[Donna]

What will are we talking about here? The will to conquer?

It is life itself.

To prefer evil to good is not in human nature; and when a man is compelled to choose one of two evils, no one will choose the greater when he might have the less.

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt: whether thou hold thy peace, through love hold thy peace; whether thou cry out, through love cry out; whether thou correct, through love correct; whether thou spare, through love do thou spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.

God wills in man only that which is good, in the kingdom of his grace; where the free will yields itself up into the grace, there God wills that which is good in the will, through the grace.

Every time a man is begotten and born, the clock of human life is wound up anew to repeat once more its same old tune that has already been played innumerable times, movement by movement and measure by measure, with insignificant variations.

The mechanistic world is imagined only as sight and touch imagine a world (as "moved") --so as to be calculable-- thus causal unities are invented, "things" (atoms) whose effect remains constant...If we eliminate these additions, no things remain but only dynamic quanta, in a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their "effect" upon the same. The will to power is not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos --the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge.

I really don't understand why you profess an interest in religion. Your opinions seem to be much more in line with ideologies such as fascism which is devoid of Christian compassion.

When the Church is under attack, it must be defended. Even Buddhists have a martial tradition.

That Buddhism may decline is in line with Buddhist historiography which teaches that human abilities to gain insight decline as time moves on. In future, people will no longer be able to understand the true teaching.

This is pretty much a rehashing of Hindu cosmology. What you are describing is the Kali Yuga, a topic that reactionaries are very interested in.

As to Christianity, it has become an empty shell and Islam degenerates into an ideology for retards.

If you regularly use a computer or operate some other machine of Western ingenuity, you are effectively living within a process of Christendom's material immanentization, however imperfect it may be. This is why Frithjof Schuon disliked Christianity, he effectively blamed it for creating the modern world. René Guénon also considered Enlightenment secularism to be a Christian sect.

[Potemkin]

If you regularly use a computer or operate some other machine of Western ingenuity, you are effectively living within a process of Christendom's material immanentization, however imperfect it may be. This is why Frithjof Schuon disliked Christianity, he effectively blamed it for creating the modern world. René Guénon also considered Enlightenment secularism to be a Christian sect.

Christianity created the pre-conditions for the modern European world (and thus, through European imperialism, for the modern global world order). However, it did so dialectically - that is, it changed the world in such a way that it could itself no longer exist in that changed world in its old form. By the mid-19th century, the Catholic Church was on the brink of extinction. It only revived its fortunes by reinventing itself in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Donna]

Christianity created the pre-conditions for the modern European world (and thus, through European imperialism, for the modern global world order). However, it did so dialectically - that is, it changed the world in such a way that it could itself no longer exist in that changed world in its old form. By the mid-19th century, the Catholic Church was on the brink of extinction. It only revived its fortunes by reinventing itself in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Reinvention is pretty much the essence of Christianity. Christianity is always in motion and when we recognize the logical patterns of these changes in the history of philosophy, we begin approaching the sophiological periphery of the mind of Christ. Catholic dogma operated as a rule-theory for Western philosophy well into the modern age as the Church became the overarching negative principle, so when the scientific method negated dialectical discourses entirely (as Nietzsche predicted it would), theology also became a dormant science. Today this now means that theological projects can engage in all kinds of dialectical criticisms of society with Catholic dogma as the rule, something that Bishop Robert Barron described as the epistemic priority of Christ.

[Potemkin]

Reinvention is pretty much the essence of Christianity. Christianity is always in motion and when we recognize the logical patterns of these changes in the history of philosophy, we begin approaching the sophiological periphery of the mind of Christ. Catholic dogma operated as a rule-theory for Western philosophy well into the modern age as the Church became the overarching negative principle, so when the scientific method negated dialectical discourses entirely (as Nietzsche predicted it would), theology also became a dormant science. Today this now means that theological projects can engage in all kinds of dialectical criticisms of society with Catholic dogma as the rule, something that Bishop Robert Barron described as the epistemic priority of Christ.

