Philosophy Now Forum

.

This is an except from a manuscript by Apostolakos Constantino.





Communism takes man, castrates him, amputates the parts it deems unusable,reshapes him by pushing down what cannot be cut away, abstracts him into a numerical value, ironically like capitalism does, and then proposes a solution which neglects the parts it wishes to dismiss as irrelevant or correctable, with the appropriate education/training. In this it differs not from Christianity…which would explain why the two dogmas have been such passionate enemies.



The full text is titled, Interactions and Interpretations.

I suggest you take a look at it; http://www.scribd.com/doc/34113126/Inte ... pretations





As all of us here that post on Philosophy Now forums realize, what ever you want to say, you must say it quickly.

It is extremely difficult to distill one's thoughts. Quite a spectacular art when you are able to write succinctly.

The above quote on Communism is amazing in it's philosophical viewpoint and even more remarkable when Apostolakos is able to say so much with so little words.



Bravo.





.

You know he'd apply this to your Organized Union as well Bill?

.


Wait a minute.

This is your response to my post?



Satyr is in your head!

He beat you.


He's in your head.



.

You think it a competition!?

The reason why the goatboys thoughts would be in my head is because I've read the same books as him.

You like his thoughts? Then go read his sources, much better written and original at the time.
p.s.
You want a total read, try Mein Kampf.

.


So what you're saying is, the reason I like both arising_uk and satyr is because both of you have read the same books.


That makes sense.



.

Bill,
You've always struck me as a thoughtful guy.

My advice is go read them yourself, not someone elses interpretation of them.

If you wish I'll send you an abridged but essentially complete reading list that I had to face when, as a mature student, I decided to study philosophy.

In those days there was no philosophy taught at school or college level, you just jumped into a degree, so I doubt you'll be at a disadvantge and in fact being a mature student is an advantage in such matters.
p.s.
You should be able to get them all at a library.

.


Arising, as always, I appreciate your posting on any and all of my threads.


I would be especially appreciative of your take on Apostolakos's depiction of the concept of Communism.



As you know I am pretty awestruck at this moment of Apostolakos Constantino's writings that I discovered on Scribd.


I am assuming that Apostolakos Constantino is our own satyr.


I may be wrong on this, he has not confirmed or denied anything as yet.

Arising_uk, do you have any writings accessible on the web?




As always, your friend.

.

He's definitely the goatboy Bill and yes he does write well.

But if you read the sources you'll find your own interpretation.

My take on his views of 'communism' is that they'll be coloured by his own cultural box.
p.s.
Re: Writings
Nah! As if you actually take a philosophy degree one finds oneself a lot more humble about writing such a metaphysic.

.


Yes, you may be more humble after you received your Philosophy Degree but you can use bigger words like, metaphysic and no one could even question you.

Fuck! I can't even find out what that word means!


You, you and satyr are the ONLY people who would know what that word means.


I'm drinking to your degree tonight.



.

Us and many upon this forum I suspect but its like many terms from philosophy in that its shorthand for a set of behaviours and questions that philosophers have been known to discuss.

This is a great reference site,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

And as always;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

As you can see the goatboys ideas fit the wiki entry in that he says he has answers to the questions, "What is there?" and "What is it like?".

I think you should start to read the original books of those that the philosophers have decided are the greatest philosophers. I think you'd like it as most are actually quite readable, at least the anglo-american ones are, the continentals are a different matter.

My opinion is that the thinner the book the easier(better?) the thought in Philosophy and when reading the thicker Germans read them quickly backwards first, i,e, start at the end and go to the beginning, then read from front to back, as they think differently with German than the English speaker is used to, i.e. we're used to a conclusion then the reasoning, whereas they reason their way towards the conclusion and it can be trying upon the patience of the English speaker, but certainly gives you a eureka moment if you make it.

Worth having a dictionary of philosophy at hand tho'.

.


Love Socrates & Plato.


Never been interested in philosophizing endlessly upon terms or meanings.

Always interested in the truth.

That was my focus, my brush with philosophy.

Intent upon the writings of Ouspensky.



Now that I am older I realize that all thought is just one person's estrangement of truth.




Each book is a collection of thoughts.


Your bout of words & meanings with other posters in the thread What's stopping us from seeing the truth? was not impressive.


Your inability to associate you birthright name to the thoughts you profess is telling and categorizes you along with a slew of other non-serious posters.


I'm not sure of what you have read but I am sure I don't need to read it.




.

Two people reading the same books or seeing the same movies or experiencing the same experiences, does not result in a common ground.

How one (re)acts to an event or a thought differs. Genetics factor in as well as the totality of all his other experiences.

One more thing...the diminishing of a personal insight, excusing one's self in the process, by claiming that all of it is common knowledge is a symptom of insecurity.

We might say that Einstein's insight into the nature of time was already around in fragments and he put his own twist on it.

Perhaps the connection between Communism and Christianity has been made, perhaps the common roots of Islam and Christianity in Judaism has been made, and the nihilistic undercurrents of Judaism have also been stated - most recently by Heisman - but as yet I have not come across anyone who connects it all to a general world trend based on shrinking spaces and population pressures, which selects the more feminine attributed in human nature.

What has not thoroughly been explored, except by such social pariahs as Heisman and Kaczynski in a very brief way, is the connection of modern liberalism and progressiveness with both communism and Christianity.
Even such movement as the Venus Project hide their Communist ideals beneath semantics and technologies.

