/lit/ - Literature

>>18788568
It's all the same but brought back into actuality. It must be done, otherwise we would lose understanding of it. Just like your image brings old notions into our time and our horizon of immediate understanding. Read Deleuze's Nietzsche.

>>18788568
The fuss is that Nietzsche writes really well. Especially if you read him in the original

>>18788568
Is the Dionysian lunar?

>>18788660
Is it not?

>>18788660
Yes

IIT
mentally unstable children who haven't even heard of Orphism misinterpreting what Dionysus represents

>>18788685
>Imagine thinking the thread's about 'that' Dionysus

>>18788697
>imagine thinking
that's the issue here anon

>>18788707
Precisely, anon

>>18788715
no u
checkmate I win

>>18788583
You're talking about Deleuze's use Bergson's duration in N's eternal return, ya?

>>18788786
Spergson can lick my unwashed left nut

>>18788798
Oh? I read something by mark fisher where he said something like "where Deleuze is weakest is in his use of Bergson". I don't really know what he meant by that though, maybe you could explain it to me?

>>18788707
>imagining

>>18788568
>solar/lunar
I feel like both of these tend more apollonian than dionysian

>>18788842
How?

>>18788889
holy shit anon im sorry about that final digit, anyway I don't know enough alchemical shit to really comment on it, but the moon to me seems easily associated with the dream image, like "subversive" Apollonian art that flirts with Dionysus only on its face. I could be completely off in terms of the moon as an alchemical symbol though. The dynamism of Apollo and Dionysus is more complicated than a simple antithesis, as indicated by the existence of a third position, the Socratic-Alexandrian, and more beyond that.

>>18788568
no because all those alchemical solar / lunar connotations came from the 20th century and not from older alchemical texts (they were codes for chemicals)

>>18788989
Bullshit

>>18789003
you could disprove me with one example

>>18789066
Agrippa's De Occulta Philosophia

>>18788568
Just worship Wagner and Schopenhauer and you'll understand.

It's just Platonism without Unity.
>A man should spend his whole life at ‘play’—sacrificing, singing, dancing—so that he can win the favor of the gods and protect himself from his enemies and conquer them in battle.
>the best things we have come from madness, when it is given as a gift of the god.
>Let him put memory, intelligence, knowledge, and true opinion into one class, and ask himself whether anybody would choose to possess or acquire anything else without that class. Most particularly, whether he would want pleasure, as much and as intensive as it can be, without the true opinion that he enjoys it, without recognizing what kind of experience it is he has, without memory of this affection for any length of time. And let him put reason to the same test,
...
>we ought not to seek the good in the unmixed life but in the mixed one.

Apollo and Dionysus are One in Zeus.

>>18789066
>>18789083
>"Disprove me with one example"
>I do so
>No reply
Typical

>>18788568
Should I have read the Greeks before I can read The Birth of Tragedy?

dionysian=masculine, high t, raider warrior who does what he pleases
apollonian=feminine, low t, weakling who obeys orders and loves structure

>>18789066
>>18789083
BTFO

>>18789066
>>18789083
I live for these moments

>>18788637
>Non-verbal
>Creative writing
Really makes you think

Read Sexual Personae

>>18789562
YES. You wont get anything otherwise.

Apollonian is basically self-restraint. But when you got restrained for a long time, you cannot "summon the beast" inside yourself anymore. Examples of embodiment of Appolonianism is Christianity, prudery, Asian parents pushing their kids to get good grades while neglecting social, instinctual aspects of teenage life, in general denial of one's desire, extreme self control, stoicism.

Dionisian is about the other self, the self that is honest with itself. The self that desire without any limitations. It may desire what is regarded as good by the self, or by the flesh in Christianity. Desire such as triumph, glory, sexuality, fertility, sensuality, and so on. All that is regarded as "sins and vices" through Christianity. Ironically, we still live in an Apollonian society even with decline of Christianity. Look up the attitude and beliefs of most people. Where "toxic masculinity" is apparently toxic, flirting is rape, asexual, sterile, ascetic, slave-like life is virtue. At the same time, Dionisian explosions are happening here and there, debauchery, troonism, degeneracy, infidelity, many more. Today's society is not a good society. A good society is where the both elements of Dionisian and Apollonian can work together.

See the samurai for example. He is a warrior, brimming with vitality, natural vigor, power, Dionysian aspects. At the same time he has moral codes, so he may not plunder and rape, he writes Haiku, the Apollonian aspect. While in today's world, Apollonian and Dionysian aspects wrestle together creating chaos everywhere. Probably Christianity is to be blamed for this problem.

>>18789839
Yes but how does that compare/contrast to solar/lunar? Apollonian and Dionysian principles just seem like primarily artistic applications of solar and lunar ones

>>18789839
You are pretty clueless but unfortunately, I don’t have the time to correct you. I’ll just say you would benefit from reading more.

>>18789839

Apollonianism isn't "self restraint" it's the imposition of order upon yourself and the world. To fulfill a need for control. Why confuse self control with self restraint? The transmutation of the apollonian will into moral cuckoldry is what you are describing. Sames for the dionysian transmutation into moral pity and our modern dogma of "free love", "her choice", etc.

All in all normies operate according to declining principles of the will which is the same as moral principles. Those who are strong invoke truth and desire but amorally. In other words, gtfo normie

>>18789936
I don't know much about lunar. But the role of the Sun is as a creator. It gives life. Just like when male sperm enters woman's womb, it creates life. The Earth was barren, but through sun, it nourishes life, of humans, of animals, of plants. The Sun is male and The Earth is female. Don't know about the moon.

>>18789968
>>18789977
Yes, but when you get Jungian, you'll get that humans are made of 2 components. One is the higher self (Apollonian), one is the instinctual self (Dionysian). To deny either is to make a mockery of human being. To fully delegate yourself on Apollonian is just vanity as humans are far from God. To fully delegate it on Dionysian would just make a beast out of a man. A man is a man because he has both the beast and God aspect in himself.

