Spinozist Democracy

Spinozist Democracy
phoenix1
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Mar 09, 2012
Location: Terra Lucida

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 122
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 22, 2012 - 7:14 AM:
Subject: Spinozist Democracy
In the Tractatus Politicus of Spinoza, Spinoza rightly points out the defective quality of democracy is its installation of mediocrity into power. To circumvent this problem then, Spinoza suggests limitation of political office to men of "trained skillfulness" (Ch. 13).

Spinoza rightly states numbers have nothing to do with wisdom, and debauched flattery corrupts the democratic idea.

Spinoza utters sharply reactionary statements for a "democrat":

"For he who seeks equality between unequals, seeks an absurdity."

"The fickle disposition of the multitude almost reduces those who have experience of it to despair; for it is governed solely by emotions, and not by reason" (17).

I find Spinoza's unfinished apologia and defense of liberal-democratic statism unpersuasive. He honestly acknowledges the dark side of democracy, the false elevation of base mediocrity into power, the bestiality of the average individual incapable of reasoning, and demoracy's tendency to degenerate into tyrannical oligarchy, etc., but supplies no real solutions to these problems--only vague hints of how regulating office to be restricted to the "trained and fit"... Is Spinoza postulating a tiered, synarchic hierarchy to exist within the democratic state itself? What is he saying?

Edited by Kali Yuga on Mar 22, 2012 - 8:24 AM. Reason: fix coding
Luabu
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2012
Location: Ireland

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 359
#2 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 22, 2012 - 7:54 AM:
Subject: Hi Phoenix 1

The question is 'Have I the right to shoot you?' I know I would be right to shoot you The Hume guy would probably say 'Fire Away'

Fascinating stuff this Phoenix 1

I like this Spinoza guy. His quotes on many subjects mirror my own.

Regarding his Democracy ideas there is a quote here that suggests that the answer to your query is NO

read this: Spinoza also rebuffs those who claim that there is …no truth or judgment in [the masses]" (7/27), claiming that…all men have one and the same nature" and that differences in competency stem primarily from the fact that most people …are kept in ignorance of the main affairs of the state," rather than from any natural defect

Is Spinoza postulating a tiered, synarchic hierarchy to exist within the democratic state itself? NO

What is he saying? Points towards Education and the ability to advance within society based on competancy

Luabu smiling face

Luabu
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2012
Location: Ireland

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 359
#3 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 22, 2012 - 8:12 AM:
Subject: Hi All

Spinoza's system also envisages a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, according to this understanding of Spinoza's system, God would be the natural world and have no personality.

At last/ A guy that agrees with me.Back at ya Knucklehead and yar God Thang

Thanks phoenix1 Eureka! I'll be gloating for weeks. Be warned all!

Luabu smiling face

ciceronianus
Crying on the Inside
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: The Circus Philosophicus

Total Topics: 95
Total Posts: 5179

Last Blog: Hesitant Homage to Hadrian

#4 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 22, 2012 - 12:18 PM:

He's just expressing the contempt for the "common" people that has typified too much of philosophy since Plato. But he's not quite brazen enough in his contempt to dismiss democracy entirely.
Luabu
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2012
Location: Ireland

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 359
#5 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 22, 2012 - 5:25 PM:
Subject: Hi Phoenix 1
I feel like cutting your wings. You keep flying around dropping angel poo everywhere. Come down to earth here and engage with my post. Is the answer to your OP "no?" Was I correct? Was I ? The suspense is killing me.

Luabu smiling face

Edited by Incision on Mar 22, 2012 - 10:34 PM. Reason: insufficient grammatical skills or sloppy writing
phoenix1
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Mar 09, 2012
Location: Terra Lucida

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 122
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 22, 2012 - 7:51 PM:

I enjoy your sense of humor. Humor illustrates a well-balanced sense of metaphysical proportionality and healthy perspective. I wish I could attain such affective jollity myself... I'll probably go nuts in incediary implosion a la Nietzsche one day, O well...

