|
|
|
Heidegger and the Nazis, the concrete and the spirit This essay is a wee bit outside of my usual stamping ground, but it is in the nature of lighting the blue touch-paper - just in case anyone wants to address this subject properly! I’m going to begin with a quote from Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time, division 2, section 75 (Blackwell translation), published in 1927:
To my mind, this short passage describes, in Heidegger’s difficult and relentlessly particular terminology, the fractured and scattered state of our ordinary inner life, a scattering effected through the tendency of ordinary waking consciousness to elide into and attach itself to externalities, psychologically speaking. The nett result is a profound absence which many reading this will recognise in their own experience. We still ascribe qualities of self-hood to it, of course. We can never cease doing that. But it is a self-hood with a history rather than a presence in the moment (though that takes us further towards the metaphysical than Heidegger intended - all Dasein is historical in his formulation). In any event, this all-too-familiar and mundane state itself is “inauthentic Dasein”, and in describing not only it but the idea (though not the means) of establishing “a connectedness of Dasein”, a “pulling together” from “dispersion”, Heidegger declares the mundane as the site of active interest. Movement from this site towards authenticity is the necessary action, and it is patently a real-world action, and not simply other-world spirituality. So, whilst we can, I think, fairly relocate Heidegger’s formulation of authenticity to the traditional metaphysical context of absence <> presence, we are constricted to real-world adumbrations - and real mind, real people, real Volk, too. Now, Heidegger is one of those giants to whose thought many people, including other giants in the Western canon, lay claim. It seems to be a characteristic of his thinking that it can be turned out to graze in almost any field, as I have just let it loose in mine. But a certain violence is done to it by those who cannot accomodate the Volk in their own thoughts. That violence is most visible in the response to the great man's dalliance with NSDAP, his putting on of the party uniform, his treatment of his former mentor, the Jewish phenomenologist Husserl, and various other actions, particularly during his short rectorship of Freiburg university. The violence is such that the great man has to be, at the very least, stripped of his moral judgement and, more commonly, accused of all the usual 20th century hatreds. Out with his moral reputation goes serious consideration of that part of his thinking that is not about an authentic Dasein of the individual. It has to be, of course, because it testifies against the usage the buggers make of his thought. Let's look, though, at what it is ideationally that so offends them. The following is a short passage from The Self Assertion of the German University, which was Heidegger’s rectoral address given on 27th May 1933. It is probably as strong a statement of his view of race as one can find:
This is 10% philosophy, 90% politics. Six years earlier, discussing Hegel’s placement of spirit within time at the end of Being and Time, Heidegger concludes:
“Temporality” is the form in which we perceive time, by the way. Heidegger refuses to place spirit within time. He asserts only that it “temporalizes temporality”. I struggle to understand this, certainly, but I can understand that it is an extreme and recondite specificity a long, long way in quality and in meaning from the “spiritual world of a people” alone bestowing “will to Greatness”. And Marching, of course. I’d say the latter was all about Heidegger becoming a public figure in the extraordinary times, with functions to perform, speeches to give, the ever-watchful party to be satisfied. There is no suggestion that he was acting purely under the force of circumstance. He wanted to do what he did. But I think that we who find Heidegger’s thought peculiarly adaptable might be generous enough to ascribe to the man himself the same character. We certainly don’t need to follow the postmodernists who condemned him. And we don’t really need to throw our hands up at his obvious intellectual inconsistencies. In fact, we can at least partially explain them, for authentic Dasein is racial, while the liberal dispensation, in its headlong rush into the arms of anti-racism, only sires inauthenticity. The Freiburg passage is a clear statement of Heidegger’s own racialisation, and that part of it is authentic enough - even if it is political rather than philosophical in character. In that much, it is a confirmation that we can take up the clues Heidegger provides us and seek a more Heideggerian and existential transition from the Dasein of the individual, which is his centre-piece in division 1 of the book, to a Dasein of the generations and of the blood ... a genetic Dasein, no longer prospective but prescriptive. It is, in the extraordinary times we now find ourselves, surely what Heidegger himself would have done for us had he known about genetic science. Comments:2
Posted by PF on Sun, 14 Feb 2010 07:10 | #
How can Dasein be historical? me non comprensi. 3
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:29 | #
Is it that Heidegger the man became the rod which lightning struck from the NS storm cloud congealing above that induced him to acts of “violence” which I dare say do not even register on my Richter scale of blameworthy transgressions when contrasted with his having done something, to have been a part of, securing the Final Victory of the life secured for our race in perpetuity. I think that is true, in that he would not have done it otherwise. But we should recall, before NS waltzed into his life, there was another “dalliance,” I mean when he began boffing the Jewess Hanna Arendt in 1924. By no means do I mean to be hatin’ on a playa, but couldn’t he have found an Aryan woman to get his gits with instead? And I suppose I’ll shed a tear for the wizened kike Husserl at his getting his library pass rescinded, but not more than one tear. As for the Brits, I can’t believe the tears they shed in this instance are anything more than the crocodile variety, that is unless they’ve gone soft in all the wrong places (Dresden anyone?). Unless of course the fault is in me, and I lack some rarefied combination of intelligence and emotional refinement that entitles me to pronounce “violence[!]” at the wings being pulled off a fly, which hallowed combination we are told predominates on the Isle off the Northwest coast of that continent which takes up so much of our mental lives. Brits vs. Krauts, a Dasein all its own I should think and can’t doubt. 4
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:19 | # To Heidegger - Dasein, or the existential, comes to the authentic self through the same potentialities that exists in ‘others’. (which he describes as ‘Sie - they’, understood to mean: together, and not as solely ‘other’.) Heidegger refers to Kant’s ‘apriori science of nature’ - true for all, true prior to experience. 5
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:22 | # Not to put too fine a point on it, but at the end of the day, Martin and Hanna had their fun playing at flies of a summer, and ole Husserl got the boot but not a Luger jammed in his mouth with the end result being the back of his skull blown out. And, assuming the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, I think it would be better had all Marty’s works gone into the incinerator and lost for all time than for Germany to have lost the war. The survival of our race would have been guaranteed, now that is uncertain to say the least. Moralizing in an alleged philosophic vein comes across as cheap when contrasted with the true and titanic heroism of those German men who laid down their lives to save your gene-pools from being decapitated by the Bolsheviks - and make no mistake, that is precisely what they did, that was what it cost, that was what was necessary (well, not exactly, in the sense that they could have bested their opponent had not others busied themselves holding one of their arms behind their backs). Their blood and their bone is not something lightly spat upon so that Husserl gets to keep his fucking library card. My all means, pardon my niggling little interruption. 6
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:47 | #
I’ll certainly not appeal to Heidegger’s authority based upon what I presume to be the natural baseline of his behavior in accordance with which he dropped the ball in rigorously adhering to his duty as a White man, that is until NS put some steel in his spine (of course I’ll confess I certainly am not above making such an appeal rhetorically to another audience if need be). Also, it is has not been established to my satisfaction that palingeneticism is not a necessity. The argument is that philosophy will accomplish what needs be accomplished in its stead. But we don’t know that for certain, now do we? No, we don’t. And examine the recent comments of Grimoire who seems to have come to essentially the conclusions we would wish but through his romantic, literary ‘spirit of the race’ angle. Apparently there is more than one road that leads to Rome, unless it will be insisted that his faith gene be snatched from him so at least the empirical side of the coin will be more prevalent in his mind. Re Brits vs. Krauts: If indeed there are real biological differences in the natural rhythms of those respective peoples, and hence the way in which they - and are best served in - compete(ing) for resources, then that is a matter of not small importance that need be addressed. GW has stated that it is many Kraut-Amerikwans who come to the table with their filthy [“girlish”!] little palingenetic Kraut particularism. Now, is that merely a coincidence? I suspect not. Btw, Brits can cling to their abiding sense of intellectual and moral superiority (and how they cling to it!) for all I care, what I’m interested in is results. 7
Posted by PF on Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:41 | # CC Going to germany and seeing the graves of those titanic heroes is probably a necessary next step. Until you’ve done this, you’re like someone talking about the great new chick he just met online. They hit it off so well…things are so promising… when there is so much room for romantic imagining in the absence of real experiences, people see what they want to see in things. And I will say this: I suspect that you have no real experience of Germany or the Germans. All the snide derisiveness and self-trumpeting in the world can’t make up for that. 8
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:11 | #
Why, so I can commune with the bones and the headstones of the dead and thereby through some ineffable process of osmosis experience what they themselves experienced? Get real.
Must see the grave markers, then I’ll ‘get it’, nothing romantic there.
I do not see that it would be substantially different from conversations with other veterans with respect to the salient features of their reflections being a realization of the pain of the experiences undergone and pride at having surmounted the former as was their duty. The reasons for erecting those headstones and monuments you refer to are very similar, a tangible commemoration of the person lost that eases the pain of the living and a monument to their memory, a glorification of who they were and what they did. Tell me, PF, would you take that from them, would you smash those monuments and markers that finally they will learn not to indulge their irrational sentimentality? And, would you deny the German soldier the honor that is rightfully his as is done now? Let’s have it.
The American Midwest, where I reside, and will reside all my life is predominantly Germanic, I know the people here. And going to Germany will in no way negate the fact that had the soldiers of Germany not stepped into the breach the Soviet Union would have inflicted a nightmare the likes of which you cannot will yourself to imagine on Western Europe - in light of that, everything else pales by comparison. What else can one call the cheap moralizing as against NS Germany but “snide” and “self-trumpeting” when considering the above. Think about it. 9
Posted by rocket on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:56 | # Heidegger , like all existentialists of any brilliance ; Kierkegaard , Camus , etc. knew how to brilliantly ‘compartmentalize’‘. His Nazism was just that. the proof in the pudding is that after the war the jewish intellectuals , ( except for a few ) acted as if nothing had happened with Heidegger’s so called supporting the Cause . of course , there is another reason ; they needed him . he was the sharpest knife in the drawer intellectually .He was as much of a Nazi as Leni Refeinnstal . which was not much . once again , compartmentalizing . She did it too. 10
Posted by PF on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16 | # I thought you were a midwesterner CC! Me too, although not patrilinearly. What region are you from? I’m from the place with lots of lakes. I guess we really have gotten right to the heart of things with that comment: Midwesterners perceive the last uniting rubric under which a cogent racial defense exists for them would be the term ‘Germanic’. And what is more ‘Germanic’ than the Germans? Its the tyranny of a word, although not without some truth.
Talking with german veterans or their sons and daughters and grandchildren is informative because it gives one a perspective on NS from people who lived through all of its epoches. This includes realities like craterized Berlin in 45, which one otherwise might not take into consideration. The germans, I find, have a very interesting perspective on NS, generally. It isn’t wholesale condemnation a la western judaics. Mostly I find they have a deep sadness for the way the wars sparked by NS led to the slaughter of their families and their removal as refugees (in many instances). The degree to which this is attributed to NS or to war in general or to other countries varies person to person, like so many other things I can’t go into here.
Fuck those “reasons for erecting headstones”! You must truly believe the line: dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori. A man has more value than to be a weapon for a state or people, even to be a weapon for a state which avidly proclaims itself to wage war in the interests of a people! A man is worth more than to be a mangled weapon glorified post-hoc. Dying for anything is a waste of a life! Militarism’s teleological glorification of “heroes” just urges us to squander more of our best resource - ourselves. The estimation of life in this argument is circular: man defends his people, but the people is composed of men, and the only value of a man (so goes this “glory”-reasoning) is that he can be weaponized to defend his people? Either the man has value as a man, or none of these things has value. Because the value of weaponizing him lies in protecting the collective, and a collective is simply many men. So where is the value? No man should be subject to this false idea that by charging at machine guns and overcoming his natural fear impulses to do so, he somehow elevates himself to a higher level, because someone strategized once that throwing men at machine guns would result in a racial bonus. I don’t doubt that sacrifice is occasionally necessary, but never in a million years would I believe that I could get accurate information about when and how sacrifice was necessary from men who themselves believed that this sacrifice had moral regenerative power for those who undergo it! There is a deliberate conflation of necessity and pugnacious whim by these military moralists, who are not loath to pick fights because they think fighting is the only virtuous action man is capable of! In Germany this was so much worse because there was a whole military class, the Junkers, who perceived their sliding into irrelevance based on the end of feudalism and were in no way demanded to risk their own lives in battle. So there was a whole class embracing this militarist teleology stuff. Thank god that is no longer the case! Weaponizing man is just like learning another skill, no transcendent moral glory arises from it. This much is clear from the words of veterans. The psychological “mechanics” here are the same in Iraq as in 30’s Tuitschlund, the presence of a “moral purpose” does impact morale but doesn’t change things as much as is posited by those who worship at this idol of nordic militarism. You see my moralizing against NS isn’t cheap - it has to do with the value of man pre-weaponization, which I am positing as being quite high. I think its “glory” and “heroism” that sells man cheap. 11
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:55 | # Well if you’re traveling in the north country fair, where the wind hits heavy on the borderline, what else is there for echt Germanics to do except to dream their 115th dream of taking Stalingrad this time around. I wish, I wish, I wish in vain, With apologies to another native Midwesterner of vaguely Central European provenance. 12
Posted by PF on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:28 | # I don’t get your reference, Dan. I suppose its all one, though. 13
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:36 | # @PF 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:11 | # Grimoire, At all times and in all places the human psyche is cleaved between the inauthentic and the authentic, to use Heidegger’s terms, though one could as easily say between nurture and nature or, perhaps more accurately, the acquired and the native, or personality and essence, or the illusory and the real, and so on. There are different paradigms, different ways of looking at it, but all are proximates and all agree on a certain duality. Now, let’s say that the temporal and artificial characterise inauthentic Dasein, and that what is in the other is always there, and does not change all the while the other is “the same with itself” - except, of course, through the slow, endogamic process of gene selection (which is admissable change). Does not the characteristic of authenticity, therefore, represent the optimum general condition for the living out of the life of an individual or a people? So, for example, greatness could not be a direct goal for an individual or a people, to be achieved by striving or imitation, or whatever, because greatness is not an authentic behaviour but a quality that adheres or does not adhere. Those who grasp for it will, in their ardour, fall prey to inauthenticity, and the inauthentic always has a negative value even if posterity, equipped with relevant facts or no facts as the case may be, cries “Great!” The object of life, then, as Heidegger infers, might be said to live as much as possible from authenticity, and as little as possible from inauthenticity. What will come will come, historically - as is the case with the National Socialists whose one great achievement of unity was accompanied by the seven less than great “observable facets” that PF listed in his Palingenesis essay. 15
Posted by PF on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:12 | # Grimoire, I think its wonderful that we can have a perspective of someone like yourself, who actually was close to people who lived NS, to tell us about it. Nevertheless I differ with you on the points you raised.
My grandfather was First Scout in the American army during the advance into Germany. His stories were, as they’ve been related to me, mostly about seeing his second scout partners being blown up in front of him, and going into basements of german houses in enemy territory to accept the surrender of those soldiers that we’re prepared to surrender. I can’t imagine, but would be interested to know, what putative factors make your relatives who perished in war, more valorous and “great” than mine. I think we’re on the border of something mystical here… so I understand if you can’t articulate perfectly what you mean to say when you do reply.
True, the people of the past were different. Some special qualities are to be found in them which we cannot directly recreate in ourselves. I have relatives from which I have learned this, but in hindsight it strikes me as less remarkable than upon first impression. Certain things accumulate in a man over-time if he lives truly, and television among other things prevent men of our times from living truly. Otherwise, these things would also accumulate in them, just as they likely will in yourself and I, who have (presumably) removed ourselves sufficiently from destructive influences to allow this growth a place. I have noticed how people in my surroundings sometimes show me a reverance, or an awe, that they think there is something special about me because I have done or said or accomplished something; its not on the scale of which we were speaking but its not fundamentally different in my view. This is the same thing we are doing to our forebears. Since I believe that our essences, passed down in our genes, have not suffered corruption, I believe I am as capable of what would be called “greatness” as they are. I would be interested to know what GW thinks upon reading this paragraph.
Do specific examples come to mind of men who you’ve known, who you believe to have been ‘titanic’?
I disagree with the idea that Greatness built our world. Perhaps it built one third of our world. I think the toiling of normal, nonexceptional persons, and an opportunistic seizure of the ideas of the top 2% of the bell curve, account quite well for the other two-thirds. Specific examples of what has been built and by whom would be nice. Who is great, and what percentage of people? One wonders where the dividing line is.
I carried out the mission which I gave to CC in the above paragraph myself, out of precisely such a belief that unique greatness attached to the German soldiers. I truly thought they were heroes who had solely and uniquely fought against the forces of evil - (something which caused enormous dissonance in me because of my upbringing and background!!!) - perhaps my search was carried out incorrectly. I arrived at a different view than the one you are proposing CC would arrive at. I was overwhelmed with the patheticness of it all - the grasping, reaching aspect of it. I was ashamed for the very real flesh-and-blood Germans, whom I feel affinity towards, being ground up in a meat grinder, for ideals of glory and ... whatever other promises of greatness have retained a shred of value on the market of ideas. I was sick to see how men groan under the weight of their own mythologized fantasies of past masters, past greatnesses, and ten-foot-tall men hiding behind military decorum and demanding shows of reverance. German reverance is purer than that of others, as it was available in those days, and something so sorely abused that they now happily ape Anglo-style cynicism.
Funny that you say that because I was obsessed with Prussian history, Prussia being to my teenage mind the ‘source’ of militarism, and thus, of Greatness. Everything I say about Prussia comes from an all-too-real obsessive encounter with the ghost of Prussia. As for movies, I never watch Hollywood ones, and couldn’t bear to see a movie made about a subject that is dear to me. I wrote a short thing about The Trek out of Prussia here. Prussia was basically my religion.
I think you would be surprised at the nepotism, poseurism, and sabre-rattling stupidity which I’ve found in readings of Junker history. That being said, they were probably Europe’s greatest military class in the last 300 years, and fascinating people. They embodied militaristic ideals better than anyone else, but your piety is something I have to call into question. Anecdotally, I courted a girl for 2 years who was the descendent of these people, but had to flee the East as a refugee. I was hoping to get some Prussian pazazzle, but it didn’t work - touch wood!
Here you’ve overstepped the bounds of your knowledge and made a statement that is actually factually incorrect. The Junkers most definitely were nobility, reaching out to Wikipedia one finds: “A Junker was a member of the landed nobility of Prussia and eastern Germany. These families were mostly part of the German Uradel (very old feudal nobility) and carried on the colonization and Christianization of the northeastern European territories during the medieval Ostsiedlung. Today “Junker” is often used as an honorific for untitled German nobility. The abbreviation of Junker is Jkr. and is most often placed before the given name and academic titles, for example: Jkr. Heinrich von Hohenberg. The female equivalent Junkfrau (Jkfr.) is used only sporadically. In the past the honorific Jkr. was also used for Barons and Counts.”
Yet when I argue against militarism, it isn’t because I think abjuring militarism will give me immortality, as you must know. Keeping my innermost self free from a teleology which advocates violence and the ability to deliver and withstand violence as the prime source of virtue - is important in simply having a clear strategic grasp of human conflict. If I believe that conflict bequeathes teleological, moral transcendence on those who undertake it, I will be the more quick to engage in it when it is strategically imperative that I do not. The German strategy in WWII demonstrates clearly the corrupting influence of these beliefs on strategy. I have to be overly provocative with you and argue that, as I see it, this constant over-reaching and desire to ‘be something more’ is indicative of precisely that which one has to call “cowardliness”. If one didn’t feel insufficiency within oneself, one wouldn’t posit these glories and strive for them. Ultimately the wanna-be hero is desperate to prove himself, and afraid of being a “coward” - that is his fear. And as GW says, the accumulation of ‘greatness’ being sought, isn’t attainable through striving, at least not of this sort - i.e. rushing at the barrel of a gun in the name of self-overcoming. That is an illusory method of self-elevation, existing primarily in the minds of those who never endured combat. This I say on the basis of speaking with veterans and reading military history, and of trying to confirm this world view but being ultimately unable to. That being said, there are certain military experiences which appear to solidify and put in perspective one’s life: mostly related to bonding with others, service of country, and being shit-scared of dying. Some clarity is engendered by these things.
Duty is an idea for slaves, for men who have inwardly enslaved themselves to their commitments to others. If one cannot produce in oneself the *desire*, free from shaming and moralizing obligation, to go out and risk death in a fight, one is fighting for reasons of peer-pressure. This is one way in which the heroism of even the Germans is second-rate compared, insofar as passage of time permits comparison, to our ancestors of distant ages, such as the Vikings. They fought because they wanted to, not after shaming themselves with a concept of ‘duty’. Schiller wrote something along the lines of “You Germans, trying to be heroes - try first simply to be men.” That sounds about right to me. 16
Posted by PF on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:20 | # ah, fiending for a junker’s granddaughter’s junk, those were the gold olde dayes. 17
Posted by rocket on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:00 | # actually , the duty that the Germans adopted was not from slavery , but from the aristocracy of Ancient Greece , and carried on to the Greco-Roman era. That is why Neitzche refered to himself as ‘‘an Aristocratic anarchist ‘’. Since Heidegger is an existentialist and not an essencialists , he understands and purporsts that existence proceeds essence . of course this takes on theological aspects in historicla theological study ..but if one looks upon it as ‘‘the essence of a people ‘’ in the Hegelian sense, the Nazi’s were very much putting essence before existence. 18
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:48 | #
West Michigan.
Take a look at this and tell me what you see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MichiganAncestry.svg
It seems you suffer from the tyranny of an enthusiasm unwarranted deconstruction.
Germans did not themselves decimate their own capital, I think you’ll concede.
Their suffering would have been much greater had the Soviet Union been able to steamroll its way into Western Europe unopposed, which it would have, sans German militarization under NS. Funny that fact is never addressed when it is the central fact.
It is statements like this that leads me to believe your calls for acceptance of man as he is, or at least as you think he is, just may be a pose.
I don’t disagree, why do you assume that I do, or, perhaps more aptly, why do you feel the need to believe that I do?
In a vacuum, but has a man ‘wasted’ his life if he chooses to spend it in defence of his family from an attack that would be fatal but for? That does not make very much sense from an evolutionary perspective, but to a man who is religiously devoted to his ideal of pacifism, I’m sure it makes very much sense.
Catch your breath there, no responsible military commander succumbs to the religious ecstasy of ‘hero worship’, however much he may attempt to provide emotional incentives to urge his soldiers on to bravery in battle when the time comes.
Yet defense of the collective is more important than the life of any one man, and if a man of able body refuses to be ‘weaponized’ in necessary defense of the collective he has then cast himself in the position of a free rider.
Calm down, PF, you do realize you are flogging a straw man here, don’t you? Perhaps that is what you once thought, but it is not what I think, or ever thought. Got that?
You like straw, don’t you? My contention is that men do in fact feel the psychological need to be praised for their sacrifices in battle; otherwise, why all those medals, why all those veterans parades? So what’s easier en masse, going with the grain or against it, even if going with it offends your personal sensibilities?
It is rendered cheap with the steadfast refusal that you share with other English nationalists to recognize the necessity of confronting the Soviet Union militarily. 19
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:17 | #
Idealistic sophomoric claptrap. Of course models of adaptive behavior for individuals as relates to the collective are needed and peer-pressure is necessary to enforce them. The emotional thrust of your commentary seems to be less of ‘to thyself be true’ than ‘thy own ass save first’ - which, as you rationalize it, is the opposite of cowardice. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:48 | # Rocket, Since Heidegger is an existentialist and not an essentialist, he understands and purports that existence proceeds essence Interestingly, Heidegger rejected the study of being as “ground”, out of which comes identity, for the notion, which he claimed was pre-Socratic, that being was an attribute of identity. Therefore he examined being not as “ground” but as “relation”. The first ordering, by the way, he saw as metaphysics, and the second philosophy. So if identity - that which is “the same as itself with itself” - precedes being, essence, as (I think) you are using the term, surely precedes existence. For what it’s worth, many commentators have concluded that Heidegger never left his Catholicism behind, and approached all his thought in the spirit of seeking his God. PF, In what sense do you mean ‘the mundane’? Heidegger uses the word himself, which is why I took it. However, yes, it carries a specific sense of value which I ascribe to all of the inauthentic life or, to be more accurate, to the two producers of that inauthenticity: 1. The phantasm that our neurological processes reify, and to which we yet attach identity. 2. This same state seen as ordinary waking consciousness, into which we most effortlessly and comfortably subside. And we all do this quite without exception. It is in its universality that it’s mundanity lies. Those who consider themselves exceptional in this respect are merely that much more self-estranged. Exceptionalism consists in the difficult and mysterious act of reconnection that Heidegger spoke about ... or I think he did, anyway! I would be interested to know what GW thinks upon reading this paragraph. OK. You write: True, the people of the past were different. Some special qualities are to be found in them which we cannot directly recreate in ourselves. In terms that are real, no man can become another or even like another, either one lost in place or in time. For no personality is acquired consciously, and attempts to change it always contain thesis without ever containing the possibility of synthesis. The result is inauthentic and unsatisfying. Certain things accumulate in a man over-time if he lives truly, and television among other things prevent men of our times from living truly. If he lives truly? This life is obviously what interests Heidegger in his deep attachment to what I believe he particularised as the German self and the German people. Strictly speaking, though, the possibility of a certain accumulation in the true part of us - that which is permanent and natural, not acquired from outside - takes us out of the realm of philosophy and into the realm of metaphysics and even esoterism. We are well advised to be cautious of this domain. In generalising the principles of movement from the inauthentic towards the authentic we are inevitably going to coarsen the process. For example, the inauthentic as personality becomes sociality on the scale of the collective, and with that the bonds of meaning loosen. Heidegger did not venture onto this ground. I don’t know that it occurred to him to do so. As nationalists, we philosophise without the benefit of other men’s shoulders to stand upon. I have noticed how people in my surroundings sometimes show me a reverence, or an awe, that they think there is something special about me because I have done or said or accomplished something But what is your IQ? Does your eye shine bright? Do you find something of yourself in “them”, and find yourself in consequence, at least to some small, discernible degree, peculiarly sympathetic to them? There are probably many reasons why you or I or any of us should be thought exceptional. But none of them are the one that matters. Better, as I said before, to extinguish the thought. Since I believe that our essences, passed down in our genes, have not suffered corruption, I believe I am as capable of what would be called “greatness” as they are. Yes indeed. The nation is in us. It is eternal, and can be discovered at will - if we can discover what “will” really means. 21
Posted by PF on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:40 | # GW I knew you’d come in late with something of tremendous value!
How does identity precede being? I thought identity is similar to existence, and being is similar to essence. Am I confused? Do you adhere to the “ground” or “relation” thinking in this respect, GW?
I actually grasp some or all of this. Hooray! You are saying that celebration of the personality’s wonderfulness is not being exceptional, even if the personality appears exceptional in contrast with ones surrounding people. There is a more fundamental singularity than that of whatever personality facet’s glimmering is posited as being the key to transcendence, i.e. heroism in the above example.
Great stuff!
What is will and what does it really mean? Presumably it is the will of that which is real in us, as opposed to the personality’s desire for example, to be seen as a hero. 22
Posted by PF on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:59 | # CC
Oh I very much mean ‘to thyself be true’. When you go to war, if “duty” is what motivates you, then you are being shamed into doing it. Do it, for duty’s sake. Else you’ll be a COWARD!!! So of course you are afraid of violating duty, or of being a coward. People do not “choose” duty, like GW is talking about above, with a will, they receive it like slaves and bow to it as an idol. You know that that is whats at the bottom of all this heroic sacrifice-yourself moralizing, right? At no point is one relieved from the imperative to think strategically. It seems to me that a person who believes in teleological glory etc., cannot think strategically. Especially when it becomes the most strategically intelligent option to give in, run away, or just sit out one round and not fight, or compromise. This is so plainly evident in the psychologies of the men conducting Germany’s affairs in both world wars, it might as well be written across their faces in deutsche Schrift. 23
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 04:15 | #
I’m sure you are expressing your own inclinations, the trouble is that you speak as if what you would do is adaptive generally. Wrong.
Here is what duty means:
Geez, PF, it seems as if I’ve struck a nerve. Here is what coward means (sound familiar?):
The effect on a people were they to adopt your recommendations of what you mean by ‘cowardice’ as vice and ‘courage’ as virtuous as being normative would be disastrous. There could be no education of what is expected of an individual as relates to his collective with his acting on that as a result of social pressure in the instance he didn’t feel inclined to do his ‘duty’, what is expected of him, without him being, by your lights, a ‘coward’. And in the real world, where what is expected of a man must be taught to him - it is in other words ‘acquired’ - even if he were to have wholly internalized said, to have internalized his sense of ‘duty’, he would still be a ‘coward’ by your logic in that his wholly internalized and therefore self motivated sense of ‘duty’ would still not flow wholly from any internal well free of any socialization whatever. And truly, when can it ever be said that at every moment unerringly any man does what is expected of him free of incurring shame if he does not. The reason that you must twist words that are by common sense associated with virtue and call them vice, and vice versa, is that you are hell bent on rationalizing away your own physical cowardice. Is that not plain? As such, and until such time you are able to cease in that, you render yourself an unworthy and irresponsible adviser to our race.
I dearly wish the English had followed your advice, the world would be a better place. 24
Posted by PF on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:09 | # Thank you CC for popping up again!
