builds a morality around rights and calls anything that violates that standard evil. Synthetic rationalism tries to understand what people do without passing moral judgement - the synthetic rationalist does not allow his personal moral standard to impinge on his study. In this sense synthetic rationalism probably has more to do with psychology than anything else.

    6. Knowledge
    An important aspect of knowledge is DISCERNMENT. The wise man REJECTS much [just as the Nobleman chooses NOT to act]. I see a pattern here; we must look at what Keats called 'nagative capability', i.e., the ability to BE in negatives/non-actions/rejections.
    This seems similar to Karl Popper's hypothetico-deductive model, in which he pushes the idea that a theory is not scientific unless it forbids certain things from happening - basicall, that all theories are nothing more than working hypotheses, and true knowledge won't ever be achieved, but so long as scientific theories are developed and tested, scientists will become far more able to describe how the world works, but they will never be able to tell us how it works - simply because they don't know. So I asked myself the question, what's the point in knowledge anyway, and I came up with the idea that knowledge is nothing more than a framework for actions.

    "Within the knowledge provided, if an action attempted based on that knowledge fails, one of two things may be deduced. Either part of the operational framework of knowledge was incorrect (though a failure of intelligence, or disinformation, for example), or required knowledge was missing." - I think that covers what you were trying to say. About a third of the way through the first part. I would definetly agree the noble man is the man always seeking knowledge.

    7. Culture
    Yockey's idea of 'Jewish culture-distortion' shouldn't be repeated without a thorough consideration of its implications. We need to take a cold look at what is and isn't Jewish [and we certainly shouldn't take the Jews' own word for this], and how such phenomena are related to what is non-Jewish.
    I say this, as your own promotion of the Red army struck me as an embrace of 'Jewish culture-distortion'.
    Consider my motivations: I want the European white race to survive. The Russians seem to have an innate tendency for fraternal brotherhood. I think if we integrated that tendency and co-opted it for the ends of the white race, it would be useful. Otherwise it will be destructive, and I will have to agree with Yockey that Russia as a political unit must be destroyed and Europe must crush Russia as a cultural entity, and Europe must take its place over the eastern slavs. That's the problem. I'm looking for a solution.

    Genius
    I would say that the genius is above the craftsman, but he cannot dispense with craftsmanship. The genius must at LEAST be a great craftsman; but he must be MORE than that ALSO; he must be a unique creator and a fearless hero.
    I would say the craftsman is essentially a technician, drawing connections between phenomena in his mind, then acting to bring things together so they work for his aims. His aims, as I have said before, have their depths in his own instincts, but his mind does not have the capacity to plunge that deep and see the currents that flow inside him, let alone bring those currents out and channel them into works. That ability is Genius. Genius does not draw connections between external phenomena and manipulate matter. Genius is self-generating, technical ability is not. I should like to put foward two types of Genius - Individual Genius and Social Genius. Individual Genius, I would say, reaches into the depths of his own spirit and instincts and creates art and poetry. His works and their effects are far stronger than the creator-technician, though the creator-technician may be said to be an Individual Genius of lesser ability. The Social Genius is something altogether different, and far more potent - he reaches not merely into his own depths, but the depths of his entire Culture, and brings out the strongest current and he becomes its living embodiment, unstoppable spiritually. The great Heroes of the Ages are Social Genius. Individual Genius - his fields are art, music, philosophy. Social Genius - his arena is high politics, philosophy, economics. The lines blur but distinctions can be made.
    Last edited by Jack; Saturday, September 13th, 2003 at 07:40 AM.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    Proactive/Reactive/Active/Deactive
    Action is not only pro-active, it is also, for example, re-active.
    Action must be seen 'in the round', philosophically speaking.
    Power is just as much the power NOT to act, as it is the power TO act; restraint and discipline often requires more strength than just 'letting go'.

    Tolerance
    You introduce 'tolerance', and that too must be seen as neutral.
    Self-proclaimed 'Tolerant' Leftists are 'intolerant of intolerance', for example. Therefore it is a question of who and what we tolerate [and by implication, what we inversely do not tolerate] that matters - this again comes down to perspective.

    Common Values
    We often talk too blithely of 'values'; those who believe that they hold to the 'same values' as others are often mistaken.
    This is because;
    i) They have not seriously defined what a 'value' means, and
    ii) They have not seriously defined the values that they claim to hold.

    The 'far-right' scene is a good example; when one looks at the myriad of often incongruous and sometimes, downright differing, values which are grouped together under this one value-heading, it appears laughable.