Of course Hume would love to shoot me! I uphold the principle of numinous transcendence against pallid, abstract rationalism of the mere school-room; and I passionately reject the darkening of Being (see Heidegger) and tellurism of chaotic flux modernity is enslaved to in mind and soul...

Spinoza is a mystery to me, honestly, as an Ubermensch, I feel a certain sense of "lack" upon reading his slightly incoherent verbiage...

A *MERITOCRATIC*, spiritually-noble, "aristo-democracy" is honestly my personal Ideal Utopia... If Spinoza comes close to this, he shows wisdom in my Ubermensch eyes... I simply feel he is not the master of intellectuality I was taught he was upon actually imbibing his thoughts... "Lack"-blah reaction, unlike my sense of heaven-wardness upon studying Kant, Schopenhauer or even Eliade...true investigators of the Spirit...

Spinoza divinizes materiality; thus erecting pantheist error; reductive brutality of sensibility and mentality; thus philosophically alien to my being and Galahadic, Grail-questing nature... If this Evil-haunted, mafia-ruled, dog-eat-dog world is equalled in theory to simply manifested God-essence, then God is an unfunny tragi-comic surreal joke... Is Spinoza so painfully superficial...?

What is wrong with a justified noble contempt for the average heartless moral weakling of today, these beast-men of pandemonium, spiritual slavishness and culturelessness...? I see in these erratic flashes of anti-populist insight the only redeeming parts of Spinozism thus far...
ssu
PF Addon
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 02, 2007
Location: north

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 2358
#7 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 23, 2012 - 4:32 AM:

phoenix1 wrote:
What is wrong with a justified noble contempt for the average heartless moral weakling of today, these beast-men of pandemonium, spiritual slavishness and culturelessness...?
What is "heartless moral weakness", "spiritual slavishness" and "culturelessness"? Who decides them? Oh yes, Spinoza or the person talking about them. These are just negative words usable to describe nearly anything and I can image that totally opposite views can be held on what is "spiritual slavishness" and "culturelessness".

I find Spinoza's critique of the perils of the masses to be quite ordinary. Even the democracy in Athens gives the first historical example how democracies can be not so adorable at all times. So it's quite understandable that a functioning democratic system and "mob rule" are to separate things. Besides, Spinoza's ideas literally taken might sound a bit outmoded when he says that women and servants should be excluded in participating in the direct democracy. Yet Spinoza, as ciceronianus noted, does see positive things in a democracy.

For well thought out criticism on democracy I'd choose Tocqueville, but of course he's not a philosopher...
phoenix1
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Mar 09, 2012
Location: Terra Lucida

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 122
#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 23, 2012 - 7:27 AM:

ssu wrote:
What is "heartless moral weakness", "spiritual slavishness" and "culturelessness"? Who decides them? Oh yes, Spinoza or the person talking about them. These are just negative words usable to describe nearly anything and I can image that totally opposite views can be held on what is "spiritual slavishness" and "culturelessness".

I find Spinoza's critique of the perils of the masses to be quite ordinary. Even the democracy in Athens gives the first historical example how democracies can be not so adorable at all times. So it's quite understandable that a functioning democratic system and "mob rule" are to separate things. Besides, Spinoza's ideas literally taken might sound a bit outmoded when he says that women and servants should be excluded in participating in the direct democracy. Yet Spinoza, as ciceronianus noted, does see positive things in a democracy.

For well thought out criticism on democracy I'd choose Tocqueville, but of course he's not a philosopher...


Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Those concepts I alluded to are ethical phenomena of "High-Culture" and the rightful "value-modalites" underpinning the grounding and maintenance of high culture--merely some among many others.

Heartless moral weakness, ignoble slavishness of spirit and mindless barbarism of mentality inseparable from the "common man"? The German people as their fellow citiziens were massacred en masse, in slavish passivity of sheepish gutlessness. The cowardice of the anonymous collectivized, urbanized ant-heap of dissociated atoms, indifferent in emotional reaction, expressing no heartache of due moral ire as the lone women is allowed to be raped and murdered in the alley. The vile semi-ape savagery of the type of pastimes the common man dissipates his time in subjection to vicious habits, the self-victimized slave of unreasoning brutish impulse--the moral ignobility whose moral antipode is ELEVATED ALTRUISTIC MENTAL AFFECT of EMPATHETIC, SELF-SACRIFICING NOBLESSE OBLIGE and self-overcoming of the passion-bound fetters, in the empirically de-conditioned Kantian GOOD WILL.