I’m not talking about my own inclinations nor are you talking about what is adaptive generally. I’m talking about what it means to internalize memes related to DUTY, and the view that military sacrifice alone results in virtue. This is true regardless of one’s inclinations - no one adopts the meme of “duty!” and is not, deep down, being shamed by peer-pressure. The shaming entity may be “the collective”, or “the race”, but it is just the same as not taking a cookie because mommy says no. Don’t not jump into enemy fire, because Racial Mommy says no! You consider the one to be a holy commandment. Yet I think a man that lives by external commandments is not his own man. A man buffetted about by these conceptions that he is inferior to past heroes unless he achieves “glory”, isn’t free to make any sort of choice - he goes a slave into the fight, basically to prove himself. Fighting to prove oneself is the gayest thing ever, its something 15-year old boys do and the same dynamic reoccurs here in expanded form. I already mentioned the circumstances in which teleological militarism and heroicism is not adaptive - I just used the word ‘strategic’ instead of adaptive. Situations are: when its best to give up, when its best to compromise, when its best to avoid conflict, and when its best to sit out a round, or be sneaky. A man who thought as you apparently do, would not be able to back down in these situations, because his teleology, his becoming, is based on this continually reiterated idea of manly sacrifice to become a hero.
Notice the external nature of all the cues that prompt one to duty. If someone attacks my family, and I respond, and someone mentions “duty” in my response, it would be silly, wouldnt it? There is no shaming necessary in cases of nature’s heroism, we give it without being cajoled aka inspired by Great Images of Great Heroes. The difficulty lies in the perception of that danger, since it is difficult in mass conflict.
I don’t think there is any people (large human group) capable of apprehending en masse what I have tried to convey, so the point is really irrelevant, isnt it? The mass of people will always use peer pressure and external cues to motivate and cudgel themselves into doing things - now they are shamingly moralistically pro-peace, just as before they were shamingly moralistically pro-war.
You are making this a categorical imperative - i.e. judging the usefulness or desirability of implementing what I’ve said based on what would happen were it practiced by the entire population. This is an algorithm designed to help one become “the perfect person” based on what actions if practiced by all would lead to “the perfect outcome”. It is an externally-based way of relating to oneself. Your evaluation of what I’ve said should be based on what you perceive of truth in it, not what you imagine to be the implications for your mental models of mass action when applied to all the “nodes” in the putative network. (or pawns, or glyphs, or whatever all the little white men modelled in your imagination could be called). Continuing to try to design yourself to be a “perfect model” for mass action will prove problematic as you get into more complex realms of idiosyncratic choices where the outcomes are not guaranteed. I’ve tried to warn you of weaknesses in your model, and here I see you basing important acts of self-relation off of these models.
A well-developed man acts without fear of what others think, or trying to meet others benchmarks. He does what he wants. He may answer your call to arms, or he may not: he is a bad pawn in your war game because his behavior can’t be accounted for in the algorithm. He will fight if he thinks he is legitimately threatened, but won’t be cajoled into fighting by propagandists, who have all sorts of ideas and purposes themselves. This is a level of perfection scarcely reached among men of recent epoches and I dont think the germans, with their collectivist tendencies, produce very many of these men. Herd men, who are indeed “educated” in all sorts of ways, will dutifully lose their lives if you hold a peice of bacon in front of them, especially if the bacon is mass hysteria. This is an abuse of herd-man and a shameful manipulation, in my mind.
This is the kind of thing you are always throwing at me. Neither of us is on a battlefield presently, (I presume) but your attitude towards the subject matter is presumed to lift you up above me and allow you feats of martial glory, or perhaps not, perhaps its just my attitude towards the subject matter that means I would never stand and fight for anything. Just because I don’t believe fighting is the one redeeming feature of man, or that it is a source for glory, or that strategic imperatives should be thrown away in the service of idealized, propagandistic visions borrowed from failed historical precedents - you think this means I would not defend my family from you? Or enlist in service to support my ethnic group? Or risk dying in a field somewhere to see my people achieve freedom? How low a loyalty would you project on me then, CC? Am I trying to bring down avant-garde nationalist philosophy from within? why have I been on this website for years now?
Wishing death on the English nation…. *sigh* 25
Posted by PF on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:45 | #
I think militaristic entities create medals and veterans parades to further their goals. The American military industrial complex is a good example of just such a manipulative, parasitic, man-destroying machine. Not that I think we dont need militaries or armies.
The memes I’ve addressed are endemic to militarist culture. Those in the field may gain a more realistic view over time - the critique still holds.
True, I’m not responding to your support of having a military, which I consider a baseline rational decision for any nationalist. This discussion is an extension of the prior one where we discussed several memes inherent in palingenesis. If the above snippet were the whole of your argument we wouldn’t have any disagreement.
Perhaps there was a necessity of confronting the Soviet Union militarily, for Germany. Why the Sudetenland then, why Poland, why France?
Not a pacifist!
They provoked the powers that did, to war against them! If I make fun of you ruthlessly until you hit me, who is responsible for the fact that I got hit? And it was not outside the bounds of their predictive capabilities to see what was going to happen to them. The psychology I’m attempting to critique is what drove this conflict!!!! I find it again and again in Hitler’s speeches.
The response above is to my saying that militaristic moralizing posits fighting as man’s only virtuous action. Whether you agree with the precise formulation of this is irrelevant, you’ve already shown yourself as buying into a belief structure according to which men are accorded value based on their service to the collective: heroes, and cowards. Each time I speak against your principles, I am called a coward, illustrating the point. I’m saying that men have a value beyond this, and that the belief in this as an essential value is wrong, totally wrong.
Look for a moment at your worldview. It is already clear that you divide things into “titanic heroes”, and those who are not. You believe in the supreme value of military valour, and thus in the moral redemption through military service which is possible in teleology. I said man is more than a weapon, to which you agreed. Yet in the moment of considering collective endangerment - which you consider as something taking precedence over everything else - you acknowledge that only one thing is necessary: to be a hero. So man is abbreviated the moment you perceive danger - and whenever you choose to reintroduce this context of danger, your abbreviated vision of man is called forth again: “We’re under threat! What are you: a hero or a coward!!” In your last reply to me you step back into the position of supporting militarism as a noble lie - but your statements prior to that indicate a real belief in the regenerative power of heroism and militarism - so which is it? Are there titanic heroes who achieve godlike status by serving their people, or is that a fiction to keep herd-man under the gun? All of a sudden in your replies, medals and parades exist just from man’s psychological needs? Does man scale the heights of Olympus with this nonsense, or does he merely console himself - please get your story straight. 26
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:49 | # @GW Heidegger - ‘Seinsvergessenheit….’ “Appearance, deception, illusion, errancy are all powers that are appropriated by Being itself; it is only everyday reason that no longer experiences their numinous force and degrades them to mere error. The courageous repeats the beginnings, the pre-Attic Greece of our intellectual existence, saying ‘Yes’ to strangeness, darkness, uncertainty and insecurity. ‘Yes’ to beginning… “ The object of life, then, as Heidegger infers, might be said to live as much as possible from authenticity, and as little as possible from inauthenticity. What will come will come, historically - as is the case with the National Socialists whose one great achievement of unity was accompanied by the seven less than great “observable facets” that PF listed in his Palingenesis essay.” 27
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:03 | #
I afraid I must dissent, yes you are, and yes I am.
Clearly, which is why I brought up the subject in the post to which you are responding.
In which case you are tilting at the windmills in your imagination, as that is not my position.
I concur, as should have been clear by reading my post above.
You’ve reduced the construction of a moral, adaptive social existence for the people to inhabit to a gaudy nursery tale, LOL! Never let anyone accuse you of not being a serious thinker, not for an instant!
If he is drafted and ordered to fight with punishment given if he does not then he is a “slave” by your logic anyway. The English who fought Germany in WWII were slaves! Aren’t you proud of yourself?
Yes, to the degree that anyone strives for excellence with external recognition as a motivation they are gay. How often do you hit for the pink team, PF?
You need to learn to read more carefully.
This is largely the problem, you abstract your conception of militarism from real life, in which real men wielding it as an instrument possess seemingly no rational faculties, no prudence, whatsoever. It is a self discrediting tendency.
You have above attempted to invalidate the inculcation of duty, whatever form that may take, as an instrument of statecraft. I can’t even must a fitting sarcastic reply, it would be too cruel.
But what if you did not respond, or your natural inclination was not to respond, would it then be silly to mention duty?
There were no nation-states in the EEA, nor were there professional standing armies, nor the corresponding necessity of statecraft.
This sounds suspiciously dogmatic.
It is relevant to statecraft, which apparently you have no interest in, which raises the question of why one should pay attention to your pontifications if it is not intended to effect mass change, amongst the masses.
Thank you for agreeing with me, and for putting one more nail in the coffin of your own relevance.
Whoa, nothing gets past this guy.
I do not concede that the negative consequences you assert of militarism follow inevitably as you suggest. And as stated above, I cannot do as you ask as I am interested in statecraft, i.e., the practical application of political philosophy. (
Nothing like the mind of a man clouded with his own vanity to induce hypocrisy, I refer you, again, to what you wrote above:
Moving on:
The simplification you ascribe to me is in your mind only, of course I recognize their must be varied and specific models for a proper division of labor, in addition to general ones.
The model you have of my model is quite weak.
Now tell me, just why is it that if the English had not charged into German machine gun fire that the Germans would have continued in a war of total extermination against them? You must really have a low opinion of Germans, for shame. 28
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:25 | # @PF Since I believe that our essences, passed down in our genes, have not suffered corruption, I believe I am as capable of what would be called “greatness” as they are. Do specific examples come to mind of men who you’ve known, who you believe to have been ‘titanic’? Highly subjective and difficult to distill . I would say an uncompromising honour and truthfulness to one’s self. The acceptance of mortality and weakness, yet fearlessness in the struggle for life. A incomparably honed, discriminating and learned intelligence, yet a reluctance to judge. The embodiment of the transcendental virtues of world culture, yet the openness, manliness and generous spirit of common folk. Men of ordinary mortal flesh and blood, who stand their post despite certain destruction and defeat, if they survive, will do it again, the choice of death before dishonour. ——————————— Perhaps less than a third. But the ordinary man who builds a house that will last and serve a family well, and all who live in it practically and enduringly, who makes something true and worthy, ...this is a type of subliminal greatness. Like a numinous charge that jumps to those who come between it’s poles. The same the masons who built the Gothic piles and so on. Men die but their values are passed through their actions. —————————————- I think you would be surprised at the nepotism, poseurism, and sabre-rattling stupidity which I’ve found in readings of Junker history. ———————————— These things exists in all classes and peoples. Propaganda comes into play when these things are distorted in scale so that the impression is given that this was the condicio sine qua non of the criteria. These caricatures are common to any class the present establishment does not approve. —————————— Here you’ve overstepped the bounds of your knowledge and made a statement that is actually factually incorrect. The Junkers most definitely were nobility, reaching out to Wikipedia one finds: I have to be overly provocative with you and argue that, as I see it, this constant over-reaching and desire to ‘be something more’ is indicative of precisely…. Because you do not understand neither what I am saying, nor the implications of what you are saying. I must end here. 29
Posted by PF on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:30 | # CC et al., Re: Who believes in heroicism debate Gents, I have to bow out of this discussion now and attend to some other stuff. GW, I’m very interested about the last line you posted - about the development of the will. 30
Posted by Odoacer on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:41 | # I’ve always thought—from having in various places read—that the early Junkers prided themselves on not being hereditary aristocrats (nobility descended or usurped from imperial lines). If we bear in mind the old German predilection for honorifics awarded anyone who has risen above the rank of village smithy, “Junger Herr” resumes its place as an upstart’s title a bit further down the ladder than the Spanish, and similarly nebulous, “hijo de algo”. Obviously though the bunch came to be a species of aristocracy, through social infiltration and consolidation of power, as Grimoire notes. 31
Posted by Odoacer on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:46 | # Does the oath of omerta extend to this topic as well? “Cu è taci ... campa pi cent’ann’ impaci.” So not really! 32
Posted by PF on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:51 | # Its funny to realize how ruthlessly and with what subtlety our personalities use ‘semiotic’ signaling about things which supposedly make us exceptional - basically preening one’s intellectual feathers in my case. Obviously I’m doing this basically constantly - and yet it does appear to correspond to degree of self-estrangement, as GW says. The person who has all these stories about being special is linked, chained, to inauthentic sources of experience, and is enthralled to the shifting patterns of colors on his magical dreamcoat, which he mistakes for his true self. Embarrassing, but one can see this in our references when we refer to exceptional experiences and dangle lures in front of people to suggest we have been activate in various unrelated thought realms… who knows, maybe we even have a kingdom there. Everyone immature enough to play this game (i.e. myself most prominently) is coquetting with other’s purported ideational real-estate possessions, judging to whom is the territory beholden by who has the most accurate map of it. 33
Posted by danielj on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:51 | # Oh circles of compounding inauthentic gayness, how do I escape thee? You need to get more sunlight and pussy. You aren’t special. You aren’t superior. Do you even have a fucking job? 34
Posted by PF on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:05 | # Rejoining the debate with CC upon instigation from the Beyond:
There is this issue which you bring up of me not understanding your thinking, or making a straw man of it. There is, in truth, no way I can peek inside your head and know all the details of what you think about heroism, men, etc. But the statements you have made about NS, about Hitler, and about the German soldiers of WWII, commit you - as I see it, without wiggle-room - to an ideological position that I know very well from study. Its nice to have caveats, and developing a more nuanced view of things than Hitler had is not difficult. Nevertheless you are constrained by certain core assumptions of your framework. Thats why when I take a swing at you, I aim for the same pins as when I was deconstructing my own previously similar thought apparatus. In some ways your replies to me are largely rhetorical, personality-and-attitude based rebuffs, that show that no deeper thought process about the issues raised is taking place in your skull. What I say is imperfectly worded, and there are things one can grasp onto if one wishes, but does it fail to register that some of the points I have raised really are substantive? For an example of how you raise a surface issue and ignore a deeper one underlying it, you have consistently reminded me that each time I say your framework posits glory in warfare as the supreme or only measure of virtue - I had better said “service to the collective in moments of danger” - that I am insinuating something you do not believe. The point under debate is whether you think willingness to serve the collective trumps other estimations of man’s value.
Yet observe, I make my viewpoint known and what is said of me by both yourself and Grimoire:
So I am devalued as a man by my association with these ideas. Yet can I not be a coward and have other virtues? More to the point: does disagreeing with you even perforce make me a coward? The details aren’t important, the take-home message is: I have been devalued as a man by my failure to adhere to these ideas in your eyes. Quite obviously, an ordering of moral value is being posited based on willingness to serve the collective - however you choose to articulate this.
Anyone who doesn’t fit into this authoritarian moral framework of collective defense, is a non-person; and in fact you embrace the death of a cousin nation to your own, if they go against your hierarchy of values. Grimoire, also an adherent of some strain of this thinking, casts me in the role of coward thus:
So these quotes, and the other denunciations you offered, say more about how you conceive of virtue and moral order of rank relating to heroism, than the precise formulation that I could pin you down to agreeing upon.
As it exists in teleology, militarism is abstracted from real life. This is because rational decisions are overwhelmed by moral imperatives and beliefs about supreme value. Only in a strategic context is a man dying for the collective truly rational. In teleological context it becomes apotheosizing and thus, irrational. You have used the rational component of adaptiveness to defend teleology based on a belief that the one requires the other for added kick via inspirational lies. The trajectory of Nazi Germany indicates to be a false conclusion, which data you reject based on an extensive what-if scenario permitted in your head, where the British see the light and do not enter the war. In all other results-oriented reasoning processes, untestable what-if hypotheses are viewed as indulgences. The rational component of militarism is separate from the irrational hope to achieve elevation individually, or social reification through a noble lie. You frequently conflate the two and are now retreating into the rational component. I know about the psychological dynamics here not only from you, but from the predecessor models whose authority I know that you acknowledge without caveat: such as your comments about Adolf Hitler clearly reveal. Adolf Hitler did not make use of the “common sense” meme in any of his speeches - it was all passion, and binary Domination/Downfall paradigms fueled by teleological thinking. We can both take a step back and recognize the religious nature of the comments you have made in the last few days: titanic heroes, glory, etc. To retreat now into the plea that all this will be tempered with common sense strikes me as contradictory to your previous position.
The fact that you want to engage in Statecraft means you imagine yourself seizing power. The totalitarian extent of control dictated by the reforms you intend demands this be accomplished in an authoritarian manner - all this is predicated in your embrace of NS and non-problematized relationship to its founders. When I say you have no proper working model, I say that you cannot accurately in your head imagine what is politically possible given current or future circumstances. That applies to most everybody, though. But your embrace of NS and desire to retrofit it to, for example, a place like Michigan, strikes me as very unrealistic.
I caught you reasoning about your own inner relational processes based on a categorical imperative - specifically, you were thinking about whether it was OK to adopt the position that I have relayed vis-a-vis military duty, by considering what implications it would have for society as a whole. In this case you are literally not thinking for yourself, and in two directions: you dont think for yourself when you allow irrational credence to an idol (i.e. germanocentric militarism, or “the collective” as you imagine it), and you dont think for yourself when you go into an imaginary process whereby you extrapolate your thought process to everyone and then jigger it until everyone working together using your brain produces the intended result on the collective level. Just listen for the truth and get all those political pawns and voodoo dolls out of your hands. 35
Posted by PF on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:19 | # Re: danielj
I have a job! am I in the club now? 37
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:38 | #
This is essentially Darwin’s position.
Sympathy, incidental to altruism, according to Darwin and thus duty poses its own evolutionary conundrum. 38
Posted by danielj on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:44 | # Only in a strategic context is a man dying for the collective truly rational. In teleological context it becomes apotheosizing and thus, irrational. No. They are just two different kinds of rationality. One sees the ultimate in the immediate and one sees the ultimate afar off from the immediate. One subjects means to ends and one subjects ends to means. On top of that, I don’t see how one can have a strategy without having a teleology. Generals have goals after all. 39
Posted by PF on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:02 | # danielj wrote:
I’m not quite sure how best to use the word teleology. This is probably the root of our disagreement. I use teleology in the sense of morally teleological: that is, it facilitates the becoming of man to reach some putative end state of elevation (e.g. being a hero). This is not what he is, or his ontology, so it is kind of an imagined rubric of becoming. To hold that we become heroes by serving the collective, is a moral teleology, in my terms. As far as teleology involving any simple goals - I would call that strategy. That is the rational component of militarism - strategic defense of the realm, or strategic aggression. The reason why I wouldn’t describe moral teleology as being a form of rationality is that it is based in perceptions which are an order of magnitude more subjective/emotionally-biased/imaginary than those employed in our strategic thinking. Informed persons please give advice about how best to use this word. 40
Posted by uh on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:24 | # so it is kind of an imagined rubric of becoming Well, if cumbersomely, put. Why not keep it simple—let’s call it true / false goals: what is and isn’t possible to achieve, and what is and isn’t real in the striving. The German militarist false consciousness bullied healthy men (or boys!) into perfectly needless death, and Hitler’s (as much, if not more, Goebbels’?) Domination/Downfall paradigm led them, us all, into an abyss. it is based in perceptions which are an order of magnitude more subjective/emotionally-biased/imaginary than those employed in our strategic thinking. All the words seem to dance around it: imaginary, subjective, emotional, romantic, mythological, false consciousness, narrative, etc. The basic motive for all of us is disaffection; beyond that very early landmark begin the imaginings, the projections, the wrangling and the superiority-signaling. 41
Posted by uh on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:31 | # By the way, I’m impressed by the sketch of your disaffection from Nazi ideations, PF. I went through something very similar. Hinc meus derisio. <3 yr writing big time. 42
Posted by danielj on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:34 | # I use teleology in the sense of morally teleological As opposed to that morality of the moment that gives rise to all sortsa woes and troubles? The present vanishes the very moment it comes into being. Man is not, but rather, is always becoming. Man is inherently teleological as is all of nature. The match is “supposed” to be struck and start fires, the moon revolves, ice melts, etc. Order presupposes final purpose. I suppose if you want to use teleology in the manner in which you are employing it, you should refer to it as final cause and get Aristotelian with that bitch. 43
Posted by danielj on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:40 | # By the way, I’m impressed by the sketch of your disaffection from Nazi ideations, PF. I went through something very similar. I think you are selling yourself short defining yourself in opposition to the Nazis. I think it is a cheap form of escapism. It is easy to run around titling at beswastikaed windmills instead of building a windmill of your own. Why don’t you just cave in and become an alcoholic like normal white folks? Now, from Team America, sound words of wisdom!
44
Posted by danielj on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:54 | # Why not keep it simple—let’s call it true / false goals: what is and isn’t possible to achieve, and what is and isn’t real in the striving. The German militarist false consciousness bullied healthy men (or boys!) into perfectly needless death, and Hitler’s (as much, if not more, Goebbels’?) Domination/Downfall paradigm led them, us all, into an abyss. This is Monday mornin’ quarterback shit bro! Also a particularly vicious form of post hoc ergo propter hoc. As in, “After we’ve already kicked the shit outta those filthy fucking Krauts, we’ll demoralize them and tell them they lost because of the spiritual climate that prevailed. We do this utilizing our really big fallacies!” If America entered the war on the side of the Nahzees you’d be banging on the keys excoriating GW for glorifying the “needless deaths” and sacrifices of the RAF. 45
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:55 | #
That’s right, Desmond. I am perfectly capable of reasoning, which is why whenever my alleged betters attempt to pull rank on me with reference to their alleged prodigious ‘learning’ I proceed to grind them down, and then inform them where they can stick it. That don’t mean I won’t read all those wondrous tomes, just means I ain’t gotten around to it yet. Here’s what I do: 1.) Does proposition x pass the ‘smell test’? 2.) Is proposition x internally consistent? If not “yes” to both questions, then the red flag goes up (and the red flag has the word “Bullshit!” emblazoned on it). 46
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:06 | #
Damn, that’s deep. But pardon me if I append it with “no shit”. Only uh would exhort submission to dissatisfaction rather than struggle to overcome it. ‘But…but…you never will be able to overcome ALL dissatisfaction, so why even fucking try?’ Hmm, let me see here, because we can overcome some of our dissatisfaction, and in fact much of it, if we do try. So who is the realist? 48
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:24 | # Fuck the Buddha. Here’s another irony I just can’t let pass: That drunken, vainglorious warmonger Churchill known for the hallmark of his triumphalist (read: palingenetic) rhetoric has been enshrined as the superman bestriding the twentieth century. But why him? Because the Allies won and the Krauts lost. And if so, why defend him? Because he’s our drunken palingeneticist (not only drunk on his palingeneticism), that’s why. 50
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:56 | # Not to be taken literally, dude, don’t go confusing me with uh, now. 52
Posted by uh on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:19 | # Only uh would exhort submission to dissatisfaction rather than struggle to overcome it. ‘But…but…you never will be able to overcome ALL dissatisfaction, so why even fucking try?’ Hmm, let me see here, because we can overcome some of our dissatisfaction, and in fact much of it, if we do try. So who is the realist? In this case, PF. But I never said one can’t overcome dissatisfaction; obviously you’ve gone a long way toward overcoming yours through militaristic fantasy and posture, which PF has been analyzing recently. You’ve become even more rancorous than Scrooby lately. 53
Posted by uh on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:30 | # I think you are selling yourself short defining yourself in opposition to the Nazis. I haven’t done that. Nor can I be opposed to something that is, after all, seventy years in the past. I just can’t be a fanboy for a fatherland that isn’t mine, wouldn’t want me anyhow, and was gruesomely unfair to the same Europeans its misleader professed to want to protect from the Soviet bogeyman. Not that I don’t appreciate attempts to unite all Europe under one will. And before CC says that’s cuz yer a “Med from NYC”, I’d like to divulge that I’m quite close to him racially but for the farthing of eyetalian blood ... and not from NYC. Besides, how does how I define myself matter?? 54
Posted by uh on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:41 | # PF says it best where he describes all the “Fatherland, Fatherland” stuff as just pathetic. You hear the damn word so much it starts to blur and lose meaning, like when you repeat any word too much; then you accept that all that simply isn’t real. The houses and bridges are real and sane; their sturming and dranging and marches east were mostly insane. I’m surprised PF isn’t scandalizing more people here. “I was sick to see how men groan under the weight of their own mythologized fantasies of past masters, past greatnesses, and ten-foot-tall men hiding behind military decorum and demanding shows of reverance.” Worthy of Zola or Bakunin. 55
Posted by danielj on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:49 | # I haven’t done that. I wasn’t talking to you vato. And before CC says that’s cuz yer a “Med from NYC”, I’d like to divulge that I’m quite close to him racially but for the farthing of eyetalian blood ... and not from NYC. We are kinda in the same boat here. I wish I was a “pure” blood solely so I could agitate for pan-Euro unity from the “inside.” Besides, how does how I define myself matter?? Well, sometimes the ad hominem arguments carry waters round here on account of the appreciation for genetic ontology round these parts. So, when a dark eyed, lasagna loving, but otherwise Nordic man like you or me makes an argument, we have to take the human origin of the argument into consideration. Frankly, I consider the source as well. Can’t trust those blue-eyed devils. 56
Posted by danielj on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:51 | # The houses and bridges are real and sane; their sturming and dranging and marches east were mostly insane. You weren’t there bro. Neither was I and neither was the good Cap’n. So, in one sense, it is a fairytale. 57
Posted by danielj on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:53 | # lol @ the Buddha jokes. A revolution without laughter is not one worth having… Besides, taking yourself too seriously will give you a fucking heart attack. 58
Posted by uh on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:56 | # I wish I was a “pure” blood solely so I could agitate for pan-Euro unity from the “inside.” Huh. I don’t consider myself “impure”, sorry. Nords aren’t the center of the universe. So, in one sense, it is a fairytale. Dass tru. 59
Posted by rocket on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:40 | # GW—point well taken . 60
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:44 | # Grimoire, This great achievement was the struggle for authentic being, the historic Dasein, that in itself does not exist, yet is real. Without the possibilities of error, inauthenticity,...authentic being cannot be attained. Well, let’s open that out a little. Forget the NS people. They did not know what they were doing anyway - really, they did not. In the two posts so far extant under the series titled What it means to be human I have set out the bare bones of a neurological-psychological basis for one might call “the human flaw”, which is that absolute tendency to lose oneself recognised in all serious religious and metaphysical systems of thought, and which we are discussing here within the Heideggerian context of inauthentic Dasein. Inauthentic Dasein is characterised by temporality and artifice - our personalities are locked in time and are formed not by us in any conscious sense but, through our blinded-ness to the process itself, quite accidentally by the vast and careless totality of the world beyond. Under the great weight of the hundreds and thousands of subtle influences that issue from the world-source and slowly accrete in us - dead things, all of them and no more ordered than a Jackson Pollock - we lose authority over our consciousness. It’s all done in five years, and the rest is longing for the authentic without ever knowing where to find it. This is the human condition. It is not necessary for Man to suffer this so he can come to the authentic. It is not God’s will. It is not a cosmic joke. It is an accident of evolution - something to do with the rapidity of the evolution of the thinking faculty, I shouldn’t wonder. PF, How does identity precede being? I thought identity is similar to existence, and being is similar to essence. Identity can be the ascription of characteristics to the inauthentic, which is the way in which we generally use the term, and the way in which it is used in identity politics, for example, or it can be something fixed - the being-ness of being, I think Heidegger called it. I am still reading the copy of Identity and Difference that MR’s Dasein very kindly gave me in London, and I don’t feel competent to enter upon a detailed description of identity. However, the being-ness of being is, according to Heidegger’s interpretation of the pre-Socratics, also that which is characterised by being. Well, OK - I’ve got to put in some more reading time on that one. Dasein (our one) is the MR authority on Herr Heidegger - certainly not me. Presumably it is the will of that which is real in us, as opposed to the personality’s desire for example, to be seen as a hero. That is so. Will is not determination or strength or any other most-likely self-regarding “effort” that the pieces of personality piece together. To exercise will is to create in the world, rather than be created by it. In other words, will makes its mark on the historical. In the context of discovering the Eternal Nation, it means an explosion of self-knowledge, which means creativity (so art, literature, film, music) and confidence and unity. It is, literally, great. Whether it is so in the 20th century Germanic sense that CC and Grimoire desire is another matter. 61
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:44 | #
I’m going to confess something to you now, uh, and this is strictly between you and me, the English nationalists (chauvinists, really) mustn’t get a word of it, or I’ll never hear the end of it. Here goes: All that heroic, palingenetic, Ragnarok balls-to-the-wall, self-overcoming transposition to the exalted state of Nordic godhood thumps in my chest, and pumps through my veins like Thor’s hammer. Verily, I say unto you, uh, for me it is the very breath of life. Without it…to console me, from the unbearable burden that is existence, I could not go on another second. Do you hear me, uh, my brother in suffering? You must, you simply must, the burden is too great, I must unload some of it on your perpetually slouched and slender shoulders. LOL!
I’ll try to be happy, for you uh, because happy makes more happy, and happy good. (big smile)
Get over it, uh, I was just busting your balls, an activity I’m sure you yourself are quite familiar with - although you may rationalize it has something more high and dignified. I don’t think non-Nordics are not White, it is just that I would like to preserve Nordics, feel free to file a lawsuit this very instant if you like. Btw, the fucking goombas fought along side the Krauts to effect pan-Slavic extermination no doubt, take some responsibility.