>>18789648
I know, all reductionist infographics like this one suck. It was the best I could find though. McGilchrist explains that language is shared by the two hemispheres, but RH tends to deal with metaphor whereas LH goes for literal meanings. LH is more specialised for grammar, naming, the logic of language, etc., whereas RH for the implicit meanings, for the emotional content in which language embedded, for the aspects of language which are like music. So from an early Wittgensteinian perspective the RH deals with everything that philosophy must be ‘silent’ about, and this actually does bring us back to the early (mistaken) idea that the RH is the ‘silent hemisphere’. Poetry and creative writing has often been seen as an attempt to access the inexpressible and silence (Beckett and Dickinson are two great examples of this), which may bring some truth to the apparent paradox that the RH is less skilled in language use than the LH but more important for producing poetry.

>>18789839
You are just attempting to shoehorn the concept into modern societal issues. It's much more layered than that.

>>18789977
>transmutation of the apollonian will into moral cuckoldry
That isn't what I was implying. Moral cuckoldry is a consequence of centuries of neglect of the Dionysian aspect of human life. You know, the easy word would be "imbalance". I'm not advocating for "Free desire, degeneracy, ura!", I'm more of an advocate of observing the Dionysian aspect instead of indefinitely supressing it as in Christian condemnation of Sins and Vices. Observing it so that we may integrate the Dionysian aspect as in what I said in my example, Samurai society, that embodies both Apollonian and Dionysian ideal.

>>18790023

My point is that Apollonianism is better understood as aesthetic or a mode of will instead of being moral. Empire is Apollonian

>>18790069
Yes, and when an ideology that embraces the Apollonian mode of will while condemning the Dionysian mode of will side relentlessly emerges, such as Christianity, it becomes a moral question, at worst, moral problem.

>>18790084

What makes Christianity moral is its popularity not its aesthetic appeal to understanding and control

>>18790005
>>18790023
Both of you are naïve. The desire for “balance” or “restraint of the Dionysian” is in itself an Apollonian principle. The Dionysian cannot be “controlled” teleologically in the way that the Apollonian wishes, it is immoderation and ecstasy, this is the point. This is what is wrong with Western society. It is not that the Apollonian does not recognise the necessity for its other: of course it does, which is why we are talking about it now. It is that it seeks balance through restraint, when it should instead seek unity through embracing — which means to risk the loss of Apollonian progress altogether. To unite with the Dionysian means to risk being engulfed by it. The West also always places too much value on the Apollonian over the Dionysian, as if the Dionysian were only a necessary evil rather than a truly creative force in its own right. You compare Dionysus to the beast and Apollo to the god, but I say that the beast and god are one: Dionysus is like the Swan who rapes Leda, the “feathered glory” and the “brute blood”, in Yeats’ words. Apollo, in contrast, is all-too-human, because we can understand him. We cannot understand Dionysus, which is why we must submit to him.

>>18790089
What makes Christianity popular is its promise on Afterlife. Even if you can condition humans to be as Apollonian as possible, you cannot remove the Dionysian side that longs for pleasure, even after death. I had my Aunt who is a preacher told me a story about a woman who cucked her boyfriend, but the boyfriend still plans on marrying her anyway because in his religion (Islam), marrying an orphan (the girl) gives you rewards in life, reward from God. Let that sink in. Even if religion supposed to give us "order", "moral", still most of the time the main motivation for its adherers is pleasure. That's why people don't riot or kill each other even if they are dirt poor. Because they believe in the afterlife.

>>18790121

"Christianity is Platonism for the masses". Your post presupposes a set of outward conditions which decide what a man is, it presupposes human weakness and passivity which is what precisely opposes the Apollonian and Dionysian aesthetics. When one is passive one is lacking in will altogether

>>18789148
This

>swearing oneself to Apollonian or Dionysian modes of living and creation
cringe
>making decisions and letting concepts and ideas emerge in Dionysian mindset, then switching to Apollonian to refine and make them presentable
based

Modern life is inherently destructive. Tribal nomadic life is the only few instances where Apollonian and Dionysian aspect can integrate and work together in the people's psyche. It will be long bloody centuries until "humanity become one" and thus people can inhabit the Earth as an "isolated species", thus restoration of Apollonian-Dionysian axis, don't know what would happen when Aliens come.

>>18788568
horoscopes for pseudo-intellectuals

>>18789987
You don't know anything about alchemy do you

>>18788583
good post

>>18788568
anime is dionysian. why?

>>18790405

Anime takes upon an Apollonian mask of apparent but vulgar beauty, adherence to cute and imaginary conventions, every gal is modest in a way that doesn't reflect WHY modesty is good or HOW it is actually performed in the process of courting. It puts upon the viewer an elaborate but obviously fake mask of sanity to conceal its fundamental nature as pedo erotica for social outcasts. Lets not forget its challenge in sustaining in existence within larger Japanese society and the stigmas it faces

>>18790427
I mean that anime characters are always crying and it makes me cry too

>>18790405

Discord post from a friend expounding the same point:

Just like how superhero movies and toy ads on FoxKids are equivalent in their artistic and cultural value, intent, and purpose, so is anime indistinguishable from hentai pornography.
There is great marketing value in self-legitimizing by pretending to be a real piece of entertainment, rather than an ad or softcore pornography.

Remember that shitty-ass fucking batman movie from the mid 90s that was super fucking popular for some inexplicable reason? Batman Forever. That whole show was almost blatantly a 2 hour long toy advertisement. It was just pretending to be a real movie.

Or the whole genre of sexploitation movie? Essentially softcore porn or fetish fuel that's just tame enough to be classified as a movie and make its way to the shelves.

Same with anime. Most of it is essentially designed for sexual titillation, or selling merchandise. They throw in a formulaic plot, so it can be qualified as a TV show.

