Advertisement
Lately, I've been thinking about the opposite of the generally hyped theory of collective/global awakening; what if humankind is on the way to hit the lowest common denominator. What could that be? Where is the bottom of the involution, the rapid degeneration that's taking place over the world? I thought, Evola's short article is shedding a unique light on this...
On the Secret of Degeneration
By Baron Julius Evola (from Deutsches Volkstum, Nr. 11, 1938)
Anyone who has come to reject the rationalist myth of "progress" and the interpretation of history as an unbroken positive development of mankind will find himself gradually drawn towards the world-view that was common to all the great traditional cultures, and which had at its centre the memory of a process of degeneration, slow obscuration, or collapse of a higher preceding world. As we penetrate deeper into this new (and old) interpretation, we encounter various problems, foremost among which is the question of the secret of degeneration.
In its literal sense, this question is by no means a novel one. While contemplating the magnificent remains of cultures whose very name has not even come down to us, but which seem to have conveyed, even in their physical material, a greatness and power that is more than earthly, scarcely anyone has failed to ask themselves questions about the death of cultures, and sensed the inadequacy of the reasons that are usually given to explain it.
We can thank the Comte de Gobineau for the best and best-known summary of this problem, and also for a masterly criticism of the main hypotheses about it. His solution on the basis of racial thought and racial purity also has a lot of truth in it, but it needs to be expanded by a few observations concerning a higher order of things. For there have been many cases in which a culture has collapsed even when its race has remained pure, as is especially clear in certain groups that have suffered slow, inexorable extinction despite remaining as racially isolated as if they were islands. An example quite close at hand is the case of the Swedes and the Dutch. These people are in the same racial condition today as they were two centuries ago, but there is little to be found now of the heroic disposition and the racial awareness that they once possessed. Other great cultures seem merely to have remained standing in the condition of mummies: they have long been inwardly dead, so that it takes only the slightest push to knock them down. This was the case, for example, with ancient Peru, that giant solar empire which was annihilated by a few adventurers drawn from the worst rabble of Europe.
If we look at the secret of degeneration from the exclusively traditional point of view, it becomes even harder to solve it completely. It is then a matter of the division of all cultures into two main types. On the one hand there are the traditional cultures, whose principle is identical and unchangeable, despite all the differences evident on the surface. The axis of these cultures and the summit of their hierarchical order consists of metaphysical, supra-individual powers and actions, which serve to inform and justify everything that is merely human, temporal, subject to becoming and to "history." On the other hand there is "modern culture," which is actually the anti-tradition and which exhausts itself in a construction of purely human and earthly conditions and in the total development of these, in pursuit of a life entirely detached from the "higher world."
From the standpoint of the latter, the whole of history is degeneration, because it shows the universal decline of earlier cultures of the traditional type, and the decisive and violent rise of a new universal civilization of the "modern" type.
A double question arises from this.
First, how was it ever possible for this to come to pass? There is a logical error underlying the whole doctrine of evolution: it is impossible that the higher can emerge from the lower, and the greater from the less. But doesn't a similar difficulty face us in the solution of the doctrine of involution? How is it ever possible for the higher to fall? If we could make do with simple analogies, it would be easy to deal with this question. A healthy man can become sick; a virtuous one can turn to vice. There is a natural law that everyone takes from granted: that every living being starts with birth, growth, and strength, then come old age, weakening, and disintegration. And so forth. But this is just making statements, not explaining, even if we allow that such analogies actually relate to the question posed here.
Secondly, it is not only a matter of explaining the possibility of the degeneration of a particular cultural world, but also the possibility that the degeneration of one cultural cycle may pass to other peoples and take them down with it. For example, we have not only to explain how the ancient Western reality collapsed, but also have to show the reason why it was possible for "modern" culture to conquer practically the whole world, and why it possessed the power to divert so many peoples from any other type of culture, and to hold sway even where states of a traditional kind seemed to be alive (one need only recall the Aryan East).
In this respect, it is not enough to say that we are dealing with a purely material and economic conquest. That view seems very superficial, for two reasons. In the first place, a land that is conquered on the material level also experiences, in the long run, influences of a higher kind corresponding to the cultural type of its conqueror. We can state, in fact, that European conquest almost everywhere sows the seeds of "Europeanization," i.e., the "modern" rationalist, tradition-hostile, individualistic way of thinking. Secondly, the traditional conception of culture and the state is hierarchical, not dualistic. Its bearers could never subscribe, without severe reservations, to the principles of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" and "My kingdom is not of this world." For us, "Tradition" is the victorious and creative presence in the world of that which is "not of this world," i.e., of the Spirit, understood as a power that is mightier than any merely human or material one.
This is a basic idea of the authentically traditional view of life, which does not permit us to speak with contempt of merely material conquests. On the contrary, the material conquest is the sign, if not of a spiritual victory, at least of a spiritual weakness or a kind of spiritual "retreat" in the cultures that are conquered and lose their independence. Everywhere that the Spirit, regarded as the stronger power, was truly present, it never lacked for means - visible or otherwise - to enable all the opponent's technical and material superiority to be resisted. But this has not happened. It must be concluded, then, that degeneracy was lurking behind the traditional facade of every people that the "modern" world has been able to conquer. The West must then have been the culture in which a crisis that was already universal assumed its acutest form. There the degeneration amounted, so to speak, to a knockout blow, and as it took effect, it brought down with more or less ease other peoples in whom the involution had certainly not "progressed" as far, but whose tradition had already lost its original power, so that these peoples were no longer able to protect themselves from an outside assault.
With these considerations, the second aspect of our problem is traced back to the first one. It is mainly a question of explicating the meaning and the possibility of degeneracy, without reference to other circumstances.
For this we must be clear about one thing: it is an error to assume that the hierarchy of the traditional world is based on a tyranny of the upper classes. That is merely a "modern" conception, completely alien to the traditional way of thinking. The traditional doctrine in fact conceived of spiritual action as an "action without acting"; it spoke of the "unmoved mover"; everywhere it used the symbolism of the "pole," the unalterable axis around which every ordered movement takes place (and elsewhere we have shown that this is the meaning of the swastika, the "arctic cross"); it always stressed the "Olympian," spirituality, and genuine authority, as well as its way of acting directly on its subordinates, not through violence but through "presence"; finally, it used the simile of the magnet, wherein lies the key to our question, as we shall now see.
Only today could anyone imagine that the authentic bearers of the Spirit, or of Tradition, pursue people so as to seize them and put them in their places - in short, that they "manage" people, or have any personal interest in setting up and maintaining those hierarchical relationships by virtue of which they can appear visibly as the rulers. This would be ridiculous and senseless. It is much more the recognition on the part of the lower ones that is the true basis of any traditional ranking. It is not the higher that needs the lower, but the other way round. The essence of hierarchy is that there is something living as a reality in certain people, which in the rest is only present in the condition of an ideal, a premonition, an unfocused effort. Thus the latter are fatefully attracted to the former, and their lower condition is one of subordination less to something foreign, than to their own true "self." Herein lies the secret, in the traditional world, of all readiness for sacrifice, all heroism, all loyalty; and, on the other side, of a prestige, an authority, and a calm power which the most heavily-armed tyrant can never count upon.
With these considerations, we have come very close to solving not only the problem of degeneration, but also the possibility of a particular fall. Are we perhaps not tired of hearing that the success of every revolution indicates the weakness and degeneracy of the previous rulers? An understanding of this kind is very one-sided. This would indeed be the case if wild dogs were tied up, and suddenly broke loose: that would be proof that the hands holding their leashes had become impotent or weak. But things are arranged very differently in the framework of spiritual ranking, whose real basis we have explained above. This hierarchy degenerates and is able to be overthrown in one case only: when the individual degenerates, when he uses his fundamental freedom to deny the Spirit, to cut his life loose from any higher reference-point, and to exist "only for himself." Then the contacts are fatefully broken, the metaphysical tension, to which the traditional organism owes its unity, gives way, every force wavers in its path and finally breaks free. The peaks, of course, remain pure and inviolable in their heights, but the rest, which depended on them, now becomes an avalanche, a mass that has lost its equilibrium and falls, at first imperceptibly but with ever accelerating movement down to the depths and lowest levels of the valley. This is the secret of every degeneration and revolution. The European had first slain the hierarchy in himself by extirpating his own inner possibilities, to which corresponded the basis of the order that he would then destroy externally.
If Christian mythology attributes the Fall of Man and the Rebellion of the Angels to the freedom of the will, then it comes to much the same significance. It concerns the frightening potential that dwells in man of using freedom to destroy spiritually and to banish everything that could ensure him a supra-natural value. This is a metaphysical decision: the stream that traverses history in the most varied forms of the traditional-hating, revolutionary, individualistic, and humanistic spirit, or in short, the "modern" spirit. This decision is the only positive and decisive cause in the secret of degeneration, the destruction of Tradition.