That’s right, I am, the Nords just form the innermost ring. 62
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:00 | # Grimoire, Keep up the great work, and you just might be getting a missive from General GW regarding a promotion. That’ll be all, soldier, dismissed! 63
Posted by PF on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:43 | # @ Grimoire:
I agree that I probably understand neither of these things. Can you elaborate on this point - what do I not understand, what are the implications of what I’ve said? Are you too interested in Heidegger’s philosophy? 64
Posted by danielj on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:37 | # Huh. I don’t consider myself “impure”, sorry. Nords aren’t the center of the universe. You don’t get my jokes :( 65
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:26 | # @GW In the two posts so far extant under the series titled What it means to be human I have set out the bare bones of a neurological-psychological basis for one might call “the human flaw”, which is that absolute tendency to lose oneself recognised in all serious religious and metaphysical systems of thought, and which we are discussing here within the Heideggerian context of inauthentic Dasein. 66
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:16 | # @PF —————— 67
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:59 | # Grimoire, I don’t want to discourage you through any seeming negativity on my part from pushing through the existential fog. On the contrary, I want to encourage you because, for one thing, you obviously have a critique of life - which is already a rarity in this world - and because, for another, any project to equip nationalism with real foundational thinking depends for its success and acceptability on as broad-based and eclectic intellectual sources as possible. Your contribution, then, is most welcome. But I do want to push you a little on what you have said. The idea of ‘Dasein’ is coupled with contradiction; as it exists as a state beyond the limit of normal experience….the supposed knowledge, experienced solely in the actions of the individual, emerges and is known through collective experience affirming and conformed to it’s being, existence….it is the history of the human. Some questions that come immediately to mind, then: 1. Dasein cannot contradict anything. I’m wondering whether you mean that this contradiction is a contradiction by the inauthentic, a kind of on-going negation that supports its own stasis, which is one of an easy and inviting decline of consciousness? 2. Where, in fact, does consciousness fit into your idea? 3. How do you find the Dasein of the collective between that of the individual and that of all humanity, and how is the Volk to do the same? 4. Is it even possible to find individual Dasein through thought alone, or are we bound to speak only in propositions? Sorry if one or two of these are quite big questions. Perhaps not fair. ...Your posts on Human Nature deal with the question of what is ‘self’ from a material basis only. As thinking members of a dying race our thoughts must face the world of men, must endeavour to engage with it at the political and cultural level and must intend real-world effects, or there is no point. The present effort is something Das and I cooked up, and the idea, very generally, is to draw the Heideggerian out of its propositional and, therefore, detached philosophical outlook - you write, for example, of “the idea of Dasein” - and into the world of men complete with its materialist genetic science, evolutionary psychology and what-not, and perhaps even, if James will put his shoulder to the wheel, look for the links to existential thought and is confident of his conclusions, quantum physics. And we want to do an alround more dynamic job than this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpPxClULniI So when I look at your statement above, I’m looking for something altogether leaner and hungrier, less respectful of the standard philosophical discourse, and shaped for the schwerpunckt. This is a life and death struggle. It has to come from our deepest loyalty - and I will say to CC while I’m at it that for people like us this, and not the restitution of National Socialism, is the uncovering of “the great”, and it is what he should seek to be a part of too, because he can do this. What is self? First you have to part the leaves. We are an animal ecology. The ascription of self - which is not at all the same as Self, of course - is an evolved facility of the animal brain. Self only becomes knowable when this ascription and all the endless attentiveness to the personal which it triggers ceases. The words “I am” are the only words Self can utter. What, then, is “I am”? That is what you are asking. And the answer is “Be still.” There is no other. 68
Posted by PF on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:12 | #
Does it follow from this that the self is truly knowable only in moments of stillness? Self knowledge would thus be predicated on a “meditative act” (however that may be conceived), which results in a “felt experience” (however that may be intellectualized), and which beyond ‘I am’, has no appropriate further intellectualization? This is very interesting to me. 69
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:25 | #
Here we come to the precipice of the present (assuming this can ever be overcome) limits of the descriptive power of our language in that what is “Self” is defined above (at least to my eye) as being synonymous with experience of “Self”. Unless it is intended that to be one’s “Self” one must experience one’s “Self” in the way suggested - that is I presume with utmost viscerality - and to not do as such, and in instances when this is not the case, one is not one’s “Self” or at least not fully one’s “Self.” Of course it is surmised that the utility of being most fully one’s “Self” is that this will facilitate genetic continuity, and the pursuit of genetic continuity of our race in that that is what one’s “Self” does when most fully “Self.” 70
Posted by PF on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:23 | # CC wrote:
Movement towards self-knowledge can sometimes be reminiscent of the methods by which the Culture of Critique deconstructed American values, and it can also be reminiscent of the pacifism with which Buddhism advocates separation from the world. Thus it may appear on the surface to imply a loss of the ability to self-assert and struggle for one’s interests in the world. That is an appearance only though. Since our genetic origins and interests are not an illusion, there is nothing to fear from entering that thoughtful, questioning mode where one turns the critical light on oneself, and lets go of things one held dear to, in order to find out what is true. We can lose illusions and detach from a lot, but our roots and blood are not an illusion, so there is nothing to be feared from “letting go” of our ideas about them. The realities underneath our ideas will still be there for us when we get back. The same may not be true for Leftists or those whose ideas have less grounding in the real. 71
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:32 | #
I recall the first time I played Airsoft, which was against experienced players who invited me to come along. There were four of us, we divided into two man teams, retreated back into the trees which we used for cover, in opposite directions. When ready we announced this fact and began attempting to shoot each other, which necessitated advancing, and hence temporarily abandoning the cover of one tree for another, to get in range and acquire a better shot at the intended target. In those moments I experienced a state of total focus and aggressivity, ice water ran through my veins as I breathed fire. When one was hit by the plastic BBs beyond the threshold of one’s tolerance for pain, one verbally acknowledged the fact and was considered ‘killed’. All told, after several contests, I had been ‘killed’ once yet had inflicted five ‘kills’ on my opponents, and against experienced players. Total focus and aggressivity, fully present, one with the exigencies of the moment. I do not know that I was ever more fully myself. I recall during one contest, bellowing involuntarily for my teammate to “Advance!” only to look back and see he had tapped out. I then proceeded to ‘kill’ my two extant opponents single-handedly. When the bayonet of the enemy is at the belly of the collective it is an expression of some men’s authentic being to establish dominance, command, order, however much of that is needed, and to fight. I doubt that uh, or the Buddha would approve over much. And you? 72
Posted by PF on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:13 | #
I believe this would qualify as a “meditative act” and a “felt experience” resulting from it. I had a similar experience when a drug addict tried to beat me up for snogging his girlfriend at a party and I overcame him. However this type of “act” does not get as deep as what GW is suggesting, because that requires stillness.
Yes you describe that very vividly here.
This looks like a confusion of two distinct things. There is moralistic “non-violence” of post-1960s American peaceniks, and then there is the non-violence undertaken in the name of self-conquest/enlightenment, which is non-moralistic and internally-focused. The one is a social meme adopted by weaklings and herd-people, the other is a meme taken up generally by individuals who have some clear idea about improving themselves. I literally don’t believe in any morality, so I don’t believe anything you do is “wrong”. Non-violence as it relates to pursuit of personal enlightenment is undertaken to overcome judgment in oneself, which is a big factor obscuring one’s perception of the true self. In order to overcome one’s judgments, one embraces non-violence against oneself. Its part of self-conquest and is in my mind a sign of manliness and vigor, because isn’t it easy “establishing dominance” in the world, but what about struggling with oneself? That seems like a more noble struggle. The reward is better at any rate. And the one helps you better accomplish the other. I don’t think you understand uh or the Buddha, if you think they are moralistically opposed to you. They may look down on you as a person who (appears at times to) understand only the concrete outer aspects of life and have no appreciation for the meaning of inner struggle, which is pursuant of inner goods rather than outer ones. I think they are both (in Buddha’s case “would have been”) beyond the desire to scold you and make you a baddy, since this is the province of fear-based moralizing, something both of these characters have probably left behind. Let me give you an example of the goods one pursues with these two different avenues of inner and outer. A person may wish to see their city reconquered after ethnic displacement - thats an outer good. I have those feelings too and nothing in my mind is set against them or downplays them. Another kind of good is that a man may wish to not be bothered by pestering thoughts, for example thoughts which continually remind him about how his city is being taken over. Being obsessed with reconquest isn’t good, that isn’t dedication, because these thoughts weaken and prey upon a man and prevent him from experiencing the strength that comes from joy and well-balanced living. Which joy gives him strength, then, to fight, at other times. If a man pursues self-conquest he can get the inner good and then pursue the outer. Your violence is decontextualized because you have obsessions related to it (this is why its constantly being mentioned overtly and covertly in every discussion you participate in), and thus it makes no sense: you’re hocking it and advertising it on an internet site among powerless fringe intellectuals, who already agree with you more than 99% of other white people. Here it has no meaning except to indicate your own psychological state of readiness. None of us who dedicate our time to pondering the fate of our race would offer anything less, if there were a context in which it made sense, which there is not. Its redundant and nonsensical and thus prevents clarity. Thats why I disagree with its presence here, and I see the compulsion to remain stuck on this point as a major weakness. 73
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:14 | # Addendum: I recall a conversation I had with a brotha. Somehow, I don’t really remember, the conservation steered to the bloodsport him and the homies got up to in the hood. The ‘man’ I was conversing with confessed to me in one such instance he was hiding behind a car with his friends as he shot haphazardly at their antagonists, so much so that he managed to shoot himself in the leg. I attempted as best I could to conceal my creeping sneer, not precisely a moment of unbridled authenticity. The genuine article would have been something like puffing on a cigar and blowing the smoke in his face. Raquel and Caron ain’t gonna stop getting stuffed by the niggr00z without some form of intervention, perhaps even rigorous, I take it is understood. Which White men whose expression of Self it is to be handy with the steel may be a relevant question. 74
Posted by PF on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:36 | #
Your violent fantasies are an expression of your inauthentic self, even though the desire to defend oneself and kin is relatively authentic when it occurs in context. You are not in this position of danger to feel this authentically, you’re sitting at a computer terminal somewhere. Rather you call to mind the feeling of being threatened through images and memories and then posit yourself in the role of kick-ass, and in the meantime, although you mean well and were originally *possibly* coming from an authentic place, you have entered the realm of the inauthentic. Neither this fantasy, nor you as kick-ass, is real, in the sense in which GW means it. 75
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:04 | #
Never get high with people you don’t know, or people you know haven’t vouched for.
For me there was stillness, it seemed to be the other guys acting like chickens with their heads cut off.
Talents on loan from Self.
That’s reassuring.
Not in the habit of flogging myself, literally or figuratively, internally or externally.
I take it this sense of ‘nobility’ is wholly independent of external influences, hence the maximization of it.
I don’t know about that one, he’s said some pretty scathing things to me which smacked of, dare I call it, butthurt, moralism. But that is just my impression pre-enlightenment, so with a grain of salt, if you would.
But what if ‘it’ is not a sign of “obsession,” and only a authentic expression of my readiness?
My “violence?” I dearly hope I haven’t injured you PF. If so, I just may have to concede your characterization of me as ‘obsessed’.
I doubt that is the case for me, but for you, perhaps.
I’ll forthwith cut my balls off, so at least you will feel more comfortable, it seems like the White thing to do.
“Compulsion,” hmm, certainly not an attempt to establish dominance via labeling. I trust not, what would the Buddha think? P.S. When will you be interviewed on MR Radio? Perhaps a verbal rendering to the path of your own enlightenment would give me a much needed kick in the pants, if you’ll pardon the “violence” of my metaphor. 76
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:35 | # Note to Self: please allow PF to save Self from self, as Jebus may not be up to the task. Also, why is it that Clark Kent disappears every time SuperSelf shows hisself? P.F., er, I mean P.S. Looking forward to that MR Radio interview. 77
Posted by PF on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:43 | # CC I think we made some progress towards understanding each other! The interview will be coming up before long. 78
Posted by danielj on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:34 | # Your violent fantasies are an expression of your inauthentic self It is absolutely impossible under the materialist rubric to be inauthentic in any way. You have no resources to draw on to be inauthentic. 79
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:25 | # @GW,PF,CC 0) “Dasein cannot contradict anything” + ‘What is Self?’ Heideggers spent a decade exploring the ontic experience of the phenomena of self and it’s manner of manifestation, prior to (Seinende)Sein und Zeit; developing the method he terms, phänomenologische Aussage(Zeugnis), or ‘phenomenlolgical testimony’. He uses the method to answer ontological questions on the contradictions of the experience of being, the way they manifest themselves, and what they are. Heidegger shows, via phenomonlogical examination how ordinary contradictory experience, his example: ‘guilt’, show that we make choices that determine who we are at that point of time, actualizing one possible self at the expense of many other selves. Our guilt is debt to our other selves, and this predicament/ contradiction is an ineliminable structural feature of being which reveals our ‘self’s’ ontological ‘finiteness’. This finiteness is a contradiction of Dasein. Not Dasein contradicting - anything. ‘What is Self?’: You make a crucial point, which I missed but both PF and CC pick up and repeat…I would like to shift the punctuation from “i am”?, to “I am?”. This answers these questions: 1) & 2): Dasein cannot contradict anything. I’m wondering whether you mean that this contradiction is a contradiction by the inauthentic, a kind of on-going negation that supports its own stasis, which is one of an easy and inviting decline of consciousness? 3. How do you find the Dasein of the collective between that of the individual and that of all humanity, and how is the Volk to do the same? This will take more time to answer with justice than I have right now. Briefly, similar but apriori to the individual experience of the entity - without volk, or a people as a self aware unity, there is no history, no “world constituting existence of Dasein” - one is left with the “world poor” perceptual immediacy of, as Heidegger puts it; “ a frog sitting on a rock in the sun” or a chair, which has no awareness whatsoever. In ‘Being and Time’ Heidegger criticizes Cartesian skepticism (“I think therefore I am”) - presuming that the worldless existence would even consider this category. This is the answer to question 4. 4) Is it even possible to find individual Dasein through thought alone, or are we bound to speak only in propositions? I must go. 80
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:11 | # Briefly: without history, volk, a people, the contradiction of finiteness cannot be resolved, authentic Dasein cannot exist 81
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:36 | # The point of Heideggers criticism of Decartes (“I think, therefore I am”) is it’s implied skepticism of a historical being. Think of the Nubian warrior (without presumptive arrogance) who lives in a world of predator and prey understanding a reference to his own being as “I think….”. This may happen, but it is consistent with experience that he would say “I breathe, I bleed, I walk, therefore I am…” These finite states are contradictions because the same warrior will see around him that he will soon no longer do these things. in eternity. His dasein is ahistorical and limited to his finite, temporal dominance or submission to his environment. His histoicity is limited to having progeny. The historical does not conform to him, he is lost in it as if he never existed. 82
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:28 | # For more than three millennia the being of existential European man was directly linked to, as Heidegger terms it a “World constituting existence”. Such that history conformed itself to the Dasein of a people who’s being projected beyond the contradictions of finiteness, to the horizon of the future - this was authentic Dasein. 83
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:44 | # Correction: Above:
84
Posted by Red Rackham on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:58 | #
This from the Marshall Lentini who admitted to being an eye-talian from NYC on another site. Or was that above merely a comment on the fact that you live in Florida now? 85
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:30 | # There is no Cartesian/Darwinian representation because Darwinism rejects dualism. Heidegger’s contempt for what he called “biologism” is a thread that runs from Plato to Descartes to Heidegger. 86
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:06 | #
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll at least put in a half-assed effort to understand ‘philosophy’, but quite frankly, a lot of the time it comes across as so much mystical bullshit the product of conjuring meaning with words. Advance EGI good, let niggers fuck White women bad, that’s enough for me. 87
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:27 | # Another member of the Awkward Squad informs us that it will be working-class White men who will be forced to fight and die for the prize, whilst the high and mighty fucks, the good and the great, will be sitting on their porches sipping lemonade. So true, but how else would it be? I suppose the best that can be made of that asymmetrical situation is for the guys on the porches to realize that if they don’t play nice in giving the working man a nice, fat slice of the pie post victory, it will be their asses next. “Bad self, bad!” said Self. “I know, but I am trying, Self.” said self. LOL! 88
Posted by PF on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:01 | # danielj wrote:
Disagree. One could posit for example that the brain is built up in layers, the innermost of which give rise to authentic experience, but which, given that they correspond to nothing triggered by society, and given that socialization processes are expotentially accelerated in us, we have lost access to. Rediscovering then the inner layer could be conceptualized as returning to authenticity, within a materialist framework. The resources I draw on to distinguish inauthentic from authentic are GW’s explanation above, experienced through “meditative acts”. Everything in all my formulations on this point requires revision by GW, who truly knows what he is talking about on this point, but I think he knows about a materialist metaphysics. I dont wish to speak for him though. 89
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:42 | #
Sure, GW’s descriptive break-down seems accurate enough.
But no sane man will say that upon having achieved this ‘authentic’ experience that one will be able to perceive unaided the hustle and bustle of what is down to the level of the sub-atomic. And what if, as one defines ‘authentic’ experience, one must perceive what is down to the level of the sub-atomic unaided. Well, then ‘authentic’ experience is not possible, by definition. So then, all a product of semantics! Yup, magic words.
And yet GW has stated that one will, or at least most will, be ‘intoxicated’ by something, so best make your liquor of a fine vintage. But drunk you will be, regardless, make no mistake. Unless you want to fold up shop on the modern nation-state and go back to a rustic existence that requires interaction with many fewer people so the Rousseauian dream of experiencing the ‘sentiment of existence’ can be yours. But then GW also tells us our race is not tragic and hence will not accept the anti-Promethean stripping of all its modern comforts attached to the nation-state. Looks like the seekers after ‘authentic Dasein’ just may be shit out of luck if it is their desire for said to catch on with the lemmings en masse. So it is pretty well esoterica then (i.e., intellectual masturbation)! 90
Posted by PF on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:31 | #
Violence, as per our discussion yesterday, is an emotional modality of rejection towards something, it is the act of not listening. Your violence towards the above statements allows you to take an attitude towards them, that you understand all you need to about them. The rest is larry-farry, high-faluting nonsense. Its very convenient for you and saves you the work of being a student, of admitting that you don’t really understand. The logic is that you dont need to understand this because you can discount it. This is, as an emotional modality, not the “inquisitive, sober student” mindset, which alone allows progress in these difficult areas. If we take a step back, and look again at the context of your behaviors - knowing how many other internet sites there are on which “boots and braces” calibre commentary is the norm, and is lauded and expected (I refer to Stormfront, Amren, etc. etc.), and even that websites exist where “boots and braces” laced with scientific teleology and analysis is expected, why would one come here, to the sole nook where this analysis is being undertaken, and absent understanding, demonstrate an attitude which can only indicate that one isn’t interested in learning? Why then is one here? And the answers that suggest oneself are 1) boredom and 2) one doesn’t know why one is here. But actually, I know you are curious and are interested in learning, but this behavior conflicts with your intent. So here we are demonstrating in real time the problems of the authentic vs. inauthentic self (or are we - perhaps both are inauthentic - GW?). Is CaptainChaos here to learn, or is he above it, because its all just mental masturbation anyway? Part of you wants the safety of knowing its all just “magic words”, part of you is drawn by the possibility of understanding and discovering something completely new. You can’t just leave and go away, your curiosity is hooked. But you can’t submit humbly and allow us to use polysyllabic words without reminding us that “you are the truth and the life.” We all have this dynamic going on within us to some degree, BTW. You’re not alone. 91
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:47 | #
A third option: Testing the theory. 92
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:56 | #
And ‘authentic’ experience of ‘Dasein’ is merely one of several possible modes of consciousness which we are not bound to aver as superior to any of the others, so long as those others facilitate continuity of the genes with equal or greater effectiveness. Any suggestion to the contrary is a leap in to faithism, which we are told is a no-no.
Violence is life affirming if it facilitates continuity of the genes. Violence also comes in the form of psycholigized moralism deployed in the attempt to shame one’s opponent into submission, it is a rejection towards something namely the opposition faced by one’s opponent. Btw, you didn’t respond to the objections I raised, and instead went with your preferred mode of violence, which I should say is an act of not listening. 93
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:35 | # PF, Does it follow from this that the self is truly knowable only in moments of stillness? But who is it who “knows”? Self is known only to itself. Direct knowledge cannot be communicated. And insomuch as models constructed from word-codes cannot capture this knowledge it cannot be represented either. That part the pomos got right. But the knowledge is still key ... Self knowledge would thus be predicated on a “meditative act” ... which results in a “felt experience” ... and which beyond ‘I am’, has no appropriate further intellectualization? Yes, but it need not be the Volk’s meditative act. Politically, the idea is to inject into the people’s bloodstream knowledge that there is knowledge, in the same manner and for the same reason that knowledge that there is freedom, at least notionally, is communicated by today’s inner priesthood. Knowledge that there is knowledge would be both a call to knowledge for the few and a conditioning agent for transforming the rest from the MultCult or civic patriotism or whatever into the “Volk”. 94
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:01 | # PF: perhaps both are inauthentic - GW? Everything we ordinarily do in this life is inauthentic, if the measure is authentic being. A rather obvious shortcoming in Heidegger’s model is the manner in which he generalises Dasein to reside in everything, even inanimate objects I believe, and then qualifies the Dasein of Man or men according to whether it is authentic or not. This is unsatisfactory. Take a population, for example. Obviously, it is an ecology so it has Dasein. Is it made authentic by being an aggregated phenomenon? Or is it possible for this Dasein of the masses to be inauthentic? What if many members of the population are infected by a sick culture, and lead sick lives? Is their Dasein then inauthentic? If not, on what basis does one determine that collective Dasein can be inauthentic? It’s a fruitless exercise. The only sound basis for discussion of Dasein in the collective is inauthenticity, as it is in us as individuals. Who can claim authenticity as a stable characteristic? Who can live like that? 95
Posted by PF on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:26 | # CC wrote:
There is a distinction between inner and outer here that is being missed. Although of course you’re right in all you say, there is physical life-affirming violence and moralistic life-destroying violence. I used the word violence in the context of ‘inner goods’, not ‘outer goods’. I mean inner violence. The use of the word ‘violence’ in the sense I posted above, is this: we are listening instruments. Our ability to listen - using ‘listen’ in the inner not the outer sense, similar to ‘perceive’, ‘experience’, so not exactly its original sense - our ability to listen determines the texture of our reality, the bandwidth we pick up on. Do we crudely get the ‘gist’ of things, or do we see possibilities latent in things people have only hinted at? Does reality mean many things to us, or is it a crude, two-dimensional picture that we pick up on? Can we make out a million patterns, or one? The quality of listening determines the quality of the picture you receive, or the recording you make, or whatever metaphor one chooses to use. The content and patterns are many, enough to challenge the best listener among us. Who can say he has fully understood life? So there is an imperative to develop the ability to listen. Violence is the agreement that one will not listen if one happens to hear such-and-such.
LOL! 96
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:31 | # CC, And yet GW has stated that one will, or at least most will, be ‘intoxicated’ by something, so best make your liquor of a fine vintage. But drunk you will be, regardless, make no mistake. Unless you want to fold up shop on the modern nation-state and go back to a rustic existence that requires interaction with many fewer people so the Rousseauian dream of experiencing the ‘sentiment of existence’ can be yours. This intoxication is something I’ve not said much about, but is connected to the tendency, mentioned above, for “ordinary waking consciousness to elide into and attach itself to externalities, psychologically speaking.” It happens because we follow our attention everywhere, and never bother to make it follow us. Since it is impossible to avoid this except for a few moments now and again, should we remember to try, yes, it’s a good idea to have a bottle or two of intoxicant of a decent vintage. But then GW also tells us our race is not tragic and hence will not accept the anti-Promethean stripping of all its modern comforts attached to the nation-state. Looks like the seekers after ‘authentic Dasein’ just may be shit out of luck if it is their desire for said to catch on with the lemmings en masse. So it is pretty well esoterica then (i.e., intellectual masturbation)! I’m not prepared to place all my faith in Inevitablism, CC. I’m not sure what you are referring to here. As for the search for authentic Dasein, this amounts to a perpetuum mobile, a social dynamic, out of inauthenticity and towards authenticity. Within this scheme, you could even fix one or two of those ideals of yours for the anti-materialists. 97
Posted by PF on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:46 | # thank the god that I dont believe in, that I seem to have understood everything in your last rejoinders to me GW. It was arduous work getting there. 98
Posted by danielj on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:01 | # If the mind is matter then there is no such thing as inauthenticity. Period. Full stop. 99
Posted by PF on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:24 | #
Why? 100
Posted by danielj on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:20 | # Because there is no such thing as inauthentic matter. 101
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:25 | # Because there is no such thing as inauthentic matter. C’mon, Daniel, you can’t save the godhead from Mr Darwin’s sharp axe that way. The “matter” is chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain. The inauthenticity lies not in the matter itself but in the, to use Grimoire’s term, contradictory processes of thought, feeling and movement which this matter generates in us. The thoughts, feelings and movements are missing a certain vital component - the presence of the subject or self, mediated through our power of attention. Thus, the contradiction is between what is authentic and inauthentic ... between what belongs to us inately and what is acquired from without. In the inauthentic state (I think I prefer “state of absence”, but no matter), these processes are the “life” of the organism over which we quite automatically weave the story of “me”. This isn’t guesswork on my part, it’s sound neurology and psychology. All this unacceptable materialism takes from you is the worship thing. The essence of metaphysical thought is there, because it is true. 102
Posted by danielj on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:09 | # The inauthenticity lies not in the matter itself but in the, to use Grimoire’s term, contradictory processes of thought, feeling and movement which this matter generates in us. Subjectivity is immaterial. 103
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:41 | #
By that logic we can say the very state of the existence of humanity is ‘inauthentic’ and what is ‘authentic’ was our pre-human precursors.
We can’t, as if we evolve our nature will have changed.
Perhaps he meant, or even if he did not could have more correctly said, only a dogmatically asserted ideal of the legitimacy as an end unto itself of the continuity of our being (i.e., “a god”) can save us.
It’s only a fitness bubble if you lose, if you win its a fitness boon. Not even the “god” of ‘authenticity’ can make it not so. And of course with eugenics you could breed the man to fit the system, or breed the man to fit the philosophy as is GW’s preference. 104
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:19 | #
That should have been a question mark and not a period. 105
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:49 | # Daniel, Subjectivity is immaterial. Nope, it is material in origin, and is an evolved facility:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_2/ ... as is faith. This is Man, Daniel, and your insistence upon his divine genesis, whilst as a folkway it is, to my mind anyway, rather impressive and beautiful, does not stray beyond its own genesis in your faith - and your faith is not divine in its own genesis. 106
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:51 | # I contend that they have evolved out of the most nascent awareness of sexual division, selection and self-maintenance. In other words, the survival strategy of sensing, to borrow the old German Idealist term, “the thing that is” beyond the organism itself is the only reason for human self-awareness and self-interest. That is a nice story. Lemme get this straight so far: Daniel: Immaterial creates the material David: Material evolves the immaterial Daniel/David: Immaterial supervenes on the material This is Man, Daniel, and your insistence upon his divine genesis, whilst as a folkway it is, to my mind anyway, rather impressive and beautiful, does not stray beyond its own genesis in your faith - and your faith is not divine in its own genesis. I think you’re lying and/or patronizing here. If you find my beliefs so beautiful you wouldn’t consider breeding the faith gene out of the population beneficial and prudent. Is beauty condemned to die whilst utility reigns? Very English of you my friend. 107
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:58 | # How exactly do qualia processing beings gain any survival advantage over zombies or plant life? The problem of consciousness is looms large over this whole enterprise. Perhaps we should have a more thoroughgoing attempt at reconciling the materialist worldview with the facts here at MR? Maybe a ‘philosophy’ section? The thin writing on the subject barely qualifies as hand waving as of right now. 108
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:59 | # Daniel/David: Immaterial supervenes on the material Actually, I don’t really believe that…. 109
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:34 | # Daniel, Material evolves the immaterial No, “the material” evolves the facility to project a consciousness of self, among other things, using materal (electrical and chemical) means. There is nothing immaterial, except the perception of such. Immaterial supervenes on the material I do not say this. I say that the perception of self exists, but only as a projection: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_1/ Of course, the “ground” of the self being addressed here is personality - a reification by mental processes from which our attention and control are entirely absent. This is the inauthentic Dasein that is “characterised by temporality and artifice.” A conversation about authentic Dasein, which is not characterised by temporality and artifice, might be interesting if it was possible to say anything non-propositional: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqAKK9zcB7w&feature=related ... about it. But ... 110
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:42 | # Daniel, Consciousness is not a problem. It is a function evolved that we may the readier survive and pass on our genes. The only problem that I can find in the matter is this: If states of consciousness which are not qualified by absence exist, why? 111
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:09 | # GW,
Very simply I am say that all the bells and whistles of modernity tend to atomize, to estrange, to induce absence in the sense you mean it. A modern, technological society is a radical departure of the EEA of our ancestors, so a deleterious psychological on many of our people should not be unexpected. This is something, consciously or unconsciously, I believe Bowery attempts to address even unto advocating single combat to the death.