Riding the line between real entertainment and media garbage allows it to reach a larger audience, but also make it easily defendable, since the ambiguity allows people who watch it to make the case that they're here for the entertainment, not the exploitation. It can't be explicitly categorized, so despite the fact that everyone non-retarded knows what it is and what it's for, it's impossible classify it concretely.
And that's exactly what animeshits do. They know. We know. But it can not be explicitly defined, so it slips by, and gets legitimized.

There is no easier way to identify a hylic than to see if they watch anime. Just like how anime is pornography in the guise of a tv show, so are anime retards animals in the guise of humans.
There are holes in the human pattern recognition process, that can be easily exploited if one is not aware of them.
There are easily identifiable dangers, easily identified safeness, concealed dangers, and then there's dangers that attempt to escape identification altogether.

Maybe this inability immediately classify the ambiguous, is where innuendo comes from. Everyone knows what it means when you invite someone for coffee late at night. But one can feign innocence in case it does not work. Maybe things that live in the ambiguous require conscious and deliberate effort to classify, thus slip by our detectors unless we're actively paying attention.

Mimicry is not just a tactic employed by biological organisms. Memetic organisms also practice mimicry to a great effect. The human cultural environment is the cradle of a new kind of organism.
There's probably a book about this that I won't read.
man, it feels nice to wake up after a great fucking sleep, completely lucid and ready to expend valuable mental energy on schizo bullshit. life is good

>>18790434
>anime is for hylics
this is a new one. though I'm of the opinion that anyone who makes generalizations such as
>anime is either merchandise advertisement or softcore porn
is a narrow minded twat seeking to confirm their biases rather than look at the medium objectively

>>18790405
Anime is Apollonian. All cartoons are inherently left-hemispheric, they have simplistic representations of human faces for those who cannot relate easily with real human faces. Which is why people with autism (ie. over-working in the left hemisphere and deficiencies in the right hemisphere) are drawn to anime. It is a version of the “Apollonian dream world”, a logical fantasy to prevent people from experiencing the Dionysian (the real). This is why it tends to be beloved by social outcasts, people too drawn into introversion and the principium individuationis, unable to participate in the Dionysian collective. Incidentally, it is also why those drawn to anime are drawn towards or attracted by (Apollonian) androgyny, hence anime traps.

>>18788568
Whenever this subject comes up I usually ponder how the worst of both worlds is the absence of both, in which a coarse intellect combines with a faint capacity for pleasure with disastrous synergy, like a grim person in surroundings too awkward and ugly to be attributable to accident, who puts up with them as is, not so much out of habit, but from sheer obliviousness to the the defining difference of ecstasy, as a result contrary to the hidden aim of busywork. That there's no archery without a target is what makes the Dionysian primary, if insufficient for lasting effect, is obvious enough. What's less obvious is that the index of dogma, that is to say arbitrary morality, is its power to stop the fun altogether, as opposed to putting it on pause for further and future arrangement, or as diminishing returns warn. This is what H. L. Mencken's classic rant The Libido For The Ugly addresses, though it invokes Dionysus and Apollo only by implication of a generally heightened fear and loathing in face of freshly minted earthly Hells.

>>18790463
That's a good explanation. What, then, would be a characteristic activity or hobby of the Dionysian?

>>18791109
The most Dionysian thing I can think of is to go clubbing. Or do drugs. Preferably both.

>>18791191
So the Dionysian resorts to indulgence and absurdity in order to cope with reality, while the Apollonian resorts to the "dream state?"

>>18788568
Nietzsche popularized the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy in addition to writing chapters to each in Thus Spoke Zarathustra like the one about the Moon's thieving eyes.

>>18791193
The Dionysian is acceptance of reality, it IS reality. Dionysian pessimism, as Nietzsche understood it, is the ability to say “Yes” to the world as much as possible. The world is absurdity, which the Dionysian embraces. People believe that clubbing is some sort of hedonist escape, which it can be from a superficial point of view. But if done properly it is spiritual union with God, just like in the Eleusinian mysteries. It is more ‘real’ than literature or anything that the rational Apollonian mind considers important or to have ‘utility’.

I think Confucianism, Christianity, Stoicism, Buddhism are all Apollonian with different flavors

>infant circumcision as medically induced apollonian disabling of sexual union ability
i drink and hope to die

>>18788568
It's Intuition vs Sensory. Nietzsche was an ENFP who struggled to control his life.

>>18791306
So we (in this thread, not you) have went from questioning why the Dionysian is so attacked, to attacking its Apollonian counterpart. Is there no hope of a synthesis? Are not some of your irreconcilable claims just begging the question?

>>18791476
Interesting that you should say that because Jung himself interpreted the Apollonian/Dionysian polarities as representing introversion/extraversion respectively. But it seems to me like introversion and intuition are correlated just as sensing and extraversion, because the former are drawn to the subjective world of ideas and patterns, whereas the latter towards the objective world of things, objects, sensations. Although I have qualms with Myers-Briggs, I personally do like to imagine the correspondence of the Apollonian with INTJ and Dionysian with ESFP.

Your typing of Nietzsche is unusual, but I don't necessarily disagree with it. He is frequently typed as an INTJ which I find sort of ridiculous, but I can also see the reasons why they type him that way. The problem is that he seemed to fluctuate wildly between Apollonian/Dionysian worldviews in his philosophy that is quite difficult to pin him his 'true' personality down. Your typing as ENFP would work well with the reading that Nietzsche's true alleigiance was as the "last disciple of Dionysus".

