Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

  1. #11
    Auf der Durchreise
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, September 27th, 2008 @ 09:26 PM
    Subrace
    Nordocromagnosomething
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Politics
    NS
    Posts
    1,303
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    AW: Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    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."

  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

    Re: AW: Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    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/Cic...s/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 [i.e., irrespective of tribe or blood], since that historical event, will give one a 'clean slate'.

    To imbue the immortal, the eternal and the 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.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, October 23rd, 2016 @ 09:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germano-English
    Gender
    Politics
    National-Socialist
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    123
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    "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]

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Moody; Saturday, January 27th, 2007 at 12:41 PM. Reason: merged consecutive posts

  4. #14
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiđinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    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.
    Last edited by SuuT; Friday, January 26th, 2007 at 10:28 PM.
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  5. #15
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 10:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,940
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    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.

  6. #16
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiđinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    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.
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  7. #17
    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

    Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Independence

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrian View Post
    "... 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 [imitation], 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 [beyond particular racial types] 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuuT View Post
    It would be interesting to know how the respective participants would deal with the 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

    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']

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    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 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
    Last edited by Moody; Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 at 02:02 PM. Reason: spelling
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  8. #18
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 10:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,940
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: Prolegomena to the Declaration of Germanic Indepen

    I must return to an earlier post by Pervitinist - always thoughtful and challenging. It concerns the nature of our God(s).

    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    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....

    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    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.

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

  9. #19
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiđinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    ...
    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


    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']

    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"?
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, January 28th, 2007 at 03:24 PM. Reason: merged consecutive posts
    "...The moral man is a lower species than the immoral, a weaker species; indeed - he is a type in regard to morality, but not a type in himself; a copy...the measure of his value lies outside him. ... I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto..." (Nietzsche)

  10. #20
    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

    Re: Gods: the Permutations of Transcendency

    Quote Originally Posted by SuuT View Post
    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].
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Asking the Gods
    By Dagna in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 06:45 PM
  2. A World With Many Gods
    By Ćlfhere in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, May 28th, 2006, 06:47 AM
  3. State of the Gods
    By Blutwölfin in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Sunday, March 12th, 2006, 01:03 AM
  4. Gods and Half-Gods Fathered by Odin, Listed in the Skáldskaparmál
    By Blutwölfin in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, February 12th, 2006, 03:07 PM
  5. Symbols of the Gods
    By Blutwölfin in forum Cosmology & Mythology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, November 24th, 2005, 07:25 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
  •