Nor I, which would seem quite inconsistent with my advocating to utilize the methods of NS. I think we can acknowledge a succinct formulation of the problem: the degree to which we cannot depend on Inevitablism = the degree to which we must depend upon technocratic management of the population. Would you disagree? The alternative seems to be something along the lines of what Bowery has cooked up, and of course his arrangement would be a sitting duck for a modern, centralized state with a large standing army, like…China. Daniel,
The English can be quite shrewd when they put their minds to it. Hence Goebbels’ remark about them being essentially the European equivalent of Jews. 112
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:14 | # That sentence should read:
113
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:25 | # The words of Ian Jobling in response to Bowery, note the similarity to the rationalized cowardice and implicit exhortation of disloyalty to what PF advocates:
114
Posted by X10ths on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:40 | # Googlesearch=?#@? headhanger hangout! material vs. material = ouroboros sucking own d**K. You have to be a tool to put money down one or other - neither dog hunts. X-10ths is all Grimors not finished. I know where he is writing to…..machinegun. Drop the bomb grim. How do you mail somebody? 115
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:41 | # From a political standpoint advocating breeding out the faith gene is pretty boneheaded. I dare say the lemmings will go for full blown NS before they agree to go under the faith gene zapper. And, one can be a National Socialist and still be Christian. Regardless, there will be no substitute for implementing the social structures necessary to safeguard the genetic integrity and biological quality of the race - ‘philosophy’ will I doubt obviate that need. With those structures in place there will be little mischief Christians can get up to in screwing over the race - unless they are prepared to pay with their asses that is, in which case, what are you gonna do but oblige them. 116
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:05 | # CC, Very simply I am say that all the bells and whistles of modernity tend to atomize, to estrange, to induce absence in the sense you mean it. OK ... well, the tendencies to anomie, atomization and self-estrangement through enculturation in the modern have been with us from urbanisation and industrialisation on. All major societal upheaval leaves its mark. In the same vein, we talked not long ago about the impact of the triumph of Christianity over the old faith. The truth is, though, that the history of Europe is what it is, and the generations of Europeans are as they are. This generation of Europeans is the material that exists to be worked with - when, of course, someone finally succeeds in producing a more applicable, stable and true successor to NS. But to return to your comment, according to Grimoire, Heidegger predicated inauthenticity on a “dilemma of a past we cannot get behind”, and that is an inviting way to look our history. The absence thing, however, is slightly different in its usage to atomization and self-estrangement, which are sociological terms - they describe aspects of our relation to the world. Absence is a purely psychological term, and describes a certain vacuum in the thinking, feeling and moving through the world that we do in ordinary waking consciousness. It requires the rarity of an understanding that what is absent in the working of the mind and in the life we lead is the authentic Self, and there is nothing else. The inauthentic is nothing. the degree to which we cannot depend on Inevitablism = the degree to which we must depend upon technocratic management of the population. Would you disagree? All evidence points to that. But where are the technocrats to be found, and in what will they be technically sound? 117
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:24 | # Religious faith is not an evolved trait, because it does not appear in savage man.
Chapter III - Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals 118
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:54 | # Desmond, The usual appeal to authority, I see, dated 1871. You are bordering on the inflexible, which I doubt that Charles Darwin was. For what it’s worth ... The oldest human group, the Khoisan, does have a religious form, which is centred on self-interest. Tribal African religion among Bantus, which are the youngest human grouping, have a very strong element of revenge. These reflect the primary African evolutionary modus of self-assertion in sexual competition. Just as in the cold north a high-r is a bad strategy, so a religion of the northern peoples cannot serve a radical self-assertion. It must build emotional commitment to the common good and, as was the case with our true pre-Christian religion, reinforce behavioral patterns around Nature and the seasons. The feeling of religious devotion is a highly complex one, consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence,* fear, reverence, gratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other elements. So which of these are beyond the capacity of the modern African? Erm ... none, right? No being could experience so complex an emotion until advanced in his intellectual and moral faculties to at least a moderately high level. So what’s the emotional complexity that modern Africans cannot manage? Obviously, since the African population is the least advanced of all human groups in terms of g, it follows that they must be the ones Darwin is talking about. But, of course, they have their religious forms. So what is this “moderately high level” he’s talking about? The “level” of Africans 5,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? When? Wouldn’t the religion have just been simpler? I’m afraid Charles is guilty of a little cultural supremacism there. Very fashionable in High Victoriana, but not science, surely? To be serious about this question of faith’s evolutionary underpinnings, though, if we accept the arguments for group selection theory there should not be too much of a problem with accepting that faith biases hugely adaptive behaviours and offers a clear fitness gain. You have argued this yourself in the recent past. 119
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:33 | # The position is that Khoisan self-interest is evidence in the belief in an Omnipotent God?
No doubt you also believe dogs display an “evolutionary modus of self-assertion in sexual competition” which equates to evidence of religious faith in man’s best friend. 120
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:38 | #
121
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:53 | # Debate about religious forms and origins is beside the point; - the smoke, not the fire. What must interest us is what is happening as you read this comment. ‘That’ - happening as you read this…., common to all of us, is key to everything. “....with the growth and prestige of the natural sciences, and the scientific discipline of psychology, arises the new task for philosophy: it is the theory of science, a logic of science. It is based on an analysis of consciousness.” In the modern age, it was Kant who first notably asked about the conditions of the possibility of an ‘Apriori science of nature’. This ‘apriori science of nature’ is what the Fugeans refer to as ‘spirits’, dogs as ‘invisible trespassers who jostle parasols’ and Darwinians as ‘natural selection.’ and Heidegger as ‘Authentic Dasein’. You need to think seriously and understand this, before you ask ‘why is there religion?’. For the same universal conditions underly the universal nature of science. 122
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:58 | # And it is ‘that’, which the ‘Left’ (for lack of a more exact term) realized needed to be obscured and buried in order to realize an ahistorical worldview. 123
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:11 | # This is not true. Human existence as Dasein is strictly demarcated from animal existence by Heidegger. Natural selection is not Dasein because it eschews dualism. It is founded in an animal origin. For Heidegger, as for Plato, and Kant, human existence is alien. They reject an animal origin. The same universal conditions do not underlie science and religion/metaphysics. Evolutionary theory is falsifiable, cosmologies are not. Making religious faith evolved bumps it out of the realm of consciousness which is an absolute requirement for Guessedworker’s theory to exist. However, it simply resembles pounding a square peg into a round hole. There is no evidence to support the assertion that one fits with the other. 124
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:35 | # @Desmong Jones: (correction; i meant to write ‘inauthentic’ not ‘authentic’ Dasein. A mistake that invalidates what I was relating….please switch that in your head for me as I cannot rub it out in the comment above….) 125
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:07 | # Desmond, The position is that Khoisan self-interest is evidence in the belief in an Omnipotent God? Why do you define faith by belief in an omnipotent God? Where does that leave the Buddhists who have no god? Or the Hindus who have scores of them? Or the Europeans before the triumph of Christianity? Faith is in the emotional requirement to please, appeal to or genuflect before any supernatural force or agency - a little like you with Chas (only joking). It is not restricted to monotheisms nor to the lords of creation myth, but encompasses the pleasing, appealing to and genuflecting before ancestors, spirits, saints, natural elements, and so on. It is all faith. What matters with it is not the content of the accompanying myth but the behavioural goods that it biases for. Quite separate from the faith impulse is interest in the experience of Self and, for a few very dedicated people, of the unity of Self with All. This is metaphysics, certainly, but it is also psychology not religion, and ontology not teleology. No doubt you also believe dogs display an “evolutionary modus of self-assertion in sexual competition” which equates to evidence of religious faith in man’s best friend. I believe the African, male and female, displays such behaviour all too clearly, and it is the chief principle of the African sociobiology. It does not “equate” to evidence of religious faith in Africans but is, in the African EEA, a behavioural good that traditional African faith practise appears to serve and bias for. Charley says: The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods. For savages would naturally attribute to spirits the same passions, the same love of vengeance or simplest form of justice, and the same affections which they themselves feel. Why does he feel compelled to divide one form of religious pursuit, Jimmy Button’s “spirit worship”, from another, say the Bishop of Oxford’s mighty visions of salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ, Amen? We are talking about the same thing, the same faculty here. 126
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:48 | # Grimoire, There is, as I know you must know, an apparently permanent crisis of antithesis in Western thought which Desmond has described with his usual thoroughness. But there may exist a very narrow opportunity if not to resolve it in its entirety at least to live with it fairly amicably. That resolution consists in the certitude common to an experience suitably stripped of teleology and, as far as possible, propositionalism, and science’s test of falsifiability. Experience cedes ground to science, science does not dispute experience in the realms it has not conquered - that’s the way I see ontological thought and scientific knowledge accomodating one another, at least sufficiently well to close the empirical gap. Desmond says “Making religious faith evolved bumps it out of the realm of consciousness.” But since I read man’s ordinary waking consciousness as a train of mechanistic processes of thought, feeling and physical movement emanating from independently evolved faculties in different regions of the brain, the “realm of consciousness” takes on a different quality. In philosophical terms Man is not living in authenticity, and cannot live authentically. In scientific (in fact, Libetian) terms, Man is not living as a conscious presence, but has made it up, so to speak. So he is more open to making maladaptive choices. Thus religious faith as a bias for evolutionarily adaptive behaviours becomes explicable. 127
Posted by danielj on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:57 | # It is all faith… ...Why does he feel compelled to divide one form of religious pursuit, Jimmy Button’s “spirit worship”, from another, say the Bishop of Oxford’s mighty visions of salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ, Amen? We are talking about the same thing, the same faculty here. Not in my book. I’m not and never would defend “faith.” I will defend a faith. Comparing the theology of the Reformed Protestant to the Bushman without drawing any distinction is ridiculous error and offensive. Neither am I, or would I, attempt to defend the existence of Odin or the corresponding metaphysical system. I will argue the “faith” you accuse me of having you all have. Nobody can defend their first principles. They simply accept them faithfully as axiomatic. You’re just as much a believer as I am. 128
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:45 | # Daniel, If you allow art only to Leonardo you steal from the rest of men. What of Lascaux? It is not a matter of comparing product, but of granting facility to all. I will argue the “faith” you accuse me of having you all have. Nobody can defend their first principles. They simply accept them faithfully as axiomatic. You’re just as much a believer as I am. Science will continue its grand search for a falsifiable first principle, regardless of what faithists say about that search. The present state of scientific knowledge is not proof that faithists are right. The most that can be said is that nobody knows, but Christian faithists claim to. But since faith is not merely creation myth but also concerns personal fate and morality - both of them unconnected to creation myth as far as I can see - there is quite a lot that could be said, if one was of a mind. I’m not, because for many religious faith is plainly a necessary adjunct in the predicament which is ordinary waking consciousness. 129
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:22 | # I think history suggests religious faith doesn’t work as an evolutionary adaptation…perhaps then it isn’t evolutionary, but a development of instinctual or primeval sources that works on the species rather than the individual. If you are a Platonic who thinks in the macro sense, as in ‘The Republic’ - where it notes religion is to be used as ‘caste’ specific adaptation, providing sheep willing to be sheared….this is closer to where we are today. ‘Mythos’ is a more descriptive word here than religion. Your article ‘The Empirical Gap’ is an overly simplistic, one dimensional view of the causes of the first war. The causes, motives and emotions you list, existed in Britain also - the country that declared war on Germany, not visa versa. The reasons for the war had nothing to do with the eagerness of all nationalities involved. Articles such as these are divorced from all reality and unhelpful in the extreme. 130
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:48 | # @danielj I will argue the “faith” you accuse me of having you all have. Nobody can defend their first principles. They simply accept them faithfully as axiomatic. You’re just as much a believer as I am.
——————— —————————— The necessity and the predicament are interesting problems. 131
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:16 | # Grimoire, perhaps then it isn’t evolutionary Of course it is a product of evolution. It works as such. Its arising is explicable by Group Selection Theory. The problem with it is that it would force the religious to entertain the unwelcome separation of the commonplaces of religious worship from the understanding of what it is to be human. That offence is unforgiveable. but a development of instinctual or primeval sources that works on the species rather than the individual Where do you think your instincts come from, Grim? With very, very few exceptions, what is salient in and about you is a product of evolution. I think combatting this pseudo science with more science such as genetics is a lost cause in the peer review process (easily sabotaged) where the public just believes what it is told to believe. That leaves philosophy or/and religion and mass grassroots politics….and by that I do not mean BNP. I am talking about philosophy that recognises that facts are relevant to its Truth. But let’s look at it from another direction. Historically, does the rise of the scientific method hold implications not only for the formulation but the reception of a new Ontology of the Politics of a European Life? That is the question. If it doesn’t, you are free to conclude that, suitably bidden, our people will return to the religious orthodoxy of the pre-Enlightenment era, or that they will gratefully grasp the seven negatives of NS just to have the one positive (I would, but I am thinking freely - they are not). Does anyone who is not committed first and foremost to mass religion or the German past really believe that either is the path to the European future? And there is the point of this conversation. The only honest terms on which a debate about a new ontological project can be conducted are those of openness to the possibilities. The unwilling are and always will be destructive engagers. That is not to say that their personal beliefs and sympathies are not of value to them, clearly. But it does mean that there is no mass religious or National Socialist future for Europa’s children. So let’s work on the alternative. My article, btw, was not about the First World War, but about “the eternal emotional gap in the empirical mindset.” I invest very little time in debating the causes of the 20th Century Wars. 132
Posted by PF on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:32 | # danielj wrote:
This is psychological projection of a structure that you find in your mind onto the minds of others. You assume “faith”. I have seen this done in ‘faithist’ arguments, its a popular tactic. Just yesterday I was reading that Heidegger’s mentor, a man aptly named ‘Brain’, used these same arguments 80 years ago, when writing in anti-modernist periodicals. Assume the existence of a man named Carl. Carl does not hold dogmatically to any explanation of things, and subjects all explanations of everything to tests of falsifiability. In lieu of perfect information he chooses the most likely explanation, which necessarily must contain the least assumptions, i.e. the most parsimonious argument. In the workings of our minds, assumptions are usually supplied by emotional parts of the brain, according to what they ‘would want to be true’. An organic assumption being born usually is sprung from this origin of what we would want to be true. Hence the superiority of parsimony in determining explanations. In what sense could Carl be said to have ‘faith’ in any model, since in the presence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, he would discard the model? His adherence to models extends only exactly as far as they remain to him non-falsifiable - this is purely a logical operation taking place, without pretense to certainty nor desire to falsely resolve unambiguity. It is not faith. Faith has an emotional component, which are the ‘deeper felt reasons’ that underpin each persons faith. Those ‘deeper felt reasons’ correspond to actual experience of some sort, I’m quite sure: i.e. they must show something genuinely profound. I won’t venture to try to articulate what these things mean. But the faithist does, the faithist will make that step. These ‘deeper felt reasons’ are resolved to be influences of the Christian Godhead. There is faith there, because there are non-falsifiable assumptions to which one is emotionally attached, and which are made pivotal to one’s worldview. I challenge you to find in a non-faithist framework, assumptions which are non-falsifiable, pivotal to the worldview, and carry emotional attachment. Before stopping I must preemptively defuse one possible reply, I have to say that to answer “the non-faithist is emotionally attached to the non-falsifiable assumption that faith is irrational” is not acceptable. Faithist model is rejected because of parsimony, which is logically sound, regardless of the emotional cadence of the atheist rejecting the model - that step of the reasoning process is sound. I thought it was clear from the meaning of the word ‘faith’ that one rejects evidence contra and maintains the belief in spite of its looming falsifiability? What other meaning does faith have but to be non-scientific and to adhere in the absence of evidence? That seems the whole of that word’s meaning. Faith and science seem to be different and opposed methods of knowledge acquisition, or in faith’s case, “knowledge maintenance”. 133
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:06 | #
Let’s assume a man named Prodigious Fuckwit. Prodigious Fuckwit chooses to the explain the external world he experiences as a projection of his own mental processes and not as existing independent of his perception it. Prodigious Fuckwit prefers this explanation as it contains fewer assumptions as to the workings of the external world of his perceptions by allegedly physical laws independent of his consciousness of them. The buck stops with him, simple. 134
Posted by danielj on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:09 | # Assume the existence of a man named Carl. Carl does not hold dogmatically to any explanation of things, and subjects all explanations of everything to tests of falsifiability. Except for the vaunted and axiomatic first principle of falsifiability itself. Quite the conundrum we now find ourselves pondering. Or, if you are honest with yourself, the reductio. If you refuse to accept this and instead cling tenaciously, emotionally, to this belief in the principle of falsifiability then you, my friend, are one of the faithful. I thought it was clear from the meaning of the word ‘faith’ that one rejects evidence contra and maintains the belief in spite of its looming falsifiability? It is. This is why I’m not an atheist. I have no time to address any of this in depth today since it is the Lord’s Day and since my son was baptized in the name of triune God today, I’d prefer to just spend some time meditating. 135
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:33 | # As a Ninth Century Irish sage put it, “We do not know what God is. God himself doesn’t know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being.” 136
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:46 | #
Daniel is closest, IMO. Sloan Wilson does not argue that faith provides a fitness benefit but “the” faith, traditional Christianity is adaptive. Surely, no one will argue the celibate Shakers or those who made human sacrifice, were following adaptive behavior that was instinctual. A beaver builds its damn without practise.
Religious faith does no always bias for behavioral goods.
One is subjective and the other objective.
137
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:59 | # Enjoy the day, Daniel. Except for the vaunted and axiomatic first principle of falsifiability itself. Daniel, by hypothesising that faith is the sole starting point of everything you take away from Man the function of instinct, sensory experience, intellect, everything, and leave only higher emotion. You enter upon the grandest falsifiability test imaginable on the premise that the life of Man is merely a feeling ... and not only that, but a religious feeling? This is the ineluctable consequence of what you are saying. But are you saying anything useful to your own purposes? Alan Sokal, the Jewish mathemician who, for some unaccountable reason, seems to specialise in criticism, argues that science does not actually progress through falsifying hypotheses in the Popperian sense but by favouring success. So then, are we to label success an article of faith as well? Is it that necessary that the knowledge of men does not exceed in power and utility the belief of the godly. We lived in Europe for centuries of darkness under the kind protection and tutelage of the godly. Today, even their spiritual progeny, even you, would not wish us to go back to that. Knowledge and science has been too good. It is not a threat to your metaphysics, only to your account of creation and your desire to genuflect. These things do not matter. The metaphysical can abide with science. So abide. 138
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:19 | # Desmond, Surely, no one will argue the celibate Shakers or those who made human sacrifice, were following adaptive behavior that was instinctual. A beaver builds its damn without practise. Is faith adaptive and instinctive? That’s the question, not whether Christianity is. Christianity is not our natural faith. It is an import coerced through violence upon our ancestors. Religious faith does not always bias for behavioral goods. If it is a faith that has arisen naturally among the people and is not a mere means of advancement for one sectional interest, yes of course it does. It’s only other function - a genuine journey into the authentic - does not require faith. One is subjective and the other objective. That’s pushing it, Desmond. Do you really believe that religious belief is “objective”? No, of course you don’t. Interesting to see that given a choice between spiking the MR project and arguing against a faithist presentation of the universe, you choose ... A strange compulsion. 139
Posted by danielj on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:41 | # Daniel, by hypothesising that faith is the sole starting point of everything you take away from Man the function of instinct, sensory experience, intellect, everything, and leave only higher emotion. I leave you with revelation, the only certainty. Man has no other way of overcoming his Cartesian sickness. Hume’s “good game of backgammon” will only ease the pain temporarily and offers no permanent immunization for the looming skepticism that haunts all empirical projects. I wholeheartedly affirm that even emotion suffers under the curse and that there is no certainty offered to man outside of the Holy Scriptures. This is the ineluctable consequence of what you are saying. Duh. Alan Sokal, the Jewish mathemician who, for some unaccountable reason, seems to specialise in criticism, argues that science does not actually progress through falsifying hypotheses in the Popperian sense but by favouring success. So then, are we to label success an article of faith as well? Is it that necessary that the knowledge of men does not exceed in power and utility the belief of the godly. Success at what? Against what ultimate standard are you judging these supposed successes? Success - as I think you define it - in my estimation, is merely the common grace of God extended to human kind. He allows “progress” to some small extent because He chooses to. Why? Well, his ways are inscrutable and I ask who are you, O man? We lived in Europe for centuries of darkness under the kind protection and tutelage of the godly. I’m not sure how true that really is. I’ve yet to read that O Those Terrible Middle Ages book that everybody keeps blathering on about. However, I hope you don’t ever toss that ol’ chestnut bout Galileo around since you are much more intelligent than the idiots who do. Knowledge and science has been too good. That all depends on how one defines progress, knowledge, science and good. It is not a threat to your metaphysics Mine are pretty much unassailable since they occupy the high ground. only to your account of creation and your desire to genuflect. I believe in the special creation of man. It is obvious to most of the population of the world uncorrupted by the university that he was so created. The age of the Earth I’m flexible on. 140
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:49 | # Daniel, I leave you with revelation, the only certainty. Do you recognise the claim of a transcendence of mental activity to intuition without a pre-existent structure of vouchsafed meanings? In other words, do you accept that the faith structure is not a requirement for direct perception? Because that is what I leave you in pressaging the empirical cause. I’m just not sure that, given the tenacity with which you cling to your beliefs, you even want to understand why science, ontology and metaphysics have value. Success at what? Sokal says that, in reality, scientists just go with successful lines of enquiry, rather than rigorously subject every step of the process to testability or falsifiability. If this is true - and I suspect it might be because it is based on life observation, not Popper’s analytics - it means that you must change horses midstream and attack the real invalidificator, from your point of view. I ask who are you, O man? Not different to you - faith does not make you different, except perhaps that I claim all of Man’s burden: his weakness as well as his strength, his darkness as well as his light, his wholeness, his human-ness. All that he is I claim as mine, as ours, and do not believe it is either possible or desirable to improve him in any way beyond the shallow things that the world without makes of him. But that is only time and artifice. The remainder is Man, and he is us, and he is alone in the cosmos. That all depends on how one defines progress, knowledge, science and good. Let the savage who prefers a box of matches to two sticks and some woven hair decide. I think he will turn out to have good instincts. 141
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:17 | # It’s not the question, it’s how you wish to frame the question, nay, how you need to frame the question. Religious faith is not instinctive. A successful memetic, however, may or may not need to provide any benefit to its host. We are to believe that a faith that arises naturally yet practises human sacrifice biases for a fitness advantage, is that correct? Not much in the way of religious ritualistic murder these days, except possibly in SSA and its diaspora.
It’s not the question you asked.
You flatter me sir. Surely the “truth” of the MR project is not so fragile as to be “spiked” by an amateur student of evolutionary theory? 142
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:29 | # @GW It is hardly explicable by Group Selection Theory. Perhaps it’s success through adaptation could be explained in a wooly, petito principa manner - in a laboratory with tilted scales ——————————————————- Where do you think your instincts come from, Grim? With very, very few exceptions, what is salient in and about you is a product of evolution. ———————————————————- And what do you have to prove that? A theory…..adherents of Darwinism seem to forget that Evolution is a theory….even if devotee’s are insistent it is explanation of absolutely everything. This juggernaut of a theory and it’s consumption of the planet are indications of internal inconsistency.
—————————————— I understand this to the degree that fetishism and re-enactment scenario’s are counter productive and do not imagine the future, as we need to do. But putting forward distortions of propaganda as bullet points in a debate undermines your entire argument. Certainly I will not stand for it - and I will demand justification for what I see as distorted and unhelpful charges that further a fantasy based history over reality based history. This will cause you to either invest time in an issue you do not wish to, or alienate people who will not stand for glib characterizations as historical causes. That choice is yours. 143
Posted by danielj on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:28 | # direct perception? There really is no such thing. You don’t perceive electrons directly. There is more empty space than solid table and yet you perceive the table as solid. 144
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:10 | # Grim, There are only three possible origins for stuff like the survival, sex, kin selection and faith instincts, individualism, conscience, altruism and all the rest: 1. Wotan did it. Or if not him, exactly, then, you know, The One. That One. Anyway, make your oblations, little buddy. Apparently, it is required of you. 2. Your culture did it, white skin privilege ‘n all. Environment ... The One. John Locke, old Karl and the vile schnozzle Boas are correct. We goyim are just a tabula rasa. Anyway, make your oblations to the magic negro on Pennsylvania Drive, l’il bud. It is definitely required of you. 3. Your Mum and Dad did it. The sky is blue. Ice is cold. Race is real ... look in the mirror. That is a good man staring back at you, and he is just in reclaiming his home from the homies, his culture and politics from the Chosen, and his people’s future from a mundial non-existence. So what’s the problem? I take it from your references to “fetishism” and “propaganda” that you are one of those cats who shift the seven deadly sins into a place marked “Don’t look at meeeeee!”, then blame yours truly for, er, looking at you, and proceed about the by no means wierd business of reclaiming Adolf’s rep. Not great, if that is your bag. Certainly I will not stand for it - and I will demand justification for what I see as distorted and unhelpful charges that further a fantasy based history over reality based history. Herbert von Bose. Edgar Jung. Erich Klausener. Kurt von Schliecher und Frau von Schliecher. Willi Schmid, ein Musikkritiker. Gustav Ritter von Kahr (ermordet mit Hackenhandgriffen). A few broken eggs, hey? 145
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:28 | # Daniel, The reason I don’t see the space between the atoms in our dining table is because if I tried to force my hand through it I would hurt myself. There really is no such thing (as direct perception) There might as well not be, given the difficulties involved. I grant you that. Just the same, your answer is deeply depressing and demonstrates the uniquely Christian ignorance of Mind. Christianity never was a true religion with a core of living knowledge of Mind. There is no Christian equivalent of the Naqshbandi. 146
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:42 | # Desmond, We are to believe that a faith that arises naturally yet practises human sacrifice biases for a fitness advantage, is that correct? Have you been watching Mel’s bloodletting again? Which faith do you mean? One whose practise expresses the interests of the priesthood? A successful memetic, however, may or may not need to provide any benefit to its host. Faith is not an idea. It is a higher emotion, or a complex of emotions. Emotions are a fixed pallet of colours. They are not transferable in the Dawkinsian sense. They are expressed by an inherited architecture:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_2/ 147
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:36 | # “Germans did not themselves decimate their own capital, I think you’ll concede.” They provoked the powers that did, to war against them! If I make fun of you ruthlessly until you hit me, who is responsible for the fact that I got hit? Let’s see: 1) We have the testimony of the Greater Judean, Admiral Stark, as to the justifiability of a German declaration of war, based upon the provocations ordered by Jew-stooge Roosevelt, in the Atlantic theater of war. 2) We have Admiral Raeder protesting to Hitler as to “whether it is consistent with the honor of a sovereign nation to permit [these provocations] to proceed without answer?” 3) We have GJ Ambassador William Bullitt, under orders from the Stooge, urging the Poles to resist reasonable offers from Germany regarding rectification of the wrongs of Versailles. 4) We have the conspiracy of the powers surrounding Germany, even before the rise of Hitler, to compromise the Enigma machine and thus make Germany vulnerable. 5) We have Hitler’s sincere attempt, born of long-held principles, to reach accommodation with the British as would have been much to the advantage of Britain, after the fall of Poland. 6) We have knowledge of Churchill’s prostitution, and of his concealment of Hitler’s efforts to resolve the occupation of France - France having joined Britain in a hypocritical declaration against Germany, after having appropriated Poland, the bastard child of the rape of Germany, as their own territory to be defended. 7) We have the British invasion of Norway, in an attempt to strangle the Germany upon which the British had hypocritically declared war. 8) We have the “Back Door to War” in the Pacific, against Germany’s ally, as betrayed by GJ Secretary Stimpson, who wrote of the Stooge’s administration as having sought to “maneuver” the Japanese into firing the first shot [with secret threats, an ultimatum, and an overt military posture]. 9) We have the Stooge’s flagrant lies to the GJ underclass as to a German blueprint for the conquest of South America and as to an Axis plan for shaking hands in Iowa. 10) And we have the egregiously mendacious propaganda piece, “Why We Fight,” to illustrate, by its falsehoods, the absence of any foundation in provocation for the decisive participation of Greater Judea in the episode. Aside, of course, from the provocation of International Jewry. [Thus “the power” - not “the powers,” as above.] 148
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:02 | # adherents of Darwinism seem to forget that Evolution is a theory Detractors of Darwin seem not to know that *all* science is theory. What the detractor wishes to suggest, rather, is that Evolution is a relatively *unconfirmed* theory. Which is a matter of degree and subject to reasonable dispute as to measure - rather than as to absolute status as suggested by the uninformed formulation, above. [In science, the generalizations are the “theories” and the data are the “facts”. It is an imbecility, thus, to speak of Evolution as a “a theory rather than a fact”. Theories/generalizations are derived from data/facts. Theories/generalizations are *more or less* well-confirmed by data/facts.] 149
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:41 | # Between the Ontologic and Science there should be no problem. Except today we have so called spokes-people for science attempting to triumph over religion, arts, culture and humanity in general, instead of confining themselves to doing science - they engage in public relations and policy…...this is imagined as a ennobling continuation of the ‘enlightment’, The change from the public having the opportunity to learn about science to the public being forced to believe in it for their own good is recent. Dawkins comes to mind. But emphatically sexual and racial politics. This has done the most tremendous damage and is the material cause of our problems. Certainly mass immigration from the third world carries the gov. sanctioned scientific seal of approval to such a degree to speak against it is to be ignored regardless the merit of your argument. There are two elements of the misuse of science involved: 1) The general pretense and mis-impression that society can be completely and consistently organized according to rational, legal principles (science of a sort). 2) The ideologically-motivated falsification of science.