    Splits occur within these factions because those within them WRONGLY assumed that they held 'common values'.

    Analysis/Synthesis
    I would say that both analysis and synthesis have to be used in order to arise at a truer picture. While rationalism alone is barren, so is mysticism alone deluding; we must harness both, allowing for flights of fancy when necessary, and for hard-headed analytical reasoning at other times.

    Reason is a Late Arrival
    Aryan Man has striven to shape and mould and thereby elevate his Dionysian Instincts by the subsequent application of his Apollonian reason.
    However, instinct is primary, and so cannot be defined as "the reason that does not have to be thought into existance", as you put it, because instinct does not begin as reason which requires re-flection.
    It is reason which works on the given material of instinct just as a sculptor works on a lump of stone - 'carve yourself!'.

    Morality
    You say;
    "The question is: good or bad according to what (and who's) standard?"
    That you have to ask that amply demonstrates that morality is PURE interpretation.
    One man's good is another man's evil and vice versa.
    This is true for individuals, couples, tribes, clans, races, nations and empires.

    Man cannot apply his reasoning at any point without interpreting.

    Language itself is VALUE-LADEN.
    The very syntactical construction of English has a certain moral imperative, which differs from other languages. As soon as we start to think and speak, we are offering an interpretation [see how philosophy is often grouped according to language group - e.g., 'Anglophone Philosophy' etc.,].

    It is rather fanciful to pretend to an absolute objectivity - we can only be relatively objective, but even here we are to an extent prejudiced.
    Man is a most prejudiced creature - he is even prejudiced about his ability to be unprejudiced!

    Philosophy versus Ideology
    You say that "knowledge is nothing more than a framework for actions"; this is what I am criticising here in general.
    You are only looking at the pro-active, and are forgeting that much knowledge has been gained in contemplation, and that much can be achieved by not acting, but by holding back.
    There is much in avoiding temptation - why else do the Jews and their slaves bombard the culture with hedonistic sex and violence?
    In such a culture as today, the Aryan is he who rejects much, closes his door, and makes time to think and to contemplate. He realises that Aryan man has made too many rash mistakes in the past, and has rushed pell-mell into the traps set for him. He has become an 'Action Man' to be dangled on a string to fight Jewish wars for the advantage of the Jew.
    A philosophy needs to be complete, whereas an Ideology can get away with being one-sided. To make the transition from an 'Ideology of Power' to a 'Philosophy of Power', all aspects of the ideas expressed must be dealt with and expressed.

    Genii
    The Individual Genius requires genuine expertise just as the social genius requires Order. The genius without technique is the favourite of Modern Art, just as the society without Order and on the edge of anarchy is the favourite of 'democracy'.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #13
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    I'm not sure what to do with what you've said, so I'll take it bit by bit and discuss it.

    Aryan Man has striven to shape and mould and thereby elevate his Dionysian Instincts by the subsequent application of his Apollonian reason.
    However, instinct is primary, and so cannot be defined as "the reason that does not have to be thought into existance", as you put it, because instinct does not begin as reason which requires re-flection.
    It is reason which works on the given material of instinct just as a sculptor works on a lump of stone - 'carve yourself!'.
    I used a poor choice of words. By 'reason that does not have to be thought into existance', I meant motivation. People don't think an instinct into existance - it exists prior before all actions.

    Tolerance
    You introduce 'tolerance', and that too must be seen as neutral.
    Self-proclaimed 'Tolerant' Leftists are 'intolerant of intolerance', for example. Therefore it is a question of who and what we tolerate [and by implication, what we inversely do not tolerate] that matters - this again comes down to perspective.
    The leftist tolerates everything but intolerance, because he is essentially totalitarian, however 'liberal' he claims his motivations are. He will not tolerate traditional occidental morality (respect for women, fair play, strong families, hard work, nationalism etc.) because he feels he must control, and this infringes on his control. Homosexuality, environmentalism, internationalism do not conflict with his power (power as capability to act), and hence are tolerated. The reason the leftist is totalitarian is because he suffers from 'oversocialisation' - he suffers an inferiority complex because he was raised into a system that inwardly does not coincide with the weak instincts that he does have. He cannot cope being told that he must bend over backwards for left-wing suicide-morality and inwardly he knows he cannot do this, but cannot bring himself to rebel against leftist suicide-morality. His form of rebellion is taking on leftist suicide-morality as his own and then accusing society of violating that morality. The university leftist is generally of high intelligence but low instinct - which is why he is incapable of taking the lead against his own suicide morality. The street-leftist, in constrast, has moderate will to power, but does not have the intelligence to learn the true nature of his suicide-morality, and so he does not have the intelligence to peer into the depths of his own instincts and recognise the chasm between the two.