If we understand this, we can perhaps also grasp the sense of those legends that speak of mysterious rulers who "always" exist and have never died (shades of the Emperor sleeping beneath the Kyffhäuser mountain!). Such rulers can be rediscovered only when one achieves spiritual completeness and awakens a quality in oneself like that of a metal that suddenly feels "the magnet", finds the magnet and irresistibly orients itself and moves towards it. For now, we must restrict ourselves to this hint. A comprehensive explanation of legends of that sort, which come to us from the most ancient Aryan source, would take us too far. At another opportunity we will perhaps return to the secret of reconstruction, to the "magic" that is capable of restoring the fallen mass to the unalterable, lonely, and invisible peaks that are still there in the heights.
www.geocities.com/capitolhi...ation.html
On the Secret of Degeneration
By Baron Julius Evola (from Deutsches Volkstum, Nr. 11, 1938)
Anyone who has come to reject the rationalist myth of "progress" and the interpretation of history as an unbroken positive development of mankind will find himself gradually drawn towards the world-view that was common to all the great traditional cultures, and which had at its centre the memory of a process of degeneration, slow obscuration, or collapse of a higher preceding world. As we penetrate deeper into this new (and old) interpretation, we encounter various problems, foremost among which is the question of the secret of degeneration.
In its literal sense, this question is by no means a novel one. While contemplating the magnificent remains of cultures whose very name has not even come down to us, but which seem to have conveyed, even in their physical material, a greatness and power that is more than earthly, scarcely anyone has failed to ask themselves questions about the death of cultures, and sensed the inadequacy of the reasons that are usually given to explain it.
We can thank the Comte de Gobineau for the best and best-known summary of this problem, and also for a masterly criticism of the main hypotheses about it. His solution on the basis of racial thought and racial purity also has a lot of truth in it, but it needs to be expanded by a few observations concerning a higher order of things. For there have been many cases in which a culture has collapsed even when its race has remained pure, as is especially clear in certain groups that have suffered slow, inexorable extinction despite remaining as racially isolated as if they were islands. An example quite close at hand is the case of the Swedes and the Dutch. These people are in the same racial condition today as they were two centuries ago, but there is little to be found now of the heroic disposition and the racial awareness that they once possessed. Other great cultures seem merely to have remained standing in the condition of mummies: they have long been inwardly dead, so that it takes only the slightest push to knock them down. This was the case, for example, with ancient Peru, that giant solar empire which was annihilated by a few adventurers drawn from the worst rabble of Europe.
If we look at the secret of degeneration from the exclusively traditional point of view, it becomes even harder to solve it completely. It is then a matter of the division of all cultures into two main types. On the one hand there are the traditional cultures, whose principle is identical and unchangeable, despite all the differences evident on the surface. The axis of these cultures and the summit of their hierarchical order consists of metaphysical, supra-individual powers and actions, which serve to inform and justify everything that is merely human, temporal, subject to becoming and to "history." On the other hand there is "modern culture," which is actually the anti-tradition and which exhausts itself in a construction of purely human and earthly conditions and in the total development of these, in pursuit of a life entirely detached from the "higher world."
From the standpoint of the latter, the whole of history is degeneration, because it shows the universal decline of earlier cultures of the traditional type, and the decisive and violent rise of a new universal civilization of the "modern" type.
A double question arises from this.
First, how was it ever possible for this to come to pass? There is a logical error underlying the whole doctrine of evolution: it is impossible that the higher can emerge from the lower, and the greater from the less. But doesn't a similar difficulty face us in the solution of the doctrine of involution? How is it ever possible for the higher to fall? If we could make do with simple analogies, it would be easy to deal with this question. A healthy man can become sick; a virtuous one can turn to vice. There is a natural law that everyone takes from granted: that every living being starts with birth, growth, and strength, then come old age, weakening, and disintegration. And so forth. But this is just making statements, not explaining, even if we allow that such analogies actually relate to the question posed here.
Secondly, it is not only a matter of explaining the possibility of the degeneration of a particular cultural world, but also the possibility that the degeneration of one cultural cycle may pass to other peoples and take them down with it. For example, we have not only to explain how the ancient Western reality collapsed, but also have to show the reason why it was possible for "modern" culture to conquer practically the whole world, and why it possessed the power to divert so many peoples from any other type of culture, and to hold sway even where states of a traditional kind seemed to be alive (one need only recall the Aryan East).
In this respect, it is not enough to say that we are dealing with a purely material and economic conquest. That view seems very superficial, for two reasons. In the first place, a land that is conquered on the material level also experiences, in the long run, influences of a higher kind corresponding to the cultural type of its conqueror. We can state, in fact, that European conquest almost everywhere sows the seeds of "Europeanization," i.e., the "modern" rationalist, tradition-hostile, individualistic way of thinking. Secondly, the traditional conception of culture and the state is hierarchical, not dualistic. Its bearers could never subscribe, without severe reservations, to the principles of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" and "My kingdom is not of this world." For us, "Tradition" is the victorious and creative presence in the world of that which is "not of this world," i.e., of the Spirit, understood as a power that is mightier than any merely human or material one.
This is a basic idea of the authentically traditional view of life, which does not permit us to speak with contempt of merely material conquests. On the contrary, the material conquest is the sign, if not of a spiritual victory, at least of a spiritual weakness or a kind of spiritual "retreat" in the cultures that are conquered and lose their independence. Everywhere that the Spirit, regarded as the stronger power, was truly present, it never lacked for means - visible or otherwise - to enable all the opponent's technical and material superiority to be resisted. But this has not happened. It must be concluded, then, that degeneracy was lurking behind the traditional facade of every people that the "modern" world has been able to conquer. The West must then have been the culture in which a crisis that was already universal assumed its acutest form. There the degeneration amounted, so to speak, to a knockout blow, and as it took effect, it brought down with more or less ease other peoples in whom the involution had certainly not "progressed" as far, but whose tradition had already lost its original power, so that these peoples were no longer able to protect themselves from an outside assault.
With these considerations, the second aspect of our problem is traced back to the first one. It is mainly a question of explicating the meaning and the possibility of degeneracy, without reference to other circumstances.
For this we must be clear about one thing: it is an error to assume that the hierarchy of the traditional world is based on a tyranny of the upper classes. That is merely a "modern" conception, completely alien to the traditional way of thinking. The traditional doctrine in fact conceived of spiritual action as an "action without acting"; it spoke of the "unmoved mover"; everywhere it used the symbolism of the "pole," the unalterable axis around which every ordered movement takes place (and elsewhere we have shown that this is the meaning of the swastika, the "arctic cross"); it always stressed the "Olympian," spirituality, and genuine authority, as well as its way of acting directly on its subordinates, not through violence but through "presence"; finally, it used the simile of the magnet, wherein lies the key to our question, as we shall now see.
Only today could anyone imagine that the authentic bearers of the Spirit, or of Tradition, pursue people so as to seize them and put them in their places - in short, that they "manage" people, or have any personal interest in setting up and maintaining those hierarchical relationships by virtue of which they can appear visibly as the rulers. This would be ridiculous and senseless. It is much more the recognition on the part of the lower ones that is the true basis of any traditional ranking. It is not the higher that needs the lower, but the other way round. The essence of hierarchy is that there is something living as a reality in certain people, which in the rest is only present in the condition of an ideal, a premonition, an unfocused effort. Thus the latter are fatefully attracted to the former, and their lower condition is one of subordination less to something foreign, than to their own true "self." Herein lies the secret, in the traditional world, of all readiness for sacrifice, all heroism, all loyalty; and, on the other side, of a prestige, an authority, and a calm power which the most heavily-armed tyrant can never count upon.
With these considerations, we have come very close to solving not only the problem of degeneration, but also the possibility of a particular fall. Are we perhaps not tired of hearing that the success of every revolution indicates the weakness and degeneracy of the previous rulers? An understanding of this kind is very one-sided. This would indeed be the case if wild dogs were tied up, and suddenly broke loose: that would be proof that the hands holding their leashes had become impotent or weak. But things are arranged very differently in the framework of spiritual ranking, whose real basis we have explained above. This hierarchy degenerates and is able to be overthrown in one case only: when the individual degenerates, when he uses his fundamental freedom to deny the Spirit, to cut his life loose from any higher reference-point, and to exist "only for himself." Then the contacts are fatefully broken, the metaphysical tension, to which the traditional organism owes its unity, gives way, every force wavers in its path and finally breaks free. The peaks, of course, remain pure and inviolable in their heights, but the rest, which depended on them, now becomes an avalanche, a mass that has lost its equilibrium and falls, at first imperceptibly but with ever accelerating movement down to the depths and lowest levels of the valley. This is the secret of every degeneration and revolution. The European had first slain the hierarchy in himself by extirpating his own inner possibilities, to which corresponded the basis of the order that he would then destroy externally.
If Christian mythology attributes the Fall of Man and the Rebellion of the Angels to the freedom of the will, then it comes to much the same significance. It concerns the frightening potential that dwells in man of using freedom to destroy spiritually and to banish everything that could ensure him a supra-natural value. This is a metaphysical decision: the stream that traverses history in the most varied forms of the traditional-hating, revolutionary, individualistic, and humanistic spirit, or in short, the "modern" spirit. This decision is the only positive and decisive cause in the secret of degeneration, the destruction of Tradition.