150
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:36 | # Kant defined ‘Apriori’ as, ‘true for all’ (regardless of definition or term), and ‘true prior to experience’. You need to think seriously and understand this, before you ask ‘why is there religion?’. For the same universal conditions underly the universal nature of science. So Kant defines a word, assumes and misunderstands it as corresponding (“categorically”) to something in reality, and *logically* derives an allegedly troubling circumlocution from his mere convention, assumption, and mistake. Nothing, really, to seriously think about and understand other than in the history of preliminary attempts at epistemology. Science is mistaken for being detachedly self-referential, by one’s failure to understand that empiricism is *empirically*, not logically, validated. Geometry, for example, is ultimately empirical, not merely logical - since we have Riemann and Lobachevsky to inform Euclid. The categories do not hold. 151
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:03 | # What Fugeans see as ‘spirits’, dogs as ‘invisible trespassers’, Darwinists as ‘evolution’, physicists as ‘sub atomic quanta’ - and all maintain as observable or deducible phenomenon - all are reducible to a phenomenology of consciousness. Which seems to be a mistaken conception. For consciousness and experience are collateral, it is not a matter of priority. Likewise, as phenomena are reducible to consciousness - so they are to constituent phenomena, more or less correctly perceived and conceived by the evolving conscience, as listed above. Thus there is no “authentic” Dasein - it is in a constant state of evolution. 152
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:13 | #
A million Germans incinerated alive, the whole fucking chicken coop burned to the ground, yeah? So what if Red Ken and Cameron got a bullet in the noodle? Plenty of crocodile tears from the English as usual, I’m sure. But they’d eat that omelet with gusto. 153
Posted by danielj on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:07 | # The reason I don’t see the space between the atoms in our dining table is because if I tried to force my hand through it I would hurt myself. There be a huge error in logic there. You can’t see some high pressure gas release that would cut your fucking hand right off. Just the same, your answer is deeply depressing and demonstrates the uniquely Christian ignorance of Mind. Yeah, cuz I don’t understand what you guys are saying here at MR. Christianity never was a true religion with a core of living knowledge of Mind. Well, the faith that isn’t I guess. Why would you possibly want me to write here? That, I don’t understand. 154
Posted by danielj on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:07 | # The reason I don’t see the space between the atoms in our dining table is because if I tried to force my hand through it I would hurt myself. There be a huge error in logic there. You can’t see some high pressure gas release that would cut your fucking hand right off. Just the same, your answer is deeply depressing and demonstrates the uniquely Christian ignorance of Mind. Yeah, cuz I don’t understand what you guys are saying here at MR. Christianity never was a true religion with a core of living knowledge of Mind. Well, the faith that isn’t I guess. Why would you possibly want me to write here? That, I don’t understand. 155
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:34 | # CC, The Long Knives were out in June 1934. It is a statement on the moral nature of the NSDAP leadership, and an effective coolant to over-heated admirers. There is no particular connection to the Area Offensive, which was ordered only on Valentines Day 1942. While we are on the subject, the Luftwaffe would very much have liked to achieve the same results as Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force. It certainly tried. But it was comprehensively over-faced by the ever-growing numbers and quality of Allied bombers. Nonetheless, it should be remembered that 30,000 people had died in the Blitz before Bomber Command had even made the switch to night-time bombing. 156
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:09 | # Daniel, The NT and Christianity is what it is. I am not stating anything about it that is not well-understood in many places. Here’s a BBC programme featuring a vicar from my backyard in Lewes making the same point: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5018047224011169949# 157
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:11 | #
Which faith does not express the interests of the priesthood? Yes, religious faith is a complex emotion. Darwin agrees.
Yes fight or flight appears in animals. Thus it is ancient and instinctive. We agree. However, that does not mean that a dog feels religious devotion. This, for Darwin requires an advanced intellectual and moral capability. This is why it, religious faith, is not instinctive. Surely you must concede that animals (or savages, for that matter) do not have an advanced moral and intellectual capacity. Yes, a dog can show love and fear, primal emotions, in some capacity, but this is not, in any sense of the matter, a demonstration of the complex notion of religious devotion.
158
Posted by PF on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:21 | # NeoNietzsche:
I think I get it. You too want to invert the Hitler-meme 180 degrees and turn the moral Jewniverse upon its head by making him an infallible saint, victim, and martyr. Because you love whites, you understand the Germans were white, and you realize that history is not simple but many-sided. And in that spirit, let the historical easter egg hunt for supporting evidence begin! I think this bodes really deep for our politics, it signifies something profound. It signifies the weakness of today’s whites to stand as their own agents, representing themselves, and speaking with their own voices. It signifies that they have no self-concept and have to borrow one from the past, being unable to conceive of themselves as a force existing today. Which borrowing is as wrong as dressing up in Elizabethan costumes and putting on airs. If a white man stands up today, he doesn’t have the historical costume, the pride of place, the instant respect, nor the connection to history or culture which he once had. For Americans this is especially true: a lot of us had phases where we aped pop culture’s musicians and actors in embarrassing ways, and that was our Culture, our genesis, one reflects in horror at oneself. But you must still stand up and be what you are, even if you sense how small you loom on the historical stage, which is anyway an illusion. This genuflection to Adolf Hitler signifies - not the inversion of the Judaized moral universe imbibed through pop culture, but its resounding strength. Because in the exasperated attempts to vindicate this man, it becomes clear to what an extent you still have a bad conscience and no idea of who or what you are. An American who thinks Hitler stood for him doesn’t have any self-understanding and his roots are lost. He is adrift, he has become “white”, and what a loss it is of particularism and attachment and depth. Being thus at sea, within one’s little alienated bubble one can fervently work to keep up the level of ‘proof’ at artificially high levels like humidity in a green house, hoping that, if we confine ourselves to only those historical narratives which do not conflict (i.e. ARE NOT CORRUPTED, RIGHT BOYS!?!?), we can keep our fragile, iconoclastically inverted 20th century morality tale intact: Hitler was the poor wronged lover of Europe’s peoples! etc. You know its a morality tale, hence the whimpering simpering we-were-wronged tone of the expositor as he reads it out, pooh-poohing the RAF for flattening a city, and in the next breath invoking the logic of war and conquest in the spirit of zero-sum, and never letting us forget the necessity of violence! Its a real low-point for us, when frustrated loyalties have no other channels open to them than these. 159
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:56 | # I think I get it. You too want to invert the Hitler-meme 180 degrees and turn the moral Jewniverse upon its head by making him an infallible saint, victim, and martyr. Because you love whites, you understand the Germans were white, and you realize that history is not simple but many-sided. And in that spirit, let the historical easter egg hunt for supporting evidence begin! [Much presumptuous bluster and blather follows - in the same spirit.] My thanks to you, PF, for a novel experience - an increasingly infrequent occurrence as I enter my golden years of life. For I cannot recall being so eloquently misrepresented in *all* my life. You’ve captured nothing of me to which to respond - perhaps you have me confused with others of your experience fitting the profile above. But I *will* note that amidst all of the bluster and blather I detected nothing of substance to dissuade a person familiar with the fundamentals of the episode in question from acquiescing in my own summary of the event. So, thanks again for the novelty, PF. Perhaps when you’ve troubled yourself to learn something of what I *do* want and understand, we can talk. 160
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:55 | # @GW 1 There are only three possible origins…2…3. Your Mum and Dad did it…...A few broken eggs, hey? @NeoNietzsche Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Marks for presentation however….convincing….authoritative….insane….classic NeoNietzsche. ———————————————-. So Kant defines a word, assumes and misunderstands it as corresponding (“categorically”) to something in reality, and *logically* derives an allegedly troubling circumlocution from his mere convention, assumption, and mistake. ———————————————- Blew the lid off that one NN!! ————————————————————- —————————————————————— Which seems to be a mistaken conception. For consciousness and experience are collateral, it is not a matter of priority. —————————————————— POW! hows that for reducible to unconsciousness? Am I making myself percieved and concieved by an evolving unconsciousness ? Thus there is no “authentic” Dasein - it is in a constant state of evolution. —————————————————- What ever it is your selling, I’ll buy some too and you call empirical and I’ll call apriori and we’ll go out and get seriously baked and burn the mother down. Boo-yah! 161
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:09 | # Grimoire, you are most decidedly a little bitch. A former army officer? LOL! If you and I were face to face you wouldn’t dare look me in the eye, not a doubt in my mind. What you are is merely the latest offering in sock-puppetry from our favorite manic-depressive narcissist. You are not a help to the cause, you are a hindrance, if indeed you give two damns about the survival of the White race. P.S. I also have good circumstantial evidence to go on that PF is also a nut-job, and possibly just another sock-puppet. Which may explain why whenever I read his writing I feel as if a slug has just greased its trail across my face. A most disagreeable experience. 162
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:22 | # Chaos, if we were face to face you would not say something so foolish, so I will assume you are joking or drunk. Otherwise, I will estimate you more honourable than someone who posts an idle threat on a forum between friends, over nothing. As for the survival of the White Race; I have different perspectives, different experience of life, than perhaps you. I have no doubts about the survival of the European man, or the White Race.. I also have no doubt about what it will cost to achieve this. Within this scale, a position of propaganda on a forum is meaningless. 163
Posted by danielj on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:38 | # Science is mistaken for being detachedly self-referential, by one’s failure to understand that empiricism is *empirically*, not logically, validated. Geometry, for example, is ultimately empirical, not merely logical - since we have Riemann and Lobachevsky to inform Euclid. The categories do not hold. Geometry deals with two dimensions and cannot be empirically verified. Empiricism itself is not empirically verified either. All forms of rational inquiry have circularity at the center. 164
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:06 | # So Grim, you wrote “I will demand justification for what I see as distorted and unhelpful charges that further a fantasy based history over reality based history.” I then listed names of men and women murdered on Adolf Hitler’s orders. You then wrote “GW is deluded about history to a degree that cannot be explained only by historical ignorance.” What does it take to get you to accept that, national solidarity and economic success aside, the Third Reich period was a great disaster for Germans and for all Europeans, racially and meta-politically, and that disaster flows in large part from its moral shortcomings. It isn’t just that fetishism is of no use to us, NS is of no use to us. Take the lessons it offers, by all means. But in the absence of anything else - and there is nothing - the search for a new ontology of the politics of European Nationalism is the clear path for thinking men to take. It’s that or we rely on race-realism, anti-Jewish activism and the existing liberal dispensation (plus nativism and minus the Jewish thing in Europe). And I, for one, don’t believe that to be any kind of foundation for a new European future. 165
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:03 | # Daniel, I’ll deal with you first:
Empiricism itself is not empirically verified either. All forms of rational inquiry have circularity at the center.
Please consult, ideally, a cosmologist, on the point. 2) Unless you are some sort of solipcist, with an elaborate rationale therefor, you cannot sustain your second point in any meaningful way - and certainly not from any operationalist or utilitarian standpoint. 3) You’ve been corrupting yourself with mendacious pomo crap. Shame. 166
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:59 | # @Grimoire “adherents of Darwinism seem to forget that Evolution is a theory.” “Detractors of Darwin seem not to know that *all* science is theory.” Detractors of Grimoire’s theories are theoretically asshats. How’s that for a theory? A nullity. That is to say that it is not, in scientific terms, a theory. It is speculation as to a fact. “Theories/generalizations are derived from data/facts. Theories/generalizations are *more or less* well-confirmed by data/facts.” Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Marks for presentation however….convincing….authoritative….insane….classic NeoNietzsche. I am somewhat taken aback at a confrontation with an epistemological troglodyte - not knowing where to begin with the instruction of one so innocent of fundamentals. I suppose Googling “the practice of science” might be a quick and not-too-demanding introduction to the light outside the cave. “So Kant defines a word, assumes and misunderstands it as corresponding (“categorically”) to something in reality, and *logically* derives an allegedly troubling circumlocution from his mere convention, assumption, and mistake.” Blew the lid off that one NN!! Yes, two millenia of flawed attempts that can now be laid to rest as mere intellectual history. And you apparently struggle, likewise, with the attempt to retain a comforting metaphysic, as did Kant, but with much less grace, imagination, and convolution than did the sly old master. “Science is mistaken for being detachedly self-referential, by one’s failure to understand that empiricism is *empirically*, not logically, validated. Geometry, for example, is ultimately empirical, not merely logical - since we have Riemann and Lobachevsky to inform Euclid. The categories do not hold.” If ‘empirical’ is a magic word, why can’t ‘apriori’ be one too? In your magic world, no reason it can’t. “Likewise, as phenomena are reducible to consciousness - so they are to constituent phenomena, more or less correctly perceived and conceived by the evolving conscience, as listed above.” POW! hows that for reducible to unconsciousness? Am I making myself percieved and concieved by an evolving unconsciousness ? Yes. In the unconscious mind of another. But you seem to misunderstand that the “reduction” referred to here is in phenomenological terms. “Thus there is no ‘authentic’ Dasein - it is in a constant state of evolution.” What ever it is your selling, I’ll buy some too and you call empirical and I’ll call apriori and we’ll go out and get seriously baked and burn the mother down. Boo-yah! We’ll call it “apriori” when you can detach durable acceptance of a theory from confirmation with facts. But why play with tautological toys when you can be an adult and work with the real thing? Perhaps the desire to “get seriously baked” is symptomatic of that disinclination. 167
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:46 | # 3) You’ve been corrupting yourself with mendacious pomo crap. Shame. Regrettably, Nietzsche and Spengler contributed to the foundations of said mendacious pomo crap. Nietzsche grew out of his perspectivism (“no facts, only interpretations”), but the epistemology of BGE was never forgone (the world is just a detached projection of the scientist’s brain structure). Spengler, the mathematician, was given to the same Rationalist misapprehension. Disappointing - but forgiveable. 168
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:02 | # @GW @NeoNietzsche Stop being embarrassing. No one has time for this foolishness but you. 169
Posted by PF on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:48 | # Captain Chaos wrote:
You are melting, CC, like the witch in The Wizard of Oz. Grimoire is a real representative of some of the ideals that I know you ascribe to. Your religion is a “ported” version of a “ported” version of a “ported” version of his ancestor’s customs. Insulting him is crazy. You don’t recognize your own personal Jesus.
My writing is disagreeable because it insinuates inescapable dissonance into your worldview. This is why new self knowledge shakes up the basis of what one thought was reality, and the reason Nietzsche wrote in one of his books:
We differed before on our definition of toughness, which you said was basically willingness to kick someone’s ass, and which I said was willingness to embrace an antithesis regardless of emotional fallout to oneself. I see your weakness: you cannot grasp the antithesis, but hold on for dear life to this scaffolding you’ve derived apparently largely from paintball experiences. Its the reason why you’re fated to play this ridiculous role of a paranoic, accusative tough-guy on the internet. Who on here haven’t you slandered? 170
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:09 | # @Grimoire Stop being a boring idiot. You turnip-head. All serious about dissecting ‘Detractors of Grimoire’s theories are theoretically asshats. How’s that for a theory?’ and proving you are not fooled by Stop being embarrassing. No one has time for this foolishness but you. Let’s see: We started with correction of your recitation of the popular imbecility regarding the epistemological status of the Theory of Evolution. Excuse me for taking you seriously at that point - you were obviously kidding, and by implication have conceded your interlocutor’s point. You are welcome for my services in clarifying that issue for the participants. But please continue, otherwise, to entertain yourself with the metaphysical teeter-tottering. I suspect that the current endurance record is in jeopardy. 171
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:19 | # But let me now transcend my evident shortcomings and illustrate something to you, Grimoire, regarding the quality of your own faculties, which are presumably of the measure necessary to be affirmatively appreciative of Heidegger’s work and the caliber of his intellect in grasping that which is the case, both on the metaphysical plane and derivatively on the lesser level of fundamental scientific principle. If we may have your assurance that I have captured your assessment of yourself and of Heidegger, I invite you to encapsulate Heidegger’s summary explanation of the Theory (there’s that word again!) of Relativity for us, taken from the Introduction of Being and Time. This should be interesting, if you are cooperative. 172
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:37 | # C’mon, PF, don’t be so thin-skinned! Give me an “antithesis” that is worthy of being taken seriously and I just might bite. What you are offering now is nothing short of drivel abstracted from all historical context. As for Grimoire, he started out well, but seems to have degenerated into asiatic fatalism and ghost in the machine nonsense. Btw, good luck with your regimen of self-hypnosis. 173
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:52 | # @NeoNietzsche First of all, this sentence is an atrocity. This psychopathic ‘run-on’ sentence abortion does not ‘transcend evident shortcomings’ nor ‘illustrate’ anything but personal mental disorder. ‘Regards’ and ‘presumes’ the same object…both being irrelevant prior to formulation, and ends with: If we may have your assurance that I have captured your assessment of yourself and of Heidegger, I invite you to encapsulate Heidegger’s summary explanation of the Theory (there’s that word again!) of Relativity for us, taken from the Introduction of Being and Time. ————————————————- This should be interesting, if you are cooperative. ————————————————— Does getting pawned interest you? Heideggers brief critique of GRT presaged Heisenberg’s DE Dt ³ h / 4 p Dx Dp ³ h / 4 p Now old friend, the Winter Olympics are on. They are of the finest, most interesting I have seen in awhile. I find them are superior in every-way to the summer Olympics. They are a European Olympics, with some impressive Asians for texture. So I have not the time to thoroughly school you. 174
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:07 | # @CptChaos 175
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:10 | #
176
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:40 | # First of all, this sentence is an atrocity. No, it is a very nice sentence - one that has inadvertently betrayed an aspect of your limitations aside from the one we hoped and have now succeeded in illuminating. But let us be cautious in assessing our success. I take from your mention of “Heideggers brief critique of GRT” that you find no fault with it, and that you will stand by your characterization of it as a “critique” (I can scarcely contain my mirth) and beyond that as a “critique” specifically of “GRT” (containment breached at this point) - rather than merely as a summary. So I invite you to re-examine it, lest we be precipitate in pronouncing you handicapped as other than a BS artist. And thank you for your indispensable cooperation to this point. 177
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:18 | # Heideggers brief critique of GRT presaged Heisenberg’s DE Dt ³ h / 4 p Dx Dp ³ h / 4 p And BRAVO, Grimoire! I believe that I have never seen a more flagrant piece of effrontery than this transparent pretense at profundity. Are you British, G.? I’m detecting a widespread gift for artful blather in this vicinity to complement the time-honored taste for cant. I only regret that the gallery has not the basis for appreciating the true measure of your balls and the complementary lack of brains. Muy Mucho Hombre! [Or - as Nietzsche might borrow from himself - too much BEER in the blood!] So let’s let you off the petard you’ve erected for yourself and pretend that you’ve just been kidding - you’re just pulling our legs. A true BS artist, worthy of the name. 178
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:40 | # BTW, G., whoever was your source for your little allegation as to “presaging” didn’t know shit about Relativity theory and merely assumed that Heidegger did. To the extent that Heidegger said anything meaningful in his vague little misconstruction, he was adducing the irreconcilable *alternative* to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty. And one could go much further with a destructive deconstruction - but that’s the biggest illustration of the BS, his and yours, involved in the episode. 179
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:03 | # Finally, G., Winter Olympics-viewing and beer-guzzling seems contra-indicated for you. Much study of fundamental epistemological and physical principles would serve you toward avoidance of the embarrassment that has been your contribution, to this point, on this topic - and others. On the other hand, *I* deserve a break from having to instruct you in these important matters. But I am nevertheless self-sacrificially at your service for further assistance. 180
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:41 | # Sorry to be so long-winded on the point, G., but I’m hoping that your source for your silly “presaging” allegation was a physicist - in which case I could ilustrate the sorry state of physics and cosmology, regarding which you should be informed. 181
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:19 | # For the gallery: Special Relativity: Equivalent Inertial Frameworks. General Relativity: Equivalent and Co-variant Non-inertial Frameworks. Both are positivistically and non-tautologically rationalized *without* regard to *material* basis. Check the Introduction and see where any of that is other than absent or contradicted. [And one might add that if Heidegger and his readers were of acute rather than befuddled minds, they would have noted the logical internal difficulties with the Special Theory that provoke controversy even in the present day.] 182
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:25 | #
In my capacity as a lowly member of the great unwashed AKA the gallery, this whole thread is way over my head. So far over that all I can see is con-trails. 183
Posted by PF on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:35 | # NeoNietzsche
Can you either explain this, or provide a link/resource where one can read up on it?
Same question as above.
What does it mean for something to be positivistically rationalized? 184
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:44 | # @Grimoire Does getting pawned interest you? In fact it does, old friend. It would thrill me to have one of our fraternity surprise me with an exercise of intellect that confounds my own. Unfortunately, you stepped in the shit when you relied upon a source that didn’t know theirs regarding Heidegger and his brief, uninformed, and misconceived metaphysicist’s venture into the putative implications of Relativity theory. NN 185
Posted by PF on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:55 | #
Its a lazy approach to ask me for an antithesis. I’ve already tried to provide you with a psychological/social/political critique of Palingenesis which was quite long, and to which I see no point-by-point answer from your side. You couldn’t absorb your antithesis anyway unless you were more hungry for truth, and thus more finely listening for contradictions. You would have to be more humble, but I can tell from your words that you think you are the shit. Which is fine. I wonder what self-hypnosis you are referring to. Could it be the one I mentioned in 2008 in an email to Soren? LOL. 187
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:21 | # @PF: What does it mean for something to be positivistically rationalized? In Special Relativity, a coherent account of the behavior of the supposed material elements (a light-conducting medium and photons) of perception and measurement of the fundamental phenomena, length, mass, and time, require adducing a “conspiracy” of changes in these phenomena with changes in the relative velocity of the “observers” thereof in motion (as related by the “Lorentz Transformations”) - which conspiracy would account for the failure to detect the implied light-conducting medium. The Machian positivism that Einstein adopted dispenses with the notion of the conspiratorially-hidden light-conducting medium as contrary to its epistemological demand for sensible phenomena - and so dispenses, “positivistically,” with the *material* rationalization that would be the Heideggerian claim, on its behalf, for its having “presaged” Heisenberg. [Poor G. was very badly advised, having boldly asserted the exact opposite of the case.] (You are welcome to take this summary to your friendly neighborhood physicist, for confirmation as to its precision and veracity.) 188
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:54 | # @PF
Can you either explain this, or provide a link/resource where one can read up on it?
Same question as above.