>>18791606
Dionysian and Apollonian are 2 different aspects of life. My psyche got fucked up because I don't have parents that understand the Dionysian side very well. The Apollonian side tends to "brush things off", things that are for them unpleasant, instinctual aspects since to them humans have rose up too high from animals that humans goals are to chase some kind of a platonic ideal, and banish the animal forever. Thus, an Apollonian society, with Apollonian mindset so ingrained in its people think of it as a polarity. Apollonian good, Dionysian bad. So when for example, they saw a hot girl doing exhibitionism stuff, they will condemn it on the surface but deep down, their Dionysian side rages, instinctual, primal rage. It is not a good thing when the human being is far too removed from the animal side, yet it is also a bad thing if humans live their lives as brutes or savages. They think that they are "enlightened, progressive", but deep down they are still the same as any other animals. We are different yet similar to other animals. That's why we need to UNDERSTAND the Dionysian side instead banishing it, declaring it not a part of us.

I was bullied. During my teenage years, I seek to connect with other kids but I was unable. Now, I often ponder the root of the problem. Was it because I was hospitalized during elementary school? Was it because I didn't socialize with other kids during my critical early development years? But when I try to communicate my struggle to my father, he just said the only important thing is study, and I shouldn't be so "prideful" to want to be noticed, that's it stamp it, banish it as SIN, just like what the Christian ideology did to us. I wish my parents did a better job at raising me back then so my present is not as bleak as of now. I also acknowledge I have some responsibilities in my fate. I wish I could stand up for myself better when I was bullied.

>>18791684
we are so fucked. Christianity is an evolutionary maladaption that's ingrained in our DNA from 2000 years of conditioning. we are so fucked it's unreal.

>>18791587
I am personally more drawn to a position of valuing the Dionysian slightly over the Apollonian. I'm influenced by McGilchrist's book in this because he sees the right hemisphere as the means towards synthesis. Whereas the LH tends towards analytical separation and division (which is embodied in language especially, such as in the divisions between signifier and signified, word and world), the RH brings everything back into a holistic unity. LH tends towards alienation and individualistic views of self, RH back to unifying with the community. Co-operation requires both division and unity, but the principle of unity (RH) ultimately has to triumph division. I get however that this is unsatisfying, because it seems to devalue the Apollonian so greatly, and we have the intuition that the two hemispheres should be working 50/50 in a true synthesis. I don't have an answer to this objection.

I also partly subscribe to the view that it's necessary for these two principles to be forever in conflict anyway, because the conflict is what creates life itself. If we were to reach synthesis we would be at the boring point of the Absolute, which is nice from a dialectical standpoint but I believe intolerable from the point of view of experience.

>>18790405
It follows its own internal logic and goes for archetypal rather than realistic characters.

>>18790463
Apollonian or Dionysian?

>>18788568
>every philosopher/writer since (at least) Epic of Gilgamesh: OMG DUDES DID YOU NOTICE PEOPLE HAVE DUAL NATURE
Fucking hacks didn't bring anything new since the dawn of time

>>18791684
Nietzsche was a mistake.

>>18791697
Paglia categorizes the Judeo-Christianity/pagan duality as being an example of the Apollonian/Dionysian dynamic.

>Sexual Personae seeks to demonstrate the unity and continuity of western culture—
something that has inspired little belief since the period before World War I. The book accepts the
canonical western tradition and rejects the modernist idea that culture has collapsed into meaningless fragments. I argue that Judeo-Christianity never did defeat paganism, which still flourishes in art, eroticism, astrology, and pop culture.

>The first volume of Sexual Personae examines antiquity, the Renaissance, and Romanticism from the late eighteenth century to 1900. I demonstrate that Romanticism turns almost immediately into Decadence, which I find throughout major nineteenth-century authors, even Emily Dickinson. The second volume will show how movies, television, sports, and rock music embody all the pagan themes of classical antiquity. My approach throughout the book combines disciplines: literature, art history, psychology, and religion. What is art? How and why does an artist create? The amorality, aggression, sadism, voyeurism, and pornography in great art have been ignored or glossed over by most academic critics. I fill in the space between artist and art work with metaphors drawn from the Cambridge School of Anthropology. My largest ambition is to fuse Frazer with Freud.

>What is sex? What is nature? I see sex and nature as brutal pagan forces. My stress on the truth in sexual stereotypes and on the biologic basis of sex differences is sure to cause controversy. I reaffirm and celebrate woman’s ancient mystery and glamour. I see the mother as an overwhelming force who condemns men to lifelong sexual anxiety, from which they escape through rationalism and physical achievement.

>>18791606
That other response wasn't me.

What you gotta remember is that introversion and extraversion for the irrational types (intuition and sensory) is unique. It's all about information - gathering it (Extraversion) and organizing it (Introversion)

I called the Apollonian intuition because it's all head stuff. Imagination, "reason," stuff you can't touch. Sensory is real. Dionysus doesn't just ponder, he acts.

It's pretty obvious Nietzsche is intuitive and it makes sense he lusted after that dionysian sensory. It was his nemesis, his shadow. The question is, was he constantly reviewing the same intuitive idea, to the downfall of gathering new experiences, or was he constantly coming up with new ideas, to the downfall of truly controlling his mind to be present for real world experiences?

I'm projecting myself, obviously, but that's why I call Nietzsche an ENFP. He feels like the latter. You see people with demon Introverted functions (like his Si) implode when they don't exercise them enough. He stayed in his own head so long, he literally got stuck there. I love him, and he terrifies me.

>>18791758
No shit. What do you DO with that dual nature, genius?

>>18791837
>What do you DO with that dual nature, genius?
Create yet another two words to describe it for sure. What about megomatic/animesean parts of a soul?

>>18789083
contains no such passage. post a passage of de occulta philosophia where alchemical solar/lunar is discussed in non chemical terms

>>18791061
Ummmm in English please

>>18792282
The rest of the chapter is like this. Not chemical.

>>18792608
not alchemical either. he's citing astrologers and philosophers, not alchemists.

>>18792973
Bro are you retarded. Do you think alchemy is totally unrelated to astrology and philosophy? In any case, you asked me to provide one example of solar/lunar being discussed in non-chemical terms and I did so. Just accept the fact that you're an idiot already.