The common man has a heart of stone, morally--and this is the simple reason honestly, why democracy, as practiced and theorized, fundamentally cannot work in any intelligible sense. (Democracy is only thinkable within an endogamic group of aristocratic souls--is the concept reasonable?) The plebeian infantile brain-matter is voluntarily undeveloped, and his "infant-brain", no matter how high in empty quantity of I.Q., is entirely enserfed to the sensual appetites and primitive hungers--the dark-side of human nature, a noble culture categorically contains, sublimates, transfigures, channels, and mortifies to ensure the existence of actually human civilization.

The supposed fungible individual of liberal-democratic egalitarian political theory, in its destructively naive, delusively optimistic misconception of human nature, simply does not exist--every human character has its own destiny and nature. Due to the "moral entropy" of karmic metaphysical law, the common, average individual human specimen is symbolically "soulless" really, as self-chosen servants of uncivil urges, dead to all refined moral sensibilities, incapable of just moral self-mastery, conceding rights to injustice where injustice enjoys no such rights, and overall, the "common man" is accurately described as swine-like or pig-like, truly. To employ modern psychology, the common human being is a slave of the Id, and the thanatos-instinct opposing the actualization of a proper "cultural super-ego."

I agree--Spinoza, in his anthropological understanding, is ordinary-minded in the extreme. His "soft elitist" comments hardly offer any intellectual nourishment--he only reiterates simple reality. The untenable illusion of humanitarian goodness of human nature interconnected in the democratic fallacy is vastly, unduly under-appreciated in Spinoza, I believe, to his detriment and integrity as a real thinker, let alone a political theorist. DEPTH IS NOT HERE, is what I sense when reading Spinoza...

Your usage of "outmoded" strikes me as progressivist and positivist and possibly neo-Hegelian and historicist in meaning--what precisely do you mean in this popular critical expression...? Do you believe Truth is Ageless...?

Dear fellow, I've dined on Tocqueville since my adolescence--there is no philosopher of counter-modern, spiritually-aristocratic ideals, of idealistic nobility of spirit, I am not familiarized with, in deep-most soul depth... NOBILITAS of soul is my belief, compass of ethics, my passion... I suppose the liberty-loving democratists can eventually imprison or crucify me for "heresy" if I don't perpetually squeak mouse-like this passion one fine day...I am what I am...my given spirit cannot be taken from me, I apologize, demolaters of modernity...

If a true expositon of how democracy can exist without moral corruption as inevitable corollary, of how democracy can co-exist with higher aspirations of the mind and spirit, etc.--I am not inhuman, and willing to listen. But I have NEVER experienced this wishful-thinking, in all my polymathy and, frankly, doctoral-professorial degree of erudition...

I don't "blink" like most, and thus am socially estranged in modern existence, as a given, of course...
Boats -N- Hoes
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Mar 13, 2012

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 192
#9 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 24, 2012 - 3:50 PM:

phoenix1 wrote:
DEPTH IS NOT HERE, is what I sense when reading Spinoza...
lol this rubbed me the wrong way... Spinoza's philosophy is FAR from shallow. Spinoza, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg, uses an analogy, describing "God's" involvement in the universe - which is very "deep", meticulous, and thought provoking.

"By the association of parts, or the relation of all there is, I merely mean that the laws or nature of one part adapt themselves to the laws or nature of another part, so as to cause the least possible inconsistency. As to the whole and the parts, I mean that a given number of things are parts of a whole, in so far as the nature of each of them is adapted to the nature of the rest, so that they all, as far as possible, agree together. On the other hand, in so far as they do not agree, each of them forms, in our mind, a separate idea, and is to that extent considered as a whole, not as a part. For instance, when the arts of lymph, chyle, etc., combine, according to the proportion of the figure and size of each, so as to evidently unite, and form one fluid, the chyle, lymph, etc., considered under this aspect, are part of the blood; but, in so far as we consider the particles of lymph as differing in figure and size from the particles of chyle, we shall consider each of the two as a whole, not as a part.