Though I have not had time to thoroughly review the following resource, it appears, on this short notice, to be a fair introduction to the nature of, and problems in, SR/GR. It will take more time to firmly assess it as such and as a resolution: 189
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:22 | # BTW, PF,
190
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:16 | #
LOL, that’s what the English call “verbali[z]ation,” or the art of espousing flowery bullshit. Of course your esoterica is not of much practical assistance either to the task of saving our race from genetic annihilation (the physical laws of the universe will still be blindly grinding away once our race has gone the way of the dodo). What is it that you say is our only hope? Military coup! That the military is thoroughly compromised and no Big Brass would ever dream of risking his own asses by going against ZOG unless there was already a base of popular racialist support in place doesn’t seem to figure in your thinking. Why is that? What we need is a mass racialist movement, without that, we have nothing. 191
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:45 | # Of course your esoterica is not of much practical assistance either to the task of saving our race from genetic annihilation (the physical laws of the universe will still be blindly grinding away once our race has gone the way of the dodo). Not directly, of course. It should, however, be a part of the intellectual equipment of the autocrat of the future. What is it that you say is our only hope? Military coup! That the military is thoroughly compromised and no Big Brass would ever dream of risking his own asses by going against ZOG unless there was already a base of popular racialist support in place doesn’t seem to figure in your thinking. But it does, oh my Cap’n, when I start begging my own questions. Why is that? What we need is a mass racialist movement, without that, we have nothing. And with it you have nothing. So turn out the lights and lock the door on your way out. 192
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:20 | #
That’s good, Neo, as our first step must be to stoke the fires of mass discontentment and defiance on racial grounds before the officer corps will be willing to risk its necks in sending the soldiers under its command our way. All this womanly English hand-wringing over the evils and combustibility of palingenesis is incredibly shortsighted and counter-productive. We need every ounce of combativeness and defiance that can be squeezed from the populous. And of course a mindless mob will be of no use in achieving our goals unless directed by capable leadership, which leadership must possess a broad base of knowledge to enable it to combat the mass indoctrinated lies of the Jews in order for it to stir up and direct the mob in the first place. I hope we are on the same page. 194
Posted by danielj on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:47 | # I meant to write that it doesn’t tAke account of the curvature of the earth. On iPod and cann’t respond. Geometrybis ideal and is totally fucking non-empiracal. I didn’t really mean to deny third dimensiohttp://touch.facebook.com/#/search.phpn geometry. Regardless, you shouldn’t excoriate your allies for simply misspeaking. 196
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:11 | # NS, at least according to Stoddard’s writings did not just emphasize racial awareness. From a pamphlet on marriage:
197
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:17 | # I meant to write that it doesn’t take account of the curvature of the earth. On iPod and cann’t respond. Geometry is ideal and is totally fucking non-empirical. I didn’t really mean to deny third dimensiohttp://touch.facebook.com/#/search.phpn geometry. Regardless, you shouldn’t excoriate your allies for simply misspeaking. Daniel, Sorry if I seemed harsh - but you *are* embarrassing yourself. You did not simply misspeak. I don’t feel like arguing (by analogy) the sphericity of the globe, with you playing the part of a Flat-Earther. Please do as I suggested and consult a cosmologist - mention Riemann, Lobachevsky, the General Theory, positive/spherical and negative/hyperbolic curvature. The recognized geometry of the universe is subject to empirical evidence and verification as between alternatives. It is no longer “ideal” as once it was thought to be. 198
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:59 | # @danielj For two centuries after Newton, phenomenal science aspired to the kind of rigor and purity that seemed to be embodied in mathematics. The metaphysical situation seemed simple; mathematics embodied perfect a-priori knowledge, those sciences able to most mathematicize themselves were the most successful at phenomenal prediction; perfect knowledge would therefore consist of a mathematical formalism, arrived at by science and embracing all of reality, that would ground a-posteriori empirical understanding in a-priori rational logic. It was in this spirit that Condorcet dared to imagine describing the entire universe as a mutually-solving set of partial differential equations. The first cracks in this inspiring picture appeared in the latter half of the 19th century when Riemann and Lobachevsky independently proved that Euclid’s Axiom of Parallels could be replaced by alternatives which yielded consistent geometries. Riemann’s geometry was modeled on a sphere, Lobachevsky’s on a hyperboloid of rotation. The impact of this discovery has been obscured by later and greater upheavals, but at the time it broke on the intellectual world like a thunderbolt. For the existence of mutually inconsistent axiom systems for geometry, any of which could be modeled in the phenomenal universe, called the whole relationship between mathematics and physical theory into question. When there was only Euclid, there was only one possible geometry. One could believe that the Euclidean axioms constituted a kind of perfect a-priori knowledge about geometry in the phenomenal world. But suddenly we had three geometries, an embarrassment of metaphysical riches. For how were we to choose between the axioms of plane, spherical, and hyperbolic geometry as a description of “real” geometry? Because all three are consistent, we couldn’t choose on any a-priori basis—the choice had to become empirical, based on their predictive power for a given situation. 199
Posted by danielj on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:37 | # It didn’t sound harsh and I’m not embarassed. I’m not in a pissing match. Being wrong, if I am, doesn’t embarass me. It just means I have more to learn. 200
Posted by Technical note on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:42 | # NeoNietzsche: instead of continuing to use the cheesy *asterisks* you ought to be using italics instead to emphasize your main points and key words. Your writing has substance but lacks style. 201
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:23 | # @NeoNietzsche Btw. what was your point anyway? I don’t see any point there but that you disagree with whatever and that you’ve shat your pants over it. I find your comments practically unreadable….reminds one of that ‘golem’ character from ‘Lord Of The Rings’, with the salivating and hand rubbing over ‘precious’. Do you take yourself seriously? 202
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:25 | # Btw. what was your point anyway? That you are demonstrably a BS artist with self-deceptive pretensions otherwise. So I do you the service of alerting you to the fact. Also, you might note that the artless insults are very low-brow and are symptomatic of an intellect easily led into exposure of its shortcomings, as we’ve just demonstrated with your predictably incautious cooperation. It might interest you to know that one of RODOH’s champions, whom I nicknamed “Globby the Clown,” was similarly exposed over at the Phora, after having displayed the same syndrome of artlessness and pretension. I suggest that you think of this, and profit from it, as guidance toward cultivation of a more mature persona. 203
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:46 | # @danielj It didn’t sound harsh and I’m not embarassed. I’m not in a pissing match. Being wrong, if I am, doesn’t embarass me. It just means I have more to learn. The point is not that you are embarrassed - but that others are embarrassed for you when you make and persist in ridiculous statements. And that you then are not taken seriously in regard to other matters, because you have been demoted in other peoples minds. 204
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:58 | # @Technical note NeoNietzsche: instead of continuing to use the cheesy *asterisks* you ought to be using italics instead to emphasize your main points and key words. Your writing has substance but lacks style. Thanks for the suggestion and assessment. I find that the italics are insufficiently emphatic, visually, so it seems to me that I need to load my traps with cheese in order to be effectively attractive. And my writing has good rhythm and meter in my head, so that’s the style you’re going to get from me. 205
Posted by danielj on Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:16 | # It wasn’t that bad and I just don’t give a shit what other people think. I told you I misspoke and tried to correct myself over your protest that I was lying… Regardless, I don’t think I have any credibility or respect issues round ‘ere. 206
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:40 | # @NN Sorry I had to drop out of the conversation. The Winter Olympics are a major event for us and the complete centre of attention. I will have more time in the coming week. I see you’ve made good use of my hiatus to erect a grandstand and award yourself the gold in shit-head singles. Apparently, in this category you are very focused and do your best work by yourself… well done. So the point? Your getting ahead of yourself. The point on Heidegger’s comment in the introduction…. to ‘Being and Time’ is a bad choice, as it’s very brief and a <s>self aggrandizing shitheads</s> scholar requires more. Heidegger mentions Heisenberg’s explicitly in other letters….and visa versa. This should provide you with material of substance rather than the very brief reference contained in the introduction of Bieng and Time.. As for my source concerning Heideggers vs. Heisenberg,- the text: ‘The Hermeneutics of the Technological World: The Heidegger-Heisenberg debate.’ I do not wonder to see you as an intellectual superior readily giving the Ruhr Universitat and the ‘International Journal of Philosophical Studies’ the backhand for the bullshit they pull over dilettantes such as myself, thank you…... although the intellectual damage is made good by your re-interpretation via superior knowledge of epistemological and physical principles. But what was your point? You didn’t say…..was that just cleverness… or was it because I wasn’t there to ask you in time?? That you are demonstrably a BS artist with self-deceptive pretensions otherwise. what other great works are possible? To the extent that Heidegger said anything meaningful in his vague little misconstruction, he was adducing the irreconcilable *alternative* to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty. And one could go much further with a destructive deconstruction - but that’s the biggest illustration of the BS, his and yours, involved in the episode. Heidegger adduced the irreconcilable ‘alternative’ ? \ 207
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:53 | # @danielj I told you I misspoke and tried to correct myself over your protest that I was lying No, I told you that you were mistaken - not lying. You could not lie, because you obviously did not understand the issue. I hope that you now are in possession of some useful information on the topic. 208
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:46 | # @Grimoire Your getting ahead of yourself. The point on Heidegger’s comment in the introduction…. to ‘Being and Time’ is a bad choice, as it’s very brief and a self aggrandizing shitheads scholar requires more. Heidegger mentions Heisenberg’s explicitly in other letters….and visa versa. This should provide you with material of substance rather than the very brief reference contained in the introduction of Bieng and Time.. Another shit-load of your BS - to borrow your elegant choice of words, G. The point is not what Heidegger knew of Heisenberg, to whose contribution the passage merely alludes, but rather what he knew of Relativity/Einstein, regarding which he is quite explicit. Heidegger wrote quite enough for anyone familiar with the latter theory to realize that Heidegger understood nothing of it - if he had even read anything of it - and was merely bull-shitting his reader. It is rather yourself who is conveniently “getting ahead,” in the attempt to leave your self-revelatory little Dummheit behind. I do not wonder to see you as an intellectual superior readily giving the Ruhr Universitat and the ‘International Journal of Philosophical Studies’ the backhand for the bullshit they pull over dilettantes such as myself, thank you…... Ah - have we identified the location of the manure pile into which you stepped with your ludicrous and pretentious “presaging” allegation? If so, a vista opens before us, illuminating the cow pasture that is now your intellect. You have been taken in by the (intellectually dishonest) practice of modern Philosophy. So I do thank you for sarcastically formulating the essence of the issue: “the bullshit they pull over dilettantes such as myself…” And I must compliment you on having so quickly and effectively resolved any questions I might have had as to the well-springs of your difficulty with this material. After tuesday I shall have sometime to serve as the foil eliciting your insights into the great epistemological and physical principles . Unfortunately I have a life, work and social obligations that get in the way with dealing with the trolls brilliant individuals one meets on the www. I hope and trust you understand. Fear not - you are transparent. “To the extent that Heidegger said anything meaningful in his vague little misconstruction, he was adducing the irreconcilable *alternative* to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty. And one could go much further with a destructive deconstruction - but that’s the biggest illustration of the BS, his and yours, involved in the episode.” Heidegger adduced the irreconcilable ‘alternative’ ? That ‘adduction’ might just be a figment of BS, or of an individual with self-deceptive pretentions of troll glory. Or you may have a point…. A point I made (which apparently you did not recognize as such) with the following explanation to PF: “In Special Relativity, a coherent account of the behavior of the supposed material elements (a light-conducting medium and photons) of perception and measurement of the fundamental phenomena, length, mass, and time, require adducing a “conspiracy” of changes in these phenomena with changes in the relative velocity of the “observers” thereof in motion (as related by the “Lorentz Transformations”) - which conspiracy would account for the failure to detect the implied light-conducting medium. The Machian positivism that Einstein adopted dispenses with the notion of the conspiratorially-hidden light-conducting medium as contrary to its epistemological demand for sensible phenomena - and so dispenses, “positivistically,” with the *material* rationalization that would be the Heideggerian claim, on its behalf, for its having “presaged” Heisenberg. [Poor G. was very badly advised, having boldly asserted the exact opposite of the case.]” I must say that your latest, here, has greatly encouraged me in the prospect for your rescue from misguidance by the institutions that have traded upon your credulous acceptance of their credentials. 209
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:52 | # NN, You should come blog here on a permanent basis. Any chance to free the English from their self-deception would I’m sure be welcomed by GW. The higher English level of individualism and penchant for classist ‘moral superiority’ as against their own people and other Europeans makes them ripe to be turned into Jew-tools. ‘Must save Poland from the dastardly Krauts, old bean. Oh, never mind, here to go Uncle Joe.’ LOL! 210
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:05 | # @Cc You should come blog here on a permanent basis. Any chance to free the English from their self-deception would I’m sure be welcomed by GW. I see then that there are *multiple* ills hereabout to be addressed by the great physician and healer, NeoNietzsche. With what others, regarding their sufferings, shall I correspond, in consultation such as I have had with the delusional youth, Grimoire? And shall I anticipate exposure to a repetition of the mal de Tourette from which he prominently suffers, amidst instruction of these unfamiliar others? 211
Posted by PF on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:21 | #
213
Posted by danielj on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:05 | # I hope that you now are in possession of some useful information on the topic. Not yet. Just got home from storm restoration. I still fail to see how A = L X W corresponds with empirical reality in any way. I’ll get to it though. 214
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:16 | # [One of our fellow participants in the venues, OD and MR, expressed his disappointment at my not having responded with more specificity to the following comment by the analyst in residence, PF. I will try to accommodate our fellow with the following:] “We have Hitler’s sincere attempt, born of long-held principles, to reach accommodation with the British as would have been much to the advantage of Britain, after the fall of Poland.” (NeoNietzsche) I think I get it. I think you do not. You too want to invert the Hitler-meme 180 degrees and turn the moral Jewniverse upon its head by making him an infallible saint, victim, and martyr. You have confused the issues of factuality and morality. The “moral Jewniverse” is one part moral imbecility and one part mythology. If we merely extract the Hollywood History of the Second World War from an account of the episode, as above, Hitler comes off pretty well in any but a resolute pacifist’s moral universe. However, no one is “an infallible saint, victim, and martyr,” in my book. I am painfully aware of Hitler’s shortcomings, in particular - I’m a fucking expert on them. Because you love whites, you understand the Germans were white, and you realize that history is not simple but many-sided. And in that spirit, let the historical easter egg hunt for supporting evidence begin! As it happens, I do not love Whites - and I do not think of the Germans as “White”. To describe them in such nondescript terms is to do them an injustice. [Your attached remarks as to “history” I think this bodes really deep for our politics, it signifies something profound. It signifies the weakness of today’s whites to stand as their own agents, representing themselves, and speaking with their own voices. At last - a fair statement. But you implicitly included myself in this summary - to which inclusion I object. You would then point to my pseudonym and laugh. And I would say that I stand on Nietzsche’s shoulders as scientists are said to do of their predecessors - and not in his clothing. But you must still stand up and be what you are, even if you sense how small you loom on the historical stage, which is anyway an illusion. So, the underclass of Greater Judea is to “stand up”? I would have them hang their heads in shame, for their relentless stoogery in behalf of Judeo-Communism and Judeo-fascism. (The British can simply hang themselves by their heads, for their disgraceful contributions.) This genuflection to Adolf Hitler signifies - not the inversion of the Judaized moral universe imbibed through pop culture, but its resounding strength. The implication of his canonization, as suggested above, I take it. Then true enough for those you imagine to be so involved. Because in the exasperated attempts to vindicate this man, it becomes clear to what an extent you still have a bad conscience and no idea of who or what you are. I have yet to encounter the person of whom this connection could be said to be true, so we must rely upon your exquisite sensibilities in identifying with bad consciences. An American who thinks Hitler stood for him doesn’t have any self-understanding and his roots are lost. He is adrift, he has become “white”, and what a loss it is of particularism and attachment and depth. True. But the fate of the Third Reich nevertheless has eschatological implications for the planet that incline one to identify the regime as a world-historical protagonist. Being thus at sea, within one’s little alienated bubble one can fervently work to keep up the level of ‘proof’ at artificially high levels like humidity in a green house, hoping that, if we confine ourselves to only those historical narratives which do not conflict (i.e. ARE NOT CORRUPTED, RIGHT BOYS!?!?), we can keep our fragile, iconoclastically inverted 20th century morality tale intact: Hitler was the poor wronged lover of Europe’s peoples! etc. You know its a morality tale, hence the whimpering simpering we-were-wronged tone of the expositor as he reads it out, pooh-poohing the RAF for flattening a city, and in the next breath invoking the logic of war and conquest in the spirit of zero-sum, and never letting us forget the necessity of violence! I join you in your ridicule of such sanctimonious hypocrisy. However, in the absence of such moral duplicity on my own part, it remains for you to redeem your trial of our patience amidst this Viennese diversion, by substantively objecting or acquiescing in the properly and generally-accepted science on the point: “We have Hitler’s sincere attempt, born of long-held principles, to reach accommodation with the British as would have been much to the advantage of Britain, after the fall of Poland.” 215
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 02 Mar 2010 06:16 | #
Just what would those fucking shortcomings be in your opinion, NN? 216
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:24 | # Since you did not request, as well, a list of Hitler’s strengths and virtues, which were many and much remarked upon, I will go directly to the opposite side of the coin: 1) He was, of course, not altogether free of ideologically-derived misconceptions. The tri-partite notion of culture-bearing-ness was one such. And the lesser matters regarding racial hybrids and racial fraternity are arguable. He failed to understand that Germany’s burden was now the Spenglerian one of unifying the Continental High Culture, not one of mere colonial expansion Eastward. And he let his negative cultural and racial assessment of the Greater Judeans and the Russians misguide him as to their war-production potential, and thus he did not anticipate the dimensions of that pivotal factor. 2) Once he assumed the autocracy, he was not, as Speer recognized, systematic in his administrative organization. He tended to pit his lieutenants against one another, with much impermissible duplication and wastage of effort (presumably in order to preserve the centrality of his own position). And Hitler failed to recognize Goerings’ incompetence in forwarding the war economy, as was being shared with Todt - a situation rectified only when it was too late and the effort was unified under competent guidance, amidst the war, in multiplication of war production without increased material factor input. 3) Hitler was given to a loss of composure amidst setbacks in the early phases of the war, with which loss he was fortunate to have had Jodl on hand to steady him. In compensation, Hitler became rigid in his judgments, and so led his forces into abandonment of their flexibility, in critical moments. Hitler’s rigidity, in turn, led his subordinates into the practice of telling him only that which he was disposed to hear, rather than keeping him current on the true quality and quantity of his own and opposing forces. 4) He framed the intrusion into the USSR in terms of a colonial expansion rather than imperial acquisition, thus he refused to make promises to the nations who might have aligned themselves with him against Russia, since so to do would be dishonest to various parties. Hitler foresaw Ukrainian and other territory as parcels of land to be distributed to his soldiers, in reward for their service - and as the basis for a healthy rustication of Germanic society. His permission of abuse of the Ukrainians was ill-conceived and based upon considerations involving (1), above - he thus went a long way toward assisting his enemy, burdening his forces, and losing the war. [It has been a long time since I have read and reflected on these matters, so this should not be taken as exhaustive of the topic - but I will let it go at this point, trusting that I have satisfactorily addressed your concern as to a factual basis for my having written of Hitler’s shortcomings and my expertise therein.] 217
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:09 | # @NN Spengler on Hitler and the Party: “the problem with Nationalist Socialists, is that they are not occidental enough” ===================== I thank you for providing the paragraph that sums up your charge: I have to say I find your writing practically unreadable. So I found it difficult to digest what exactly was your problem with Heideggers comment on GRT….and no time to decipher it . English is not my native language, (it takes me longer to write clear English, and read unclear English than the people on this forum) though I am fluent - not fluent enough in language outside of context, or physics theory to pin down why your statement is not more than a paragraph or two of dense, jargon specked bullshit that proves/disproves nothing. Due to time constraints, I can only write so much per day on this subject. My time is up today, 1) Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.. DE Dt ³ h / 4 p Implying that, as one quantity is measured more precisely, the other gets more uncertain…making in impossible to specify both exactly. This is more than a logical truism. Researchers (University of Konstanz) have found that even the mere existence 2) Heidegger: Relativity theory in physics grew out of the tendency to expose nature’s own coherence as it is “in itself.” As a theory of the conditions of access to nature itself it attempts to preserve the immutability of the laws of motion by defining all relativities; it is thus confronted by the question of the structure of its pre-given area of knowledge, that is, by the problem of matter.
====================== 4) NeoNietzsche =============================== We know at least one of these is a fool because NeoNietzsche said so 44 times or more. Lets take him at his word. 218
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:58 | # @Grimoire Now I appreciate your intention was probably only tactical verbal warfare….throw in some opaque gabble to baffle opponents…a paragraph or two of dense, jargon specked bullshit that proves/disproves nothing You might return to the comment involved, to note that I invited professional confirmation of the paragraph’s validity - which invitation I now extend to you. The hopelessness of your attempt to save face in this encounter is evidenced, apriori, by your failure to recognize therein the familiar terms in which the subject is endlessly discussed even amongst laymen - but which discussion here, in your complete ignorance, you cravenly hope will turn out to be a bullshitter’s art from which you cannot distinguish scientific theory. ...and during the lull, heap on insults. A review of the exchange reveals that your remark is exceedingly rich in irony and implicit hypocrisy, G. One of the questions I have NN, is how using arguments relevant to special relativity to refute arguments about general relativity is assumed to be logical ? Let’s deal with the relevance and representativeness of your question. 1) Heidegger neither “critiqued,” nor correctly characterized, Relativity Theory. Neither did he identify “Relativity” as to one variety, individually, or as to both varieties, collectively. 2) Special Relativity is so-named because it is a “special,” limiting case of General Relativity. 3) Both cases, the General and Special, have, unsurprisingly, the same epistemological orientation, which is pointedly agnostic as to, and dismissive of, “material” bases. We could have discussed Minkowskian space-time diagrams as implicitly illustrative of the same point with regard to Relativity as a whole - but that would have been way beyond your grasp, since you cannot even recognize or absorb the simple explanation as to SR, in particular. 4) Thus, to say that Relativity/Deterministic/Classical/Macroscopic Theory “presaged” Quantum/Probabilistic/Modern/Microscopic Theory, from which it is fundamentally detached and with which it is parallel, contemporaneous, and durably resistant to assimilation, is to embarrass oneself with a (in your case, further) display of complete ignorance of the subject matter (no pun intended). The correct account, as to presaging/confronting, would have involved discussion of Planck and “black body” phenomena, which have nothing to do with relativistic concerns. [I again invite professional consultation, on this latter point.] Your pretense of having added substance to your contentions, with a superfluous explanation of Uncertainty, reinforces an impression of your dishonesty, here, in that it has already been reinforced that Heidegger’s intent to introduce a precedent for Heisenberg is not the issue - rather that he took it upon himself, as do you now, to bull-shit the reader by adducing Einstein/Relativity, of which he and the reader now and then, knew nothing but the name, to that vaguely adumbrated end and in favor of his larger thesis. In simple terms for the simple: Heidegger intended and attempted to identify that which presaged/confronted Heisenberg - but he did it with precisely the wrong theory. A theory about which one cannot even say that he (and you) so much as misunderstood it. The discussion is not, as you are now implicitly trying to construct it, about Heidegger’s intent, but rather as to the success of his attempt, and about your ability to recognize metaphysical bullshit as such. 219
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:24 | # BTW, G., you would do well to relent, since this material is central to a Dissertation on which I was working in the History of Science. It should be dawning on you that you are in a dispute, as a complete ignoramus, with an expert on the subject. Otherwise, you are being led down the path on which “Globby the Clown” has gone before you to his disgrace, and for the same reason, i.e., reliance upon the authority of a faulty resource rather than upon your own faculties. And, as it happens, I am also an expert at leading clowns to their disgrace. 220
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:40 | # NeoNietzsche: “In Special Relativity, a coherent account of the behavior of the supposed material elements (a light-conducting medium and photons) of perception and measurement of the fundamental phenomena, length, mass, and time, require adducing a “conspiracy” of changes in these phenomena with changes in the relative velocity of the “observers” thereof in motion (as related by the “Lorentz Transformations”) - which conspiracy would account for the failure to detect the implied light-conducting medium. The Machian positivism that Einstein adopted dispenses with the notion of the conspiratorially-hidden light-conducting medium as contrary to its epistemological demand for sensible phenomena - and so dispenses, “positivistically,” with the *material* rationalization that would be the Heideggerian claim, on its behalf, for its having “presaged” Heisenberg. [Poor G. was very badly advised, having boldly asserted the exact opposite of the case.]”
And it evidently doesn’t read like anything you would read. LOL. 221
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:56 | # @NN
The point is not whether the paragraph contains correct words regarding Einstein’s relativity theory. This is no accomplishment…a turgid, jargon laden paragraph noting the epistemological structure of relativity theory….claimed as irrefutable proof, is a vacant pose substituting for intellect. The point is how misleading are your arguments concerning Heidegger. 15597456———————- I am not a philosopher, however, that this guy seems to be more concerned with sounding smart than being smart. “The Machian positivism that Einstein adopted dispenses with the notion of the conspiratorially-hidden light-conducting medium as contrary to its epistemological demand for sensible phenomena - and so dispenses, “positivistically,” with the *material* rationalization that would be the Heideggerian claim,” appears to be true . However,.....attempts to shoehorn Heidegger into a anti-positivist stance in not correct to my understanding. Your welcome I suspect this is a clip from some web page…..... ———————————— ——————————————— This is an old debate———————-, Here’s my translation (with notes): “Before special relativity was introduced we didn’t have a nice way of explaining how light moves. It’s a wave, but we couldn’t find any evidence of the material (the “luminiferous ether”) that the light was traveling through. Light seemed to travel at the same speed regardless of how the experiment was preformed (which you would not expect if it could be dragged around by a medium). So Einstein came up with a way of relating position, time, and the speed of light in such a way that the speed of light is constant to everyone, no matter how they’re moving (the Lorentz transformations, it’s worth noting that these transformations do almost nothing for small relative velocities, which is why nobody had noticed them yet). His new theory of relativity got rid of the need for a “medium” for light to move through, and explained why no one had been able to detect it (it took a while to win everyone over however).” Your welcome die Arbeiten wurden erst 1955 begonnen. ========================= 222
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:56 | # @Grimoire, I had in mind a consultation with someone of the caliber of Professors David Finklestein, Larry Abbott, or David Deutsche, with whom I have consulted personally - not these lesser lights lacking a grasp of the issue. But the brightest of the bunch *did* offer this critical observation: “The Machian positivism that Einstein adopted dispenses with the notion of the conspiratorially-hidden light-conducting medium as contrary to its epistemological demand for sensible phenomena - and so dispenses, “positivistically,” with the *material* rationalization that would be the Heideggerian claim,” appears to be true. However,.....attempts to shoehorn Heidegger into a anti-positivist stance [are] not correct to my understanding. Lacking a sense of the overall argument, your source, with his qualifying remark, imputes an intent and requirement that was not present [mainly because you evidently failed to inform your source that this paragraph was initially in response to a question, by PF, as to “positivistically dispensing” and not as to the larger context that would have elicited this explanation]. He misunderstands “the *material* rationalization” as referring to a rationalization of Relativity Theory wherein we impute to Heidegger an understanding of the theory and in which case Heidegger would indeed be provisionally adopting an anti-positivist stance, in that one instance. But Heidegger did not understand the theory, and so we who make that claim, by implication, do not impute to him any stance on the point. This is why I phrased the matter as “*would be* the Heideggerian claim” (if there had been, as Heidegger mistakenly assumed, implicitly and of necessity, a material rationalization for a Relativity with which he imaginatively confronted the question of “matter”.) But let’s get to the conclusion of the affair: Your source’s assessment affirms my point with “appears to be true”. But you, of course are unable to recognize his having done so. 223
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:47 | # Also, G., your profound ignorance of the matter led you to the translation of an analysis that you mistook for an objection to my point - whereas this tired old orthodox stupidity, upon which you now rely, affirms my point, by implication, more profoundly than does my own analysis! LOL. And let us deal with the following: The point is not whether the paragraph contains correct words regarding Einstein’s relativity theory. This is no accomplishment…a turgid, jargon laden paragraph noting the epistemological structure of relativity theory….claimed as irrefutable proof, is a vacant pose substituting for intellect. The point is how misleading are your arguments concerning Heidegger. Again, we note that your source was not informed as to the point of the paragraph, as explained in the previous comment. Indeed, the larger point “concerned” Heidegger, rather than how one “positivistically dispenses,” as illustrated by Einsteinian SR. The latter, of course, does not pose as “irrefutable proof” of anything otherwise, and your source correctly identifies *your* problem, despite having been given a mis-impression of its nature at your hands. And - we may also credit your source with having recognized that: ”...the paragraph contains correct words regarding Einstein’s relativity theory.” Which he understandably mistook for the point, and as a purported “accomplishment,” and as a “claim of irrefutable proof”. 224
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:43 | # 2) Heidegger: “Relativity theory in physics grew out of the tendency to expose nature’s own coherence as it is “in itself.” As a theory of the conditions of access to nature itself it attempts to preserve the immutability of the laws of motion by defining all relativities; it is thus confronted by the question of the structure of its pre-given area of knowledge, that is, by the problem of matter.”
“In Special Relativity, a coherent account of the behavior of the supposed material elements (a light-conducting medium and photons) of perception and measurement of the fundamental phenomena, length, mass, and time, require adducing a “conspiracy” of changes in these phenomena with changes in the relative velocity of the “observers” thereof in motion (as related by the “Lorentz Transformations”) - which conspiracy would account for the failure to detect the implied light-conducting medium. The Machian positivism that Einstein adopted dispenses with the notion of the conspiratorially-hidden light-conducting medium as contrary to its epistemological demand for sensible phenomena - and so dispenses, “positivistically,” with the *material* rationalization that would be the Heideggerian claim, on its behalf, for its having “presaged” Heisenberg. [Poor G. was very badly advised, having boldly asserted the exact opposite of the case.]” However one interprets Heisenberg’s statement, it cannot sustain the claim that “Relativity presages Uncertainty”. The contrary is the case in its enduring rejection of the “confrontation”. And however one interprets Heisenberg’s statement, it cannot sustain the claim that he understood anything of Relativity and its epistemological basis. It’s BS. This has important implications for Grimoire’s perspective. 225
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:58 | # @Grimoire Having devoted myself to your instruction regarding this issue, you might reciprocate with an analysis of the assessment, by one of your sources, of my much-remarked upon “paragraph,” below - described as “jargon-laden”: “In Special Relativity, a coherent account of the behavior of the supposed material elements (a light-conducting medium and photons) of perception and measurement of the fundamental phenomena, length, mass, and time, require adducing a “conspiracy” of changes in these phenomena with changes in the relative velocity of the “observers” thereof in motion (as related by the “Lorentz Transformations”) - which conspiracy would account for the failure to detect the implied light-conducting medium. The Machian positivism that Einstein adopted dispenses with the notion of the conspiratorially-hidden light-conducting medium as contrary to its epistemological demand for sensible phenomena - and so dispenses, “positivistically,” with the *material* rationalization that would be the Heideggerian claim, on its behalf, for its having “presaged” Heisenberg. [Poor G. was very badly advised, having boldly asserted the exact opposite of the case.]” Would you be so kind as to identify and count, for us, those words therein that qualify as “jargon”? This will assist us in an assessment of the shortcomings in your and your source’s vocabularies, for purposes of your and his future instruction in this matter. And, as a bonus, a perceived “vacancy” might be shown to have an occupant, after all, however inconvenient that occupation might be for the comfort of the metaphysical bullshitters amongst us. 226
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:04 | # [I’m inclined to seal this deal with an analytical destruction of *Heisenberg’s* statement - but I would prefer to avoid another misconstruction of that effort for lack of an informed sense of the limitations of those being instructed. So I await, pro tempore, the identification and counting of the “jargon” with which my own paragraph was allegedly laden, in order to obviate another misdemeanor on my part.] 227
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:27 | # Meanwhile, after giving the following passage some thought, and reviewing the paragraph under discussion, another assessment occurs to me: “The point is not whether the paragraph contains correct words regarding Einstein’s relativity theory. This is no accomplishment…a turgid, jargon laden paragraph noting the epistemological structure of relativity theory….claimed as irrefutable proof, is a vacant pose substituting for intellect. The point is how misleading are your arguments concerning Heidegger.” “In Special Relativity, a coherent account of the behavior of the supposed material elements (a light-conducting medium and photons) of perception and measurement of the fundamental phenomena, length, mass, and time, require adducing a “conspiracy” of changes in these phenomena with changes in the relative velocity of the “observers” thereof in motion (as related by the “Lorentz Transformations”) - which conspiracy would account for the failure to detect the implied light-conducting medium. The Machian positivism that Einstein adopted dispenses with the notion of the conspiratorially-hidden light-conducting medium as contrary to its epistemological demand for sensible phenomena - and so dispenses, “positivistically,” with the *material* rationalization that would be the Heideggerian claim, on its behalf, for its having “presaged” Heisenberg. [Poor G. was very badly advised, having boldly asserted the exact opposite of the case.]” And that assessment is that, for a person well-familiar with the subject, the “paragraph” is an elegant formulation of the issue in terms easily accessible to a layman who researches it. Thus to find it “turgid” and “jargon-laden” is to be unfamiliar with, and uncomprehending of, the subject in any detail - whereas an expert would find the paragraph fluent, precise, and impressively compact, rather than containing mere “correct words” as would be its appearance for a tyro. I deduce from this that the author of the “passage” is a fellow of the scientifically-uninformed school of metaphysical bullshit - for whom “intellect” is the practice thereof, and a “vacancy” the absence thereof. 228
Posted by PF on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:29 | # Hey everyone! If you want a crude laugh….see more adventures of Lord Flashheart! 229
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:44 | # And thanks to you, PF, for sharing. British humor knows no peer, wouldn’t you say? Might you instruct us in its psychological headwaters, PF? Does it not accord with negative stereotypes of British behavior in general? Would you compare and contrast British self-degradation with Japanese self-degradation, for us? And has British humor any affiliation thus with La Vice Anglais? [Just some questions for you to pursue while the Augean Stables are being cleansed.] 230
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:23 | # But - to return to the matter at hand, after that refreshing interlude introduced by our colorfully-costumed Jester in Residence, PF - we can wind up our appreciation of Grimoire’s sources with thanks for his qualified display of integrity in having resorted to some resources outside his own remarkably limited faculties toward illuminating the subject under discussion. Unfortunately and ironically, this resort was in vain - in terms of immediate effect on Grimoire - if we are to judge by his appendix to his revelations: “I think you struggle with this, an inner ‘Globby The Clown’....perhaps a childhood tragedy? You have my sympathies. Wherein he apparently adopts “a vacant pose lacking intellect” (to borrow from one of his fellows) in pretense of having been vindicated by his sources. Thus the irony of which I wrote is multiple - in that more than one of his sources vindicated my own position, and in that poor Grimoire is so “vacant” of substance in this regard, that he cannot recognize and profit by that instruction! 231
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:41 | # PF, The first series of Blackadder was written by Richard Curtis, a New Zealander, and Rowan Atkinson, who is English. From the second series on - and the clip you link to is from the fourth and final series - Atkinson was replaced by Ben Elton, who is not English. The resultant culture of critique (of traditional comic values) is what NeoNietzche, in his eagerness to offend, conflates with the myth of life in the 19th century boys boarding school - a myth once popular among jealous and resentful continentals of good station, and although it has disappeared among the French and Germans it persists among Americans to this day. NeoNietzche, may I suggest that if you wish to be taken seriously here you grant your peers the respect you plainly feel for yourself. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone quite so unsubtle in the me department. Relax, you are among friends. The idea is to be useful and to place what talents and knowledge one possesses at the disposal of others. Sometimes one’s statements will be challenged, and sometimes the challenger will prevail. But there is no dishonour in that. Neither the challenger nor anyone else on our side is here for the purpose of gladitorial conquest. You seem to be in danger of missing the point. 232
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:44 | # However, our proposed showing of Heidegger’s passage as pure bullshit, presaging absolutely nothing but more of the same, is in abeyance, pending the identification and counting of “jargon” in the “paragraph” exposing said passage as the opposite of that which it was touted to be. So - over to you, Grimoire - for we would like to couch our demonstration, at long last, in terms that are within your limited grasp. Otherwise we will have to entertain the Gallery with a discussion involving the terminology proper to the level of the subject. 233
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:48 | # @NN NN: bs+bs+etc…....But Heidegger did not understand the theory, and so we who make that claim, by implication, do not impute to him any stance on the point. ————————————————————— NN: Your source’s assessment affirms my point with “appears to be true”. —————————————————————- I recognize temporization, evasion, transparency and grasping at straws…......perhaps recognition…that you have no substance. —————————————————————— NN: Also, G., your profound ignorance of the matter led you to the translation of an analysis that you mistook for an objection to my point - whereas this tired old orthodox stupidity, upon which you now rely, affirms my point, by implication, more profoundly than does my own analysis! LOL. LOL indeed. As for ‘tired old orthodox stupidity’- save that thought - we shall go over that.