>>18792982
i asked for an example where "alchemical solar/lunar is discussed in non chemical terms". from an alchemical treatise or something. instead youve posted a passage that cites albumasar, orpheus, iamblicus, heraclitus, the platonists, the chaldeans, the egyptians. he is clearly talking about the astrological significance of the sun and moon as planets, and not about the sun and moon symbols that are used in alchemical texts, this is why he cited an astrologer and cited zero alchemists.

if he was talking about the alchemical symbols of sun and moon he would be citing authorities like zosimos or jabir or aristotle or hermes

>>18791799
Pagan is a /dev/null OR (recycle bin) OR (iTrash)
It is a word that reflects antagonism with that outside the walled gardens of Western tyranny. White people are not allowed to try Buddhism or Hinduism or any calling back to any ancient Western preChristian tradition without serious social repercussions. It's like having your personal pearl cabinet invaded by swine who know you didnt cast those pearls. Whites ars spiritually embargo'd and sanctioned.

>>18793006
Rather than explain to you the links between astrology and alchemy, I will instead recommend that you look up pre-20th century alchemical works and find the many many examples that exist, such as the Rosary of the Philosophers (1550), Splendor Solis (1582), etc. Sun and Moon as alchemical symbols is very clearly not a 20th century invention. I assume you're referring to people like Evola; he certainly had his own interpretations of alchemical symbolism, as all alchemists seem to, but he was working from older sources which were clearly not concerned with mundame chemistry.

>>18793071
yes i am well aware that the sun and the moon are prominent alchemical symbols. they are codes for sulphur and mercury. sun = sulphur moon = mercury. the whole idea that the sun has this broader metaphysical meaning in alchemy where its comparable to nietzchean apollonianism has nothing to do with pre-20th century alchemy and is basically a jungian idea.

>>18793087
"We ought therefore to join two waters, the Sulphur of Gold, and the soul and body of its Mercury, Sol and Lune, the male and female, two sperms, heaven and earth, and two, as I may say, Argent vives, and out of which alone the philosophers say their stone is made; which pitiful fellows mistake for crude mercury."

From beyond the grace, Marsilio Ficino is literally calling you a pitiful fellow for misunderstanding symbolism.

>>18788568
To obtain the Gnosis, e.g. the Absolute, one must advance from the Dionysian mode of pure sense certainty and being, into th Apollonian mode of abstraction. However, the Absolute as Spirit, the world coming to see its self as pure otherness, and then returning to its self as itself, requires a return to the Dionysian mode, albeit while in command of the Concept. Though we ascend ever higher into glorious abstractions, in the end we must return. The Absolute is a circle of circles and always returns in on Itself.

So it isn't two poles on a line as Nietzsche would have it, but a circle. Or rather, a spiral forever radiating outward but returning to itself.

In this spiral, the cataclysmic dualisms of modernity are made whole through the process of dialectical sublation.

Meditations on the Tarot has a good discourse on the shape in the chapter.on the Magician Arcana, however the best discourse is to be found around the end of the Preface of the Phenomenology of Spirit, after the section of mathematics, as well as in Hackett's commentary on those paragraphs in the Ladder.

>>18793124
grave*

>>18793128
That's nice, I think something similar. Personally, I prefer using Solar and Lunar symbolism though.

>>18793128
>Tiny being can understand the inconceivably vaster and alien universe to which it belongs by gazing at its own navel
Why does anyone even think this

>>18793169
Because the microcosm is the macrocosm. If the tiny being belongs to the universe, why shouldn't the universe belong to the tiny being? The whole point is that they're one and the same.

>>18793169
That isn't really the point. The point is that epistemological realism is a flawed way to think about knowing. It isn't the individual that makes the Odyssey of Spirit, but the entire course of history.

>>18793180
Why is the microcosm the macrocosm? Does a grain of sand understand a beach, does an insect understand a forest? For all we know we are one type of thing and there are uncountable other types of things out there, we dont even know if there is a single substrate to reality as such.

>>18788583
only good post on the thread
the rest are pretty shit

>Apollonian
>rational, logical
>The dream state
Seems contradictionary to me.

>>18793211
>fat pig
>'hot'
Seems contradictionary to me.

>>18793199
>we dont even know if there is a single substrate to reality as such
Read Spinoza. There are no "things", if that's taken to mean ontologically distinct entities. The insect understands the forest because it is a product of the forest environment, and the forest is in turn a product of the insect's niche-construction; they're innately linked and essentially one. The grain of sand understands the beach by the same virtue, and by the fact that consciousness is continuous with non-consciousness (life originated in insensate matter).

>>18793214
You're lying if you say you wouldn't plough that, anon. Imagine her fertile valleys.

>>18793220
> There are no "things", if that's taken to mean ontologically distinct entities
You know this how exactly? The only thing of which you can actually be sure are your individual conscious moments, which certainly are distinct from the objects within them, your awareness is not a universal sea

>>18793235
>The only thing of which you can actually be sure are your individual conscious moments
Subjective idealism is the most retarded thing ever.
>You know this how exactly?
Could a tree exist without soil? Would soil exist without trees? Can you exist without eating, breathing, drinking, or without parents? Could your parents' parents exist without the Earth being just this close to the Sun and without the first protozoan? Everything depends on everything else; "things" are over-abstracted illusions.

>>18793251
Why is what I said retarded, the literal only thing you know exists is clearly discontinuous.

Things depending on each other doenst make them the same thing

>>18793283
>Things depending on each other doenst make them the same thing
A substance is that which is independent; if things depend on one another, they are not substances; if they are not substances, then they are better conceived of as parts of one substance (read Spinoza); if they are parts of one substance, they are the same thing.

>>18793291
This is a meaningless word game, why cant fundamentally different things interact and depend on each other

>>18793297
Because then they wouldn't be "fundamentally different", idiot. If something cannot exist without another thing, then why would you say it was its own thing? You've got used to abstract concepts.