Imagine a little worm, living in your blood, who is able to distinguish by sight - the particles of blood, chyle, lymph, etc - the part's of a whole... This little worm would live in the blood, in the same way as we live in a part of the universe.
The worm would consider each particle of blood, not as a part, but as a individual whole. He would be ignorant of how all the individual parts(chyle, lymph, etc.) are affected by the general nature of blood and its flow. The worm is compelled by the flow of blood to adapt itself, so as to stand in a fixed relation to other parts.

For, if we imagine that there are no causes external to the blood and its flow, which couldn't communicate fresh movements to the worm, nor any bodies, where the particles of blood couldn't communicate their own motion, it is certain that the blood, and its parts, would always remain in the same state - stagnant; and its particles would undergo no modifications. The blood would then always have to be considered as a whole, not as a part.

But, as there exist, as a matter of fact, very many causes which modify, in a given manner, the nature of the blood, and are, in turn, modified thereby, it follows that other motions and other relations arise in the blood, springing not from the mutual relations of its parts, only, but from the mutual relations between the blood as a whole and external causes. Thus the blood comes to be regarded as a part, not as a whole. So much for the whole and the part. All natural bodies can and ought to be considered in the same way as we have here considered the blood, for all bodies are surrounded by others, and are mutually determined to exist and operate in a fixed and definite proportion, while the relations between motion and rest in the sum total of them, that is, in the whole universe, remain unchanged.

Hence it follows that each body, in so far as it exists as modified in a particular manner, must be considered as a part of the whole universe, as agreeing with the whole, and associated with the remaining parts." - Genius... and how is this NOT "deep"?
phoenix1
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Mar 09, 2012
Location: Terra Lucida

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 122
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 24, 2012 - 7:57 PM:

Boats -N- Hoes wrote:
lol this rubbed me the wrong way... Spinoza's philosophy is FAR from shallow. Spinoza, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg, uses an analogy, describing "God's" involvement in the universe - which is very "deep", meticulous, and thought provoking.

"By the association of parts, or the relation of all there is, I merely mean that the laws or nature of one part adapt themselves to the laws or nature of another part, so as to cause the least possible inconsistency. As to the whole and the parts, I mean that a given number of things are parts of a whole, in so far as the nature of each of them is adapted to the nature of the rest, so that they all, as far as possible, agree together. On the other hand, in so far as they do not agree, each of them forms, in our mind, a separate idea, and is to that extent considered as a whole, not as a part. For instance, when the arts of lymph, chyle, etc., combine, according to the proportion of the figure and size of each, so as to evidently unite, and form one fluid, the chyle, lymph, etc., considered under this aspect, are part of the blood; but, in so far as we consider the particles of lymph as differing in figure and size from the particles of chyle, we shall consider each of the two as a whole, not as a part.

Imagine a little worm, living in your blood, who is able to distinguish by sight - the particles of blood, chyle, lymph, etc - the part's of a whole... This little worm would live in the blood, in the same way as we live in a part of the universe.
The worm would consider each particle of blood, not as a part, but as a individual whole. He would be ignorant of how all the individual parts(chyle, lymph, etc.) are affected by the general nature of blood and its flow. The worm is compelled by the flow of blood to adapt itself, so as to stand in a fixed relation to other parts.

For, if we imagine that there are no causes external to the blood and its flow, which couldn't communicate fresh movements to the worm, nor any bodies, where the particles of blood couldn't communicate their own motion, it is certain that the blood, and its parts, would always remain in the same state - stagnant; and its particles would undergo no modifications. The blood would then always have to be considered as a whole, not as a part.

