Quantus tremor est futurus - Actaeon Journal
"To divide the flesh from the spirit is blasphemy against God." The distinction between idea and action disappears when we consider language. For language is both idea and action – in its highest expression it harmonizes with the absolute, unbound by a god.…
Imperium's response:
"I agree with this. By "ideas" I mean something more like the preserve of the philosopher, the barbarism of reflection, rather than the poetic genius. I take the martial repetition to be the ritual utterance, not the mechanical, "magical" incantation of the technician for whom the word has power in itself, which has the power to move the god, but because it calls upon and invokes the god, the source of power."
And mine:
I think it is something like Schmitt's exception. We are tested by events and other ideas, our response is a type of decision which strengthens or weakens our connection to fate (or character, will, soul). Where there is a great distance between people, or a looming civil war in a nation, rationalisation seems to take over. This is the essence of parliaments, and to a lesser extent the senate. "Carthago delenda est" and "Carthago servanda est" suggest this, although taken as two versions of "BS BS" the sides seem less significant – and perhaps there is less power than the rational in them. It too was an inability to act. In the end it was an event that forced action.
Rationalisation is an attempt to regain intuition and unity, to prepare for an event that is looming or not fully known, and even regain a sense of vigour. Great war speeches point to this. There may even be situations where the poetic does not fit. Simply the change in era can cause a shift in the mind. The German debate was that of intellectual intuition, abstract reason, and intuitive reason. "Reason" could be substituted with "idea" here. Intuition and imagination become lost in the modern era, or they undergo a great shift. There is a similar formalisation and incantation in much of modern poetry which hollows out the idea or law. And it should be remembered that the mechanics (michani) were essential to Greek poetry, it gave a higher sense of order to poetry and the idea – an incalculable exactness. The same is true in Archimedes math questions, which were also dedicated to the Muses and left something unknown as an offering. I think this is what needs to be looked at because we see today that it is a lack of reflection that rules, a technical intuition and mechanised action.
Here is where I disagree on the Odinic-Tyrrhic conception. It first of all preferences the right-wing, when if nothing else one has to account for the weakness of the right and an even more indecisive role in the political. One can also see the right being the force which introduced the democratic character, founded the installations if not the revolution itself. This would mean that the left and right have switched roles, and that the right may have its own forms of "incantation". So the question is, what causes man to turn away from the conservative position, and to no longer invoke the god as he once did? When does he abandon his gods for that of an enemy? And when does a god turn away from what was once the rule of piety?
If a god turns away from the old law then martial repetition will only drive us further from him. To be a great man could only end in disaster when Odin is wandering in the shadows.
"I agree with this. By "ideas" I mean something more like the preserve of the philosopher, the barbarism of reflection, rather than the poetic genius. I take the martial repetition to be the ritual utterance, not the mechanical, "magical" incantation of the technician for whom the word has power in itself, which has the power to move the god, but because it calls upon and invokes the god, the source of power."
And mine:
I think it is something like Schmitt's exception. We are tested by events and other ideas, our response is a type of decision which strengthens or weakens our connection to fate (or character, will, soul). Where there is a great distance between people, or a looming civil war in a nation, rationalisation seems to take over. This is the essence of parliaments, and to a lesser extent the senate. "Carthago delenda est" and "Carthago servanda est" suggest this, although taken as two versions of "BS BS" the sides seem less significant – and perhaps there is less power than the rational in them. It too was an inability to act. In the end it was an event that forced action.
Rationalisation is an attempt to regain intuition and unity, to prepare for an event that is looming or not fully known, and even regain a sense of vigour. Great war speeches point to this. There may even be situations where the poetic does not fit. Simply the change in era can cause a shift in the mind. The German debate was that of intellectual intuition, abstract reason, and intuitive reason. "Reason" could be substituted with "idea" here. Intuition and imagination become lost in the modern era, or they undergo a great shift. There is a similar formalisation and incantation in much of modern poetry which hollows out the idea or law. And it should be remembered that the mechanics (michani) were essential to Greek poetry, it gave a higher sense of order to poetry and the idea – an incalculable exactness. The same is true in Archimedes math questions, which were also dedicated to the Muses and left something unknown as an offering. I think this is what needs to be looked at because we see today that it is a lack of reflection that rules, a technical intuition and mechanised action.