    Anyway I would say people are generally tolerant of others who do not infringe on the power they have in relation to their own objectives. Where someone infringes on one's power in relation to one's own objectives, tolerance becomes irrelevant and politics begins.

    I would say that both analysis and synthesis have to be used in order to arise at a truer picture. While rationalism alone is barren, so is mysticism alone deluding; we must harness both, allowing for flights of fancy when necessary, and for hard-headed analytical reasoning at other times.
    The dangers of using famous words are illustrated Synthetic rationalism is both - rationalism as analysis (not merely of man's supposedly fantastic 'faculty of reason', but of his biologically grounded instincts), synthesis as fitting the analysed objects together to get the whole picture, with the inclusion of everything that seems, according to analytical rationalism, irrational (i.e. violence, force, and so on).

    "The question is: good or bad according to what (and who's) standard?"
    That you have to ask that amply demonstrates that morality is PURE interpretation.
    One man's good is another man's evil and vice versa.
    This is true for individuals, couples, tribes, clans, races, nations and empires.
    Pure interpretation? I would say purely subjective. Please explain what you mean, if your meaning is different.

    Man cannot apply his reasoning at any point without interpreting.
    I agree. His interpretation depends on his motivations - he has selective vision, so to speak. Synthetic rationalism (my 'system') has no other motivations than to see the whole of the world as it is, because it's only after knowledge is aquired that it can be used as a framework for action.

    You say that "knowledge is nothing more than a framework for actions"; this is what I am criticising here in general.
    You are only looking at the pro-active, and are forgeting that much knowledge has been gained in contemplation, and that much can be achieved by not acting, but by holding back.
    The point stands, actually. "Knowledge" in my use covers everything from military intelligence to scientific technique. It gives options - that's the only purpose of science. Not to 'make the world a better place' (as an idiot in my philosophy class put it), but to give us options - tools - power as capability to act. It gives us a framework - knowledge combined with our motivations (which ultimately arise out of instinct) gives us the reasons (conscious reasons) to hold back, to unleash, to research more, and so on.

    A philosophy needs to be complete, whereas an Ideology can get away with being one-sided. To make the transition from an 'Ideology of Power' to a 'Philosophy of Power', all aspects of the ideas expressed must be dealt with and expressed.
    Ideology of power...? My essay may be incomplete in so far as it does not delve into all of the aspects of power and society (obviously I've missed out on a few things), but I hope this discussion can keep going because I'm going to use it as notes for the (third) revised version. I'm trying, and I thought I did a good job so far
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    Instincts
    Our 'instincts' were probably inculcated into us by evolution hundreds of thousands of years ago in pre-hisory.
    We've inherited hunter-gatherer instincts which are largely inappropriate in our settled domestic world.

    Tolerance
    I say that every model of 'tolerance' must include its opposite of intolerance to define it [and the opposite must be allowed into every philosophy].
    Even the most intolerant person tolerates SOMETHING even if it is only his own intolerance.
    Likewise, the most tolerant is also intolerant as we have recognised - even though he will no doubt deny it.

    Leftism
    As for the motivations of leftist/liberal 'toleration' ideology, I go along with Nietzsche's view to a large extent. He says that this is the re-assertion of the collectivist pre-Aryan culture of Old Europe.
    As Aryan culture has progressively declined and been attacked by its Semitic enemies, so has this atavistic 'communism' re-emerged.
    Essentially, it hates everything the Aryan culture stands for, and also seethes with revenge against its one-time Overlords.

    I don't think that the leftist himself is suicidal, as he knows how to make his type and his ideology survive; rather I think that he is able to make the Aryan persue the path of suicide himself.

    Morality
    I would say that morality is either;
    i) an interpretation of observed actions and behaviours; i.e., 'we do this because of this and that - we don't do this because of the other'. Such a morality is a description of what is done anyway [see instinct] and provides a rationale etc., Or else morality is -
    ii) an attempt at a corrective - 'we do this, which has bad effects, therefore we must do the other to improve our situation'. This morality is a proscription of certain behaviours etc., This can be used as a means to aid survival or prosperity, or it can be used as a means to poison an adversary [see leftist morality].