If we understand this, we can perhaps also grasp the sense of those legends that speak of mysterious rulers who "always" exist and have never died (shades of the Emperor sleeping beneath the Kyffhäuser mountain!). Such rulers can be rediscovered only when one achieves spiritual completeness and awakens a quality in oneself like that of a metal that suddenly feels "the magnet", finds the magnet and irresistibly orients itself and moves towards it. For now, we must restrict ourselves to this hint. A comprehensive explanation of legends of that sort, which come to us from the most ancient Aryan source, would take us too far. At another opportunity we will perhaps return to the secret of reconstruction, to the "magic" that is capable of restoring the fallen mass to the unalterable, lonely, and invisible peaks that are still there in the heights.
www.geocities.com/capitolhi...ation.html
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sat, October 10, 2009 - 10:55 PM
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sat, October 10, 2009 - 11:41 PMthe Living Monolith en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Monolith
perhaps the world's only known immortal creature www.youtube.com/watch -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sat, October 10, 2009 - 11:51 PMI wonder what those jellyfish taste like... ;) -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sat, October 10, 2009 - 11:53 PMnot sure but i know Paris Hilton loves to eat (dried?) jellyfish -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sat, October 10, 2009 - 11:57 PMwell if that would make her immortal that might mean that if she eventually shags everybody on the planet maybe she'll eventually get around to shagging me...
and then maybe if I can gain her sympathy then I can get a free death bed anywhere within the hilton empire...
and maybe if then they could nurse me and feed me enough jellyfish...
then I too would achieve immortality...!!! -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sat, October 10, 2009 - 11:59 PMjellyfish I've eaten as dim sum is cool...
kinda thought it was rubbery marinated cabbage... -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 12:04 AMyum! -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 12:09 AM
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 12:02 AMwell everything makes sense except that part about her shagging everyone.. just because she's immortal.. doesn't mean she's compassionate -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 12:05 AMinsatiable...?
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sat, October 10, 2009 - 11:59 PMJellyfish are taking over the oceans of the world, especially the sea around Japan. This fascinating creature has increased in numbers due to global warming and the increased acidity in the sea. Jellyfish has been on this planet much before the dinosaurs and has formed an important part of the food chain of marine life. The jellyfish is a marine animal, which is carnivorous, and preys on the zooplankton, crustaceans, eggs, larvae and small fishes.
Jellyfish is now being eaten as a dish in many parts of the world. The abundant availability is one of the reasons and the other is that it is nutritious too. The jellyfish is slowly gaining popularity as a culinary delight in many parts of the world. Many cooks are preferring to make dishes, which have the jellyfish as the main ingredient. Many of the winning recipes in the world are beginning to have the jellyfish.
www.jellyfishfacts.net/jellyf...ok.html
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:46 PM<(dried?) jellyfish >
dried jellyfish is nice, they eat stuff like that in Hong Kong a lot, dried cat fish i think it is, with spices even nicer.
-
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 10:13 AMKinda ironic (and interesting) that involution got a positive spin in some ideologies;
"In Theosophy, Anthroposophy and Rosicrucianism, involution and evolution are part of a complex sequence of cosmic cycles, called Round. When the universe attains a stage of sufficient density, the individual spirit is able to descend and participate in the evolution. Involution thus refers to the incarnation of spirit in an already established matter, the necessary prerequiste of evolution:
As an example, the so-called descent of the Monad into matter means an involution or involving or infolding of spiritual potencies into material vehicles which coincidentally and contemporaneously, through the compelling urge of the infolding energies, unfold their own latent capacities, unwrap them, roll them forth; and this is the evolution of matter. – Gottfried de Purucker [1]
That period of time devoted to the attainment of self-consciousness and the building of the vehicles through which the spirit in man manifests, is called "Involution." Its purpose is to slowly carry life lower and deeper into denser and denser matter for the building of forms, till the nadir of materiality is reached. From that point, life begins to ascend into higher Worlds. This succeeding period of existence, during which the individual human being develops self-consciousness into divine omniscience, is called "spiritual evolution."
In the cosmology of Surat Shabda Yoga, involution and evolution apply to both the macrocosm, the whole of creation, and the microcosm, the constitution of an individual soul.
The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception, a Rosicrucian text written by Max Heindel, advances the concept of epigenesis as the key related to the evolution (after an involutionary period) of human beings."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invo...physics%29
or
For Indian spiritual master Meher Baba, involution is the inner path of the human soul to the Self. Charles Haynes, in describing Meher Baba's sense of involution writes, "The old and new impressions, both of which create a veil over consciousness, gradually wear away, revealing an increasingly clearer experience of God; that is, the soul wearies of the world and is ready to begin the third phase of the journey, involution, which may be seen as the 'ascent' back to God."[1]
Meher Baba states that evolution is the soul's gathering of full consciousness, reincarnation is the state of ordinary people caught up in karma, and involution is the inner journey of the spiritual pilgrim back to its origin through higher planes of consciousness. According to Meher Baba, there are seven inner planes of consciousness beyond the state of ordinary human experience. Ordinary consciousness he calls "gross consciousness" and is entirely of the gross physical world. Planes one through four are of the subtle world (pran, or energy); planes five and six are of the mental world (mana, or mind); and plane seven is of the Self.[2]
According to Meher Baba reincarnation is a necessary part of the process of the advancement of consciousness, but that consciousness more or less comes to a stalemate in the human form due to the impressions acquired during evolution. These, Meher Baba says, must be worked out in human form through the experience of diverse opposites in reincarnation before involution begins.[3] It is due to the fading of these impressions and the awareness that one is in stalemate that one's attention is eventually turned inwards and one begins the path of involution. Meher Baba writes,
This process of involution of consciousness gradually takes place as the gross impressions of the opposites gradually become fainter and less concentrated. At this stage the consciousness of the gross-conscious human soul gradually gets dissociated from the gross world, as the involution of consciousness infolds, and gradually dissociates from experiencing the impressions of the gross world.[4]
Meher Baba describes his view of the planes of involution in detail in his principle book God Speaks.[5]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invo...er_Baba%29 -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 11:10 AMFascinating post Ramon, vibrates like the process of authentication of self and the loss of attachment after the tough lessons of life have been assimilated into being. That process by it's own nature transcends the terms that we use to describe it, but you recognize it, and where you are within the process, when you look inside. It would make sense to have to descend in density before rebounding to lightness.........
reminds me of the advice to "heal thyself, physician" then you will be capable of benefit to others.So... Involution proceeds evolution..........as individual human matter we can not possibly evolve until we have finished the process of involving.....
with gratitude for the neuron stimulation.................e -
-
devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 12:04 PMfascinating topic Auton
you have a great quote here: "That period of time devoted to the attainment of self-consciousness and the building of the vehicles through which the spirit in man manifests, is called "Involution." Its purpose is to slowly carry life lower and deeper into denser and denser matter for the building of forms, till the nadir of materiality is reached. From that point, life begins to ascend into higher Worlds. This succeeding period of existence, during which the individual human being develops self-consciousness into divine omniscience, is called "spiritual evolution." "
i agree that involution is the process that i should follow as an immortal
but, most readers here are mortals who are looking at these issues through this lense
involution as a process of physical regeneration is optimum, a process i am engaging in as i write this. fortunately for me, i don't relate to this process as a mortal looking to become immortal because i have come to understand that THE WILL TO LIVE IS A FORCE OF NATURE.
In my studies I have come to understand why 3rd dimensional personalities are incapable of accessing their entire DNA potential. The DNA spiral holds 64 Codons, while modern man has only 20 to 24 levels of this activated, making it impossible for modern men and women to utilize their brain capacity. This is for a good reason....mortal concepts of death and violence have a short shelf life because of the BATTLE OF THE SEXES which eliminates or prevents the personality from accessing their upper chakras of Light simultaneously with the lower chakra's of dense physicality.
no mortal may access this unless their heart is transducing or sexing the electric upper chakra essence with the magnetic lower chakra essence. BELIEVING IN DEATH AS THE FUTURE TRANSFORMATIVE EVENT KEEPS THE HUMAN HEART FROM ACTIVATING IT'S POTENTIAL BECAUSE THE SPIRIT/PERSONALITY IS CHOOSING DEATH. as a result the electromagnetic circuitry goes into repel mode that i call the Battle of the Sexes. This is actually the norm
I wrote about this in a book called panGasm, and there is a panGasm tribe where i offer 6 out of the 9 chapters for free. because i can.
aloha Auton
ps, now i remember why i included the chosen quote above.
i wanted to point out the difference between evolution and devolution because it if veritably impossible to enjoy involution if the personality is trapped in the relative reality of the 3rd dimension. which, explains why involution is not available to mortal minds.
if anyone is interested i will elaborate upon the terms evolution, devolution and involution as i think this is important
toodles -
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 12:12 PMMy friend Geo. said in response to the original article:
Nazi bullshit.
And I tend to agree.... -
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 12:52 PMNazi bullshit???........would that be manure to grow Ariens in??? ... and there are others out there who would also agree with Geo..
That density is exactly what the article addressing. Thanks for the example...
care to elaborate on why you would tend this way?
p.s. apologies for the careless name swapping in my previous post Anton. A dyslectic mix with the "on's".............. -
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 1:16 PM"From the standpoint of the latter, the whole of history is degeneration, because it shows the universal decline of earlier cultures of the traditional type, and the decisive and violent rise of a new universal civilization of the "modern" type....
"...If we understand this, we can perhaps also grasp the sense of those legends that speak of mysterious rulers who "always" exist and have never died (shades of the Emperor sleeping beneath the Kyffhäuser mountain!). Such rulers can be rediscovered only when one achieves spiritual completeness and awakens a quality in oneself like that of a metal that suddenly feels "the magnet", finds the magnet and irresistibly orients itself and moves towards it. For now, we must restrict ourselves to this hint. A comprehensive explanation of legends of that sort, which come to us from the most ancient Aryan source, would take us too far. At another opportunity we will perhaps return to the secret of reconstruction, to the "magic" that is capable of restoring the fallen mass to the unalterable, lonely, and invisible peaks that are still there in the heights."
This thesis and its explication in the piece sounds pretty Hitlerian/Third Reich to me.....