Here is where I disagree on the Odinic-Tyrrhic conception. It first of all preferences the right-wing, when if nothing else one has to account for the weakness of the right and an even more indecisive role in the political. One can also see the right being the force which introduced the democratic character, founded the installations if not the revolution itself. This would mean that the left and right have switched roles, and that the right may have its own forms of "incantation". So the question is, what causes man to turn away from the conservative position, and to no longer invoke the god as he once did? When does he abandon his gods for that of an enemy? And when does a god turn away from what was once the rule of piety?
If a god turns away from the old law then martial repetition will only drive us further from him. To be a great man could only end in disaster when Odin is wandering in the shadows.
The left are zombies. The Right are vampires. The center, werewolves.
There are some situations where 'punching right' is appropriate, but most in the dissident right have no self-control so conflicts spiral from the NAP to Burger King nukes. Just like the ancap memes.
This shows better than anything where loyalties lie.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/RoninoftheNight/8032
This shows better than anything where loyalties lie.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/RoninoftheNight/8032
It is not at all surprising that a society which isolates its elders will also develop the most extreme restrictions during a pandemic and abandon territory to mass immigration. In some sense, medical neurosis spread through guilt for what had been done to our elders, much in the same way that immigration relieves the guilt following wars of liquidation.
With the 'heirs to the counter-enlightenment' debate the right has descended into dangerous waters. In the 20th century there were perhaps less than ten heirs to the counter-enlightenment, with the state of decline one can imagine what those numbers might be today. Over the next few months I will try to give some context to this debate and what relevance the counter-enlightenment has today.
This is not to say that people involved in these discussions are unintelligent. The question is not one of knowledge but rather a way of seeing, a way of orientation. The counter-enlightenment is for us as distant as pre-socratic philosophy. Our situation is like that of sitting in an abandoned theatre, simply imagining the play is not enough, one also has to account for the historical and spatial difference in how that play was perceived and performed. Character changes just as much as the sense of beauty.
This is not to say that people involved in these discussions are unintelligent. The question is not one of knowledge but rather a way of seeing, a way of orientation. The counter-enlightenment is for us as distant as pre-socratic philosophy. Our situation is like that of sitting in an abandoned theatre, simply imagining the play is not enough, one also has to account for the historical and spatial difference in how that play was perceived and performed. Character changes just as much as the sense of beauty.
Do you understand the Enlightenment vs. Counter-enlightenment opposition?
Anonymous Poll
42%
Yes
11%
No
37%
Only the basics
11%
Not interested in it
I think a great starting point for anyone interested would be "The Oldest Programme for a System of German Idealism". It is considered to be a collaborative effort by Hölderlin, Hegel, and Schelling. I will post a link later if it is not freely available online. Very short essay and should also be of interest to anyone studying religion.
I will also try to work out a reading list.
I will also try to work out a reading list.
Post-hoc rationalisation is a type of perspectivism for weak men, or simply those lacking vision.
Just as any plan is better than no plan, a calm head is better than any other when plans go awry. This is Nestor's role in The Iliad, he is something other than a hero or prince.
Writing a response to Academic Agent's 59 Theses. This will help differentiate nihilist irrationalism from intellectual intuition and Schmitt's decisionism. AA, like most today, does not understand what Schmitt means by decisionism. This is most clear where he tries to apply the friend-enemy distinction to party politics, what is fundamentally anti-deciaionist.
17. "Any new regime will be established only by the most organised available alternative elite."
Technical elites are not elites. If there is merely a mechanism switch there is no real exception to the norm of power. The train switches tracks or derails – this is neither an engine failure nor an economic catastrophe.
18. "Apolitical formula is an ideological 'top line' that justifies sovereignty ('BS BS. BS BS. therefore we rule')."
The digital encyclopaedia is the sovereign 'top line' of a non-sovereign world. (Post-hoc word association. Therefore BS BS. BS BS.')
19. "Apolitical formula cannot brook an 'and'."
The apolitical by nature cannot be a formula. The maxim must have some infinite quality which no formula can even chip away at.
20. "'Clear them out' is the only political formula that can unite dissidents against the current ruling class."
'Clear them out, and, but, leave me out.'
Technical elites are not elites. If there is merely a mechanism switch there is no real exception to the norm of power. The train switches tracks or derails – this is neither an engine failure nor an economic catastrophe.
18. "Apolitical formula is an ideological 'top line' that justifies sovereignty ('BS BS. BS BS. therefore we rule')."
The digital encyclopaedia is the sovereign 'top line' of a non-sovereign world. (Post-hoc word association. Therefore BS BS. BS BS.')
19. "Apolitical formula cannot brook an 'and'."
The apolitical by nature cannot be a formula. The maxim must have some infinite quality which no formula can even chip away at.
20. "'Clear them out' is the only political formula that can unite dissidents against the current ruling class."
'Clear them out, and, but, leave me out.'
Channel name was changed to «Quantus tremor est futurus - Actaeon Journal»
Name change alert. To make it distinct from other projects and also clarify the apocalyptic intent.
On Power
1. "Power is defined by 'who rules'"
Power is not only 'who rules', which is a tautology, it is a force directed towards a specific end or fate. One may speak of destructive power, doomed might – as in Menoetius, the titan. Absolute destruction too is a power, and it acts against sovereignty.
2. "Mosca’s Law: the organised 100 will always defeat the disorganised 1000."
A god will defeat millions of the organised; the law will make mortal the immortal.
3. "'Who says organisation, says oligarchy'"
Oligarchy requires a level of nobility and aristocracy. It is often a mixed state directed against democracy, or an emergency state when monarchy fails. Organisation approaches its absolute limit in the technical democracy – the total plebiscite.
4. "There is no genuine separation of powers."
There is, and we are living in it. Here Parvini contradicts another thesis, that "Culture is downstream from law."
5. "There are no neutral institutions."
The fundamental law of technical democracy is neutralisation. Therefore, there are no neutral institutions to the degree that the world approaches one total neutral institution.
https://actaeon.substack.com/p/a-dialogue-against-neema-parvinis
1. "Power is defined by 'who rules'"
Power is not only 'who rules', which is a tautology, it is a force directed towards a specific end or fate. One may speak of destructive power, doomed might – as in Menoetius, the titan. Absolute destruction too is a power, and it acts against sovereignty.
2. "Mosca’s Law: the organised 100 will always defeat the disorganised 1000."
A god will defeat millions of the organised; the law will make mortal the immortal.
3. "'Who says organisation, says oligarchy'"
Oligarchy requires a level of nobility and aristocracy. It is often a mixed state directed against democracy, or an emergency state when monarchy fails. Organisation approaches its absolute limit in the technical democracy – the total plebiscite.
4. "There is no genuine separation of powers."
There is, and we are living in it. Here Parvini contradicts another thesis, that "Culture is downstream from law."
5. "There are no neutral institutions."
The fundamental law of technical democracy is neutralisation. Therefore, there are no neutral institutions to the degree that the world approaches one total neutral institution.
https://actaeon.substack.com/p/a-dialogue-against-neema-parvinis
Quantus tremor est futurus - Actaeon Journal
A Dialogue against Neema Parvini's Fifty-Nine Presumptuous Theses of Nihilist Irrationalism Concerning the Power of what is really…
On Power 1. "Power is defined by 'who rules'" Power is not only 'who rules', which is a tautology, it is a force directed towards a specific end or fate. One may speak of destructive power, doomed might – as in Menoetius, the titan. Absolute destruction too…
The ethnicity is only the average of heroic men.
The almost-despairing is closest to nothingness; neither god nor devil compels him.
The greatest spirit includes and surpasses action. Cyrus raises the lowest men into centaurs. Beating a man into the ground would simply make him another Thersites.
For God is above all the knowing, and his followers the well-interpreted.