Interesting. You seem to be equating Christ with the dialectic itself. The scientific method is, of course, non-dialectical (Engels' unconvincing attempts to prove that it was dialectical notwithstanding), and if taken too seriously can be corrosive of any kind of serious thought about human society and, indeed, corrosive of the idea that the world itself has any kind of human meaning at all. Analytic philosophy, and its hostile attitude towards synthetic philosophy or dialectical thinking, is a case in point (interestingly, Wittgenstein was one of the founders of Logical Positivism but later came to regard it with utter contempt). Yet I fail to see what is gained by added Christ into the mix. You are merely tacking a medieval religious superstructure onto the already conceptually adequate system of Marxist thought.

[Hong Wu]

Deep think of the day: It sucks that Trump might lose, we are definitely oppressed but to a certain degree we need to be. I think the only way to justify something like this is for the ruler and rich people to also oppress themselves. But people like that don't come into power very often.

[Potemkin]

Deep think of the day: It sucks that Trump might lose, we are definitely oppressed but to a certain degree we need to be. I think the only way to justify something like this is for the ruler and rich people to also oppress themselves. But people like that don't come into power very often.

Indeed - the last time it happened was when Julius Caesar and Octavian destroyed the Roman Republic and founded the Principate. We are unlikely to be as lucky as the Romans proved to be. Trump is no Julius Caesar.

[Hong Wu]

I think if someone is not informed/educated enough to criticize something, the inverse is also true, they must necessarily not be informed or educated enough to support it.

[Hong Wu]

So in radical traditionalist thought we have two paths to transcendence, the path of action and the path of contemplation. This is arguably referred to as works and grace in Christianity.

I was thinking that perhaps the path of action works as well as the path of contemplation because both are equally difficult; we can't figure everything out anyway, so the path of contemplation is silly but our physical actions seem to be at least as impotent. If action is as likely to be effective as contemplation (that is to say, both will be as effective as they're meant to be) and we now know that even thinking is largely a physical act, does that mean that the two different paths are actually the same thing?

Is the effort put into the action or contemplation the real benefit? For example, in Chinese alchemy the ingredients all happen to be found only on mountaintops, so you would have to climb a mountain if you wanted to try and make your elixir of immortality. The psychological and "placebo" effects of drinking an elixir you had to climb mountains to make was probably considerable.

One of the biggest mysteries in rad trad thought is how in the Kali Yuga, transcendence is achieved "through the body". I haven't decided on what this means but if both paths to transcendence are fundamentally the same kind of act, that might provide a clue.

[Hong Wu]

I think we want to find things we have or which come easily to us spiritually fulfilling because they're there but we don't actually get to choose what we find spiritually fulfilling. That is in a sense chosen for us and we can either go after it even though it's hard or we can delude ourselves which ultimately doesn't make us happy.

[Albert]

I'm going to come into this from more of a Christian perspective. as of recent that is more and more I'm only left with in my spiritual quest so to speak. Although I have read and practiced some other stuff.

For me recently it all comes down to faith. And faith is interesting cause it does not mean necessary we get what we want exactly how we want it. Also considering we live in the world where we are bound by physical rules.

So for example if you want to be happy. It is said with faith one can achieve this. But we are constrained first by time, then by our current physical limitations which perhaps can be remedyed but again with time. Another thing we are constrained with is with lack of understanding. Perhaps things that we think will make us happy will actually make us unhappy. So thus again to learn this takes time.

So what are we left with is in the end sense faith is more so like hope. Hope to reach that place of peace, yet we do not know how to exactly arrive to that place in the end. So we are only left with hope and faith in our heart to reach it and willingness to go on. To learn where it is, even if at time we have to make a 180 degree turn to reach it.

So yeah..... me thinks.

[Paradigm]

Interesting. You seem to be equating Christ with the dialectic itself.

The Gospel of John identifies Christ with the Logos. It makes sense to say that the Logos unfolds dialectically.