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 2:26 PM>>p.s. apologies for the careless name swapping in my previous post Anton. A dyslectic mix with the "on's".............. <<
Lol, emptycloud, tough handle, I guess... Not Ramon, not Anton. :)
-
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 2:22 PM>>Nazi bullshit. <<
Will, I guess it has to do with Evola's close affiliation with fascism and Nazism. In his words, he tried to "influence and reform" fascism that was later taken to a direction where he had to distance himself from it. We were up and down on this topic previously and it isn't my intention to take this topic into a political discussion. I still think that his take on evolution/involution is unique, interesting and valid. We are all allowed to disagree with this and I hope we can make it in a civilized manner. In fact, your friends opinion tells me more about him than the original article. -
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 5:03 PMWell, given Evola's views, gere and in other works of his I've read, it certainly IS political. And -his- words tell me more about that than any "spiritual" or philosophical view of them that I can either stomach or appreciate! -
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 5:56 PM>>Well, given Evola's views, gere and in other works of his I've read, it certainly IS political. And -his- words tell me more about that than any "spiritual" or philosophical view of them that I can either stomach or appreciate!<<
He is political, but in the same time deeply spiritual, metaphysical and philosophical. What I want to point out that spitting out stuff like "nazi bullshit" is not constructive or helpful in any discussion (there's a lot of "hippy bullshit" or "liberal bullshit" or "newager bullshit" posted here, we still refrain to address these topics bluntly as just bullshit-whatever type of it is.)
Something can be rejected competently only by the one who is at the same time able to defend it perfectly. And something can be advocated competently only by the one who is able to reject it perfectly.
-
-
-
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 2:50 PM>>if anyone is interested i will elaborate upon the terms evolution, devolution and involution as i think this is important<<
I'm certainly interested on your take about the topic. The intro sufficiently demonstrated how controversial can be, depending who's ideas will you take valid or influential (Evola, Sri Aurobindo, Meher Baba etc.).
It is probably useful to plug in the theory of degeneration into the discussion:
"The idea of degeneration had significant influence on science, art and politics from the 1850s to the 1950s. The social theory developed consequently from Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolution meant that mankind's development was no longer fixed and certain, but could change and evolve or degenerate into an unknown future, possibly a bleak future that clashes with the analogy between evolution and civilization as a progressive positive direction.
As a consequence, theorists assumed the human species might be overtaken by a more adaptable species or circumstances might change and suit a more adapted species. Degeneration theory presented a pessimistic outlook for the future of western civilization as it believed the progress of the 19th century had begun to work against itself."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneration -
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 2:57 PMMore over, the Societal collapse intro has even a more interesting insight into the broader issue;
"Societal collapse broadly includes both quite abrupt societal failures typified by the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, the Mayan Civilization collapse and others of the type, as well as more extended grinding declines of superpowers like the Roman empire in Western Europe and the Han Dynasty in East Asia. The great irony expressed by these and others like them is that civilizations that seem ideally designed to creatively solve problems find themselves doing so self-destructively.
What distinguishes these more dramatic failures of human societies, seeming to deserve the term "collapse", from less dramatic long term decline is not widely agreed on. The subject also then generally includes any other long term decline of a culture, its civil institutions or other major characteristics of it as a society or a civilization, generally permanent.
The coupled breakdown of economic, cultural and social institutions with ecological relationships is perhaps the most common feature of collapse. The most accessible and thorough discussions of the subject are the review of the scientific anthropology literature by J.A. Tainter and the popular but thorough book of the same title by Jared Diamond.
Although a societal collapse is generally an endpoint for that form of administering the social and economic life of a culture, it can be as another kind of change of administration of the same culture. Russian culture would seem to have outlived both the society of the Czars and the society of the Soviet Union, for example. Frequently the phenomenon is also a process of decentralization of authority after a 'classic' period of centralized social order, perhaps replaced by competing centers as the central authority weakens.
Societal collapse is certainly not a benign social process, but remnants may linger long after the high culture of the society vanishes. As when the black plague contributed to breaking the hold of European feudal society on its underclass in the 1400s, societal failure may also result in a degree of empowerment for the lower levels of a former climax society, who escape from the burden of onerous taxes and control by exploitative elites.
The common factors appearing to contribute to societal collapse are economic, environmental, social and cultural, but they manifest combined effects like a whole system out of balance. In many cases a natural disaster (e.g. tsunami, earthquake, massive fire or climate change) may seem to be an immediate cause. However, other cases of civilizations in similar situations that were resilient and survived the same kind of insult show that such causes are not sufficient.
This is the reasoning method used by Joseph Tainter, and how he examined the evidence to eliminate the insufficient causes in his thesis that societies essentially exhausted their own designs, and were unable to adapt to natural diminishing returns for what they knew as their method of survival. It matches closely Toynbee's idea that "they find problems they can't solve".
The diversity of forms that societies evolve corresponds to diversity in their failures too. In other instances significant inequity may combine with lack of loyalty to a central power structure and result in an oppressed lower class rising up and taking power from a smaller wealthy elite. If there is a general "antidote" to collapse, it would seem to be societal cohesion, diversity, and adaptability."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse -
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 3:24 PM
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 3:55 PM<<<In other instances significant inequity may combine with lack of loyalty to a central power structure and result in an oppressed lower class rising up and taking power from a smaller wealthy elite. If there is a general "antidote" to collapse, it would seem to be societal cohesion, diversity, and adaptability." >>>
...sounds like the revolt against Bush Cheney regime we just participated in..now if we can just co-hear, de-verse and adapt a higher vibe.. ........e
-
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 10:52 PMNEWTON'S LAW OF ENTROPY DOES NOT APPLY TO THE HUMAN HEART -
-
Re: devolution vs evolution
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:52 AMENTROPY
Definition: Entropy is the quantitative measure of disorder in a system. The concept comes out of thermodynamics, which deals with the transfer of heat energy within a system. Instead of talking about some form of "absolute entropy," physicists generally talk about the change in entropy that takes place in a specific thermodynamic process.
Calculating Entropy - In an isothermal process, the change in entropy (delta-S) is the change in heat (Q) divided by the absolute temperature (T):
delta-S = Q/T
In any reversible thermodynamic process, it can be represented in calculus as the integral from a processes initial state to final state of dQ/T.
The SI units of entropy are J/K (joules/degrees Kelvin).
Entropy & The Second Law of Thermodynamics
One way of stating the second law of thermodynamics is:
In any closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase.
One way to view this is that adding heat to a system causes the molecules and atoms to speed up. It may be possible (though tricky) to reverse the process in a closed system (i.e. without drawing any energy from or releasing energy somewhere else) to reach the initial state, but you can never get the entire system "less energetic" than it started ... the energy just doesn't have anyplace to go.
Misconceptions about Entropy
This view of the second law of thermodynamics is very popular, and it has been misused. Some argue that the second law of thermodynamics means that a system can never become more orderly. Not true. It just means that in order to become more orderly (for entropy to decrease), you must transfer energy from somewhere outside the system, such as when a pregnant woman draws energy from food to cause the fertilized egg to become a complete baby, completely in line with the second line's provisions.
Also Known As: Disorder, Chaos, Randomness (all three imprecise synonyms)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 1:40 PMI too got the feeling there were very racial undercurrents in this piece. An example:
"...An example quite close at hand is the case of the Swedes and the Dutch. These people are in the same racial condition today as they were two centuries ago, but there is little to be found now of the heroic disposition and the racial awareness that they once possessed...."
The same racial condition? Since when was Dutch a race?
"...Prior to this, the Germanic tribes[32] formed tribal societies with no apparent form of autocracy (chiefs only being elected in times of war), beliefs based Germanic paganism and speaking a dialect still closely resembling Common Germanic. Yet following their incursions into (and eventual overthrow of) the Roman Empire, a series of monumental changes took place within these Germanic societies. Among the most important of these are their conversion from Germanic paganism to Christianity, the new emerging of a political system; centered on kings and, continuing process of emerging unintelligibility of their various dialects...."
>>> Another example of the racial undertones of the piece:
"...For there have been many cases in which a culture has collapsed even when its race has remained pure..."
>>> Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I'm feeling he's looking in the wrong places for the answer to his question.
For example, as indicated in the Wiki quote above, the Germanic tribes eventually lost paganism to Christianity, and non-political autonomous systems for a political one with Kings... How did this happen and why?
Perhaps Hitler used the pre-christian, pre-political history of the Germanic tribes to rally the people to support him?
It is just another example of how utopia can not be bestowed upon the people through the mechanics of politics and/or religion. It's in thehe absence of political systems and organized religion is where utopia flourishes imo... -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 1:41 PMSorry here's the link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_people
...for this quote:
"...Prior to this, the Germanic tribes[32] formed tribal societies with no apparent form of autocracy (chiefs only being elected in times of war), beliefs based Germanic paganism and speaking a dialect still closely resembling Common Germanic. Yet following their incursions into (and eventual overthrow of) the Roman Empire, a series of monumental changes took place within these Germanic societies. Among the most important of these are their conversion from Germanic paganism to Christianity, the new emerging of a political system; centered on kings and, continuing process of emerging unintelligibility of their various dialects...."
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 2:25 PMA little trail cleaning........Totally with you fellows on those comments as they pertain to the opening post to start this thread. The quoted "Author" has confused involution with devolution and degeneration and cast it as the opposite of evolution. He does come off as a smuck.