>>18792029
If it helps you unify them, be my guest

>>18793302
I would say they are their own thing if they have different qualities, you are imagining some meta category that includes both of them that is totally superfluous

>>18793311
>some meta category that includes both of them that is totally superfluous
Totally superfuous, right. The idea of metaphysical unity is essential to any philosophy; if you think it's superfluous, why are you even bothering to engage in debates like this? Just go and masturbate and eat dirt. In any case, it's not "superfluous"; there must be some unity in order for things to interract; if they were truly distinct things, they would be incapable of interacting.
>they are their own thing if they have different qualities
What qualities are you thinking of? Almost all qualities are over-abstractions like things; really, they're just conventional terms for certain arrangements of matter.

>>18793326
Why cant distinct things interact? Why does reality need to be homogeneous to you?

>>18793334
" PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.

Proof.—If several distinct substances be granted, they must be distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of their attributes, or by the difference of their modifications (Prop. iv.). If only by the difference of their attributes, it will be granted that there cannot be more than one with an identical attribute. If by the difference of their modifications—as substance is naturally prior to its modifications (Prop. i.),—it follows that setting the modifications aside, and considering substance in itself, that is truly, (Deff. iii. and vi.), there cannot be conceived one substance different from another,—that is (by Prop. iv.), there cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only. Q.E.D."

Spinoza is one of the few philosophers to understand what "substance" means. Read Spinoza (or any book desu).

>>18793347
This only proves we cant conceive of it, not that it cant exist, and it is a shaky proof anyway since the two substances need only have a single element in common while the rest of them could be alien

>>18788568
Different actualizations of the same untagible phenomenons have worth because each angle reveals different aspects. They complement each other. This is one of the most important lessons you can learn about life. You are welcome.

>>18793364
>This only proves we cant conceive of it, not that it cant exist
Is this really the line of argument you want to go down, very basic epistemological doubts? I don't want to get into the basis of human thought and its connection with the world, anon; if you don't understand how arguments work, then I can't help you. Do you want Spinoza to provide empirical proof for his metaphysics??
>it is a shaky proof anyway since the two substances need only have a single element in common while the rest of them could be alien
How does that change anything?

>>18793391
How do the epistemological doubts not make metaphysics based on particularities of human thought clearly suspect? I still dont understand why you think two distinct substances shouldn't be able to interact

>>18793409
*All* metaphysics are based on "particularities of human thought", genius; that's how philosophy works. It's a facile point, in an argument about substance, to say "oh how can we be sure that this is the case outside of our minds"; that's a debate about epistemology and I can tell that you are the kind of retard just to repeatedly say "yeah but this only proves we can conceive of it, not that it exists".
>I still dont understand why you think two distinct substances shouldn't be able to interact
First of all, there cannot be two substances, see >>18793347. Secondly., if somehow there were two substances, they would be unable to interact because interaction requires some principle or quality in common: me and you are interacting now because we both have bodies which exist in extension. Two totally distinct substances would have nothing in common, no medium of interaction. This is also because substance itself is the medium of interaction and the metaphysical unity which ensures our ability, as modes of substance, to interact.

>>18793443
How is that not a valid objection to metaphysics?

>>18793443
Also you are avoiding again the two different substances could be primarily different and just have one aspect in common that allows interaction

>>18793449
It's an objection to all metaphysics; you're not challenging the particular one I am offering, you're undermining the entire field. It's like if I ask whether you want to go to the cinema or a restaurant and you start talking about the exploitative nature of capitalism; it's irrelevant to a specific discussion within accepted parameters. The parameters of a discussion about the metaphysics of substance are that we can engage in philosophical discussion and reach truths which correspond to the nature of reality. This is fundamental.

>>18793457
It's not a question of degrees of difference; it's an absolute thing. If two substances shared an attribute they would, by definition, not be two substances.

>>18793468
I dont know why you think I have to abide by your rules of discussion of metaphysics, I asked how you can expect to know universal reality as only a tiny part of it that was not designed to do so
>>18793472
What is the point of such a term if the two entities in question are radically different and mutually unintelligible and inaccessible apart from some one restricted form of interaction

>>18793491
Anon, I have to go and do things irl now. If this thread is still up when I return, I will continue to attempt to educate you.

>>18793524
If you're just going to repeat Spinoza and get angry if I question his premises there isn't much point

>>18793542
>question his premises
You mean "misunderstand his argument"

>>18793016
Not really; there are more and more western buddhists/hinduists and christianity is shat on by most "modern" people

>>18793128
Basado.

>>18790355
Moon is your feminine (tranny) side, right?

>>18791697
seems like you’re the only fucked up retard for thinking that.

>>18790434
>Discord post from a friend expounding the same point:
I already knew xir was a discord tranny but the tryhard cringepost just seals the deal.

>>18794786
>n-no you
You deserve neither pity or mercy in regards to what is coming.

>all these midwits trying to outmidwit each other

>>18794968
And (you), anon, the greatest midwit of them all

ok guys consider this - go outside

>>18795752
How about you go outside - of life?

>>18795808
what then?

>>18795830
I dunno, you'll just have to make it up as you go along.

>>18788815
Niggers

>>18789573
Is this how Jung ties into Nietszche?

>>18790103
Retard. There's no reason for the Apollonian side to seek "balance with the Dionysian" as both of them are polar opposites. WE, the EGO has the burden of balancing between them which is for most humans a tall order and most of us did a shitty job achieving it.

>>18796602
Not at all

>>18788568
First time I have heard of this, but I want to be an Apollonian. How do I do it?

>>18789573
no

>>18790338
They're not for categorizing people. It's not a horoscope.

>>18797240
The ego itself is tied more to the Apollonian than the Dionysian, which in contrast is more representative of the unconscious. Identifying your self wholly with your ego is a very Apollonian thing to do. It is why the rational West did not even realise the unconscious existed until the 20th century. Anything that we consciously "decide" to do, like the attempt to "balance", is inherently Apollonian and therefore limited.