But, as there exist, as a matter of fact, very many causes which modify, in a given manner, the nature of the blood, and are, in turn, modified thereby, it follows that other motions and other relations arise in the blood, springing not from the mutual relations of its parts, only, but from the mutual relations between the blood as a whole and external causes. Thus the blood comes to be regarded as a part, not as a whole. So much for the whole and the part. All natural bodies can and ought to be considered in the same way as we have here considered the blood, for all bodies are surrounded by others, and are mutually determined to exist and operate in a fixed and definite proportion, while the relations between motion and rest in the sum total of them, that is, in the whole universe, remain unchanged.

Hence it follows that each body, in so far as it exists as modified in a particular manner, must be considered as a part of the whole universe, as agreeing with the whole, and associated with the remaining parts." - Genius... and how is this NOT "deep"?


Issues:

I have not obsessively perused through the vastitude of the collected bulk of Spinoza's correspondence.

The above passage is indeed adequately intelligent and intellectualy respectable, weightier in argument and illustration than most of what I have hitherto seen from him...I concede as an anti-pantheist myself metaphysically...

Still, the depth-level is not abysmal... I can tell Spinoza's genius he self-trained into himself rigorously; gifted originally only of slightly above-average mental powers, I sense...

Another issue: I have only critically read two abridged, "popular" works of Spinoza. Abridged, by the publisher Penguin. The subjects he dealt with were rationalistic metaphysics, ethics, and then his pantheistic doctrine...

Spinoza's elucidation of pantheism reminded me of a petty-souled schoolmarmish teacher of adolescents. Pantheism comes naturally to intermediate intellects, psychically. The caste of the higher laborer and free peasant--but higher grades of nobility of spirit exist, doubtlessly. I just gave the explanation of "New Age spirituality" in our supposed Baconian era. The section of undead average-to-slightly-above-average intellects of the dominant bourgeoisie, whose incredibly heteroclite nature Marxist theory fails to explain, searching for wisdom according to their limits, falling into pseudo-religion and deistic, anti-theistic lines of thought...

QUESTION: What are Spinoza's hereditary and lineal data? The endogamously eugenically groomed Jewish strength of mind I discern in him, but nothing at all like Rabbi Maimonides, e.g...

In the more psychospiritually hyper-aesthetic of intellect and morally-formed, -- to such "soul-analysts", outword works are hieroglyphs of character (not dissolving the other meanings of the thoughts externally wrought). One can sense the level of superficiality, or lack thereof, the degree of mode of heroic personal self-sacrifice, the author lived in, or attained to, in their lives...

Upon reading Spinoza, I discern an above-average, admittedly, but not authentically of the highest rank Jewish-feeling brain-power--there is a reason the engogamous, eugenics-practicing Jews are generally intellectually pre-eminent in Western intellectual life, mixed in with a few Helleno-Italian and Celto-Germanic gentiles, ye anti-Semite dogs (O yes, a platonic anarcho-rightist reactionary such as I can simultaneously be a fervent PHILO-semite! I exist off the modern paradigms...)--but I do not sense a CHARACTER-DEPTH OF SOUL-FEELING, a WISDOM BOUGHT OF BLOOD, I sense in other philosophers... Thank God all Jews are not linear dialectical algebraists, I might add! The Jewish ethny is diverse in in its mental prowess.

I sense a resentment against his in-group outcasting indirectly in hints and inflections and tones, but the nobly sorrowful PATHOS of deep thinkers is absent, I'm sorry I do have to affirm as my belief and experience...

And I have read next to everything on the planet, philosophically, as can be extrapolated somewhat safely as a solid inference by the bombastically ALIEN and Lovecraftianesque, "schizo-mimetic" verbosity and stylism I am burdened with, lol...this trait of mine so, so many on this forum cherish so, so much...

Genius has many faces, and degrees and orders. The finest intellectuality must complement the finest of moral character and finest pneumatic soul-depth.