    In all cases, the varying moralities [and there are many] are based on interpretation - but not just 'subjectivity' as it is usually understood, unless a whole society or nation has a subjectivity and a self-hood.

    Knowledge
    If you define 'knowledge as a framework of action', as you say, then what of knowledge for its own sake? And what of the fact that most actions take place out-side the framework of 'knowledge' [see instincts, see chance, see fate, see faith, see blind obedience, see heroism, see morality etc., etc.,].

    To me, a Philosophy of Power would have to look deeply into the hidden, instinctive and even mystical recesses of the Mind and Culture.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  5. #15
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Instincts
    Our 'instincts' were probably inculcated into us by evolution hundreds of thousands of years ago in pre-hisory.
    We've inherited hunter-gatherer instincts which are largely inappropriate in our settled domestic world.
    I know. That fits in well enough with what I've said.

    Tolerance
    I say that every model of 'tolerance' must include its opposite of intolerance to define it [and the opposite must be allowed into every philosophy].
    Even the most intolerant person tolerates SOMETHING even if it is only his own intolerance.
    Likewise, the most tolerant is also intolerant as we have recognised - even though he will no doubt deny it.
    Tolerance is relative It is not dualism that should be focused on, but the key points the opposites are centered around.

    Leftism
    As for the motivations of leftist/liberal 'toleration' ideology, I go along with Nietzsche's view to a large extent. He says that this is the re-assertion of the collectivist pre-Aryan culture of Old Europe.
    As Aryan culture has progressively declined and been attacked by its Semitic enemies, so has this atavistic 'communism' re-emerged.
    Essentially, it hates everything the Aryan culture stands for, and also seethes with revenge against its one-time Overlords.
    Here, I disagree. Modern Europeans are undoubtably heavily descended from the Barbarian tribes that overran the borders of Rome - the rest, from the Celts that were already there. I fail to see how leftism could be considered a reassertion of the pre-Aryan culture of Old Europe.

    I don't think that the leftist himself is suicidal, as he knows how to make his type and his ideology survive; rather I think that he is able to make the Aryan persue the path of suicide himself.
    By suicide morality, I mean a morality which tears apart one's own cultural origins and gene pool, no nessecarily a moral system which encourages personal suicide.

    Morality
    I would say that morality is either;
    i) an interpretation of observed actions and behaviours; i.e., 'we do this because of this and that - we don't do this because of the other'. Such a morality is a description of what is done anyway [see instinct] and provides a rationale etc., Or else morality is -
    ii) an attempt at a corrective - 'we do this, which has bad effects, therefore we must do the other to improve our situation'. This morality is a proscription of certain behaviours etc., This can be used as a means to aid survival or prosperity, or it can be used as a means to poison an adversary [see leftist morality].
    How is interpretation morality? That is what I don't understand. If one judges another actions by the standards of the person that acts, on grounds of efficiency, I would not call that morality, I would call that logic. But when someone judges something based on their personal standards as 'good' (approve) or 'bad' (disapprove), that is what I call morality.

    In all cases, the varying moralities [and there are many] are based on interpretation - but not just 'subjectivity' as it is usually understood, unless a whole society or nation has a subjectivity and a self-hood.
    I disagree - individuals can have their own varying moralities, even within a nation - different objectives, different degrees of instincts, different behavioural refinement (i.e. intelligence). Possibly the best contrast I can give is the difference between a traitor-coward, and a hero-genius, of the same nation. Contrast the German Communist with the Waffen SS soldier, for example: both have different objectives and entirely different and contradicting perspectives, different moralities, and different ways of observing events, precisely because their mindsets are different - though I believe the Waffen SS soldier's mindset is far more native to his own instincts, and so, when taking his instincts and motivations into account, is far more 'correct' - that is, correct for his own sake.

    Knowledge
    If you define 'knowledge as a framework of action', as you say, then what of knowledge for its own sake? And what of the fact that most actions take place out-side the framework of 'knowledge' [see instincts, see chance, see fate, see faith, see blind obedience, see heroism, see morality etc., etc.,].
    Knowledge includes everything - even the things we percive - the colour, the shape, the hardness, the position, the form of the objects that surround us. Science is mere refinement of this knowledge, a function of the mind that gives us more options. These objects, that knowledge, is required before instincts can even come into being as actions, wielding control and utilising objects of the environment around us for their own extension. All knowledge - idea, theory, technical, political, economic, moral - all knowledge is utility. The individual who searches for knowledge 'for its own sake' is driven to learn and compile knowledge about objects so that others may employ it for their own ends (indirect genetic expansion).