[Potemkin]

The Gospel of John identifies Christ with the Logos. It makes sense to say that the Logos unfolds dialectically.

Hmm, good point. But the Logos is supposed to pre-exist the Cosmos itself, whereas the dialectic is an immanent concept describing how the material world functions and interacts with itself. The Logos therefore has more in common with the ancient Chinese concept of the Dao than it does with the dialectic. The Dao pre-exists the material world - "it is the root of heaven and Earth", as Lao Tzu puts it - and it influences the way in which the world changes but is itself unchanging and eternal. In other words, the difference between Christ and the dialectic is the difference between a metaphysical concept and an immanent process of change.

[Hong Wu]

True story, the Egyptian hieroglyphics for the chaos God of Darkness (who makes way for the light) and is named Kek strongly resembles a person sitting at a computer screen and sending information over the internet:


The figure of Christ Jesus was probably conflated with the Greek mystic Apollonius (their stories are very similar) and possibly slightly by the story of Buddha, particularly in early gnostic versions of Christ. There are also some parrallels between Christ and Kek, believe it or not; Christ's crucifixion and resurrection is a statement of the primordial concept of a darkness preceding light, which we see in early Egyptian religion, in Taoism and lots of other places.

[Albert]

You had watched to many youtube videos there.

[Donna]

In other words, the difference between Christ and the dialectic is the difference between a metaphysical concept and an immanent process of change.

That's a fair discernment but I don't consider either to be mutually exclusive in Christianity, which holds together multiple religious and philosophical systems. An Orthodox contemplative or Scholastic intellectual, for example, might be preoccupied with Christ as Logos, but a German or English mystic might have a vision of Christ as a self-negating cosmic being whose intimacy with humanity and history is also an emptying of a primordial abode. Personally I appreciate how different geographical regions have different approaches.

[Tewodros III]

Personally I appreciate how different geographical regions have different approaches.

I don't you people are all heathens mixing pagan crap with your Yahweh, either you serve God or your barbaric culture, you can't go both ways.

[Donna]

I don't you people are all heathens mixing pagan crap with your Yahweh, either you serve God or your barbaric culture, you can't go both ways.

I disagree. The Hellenic world civilized the Jewish religion, which was actually quite fanatical and difficult to tame (i.e. it was very tribalistic and provincial).

[Potemkin]

I don't you people are all heathens mixing pagan crap with your Yahweh, either you serve God or your barbaric culture, you can't go both ways.

Donald is right about this, Tewodros. Christianity originated as a sect of Judaism (e.g., the author of Revelations speaks about the 144,000 'Elect' as being specifically and exclusively from the 12 Jewish tribes, 12,000 from each tribe) which became fused with the Hellenistic mystery cults and, somewhat later, with neo-Platonic philosophy. The result was a religion which had and has its roots in Judaism, but which could expand into the Hellenistic and Roman world and become a great world religion rather than an insular, fanatical tribal faith. The justification for this, within the context of Judaism, was derived from some of the Jewish prophets, particularly Isaiah, who had prophesied that Judaism would some day become a universal world religion and that the God of Israel would and should become the God of all the nations. The author of Acts describes one of the apostles meeting a Roman slave who is reading the Book of Isaiah; the apostle sees this, uses it as an opening to explain the new Christian faith to him, and ends up converting him. That incident is very telling.

[Paradigm]

In other words, the difference between Christ and the dialectic is the difference between a metaphysical concept and an immanent process of change.

Not unlike how the Logos became immanent in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Potemkin]

Not unlike how the Logos became immanent in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Lol. We're starting to stray into the realms of Christian theology, which is a conceptual minefield. I doubt any of us are qualified to have this discussion. Still, I would say that if Jesus was the literal incarnation of God (and most Christians assert that he was), then it logically follows that Jesus as a person pre-existed the physical world in exactly the same way that God pre-existed it, and for the same reason. The figure of Jesus of Nazareth was not immanent, though his physical body was born and died and (supposedly) was resurrected in historical time.