For example, Nietzsche was INTELLECTUALLY GENIUS, AESTHETICALLY SUPER-SENSITIVE, and, this is what counts, morally hypersensitive ONLY INTELLECTUALLY--himself MORALLY-PERSONALLY IN HIS INNERMOST PURGATORIAL PART, -- EMPTY, FROZEN-HEARTED, DARKLY HEATHENISH, EREBIAN...DISJOINTED, BROKEN emotionally-morally, painfully in an indefinite, enigmatic way. In Nietzsche I sense a powerful gentile intellect of a class-origins related to the type of higher non-noble who is so close to titled nobility, serving the noble lord, that such nobility often arranges marriages with this higher-ranking peasant...the highest class of the peasant-soldier, serving the feudal overlord.. I detect shadowings of his mixed Mediterranean, Slavic-Germanic rootstock in his intellectual contours and psychological "flavor." Possible Syro-Semitic droplet of blood somewhere, possibly? Most importantly, I sense a failure of encountering the presence and mystery of Evil...an agonized trauma of unknown type somewhere, some toxin given to his inner core, compulsively reminding himself of Evil...an emotional failure to wrestle with truly suffered Evil...flowering forth in N.'s neo-pagan mentality, and rationalized hypomanically in his neo-paganist, quaintly "reactionary modernist", Enlightened anti-Illuminist philosophy. In Nietzsche's words is the air too of a very dominating mother, a very feminine ambiance, and an ambivalent yearning for and anger against patriarchal values. The feminine tendencies of his mind, I cannot tell whether helped or deepened his primal spiritual lostness. OVERALL: I sense a horrifically damaged, haunted psychological type and history, eager to hide how wounded it has become, counter-reacting strongly as a method. The mind is underlyingly perpetually nostalgic; emotionally-morally perhaps at first of greatest moral potentiality, but after traumatology of soul, progressively succumbing and volunteering on Evil's side. I detect trauma-generated bipolarity in temperament; and a soul genuinely having tasted of the mystery of evil and suffering, but adrift in the dark night. Nietzsche equals intellectualized dark pathos of genius dislocated by mysterious anguish, born of some unknown traumatology of soul, interlinked fatally to a strength of cognition and insight uncontrolled, ungoverned utterly, and moral sensibility totally dysfunctional and "anti-heroic", if once of high potential. Merely reading his words attentively, gives away everything. Nietzsche's genius embodies the mystery of evil--his life and mind, all a projection of the mystery of evil, and how the highest of natures and neurologically hypersensitive individuals, can succumb to evil, bit by bit, in acquiescence...

I dare any leftist appropriator of Nietzsche, celebrating his challenge to Judeo-Christian morals out of mere vulgar sensualistic motives, to read his "Homer's Contest" and "The Greek State" (both of 1872) to understand the depth of the "flowers of evil" existing in their misread icon... Nietzsche opted for re-institutionalizing LITERAL HUMAN SLAVERY and pours disdain on modern-type egalitarians, who, in his eyes, fail to concede the "TIGER-LIKE" in man cannot be negated in their naive illusionism; high culture is mathematically impossible without brutally subjecting and subjectivizing/dehumanizing laborers and routineers; and trying to change the caste-polis of his envisioned Master-Kultur is futile, except at cost of collapsing all worthwhile within human civilization... These early two essays indicate the degree of Nietzsche's intellectual detachment from the modern sensibility and best archetypically present Nietzsche's neo-pagan political militance and "aristocratic revolutionism"--Nietzsche would HAMMER the Fascists like nothing for being, not only anti-Semitic tactically and idiotically destroying a higher stock than themselves, but for being way, way too soft and actually trying to at least protect, if not uplift, the laboring classes, enfranchise and conjoin them in the national will organically, a la the Fascist concept of "integral-corporativism", no doubt... Fascism would be only more democratic nonsense to Nietzsche, perhaps slightly less contemptible for synthesizing pre-modern political lineaments of ideas... Nietzsche was not PROTO-fascist, but SUPER-fascist in his authoritarian aristocratic opinions and neo-Machiavellian tyranny-apotheosis, whose psycho-gnosiological intellective center, affectively (i.e. emotionally), as a thinker, is a wounded, egomanic black heart refusing to unblacken itself...if the moderns could only realize...