NN: Again, we note that your source was not informed as to the point of the paragraph, as explained in the previous comment. Indeed, the larger point “concerned” Heidegger, rather than how one “positivistically dispenses,” as illustrated by Einsteinian SR. The latter, of course, does not pose as “irrefutable proof” of anything otherwise, and your source correctly identifies *your* problem, despite having been given a mis-impression of its nature at your hands. Perhaps. My note included a brief summary, excerpt and page# from ‘The Hermeneutics of the Technological World: The Heidegger-Heisenberg debate.’ containing the quote and your ‘paragraph’ as the response. ————————————————————————— NN: However one interprets Heisenberg’s statement, it cannot sustain the claim that “Relativity presages Uncertainty”. The contrary is the case in its enduring rejection of the “confrontation”. —————————————————————————- There was no claim that “Relativity presages Uncertainty”. —————————————————————————- NN: And however one interprets Heisenberg’s statement, it cannot sustain the claim that he understood anything of Relativity and its epistemological basis. It is apparent you know nothing about Heidegger….and what you do know you only see through a clouded Anglo lens. Work harder to not reveal your ignorance, as this is my job. That Heidegger corresponded and met regularly with all major and minor European Physicists and Mathematicians from the publication of ‘Being and Time’ until his death is a commonplace. ———————————————————————————- NN: Having devoted myself to your instruction regarding this issue, you might reciprocate with an analysis of the assessment, by one of your sources, of my much-remarked upon “paragraph,” below - described as “jargon-laden”: blab….............blah Would you be so kind as to identify and count, for us, those words therein that qualify as “jargon”? Thank you for your devotion, it is returned. Let us say this and other grotesqueries you devotedly and continually provide represents the classic style of the sterile mind. ———————————————————————————— NN: I’m inclined to seal this deal with an analytical destruction of *Heisenberg’s* statement - but I would prefer to avoid another misconstruction of that effort for lack of an informed sense of the limitations of those being instructed. So I await, pro tempore, the identification and counting of the “jargon” with which my own paragraph was allegedly laden, in order to obviate another misdemeanor on my part.] Jargon 100% Thought 0%, ———————————————————————————— NN: And that assessment is that, for a person well-familiar with the subject, the “paragraph” is an elegant formulation of the issue in terms easily accessible to a layman who researches it. Thus to find it “turgid” and “jargon-laden” is to be unfamiliar with, and uncomprehending of, the subject in any detail - whereas an expert would find the paragraph fluent, precise, and impressively compact, rather than containing mere “correct words” as would be its appearance for a tyro. I deduce from this that the author of the “passage” is a fellow of the scientifically-uninformed school of metaphysical bullshit - for whom “intellect” is the practice thereof, and a “vacancy” the absence thereof. ‘uninformed school of metaphysical bullshit’ is I believe, your mailing address. The paragraph in question is a misshapen and hypnogogic con-catenation typical of the jumped-up, spotted undergraduate. 234
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:24 | # NeoNietzche, may I suggest that if you wish to be taken seriously here you grant your peers the respect you plainly feel for yourself. You may indeed. You may also consider the terms of the present discussion established by Grimoire with the following: “Stop being a boring idiot. You turnip-head”. And: “You have my assurance you have captured your own pencil-necked monkeys brain ideas inside a steel drum which you have then gonged-the-shit out of, with your lead pipe of a writing style.” Will this illustrative slice of Grimoire suffice? Frankly, GW, I’m rather tired of moderators who pass over, in silent reserve, blazing insults aimed in my direction at the beginning of an interlocution during which I freely and invariably “grant [my] peers the respect plainly feel for [myself]” - only to have said moderators intercede, at a very late date, on behalf of the offender, who has then been cowed into reserve by a careful exposure of his error, couched in terms highly restrained by comparison. Grimoire has more than deservedly lost my respect, on the counts of raw impoliteness and of incompetence in regard of the subject matter on which he insultingly comments as to my position. What do you think? I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone quite so unsubtle in the me department. A “Grimoire” brings that out in me. Relax, you are among friends. That is not my impression. The idea is to be useful and to place what talents and knowledge one possesses at the disposal of others. I agree as to the general case, and that is my general practice. A “Grimoire,” however, requires Sonderbehandlung If you disagree, I will be gone from your demonstrably partisan venue. Sometimes one’s statements will be challenged, and sometimes the challenger will prevail. But there is no dishonour in that. Neither the challenger nor anyone else on our side is here for the purpose of gladitorial conquest. Please review the exchange from the beginning and then return with a repetition of your statement with that illustration in mind. You seem to be in danger of missing the point. Not where Grimoire is concerned. 235
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:26 | # I “reviewed” the “corrected version” and found it correct - the system has nevertheless reproduced the erroneous formatting of the first] 236
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:42 | # the system has nevertheless reproduced the erroneous formatting of the first] No, Neo, you were fallible. You did not close the first line of italics correctly. Now do you get the point? 237
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:03 | # Yes, GW, I recognized that error and seemingly corrected it with the second attempt, as “reviewed”. The system, despite confirming my correction as successful and allowing me to “submit” that “review” of a second and apparently correct version, nevertheless reproduced the first message. And are we sarcastically holding me to claims of infallibility for having demonstrated an evident superiority? It appears thus - but the system might have deceived me, again. It further appears that once one has not “closed” a tag in one message, a subsequent message does not perform that task as might be expected. One has to deduce or guess as to what artifice to resort to in order to avoid a perpetual repetition of the error. You might look into that. [Thanks, however, for cleaning up after me.] 238
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:13 | # @Grimoire Let us start with your :
================================ “Heideggers brief critique of GRT [General Relativity Theory] presaged Heisenberg’s DE Dt ³ h / 4 p Dx Dp ³ h / 4 p” [the uncertainty in the energy times the uncertainty in the time] (Grimoire) And: “1) Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.. DE Dt ³ h / 4 p [the uncertainty in the energy] essence: uncertainty in the energy times uncertainty in time. (or momentum and position) is greater or equal to a constant (h/4p).” (Grimoire) [emphases and brackets mine, NN] ================================ Despite the distinction implied by “Dx Dp ³ h / 4 p” you have, yourself, equated the two formulas (in “essence”) for purposes of this discussion, having forgotten to complete the equation in this second instance. [I will concede, Grimoire, that you have the advantage of being able to resort, interminably, to mendacity (as above) and nonsense, for the sake of maintaining a front for the Gallery. But you and I now know that you are a mere fraud.] But you are at liberty to withdraw or modify your claim of “presaging” and thus neutralize your case for Heisenberg’s having delivered of himself other than bullshit with his “passage”. Or perhaps you would like to explicitly confess to a fraud by now claiming that the first of the two earlier allegations is applicable, rather, to another such passage, yet to be adduced. 239
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:24 | # @GW [I will concede, Grimoire, that you have the advantage of being able to resort, interminably, to mendacity (as above) and nonsense, for the sake of maintaining a front for the Gallery. But you and I now know that you are a mere fraud.] And I take into consideration GW’s remarks to me for the sake of the venue. So I desist from this careful and restrained vindication of myself in the face of relentless outrage (insult, mendacity, nonsense, fraud, invention). Thus leaving Grimoire to the residue of suspicion, on the part of those unacquainted with the issue, that he might be arguing in good faith. He has, however, excluded himself from credible discussion with those who are so acquainted (as I trust is confirmed by the conclusive demonstration of his mendacity, immediately above). 240
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:38 | # @Grimoire You can confess now - it was all a drunken farce. You gave it away by boldly contradicting yourself on an essential point. That’s one on me! I won’t be taken in so easily, next time. 241
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:54 | # @Heidegger That Heidegger corresponded and met regularly with all major and minor European Physicists and Mathematicians from the publication of ‘Being and Time’ until his death is a commonplace. Having done likewise in consultation with major and minor physicists, Herr Professor Doktor, I am exceedingly unimpressed with this putative credential adduced on your behalf. 242
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:18 | # @Heidegger Also, Herr Professor, if you will permit me a bit of leisure, I will soon post an analysis of your “passage” (as it is now referenced in this thread) that should be of general interest and slightly apart from the past controversy here. To wit: we have not dealt in detail with the question of what, if anything in general, your passage contains of both substance and merit, whereas we have been much involved in the specific question of its applicability to your colleague, Heisenberg, as a precedent. 243
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:02 | # @HPD Heidegger Dear Professor, I was initially planning to deliver the “analysis,” of which I spoke, written in terms that would lend themselves to comprehension by someone who understood at least a portion of the pertinent subject matter. Given the confession appended below, however, as to zero comprehension by the one for whom this service might have been performed, I might as well address the issue in the more economical terms that your presumably greater sophistication would permit. Thus I extend my gratitude to “the one,” named “Grimoire,” for granting me this economy of effort, by informing us as to his status in contemplation of Relativity Theory, none of the fluent characterization of which can he distinguish from “jargon”. And I join you in your astonishment at this revelation. NN =============================== 244
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:11 | # @HPD Heidegger, Dear Professor, With apologies for the delay that the following remarks will impose upon my schedule in dealing with your Introductory “passage,” I find myself distracted by consideration of the following allegations - to which I have briefly responded, below: I recognize temporization, evasion, transparency and grasping at straws…......perhaps recognition…that you have no substance. A review of the exchange, in search of these aspects, suggests that you are delusional. As for ‘tired old orthodox stupidity’- save that thought - we shall go over that. Thus you seek a tangent to follow in search of refuge - which resort will avail you nothing. It is apparent you know nothing about Heidegger… To the contrary, with your repetition of the ludicrous allegation about his “critique of GRT presaging (the Uncertainty formula)” I already know more than enough. But we’ll get to that in the “analysis” for the Professor Doktor, in detail. ...and what you do know you only see through a clouded Anglo lens. Yes, that tiresomely inconvenient concern for meaningfulness and verifiability. Work harder to not reveal your ignorance, as this is my job. A job for which you can thank me for having left you completely at leisure. Let us say this and other grotesqueries you devotedly and continually provide represents the classic style of the sterile mind. Yes, one concerned with hygenically avoiding shit-staining. ‘uninformed school of metaphysical bullshit’ is I believe, your mailing address. The paragraph in question is a misshapen and hypnogogic con-catenation typical of the jumped-up, spotted undergraduate. And thus we must assign you a failing grade on this brief essay - and prescribe tutoring suitable for instruction of an inapt student. 245
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:24 | # GW, Richard Curtis is a Jew and so is his Blackadder co-writer, Ben Elton. 246
Posted by PF on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:53 | # NN,
In my role as Jester I submit the following for the group’s consideration: Here is a woman’s beautiful expression of emotion: 247
Posted by PF on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:18 | # GW, What comedies do you like? Can you recommend me some? Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmondson are my old time faves - they are pretty English, eh? My spider-sense informed me that something wasn’t “hrain” about Black Adder. Somehow it is too squishy and tinny to be conceived in a brain related to mine - they cease to make any use of silence and awkwardness or of heavy intense characters, it is never viscerally strange. The humor is always resolvable into something easily understood or something “cutesy”, they never leave you wondering. It feels like Seinfeld, feels censored and unexperimental and undangerous. 248
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:03 | # To begin, I would like to state I regard you (NeoNietzsche) with the highest esteem for your intelligence and formidable awareness, now and always. I hold high for your contributions to this forum, your insight and learning are a great resource and a benefit to all of us. If you do not consider myself a friend, I in no way consider you an enemy, and I would be proud If I was considered at some point your friend. And if you do consider me your enemy, I should hope to conduct myself in the future so that you may consider me an honourable one. Notwithstanding the necessity of fulfilling the duties of an enemy and all that entails. My taunts referring to you as a ‘boring turniphead’ and others shortly to appear, are meant in jest or mere ‘grist to the mill’. Not now, in the past, or future, are they meant to convey disrespect for yourself, as a person, or as an intellect, whom I hold with regard. You understand this I hope, as you demonstrate yourself a highly attenuated skill with tactics. However, perhaps there has been some misapprehension of rancor, similar to the misapprehension that I had conceded the point - this was due to my interests being called towards something I value most highly that was not at all consonant with this debate - and your most considerable skill with argument in the interm was impressive. Whatever, if any, rancor that developed within my mind was meant only as stratagem, and although expressed as scorn and disrespect, were merely used as gambits for position.
Notwithstanding, and returning to form as we must, you are an intemperate and vain fellow who could use a sound thrashing. Your dismissal of Heidegger is due solely to ignorance. Your vainglorious belief in RT as the ‘sine qua non’ of human thought and science is error, for it is only a patched, glueing together of others work to serve as the placeholder and stop until creative work in understanding within and without existence begins again. A task for which we must all prepare ourselves. This was the spirit of Heideggers remark. I intuit you purposely misread this “Relativity presages Uncertainty”, as an escape ploy. But I shall not bang your head against the wall as you deserve. It should be read as “Heideggers brief critique of RT (full stop) presages Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory. Or ‘Heideggers remark presages Heisenbergs UT versus RT’. Yet Relativity Theory lives on. The Allies smashed the German Physik Institutions and scattered the faculty between the Soviet Union and the USA. Now I’ve thrown a few cards down…and this was not the way I intended to play this out. I’ve intentionally written this in a manner to give you ammunition for attack. This is because I still have my best cards, and you have nothing but a handful of bluff. The other inconsistencies you remark on in your comments are nothing but prevarications, so it would be a waste of time to address them. 249
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:11 | # @Grimoire I note your remarks immediately above and will respond in a timely fashion. Having completed the “first portion” of my promised “analysis,” I will go ahead and post it, immediately below, for consideration 250
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:17 | # @HPD Heidegger “Relativity theory in physics grew out of the tendency to expose nature’s own coherence as it is ‘in itself.’ As a theory of the conditions of access to nature itself it attempts to preserve the immutability of the laws of motion by defining all relativities; it is thus confronted by the question of the structure of its pre-given area of knowledge, that is, by the problem of matter.” Let us proceed from the most general considerations to the very specific, in the course of our analysis: The foregoing passage does not read as though informed by study of the subject involved. Its terminology does not appropriately or informatively address its “area of knowledge” if said area is “physics” or philosophy of science or related areas. It reads as though drawn from a brief and naive journalistic summary and could be defended only as do those who credit Nostradamus or The Book with predictions arising from vague references conveniently interpreted to fit later events. The first sentence is meaningless, if it is not either mistaken or merely a trite characterization of scientific theory in general. Ironically, RT evolved into a principled *rejection,* precisely, “of the tendency to expose nature’s own…in itself.” - where relativistic phenomena are concerned. If the sentence is most reasonably taken as a reference to the general reductionist tendency of science, it does not capture the history of the event in those terms, which historical emergence “grew out of,” rather, the tendency to examine the implications of pre-existng formulae (Maxwell’s equations) and to confirm a pre-existing theory (aether) by experiment (Michelson-Morley). Thus we may characterize the sentence as both trite and mistaken, if we have extracted any meaning from it at all. The second sentence is incorrect, in that, to the extent that RT does something that could be mistaken for “preserving,” it does not do so in its capacity “as a theory of…access”. This latter aspect would refer (if we pursue a “defense,” as above), to an appendage in the form of Machian Positivism - which appendage does not address anything of what was allegedly “attempted”. And, on behalf of a sponsor thus confining itself to observables beyond which it does not look, it correctly (as the purported theory of access) eliminates the notion of being “confronted” by that of which it disposes as its “pre-given area”. If we retreat, however, and replace our interpretation of “as a theory of,,,access” - which must involve the epistemology of Mach and the consequent errors - with the substance of RT and Einstein, the sentence is again in error with its first step, since RT is not a theory of knowledge, and its proper orientation in those terms remains a point of durable dispute. And the verbiage employed as to an “attempt” is a serious terminological misconstruction, and a non-sequitur as just explained, where “immutability” can only be salvaged by isolating the phrase from context and replacing it with the terms “uniformity” or “regularity” or “symmetry” - which would represent the “recognition” or “formulation,” rather than the “preservation,” of the qualities that we should and do not find mentioned here. But we are extending ourselves beyond reason in this charitable attempt to salvage something from the leading clauses of the sentence, because “as a theory of…access” it does not “attempt to preserve” - and it does not “preserve” by “defining” - and it does not “define” - it deduces. And RT cannot be said to deduce the “laws of motion” as though one were mistaking the matter for mere kinematics. As we have illustrated, the vocabulary here relentlessly betrays a lack of acquaintance, and a consequent imposture, that affirms the general characterization with which we began, above. 251
Posted by Frank on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:49 | # CC, why must Brits be pitted against Germans? There are increasingly fewer Nordics and of those few who care for their people. Why must this division exist? Over at TOQ, they seem to have all gone transhuman. Are we to all die fighting each other? English v. Celts. Brits v. Germans. And possibly other divisions Swedes v. Danes etc.? The same thing that’s being done to Germans today is also being done to Brits… It seems so petty. 252
Posted by Frank on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:22 | # GW, I won’t pretend to have followed everything, but I like this:
And this
I suppose we have to mix in substance with pleasure somewhat though - we have to live (energy/pleasure) as well as exist and defend our existence. But I like to think each generation could exert its own creative forces on the present environment and live through that (e.g. one generation might like pyramids, the next stone henges, the next perhaps does nothing but preserve and restore these manifestations of man’s creative spirit, the next creates sculptures, and on and on). As technology advances and as the natural environment changes though, there’ll be plenty of variation and plenty of new wars to rally against for honour. To some extent I think man can adapt to this without changing his form materially - that is to say the being is held within various natural adaptations and that only outside these boundaries is something truly alien. E.g. we might readily change to adapt to, say, colder weather; but we don’t likely have a dormant gene ready for flight. And similarly our spirit changes in response to the environment, there’s a spiritual as well as genetic part to our existence. - It wouldn’t surprise me were you right about Heidegger being at times more political than truthful, and similarly at times esoteric with a real v. facade meaning, or perhaps at other times target marketing with appeals to a certain group. 253
Posted by Frank on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:49 | # My Dasein has long been the group lol, if that wasn’t already apparent. I guess I’m off topic in going into what defines the group. Were this my post, since I love the ancient, I might have quoted from Gilgamesh:
He seems to find continued life in his city and by extension (I assume) his people after failing to find it for himself and his friend. 254
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:34 | #
I think CC can be forgiven to regard Brits with a bit of skepticism given their history. They’ve done damage to Whites on more than one occasion, esp the Crimean War aiding the Turks against Russia, the Boer Wars with their murderous savagery against the noble Boerenvolk (which, wouldn’t you know it, directly benefited Jewish moneyed interests), and their backstabbing of Germany twice. Not a good record from a pro-White standpoint. I must frankly agree with him, it’s not wise to trust without reservation those who’ve done you harm in the past. 255
Posted by Frank on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:53 | # I’m of Scottish / Ulster / English / French descent with [dirty]blond hair [light]blue eyes, and I’m fully racially oriented… I’m an “American”, but regardless I’m in agreement with the positions you take there on those particular wars, though I don’t think the world was then seen as it is today. We simply need to develop a culture that embraces Nordics working together. That said, I’m not one for mixing beyond some small amount of immigration among related countries - I’m not calling for empire. In America we united for survival only to have the North rape the South, but regardless uniting does bring strength… at least in theory. 256
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:13 | # @Grimoire, friend and comrade, My taunts referring to you as a ‘boring turniphead’ and others shortly to appear, are meant in jest or mere ‘grist to the mill’. Are you in the habit of secretting the understanding of your own jests, as such, in your own noggin? Nonetheless, I now have your head most firmly in a noose, and could begin the carefully planned dismemberment in the slow and most excruciating fashion I reserve only for those who deserve my time and effort, which you have certainly merited. An idle boast, to judge by that which has gone before - but please spare us further delay in your finally contributing something of value to this exchange - if this temporizing is not merely more of a drunken farce or cynical imposture. Notwithstanding, and returning to form as we must, you are an intemperate and vain fellow who could use a sound thrashing. Your dismissal of Heidegger is due solely to ignorance. Your vainglorious belief in RT as the ‘sine qua non’ of human thought and science is error, for it is only a patched, glueing together of others work to serve as the placeholder and stop until creative work in understanding within and without existence begins again. A task for which we must all prepare ourselves Thus you propose.to “thrash” me with my own position regarding RT. A novel tactic, facilitated by an inverted account of my own understanding and critique of RT - to which we might have proceeded, long ago, but for your wasting of our time with pretense and dishonesty (where incompetence does not serve to account) - and in which misdemeanors you even now indulge. This was the spirit of Heideggers remark. A “spirit” completely concealed under a load, by the passage itself. (What was I saying about “convenient interpretations,” above?) I intuit you purposely misread this “Relativity presages Uncertainty”, as an escape ploy. But I shall not bang your head against the wall as you deserve. It should be read as “Heideggers brief critique of RT (full stop) presages Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory. Or ‘Heideggers remark presages Heisenbergs UT versus RT’ And what it meant was, Quantum Theory presages (or sounds an ominous forewarning) for Relativity Theory. You thus engage in fraud by now reformulating your claim so as to align it with a correct account - first by relying upon - but then implicitly denying - Heidegger’s remark/“critique” as a pretext specifically for QT, which pretext it certainly is not - and which consideration Machian RT pointedly dismisses as being involved with itself, in general - without apparent comprehension thereof by Heidegger. [I suspect that this has been pointed out to you by one of your sources.] So, Bravo for the Balls, G. - but those big ones are holding you to the ground that you’re now trying to abandon. Which we may examine by reducing, with impertinent charity, Heidegger’s contibution to its unobjectionable form: To wit: RT is not materially rationalized. [Duh!] Nowhere is implied the solution to this oversight. And QT does not supply it. [As, again, we suspect has been pointed out to you.] So our sense of the odor of Heidegger’s contribution, and your collaboration, is reinforced. And now let us highlight, in detail, your devious (and “farcical”?) dealings: You have attempted to deceive us by attempting to equate (by commutative property), the incorrect statement…: “Heideggers brief critique of RT (full stop) presages Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory.” [...with the qualifiedly correct formulation:] “Quantum Theory presages (or sounds an ominous forewarning) for Relativity Theory.” While hoping, amidst the commutation, that we will forget that the first formulation is false and misrepresentative of the passage, which gross error prompts the reformulation, and the mere pretence, of an equivalence that has been invalidated at its premise. In other words, Heidegger’s modest little bullshit passage, aside from the errors under which it labors to exhaustion of all non-trivial substance, must also be taken to bear the weight of the following attempt at commutation: Heidegger’s brief critique of RT (full stop) presages (sounds a forewarning for) Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory [employed specifically as] Heisenberg’s UT versus RT [which “means” that] Quantum Theory presages (sounds a forewarning for) Relativity Theory [therefore] Heidegger’s brief critique of RT [is to be taken for] Quantum Theory [for purposes of] presaging (sounding a forewarning for) Relativity [as well as] presaging (sounding a forewarning for) Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory” [employed specifically as] Heisenberg’s UT versus RT…. Which involves us in a circularity and self-contradiction, as above. QED. RIP. In that the two are inconsistent, as Einstein was fully aware, as all his objections to Quantum Theory, and there were many, were proved wrong in entirety. Einstein became something of a joke after this. All his work attempting to patch the inconsistencies between Quantum and Relativity Theory were tested and found to be not less than farcical. Even you, with your highly developed intelligence should intuit, that there can be no inconstancy between the quantum and the macro. Scale is an irrelevancy. The Universe is fractal. Thank you for this recitation of my own prior understanding of an issue that we fail to find discussed, with any semblance of the above, in Heidegger’s passage. And you continue, below, to recite the history of which I am well aware in a pretense of instructing and contradicting me: Yet Relativity Theory lives on. The Allies smashed the German Physik Institutions and scattered the faculty between the Soviet Union and the USA. So Relativity Theory, like Darwinism before it, took on a mantle of omnipotence to a certain ‘ambitious’ mindset, prevalent after the wars. This mindset purports that it can explain all, is omnipotent, and all previous understanding of existence is moot and consigned to “the trash-bin of human intellectual endeavor” as you put it. Quantum Theory suggest something altogether different. That we can never know everything, and what we have yet to learn is infinite, and undreamt of. Heideggers ending remark, if you understand German, is better understood in English as “The problem is Nature”. “The problem is Matter” lead some to believe he was addressing the medium through which photonic energy travels.. This is false and is believed only because of the wish to distort the meaning to one serviceable of discredit . Similar to how modern physics attempts to explain away the inconsistencies between Quantum and Relativity theory by saying action in the sub atomic and action in the macro is separate, with out a consistent reason why this is so, and despite the obvious conceptual fallacy. For which I applaud him amidst criticizing him for a bullshit account, to which you rise in defence, amounting to no more than an observation of the obvious if we charitably and conveniently dismiss the egregious errors involved. Now I’ve thrown a few cards down…and this was not the way I intended to play this out. I’ve intentionally written this in a manner to give you ammunition for attack. I see. This sounds like a provisional disavowing of your previous remarks, so as to prepare for flight in search of further refuge. How are we to regard your participation as other than farcical, in view of this remark? Presumably this is yet another tiresome and teasing extension of your promise to lure me into a trap, devised, in part, from my own shortcomings, as you identify them and as you would have it. We grow impatient of the springing of the “trap” - which appears to be nothing of the sort. This is because I still have my best cards, and you have nothing but a handful of bluff. A surpassingly ironic statement - to judge from a review of the exchange. But do show us your “best” while we all remain above ground, G. The other inconsistencies you remark on in your comments are nothing but prevarications, so it would be a waste of time to address them. Please be more specific - the references are not clear. And so I go. I remain, NeoNietzsche, your friend, and if not, an enemy who respects the nature of your thought, as well as the storm of your attack. An odd “friend,” wouldn’t you say? But I assume that you will once again claim the prospect of finally doing me the friendly and comradely service of informing me of something I don’t already know - at some future date. [And I must confess to the suspicion that your elaborate attempt, here, to take a radically new tack, and thus squirm out of your predicament, was prompted by having been informed, upon further consultation, that you had been nailed - probably so informed by the source that identified your own problem. This impression is reinforced by your pedestrian recitation of the history of QT vs.RT, above, allied with your past display of utter incomprehension of RT. And the suspicion remains that you are just toying with us - and playing the fool in order to elicit a ridiculous persistence in responding to your bullshit. Will time tell?] 257
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:25 | # Continuing to do it the Anglo way will ensure the genocide of the race. I don’t know of any way to do Nordicism but to do it. And to tell anyone who doesn’t like that to go fuck themselves. Btw, the English on this site are tacitly Nordicist, they just won’t come out and admit it, thinking it’s in bad taste, or impolitic, or some such. 258
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:26 | # Frank, Just so long as you realise that the second more eloquent and interesting statement is Martin Heidegger’s. Al, Thanks for the correction. OK, Curtis is attached to Emma Freud, and does appear to be Jewish. But his work output is not culturally destructive. It is interesting to note that of the three series on which Ben Elton worked, and which were characterised by their constant scatalogical and homosexualist references, the one moment of greatness which was achieved - that last scene of Blackadder IV - came together in post-production and did not involve the writers at all: 259
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:37 | # Curtis was certainly on board for Series I, which featured “The Jumping Jews of Jerusalem”, an amusingly unflattering turn which did not re-appear in later series as I recall. 260
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:01 | # Perhaps, as you noted, GW, the writing of Richard Curtis is not culturally destructive. However, behind the ‘humorous mocking of England’s Established Church in his TV series, ‘The Vicar of Dibley,’ there lay, I believe, an innate aversion to what was formerly an important aspect of the English identity. Curtis also cast, in ‘Dibley’, a Jewish actor, John Bluthal, as a member of the parish council. 261
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:09 | # 1) If Statement A equals Statement B, and Statement B equals Statement C, and Statement C is true, then Statement A is implicitly true. 2) If Statement A implies Statement B, and Statement B implies Statement C, and Statement C is true, then Statement A is not implicitly true. [Just anticipating an objection by posting a lesson as to logic for reference, folks - move along, please] 262
Posted by Frank on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:06 | # GW, I guess the spirit can’t be pinpointed at a particular time because it’s always moving. A baseball thrown from A to C is better defined as moving from A to C than as being at point B (between A and C). Or if that doesn’t apply, and I’m doubtful it does…, then it might be due to the complexity of human relations: spirit A is at 80% with rising cores of spirit B at 1% and spirit C at 2% etc. Any attempt at defining this existence will inevitably make significant error. 263
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:01 | #
And yes he is married to Emma Freud (yes, some relation to that Freud). Her brother Matthew is married to Rupert Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth. And as we are often reminded Murdoch snr. is not at all Jewish, no sir. 264
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:16 | # @ Frank / CC 265
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:58 | # You’re a no good, filthy Kraut, Grimoire. As such, you carry the guilt of your ancestors, whom “debased” themselves, which can never be fully cleansed. Ask the English, they’ll be more than happy to tell you, as they put Jewish guilt-memes down your throat by the shovel-full. Of course, as even they will and have conceded, had the NS Krauts triumphed the existence of the race would have been secured in perpetuity. Which lends itself to my taking everything else they have to say on the matter with a pile of salt. Funny thing is they can’t play with all that fertilizer without getting shit on themselves too; someday they’ll learn. 266
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:41 | # @CC My family, my people were those who fought and who fell in those wars. What did your ancestors do? Farm? Run a store? Pull the shit out from between your ears. 267
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:49 | #
LOL! You need to learn to recognize sarcasm. I’m sure the English will get my meaning, so no worries. 268
Posted by danielj on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:51 | # Btw, the English on this site are tacitly Nordicist, they just won’t come out and admit it, thinking it’s in bad taste, or impolitic, or some such. Indeed. The descendants of the English think America is theirs, the Germanics like the Captain think it is theirs and I’ll fight both of you to the death to keep it for myself. Nordicism in America is a non-starter. I hope all the Nords in America realize their dispossession is already a done deed and start concerning themselves with making alliances with those of us of mixed European heritage and Southerners. 269