Mid way up the line Auton posted a second explanation (with a positive spin) for involution at 10:13. My response (and I believe Andora's) took a fork in the road when he posted a second contrary article directly previous to mine which made better sense of the term involution. Involution is Much more of an inward journey than a social or geo/political movement. I didn't think Meher Baba or Sri Aurobindo would condone racism....as the links in that post refer to.
the first post is laughable at best the second made sense................e
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 5:05 PMThanks, folks , for seeing those aspects of his perspective!
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:50 AM>Perhaps Hitler used the pre-christian, pre-political history of the Germanic tribes to rally the people to support him?<
yep-
the Nazi regime required monumental (neo-classical) architecture for its civic, HOWEVER, an entirely vernacular domestic architecture~ all quaint like -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 2:01 AM*its civic buildings i meant to write -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 2:14 AMdidn't fascists always build the best neighbourhoods... ;) -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 2:38 AM -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 3:02 AM -
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 3:32 AM -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 4:33 AMship the urban rejects out of the concrete burb towers and into the wilderness trailer parks...?
www.sign69.com/medialoung...a/LA717.swf -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 4:42 AMwell i love trailer parks. the 2 weeks before i went overseas in 07 i blew well over a thousand bucks on 2 nights at the 5 star casino on the river in town and then nearly 2 weeks at a trailer park in the Rainbow Region.. much of a muchness -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 5:13 AMnice redistribution of wealth... ;) -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowe$t Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 5:20 AM -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowe$t Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 5:39 AM -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowe$t Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 5:42 AMOrgone is anentropic -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowe$t Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 5:57 AMhm i never knew what orgone was (and i still don't know what anentropy is) so i googled it.. kinda sounds like 'ether'.. but i LOVED that thing in the image on the wiki entry i want one in my yard! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone whatever it was so i googled it but only came up with this so far
Croft - The Orgone Pyramid
Absorbs all negative, unbalanced energy and transforms it into positive, balanced energy!
The Orgone Pyramid is a device designed mainly for the home or office. It will absorb all negative, unbalanced energy that may come into your space -- transforming it into positive, balanced energy.
Having this device at your home, you can clear all negative energy. For example if you have an angry visitor, just let them sit down next to the pyramid and let them get cleared from their emotions.
Mothers can place this device under their child’s bed for better sleep and for relief from possible nightmares.
Healers and massage therapists can place this device in their work area to improve the positive response from their clients.
Each Orgone Pyramid has a Lemurian Seed Crystal in the point with a clockwise coil and several positive gemstones. At the base, the Orgone Pyramid has 4 additional crystals which point in each direction.
Dimensions: 6 1/2" X 6 1/2" at the base, 4 1/2" at the point. Since all devices are handmade, the dimensions may vary slightly.
Retail Price : $170
www.spiri-tool.com/products...e-pyramid
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowe$t Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 5:53 AMwow i wanna see that -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowe$t Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 6:12 AM -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowe$t Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 6:37 AM
-
Re: Involution- The Lowe$t Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 3:26 PM -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowe$t Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 3:32 PM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 5:35 PM> rapid degeneration that's taking place over the world
Picture the Ouroboros ..... Life devoring itself ... to bring more life... there is progress in chaos (Emptycloud wrote not long ago)
The creation of the Universe is an ongoing process, not just a one time event. Every instant is the seed for the next event in this (fractal /chaos) creative process we call life.
There was a time when Science assumed that everything could be known and eventually predicted, that the Universe was ruled by a detailed system of unchanging laws, that there was no room for chaos
Picture the Helix ... a Spiral ..... one might say that it goes up or down .... but really .... which way is up, or down in the universe ?
like if we was riding on a cork screw .... we persive many downs and ups, as we move (forward or backwrds, depending on perspective) ... you are your own DNA ... spiral the way you wish ..... whats up for you might be down for the next one ..... many individual universes spining in different directions and at different angles all singing a different song .....
keep singing your heart song, dancing to your own beat .... even with death herself..... be her friend .... never see her as enemy, for she comes to release pains no other doctors can heal
namaste
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 8:12 PMYes! I see that, but not that scenario by Evola and his Fascist friends. Oe of the main reasons I love this tribe is the discussions and differences of views we express here. Blessing be! -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:09 AM> Evola and his Fascist friends
Geroge Bush did more damage than Hitler ..... the problem is that a few Zionist Jews control most 0f the media .... why not celebrate a holocaust every year for all the cultures and nations that have been exploited ?
The Roman Chatolic church has also killed thousands and made many more slaves ..... why not react to them the same way people react to the Nazis ? -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:22 AMAs to your "Evola and friends" post...very fitting as I try to uncelibrate Columbus Day.....have you ever read the decree that was read to natives upon landing....it makes me cry every time.............even now without reading it....sob............some hero......e ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{ ;~{
-
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 9:41 PMWhat really scares me is the lack of sense of crisis in the society. Somehow, anyone who pragmatically presents the facts is condemned as fear-mongering or scaremongering. Cultures, societies collapse, implode and disappear into the vortex of history. Every sign points toward this with our society; the economy collapsed, social services are barely functioning, we have a phase 6 pandemic hitting us this winter ( www.who.int/csr/disease/...en/index.html ), quarter of million people losing their jobs monthly in the US alone, and there's the widespread delusion that "everything is going to be OK".
Without a sense of crisis we can't make the necessary steps to prepare ourselves and our families to survive this period. Because, face the facts, there were, are and will always be periods when we need to survive and can't thrive. Feels like heaven and hell will collide, some people will wake up and more will starve to death.
What's the lowest common denominator? The fact that we are all humans. Regardless of social or financial status, this is what we need to recognize and get organized. This is what I try to do in my daily job, in this tribe and everywhere where there are open ears for this message. -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 9:52 PMpp: "...and there's the widespread delusion that "everything is going to be OK". ..."
>>> I agree with your assessment, and all I can add is the usual: the elites will survive and thrive, and religion (including 2012 and other forms of diversion/entertainment) is the opium of the masses; Marx was right at least about that part. When the crisis hits home, many will loose their mind, morality, faith and direction... and neither Jesus nor Obama will be there to save them. The ruling classes will rise up unscathed, and construct the global solution from the ashes of the meltdown; the involution of paradise, the evolution of oppression. -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 11, 2009 - 10:55 PMtwists of fate are for those who lack PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY
i will come back to morrow when i have some time to elaborate about devolution/evolution/involution
suffice it to say that the centripedal and centrifugal are great components of Personality....if we so choose
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:04 AM> everything is going to be OK ....
not for all .... not all the time
> The ruling classes will rise up
and fall ... we seen this all trough his-story
is there any way we can visualise something positive in the midst of all negativity the comercial news stations and gov want to impose on us ?
In my life garden i see people and things being born, fruit, get sick and die while the cycle repeats without end
Yes there is people suffering all over the world, but i seen quite a few poor (very pooor) that smile often and have no fear of the future, why we that have so much see ourselves incapable of a better future ? Are not we the creatorts of our destiny ? I lived enough to beleive so, we create our own happiness and pain .... dont blame anyone else .... our life is the fruit of our own choices
birth-growth-death are all part of the same cycle
hold on and you will suffer .. let go and you will be free ... no one can imprission your mind but yourself .... the world as we know it will have to end, for a new one to begin
i strongly beleive consiouness does not "die" the same way our body does .... no science for this, just intuition from deep meditation
you choose what channel you want to see ..... your eyes and ears will take your mind where they go .... dont let the controllers of comercial Websites, Newspapers and TV and Radio determine where your mind will go .... create other posibilities .... i know of a few living peacefully in the mist of all this world chaos .... their space protected ....
we can controll the experience or destiny of others, we can only creaste our own reality ..... stick to the system and you will die with it .... free yourself from it and you might have a chance into a better future .....
energy can only be transformed
if the future holds only negative .... why live then ? should we all give up to the specter of death and suffering as the only choice in our future ?
I refuse to see that ....
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:17 AMThanks Oba
<<<we can control the experience or destiny of others, we can only create our own reality ..... stick to the system and you will die with it .... free yourself from it and you might have a chance into a better future .....>>>
I would amend that to say it is immediate...why wait for some future condition. Peace is where you make it.........
OK is in the eye of the beholder...
OK is on the lips of a smile...
OK is in the hands that offer...
OK is in the heart that is open...............
10/12/09 ................love..........e -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:25 AM> would amend that to say it is immediate...
agreed ... i see now (meaning these days) people living a "new age" within the "old age" ..... i see distruction, but i also see people building ..... i see sickness but i also seen healing
Now is all we have .... focus on destruction and that is what will come to you .... focus in positive creative acts in the midst of all this chaos and you will never find yourself out of work, or luck or even depressed bc of the state of the world ..... and maybe even you will come to realize, the world is just the way it has to be .... happiness and suffering are both tied in the sea of samsara -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:32 AMso you're saying that people who are unemployed and/or mentally ill are not focussed in positive creative acts and thus responsible for their own condition...?
and this is the way it has to be...
that's so cool...
so be it... hahaha
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:44 AM> you're saying that people who are unemployed and/or mentally ill are not focussed in positive creative
> acts and thus responsible for their own condition...?
people that are unemployed are used to get employement (be hired) by others, their training and objective was to "get a job"..... few jobs today ... so they blame the system
people that are creative enough might be unemployed but are not lacking economic resourses, i know of quite a few unemployed people (incuding me) making money these days
people that have no control (focus) are like ships with out a sail on the ocean .... in my view (unscientific) they are still creators of their own reality .... if your mind is disfuntional so will be your reality
> and this is the way it has to be...
yes
> that's so cool...
is called action generates reactions ..... you reap what you plant
> so be it... hahaha
i dont expect you to see what i seen ..... you keep sailing in you absurd clowning reality ..... i will do the same in my cannabis propelled vesel
FY -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:50 AMyup lots of creative people are capable of improvising to supplement their welfare by dealing drugs and turning tricks and doing burglaries and stuff I guess...
glad to hear you've been inspired enough by the weed to have carved out a comfortable niche for yourself in good ole samsara... hahaha -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:58 AM> hahaha
Orpheus .... i really think you are a fool ..... but dont take it too personaly ... at times i have also acted like a fool ... the difference is that i did not wanted to stay there, and complain about what is not and what should be ...
after the Fool comes the Magi -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 11:03 AMwell oba...