>>18788583
i kneel

>>18793546
All arguments come from individual perspectives and therefore can't possibly convincingly demonstrate anything like a metaphysical realm independent of thought, a thing-in-itself, the absolute, a singular will that everything is an extension of, and so on. You are peddling bullshit and you probably don't even realize.

>>18788568
>Isn't this just a greco-themed rehash of pic related?

>>18790175
Troof
Everything in moderation, including moderation
I believe one cannot truly praise God without enjoying his whole creation
That is, for those religious fanatics who make their whole life about God, their whole personality about God, become like nerds in a fandom about God, pray all the time,
they start to dilute the meaning of their prayer and worship, as in some ways they are there not by choice and sheer appreciation for the highest good, but out of emotional necessity
since they've based their whole life and selfworth on this issue, what else are they going to do?

>>18789839
>All that is regarded as "sins and vices" through Christianity
Yes though I might add that stuff was really only restricted of Christians after the Black Death and Syphillis came about
One of the greatest historical cultural insights I ever gained was when I learned that those orgies held in the catholic church in the early middle ages were not actually a sign of church corruption (as even my fairly liberal modern school history classes had taught me) but instead an expression of praise to God (and of course, y'know, fun)


>>18791757
Imagine making a whole multiseason globohomo style show entirely about puberty jokes

>>18799437
Do you genuinely think you're the first person to consider the effect of subjectivity on philosophy and question the notion of objective truth? Your point really isn't the own you think it is, anon; anybody who has considered things for more than a minute or who has glimpsed one page of a book of philosophy will have thought the same as you.

>>18799610
>Do you genuinely think you're the first person to consider the effect of subjectivity on philosophy and question the notion of objective truth?
No. I'm not an unread moron.

>Your point really isn't the own you think it is, anon; anybody who has considered things for more than a minute or who has glimpsed one page of a book of philosophy will have thought the same as you.
Yes, I'm aware that many have thought about these things and continue to believe in what they feel is correct. What is correct is always based on feeling; underlying all of our thoughts, our logic, is a feeling, an axiomatic faith, that is simultaneously genetically, physiologically and psychologically derived from our individual organic structure. For certain structures, the belief in objective truth, in the metaphysical realm, a thing-in-itself, the absolute, a singular will, is undeniable, and everything I am saying here is meaningless; for others, the emptiness of these notions is undeniable, and everything you are saying is meaningless. So why does it matter if others have thought about these things before? Do you really think someone who feels the way I do will ever come around to someone who feels the way you do? Why do you argue?

>>18799640
>Why do you argue?
Just to add: perhaps it's an intrinsic part of your structure to do so, despite the apparent pointlessness of it, seeing that you do not believe that there can be multiple substances.

>>18799640
>Why do you argue?
We've been arguing with each other. You can't take refuge now in your objective truth of subjectivity and pretend you're above these petty discussions. I don't know why you're asking why I care and argue about these things; it's much stranger that you do, seeing as it's all subjective and people never change their minds.

>>18799677
>We've been arguing with each other.
This was my first post in the thread here >>18799437 but it still wouldn't have really answered the question even if I had been the same person as before. You're avoiding the question deliberately. I suspect I'm right here >>18799655

>>18799685
Why would my belief in one substance mean that arguing with anonymous strangers online is pointless?

>>18799610
>other people thought of this point also
That's not an argument against it lol

>>18799691
I'm saying the opposite. Because you don't believe there can be multiple substances, you think that everyone can learn "the truth." If you really took your faith to heart then you would think it possible even to convince a dog of this objective truth of yours.

>>18799699
Truly deep and insightful, thank you

>>18799707
It wasn't at all, but I guess you're easy to impress.

>>18789221
>>18789598
>>18789616
samefag

>>18799798

>>18799798
Nah, I only posted one of those

>>18799717
To do a 180, you're right in >>18799699: the unity of one substance provides the ground and telos of discussion. We can only communicate because there is an assurance of intelligibility provided by substance: our minds are shaped by the same forces, in a general, evolutionary sense and in our particular experience. There's a continuity through from physical forces, to evolutionary algorithms, to cognition; the same structure is seen in our subconscious through to conscious etc. I still don't know why you bother to post here if your position is subjectivity and, if I wanted to be as annoying as you, I would say that the fact you do so shows your intuition of unity.

>>18799819
Not so fast!
It was me the whole time!

>>18799861
W-wha...? Who am I??

>>18799876
Anon I... ... I don't know..

>>18799895
Is this gnosis?

>>18799902
Yes.

>>18799902

>>18799921
Idk how to edit things on a computer, let alone my phone

>>18790461
It's true though. Except for rare excepts that really aren't nearly as good as weebs make them out to be. Normies oversell the worth of them too.
Normies mainly praise things like Studio Ghibli movies because it allows them to feel ~cosmopolitan~ and sophisticated.
"Look at how open and eclectic I am! I'm so sophisticated that I can even recognize rare gems in what is otherwise a swamp of utter dreck! See, I judge things on individual merit rather than write them off based on prejudice."
The rare few Japanese cartoons that aren't tacky and boring are rarer than people like you think. And even then, they only look as good as they do in contrast with the rest of what the genre has to offer (it's a genre, not a medium. Get over it).
It's entertainment at best. Turn off the computer, grow up, stop watching shit designed for emotionally maladjusted teenagers, and read a fucking book nigger.

>>18799921
I'm getting a different reading here, anon

>>18796591
:C

>>18799845
>the unity of one substance provides the ground and telos of discussion
If by discussion you mean one individual tyrannizing another by claiming to have access to an objective truth, then sure. That's not a real discussion, though; it's a glorified echo chamber.

>>18800346
I'm talking about discussion in the abstract, not this particular one.

>>18800357
You're pissing in the wind is what you're doing.

>>18800370
Actually, I'm fucking your mum.