Is it coincidental that Marx and Jesus were Jews?
Is it coincidental that Spinoza, the man who adapted the Judeo-Christian God, into a secularizing world, was a Jew?
The anti-nature demeanor of Judaism is exemplified in the current denial of everything connected to nature and natural selection, We see it play out on forums like this, where liberals infected with the morals of slavishness refuse to even consider anything which even hints at what they call "sexism" and "racism" or superiority and inferiority.
The idea that man enters the world as anything more than a Lokean tabula rasa, scares the shit out of them. The ideal that human potential is determined by nurturing, is the current mythology. People love it, because it dismisses their past and cleanses them from everything that is beyond their capacity to correct...like genetics.
The Judeo-Christian meme is attempting top usurp genetics and Natural Selection...turning it to the more malleable Social Selection.
We see it in the American dream - America being the culture of no culture.

I wrote a brief outline on this years ago, and I am currently revising it...
The Feminization of Mankind

Heisman commented on how the Jews turned the world, the hierarchy of nature, on its head, making the meek the dominant ones and expressing in this way their anti-nature agenda. A different way of dominating masked in pseudo-altruism and humanitarianism.
Suicide Note
And, by the way, Heisman is easily dismissed because he committed suicide, but the reasons he did so were based no intellectual integrity. being a Jew himself and having realized the effete and nihilistic foundations of his own people's philosophy, he correctly concluded that to follow through with the logic of his own kin he had to make himself one with the void....through death....and that a resistance to death was an anti-Jewish attitude, a masculine resistance, a reaffirmation of nature, which his people were contradicting.

What was not said was how this manifested itself pragmatically.
In politics what is currently considered "conservative" and what is called "progressive" imply states of being, or attitudes, contrary to their common ploys.

In conservatism we see a more masculine attitude which is the real radical element, and in liberalism we find the feminine attitude which is the true conservative.
Why? How,, you might ask?

Remember what I said about reality.
If you accept reality as being fluid and entropy as being the arrow of time, as man experiences this fluidity...then the conservative is an ordering, in fact they represent more order, and often indulge in a looking back, trying to return an earlier tradition.
In reference to reality, then, they are a reactionary element...they resist entropy and they propose a radical reinvention of reality with their Ideal. This looking back is in fact a looking back to an earlier time of more order, as entropy is an increase in disorder.

Now, let us proceed.
Given this the "progressives" are exposed as conservatives, as their dogmas only wish to surrender man to entropy, to go with the flow of fragmentation, to tolerate....Their acceptance of entropy is a conservative proposition. It conserves the status quo, offering no resistance, but only wishing to accelerate change.
Change always veering towards entropy.

Both attitudes offer a nihilistic end, but from a different psychological vantage point.
For the masculine spirit the absolute Something is the desirable goal. Here God becomes the ultimate representation of this absence.
For the feminine spirit the absolute Nothing is the desirable goal - emptiness, the uniformity of a total void.

With the masculine spirit effort is necessary, and so the male spirit is reactionary. To go against entropy one must swim up-stream, so to speak, towards an idealized point of total unity...in toher words towards a decreasing entropy.
With the feminine spirit no effort is required but only a total submission, a giving-in, an acceptance. the only effort required is the quelling of the instinctive drives for self-sustenance. Therefore the ego, representing this self which self-maintains, is anathema.
It promises a total absence of suffering because to give in decreases resistance and so decreases the suffering temporal attrition produces. In the void no consciousness is present and so no experiencing of existence.
Of course they then come up with clever twists to maintain consciousness in some self-contradictory form...just s with Christianity life is accessible in its most perfect, idealized, form, through dying.

One must die to live, and in the eastern traditions one must stop thinking, stop being conscious, to connect to a more perfect consciousness, a more profound state of being.

All these are part of human husbandry.
Adaptation happens when the organism interacts with its environment, and so it is logical to find that in an environment of huge human populations, managed by systems trying to harmonize them, that these spiritual dogmas would emerge and flourish out of necessity.
Nothing mystical about them.

They share the same general principles, not accidentally.
Why modern man worships love, at the cost of all his other emotions and drives, is understood in this context.

.


Nice post.


I really like your work.

I have not finished The Feminization of Mankind yet.


The established publishing industry is collapsing.


I am intrigued, awed, and frightened at what Scribd represents.


It is my assumption that your works in the past would have been picked-up by a traditional publisher and your insights would have been rather profitable for you.




.

You mean my bout with the goatboy not 'other posters' and it was not meant to impress anyone.

Strange how the goatboy having a nom-de-plume is different?

If you stop at the Greeks then you'll not understand where the goat is coming from.

Since you keep talking about "the truth" you've not understood the goats words.

How is it you dismiss the British Empiricists as "philosophizing endlessly upon terms or meanings" when you've not read them?

"I'm not sure of what you have read but I am sure I don't need to read it." How?

I've told you, you are naive or in a position of security if you think that associating ones thoughts for employers to read is a good idea.

I'd be more impressed with your awe at Scribd and the goats words if you'd actually pay for them. Me, I'm more impressed with the programmers of Scribd than its philosophical contributors as in the main they'll be just the bloggers looking for a new outlet.

My take after reading philosophy is different from the goats, so instead of polemics telling people what and how they think I prefer to find and gather the tools and techniques that help them think for themselves.

I wish you well in your search for a gnu to provide you with 'the truth' and if you think the goat will be it you have my sympathy but I'll be opposing you.
p.s.
Try Gurdjieff after Ouspensky.

You'd be wrong as this is why he used to be a blogger and why he is now using such as Scribd rather than a POD package like Richard Baron does.