I won't take it personally even though it seems to be addressed personally... ;)
so as I haven't taken it personally I won't need to tell anybody about how utterly idiotic they are and where they can shove it... hahaha
-
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:46 AMNo O........he has pointed out that the bottom line is you are responsible for your own happiness regardless of the exterior conditions. There are many fine examples of people rising beyond their external conditions to find peace within. Thich Nhat Hanh is a shining example...the few Africans I have met know this they...in miserable conditions they will smile and offer you what they have to offer.......In Costa Rica I was offered nothing but hospitality and love by people without the amenities we take for granted.........
sadly mental health is a whole nother ball game....I have had some experience with some as such and am at a loss though many of them would not even recognize there true conditions.....many are content if watched after and they don't seek happiness they merely experience what is.................... -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:54 AM> pointed out that the bottom line is you are responsible for your own happiness regardless of the exterior conditions.
thank you
> In Costa Rica I was offered nothing but hospitality
been there ... received the same ..... but CR is rich compared to El Salvador ..... where i saw people that had literally nothing (living on straw houses) offer me their food without asking for anything in return .... i almost cried more than once .... people hat had almost nothing offering the little they had ..... you hardly see that in the USA or in the Riche nations ... in fact the more some have the greedier they get
being rich in life is not about having a lot material stuff, real success in life is having a few good friends, being loved and family unity .... if you have them 3, your life will not feel as lacking much ....
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 10:57 AMthich nhat hanh's exterior conditions are fantastic as the head of his own multinational zen sect...
and I really haven't got a clue which africans you are talking about as I probably don't know the same ones...
do you mean the boers...?
I've never been to costa rica either...
so there again I don't know what you're talking about... -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 11:07 AM> haven't got a clue which africans you are talking about as I probably don't know the same ones
i bet you dont know any ..... you might seen some, but you dont seem to know anything but the typical USA lifestile/mentality
> I've never been to costa rica either...
have you ever spent more than 30 days outside the USA excluding Europe ?
> I don't know what you're talking about...
if you did you would not be acting the way you do -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 11:27 AMI guess if I weren't acting the way I act I wouldn't be me...
I might be a veteran of toking in the tropics...
with a whole different outlook...
enlightened maybe...
stoned even...? -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 11:46 AM> I guess if I weren't acting the way I act I wouldn't be me...
amazing conclussion ! -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 11:53 AMamazing indeed oba...
little by little you too might learn how to observe the self evident...
eventually... ;)
-
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 11:13 AMDid you read about how T N H got there...no......he survived prison and torture and watch his family and country slaughtered, you just glean supporting trivia and consider it proof of your POV..........how sad. He is a product of unspeakable cruelty and you smirk....................e -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 11:23 AMI didn't slaughter his family or his country or imprison and torture him...
and if I were to smirk I don't see what harm it would do anybody...
maybe if people were bad to him you should seek them out and tell them to change their nasty ways... -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 11:45 AM> I didn't slaughter his family or his country or imprison and torture him...
that was not his point .....
afaik, reasoning with you is a waste of time ... since your only interest seems to ridiculize and to reduce verything to the absurd ... that is not reasoning, that is clowning around and is what you do best, is what you are
you have your fans here, Hoopes one of them, you even have Love from Emptycloud .... be glad for it all....
i am not one of your fans and i care less what you think of me .... everyone gets the Oba they deserve, i dont write here to be accepeted or admired .... i have my work to do in this collective .... but is not the same as yours
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 11:51 AMso lets clear this up oba...
what you say is cool and what I say is absurd...?
how many braincells did you need to terminate to come up with that reasonable POV...?
do tell... hahaha
I'm always up for a bit of reasonable dialogue... ;) -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:01 PM> what you say is cool and what I say is absurd...?
what you write does not always come forward as a genuine intent to reason, in fact hardly ever .....
what i write is only true based on my reality ......
you choose to see life as a circus ... i choose to see it as a classroom
not all teachers or students are for jesters in their classes, being funny at times is one thing, taking the clown's job no matter what is the subject discused is what you bring forth to this tribe
i am not cool, i am Fiya .... and i burn big time ..... but all at is moment ....
most of the times your jokes dont make me laugh at all ..... so i just scroll down most of your posts ..... but you have so many, on every thread .... you defently come forward as a Troll .... and is what you are to me ... and i am entitled to call things as i see them, no more or less than you do ....
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:16 PMwell oba I would certainly say that you seem to avoid reason as much as possible in the abstract sense...
although there are signs that you have a very pragmatic reasoning in terms of your own sphere of interest...
in this tribe you're nearly always negative and dull and humourless with no interesting points to make...
and if that is your thing go for it...
what do you want me to say...?
I'm not asking for people to kick you off the tribe...
I'd be happy to ignore your posts because of their absence of content...
but you seem to want to diss me so I hope you get over it so I can go back to ignoring you... :) -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:22 PMHey you guys: I bet you might enjoy taking 15 minute out and viewing what Lana put up on the For All Tribes - All People thread here, and reporting back. Just a suggestion..... -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:25 PMI watched it already...
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:28 PM<<I watched it already...>>
And? -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:31 PMForget the "And?" I saw your response there. Well, I think we're great.....
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:40 PMwell I don't like TED stuff generally but in this specific case...
Power must be understood in the first instance as the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate etc...
for example each academy is a hierarchical node of tribal infighting with few roles available channelled from their socio-eco catchment zones and from that established node they can trade off profitably with equivalent nodes in a game of political expedience etc...
so what's new...?
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:55 PMPoint taken. I--,contrary to some people--almost always enjoy your point-counterpoint. And I don't always agree but as I said I enjoy the ride.....
I like to imagine you do or you wouldn't be doing it.... -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:36 PMwell I'm sure I should be doing other stuff as hanging here isn't productive in terms of meeting practical needs but it does kinda remind me why I don't feel like it's safe to leave the house... hahaha
but yeah it's kinda intriguing but kinda hard work at times to keep asking questions and offering a POV that doesn't seem to be wanted etc... hahaha
the stream of consciousness aspect can sometimes lead to interesting links...
and I think there is maybe even some kind of intellectual exercise that comes from the process of continually getting attacked that may have some benefits...
it all seems a bit pointless...
but maybe it's the battleground of the soul...?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:25 PM> I'm not asking for people to kick you off the tribe...
i never asked for that
> I'd be happy to ignore your posts
i would appreciate that .... i dont care what reasoning you use
> in terms of your own sphere of interest...
im not here to statisfy your interests
> in this tribe you're nearly always negative and dull and humourless with no interesting points to make...
if i wanted an opinion about what i write, you would be the last to ask .... if you was the only one on this tribe, i would have been long gone
> what do you want me to say...?
do as you like, write as you wish .... is what i do ....
the day you write something i find usefull for my life, i will let you know, even if you did not ask
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:29 PMso does the irrational dissing make you feel better...?
maybe go suck on a bong and you'll get your mood stuff under control again... ;) -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:33 PMAlmost as good as "No Exit": "Hell is other people." I said almost....
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:39 PM> maybe go suck on a bong and you'll get your mood stuff under control again... ;)
you cant tell what you think, but cant me what to do ..... FY ! -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:45 PMactually oba I think I can organise and express my thoughts quite well...
I was only making a suggestion as you seem to be in a bad mood all the time and as you seem to like mj and you have mj and mj is a known mood enhancer then maybe you could smoke some more of your mj and enhance your mood with your mj and be happy...
it wasn't a command or anything...
just thought it might help with what's ailing you... ;)
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 12:55 PM> actually oba I think I can organise and express my thoughts quite well...
according to who ?
birds of a feather flock together .... people like you, like you .... aint that something !
Orpheus we are what we are .....
you do your thing and i wil do mine ... i will continue call things as i see them
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:20 PMum...
obviously according to me...
I think my thoughts and then I organise them and I express them...
I don't do yours - although I'm sure I could get a few laughs if I did... hahaha
and if you continue to diss me as part of calling things as you see them then I'll probably sometimes reply in a way that makes it fairly obvious that is what you're doing... hahaha
as opposed to - for example - saying anything interesting or entertaining etc... hahaha
so you know...
you're maybe getting confirmation of your karmic worldview etc... ;)
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:30 PMLong live Orpheus, though he pisses me off.........
Heyokas...from a book I am presently absorbing"Native American Spirituality" by WA'NA'NEE'CHE'
<<< Amongst all this respect and solemn ritual was the clown or 'contrary' called heyoka by the Plains People and koshari by the Hopiand Pueblo. Heyokas were respected for their great medicine, or power. They where entertainers who also stopped people taking themselves too seriously, and the culture from becoming too rigid. Like Coyote who appears in many myths and stories, they were both tricksters and teachers. Their function was to turn the world upside down. They imitated people to show them their foolishness, seeming to deal in deceit and illusions while actually mirroring human nature. Through laughter and irreverence they imparted wisdom and self knowledge.
