Freude, schöner Götterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken.
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
Deine Zauber binden wieder
Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
Deine Zauber binden wieder
Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
____________________________________
Diebert wrote:He believes, after having seen enough of it, that it's not the way to go and not in a neutral sense but more like "not my poison" and not the poison humans ought to take although he understands the mortal wound pushing someone to "take that number". It then fascinates him during the interactions.
What would be a 'neutral sense'?
The notion of a 'mortal wound' is interesting. I am also interested in what you imply here: to be determined to act or think or conceive in certain ways as a result (as you say, it is not a phrase I have used) of a
mortal wound. What mortal wound?
But I would ask: If there is a 'mortal wound' that impels one, what is the opposing metaphor? That is, to respond to and be impelled by what I must necessarily describe -- to operate within the metaphorical structure you just provided -- as 'immortal cure'?
Alex is poised, beyond the obvious trolling, games and nesting syndromes, to employ insight and spirituality as a kind of restoration project, to distill meaning and hard nosed principles in "how to be" in the world, as a more true politics, a more true national sentiment, a more true living arrangement and work ethic, a more true metaphysical ground for the various decision taking and so on.
We are people who come out of and are the outcomes -- the creations -- of a vast human project. I think it fair to think in such terms. I mean of course 'the Occidental project' and the creation of Europe. I refer often to Occidental
paideia. Now, I could go on with a defining list but it would only have significance for a person aware enough to even recognize what is being talked about, right? You cannot hum
Ode to Joy to a dog and expect much response from the dog, can you? Similarly, I have noticed, especially here and over the years, that many people attracted to this Enlightenment Gimmick are people who operate, intellectually, similarly to my metaphorical and exemplary dog. And you of all people remember what Bjornstand always said:
Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:A dog in a fog's in a bog
Let us then bring out the notion -- just the notion mind you -- of what 'restoration' can mean in the widest sense that we might conceive. Horrifyingly, I know -- it would be insulting to a normal man I guess but how could the 'enlightened' be affected in the slightest? -- I know that this is a confrontative statement: to imply that many who are attracted here are 'doggish intellects', but it is really the core of understanding what 'to restore' can mean.
What you have written in your fine paragraph is what you recognize as essential and literally unavoidable. Your paragraph indicates that
you define the
raison d'être of being aware and knowing in this way. There is no alternative and if there is I wish to be made aware of it.
What were Weininger, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard or for that matter
Gustav Bjornstrand doing then if not *that*? Again, I wish to be instructed and corrected if I am not seeing straight.
Quite like what drove Karl Marx to his project but Karl at least got more serious with it and connected with very similar minds as a social project.
But there you have it! By your own logic. One must 'define a project', one's project must go right to the root of what is metaphysically contingent from it, and one must work together in what ways are possible to realize one's Vision.
I was the shadow of the waxwing slain
By the false azure in the windowpane;
I was the smudge of ashen fluff -- and I
Lived on, flew on, in the reflected sky.
And from the inside, too, I'd duplicate
Myself, my lamp, an apple on a plate:
Uncurtaining the night, I'd let dark glass
Hang all the furniture above the grass,
And how delightful when a fall of snow
Covered my glimpse of lawn and reached up so
As to make chair and bed exactly stand
Upon that snow, out in that crystal land!
In the end though, the question is where one makes his treasure.
Yes, of course, but 'treasure' must be defined. Is *meaning* a treasure? or is there treasure in meaning? What does treasure
mean? Can you make any non-evasive statement about it? And if you did, what language would you employ? Please, your
apple on a plate.
If the gravity of ones being is locked into a certain mode of existence, then there is where all concerns will lie, that's where all thoughts and feelings start to orbit around. This is a cognitive dissonance which is the main issue on a forum like this when members interact philosophically as we all have dispositions which are not free to mold and sync with the other.
How many 'modes of existence' are there? Can you provide a short list? I mean, just a roundabout description? I assure you I can grasp and *see through* metaphors to what stands behind them, as I can see the furniture suspended above the grass reflected in the glass.
I might suggest that you are making a false statement when you imply that 'members interact philosophically'. It would be more accurate and thus more fair for you to acknowledge that when 'philosophical interaction', if determined by David Quinn, is a destruction of what you are referring to. I only repeat what Fr. Bjornstrand has said and always says that the end of that bizarre road is *the destruction of intellect*. First, *destruction of intellect* is a real thing, a real process. It is, I suggest, precisely what our Dear Founders reacted in horror against when they noticed the entire culture being overswamped by feminized sensation. Bjornstrand, if I did understand him correctly, felt that such destruction of intellect (in that special sense of the word) corresponded to 'demonic descent into nescience'.
'And from the inside, too, I'd duplicate myself...'
Can I make this any more clear? Can you receive out of Ode to Joy any special sense? Can you see the images 'suspended over the grass'?
Which means, ipso facto, that exchanges tend to focus on abstract sounding, universal, somewhat disembodied topics. It's a necessary feature and while it can serve as escape as well, it's the only way to have this discussion at all, at least without having it all fall to pieces, which actually is the default human disposition, like living fractals.
You are in truth writing a defense of your own relationship to knowledge and being! You are explaining yourself. You are presenting your sense of 'what is good and necessary'. This is your assertion: "it's the only way to have this discussion at all, at least without having it all fall to pieces, which actually is the default human disposition".
The point is to open the conversation to the full dimension of what is possible in it and about it. The subject of the sentence being 'what is possible' more than 'the conversation'.