    To me, a Philosophy of Power would have to look deeply into the hidden, instinctive and even mystical recesses of the Mind and Culture.
    Ok. Moody, do you have any more ideas, or areas that I could/should cover in a revised version of the essay, apart from what we have already discussed?
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    Aloysha; " Modern Europeans are undoubtably heavily descended from the Barbarian tribes that overran the borders of Rome - the rest, from the Celts that were already there. I fail to see how leftism could be considered a reassertion of the pre-Aryan culture of Old Europe".

    Moody Lawless; You've forgotten about the pre-Celtic populations, sometimes called Atlanto-Mediterraneans etc., These, and not the Celts were the builders of the Megaliths and the pre-Celtic substratum of Old Europe. There are suggestions that Goddess worshipping societies existed before the arrival of the patriarchal Aryans. On this basis is founded the suggestion that a tendency towards a collectivism in Old Europe pre-dates hierarchical Aryan Europe.

    Aloysha; "If one judges another actions by the standards of the person that acts, on grounds of efficiency, I would not call that morality, I would call that logic. But when someone judges something based on their personal standards as 'good' (approve) or 'bad' (disapprove), that is what I call morality".

    ML; All judging [whether to do with efficiency or with good and bad] is interpretation. As Nietzsche wrote;
    "THere are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena".

    Aloysha; "do you have any more ideas, or areas that I could/should cover in a revised version of the essay, apart from what we have already discussed?"

    ML; The question of Race still begs itself.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  7. #17
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Ok, it's moral. But not in the sense that an action immediately hits one's own biological and psychological interests and prompts a quick reaction to the situaton which hasn't been analysed properly. In short: it's not moral how the masses think of it, but if measuring an event against a standard is moral, then it is.

    Moody - You've read Spengler's Decline of the West, you know of the Mary-cult, and I find your connection between matriarchial pre-Celtic European culture and 'collectivism' irrelevant. Please provide more supporting arguments/evidence.

    The question of Race itself is not to be answered in this essay simply because I've bound it up under the notion of 'common identity', and I'm also having my non-racist (she doesn't even know my politics, but she is white) philosophy teacher helping me revise this essay.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: The Metaphysics of Power (rewritten essay)

    On the Mary-cult, and the connection between matriarchial pre-Celtic European culture and 'collectivism'.

    I have made another thread on this called 'Matriarchy and the European Mythos'.

    See the work of Marija Gimbutas, for example, for more on this perspective;

    http://www.goddessmandala.com/gimbutas.html

    http://www.telesterion.com/esotericbooks/gimbutas.htm

    The connection between collectivist/socialistic ideals and Old Europe was made by Nietzsche in his 'On the Genealogy of Morals' and 'Beyond Good and Evil'.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2005 @ 07:10 PM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    dunno
    Posts
    37
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: The Metaphysics of Power (rewritten essay)

    sorry i have not read the essay beacuz i cant be bothered. But reading a few replies, freedom is definately a good thing. It is an option, whether you choose it or not is up to you. Someone said that we have to learn from not trusting pure instinct. Actually it is the other way...you have to learn to trust pure instince. That is the MASSIVE mistake society makes. And you know who is to blame: you and your EGO. your ego is your ENEMY. It rules most of you if not all. In order to evolve as a spiritual being, you have to let it step aside

    (or like I did - I had a boxing match with it then gave it the old 1-2, then punched it in the face, then i bit its head off so he was bleeding inside the ring. Then I got a pneumatic drill and drilled through his body then through it off an aeroplane into a pool of pyranas so it got eaten up, then chucked the bones in the most acidic acid so they disintegrated.)

    "freedom inevitably leads to nihilism, the absence of all values". Uh-uh that is wrong. I cant be bothered to say why...maybe later...sorry! Im feeling a little lazy these days...outta gas i guess

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. The Last Ring-Bearer: LotR Rewritten From a Mordor Perspective
    By Stormraaf in forum Literature & Book Reviews
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 06:12 PM
  2. The Metaphysics of Symbel
    By Dagna in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, February 8th, 2009, 05:31 PM
  3. What is Metaphysics?
    By Moody in forum Metaphysics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Friday, October 3rd, 2008, 02:07 PM
  4. New Metaphysics?
    By Jack in forum Metaphysics
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Monday, December 11th, 2006, 01:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •