/lit/ - Literature

>>9786653
castaneda too; i like castaneda. i like all of these guys. the problem is certainly the scary machine, but the scary machines are there because people get technologized. now in some sense that's not all bad - i *do* believe that Mechanosphere is the correct way to describe an immanent/univocal world, and i don't share all of heidegger's technopessimism. tech is good, it's wonderful. it's decadence and ignorance that suck. and these will come with poverty, much else. to my mind, at least, it's unbecoming to hate or loathe or fear or despise humanity. just not good for you or anyone else. but thinking in 19C/20C terms - the masses, the crowd - only invites this. you are right, as always, anon: it's much more necessary to talk about heroism and the buddha. if this comes through evola, then more Big Ups for julius evola.

>So heroes aren't simply stronger folks. They're problem solvers. You don't kill the dragon by facing it onwards all the time. You find its weaknesses. You find the logical inconsistencies that will defuse the creature.
yes my man. yes yes. now this gets interesting, of course, because we don't want to get confused about this
>not that you are
>it's actually me
>anyways

consider Freud and Jung. I is an Other; ok. but - is the Other the other that you encounter in society? or is it the Other within? the lacanian Big Other ofc is *both;* that Big Other lives within you, but seems to be encountered all around. so Zizek for example will connect this - not a crazy idea - to Hegel, and go from there. more recently Peterson seems to be saying that Hegel has to be let go of, it's Jung that matters; to my mind these are still complementary processes in many ways. all of this shit is describing developmental psychology, phenomenology of spirit: and *however* you get to it, it makes sense.

i have read a lot of this guy too and i like him. i really do. not so much the California Buddhism or Integral stuff but the same developmental psychology that seems to get reconfirmed everywhere. the need to struggle, overcome, integrate the I/You, *however* it is conceived. that,if nothing else, is what philosophy can do today. forget critique of capital. just work on critique of *retardedness.* talk about individuals who can still be rescued from their own mimetic fuckery. because that's what's it's all about.

postmodern civ is what it is. capital gonna capital. but even before you really *can* optimize for intelligence you have to sort yourself out first, no?
of course that's how it is.

anyways. ramble ramble. don't hate on me b/c i like wilber. he's cool & has his flaws. evola is more fun by far. so back to your based post.

>So when you find the dragon, you kill it and the tribe is all the better for it.
yes.

>So the real hero is always on the realm of Logos-Ethos-Pathos. He's riding the wave. He's free and unbound, birthing Order and hierarchy all around. Life finds a way.
the ubermensch then. can't argue here.

(cont'd)

Is /lit/ interested in a new age philosophy thread? Included, but not limited to, the following:

>post-nihilism
>post-existentialism
>post-postmodernism
>posthumanism
>transhumanism
>-ism of your choice, with fries & salad
>you get the idea

A little background: the Axial Age

>Jaspers described the Axial Age as "an interregnum between two ages of great empire, a pause for liberty, a deep breath bringing the most lucid consciousness". It has also been suggested that the Axial Age was a historically liminal period, when old certainties had lost their validity and new ones were still not ready.

>In addition to Jaspers, the philosopher Eric Voegelin referred to this age as The Great Leap of Being, constituting a new spiritual awakening and a shift of perception from societal to individual values. Thinkers and teachers like the Buddha, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Anaxagoras contributed to such awakenings which Plato would later call anamnesis, or a remembering of things forgotten.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age

First thought: nihilism is to me the necessary and general condition. However: can anybody seriously call themselves "nihilists" anymore? With a straight face? And don't we all know this? Isn't that why it's the age of ideology?

Nihilism is the precursor to ideology; but one problem today is excessive self-awareness of ideologies. More Jung and less Freud may be required.

Second thought: If we know everything is ideology, doesn't it make sense to adopt a super-ideological perspective? An ideology that includes other ideologies? Is there even another option?

Note: in my view, 'capitalism' is not an ideology, any more than 'nihilism' is.

Third thought: maybe we're in an ideological axial age. Really drawing the conclusions from this would be the step beyond postmodernism. As I see it there are two options: super-tribalism (likely, but grim) and super-cosmopolitanism (unlikely, but more attractive). Transhumanism cuts both ways here.

Fourth thought: a lot starts with Nietzsche. But in addition to the ubermensch there are also the "Good Europeans." It is my suspicion that Nietzsche would have taken Goethe over Cesare Borgia. More Goethes are a good look. Goethe does not do ideology.

Final thought: in 2017 we're heading away from globalization. Fair point. But it stands to reason that eventually we're going to head back there. And yes, I do enjoy talking out of my ass.

So I'll leave it there for now. New age/global brain/integral/East-West philosophy general. Good luck out there today, you sexy bastards.