The job of a "contrary' was to show another side to life; perhaps performing quite normal everyday activity, but back- to-front - walking backwards, dressing backwards, even talking backwards. Heyokas poked fun at respected tribal figures and mocked serious tribal customs, but, like a Shakespearean court jester, they were tolerated and even encouraged. However, unlike the harmless modern circus clown, they could be quite disturbing: frightening and attacking people, waving giant phalluses and performing mock intercourse. By deliberately crossing them, Heyokas questioned and defined the tribe's social boundaries. Their humor was not only frivolous fun, it was also sacred medicine...>>>
I in no way think Orpheus has mastered this art but I do recognize that he offers us something. Thank god we haven't seen him waving his giant phallus at us ......yet.
...Also once you take that role you can't expect others to take you seriously.
love this tribe................e -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:40 PM> I in no way think Orpheus has mastered this art but I do recognize that he offers us something.
i agree 100 % with that ..... and with the statement "Long live Orpheus" ... but he dont piss me off at all... and i dont think im much better than him, just different persons with different views and experiences both with a desire to participate in this sometimes seemingly insane tribe .....
i always like a good chalengers .... one thing Orpheus has is that he does not give up .... he is been here for years, the man is an old timer in this tribe .... he has always been the same ... i have no intention to change him, and i do enjoy giving a bit of hell, he did that to many before i choose to get in front of his laser aiming device, just for the fuck of it ..... -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:47 PM
clowns dont piss people off, but when the jokes are not mastered most people loose interest in their art .....
everything is action and reaction .....
this would be the last place for me to be, if i wanted to have fans or to be accepeted by the people that post the most .... i learn but i also like to challenge the challengers ..... take center stage all the time and i will notice you .... and you wont escape the Scorpion/Snake in me ... im not scare of any kind of worms .... i will eat them if i have too ....
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 2:02 PMwell if I were the tribe clown then I'd only be succeeding if I managed to awaken people to their arbritrary beliefs etc...
or at least reminded them of the fact they participate in those "false prophecies" to facilitate their life choices etc...
and in fact what I need to do is find some way of facilitating my life choices instead of being a smartass...
but there are opposing and mutually exclusive systems... aaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!!!! -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 2:07 PM<<< and in fact what I need to do is find some way of facilitating my life choices instead of being a smartass... >>>.
HAHAHAHAHA (now you made me laugh HA! )
darn right ... you are a smart ass .... and so am i .... is why i enjoy givin you a bit of your own medicine ..... and why not !
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 2:20 PMthis might be a bit petty but...
on a semantic level I reckon...
a smartass is the one that is "right"...
so there is only room for one "smartass" and the others would be "jerks"... hahaha
www.youtube.com/watch -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 3:48 PM> so there is only room for one "smartass" and the others would be "jerks"... hahaha
i dont think so ... jerk ... hahahahah
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:32 PM> you're maybe getting confirmation of your karmic worldview etc... ;)
ditto
ps .. HAHAHAHA
i've been to hell and back a few times .... i am not scare of ridding with you there XDDD -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:48 PMwell I don't really want to go to hell with you or anybody else...
though I'm sure your weed might be interesting... hahaha
but my worldview is kinda that this is hell...
and I have no idea if there is a heaven anywhere...
but I am sure that there must be nicer bits of hell to hang in... hahaha
but having had the avatar of orpheus@hell for 12 years...
apparently hell is being sold on november the first...
so I'm going to lose my "spiritual/digital" home...
and I'll be going to where the black and white triangles cross on that day...
not sure if it means I'll have come out of hell without my bride...
but I may have to come up with another avatar...
and I can't actually think of one that is anywhere as cool yet...
but I guess that even though I don't trust the universe it's not like I have much choice... hahaha
www.youtube.com/watch -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:54 PM> orpheus@hell for 12 years...
darn ! 12 years .... time goes fast ..... yea, Tribe was a VERY different place a few years ago .... (i dont think Tribe has been here 12 years) i joined in 2005
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 2:12 PMIs that dot net, dot com, dot edu, or dot pit?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 11:06 AMConsider the source:
Julius Evola
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
Involvement with Fascism
"In the late 1920s, Evola expressed his support for a radical Fascist revolution to sweep modern Judeo-Christianity out of Italy and replace it with a 'Pagan Imperialism' (à la Ancient Rome). He was one of a number of fascist ideologues who opposed Benito Mussolini's Lateran Accords with the Roman Catholic Church and rejected the Fascist party's nationalism and its focus on mass movement mob politics; he hoped to influence the regime toward his own variation on fascist racial theories and his 'Tradionalist' philosophy. Early in 1930, Evola launched Torre, a bi-weekly review, to voice his conservative-revolutionarism and denounce the demagogic tendencies of official fascism; government censors suppressed the journal and engaged in character assassination against its staff (for a time, Evola retained a bodyguard of like-minded radical fascists) until it died out in June of that year. From 1934 to 1943, he edited the cultural page of Roberto Farinacci's journal Regime Fascista.
"Mussolini read Evola's Sintesi di Dottrina della Razza in August 1941, and was impressed enough to personally meet with Evola and offer him his praise. Evola later recounted that Mussolini had found in his work a uniquely Roman form of fascist racism distinct from that found in Nazi Germany. With Mussolini's backing, Evola launched the journal Sangue e Spirito. While not always in agreement with German racial theorists, Evola traveled to Germany in February 1942 and obtained support for German collaboration on Sangue e Spirito from leading Nazi race theorists.
"Evola supported Fascism for his own ends, but was rebuked by the regime because his ends were not always theirs. When World War II broke out, he volunteered for military service in order to fight the Communists on the Russian front; he was rejected because he had too many detractors in the bureaucracy (Hansen 2002). Italian Fascism went into decline when, during the midst of the War, Mussolini was deposed and imprisoned. Evola, although not a member of the Fascist Party, and despite his apparent problems with the Fascist regime, was one of the first people to greet Mussolini when the latter was broken out of prison by Nazi commandos in 1943.
"After the Italian surrender to the Allied forces in September 8, 1943, Evola moved to Germany, where he spent the remainder of World War II, also working as a researcher on Freemasonry for the SS Ahnenerbe in Vienna."
Ahnenerbe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahnenerbe
Evola and the SS
"'But in spite of all these negative aspects, there was something in National Socialism that attracted Evola: the concept of a state ruled by an Order, which he felt was embodied by the SS. 'We are inclined to the opinion that we can see the nucleus of an Order in the higher sense of tradition in the 'Black Corps,' he wrote in Vita Italiana (August 15, 1938). Again in Vita Italiana (August 1941, 'Per una profonda alleanza italo-germanica' [For a Deep Italian-Germanic Alliance]) he writes: 'Beyond the confines of the party and of any political-administrative structure, an elite in the form of a new 'Order'—that is, a kind of ascetic-military organization that is held together by the principles of 'loyalty' and 'honor,' must form the basis of the new state.' As mentioned, Evola held the SS, which Himmler strove to design according to the model of the Teutonic Order, to be this elite.
"The castles of the SS Order, with their 'initiations,' the emphasis on transcending the purely human element, the prerequisite of physical valor, as well as the ethical requirements (loyalty, discipline, defiance of death, willingness to sacrifice, unselfishness), strengthened Evola in his conviction. He also was of the opinion that the ethics of the SS were borrowed from the Jesuits" (Dr. H. T. Hansen in "Julius Evola's Political Endeavors' introduction to 'Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist')."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juli...th_Fascism
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 1:56 PM"These people are in the same racial condition today as they were two centuries ago, but there is little to be found now of the heroic disposition and the racial awareness that they once possessed."
I recognize that couching these things as "racial" is more about the times they were written in rather than a KKK type of rant. I also recognize that the point concerning the loss of the herioic disposition can be taken as a spiritual undertone like our stories of the quest for the fair maiden and facing the demons/dragons as part and parcel of it.
I do think we have a deep need to tap into our herioc impulses which is tied to the desire of purpose and meaning in our lives. I think what's so concerning about the fascists is that they manipulated these impulses - towards the lowest common denominator - hate, fear, resentment, etc.. while at the same time promoting the idealistic ""state"".
Progressives and Modernity became the scapegoat for a world that passed Traditionalists by it seems to me. This is not saying that I agree with the notion of tossing all of the "old" for the "new" because I don't and I think as I get older I see a dishonoring of the tried and true for the new and untested based on the idea that new must be better.
It's too bad Evola gets caught up in the racial rhetoric and hung with some nefarious types. I think he has a point of view in there that needs to be overdubbed to be able to get past all the baggage. I've read some writers that have attempted to do that. He's still wanting for solutions though and while it's nice to see how bad things are in his view, I'd appreciate seeing workable alternatives that don't resemble a caste system.
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 2:13 PM
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 4:42 PM>>I recognize that couching these things as "racial" is more about the times they were written in rather than a KKK type of rant. I also recognize that the point concerning the loss of the herioic disposition can be taken as a spiritual undertone like our stories of the quest for the fair maiden and facing the demons/dragons as part and parcel of it.