>>18789066
In the parlance of alchemy, to whom does "puffers" refer?

>>18788568
Threadly reminder that contrary to Nietzsche preaches, the cult of Dionysus was very popular among commoners in Ancient Greece.

>>18800536
Yeah, Dionysus is literally representative of the mob/crowd in a single will.

>>18799602
>Imagine making a whole multiseason globohomo style show entirely about puberty jokes
Kikes don't imagine. They're will to power.

>>18800536
>contrary to Nietzsche preaches
That isn't contrary though

>>18800536
Nietzsche doesn't preach.

>>18800608
That's wrong though, 'Dionysus' is the Greek name for Osiris.

>>18801343
Everybody preaches

>>18789839
>Apollonian is basically self-restraint.
>Dionisian is about the other self, the self that is honest with itself
Did you read anything beside the wikipedia article before posting this?

>>18801343
>Dionysus is the greek...
Read mythical accounts about Dionysus, read Euripides, Girard, etc.

>>18801788
"Osiris is, in the Greek language, Dionysus." - Herodotus

>>18801865
Herodotus is just one source, you shouldn’t take his word for gospel. Osiris and Dionysus share the characteristic of being the dying and resurrecting god, but what else? Dionysus’ myths and persona do not align well with Osiris otherwise. All you can say is that Herodotus believed Osiris and Dionysus were identical, but when you learn more about either their characters are almost entirely different.

>>18801865
You are avoiding the crux of the issue here. Sure they are obviously similar, they represent the same things, but Dionysus is still different, he represents with a much more powerful pertinence what Osiris' myth does. Dionysus is much more comprehensive. Anyway you can't just repeat incongruent shit to avoid a real inquiry here, I refuse to keep trying.

>>18801912
>>18801939
I was very surprised to hear the contention that Dionysus and Osiris were the same god, given - as you say - the differences, but as I am not a scholar I accepted Algis Uzdavinys' argument that they are the same. Obviously you disagree, if you don't want to make the argument about why you disagree perhaps you could point me to a worthy text on the subject?

>>18802099
Uzdavinys is a perennialist, this means he will obviously try to conflate everything into some all comprehensive unity with a purely metaphysical, rational repersentation. He is right about many things such as the deeply mystical and religious character of philosophy (either in its beginnings with Parmenides, Thales, Pythagoras or with Plato and the platonists), the important influences of eastern culture on the greek world, etc. What have you read on the myths of Dionysus and Osiris? Apart from the fertility symbolique, what else is similar? Where is the equivalent of the Maenads with Osiris? Where is madness and intoxication? Where is the double god-animal (bull) ambiguity in Osiris? A more subtle scrutiny will offer other differences. But as I said, this has nothing to do with the original issue we were talking about.

>>18802242
I think you might be confusing me with another anon but I'll try to put forward some answers though, in my uneducated way.

>Apart from the fertility symbolique, what else is similar?
The dismemberment and reassembly is certainly important.

>Where is the equivalent of the Maenads with Osiris?
If, as Uzdavinys claims, the teachings of the Osirian school were the central teachings of the Chaldean mystery school - which was ecstatic - the adherents may be interpreted as an analogue of the Maenads.

>Where is madness and intoxication?
This is a difficult one, it does seem that Osiris is of Order and Dionysos of Chaos, an unresolvable tension. But, we could say that the centrality of beer (undeniably an intoxicant) IS present in Egyptian religion. (82nd prayer of the Book of Going Forth By Day as an example).

>Where is the double god-animal (bull) ambiguity in Osiris?
"The reason for the bull's death was to join it with Osiris and ritually re-enact the cycle of life, death, and resurrection. "
- https://www.worldhistory.org/Apis/

That's my best effort, though I am just a beginner.

>>18802388
Also, I forgot to ask, to what degree might we interpret later testimony of the Dionysian cult as deliberate slander rather than honest description?

>>18802388
Anon, I'm telling you that they have similarities, that they even represent the same things, that even the Order/Chaos divide between both is not a fixed and irreconcilable divide since there is too much ambiguity in Dionysus (and thence why Dionysus is a much more powerful symbolique than Osiris, represents much better what Osiris does in common with Dionysus).
>The dismemberment and reassembly is certainly important.
Kind of what is implied in their fertility symbol.
>If, as Uzdavinys claims, the teachings of the Osirian school were the central teachings of the Chaldean mystery school - which was ecstatic - the adherents may be interpreted as an analogue of the Maenads.
Then what tradition is not Osirian/Dionysiac? Every religion/culture (and here I mean in the most comprehensive sense of the term, because for example there are ecstatic traditions in many islands of the Pacific, and can you think of anything more spread than Shamanism?) has ecstatic tradition, this is something basilar for any religious consciousness.

Anyhow this is not the issue, what is under discussion is Nietzsche and what Dionysus represents.

>>18802776
Ok, thank you for your time.

>>18802407
What is 'later' here?

>>18790463
Yet anime is still full of emotion and people bursting into tears at any moment.

Also Apollo is responsibility and Dionysus is pleasure, so there's a lot of "I've been working too hard I deserve some fun ;)" in the whole thing

>>18800608
Can you elaborate? How is this related to Nietzsche?

>>18800987
It is. N is constantly going on about how noble it is and unattainable for the base.

>>18789968
angry, christcuck? it's OK, I guess we could all benefit from reading more

>>18789839

don't fucking listen to any of the replies anon. this was a thoughtful response and an interesting set of examples about a/d.

ur closer to what this poster says than any of the chuds
>>18788583

>>18791757
great fucking question

>>18804415
Where does he do that? Will to power isn't something that is reserved only for the noble.

Look into Ruck's perspective on the Dionysian way of life. I'm not saying to embrace his ideas, necessarily, but he offers a good argument.

Btw, Carl Ruck is a really good dude.

>>18788583
at the end of the day this is the only relevant post. the others are interesting but this is the one that touches on what's important