Returning to the point illustrated by the above paragraphs (viz., intellectuality of genius must be HOLISTIC, theoretically at least): If Spinoza demonstrates DEPTH OF TRAGIC OR NOBLE MORAL PATHOS somewhere, please share, world... And sorry, his intermittent pro-liberalist sentimentalism is not what I mean. Sentimentalism is the APING of real passion.

Liberal-democratic humanist "passion" (i.e. sentimentalism) is the thinnest--and most dangerous in potentialities of malefic nature, because so vacuous, creative of karmic web of extremist blowback, instability and liminalities...

The "rationalist egalitarian passion" of the French Revolution produced uncivil consequences, was of a purely one-sidedly PURGATIVE and TEMPORARY nature, psychodynamically existing as an explosion of pre-civilized orgiasticism and scapegoating ritual murder, historically in the bloodbath of aristocide of the French nobiliary stratum (I do affirm massacre en masse of any group of human souls to be criminal...especially criminal if said group is not even remotely unjustly aggressive in the first place!).

Inevitably, according to cosmic-karmic law, the volcano-eruption of transience of terroristic insurgency of "armed rationalistic sentiment", after its cruel and only initial phase of Azazel-like bloodletting, created a counter-balancing reflex, scientifically/cyclically, in the now firmly established ORDO of regimented DEATH of passion, or moral-nihilist mediocracy, of Western-European political "formalism", the middling liberal-democratic-socialism of proceduralist-bureaucratist statism beloved of France and Westerners, where businessmen, skilled workers, producerists, super-capitalists, enlightened proletarians, Stirnerian post-leftists, progressive ex-Trotrkyists, neo-Hegelian-Kojevian intellectualists, etc. join hands curiously with Mafiosi and Crowleyian neo-Carpocratian antinomian occultists, in authentic seamless ease of mock-Utopia, in chiliastic grotesquery; every type of life possible is a meaningless "life-style choice" in this supposed Gramscian-Kojevian "final aion" of decrepit, enforced soullessness, we live in nowadays...

The guerrilla eso-terrorism of Nietzsche, who LOVED the sanguinary French Revolution for its creation of neo-paganizing, imperialist Napoleonic despotism (Hegelian synthesis of opposites, forging sublation of Bonapartist neo-Romanism, in N.'s logic)...reiterating, the one extreme of Nietzschean Machiavellian neo-Bonapartist "reactionary-revolutionary" "white communism" (i.e. utilizing and deceiving the masses in blood-sport of tyrannicidal redress, only to prop up cabal oligarchy of mafia-type hidden "black nobility" all the firmer) and paganic Caesarist neo-Imperium of blood-tyranny, and, on the other hand, the other extreme of all-consuming homogenization and leveling of all and everything in an ontological flatland of so-called "post-essentialist" mediocracy of morally-relativistic "pluralism", in the "cultural Trotskyist" demo-socialist legalitarian statism of today...

ALL of this JUNK due to the rejection of the Ideal of the Platonic "golden mean"...hhrrmmmphhh!

ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING.

[On another note: I shall play by the rules, Dear Moderators, as I enjoy it here, and believe learning of intermutual nature is possible; but please likewise extend to me perspective and no undue severity administratively, simply because my blood is from another age in terms of philosophy. I can exposit my passionately anti-modern, not neo-Nietzschean but *post-Nietzschean* "individualist-anarchist-reactionary, neo-feudalistic-socialist, mystico-monarchistic" world-view of political counter-modernism, verbally difficult to express in the preferred Anglo-Saxon simple style of academic utilitarian rationalism, and in expositing my meta-ethics, of a moral idealist radicalism so Kantian and unconditionally absolute to frighten like Hades the every-day American Joe, lol, exposit these views more civilly...exposit my "OTHERNESS", **GENTLY and CIVILLY**, if given the chance, truly. I am the TRUEST "Other" of postmodernism, the postmodernists themselves would be perplexed and possessed by fear in beholding... I shall try to be less severe and brusque in tone, simply for its own sake, additionally.]

Edited by phoenix1 on Mar 24, 2012 - 8:37 PM
locked
Download thread as
  • 60/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.