I do think we have a deep need to tap into our herioc impulses which is tied to the desire of purpose and meaning in our lives. I think what's so concerning about the fascists is that they manipulated these impulses - towards the lowest common denominator - hate, fear, resentment, etc.. while at the same time promoting the idealistic ""state"".<<
I respect Evola to have the courage addressing the racial foundations of cultures; while Modernity makes every attempt to neutralize and ridicule (or just simply demonize) the racial importance when we talk about a civilization. The heroic disposition could be approached from a different angle: the metaphysics of war and fight reflect on our inner struggle, since the only real fight is a fight for our Higher Self. Buddha was a Kshatriya, a warrior, who recognized the complacency of the Brahmans and reformed Hinduism (hence the reason Buddhism never really took off in India as it was considered heresy).
The Italian Fascist and Evola are long dead and fascism today grew some new roots (and probably the strongest roots) in the US. I take it, many from this tribe even voted on them in the last decade. Seeking enemies in a wrong place (as a distraction) is typical, especially with all that effort from the mainstream media to cover up the latest achievements of the American corporate fascists (red or blue, makes no difference).
>>Progressives and Modernity became the scapegoat for a world that passed Traditionalists by it seems to me. This is not saying that I agree with the notion of tossing all of the "old" for the "new" because I don't and I think as I get older I see a dishonoring of the tried and true for the new and untested based on the idea that new must be better.<<
Tradition, as Metaphysical Tradition or Perennial Philosophy stands for the atemporal, eternal, diamond like values of the Universal Man. Modernity on the other side encompasses everything that is material, temporal or counter-Traditional. In metaphysical terms the Tradition is beyond the old or new- it was present, it is present and it will be always present. The manifestation of the Tradition is what fades over time (or with other words, our awareness of the Tradition) what makes up the cosmic cycles in every significant cosmology. What the "Traditionalists" attempted was to rephrase and refresh and re-manifest these eternal values (laws) and some of them left an impressing body of work (notably Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, Titus Burckhardt, Ananda Coomaraswamy etc.)
"For Guénon, the author of the Crisis of the Modern World, the end of this descending process is modernity itself, which manifests the lowest possibilities of the Kali Yuga. Guénon also called our age the Reign of the Quantity, because man and the cosmos are more and more determined, ontologically speaking, by matter. The tragedy of the Western world since the Renaissance is, in his view, that it has lost almost any contact with the Sophia Perennis and the Sacred. Consequently, in the Western context, it is virtually impossible for a spiritual seeker to receive a valid initiation and to follow an esoteric path."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trad...ist_School
While most of the Traditionalists distanced themselves from politics, it was only Evola who attempted to integrate these values into a political form as well. He was convinced that early fascism was capable to absorb these ideas, but he was proven wrong.
It is very interesting that I very much disliked Evola when I submerged into my early studies of traditional metaphysics. He was a biased, very tense, highly critical person with many faults, but in the same time he made no mistake to transcend his personality and deeply involve himself into the quest of self-realization.
The challenge with his ideology is actually understanding where he is coming from. It isn't important whether we agree or disagree with him, but rather how much we can understand from his detailed exposure of the fascism, occult, religion or spirituality.
From this perspective the lowest common denominator is the final, irreversible descent (and consequently, annihilation) into matter. For everything that becomes merely material and completely disconnected from the spiritual, the destiny is disintegration and decay according to the laws of Samsara. Only the person, society, culture or civilization that has nourished the relationship with the Sacred and the Eternal has hope and chance to ascend into completion (immortality). -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Mon, October 12, 2009 - 9:03 PM"I respect Evola to have the courage addressing the racial foundations of cultures"
What are the "racial foundations of cultures"? -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 7:35 AM>What are the "racial foundations of cultures"?<<
Depends, how do you define race.
Tom Sunic has a comprehensive article about the topic;
The Beauty and the Beast: Race and Racism in Europe, Part I
www.theoccidentalobserver.net/aut...l#TS
Part 2
www.theoccidentalobserver.net/aut...l#TS
Part 3
www.theoccidentalobserver.net/aut...html
Part 4
www.theoccidentalobserver.net/aut...l#TS
Part 5
www.theoccidentalobserver.net/aut...l#TS -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 11:36 AMI don't think Sunic answered Hoopes question on race as a foundation of cultures. While he attempts to blow-up stereotypes on one hand, he reinforces them on the other with notions of white, blonde, blue-eyed idealism with inferiors sucking up to it like Michael Jackson and his skin bleaching/plastic surgeries.
I'm more given to the idea that outsiders feel like red-headed stepchildren and either try to change their hair color or look to overthrow the insiders. The idea that insiders (which operate by dehumanizing the outsiders) are deserved their position because the ideals dictate such seems pathalogical to me (us vs. them by any means possible).
This right wing movement of anti-modernity is just more wolves in sheeps clothing if you ask me. Still the big ugly Jew with his desire for democracy and equal human rights threatening the rich genetic gene pool of the uberhumans unspoiled by such cancerous ideas. I think this is best captured in the sentance where Sunic says that the Germans were forced to adhere to their constitution as opposed to their Germanhood (inner constitution - I'm paraphrasing).
In any event, the argument that the cultural foundations of peoples are being destroyed by an egalitarian conspiracy just polarizes and divides which I don't see as constructive or sustainable. -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 9:32 PM>>I don't think Sunic answered Hoopes question on race as a foundation of cultures.<<
It didn't. However, from experience I know that "race" has very a different meaning to Hoopes than to me. I also know that he would quote the Wiki page for race, which is acceptable but not inclusive. I find Evola's or Sunic's approach just as legitimate and appropriate as the officially accepted one.
It would be hard to get into explanation of something that firstly needs clarification and at least baseline agreement so we can understand each other, who's talking what. As the origin of the word "race" indicates, coming from "radix" or root, we can assume a growing tree founded on these roots. This tree has it's branches as cultures, religions, nations etc., all the way down to the smallest twigs that represent the individual characteristics, skin color, built, shape, mental capabilities, talents etc.
>>In any event, the argument that the cultural foundations of peoples are being destroyed by an egalitarian conspiracy just polarizes and divides which I don't see as constructive or sustainable. <<
Egalitarianism is not even a conspiracy-I think it is quite open and mainstream. It's a different thing that we cannot be equal. We can be united, with all our diversity and versatility, but equal hardly. Each individual represents a unique combination of qualities that cannot be equalized. On the other side, the purpose of life isn't about attaining unity, but finding harmony in diversity. If this diversity is neutralized (or equalized) the chance of realizing harmony is fairly slick. Globalization, egalitarianism, liberalism are all working at grinding down diversity to the lowest common denominator and once we reached the rock bottom, we can proudly call it democracy (demonocracy). -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 2:28 AMWell, i'm a liberal and proud of it. I'm also egalitarian by my nature and big time, and think that globalization or at least getting our shit together minimally on a planetary level is absolutely necessary. These things do not erase our individuality! Instead they work on creating a creating a society where our individuality does not need to be truncated by fear or physical need and can shine, where we can make use of all of our talents.
Anyway, since you think we are all becoming talentless mongrels, i will bring up the possibility of hybrid vigor in people like obama and his talented brother and tiger woods and a lot of others. I think we look pretty damned good all mixed up, and the sports, artistic and intellectual functions do not seem to suffer, and quite the opposite.
So fuck a bunch of race, preferably literally.
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Wed, October 14, 2009 - 9:17 AM"individual represents a unique combination of qualities that cannot be equalized."
I'm talking about equal rights and equal opportunity under the law. How is diversity harmed by these ideals put forward by political action? -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 4:04 AMequal rights and equal opportunities under the law doesn't translate to reality because the nature of people and power are selfish and nepotistic etc...
so who would enforce such laws...?
god...?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Tue, October 13, 2009 - 3:52 PM"Modernity on the other side encompasses everything that is material, temporal or counter-Traditional."
In this essay, the author sees Modernity as an illusion of discontinuous change.
www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/GLOS...MODERN.HTM
"Finally, we see ourselves as having lost tradition, that is, that our behavior patterns, our rituals, etc., are all new and innovative, that we are not repeating the past. But in fact, the experience of modernity is, in fact, to live in traditional ways and to repeat tradition in unrecognizable forms. Modern cultures still perform traditional rituals, such as sports (which are originally religious rituals) or shaming rituals, yet the origin and original meaning of these rituals have passed out of the culture. Modern cultures still repeat ways of thinking in the past—in fact, the bulk of modern culture is based on traditional ways of thinking repeated relatively unchanged—yet modern cultures tend to view these ways of thinking as innovations. Although we base our social groups on abstract categories, the structure and content of these social groups repeat the structure and content of kinship groups, in other words, we base our abstract social groups on principles derived from real, biological relationships; we do not, however, experience these social groups as real, biological relationships. So, in sum, modernity—the sense that the present is discontinuous with the past, is an illusion—and this illusion creates modernity itself. What has changed is social memory ; we have disconnected most of our practices and ideas from our collective memory of their origins and meaning." -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 3:51 PMi would say we have been approaching that Lowest point for quite some time.......
and you can see it all around the world.....torture of innocent people, cruelty against animals and children, sex-trade, etc......
sometimes you gotta hit the bottom of the barrel before you start to BOUNCE BACK UP..........and those of us waiting in the cream at the top? well maybe we'll get blown right outta there?! certainly hope so......i think i'm done with this dimension for awhile...... -
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 5:30 PM> i think i'm done with this dimension for awhile......
never give up !
-
-
Re: Involution- The Lowest Common Denominator
Sun, October 18, 2009 - 8:32 PMoh no, i'm not giving up completely.......
just waiting for the Light to come back out :))
-
-
-
-
-