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:46 | # @Grimoire This ‘reproach’ towards the British is unfortunate, yet not without merit. Those who level it, do it not because they bear animosity towards the British, but because they encounter a evasive and objectionable tendency to hide British mistakes behind selective facts and propaganda. Nicely formulated, G. Towards Britain, I…a German, feel the same anger when She is insulted as when my Fatherland is insulted. The same rage at Her desecration as the desecration of my own homeland. This is why I do not care so much for historical autopsies for the assignation of guilt. In the next war, whatever form it takes, all Europe will rise and stand together. I know this. The mistakes of the past will be made good, and forgotten. Tomorrow belongs to us. 270
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:40 | # @NeoNietzsche Meinem geschätzten Kamerad :
. Yes, when you think of it….it is both ‘novel’ and irregular. As for pretense and dishonesty, your soaking in some right now. Does it not feel both calming and refreshing? Thats because it’s a new and improved formulation…..enjoy! ————————————————————- NN: You thus engage in fraud by now reformulating your claim so as to align it with a correct account - first by relying upon - but then implicitly denying - Heidegger’s remark/“critique” as a pretext specifically for QT, which pretext it certainly is not - and which consideration Machian RT pointedly dismisses as being involved with itself, in general - without apparent comprehension thereof by Heidegger. [I suspect that this has been pointed out to you by one of your sources.] ——————————————————————— My first thought was confusion as to your scorn on this issue. My second thought was to simply hand you some rope and attend to other matters for awhile. I had thought of further avenues of pursuit and procured more rope for the purpose. This rope soaks now in a bath of pretense and dishonesty. You may not see it as such unfortunately, but it is something of an compliment when your adversaries take the trouble to obtain only the strongest and supplests of cords, preparing them with care and attention…..nothing to sneer at. ———————————————————————- NN: This was the spirit of Heideggers remark. The flaw often found with those who have strong wills and discriminating minds, is that they end up seeing only what they want to see. This becomes a habit, and as a habit, becomes a weakness. It becomes simple to hide from them what you don’t want them to see, show them what you want them to see….and disappear and reappear as you wish. Take note of this. —————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————- ——————————————————————————————— You see…., because you are my friend, for your benefit I will tell you here I can take you and lead you down a primrose path once again. I told you explicitly that Heideggers remark was not to be construed as ‘RT is not materially rationalized’....but that RT does not quantize. ——————————————————————————————— NN: Nowhere is implied the solution to this oversight. And QT does not supply it. [As, again, we suspect has been pointed out to you.] QT does not supply solutions. It is a paradigm; not a theory. As for my sources pointing this out to me…...at some point, you will hear leaves rustling softly - interpret this as a dawning awareness, or as a presaging… —————————————————————————————————————- NN: And you continue, below, to recite the history of which I am well aware in a pretense of instructing and contradicting me: . Ihr willkommen.. ————————————————————————————————————————————- ————————————————————————————————————————————————————— . Friends come in all fashions NN. I am your friend because I mean you no harm, only good. As for telling you something you don’t know - perhaps then something you should pay more attention to. That is to use a wider view. True dissimulation is not dishonesty and pretense…..it is knowing what your opponent will or will not see…and using that to show them what you want them to see, and hide what you don’t. If that should be seen as a radical new tack, or squirming out of a predicament, that will work as well. Because the radical new predicament, or reverse tack, really made no difference other than bring it to a close sooner than planned. As to my sources, I sent those emails because you asked me to, and although not planned, it fit into the scheme. The ‘professional’ philosopher called me, to tell me they were not that type of ‘philosopher’.... I did not bother to ask what type of philosopher they were then…but I have some ideas. Other than that, I have consulted no one….although I have those resources. 271
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:53 | # @Grimoire So, Kamerad - time to take stock of our extended exchange. Which stock, I believe, has the potential for facilitating your future championship of Heidegger in a more competent fashion. But which stock, however, has presently not withheld you from failing to recognize and acknowledge the weaknesses in Heidegger’s arguments. Thus you tarnish your championship of him, just as would a failure of my own, in dealing with the shortcomings in Nietzsche’s and Spengler’s work, diminish the impact of what I might write in their defense. Nietzsche, for example, offered some vague epistemological stupidities in the opening pages of BGE - and he facilitated a great deal of mischief with his proto-post-modernist perspectivist formulation of “no facts - only interpretations” in regard of the general commentary on the French Revolution (as perhaps you already know). Fortunately, Nietzsche progressively emerged from his epistemological fog with suggestive remarks in GM and EH. But a Champion will nevertheless be confronted with the preliminary errors of his Master (as you have been confronted here), and I hope you will “take stock” of that in which you have been instructed by an authority on the immediate matter of Heidegger’s “passage”. I further hope it is the case that Heidegger, on whom I am no expert as to the general case, performed as did Nietzsche, and later offered more sophisticated and trenchant remarks as to Rt/QT upon which you could rely in his defense and which might then be the timber of the framework of the “trap” or prolonged torment you claim to have in mind for me. In which case I would vigorously join you in that enterprise, as I have already affirmed your own remarks in criticism of what a more sophisticated student than yourself understands as Einstein’s self-contradictory version of the apparent equivalence of inertial frameworks and as his patchwork version of the equivalence of non-inertial frameworks. So, Grimoire, mein deutscher Freund, if you would be the finest champion of the Master, Heidegger, that you can be in his behalf - please take from my example, as in the instance of Nietzsche, the *discriminating* defense of his contributions to the universe of intellect. NN 272
Posted by Frank on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:21 | # CC, It’s not the English who shovel down guilt memes - it’s elites. Just the same “Jews” aren’t the enemy so much as Jewish elites who control them. Jews in general are their tools as a hand or leg is the tool of a man - the head is where the brains are. A lot of these elites are just out for pleasure too. They’re not serving Englishmen. Jews are more tribal though yea they’re programmed to be that way too. It’s Kosher to be tribal but only if not white… I’m not saying we’re not guilty for WWII, but I am saying you might could win over some of the marionettes, or better yet awaken those who can be awakened. You have to flatter our egos, pat us on the backs and tell us we’re not really lemmings; but in all honesty unless we’re exceptionally disciplined even we awakened are missing some vital parts of the equation. Those who see the whole must lead as needed those who don’t. 273
Posted by Frank on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:26 | # Though too there’s need for grounding in reality, a need to ensure continued service to that which one intends to serve rather than service to one’s mere individual appetite or ego. And I think social ties, especially family ties, help with this. Anyway I’ve liked elite theory for awhile, but I’m certainly not an elite. I certainly wish to make myself useful though, and continue to work towards that aim… 274
Posted by Frank on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:40 | # Not to say an elite propagates lies - it could just as well defend and propagate truth… Regardless, we are not all equal in natural and learned ability, impact, scarcity, vigilance, apathy, etc. 275
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:24 | # @Grimoire You see…., because you are my friend, for your benefit I will tell you here I can take you and lead you down a primrose path once again. I told you explicitly that Heideggers remark was not to be construed as ‘RT is not materially rationalized’....but that RT does not quantize. Your “construction” carries no weight - it has no substance - it is no more than your breathe. We already have your native and thus presumably authoritative translation of the passage with which to deal. And there is not the merest hint of your re-construction therein. You insult us with this affront. Metaphysics means never having to mean what you say. (NeoNietzsche) Thus you “construe” the “passage” to mean whatever you now wish to impose upon it, as now you are doing. And this is aside from the question of whether you, in fact, once “explicitly” offered this construction, rather than now proposing, and falsely attributing to the past, a construction of a past general remark as to QT versus RT, presently to be taken as “explicitly” insinuating (an oxymoron) your convenient choice of alternative difficulties that QT poses for RT. But I trust that this convenient retrospective construction is based upon later remarks that “charitably” allow us to see Heidegger’s Introductory remark in that light (as proposed in my previous, conciliatory message). But as the passage stands in isolation, your claim won’t fly in his behalf - and you do him a distinct disservice with your flights, as above, rather than dealing forthrightly with the material. You occupied paragraph after paragraph, only to have contributed an otherwise vacant claim on your own behalf and that of Heidegger. 276
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:42 | # @CC
-rechtzeitig absetzen- 277
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:50 | # @Grimoire, friend and comrade, The flaw often found with those who have strong wills and discriminating minds, is that they end up seeing only what they want to see. This becomes a habit, and as a habit, becomes a weakness. It becomes simple to hide from them what you don’t want them to see, show them what you want them to see….and disappear and reappear as you wish. Take note of this. I do - good color to that stool, G. QT does not supply solutions. It is a paradigm; not a theory. Shall we accommodate your questionable pedantry on the point, then, by employing, rather, “QP” as our acronym? Friends come in all fashions NN. I am your friend because I mean you no harm, only good. As for telling you something you don’t know - perhaps then something you should pay more attention to. That is to use a wider view. True dissimulation is not dishonesty and pretense…..it is knowing what your opponent will or will not see…and using that to show them what you want them to see, and hide what you don’t. If that should be seen as a radical new tack, or squirming out of a predicament, that will work as well. Because the radical new predicament, or reverse tack, really made no difference other than bring it to a close sooner than planned. As to my sources, I sent those emails because you asked me to, and although not planned, it fit into the scheme. The ‘professional’ philosopher called me, to tell me they were not that type of ‘philosopher’.... I did not bother to ask what type of philosopher they were then…but I have some ideas. Other than that, I have consulted no one….although I have those resources. An impressive display of shadowboxing, G. It appears that you have an intimidating string of victories to your credit. 278
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:00 | # @NeoNietzsche Look again, somewhere hidden I have commited the most monstrous faux pas that absolutely annihilates the smug posture I pretend to effect. I tremble at my daring…it’s a lulu 279
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:24 | # I tell you once again to my disadvantage - if I did not write these words I could still take you down that primrose branch and hang you from that oak branch like you were a blind 9 year old hindu boy…..with those words alone. My dear friend, Grimoire, You profoundly misunderstand me by writing of your “disadvantage”. I look forward to being “hung” - as I have been before - to my own advantage - as it would be thus to *your* advantage as you now reckon the matter, rather, in negative terms. For I am much better a scholar and defender of Nietzsche for having misstepped, as I believe you have done here, and as you seem to promise to show me that I have done. In either case, there will have been much of potential gain from this encounter. I hope that you will be as mature as am I in taking full advantage of whatever outcome will ultimately issue from this exchange. So you need not disgrace yourself with further ludicrous exercises (perhaps you will then spare us a flashing display of nunchuck artistry): 280
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:43 | # yes but we have to change the subject. I could give a shit if Heidegger presaged a nosedive while eating a hamsandwiche for a long time to come - much to my disadvantage. 281
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:00 | # @Grimoire, friend and comrade, ‘Nature’ is exactly to what quantize refers. Please consult the logic lesson, posted earlier in the thread, in anticipation of this objection to my position. Also - this implication is a non sequitur, in context. Therefore we must discard this choice of interpretations of the term, in view, as well, of the absence of a version of the word “quanteln” itself. My own charitable summary of the paragraph thus survives in its trite statement of the obvious: “RT is materially unrationalized”. And I again have the impression that one of your sources made the point of your difficulty with relating this to Heisenberg/QT. And finally, you tried this trick once before, hence the preemptive lesson in logic. Once you have let off a burst, best to change positions, eh, mighty warrior? I don’t mean to apply QT…but a system of limited states that can only assume ‘discrete’ magnitudes. As in fractal theory. As in Nature. More convenient reformulation and illogic - the correction of which, in principle, has already been introduced. Look again, somewhere hidden I have commited the most monstrous faux pas that absolutely annihilates the smug posture I pretend to effect. I tremble at my daring…it’s a lulu Why should I bother - you already have a string of such to your discredit?! How does one judge as amongst monstrosities? 282
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:10 | # @Grimoire, friend and comrade, yes but we have to change the subject. I could give a shit if Heidegger presaged a nosedive while eating a hamsandwiche for a long time to come - much to my disadvantage. Your remark recalls to mind a scene from a movie, long ago, in which the late Richard Boone starred as the villain. We see a pretty girl hanging unconscious, by her bound wrists, from a hook on the wall of a hotel room. And our villain, as only Richard Boone could have captured the implication of the understatement, delivers the line, “Thanks for the charming interlude,” as he makes his exit through the door. 283
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:45 | # @Grimoire, friend and comrade,
Were you offended by my little jest amongst friends, involving the YouTube episode, linked above? I recall with amusement your own jests, including the following, which I took to have established the dimensions of our mutual familiarity: “You have my assurance you have captured your own pencil-necked monkeys brain ideas inside a steel drum which you have then gonged-the-shit out of, with your lead pipe of a writing style.” So I hope that, if I have assessed the situation correctly, you will be a big boy and deal. In any case, you have my best wishes for a return to good form.
284
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:27 | # Next Day: @NeoNietzsche . What iron claw or infernal panopticon used to foresee I was practicing num-chuks? Strong is your Kung Fu! I did not recognize you without crap in your pants. I see now the dragon and tiger burnt upon your skinny wrists. I appropriated a toothless old woman to squeeze a lemon into the third eye. Now you cannot see! Of all things to live in darkness is the worst. But FEAR is the only darkness! PS:Tell your girls when they are done kissing, I’ve got some ass kicking for you.
PSPSPS: Feel my paralyzer! Say good night! Do you want fries with that? 285
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:27 | # @NeoNietzsche No seriously, I just left because I had to take care of something. I should have said something…. ————————————- NN: Also - this implication is a non sequitur, in context. Therefore we must discard this choice of interpretations of the term, in view, as well, of the absence of a version of the word ”quanteln” itself. My own charitable summary of the paragraph thus survives in its trite statement of the obvious: “RT is materially unrationalized”. And I again have the impression that one of your sources made the point of your difficulty with relating this to Heisenberg/QT. —————————————————— . Thats right…I had to go feed my sources their ham sandwiches. And yet now you tell me they are not worth the nickel. Well, no more ham sandwiches! - bread and butter till I get some serious beef…...ok, that got a response…..........Allright, ........ (my ham sandwiches are blockbuster…) everything you say is wrong, wrong, wrong….times 3 . . Einstein’s obsession was that geometry is butter and matter is bread, and that all attempts to find the fundamental law of nature should be directed by the quest to turn bread into bread and butter….I’m not talking here of sandwiches, but some sort of mess - actually like breaded butter. . This is why we can’t have Ham sandwiches. This is precisely what Heidgger meant when he said the problem with relativity is it does not take into account Ham….specifically SchwarzhonigSchinken. And this is precisely what I mean when I say it does not quantize. It does not take the bread and smear on the butter, and then slice the ham and lay it between two slices of butter smeared bread. Instead it takes the bread and tries to spread it on the butter - bread smeared butter - which is insane - and leaves out the Ham altogether, 286
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:02 | # @Grimoire, friend, comrade, disciple, GRT is only approximately valid. Applied within our solar system, where gravitational fields are relatively weak, it has proven accurate at some measurements, inaccurate at others (where botched findings are shelved). But we know applying it outside our solar system, in cosmology where gravitational yields are high, it is completely unreliable. This means I am right and you are wrong. No, it doesn’t. You are not listening. I am agreeing with you in these criticisms. I have merely correctly *characterized* Einstein as against Heidegger’s misrepresentations. I am not defending him otherwise. That means Heideggers right and you are wrong. No, it doesn’t. You are again resorting to what I shall describe as “The Grimoire Maneuver,” for your lack of sophistication in logic, and/or in mere pretense as to the nature of the discussion. Heisenberg, unsuccessful in refining the common postulates of QM in his unified theory of elementary particles, wrote to Bohr that either QM or SRT was wrong. That mean you are…... wrong. Three strikes now. This history lesson is rather tiresome, G., in that I know it better than do you - and, again, I agree with you as to these tangential observations. And when you change this to ‘materially unrationalized’, what your saying is balogna, Balogna instead of Ham - and probably margarine instead of butter - wonder bread instead of a nice caraway rye - and this is unacceptable. And thats why your wrong again. No, I’m not. You are trying to impute to Heidegger’s paragraph an interpretation that it does not sustain other than by imputing to Heidegger this valid criticism of Einstein and projecting it backward onto the passage mischaracterizing Einstein. More of your exercise in deceptive and defective logic arising from your widely-shared incomprehension of the specific nature of RT. And you have again filibustered at length by turning the discussion into UT versus RT, which was never an issue as other than an element in your attempt to perform a Grimoire Maneuver, earlier in the thread. And your tone is extremely unfortunate. You sound like a child who thinks he’s been vindicated by an adult, which adult has freshly instructed him, having taken the child’s misrepresentation of the discussion for the actual issue. The actual issue is that Heidegger’s paragraph is bullshit - as is your attempt to demonstrate otherwise - which attempt I take as symptomatic of a larger pattern of defect in your faculties to which I have tried to alert you, since the day when you could not absorb the point about the Theory of Evolution. You have been, since then, an extremely contumacious patient. ================================== THE GRIMOIRE MANEUVER You wish to have the true statement, “C,” mistaken for the insinuated false statement, “A,” by avoiding the obviously false contention that if (C) is true then (A) is true. This maneuver, anticipated in a previous logic lesson on the thread, is given specific illustration by the following: A) All N are Q (a false statement) [implies that] B) Some N are Q (a true statement) [implies that] C) Some Q are N (a true statement) [To further illustrate, draw a large circle, labeled “All N,” and draw therein a small circle labeled “All Q”.] ================================== 287
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:15 | # BTW, G., your command of English is that of a native. Most admirable. But please do the German thing and transcend the Anglo natives by learning the distinction between, and application of, “your” and “you’re”. You’ve had too many occasions to refer to me, and the error grows tiresome. 288
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:35 | # @Grimoire, friend, comrade, disciple, What iron claw or infernal panopticon used to foresee I was practicing num-chuks? The elaborate “shadowboxing,” allied to your characteristic dilatory tactics, led me to anticipate (as was done in preemptively posting the logic lesson) your further attempt to prevail with mere Kata. [I confess to getting a good laugh, on your account, every time I review that little YouTube episode.] 289
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:49 | # Nice satire of Chop-Saki Bullshit dialogue. 290
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:52 | # However, G., It is now implicitly evident that you misrepresented my position to your sources. You offered my explanation of SR/RT as a defense of RT against UT - which it is not. It is, rather, a correct *characterization* of RT, as against Heidegger’s ludicrous BS presentation of its content and purpose. Thus my apology to your sources, on your behalf, for my response to any mis-impression that was the product of my reading of your butchered transcription of their remarks to you. 291
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:08 | # Shaolin Brother: . First NeoNietzsche - ‘you’re’ the pickles, I’m the Ham, so don’t give me any Bologna. ‘The problem is matter’ does not refer to ether, or any other mysterious substance. Materie, Substanz, Angelegen and more all mean different and the same things, depending on how the word is phrased and understood. You’ve bought into same the arguments as the people who accused anyone who disagreed with GRT - of antisemitism, as they did in the 20’s - or they butcher the meaning of what one says, in order to bring discredit one’s entire work. Materie in German can mean ‘material’, also the ‘issue’ , the ‘concern’, ‘interests’ determined by syntax. German syntax is far more flexible and varied that English, and meaning is tied to word order. In this case, the syntax itself specifies ‘issue’ or ‘concern’. This issue is old, I don’t care anymore. Next Issue// Theory of Evolution: 292
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:24 | # btw. thank you for your compliment and correction on my English. This is flattering because I look on my english with horror, and constantly try to evolve. 293
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:08 | # . The theory of evolution is wrong; ( I like to say things are wrong) not because it’s incorrect, the evolution part of the theory is obvious. But because the problem is, as Heidegger says, a problem of matter. 1859 Darwin publishes the thesis ‘Origin of the Species’ which he had been working on and publishing extracts for 15 years or so. Empirical science does a shortcut by using open ended Cartesian thought experiments, no precedents, acknowledgement, as if the theory of evolution was cut from thin air. It uses but shifts Lamarks terms, uses the word ‘biology’, which Lamark coined, but offers no precedents or acknowledgement. But most of all, there is coloured, illustrated pictures! In actuality, Darwin’s logic is more precise in error, and his mind more open in contemplation, than those monomaniacs who call themselves Darwinists today. Darwin’s own view of his work and theories are that they are part of a complex research program meant to modified and improved. There is no dogma…but the work of an intelligent amateur. But he is assuredly a plagiarist. Denies ever reading Mendel, and evading the question of Lamark or disparages him. Today, popular accounts claim Mendels work was completely obscure….despite Mendel being named by accusers in Darwins time. Yet after the publication of Origin of the species he immediately began using Mendelian methods on various invertebrate cultures in preparation for the publication of the theory of natural selection…..not once acknowledging Mendel or Lamark. Instead, Lamark was charged with plagiarism, apparently stealing the work of Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus. Do these tactics sound familiar? . What a stupid individual. Everything out of that cretins mouth is pure idiocracy. Sends shivers down my spine. I used to think George Bush and his type of American where the epitome of dumb and dumber - but those fellows were working with little more than 2 to 3 synapses. Dawkins does….he actually have credibility?! 294
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:27 | # btw. are you talking about those emails? I sent your paragraph as a rebuttal to the ‘presages’ declaration - not as a rebuttal against UT. But once again ‘critque of RT presages UT’ means the critque of RT is part of the presaging by UT. 295
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:53 | # Grimoire, We should open a separate thread to discuss your critique of Darwin (just origin or natural selection as well?). If you would care to send me a sufficiently detailed argument - the contact button is under the header - I am sure we would be able to publish it. 296
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:13 | # @Grimoire, friend, comrade, disciple First NeoNietzsche - ‘you’re’ the pickles, I’m the Ham, so don’t give me any Bologna. ‘The problem is matter’ does not refer to [A]ether, or any other mysterious substance. You write as though I had said so. Materie, Substanz, Angelegen and more all mean different and the same things, depending on how the word is phrased and understood. You write as though I had said otherwise. You’ve bought into same the arguments as the people who accused anyone who disagreed with GRT… Quite the opposite is the case. When I criticize RT, however, I insist upon doing so on the basis of a correct characterization thereof. I appears that you and HPD Heidegger are/were not so scrupulous. 297
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:53 | # @Grimoire,friend, comrade, disciple btw. are you talking about those emails? I sent your paragraph as a rebuttal to the ‘presages’ declaration - not as a rebuttal against UT. The effect is the same for a person unfamiliar with the larger context of the discussion, due to your having suggested, implicitly, that your “‘presages’ declaration” was correct and/or representative of Heidegger’s passage. The proper comparison would have been between my paragraph and Heidegger’s passage, with an explanation of context and the fact that the paragraph was in response to a tangential question. The root of the difficulty is that you consistently misunderstand - or wish to misrepresent - the issue as one of a “critique” vs. a defense, rather than as one of a “bullshit” vs. a correct characterization, in the first place, of RT. And I suspect that this is how it was misrepresented to your sources, with consequent confusion of the issue. There has been no debate, here, taking the form of critique-v-defense, in which I have participated. I have affirmed the lengthy and superfluous filibustering recitation of the history of UT v. RT as to the implications thereof.
More of the Grimoire Maneuver. But that is not the issue. The issue is as to whether Heidegger’s passage is worthy of assessment as a “critique” - and whether it involves other than a magnificently uninformed (bullshit) characterization of RT - in the first place. 298
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:11 | # @FCDGrimoire Thats all I can write until you respond on how unimportant, wrong stupid or what to improve I have no comment on the foregoing, in this thread. I merely repeat my original observation, way back in the thread, that reference to the Theory of Evolution as “just a theory” is not effectively responsive to an allegation as to its applicability. 299
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:15 | # It’s not me NeoNietzsche….it’s the sources. To them you are a modern day Mephistopheles. The greyfriar of Lucifer who flies out from Wittenberg to eat the souls of children and then take them to Hell. Anything you say is written down and held up to a mirror at midnight. What is revealed there, are your actual true intentions and meanings. This is why I must carry always the num-chuks. 300
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:19 | # Your previous three comments have been held up to a mirror and revealed to be more infernal sophistry. 301
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:25 | # @Guessedworker 302
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:27 | # @FCDGrimoire For there is a science of evolution, which recognizes that ‘natural selection’ says everything and nothing, And there is a science of physics, which recognizes that “f=ma” says everything and nothing. Take that to one of your physicist/philosopher friends and have him reflect upon the parallels and implications for you. 304
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:39 | # F+b1=b2-F ? poor substitute for Liebniz v=d/dt R(t) Have to go…. 305
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:43 | # @FCDGrimoire This is why I must carry always the num-chuks. “Nonne-chuks,” auf Deutsch - “nun-chucks,” in English. [And unless you are a bit more accomplished than the Booger on the YouTube - I’d say best leave them at home as a danger to yourself.] 306
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:45 | # OK, Grimoire, that would be interesting. I look forward to it. I agree, btw, with our friend, comrade, blood-relative and father to the Ancients that your English is highly commendable. Certainly a lot better than my Babelfish Alemannic. 307
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:53 | # @FCDGrimoire F+b1=b2-F ? poor substitute for Liebniz v=d/dt R(t) Force equals mass times acceleration. Prove it, if you accept it. 308
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:01 | # @Rogue Shaolin Brother NeoNietzsche / And I wrote the response Force+ body1 is equal to minus Force on body 2. Liebniz’s integral rule is far superior and was and is the basis of e=mc2 309
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:04 | # @FCD/BSA, Grimoire The point is that you are failing to come to grips with the problem of theories that are so comprehensive and non-falsifiable (in fact) that they appear to be tautological and thus merely definitional - as is evidently your (familiar) criticism of TTOE. The point is, more explicitly, whether “force” is no more than accelerating mass and is merely shorthand therefor - or whether it has independent status such that F=ma is a “synthetic” rather than an “analytic” formula. My understanding is that the attempt as been made to restructure the corpus of physics so as to eliminate reference to “force” - without satisfactory result. Do you know otherwise? The same question is applicable, mutatis mutandis, to TTOE. 310
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:16 | # @FCD/BSA, Grimoire Your previous three comments have been held up to a mirror and revealed to be more infernal sophistry. I take this further display (beyond Heidegger’s) of Crystalline Continental Clarity to mean that you wish to reverse my characterization of the issue. As I wrote, and again, there is no such issue, as reversed, as other than in your pretense involving your extended remarks as though in response to anything I had written. 311
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:27 | # It has always been my presumption that to call God ‘Father’ inplied that what He created was his Son. Did ‘fatherhood’ imply creation of son by father to the ancients, when used wrt God? Somehow, this idea of ‘adoption’ by God of something that God already created/fathered, seems logically inconsistent to me, so there must be a meaning that makes sense in the context of the current discussion. Could someone give that concept a meaning, relevant to what the ancients might have believed? The concept of fully realized identity for Jesus, when he has completed his function in the world, does make some sense, for it does not deny to God the right of fatherhood of all living things. Furthermore, fully realized identity places Jesus with the creative aspect of the Will of God. In other words, he is able to exercise the power of creativity which he now realizes that he shares with God the Father, by virtue of having been created by the Father as His Son, in the Father’s image and likeness. But that is hardly an adoption, for image and likeness is not transfered through adoption, thus making Jesus an unequal and lesser part of the Trinity. Crayola Creations. When will we ever grow up? 312
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:35 | # Also, Brother G., I am more correctly referred to as “Doppelte Pistole Bruder NeoNietzsche”. Thank you. 313
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:29 | # The following is an excerpt from “Memoirs of NeoNietzsche: The Early Years….” Young NeoNietzsche : “Master, is God man or woman?” 314
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:05 | # And I still have that old C96 Broomhandle, Grimey. Saved my life on more than one occasion. Did I tell ya about the time when I was set upon by a pack of wild, drunken females, hungering for my well-muscled body? Had ta beat ‘em off with my trusty Broomhandle holster, by God!. They would have eaten me alive - a series of blow jobs I just wouldn’t have survived! I tell ya, Grimey, never leave your premises without your old 9mm - if you’re as damn good-looking as I am! 315
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:30 | # recalls the greeting ’ is that a c96 in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?’ 316
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:39 | # Well, if it comes to that ... It’s philosophy Jim, but not philosophy as we know it. 317
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:41 | # I must say, you two remind me of nothing so much as a couple smoking in bed after the rigours ... Are we going to get another argument out of you or not? 318
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:24 | # Hard to think about brain stuff while Grimey is looking at my pants that way. But I have my trusty holster at the ready! Otherwise, he has a challenge before him as to the analytic or synthetic nature of “Survival of the Fittest” and “Force”. 319
Posted by PF on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:13 | # wow grim, that michael jackson joke was actually funny. Post a comment:
Next entry: Just a silly German ditty
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by PF on Sun, 14 Feb 2010 05:39 | #
Good start GW.
In what sense do you mean ‘the mundane’?
My initial reaction to this was to interpret it that, in emphasizing the mundane, he had ‘adumbrated’ the means of establishing “a connectedness to Dasein”.
Possibly a misreading of your intended meaning. I’m trying my best to discuss philosophy and politics!!!
Its a fair introduction to the man which you’ve given, and will hopefully prevent us from suffering appeals to Heidegger’s authority in support of “the Palingenetic necessity”. It would be nice to discuss something from that era without the other perpetual background discussion seeping in.
What you have illustrated is Heidegger making the long, great leap of faith from his study of Being, to its wider implications for the Germans, and for human groups in general.
One thing I feel confident saying: while the mass of people remains absent, while their lives are this very disconnectedness and chaos described above - there can be no greatness for them. This absence tinges everything, and renders the whole vocabulary used to describe things into references to shadows. How then are they to know what their Being is? Perhaps it is enough for us to know it.
Our difficulty then, in talking about groups, is that the mental level and level of presence which they will manifest is always bound to be low. They have to understand themselves with crude ideations, which is like grasping someone with many pairs of thick gloves on. One can even observe how the gradations in crudeness affect different gradations of sensibility: for the high-IQ types, a theory of civilizational decline and the moral regeneration of man which looks back across epoches, for the mid-high-IQ types, a napoleonic/bismarckian-nostalgic strategy game subtending Germany’s “glory”, for the middle ones the Kitsch of cultural nationalism and constant warning of a dire threat, and for the low ones, propaganda posters with loud letters and images. Is there another way to convey what we are, besides this?